PDA

View Full Version : Good and Evil



gregoryfl
11-07-2008, 06:58 AM
Is evil really the opposite of good? Is evil something that is separate from good? If so, then how can it be true that "From [God] are all things", as the scripture says? Does that mean that evil is within God, part of his very nature? A simple piece of paper will serve, I hope, to illustrate what evil is, and how it can indeed come from God yet not be a part of his nature.

With paper in hand, the first thing we need to do is redefine what God means when he thinks of something as good or evil. The Hebrew people thought in terms of concrete things that you could taste, see, smell, touch, or hear. The Hebrew language used sense oriented words. However, words such as good and evil are abstract things; they are thought oriented words.

What is the concrete meaning of good and evil? To the Hebrew, and to God, something good was functional, and something evil was something dysfunctional. In other words, it either could be used as intended, or it could not.

Now, let us go back to that paper. If it is fresh in our hands, and ready to write on, we could say that the paper was good. In other words, it is functional, because it is intended to be written upon and we can do so. However, if we wanted to make that paper dysfunctional, what would we have to do? That's right. Simply crumple it up in a ball in your hands. Now you have a dysfunctional, or we could also say, evil, piece of paper.

This answers the questions at the beginning of this blog. The paper that is good and evil is the same paper. The paper started out good, and then it was made evil by crumpling. Thus, they are not opposites, but the same, just different forms of the same.

You see, when we think of evil in most cultures today, we tend to associate it with wickedness, with sin. Scripturally that cannot be true, for if it were, then you would have to say that God was wicked, and that God sinned. While evil can express itself in wickedness and sin, in and of itself, evil is merely the distortion of good. To crumple the paper is to distort it.

Remember I also asked how could anything evil come from God, since all things come from him? What comes from God is only good, nothing starts out evil from him. Yet, under his sovereign control, he can choose to "crumple" the good when it reaches us and thus it appears as an evil, as something dysfunctional, from God to us.

An example can be found in Job. We know that God wanted to test Job. That was something good that originated from his very being. Yet, in keeping with the paper illustration, God crumpled that good, using Satan to inflict evil on Job, and yet, Job rightly said that evil came from God himself. God also used his friends to further bring evil on Job in the form of accusations. Job was thus tested and God used it to reveal himself further to Job than he already knew. In the end, good was restored and revealed to Job.

Now, let me speak a bit on the purpose of the test, and how that relates to why God bothers to bring evil on man in those ways.

Why does a magician do magic? What does he want you, the audience, to think about him? Yes, he wants you to think something like, "Wow, he is so amazing! How did he do that?" He wants to direct attention to himself, to be in awe of him and what he can do. Of course, this is selfish.

However, consider that God, like that magician, takes that piece of paper, crumples it up, or maybe even cuts it up, so that it is totally dysfunctional, or evil. He is not going to leave it that way, of course, or that would not be a very good show. He turns around, waves his hand, and restores the paper to its original condition! It is now functional again. He has truly turns evil into good. Why? So that "every knee may bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." In this case, God's selfishness means our very life. For it is only when we acknowledge him and commune with him, giving him the praise that he is due, that we truly live and experience all that is good and functional.

Truly out of him, and through him, and back to him, are all things. Life is a cycle. That is how God works. All things out of him are good, some remain good, some he crumples into evil for his good purpose. When that purpose is completed, he restores it to good, and in that condition it returns back to him.

Bob May
11-07-2008, 02:43 PM
Hi Ron,
You wrote quite a bit today and your posts seem to intertwine in a way. They got me thinking.

Good and evil
"With paper in hand, the first thing we need to do is redefine what God means when he thinks of something as good or evil. The Hebrew people thought in terms of concrete things that you could taste, see, smell, touch, or hear. The Hebrew language used sense oriented words. However, words such as good and evil are abstract things; they are thought oriented words.

