§ 76. All evil is to be regarded as the punishment of sin, but only social evil as directly such, and natural evil as only indirectly.

1. It would be altogether contrary to this proposition to admit only such a connexion between evil and sin, as implied that evil was the original and sin the derivative, i.e. that it was the obstructions to man’s sensuous life that first evoked in him the bad, and repressed his God-consciousness. Such things are often enough said in particular cases, and the morally bad derived from natural imperfection, physical or psychical. Were it really so, however, the Christian consciousness would necessarily be in conflict with itself; for to see an obstruction of life in any moment of experience in which there was a disturbance merely of the sensuous consciousness would of itself argue an impotence in the God-consciousness, and therefore sin. The said theory, therefore, can hold good only of an individual case as such, certain evils favouring the development of certain forms of sin, but only because these evils themselves have had their source in sin. To advance the view as universally and exclusively true, however, would imply that the ultimate ground of sin lies wholly outside human activity, in an original ordainment of evil independent of such activity; and this would mean that sin was not the collective act of the human race, but in the first instance the work of external nature, where evil was supposed to have its basis, and ultimately a divine appointment. This view, however, would not only take us beyond distinctly Christian ground—since redemption would then be essentially an emancipation from evil— but it would carry us out of the sphere of the teleological, i.e. the distinctively ethical religions, into that of æsthetic or of nature-religion, where the guiding hope would be merely that a joyous emergence of the God-consciousness might possibly take place once we had become prosperous and happy.

In opposition to all this we record our consciousness that in the admitted connexion between sin and evil, sin is ultimately always the primary and original element, and evil the derivative and secondary. For the term ‘punishment’ implies, first, an evil actually existing in relation to some preceding badness (Böse). This does not indeed exhaust the connotation of the term, and when we use it in its true sense we really refer the said connexion to an originator, and ascribe it to a free action on his part; and it is either in an improper sense, or because we actually refer the connexion to the divine causality, that we apply the term punishment to an evil that, instead of being inflicted upon a wrong-doer, rather befalls him. Our formulated statement is accordingly the expression of our religious consciousness in so far as we refer that connexion to the absolutely living and active divine causality as described above, and do not seek to involve that causality in any particular way in the antithesis of free and necessitated. And for that very reason this consciousness, of which probably no one can divest himself, is essentially different from the partly one-sided and partly perverted mode of it found in Judaism, and still more in heathenism; for, when that ordained connexion between sin and evil is divorced from the universal world-order and the system of nature, and is represented as something individual and unequal in its incidence, or is referred to some superinduced change in the Supreme Being, we have a view which rests upon a vitiated God-consciousness, and thus itself is of the nature of sin.

2. In distinguishing here between social evils and natural evils we are proceeding upon the fact that the former alone are dependent upon sin directly. It might no doubt be argued that the expressions ‘due to human activity’ and ‘due to sin’ do not mean the same thing, since the root of evil is often not sin so much as error. Nevertheless, when we try to conceive of an error absolutely free from guilt, we find that the range of such errors is much narrower than is usually supposed, so that, strictly speaking, we have to fall back, not upon free human action at all, but upon merely passive states which in reality belong to our natural imperfection. Evils which could be explained in this way, because not due to sin, would in fact fall into the category not of social but of natural evils.

The connexion of the latter group with sin, again, is only an indirect one; for death and pain, or at least analogous natural maladjustments of the individual life to its environment, are found where no sin exists. Natural evils, therefore, objectively considered, do not arise from sin; but as man, were he without sin, would not feel what are merely hindrances of sensuous functions as evils, the very fact that he does so feel them is due to sin, and hence that type of evil, subjectively considered, is a penalty of sin. That even the most serious maladjustments of this kind, considered purely by themselves and from the standpoint of man’s natural perfection, are not punishments, but incentives rather to the development of the spirit, is taught by Christ Himself with reference to the man born blind;⁷ for what He says there regarding His own special miraculous power is susceptible of universal application. Even if we probe still more deeply, and assert that the obstructions to our life, taken purely by themselves and before they become evils through sin, are nevertheless rooted in the same evil as sin was said above to be,⁸ in the temporal frame and the spatial individualization of existence, upon which the beginnings of all sin depend; yet, even as thus connected in their common origin, sin would for us still be first and evil second, as certainly as man is primarily an acting subject, and his activity not wholly dependent upon his passive states.

