Kakos William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 1

Transcription

1 Kakos A. The adjective kakos (kakov$) has the following cognates: 1. Akakos (a&kako$) (adjective), without evil, innocent, blameless. 2. Enkakeo (e)gkakevw) (verb), grow weary, faint. 3. Ekkakeo (e)kkakevw) (verb), lose heart, to faint, be despondent. 4. Kakoetheia (kakohvqeia) (noun), malignity, malice, bad disposition. 5. Kakologeo (kakologevw) (verb), curse, speak evil of, revile, insult. 6. Kakopatheia (kakopavqeia) (noun), affliction, suffering, distress, trouble. 7. Kakopatheo (kakopaqevw) (verb), suffer hardship, endure affliction. 8. Kakopoieo (kakopoievw) (verb), do evil, harm, do wrong. 9. Kakopoios (kakopoiov$) (adjective), evildoer, malefactor. 10. Kakourgos (kakou~rgo$) (adjective), evildoer, malefactor, criminal. 11. Kakoucheo (kakouxevw) (verb), torment, harass, mistreat. 12. Kakoo (kakovw) (verb), harm, mistreat, injure, exasperate. 13. Kakos (kakw~$) (adverb), (speak) wrongly, badly; be sick, ill; suffer. 14. Kakosis (kavkwsi$) (noun), affliction, ill-treatment, oppression, mistreatment. 15. Sunkakopatheo (sugkakopawevw) (verb), suffer together with, endure hardship with. 16. Sunkakoucheomai (sugkakouxevomai) (verb), to suffer with, endure adversity with. B. Classical 1. The word kakos expresses the presence of a lack. 2. It is not positive for it is an incapacity or weakness. 3. Walter Grundmann has compiled the following meanings for the adjective kakos from his research (TDNT, volume 3, page 469): a. Mean, unserviceable, incapable, poor of its kind (Homer Odyssey 17, 246; Aeschylus Prom. 471) b. Morally bad, wicked (Homer Odyssey 11, 384; Thucydides I, 86, 1) c. Weak (Herodotus VII, 11; Plato Menex. 246e; Xenophon Mem. III, 3, 4) d. Unhappy, bad, ruinous, evil (Aeschylus Pers. 346; Ag. 1203; Soph. Ai. 323; Homer Iliad 17, 701). 4. He goes on to make the following statement, The question of lack or incapacity, which in the most varied forms affects all spheres of life in terms of kakos, has always been particularly significant in relation to life and religion. It provokes a question of supreme significance, namely, that of the origin and purpose of evil, of the meaning of the world, of the plan and purpose of God. This is the problem of theodicy, and it involves the moral question of the overcoming of evil (TDNT, volume 3, page ). 5. The adjective kakos among the Greeks described that which was evil. 6. In the earliest Greek period there developed 2 answers to the problem of evil which constantly recur in new variations. a. The older is to the effect that by a divine necessity kakon also comes from and is posited by deity (Homer Odyssey 4, 236 f.; cf. Iliad 24, 525 ff.). b. A later view distinguishes between the misfortune which we bring on ourselves and that which is sent by God (Homer Odyssey 1, 32 f.). 7. Zeus shows that evil can come through disregarding divine warnings. 8. Greek tragedy is built on this 2-fold foundation. 9. Guilt and fate intersect in both Aeschylus and Sophocles. 10. According to Sophocles (Oed. Col.) everything that the gods do is meaningful and attains its goal. 11. Even fate is teleologically directed by them. 12. The fact that this belief is expressed in a miracle of rapture is indicative of its character as a mere sense or inkling of the truth. 13. In the time allotted to man between birth and death there is no final solution to the problem. 14. On the basis of his consideration of the political Greek, Solon discusses the question of the evil which he sees approaching his city as a result of self-incurred misfortune rather than divinely sent fate. 15. According to Solon this self-incurred misfortune is a result of not heeding the warning delivered by Solon as a representative of the gods. 16. There were 2 basic concepts which permeated Greek thought in the ancient world regarding the meaning and origin of evil in the cosmos: a. Evil was seen as a metaphysical principle, e.g. among the Pythagoreans and in Plato s later writings William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 1

