Who/What is (the) Devil?

[Bryan Williams]

I have never given this idea much critical evaluation, but recently came across the proposition that ‘The Devil’ is not a personal being, but rather a description or a concept—perhaps of sin.

I was wondering what others thought about this. Do you think Satan is a personal being—a real individual entity, or more of a concept? If a concept, a concept of what?

[Shea Zellweger]

I don't deny the existence of the demonic, but I think we've rolled several different conceptual entities together to form our idea of "the Devil." Satan, Azazel, Lucifer, Beelzebub... each of these names have been used to refer to "the Devil," yet there are other examples of demonology which list them as separate entities. I think we have created a single entity which we generally use to represent all things demonic and labeled that entity "the Devil."

[Keith Mullins]

He appeared before God to accuse Job. Can a concept appear before God? I don't know what else but a personal being could do that.

[Shea Zellweger]

He appeared before God to accuse Job. Can a concept appear before God? I don't know what else but a personal being could do that.

Coupla things about that...
-Job has been historically included with the Kethubim (writings) among the Sifrei Emet (three poetic books), the other two being Psalms and Proverbs, suggesting that the Jews did not view the Book of Job as a historical account, but rather as a poetic book intended to impart wisdom, in this case an attempt to explain Theodicy
-"The Devil" in Job is Ha-Shatan, or "the Accuser." Ha-Shatan is not necessarily the same person as Lucifer, Beelzebub, or even the Satan to which Jesus refers when he says "I saw Satan himself fall..." in fact, it can't be the same entity to which Jesus is referring, because that entity was banished from heaven, and the one in the book of Job clearly still had access...

[John Brickley]

He appeared before God to accuse Job. Can a concept appear before God? I don't know what else but a personal being could do that.

Keith,

I think that Shea is right in what he is alluding to. The term Satan means "accuser" and thus I believe the reference in Job has more to do with the role that the being in question was fulfilling than it does a proper name. So I do not think we can equate the being in Job (even if we were to take it as a historical book, which Shea rightly points out that the Hebrew's do not) with the figure that Jesus and the New Testament refers to when the term Satan is used.

John

[Andy Mistak]

I said in an earlier thread that for me, believing in Satan, the Devil, Demons, etc. as "being" or "beings" necessarily leads to a kind of faux paganism where we have a good god (God) and a lesser evil god (Satan) or gods (Demons). I also believe that using "Satan" or "Devil" as a metaphor for my selfish, self-destructive sin nature and "Demons" as a metaphor for my temptations, depression, and traumas does not in any way lessen the necessity to fight them tooth and nail, nor does it diminish the reality of the danger they pose to me and my relationships with God and other people.

[Dennis Bratcher]

-"The Devil" in Job is Ha-Shatan, or "the Accuser." Ha-Shatan is not necessarily the same person as Lucifer, Beelzebub, or even the Satan to which Jesus refers when he says "I saw Satan himself fall..." in fact, it can't be the same entity to which Jesus is referring, because that entity was banished from heaven, and the one in the book of Job clearly still had access...

Something that is usually overlooked in connecting the satan in Job with the devil:

1) the satan appears in heaven before God along with the "sons of God." At the very least that ought to raise some questions.

Other references are too often ignored as well.

2) In Numbers 22:22, 32 the "messenger of God" calls himself a satan.

3) In 2 Chronicles 21:1 a satan is credited with inciting David to take a census, while the parallel passage in 2 Samuel 24:1 says that it was God.

These (and other passages) suggest that the satan in the Old Testament is far more related to God than to a devil.

As I have often said, the plain and easily demonstrable fact is that there is no devil anywhere in the Old Testament. It is there only if we insert it by interpretation. Again, at the very least that ought to raise some questions for us.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Shea Zellweger]

Something that is usually overlooked in connecting the satan in Job with the devil:

1) the satan appears in heaven before God along with the "sons of God." At the very least that ought to raise some questions.

Other references are too often ignored as well.

2) In Numbers 22:22, 32 the "messenger of God" calls himself a satan.

3) In 2 Chronicles 21:1 a satan is credited with inciting David to take a census, while the parallel passage in 2 Samuel 24:1 says that it was God.

These (and other passages) suggest that the satan in the Old Testament is far more related to God than to a devil.

As I have often said, the plain and easily demonstrable fact is that there is no devil anywhere in the Old Testament. It is there only if we insert it by interpretation. Again, at the very least that ought to raise some questions for us.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.
Agreed.
Given that a "satan" is just an accuser, I don't think the term itself is necessarily demonic, which was my point in that particular instance. The only evidence I find for a single demonic entity which is somehow "greater than" other demons is in the New Testament, and even there I would challenge the assumption. Jesus' encounter with the Tempter and Peter's statement about "your enemy, the devil" are the most cited passages, yet there's no evidence that these demons were somehow rulers of the rest of the demons, or that they themselves were the same entity. In fact, I've seen several examples of demonology where there were no fewer than four (and sometimes quite a few more) demon rulers- one of the more noteworthy being Anton LaVey's which, although far from authoritative, is a mainstay among satanists.

[David Graham]

Just to "lower" the level of the discussion a bit, isn't the devil a bloke who wears a red suit, has horns on his head, cloven hoofs and a pointy tail... and oh, he carries a trident?

Seriously though, where do we get such an image of "the devil"? I don't easily find it in scripture.... although with a bit of imagination I could conjure up an image similar to that from the book of Revelation.... perhaps?

I wonder if such imagery attribute to "the devil" or Satan or to evil in general, more power than what he, it or they actually have? With Shea, I agree that Satan's greatest power comes from his accusations against the elect. Temptations too are a problem although I suspect that most of our temptations stem from our own willfulness.

Cheers,
Dave

[Mike Fraley]

If you would like to find any place that explicitly mentions the notion of Lucifer starting a revolution in heaven with a third of the angels, then you'll have to look at the book of 2 Enoch. I found it once on microfiche and sat down to read it. Interesting read... but given that it's in a class of writing called the pseudopigraphal writings (that is to say, no one ever thought it was the inspired word of God), it makes one wonder why this is the dominant Christian mythology.

Like Dennis says about reading Satan into the Old Testament, it takes quite a lot to read Lucifer's revolt into the New Testament. There are a few passages that seem to refer to it, but on further inspection it raises more questions than it gives answers.

[Keith Mullins]

Wow .................

[Randy Wise]

Coupla things about that...

- Jesus refers when he says "I saw Satan himself fall..." in fact, it can't be the same entity to which Jesus is referring, because that entity was banished from heaven, and the one in the book of Job clearly still had access...

The LORD said to Satan, "Where have you come from?"
Satan answered the LORD, "From roaming through the earth and going back and forth in it."


It seems to me those (angels or man) that sincerely follow God don't delight in "steering/leading" others into sin. I can't see any angel who takes delight in doing so being allowed to remain in heaven. That doesn't necessary (to me) mean a lack of communication with God since we no little of the other side and the makeup of angels.

Some satan asked to sift Peter according to Jesus. Maybe thats the same satan that also tempted Jesus despite the access reasoning. (not that it matters)

[John Brickley]

Wow .................

Keith,

Would you care to elaborate?

John

[Marsha Lynn]

If you would like to find any place that explicitly mentions the notion of Lucifer starting a revolution in heaven with a third of the angels, then you'll have to look at the book of 2 Enoch. I found it once on microfiche and sat down to read it. Interesting read... but given that it's in a class of writing called the pseudopigraphal writings (that is to say, no one ever thought it was the inspired word of God), it makes one wonder why this is the dominant Christian mythology.

Like Dennis says about reading Satan into the Old Testament, it takes quite a lot to read Lucifer's revolt into the New Testament. There are a few passages that seem to refer to it, but on further inspection it raises more questions than it gives answers.

Another interesting note is that "lucifer" is Latin for "morning star." Peter writes in 2 Peter 1:19 about the time when the day dawns and "lucifer" rises in our hearts (see Latin Vulgate). In the English translation of Revelation 22:16, Jesus says that HE is the "bright morning star" (stella splendida et matutina)

[Bryan Williams]

Agreed.
Given that a "satan" is just an accuser, I don't think the term itself is necessarily demonic, which was my point in that particular instance. The only evidence I find for a single demonic entity which is somehow "greater than" other demons is in the New Testament, and even there I would challenge the assumption. Jesus' encounter with the Tempter and Peter's statement about "your enemy, the devil" are the most cited passages, yet there's no evidence that these demons were somehow rulers of the rest of the demons, or that they themselves were the same entity. In fact, I've seen several examples of demonology where there were no fewer than four (and sometimes quite a few more) demon rulers- one of the more noteworthy being Anton LaVey's which, although far from authoritative, is a mainstay among satanists.

Shea, thanks for your thoughts. I would suggest that maybe Matthew 12:22-29 or so gives us evidence of a demonic ruler named Satan or Beelzebub. The name Beelzebub is on the lips of the Pharisees, but Jesus doesn’t correct them, and actually then equates this name with Satan in his reply. I have not looked into this critically, but would appreciate thoughts from whoever would care to contribute.

[Bryan Williams]

As I have often said, the plain and easily demonstrable fact is that there is no devil anywhere in the Old Testament. It is there only if we insert it by interpretation. Again, at the very least that ought to raise some questions for us.

Thanks you for your thoughts, Dr. Bratcher. Doesn't this leave a bit of discontinuity between the OT and the NT? The idea of Satan or Beelzebub as a personal entity seems much more prevalent in the NT.

[Bryan Williams]

Seriously though, where do we get such an image of "the devil"? I don't easily find it in scripture.... although with a bit of imagination I could conjure up an image similar to that from the book of Revelation.... perhaps?

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that this view of satan originated with the celebration of All Saints Day / Halloween as a way to make fun of Satan... that could be just by addled brain, however.

[Marsha Lynn]

I said in an earlier thread that for me, believing in Satan, the Devil, Demons, etc. as "being" or "beings" necessarily leads to a kind of faux paganism where we have a good god (God) and a lesser evil god (Satan) or gods (Demons). I also believe that using "Satan" or "Devil" as a metaphor for my selfish, self-destructive sin nature and "Demons" as a metaphor for my temptations, depression, and traumas does not in any way lessen the necessity to fight them tooth and nail, nor does it diminish the reality of the danger they pose to me and my relationships with God and other people.

Thanks isn't enough here, Andy. I have followed this same route.

When I was younger and regarded the devil as a separate entity, I was a little annoyed that Jesus got to hold a conversation with the horned little man in red tights in the wilderness whereas the temptation conversation for me is with a voice inside my head. It certainly would be easier to resist temptation if I could more clearly identify its source as an evil outside myself. I found it helpful to change my view to put the voice inside Jesus' head and add validity to the statement that he was "tempted in every way just as we are" (Heb 4:15). I know many would have a problem with placing a desire within Jesus to serve himself (turn stones into bread when on the verge of death by starvation) and find a path to being the Messiah that followed worldly ambitions and values and brought him personal glory, but I think it's necessary to see him as human with human weaknesses, including an inner drive for significance which he had to overcome in order to submit to the Father's will.

As I read the various New Testament references to Satan and the devil, I find that they fit well with a metaphorical interpretation seeing them as representative of the basic desire lurking within us to steal some of God's glory for ourselves.

Example: Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour (1 Pet 5:8). I.e., the selfishness within us seeks to devour everything that is valuable in ourselves and others.

Marsha

[Andy Mistak]

In "The Last Word and the Word After That" Brian McClaren seems to chalk this up to the influence of pagan (Greek, I think) cultures around the Jews. He also talks about the idea that we see the Pharisees as the "conservatives" because of their onerous legalism, but it was in fact the Sadducees who were conservatives because they weren't influenced by such pagan ideas.


Thanks you for your thoughts, Dr. Bratcher. Doesn't this leave a bit of discontinuity between the OT and the NT? The idea of Satan or Beelzebub as a personal entity seems much more prevalent in the NT.

[Lorie Hatcliff]

Something that is usually overlooked in connecting the satan in Job with the devil:

1) the satan appears in heaven before God along with the "sons of God." At the very least that ought to raise some questions.

