Are there any other Protestant-rooted individuals out there who have taken the time to really examine the significance of Mary to the Church from a Biblical point of view? I was reared in a strictly Evangelical home and brought up to believe that all Catholic doctrine (especially Marian devotion) was heretical hogwash. Now I am convinced to the contrary.
Having read Presbyterian-turned-Catholic theologian Scott Hahn’s amazing spiritual biography, ‘Rome, Sweet Home’, I was presented with Catholic doctrine in a way I had never considered it, i.e. Biblically-based arguments to defend their truth. Consequently I was lead to do a lot of digging of my own and realised that Mariology is as much Bible-centred as any other cornerstone of the faith.
Revelation 12 is the well-known ‘Woman clothed with the sun’ vision of St John, but note how this chapter is basically a commentary on the Genesis 3v15 Messianic promise. When viewed in the light of this, ‘The Woman’ must be Mary. Protestant exposition invariably identifies the man-child and the Dragon in Revelation 12 as INDIVIDUALS — Christ and Satan respectively, but the Woman of the vision is still interpreted as a purely corporate entity, i.e the Church/Israel. Theological inconsistency….
There is a lot of other Scriptural evidence for Mariology, plus almost two thousand years of ecclesiastical tradition to back it up. Mary was already being acknowledged as a lynchpin of redemption by Iranaeus as early as the mid-1st century AD, the sub-apostolic era. Protestant reformers sadly tended to throw the baby out with the bathwater in matters like this, I believe, and like Scott Hahn, we would do better to be more like Martin Luther ‘in reverse’ when it comes to soundly expounded such truths.
The woman and the dragon
I’m not sure it’s that clear that the woman in Rev.12 can be identified with Mary, though it’s very hard to be confident about the interpretation of a text like this.
1. I have never been persuaded by the argument that Gen.3:15 is a messianic prophecy. Why do we need to see in this anything more than the idea that there will be hostility between humankind and snakes? We instinctively allegorize the verse, but is there really any reason for doing so? Even if Rev.12 is an allusion to it, this does not necessarily mean that the author of Genesis meant it to have this sort of prophetic significance - or that John thought he was writing a commentary on this verse. The serpent is not identified with Satan - it is merely the craftiest of all the beasts. And the woman is Eve, not Mary. The natural way to read ‘offspring’ is either as the immediate singular child of Eve and the serpent or as their plural descendants. Is there anything else in the New Testament to suggest that the early church understood the passage as a messianic prophecy?
2. The dragon may be Satan but it is also closely associated the beast, which likewise has seven heads and ten horns (13:1; 17:3). The focus is certainly on Roman opposition not just to the messiah but also to the early church community. I don’t think, therefore, that the argument that the woman must be an individual carries much weight. It seems to me far more likely that the woman represents persecuted Israel or the messianic community. If it is Mary, who are the rest of her children (12:17)?
3. I would have thought that the ‘birth’ of the male child refers not to the literal birth of the Messiah but to the resurrection and exaltation of Christ to the right hand of God. Ps.2:9 is quoted at Rev.6:5. Ps.2:7 has the Lord saying to the king, ‘You are my Son; today I have begotten you’, which Paul connects with the resurrection in Acts 13:32-33. This is why the child is immediately caught up to the throne of God when he is born.
I also have some more general concerns about the ‘usefulness’ of this sort of developed doctrine of Mary for what we are calling, for better or worse, the emerging church. I can see that there is some ecumenical value in exploring a spirituality that has Mary as its focus, but I doubt that this will help us either to understand the essence of Christianity better or to make sense of it for the wider world. Sorry to be so negative, but this sounds to me too much like doctrine for the sake of doctrine. In my view we need less rather than more of this sort of thing.
Rabbit holes and spacious vistas
Discussion on linkage between Gen 3:15 & Rev 12 (the woman) plays dangerously to all my compulsions and (on this website) probably to the inner compulsions of many. (Might have been better if you had kept quiet, Andrew!) But just to get this one out of the way - I’m interested in why we should ‘instinctively allegorise’ Gen 3:15. Maybe the instinct is well founded. After all, did God really need to tell us that snakes are dangerous (and not even all of them!) in a prophecy/curse after the momentous event of makind’s primal rebellion? Also, the whole narrative of ‘the fall’ is heavily laden with symbolism. Aren’t we reverting to neo-fundamentalist literalism if we say that everything described has a purely literal value?
