How the church creates a treadmill that exhausts disciples instead of shepherding in peace
There’s a certain kind of Christian exhaustion that doesn’t come from the world, It comes from the church. Maybe you have experienced this. I have been a part of several church plants. The first one was in a local HS and was “church out of a truck.” It took 3 hours to setup and a couple hours to break down. It stole our best energy that should have been used for shepherding. I vowed to never do that again. Or maybe you started attending a church and wondered “what is next?” or tasked the staff “how do I get to know people deeper here?” and were answered with something to the shape of, “start serving!” At times the kingdom does require tribulation, toil, and simply work; but it shouldn’t send mixed messages with the primary pursuit of the church to shepherd.
I call it the church hustle.
It’s what happens when discipleship becomes a to-do list. When spiritual growth gets measured by the offering plate, perfect attendance, your service record, or how many books you’ve read or podcasts you have listened to and reported back to your pastor this year. Barna says this is the number one reason people don’t trust churches.1
It’s the creeping pressure that says: If I just try harder, God will finally be pleased with me.
have you experienced this feeling? A subtle uncertainty that your church wants more of your assets when you are just hoping to be shepherded? We rarely say it that plainly. But we’ve felt it. The unspoken message: You’re not quite there yet… but maybe if you pray more, serve more, repent better, or climb the next ladder, you’ll get there. Is that the message the church is sending?
Spiritual Capitalism in Disguise
Richard Rohr (you might remember him from our liminal spaces post) recently named this dynamic with piercing clarity. He calls it “spiritual capitalism”, the belief that we can somehow earn our way to spiritual success.2Spiritual Capitalism has shaped American churches, political movements, and personal financial strategies. It views free-market capitalism as divinely sanctioned and tells people that if they work hard, give enough, and believe enough, wealth and deeper spiritual alignment will follow.3
This kind of thinking is far from the texture of shepherding in the Bible. It creates a theology of pressure. A treadmill masked as discipleship and will burn out our body dynamics with things that have very little kingdom methodology.
How the Hustle Gets Into Us
We’ve spiritualized the very mindset Jesus came to free us from.4 We say we believe in grace, but we measure ourselves by performance. We don’t view grace as a reciprocal unending gift to be accepted and returned in the way we live out the love of Jesus. We talk about love, but we form people through fear. We preach mercy, but we disciple for control.
Have you experienced this, pressure confused with passion, and metrics confused with maturity. I’ve seen people carry deep shame for not living up to standards God never asked them to meet and it is devastating to people’s spiritual identity and the mission of the church.
And even now, in a much healthier rhythm, I still catch myself slipping into hustle-mode, believing that if I don’t produce enough, lead well enough, or fix everything around me, I’m somehow less worthy.
This isn’t the way of Jesus.
NOTE: There is of course a need to live out Jesus in your gifts and that includes serving in a church context. We need that and we need it in a better context for shepherding and discipleship.
Jesus Didn’t Hustle
The life of Christ was many things, urgent at times, disruptive often. but never frenzied.5 He lived in a sacred sense of shalom. Never performative. Jesus didn’t hustle His way to holiness.6 He moved at the speed of Love.
When He invites us to “take my yoke upon you… and you will find rest for your souls,” He isn’t calling us to a hustle. He’s offering us a different kind of shepherding, one marked by humility, mercy, and presence. Follow this link for more on that kind of leading.
But so many churches, while preaching grace, disciple people in fear.
We build cultures where burnout is seen as faithfulness.
We equate spiritual growth with spiritual productivity.
We tell people God loves them… and then hand them a list to prove it.
No wonder people are walking away.
The Myth of Perfection
Rohr also names the damage done by misreading Matthew 5:48: “Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” We turned that into a mandate for moral flawlessness instead of what it really is: a call to boundless love.7
Perfection, in Jesus’ language, isn’t about never messing up. It’s about expanding love beyond what seems reasonable, even to enemies. It’s about letting God’s perfection flow through us, not manufacturing it ourselves.8
But we turned it into a weight. And people carried it until they broke.
If you’ve been hustling, hear me clearly: You can stop.
You don’t have to climb your way into God’s love. You don’t have to earn your way into grace. You don’t have to be perfect to be held.
The church doesn’t need more hustlers. It needs more people who are learning to rest in grace and be formed by love.