Other references are too often ignored as well.

2) In Numbers 22:22, 32 the "messenger of God" calls himself a satan.
Every translation that I've looked at for this doesn't use the word SATAN.

NIV
But God was very angry when he went, and the angel of the LORD stood in the road to oppose him. Balaam was riding on his donkey, and his two servants were with him

NLT
But God was angry that Balaam was going, so he sent the angel of the LORD to stand in the road to block his way. As Balaam and two servants were riding along,

NASB
But God was angry because he was going, and the angel of the LORD took his stand in the way as an adversary against him. Now he was riding on his donkey and his two servants were with him.

etc.....so what I'm wondering is do you mean that the word adversary or one who opposes is the exact word in Hebrew as when we see the word Satan used elsewhere in the Bible?


3) In 2 Chronicles 21:1 a satan is credited with inciting David to take a census, while the parallel passage in 2 Samuel 24:1 says that it was God.


I think you mean FIRST Chronicles 21:1 here.

[Shea Zellweger]

Every translation that I've looked at for this doesn't use the word SATAN.

NIV
But God was very angry when he went, and the angel of the LORD stood in the road to oppose him. Balaam was riding on his donkey, and his two servants were with him

NLT
But God was angry that Balaam was going, so he sent the angel of the LORD to stand in the road to block his way. As Balaam and two servants were riding along,

NASB
But God was angry because he was going, and the angel of the LORD took his stand in the way as an adversary against him. Now he was riding on his donkey and his two servants were with him.

etc.....so what I'm wondering is do you mean that the word adversary or one who opposes is the exact word in Hebrew as when we see the word Satan used elsewhere in the Bible?



Yup, same Hebrew word (Shatan). Translators basically choose to not translate it, but rather transliterate it, when they feel it applies specifically to "the Devil," while they translate it as "adversary" or "opponent" when it does not. There are more than a few words where translators take such interpretive liberties.

[Dennis Bratcher]

Thanks you for your thoughts, Dr. Bratcher. Doesn't this leave a bit of discontinuity between the OT and the NT? The idea of Satan or Beelzebub as a personal entity seems much more prevalent in the NT.

If there is such a discontinuity, then it raises a different set of questions than we are used to asking:


1) If there is no devil in the Old Testament as there is in the New Testament, what is the historical development of the concept? Where did it come from within Judaism?

2) As soon as we concede "development," we are dealing with contextual issues. What cultural and historical issues are related to that development, and how does that affect how we understand the concept?

3) What implications would that historical development have on our understanding of the concept and its related ideas (demonology, spiritual warfare, etc.), not only within Scripture but in present application?
I think it also forces us to ask far deeper exegetical questions of the biblical text.


4) How do we go about distinguishing between ontological and metaphorical description in the biblical text?

5) How do we decide that Scripture is primarily ontological in the first place?

6) How do literary or narrative methodologies affect how we understand New Testament references?

7) How do we determine meaning in Scripture in light of 2,000 years of accrued theological and popular interpretations, many of which approach fantasy (Dante's Inferno) or are outright fiction (Peretti's Darkness series, as well as cinematic portrayals of the devil and the demonic)?
There are even a broader range of questions raised.


8) How exactly do we go about understanding application of the concept in present contexts that, apart from certain religious ideas and doctrines, do not accept the notion that human ills are the result of the devil or the demonic?

9) How does the difference between a first century world view and a 21st century world view (including what we know about the physical world) affect how we approach the topic? (It has not been that long ago in the USA that some illnesses, for example epilepsy, were considered demonic manifestations; and recall that we did not discover germs until the 1860s.)

10) . . .
Well, you get the idea.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Dennis Bratcher]

so what I'm wondering is do you mean that the word adversary or one who opposes is the exact word in Hebrew as when we see the word Satan used elsewhere in the Bible?

Yes, it is the identical word in Hebrew. As Shea pointed out, it is a translation issue. In Job, it is usually translated "Satan" as a proper name even though in the Hebrew text it has a definite article, "the satan." In other words, it is more a title rather than a name: "the adversary." Yet in Numbers 22 it has no article and yet is translated as "adversary" rather than Satan.

Also, it might be important to note that there are no capital letters in Hebrew, so capitalizing Satan as a proper name (a convention of English) is an interpretative move. There is nothing in the Hebrew text that mandates this.

My point is that the issues over the "devil" or Satan" in Job are not nearly as clear as many have claimed or assumed them to be.


I think you mean FIRST Chronicles 21:1 here.

Yes, thanks for the correction.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Todd Erickson]

The devil, as they say, is in the details.

[Shea Zellweger]

If there is such a discontinuity, then it raises a different set of questions than we are used to asking:

1) If there is no devil in the Old Testament as there is in the New Testament, what is the historical development of the concept? Where did it come from within Judaism?



Zoroastrianism?

[Todd Erickson]

Zoroastrianism?

This is what I've been told.

I wonder how much Jesus and the disciples were speaking into the combined culture of Greek mythology, Zoroastrianism, Gnosticism, etc. which brought rich wordplay, but which, not being planned for folks 2k years later, didn't include footnotes on how they were being clever.

And Jesus knew we'd screw it up no matter what he'd say anyway.

[Dennis Bratcher]

The LORD said to Satan, "Where have you come from?"
Satan answered the LORD, "From roaming through the earth and going back and forth in it."

It seems to me those (angels or man) that sincerely follow God don't delight in "steering/leading" others into sin. I can't see any angel who takes delight in doing so being allowed to remain in heaven. That doesn't necessary (to me) mean a lack of communication with God since we no little of the other side and the makeup of angels.

Some satan asked to sift Peter according to Jesus. Maybe thats the same satan that also tempted Jesus despite the access reasoning. (not that it matters)

That is not really what the satan in Job (or Numbers 22) is doing.

In any case, there are other passages to consider.


Jud 9:23 But God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the lords of Shechem; and the lords of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech.

1 Sam 16:14 Now the spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD tormented him. 16:15 And Saul's servants said to him, "See now, an evil spirit from God is tormenting you. 16:16 Let our lord now command the servants who attend you to look for someone who is skillful in playing the lyre; and when the evil spirit from God is upon you, he will play it, and you will feel better."

1 Sam18:10 The next day an evil spirit from God rushed upon Saul, and he raved within his house,

1 Sam 19:9 Then an evil spirit from the LORD came upon Saul, as he sat in his house with his spear in his hand, while David was playing music.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Dennis Bratcher]

Like Dennis says about reading Satan into the Old Testament, it takes quite a lot to read Lucifer's revolt into the New Testament. There are a few passages that seem to refer to it, but on further inspection it raises more questions than it gives answers.

FWIW: "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12-17: Translation and Ideology (http://www.crivoice.org/lucifer.html)

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Todd Erickson]

That is not really what the satan in Job (or Numbers 22) is doing.

In any case, there are other passages to consider.


Jud 9:23 But God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the lords of Shechem; and the lords of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech.

1 Sam 16:14 Now the spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD tormented him. 16:15 And Saul's servants said to him, "See now, an evil spirit from God is tormenting you. 16:16 Let our lord now command the servants who attend you to look for someone who is skillful in playing the lyre; and when the evil spirit from God is upon you, he will play it, and you will feel better."

1 Sam18:10 The next day an evil spirit from God rushed upon Saul, and he raved within his house,

1 Sam 19:9 Then an evil spirit from the LORD came upon Saul, as he sat in his house with his spear in his hand, while David was playing music.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

So, is the evil spirit actually from God, or is this just an assumed condition?

Was it actually an evil spirit, or just a bad mood? Depression?

Nothing in the OT was written by people who thought in terms of historical accuracy. How much literal truth do we really want to ascribe to these passages?

[Andy Mistak]

So, is the evil spirit actually from God, or is this just an assumed condition?

Was it actually an evil spirit, or just a bad mood? Depression?

Also -- For whom is the spirit "evil" and could it be considered "good" for anyone else?

[Mike Fraley]

Also -- For whom is the spirit "evil" and could it be considered "good" for anyone else?

I would ask David this while he's looking down the business end of a spear.

Seriously, though, when you're dealing with Hebrew concepts of evil, you're looking at a very broad description. Evil was often something that one experienced, rather than there being a distinct spiritual taint as many conceive of today. Evil was broadly enough understood to be a negative experience regardless of cause. Today we would see an earthquake and call it a terrible calamity due to the loss of property and life. Within the context of the Old Testament they were likely to describe the act as an evil.

Please correct me, Dennis, if I am at all mistaken in any of these notions.

Also, you have to understand the idea of mysterious causality in the Old Testament. They did not understand things like fault lines, brain chemistry, or even agriculture. Why did the crops grow or not grow? God caused it to be so. Why did the earthquake happen? God must have caused it to happen.

This idea of comparing experiences of Saul and then weighing the potential benefit vs. the potential harm is a 19th century concept. Such an idea would have been quite alien to the writers of the Old or New Testaments.

[Dan Ross]

I have never given this idea much critical evaluation, but recently came across the proposition that ‘The Devil’ is not a personal being, but rather a description or a concept—perhaps of sin.

I was wondering what others thought about this. Do you think Satan is a personal being—a real individual entity, or more of a concept? If a concept, a concept of what?

Jude 1:9 (Contemporary English Version)

9 Even Michael, the chief angel, didn't dare to insult the devil, when the two of them were arguing about the body of Moses. [a] All Michael said was, "The Lord will punish you!"

[Hans Deventer]

I have never given this idea much critical evaluation, but recently came across the proposition that ‘The Devil’ is not a personal being, but rather a description or a concept—perhaps of sin.

I was wondering what others thought about this. Do you think Satan is a personal being—a real individual entity, or more of a concept? If a concept, a concept of what?

I would say that if Jesus is the truth, the way and the life, which means that concepts can still be a person, the same goes for the devil. The Bible speaks about angels, good and bad. The good ones appear every now and then, I guess they are more than concepts too. So why wouldn't the bad ones exist? Angels have a freedom of choice as well. So they too can choose against God.

In either case, I'll be very happy to see one day both the person and the concept thrown into the lake of fire.

[Daniel Hamlin]

If there is such a discontinuity, then it raises a different set of questions than we are used to asking:

1) If there is no devil in the Old Testament as there is in the New Testament, what is the historical development of the concept? Where did it come from within Judaism?

2) As soon as we concede "development," we are dealing with contextual issues. What cultural and historical issues are related to that development, and how does that affect how we understand the concept?

3) What implications would that historical development have on our understanding of the concept and its related ideas (demonology, spiritual warfare, etc.), not only within Scripture but in present application?I think it also forces us to ask far deeper exegetical questions of the biblical text.

4) How do we go about distinguishing between ontological and metaphorical description in the biblical text?

5) How do we decide that Scripture is primarily ontological in the first place?

6) How do literary or narrative methodologies affect how we understand New Testament references?

7) How do we determine meaning in Scripture in light of 2,000 years of accrued theological and popular interpretations, many of which approach fantasy (Dante's Inferno) or are outright fiction (Peretti's Darkness series, as well as cinematic portrayals of the devil and the demonic)? There are even a broader range of questions raised.

8) How exactly do we go about understanding application of the concept in present contexts that, apart from certain religious ideas and doctrines, do not accept the notion that human ills are the result of the devil or the demonic?

9) How does the difference between a first century world view and a 21st century world view (including what we know about the physical world) affect how we approach the topic? (It has not been that long ago in the USA that some illnesses, for example epilepsy, were considered demonic manifestations; and recall that we did not discover germs until the 1860s.)

10) . . .Well, you get the idea.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

Is there an Answer Key or Teacher's Edition available for this? :)

[Dennis Bratcher]

Is there an Answer Key or Teacher's Edition available for this? :)

No. ;)

As Francis Bacon said, "A prudent question is one half of wisdom."