Pursuing the rabbit holes: there is some evidence that Eve understood Gen 3:15 as messianic; Gen 4:1 when read in Hebrew suggests that Eve believed she had brought forth a ‘God man’, and that the messiah had come. (depending on the significance of the word ‘ek’ - as introducing a direct object: “I have brougtht forth a man - the Lord!” Can anyone help me on this?)
However, Andrew is calling us to order in his last paragraph - and I wouldn’t want to derail things.
Down, down, down
I would have more confidence in these allegorizing instincts if i) the passage itself carried some pointer to a more than literal significance; ii) there was clear evidence that the OT found prophetic significance in this verse; iii) the NT explicitly attributed messianic significance to it; or iv) these sort of interpretations hadn’t originally emerged at at time when the church was allegorizing anything it could lay its hands on.
To my way of thinking it’s not about literalism - it’s about allowing the text to say what it wants to say, not what we think it ought to say. Incidentally, I wouldn’t entirely rule out a symbolic meaning, but how do you make sense of the parallel between the offspring of the snake and the offspring of the woman? I would have thought that the most you can reasonably say is that the passage envisages an ongoing conflict between Satan as a tempting force and humanity.
The translation of Gen.4:1 is certainly difficult. But surely the reference is still to Cain, not to some future God-man? Apparently Luther thought that Cain was the son of God promised in 3:15. But 3:15 doesn’t promise a ‘son of God’, merely ‘offspring’. Gordon Wenham hesitates between ‘I have gained a man with the Lord’s help’ and ‘I have created a man as the Lord (has done)’ (Genesis 1-15, 102). Since this is the first child born to Adam and Eve, it would certainly make some sense for her to compare herself to God as a creator.
This one will run and run
Andrew - I think I’ve addressed point i) already - and it is letting the text say what it wants to say, not just in 3:15 but the whole of Genesis 3. In point ii) why would there need to be ‘clear evidence’ elsewhere in the OT? (about 3:15 in particular having a prophetic significance - isn’t there enough in the passage itself?); iii) & iv) seem at least to me not to have huge bearing, though no doubt considerations.
As regards the ‘messianic’ interpretation of Gen 4:1 - it does require some importation of ideas not explicit in the 3:15 prophecy (ie that the messiah is the God-man). And it is addressed to Cain - Eve was mistaken in thinking he was the coming messiah. (I will bring some more detail to this interpretation of the Hebrew later as I don’t have the commentator with this particular interpretation with me).
But these are rabbit holes - and meanwhile … . I think I hear the rustling wings of vultures already circling for their prey.
Messianic prophecy in Genesis 3?
For what it’s worth, the particular take on Gen 4:1 (in ‘this one will run and run’) which suggested that Eve thought Cain was a messiah, is this:
‘… the word Jehovah is immediately preceded by the Hebrew particle ‘eth’. Now ‘eth’ may be understood in two ways: it may mean ‘with’, or it may be the sign of the accusative case - ie the noun to which it is prefixed is the definite object of the verb… Some commentators give ‘eth’ its meaning ‘with’, and then supply the words ‘the help of’ between ‘eth’ and ‘the Lord’. But usage is definitely against the insertion of words between ‘eth’ and the noun to which it is joined by maqqeph. The connection is too close, and I suggest that ‘eth’ is used here in the same sense that it is used in the preceding clause. There we read in the A.V., “… and she conceived, and bare Cain.” In the Hebrew, the word for ‘Cain’ is immediately preceded by ‘eth’, thereby indicating that ‘Cain’ is the definite (sic) object of the verb… In the next clause, Eve says, “I have gotten a man - Jehovah.” There, as stated above, the proper name is immediately preceded by ‘eth’, the distinctive force of which might be expressed by our word ‘even’:- “I have gotten a man, even Jehovah.” ‘
The author of this remark - a man like Melchizedek, without father or mother or genealogy - was one Ben Adam, whose words are quoted from a reprint of a book (the date of the original being unknown) in 1937.
The source of the remark is immaterial: the question is whether the linguistic analysis is correct. Evidently Luther thought so. Can anyone comment on this?
I did say that this was a rabbit hole. There isn’t much evidence anywhere else that early scriptural texts (or any!) thought of a coming messiah, one who would be human and divine.
