Theory on the origin of evil

[Tone]

perfect (adj.)
early 15c. alteration of Middle English parfit (c. 1300), from Old French parfit "finished, completed, ready" (11c.), from Latin perfectus "completed, excellent, accomplished, exquisite," past participle of perficere "accomplish, finish, complete," from per "completely" (see per) + combining form of facere"to make, to do" (from PIE root *dhe- "to set, put"). Often used in English as an intensive (perfect stranger, etc.). Grammatical sense, in reference to verb tense, is from c. 1500. As a noun, late 14c. ("perfection"), from the adjective.



The difference between the Preterit and the Perfect is in English observed more strictly than in the other languages possessing corresponding tenses. The Preterit refers to some time in the past without telling anything about the connexion with the present moment, while the Perfect is a retrospective present, which connects a past occurrence with the present time, either as continued up to the present moment (inclusive time) or as having results or consequences bearing on the present moment. [Otto Jespersen, "Essentials of English Grammar," 1933]



perfect (v.)

"to bring to full development," late 14c., parfiten, from perfect (adj.). Related: Perfected; perfecting.
perfect | Origin and meaning of perfect by Online Etymology Dictionary

 

[Lazarus Short]

I don't have the time or inclination to read the short book that is the O.P. and I seriously doubt that many have done so.

But I think I have the general idea and I'll take a crack at it or at least some of it.

It seems to me that you are assuming that the creation of the "heavens" include the heaven of spirit beings, as it were. I don't think it is necessary to read that into the passage in Genesis. He doesn't say that He created all of the 3 heavens when He created the earth. He does speak of 2 of the heavens - but not the 3rd, where He supposedly has His throne and where angels live.

That's a law of physics and applies to this “physical” universe. I doubt very much that it is a law which touches on the origin of evil which is not a physical concept but a philosophical one. The manifestation of evil was always possible from the 1st that beings were created and given free will.

I can't buy into your idea that "physics" (which concern the "physical universe") have any bearing on the non physical origin of evil.

Evil did not predate creation. It apparently predated the creation of this universe. But it did not predate all of creation since that would make evil an attribute of God and we know that cannot be.

Good - then we are OK on that - if you mean before the creation of the physical universe.

But if you mean before any creation at all - I will disagree with you on that.

Absolutely. God is omniscient.

Which brings us to what I "think" is going on here.

The "Word of God" (the Son of the Father) has always from eternity reflected the glory of the His Father including all of His attributes. It has always been the Father's great pleasure to shower all that He is and all that He knows on His Son.

It has always been the great pleasure of the Son to return any glory He receives from the Father to the Father from whence comes all things.

Scriptures are available. But I'll bet that everyone here knows what they are or can find them if they try.

While the Holy Spirit is a bit more mysterious - although He is also a "person" - I believe He is the "by product" of this mutual "love" which encompasses the entire nature of God.

The creation was spoken into being to display God and "magnify" (His word) His glory.

Speaking of the Son - the scriptures say that "all things were created by Him, for Him, and in Him all things exist. That includes all things in the spirit world and in this physical universe.

IMO - God wishes to include every aspect of Who He is in this display of Himself.

One of those attributes is His inherent "knowledge of good and evil". That is - not evil itself but the "knowledge" of evil as well as good. Evil - is any rebellion against God's perfect will.

It is my opinion that, through the rebellion of Satan in heaven and mankind on earth, God is displaying "the knowledge of good and evil" in this age (at least in representative form) so that He can show in the ages to come what it is and what comes from rebellion against God's will. I believe He will wrap the “mechanism” for this display up when He moves on to "ages to come" - without having to repeat it again and again on the new earth or in any future worlds, whatever they may consist of.

IMO - God (being omniscient) knew full well the consequences of creating Satan and the rest of the angels as well as mankind with the ability to make "free will" choices.

What we see playing out in Heaven and earth - through the actions of the Son, in whom we (and everything else) live and move and have our "being" is exactly what He has done for eternity - namely receive what the Father gives to Him and return it to the Father give glory to the Father.

God is sovereign in all that He does and will accomplish all that He sets out to accomplish - or, more precisely, what He sends His Son forth to do.

"My Word be which goes forth from My mouth; It will not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent It." Isaiah 55:11

Now if we don’t like what He is doing - we, as believers, can bow our necks or receive it with humbleness as His servants.

I for one am happy to play a small part in His overall plan – even if I can’t understand it all (or even like it much).

This is particularly so because, in His grace, He has promised to “reward me” for that part I played (as painful as it was in this life) with unspeakable glory in the ages to come and all eternity.

That’s not a bad deal in the end – at least for the Son and for the elect of God, which are His bride and part of His "body".

That was a rather longish answer to a "short book."

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Are you denying evil exists?

No. I am denying dualism. You said:

"To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."

God knew this. He knew that as soon as He "did" something; there would be an equal and opposite reaction to what ever He did.

Now God being good, holy, righteous, just etc - the opposite of such would be evil, sin, wickedness, injustice etc.

So power of evil is the equal opposite of good?

Evil was inherent in the act of creation itself because it was the opposite reaction to God's action.

Yes, you are saying that the power of evil is equal to the power of good. Implying that there is an evil power equal and at odds with God's goodness. That is textbook dualism and is considered heresy in Christianity.

ultimately God is not responsible for the fall because He did not create evil; nor did He plant within man the seed that would lead to transgression. All that transpired was a byproduct of the act of creation itself.