2 b. Man s ignorance is the source of all evil, e.g. in Democritus, Socrates, Plato. 17. An unenlightened and ignorant man does evil involuntarily, and this is the basis of all ruin and corruption (Plato). 18. Enlightenment leads to knowledge and frees him from evil, causing him to do good and so creating the moral man. 19. Plato reached a synthesis of these 2 basic concepts by developing a metaphysical dualism of spirit and matter, with its ethical expression in a dualism of soul and body. 20. The cause leading to evil lies in the material and physical. 21. In his old age Plato went 1 step further and assumed the existence of an evil world-soul or a cosmic and psychic power. 22. Aristotle rejected the Platonic concept that evil is metaphysical principle linked with matter. 23. In Hellenistic thought evil was understood as imperfection and a metaphysical principle. 24. Plotinus held this to be in the very nature of matter, which in the last analysis stands in contrast to the highest good and the light from which all has been derived. 25. Here too evil is lack of light, i.e. of knowledge. 26. Whichever cause is regarded as the basis of evil, even when it is seen as hamartia, sin, it must not be regarded as personal guilt, for it is not the result of a free and responsible personal decision but of a lack. 27. It may be the lack of knowing the divine providence (Socrates), or of the working of a cosmic power. 28. Liddell and Scott list a 2-fold usages for this adjective (page 863): a. Of people: 1. Of appearance, ugly 2. Of birth, ill-born, mean 3. Of courage, craven, base 4. Bad of his kind 5. In moral sense, base, evil 6. wretched b. Of things, evil, pernicious C. Philo and Plutarch 1. Philo believed evil is from birth a possibility for man as well as good (Praem. Poen. 63). 2. The soul is naked, and it clothes itself either with good or evil (Leg. All. II, 53). 3. It thus has 2 possibilities of existence. 4. Even though man selects and seizes the possibility of good (agathos) in earthly life, he is always in conflict with kakon, evil. 5. For Philo evil is a reality which is linked with the man and the earth, which is intracosmic, which withstands God. 6. But it is not a metaphysical principle. 7. In contrast to Greek philosophy Philo has a more religious and ethical emphasis. 8. Evil is overcome in union with God, and it is related to the concept of sin. 9. Plutarch takes up the possibility considered by Plato. 10. The evil world soul is the cause of evils in the world. (De Animae Procreatione, in Timaeo Platonis, 7 [II, 1015d] ). D. Platonis 1. The ancient philosopher Platonis (A.D ) who was the centre of an influential circle of intellectuals and men of letters in the 3 rd century Rome, who is regarded by modern scholars as the founder of the Neoplatonic school of philosophy tackles the problems in his treatise peri tou tia kai pothen ta kaka. 2. For him philosophy points the way to union with God. 3. In his whole approach he is very near to Plato. 4. But he also adopts the arguments of Stoicism and weaves them into a systematic outlook. 5. An understanding of Plato which is mediated by Neo-Pythagoreanism leads him to find in matter the principle of evil, which he states, if evil exist at all, that it be situate in the realm of Non-Being, that it be some mode, as it were, of the Non-Being, that it have its seat in something in touch with Non-Being or to a certain degree communicate in Non-Being. By this Non-Being, of course, we are not to understand something that simply does not exist, but only something of an utterly different order from Authentic- Being: there is no question here of movement or position with regard to Being; the Non-Being we are thinking of is, rather, an image or perhaps something still further removed than even an image In what substantial-form [hupostasis] then is all this to be found-not as accident but as the very substance itself? For 2007 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 2

3 if Evil can enter into other things, it must have in a certain sense a prior existence, even though it may not be an essence. As there is Good, the Absolute, as well as Good, the quality, so, together with the derived evil entering into something not itself, there must be the Absolute Evil (1 st Ennead 8.3 On the Nature and Source of Evil). E. Parseeism 1. In Parseeism or Zoroastrianism dualism the evil principle takes a special form. 2. The metaphysical dualism of 2 material principles is here replaced by that of 2 contending wills which are regarded as deities. 3. Of these 2 spirits that which favored drug (falsehood) chose the doing of supreme wickedness, while the most holy spirit chose asa (truth). 4. The question of the origin of good and evil in the world is answered as follows. 