Board index ‹ Assorted Bible Questions

[Agno-stick]

I am curious where Christians would find fault with this logic:

Premise: The origin of all things is God (John 1:3)
Premise: God is purely good (Ps 92:15)
Premise: Evil cannot result from something that is purely good (Matt 7:18)
Conclusion: Evil is not possible.

Disclaimer: I don't necessarily think I chose the best passages to back up each premise. I just selected the closest to hand.
Thanks for your feedback!

[jimwalton]

First problem: premise 1: "The origin of all things is God."

Not so. Jn 1.3 is contextual. God didn't create himself, he didn't create sin, and he didn't create evil (which is the absence of good). He didn't create darkness (which is the absence of light). John 1.3 is speaking of Jesus as the creator of the cosmos: the ordered universe. The reference is to the details of the natural world.

Premise 2 is fine.

Second problem: Premise 3: "Evil cannot result from something that is purely good."

We are mistaken to think of evil as a substance that has to have had a divine creator. True evil is an absence, or a lack of its opposite. By way of analogy, we know that light is both a wave and a particle. Light has a velocity and properties that can be studied. Darkness, on the other hand, is none of the above. Darkness is instead the absence of light, or the shadow where light is blocked. It has no form or essence of itself. It is not a negative particle or a contrasting wave in opposition to light. We can see a ray of light, but we never see a ray of darkness. In the same way that darkness is not an entity unto itself but is instead the state of being when light is deficient, so also evil is not an entity in its own right but the state of being where other essences, such as goodness or right, are absent. Evil is an abstraction, not an entity.

God is good, both by definition and biblical assessment, and therefore everything he created was also good. Where His “light” was blocked, “darkness” resulted (John 3.19-21), and where His goodness was rejected, evil was the outcome. Therefore evil was “created” by those who rejected the light and shunned the good, not by God.

Allow me to put it this way. God, by definition, is uncreated. Anything God creates (which is everything besides Himself) is therefore not God because it is not uncreated. Anything that is not God is therefore less than God and doesn’t share all (if any) of God’s qualities. According to the Bible, God is all good, can create only what is good, and is incapable of evil. Anything that is not God, therefore, is where the potential for evil found its origin. In other words, evil exists because free and moral agents who were not God chose to oppose what was good and right.

Therefore your conclusion ("Evil is not possible") is mistaken, based on false premises.

[Freetos]

I just skimmed this, but one point which stuck out that I definitely disagree with:

> God didn't create evil

Because in Isaiah 45:7, God says the opposite. "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

God can and does create evil; but if I were to explain this to somebody, I'd probably call it "good evil". For example, God brings to bear situations in our life, called trials, which are by no means good in the sense of positivity, but are good in the sense of righteousness. Another example is wars and conflicts which God often causes for the furtherance of His purpose.

The first example, however, is in the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. This tree was peculiar to its brothers, in that it would open the eyes of the eater to the realisation of what feels good to the flesh, but is evil in consequence. By eating, Adam and Eve would know the experience of disobedience; learning of any sort stimulates the brain, therefore (I believe) they felt good on eating of it. But the consequences of their actions were undoubtedly evil; they felt ashamed and guilty (they suffered), and God pronounced them dying creatures (they would die). Hence, as we are descendants of Adam and Eve, God effectively created all the evil that is in our lives.

Having said this, I will not take the atheist view that this is in contradiction of omnibenevolence. It is impossible for God to do wrong, and the reason for creating this evil, was so that mankind could be righteously reconciled to their Father in heaven. God could have destroyed Adam and Eve then and there; he could have just tolerated their sinfulness and allowed them eternal life. But neither of these two options fulfil the purpose of God with mankind, viz., to manifest God for ever. The only option consistent with righteousness was to pronounce mankind doomed to destruction, with the hope of salvation through forgiveness by the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

[jimwalton]

Thank you for bringing up Isaiah 45.7. It allows me to explain how you have misunderstood the text. Isaiah’s point in chapter 45 is that God is sovereign, and he’s the only king. He can use whatever and whoever he wants for his purposes. Just because he uses a heathen to do his work (a pagan emperor, for instance) doesn’t mean that he endorses what the emperor believes. But he’s God, and he can use even unbelievers to accomplish his purposes. He’s talking to his people, Israel, to explain to them that he will deliver them from Cyrus, the emperor of the first Persian Empire, but first he’s going to use Cyrus to accomplish some things.