God did not create evil because God is Omnibenevolent. This concept doesn't just merely mean that God is "good". Rather, God IS goodness. God is the source of all goodness. Which means nothing but goodness can be created by Him or emanated from Him. Therefore, evil is not a thing at all. Rather, it is a privation of good. An absence of good that ought to exist. Again, evil is not a thing that God created, it is anything that is apart or absent of God. When God gave mankind freewill, he gave us a choice to be with God or turn away from God. When we choose to turn away from God, we turn towards evil. Therefore, because God gave humanity freewill, He is responsible for the possibility of evil. However, we, because of our choices, are responsible for the actuality of evil's existence.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Origins of Evil Theory

I've often wondered about the origins of evil? Many church fathers and people in Christian circles believe that evil began with Satan. This may be true, depending on your definition of "Satan"; but if we look closely at the first few verses of Genesis, we'll see that this can not be. If we believe Satan is a fallen angel; (as much of church history has taught) than we know for a fact that evil did not begin with him, since it was present before angels were ever created. Darkness (destruction) was "upon the face of the deep" from the first time God had uttered "Let there be light."

The first words of Genesis start out with "In the beginning". This phrase is in "construct state" and has a "Beth" prefixed preposition to it. The construct state declares that the state of one noun is dependent upon the action of another. In this case the state of heaven and earth are dependent upon the action of God. (Yeah, I know that's an "uh duh" type of observation.) Now as for the Beth prefixed preposition, it indicates the location or instrumentality of the action. So in other words, the action of what happened "in the beginning" began with God. (Yeah, I know; another "no brainer".) This is important to understand though, because what it is really saying is that all subsequent happenings (including the presence of evil) did not exist before the beginning!

In a prior study I did concerning what had occurred "in the beginning"; I'd stated that I didn't know where evil came from. (I'm still not sure I know?) In that study, it appeared to me that evil was already present from the point that God began the creation process. I'd thought that it may have even predated creation itself. From a little closer look at this word / phrase "in the beginning" though it seems that from the very commencement of any action of God - evil appeared.

Interesting - now why is that?

Here is another point where I'm not sure I have the answer to this question but I'm gonna give it a crack with a theory that's been kicking around in my head here. Now admittedly, this theory isn't "my theory" - no, it's actually part of physics. "To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."

Now let's back up here from "the beginning" to before the beginning. Before any action of creating ever commenced; there eternally existed God. No action brought God into existence. He was just always ...there! So because there was no "action" that created God; there was no "reaction" to His existence. He as an entity is "something" and the opposite of "something" is "nothing". So, in eternity, besides God there was nothing and so any opposite of God that would have "existed" - did so in theory only.

Of course being omniscient; God knew this. He knew that as soon as He "did" something; there would be an equal and opposite reaction to what ever He did. He knew that what ever action He took; it would bring this theoretical opposite of Him into reality. (Because to every action is an equal and opposite reaction.) This is what I believe was the knowledge of good and evil that God possessed.

So, for as much as an oxymoron as this is going to sound like: this created a "dilemma" for God. He had to come up with a plan to adequately compensate for the opposite that would come as a result of His action. Now God being good, holy, righteous, just etc - the opposite of such would be evil, sin, wickedness, injustice etc. So how could God overcome this "reaction"? Well, since God is eternally existent; it would seem to me that His incorporating His own presence into His original action (i.e. being incarnated into His own creation, sending His Spirit etc.) does not create another "reaction" because God always existed.

So thus is the nuts and bolts of my "scientific" theory. (Admittedly, likely still needs some refining!) Evil was inherent in the act of creation itself because it was the opposite reaction to God's action. Could God have created a world where there would be no reaction to His action? I don't know; maybe on some other dimension or level He has? As for us though and what we understand of our physical universe; we could not exist without these contrasting duel addition to this though; this theory also lends explanation to why God could create something He knew was going to fall and still legitimately call it good. (Which the "good" in Hebrew really means "pleasant". I.E. God was happy with what He'd made. It "pleased" Him; which there is another whole dimension to that application - which maybe I'll tackle later.) Any how; ultimately God is not responsible for the fall because He did not create evil; nor did He plant within man the seed that would lead to transgression. All that transpired was a byproduct of the act of creation itself.

The tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil

What of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil than? The tree was just the vehicle that clued man into what was already present in his world. It simply opened the door to the knowledge of both good and evil; but it didn't create either! Remember it's the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil"; not the "tree of good and evil".

The tree was necessary for that knowledge though; and that knowledge was necessary in order for humanity to truly know God. You see it was still possible for Adam and Eve to behave in ways that displeased God; they just had no knowledge of it because they had no commandments. The only instruction they'd had from God was to take care of the garden and not to eat the fruit off this tree. See "evil" had entered into the world even though sin had not, because sin is disobedience to God! So long as Adam and Eve didn't disobey; sin didn't enter, even though "evil" was still present.

Kinda weird huh

In regards to sin itself. Even if there was no tree; God would eventually given them a commandment that they wouldn't have kept. Think of all the trouble a person could get themselves into out of sheer ignorance. God is not simply going to sit back and ignore actions that offend Him. So, as long as they obeyed; the knowledge of any offense of action they may have done was hidden from them. As far as any offenses they'd committed against God? Up until the point they actually disobeyed; apparently they had done (or failed to do) something that warranted God to tell them to care for the garden. Once He had instructed them to do so; obviously they obeyed, so still sin hadn't entered.