Sometimes, being able to ask questions honestly about things that most others think are already settled is the beginning of understanding. To be able to ask such honest questions means that we have stepped beyond accepted dogma and have begun to seek the truth that lies beyond the security of popular opinion and the consensus of easy answers. It is not an easy journey, and is often a path less traveled. Maybe that is part of what Jesus had in mind (Matt 7, especially 7-14).

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Dennis Bratcher]

Jude 1:9 (Contemporary English Version)

9 Even Michael, the chief angel, didn't dare to insult the devil, when the two of them were arguing about the body of Moses. [a] All Michael said was, "The Lord will punish you!"

I'm not sure what this intends but seems to be offered as an answer to Brian's question ("Do you think Satan is a personal being—a real individual entity, or more of a concept? If a concept, a concept of what?") I am assuming that the answer is intended to be the former.

However, this ignores the historical questions posed earlier in this thread, which must be asked here. They are a crucial set of questions since this passage clearly reflects an intertestamental development in how opposition to God is understood in Judaism.

There are stories in several apocryphal and non-canonical Second Temple Jewish texts of a contest between the Devil and God (note that in the Old Testament, for example in 1 Kings 18, the opposing parties are God and Ba'al and his followers). These texts tend to reinterpret and rewrite canonical stories in terms of Greek influenced dualism, expressed as the struggle between good and evil with evil personified in various forms of demons or the devil. That suggests we are dealing with historical development here, not ontology.

For example, in the 2nd century BC Book of Jubilees (17:15-18:16; see below), the Genesis 22 story of the Binding of Isaac is retold as a contest between God and Mastema (Heb: hatred, hostility), a Jewish intertestamental term for the prince of demons. Also in Jubilees 48:2-3, it is Mastema that seeks to kill Moses while in Exodus 4:24 it was God. Later (48:9), it is Mastema that confronts Moses rather than Pharaoh, and it is from Mastema that the Egyptian sorcerers derive their power. In other words, the biblical accounts are rewritten in terms of a dualistic conception of good and evil, with evil personified as demons or the devil.

Biblical and historical scholars conclude that Jude 9 was taken from the (now lost) ending of another non-canonical book, The Testament of Moses, since several early Church Fathers make that connection. If so, that means that Jude is not necessarily making any kind of ontological claim about the devil or demons, but is referring to a literary story with which his reader would have been familiar in order to make a point within the context of the book of Jude (rejection of false teachers and their spiritual pride). As such, it cannot be proof for an answer to Brian's question.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.


From The Book of Jubilees


17:15. And it came to pass in the seventh week, in the first year thereof, in the first month in this jubilee, on the twelfth of this month, there were voices in heaven regarding Abraham, that he was faithful in all that He told him, and that he loved the Lord, and that in every affliction he was faithful.

16. And the prince Mastêmâ came and said before God, 'Behold, Abraham loves Isaac his son, and he delights in him above all things else; bid him offer him as a burnt-offering on the altar, and you will see if he will do this command, and you will know if he is faithful in everything in which you try him.

17. And the Lord knew that Abraham was faithful in all his afflictions; for He had tried him through his country and with famine, and had tried him with the wealth of kings, and had tried him again through his wife, when she was torn (from him), and with circumcision; and had tried him through Ishmael and Hagar, his maid-servant, when he sent them away.

18. And in everything in which He had tried him, he was found faithful, and his soul was not impatient, and he was not slow to act; for he was faithful and a lover of the Lord.

18:1 And God said to him, 'Abraham, Abraham'; and he said, Behold, (here) am I.'

2. And he said, Take your beloved son whom you love, (even) Isaac, and go unto the high country, and offer him on one of the mountains which I will point out unto you.'

3. And he rose early in the morning and saddled his ass, and took his two young men with him, and Isaac his son, and split the wood of the burnt offering, and he went to the place on the third day, and he saw the place afar off.

4. And he came to a well of water, and he said to his young men, Stay here here with the ass, and I and the lad shall go (yonder), and when we have worshipped we shall come again to you.'

5. And he took the wood of the burnt-offering and laid it on Isaac his son, and he took in his hand the fire and the knife, and they went both of them together to that place.

6. And Isaac said to his father, 'Father;' and he said, 'Here am I, my son.' And he said unto him, 'Behold the fire, and the knife, and the wood; but where is the sheep for the burnt-offering, father?'

7. And he said, 'God will provide for himself a sheep for a burnt-offering, my son.' And he drew near to the place of the mount of God.

8. And he built an altar, and he placed the wood on the altar, and bound Isaac his son, and placed him on the wood which was upon the altar, and stretched forth his hand to take the knife to slay Isaac his son.

9. And I stood before him, and before the prince Mastêmâ, and the Lord said, 'Bid him not to lay his hand on the lad, nor to do anything to him, for I have shown that he fears the Lord.'

10. And I called to him from heaven, and said unto him: 'Abraham, Abraham;' and he was terrified and said: 'Behold, (here) am I.'

11. I said unto him: 'Lay not your hand upon the lad, neither do anything to him; for now I have shown that you fear the Lord, and have not withheld your son, your first-born son, from me.'

12. And the prince Mastêmâ was put to shame; and Abraham lifted up his eyes and looked, and, behold a ram caught . . . by his horns, and Abraham went and took the ram and offered it for a burnt-offering instead of his son.

13. And Abraham called that place 'The Lord has seen', so that it is said in the mount the Lord has seen: that is Mount Sion.

14. And the Lord called Abraham by his name a second time from heaven, as he caused us to appear to speak to him in the name of the Lord.

15. And he said: 'By Myself have I sworn, says the Lord, Because you have done this thing, And have not withheld your son, your beloved son, from Me, That in blessing I will bless thee, And in multiplying I will multiply your seed As the stars of heaven, And as the sand which is on the seashore. And your seed shall inherit the cities of its enemies,

16. And in your seed shall all nations of the earth be blessed; Because you have obeyed My voice, And I have shown to all that you are faithful unto Me in all that I have said unto you: Go in peace.'

[Bryan Williams]

No. ;)

As Francis Bacon said, "A prudent question is one half of wisdom."

Sometimes, being able to ask questions honestly about things that most others think are already settled is the beginning of understanding. To be able to ask such honest questions means that we have stepped beyond accepted dogma and have begun to seek the truth that lies beyond the security of popular opinion and the consensus of easy answers. It is not an easy journey, and is often a path less traveled. Maybe that is part of what Jesus had in mind (Matt 7, especially 7-14).

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

Thank you Dr. Bratcher. Your previous post has given me quite a bit to think about! I appreciate it!

[Billy Cox]

In "The Last Word and the Word After That" Brian McClaren seems to chalk this up to the influence of pagan (Greek, I think) cultures around the Jews. He also talks about the idea that we see the Pharisees as the "conservatives" because of their onerous legalism, but it was in fact the Sadducees who were conservatives because they weren't influenced by such pagan ideas.

yeah, and Jesus' belief in resurrection probably placed him in league with the Pharisees, not just some unaffiliated gadfly.

[Mike Fraley]

Biblical and historical scholars conclude that Jude 9 was taken from the (now lost) ending of another non-canonical book, The Testament of Moses, since several early Church Fathers make that connection. If so, that means that Jude is not necessarily making any kind of ontological claim about the devil or demons, but is referring to a literary story with which his reader would have been familiar in order to make a point within the context of the book of Jude (rejection of false teachers and their spiritual pride). As such, it cannot be proof for an answer to Brian's question.


Just as a postscript to Dennis' ideas, you may want to take a close look at Jude with a commentary handy, Dan. It makes some very obvious reference to non-canonical myths and legends that I daresay we would not want to claim as definite truth on ontological matters.

Before jumping to conclusions about what I'm saying about the authority of scripture, consider this. If I'm preaching and I'm trying to illustrate a point to my listeners, I will make reference to ideas already familiar in the minds of the audience. In order to do so, I make references to books, movies, plays, or other stories known to my audience. Those outside stories serve as a touch-point to lead an audience to a greater point. Jude seems to do exactly this in its references to myths and legends that were never thought to be strictly true... for example, an argument with the devil over the body of Moses.

All that to say, one must be pay very close attention when interpreting Jude. It would be a shame to make the author say something beyond his intended claims.

[Dan Ross]

The LORD said to Satan, "Where have you come from?"
Satan answered the LORD, "From roaming through the earth and going back and forth in it."


It seems to me those (angels or man) that sincerely follow God don't delight in "steering/leading" others into sin. I can't see any angel who takes delight in doing so being allowed to remain in heaven. That doesn't necessary (to me) mean a lack of communication with God since we no little of the other side and the makeup of angels.

Some satan asked to sift Peter according to Jesus. Maybe thats the same satan that also tempted Jesus despite the access reasoning. (not that it matters)

Th;is brings up the issue of when each book was actually written. I'm no Bible scholar, but I heard a few weeks ago that Job is actually the oldest book of the Bible in relation to when it was actually written. I could be wrong, but the issue of chronology is also blurred by the idea that God might exist outside of time.

[Dan Ross]

However, this ignores the historical questions posed earlier in this thread, which must be asked here. They are a crucial set of questions since this passage clearly reflects an intertestamental development in how opposition to God is understood in Judaism.

'[/SIZE][/indent]

I consider myself more educated after reading your post. However, i am a simple minded daycare provider for little children so I like very simple things. I, personally, lean toward as literal a translation of the Bible as I can possibly conceive. In my mind, Jude is talking about an actual conversation between Michael and the devil. In this account, in my mind, the devil wanted to reveal the burial place of Moses' body in order that it might be worshiped by the Jews in the same way that the "serpent" on a pole became an object of worship. I think Hezekiah destroyed that serpent to remove it as an object of worship.

In my mind, the devil appeared to Eve in the garden of eden in a "personal" physical form. His message then was one of consolation and peace. "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman." Gen 3:4

And here we see the problem with the "founders" of the "Emergent Church." Most of what I've read about the "Emergent Church" indicates that it is all based on love and good intentions and drawing in the largest number of people. However, when we listen to the message of Brian McLaren we get something like the following statements. You can fill in the blanks.

Frederick Gaiser proposes a helpful fill-in-the-blanks exercise (go here for context and credits):

[Blank] accepts us. No matter how great our faults, [blank] will embrace us. [Blank] tells us we’re all right. [Blank] does not tell us to feel guilty.

“When I have conducted this experiment,” says Gaiser, “the most frequent answers have been ‘God,’ ‘Jesus,’ ‘the gospel,’ or ‘mother.’ But, according to Gregory Curtis, the author of these sentences, the answer is ‘evil.’”

From the website : "Ancient Hebrew Poetry" "The Ontology of Evil in the Hebrew Bible."

http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com/ancient_hebrew_poetry/2009/04/the-ontology-of-evil-in-the-hebrew-bible.html

You could also fill in the blanks with Brian McLaren, Doug Pagitt, Rob Bell. You cannot use "God." If you cannot use God, can you use "The Church of the Nazarene?"

[Hans Deventer]

I consider myself more educated after reading your post. However, i am a simple minded daycare provider for little children so I like very simple things. I, personally, lean toward as literal a translation of the Bible as I can possibly conceive.

Well, if you are simple minded, than it's a very good thing you came here to learn. Of course simple minded doesn't imply closed minded.

And you may already have noticed that the discussion (as always) isn't about what the Bible says, but about how we read it. You've been so honest to explain your hermeneutics. That is good. Next step in the discussion would be, why did you make that choice? What are your fears if you abandon that principle?

And, if I have chosen to read differently, does that make me a heretic in your eyes?

[Mike Fraley]

I consider myself more educated after reading your post. However, i am a simple minded daycare provider for little children so I like very simple things. I, personally, lean toward as literal a translation of the Bible as I can possibly conceive. In my mind, Jude is talking about an actual conversation between Michael and the devil. In this account, in my mind, the devil wanted to reveal the burial place of Moses' body in order that it might be worshiped by the Jews in the same way that the "serpent" on a pole became an object of worship. I think Hezekiah destroyed that serpent to remove it as an object of worship.

In my mind, the devil appeared to Eve in the garden of eden in a "personal" physical form. His message then was one of consolation and peace. "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman." Gen 3:4


Perhaps I'm a bit confused... but if we're going with a literal interpretation, how did Satan get into Genesis?