But as regards Gen 3:15 - granted the principle of allowing the texts to speak for themselves, I find it difficult to come away from the chapter thinking only of talking snakes, and the pronouncing of judgements in which the snakes alone of God’s creation are set at enmity with man, and that God thought that would be a useful piece of information to convey to Eve (and her offspring) as she departed from Eden. (Unless the region was particularly infested with venomous snakes).
On the other hand, maybe I’ve got more work to do in jettisoning my preconceptions about these parts of scripture, and in listening to the texts without my fully-formed theological preconceptions.
So what were we talking about anyway … Oh yes, emerging church. Hmmmm.
P.S. Apologies for confusing the Gk ‘ek’ with the Hebrew ‘eth’ in the previous post; but there again, more potential rabbit holes open up
P.P.S. Can anyone tell me how to get quoted material to appear in the indented margin format with shaded background?
I do have more pertinent comments to the website to contribute than these - I’m just getting rid of some of the mental baggage first.
Early Messanic Texts
Peter:
I appreciate your thoughtful remarks.
I wonder if we might look to Job as a possible early text for a hint of the God/Man/Redeemer?
I believe some “conservative” scholars place the writing during the period of the great wisdom books in Solomon’s time. One commentator has noted similarities between Psalms 88 and 89 and called attention to Job’s longevity and the practice of a God pleasing religion, supernatural revelation and apparently outside of the Abrahamic covenant. As I understand it, some scholars wish to place the book as late as 2nd century BC but have been somewhat frustrated by old Hebrew script fragments among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Because the book lacks much of the post Exile doctrinal eschatology, an early pre-Exile period seems possible or maybe even likely. Having written all that, perhaps the question is not when was it written, but how long was it transmitted orally before the Holy Spirit moved someone write it all down.
The text which I believe is applicable is found in the 9th chapter. I recommend taking the verse in context of the whole chapter, but some verses set the stage very nicely.
“If I speak of strength, lo, he is strong: and if of judgment, who shall set me a time to plead? If I justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn me: If I say, I am perfect, it shall also prove me perverse. Though I were perfect, yet would I not know my own soul: I would despise my life…”. If I wash myself with snow water and make my hands ever so clean; yet shalt thou plunge me in the ditch and my own clothes shall abhor me.” Job 9:20-21,30-31
“For he is not a man, as I am that I should answer him, and we should come together in judgment. Neither is there any daysman betwixt us, that might lay his hand on us both. Let him take his rod away from me, and let not his fear terrify me: then would I speak, and not fear him, but it is not so with me.” Job 9:32-35
If I might supplement this with a new testament passage: “There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.” I Timothy 2:5-6 , to which I could add Hebrews 9:15.
I realize things which seem plain to me are often unclear and endlessly debatable to others. What is clear to me, at least, is that Job saw a real chasm between himself and his understanding of his rightousness and the terrible (I use the word in the old sense)holiness of God and longed (prophetically?) for a day where someone could stand in the gap representing equally and equitably each party in the dispute.
I hope this gives you some ideas to consider. Alario
Snaking our way through the Old Testament
I’m not sure the non-allegorical interpretation of the serpent is so ridiculous. It is curious that the Old Testament shows no direct interest in this passage. The serpent is commonly a simple threat to physical safety (Ps.91:13; Prov.23:32; Eccl.10:8; Is.65:25; Amos 5:19). Related to this, it is sometimes regarded as an agent of divine judgment: for example, the serpents that plagued the people of Israel in the wilderness (Num.21:6-7; and cf. Gen.49:17; Is.14:29; Amos 9:3). This is a natural enough development of Gen.3:15. The serpent is feared because it is one of the means of harm by which the people are judged. The serpent also, like Leviathan, can represent powers of chaos and evil in the world that oppose the Lord (Is.27:1), but this is an exceptional instance and does not show any obvious dependence on Gen.3.
