God is the author of evil?

[Amy]

This question resulted from my visit with a dear non-Orthodox friend yesterday. We were discussing theology and the nature of sin, predestination and such. She made the comment that she believes certain people were raised/set apart by God in order to fulfill His purposes. People such as Judas, Hitler, Stalin, etc.

I was surprised and said, "You believe God is the author of evil?" and she replied, "Of course, God is the author of EVERYTHING!" I asked if she thought there was a power(s) striving against God and she said, "no".

My understanding is that God is Creator and has given man freedom - so that God is the author of the potential for evil, of turning away from God. The conversation was a stimulating one and made me revisit my beliefs in this area. If some believe that God CAUSED Judas or Hitler or Stalin to make the choices they did, aren't they puppets? Aren't they - in their evil - also serving God?! It's a demented thought to me and I would like to hear how you would have responded in such a conversation.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Good question. I know that Bishop Tikhon (OCA Retired) is fond of quoting Isaiah 45:5-7 (KJV)


I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:

That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

I wonder how the original text reads? How about the Septuagint?

Anyone?

Herman the Pooh

[Antonios]

Dear Amy,

The way I understand it is like this: If I am the father of a son who grows up and becomes a serial killer and performs unspeakable acts of murder, am I the creator of the evil?

In one way, yes, because he is my son. However, in another way, no because we all have free will, and it was the son and not the father who committed these murderous acts.

Granting His children free will was the greatest element of risk God entered into creation, however, true love would have it no other way.

In Christ,
Antonios

[Amy]

Thank you for the replies, and thanks for posting the Scripture, Herman. It came up yesterday, but neither of us could remember where that verse was found. I too, am interested to know how the original text reads and was understood in the first century of Christianity.

[Michael Stickles]

Good question. I know that Bishop Tikhon (OCA Retired) is fond of quoting Isaiah 45:5-7 (KJV)

I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:

That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
I wonder how the original text reads? How about the Septuagint?

In the Ecclesiastical Septuagint (http://www.apostoliki-diakonia.gr/bible/bible.asp?contents=old_testament/contents_Hsaias.asp&main=hsaias&file=43.45.htm) online, that central phrase from verse 7 is:

ὁ ποιῶν εἰρήνην καὶ κτίζων κακά·
The word "κακά" (κακός) is the one rendered "evil", and normally means "evil" or "wicked". However, it can also be used in the sense of something "bad" in a general sense, as in Luke 16:25 and Revelation 16:2 -


... "Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: ..."

And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, ...

The word for "create" - "κτίζων" (κτίζω) - is often used when referring to God creating the world and the things in the world.

As to how it was understood by the Fathers, I don't know - hopefully someone else will be able to shed light on that.

In Christ,
Michael

[Effie Ganatsios]

In the Ecclesiastical Septuagint (http://www.apostoliki-diakonia.gr/bible/bible.asp?contents=old_testament/contents_Hsaias.asp&main=hsaias&file=43.45.htm) online, that central phrase from verse 7 is:

ὁ ποιῶν εἰρήνην καὶ κτίζων κακά·
The word "κακά" (κακός) is the one rendered "evil", and normally means "evil" or "wicked". However, it can also be used in the sense of something "bad" in a general sense, as in Luke 16:25 and Revelation 16:2 -



The word for "create" - "κτίζων" (κτίζω) - is often used when referring to God creating the world and the things in the world.

As to how it was understood by the Fathers, I don't know - hopefully someone else will be able to shed light on that.

In Christ,
Michael

Michael, would ktizon kaka mean "built or created evil or badness"? I would also be interested in the interpretation of this phrase.

Verse 7 : ἐγὼ ὁ κατασκευάσας φῶς καὶ ποιήσας σκότος, ὁ ποιῶν εἰρήνην καὶ κτίζων κακά· ἐγὼ Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς ὁ ποιῶν πάντα ταῦτα.

I, the Creator (Builder) of light and maker of darkness, who made (created) peace and built (created) evil, I, the Lord God who does everything (who is omnipotent?)..

The above is my own quick translation but it's probably completely wrong because it doesn't make sense.

Can God create evil?

I am going to google and perhaps find a proper translation.

Effie

[Effie Ganatsios]

The following is from my Orthodox Study Bible

Isaiah 45 : 7

I am He who prepared light and made darkness, who makes peace and creates troublesome things. I am the Lord God who does all these things.

[Herman Blaydoe]

The following is from my Orthodox Study Bible

Isaiah 45 : 7

I am He who prepared light and made darkness, who makes peace and creates troublesome things. I am the Lord God who does all these things.

This verse is certainly troublesome! But then again, so am I at times.

Do you think this is an accurate and appropriate translation, or merely easier to deal with?

Herman the troublesome Pooh

[Effie Ganatsios]

This verse is certainly troublesome! But then again, so am I at times.

Do you think this is an accurate and appropriate translation, or merely easier to deal with?

Herman the troublesome Pooh

Herman, do you have the Orthodox Study Bible? If you do you will see that it has been prepared by some very learned people, including our Dr. Matthew Steenberg.

The words in Greek are as I have translated them (to the best of my knowledge ) word for word BUT this type of literal translation doesn't always convey the real meaning. Plus, as I already mentioned, it just doesn't make sense. God is the creator of evil? Doesn't this go against all that we have been taught. The Orthodoxy Study Bible uses a free translation which is sometimes more accurate in regard to the meaning behind the words. We need the opinion of Dr. Steenberg in this discussion because he can enlighten us as to what is meant. The notes under the text in my bible do not refer to this verse at all.

The verse is on page 1093 of the Orthodox Study Bible.

I have just read from Isaiah 45:5 to 45:13. Could the "troublesome things" indeed be human beings who create nothing but trouble? Could the "evil" referred to again be a description of mankind?

As you can see Herman, I am searching in the darkness.

We need answers from those who are more advance along the path than we are. Has anyone found a reference to this verse in the writings of the Fathers?

Effie

Some things I found on the Internet

http://www.gotquestions.org/Isaiah-45-7.html

http://www.comereason.org/phil_qstn/phi025.asp

http://www.carm.org/diff/Isa_45_7.htm

After looking at just one page of the Google search machine it seems that this verse is used by lots of atheists and others to support various claims.

[Antonios]

I found this:


In Contra Gentes, St. Athanasius proclaims “That evil is not from God, nor is it in God, nor has it existed from the beginning, nor is it of any substantive existence; but men, in departing from the theoria of the good, began to devise and imagine that which is not, according to their desires”

This is from a blog (http://orthodoxpatristics.com/08/athanisian-reflections-on-evil-and-freedom/)and the comments given by others are interesting.

[Effie Ganatsios]

I found this:


This is from a blog (http://orthodoxpatristics.com/08/athanisian-reflections-on-evil-and-freedom/)and the comments given by others are interesting.

In Contra Gentes, St. Athanasius proclaims “That evil is not from God, nor is it in God, nor has it existed from the beginning, nor is it of any substantive existence; but men, in departing from the theoria of the good, began to devise and imagine that which is not, according to their desires”

Perfect! Thank you so much Antonios.

Effie

[Antonios]

Here is a link (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.vi.ii.i.i.html)to Contra Gentes online.

Another good article is here (http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/darkness_florovsky.htm). It is called "The Darkness of the Night" and written by Archpriest George Florovsky.The essay begins with this first paragraph :


In a world that is created by God, whose laws and purposes are established by Divine wisdom and goodness, how is it possible that evil exists? For evil is precisely that which opposes itself to God and resists Him, perverting His designs and repudiating His ordinances. Evil is, furthermore, that which is not created by God. And since the Divine will establishes the reasons for everything which exists (and this Sovereign will alone establishes "sufficient reasons"), one can assert that evil, as evil, exists despite a lack of reasons, exists without a single reason for its existence. As St. Gregory of Nyssa stated, it is "an unsown herb, without seed and without root." One could say: phaenomenon omnino non fundatum. It is God alone Who establishes the foundations of the world.

[Michael Stickles]

Michael, would ktizon kaka mean "built or created evil or badness"? I would also be interested in the interpretation of this phrase.

Verse 7 : ἐγὼ ὁ κατασκευάσας φῶς καὶ ποιήσας σκότος, ὁ ποιῶν εἰρήνην καὶ κτίζων κακά· ἐγὼ Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς ὁ ποιῶν πάντα ταῦτα.

I, the Creator (Builder) of light and maker of darkness, who made (created) peace and built (created) evil, I, the Lord God who does everything (who is omnipotent?)..

The above is my own quick translation but it's probably completely wrong because it doesn't make sense.

I took a little more time to go through this with my Greek tools (Fr Dcn Matthew, do feel free to correct me if I botch my translating!).

If I'm correct with my grammar, both verbs in "ὁ ποιῶν εἰρήνην καὶ κτίζων κακά·" are present active participles, but the verbs in "ἐγὼ ὁ κατασκευάσας φῶς καὶ ποιήσας σκότος" are aorist active participles. The present participle normally deals with repeated, continuous or customary actions, while the aorist deals with simple occurence.