You can step off the treadmill. You can fall into mercy. You can breathe again.9
What Formation Could Be
Spiritual formation isn’t about spiritual accomplishment. It’s not about reaching a higher rung. It’s about becoming more open, more surrendered, more grounded in your belovedness. More transparent before God and those you are in covenant with.10
It looks like…
Slowing down enough to hear the voice of Love again.
Releasing shame-based religion for grace-centered transformation.
Letting prayer become presence, not performance.
Trusting that you are loved, not because you got it right, but because you belong to a God who is endlessly merciful.
Reflection Questions
Where have you felt pressure to perform spiritually?
How has the church hustle shaped your view of God, or yourself?
What would it look like to embrace a formation rooted in grace, not effort?
Where might Jesus be saying, “You can stop striving… and come rest”?
If you’ve been caught in the hustle, you’re not alone. And you’re not a failure. You’re tired. And grace is calling. Come down from the ladder. There’s nothing to prove. There’s only Love, waiting to catch you.
This Article was written by Dr. Will Ryan and Paul Dazet.
What does it look like to give all of yourself to Jesus?
Hebrews 13:5 – Let your way of life be free from the love of money, being content with what you have, for He Himself has said, “I will never desert you, nor will I ever forsake you.”
DISCUSSION QUESTION: How much do you give to the Lord?
In the classic Old Testament Hebraic mindset the answer should be, “all that you have been given.” In other words, everything is the Lord’s and should be given back to Him. You have simply been entrusted to the “assets” of the kingdom for a short time. This is the circular dance of grace. (Patronage and Reciprocity: The Context of Grace in the New Testament by David A. DeSilva)
DISCUSSION QUESTION: If anyone from the group understands the dance of grace based on patronage please explain it to your group. This can be found in my book “This is the way to covenant community” on Page 161.
In our western thinking this is likely where we get the original audience’s interpretation of Biblical giving wrong… thinking that God just requires a tithe (confused with OT passages), or that there are no strings attached to Grace.
Grace is free but it also might have some strings attached. To be clear, Grace is totally free, but if you’re going to follow the Lord then you should follow the Lord with all that you are and have been given and freely give back all that you are and have been endowed with- which to some sounds like attached strings.
To most Americans the idea that God wants everything doesn’t sit very well. What would alter calls sound like if we told people the whole story before we asked them to put their hand up! It even becomes more uncomfortable as Christian Americans when you ask somebody if they love money. Nearly every American does. Christian Americans are in a little bit of a wrestling match because they want to proclaim that they don’t love money; yet the giant mortgages, lifelong debt, and working around the clock every week say otherwise. It sure looks like we all love money, and that’s actually the implication of I Timothy 6:10.
The word “love of money” is philarguros, literally, “a friend of silver.” This is a Greek verb that was used in the scriptural context to describe brothers and sisters of one body (which we like to call the church in present day language -that’s up for argument though.) Today, it would seem that money is root of more church problems and family dynamics than anything else I can think of. That’s why TOV doesn’t want much to do with it. It didn’t seem like Jesus wanted much to do with money and His version of first century “church” didn’t either. Have you ever considered the idea that Judas was the money keeper and the one-time Jesus was asked to pay for something it didn’t come from that bag, but from coins out of a fish his Father provided? What could that imply? Jesus didn’t own a church building but occasionally visited the temple which He does refer to as His father’s house.
Essentially the Hebraic way of living is that your complete life is a gift. This gift is a reciprocal dance mirroring what God has given you. Total humility, complete giving back of what you have been given, and utter devotion to your Father.
In the hands of the follower of the Way, contentment is a sign of trust in the grace and mercy of God. From the biblical point of view, the only reason a man or woman can entertain contentment is because God is good. His provision is sufficient. Greed leads away from Him and towards the love of things of the world separating us from the Love of Christ.
Is the love of money or money itself the root of evil? I don’t really think it matters… what matters is that God wants all of us to mirror all of what God has given us. And from the biblical authors mindset money had very little to do with any of that kind of thinking. It is the posture of the heart.
DISCUSSION QUESTION: How does God view your money? Does He even want it? Is the Money the World’s? But don’t we need money? Is it a “necessary evil?” of the world? How does it belong in a Jesus kingdom?
DISCUSSION QUESTION: We often say, TOV isn’t looking for a tithe. Discuss why a more Biblical perspective isn’t centered around “money or serving” but on deeper devotion of your “whole” person.