I want to say again (apologies if this seems obsessive) that we have a huge tendency to over-read Scripture, and I would argue that this is not at all helpful for an emerging theology that wants to understand the Bible afresh and make better sense of it for the world (see ‘Strange but true: the irrelevance of Scripture for the church today’). I appreciate the fact that it is very postmodern to hear intertextual echoes, but as Miss Quested discovered in the Malabar caves (A Passage to India), echoes can seriously affect your judgment. In his ‘Narrative Multiverse & polyacoustic hearing’ comment Andy says ‘one can hardly read Gen 3:15 without hearing an echo of other portions of the Bible’, but how can you hear in Gen.3:15, which is an early text, echoes of later texts? Can you really have the echo preceding the noise that made it? Popular, devotional Bible reading can do it, of course; so can a Postmodern reading - the two are often not far apart as Tom Wright has pointed out. But I don’t think it’s a good idea to label Gen.3:15 prophetic (ie. pre-echoing?) simply on the grounds that later Christian symbology saw an analogy with Christ’s victory over satan. It seems highly unlikely that anyone would have read Gen.4:1 as Eve’s mistaken messianic (not just messianic because she speaks of YHWH) interpretation of 3:15.
yeah but no but
Isn’t this doing what you say we shouldn’t be doing? Ie using later parts of the OT to provide a commentary on earlier parts (Gen 3:15) - in this case, to critique an ‘over-reading’ of the passage. I still think (to be awkward) that reading Gen 3:15 in the context of the preceding verses does encourage us toward a more symbolic view of ‘snakes’. I suppose the key phrase you use is ‘over-reading’. Hearing echoes elsewhere in scripture must be part of a valid way of understanding scripture - just as asking the question such as why there is so little mention of snakes as metaphors satan elsewhere in the OT is also valid - and puzzling. I’ve also found the other contributions on this particular issue very helpful.
P.S.Thanks for the help with transferring quoted material
Re: The woman and the dragon
Andrew wrote:
Does the text really say that the serpent was "the craftiest of all the beasts…" or does the text actually state the the "serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field?
In other words, the serpent was not a beast of the field as he was more crafty than any beast of the field.
I am amazed that the emergent church seems to question nearly every doctrine of the church except for the Christian myth that the serpent was a beast (snake) of the field that could talk.
According to Genesis and Paul there were only two creatures in the garden capable of talking and Paul wrote that:
I submit for your consideration that "the serpent" was actually Adam in rebellion against God. In other words the serpent is a metaphor for the rebellion of Adam/mankind.
Twice in Revelation John (from Jesus) tells his readers that "the great dragon," is "that old serpent" which is also "called the devil and satan (adversary) [Rev 12:9; 20:2].
The people who John the Baptist and Jesus the Messiah metaphorically called "a generation of serpents/vipers" (Matt 3:7, 12:34, 23:37; Lu 3:7) who were of their "father the devil" were not descendents of "serpents" or the "devil" - they were in fact descendants of Adam; they were a rebellious people.
I also submit for your consideration that John 8:44 is a description of the rebellion of Adam, i.e. in Genesis metaphorically described as "the serpent":
There were no talking serpents in the garden except for Adam. Adam was the only one in the garden that was more crafty than any beast. Adam deceived Eve and caused her to fall that is why Paul wrote:
According to Paul Eve was deceived, but we are never told that Adam was deceived - in fact, we are told that he was not deceived. Adam deliberately rebelled against his creator and deceived Eve by telling her:
Adam wanted to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but he was a coward - thus he deceived Eve and thus murdered (sacrificed) her and when it did not look like she had died he ate of the fruit and they both died. Thus Adam was a liar and a murderer from the beginning.
The serpent was really Adam?
Lloyd, I rather imagine that many women will applaud your ingenuity; but this reading is, to put it mildly, problematic.
The Hebrew of Gen.3:1 reads something like: ‘the serpent was shrewd out of / more than every living thing of the open-field’. The LXX reads: ‘the serpent was most intelligent of all wild beasts on the earth’. The obvious sense of both these constructions is that the serpent is included in the group of creatures that live in open country (cf. 3:14). A more complex construction would be needed, I think, if the point was that the ‘serpent’ was not part of the group.
All sorts of other objections arise: Eve clearly distinguished between Adam and the serpent; the serpent is cursed and made to go on its stomach and eat dust (unlike Adam who will have to eat the plants of the field); the serpent’s offspring with be in conflict with the woman’s offspring. There is no basis for your claim that ‘According to Genesis and Paul there were only two creatures in the garden capable of talking’. Adam is dead (Paul is quite clear about that!) and cannot be the serpent which is the adversary of the early church. Adam was ‘not deceived’ simply because the serpent spoke to Eve, not to him - Paul constructs it in this way because he is developing a correspondence with the activity of false teachers who prey on gullible women.
Re: The serpent was really Adam?
Re: The serpent was really Adam?
