Analysis of the biblical teaching on the essence of evil and its inevitable consequences.

Whoever accepts the truth of the theistic world view has in this very truth a positive reason to believe that in the future of our world the eternal idea of world existence will undoubtedly be realized. But in the presence of those contradictions of thought which inevitably arise from the fact of the existence of evil, this belief in an unknown future can logically take place only if the path by which God's thought about the world could actually be realized is precisely determined. And in order to accurately determine this path, it is necessary to first find out why exactly evil exists in the world. For the circumstances of its appearance, so far as we have explained them, do not in the least determine that it should appear and necessarily continue to exist. On the contrary, if evil has really entered the world only through the free activity of rational beings, it seems quite natural to think that it can exist only so long as rational beings are pleased to maintain it; and as soon as they wish to reject it, it will completely disappear from the world, and the world will again be as it was before the appearance of evil in it. Yet the Biblical teaching directly and decisively rejects this optimistic dream, and moreover rejects it not only in relation to the past and the present, but also in relation to the entire future process of world life, i.e. it rejects it unconditionally. According to the Apostle, evil cannot disappear from the world by the mere desire of people to destroy it, because the inclination towards it, at least in man, has the meaning of a physical law of life (Romans 7:21-23). But what, in fact, determines this necessary existence of evil – the apostolic teaching does not give us a clear and detailed answer to this question.

Yet this question is essential, and it is certainly not difficult to understand why it is particularly important. If it is true that evil, once introduced into the world by the free will of rational beings, cannot really disappear from the world, then it is self-evident that the realization of the ultimate goal of the world

Existence can be attained only by means of some kind of miracle, i.e., by such an exceptional path that lies outside the natural course of world life and therefore cannot be defined at all within the natural limits of human thought.

Consequently, depending on how and by what means the existence of evil is explained, it is possible to recognize or deny not only the biblical view of evil, but the entire essence of the biblical doctrine in general in its genuine, supernatural content; because the whole essence of the biblical teaching is undoubtedly expressed by the teaching about God's salvation of the world from evil, and this teaching can be made understandable and probable only in the knowledge of the impossibility of the natural destruction of evil. But is it true that the world cannot free itself from evil, and why cannot it free itself from it? In any case, this question is not solved in the same way.

According to a well-known theological opinion, man has committed three great evils: a) he infinitely offended the infinitely great God, b) he infected his entire being with sin, and c) he caused the disastrous consequences of sin both in his own nature and in his external nature. In these great evils the fatal cause for the necessary series of all subsequent evils is usually indicated.

But if we follow the Biblical account exactly, it will be clear to us that Eve did not at all draw the conclusion to which the serpent undoubtedly led her, because she had no hostile feeling towards God when she decided to transgress His commandment. After all, in fact, she discussed only the false report of the serpent to her destruction and did not discuss God's commandment at all. She saw that the forbidden tree was no different from the other trees of paradise, and from this point of view she was quite right in believing that the use of the fruit of the forbidden tree could not threaten her with any terrible consequences, and she seemed to have completely forgotten to take another point of view. At least, the Bible gives us absolutely no reason to think that Eve was discussing the question: why exactly did God give people his commandment and why did He tell Adam that breaking the commandment would lead to his death? If she had asked herself this question, she would undoubtedly have supplemented her consideration, and in that case the indisputable fact of her reverent attitude towards God would certainly have led her to form the following judgment: a forbidden tree in itself, it is true, cannot be deadly; but God still cannot tell lies, and if He said that death would follow from eating forbidden fruits, then it means that it will actually follow; but in this case, therefore, it will follow not from the fact that the tree is deadly, but from the fact that the use of the fruit of this tree is forbidden by God, i.e. death will follow not from the very eating of the forbidden fruit, but only from the transgression of God's commandment. In this judgment, Eve would obviously have taken a different point of view: she would have discussed the serpent's report not from the point of view of her own considerations about the real properties of the forbidden tree in itself, but only from the point of view given by him regarding the tree, God's commandment, and this correct point of view would logically have led her finally to a correct assessment of the serpent's false message. Eve would have easily understood then that if the forbidden tree is no different from other trees and is exceptional only by virtue of God's commandment given about it, then in itself, obviously, it can equally cause neither death nor give knowledge, and just as death threatens the transgression of the commandment, so knowledge can be attained by people only by unswervingly preserving the commandment given to them. Consequently, it would clearly see that the serpent was mistaken, and a clear understanding of this mistake would constitute for it a logically perfect and psychologically necessary motive to decisively reject the serpent's knowingly false report and to preserve God's commandment.