Also, "κακά" is actually a neuter plural - i.e., "evils". This is exactly the same form that is translated "evil things" in Luke 16:25. "κτίζω" can mean to produce, create; to make or render so and so; or to perpetrate a deed; "ποιεω" can have the first two senses as well as to bring to pass, bring about; and "κατασκευάζω" means to prepare, to build. I don't think the variations in meaning between the verbs are really all that important.

Putting this together, I would render the first two clauses as "I (am) the (One Who) prepared light and made darkness, the (One) making peace and producing evil things; ...".

I would imagine that one sense in which God can be said to produce "evil things" is that which St. Maximos the Confessor spoke of in his Ad Thalassium 61:


"[T]he first man ... activated an unnatural pleasure through the medium of the senses. Being, in his providence, concerned for our salvation, God affixed pain alongside this sensible pleasure as a kind of punitive facility, whereby the law of death was wisely implanted in our corporeal nature to curb the foolish mind in its desire to incline unnaturally toward sensible things."

In Christ,
Michael

[Nina]

Good question. I know that Bishop Tikhon (OCA Retired) is fond of quoting Isaiah 45:5-7 (KJV)
I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:

That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.I wonder how the original text reads? How about the Septuagint?

Anyone?

Herman the Pooh

Yes. St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite expounds on the OT passage that you present dear Herman. In his 'Explanation of the Lord's Prayer' Saint Nikodemos (May he intercede for all of us in front of God!) writes:


Chapter 7: And lead us not into temptation

Our Lord directs us to ask our God and Father not to lead us into temptation. The Prophet Isaiah, as representing God, says, I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil (Is. 45:7). And the Prophet Amos says similarly, Shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it? (Am. 3:6).
Based on these words, many unlearned and insecure people fall into various thoughts concerning God: that God supposedly throws us into temptations. For this reason, the Apostle James solved the problem for us, saying: Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth He any man. But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed (Jas. 1:1314). Therefore, each person, from his own will, is tempted.
Temptations come to man in two kinds. One is the pleasurable kind, and therefore occurs with both our own will and the collaboration of the demons. [62] The other is the sorrowful and painful kind, which appears bitter to us, for it occurs without our will. The devil works on his own to bring about this kind. [63]
Both of these kinds of temptations came upon the Hebrews. For because they willfully chose pleasurable temptation, using wealth, glory, and freedom for evil, they fell into idolatry. For this reason God allowed the complete opposite to come upon them, namely, poverty, dishonor, exile, and the rest. With these evils He frightened them, in order that they might turn and repent.
The Prophets call the various forms of the chastisement of God wrongs and evil, as we said above, though in reality they are not evil, and this is because those things which bring pain and hardship to man are customarily called evil by him, since this is how he perceives them. These things happen, not according to the original will of God, but according to the ensuing [that is, secondary] will of God, for the correction and good of man.
Our Lord, joining the first kind of temptation (that is, the pleasurable kind) with the second kind (that is, the bitter and oppressive kind) calls both of them by one name, temptation, because the free will of man is tempted and tested by them. However, in order for us to better understand this, we must know that things are divided into three categories: good, evil, and relative. The good are restraint, almsgiving, righteousness, and as many other like things, which can never be evil. The evil are sexual immorality, inhumanity, injustice, and as many other like things, which can never be good. The relative are wealth and poverty, health and sickness, life and death, glory and ignobility, pleasure and pain, freedom and slavery, and other like things, which at times are good and at times are bad, depending upon how they are used by the free will of man.
Men divide the relative into two. Some they call good, because they desire them (for example, wealth, glory, pleasure, and so on). Others they call evil, because they do not desire them (for example, poverty, pain, dishonor, and the rest). Therefore, if we do not wish for the supposedly evil things to come upon us, let us not do the things that are truly evil, as the Prophet counsels us: Give not thy foot unto moving, and may he not slumber that guardeth thee (Ps. 120:3). That is to say, O man, do not walk in the ways of evil and sin, and the angel that guards you will certainly not let you suffer any evil.
Isaiah says: If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land. But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword (Is. 1:1920). That is to say, if you wish to listen to My commandments, you will enjoy the good things of the earth. But if you do not want to listen to Me, you will die by the sword of your enemy. And if we do not listen, He once more says to us, through the same Prophet, Walk in the light of your fire, and in the sparks that ye have kindled (Is. 50:11); that is, enter into the fire and flame of evils and of hell, which flame you ignited by your sins.
The devil first attacks us with pleasurable temptation, for he knows that we fall into it easily. And if he finds our will obedient to his, he draws us away from the grace of God which protects us. On account of his great hatred for us, he then requests permission from God to bring upon us bitter temptation, that is, sorrows and hardships, in order to destroy us completely and cause us to fall into despair on account of our many sufferings. If he does not find our will compliant, that is, if we do not fall to the pleasurable temptation, he still brings the second kind of temptation, hoping that through many sorrows he will be able to force us to carry out his evil intent.
For this reason, the Apostle Peter directs us: Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour (1 Pet. 5:8). God sometimes permits him to do this in order to test His servants, as in the case of Job and the other Saints, in accordance with the Lords word to His disciples: Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat (Lk. 22:31). That is, Behold, Peter, Satan asked permission to sift all of you, to shake you up with temptations as wheat is shaken up. Or God allows temptations by means of His withdrawing, as happened to David because of the sin he committed and to the Apostle Peter because of his arrogance. Other times temptations come on account of Gods abandonment, as it happened to Judas and the Jews.
The temptations the saints experience by the permission of God come from the envy of the devil, and are permitted in order that they may manifest saintly righteousness and perfection, and thus shine all the more brightly on account of their victory over their opponent. The temptations which happen by Gods withdrawal occur in order to obstruct and cut off past, present, or future sins. The temptations which happen by Gods abandonment are caused by the sinful life of man and his evil will, and lead one to complete perdition.
Therefore, not only must we flee, as from venom of the evil serpent, the pleasurable and sinful kind of temptation, but, also, we must not by any means accept temptation of this kind that comes to us without our will. Concerning painful bodily temptations and trials, let us not conduct ourselves haphazardly, with pride and audacity. But let us ask God that they might not come to us, if that is His will, and that we may be pleasing to Him without undergoing these trials. And if they do come, we should accept them with complete thanksgiving and joy, as great blessings. This only should we ask: that He might give us the strength to conquer the tempter until the very end. For this is what lead us not into temptation means, that God might not let us fall defeated into the throat of the noetic dragon. In the same way, in another place the Lord tells us: Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation, namely, be alert and constantly praying, so as not to fall into temptation; that is, so as not to be conquered by temptation, for the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak (Mt. 26:41).
Let no one, however, upon hearing that he must flee temptation, make excuse with excuses in sins (Ps. 140:4), and claim that he is too weak and other like things when temptations come. For if, during a critical time, he is scared of trial and temptation and does not resist it, he will deny the truth. For example: If the time comes when someone is being tortured for the faith or in order that he might deny the truth or forsake righteousness, compassion, or some other commandment of Christ; if, I say, he surrenders on account of fear of bodily trial, and does not bravely resist, let such a person know that he has no part in Christ, and in vain is he called a Christian, if he does not repent with bitter tears. For he did not imitate the true Christians, the martyrs, who suffered for the faith, such as the divine Chrysostom, who suffered because of his righteousness; the righteous Zotikos, who underwent hardships on account of his compassion; [64] and so many others, which time does not permit us to enumerate, who endured many and great sufferings and temptations for the Law and for the commandments of Christ. These commandments of Christ we also must keep, for they liberate us, not only from temptations and sins, but also from the evil one, according to the petition,


62. Translators note:
Temptation, as it is usually understood in English, is initiated by the demons without our willing it and is called an assault, for which we are not culpable. Here St. Nikodemos uses the word temptation according to the broader meaning that it can possess in Greek, to refer also to our voluntary consent to the assault and our sinful act, for which we are culpable.
63. Cf. Maximos the Confessor, Orationis Dominicae Expositio, PG 90, 908B = GrPhilokalia, 452453; The Philokalia, vol. 2, 304305); and Fifth Century on Various Texts of Theology 8994, GrPhilokalia, 405406; The Philokalia, vol. 2, 282283). [Translators note: This usage of the word temptation refers to what is often called a trial (e.g. the trials of Job): a challenging circumstance that tests ones faith, permitted by God in order to aid ones spiritual progress.]
64. Translators note: St. Zotikos, commemorated December 31 [st] , was martyred by the pro-Arian Emperor Constantius II in the fourth century for using money from the imperial treasury to care for plague victims who had been exiled from Constantinople, and to ransom other plague victims who had been condemned to drowning.
By our Righteous God-bearing Father Nikodemos the Hagiorite

In:

Concerning Frequent Communion of the Immaculate Mysteries of Christ "Including a thorough explanation of the Lord's Prayer, an apology for frequent communion, answers to objections and clarifications of misconceptions, and two appendices on the Divine Eucharist." Trans. Fr. George Dokos (Thessaloniki, Greece: 2006, Uncut Mountain Press (http://www.uncutmountain.com/)), pp. 74-79.