Hi Lloyd
I sounds like you argument is based on the presupposition that there is no such thing as the devil or Satan. To make a case about the serpent being Adam, you would first have to show that Satan is not real and that any references to him a simply a metaphor for evil men. Pretty difficult given the NT’s bias toward Pharisaic rather than Sadducee theology.
It think both OT and New interpret the snake in Eden as a fallen angel. In Ezekiel 28 you have the guardian cherub ‘in Eden, the garden of God’ covered in multicoloured jewels (think snake skin) before his fall. In Revelation 12, the dragon, the ancient serpent, leads an angelic rebellion in heaven and is thrown down to the earth. While the bible does ‘demythologise’ the serpent, it doesn’t demythologise angels.
Deacon
Re: The serpent was really Adam?
I was wondering how long it would be before someone brought the myth of a fallen angel into this discussion. Where in Genesis 1-4 (or for that matter anywhere in Genesis) do you find a descrption of the mythological fallen angel. It simply is not there, but must be read into the text from the imagination of men.
Sorry Deacon, the burden of proof is on you. Before I need to "show that Satan is not real" you must show that he is/was real. I have never seen that proven. Certainly not by Ezekiel 28.
I find nothing in the OT or the NT that interprets the snake in Eden as a fallen angel and I could not help but notice that you only "think" and that you had to add (think snake skin). That shows that you have a good imagination, but no evidence.
As far as Ezekiel 28, God clearly states that this passage was directed to men not a fallen angel.
As far as I can see this passage states nothing about a fallen angel. This passage is a straight shot back to the loins of Adam in the garden which is how the King of Tyrus was in Eden very similar to Paul’s charge against Elymas in Matt 13:10 which I cited above.
Now as for Rev 12 - in that passage the "dragon" to which you refer is very clearly identified as that "old serpent called the devil and satan" then in verse 10 this entity is clearly identified as "the accuser of our brethren" which the NT clearly identifies 33 + times as the Jews, the first century enemies of Jesus Christ and His followers.
In Rev 12:7 the "war in heaven" is a covenantal metaphor for the first century covenantal conflict over the true identity of the "children of God" between the followers of Jesus Christ and the Apostate Jews/Judaizers. The apostates were cast out of the covenant relationship as the followers of Jesus Christ "overcame them by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony because they loved not their lives unto the death."
There is no fallen angel in that passage. It has been read into the passage out of ignorance and superstition.
Re: The serpent was really Adam?
I agree it must be read into the text, but I don’t agree it is ‘from the imagination of men’, not if we see the scriptures as in any way inspired. The story in Genesis, says nothing about a fallen angel, or for that matter the serpent being Adam’s rebellious nature. In the story the serpent is simply a snake, wisest of all the animals, but still a snake. The story then gives us an explanation of why the snake has no legs and why he flicks his tongue around in the dust. The Genesis account sticks to the simple storyline that the tempter is a snake.
However the rest of the bible does not interpret the serpent as a literal reptile. what we do have is an apocalyptic ‘Leviathan’ figure in the OT and more specific references to the garden of Eden in Ezekiel and Revelation.
Sorry I don’t see any reference to ‘the loins of Adam’ in Ezekiel. Instead the prophet switched from the human ‘prince of Tyre’ to the real ruler of the city, and angel who was in Eden, where he was encrusted in jewels, which would have made him look pretty reptilian.
Revelation clearly represents the serpent in Eden as the devil and Satan. On that much we can agree. He is called the accuser of the brethren (which is pretty much what Satan and devil mean). But you say there was no fallen angel angel in the passage when it describes the devil and his angels being thrown out of heaven is pushing it a bit.
I am afraid you are reading modern materialism into the bible rather than looking at what the writers actually meant. Perhaps if the bible had been written by Sadducees your interpretations might ring true. Who was the angel who appeared to Mary? Was it the Jewish leaders who tempted Jesus in the desert with visions of world empires? How did Satan enter Judas when he ate the morsel from Jesus? Was Paul talking about human opposition in Eph 6:12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. Did Peter not believe in the devil when he warned his readers 1Pet 5:8 Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. Who did Jude think fought over the body of Moses Jude 9 But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, was disputing about the body of Moses.
Of course there are times when people who served Satan were called devils or children of the devil, but that metaphor worked because they did believe in a real Satan. I can understand you desire to demythologise Satan and dismiss him as superstition, but the writers of the bible believed he was real.
