Defining Good and Evil Without Divine Reference
The concepts of good and evil are often understood in Christian thought as having an eternal distinction, not merely as human constructs [1]. This distinction is frequently tied to the nature of God, with goodness being inherently linked to divine character. For instance, the apostle John states that "He that does good is of God. He that does evil has not seen God" [2, 6]. This suggests that an understanding and practice of good is rooted in a relationship with the divine.
From a theological perspective, goodness in humanity is not a passive trait but an active choice: "the deliberate preference of right to wrong, the firm and persistent resistance of all moral evil, and the choosing and following of all moral good" [4]. This active pursuit of good is contrasted with evil, which is seen as something to be avoided and resisted [2, 6]. The Bible frequently depicts evil as a tangible force or action, such as the "evil that is done under the sun" mentioned in Ecclesiastes [3].
The origin of evil is a complex theological question. John Chrysostom, an Eastern Orthodox theologian, addresses the idea that God creates from nothing, and questions how evils arise. one tradition argues that even if one does not understand the origin of evil, it does not negate God's creative power or imply a flaw in God's nature [5]. Chrysostom also emphasizes the soul's role in discerning good and evil, stating that the soul "has more wisdom, and can see what is to be done and what not" [8]. This highlights an internal capacity within humanity to recognize and choose between good and evil.
Some interpretations suggest that laws, including divine law, are given in response to existing "bad manners" or evil actions, implying that the law serves to define and regulate what is already understood as wrong [7]. This perspective suggests that while the law articulates good and evil, the underlying distinction may precede the formal codification. The idea that "the tree is known by his fruit" also illustrates a practical way to discern good and evil actions, where the nature of a thing is revealed by its outcomes [9].
Sources
- Easton's Bible Dictionary “Easton's Bible Dictionary: Punishment — The New Testament lays down the general principles of good government, but contains no code of laws for the punishment of offenders. Punishment proceeds on the principle that there is an eternal distinction between right and wrong, and that this distinction must be maintained for its own sake. It is not primarily intended for the reformation of criminals, nor for the purpose of deterring others from sin. These results may be gained, but crime in itself demands punishment. (See [513]MURDER; [514]THEFT.) Endless, of the impenitent and unbelieving. The reje”
- III John “III John 1:11 (Darby) — Beloved, do not imitate what is evil, but what is good. He that does good is ofGod. He that does evil has not seenGod.”
- Ecclesiastes “Ecclesiastes 4:3 (BSB) — But better than both is he who has not yet existed, who has not seen the evil that is done under the sun.”
- Easton's Bible Dictionary “Easton's Bible Dictionary: Goodness — In man is not a mere passive quality, but the deliberate preference of right to wrong, the firm and persistent resistance of all moral evil, and the choosing and following of all moral good.”
- CCEL/NPNF (Eastern Orthodox) “John Chrysostom, Homilies on Acts & Romans: is no need of the body. Truly it may be seasonably said, “The fool will speak foolishness.” ( Is. xxxii. 6 .) Are you not ashamed not to grant, that God can create from nothing? If he creates from matter already existing, wherein does He differ from men? But whence, you demand, are evils? Though you should not know whence, ought you for that to introduce another evil in the knowledge of evils? Hereupon two absurdities follow. For if you do not grant, that from things which are not, God made the things which are, much more shall you be ignorant whence”
- 3 John (Presbyterian) “Jamieson, Fausset & Brown on 3 John 1:11: follow not that which is evil--as manifested in Diotrephes (Jo3 1:9-10). but . . . good--as manifested in Demetrius (Jo3 1:12). is of God--is born of God, who is good. hath not seen God--spiritually, not literally.”
- CCEL (Reformed) “Calvin, Commentary on 1-2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, section 5.7: ingenious sense out of these words; as if Paul were treating theologically about the nature of “the law.” They argue that the law has nothing to do with the sons of God, who have been regenerated by the Spirit; because it was not given for righteous persons. But the connection in which these words occur shuts me up to the necessity of giving a more simple interpretation to this statement. He takes for granted the well-known sentiment, that “from bad manners have sprung good laws,” and maintains that the law of God was given in or”
- CCEL/NPNF (Eastern Orthodox) “John Chrysostom, Homilies on Acts & Romans: is not finding fault with the body, but pointing out the soul’s superiority. For this it is that has the whole duty or pilotage put into its hands, and that of playing. And this Paul here points out, giving the governing power to the soul, and after dividing man into these two things, the soul and the body, he says, that the flesh has less of reason, and is destitute of discretion, and ranks among things to be led, not among things that lead. But the soul has more wisdom, and can see what is to be done and what not, yet is not equal to pulling in the”
- Matthew (Baptist/Reformed) “John Gill on Matthew 12:28: Either make the tree good, and his fruit good,.... That is, either assert them both good, or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: say they are both evil, for the contrary cannot be affirmed with any consistency and propriety: the matter is easy to be determined, for the tree is known by his fruit; fruit will discover what a tree is, and accordingly judgment may be made. No man will say a tree is good, and its fruit corrupt; or say, that a tree is corrupt, and its fruit good: these are glaring contradictions, and can never be reconciled. The case Ch”