But in her conversation with the evil tempter, although Eve mentioned God, she thought only of herself, and although she mentioned God's commandment, she still did not think about the commandment, but only about the imaginary and real properties of the forbidden tree. Therefore she did not take into account all the conditions under which the forbidden tree could become either a means to the real knowledge of good and evil, or an instrument of certain death, and she herself quite frankly explained how this happened to her. The serpent, he says, has deceived me (Gen. 3:13). Obviously, she was deceived by the unusually easy possibility of attaining divine knowledge of good and evil.

Consequently, it transgressed God's commandment only through an unfortunate mistake, i.e. not to the evil of God, not in the form of deliberate opposition to His will, but only to the imaginary good of itself, namely in the form of attaining that lofty knowledge which people undoubtedly desired and to which they undoubtedly strove, but which in reality they did not yet possess.

According to the biblical story, people ate the fruit of the forbidden tree, "and the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked, and they sewed fig leaves, and made themselves girdles" (Gen. 3:7). This hasty concern of people to cover their nakedness as soon as possible shows very convincingly that they were not yet aware that they had committed a crime, because otherwise, of course, they would not have had the thought that they were naked, but first of all the thought that they were criminals, and therefore, first of all, they would not have been ashamed of their nakedness, but their sinful deception – namely, that they so gullible succumbed to gross deception and so thoughtlessly violated God's commandment. But biblical history clearly and positively says that at first they were ashamed only of their nakedness. Consequently, this feeling of shame, although it appeared in them in undoubted dependence on the crime they had committed, nevertheless before they became aware of their criminality; so that its appearance should be considered not as the first consequence of the Fall, but as a direct continuation of the very sinful process that had just been expressed in the violation of God's commandment. On the basis of a very clear, though complex, psychology of this process, we can take it for granted that after people had eaten the fruit of the forbidden tree, they naturally began to expect for themselves some special miraculous insight, and this naïve expectation naturally allowed them to indulge themselves in advance with the bliss of divine knowledge. It is very understandable that in such an elated mood they could see in themselves only the future possessors of the highest perfection; And it is no less clear that from this point of view they literally wanted to look at themselves, i.e., they actually examined themselves complacently, i.e., they simply admired themselves as future perfections. But this pleasant occupation, according to the law of contrast, psychologically necessarily led them to one thought, which was not at all in harmony with their mood and from which they could not get rid of it at all. They wanted to see themselves as special, superior beings, but in fact they saw themselves only as the physical nature of animals. It goes without saying that they had seen themselves before, and knew well the external structure of their organisms, and they also knew well that in the physical sense they did not differ at all from many animals. But before this circumstance did not bother them in the least, because they did not yet have any desire to see in themselves more than they really found in themselves. But now, when they were expecting an essential change in their situation, the eyes of both of them were opened, and they learned that the naked, that is, they had the persistent idea that they were very much like ordinary animals, and that this thought, by bringing them back from the pleasant world of dreams to the world of present reality, thereby humiliated them, as it were, and consequently displeased them. – they were ashamed not of what could actually make them mere animals, but of the very thought of their proximity to the animal world; and as a consequence it was they who hastened to conceal from the world and from themselves their unmistakable resemblance to animals, in order only to separate themselves from this world and not to see what told them of their insignificance.