Deacon
Re: The serpent was really Adam?
Re: The serpent was really Adam?
That depends on how dusty the ground is and how windy the day. In the Middle East you will get a lot of dust nose level with a serpent. The Genesis account gives a very simple etiological myth explaining why snakes crawl on the ground and seemingly ‘eat dust’. But that is not how the rest of the bible interprets the serpent.
So you actually do believe in angels, spiritual beings from a heavenly realm? Or is this more metaphor?
Deacon
Re: The serpent was really Adam?
Deacon,
Yes, I actually believe that there are "heavenly" beings - I just do not find any evidence in the Bible that one of them "fell" and took a whole bunch of others with it.
Lloyd
Re: The serpent was really Adam?
Lloyd,
Lest I my ‘non-emergence’ be deplored, let me assure you that I value the questioning of our assumptions. That includes, of course, our traditional understanding of the ‘Satan’ we’ve inherited from our Church traditions. However, I think your rejection of a ‘spiritual’ rebellion is problematic (and I think I’m not the only one to think this). Paul’s ‘principalities and powers’ come to mind, certainly (and you’ve already given your view on these), but I just wanted to reference a couple passages which I find particularly problematic for your thesis that Scripture doesn’t ground these traditional views.
First of all, the first chapter of Job most certainly assumes that ‘Satan’ is a primary adversary of God, and it most certainly assumes that this adversary is not human. Since I take your fundamental claim to be that there was never any rebellion against God in ‘the heavenlies’, I think this passage should be problematic for you. While I readily admit that the introductory scene to this marvelous book should not be seen as historical by any means, it is hard to deny that it nevertheless reflects the worldview of its author. I would argue that the traditional ‘warfare’ worldview is consequently quite biblical.
Second, Daniel 10:13 portrays, at the very least, intense conflict in the heavenly realm. I find that the traditional view of Satan and his rebellious following fits quite well with this passage. How might you deal with it?
Sometimes, though it is true that the post-apostolic Church uses non-biblical terminology or imagery, and that more sophisticated theological ideas are birthed, it is not necessarily wise to throw them out for being ‘non-biblical’ (I am thinking here primarily of the Trinity—though your own revisionist attempts to get a spiritual Satan out of Scripture strike me as being in the same vein). Just because a tradition has developed around an idea that is less than central in Scripture doesn’t mean it is a bad tradition, or that it is Scripturally unfounded…
Am I making sense?
Cheers,
-Daniel-
Re: The serpent was really Adam?
Hi Daniel,
Where did I ever say that I rejected a "spiritual" rebellion. It seems to me that was exactly what Adam’s rebellion was. Why should I look else where for one. Image with me for a moment that all we have is the Genesis account of creation - where in that account did God tell Adam to watch out for that fallen angel that was hiding in a serpent waiting to get him? Wasn’t God violating His own character by not warning Adam about that dangerous fallen angel that was prowling around in the garden? Don’t you think it is rather strange that we have to get all the way to Ezekiel to find a supposed description of this fallen angel?
You wrote:
I can agree with your first assumption that "adversary" (satan) was a primary adversary of God, but I see nothing in the text that states or implies that he was not human. Therefore, I see no reason why this passage should be problematic for my view.
If by "the traditional ‘warfare’ worldview" you are referring to the view of a fallen angel fighting against God I fail to see anything biblical about it. However, if you are referring to the warfare between rebellious men and God I would see that as very biblical. See how many times God refers to Israel as a rebellious people. The non Israelites were often even more rebellious.
Was the messenger to Daniel in the "heavenly realm" while it was talking to Daniel? (I think not)If not, I see no reason to assume that it was in the "heavenly realm" when it was dealing with the "prince of the kingdom of Persia either." I see nothing in the text that would lead me to think that "the prince of the kingdom of Persia was anything but a human prince of the kingdom of Persia.
Contrary to your apparent understanding, I am not trying "to get a spiritual Satan out of Scripture." I am simply trying to get a non-existent fallen angel out of Christian tradition. I think that fallen, rebellious man is a very "spiritual" adversary of God.