TOV ACTION NEEDS FOR YOUR DISCUSSION:
BECOME A MONTHLY “PATRON” PARTNER – Discuss how this mindset is different than a tithe
Sometimes we don’t give much to the donation boxes and it is hard to bless people when need arises. We want to bless generously. Consider gifting monthly so that we can buy people groceries, feed the hungry & homeless, and take a financial strain off a family for a season. There aren’t any tov salaries, mortgage payments or utilities to pay… all of your giving goes right to an ACTS 2 need. Together we can make a better kingdom investment. Right now We want to buy a car for another anonymous family and need $2500 that we don’t have.
We need car donations; we have a mechanic that will fix things. And we can give away these cars or sell them on the marketplace. If you know of someone selling a car ask them to donate it.
Giving: You don’t need to “make time or space” for God if all of your time, treasure and talents (sacred space) are His. In the same regard, you don’t need to consider giving a percentage of your financial resources if you are of the mindset that it is all His and you are merely the Spirit led steward of it.
Some have chosen to underwrite the few costs we have as “patron” partners. If you would like to dedicate a regular monthly amount, please do so here:
I have done justice and righteousness; do not leave me to my oppressors. Psalm 119:121 NASB
Justice and Righteousness – In a sense of Old Testament sovereignty, YHWH exhibited himself differently than the other “gods” the people of Israel were formerly aware of in Egypt. YHWH was concerned with a covenant partnership between Him and His chosen people that would be his ambassadors, and it was much established on the notion of two things – Justice and Righteousness. The Hebrew for righteousness is the word ṣedeq which typically takes a gloss of an ethical, moral standard based on the nature and will of God. In other words, the Lord is righteous.1 Justice is the word mišpāṭ. It is the divine governance of the created order. The way that God intended things to operate and called – TOV.
You may remember that the priestly breastplate or breastpiece of judgment (Hebrew: חֹשֶׁן ḥōšen) was a sacred breastplate worn by the High Priest of the Israelites, according to the Book of Exodus. In the biblical account, the breastplate is termed the breastplate of judgment (Hebrew: חֹשֶׁן מִשְׁפָּט ḥōšen mišpāṭ – Exodus 28:15), because the Urim and Thummim (Hebrew: הָאוּרִים וְהַתֻּמִּים hāʾūrīm wəhattummīm) were placed upon it (Exodus 28:30). These elements of the breastplate are said in the Exodus verse to carry the judgment (Hebrew: מִשְׁפָּט mišpāṭ) of God concerning the Israelites at all times. According to the Talmud, the wearing of the Hoshen atoned for the sin of errors in judgment on the part of the Children of Israel. 2 So as you can see, justice was a theme tied carefully into the way that the priest represented God to the people and the people to God and “justice” played an important measure.
When you first think about justice, you might think about a court, perhaps even words like wrath, or anger, judgment, malice, retribution, avenging, some notion of getting what is deserved. But those thoughts are actually contrary to the grace notion and justice of God. That was exactly His point to Israel. YHWH was different and was going to redefine what justice meant and looked like to His people. Yet 3500 years later it seems many Christians are still holding to the kind of justice that God said was contrary to His very nature.
Mišpāṭ is to cooperate with God in bringing His order to the world. It is to extend the Garden to the rest of creation, a task, by the way, that was given as the Prime Directive in the Genesis account. “Let Us make mankind in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the livestock and over all the earth, and over every crawling thing that crawls on the earth.” “Rule over” does not mean exploit. It means to care for, to tend to, to cultivate, to nourish, to protect—it means precisely what God does and would do with His own creation. Insofar as you bring God’s “rule” into your world, you do mišpāṭ. Notice please that this is active involvement, not theoretical or passive contemplation of engagement.3
Exodus 34:6-7 is the key text that you are likely tired of me regurgitating. God is benevolent, compassionate, gracious, slow to anger, full of ḥesed (no English equivalent), truthful, preserving ḥesed for generations, forgiving, providing oversight; and in these features partners with us as his treasured possessions in covenant order. TOV has a good deal to play into this. In Genesis we see God using his “priests” to continue to cultivate God’s sense of order and do good. The Torah then becomes the handbook of life until Jesus comes. Living in justice and righteousness means living in devotion to the will of God committed to being a complete representative of the Creator as much as humanly possible. The first century word for that is “agent,” and Yeshua is a full expression of what that means; He becomes the fulfillment of identity and purpose based on justice and righteousness.
