So long as God has good reasons He can create evil. Just as God âcreatesâ darkness by removing the light, God âcreatesâ evil by removing His grace. For God is light; in him there is no darkness at all.
The Hebrew word translated by the KJV writers as âevilâ in Isaiah 45:7 is âraâ, and from textual evidence, it is clear that in the Bible this word does mean evil in a moral sense. Here are some of the other contexts in which it is used:
In Genesis 2:17, God instructs Adam and Eve not to eat from âthe tree of good and raâ. The tree of good and disaster? The tree of good and calamity? Clearly not: it is the tree of good and evil.
In Genesis 6:5, God resolves to destroy humankind in the great flood because âthe wickedness (ra) of man was great in the earthâ.
In Genesis 13:13, the men of Sodom were âwicked (ra) and sinners before the Lord exceedinglyâ.
In Deuteronomy 1:35, a furious God threatens the Israelites, âSurely there shall not one of these men of this evil (ra) generation see that good land, which I sware to give unto your fathers.â
In Judges 2:11, âthe children of Israel did evil (ra) in the sight of the Lord, and served Baalimâ.
In 1 Kings 16:30, the wicked king Ahab (husband of the infamous Jezebel) âdid evil (ra) in the sight of the Lord above all that were before himâ.
These and many other references make it clear that the primary meaning of ra is indeed evil in the sense of wickedness or sin.
Michael, I wonder if any disagreement with you is based on semantics. That is, it seems the expression âfree willâ means to you something quite different from what it means to me. You indicated that people who believe in free will say that we make our choices from a strictly neutral position. The fact is that I do not say that; indeed I know of no one who says that.
I think in previous posts, I have defined free will as I believe in it. Maybe that definition was too philosophical, and so Iâll try to put it in every-day terms:
I made a choice to go to a Bible study last night. I agree with you that there were reasons for this choice. However, it is my belief that I COULD HAVE CHOSEN not to go to that Bible study. Because I COULD HAVE CHOSEN, not to go, I claim to have free will. What do you think? Could I have chosen not to go? Or was my âchoiceâ determined by prior causes?
The only way you could have chosen not to go is if you had some prior inclination, desire, or reason. If our choices are made for no reason then they become arbitrary and morally insignificant.
If that is the case, then every thing we do has been determined by prior causes. All rapists, murders, and torturersâall criminals could not have chosen to do other than what they have in fact done. All who have taken advantage of others could not have done otherwise. So what sense does it make to hold them responsible for their actions? How can God hold anyone responsible? Why should anyone be punished? No one could have done otherwise anyway. Their actions would be not only âmorally insignificantâ, but morality would be non-existent. All actions would be amoral.
They do what they want to do and this makes them responsible. All humans are responsible agents in the sense that they make their own decisions about what they will do, choosing as they please according to their desires and thoughts They act according to their own wills. Motives count too. Not just the choice.
Hi Michael,
Enjoyed your post. A few questions. If humans have no free will in the libertarian sense, what does this do to our notions of punishment? Do words like justice, responsibility, blame lose meaning and ought we to move towards more âfunctionalâ thoughts regarding how we view human acts and their consequences than âvirtuousâ thoughts? Also, does not having free will - that is, not having the ability to actually do anything ourselves - run the risk of resulting in a functional pantheism? For instance, in what sense are âmy actsâ distinguished from Godâs will if I have no will of my own; in what sense am I âmeâ or possessive of any identity, if everything whatsoever is really in the end only an extension of Godâs will? If I were to hold a childâs hand and make him draw a picture, in what way is the picture properly the result of the child? Further, in what way can something be claimed about the picture in regard to the child (i.e. it is a good or bad picture) while simultaneously not being claimed about the picture in regard to my hand? In other words, how can someone say that âthe child drew a bad pictureâ and yet not say anything about me, the person who controlled the childâs hand at all times? (You may say that there is a bad âintentionalityâ in the child. This may be true, but the intentionality itself would fall into one of the very things determined by God.)
This leads to the most important question I have. I am wondering where - metaphysically speaking - evil comes from if not from the free will of man. You say that âin God there is no darkness at allâ, yet he creates evil. How can this be? If he is the sole author of all that is, and if evil is, how does it not follow to say he is the author of evil? At this point you may want to say that God âusesâ evil to bring about goods otherwise impossible. But if thatâs the case, doesnât this make God somehow âdependentâ on evilâs existence in order to satisfy his own demands in creation? How can an all-good, all-powerful being make a âproductâ containing evil? Where, in other words, does the evil come from? If he makes a world exactly how he wishes, like an artist painting a picture, in order to please himself most, does this not mean that Godâs will in some way requires there to be evil in order to be maximally fulfilled? And how is this any different from saying Godâs wills evil to be? To put it again, if, from a metaphysical standpoint, in Godâs mind and will there is a need for evil, would this not make him not all good?