5. The 2 spirits fight for mastery in the world in man. 6. The 2 spirits at the beginning, revealed in a vision to be twins, are the better and the worse in thought, word and deed, between which men of understanding have made a right choice (Yasna, 30). 7. Thus men have a free choice between 2 possibilities of existence. 8. All evil comes the wicked spirit and he effects it through his demons. F. LXX 1. The adjective kakos appears extensively in the LXX, occurring 371 times. 2. In the LXX kakos is used predominately for the Hebrew term ra`and ra`ah (227 times). 3. It is employed in the LXX to translate the following Hebrew terms: a. `iwweleth (jlwa), folly (Prv. 15:2; 16:22; 17:12). b. `awen (wza), wickedness, trouble (Prv. 6:18; 22:8). c. `elil (lyla), worthless (Jb. 13:4). d. Zimmah (hmz), evil conduct (Prv. 10:23). e. Lits (Jyl), scoff (Prv. 9:7-8). f. Madhon (wwdm), strife (Prv. 16:28). g. Ma`aseh (hcum), work (Is. 57:12). h. Matstsah (hxm), strife (Prv. 13:10). i. Merorah (hrrm), bitter (Jb. 13:26). j. `awlah (hlwu), unrighteousness (Jb. 22:23). k. `amal (lmu), misery (Jb. 16:2). l. Tsar (rx), enemy (Jb. 6:23-Codex Alexandrinus only). m. Tsarah (hrx), adversity, trouble (Prv. 24:10; Is. 46:7; Jer. 14:8). n. Riv (byr), strife (Prv. 18:6). o. Ra` (ur), trouble, evil (Ex. 5:19; Ps. 34;13 [33:13]; Mi. 1:12). p. Ra`ah (hur), evil, disaster (Dt. 31:17; 2 Kgs. 21:12; Zec. 1:15). q. Ra`a` (uur), be bad; hiphil: evil doer (Prv. 17:4). r. Resha` (uvr), wickedness (Prv. 16:12). s. Shodh (rv), destruction (Jb. 5:21). 4. In the whole complex of historical books the LXX uses the term only in the sense of evil or disaster (to kakon, ta kaka). 5. In so doing it brings together two thoughts, of which the 1 st is that evils are the administration of divine discipline as handed down by the Supreme Court of Heaven for the rejection of establishment principles in a client nation and the rejection of doctrine by the believers in the client nation. 6. The adjective kakos is the term in the LXX used to translate the Hebrew terms ra` and ra`ah which are often used to describe the 5 cycles of discipline as handed down by the Supreme Court of Heaven to be administered to the client nation. 7. It is also used to describe the 3 categories of warning discipline administered by the Supreme Court of Heaven to the individual reversionistic believer who is under the control of the old sin nature and thus indoctrinated by evil from the cosmic system of Satan. a. Stages 1-4: Warning (Rev. 3:20; James 5:9) b. Stages 5-7: Intensified (Psa. 38:1; 2 Thess. 2:11) c. Stage 8: Dying (Jer. 9:16; 44:12; Phil. 3:18-19; Rev. 3:16; 1 Cor. 10:13-14; Psa. 118:17-18; 1 John 5:16) William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 3

4 8. Reversionism and idolatry in a client nation will result in the administration of the 5 cycles of discipline by the Supreme Court of Heaven, i.e., kakos. 9. The rejection establishment principles in the client nation and the rejection of Bible teaching among believers in a client nation is a result of both groups getting involved in the evil of the cosmic system of Satan. 10. The rejection of truth in a client nation is a result of adhering to Satan s system of evil. 11. Reversionism or apostasy as called by some is the act of reversing or turning in the opposition direction. 12. Reversionism is the act of reverting to a former state, habit, belief or practice of post-salvation sinning (2 Tim. 4:4). 13. It is a reversal of your priorities, attitudes, affections, the object of your personal love accompanied by the destruction of your impersonal love (Gal. 4:9). 14. The believer in reversionism is functioning perpetually under the control of the old sin nature and are therefore living under perpetual carnality. 15. Reversionism is maladjustment to the justice of God. 16. For the unbeliever, the basic maladjustment is rejection of salvation. 17. For the believer is failure to rebound. 18. In the sphere of spiritual growth, maladjustment is reversionism, a state of spiritual decadence brought on by rejection or neglect of Bible doctrine. 19. The believer who is not advancing in his spiritual life is evidence of reversionism. 20. Consequently, reversionism is the condition of the believer who is negative toward Bible doctrine and refuses to perceive, metabolize and apply Bible doctrine under the enabling power of God the Holy Spirit from whomever is their right pastor-teacher. 21. Reversionism and evil are actually 2 sides the same coin. 22. Evil is what the reversionistic soul thinks. 