The word "good" in Genesis:

OK, now that we know "good" in Genesis didn't mean "unable to be corrupted". What did it mean? "Now I didn't really plan on putting "this" "here" but it's a good place for it. I'll explain what the word "good" means in the Hebrew and how the applied to Genesis and even the current underpinnings of how this creation is constructed.

This word "good" basically means "pleasing"; although pleasing in a natural way, not so in the connotation of lust or perverse desire for something. It's the same word used to describe Abraham's wife Sarah; she was "beautiful" she was "pleasant (or pleasing) to look at". She appealed to other men as an object of physical beauty. This word, or derivatives there of; is used in description of attractive men too and even other living things; i.e. physical qualities that would make them attractive - like health, strength, vigor, vitality of complexion / hair etc.

We see this concept of "good / pleasing" being inherent in the biology of the physical world. Some researchers at one point did an international study to come up with a composite of what human beings considered to be physically attractive or desirable in other human beings. The point of the study was to see if there was an underlying consistency in who people would consider to be the opposite parent to their individual future offspring. Of course, on account of the nature of this study - it only included heterosexual individuals of a probable reproductive age.

The questions were posed with line drawings of human forms and the findings were interesting. The consensus was that people preferred a reproductive mate that was not too fat or too thin, who's body was symmetrically proportional and who's skin and hair had a healthy appearance. The next most important attribute for both genders was the appearance of the face and head. Was the face symmetrical and did the head appear to have the proper skull capacity to be associated with good intelligence. Another attribute that was some what of a surprise to the researchers, yet none the less important to both genders was the appearance of a person's hands. Hands were generally thought of in relation to a person's propensity to be industrious.

Contrary to what the western fashion industry portrays to us; men generally were not attracted to women who were too much taller than they, who's breasts were either too large or too small and who's hips appeared too narrow. Both these portions of anatomy were considered vital to reproductive capacity: a pelvis who's breadth was adequate to safely deliver a baby and breasts that would produce the appropriate amount of milk to feed the child. The "universal ratio" came out to be an hour glass figure where the waist was roughly 10 inches smaller than the bust and hips.

For women, proportion was also of notable interest. Women ranked higher in considering the size and shape of a man's head as intelligence was generally believed to be related to temperament. (An ill-tempered strong man doesn't make a good mate.) That ranked just as high for women as a man who's body appeared to be healthy and physically fit. The "ideal shape" for men was the diamond (or kite) shape; head, neck, shoulders being the top of the diamond and chest, abdomen, hips being the bottom. Interestingly enough, even in industrial societies the size and shape of man's pelvis were considered important too. Even though women in industrial societies couldn't identify why a man's ability to run well seemed important; they considered it to be an attractive attribute. In hunter gatherer type societies - obviously this was attributed to a man's ability to catch food.

Now as for the reproductive attractiveness of people who have less than perfect bodies; this is where personality became much more important. This was especially true of people born with handicapping genetic defects. Here is where perseverance and the development of a specific skill set became vital to these individuals' survival.

So as interesting as all this research was - what does it have to do with the word "good" in Genesis? It goes to show us that what we find to be naturally "pleasing" or "attractive" is inherent in the make up of creation itself. Our inclinations and natural drives toward these things are there in us because they first existed in God. The good pleasure of God was made inherent in the world He created. (It's reflected in the reproductive process of every thing on this planet.) What is "good" gives us joy, just as the creation God had made gave Him pleasure. This goodness and joy we see extended even in areas of our lives that have nothing to do with our own sexuality. We find good pleasure in our children, our pets, our friends and family, our hobbies, the outdoors - what ever gives us pleasure.

Of course there is a "flip side" to this too. Our "good pleasure" can be corrupted into something perverse. This is where there is addiction to substances, sexual behavior, the pursuit of wealth or power and prestige. None of these things (drugs, alcohol, sex, money, authority, respect) are evil in and of themselves; but the corrupted desire for them is. This corrupted desire is what makes evil apparent in this world. Born out of corrupted desires comes hatred, jealousy, malice, envy, strife, prejudice, greed etc. Their manifest deeds being: criminal violence, theft, lies, unjust treatment, inequality, immoral behavior etc. These culminate in death and destruction; the final say of it all being the wrath of God.

The knowledge of good and evil had a profound impact upon this universe!

Concerning in particular, the origin of evil. In perhaps

In the strictest sense, evil (i.e. sin) is the character of opposition to God --not a principle in and of itself. There is much I see wrong with your reasoning: The substitution of "darkness" by "evil" as though they are the same thing; the assumption that God is subject in some way to larger principles that govern him, instead of being the inventor of all principle; the subjecting of the metaphysical or spiritual to physical law --particularly wrong when in regard to God-- there is no yinyang with God and evil.

God is always Creator. Anything new comes from God.

But does not mean that all we can imagine qualifies as "thing" --particularly when it is words playing with our mind.

The Bible says that Satan is the Author of Sin. He is the first recorded to have opposed God. We don't have anything to go on concerning at what point that happened except to see that it was already at work at the time of Adam's temptation. I don't see any point in constructing a line of reasoning that differs from what the Bible says concerning the origin of sin.