And here we see the problem with the "founders" of the "Emergent Church." Most of what I've read about the "Emergent Church" indicates that it is all based on love and good intentions and drawing in the largest number of people. However, when we listen to the message of Brian McLaren we get something like the following statements. You can fill in the blanks.

Frederick Gaiser proposes a helpful fill-in-the-blanks exercise (go here for context and credits):

[Blank] accepts us. No matter how great our faults, [blank] will embrace us. [Blank] tells us we’re all right. [Blank] does not tell us to feel guilty.



How did we get to talking about the emergent church all of a sudden? I'm sorry, I'm really confused here, because I thought we were talking about biblical and extrabiblical origins of the ideas that we had of the devil, and whether or not the devil is actually a being.

[Dennis Bratcher]

I consider myself more educated after reading your post. However, i am a simple minded daycare provider for little children so I like very simple things. I, personally, lean toward as literal a translation of the Bible as I can possibly conceive.

I assume you mean a literal interpretation, since translation is a different topic.

The simple reality is that the Bible was not written by or for preschoolers. To pretend that it is will pretty much guarantee that it will be misunderstood. It's like elementary children enjoying a story like Gulliver's Travels, or a movie like Avatar without having a clue that the story is stinging satire about something totally different. It's a shame that the book of Jonah, for example, is generally heard as a children's story about being swallowed by a fish, when in fact it is a scathing critique against Jewish prejudice and the restrictive bigotry it engenders, something that is far beyond most children.


In my mind, Jude is talking about an actual conversation between Michael and the devil.

And how, exactly, did you conclude that? Is this just as assumption about how to read the Bible? OK.

Then I assume that Judges 9 is about an actual conversation between an olive tree, a fig tree, a grape vine, and a bramble bush? And I would have to conclude that in Isaiah 55:12 mountains and hills can sing and tress can clap their hands (which would also require assuming that trees have hands). There are hundreds more examples from Scripture.

What becomes obvious is that a default assumption about "literal interpretation" falls apart very quickly when actually reading very much of Scripture. It also reflects a strong modern western intellectual bias that assumes the primary mode of communication is or ought to be the reporting of data and fact. It totally ignores the simple fact that ancient Eastern culture, and even much of it in the modern world, thinks and communicates in story and poetry. The best biblical example of that is Jesus who taught in stories, not in lectures about facts. It is totally irrelevant whether the stories he told were "actual conversations" or were just metaphorical or illustrative stories. The truth was in the message the story or parable communicated, not in the story itself.


In this account, in my mind, the devil wanted to reveal the burial place of Moses' body in order that it might be worshiped by the Jews in the same way that the "serpent" on a pole became an object of worship. I think Hezekiah destroyed that serpent to remove it as an object of worship.

Except this has nothing whatever to do with the point and content of the rest of the book of Jude!


In my mind, the devil appeared to Eve in the garden of eden in a "personal" physical form. His message then was one of consolation and peace. "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman." Gen 3:4

Here you have violated you own stated primary rule. This is not a literal interpretation, and certainly not a "simple" reading, but a theological reading of the text that imposes much later systematic theology onto the text. Perhaps you could show me where in the text it mentions the devil, or satan for that matter? All I read in Genesis 3 is about a wise serpent that told the truth about what God would do. What simple set of interpretative methods allows the serpent to become the devil?

And even beyond that, what is there in this story that demands that it is a "'personal' physical" kind of story? What forces us to conclude that this must be an "actual conversation" as opposed to an illustrative story? Is there any significance that adam is the Hebrew term for "human being" and that it occurs in word plays on the Hebrew word for "ground" (Heb: adamah) from which the adam was taken. This is one of the most intricately crafted passages in Scripture, anything but a simple children's story.

There are a lot of intricate literary features of the biblical text that can never be captured in a simple, literal reading, yet may significantly influence how a passage is heard and what it means. Such things as word plays, plays on the sounds of similar words, interplays of ranges of meanings of words, irony, satire, sarcasm, etc., all have numerous examples throughout Scripture in both Testaments.


And here we see the problem with the "founders" of the "Emergent Church." . . .

Connecting this with a literal interpretation of the Bible is a red herring that may well reveal an agenda, since this has nothing whatever to do with the present subject (you have said that you are only seeking information about emergent; this hints at something much different). If you want to discuss "emergent" that's OK, and I and others here can certainty do that. But let's not connect it with how to read Jude or Genesis.

BTW, it appears that the reference to the website Ancient Hebrew Poetry: The Ontology of Evil in the Hebrew Bible" (http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com/ancient_hebrew_poetry/2009/04/the-ontology-of-evil-in-the-hebrew-bible.html) is given to dismiss it as ridiculous. However, most Old Testament scholars would agree with this role for the satan in the Old Testament. I wrote a paper over 20 years ago now that concluded much the same thing, and have said something similar in this thread. The simple fact is that the satan in the Old Testament is not associated with evil but rather with God in all four passages in which the satan occurs.

The devil in the New Testament is something different. But that was the point of the original post about development of the concept of evil and how it was expressed, and the need to understand that development within Scripture, and in places like The Book of Jubilees.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Dennis Bratcher]

Th;is brings up the issue of when each book was actually written. I'm no Bible scholar, but I heard a few weeks ago that Job is actually the oldest book of the Bible in relation to when it was actually written. I could be wrong, but the issue of chronology is also blurred by the idea that God might exist outside of time.

The date of the book of Job is unknown and, as one writer noted, "we must rely largely on intelligent speculation" (Clines, Interpretation). Biblical scholars date it somewhere between the seventh and second centuries BC. While it is set in the patriarchal era (c. 1800-1600 BC), most Old Testament scholars agree that it is an archaizing writing, that is, written as if from a time long past in order to deal with current issues from a detached perspective.

If there is a margin of agreement, it is that the basic shape of the book comes from the sixth century BC and the crisis of exile, dealing with the unjust suffering of those righteous Israelites caught up in the tragedy (Jeremiah deals with the justness of the exile as consequences of the nation's unfaithfulness). Most agree that it draws on a very ancient story (known from other cultures as well) and that the book underwent later editing and expansion.

But the reality is that we do not know, and therefore the date of the book cannot factor much into interpretation.

Whether God exists within or outside of time is not a concern of the biblical writings. Since we have no way to know this anyway it can never be a factor in biblical interpretation. The reality is that the only way that human beings have ever known God is within limited time and space. Whatever else God is or might be is beyond our range of knowledge and experience.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Dan Ross]

Well, if you are simple minded, than it's a very good thing you came here to learn. Of course simple minded doesn't imply closed minded.

And you may already have noticed that the discussion (as always) isn't about what the Bible says, but about how we read it. You've been so honest to explain your hermeneutics. That is good. Next step in the discussion would be, why did you make that choice? What are your fears if you abandon that principle?

And, if I have chosen to read differently, does that make me a heretic in your eyes?

You will have to go a long way off the beaten path to get ME to call YOU a heretic. Anyway, some of my best friends are heretics. :)

[Dan Ross]

Perhaps I'm a bit confused... but if we're going with a literal interpretation, how did Satan get into Genesis?

How did we get to talking about the emergent church all of a sudden? I'm sorry, I'm really confused here, because I thought we were talking about biblical and extrabiblical origins of the ideas that we had of the devil, and whether or not the devil is actually a being.

I do confess, I am simple minded and probably always will be, but I tend to think the "old serpent," "the devil," in Revleation 12:9 was also hanging out in the garden near Adam and Eve.

Revelation 12:9
"and the great dragon was cast forth -- the old serpent, who is called `Devil,' and `the Adversary,' who is leading astray the whole world -- he was cast forth to the earth, and his messengers were cast forth with him." (Young's Literal)

Once again, I'm no Bible scholar, but it appears to me that the garden serpent and the Revelation serpent probably are one and the same. We do see that the message of Brian McLaren and that Garden serpent are the same. If not, show me the difference. And, by the way, Brian McLaren seems like a real nice guy. Coincidentally, I can almost hear Eve saying to Adam "Hey dude, I just met this real nice guy. Sort of a serpent thing."

I am unpleased with the terms "Emergent Church / Emerging Church." I only use them because other people do. In fact, I find very little in the description of that movement that cannot be found in the church for the past few centuries at least.

Ooops. I almost forgot: I could be wrong, but then again, I could be right. What if I'm right?

[Benjamin Burch]

I do confess, I am simple minded and probably always will be, but I tend to think the "old serpent," "the devil," in Revleation 12:9 was also hanging out in the garden near Adam and Eve.

Revelation 12:9
"and the great dragon was cast forth -- the old serpent, who is called `Devil,' and `the Adversary,' who is leading astray the whole world -- he was cast forth to the earth, and his messengers were cast forth with him." (Young's Literal)

Once again, I'm no Bible scholar, but it appears to me that the garden serpent and the Revelation serpent probably are one and the same. We do see that the message of Brian McLaren and that Garden serpent are the same. If not, show me the difference. And, by the way, Brian McLaren seems like a real nice guy. Coincidentally, I can almost hear Eve saying to Adam "Hey dude, I just met this real nice guy. Sort of a serpent thing."

I am unpleased with the terms "Emergent Church / Emerging Church." I only use them because other people do. In fact, I find very little in the description of that movement that cannot be found in the church for the past few centuries at least.

Ooops. I almost forgot: I could be wrong, but then again, I could be right. What if I'm right?

I don't see the connection between McLaren and the serpent. How are they doing the same thing? You simply asserted this here in this post, you did not defend it or even provide any reason for thinking so. I'm interested, because i don't see anything similar about the two.

[Mike Fraley]

I do confess, I am simple minded and probably always will be, but I tend to think the "old serpent," "the devil," in Revleation 12:9 was also hanging out in the garden near Adam and Eve.

Revelation 12:9
"and the great dragon was cast forth -- the old serpent, who is called `Devil,' and `the Adversary,' who is leading astray the whole world -- he was cast forth to the earth, and his messengers were cast forth with him." (Young's Literal)

Once again, I'm no Bible scholar, but it appears to me that the garden serpent and the Revelation serpent probably are one and the same.


I'm sorry, but for someone who favors simplicity, there's a lot of complexity and assumption that goes into connecting the two passages. If there is one passage that explains itself as equating the devil and a serpent, then why is it that we can simply assume that another book by another author written in another culture at another time meant "devil" when it said "serpent?" Further, it seems to me that this is pretty selective when applying that equation. Shouldn't we be making this connection elsewhere in the scriptures as well? Why should I not also assume that the devil came into the Israelite camp and was biting the people of Israel? Should I assume that the devil bit Paul but he was unharmed? Did Moses make a bronze statue of the devil for all the Israelites to gaze upon when bitten?

What you call simplicity looks very complicated to me. Can you break it down for me when I should understand serpents as being serpents and when serpent means the devil? By what hermeneutical standards can I tell the difference?



We do see that the message of Brian McLaren and that Garden serpent are the same. If not, show me the difference. And, by the way, Brian McLaren seems like a real nice guy. Coincidentally, I can almost hear Eve saying to Adam "Hey dude, I just met this real nice guy. Sort of a serpent thing."


You might also have to break this down for me. I've not met Brian McLaren. I read one of his books many years ago. I'm having trouble remembering a section where he said something to the effect that if I eat something God told me not to, then I wouldn't really die. Perhaps this was in a book of his that I haven't read. Would you mind giving me some explicit examples of when McLaren's words were similar to the garden serpent's?

[Tim Bourland]

A related question (and i admit I haven't read every single entry here), who/what is a demon? And...is there such a thing as demon possession?

[Ryan Plott]

A related question (and i admit I haven't read every single entry here), who/what is a demon? And...is there such a thing as demon possession?

In my experience I have never met anyone who has experienced a demonic possession that hasn't experimented with psychotropic drugs. That doesn't necessarily conclusively prove there isn't, it's just something I've noticed. Also, the symptoms of demonic possession described in Scripture are eerily similar to what neurologists and psychologists have found to be chemical imbalances in the brain due to genetic or biological factors.