There is also a sense of communal justice in the Bible, particularly for Israel.
Two Modes of Biblical Justice according to the Bible Project4
Retributive/Recompense This mode of justice is like the punishment/reward system in a court of law, ensuring there is recompense, repayment, or acquittal for just or unjust behavior. If you steal five dollars, you have to pay back five dollars. If you’re wrongly accused of stealing five dollars, you should not have to pay, and you should even be repaid for the trouble of being accused. Deuteronomy 25:1 – If there is a dispute between men and they go to court (lit. to the mishpat, place of justice), and the judges (Heb. shophetim) decide their case, and they declare the innocent to be in the right, and they will declare the guilty to be in the wrong.
Restorative This mode of justice is about making sure that everyone in the community is treated fairly and given what they are due. It’s about granting people rights by changing unjust practices or laws. For example, in Deuteronomy 18:1-3, the Levites didn’t inherit land because they served all the tribes by working in the temple. And so, the other tribes were to give a tithe (one tenth) of their produce as offerings in the temple. This temple tax is called the Levites’ mishpat (“their right,” see also Deut. 21:17 “right of the firstborn”). In Israel, there was another group in their society who had unique mishpat: the quartet of the vulnerable, meaning the widow, orphan, immigrant, and the poor.
Deuteronomy 16:20: “That which is altogether just shalt thou follow, that thou mayest live, and inherit the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.”
The first words: “That which is altogether just” are just two words in the Hebrew “tsedeq tsedeq.” The same word is repeated twice. In Semitic languages when a word is repeated it usually indicates that the word is to be intensified or emphasized. 5
We don’t live under communal Israel and their laws though. So, what do we make of all this? I want to finish with a sense of deconstructing our modern views and what we want justice to be based on our desires of God for our life and world as compared to what the Bible presents it as. Christians demand justice so much today. People who have been offended, abused, victims of racism, etc. They are all crying for justice. Certain politicians have been accused of sexual harassment and the victims are demanding justice. What do they want? They want to see that person punished, resign from office, put in jail. What is it that they saying? The victim wants to see the perpetrator suffer as they suffered. They want fairness, eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. Is that what God is talking about as a condition to inherit what God has given you? 6
We know this wasn’t the way of Jesus. In Matthew 5:38-39 Jesus is clear not to repay evil for evil or as it says in Deuteronomy 16:20; “tsedeq tsedeq” which could be rendered as “just justice.” 7 There is indeed the need for justice, and we should pursue justice, but we must pursue a just justice, and that isn’t ours to address but God’s and God alone. In other words, justice isn’t for you… let it go and let the Lord heal. Perhaps occasionally we are part of the agents of that justice, but more often not.
Psalm 96:10-11a, 13Say among the nations, “YHWH reigns; Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved. He will judge the peoples with equity.” Let the heavens be glad, and let the earth rejoice… Be before YHWH for He is coming; He is coming to judge the earth. He will judge the world in righteousness and the people in His faithfulness.
Notice that God’s judgment is in the positive. It’s not brimstone and fire. He judges with equity; He judges in righteousness and in His faithfulness. He judges to SAVE the humble of the earth. Interesting that we often associate God’s judgement with God’s wrath. It is a common human desire to let God handle our enemies with vengeance. Sometimes life doesn’t seem fair when horrible people seem to have great success in life. We want God to judge the wicked in anger. Vengeance is a powerful human desire. But the answer to vengeance is vindication, not judgement. “Vengeance is mine, says the Lord… for YHWH will vindicate His people” (paraphrased from Deut. 32:35-36). To vindicate (God acting in judgement) is a completely different word in the Hebrew language: יָדִ֣ין (yadin).
Covenantal commitment is a flowing stream, this Biblical understanding of justice should inspire us to not only critique the world as it is, but to align ourselves with that which is Godly in the universe, working towards the day when all human beings are nurtured, respected, and be reclaimed to the identify that God has purposed them for.
Ironically, perhaps your need for retributive justice around you is exactly what is holding you back from the kind of relentless covenant partnership that God has destined you for. Perhaps today is the day you simply let God be the judge. Let God be the agent of restoration and use you as His hands and feet to physically manifest grace, love, compassion, and mercy which means healing.