 

[Tone]

The Preterit refers to some time in the past without telling anything about the connexion with the present moment, while the Perfect is a retrospective present, which connects a past occurrence with the present time, either as continued up to the present moment (inclusive time) or as having results or consequences bearing on the present moment

I think this is where it is difficult for us time bound creatures to grasp this whole concept under discussion...we must remember that He sees the whole "parade" from an aerial perspective, so to speak.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Concerning in particular, the origin of evil. In perhaps

In the strictest sense, evil (i.e. sin) is the character of opposition to God --not a principle in and of itself. There is much I see wrong with your reasoning: The substitution of "darkness" by "evil" as though they are the same thing; the assumption that God is subject in some way to larger principles that govern him, instead of being the inventor of all principle; the subjecting of the metaphysical or spiritual to physical law --particularly wrong when in regard to God-- there is no yinyang with God and evil.

God is always Creator. Anything new comes from God.

But does not mean that all we can imagine qualifies as "thing" --particularly when it is words playing with our mind.

The Bible says that Satan is the Author of Sin. He is the first recorded to have opposed God. We don't have anything to go on concerning at what point that happened except to see that it was already at work at the time of Adam's temptation. I don't see any point in constructing a line of reasoning that differs from what the Bible says concerning the origin of sin.

Well, if my interoperation of "darkness" and "evil" is not correct, than how do you explain the beginning of Genesis?

If anything new comes from God; did God create evil? If you answer yes to that question, than God inherently is "evil" and if that were the case, we would not even be having this conversation because an evil God would not be able to create anything.

 

[Zachm531]

I wonder if, as a way to disperse all of the evil that He knew that he would create, God created Hell, Sin and a being “Lucifer” to balance out everything and to keep eternal evil from being one thing. And when they all do finally rejoin eachother, it will all be enclosed into the desginated hellfire,hoplessness and overall destruction that is the “eternal flame” of “hell” talked about in revelations.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Well, if my interoperation of "darkness" and "evil" is not correct, than how do you explain the beginning of Genesis?

If anything new comes from God; did God create evil? If you answer yes to that question, than God inherently is "evil" and if that were the case, we would not even be having this conversation because an evil God would not be able to create anything.

In the use of the word "evil" as I think you meant it, I substituted "sin" to make a point. No, God did not create sin. Sin is not of itself worth calling a thing, but an unthing at the most. It is, perhaps, a mental construct or category of things, but that still does not qualify it as "thing". Mental constructs or thoughts are things, but what those thoughts are about may not be things.

(There is a verse that says God creates evil, by the way, but that is contextually referring to hard things or difficulty, calamity, etc.)

Don't let words slough from one meaning into another in your reasoning. Not everything our mind can put into words is a creation.

 

[The Righterzpen]

No. I am denying dualism. You said:





So power of evil is the equal opposite of good?

Yes, you are saying that the power of evil is equal to the power of good. Implying that there is an evil power equal and at odds with God's goodness. That is textbook dualism and is considered heresy in Christianity.

God did not create evil because God is Omnibenevolent. This concept doesn't just merely mean that God is "good". Rather, God IS goodness. God is the source of all goodness. Which means nothing but goodness can be created by Him or emanated from Him. Therefore, evil is not a thing at all. Rather, it is a privation of good. An absence of good that ought to exist. Again, evil is not a thing that God created, it is anything that is apart or absent of God. When God gave mankind freewill, he gave us a choice to be with God or turn away from God. When we choose to turn away from God, we turn towards evil. Therefore, because God gave humanity freewill, He is responsible for the possibility of evil. However, we, because of our choices, are responsible for the actuality of evil's existence.

You did not read everything in the entirety of its context.

I did state specifically that evil is not equal to God because evil is not omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal or immortal.

Evil is a "thing" confined to this current universe that will be overcome by God.

"Good" in the context of the created order is actually overpowered by evil. This is what the fall is about. This is why man can not save himself. This is why after the choice was made to transgress, human will was no longer free. "Will" now is encumbered by sin and also encumbered by the consequences of the fall.

How is God responsible for the fall, when Adam was the one who chose, of his own free will mind you! - to eat the fruit?

 

[Natsumi Lam]

satan since the beginning was sin and sinner, that is the origin of evil in one line

Actually God made evil.

Isaiah 45:7 King James Version (KJV)
7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

 

[childeye 2]

Well, if my interoperation of "darkness" and "evil" is not correct, than how do you explain the beginning of Genesis?

In the beginning darkness was on the face of the deep. I don't believe that the darkness is destruction, I believe it is an ignorance of the deep things concerning the Creator inherent in the creation. We need to consider that from the beginning the creation is unfolding throughout time and is only finished when God's ultimate purpose has been accomplished which is the creation of the sons of Light through the gathering into His Christ, The True Image of God sent by God.

9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:

10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:

If anything new comes from God; did God create evil? If you answer yes to that question, than God inherently is "evil" and if that were the case, we would not even be having this conversation because an evil God would not be able to create anything.

From post #159: Evil is the product of vanity in the created thing, and vanity begins with taking God's attributes for granted so as to become unthankful and subsequently vain.

For the creation was made subject to vanity, not voluntarily, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, because the creation itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

 

[The Righterzpen]

I wonder if, as a way to disperse all of the evil that He knew that he would create, God created Hell, Sin and a being “Lucifer” to balance out everything and to keep eternal evil from being one thing. And when they all do finally rejoin eachother, it will all be enclosed into the desginated hellfire,hoplessness and overall destruction that is the “eternal flame” of “hell” talked about in revelations.

Your premise that God created hell and the lake of fire as "part of the plan" to punish evil is correct. That was preordained from the foundations of the world.

Evil as a "thing" though is confined to this universe and is not eternal because the creation is not eternal. Another aspect of this too is that "creation" (the new heavens and new earth) will "outlive" evil. Evil was able to be conquered by God in His becoming part of the creation. The plan really is genius.

