by
Voyle A. Glover
If you take a vignette of history, just about any slice of it you wish, you’ll find some things that are common to all history, that parallel recent history and often, even mirrors current events.
For example, you can find the quest for food being a priority in just about any culture at any point in time. Aggression was a common historical denominator, as was the desire of some to acquire power. Peace was always a sought-after commodity by most societies. But, history also shows virtually all societies being very territorial. Each society wanted more of everything, particularly land.
Over and over again, you will find what was once called “clashes of cultures,” but which we now understand were (and are) nothing more than aggressions on the part of one group against another. It had little to do with culture, and far more to do with a leader of one group having his eye filled with desire for the wealth of his neighbor's land or power or another peoples’ possessions or just for the acquiring of more territory over which he could rule.
The commonest of historical denominators found in every historical period from the beginning of mankind's existence on the planet, is evil.
Now, defining “evil” for some is difficult. But, those who struggle with that concept also struggle with the concepts of “truth” and “love” and “kindness.” They struggle with them in part because they view themselves as intellectuals, those beings able to conceptualize beyond the comprehension of most lesser mortals. These “intellectuals” deem their insights to be so incisive that lesser minds cannot appreciate the subtle abstracts involved in attempting to take a concept such as “evil,” and distilling it so as to remove it from a subjective framework of analysis.
And in that, they are correct. So long as one leaves the concepts within that framework, i.e., a sterile, unrelated-to-reality-framework, it becomes difficult, perhaps impossible, to define those concepts. In a subjective framework of analysis, the concepts of good and evil become very difficult to define.
However, lesser mortals have preferred to keep the concepts of good and evil in simpler terms, to wit: evil is that which conflicts and contradicts the revealed will of God, and that which God hath declared as good.
Of course, such a defining brings one immediately into the issue of the existence of God.
If there is a being who in fact created the universe, who in fact created life, and who in fact, has laid down a model of good and evil, written long ago in stone and within our innermost beings, (called a conscience by some, a soul by others), then we have no choice but to declare what is good and what is evil, and to accept this being’s definitions.
Thousands of years ago, a follower of God by the name of Malachi wrote the following, rhetorical query: “Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?” (Mal 2:10).
It is when one attempts to define evil with a standard less than a devinely declared standard, that the defining gets difficult. No matter what the definition, it will always be subjective, if left to the standards of mankind. Thus, it becomes evil to murder someone by an act of terrorism in America or in many other parts of the civilized world. Our standards, our concept of good and evil, declare this is evil. Ah, but that same standard does not exist for the terrorists, nor does it rest in the minds of many who support their cause. Why not? Simply put: they have defined good far differently than we have, and thus, have appended a kind of “means justifies the end” philosophy to their definition of “good,” which qualifies an action we would deem “evil,” as in fact, being something “good.”
So, who is the final arbiter of what is good and evil?
There can be no final arbiter besides God, though even those who believe in God, would oft attempt to debate His declarations of good and evil.
But how can the thing created argue that the model is wrong, that the concepts for good and evil are flawed? I suggest, only with great timidity and with a realization that such a being is not likely to accept from mere mortals, creatures this God created, a critique of his declarations of good and evil.
So then, every major question of good and evil, of law, of justice, and of every concept we have of morality and goodness, points us back to the single question: Is there a God? And if there is, then every question of good and evil, of justice, and of every concept we have of morality and goodness, must be directed at the models given us by God. According to the ancient texts collectively called The Bible, we are created beings, brought into existence to live on planet earth by this Supreme Being we call God, who said: “I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.” (Isa 45:12).
Thus, we cannot declare what is good or evil, except that our declarations match the declaration given us by this Creator God. Otherwise, we are gods unto ourselves. We would subjectively establish what is good and what is evil. Of course, that is exactly what we have done.
If you look at history, you will see mankind doing that very thing, again and again and again. Rome thought it a good thing to subdue the population and invest that population with a kind of “manifest destiny,” believing themselves to be the rulers of the world, and superior to all races upon the face of the earth. Nations were brought under the iron rule of Rome, and men and women who were once free in their land, became slaves. Caesar thought this to be a good thing, not evil.
Alexander thought it a good thing to conquer the known world, weeping bitterly when there were no more lands to conquer. Ghengis Khan certainly felt it was a good thing he was doing as he ravaged Europe and stunned Rome by decimating its cities and armies. And surely Rome’s opinion as to whether Khan was doing “good” was far different than Ghengis Khan's concept of good. Rome viewed it as evil, and saw Khan as evil incarnate. Napoleon thought it a good thing to fight, and kill, and destroy large armies in his quest to rule Europe. Hitler deemed it a good thing to murder millions in his mad quest to rule as much of the world as possible.
One may try and argue the “natural” laws by saying that murder is wrong because it is unnatural, but if you study history, you will find billions of murdered humans. Imagine an alien historian landing on the planet ten thousand years from now and studying the cultures of an earth that has long been extinct. It certainly would not be a difficult conclusion for such a historian to conclude that in terms of “good and evil,” humans had universally decided that it was a good thing to exterminate or murder others, laws stating otherwise notwithstanding.
They would not be likley to moralize our history. Indeed, for the most part, our own historians have avoided moralizing their analysis of history (except when it is politically correct, such as in decrying the brutualization of the Indians and slavery of the blacks), preferring to keep their academic robes spotless from the ink stains that would bespeckle them from the intellectual critics who've declined to make moral judgments about life.