23. Reversionism is the condition of that soul. 24. In both believer and unbeliever, reversionism is a revolt against God, or His Plan. 25. Categories of Reversionism a. Monetary (Ecc. 5:10-6:2; Acts 5:1-10; 1 Tim. 6:3-17; James 4:13-14; 5:1-6; Jude 11). b. Verbal (James 5:9-20). c. National (Deut. 28:23-24; Jer. 9:1-14; Hosea 4) d. Phallic (Lev.18:3-25; 20:1-5; Deut. 12:29-31; Num. 25:1; 31:15-16; 2 Cor. 12:21; Eph. 4:19; 5:5; Col. 3:5; 1 Pet. 4:3; Jude 4; Rev. 2:14, 20-23). e. Narcotic (Isa. 28:1, 7-9; Jer. 9:15-20; Gal. 5:19-21). f. Anti-Establishment (Rom. 1:18-32; 3:13-18). g. Psychotic (Num ; 31:8; 2 Pet. 2:15-16). h. Ascetic (1 Tim. 4:3-5). i. Legalistic (Col. 2:16-18; Heb. 5:11-6:16). j. Arrogance (Isa. 14:12-14; Ezek. 28:14-17; 1 Tim. 6:3-5, 17; 2 Tim. 3:2) G. NT 1. The adjective kakos appears 52 times in the NT. 2. It is used to describe in the NT anything by way of thought, word and action that is produced by the old sin nature and is motivated by indoctrination from the cosmic system of Satan, thus it refers to any thought, word or action which is contrary to the perfect character and integrity of God. 3. Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words makes the following comments regarding the adjective kakos, stands for "whatever is evil in character, base," in distinction (wherever the distinction is observable) from poneros (see No. 2), which indicates "what is evil in influence and effect, malignant." Kakos is the wider term and often covers the meaning of poneros. Kakos is antithetic to kalos, "fair, advisable, good in character," and to agathos, "beneficial, useful, good in act"; hence it denotes what is useless, incapable, bad; poneros is essentially antithetic to chrestos, "kind, gracious, serviceable"; hence it denotes what is destructive, injurious, evil. As evidence that poneros and kakos have much in common, though still not interchangeable, each is used of thoughts, cf. (Matt. 15:19) with (Mark 7:21); of speech, (Matt. 5:11) with (1 Pet. 3:10); of actions, (2 Tim. 4:18) with (1 Thes. 5:15); of man, (Matt. 18:32) with (24:48). The use of kakos may be broadly divided as follows: (a) of what is morally or ethically "evil," whether of persons, e. g., (Matt. 21:41; 24:48; Phil. 3:2; Rev. 2:2), or qualities, emotions, passions, deeds, e. g., (Mark 7:21; John 18:23, 30; Rom. 1:30; 3:8; 7:19,21; 13:4; 14:20; 16:19; 1 Cor. 13:5; 2 Cor. 13:7; 1 Thes. 5:15; 1 Tim. 6:10; 2 Tim. 4:14; 1 Pet. 3:9,12); (b) of what is injurious, destructive, baneful, 2007 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 4

5 pernicious, e. g., (Luke 16:25; Acts 16:28; 28:5; Titus 1:12; Jas. 3:8; Rev. 16:2), where kakos and poneros come in that order, noisome and grievous (page 390). 4. As in the LXX, it is used to describe any thought, word or action performed by the unbeliever who rejects establishment principles ordained for a client nation to God as a result of the unbridled function of the old sin nature and indoctrination and influence from the evil produced by the cosmic system of Satan. 5. It also refers to any thought, word or action performed by the reversionistic or apostate believer who rejects the communication of the Word of God at either 1 of 3 stages: a. Perception b. Metabolization c. Application. 6. It describes the reversionistic or apostate believer who is producing human good and evil as a result of living the old sin nature and is influenced by evil from the cosmic system of Satan. 7. The word is also used in the NT as it is in the LXX for the divine discipline handed down by the Supreme Court of Heaven and administered to either the reversionistic unbeliever or believer. 8. The word describes any thought, word or action performed by either the unbeliever or reversionistic believer as a result of functioning according to the 3 arrogance skills: a. Self-justification b. Self-absorption c. Self-deception 9. The adjective kakos can describe the person or his thoughts, words and actions which are a result of sin nature control and indoctrination from the cosmic system of Satan. 