Yet here is the fundamental difference. God did not "create" evil; because the entities that He did create that transgress and are eventually eternally lost, God did not create them for that purpose. If He had created them for the purpose of destruction than that would indeed make God evil.

Now you do raise a valid question with the statement "designated hellfire, hopelessness and overall destruction that is the “eternal flame” of “hell” talked about in revelations". Some people do think that people under God's wrath continue to sin and this is what makes the lake of fire a continuous torment. I don't believe that is true; but I'd have to ponder an answer to that; outside of those who suffer that condemnation are "going forward forever" condemned because they too are raised "going forward forever" beings.

The "mechanism" that causes "evil" to corrupt, (how ever one would define that) has been dealt with as part of the atonement and this is why the new heavens and new earth are not corruptible.

You follow me?

 

[The Righterzpen]

In the use of the word "evil" as I think you meant it, I substituted "sin" to make a point. No, God did not create sin. Sin is not of itself worth calling a thing, but an unthing at the most. It is, perhaps, a mental construct or category of things, but that still does not qualify it as "thing". Mental constructs or thoughts are things, but what those thoughts are about may not be things.

Sin is an action of the transgression of the law. So that concept can't apply to the beginning of Genesis either. "Evil" though, is a concept that has real world consequences. Evil is destructive. Would we call it a "force" that operates outside created entities such as Satan? Conceptually maybe we can make that argument because there was a time Satan existed as a created entity before he transgressed.

Also "darkness" is on "the face of the deep" before anything "technically" is "created". The "earth" at that point is still "without form and void". What does that mean, because it appears that darkness is upon the face of the deep before the elements were even formed. This is why I used the illustration that God's plan is "set in motion" but it's in the "stage" like unto formatting a hard drive. The "space" is dedicated for X,Y, & Z to occupy it, although X,Y & Z have not been created yet. Something of the plan has unfolded though and thus even from this very early stage "evil" is present.

Now you raise a valid point. Are "darkness" and "evil" the same thing? That's a good question.

(There is a verse that says God creates evil, by the way, but that is contextually referring to hard things or difficulty, calamity, etc.)

You are correct here. That verse does not mean "evil" as in "morally destitute".

Don't let words slough from one meaning into another in your reasoning. Not everything our mind can put into words is a creation.

Not sure what you mean by "Not everything our mind can put into words is a creation."

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Yet here is the fundamental difference. God did not "create" evil....

@Natsumi Lam just quoted you Isaiah 45:7. It's just a few posts up, if you missed it.

...because the entities that He did create that transgress and are eventually eternally lost, God did not create them for that purpose. If He had created them for the purpose of destruction than that would indeed make God evil.

Now I give you Romans 9:22-23 (ESV)

"What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—"

I generally object to judgments against God, whereby a person says that God can't be a certain way, or else he is bad, unworthy, etc. Most of the time, I see clear examples of those attributes clearly stated of God in the Bible, and I wonder at the fate of one who passed such a judgment against God. It would be better to write God a blank check and let him be what he will be, allowing him the sovereignty to be what he chooses.

 

[The Righterzpen]

In the beginning darkness was on the face of the deep. I don't believe that the darkness is destruction, I believe it is an ignorance of the deep things concerning the Creator inherent in the creation.

Only problem with this, is that a creation that doesn't exist yet, can not be ignorant of its Creator. Knowledge requires a conscience and in relation to the created entity; it needs some form of substance to have a conscience.

We need to consider that from the beginning the creation is unfolding throughout time and is only finished when God's ultimate purpose has been accomplished which is the creation of the sons of Light through the gathering into His Christ, The True Image of God sent by God.

I have no idea what you mean by this statement.

From post #159: Evil is the product of vanity in the created thing, and vanity begins with taking God's attributes for granted so as to become unthankful and subsequently vain.

Again, you need a created thing with a consciousness before it actually has the capacity to be unthankful. So this can not answer the issue raised by the language in Genesis.

For the creation was made subject to vanity, not voluntarily, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, because the creation itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

This verse means that the creation itself is not what caused itself to be subject to death. Man's transgression did that. "... by means of Him who subjected the same in hope...." is a reference to God. God knew the fall was going to happen and planned for it according to His purposes. In the end the creation itself will be delivered from the bondage of corruption, on account of the fact that the atonement accomplished that. And the recreated incorruptible creation is what's inherited by the children of God.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Actually God made evil.

Isaiah 45:7 King James Version (KJV)
7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

@Natsumi Lam just quoted you Isaiah 45:7. It's just a few posts up, if you missed it.

This study had started out because of a conversation I'd had with someone who'd quoted this verse here (Isaiah 45:7) saying that God created evil. This individual's explanation of that, was that evil was some how some cast off of the character of God. Well, I knew that wasn't right, because I knew the character of God has no "shadow of turning". This person though had a good question. What does this verse mean than? Well, here is my reason for studying this verse and the subsequent conclusion I'd come up with.

Isaiah 45 opens up with God addressing Cyrus, the king of Persia, saying God has put him in power. There is a lot of interesting language in these first 8 verses that is indicative / parabolic of salvation.

Verse 2 talks about making strait the crooked places. This is fulfilled in John the Baptist when he says he's come to make strait the way of the Lord. (I.E. pointing out the path to the Messiah.)

Verse 3 talks about giving Cyrus the treasures of darkness and riches of secret places that Cyrus may know God is the God of Israel.

