The Nature of Comparative Good and Evil

of the life that is imminent. Furthermore, does he not sin then? — does not he who insults Satan sin? Does the impious one, 'in being cursed,' curse the impious one, 'Satan, he curses his own soul'? He curses Satan not because he is a creation of God, but because he is evil and impious. And he himself is also impious. Therefore he curses himself, and this curse is not empty. If someone curses him because he is impious, he hates the cause, which is that perceived satanic thing. And impiety is the cause. And perhaps he has ceased, or if not ceasing, he will be punished. If the captives are now cursing the day of their captivity, they do not say this so that they might no longer be subject to the captivity—'do they perhaps have the captivity as a cause'—and be exalted by it.

Furthermore, does he then curse 'that day'? And why did he also add 'that'? For one day does not differ from another. Then he says: 'May he who is about to grasp the great whale curse it' (Psalm 70:1). Why did he not say: 'He who made the sun, he who constructed the cosmos,' but 'he who is about to grasp the great whale'? For the Savior has come and, 'having grasped the great whale,' described the genesis of humans, so as to give them another genesis, the 'from water and spirit' (John 3:5), which is principally called regeneration. And regeneration is genesis upon genesis, just as 'repetition' is song upon song. And he called the resurrection of the dead regeneration; for he says to the disciples: 'You also will sit in the regeneration on twelve thrones' (Matthew 19:28), instead of 'in the resurrection, in the age to come' (1 Corinthians 15:52).

If I say: 'May I not see this day,' being in affliction or disease, do I say 'may I not see' regarding the time, since it has passed? For time does not turn back. Furthermore, has he said that that cause of his genesis is sin? — I do not say this again, but that he who curses a day or blesses a day does not bless or curse with respect to time, but with respect to the things that have happened in time. I say: does he not say 'it is better to dissolve and be with Christ' (Philippians 1:23)? He does not say that being released from this life is better. Furthermore, will he say that being joined to it is better or worse? — neither worse nor better. Furthermore, is it indifferent? — if this is indifferent, then the opposite [is also...]

It is indifferent. Or, is it not considered as evil, but as toward the better? Opposites do not coexist. If one of these is good, the other is evil, and if the other is evil, the other good must be accepted, as it is regarding virtue and vice, injustice and justice, piety and impiety. If the other is bad, the remainder is good. But when neither of the opposites is bad, neither is the remainder. White and black are opposites; and since white is indifferent, being neither good nor evil, so too is the black of the white.

Or, do you say that the outside of the body becomes good according to the one saying 'to dissolve'? Look from the end: the one having dissolved becomes in Christ. Or, is this comparative? Pay attention to what you say. The things said to be comparative are said as being of the same kind, not as being opposed; just as when I say, 'Sodom was justified because of you' (Gen 19:28), it is not that Sodom has been justified. 'Because of your own sins, O Jerusalem' (Jer 15:9), because a prophet was killed and has become a traitor to the Savior. That Sodom incited one man, Lot. 'That Sodom was justified because of you.' Not simply was it justified—for it has not been justified—but 'because of you.' And if it says again: 'He loved wickedness rather than goodness, and deceitful lips rather than to speak righteousness' (Ps 52:3), these things are said comparatively, not oppositely; for this is said because, once one is decided, the other is immediately placed.

The 'dissolving' then is 'and to be in Christ'—if you say it is indifferent to 'remaining in the flesh,' and this is indifferent; for it has been shown to us that the things being compared and added have this state: if the other is bad, the remainder is not important. If it is important to be 'with Christ, the one having dissolved,' the turning away from the world, being outside the flesh, or being in the flesh, even if it is, according to you, inferior, it is good. The inferior is intended to perish, so that he may become a master of the greater. And I say the loss thus: the hindrance, his ceasing. Just now John wished to remain such as he was on the day of his departure. Or, does he not say so? Therefore, he who desires the better knows this, that it is not the better nor even good. He does not wish for such a state to pass away from him. And the passing away of the...