Verse 7 is his climax of this particular section. Isaiah’s real point is that God is the only God, and there is no other deity. There may be other spiritual beings, but no other gods. Isaiah uses two illustrations of parallel pairs, one from nature (light and darkness) and one from history (prosperity and disaster). He uses a figure of speech using opposites to explain that God is king over all. No other being or force is sovereign as God is sovereign.

You can’t create light without also bringing on darkness. Turn on any flashlight, and you’ll also create shadows. On a sunny day the shadows are the strongest. Isaiah is using these word pictures to express God’s power and rule. When Isaiah says that “God created disaster,” he is not claiming that God has been a jerk and done something wrong. The word Isaiah uses is “ra”, which is the opposite of shalom. What Isaiah is saying is that if there are bad conditions in your life, it is because you are bearing the consequences of your own sin. It is the lack of God’s prosperity (shalom). And if there is darkness, that is a lack of light. But even darkness and disaster exist in a universe where God is the ruling king.

The word *ra*, that you have translated as "evil," has a wide range of meanings, like our English word "bad." It can mean moral evil ("Hitler was a bad man"), misfortune ("I'm having a bad day") or something disagreeable to our preferences ("Broccoli has a bad flavor"). Our English word "evil" almost always refers to moral wickedness, which is not the author's point here. That is proved by the opposite term the author uses: *shalom*: “health; well-being; peace; good relations; good fortune.”

What Isaiah is saying is that if bad conditions exist or happen in my life, they are not become some evil god has thwarted the good intentions of the beneficent God, or that God talks out of both sides of his mouth at the same time. The bad conditions that exist, as you read the whole text, are because I have sinned, or made poor decisions, or someone else has.

Now, God can certainly use the evil that people do to accomplish His purposes, but God is not the creator of evil.

> Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

"The knowledge of good and evil" doesn't mean they didn't know anything about morality, obedience, godliness, or disobedience. In the ancient world, God was often associated with the concept of wisdom, and "the knowledge of good and evil" is a idiomatic way that they expressed that concept of wisdom. For instance, in the Gilgamesh Epic, the primitive Enkidu becomes wise (possessing reason) not by eating the fruit of a tree but instead by engaging in sexual intercourse with the prostitute Samhat, who was sent to entice and capture him. The tree in this story, therefore, is to be associated with the wisdom that is found in God (Job 28.28; Prov. 1.7). It's not that Adam and Eve didn't know about good and evil before this, but that God was inviting them to acquire wisdom (godliness) in the proper way at the appropriate time by obedience to him. "Good and evil" is a legal idiom meaning "to formulate and articulate a judicial decision (Gn. 24.50; 31.24, 29; Dt. 1.39; 1 Ki. 3.9; 22.18). The idea is that they would seek God's ways instead of their own. The tree corresponds to their ability to decide. What was being forbidden to the humans was the power to decide for themselves what was in their best interests and what was not.

So saying, there is nothing in the text to suggest that God is the creator of evil. They made a free-will decision to defy God and set themselves up as the center of order and wisdom. Yes, the consequences were evil, but that was certainly not by God's creation but by humanity's wrong choice. It is more accurate to say humans are the creators of evil. Evil is not an entity, as I mentioned in my post. It's an absence or lack of its opposite. God warned us against it; He didn't create it.

[Texan]

" God is all good, can create only what is good, and is incapable of evil. "
​
Ok so God is all good, and can create only good.
​
Anything that is not God (which God created?), is where the potential for evil found its origin.
​
​​
How does this make a lick of sense? God created humans, and angels I presume. If he can ONLY create good, then how are humans bad?