Early in your post you mentioned Paul’s "principalities and powers" so in closing let’s take a closer look at that passage and some related passages:
I see nothing in this verse that demands or even implies that we should see "principalities" or "powers" as a fallen angel. The context is darkness and spiritual wickedness that takes place in that darkness. Matthew defines this darkness as:
The darkness and wickedness was in the cosmos of the covenant people and it was directly associated with the "principalities" and "powers" of that cosmos not about an imaginary fallen angel. Titus defines "principalities" for us:
as human in every respect, just like magistrates and other human authorities. It was a human spiritual battle - the ideas of the followers of Christ against the followers of the Mosaic cosmos leadership and Paul explained how to win the war:
"every high thing" surely includes "principalities and powers."
Re: The serpent was really Adam?
Hi Lloyd
It sounds like you have a problem here, you believe in angels, but every time we read about an angel in the bible where it refers to fallen angels you have to interpret the passage metaphorically. So in Revelation we have Michael, apparently not just an angel but an archangel (Jude 9), fighting in heaven with his angels against Satan and his angels. Although this clearly speak of angels (which you recognise), because it mentions fallen angels you have to interpret it as a covenant battle. But apparently when Satan is cast out of heaven to the ground he goes off to fight against the believers. So who was he fighting against in heaven and where did the battle take place?
In Daniel 10 the angel seems as genuine as the one who spoke to Mary. Yet because the angel speaks of the ‘Prince of Persia’ who was able to resist and angel from the throne of God, you have to interpret the the angel metaphorically.
Ephesians 6 tells us clearly we are not fighting against flesh and blood enemies but spiritual forces of wickedness ‘in the heavenly places’ (the translation ‘high places’ does not do the Greek justice.) Yes the same word principality (arche or ruler) is used for human rulers, but the ones in Ephesians are ‘not flesh and blood’ and are ‘in the heavenly places’.
Cheers, Deacon
Re: The serpent was really Adam?
Yes, I agree that the messenger to Daniel was as genuine as the one who spoke to Mary. However, contrary to your claim, I did not interpret the messenger in Daniel 10 "metaphorically." I merely implied that the action concerning the "prince of Persia" did not take place in the "heavenly realm" and neither did the messenger’s actions concerning Mary. Both events took place on earth in real time and space.
You wrote:
Yes, Ephesians 6 does tell us that the first century battle described in Rev 12 was not against "flesh and blood" as far as the disciples were concerned. However, that was not necessarily true as far as their adversary (satan/devil) was concerned.
As far as the disciples were concerned, their war was a war of truth against "principalities, and powers" and their enemy was "the rulers of the darkness of that world" (the Mosaic Covenant world [cosmos]) who were entrenched in the temple cultus, i.e. "heavenly" places.
Deacon, perhaps it is time that you should "emerge" from your entrapment within the mythological "fallen angel" cultus into the real world of the first century situation.
Double cheers,
Lloyd
Re: The serpent was really Adam?
Lloyd. I’m enjoying hearing your take on this issue. I think you’re doing a fascinating rereading of most of the Scriptural material. Whether or not you’re being true to the worldview of the biblical authors is a different matter (and I still think the first chapter of the book of Job puts a damper on your view—but anyway)…
My question to you is this: what on earth was Jesus casting out of the demon possessed people if it wasn’t demons? Was ‘Legion’ a simple manifestation of one man’s schizophrenia? Or something more? I am aware that some people argue that demons in the New Testament should be understood as various mental illnesses… but I have never encountered someone who (like yourself) argues that the New Testament writers themselves did not believe in ‘demons’. I think the latter is a much stronger claim (and also a much harder claim to establish). And if there is no such thing as a demon, what do I make of the experience of demonization?
Good luck!
-Daniel-
:-)
Re: The serpent was really Adam - demons
Lloyd
Demons and benefits
Thank you for your response Lloyd. Mind you, I’m not sure that Deuteronomy 28 actually ‘works’ to explain away the entire motif of demon-possession in the NT (and I find it particularly curious that the NT writers never make this connection), but that’s mostly because I’m not convinced God is a cursing God (not least, not like he’s portrayed in Deut 28:15).
More importantly, and this is where I really want to go with this line of questioning, what benefits are there, in your view, to rejecting the idea of angels (fallen or not)? This is not intended to psychologize your view, but rather to help us understand why you think it would be beneficial for Christians who are a part of this emerging conversation to rid themselves of the old-fashioned view of ‘angels’ and ‘demons’. Obviously a part of the answer is that you think the biblical data should point us away from such a view—but I mean beyond that. Does it help us ‘connect’ more with our post-modern seekers? Does it make Christianity less simplistic? And more importantly, is it just catering to our very modern Western sensibilities?