10. Trench makes the following comment regarding the word in relation to its synonym poneros, he states, Kakos and poneros are used in Revelation 16:2 and kakia and poneria in 1 Corinthians 5:8. The dialogismoi kakoi of Mark 7:21 are referred to as dialogismoi poneroi in the parallel passage in Matthew (15:19). The distinction between kakos and poneros is best understood by studying poneros. Kakos is constantly used in antithesis to agathos and is less frequently as the antithesis of kalos. Kakos describes something that lacks the qualities and conditions that would make it worthy of its name. Kakos was first used in a physical sense. Thus the kaka heimata are mean or tattered garments ; kakos iatros is a physician lacking the skill which physicians should possess ; and kakos krites is an unskillful judge. Kakos is used in Scripture without ethical connotations and sometimes with one. The kakos doulos is a servant lacking that fidelity and diligence which are properly due from servants As Ammonius called him, the poneros is ho drastikos kakou (the active worker out of evil). Beza made this distinction: Poneros signifies something more than kakos and beyond question it refers to a person who has been trained in every crime and completely prepared for inflicting injury to anyone. According to its derivation, the poneros is one who furnishes trouble to others. Poneria is the cupiditas nocendi (desire of harming). Jeremy Taylor defined poneros as an aptness to do shrewd turns, to delight in mischief and tragedies; a loving to trouble our neighbor and to do him ill offices; crossness, perverseness, and peevishness of action in our intercourse. The positive activity of evil is emphasized more by poneros than by kakos. Thus poneros constantly is contrasted with chrestos, the good contemplated as the useful. If kakos is the French mauvais (bad) or merchant (wicked), then poneros is noisome in the older sense of this word. The kakos may be content to perish in his own corruption, but the poneros is not content unless he is corrupting others and drawing them into his own destruction. For they do not sleep unless they have done evil; and their sleep is taken away unless they make someone fall (Prv. 4:16). The opson poneron is an unwholesome dish ; asmata ponera are wicked songs that by their wantonness corrupt the minds of the young; gyne ponera is a wicked wife ; ophthalmos poneros (Mark 7:22) is a mischief-working eye. Satan is emphatically ho poneros as the first author of all the mischief in the world. Ravening beasts are always theria ponera in the LXX. Kaka theria (evil beasts) occurs once in the New Testament (Titus 1:12), but the meaning is not precisely the same, as the context sufficiently shows. Euripides testifies that the Greeks thought there was a more inborn and radical evil in the man who is poneros than in the man who is kakos: The evil person (poneros) is in no way different from the bad [kakos]. In the context, Euripides means that a man with an evil nature (poneros) will always show himself so in his actions (kakos) (Synonyms of the New Testament, pages ). 11. Bauer, Gingrich and Danker list the following meanings in the NT (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature page 307): a. In the moral sense bad, evil-of a person; of the characteristics, actions, emotions, plans of men; neuter as subst William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 5

6 b. Evil, injurious, dangerous, pernicious c. Certain passages fall between 1 and 2; in them the harm is caused by evil intent, so that 1 and 2 are combined: evil, harm, wrong 12. The New Thayer s Greek-English Lexicon lists the following (page 103): a. Universally of a bad nature; of such as it ought to be b. Of a mode of thinking, feeling, acting; base wrong, wicked; of persons c. Troublesome injurious, pernicious, destructive, baneful 13. Louw and Nida list the following usages (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based upon Semantic Domains volume 2): a. Pertaining to being bad, with the implication of harmful and damaging bad, evil, harmful, harshly (page 754). b. Pertaining to being harsh and difficult bad, harsh, difficult (page 624). c. Pertaining to having experienced harm harmed, harm, injured (page 230). d. Pertaining to being incorrect or inaccurate, with the possible implication of also being reprehensible incorrect, wrong (page 675). 14. Moulton lists the following (The Analytical Greek Lexicon Revised, page 210): a. Bad, of a bad quality or disposition, worthless, corrupt, depraved b. Wicked, criminal, morally bad c. Evil, wickedness, crime d. Malediction e. Mischievous, harmful, baneful f. Evil, mischief, harm, injury g. Afflictive h. Evil, misery, affliction, suffering 2007 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 6