[jimwalton]

Suppose I were to design and make a flawless piece of glass crystal. I have created perfection. There is nothing wrong with it, nor with anything I have done. But crystal, by nature, is breakable. If someone were to drop it and it breaks, this does not mean I as the artist/creator have made a mistake or done anything wrong. Crystal is breakable, and there's no way around that. But I didn't drop it.

God cannot create something that is uncreated. Therefore anything created is not God. Therefore anything created is capable of possibilities and actions that are not possible for God, that God has not caused, or that are any reflection of a mistake that God made or a flaw for which He is responsible. Humans are not God, and therefore have the potential for breakage. If someone or something causes them to break, it doesn't mean God broke them or that God did anything wrong.

[Freetos]

> He can use whatever and whoever he wants for his purposes. Just because he uses a heathen to do his work (a pagan emperor, for instance) doesn’t mean that he endorses what the emperor believes. But he’s God, and he can use even unbelievers to accomplish his purposes.

Yes, I agree with all of this. But one question: if God creates wars (which he does), are those wars evil?

I'd like you to answer that question, but I'll also give my answer. Yes, those wars are evil, but, as you said, that doesn't mean that God necessarily agrees with the morality of the human instruments he uses to accomplish his purpose.

> The word ra, that you have translated as "evil," has a wide range of meanings, like our English word "bad." It can mean moral evil ("Hitler was a bad man"), misfortune ("I'm having a bad day") or something disagreeable to our preferences ("Broccoli has a bad flavor").

This is the same Hebrew word used for "the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil". Please also note that the 'opposite' term used here (ie. good), refers to anything 'pleasant', and does not necessarily refer to morality. This fact is proved by that Eve saw that the fruit was "pleasant" in Genesis 3. In other words, the tree gave what was 'pleasant' to the flesh of Eve, but was evil (unpleasant) in consequence. So I'd agree that the word Evil does not necessarily mean "sin", or "immoral"; this is impossible when in relation to God. But it is indisputable that God created the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil; a tree which would cause evil in their lives.

> Evil is not an entity, as I mentioned in my post. It's an absence or lack of its opposite.

This is fine by me. It doesn't make a difference either way. However you look at it, God caused it in Genesis chapter 3. If God didn't cause it, who did cause it?

I'll put it in a different light, so that it's plain to see. Adam and Eve couldn't change the constitution of their own nature; only God could. So who caused them to become dying creatures if God didn't?

> "The knowledge of good and evil" doesn't mean they didn't know anything about morality, obedience, godliness, or disobedience.

They had the ability to think on morality, obedience etc. because they had the mental "likeness" to God (Gen.1:26). However, they had not experienced sin. So this knowledge was an experiential knowledge which would stimulate the brain, as you would know from experience; whenever we do something we know we shouldn't do, we feel good (pleasant), until the retribution comes upon us. Then we feel ashamed and guilty. So the "evil" (unpleasantness) which they would experience was suffering, then death.

> God warned us against it; He didn't create it.

No, God warned Adam and Eve not to sin, because evil would result. He has told us not to sin, because essentially evil will also result from that. Was it right that God created this evil? Yes, and here's why; since sin had entered the world, there were about three things that God could have done:

1. Instantly destroyed Adam and Eve, hence being rid of sin from the earth
- But this would have meant God had failed in his purpose with mankind.
2. Tolerated the sins Adam and Eve, and allowed them to eat of the Tree of Life, giving them immortality anyway
- But this would have meant that sinners would be permanently in existence, again a failure in God's purpose with mankind, and very unmerciful.
3. Gradually destroyed Adam and Eve, but produced a means by which their sins could be atoned for and forgiven, hence allowing them to be saved from sin and death
- This maintains the righteousness (and sinlessness) of God, whilst not downplaying the seriousness of sin.