What is the concrete meaning of good and evil? To the Hebrew, and to God, something good was functional, and something evil was something dysfunctional. In other words, it either could be used as intended, or it could not.

Now, let us go back to that paper. If it is fresh in our hands, and ready to write on, we could say that the paper was good. In other words, it is functional, because it is intended to be written upon and we can do so. However, if we wanted to make that paper dysfunctional, what would we have to do? That's right. Simply crumple it up in a ball in your hands. Now you have a dysfunctional, or we could also say, evil, piece of paper."

Instead of God crumpling that piece of paper, thereby making it dysfunctional, what if we look at it as we have written on the paper, thereby making it just as dysfuntional? God allowing Satan (who uses Jobs friends and the Thoughts of Job himself) to caste doubt upon what is written. Is it true? is it not true? God using Elihu brings Job to the final realization that the paper had the wrong information on it. It was incomplete and flawed.
Then from Job's point of view at the beginning of his experience is that God is doing evil to him and he knows not why.
But at the end of his experience he has a different point of view. He is not only restored to his former state, he has twice as much as before.
He now sees that God meant it for good.


Either/or
"The man was walking along the road that wound its way up a mountain. He was struck by a car coming around the corner and hurled from the cliff to the rocks below. The first paper reported what the witnesses on the cliff saw, which was the man getting hit by a car and dieing. The second paper reported what the witnesses on the ground below saw; a man hurled from a cliff and striking the rocks below and dieing. Yes, both were correct and factual. Yet both were coming from different vantage points."

I think this relates to your post on Israel:

"One thing I have always wondered is, with regard to the understanding those have that all of this was accomplished by around 70 CE, is this:

If by that date, all Israel has been saved, how does that play out with those who come to salvation after that date? And furthermore, does it go on forever, people being born and becoming joined to the tree, or does it truly ever come to a complete end, where no more are added? If the fullness of the Gentiles has come in by 70 CE, then where does that leave us, who live after that date?

I have some thoughts on it, but wanted to hear from those who have studied it far more than I.

Ron"

As in the above story of Job there is the idea of God's foreknowledge and vantage point in these two subjects.

In your example of the guy being killed, the bottom line is he is dead. It does not matter how he got dead.
In the same way it doesn't matter how we got alive. Meaning were we born of the Jewish race/culture or of some Gentile origin?

When Paul was Saul he read the covenant with Abraham as a promise to his people. Israel was an ethnic group and a culture to him and he was born into it. Later when he was Paul, he reread the covenat and realized that you have to be Reborn into that same covenant.
The Covenant was not changed at all. Neither was the wording. And yet because Paul's "vantage point" had changed it carried a completely different meaning. Same thing goes for the covenant of Circumcision.
God's intent had not changed and God knew we all would read it one way with the carnal mind and another with the help of the Spirit.
I don't worry so much about Israel "after the flesh". God says he will take care of that. Bottom line again is that we are alive and so will they be as they come to life and a different vantage point. (As many as will of course, just like the Gentiles) Then all of Israel (the real Israel) will be saved.

God had to pick a "chosen people", someone to keep the "oracles of God" intact, letter for letter. They were to be stewards of the prophecies and the physical people into whom the Word would be born. The Jews did a good job with keeping the Scriptures intact.
If he had chosen the Irish or Greeks they may have done just as well in some areas and messed up in others just like the Jews. I don't know that for sure, of course.
But the important thing is that those who are to be saved (all of Israel) will be. And we don't get high minded because many Jews don't "get it" yet.

"The Hebrew people thought in terms of concrete things that you could taste, see, smell, touch, or hear. The Hebrew language used sense oriented words. However, words such as good and evil are abstract things; they are thought oriented words."