[Effie Ganatsios]

I took a little more time to go through this with my Greek tools (Fr Dcn Matthew, do feel free to correct me if I botch my translating!).

If I'm correct with my grammar, both verbs in "ὁ ποιῶν εἰρήνην καὶ κτίζων κακά·" are present active participles, but the verbs in "ἐγὼ ὁ κατασκευάσας φῶς καὶ ποιήσας σκότος" are aorist active participles. The present participle normally deals with repeated, continuous or customary actions, while the aorist deals with simple occurence.

Also, "κακά" is actually a neuter plural - i.e., "evils". This is exactly the same form that is translated "evil things" in Luke 16:25. "κτίζω" can mean to produce, create; to make or render so and so; or to perpetrate a deed; "ποιεω" can have the first two senses as well as to bring to pass, bring about; and "κατασκευάζω" means to prepare, to build. I don't think the variations in meaning between the verbs are really all that important.

Putting this together, I would render the first two clauses as "I (am) the (One Who) prepared light and made darkness, the (One) making peace and producing evil things; ...".

I would imagine that one sense in which God can be said to produce "evil things" is that which St. Maximos the Confessor spoke of in his Ad Thalassium 61:
"[T]he first man ... activated an unnatural pleasure through the medium of the senses. Being, in his providence, concerned for our salvation, God affixed pain alongside this sensible pleasure as a kind of punitive facility, whereby the law of death was wisely implanted in our corporeal nature to curb the foolish mind in its desire to incline unnaturally toward sensible things."


In Christ,
Michael

Thank you so much for that explanation Michael. It is beginning to make some sense now.

And you are right about the word "kaka" "Ta kaka" means "evils". "To kako" means "evil".

This morning I was thinking about what this verse could really mean and then realized that the Greek itself is a translation of the Hebrew. What we really need to do is go back to the original Hebrew....

I believe that the Hebrew word that was translated into Greek as "κακά" also has an ambiguous meaning.

The following is from one of the links I posted in a previous message.

"God creates evil
Isaiah 45:7 and Amos 3:6

*

(Isaiah 45:7, KJV) - "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."
*

(Amos 3:6) - "Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?"

Is God really the one who created evil? To answer the question we must first look at how the word for evil "rah" is used in the Bible, examine the context of the Isaiah 45:7 passage, and look at other passages on the same subject.
First of all, the Hebrew word for evil "rah" is used in many different ways in the Bible. In the KJV Bible, it occurs 663 times. 431 times it is translated as "evil." The other 232 times it is translated as "wicked", "bad", "hurt", "harm", "ill", "sorrow", "mischief", "displeased", "adversity", "affliction", "trouble", "calamity", "grievous", "misery", and "trouble." So we can see that the word does not require that it be translated as "evil." This is why different Bibles translate this verse differently. It is translated as "calamity" by the NASB and NKJV; "disaster" by the NIV; and "woe" by the RSV;
Second, the context of the verse is speaking of natural phenomena.

"I am the Lord, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God. I will gird you, though you have not known Me; 6That men may know from the rising to the setting of the sun That there is no one besides Me. I am the Lord, and there is no other, 7The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the Lord who does all these." (Isaiah 45:5-7). "

http://www.carm.org/diff/Isa_45_7.htm

I will stop here I think and put my trust in the words of the fathers that have been posted on this thread. God is good. This is all that I really need to know.

It's sad that these words have been used so extensively (if I am to judge by the many responses when I googled this verse) by those who want to discredit the Christian religion. Taken out of context, and perhaps helped by incorrect or unclear translations, almost any verse in the bible can be used both for and against man's belief and trust in a loving God.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

From two recent English translations of the LXX for Isaiah 45:7


NETS: I am the one ...who makes peace and creates evils.

OSB: I am He...who makes peace and creates troublesome things.

Is the choice of "troublesome things" an effort to avoid the theological problems of a face reading of "creates evils"? I do not have the language skills to know what was really involved in their choice of wording.

In any case though what we should keep in mind is that the priority should be on the Church's exegesis rather than the wording of the scripture.

In this light I am in favour of keeping to the original wording as challenging as this may be for the reader. Without this the whole effort & understanding of the Church's exegesis is lost.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Andreas Moran]

In any case though what we should keep in mind is that the priority should be on the Church's exegesis rather than the wording of the scripture.

Protestants look away!

[Michael Stickles]

From two recent English translations of the LXX for Isaiah 45:7


NETS: I am the one ...who makes peace and creates evils.

OSB: I am He...who makes peace and creates troublesome things.

Is the choice of "troublesome things" an effort to avoid the theological problems of a face reading of "creates evils"? I do not have the language skills to know what was really involved in their choice of wording.

My guess is it would be an attempt to adjust for a word whose understood meaning has drifted. According to Merriam-Webster, the definition of "evil" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evil) is:


1 a: morally reprehensible : sinful , wicked (an evil impulse) b: arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct (a person of evil reputation)
2 a archaic : inferior b: causing discomfort or repulsion : offensive (an evil odor) c: disagreeable (woke late and in an evil temper)
3 a: causing harm : pernicious (the evil institution of slavery) b: marked by misfortune : unlucky

From the LXX Greek and what Effie dug up on the Hebrew, it seems that the word's use in Isaiah 45:7 would fit definitions 2b/c. Modern usage of "evil", though, seems to always include definition 1a, meaning the word is too easily misunderstood when used in the archaic sense. On the other hand, the OSB translation does seem to read a bit too "soft" in my opinion. I'd be interested to see a Patristic exegesis on the verse.

In Christ,
Michael

[Matthew]

May God always bless you, Amy. You're doing well by having an open dialogue with a non-Orthodox friend; you're doing well by asking difficult questions, and you're doing well be re-examining your beliefs. I wish I did as well!

I don't want to offend any friends who brought up Isaiah 45:7. However, parsing the language too closely isn't always helpful.

How do we look at figures like Judas, Hitler, and Stalin? Perhaps more pertinently, how do we view an Orthodox tyrant like Ivan the Terrible? Ivan the Terrible lived a very strange life. He killed, murdered and tortured. And he also prayed, and gave to the monasteries, and provided a huge amount of support to the orthodox faith. In some ways, he gave orthodoxy a momentum to overcome the lifespan of the entire Soviet Union. And that's a blessing that couldn't be seen 500 years ago, when the evil was being done.

Does God allow evil to exist? Yes. Sometimes all too obviously.

Does God allow evil rulers to get more and more power, control and jurisdiction? Again, yes. And He allowed from the moment of the Tree of Knowledge, and continues to allow it.

But He allows such evil for a reason. I shouldn't speculate, but perhaps God allowed Ivan the Terrible to kill and maim so that later, Russian faithful would have saints to venerate and emulate. And then later Russian Orthodox would pass on their faith and their full confidence in the Holy Trinity.

Perhaps most importantly, we should remember and appreciate the unfathomable depths of God's forgiveness. At the last supper, Jesus himself gave communion to Judas Iscariot, offering the body and blood to the one who would betray him.

I often wonder if Judas wasn't like a second Adam. He (Judas) had the full kingdom of God set before him. All he had to do was resist 30 pieces of silver. But he couldn't. However, even though he didn't resist, Jesus included him in the last supper. Which makes me wonder if Judas couldn't be saved had he only repented. A quick μετάνοια, a change of mind, and he would have been fine.

Does this, in a roundabout way, answer the question? God allows evil, but doesn't prescribe it. He doesn't send it. But if it's helpful, he allows it. And he does so for a reason. Whether to teach a lesson, postpone something, set an example, or any other way, God will (pretty clearly) allow evil to do its work. But then later, in ways that few humans would predict, He always sets things right.

[Boulos]

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."


The word " and creat evil " should be "creat hurt or dammage" as for correct translation.

[Nina]

Homilies on Obedience


After the fall, Adam and Eve found themselves at an impasse. "They heard God walking in Paradise," say the Scriptures, "and they were afraid and hid themselves"! (Gen. 3:9). Previously, however, when they had not sinned against God, why weren't they afraid of Him? Was this, perhaps, the only time God walked in Paradise? Was this the only time He approached them as transgressors? Since they were His genuine children, didn't He visit them and walk in Paradise? But they were not afraid of Him then because their conscience did not reprehend them; it was full of tranquility and peace, and so they also remained at peace.

So, "As God was walking in Paradise, they both hid themselves, for they were afraid of God." God said to them, "Adam and Eve, where are you? Where have you hidden?"

What could they say to God now?

"Adam, why did you hide?"

"I was afraid," said Adam. "I heard You walking in Paradise, and I was afraid."