Verse 4 talks about "for the sake of Jacob my servant and Israel mine elect" God has called Cyrus by name, although Cyrus has not known God.

Verse 5 God reinstates His authority over Cyrus, though Cyrus has not known him.

Verse 6 talks about "the rising of the sun" and "from the west", that He is the Lord God and there is none else.

Verse 7 (Our verse in question) I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

Verse 8 This verse talks about heavens and the skies pouring forth righteousness and earth binging forth salvation and let righteousness spring up together. I the Lord have created it.

Translation notations in this study come from

The Complete Word Study - Old Testament (encoded to Strong's Concordance)

printed by AMG publishers.

First Question?

Does Cyrus represent someone who fulfilled some purpose in the New Testament? Probably, since God says the entire scripture testifies to the work of Christ. So who might Cyrus be in 1st century historical terms? I'm not sure, but my first guess would be that it has some reference to the house of Herod. Cyrus was a political figure (king) who didn't know God. This historically fits with Herod. "Jacob my servant" is probably a reference to Christ. "Rising of the sun" "from east to west", is probably a reference to the resurrection, possibly both of Christ's resurrection and the final resurrection. Verse 8 talks about pouring forth of righteousness and bringing forth of salvation, which probably has to do with Pentecost.

So we have verse 7 squished in here and my speculation about the historical context as it relates to events surrounding Jesus's life, isn't of utmost importance in this study, because it really isn't the question of this study. The question is what does it mean when God says He "creates darkness" and "creates evil"? Some have alleged that this means "evil" and "darkness" is some characteristic of God's nature that He has cast off, somehow.

Is this true? Hang onto your hats folks, I'll get to that at the end of this study.

(Translations as follows)

Verse at first glance:

My first observation in just looking at the transliterated words here in verse 7, are our verbs. "form" light (Strong's 3335), "create" (1254 - same word in both "create darkness" and "create evil"), "make" peace (6213) and "I the Lord "do" all these" (also 6213)

So, "create" evil and "create" darkness are the same verb. What does this verb mean? The concordance says this is a prime verb. (Verb in simplest form.) The other translations that are given are: choose, create (creator), cut down, dispatch, do, make (fat). The concordance's translation explains this as a "creative process" or maybe more accurately "part of a creative process". I'm not sure what the concordance means by that, but that's the concordance's interpretation. Is the concordance right? Not sure there, seeing how the concordance is not the inspired word of God. Let's investigate further.

Next thing - Let's look at the word "evil" and "darkness". Darkness (2822), Evil (7451). Obviously we can see that they are not the same word, for they have different Strong's numbers.

Next question, can we get some idea of what they mean by the context?

Darkness is compared to light and evil is compared to peace. Darkness and light make more associative sense than peace and evil. Evil, we think - opposite of evil being "good" and opposite of "peace" being "war". So could this mean, not that God is the "author of unrighteousness" but instead that He "creates war"? Hold that thought, that could be part of our answer, since we know God makes war on unrighteousness.

Next, let's look at the words "form" and "make".

"Form" (3335) entails the idea of a potter shaping clay into some shape. This word is most commonly translated in the context of a potter and clay. So in this verse it's saying God "squeezed together" the light. Which when we compare this to Genesis, He spoke "Let there be light." we see there isn't exactly a line up here. Back in Genesis, the only thing He "squeezed together" was actually Adam. (Hold that thought too, that has some interesting connotations when we get to the creation of Christ's body.) Everything else that was created in Genesis was created by word of God's mouth. So right here, we see that "squeezed together the light" isn't necessarily talking about what happened back in Genesis.

"Make" (6213) This verb is also a prime root and has lots of applications. The concordance defines it as "to do or make in the broadest sense" and it has a great many of different translations:

Accomplish, advance, appoint, apt, be at, become, bear, bestow, bring forth, bruise, be busy, (be) certainly, have the charge of, commit, deal (with), deck, (be) displeased, do, (be) (ready) dress(ed), (put in) execute(ion), exercise, fashion, (be) feast, (fight) ing man (man actively engaged in combat), (be) finish, fit, fly, follow, fulfil, furnish, gather, get, go about, govern, grant, great, (be) hinder, hold (a feast), (be) indeed, (be) be industrious (double industrious?), (be) journey, keep, labor, maintain, make, be meet, observe, be occupied, offer, (be) officer, pare, bring (come) to pass, perform, practice, prepare, procure, provide, put, require, (be) sacrifice, serve, set, shew, (be) sin, spend, (be) surely, take, (be) throughly, trim, (be) very, (be) vex, be (warr)ior, work (man), yield, use

So, God "makes" peace. He "does" peace. Next thing that will give us a clue is that this is a "qal participle active". Which means this is a continued simple action. Example - "a sinful nation" (the nation is continuing to sin). God is the maker of peace; He's continuously actively making peace.

Now since we are talking about voice and tense, let's return for a moment back to "create" evil and "create" darkness. That word is also a "qal participle active", but it also has a "wa conjunction". What that means is that there's a conjunction in these sentences that specifically connects two phrases together. I pointed out earlier, peace as opposed to evil and light as opposed to darkness. The conjunction that holds these two ideas together is making a point to the reader to pay attention to the contrasts.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Isaiah 45 Continued:

Light and Darkness:

Now we already looked at light as something "squeezed together" as a potter would do to a piece of clay. I'd noted earlier that this is different than the context in Genesis where God "spoke". So now, lets actually look at the word "light". The word "light" is Strong's #216, which comes from 215, which is a prime verb "to be luminous". 216 is also translated: (make) bright, clear, (make) day, light(ning), morning, sun.

