Origin of Evil

The question, of course, is why.

 

Haven't done a thorough study of the passage in question - however this would in essence make God the author of sin if "evil" is understood in the traditional sense. I believe most commentators are not willing to go that far and instead equate this "evil" with punishment of wrongdoers or disaster in general.

We might call Satan "evil" in describing his nature and equate that with innate sinfulness. God did not create "evil" in this sense of the word according to this verse IMO.

 

Also, notice the "evil" is juxtaposed with "peace" to give us a sense of the correct understanding of the word. We have light and dark - opposites. Then we have peace and evil. I assume also are opposites. Notice it is not righteousness and evil, or good and evil - it is peace and evil. The HSCB uses "success" and "disaster" to help us gain a sense of the passage. This does not speak to the original of "evil" in our world in terms of sin. Hope I did not jump the gun on the other thread. I assume it was discussing the origin of evil in terms of sin.

 

God is not the author of evil, but is sovereign. Whatever happens, happens only with His permisssion, whether peace or calamity. He is the Almighty God, and there is none else.

 

The literal translation of the Hebrew word is "evil" but the context demand a further clarification (compare Ps 65:7; Am 3:6).

This passage compares opposites, as “light and darkness”. The opposite of peace would be war or disaster.

The NAS translates Isaiah 45:7 more clearly;

Of course as children of God we have His assurance that "all things are for good" even in the midst of disaster.

Rob

 

God wanted a creation (at least a large part of it) that would choose, or choose not, to serve Him and love Him. For His pleasure and for the pleasure of His Son. You can love somebody if you are capable of nothing else but what does it really mean? Like you said earlier, Phillip, it means you're only doing what you're programmed to do. Without the freedom to love or not to love, love has no real depth or meaning.

Because of that, God was pleased to create the POTENTIAL for evil, knowing in advance what would happen and exactly WHO would be the author, originator, and father of evil. He was willing to go into long-term battle, which he could have easily avoided, for the eternal fruit of having creatures who were tested by the knowledge of good and evil, yet chose to love HIM.

Hallelujah.

 

I'm pleased that you approve, Phillip. God Bless.

 

Perhaps we need to redefine evil (sin). In Genesis God creates light. He then divides the light from the darkness. Notice that the passage never says God created darkness. Darkness was merely the absence of light.

Perhaps evil (sin) is merely the absence of the obedience that God commands. As soon as God demanded obedience on the part of any of His creation, disobedience became a possibility. I do not believe that this means that God created the "potential" for sin, although the result is the same. The potential for sin came about because a holy God demands holiness from His creation which He pronounced "very good". Is this way off base or are IveyLeaguer and I really saying the same thing?

 

If evil was not decreed by God would he not cease to be God?

He is not responsible in a ethical or legal sense for the evil that is, but on some level has decreed that it would be so, perhaps to contrast his lack of it?

Many of God's positive attributes are revealed by things that are not consistent with his character. The Fall of man clearly was part of God's overall plan to reveal the characteristics of his Mercy and Grace, without sin, we would have no need of these attributes, nor would we recognize them.

The balance seen in God's creation would seem to indicate that there is a sense in which he would desire to have his attributes juxtaposed against opposite qualities exhibited by interestingly enough, his creation.

"Hard to see the dark side is" -Yoda

 

Very interesting thought, Dave.

Not sure about that one. Without sin, God would still be transcendent and imminent to His creation, upholding it by the power of His might, and all His creatures would still be totally dependent upon His attributes. In fact, what would we have other than some small measure of His attributes?

Which triggers another question. What will we have in eternity future, other than some small measure of the attributes of God? "For we shall be like Him ... for we shall see Him as He is".

 

If you look at my original quote, I was specifically referring to God's mercy and grace. I agree that many of God's attributes are clearly seen in nature, and in the image of God that is present in us, but if we merited God's favor by living without sin would we need his Grace? and would we be able to recognize it as an attribute?

I do agree that many of God's attributes are evident and clearly we are totally dependent on them, I am specifically referring to the two attributes that are most clearly needed and demonstrated by the way God has dealt with man's sin.

 

KeithS saiderhaps we need to redefine evil (sin)...Perhaps evil (sin) is merely the absence of the obedience that God commands


Brother Joe: Keith, the Bible defines sin as. "sin is the transgression of the law." (1 John 3:4)

 

God ordained that evil would happen, without being the one who actually did evil.