"But why should you be afraid? Are you afraid of your Father, your Creator, your Benefactor? Are you afraid of Me approaching, Who out of boundless divine love gave you an entire Paradise? Happiness Itself, the Fountain of life, joy, and peace approaches and you are afraid?"

"Yes," replied Adam. "I am afraid because I made a mistake. But it's not my fault; it's Eve's, that woman You gave me. She's the one who pushed me, who urged me to, and then I transgressed Your commandment and ate the forbidden fruit."

"Eve," said God, "why did you deceive your husband? Why did you eat it?"

"It's not my fault," said Eve. "The serpent---which You, of course, created and put here in Paradise---is the one that told me to eat. And he told me that if I ate this fruit I would become equal to God and would know good and evil."

One sees here outright egotism and back talk. Egotism results in back talk in the mind and heart. It rises up against God and indirectly throws the responsibility on Him.

So, since God did not see repentance or hear an apology, He immediately ordered their exile. This dialogue between God and Adam and Eve gives us the precious advice and teaching that God does not abandon man when he transgresses His commandment. He does not condemn him immediately, but He approaches him. But how does He approach him? Man doesn't hear Him walking, as Adam did! I, however, hear him very distinctly reproving me and saying to me, "You did badly here. There you did not do well. Why are you doing this?" Through our conscience God cries out, "Repent; you are human."

Man is easily corrupted; he falls easily; he is changeable, mutable, prone to fall. God knows this because He formed us. He made us human. But He also gave us the grace to repent; He has given us the power to arise. Why didn't you do this? When He reproves you through your conscience and exhorts you through the Scriptures to repent, and you do not do so, then the condemnation and punishment begin.

Selected from Counsels from the Holy Mountain from the Letters and Homilies of Elder Ephraim

[Kusanagi]

She made the comment that she believes certain people were raised/set apart by God in order to fulfill His purposes. People such as Judas, Hitler, Stalin, etc.


This is similar to the Gospel of Judas where "Christ" said to Judas that what he is going to do everyone would dispise him for, even though it is a very important task that will help "Christ" achieve His purpose which is the salvation of man, which people would not be able to understand such a holy task.

So according to accounts in this book, Judas is seen as a holy person but to ignorant people he is seen as an evil person that sold "Christ", to be killed.

I would have asked your friend would she consider Judas, Hitler and Stalin "holy people" because they fulfilled God's purpose, whatever it maybe.

[Kusanagi]

Good question. I know that Bishop Tikhon (OCA Retired) is fond of quoting Isaiah 45:5-7 (KJV)


I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:

That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.


Because modern English is a very poor language in terms of expression, the Romanian version roughly translates to:

I create the light and I give a face to the darkness: make peace and allow trouble times.

[Marc Chapman]

God is the author of evil?
Simply stated, that is impossible because God is Light and in Him is no darkness. The quoting of Isaiah should be tempered with the knowledge that He did not have the revelation of Christ. Chapter 45 is a prophecy about Cyrus the Babylonian and might not be the best platform for establishing theological constructs. The gist of the passage is I am God and I'll use a pagan king to save my people if I want to... who are you to say anything about it? Just trust me.

The problem of the origin of evil is a hard one to contemplate. It is easier to understand if you realize evil is not a thing but the undoing of a thing. In other words, one can not create evil one can only corrupt good. Choice or freewill necessitates the ability to make the wrong decision. God gives us choice but doesn't force us to make the wrong decisions.

Oddly enough, even though God is not responsible for our evil, He took responsibility for it anyway... isn't He good :)

[Father David Moser]

... evil is not a thing but the undoing of a thing. In other words, one can not create evil one can only corrupt good. Choice or freewill necessitates the ability to make the wrong decision. God gives us choice but doesn't force us to make the wrong decisions.

Oddly enough, even though God is not responsible for our evil, He took responsibility for it anyway... isn't He good :)

Or maybe God is not "taking responsibility" for our evil - rather He is simply redoing (and sometimes in a new and beautiful manner) that which we have undone.

Fr David Moser

[Herman Blaydoe]

I have heard the notion that "evil" is not a thing, just like "darkness" is not a thing, but merely the absence of a thing. In the case of darkness, it is merely the absence of light. You cannot "add" darkness, you can only take away light. Once all the light is gone, you cannot "add" any more darkness. But you can always add light, there really is no upper limit. With evil, it is the absence of good. Absolute evil is simply the total absence of good. Thus there is a limit to evil. But there is no limit to good. So you cannot "create" evil, you don't create "nothing".

Now you can say that "evil" exists, but then so does "darkness" but light makes it go away and "good" makes evil go away. God may indeed withhold the "good" as He best decides is necessary and it might seem like "creating" evil, just like turning off a light seems to "create" darkness. However it is not the making of something, merely the absence of something.

Or so it seems to this bear of little brain
Herman the Pooh

[Antonio Arganda]

And God saw all the things that He had made and , behold , they were very good. Genesis 1,31 Since God is good , whatever He does , He does for man's sake . But whatever man does , he does for his own sake , both what is good and what is evil." Philokalia , vol1 ,chap. 121 St Anthony the Great. Evil cannot be created . It has no substance , but is rather , an absence of good . This according to St. Basil , Athenagoras and Dionysios the Areopagite.

[Alexander Ignatiev]

In the Slavonic, the word used is not evils, but "calamities" or, more poetically, "woes." And the verb is not "create," but rather "bring forth, yield, effect judgment... "

Here is the Russian synodal version (which is the Russian transliteration of the Slavonic text): 5 Я Господь, и нет иного; нет Бога кроме Меня; Я препоясал тебя, хотя ты не знал Меня, 6 дабы узнали от восхода солнца и от запада, что нет кроме Меня; Я Господь, и нет иного. 7 Я образую свет и творю тьму, делаю мир и произвожу бедствия; Я, Господь, делаю все это.

[Marc Chapman]

Now you can say that "evil" exists, but then so does "darkness" but light makes it go away and "good" makes evil go away. God may indeed withhold the "good" as He best decides is necessary and it might seem like "creating" evil, just like turning off a light seems to "create" darkness. However it is not the making of something, merely the absence of something.

Or so it seems to this bear of little brain
Herman the Pooh

Darkness "exists" perceptually as a lack of light. Light doesn't make darkness go away... it fills the void. In the same manner, Love "overcomes" fear by filling the void we label fear.

As I understand it, God holds no goodness back from us. If my son asked for bread I wouldn't give him a rock... etc. However, if my son left my home, wasted his life in debauchery, and found himself living on the scraps the pigs left behind... his ruin is none of my doing but his willful removing himself from my goodness. Thankfully, when I found myself in that position, I found my Father exactly where He always had been still desiring to pour His Goodness into me :)

[Ilaria]

However, me myself, wonder sometimes: how to explain the absence of light when God fills everything?

[Herman Blaydoe]

When a person is blind, they cannot see the light. Or when a person blocks the light, there is darkness. God works with and through His creation, even when it chooses not to cooperate, and sometimes darkness happens.

Or so it seems to this bear of little brain
Herman the Pooh

[Mark Harris]

I am sure it is not coincidence GOD is in GoOD and EVIL is in dEVIL. Not very high brow but I spent some time contemplating this today.

[Ben Johnson]

I hope the Hebrew of Isaiah 45:7 shows up with this:

יוֹצֵר אוֹר וּבוֹראֵ חֹשֶךְ עֹשֶה שָלוֹם וּבֹוראֵ רָע אֲנִי יהוה עוֹשֶה כָל אֵלֶה

It is not showing up very well, but it is read from right to left, and here it my translation of it: Forming [participle] light [noun] & creating [participle] darkness [noun]; Making [participle] peace [noun] and creating [participle] evil [or wicked or noxious, adjective]. I [am] the LORD, making [participle] these.
The adjective "ra'" comes from the verb "r'a'a" which can mean "break in pieces, loud noise, or evil." Much of the time in Isaiah, the "evil" is an incursion by an army, much of the time by the Assyrians. Now why would the LORD create this evil? Is it because He is capricious? Certainly not. Is it because He gets laughs out of kicking Israel and/or Judah? Certainly not. The LORD only unleashed the armies as punishment for the evil that Israel and/or Judah committed.

[Antonios]

However, me myself, wonder sometimes: how to explain the absence of light when God fills everything?

This does not describe it as light so it may not be what you are looking for, but rather my poor attempt at explaining it the best my sinful mind knows.

When I'm hungry and my stomach is empty, it groans and wishes to be filled. But in reality, it is not empty. It has gastric contents and acids and things which are beneficial to our digestive health and our all-around well being. But it requires food and sustenance to perform it's needed work. Otherwise, those very beneficial things can become a source of harm us, caustic to our stomach and innards, causing disease and death.

The Word of God is our sustenance and our nourishment. He is the Food for our soul and Daily Bread. And when we allow Him to enter, He will be the catalyst for those caustic passions to perform their true intended and righteous purpose, which is for greater life and for peaceful harmony and for growth in the knowledge and wisdom of God.

Lord have mercy on me a sinner. By the prayers of the Holy Theotokos, save us Lord.