[Shea Zellweger]

I do confess, I am simple minded and probably always will be, but I tend to think the "old serpent," "the devil," in Revleation 12:9 was also hanging out in the garden near Adam and Eve.

Revelation 12:9
"and the great dragon was cast forth -- the old serpent, who is called `Devil,' and `the Adversary,' who is leading astray the whole world -- he was cast forth to the earth, and his messengers were cast forth with him." (Young's Literal)

Once again, I'm no Bible scholar, but it appears to me that the garden serpent and the Revelation serpent probably are one and the same. We do see that the message of Brian McLaren and that Garden serpent are the same. If not, show me the difference. And, by the way, Brian McLaren seems like a real nice guy. Coincidentally, I can almost hear Eve saying to Adam "Hey dude, I just met this real nice guy. Sort of a serpent thing."


...wow.

I know that the Rev-Genesis connection is the most commonly used, but it's not a valid one. Revelation is a self-contained book with a lot of intrinsic imagery. One recurring image is of a large serpentine beast, a "dragon" if you will." this beast shows up prior to Revelation 12, and is revealed in Rev. 12 as being a representation of "the Devil," which in turn may refer to any number of personages or concepts. In order to make the journey back to Genesis and connect Rev. 12 thereto, you must pass through several instances where a serpent is used in the positive, including Jesus' command to be "shrewd as serpents," and the serpent which God had Moses fashion in order to save the people from their afflictions- this latter might in turn be compared to Christ, so the concept of serpent really runs quite the gamut throughout Scripture. In the instance of Genesis 3, the snake's actions and the resulting outcome, and the common Ancient-Near East use of the snake as an example of "cunning wisdom" (the snake in Gen 3 is called "cunning") suggests the snake is more likely a representation of "worldly wisdom" than of "the devil."

[Hans Deventer]

We do see that the message of Brian McLaren and that Garden serpent are the same. If not, show me the difference.

I thought that the one who makes accusations has to prove them? Or can I simply say, Dan Ross speaks like the devil and it's up to you to prove it isn't true?

[Mike Fraley]

Or can I simply say, Dan Ross speaks like the devil and it's up to you to prove it isn't true?

Ooo! We found a witch! May we burn him? :)

[Dan Ross]

I thought that the one who makes accusations has to prove them? Or can I simply say, Dan Ross speaks like the devil and it's up to you to prove it isn't true?

Genesis 3:4 (New International Version) 4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman.

Go to the video at this address and listen to Brian at time = 23:46 onward.

http://www.alittleleaven.com/2009/04/brian-mclaren-denies-the-historicity-of-genesis-fall-of-man-narrative.html

I'm not saying Brian is precisely technically right or wrong in some way or another. I'm saying his sermon is the same.

[Shea Zellweger]

Genesis 3:4 (New International Version) 4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman.

Go to the video at this address and listen to Brian at time = 23:46 onward.

I'm not saying Brian is precisely technically right or wrong in some way or another. I'm saying his sermon is the same.

Which video, Dan?

You'll note if you read the rest of Genesis 3 that the Serpent was technically right. In fact, when God banished Adam and Eve from the garden, it was because "man has become like us, knowing good and evil." The Serpent told the truth, it was just a damning truth to tell.

[Dan Ross]

By the way, this might be considered off topic to everybody except those who think the "Emergent Church" is of the devil and therefore ON topic. The generals have spoken. I'm sure most of you know that ALL SIX on the BGS have endorsed a letter written by a District Advisory Committee which appears to give Nazarenes a working definition of Emergent and Emerging. Once again, I could be wrong, but it appears to me that "Emergent" "messes with" doctrine and is not acceptable for the denomination. "Emerging" does not "mess with" doctrine and is acceptable to the denomination.

The letter is two and a half pages long depending on the font used on your computer. It is sans letterhead and sans signature block. It's authenticity, my copy anyway, was verified as authentic by J. K. Warrick via Renee Rotz at Kansas City. The purpose of the document in .pdf format it to have something in the hands of District Superintendents who are queried about the denominations position on "Emergent" and / or "Emerging" churches. If you have followed this movement, you, as I do, would probably think these "definitions" apply only within our denomination and would probably not be considered valid in another venue.

[Dan Ross]

Which video, Dan?

You'll note if you read the rest of Genesis 3 that the Serpent was technically right. In fact, when God banished Adam and Eve from the garden, it was because "man has become like us, knowing good and evil." The Serpent told the truth, it was just a damning truth to tell.


When you are sitting there in your comfy chair watching tv and you hear that a murderer has been sentenced to death, in your heart you know he won't die for 15 years depending on how good his appellate lawyers are. However, it is the quintessence of "Dead man walking." He is, for most intents and purposes, dead. Or, as I overheard a man say after his sentencing, "I guess this ends my problems with the IRS."

[Marsha Lynn]

I have never given this idea much critical evaluation, but recently came across the proposition that ‘The Devil’ is not a personal being, but rather a description or a concept—perhaps of sin.

I was wondering what others thought about this. Do you think Satan is a personal being—a real individual entity, or more of a concept? If a concept, a concept of what?

Today I heard a few minutes of a sermon on Christian radio talking about the characteristics of Satan. It struck me that there's a huge logical problem with the way Christians generally speak about this "fallen angel." The speaker told me that Satan will come to me in this way or that. To me personally? With over 6 billion people in the world and one fallen angel named Satan, how does my number come up so often for personal attention? Is this a case of generalizing many demons under one generic name? Or do we present Satan as omnipresent?

If we decide that Satan is a real personal being in time and space don't we run into the same problems we already have with his anagramic counterpart Santa on Christmas Eve? On the other hand, if we consider the Satan figure to be a personification of evil rather than an actual being, all we need is good and evil to be present in each of us to iron out the issues of omnipresence.

What explanation for omnipresence is generally offered by those who embrace the "fallen angel" history of Lucifer?

[Shea Zellweger]

When you are sitting there in your comfy chair watching tv and you hear that a murderer has been sentenced to death, in your heart you know he won't die for 15 years depending on how good his appellate lawyers are. However, it is the quintessence of "Dead man walking." He is, for most intents and purposes, dead. Or, as I overheard a man say after his sentencing, "I guess this ends my problems with the IRS."

Nope, not gonna fly. The literal translation of Gen. 2:17 is that on the day they ate of the fruit, they would die. Now, I believe that this story is not to be taken literally, but that the death being referenced is of a spiritual variety. However, there is nothing the snake said that was false. They did not die on the day they ate the fruit, and they did learn the knowledge of good and evil. Was it right for the snake to tell them that? Probably not, but he was still right in what he said, and there's still no proof that he was the devil.


By the way, this might be considered off topic to everybody except those who think the "Emergent Church" is of the devil and therefore ON topic. The generals have spoken. I'm sure most of you know that ALL SIX on the BGS have endorsed a letter written by a District Advisory Committee which appears to give Nazarenes a working definition of Emergent and Emerging. Once again, I could be wrong, but it appears to me that "Emergent" "messes with" doctrine and is not acceptable for the denomination. "Emerging" does not "mess with" doctrine and is acceptable to the denomination.

You're going to have to share where we can find this particular letter. It's not in the "official statements" or "pastoral perspectives" of the Nazarene website, and the way you describe it is quite different from the one that we saw passed along by Dr. Middendorf, so either there are competing letters out there, or your evaluation here is not compatible with how I read the letter in question.


The letter is two and a half pages long depending on the font used on your computer. It is sans letterhead and sans signature block. It's authenticity, my copy anyway, was verified as authentic by J. K. Warrick via Renee Rotz at Kansas City. The purpose of the document in .pdf format it to have something in the hands of District Superintendents who are queried about the denominations position on "Emergent" and / or "Emerging" churches. If you have followed this movement, you, as I do, would probably think these "definitions" apply only within our denomination and would probably not be considered valid in another venue.

I don't think there are any "definitions" of emergent/emerging that are valid, any more than "definitions" of "Christianity" are valid. Apart from the basic beliefs of the Christian faith, the views held by various "Emergent/ing" leaders run the full theological gamut. I believe it was Christianity Today that highlighted 5 unique "streams" of the Emerging church, and within those streams there was still plenty of room for differences. Anyone wishing to pass a single, sweeping, generalized view of all things Emerging, Emergent, or both will be doing a disservice to themself.

[Gary Creely]

By the way, this might be considered off topic to everybody except those who think the "Emergent Church" is of the devil and therefore ON topic. The generals have spoken. I'm sure most of you know that ALL SIX on the BGS have endorsed a letter written by a District Advisory Committee which appears to give Nazarenes a working definition of Emergent and Emerging. Once again, I could be wrong, but it appears to me that "Emergent" "messes with" doctrine and is not acceptable for the denomination. "Emerging" does not "mess with" doctrine and is acceptable to the denomination.

The letter is two and a half pages long depending on the font used on your computer. It is sans letterhead and sans signature block. It's authenticity, my copy anyway, was verified as authentic by J. K. Warrick via Renee Rotz at Kansas City. The purpose of the document in .pdf format it to have something in the hands of District Superintendents who are queried about the denominations position on "Emergent" and / or "Emerging" churches. If you have followed this movement, you, as I do, would probably think these "definitions" apply only within our denomination and would probably not be considered valid in another venue.

Probably better to start a different thread about this

[Mike Fraley]

Agreed. I'd rather not mix the topic of "who/what is the devil" with questions of "is the emergent church of the devil?" If we do so, then we've opened this thread up to a myriad of unrelated conversations of, "are cigarettes of the devil?" "is reality TV of the devil" and "is my friend's favorite table-top game of the devil?"

[John Kennedy]

I'm sitting here going through this thread about 'who' the devil is and the only thing that comes to mind is the concise theological summation offered by one kid in conversation with another on this topic: "It's just like Santa Claus - it's your old man!"

[John Kennedy]

Agreed. I'd rather not mix the topic of "who/what is the devil" with questions of "is the emergent church of the devil?" If we do so, then we've opened this thread up to a myriad of unrelated conversations of, "are cigarettes of the devil?" "is reality TV of the devil" and "is my friend's favorite table-top game of the devil?"

It's a well-known fact that the only game that is 'of the devil' is golf.

[Shea Zellweger]

It's a well-known fact that the only game that is 'of the devil' is golf.

...foozball, anyone?

[James Diggs]

I do confess, I am simple minded and probably always will be, but ……

Dan, I know you probably just are expressing sincere humility, but I can’t help but to wonder if there is a bit of “I am just a simple Country Lawyer” bit going on. It kind of feels like I am trying to be set up by Matlock or Columbo- or perhaps it is the Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer from SNL played by the late Phil Hartman.


Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I'm just a caveman. I fell on some ice and later got thawed out by some of your scientists. Your world frightens and confuses me! Sometimes the honking horns of your traffic make me want to get out of my BMW.. and run off into the hills, or wherever.. When I see your tall buildings and flashing neon signs, sometimes I just want to get away as fast as I can, to my place in Martha's Vineyard; and when I see a solar eclipse, I think 'Oh no, is the moon eating the sun?'?" I don't know? My primitive mind can't grasp these concepts, because I'm a caveman... But there is one thing I do know - when a man like my client slips and falls on a sidewalk in front of a public library, then he is entitled to no less than two million in compensatory damages, and two million in punitive damages. Thank you. Cirroc- The Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer



Once again, I'm no Bible scholar, but it appears to me that the garden serpent and the Revelation serpent probably are one and the same. We do see that the message of Brian McLaren and that Garden serpent are the same. If not, show me the difference. And, by the way, Brian McLaren seems like a real nice guy. Coincidentally, I can almost hear Eve saying to Adam "Hey dude, I just met this real nice guy. Sort of a serpent thing."