3. As the value of the Mosaic narrative must be estimated in view of the fact that there can be no proper history of the first man, and as a state of being which offered him abundant enjoyment without effort on his part can be no genuine representation of the original perfection of the world, it is possible that the true significance of that symbolic narrative may be seen in its relation to the contrasted states. Thus the fact that, when man after the Fall had to till the ground in the sweat of his brow—this in itself being no evil, and therefore not a penalty of sin—the tilled ground brought forth thorns and thistles for him, is certainly meant to indicate that nature’s opposition to man’s moulding handiwork is to be thought of only in connexion with sin. Similarly, the fact that death, hitherto unknown to him, is put before him as the recompense of transgression, and that the first case of death is represented as the outcome of sin, seems to indicate that it is through sin alone that natural imperfections come to be incorporated with social evils. Now, as the Pauline account⁹ of the relationship of death, and thus of all secondary natural evils, to sin turns wholly upon that symbolical narrative, and can only be interpreted in the light of it, it too (precisely on the analogy of sin) depicts the evil which befell the first pair after the Fall as ‘originating orginal evil,’ and this again can be applied to every contribution which the individual in consequence of his sin makes to the deterioration of the world.

§ 77. The dependence of evil upon sin, however, can be empirically established only as we consider a communal life in its entirety; on no account must the evils affecting the individual be referred to his sin as their cause.

1. If sin as an organic whole can be rightly understood only as the corporate action of the human race, its causal action relatively to evil can only be understood from the same point of view. In fact, the most definite expression of this conviction lies, for each of us, in the general statement that throughout the human race as a whole, increase of sin is necessarily attended by a corresponding increase of evil (though as the effects of sin naturally ensue only by degrees, it is often the children and grandchildren who first suffer for the sins of the fathers),¹⁰ and that, in like manner, as sin diminishes, so will evil diminish. As the intercourse, however, of the human race is even yet relatively limited, and many groups, being in a manner outside the range of the sins of other groups, form enclosed wholes by themselves, the same principle will hold good of these as well. Following up this line, we shall next be able to say of every nation, and indeed of every social class in it, so far as it seems to stand by itself, that the measure of its sin will be also the measure of the evil it suffers. Nor does this strict correspondence with sin apply to social evils only; for since large bodies of men not seldom affect one another precisely as natural forces do, and external nature obstructs the common efforts of all, these influences are, in every large association of human beings, felt the more intensely as evil, the more deeply it is involved in sin; and, in fact, even common evils not seldom acquire their peculiar cast and character from the nature of the sin that predominates in the society. All this becomes unmistakably clear only when we have in view a circle of homogeneous communal life not too small in extent.

2. Now it would indicate not only a limited and erroneous but a dangerous point of view—even if a view deeply rooted in Judaism and Greek heathenism— were we to make a similar affirmation regarding the individual, namely, that for each the measure of his sin is the measure of the evil that befalls him. For the very conception of the community and fellowship of human life implies, as indeed follows all but self-evidently from the manner in which sin produces evil, that quite possibly only the merest fraction of the common evil may fall upon the author of much of the common depravity. Accordingly, to refer first to natural evils; we find Christ explicitly declaring that, on the one hand, those operations of nature in which the original perfection of the world is most clearly shown are by divine appointment not less active where there is sin than where there is righteousness;¹¹ and on the other, that natural evils,¹² and accidental evils such as might almost be identified therewith,¹³ are assuredly not linked to the sin of the individual—so far as we can isolate it—in such a way as to warrant our measuring his sin by the evil he suffers. And even if we go back to the view that sinfulness and natural imperfections spring from a common root, yet the individual’s share in the one seems to be quite independent of his share in the other. Only in this way, indeed, can our assumption hold good without subverting the completeness and constancy of the natural order. Again, as regards social evils: were these to be apportioned to each individual according to his share in the collective wrong-doing, we should often, as by some magic process, have to find justice in injustice.¹⁴ In point of fact, Christ warns His disciples of persecution and suffering in their work for the Kingdom of God, but not assuredly in proportion to their sin. How indeed could such a supposition be squared with the idea—an idea pervading the New Testament, and, if rightly understood, essential to Christianity— that within a common sphere of sin it is possible for one to suffer for the rest, so that the evil due to the sin of many may all converge upon one, and that penal suffering may fall pre-eminently upon one who is himself most free from the common guilt and most resolute in his battle with sin?

Postscript.—From the point now reached, we find it possible to estimate a position which I would characterize broadly as the Cynical, but which has been maintained repeatedly and in various forms in Christian times—namely, that all evils have sprung from our social life and from men’s endeavours, by combining their forces, to explore and dominate nature more effectively, and that in the so-called state of nature these evils would virtually not have emerged at all. In one aspect, this view seems to be a mere corollary of our proposition. For since in social life the individual may have to suffer for the many, it is impossible that evil could be the same in the solitary state as it is in society. Clearly, too, the less a man is inclined to activity, and therefore the less in touch with other men and with external nature, the less exposed will he be to the evils that result from such contact. If this view, however, is advanced, not as a mere observation, but as counsel and warning to the effect that a man would do well to act less in order to suffer less, it conflicts with the spirit of Christianity in that it commends the maxim of the slothful servant, and finds a higher ideal in being passive than in being spontaneously active.