[Mikhail Kolitwenzew]

Did anyone mention St John of Damascus?

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf209.iii.html

CHAPTER XIX.

That God(7) is not the cause of evils.

It is to be observed(8) that it is the custom in the Holy Scripture to speak of God's permission as His energy, as when the apostle says in the Epistle to the Romans, Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour and another unto dishonour(9)? And for this reason, that He Himself makes this or that. For He is Himself alone the Maker of all things; yet it is not He Himself that fashions noble or ignoble things, but the personal choice of each one(1). And this is manifest from what the same Apostle says in the Second Epistle to Timothy, In a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth: and some to honour and some to dishonour. If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work(2). And it is evident that the purification must be voluntary: for if a man, he saith, purge himself. And the consequent antistrophe responds, "If a man purge not himself he will be a vessel to dishonour, unmeet for the master's use and fit only to be broken in pieces." Wherefore this passage that we have quoted and this, God hath concluded them all in unbelief(3), and this, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear(4), all these must be understood not as though God Himself were energising, but as though God were permitting, both because of free-will and because goodness knows no compulsion.
His permission, therefore, is usually spoken of in the Holy Scripture as His energy and work. Nay, even when He says that God creates evil things, and that there is no evil in a city that the Lord hath not done, he does not mean by these words(5) that the Lord is the cause of evil, but the word 'evil(6)' is used in two ways, with two meanings. For sometimes it means what is evil by nature, and this is the opposite of virtue and the will of God: and sometimes it means that which is evil and oppressive to our sensation, that is to say, afflictions and calamities. Now these are seemingly evil because they are painful, but in reality are good. For to those who understand they became ambassadors of conversion and salvation. The Scripture says that of these God is the Author.
It is, moreover, to be observed that of these, too, we are the cause: for involuntary evils are the offspring of voluntary ones(7).
This also should be recognised, that it is usual in the Scriptures for some things that ought to be considered as effects to be stated in a causal sense(8), as, Against Thee, Thee only, have I sinned and done this evil in Thy sight, that Than mightest be justified when Thou speakest, and prevail when Thou judgest(9). For the sinner did not sin in order that God might prevail, nor again did God require our sin in order that He might by it be revealed as victor(1). For above comparison He wins the victor's prize against all, even against those who are sinless, being Maker, incomprehensible, uncreated, and possessing natural and not adventitious glory. But it is because when we sin God is not unjust in His anger against us; and when He pardons the penitent He is shewn victor over our wickedness. But it is not for this that we sin, but because the thing so turns out. It is just as if one were sitting at work and a friend stood near by, and one said, My friend came in order that I might do no work that day. The friend, however, was not present in order that the man should do no work, but such was the result. For being occupied with receiving his friend he did not work. These things, too, are spoken of as effects because affairs so turned out. Moreover, God does not wish that He alone should be just, but that all should, so far as possible, be made like unto Him.



CHAPTER XX.

That there are not two Kingdoms.

That there are not two kingdoms(2), one good and one bad, we shall see from this. For good and evil are opposed to one another and mutually destructive, and cannot exist in one another or with one another. Each of them, therefore, in its own division will belong to the whole, and first(3) they will he circumscribed, not by the whole alone but also each of them by part of the whole.
Next I ask(4), who it is that assigns(4) to each its place. For they will not affirm that they have come to a friendly agreement with, or been reconciled to, one another. For evil is not evil when it is at peace with, and reconciled to, goodness, nor is goodness good when it is on amicable terms with evil. But if He Who has marked off to each of these its own sphere of action is something different from them, He must the rather be God.
One of two things indeed is necessary, either that they come in contact with and destroy one another, or that there exists some intermediate place where neither goodness nor evil exists, separating both from one another, like a partition. And so there will be no longer two but three kingdoms.
Again, one of these alternatives is necessary, either that they are at peace, which is quite incompatible with evil (for that which is at peace is not evil), or they are at strife, which is incompatible with goodness (for that which is at strife is not perfectly good), or the evil is at strife and the good does not retaliate, but is destroyed by the evil, or they are ever in trouble and distress(6), which is not a mark of goodness. There is, therefore, but one kingdom, delivered from all evil.
But if this is so, they say, whence comes evil(7)? For it is quite impossible that evil should originate from goodness. We answer then, that evil is nothing else than absence of goodness and a lapsing(8) from what is natural into what is unnatural: for nothing evil is natural. For all things, whatsoever God made, are very good(9), so far as they were made: if, therefore, they remain just as they were created, they are very good, but when they voluntarily depart from what is natural and turn to what is unnatural, they slip into evil.
By nature, therefore, all things are servants of the Creator and obey Him. Whenever, then, any of His creatures voluntarily rebels and becomes disobedient to his Maker, he introduces evil into himself. For evil is not any essence nor a property of essence, but an accident, that is, a voluntary deviation from what is natural into what is unnatural, which is sin.
Whence, then, comes sin(1)? It is an invention of the free-will of the devil. Is the devil, then, evil? In so far as he was brought into existence he is not evil but good. For he was created by his Maker a bright and very brilliant angel, endowed with free-will as being rational. But he voluntarily departed from the virtue that is natural and came into the darkness of evil, being far removed from God, Who alone is good and can give life and light. For from Him every good thing derives its goodness, and so far as it is separated from Him in will (for it is not in place), it falls into evil.



CHAPTER XXI.

The purpose(2) for which God in His foreknowledge created persons who would sin and not repent.

God in His goodness(3) brought what exists into being out of nothing, and has foreknowledge of what will exist in the future. If, therefore, they were not to exist in the future, they would neither be evil in the future nor would they be foreknown. For knowledge is of what exists and foreknowledge is of what will surely exist in the future. For simple being comes first and then good or evil being. But if the very existence of those, who through the goodness of God are in the future to exist, were to be prevented by the fact that they were to become evil of their own choice, evil would have prevailed over the goodness of God. Wherefore God makes all His works good, but each becomes of its own choice good or evil. Although, then, the Lord said, Goad were it for that man that he had never been barn(4), He said it in condemnation not of His own creation but of the evil which His own creation had acquired by his own choice and through his own heedlessness. For the heedlessness that marks man's judgment made His Creator's beneficence of no profit to him. It is just as if any one, when he had obtained riches and dominion from a king, were to lord it over his benefactor, who, when he has worsted him, will punish him as he deserves, if he should see him keeping hold of the sovereignty to the end.

[Evan]

By way of contribution:

A truly vivid examination of how God uses evil and evil men to shape the history of God's people for good is set forth in St. Augustine's "City of God," wherein the author situates the Visigoths among the Assyrians and Babylonians as vessels of wrath who very much without intending it (indeed, quite the opposite!) serve as an occasion of grace to those willing to receive it.

Importantly, St. Augustine didn't hesitate to interpret contemporary events that at first blush might seem utterly devoid of God's providential workings (calamitous as they were) as being shaped and molded by God, just like the Assyrian depopulation of the Northern Kingdom, the Babylonian exile, and the destruction of the second temple and the razing of Jerusalem by the Romans. That doesn't, of course, mean that Nebuchednezzer was doing "the right thing"-- the logic of "let us do evil, that good may come" is roundly condemned in Scripture. But his freely chosen evil was put to good use in the context of salvation history.

Perhaps this is the proper way to evaluate figures like Stalin, Hitler, Mohammad and their followers -- we know that they did evil, and that millions suffered and died as a result of their influence on world history. But they don't have the last word.

In Christ,
Evan

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

From that lofty throne, set apart in holiness, the divine will spreads itself though all things in marvellous patterns of created movement, first spiritual then corporeal; and it uses all things to carry out the unchanging judgment of the divine decree, whether they be corporeal or incorporeal things, whether they be non-rational or rational spirits, whether they be good by His grace, or bad by their own will...
And thus God's will is the first and highest cause of all physical species and motions. For nothing happens visibly and in a manner perceptible to the senses which does not issue either as a command or as permission from the inmost invisible and intelligible court of the supreme Emperor, according to His unfathomable justice of rewards and punishments, favors and retributions, in which we may call this vast and all embracing republic of the whole creation.

St Augustine. the Trinity Book III, Chap 1, 9

[Evan]

Two approving citations to the writings of St. Augustine! That's got to be a Monachos record! ;-)

In Christ,
Evan

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Two approving citations to the writings of St. Augustine! That's got to be a Monachos record! ;-)

In Christ,
Evan

For the past few months I've been reading through some of the major works of St Augustine: Confessions, City of God, and now The Trinity. I can see from the latter work that there are problems with how he understands the Holy Trinity. But basically the criticisms one hears/reads about him that relate to sin & asceticism are way off track.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Mick Curran]

This question resulted from my visit with a dear non-Orthodox friend yesterday. We were discussing theology and the nature of sin, predestination and such. She made the comment that she believes certain people were raised/set apart by God in order to fulfill His purposes. People such as Judas, Hitler, Stalin, etc.