Iâve changed my views. I have been testing and changing with my beliefs. I will soon become Catholic at the church Iâve been attending for the last year. I believe in human responsibility yet God is in control. Itâs a paradox. God doesnât cause evil He permits it for morally justifiable reasons.
Why would this make them responsible if what they want to do has been predetermined? They couldnât have wanted to do otherwise.
That photo of you Paidon has to be from the 70âs with that jacket and lapels. how old were you then? 
In Genesis 2:17, God instructs Adam and Eve not to eat from âthe tree of good and raâ. The tree of good and disaster? The tree of good and calamity? Clearly not: it is the tree of good and evil.
Itâs interesting that good and evil are in the same tree, God could have put them in separate trees and placed the tree of evil in a far off corner of the garden.
It seems to know one you have to know the other.
It wasnât a tree of good and evil. It was a tree of KNOWLEDGE of good and evil. When one ate from it, he was able to KNOW good and evil, and to distinguish good from evilâwhich in itself is not a bad thing.
But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil. (Heb 5:14)
But as I see it, God wanted Adam and Eve to mature before eating from this tree, and so He forbade eating from it until then.
I had not thought of it in that light, Paidion!! My first thought was: this clears up a lot of speculation. Iâll have to think about it more, but thanks for that great thought-starter.
Pretty good judge of the decade! Around 1978. I was 40.
It wasnât a tree of good and evil. It was a tree of KNOWLEDGE of good and evil. When one ate from it, he was able to KNOW good and evil, and to distinguish good from evilâwhich in itself is not a bad thing.
But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil. (Heb 5:14)
But as I see it, God wanted Adam and Eve to mature before eating from this tree, and so He forbade eating from it until then.
God wanted them to mature first? If so why didnât He put the âknowledge of evilâ in a separate tree and in a remote location? I think God knew what Eve would do certainly with at least a 99% probability yet he âallowedâ it. The reason is we learn by contrast so to learn good it must be contrasted with evil IMO. But knowledge is not just an intellectual exercise, itâs also experiencing it.
"why didnât He put the âknowledge of evilâ in a separate tree and in a remote location? "
I think the only significance of the location - and I may be wrong about this - is that God put the tree âin the midstâ of the garden, but Eve described it as being âin the middleâ of the garden. It had so focused her attention that, to her, it was the middle of everything.
And letâs not forget that the garden was full of other fruit trees. Itâs not that this one tree was necessarily the most luscious and tantalizing of all, and in a privileged spot in the garden, and overshadowed all the others. I think the tree of life might have held that distinction.
It was not the tree - it could have been any tree, at any place in the garden - it was the commandment, that was meant to stimulate trusting and loving obedience - that made the TOKGE take on its importance to Eve, under the influence of the snake.
I still maintain that God did NOT intend for evil, in order to bring a greater good. Now that evil is a reality, He will bring about a greater good, but it took the cross to accomplish that.
edit: I checked out the word for âmidstâ and âmiddleâ and I was wrong - the word looks to be the same word, just translated differently in the two locations. Though I think the emphasis I was making is probably correct.
edit: the septuagint reads âmidstâ and then Eveâs âmiddleâ. Now Iâm wondering if the TOKGE WAS in the middle - the septuagint and some other translations say the tree of Life was in the midst; not the TOKGE.
Any thoughts on that?
The septuagint translation, notice it only states that the tree of life is in the midst.
What? You would have the mature person able to recognize good but not evil? And therefore unable to distinguish good from evil? Surely such a person would be unable to be victorious over evil since he wouldnât recognize it when he encountered it.
I quote once again:
But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil. (Heb 5:14)
Again I suggest that when they were mature, and had eaten from the tree of life, they would be ready to eat of this tree so that they could distinguish good from evil. Possessing this ability before they were mature was dangerous both to themselves and the world. It resulted in death.
Again I suggest that when they were mature, and had eaten from the tree of life, they would be ready to eat of this tree so that they could distinguish good from evil. Possessing this ability before they were mature was dangerous both to themselves and the world. It resulted in death.
Yet thatâs exactly what happened and so God supposedly knowing they needed to mature first simply allowed Satan to persuade Eve? Satan the Master Deceiver in the universe verses Eve who was innocent and immature with no experience or knowledge of evil. God just allowed it although He didnât really want it?
Why? To satisfy Satanâs free will? I think Eve had no ability to resist Satan therefore if God was satisfying Satanâs free will He would be violating Eveâs free will IMO.
I think part of maturation is learning good from evil and until they (Adam and Eve) actually experienced both together they would not mature. Thatâs why God either allowed or caused what happened.
The problem with that, Steve, as I see it is - experiencing evil is not just a âblotâ on the character of Adam and Eve - it is a radical change of that character - they are now âfallenâ, not âjustâ guilty of a sin. He that commits sin is a slave to sin.
I cannot believe that God would create âgoodâ human beings, with the intention of them becoming ruined human beings, who ushered in a ruined human race.