Option three, as we know, is the only way, and was chosen by God for the process of reconciliation, culminating in Jesus Christ. But evil was a prominent part of this pathway, and it was created by God. God could not have instantly destroyed them, otherwise they would have had no way of learning and agreeing with this plan of reconciliation. They became dying creatures; and this was instituted by God -- "For dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return".

> Now, God can certainly use the evil that people do to accomplish His purposes, but God is not the creator of evil.

This would make sense, if it wasn't for Genesis 3, in which God specifically introduced evil so that reconciliation to Him would be possible.

> if there are bad conditions in your life, it is because you are bearing the consequences of your own sin.

This was true for Israel, because the Law of Moses had promised prosperity if they obeyed, and evil if they did not obey. It is not necessarily true for ourselves; that is the fallacy of exact retribution, which is not how God works at all.

> For instance, in the Gilgamesh Epic,

The Gilgamesh Epic was not "given by inspiration of God", so it is not "profitable for doctrine etc". It might illustrate your point, but whatever it may mean has no bearing whatsoever on what the Bible means. The Bible is well able to explain itself.

> The tree in this story, therefore, is to be associated with the wisdom that is found in God

That's impossible. The wisdom that is found in God was in saying "don't eat of the tree because you will die". In fact, I believe that God (through his angelic ministers) was constantly instructing Adam and Eve throughout their probation in the garden of Eden. The knowledge which they gained was experiential knowledge of what felt good to their flesh, but was evil in consequence.

[jimwalton]

> But one question: if God creates wars (which he does), are those wars evil?

It's a trick question. All wars are horrible, but not all wars are evil. The Bible advocates that there is such a thing a just war: war that has a moral motivation, moral intent, with a moral result.

> Please also note that the 'opposite' term used here (ie. good), refers to anything 'pleasant', and does not necessarily refer to morality. This fact is proved by that Eve saw that the fruit was "pleasant" in Genesis 3. In other words, the tree gave what was 'pleasant' to the flesh of Eve, but was evil (unpleasant) in consequence.

You have your terms right but missed the forest for the trees. The expression "knowledge of good and evil" is a common idiom corresponding to the ability to decide. The same phrase in Isa. 7.15 relates to "responsibility." It's a legal technical term for formulating and articulating a judicial decision (Gn. 24.50; 31.24, 29; Dt. 1.39; 1 Ki. 3.9; 22.18).

But you can't have your cake and eat it, too. You can't say that the positive was "pleasant" and the negative was "evil". Either it's moral good and moral evil or it's pleasant and disagreeable.

> But it is indisputable that God created the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil; a tree which would cause evil in their lives.

It is truly indisputable that God created the tree, since He created all things. But the tree did not CAUSE evil. The tree represented the ability to decide, and was given to train them to obey. The tree didn't cause evil, their choice did. The tree is not culpable, they are.

> This is fine by me. It doesn't make a difference either way. However you look at it, God caused it in Genesis chapter 3. If God didn't cause it, who did cause it?

It is wrong to think that God caused evil in chapter 3. The humans did. It was their choice, their sin, their mistake.

> I'll put it in a different light, so that it's plain to see. Adam and Eve couldn't change the constitution of their own nature; only God could. So who caused them to become dying creatures if God didn't?

Adam and Eve COULD and DID change the constitution of their own nature. It was they who caused the separation from God on the basis of willful defiance. When they chose to separate from life, they created the rift the wages of which was death.

> However, they had not experienced sin. So this knowledge was an experiential knowledge which would stimulate the brain, as you would know from experience; whenever we do something we know we shouldn't do, we feel good (pleasant), until the retribution comes upon us. Then we feel ashamed and guilty. So the "evil" (unpleasantness) which they would experience was suffering, then death.

I'm not sure what your point is here. You're right that they had not experienced sin, nor did they have a sin nature. But it wasn't a feeling of pleasure or shame that was at play, but true guilt. Shame is the feeling that I am bad (a negative identity); guilt is the knowledge that I did bad (wrong behavior). They feel shame on the basis of their true moral and spiritual guilt. What they sacrificed what the presence of God.