So what does this mean "I squeezed together the light"? At first glance, it would seem to indicate that God is the creator of luminous bodies, or luminous events. Again though, this seems to be a different context than "Let there be light" in the first verse of Genesis, or even in the context of creating suns and stars. We know this is a different context because the sun and stars were created on a different day than the "Let there be light" day. "Let there be light" was day one and the sun and stars were created on day 5. Not sure why God did it that way, but there is a distinction being made here between "Let there be light" and the bodies in this universe that produce light. That being said, both were still created by God's spoken word, not "squeezing together".

Now what does this specific word "darkness" mean, and is it the same word "darkness" used in Genesis. My hunch is that it isn't, but let's take a look and see. This word is Strong's # 2822, which is from 2821 (a prime verb) which is translated by the concordance to mean "to make dark" or "to withhold light from".

2822 is translated: dark(ness), night, obscurity.

2821 is translated: dark, darken, cause darkness, be dim, hide.

Well, after turning to Genesis, we see that my hunch here was wrong, it is the same word. "...darkness on the face of the deep..." is the same word "darkness".

So let's go back a minute, to where we left the question of the concordance's translation of "make" evil and darkness. The concordance translated it as part of a creative process. It also translates it as "active voice".

A little note here about translating active a passive voice. Usually when a verse is talking about the choice or decision of an individual who is the subject of the sentence, it uses active voice. When it talks about the affects of that action on others, it uses passive voice. Ex. Peter walked (active voice) to Jerusalem. Paul was (passive voice) arrested. Peter walked (passive voice) to Jerusalem, because Jesus told him to. Paul was (active voice) arrested by the Roman guard named Claudius. Whether something is translated "active" or "passive" depends on who the thrust of the meaning of the sentence the translator thinks is directed at. The same passage can be translated active or passive voice and still be correct either way.

In these couplets, "create" is active voice; but the structure of the entire couplet gives us a clue too. "I form the light and create darkness: I make peace and create evil..." Notice the verse does not say "I form the light and I create darkness..." or "I make peace and I create evil." We can just as easily understand it as "I form the luminous body and (by my action of forming it) create (active voice) darkness." God's action impacts the action of something else. "I make peace, and (by my action of making peace) create (active voice) evil (calamity, or death).

This also fits into the concordance's definition (mentioned earlier) of "create" being a "creative process" or "part of a creative process", which could include the outcome there of. A potter makes a set of cups that someone buys. Years later they donate these cups to a flea market and I purchase them. A byproduct of this potter creating them is I end up with them. Was it the ultimate intension of the person who originally made them, for me to get them after they've passed through 5 other sets of hands? Probably not. Yet one result of their creation is that I now possess them.

Next Question: How do we know this is the correct translation?

One example we have in Genesis is with the creation of stars, because God's action, (the making of this object called a sun) has a direct affect on "darkness" by dispelling it. I noted earlier though that the stars were formed by word of mouth, not by "squeezing together". So what does this mean? The only thing in Genesis that God "squeezed together" was Adam. Christ was the last Adam. Hang on to that thought a minute, because a bit later, I'm going to talk about creation and redemption and how, not only does redemption take place in liner time, but also outside of it, in eternity.

In the other couplet "I make peace and create evil." God's ultimate action of "making peace" is the redemption that was secured by Christ. How does his "making peace" though create death? That question opens the door into another theological explanation, which I'll explain in a minute. Let's translate this verse here first though, and see what we get?

"I squeeze into form the luminary object and create darkness (or night): I make peace (to make a friend from a foe) and create calamity (or death)."

Now let's put this all together.

On the sixth day, God "squeezed into form" Adam. Jesus was the last Adam. Both Adam and Christ were formed with a will that was not encumbered by sin. Christ maintained that free state throughout his existence. Adam lost that free state through transgression. All the components of the first Adam's person-hood (body and soul) had a beginning. Christ's body had a beginning, (and his soul, because he was incarnated in the likeness of the first Adam), but there was an aspect of Jesus's person-hood that was eternal.

In the context of this whole passage; verse 6, I suspect to be talking about resurrection and verse 8 to be talking about Pentecost - verse 7 fits perfectly in this context. These two couplets hold in juxtaposition, creation / Jesus's incarnation and the "creation" of darkness. On the other end of this couplet is his redemptive work; making peace and "creating" death.

Now, what does creation have in common with the incarnation and what does redemption have in common with "creating" death? The book or Revelation gives us a clue. It says Jesus "was the lamb slain from the foundations of the world." Redemption took place at a liner point in human history, but it also took place in eternity. Jesus was crucified, dead, buried and resurrected from the first point in Genesis where it says: "In the beginning God ..." From the first point God "decided" to do anything - "It was (already) finished".

So how does this play into "luminary object and create darkness..."?

See Origin of Evil Theory: It explains my hypothesis as to where I think evil came from.

Next, let's look at God making peace. How does God's making peace (via redemption) also "create" death. That's rather easy to answer. What actually happens when someone becomes regenerated? They "die" to the old man. They "die" to their sin. They become "dead" to the law. It no longer has the power to condemn them because they've been made alive unto Christ. Paul uses the notion of divorce. The regenerate are not "divorced" from the law because the law has effectually killed them. Once they are dead, they can be joined to Christ, (who is alive) and be made alive in him. This is how the law is still in effect for those who are under it.