I was surprised and said, "You believe God is the author of evil?" and she replied, "Of course, God is the author of EVERYTHING!" I asked if she thought there was a power(s) striving against God and she said, "no".

My understanding is that God is Creator and has given man freedom - so that God is the author of the potential for evil, of turning away from God. The conversation was a stimulating one and made me revisit my beliefs in this area. If some believe that God CAUSED Judas or Hitler or Stalin to make the choices they did, aren't they puppets? Aren't they - in their evil - also serving God?! It's a demented thought to me and I would like to hear how you would have responded in such a conversation.

I don’t think it’s necessarily a demented thought. I think it’s probably a conclusion that some people reach after fiercely struggling with the problem of evil. I confess I’ve had no success trying to figure it out, myself, but here are some of my thoughts for consideration.

I’m prepared to accept that there two different types or categories of evil. The first category might be described as “natural evil.” In this category are the evils brought about by natural causes in the world such as floods, earthquakes or tornadoes and different sorts of diseases, accidents and injuries. The second category could be headed up “moral evil.” Here the central focus is on the evil that people do to each other, motivated by hatred, greed, or overindulgence. It’s certainly a challenge trying to find an overarching definition of evil that takes into account both these categories. The one that I’ve found to be most helpful is the assertion that “evil is the wrong relationship between good things.” That gets me a little way along and helps to steer me away from maltheism but that’s about it. The definition doesn’t really answer the main question i.e. from where does evil come? I daresay some people find solace in the idea that God created the “fact” of evil but not any “act” of evil and I suppose that notion could be of some help.

But after battling through the platitudes and what Ravi Zacharias has referred to as, “frothy God–talk,” I should imagine the final answer to the main question is probably a resounding “don’t know.” It’s as far as I’ve managed to get, anyway.

[Ioan]

I agree in that it's easy enough to argue why God allows evil to pass (without making Him the author of it), but it's very hard to argue why evil is, or how/when God decides someone (ie satan) is eternally evil. I am not even sure we're asking the question right. How would an Angel ask/ponder this question? --somehow I feel it's way beyond us, and maybe even beyond the mind of an Angel. God only knows (for sure), and it's up to Him to reveal to us what He considers we need. I am not saying this to discourage people from asking, but it does seem like it's a very hard and existential question.


I don’t think it’s necessarily a demented thought. I think it’s probably a conclusion that some people reach after fiercely struggling with the problem of evil. I confess I’ve had no success trying to figure it out, myself, but here are some of my thoughts for consideration.

I’m prepared to accept that there two different types or categories of evil. The first category might be described as “natural evil.” In this category are the evils brought about by natural causes in the world such as floods, earthquakes or tornadoes and different sorts of diseases, accidents and injuries. The second category could be headed up “moral evil.” Here the central focus is on the evil that people do to each other, motivated by hatred, greed, or overindulgence. It’s certainly a challenge trying to find an overarching definition of evil that takes into account both these categories. The one that I’ve found to be most helpful is the assertion that “evil is the wrong relationship between good things.” That gets me a little way along and helps to steer me away from maltheism but that’s about it. The definition doesn’t really answer the main question i.e. from where does evil come? I daresay some people find solace in the idea that God created the “fact” of evil but not any “act” of evil and I suppose that notion could be of some help.

But after battling through the platitudes and what Ravi Zacharias has referred to as, “frothy God–talk,” I should imagine the final answer to the main question is probably a resounding “don’t know.” It’s as far as I’ve managed to get, anyway.

[Mark Harris]

Does anyone know the origin of the hebrew word Raa ? e.g. does it predate the time the Jews were in Egypt where the word is something very different?

[Mick Curran]

I agree in that it's easy enough to argue why God allows evil to pass (without making Him the author of it), but it's very hard to argue why evil is, or how/when God decides someone (ie satan) is eternally evil. I am not even sure we're asking the question right. How would an Angel ask/ponder this question? --somehow I feel it's way beyond us, and maybe even beyond the mind of an Angel. God only knows (for sure), and it's up to Him to reveal to us what He considers we need. I am not saying this to discourage people from asking, but it does seem like it's a very hard and existential question.

It’s relatively easy to align the idea of good with a God who is intrinsically good but how does one satisfactorily explain the presence of evil in the material and ethereal worlds if it is presupposed that those worlds exist only because they have been spoken into being by a God to whom evil is antithetical? It’s an easy question to ask and an extremely difficult question to answer. Best to admit not knowing, I think.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Evil is not a presence, it is an absence. Evil is not the opposite of "Good", it is merely the absence of Good, just like dark is the absence of light and cold is the absence of heat. God does not "allow" evil, but He does allow the absence of good.

[Ioan]

In my experience, I've heard the phrase, "God removed the Grace of The Holy Spirit from the fallen angels", or "through their fall, they lost God's Grace".
Therefore, I suppose one may say that their actions reflect the absence of God's Grace, the absence of Good. But, like Herman said, Satan is not at all God's opposite; that would imply some sort of manicheism.

[Mick Curran]

Evil is not a presence, it is an absence. Evil is not the opposite of "Good", it is merely the absence of Good, just like dark is the absence of light and cold is the absence of heat. God does not "allow" evil, but He does allow the absence of good.

I'm not sure that I understand what you mean. In the case of moral evil i.e. sin would you be comfortable with a statement along the lines that God "allows" or "permits" sin?

[Ioan]

I'm not sure that I understand what you mean. In the case of moral evil i.e. sin would you be comfortable with a statement along the lines that God "allows" or "permits" sin?

Sorry, for jumping in. I am not sure I understand your question, as my understanding is indeed that God permits or allows sin, but somehow you seem to think that it doesn't seem right? It's probably important to understand why God allows sin, and that He allows it with a purpose according to His will, not the sinners will. In other words, Satan does not get to do what he really wants, but what God allows him in order to fulfill His Divine purpose. In case of humans, we certainly don't chose what temptations come our way, but God does according to His plan. I believe that "why does God allow us to be tempted" could be a different topic, and I do know that the Holy Fathers have spoken about it clearly. My own understanding in a nutshell is that for those who love God, temptations are a means to purify and perfect them, as for the wicked temptations are basically a platform that fulfills their evil will, and sadly leads to greater torments in the Age to Come. To go further, God is basically using satan as a tool to perfect the righteous. Sin is permitted in this age, but it is also punished -- some people are punished temporarily in this life, while others eternally. As you see, sin is permitted, but the cost could potentially be absolutely horrific. Does God sound like a fool who permits sin anymore?? Though, I don't want to end the post on such a note. The main reason God allows sin I believe is precisely His love and Mercy for us, as He'd rather let us fall and repent and learn from it, than not allow us to be born, or take away our free-will. We all know that God does not want the world to perish, but to be saved, so sin being permitted is an act of Mercy, which requires a response (repentance) from us.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Not sure what you mean by "moral evil" as opposed to just plain old "evil". And it seems worth mentioning that "evil" is often a perceived thing, just like light and heat can be percieved differently. What appears "evil" to one may not seem so to another. Mercy to the wolf is cruelty to the sheep.

To try to put things in simple terms (I like simple): God allows the removal of light which leaves darkness. God allows us to do things without good intent (evil/sin), but even then He is often able to accomplish Good through it. God shines the light but we are still able to cast a "shadow" and block all or some of it, and God apparently allows us to do so. But sometimes He will even use our shadow to His purposes when He so desires.

But evil is not "created" although it might seem like it. Darkness is not "created". You cannot add darkness you can only block or remove the light. You make something colder, not by adding cold, but by removing heat. Once you remove all the "good", you cannot make something more "evil", thus "evil" is not really "created" any more than darkness or cold are "created".

As we grow in Christ, we learn that God only wants "good" that God only IS "good" even if that goodness is not always perceptable to us in the world around us. We learn to trust God, and to realize that even when things seem bad to our perception, that ALL THINGS work for good for those who follow the Lord (Romans 8:28) and we learn to see the good, even in the bad, it becomes a matter of degree.

Does that make sense?

Herman the thermodynamic Pooh

[Evan]

Not sure what you mean by "moral evil" as opposed to just plain old "evil". And it seems worth mentioning that "evil" is often a perceived thing, just like light and heat can be percieved differently. What appears "evil" to one may not seem so to another. Mercy to the wolf is cruelty to the sheep.

To try to put things in simple terms (I like simple): God allows the removal of light which leaves darkness. God allows us to do things without good intent (evil/sin), but even then He is often able to accomplish Good through it. God shines the light but we are still able to cast a "shadow" and block all or some of it, and God apparently allows us to do so. But sometimes He will even use our shadow to His purposes when He so desires.

But evil is not "created" although it might seem like it. Darkness is not "created". You cannot add darkness you can only block or remove the light. You make something colder, not by adding cold, but by removing heat. Once you remove all the "good", you cannot make something more "evil", thus "evil" is not really "created" any more than darkness or cold are "created".