> No, God warned Adam and Eve not to sin, because evil would result.

I'm not sure what your point is here. Yes, evil would result, but it would be evil created by them, not by God.

> This would make sense, if it wasn't for Genesis 3, in which God specifically introduced evil so that reconciliation to Him would be possible.

God did not introduce evil. Humanity, by definition, had free will. Their use of that free will against the purposes of God does not mean that God introduced evil. Adam and Eve did.

> The Gilgamesh Epic was not "given by inspiration of God", so it is not "profitable for doctrine etc". It might illustrate your point, but whatever it may mean has no bearing whatsoever on what the Bible means. The Bible is well able to explain itself.

Of course the Gilgamesh Epic isn't inspired and therefore profitable for doctrine. What it's good for is to show us the cultural river in which the Israelites lived and that Genesis was written as a polemic and apologetic against. Therefore it illustrates my point.

> That's impossible. The wisdom that is found in God was in saying "don't eat of the tree because you will die".

The ancient worldview revolved around wisdom and order. In their culture, God was associated with wisdom (as we read in places like Proverbs 2-4.Wisdom was considered a moral as well as an intellectual quality. In our culture we think wisdom is being really smart and being able to apply it to real life. And while that was also true in the ancient world, wisdom was also moral, the right, the good, and being able to choose the best and highest goal. Wisdom was considered to be the essence of God (Prov. 1.7; 2.6; et al.) and the route to a relationship with God. Obviously, this is not how we in our modern western world perceive wisdom.

It pertains greatly and deeply, however, to Genesis 3. God was establishing himself (as was common in their culture) as the source and center of wisdom. When God is commanding them not to eat from the tree, he is telling them that following Him and his will is the way of wisdom. God reserves for himself the consummate knowledge of all things. In Genesis 1.27-28, God sets up the man and woman as co-regents with Him, ruling the earth as vassals, running things as He Himself would. Here is another aspect of that: for them to find wisdom, they must follow His will as His priest and priestess (the terms "work" and "care for" of Gn. 2.15 are priestly terms, not agricultural ones) and relate to God on His own terms (wisdom), renouncing all conspiracy against his sovereignty. In other words, they have to choose God rather than self. They must trust God's wisdom more than their own. It's not that God doesn't want them to be wise, it's that He wants them to be wise in the right things at the right time and going about it in the right way. If they just want to usurp all prerogative to themselves, they will eat the fruit. But God warns them that pursuing their own path to wisdom will have devastating results, not because God is egotistical or because he doesn't want them to learn anything, but because the way of self is the way of limited sight, limited knowledge, limited perspective, warped priorities, and distorted values. The existence of the tree would have reminded Adam he was not his own god and that he was responsible to his maker. God is interested in an unhindered relationship with them based on truth and freedom, wisdom and order.

From the onset man had the power to decide for himself. In the image of God he was created with free will, with every expectation that he would use it. What was being offered by the tree was whether he would use his free will to be self-oriented, or use his free will to be God-oriented—whether he would find his moral ground in self or in the character of God. In order to be what he was created to be, humankind must continue to orient himself to the unwavering reference point rather than to an undependable one (himself). Much like sailing across the ocean, a sailor has a choice to orient to the stars or, say, to the clouds.

> The knowledge which they gained was experiential knowledge of what felt good to their flesh, but was evil in consequence.

The knowledge they gained is explicit: she saw that the fruit was good and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom. The temptation played on the whole range of human desire.

* Their eyes were opened. Obvious figurative language. By taking the fruit, they were trying to be like God by positing themselves at the center and source of order.
* They became instantly aware of their guilt and shame.
* We know they are aware of more than experiential knowledge of what felt good to their flesh by their responses to God: "I was afraid so I hid," blame, and "I was deceived." We are not to see they are ashamed of feeling good. They are ashamed of what they have done (3.13), not of how it feels.

The consequence of their choices and actions was the creation of evil.