OK, now that we've translated this verse; let's answer the question as to why evil is not some how some "cast off" characteristic of God's nature?

1. Evil is not eternal. Nothing in this created order is eternal in the same sense God is. In one dimension, eternal means to have no end. Those that possess eternal life, have a life that will not end. Eternal though also means to have no beginning. Evil has a beginning, so therefore it can not be a castoff of some characteristic of God's nature, since God is eternal.

2. There are three attributes that speak to God's eternal existence. God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. If evil were some how a "cast off" of God, it would also be omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. Satan (the traditional understanding of being a fallen angel) is none of these.

Omniscience - What would Satan have known of God's redemptive plan? As mentioned before, an aspect of Jesus's person-hood was eternal. That eternal portion of his person-hood was also omniscient. When he agreed to take on the form of Adam though; (Adam and Eve being created in God's image) he agreed to abide under all the limitations Adam was created under. Adam was not created to be omniscient, so neither was Jesus in his human state. God the Father, reserved that right solely for God in His eternal state. Once the son took on being incarnated in the form of a created thing, he forfeited that right to omniscience. If the Father wasn't going to afford that to the Son, He certainly wasn't going to afford it to Satan.

Omnipotence - (Such a rhetorical question of all rhetorical questions - I'm not even going to present it.) If Satan was omnipotent, he would have been able to stop Christ. That didn't happen though!

On the flip side of this, what about Jesus and omnipotence? That's an interesting question, because whatever he prayed for in the will of the Father, he got. Not having a nature that was encumbered by sin, made for an interesting dynamic, because there were things that could have been afforded to Jesus that he opted out of. The most obvious example is that he volunteered to die. Why did he do this? Because it satisfied the plan made among the persons of the Godhead in eternity. Being incarnated as part of the mortal world, Jesus could have had a people of his own, without going to the cross. He would have just had to produce them by means of sexual reproduction. (See addendum to this study on "various redemption plans".)

Omnipresence - Is evil omnipresent? This makes an interesting question because in our current fallen world, we know evil knows no bounds in it's expression of cruelty. Does that make it omnipresent though? Where is there a place that evil does not exist?

Well, this question may not be as hard to answer as it may seem on the surface. We know the Scripture tell us there is "no shadow of turning" in God, so we know evil does not exist with Him. The simple express manifestation of this truth is the fact that if it did, we wouldn't be here to ask the question. Interesting, now why is that?

The Scripture tells us that Satan is the father of lies and there is no truth in him. Evil itself is made manifest in a self destructive force. Look at all the people, or situations, even in the human sense, that we deem to be "evil". We see the manifestation of that evil in their destruction of others and ultimately themselves. Totalitarian dictators that start wars out of greed or genocide are a prime example. Often times, not only do they take down those whom they oppose, but in the end they usually take down their own nation with them. Violent criminals are another example. They may kill victims and in the end usually go down "suicide by cop".

So, in understanding that about evil, it would be reasonable to conclude that a god that had evil inherent as part of his/her/its nature would not be able to create anything sustainable because of the conflict inherent in "his" own being. First of all, "he'd" have a problem deciding what to create and than carrying out the plan. Anyone who's been in a committee meeting where no one agrees can certainly see this reality. Where there is no consensus there is no action and there is no consensus when there is conflicting elements of good and evil biding for supremacy. So yes, it is absolutely true that if God contained evil, we wouldn't even be here to debate the concept.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Now I give you Romans 9:22-23 (ESV)

"What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—"

I generally object to judgments against God, whereby a person says that God can't be a certain way, or else he is bad, unworthy, etc. Most of the time, I see clear examples of those attributes clearly stated of God in the Bible, and I wonder at the fate of one who passed such a judgment against God. It would be better to write God a blank check and let him be what he will be, allowing him the sovereignty to be what he chooses.

Agreed! God as the sovereign Creator has the right to make what ever choices that He does.

The verse you quoted in Romans is actually the "why" of the salvation plan. Allowing some to reap the wages of their sin, is to the furtherance of the glory of God. Little tough to wrap our brains around - I know - but that is the reason God planned it to unfold the way that it did.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Every time God created something. "He saw that it was Good". No creature He created could commit evil, since none of them had moral capacity of a knowledge of God - except angels and humans. He committed angels first, no-one knows how long before He created humans. But they had moral capacity and free will, and chose to do something contrary to the will of God, which is the definition of evil. Later, when He created humans, they likewise had moral capacity and free will, an d also chose do do things contrary to God's will.

I agree with everything you present here. I would call going contrary to God's will "the manifestation of evil", not necessary its "definition". Although technically you might say it's "splitting hairs" seeing how the end result is the same.

 

[The Righterzpen]

I do not believe Evil was created at the moment of creation though. There needs first to exist an agent or vessel for Evil to be carried out (evil as defined as anything that goes against the Will of God). In The Beginning... there was no agent to carry out the anti-will of God.

This is true that in the beginning there was no agent to carry out the anti-will of God and additionally "evil" needs something to act upon (i.e. a creation).

But the question is, did God's initial action bring the knowledge of good and evil, out of theory and into reality? We know "evil" did not exist prior to God's action to create something because the only thing that existed before God "did" anything was God.

Now if there is a "equal and opposite reaction" the "reaction" is to the "action" of God doing something, not God the entity, because God is eternally existent. If no action brought God into existence, there can be no reaction to His existence.

You follow me?