Good observation and true. Even their letters are nouns, (Zain= sword, Beth= house, Tzadi= fishhook, etc.) and even partially pictoral/heroglyphic as they look like what they represent.
But that is like us as human beings. First that which is carnal, then that which is spiritual. We have to grow into abstract thinking ie. what do House, fish hook, sword, and hand imply?
Same with Israel "after the flesh" and "after the Spirit."
Same with the first 9 commandments and then "Thou shalt not covet" going from action to thought.
We move into the abstract as we see that it is the important side of things. As we begin to recognise and understand the invisible side of things. It is very similar to growing from childhood to adulthood.

It's all working out as God knew it would from the beginning. It is our perspective/vantage point that has to change to accept this.

Good thought provoking posts.

Bob

gregoryfl
11-07-2008, 06:13 PM
Instead of God crumpling that piece of paper, thereby making it dysfunctional, what if we look at it as we have written on the paper, thereby making it just as dysfuntional? God allowing Satan (who uses Jobs friends and the Thoughts of Job himself) to caste doubt upon what is written. Is it true? is it not true? God using Elihu brings Job to the final realization that the paper had the wrong information on it. It was incomplete and flawed.
Then from Job's point of view at the beginning of his experience is that God is doing evil to him and he knows not why.
But at the end of his experience he has a different point of view. He is not only restored to his former state, he has twice as much as before.
He now sees that God meant it for good.

I see that as another viable ray of light shed on the subject. Thanks for that.


Good observation and true. Even their letters are nouns, (Zain= sword, Beth= house, Tzadi= fishhook, etc.) and even partially pictoral/heroglyphic as they look like what they represent.
But that is like us as human beings. First that which is carnal, then that which is spiritual. We have to grow into abstract thinking ie. what do House, fish hook, sword, and hand imply?
Same with Israel "after the flesh" and "after the Spirit."
Same with the first 9 commandments and then "Thou shalt not covet" going from action to thought.
We move into the abstract as we see that it is the important side of things. As we begin to recognise and understand the invisible side of things. It is very similar to growing from childhood to adulthood.

I have never seen what you just expressed here. The only danger (and I know there is somewhat the same danger with concrete thought) I see with abstract thought is that it can lead to more variation of meaning, some of which may not be intended. With concrete thoughts you are limiting how far you can take it. However, that being said, you have again given food for thought. I will definitely consider it.

Ron

Bob May
11-08-2008, 02:39 PM
I see that as another viable ray of light shed on the subject. Thanks for that.



I have never seen what you just expressed here. The only danger (and I know there is somewhat the same danger with concrete thought) I see with abstract thought is that it can lead to more variation of meaning, some of which may not be intended. With concrete thoughts you are limiting how far you can take it. However, that being said, you have again given food for thought. I will definitely consider it.

Ron


Hi Ron,

Maybe "abstract thought" is not the ideal choice of wording here. I prefer spiritual and carnal, but that also can be misinterpreted and misused. Such are words.
It makes me think about a challenge I've had since I've been a father. I have three boys ranging in ages from 24 -14 years old. One thing I have always tried to instill in them is the idea of Honor. Try to define it in words and it has a habit of slipping through your fingers. But the concept has seems to have "soaked in" despite my inability to articulate it.


But you are right again about the dangers you mentioned. Seeing only the "Letter" of the law is one end of the spectrum. The idea of a wrathful God seems to be the outcome.
To ask myself if what I think is being said agrees with what Jesus revealed as a merciful Father's nature and whether or not I see the thought conveyed in more than one place in Scripture is my "rule of thumb". I think that leads to the Spirit.

But my target is always what is hidden behind what I read in Scripture. I alway approach it with the thought of "what does this really mean." I don't assume I understand it and I don't think there is an end to how deeply it can be understood. But God is invisible and also Spirit and always revealing himself behind the obvious. Towards the invisible seems to me to be the correct direction for my mind to seek Him.

Song of Solomon 2:9 "My beloved is like a roe or a young hart: behold, he standeth behind our wall, he looketh forth at the windows, showing himself through the lattice."

Php 4:8 "Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things."

Joh 7:24 "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment."

Bob