Stigers, H. G. (1999). 1879 צָדֵק. In R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer Jr., & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament(electronic ed., p. 752). Moody Press. ↩︎
Zevachim (Hebrew: זְבָחִים; lit. “Sacrifices”) is the first tractate of Seder Kodashim (“Holy Things”) of the Mishnah, the Talmud and the Tosefta. This tractate discusses the topics related to the sacrificial system of the Temple in Jerusalem, namely the laws for animal and bird offerings, and the conditions which make them acceptable or not, as specified in the Torah, primarily in the book of Leviticus (Lev 1:2 and on). The tractate has fourteen chapters divided into 101 mishnayot, or paragraphs. There is a Gemara – rabbinical commentary and analysis – for this tractate in the Babylonian Talmud, and no Gemara in the Jerusalem Talmud. ↩︎
If you have ever attended TOV you notice that there are new “things” being built all the time. Gardens, trails, crosses, structures, tents, and the list goes on. What is that about? Well, it encompasses several things. First there is some sacred garden/temple thinking and language happening. We believe the TOV grounds serve as a tabernacle or dwelling for our community and we want to “build into that” mindset. We also encourage gifting, and several people just want to come share their gifts. But there is also something deeper. TOV is encouraging tribal building. Sometimes what is happening on the outside is a picture of what is happening on the inside. That is why the grounds are vibrant. It is a picture of the tribes that dwell here. Bible studies, baptism, healing, hope, communion and so much more.
Heaven and earth shall praise Him, the seas and everything that moves in them. For God will save Zion and build the cities of Judah, so that they may live there and possess it. The descendants of His servants will inherit it, and those who love His name will live in it. Psalm 69:34-36 NASB
What are we supposed to be doing as good citizens of the Kingdom of Jesus?Live there and possess it – According to David’s poem, the citizens of the kingdom will not just live in the land (yāšab – sit, remain, dwell), they will also own the land (yāraš – take possession of, inherit).1
This verse was written more than 2500 years ago, long before we started the TOV community. But every generation that starts up in the name of YAHWEH starts with a similar charge. Remember Micah 6:8, Matthew 16 & 28, Acts 2? But what is interesting is the context of land has changed. In other words, what was the base of cultivation shifted from place to place and generation to generation. It was not so much about the specific land itself being sacred, but about the calling and communion to make it sacred.
Church – The word “church” in a modern-day paradigmatic expression is without much textual support. I have written much on the ekkelsia (Greek) and qehelah (Hebrew). Expedition 44 has done a one-year series on the church. Perhaps what we night simply consider is what is conveyed in the first church, Acts 2:42 is well known, They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.
Continually devoting – This is a mouthful of Greek–proskarterountes. The word is derived from pros (toward) and kartereo (to be strong, steadfast and firm). The picture we see from this word is a group of people totally committed. They were strong and steadfast in their pursuit of understanding and cooperating. They did not settle for mediocre. They wanted all they could get.2 We would describe these people as ones who hung on every word, zealous, hungry, perhaps even demanding. Does that describe a TOVER?
There are many attributes of TOV and most of them are, well “good.” We are known for our generous, kind, and compassionate giving, our prayer, our devotion, our hearts, our food, pond baptism, our community, and so much more; but I pray that what really sets us apart is our relentless discipleship.
There is a flip side to a community tethered like this. Buried in the word above for devotion is the word, kartereo which entails bearing burdens and enduring severe hardship for someone or on their behalf willfully, Jesus uses a root of the word when he says “abide” in me. This thinking and action plan characterized the first century church. Today the “church” has largely lost this way of thinking.
Today we think of it as puppy dog infatuation, but the meaning of Jesus meant to be incredibly committed to someone, and the word covenant was used throughout the pages of scripture to define that relationship of those grafted by the kingdom of God.
The First Century knew a different kind of devotion. They literally lived with and for one another. The cared for ALL of each other’s need, loneliness, finances, work, teaching, raising children, provisions, and the list goes on. No one felt unwanted, unnecessary or ignored, at least if they were involved, and they should have been because that was actually what identified them as part of the community. How “involved” are you. Have you found your tribe here?
If someone gets hurt, does your time warrant you to simply help? If something needs fixed, can you be part of the solution? If toil is part of the process, can you transform it to cultivation that brings joy? If you rejoice does that bring rejuvenation to others? If someone is mourning, do you share in their needs?