But people could not stay in a state of deception for long. As time passed, and the miraculous insight did not appear and did not appear, their faith in this insight naturally had to collapse; Because, weary of vain waiting, they could not help but be troubled at last by a heavy premonition of a possible mistake, and could not help asking themselves the anxious question whether they were not waiting for such a miracle, which in reality would not happen at all. In view of the circumstances of this doubt, they naturally had to turn to the event which had served as the basis of their vain hopes; And in view of the circumstances of their alarming situation, they naturally had to turn to the question which they had not previously thought to pose to themselves: Is it possible to attain divine knowledge by such an external means as the eating of the fruit of the tree? And the first people probably raised and resolved this question, because, according to the biblical story, the fog of deception disappeared in them, and they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in paradise (Gen. 3:8). Obviously, they remembered that the tree of knowledge in their considerations was only a tree of knowledge, but in fact it was not only a tree of knowledge, but, moreover, a tree forbidden by God, so that, wishing to attain divine knowledge, they thought to attain it by transgressing God's commandment. Therefore, they now realized that they were criminals, and this consciousness struck them with a feeling of horror. Because of their deep reverence for God, they could not forgive themselves for forgetting about the commandment given to them, and because of their deep awareness of the guilt of this forgetfulness, they could not ask God for forgiveness. Therefore, the near presence of God was frightening to them, and they decided to flee from the presence of God. – says the sacred historian of this great drama, – Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of paradise (Gen. 3:8).

We cannot have the slightest doubt that the unfortunate criminals did not wish to flee from the court, but only from the face of God, because the feeling of God's presence must undoubtedly have increased their spiritual anguish. Out of a sense of shame before God for their crime, they naturally had to wish now that the omniscient God, knowing of their crime, would leave them to the mercy of fate, and they could die without experiencing unspeakable suffering from their possible encounter with God, before whom they were guilty and with whom they no longer dared to converse. But in the thicket of the garden where they had disappeared, Adam clearly heard God's question addressed to him: "Where are you?" From this question it was possible to understand that God did not need paradise, but only man, and that, therefore, despite its fall, God still did not change His attitude towards it and did not want to abandon it. Meanwhile, man changed dramatically and, due to his spiritual state, could not be in his former relationship to God. Therefore, what was he to do now, in view of God's clear desire to see him without fail? He did not dare to show himself to God, and at the same time he did not dare to tell God about his crime, and therefore he decided to answer: "I heard Thy voice in paradise, and I was afraid, because I am naked, and I hid myself" (Gen. 3:9-10). Of course, Adam was fully aware that he was a criminal, and therefore in his heart he directly called himself by the name of a criminal, but it was excruciatingly difficult for him to tell God about this, and therefore it was quite natural that he wanted to avoid this torment, and it is quite understandable that in his answer to God he did not express the main truth, under the weight of which he was really perishing. But God was waiting for the truth, and therefore a new question: Did you not eat of the tree from which I forbade you to eat? He himself helped the man to endure the pain and shame of the criminal from his own story about his crime to the very Saint before whom he was guilty. Adam told God about his crime and told how it was committed: "The woman whom you gave me, she gave me, and I ate." And the wife followed the example of her husband, and also sincerely confessed, and told how exactly the sin happened to her: "The serpent deceived me, and I ate" (Gen. 3:11-13). This short conversation was limited to the first attitude of people to God after they transgressed God's commandment. The most characteristic and most remarkable feature of this conversation is undoubtedly that people did not ask God for forgiveness. For the moral characterization of the first criminals, this circumstance is of such great importance that we must certainly clarify it. After all, people quite frankly admitted before God the fact of the crime committed; and by their fear of God, as well as by their desire to flee from Him, they have clearly shown that they are aware and confess their guilt that they have violated God's commandment; and they knew even before that the guilt of this violation would certainly lead to their death. Why, then, did they not ask for mercy? Such behavior on their part, of course, with full awareness of their guilt, is possible and necessary only in the only case if they themselves recognized their crime as completely inexcusable. In this case, they could not even think of pardon, because the very thought of pardon is an obvious excuse for guilt. For in order that, while they are conscious of their crime, they may still ask forgiveness for it, it is absolutely necessary that they should reflect in such a way that, however great their crime is, it is not yet so great that it cannot be forgiven; so that if God does not forgive them, it will not be because their transgression is not excusable, but only because God does not seem to be a being who is willing and able to forgive. Consequently, in order to ask for pardon, people had to first forgive themselves. And if only they had forgiven themselves, then surely they would have justified themselves before God and would have begun to beg Him for forgiveness. And if in fact this did not happen, then it means that they could not forgive themselves for their crime, and in this case it is very easy to understand what, in fact, determined this moral impossibility for them. Obviously, they did not think that they were perishing, but only that they were guilty before God, i.e., in other words, they did not think about themselves, but only about God; therefore, they loved God more than themselves, and for this reason it was they who could not forgive themselves for their crime[288].