Ours (the world) is a bloody history. We’ve a history of warfare, of wholesale slaughter of humans, of torture, and even efforts at extinction of entire races of people. Many of us have little problem in seeing the evil in all of that, nor do we have difficulty in declaring such actions to be evil. Also, we do not have a problem with declaring that those who do such things (as Hitler and the neo-Muslim-Nazis of today), are evil humans. But, that is because of the foundation we've chosen, to wit, God's declaration of what is evil, which enables us to make and embrace such a declaration with confidence, rather than a man-skewed, subjective morality that justifies evil.
There is a symmetry of logic to the argument that good and evil can be proven by the effects upon an individual or a group of people or even a nation. But ultimately, that argument falters in the face of those espousing a different concept of good and evil, and it becomes vulnerable to the intellectuals and their refusal to enlist God and His standards of good and evil. Their refusal ultimately brings defeat to an otherwise valued argument, i.e., that good can be defined and evil can be defined by the effects upon a person or persons.
One would think it to be prima facie evidence of evil if A, in an unprovoked act of aggression, takes the life of B, who merely happens to occupy the ground upon which B was standing, and which A coveted. But suddenly, challenges erupt. Was there any right in A to the land? Was there any warning? Was there any threats made by B against A? And soon we find ourselves in a quagmire of issues and qualifications too deep to make a definitive conclusion.
The quagmire is perhaps best illustrated by the position taken by Hitler and the Nazi Party, which position, in modern times, has been adopted by much of the Arab/Muslim world, to wit, that the Jewish race should be wiped [exterminated] from the face of the earth. The new Nazis, these Arab/Muslims, seem not to comprehend that they've adopted the identical philosophical position of Hitler. They have come to adopt his concepts of good and evil, concepts which are completely at odds with the rest of the civilized world. The only difference between Hitler and these neo-Arab Nazis is that the Muslims who espouse the destruction of all Jews, do it under the cloak of religion.
Not for naught did God write His missive in simple prose: "You shall not murder.” Exodus 20:13. But Hitler did not accept God as the ultimate decider of good and evil. The Arab/Muslim world, those who hate the Jew, also have chose to reject God and His concepts, and indeed, reject even their own book, and decided for themselves to accept Hitler's concepts instead.
Many, of course, don’t like things so simple as a declaration as the one found in the Bible, in what has come to be known as the Ten Commandments. Instead, they will pose the question as to what defines “murder” and soon enough, keen, intellectual minds will have constructed a model under which it would be permissible for A to have slain B in order to acquire the land of B.
History proves that hypothesis correct.
Ghengis Khan slew hundreds of thousands of “B’s” to have their land and possessions. His subjective analysis, while perhaps not as sophisticated as our intellectuals of today and our philosophers of yesterday, nonetheless concluded that the killing of all the “B’s” was a “good thing.” Hitler murdered millions of Jews to acquire their riches (in addition to acquiring their lives) and to "cleanse" the land. One can read historical accounts of his subjective justification for his war against humanity. A long line of luminaries in history prove that mankind, left without guidance of a Holy Model of decorum, a Holy Writ declaring a model of good and evil, will devise their own models, and typically, those models will fall far short of true justice and will completely fail in their efforts to define good and evil.
To reject the model given by God is to be compelled to accept definitions of good and evil that are only subjective concepts. Once one agrees that these are subjective concepts, one is on a slippery slope from which there is no hope of ever making a definitive conclusion about good and evil. One also comes away losing every argument made by those with a differing opinion. While one can argue the value of life, the right to life, the right to live in peace, the right to be free and the right to pursue happiness, unless it is founded in a biblical mandate from a Supreme Being, it is an argument that is bound to fail.
It did not work for the Romans. They rejected God's definition.
The argument fell on Hitler’s deaf ears. And the Arab haters of all things Jewish are not apt to listen. They've accepted Hitler's own definition of good and evil. Thus, they can issue death edicts against individuals (or even nations or races, such as the Jew), and instead of world-wide condemnation, there is a deafening silence. Why? Certainly fear is one compelling reason, but the other is because there is no clear-cut view of their threats as being evil. Instead, it is viewed as a "political" matter, or a matter of their collective notion of religion.
Ultimately, all that we are, all that we believe, all the concepts we have, must rest in a holy model, else it all becomes subjective and subject to attack. And while there might be attack made on a model of good and evil we eschew, which emanates from God, such attacks ultimately are unwinnable for one single reason: “For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” (Heb 10:30-31).
Ghengis Khan experienced that fear and now knows the truth of that statement. He understands the concept of evil and realizes he was the perfect model of evil.
And so does Hitler.
And so have a vast array of historical figures whose subjective analysis, bereft of godly influence and apart from a godly model, decided in their lifetime to reject God’s declaration of good and evil, deciding for themselves what good and evil meant.
They learned this truth as well: “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight! Woe unto them that are mighty to drink wine, and men of strength to mingle strong drink: Which justify the wicked for reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him!” (Isa 5:20-23).
It is interesting that there is a world full of powerful people who will soon become historical memories, remembered only in the dusty pages of a book, or perhaps in the memories of some. These powerful people will one day awaken to a reality that clearly defines evil for them once and for all. It shall, no doubt, be a shocker.
A preview of that shocking reality show has already been given to us–a “Sneak Preview” as it were in a writing that is thousands of years in age: “And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.” (Re 20:12-15).
There's little doubt that the concepts of good and evil will come into sharp focus for all on that day, and that there will be no debate and no fanciful, philosophical arguments by learned scholars. Their intellectual prowess will melt before the brilliance of the One Who Defines Goodness. The immutable truths of God will lay bare the evil of mankind and no man will be able to deny Him or His truth.
[And if you don't like my conclusions, I strongly suggest you might end up being one of those holding their own versions of good and evil, whose name will not be found in that mysterious "book of life." Think about it.]
The End