I think you are referring to the “did God really say” argument as people claim that McLaren’s view that scripture is not inerrant is encouraging people to doubt the veracity of scripture and is equivalent to the Serpent saying to Eve, “did God really say…?”. Here is one difference- the Genesis text you are referring to is not about the nature of scripture. I don’t see how you could possibly do an exegesis of the text to come to the conclusion that it is about scripture being inerrant. This argument sounds reasonable on the surface, but when looked at closely you are putting your own meaning to the text that isn’t there.

I could be completely misreading you, but it sounds as if you think ( to borrow a bit from Geico) that “even a caveman” can tell that McLaren is as slippery as the Devil himself and you don’t have to be a “Bible scholar” to see how the “’Emergent Church’ is of the devil”. I mean even a “simple minded daycare provider” can see it.

[Dan Ross]

Dan, I know you probably just are expressing sincere humility, but I can’t help but to wonder if there is a bit of “I am just a simple Country Lawyer” bit going on. It kind of feels like I am trying to be set up by Matlock or Columbo- or perhaps it is the Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer from SNL played by the late Phil Hartman.

It's possible that my theology comes most directly from Southern Gospel Music. Right now I am basking in the glow of "That Old Country Church" by the Blackwood Brothers. Even then, I do find some disagreement with SGM theology. This is for real. I have never had one formal class in theology or any kinds of "religion" or "bible study" outside of Sunday School or an occasional Precepts course at church.

And now they are singing "How Great Thou Art." Sounds kind of like Brian McLaren's new "Ecological Theology," you know, trees, water, mountains, universe, etc.

Even so, I am struck by reading the Bible in the most literal simplistic way and finding the amazing accuracy of it. For instance, major elements of Deoxyribonucleic Acid are described in these two verses: John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

When Watson and Crick first described this Acid, they called it the "genetic CODE." A CODE implies a MESSAGE. A MESSAGE implies WORDS. MESSAGE and WORDS, imply an AUTHOR. In this case, an AUTHRO implies a CREATOR. A CREATOR implies GOD. So the "scientific" community doesn't speak so much of the "genetic CODE" much any more.

For me, this simple little example tends to convince me that when the Bible speaks of evil, it is most likely correct. If the Bible is as accurate as I tend to think it is, then Satan can enter people and make them do things: Luke 22:3 (New International Version) 3 "Then Satan entered Judas, called Iscariot, one of the Twelve."

There are some who teach that GOD is within everybody. Some say that God and Satan are within everybody. Luke said Satan entered Judas. I don't know, but it seems to me that Satan entered Judas. Oh, and Satan is evil.

[James Diggs]

This is for real. I have never had one formal class in theology or any kinds of "religion" or "bible study" outside of Sunday School or an occasional Precepts course at church…..Even so, I am struck by reading the Bible in the most literal simplistic way and finding the amazing accuracy of it. For instance, major elements of Deoxyribonucleic Acid are described in these two verses: John 1:1, and John 1:14.

Dan, I just think you are being a bit disingenuous here about the degree to which you “simply read the Bible”. You obviously have “authorities” that you have turned to which shape and influence your lens of scripture, whether they be "bible study", “Sunday School”, “precepts courses”, or books and/or websites by “creationists”. This is where I felt you are being a little bit like Cirroc- The Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer as you pretend that you are not influenced by anything other than the “obvious facts”. What is obvious to me is that you are influenced by the “scholarship” of someone regardless of how “untrained” you want to pretend you are.

I don't think we can have very fruitful conversation this way.

[Mike Fraley]

Edit: content deleted.


I'm deleting this post as after stepping away I think that it was just too harsh.

To anyone who has read it, I'm sorry, and I'm now rectifying my actions as best I can in erasing the content.

[Dennis Bratcher]

Today I heard a few minutes of a sermon on Christian radio talking about the characteristics of Satan. It struck me that there's a huge logical problem with the way Christians generally speak about this "fallen angel." The speaker told me that Satan will come to me in this way or that. To me personally? With over 6 billion people in the world and one fallen angel named Satan, how does my number come up so often for personal attention? Is this a case of generalizing many demons under one generic name? Or do we present Satan as omnipresent?

If we decide that Satan is a real personal being in time and space don't we run into the same problems we already have with his anagramic counterpart Santa on Christmas Eve? On the other hand, if we consider the Satan figure to be a personification of evil rather than an actual being, all we need is good and evil to be present in each of us to iron out the issues of omnipresence.

What explanation for omnipresence is generally offered by those who embrace the "fallen angel" history of Lucifer?

As I have suggested before, the only "logical" way to reconcile this is to admit that we popularly conceptualize the idea in totally dualistic terms, and thus end up with two opposing deities fighting for control of the world and humanity. That is, in essence, what the Ba'al myth of the ancient Near East portrayed, only in terms of just the physical world. The Jews learned better as they came to understand God after the Exile in purely monotheistic terms. Makes me wonder why Christians have trouble doing so.

(Sorry, that doesn't answer your question.)

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Dan Ross]

Dan, I just think you are being a bit disingenuous here about the degree to which you “simply read the Bible”. You obviously have “authorities” that you have turned to which shape and influence your lens of scripture, whether they be "bible study", “Sunday School”, “precepts courses”, or books and/or websites by “creationists”. This is where I felt you are being a little bit like Cirroc- The Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer as you pretend that you are not influenced by anything other than the “obvious facts”. What is obvious to me is that you are influenced by the “scholarship” of someone regardless of how “untrained” you want to pretend you are.

I don't think we can have very fruitful conversation this way.

Would I be foolish to think your use of the word "disingenuous" falls into this category: "Fully 88 percent accept disingenuous with the meaning "playfully insincere, faux-naïf," " or are you actually using the more harsh meaning of "disingenuous?"

Perhaps my claim to be "simple minded" is my completely sincere acquiescence in: Mark 10:15 (New International Version)

15 "I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it."

I have been reading the Bible for around 58 years and I have yet to hear better advice than that one scripture verse. How many classes at a seminary does it take to knock this faith out of a person?

[Andy Mistak]

I have been reading the Bible for around 58 years and I have yet to hear better advice than that one scripture verse. How many classes at a seminary does it take to knock this faith out of a person?

... and anti-intellectualism rears it's ugly head again.

[Dan Ross]

... and anti-intellectualism rears it's ugly head again.

There was nothing in my post that could be close to anti-intellectualism which is often considered an "opposition to reason."

Meanwhile, back to the original question starting this thread:

Revelation 20:2 (New International Version) 2 He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.

This works in my simple mind.

[Hans Deventer]

This works in my simple mind.

Dan, the continuous reference to your "simple mind" does it already. Stuff like "I just read my Bible", "I just take it as literal as possible", "I just have a simple mind" and the like are sheer anti-intellectualism. It suggests that all those who study their Bibles, try to understand in what context it was written and have pursued theological degrees have been wasting their time at best, and at worst, miss out completely on what the Bible actually wants to say.

If you are simple and want to remain that way, don't discuss issues on NazNet. If you are but want to learn, you're very welcome. We all can learn here. But there is no need to throw it in all the time. If you are, we'll notice. If you're not, it sounds rather dishonest.

[Benjamin Burch]

There was nothing in my post that could be close to anti-intellectualism which is often considered an "opposition to reason."

Meanwhile, back to the original question starting this thread:

Revelation 20:2 (New International Version) 2 He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.

This works in my simple mind.

I agree with Hans in that this makes it sound like those of us who are pursuing, have pursued, or have completed Undergraduate or advanced degrees in Biblical Studies should ask for our money and time back. It's a little frustrating.

I also wish that all who claim to "read the Bible literally" and read it "simply" would at least admit that their version of a literal reading is very different from a Korean's "literal" reading of the text. How do we determine who's is correct?

The problem with a "literal reading" is that it assumes a static and universal structure of human existence and a high context, universal human experience. However, nothing could be further from the truth. Today's world is more low-context than any world we've lived in previously and we've learned by now that there are many, many different structures of human existence which are constantly changing over time as humans and society evolve.

So, we should more properly say "I read it as literal as someone raised in America, with a Western lens, and Western context could read it."

The nice thing about such an honest statement is that it makes that reading just another nail in the bucket. It makes that idea "I just read it" meaningless. It forces us to do the hard work.

We should practice this sort of statement-making which is much more realistic.

[James Diggs]

Would I be foolish to think your use of the word "disingenuous" falls into this category: "Fully 88 percent accept disingenuous with the meaning "playfully insincere, faux-naïf," " or are you actually using the more harsh meaning of "disingenuous?"

I mean disingenuous as in being dishonest, perhaps even with yourself about how you “simply read the bible” when you clearly are influenced by some sort of scholarship, opinions, and arguments of others from outside of the bible that influence your lens of the bible.


Perhaps my claim to be "simple minded" is my completely sincere acquiescence in: Mark 10:15 "I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it."

You are making arguments about Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) and want to say you’re reading the bible with the simplicity of a child???????? As I said, this is disingenuous. By the way, receiving the Kingdom of God as a child is not about being simple minded about scripture so you can stop pretending that you aren’t influenced by extra biblical material that requires more thought to explore.


I have been reading the Bible for around 58 years and I have yet to hear better advice than that one scripture verse. How many classes at a seminary does it take to knock this faith out of a person?

You scrutinize the scholarship of seminary because it takes away from your “simple reading of the Bible”, but refuse to scrutinize the scholarship you have been influenced by as you pretend it has no bearing on your so called “child like” reading of scripture. It seems to me that you trying to have your cake and eat it too, because the only “scholarship” you are interested (and you do take interest in it and read it) is the kind that justifies your preconceived notions. If that is what you mean by “simple”, I am not interest.

[Mike Fraley]

Perhaps my claim to be "simple minded" is my completely sincere acquiescence in: Mark 10:15 (New International Version)

15 "I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it."

I have been reading the Bible for around 58 years and I have yet to hear better advice than that one scripture verse. How many classes at a seminary does it take to knock this faith out of a person?

Sincere acquiescence to that verse means looking at it's cultural context. Metaphors and similes of children in Mark are not references to simple-mindedness, innocence, or unquestioning. First of all, in the first century children were not considered innocent by any means whatsoever. Why? I'd like to enter into evidence exhibit A: http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2006/08/KidsGallonPaint_600x424.jpg . The mischief children get into caused the first century person to conclude that they were anything but innocent. Second, anyone who has spent more than six minutes with a child ages 3-6 know that they are the farthest thing from unquestioning. They can ask a string of "Why?" for twenty-seven minutes.

Of course, since this post uses scholarship in order to justify why the verse is not condemning scholarship, then I imagine you will probably disregard it. However, consider this. If having a simple mind is required to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, then Paul is probably not getting in. He was a trained rhetorician, he has shown evidence in having familiarity with even the contemporary philosophy of his day, and was highly schooled in the scriptures. He was the product of the equivalent of a seminary of his day, and he showed that he was using the benefits of his training well after his conversion.

[Gary Creely]

I mean disingenuous as in being dishonest, perhaps even with yourself about how you “simply read the bible” when you clearly are influenced by some sort of scholarship, opinions, and arguments of others from outside of the bible that influence your lens of the bible.

This IMO is at the heart of the matter. Lets be honest and say the Church of the Nazarene in America is filled with people who look at scripture just like Dan. I would agree the position is extremely disingenuous, but I do not think Dan is (knowingly). In fairness Dan has likely listened to hundreds if not thousands of sermons (by Nazarene pastors) that promoted this way of looking at scripture. This is the down side to not requiring seminary degrees for pastors.

So put yourself in Dans shoes getting onto a forum like this and hearing ideas so contrary to what he has learned over his entire life (which is not a simple reading, but just different scholarship posing as a pure and simple understanding). When many of us started the journey down this road, we were young, we were hearing these thing from college professors who we admired and trusted, and even then is was a challenging journey (because it was contrary to our preconceived notions).

It is this intelectual void that opens up space for groups like Concerned Nazarenes and Reformed Nazarene. In many ways they know not what they do.

[Andy Mistak]

This IMO is at the heart of the matter. Lets be honest and say the Church of the Nazarene in America is filled with people who look at scripture just like Dan. I would agree the position is extremely disingenuous, but I do not think Dan is (knowingly). In fairness Dan has likely listened to hundreds if not thousands of sermons (by Nazarene pastors) that promoted this way of looking at scripture. This is the down side to not requiring seminary degrees for pastors.