According to the biblical formula of the commandment, God did not say to man: "Do not eat of the fruit of the forbidden tree, for otherwise I will punish you with death for it; and he said, "Do not eat of the fruit of the forbidden tree, for otherwise you will die." That is, God did not threaten punishment for violating His commandment, but only warned a person in advance about what would follow if the commandment given to him was violated by them. Consequently, the fulfillment of the commandment was not necessary for God, but only for people in the interests of their moral perfection, and consequently – by transgressing the commandment man could only destroy himself, and by this crime he could not inflict an endless insult on God at all. In view of this, the sharp objections with which the preaching of this offense inevitably meets are completely understandable, and which, unfortunately, are completely unjustly addressed to the Biblical account of the fall of people. In fact, the Bible says absolutely nothing about this impossible infliction of some kind of offense on God, and on the basis of the biblical text one can only condemn this evil invention of scholastic theology. Everyone, of course, can understand that the boundless greatness of God absolutely excludes the possibility of any emotions in His life. A person can be indifferent to God, and he can hate Him, and he can even want to offend Him, but this desire can only be a man's desire, because God can see in this desire not an insult to Himself, but only the moral ugliness of the person who has such desires, and the sheer madness of the person who thinks to offend the Great One, when He is immeasurably higher than all, and, consequently, He can never and in no way be offended by anyone[289].

This is obvious to us because the first people, as we know, had no hostile feeling towards God at all, and if they violated His commandment, it was not at all out of a desire to oppose His will. In fact, they only wished to attain divine knowledge of good and evil, and there is absolutely nothing criminal in this desire on their part. True, they thought to realize their desire by eating forbidden fruits, and it is true that in this case they really violated God's commandment, but any crime that is not the goal of human activity and is committed without any intention to commit it, cannot be blamed on man. And people have violated God's commandment precisely without any desire or intention to violate it without fail. Consequently, this violation can be blamed on them only for some special reason, i.e., not because they ate the forbidden fruit, but because, having eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge, they sinned in some way, regardless of the fact that the use of these fruits was forbidden to them. what exactly happened to people when they violated God's commandment? We know that at the time of the transgression of God's commandment, people had a wrong idea about the forbidden tree. They thought that the fruits of this tree have a special magical property to give knowledge of good and evil. And we know that people did not confine themselves only to forming their false opinion about the forbidden tree, but also wanted to attain the desired knowledge in this way, i.e. with the help of the fruit of the forbidden tree. They wanted their high position in the world to depend not on the free development of their spiritual powers, but on their physical nourishment with certain fruits, which means that they really wanted their life and destiny to be determined not by themselves, but by external material causes. And they actually fulfilled this desire of theirs. They actually turned to the help of the forbidden tree in the complete conviction that the pseudo-magical power of its fruits, without any work on their part, would mechanically make them more perfect. In these calculations they were, of course, grossly mistaken, but the fact of the fulfillment of their intention was nevertheless accomplished, and therefore the undoubted error of their calculations does not in the least alter the real significance and meaning of their fatal act: by their superstitious act, people voluntarily subordinated themselves to external nature and voluntarily destroyed that universal significance which they could and should have had according to the spiritual nature of their personality. As free-rational agents they could be, and indeed were, in a living, direct relation to the divine Spirit, and as material beings they could be, and indeed were, natural intermediaries between God and the material world; because the material world, which created and supported their physical nature, served in them the goals of spiritual development and moral perfection, which means that it was a participant in their vital service to God, and therefore it entered through them into living communion with God and was spiritualized in them. Now people have destroyed this position. Instead of being free executors of the universal goal of world existence, they, on the contrary, turned to the help of the world, so that it would fulfill their eternal destiny for them by its mechanical forces. By this foolish act they have degraded themselves to the position of the mere things of the world and have made the whole of the world's existence meaningless. In fact, within the material world, only human beings are the actual images of God, and in the moral life of human beings alone, the blind material world can obey the rational law of freedom and can develop the unconditional values of spiritual perfection. And people have subordinated the law of freedom to the law of mechanical causality and have made their spiritual perfection causally dependent on the use of certain fruits. It is clear that they perverted the normal order of world existence, and it is clear that, by virtue of this perversion, the world must have turned out to be a vain creation of God.