Just lookin’ for your input.
Cheers,
-Daniel-
Re: Demons and benefits
Lloyd
Re: Demons and benefits
Hi Lloyd. Good stuff! I’m actually pretty impressed with how you dealt with that—though I’m glad you admit to ‘rereading’ the text. I’m not sure I can deal with everything you’ve laid out, but I will make just a few comments.
As for Matthew 12:22-28. I think you’ve made a fundamental logical flaw. Jesus’ point in this passage is that he cannot be casting demons out in Beelzebub’s name because otherwise the demons’ house would be a divided house and it would fall. By the same logic, if Jesus were casting out demons (/curses) in God’s name that came from God, again, the house would be divided and would fall. The entire point of the passage is to point out that Jesus is not ‘of the same house’ as the demons. He is highlighting a clear opposition, in which he clearly has the upper hand. This is why I’m wary of attributing the ‘curses’ to God. No, humanity is besieged by Satan, and Jesus sets us free. At least, that’s what I hear Jesus saying in this passage.
As for me being ‘emergent’ because I don’t think Deut 28:15 reveals the true nature of God… well, I don’t think labels are helpful, and I certainly don’t think I speak for anyone other than myself—but yes I do seem to display a certain freedom with the biblical text. I take after Brueggemann, who is not afraid to acknowledge a plurality of images of Yahweh in the Hebrew Scriptures—images that are at times somewhat contradictory. The image of Yahweh as a cursing God, who visits the father’s iniquities on the sons and the sons of the sons to the 27,000th generation (slight exaggeration, I know) is one that I find to be in deep tension with the ‘fullness of the Godhead’ revealed in Jesus—particularly with his work on the cross.
I really don’t know where to go further on this issue. It seems to me that you have your ideas about what the text can and can’t say, and I have mine. My views on spiritual warfare (which is, as I take it, what you are denying—apart from the ‘spiritual’ side of humankind, of course, but that is not what I mean) are deeply influenced by the work of Greg Boyd (particularly his book God at War which traces the motif of spiritual warfare throughout Scripture), and I feel that your rereading of the significant passages doesn’t ‘fit’ very well with the biblical worldviews. Further, I’d be interested to hear how you think the mythological understanding of ‘messengers’ got started since it really didn’t start with "English speaking people" (indeed, this understanding has permeated Church teachings from the very beginning!).
All the best,
-Daniel-
Re: Demons and benefits
Re: Demons and benefits
Just to add a couple more questions :-)
So do you have any sort of ontology established for your idea of "messenger" (which, of course, is the Greek word we are appealing when we use the term "angel")? Is it a broad term or are there "messengers" with specific attributes and purposes?
How do you interpret Jesus’ words in Luke 10:18?
I’ll take my answers off-air. Thanks.
Re: Demons and benefits
Hi gdargan,
"Messenger," as I see it, is a broad term and it has several applications as is evident from the several ways which "aggelos" is used in the NT.
In context, I see this passage as the opening foray of, and a prophecy about the end of the war described in Revelation 12:7-11 which involved the "messengers" (Jesus and His disciples) of the New Covenant doing battle against the "messengers" (apostate Jews) of the Old Covenant which ended with the fall/casting out of the apostates of the Old Covenant.
Lloyd
Re: The serpent was really Adam - demons
Yet both Mark and Luke tell us Jesus would not allow the demons to speak ‘because they knew that he was the Christ’. I really don’t think think these writers shared your emergent theology that demons were simply impersonal curses.
Actually there are quite a few that deal with their fall or their sin and judgment. We have Revelation 12 which deal with Satan and his angels being cast out of heaven. You have provided no evidence for your claim that heaven should be treated metaphorically. Paul’s reference to battle in the heavenly places is given in contrast to ‘flesh and blood’ and you have shown no reason why Paul or his Ephesian readers should interpret heavenly places as the temple cultus. It run counter to the plain meaning of the text.
Jude 1:6 And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day.
Ezekiel refers to a guardian cherub being cast from Eden the mountain of God to the ground.
There is no reason to understand the battle as happening in heaven, though a battle between angels will certainly be a spiritual one. If the angel who spoke to Daniel was an angel as you seem to agree, how could a human prince of Persia hold him up for three weeks?
What is the basis for you claim that Michael was Christ?
Deacon
Re: The serpent was really Adam - demons