So put yourself in Dans shoes getting onto a forum like this and hearing ideas so contrary to what he has learned over his entire life (which is not a simple reading, but just different scholarship posing as a pure and simple understanding). When many of us started the journey down this road, we were young, we were hearing these thing from college professors who we admired and trusted, and even then is was a challenging journey (because it was contrary to our preconceived notions).

It is this intelectual void that opens up space for groups like Concerned Nazarenes and Reformed Nazarene. In many ways they know not what they do.

I agree, and I am starting to think that to correct it we may need to undergo changes that will thin our ranks considerably.

[Gary Creely]

Story time:

Back when I was a student at ENC I was sitting in a class called "Christian Tradition" a sort of church history survey class. The professor was explaining the possibility that there may not be a literal satan. Like you might imagine he would get some of the standard questions about various bible references to satan. Some students would get a little angry. None of this remotely shook this professor, because by this point in his career he had heard it all (or so he thought).

One girl raised her hand and said I know that Satan is real ! To which the professor replied, how is that? Then she stated that Saten crawed through the window of her dorm room last night and raped her. This was not a reply the professor was prepared for, or the class for that matter. In a recent conversation with this professor wanting to brush up on some of the theology around the idea of the devil he reminded me of this event that had some how slipped my mind. It really illustrated how important satan was to her worldview.

[Mike Fraley]

Yeah, I had a friend who was in that class. The anger and passion that extended well into lunacy was made it seem like a terrifying thing to watch.

[Randy Wise]

Are some stating they just don't see the term satan in scripture as always referring to the fallen angel commonly referred to as the devil or satan or that they don't believe in a fallen angel called satan period, which would suggest they never read the term satan as referring to a fallen angel called satan?

Randy

[Benjamin Burch]

Are some stating they just don't see the term satan in scripture as always referring to the fallen angel commonly referred to as the devil or satan or that they don't believe in a fallen angel called satan period, which would suggest they never read the term satan as referring to a fallen angel called satan?

Randy

I think both of those are being stated here by different people. Yes.

[Randy Wise]

I think both of those are being stated here by different people. Yes.

Ok

Well I know Peter isn't such a being, but I do believe in such a being without a need for a battle of the bible.

23Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."

Randy

[Dennis Bratcher]

Ok

Well I know Peter isn't such a being, but I do believe in such a being without a need for a battle of the bible.

23Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."

I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that Peter is really satan, therefore the devil? Jesus chose the devil to be one of his prominent disciples?

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Randy Wise]

I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that Peter is really satan, therefore the devil?
Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

No, I stated Peter isn't such a being. The term Satan was used by Jesus.

Randy

[Benjamin Burch]

No, I stated Peter isn't such a being. The term Satan was used by Jesus.

Randy

What, then, are you saying? I'm still not following. Can you elaborate, please?

Thanks, Randy.

[James Diggs]

This is the down side to not requiring seminary degrees for pastors. Except, I don't have a seminary degree :smilies1722: Not that I wouldn't have loved the opportunity.

[Dennis Bratcher]

No, I stated Peter isn't such a being. The term Satan was used by Jesus.

As Ben notes, it still isn't clear.

If I say to my son (who is an avid Star Trek fan) when he is overanalyzing something "You're just being Spock," does that mean that I think Spock is a real personal being, or prove that he is? Or is it that I am drawing on something with which he would immediately be familiar to communicate something?

I could just as easily make the same point by saying Einstein. The issue is not the reality or the non-reality of the person, but what I intended to communicate with the reference.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Randy Wise]

I was attempting a example where the term satan was used that couldn't be literally applied to a fallen angel. To me, we all know Peter wasn't such a being.

Randy

[Dennis Bratcher]

I was attempting a example where the term satan was used that couldn't be literally applied to a fallen angel. To me, we all know Peter wasn't such a being.

Randy

OK. Thanks

DB

[Gary Creely]

Same here, and I to would like to get one. I have had enough religion classes at ENC to get me barking up the right tree.

[James Johnson]

This thread seemed to have taken on the same nature as the angels thread, hmmmmmmm? I wonder why that is?

[Hans Deventer]

This thread seemed to have taken on the same nature as the angels thread, hmmmmmmm? I wonder why that is?

I can answer that one: it has to do with a display of the same anti intellectualism. Since that is still around in our church, despite the strong emphasis on education since its very beginning, we keep having those same discussions.

[James Johnson]

I am not anti intellectualism, I am anti certain intellectuals. I attend a weekly bible study and have discussions on a regular basis with some of the most respected minds that have taught at seminary and I don't think they would describe me as anti intellectualism. And for what it's worth I wish more people like Dan Ross would post more on this site!

OH, and Happy Birthday Hans!!!

[Todd Erickson]

It's not anti-intellectualism Hans. It's Pro-Fundamentalism.

[Marcus Kibbe]

It's not anti-intellectualism Hans. It's Pro-Fundamentalism.

Thanks for the insight Todd.

[Gary Creely]

This thread seemed to have taken on the same nature as the angels thread, hmmmmmmm? I wonder why that is?


is that good or bad??

[James Johnson]

That's to be determined by the individual.

[Gary Creely]

That's to be determined by the individual.

I guess what I was asking was what were you inferring?

[James Johnson]

I find some threads troubling, and these two fall into that category for me. I take partial blame in the angels thread but thought it odd that this thread was almost identical in it's makeup. it would appear that many of these theological threads end up in a finger war much like the political ones do.

[Gary Creely]

I find some threads troubling, and these two fall into that category for me. I take partial blame in the angels thread but thought it odd that this thread was almost identical in it's makeup. it would appear that many of these theological threads end up in a finger war much like the political ones do.

Do you feel it troubling because you feel people are being discourteous to you, or is it that a number of people in your denomination hold a theological position that you would deem too liberal?

[James Johnson]

Fair question! although I admit I am bothered by the liberal theological position by some. I find it even more troubling how this individual Dan Ross was treated in this thread on page #2.

[Gary Creely]

Fair question! although I admit I am bothered by the liberal theological position by some. I find it even more troubling how this individual Dan Ross was treated in this thread on page #2.

I just read through page 2 and did not find anything particularly troubling about the way Dan was treated. He was simply challenged on the theological positions he was promoting. That is normal procedure for a theological message board.

[James Johnson]

I just read through page 2 and did not find anything particularly troubling about the way Dan was treated. He was simply challenged on the theological positions he was promoting. That is normal procedure for a theological message board.

Post #72,74,76 and 79 are the post I would question when looked at with the angels thread, there would appear to be a pattern evolving.

[Benjamin Burch]

Fair question! although I admit I am bothered by the liberal theological position by some. I find it even more troubling how this individual Dan Ross was treated in this thread on page #2.

James,

Anytime someone says the following:



There was nothing in my post that could be close to anti-intellectualism which is often considered an "opposition to reason."

Meanwhile, back to the original question starting this thread:

Revelation 20:2 (New International Version) 2 He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.

This works in my simple mind.

And assumes that it means anything, they're going to get some push-back.

[James Johnson]

I see humor, you see an attack! :)

[Benjamin Burch]

I see humor, you see an attack! :)

I wasn't saying I saw an attack. What I'm saying is in the context of this statement:

"This works in my simple mind"

there is so much going on and so many presuppositions and pulling from other texts, other sources of tradition, etc, that:

(1) It's not simple
(2) What is the "This" of "this works"?

By saying "this works for my simple mind" whether it's meant as an attack or not, it assumes that everyone will read, see, and understand the same "this" and therefore this is the "simple" position. But the fact is, that "this" is extremely bound up with and conditioned by a reading which is a part of many different traditions and voices of influence. There's nothing "simple" about it, other than the fact that such a reading is received as opposed to arrived at. I assume it is certainly easier to receive something than to do the hard work one's self, but that doesn't mean that the reading itself is "simple." Far from it.

[James Johnson]

I don't know Dale, I wish I did! I didn't read the negative connotation into his statement that others did but perhaps I'm wrong, I take him at his word though that he's never had a theology class and feels somewhat simple minded. But in his case I would say that means anything but dumb. I found him to be an enjoyable addition to this site that perhaps is now gone. Perhaps some are a little to insecure (and I'm not refering to you).

[Benjamin Burch]

I don't know Dale, I wish I did! I didn't read the negative connotation into his statement that others did but perhaps I'm wrong, I take him at his word though that he's never had a theology class and feels somewhat simple minded. But in his case I would say that means anything but dumb. I found him to be an enjoyable addition to this site that perhaps is now gone. Perhaps some are a little to insecure (and I'm not refering to you).

Again, I can agree with that. But his statement still assumes that the reading itself is "simple." Dennis aptly showed that this is not the case. Secondly, as I showed, it assumes that the verse means something which he has interpreted it to mean, and that it will mean that to anyone and everyone who picks it up. That's simply not the case, and this is something that people need to be open to hearing.

[Paul DeBaufer]

I just read the entire thread, I missed it when it was current--I must've been away.

As always I enjoyed Dennis' posts as I always learn something from them and that is a big part of this forum, for me. I pray that I never become so convinced of my opinion that I cannot learn.

I think Dan's reference to his "simple mind" is disingenuous if not cunning. Further his continued repetition even when exposed I could see as belittling to those men and women who have spent years in college, graduate school, and professional theological assignments. So, I do not see anything unfair in how Dan was treated throughout this thread. Matter of fact I see him as having been treated with grace.

[James Johnson]

I mean disingenuous as in being dishonest, perhaps even with yourself about how you “simply read the bible” when you clearly are influenced by some sort of scholarship, opinions, and arguments of others from outside of the bible that influence your lens of the bible.



You are making arguments about Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) and want to say you’re reading the bible with the simplicity of a child???????? As I said, this is disingenuous. By the way, receiving the Kingdom of God as a child is not about being simple minded about scripture so you can stop pretending that you aren’t influenced by extra biblical material that requires more thought to explore.



You scrutinize the scholarship of seminary because it takes away from your “simple reading of the Bible”, but refuse to scrutinize the scholarship you have been influenced by as you pretend it has no bearing on your so called “child like” reading of scripture. It seems to me that you trying to have your cake and eat it too, because the only “scholarship” you are interested (and you do take interest in it and read it) is the kind that justifies your preconceived notions. If that is what you mean by “simple”, I am not interest.

Grace? When someone calls me dishonest without knowledge thereof, I probably won't see the Grace in that. jmo

[Hans Deventer]

Grace?

Truth?

[James Johnson]

Truth?

:) Since it's your birthday Hans I'm going to let it slide!

[Paul DeBaufer]

Grace? When someone calls me dishonest without knowledge thereof, I probably won't see the Grace in that. jmo

Maybe it is my tendency to cynicism, but I tend to get a feel for when I'm being hustled. And time and again people stated that they did not believe Dan was intentionally trying to mislead, that is grace.

The fact is that in the post you copy from James refers to a post that makes inferences that just are not "simple" not the product of a simple mind. Even Dan's logic in getting to the DNA position is not simple.

The implication in the repeated use of "my simple mind" is that there is no need for true scholarship and that the men and women who post on this forum have wasted their time and money.

[Hans Deventer]

:) Since it's your birthday Hans I'm going to let it slide!

Don't worry, James. I'm getting so fed up with these discussions I actually can take it today as well. It doesn't change a lot anymore. :smilies1390:

I've been hanging around here for like 11 years, but recently, the Theology Forum is becoming a very frustrating place and I'm honestly wondering if we'd need a closed forum to get the good discussions back we used to have.

[James Johnson]

As one who sometimes uses that term (simple minded) on this board to acknowledge that I don't have a degree I don't see the problem with it that some might. I also use the term uneducated, when I do, it is never met as cunning or as being disingenuous. It's more of a self observation. Again I do not know Dan, perhaps you read him better than I do. And as far as true scholarship goes, if one needs my pat on the back with the use of proper terminology to feel good about their theological stance or the work they're doing as a pastor, then they're probably in the wrong profession.

