quote:
Originally posted by ramoss
I happen to disagree.. and I can point to some Rabbi commentaries that will agree with my interpretation.
It's OK if we disagree. And after reading through your link, I do still retain my original opinion.
Not only do I often find much rabbinical commentary to be highly imaginative, but further, this rabbinical commentary that you linked to doesn't seem to be saying what you claim.
In message 87 you asked:
quote:
ramoss > message 87
If god is 'absolute good' why did he create evil?
The rabbinical commentary speaks only of adding an allegorical meaning to the terms "light" and "darkness". And even in the part of the commentary that you supplied in quotation, the rabbi speaks of God "withholding his light" as opposed to any active creation of "darkness" (or evil).
Thus, even from the rabbinical perspective of this commentary, God is said to withhold his light, which
allows evil imaginings to flourish, which evil imaginings cause conditions antithetical to peaceful existence, i.e. "
war, calamity" which is one meaning of the term "rah".
It is only by assigning the allegorical meaning of "evil" to the term "darkness" in this verse, and then interpreting the verb "bara" as an active creation event that an interpretation of "God created evil" can be rationalized.
However, from the rabbinical perspective, since God didn't actively create the literal darkness, neither did he actively create the allegorical "darkness" (evil). In both cases it is a matter of God withholding the "light" (whether literal or allegorical).
And further, neither case (literal or allegorical) changes the meaning of the antithetical terms "peace" and "evil" in the second part of this verse.
If "light" and "darkness" are considered allegorically, then the subsequent conditions of peace or calamity are the physical results of God providing or withholding his allegorical "light".
Even so, however, I am unconvinced that "light" and "darkness" should be read allegorically in this instance. Consider the context of the chapter:
quote:
Isaiah 45:1
So says YHWH to his annointed, to Cyrus, whom I have seized by his right hand, to subdue nations before him.
Isaiah 45:6-7
. . . that they may know from the sunrise to the sunset that there is none besides Me; I am YHWH and there is none else; forming light and creating darkness; making peace and creating (rah) - I YHWH do all these things."
So the context of the chapter is God stirring up Cyrus to war against the very Babylon which he formerly implemented against Judah.
IOW, the context is not the evil imaginings of man or who created such evil imaginings; the context is war, the state of the nations, and who is ultimately in control of these conditions.
And IMO, read in this context, the verse is stating nothing more than that YHWH is singularly in control of such events. He forms the light and causes the darkness, he causes nations to be at peace and he causes nations to be torn by war and calamity.
Thus, if you follow the rabbinical perspective (from your commentary) and read "darkness" as "evil", you should also follow the rabbinical perspective that God didn't create the darkness but merely withholds the light. If you follow a more literal meaning, the verses simply speak for themselves.
Either way, it is an error to combine an allegorical meaning of the term "darkness" with an active creation sense of the verb "bara" and declare this verse to state that God created evil. And it is also an error to translate the term "rah" as "evil" (in the sense of innate 'badness') when it is used in the second part of this verse as the antithesis to "peace".
There are simply better logical readings that are further supported by the context.
JMHO, and again, it is alright if we disagree.
Amlodhi