I think we are done with “serving” in the “modern day sense” of feeling like your identity and worth are based on what you do for the “church”. Are you tired of a church that is only a building or a weekly obligation? Do you hunger and thirst for a community of belonging? Do you want a community of acceptance under grace? Do you want a comunity that disciples you to a depth of relational interaction based on the WORD of God like nothing you have ever known? I do. I long for the peace of being continually devoted to the community of God’s redeemed. I am ready to give all (TIME TREASURE TALENT) I have to that community. I need these people in my life.3 I want a life that is continually devoted to them. That is covenant, and that requires a tribe of deeply devoted people.
I don’t entirely like the term build, because in our culture it comes with materialism. But the Bible’s term for edification actually means to build each other up. That is the core of what we are doing here…
WE ARE shepherding each other. How is your building “SPACE” coming together?
If you read my article earlier this month on Demons, you will know that I lean somewhere close to Walton in my views of demonology but still gravitate towards a “fall” of spiritual beings, which Walton would not describe in that sense. Walton points out that the bible doesn’t specifically use the word “fall” and Adam and Eve don’t actually “fall” in the sense of being cast out or demoted. I think he has made some great points to this regard, and I completely agree. In our original sin x44 series we brought out many of these points. He would then make the point that the bible actually never says that any of the spiritual being’s “fall” either. In my mind that one is a bit more controversial and where I slightly see things differently. I see a Deuteronomy 32 (Heiser) worldview in a sense of several other “falls” primarily concerned with spiritual beings which also involves human beings.
As a precursor to this conversation, I don’t necessarily like the term “fall” to describe Adam and Eve (as well as the serpent’s) banishment from the garden for many reasons, but I get the terminology traditionally applied. I do however see spiritual beings “falling” in the sense that they were created by the hand of God and are no longer aligned with Him in the heavenly cosmos. Therefore, I am ok with calling this a “dual fall” as people traditionally would understand it, to describe the free will intention of being’s pursuit away from God. In this sense we might think of it as God being high in the heavens, and the things of the world being low in an earthly realm. You might even describe a third realm as something associated with an underworld. In that sense, I am fine using the traditional term “fall” to describe what has happened to distance beings further from God’s sacred space. Even Walton titles a chapter “the fall” in his latest book simply because people know what we are referring to when we use the term.
DECONSTRUCTION: The Bible mentions Satan and spiritual beings, but it doesn’t actually give us much, and we likely conclude that we simply don’t have all those answers here. We don’t know what all the spiritual beings are, where they are now, and what has happened and will happen to them. We don’t have that story. What we do have is a different story about God’s covenant love to us that includes a few interesting things about spiritual beings along the way. What does the Bible give us in order to influence or make a faithful deduction from? We have a story of God’s unyielding covenant plan for us, the rest might be cloaked. 1
It is a fantastic read. One of my all-time favorites.
To be clear, the book explores a lot of areas that I don’t address here. This article is meant to address one part of the book, – the fall, which has been a personal interest of mine most of my life. In our interview we also approach theses subject matters:
Genesis 1: order and function
Previous material overview
New explorations in the first creation account
What is each day about?
Image of God- what is it about?
Creation out of nothing?
Genesis 1: Cosmic temple and rest
Previous material overview
Spreading order vs Spreading sacred space
Ruling vs relaxing on the 7th day
7 day inauguration?
Literary vs. Chronology
what does this means for human priesthood?
Genesis 2: The Garden and Trees
Previous material overview
Should we consider the garden to be a pristine paradise?
Should we think that we are headed back to eden (Revelation does have some parallels to the Gen 2 account)
Genesis 2: Adam and Eve
Previous material overview
Nakedness and the clothing of flesh
What does it mean that they are archetypes? Does this mean they were not “real”?
Humans created immortal?
Were they “perfect”?
Genesis 3: The Fall
Previous material overview
Serpent- How should we understand his role?
Death before the fall?
Is the origin of sin the focus of Gen 3? Are Adam and Eve being punished for sin?
Romans 5- How is Paul using the Gen 3 account there?
Genesis 3: The Pronouncement
What is going on in Gen 3:16?
Should we consider it messianic?
Why the guardian with the sword?
Genesis and science (we actually didn’t get into this because we have discussed it with him several other times in other interviews.)