[James Johnson]

Don't worry, James. I'm getting so fed up with these discussions I actually can take it today as well. It doesn't change a lot anymore. :smilies1390:

I've been hanging around here for like 11 years, but recently, the Theology Forum is becoming a very frustrating place and I'm honestly wondering if we'd need a closed forum to get the good discussions back we used to have.

Closed forum as in like minded?

[Todd Erickson]

Closed forum as in like minded?

As in Graceful and non-accusatory.

[James Johnson]

As Marcus would say, Thanks for the insight Todd!

[Benjamin Burch]

Closed forum as in like minded?

I don't think closed-minded would be what Hans would advocate for. Not at all. Instead, there is the fact that certain folks do not like certain theological ideas/approaches. That's perfectly fine. I think Hans would just like a place where those types of conversations, ideas, and approaches can be discussed among those who like them and are open to them and the conversations don't have to take place where they are justified, validated, or defended.

I think that Hans would still be open to those conversations taking place in the Theology Forum, as they're good conversations. However, some people may be tired of those conversations and want to resume the conversations they would have and were having without having the other conversations take over.

It's not a matter of good/bad or "closed/open minded." It's a matter of goal which is attempting to be accomplished.

This is my take on what Hans is talking about. I'm not Hans. I might be wrong.

[James Johnson]

I don't think closed-minded would be what Hans would advocate for. Not at all. Instead, there is the fact that certain folks do not like certain theological ideas/approaches. That's perfectly fine. I think Hans would just like a place where those types of conversations, ideas, and approaches can be discussed among those who like them and are open to them and the conversations don't have to take place where they are justified, validated, or defended.

I think that Hans would still be open to those conversations taking place in the Theology Forum, as they're good conversations. However, some people may be tired of those conversations and want to resume the conversations they would have and were having without having the other conversations take over.

It's not a matter of good/bad or "closed/open minded." It's a matter of goal which is attempting to be accomplished.

This is my take on what Hans is talking about. I'm not Hans. I might be wrong.

Ben, I said like minded not closed minded. :)

[Paul DeBaufer]

I just read the article Dennis refers to way back in post 28 some 7 months ago (http://www.crivoice.org/lucifer.html)

I found it very interesting. I think I think that we tend to come to the Bible with a set of assumptions and then try to fit it into those assumptions. Popular theology would have us read the Bible as if it were a single cohesive work rather than the compilation of many different works that it really is. Then from the popular view it would be natural to read the Isaiah passage with the same eye as the Revelation passage as if they had the same author and the same contexts. But as Dennis correctly points out we do the Bible a disservice when we interpret this way. The author of the Isaiah passage and the author of the Revelation passage and the other two he mentions were different with different purposes directed to different audiences none of which were us today 2000-2500 years later. But when we do make the mistake of pop theology we will find a developed theory of evil that includes Satan rather than ha satan, the devil rather than the accuser.

[Benjamin Burch]

Ben, I said like minded not closed minded. :)

hmmm. It appears then that I have misread you. My apologies.

[Martijn van Beveren]

I don't think closed-minded would be what Hans would advocate for. Not at all. Instead, there is the fact that certain folks do not like certain theological ideas/approaches. That's perfectly fine. I think Hans would just like a place where those types of conversations, ideas, and approaches can be discussed among those who like them and are open to them and the conversations don't have to take place where they are justified, validated, or defended.

I think that Hans would still be open to those conversations taking place in the Theology Forum, as they're good conversations. However, some people may be tired of those conversations and want to resume the conversations they would have and were having without having the other conversations take over.

It's not a matter of good/bad or "closed/open minded." It's a matter of goal which is attempting to be accomplished.

This is my take on what Hans is talking about. I'm not Hans. I might be wrong.

Though Ben we must conclude that any openminded, borderless theology theme gets hooked up in some sort of downtrodden path of claimed truths and accusations and fingerpointing. For the last posts have mostly been on the treated person and not about the origin and search and revelation of the subject in this thread. Same goes for other very interesting threads as well. I know the frustration Hans talks about because I come here to be educated and learn not to be told that I need to go numb and read the bible like a child.

I am tired and sad to see this happen a lot...
On the other hand, I am truly glad to be here on Naznet and have educated people who I value very much. They help me understand difficult issues and they keep me in touch with what I read in the scriptures. I would really hate to see that lost because of this major issue we keep running into.

Can we try to figure a way to resolve this matter? It might need a separate thread... since this is so way out of topic.

[Hans Deventer]

Closed forum as in like minded?

Closed forum as in not being bothered by attacks from people who really have no intention to ever change their views and who argue for viewpoints that I can only react to as "been there, done that, and I ain't never going back", so the discussion is a total waste of time for all involved.

It is attitude more than anything else. It is not like minded in the sense of thinking alike, for if it were, there is nothing left to learn. It is like minded in the sense of wanting to learn rather than coming in with a "I have to defend my church from these terrible liberals" or whatever negative designation is given.

And James, I find it quite shocking and totally insensitive that you consider my plea "funny". There is nothing funny about it, I am dead serious. I hope I'm completely misunderstanding you, for if you truly think my despair is funny, I would definitely not want to see you on such a forum.

[David Graham]

I would add that perhaps the most important trait of the forum be that contributors should be of a mindset to learn from others and not be of the opinion that they are totally right! In the end, I suspect that none of us will be completely right and probably none of us will be completely wrong, but if we are "humble" in our dealings with others, we might just learn something and even (God forbid :tongue:) change our opinions. I know I did with regard to an earlier discussion about the doctrine of hell....... not that I am an anhilationist now, but I'm no longer opposed to such an idea.............. and such a change doesn't make me a heretic, nor a card carrying liberal.

[Martijn van Beveren]

Thanks isn't enough here, Andy. I have followed this same route.

When I was younger and regarded the devil as a separate entity, I was a little annoyed that Jesus got to hold a conversation with the horned little man in red tights in the wilderness whereas the temptation conversation for me is with a voice inside my head. It certainly would be easier to resist temptation if I could more clearly identify its source as an evil outside myself. I found it helpful to change my view to put the voice inside Jesus' head and add validity to the statement that he was "tempted in every way just as we are" (Heb 4:15). I know many would have a problem with placing a desire within Jesus to serve himself (turn stones into bread when on the verge of death by starvation) and find a path to being the Messiah that followed worldly ambitions and values and brought him personal glory, but I think it's necessary to see him as human with human weaknesses, including an inner drive for significance which he had to overcome in order to submit to the Father's will.

As I read the various New Testament references to Satan and the devil, I find that they fit well with a metaphorical interpretation seeing them as representative of the basic desire lurking within us to steal some of God's glory for ourselves.

Example: Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour (1 Pet 5:8). I.e., the selfishness within us seeks to devour everything that is valuable in ourselves and others.

Marsha

Thank you also Marsha. I totally concur with your discoveries. It helps so much to place this into the context of one's selfish needs and actions.

[Dale Cozby]

Don't worry, James. I'm getting so fed up with these discussions I actually can take it today as well. It doesn't change a lot anymore. :smilies1390:

I've been hanging around here for like 11 years, but recently, the Theology Forum is becoming a very frustrating place and I'm honestly wondering if we'd need a closed forum to get the good discussions back we used to have.

I missed this post Hans. I got an idea....make two closed forums. A forum for literalists and one for everything but literalists. Like a political party caucus...one can one belong to one party...at a time. ;)

[Hans Deventer]

I missed this post Hans. I got an idea....make two closed forums. A forum for literalists and one for everything but literalists. Like a political party caucus...one can one belong to one party...at a time. ;)

Well, that's pretty much the idea, yes. I think the division line should be a little different but otherwise, that's it. Can't imagine how much wasted time and energy that would save.

[James Johnson]

Closed forum as in not being bothered by attacks from people who really have no intention to ever change their views and who argue for viewpoints that I can only react to as "been there, done that, and I ain't never going back", so the discussion is a total waste of time for all involved.

It is attitude more than anything else. It is not like minded in the sense of thinking alike, for if it were, there is nothing left to learn. It is like minded in the sense of wanting to learn rather than coming in with a "I have to defend my church from these terrible liberals" or whatever negative designation is given.

And James, I find it quite shocking and totally insensitive that you consider my plea "funny". There is nothing funny about it, I am dead serious. I hope I'm completely misunderstanding you, for if you truly think my despair is funny, I would definitely not want to see you on such a forum.

Hans, Could you please show me an example of the attacks by myself directed towards you that has caused this despair you speak of?

[Hans Deventer]

Hans, Could you please show me an example of the attacks by myself directed towards you that has caused this despair you speak of?

James, that's no use. You already wrote here you have no clue as to what Dan in this thread did wrong, while people have done there best to explain it to you. So we'd only end up in an endless yes/no discussion. This also is a total waste of time.

You're not even apologizing for this laughing at me. Do I have any reason to expect better this time?

[James Johnson]

Don't worry, James. I'm getting so fed up with these discussions I actually can take it today as well. It doesn't change a lot anymore. :smilies1390:

I've been hanging around here for like 11 years, but recently, the Theology Forum is becoming a very frustrating place and I'm honestly wondering if we'd need a closed forum to get the good discussions back we used to have.

Hans, I apologize for hurting your feelings, laughter removed!

[Billy Cox]

So put yourself in Dans shoes getting onto a forum like this and hearing ideas so contrary to what he has learned over his entire life (which is not a simple reading, but just different scholarship posing as a pure and simple understanding).

Well said. There is a common presumption that what one has 'caught' over a period of decades has more spiritual authority than what those with formal education are 'taught' in a far shorter timespan.

[Billy Cox]

hmmm. It appears then that I have misread you. My apologies.

yeah, I interpreted it as 'close-minded' as well. Curse my skimming-style of reading!

[Bob Carabbio]

To Me - the "Enemy" is presented through Scripture, and notably in Job (as the OLDEST book) as an individual PERSONAL entity, who's function is to "Withstand", to Accuse (often accurately), and to "Entice". I think of him as a "he", although there's no evidence of sexual orientation given. We know from the record that 1/3 of the angelic host allied themselves to him, and there's mention of "lying spirits" in the O.T. and "Demons" in the New - which don't appear to posses "Angelic tendencies" - apparently having an "appetite" for joining themselves to humans.

In the TWO instances where people that I know personally exhibited the symptoms of "Demonization" (the accurate term for the KJV's unfortunate: "Possesed by devils"), boths cases were "treated" as "Demonization" where the ministers involved "expelled" the spiritual entities (ministry of deliverance), and in both cases the oppression disappeared, and did not recur.

In one case a lady who was being driven to suicide by horrendous fear which was believed to be demonic in nature - who was "Delivered" by the prayers of our pastor, and her sister, and immediately "became normal" in the mid '70s - and still was in '05 the last time I heard).

Jesus is quite specific in attributing this or that condition accurately EITHER to actual Physical sickness, or to Demonization, and ministering to the cases as needed. HE also refers to "the Prince of this world", and it's obvious from the epistles that the "Prince of the power of the Air" is considered by Paul to be a REAL spiritual enemy - i.e. "we wrestle NOT against people, but against "Principalities", and "POWERS", and "Spiritual wickedness" - in the "heavenlies".

I see no reason to believe that the Enemy (whatever you choose to call him/it) IS NOT the INDIVIDUAL, and PERSONAL leader of a vast system of HOSTILE entities - that HATE us, and wish to destroy us - but can't. There's that "Hedge" thing that controls their (and the enemy's) access to us (re: Job).

SO - if JESUS refers to and discusses the "Enemy" as a REAL individual/ leader/prince. Then in my book that's exactly what he/it is.

But where the stupidity about "satan" and his boys "ruling Hell" came from - I couldn't guess - probably a story dreamed up by satan himself as a "Strawman".

It appears that "heaven" (whatever THAT is) is where they operate from, and I'll bet a bag of White Castles that none of 'em would want to be within 10,000 miles of Hell, or the "Lake of fire" - since it's their DOOM, not their "Kingdom".