POSTSCRIPT TO THIS DOCTRINE

§ 78. The consciousness of this connexion does not demand a passive endurance of evil on account of sin; nor does it entail an endeavour either to bring about evil because of sin, or on the other hand to do away with evil in itself.

1. This proposition, since it does not more exactly determine anything in regard to the origin of the consciousness already elucidated, or further define or analyse its non-active content, can only be dealt with here as an addendum. But as the proposition has to do with the issues of that consciousness in so far as the latter may express itself in an impulse to deeds that react upon it, it is strictly one that verges upon the sphere of Christian Ethics. At the same time it is not taken from that sphere. A system of Christian Ethics formulated independently, i.e. not simply in relation to a definite existing system of Christian doctrine, or as a series of practical corollaries drawn from such a system, would hardly be capable of directly combining the points which our proposition summarizes. On the contrary, the question whether the Christian consciousness enjoins a passive acceptance of all evil, or whether, on the other hand, every other task imposed upon us should be laid aside until some evil that we suffer from has been got rid of; or again, the question whether a positive system of penal law is directly derived from religion, and whether the sense of one’s own sin should induce one to bring evil upon oneself, would all emerge at quite different points in Christian Ethics. What entitles our proposition to a place here is its distinctively dogmatic combination of the points concerned.

2. In every instant of suffering the consciousness of the connexion between evil and sin is present, and is indeed combined in the unity of the moment along with our God-consciousness; this association of our feeling of absolute dependence with our state of suffering constitutes the mood of religious submission, which is thus an essential element of piety, but an element which wholly disappears if we regard the said connexion as non-existent or as of minor importance, and in face of our present difficulties in life look for corresponding ameliorations in the future. Similarly, should this submission develop into something more positive, and should we become willing that evil should continue or unwilling that it should cease (on the pretext of not desiring to infringe the desires of God or to be found in opposition to Him), then our submission would not be grounded upon the connexion in question. Queer fancies of this type, due to misconception, have always been repudiated by the Christian Church, which has always set itself here against superstition and fanaticism. For the continuance of evil could assuredly not be willed as a hindrance to life, since every such hindrance tends to restrict on one side or another the activity that flows from the God-consciousness. And still less in the sphere of redemption, within which we confidently hope sin will disappear, could we desire the continuance of evil, since, evil and sin being connected, we should in that case either desire the continuance of sin itself or else not desire the realization of that hope. On the other hand, it is no less certain that the Christian consciousness could never give rise to a moment of activity specially directed towards the cessation of suffering as such—partly, of course, because such a moment would really be determined by the interests of the lower side of life, and partly because (since, in view of the aforesaid connexion, suffering necessarily evokes the consciousness of sin) it is a disposition hostile to sin itself that needs to be aroused. And at the same time, as every restriction of spontaneous activity implies a still defective domination over nature, we are confronted with the task of making that domination effective. These, then, would be the two consistent and practical results flowing from our sense of the connexion of sin and suffering, whereas every activity directed against suffering in itself, would, precisely because of the end in view, be a sensuous one, and also would only too easily take on a character of passionate vehemence.

Further, there is thus exposed the unchristian or rather the wholly irreligious nature of a certain other view—namely, that it is evil alone which, from the outset, has evoked all the human activity that goes to subjugate nature and to form social life. For if that activity has been directed solely against evil, and has accordingly sprung up only as a reaction against depressive influences without any spontaneity, then this whole phase of life will be of a purely sensuous kind, and will draw no incentive from the God-consciousness. On such terms the truth would lie with those who think that religion does not express itself in outward acts at all, and who so divorce that entire sphere of things (as merely secular and purely a matter of necessity) from the province of religion, as to make an irremediable cleavage in life.

3. Finally, if on the one hand sin is essentially a corporate thing, since every sin emanating from an individual implies the guilt of others, so that corporate evil can be related only to corporate sin, and on the other hand every increase of sin must be regarded as of itself entailing an increase of evil; then our consciousness of this divinely ordained connexion can furnish no grounds for our bringing about evil as a result of observed sin; for by its very nature such procedure could not but interfere with the divine ordinance in question. Whether there may, however, not be other grounds for doing so is, of course, not the question here.

---

← Actual Sin · Contents · First Aspect, Third Section. The Divine Attributes Relating to the →

Footnotes

1. Gen. 3¹⁴. ¹⁶⁻¹⁸. ↩

2. Cf. § 59. ↩

3. On this, cf. § 59. ↩

4. Heb. 2¹⁵. ↩

5. Cf. § 48, I. ↩

6. Cf. § 59. ↩

7. John 9³. ↩

8. ↩

9. Rom. 5¹²ᶠᶠ. ↩

10. Ex. 20⁵. ↩

11. Matt. 5⁴⁵. ↩

12. John 9³. ↩

13. Luke 13⁵. ↩

14. Cf. Luke 13¹⁻³. ↩