As we grow in Christ, we learn that God only wants "good" that God only IS "good" even if that goodness is not always perceptable to us in the world around us. We learn to trust God, and to realize that even when things seem bad to our perception, that ALL THINGS work for good for those who follow the Lord (Romans 8:28) and we learn to see the good, even in the bad, it becomes a matter of degree.

Does that make sense?

Herman the thermodynamic Pooh


Wonderfully said, Herman. Among the most vivid illustrations of the providential use of evil in the history of God's people can be found in the story of Joseph, who is sold into slavery and ends up in a position to feed those who sold him: "You thought evil against me: but God turned it into good that he might exalt me, as at present you see, and might save many people."

From St. Ambrose's "De Officiis":

"Suppose that things come which are accounted terrible as regards the grief they cause, such as blindness, exile, hunger, violation of a daughter, loss of children. Who will deny that Isaac was blessed, who did not see in his old age, and yet gave blessings with his benediction? Was not Jacob blessed who, leaving his father's house, endured exile as a shepherd for pay, and mourned for the violated chastity of his daughter, and suffered hunger? Were they not blessed on whose good faith God received witnesss, as it is written: The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? A wretched thing is slavery, but Joseph was not wretched; nay, clearly he was blessed, when he while in slavery checked the lust of his mistress. What shall I say of holy David who bewailed the death of three sons, and, what was even worse than this, his daughter's incestuous connection? How could he be unblessed from whom the Author of blessedness Himself sprung, Who has made many blessed? For: Blessed are they who have not seen yet have believed. All these felt their own weakness, but they bravely prevailed over it. What can we think of as more wretched than Job, either in the burning of his house, or the instantaneous death of his ten sons, or his bodily pains? Was he less blessed than if he had not endured those things whereby he really showed himself approved?"

Then, of course, there's the cross. An instrument of humiliation and death becomes the trophy of the conquest of all that afflicts us. It's not pretty, but it works.

In Christ,
Evan

[Antonio Arganda]

Evil is not "a thing" but rather the absence of good . To accuse God of creating something that does not even have existence is Evil itself. We should be careful of what we accuse God of. We run the risk of committing blasphemy . Evil is a void therefore we asked to be delivered from it.

[Ioan]

Well, couldn't we accuse God of the absence of good? Isn't good His responsibility? And really, this "evil is the absence of good" can only go so far. In practical terms, evil is something, or rather someone (with evil behavior); it may not have substance in and of itself, but it sure is degenerating the gifts that were received from God (talking about demons). To give another example, Judas was not really "the absence of good"...he was a presence quantifiable by history. He was an evil man, and he was quite present and even led to the very real (not absent) Crucifixion of Christ.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Why do we need to accuse God of anything? What is God "guilty" of? "Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest." (Psalm 50:4)

Darkness can seem like a thing, it can almost seem to have a "life" of its own. When I stub my toe because of what I did not see in the dark, it can be said to be the "cause" of my pain, in a sense. So is darkness a thing? By no means! Even actions that appear "good" can be bad, goodness can be "removed" if they are done for the wrong reasons. The worship of the pharisee was "drained" of its "good" because he used it as an opportunity to boast and justify himself.

Judas indeed cast a dark shadow by his actions, and indeed played his part in the crucifixion of our Lord, but through that Crucifixion and subsequent Resurrection, the Greatest Good was accomplished. Just as adding heat melts ice, God's goodness overcomes evil. The Cross in and of itself is an evil instrument of torture and death, but when good was added to it, it became a source of power and strength. We rob evil of its power by filling the void with God's goodness.

O Lord, save your people and bless your inheritance. Grant victory to Orthodox Christians over their adversaries, and by the power of Your Cross, preserve your habitation! (Troparion to the Cross).

Herman

[Ioan]

Why do we need to accuse God of anything? What is God "guilty" of? "Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest." (Psalm 50:4)

Darkness can seem like a thing, it can almost seem to have a "life" of its own. When I stub my toe because of what I did not see in the dark, it can be said to be the "cause" of my pain, in a sense. So is darkness a thing? By no means! Even actions that appear "good" can be bad, goodness can be "removed" if they are done for the wrong reasons. The worship of the pharisee was "drained" of its "good" because he used it as an opportunity to boast and justify himself.

Judas indeed cast a dark shadow by his actions, and indeed played his part in the crucifixion of our Lord, but through that Crucifixion and subsequent Resurrection, the Greatest Good was accomplished. Just as adding heat melts ice, God's goodness overcomes evil. The Cross in and of itself is an evil instrument of torture and death, but when good was added to it, it became a source of power and strength. We rob evil of its power by filling the void with God's goodness.

O Lord, save your people and bless your inheritance. Grant victory to Orthodox Christians over their adversaries, and by the power of Your Cross, preserve your habitation! (Troparion to the Cross).

Herman

I agree with you, and I didn't mean to counteract what was said (rather to augment). As I mentioned in a previous post, 'one may say that evil is the absence of God's Grace'.
Basically, I just mean to point out that "evil is the absence of good" can get too philosophical(abstract) sometimes.

[Mick Curran]

I'm not sure that I understand what you mean. In the case of moral evil i.e. sin would you be comfortable with a statement along the lines that God "allows" or "permits" sin?Sorry, for jumping in. I am not sure I understand your question, as my understanding is indeed that God permits or allows sin, but somehow you seem to think that it doesn't seem right? It's probably important to understand why God allows sin, and that He allows it with a purpose according to His will, not the sinners will. In other words, Satan does not get to do what he really wants, but what God allows him in order to fulfill His Divine purpose. In case of humans, we certainly don't chose what temptations come our way, but God does according to His plan. I believe that "why does God allow us to be tempted" could be a different topic, and I do know that the Holy Fathers have spoken about it clearly. My own understanding in a nutshell is that for those who love God, temptations are a means to purify and perfect them, as for the wicked temptations are basically a platform that fulfills their evil will, and sadly leads to greater torments in the Age to Come. To go further, God is basically using satan as a tool to perfect the righteous. Sin is permitted in this age, but it is also punished -- some people are punished temporarily in this life, while others eternally. As you see, sin is permitted, but the cost could potentially be absolutely horrific. Does God sound like a fool who permits sin anymore?? Though, I don't want to end the post on such a note. The main reason God allows sin I believe is precisely His love and Mercy for us, as He'd rather let us fall and repent and learn from it, than not allow us to be born, or take away our free-will. We all know that God does not want the world to perish, but to be saved, so sin being permitted is an act of Mercy, which requires a response (repentance) from us.

Herman Blaydoe suggested in Post #46 that God does not allow evil but that He allows the absence of good so I’m trying to understand what that means.

[Mick Curran]

Not sure what you mean by "moral evil" as opposed to just plain old "evil". And it seems worth mentioning that "evil" is often a perceived thing, just like light and heat can be percieved differently. What appears "evil" to one may not seem so to another. Mercy to the wolf is cruelty to the sheep.

To try to put things in simple terms (I like simple): God allows the removal of light which leaves darkness. God allows us to do things without good intent (evil/sin), but even then He is often able to accomplish Good through it. God shines the light but we are still able to cast a "shadow" and block all or some of it, and God apparently allows us to do so. But sometimes He will even use our shadow to His purposes when He so desires.

But evil is not "created" although it might seem like it. Darkness is not "created". You cannot add darkness you can only block or remove the light. You make something colder, not by adding cold, but by removing heat. Once you remove all the "good", you cannot make something more "evil", thus "evil" is not really "created" any more than darkness or cold are "created".

As we grow in Christ, we learn that God only wants "good" that God only IS "good" even if that goodness is not always perceptable to us in the world around us. We learn to trust God, and to realize that even when things seem bad to our perception, that ALL THINGS work for good for those who follow the Lord (Romans 8:28) and we learn to see the good, even in the bad, it becomes a matter of degree.

Does that make sense?

Herman the thermodynamic Pooh

Yes, it makes sense. Thanks for taking the time to enlarge. I’m using the term “moral evil” because I drew a distinction between “moral evil and “natural evil” in Post #40. As humans perceive these two different types of evil I suggested an overarching definition of evil along the lines that “evil is the wrong relationship between good things.” Moral evil fits easily with this concept. If people stop sinning then moral evil is no more. And in the case of natural evil one might suggest that cancer (for example) is a noble growth (after all, it’s God that makes things grow) but that the growth is in the wrong place. Nevertheless, God sometimes allows such a state of affairs to exist. I think most analogies concerning the relationship between good and evil break down eventually but one that I’ve heard used to reasonable effect is that of rust on metal. The rust does have material substance i.e. it is a thing yet it cannot exist without the metal so it cannot be said to have an existence of its own. As to why God allows evil or permits the absence of good, I suggest that nobody really knows. Would you be prepared to agree with me on that? It’s probably true, it’s certainly a simple answer and you did say you liked simple. :)

[Herman Blaydoe]

Rust is still metal, oxidized metal. Ferrous oxide is still iron. A chemical change is not the same thing as adding or removing heat or light.

On the contrary, I would argue that there is no such thing as "natural evil" as opposed to "moral evil", any more than there is a difference between natural cold and manufactured cold. Cold is cold. Evil is evil. Perhaps evil means something different than "bad". Just because something that you consider "bad" happens, that does not necessarily mean it is "evil". What is bad to the sheep is good to the wolf. Things that go "wrong", that is, are diverted from their actual purpose, made into something other than what God intended, THAT is evil. Thus cancer is evil because what God intended to be healthy "growth" has become twisted, deformed, out of control.

When we "miss the mark", when we do not achieve God's purpose for us or work at cross-purposes to God's purpose, "good" is blocked, and evil results.

Or so it seems to this bear of little brain.

Herman the "bees are good when they make hunny but evil when they sting me" Pooh

[Mick Curran]

Rust is still metal, oxidized metal. Ferrous oxide is still iron. A chemical change is not the same thing as adding or removing heat or light.

On the contrary, I would argue that there is no such thing as "natural evil" as opposed to "moral evil", any more than there is a difference between natural cold and manufactured cold. Cold is cold. Evil is evil. Perhaps evil means something different than "bad". Just because something that you consider "bad" happens, that does not necessarily mean it is "evil". What is bad to the sheep is good to the wolf. Things that go "wrong", that is, are diverted from their actual purpose, made into something other than what God intended, THAT is evil. Thus cancer is evil because what God intended to be healthy "growth" has become twisted, deformed, out of control.

When we "miss the mark", when we do not achieve God's purpose for us or work at cross-purposes to God's purpose, "good" is blocked, and evil results.

Or so it seems to this bear of little brain.

Herman the "bees are good when they make hunny but evil when they sting me" Pooh

Thank you for your thoughtful insights. You appear to have made more progress with this question than I have.

[Ioan]

Rust is still metal, oxidized metal. Ferrous oxide is still iron. A chemical change is not the same thing as adding or removing heat or light.

On the contrary, I would argue that there is no such thing as "natural evil" as opposed to "moral evil", any more than there is a difference between natural cold and manufactured cold. Cold is cold. Evil is evil. Perhaps evil means something different than "bad". Just because something that you consider "bad" happens, that does not necessarily mean it is "evil". What is bad to the sheep is good to the wolf. Things that go "wrong", that is, are diverted from their actual purpose, made into something other than what God intended, THAT is evil. Thus cancer is evil because what God intended to be healthy "growth" has become twisted, deformed, out of control.

When we "miss the mark", when we do not achieve God's purpose for us or work at cross-purposes to God's purpose, "good" is blocked, and evil results.

Or so it seems to this bear of little brain.

Herman the "bees are good when they make hunny but evil when they sting me" Pooh

I believe Herman has made a great point! In God's absolute plan, evil does indeed have a place, whatever we may define evil to be; though I would define it to be what a person does in the absence of God's Grace, ie. in the absence of good, since all good originates with God. So, in other words, God allows evil, but is that also truly bad? Of course not, because God would never allow something, if allowing it would have a negative impact. So, God allowing evil is good, if we understand that God allows evil within certain parameters. God would never allow evil, if He wasn't planning to bring something good out of it.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Maybe it's also helpful to see that evil is a distortion of what is good. As one of the Fathers said, evil can never take place entirely without the presence of the good, since God's creation itself is good. ie the fact that anything even exists is a testimony that it is good.

So then evil is impossible without the existence of what is good, but is a distortion by free will of its underlying nature.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Mick Curran]

Maybe it's also helpful to see that evil is a distortion of what is good. As one of the Fathers said, evil can never take place entirely without the presence of the good, since God's creation itself is good. ie the fact that anything even exists is a testimony that it is good.

So then evil is impossible without the existence of what is good, but is a distortion by free will of its underlying nature.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

I agree that maybe it's helpful to see evil as a distortion of what is good. The rust on metal idea could be useful here but I don't think Herman liked that analogy very much.

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear all,

This is a thread with an enduring theme. Yesterday I came across the passage 1 Samuel 16:14-15. Can someone explain how an evil spirit can be 'from the Lord'?

In Christ
Byron

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Hello Byron!

I think this means that this spirit was created by the Lord with free will.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Fr Raphael,

Thanks for this brief and succinct response! It's surprisingly easy to forget that God created everything, but also gave his rational beings (evil spirits included) free will.

That the evil spirit is from the Lord, suggests to me that God gave it permission to exercise its free, evil will in the context; that He did so in full knowledge of the use He would then put this demon's mischief to, as it were...but if that is so, isn't it a round-about way of doing things? He could have just sent a (good) angel to Saul to tell him about David, couldn't He?

Happy new year!

In Christ
Byron

[Jan Sunqvist]

I wanted to post a new thread but couldn't...

How do the Fathers understand the spirit. I don't necessarily mean the Holy Spirit, but spirit, in reference to the previously mentioned evil spirits.
I understand the spirit relates to breath. (God breathed into Adam's nostrils the breath of life). So that is human spirit? How does it relate to his soul?
If angelic and demonic beings are spiritual beings (spirit beings), with free will, how else does their spirit differ from a spirit of an animal or a plant, afterall every living creation breathes... Or is spirit considered much more universal but manifests differently?

I am confused... In other words, how does it occur that a spirit which originates from God, becomes evil?

[Antonios]

Can someone explain how an evil spirit can be 'from the Lord'?


Hello Byron! Happy New Year to you as well!

Father Raphael's reply was the best reply if one wants to know the final answer, and I thank him for it. The how is much more complicated to express, so forgive my incompleteness and errors!

We know that in the time long before the Logos of God became Incarnate and revealed to mankind the Father, the understandings of men were much more limited. The Teacher had yet to arrive.

If you look at this verse:

Now the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD terrorized him.
1 Samuel 16:14-15

It first says that the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul. What does that mean? And if the Spirit of the Lord left him, what kind of spirit is this which is then mentioned? It is said to be evil, and if so, how is it evil and by who's standards? Evil to Saul or evil to God?

Perhaps this evil spirit seemed evil to Saul but was the medicine he needed, good in every way?

This is not clear in the verse above, though we do know by it the annointed David is revealed to Saul.

On the other hand...

If in fact it is evil then it is not according to the will of God but to the will of someone or something evil. There is no evil in God and He makes no evil. Thus, this mention in the Old Testament of an 'evil spirit from God' would mischaracterize God because of a misunderstanding on the nature of demons, which is understandable as much had yet to be revealed.

Which is the case, I don't know. I guess both may be a factor.

But, in the end, it comes down to the gift of free will which can allow anything other than the will of God to 'exist'.

[Michael Stickles]

Just a note that Jan's post above has been copied to its own thread, "How do the Fathers understand the spirit?" (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?7920-How-do-the-Fathers-understand-the-spirit), since its scope is significantly broader than the topic of this thread. However, since it is still quite relevant to this thread, a copy has been left here as well.

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Antonios, Jan, all,

Thank you for your thoughts on this issue. The Old Testament is full of riddles, especially for those who like myself may have a need for rational understanding. Last night I was reading to my daughters the story of Joseph; my eldest girl pointed out that it was wrong of Jacob to favour one of his sons above the others. I agreed with her, and added that there's much in the Bible it takes a lot of thought and years to understand. But the only thing I can come up with myself, is that perhaps Joseph being favoured is in some way a type of Jesus, the Son in Whom God is well pleased. How Joseph's brothers should have been able to see this in the era before Christ - I have no idea. I guess they were called on to be humble and to unconditionally accept their father's special delight in Joseph - a challenge which they didn't handle very well (!), with the exception of Reuben. Our copy of the children's bible does suggest that Jacob favoured Joseph because he had a good soul, which I guess implies the brothers didn't, as their later behaviour demonstrates.

Why am I bringing this up? Just to express my disappointment at the fact that many of the thorny questions that turn up while reading the OT do not seem to be addressed in my copy of the 'Orthodox Study Bible'. Moan!

As for evil spirits from God, yes I do find Fr Raphael's response to be the 'bottom line'. I don't have difficulty imagining that evil spirits are 'from' God now, in the same way that I don't doubt that calamities and sufferings are 'sent' by Him: what He permits in His infinite wisdom, and what He actively desires for our lives are two different things. On the other hand, if the 'permits' is taken too far, it may seem as if the all-good God has a bunch of evil thugs working for Him (whereas it's more a case of damage limitation, or making good use of evil events as only God can, if I understand it correctly).

The puzzle continues...

In Christ
Byron

[Ivan Miletic]

This is a bit late in the thread but it's on topic. Regarding translations, Bibleworks 8 has the following. The LXA is a Septuagint translation.

RSV Isaiah 45:7 I form light and create darkness, I make weal and create woe, I am the LORD, who do all these things.

NKJ Isaiah 45:7 I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create calamity; I, the LORD, do all these things.'

LXA Isaiah 45:7 I am he that prepared light, and formed darkness; who make peace, and create evil; I am the Lord God, that does all these things.