Previous material overview
What are some of your new explorations in this area?
Is the Bible compatible with evolutionary models (godless models)?
If I have learned one thing from John over the years, it is to approach the interpretation of scripture more faithfully. This one is a lifelong endeavor of joy, and I am still learning! He starts out his latest work similar to his other works giving a methodology to his study, but in this case, he denotes over 50 pages to it rather than just a few. I won’t do that here (but I love what he does in the book to teach a better framework before he launches into it.), I do think we need to set the table slightly here before we start this discussion as well. Some think Walton is controversial. I don’t. As you read this article you are going to find that I nearly completely agree with him, especially in a purely exegetical sense, however – I desire to make more ontological, philosophical, and theological deductions than he might be willing to do. I will say that I think those that find him controversial fall into three camps. 1.) They want to be traditional and feel they are “standing strong.” I don’t have a lot of room for this take on the Bible. Essentially it is those that are willing to put tradition over the exegesis of the text. 2.) You don’t really have sound hermeneutics; you don’t understand the parameters. I think there is a good deal of this. People that don’t have sound framework or a good theological lens of the Bible. They don’t have the Bible in harmony. 3.) They just want a debate. I have some good friends in apologetics but honestly, I can’t stand the hierarchical “want to prove something” debating within primarily the evangelical circles. I think we need to get back to the edification of the church through a positive Mars Hill style teaching. Walton is very good here. I think there are 2-3 theologians that are ahead of their time that we will be reading in 100 years (such as we do with CS Lewis) and Walton might very well be the best we have.
Genesis 3 and the fall is difficult to interpret for many reasons. One of which is because you first might need to interpret Genesis 1 & 2 and decide whether you land in the recursive or sequential camp, believe it or not there will be implications along the way. It is also quite interesting because we have the Adam and Eve narrative in Genesis 3 and from that point on, we never hear anything else about it in the rest of the OT, and barely in the new. Chapter 3 is also sometimes interpreted under a poetic lens which might belong to a speculative type of wisdom literature that questions the paradoxes and harsh realities of life. This characterization is determined by the narrative’s format, settings, and the plot. The form of Genesis 3 is also shaped by its vocabulary, making use of various puns and double entendres.2 Furthermore, the Hebrew of a few words really does matter, and I would argue that we can’t arrive at an exact meaning for many reasons. The serpent, is identified in Genesis 3:1 as an animal that was more crafty than any other animal made by God.3 The Hebrew arum עָר֔וּם (Gen 3:1), is traditionally translated “crafty/shrewd” but could be connected linguistically with Genesis 2:25 עָרוֹם (arom) sharing the same root word.4 In this sense, traditionally the text has been read with a connotation of mental “nakedness” (innocence), yielding a more direct antonym for “shrewd” and heightening the irony. Then to complicate matters further, you have the realization that these words in the older Hebrew had no vowel signs which could render them to be understood slightly differently. Some might say this becomes a study of Philology. The Masoretic Texts and LXX are useful to fix meanings of terms and expressions, but they also are not the Gospel. I spend a lot of time describing contranym language in the ancient texts in blogs here so if you are a regular x44 watcher/reader, you will be tracking. Finally, if we are reading the narrative as if it intended to primarily communicate the origin of sin, I would question your doctrinal premises. All this said, I still believe we can come to a faithful “take away” of the text.
The serpent as the challenger
Was the spiritual being (serpent) in the Garden of Eden Satan? Of course, tradition and extra biblical sources tell us that, but do we really get that from the pages of scripture? The Bible doesn’t give us that in the same regard that it doesn’t tell us that the challenger in Job is Satan. If you believe either of those it would be a deduction from somewhere else, the text itself doesn’t render those takeaways. Walton calls the serpent a chaos creature that he doesn’t frame as evil. He says, “The serpent never suggests that they should eat the fruit, though by questioning what reasons they have for not doings so, it leads them (Adam and Eve) in that Direction… (the serpent) serves in the role of catalyst. It should not be identified as a tempter, nor should it should not be considered inherently evil. Certainly, it should not be seen as an evil force already in the world. “5 So, I agree with most of what Walton says here. We have a conundrum that has to be addressed. We both agree for numerous reasons that the serpent can’t be evil and be in the garden. I will spend more time on this later, but in my opinion, allowing an “evil” snake in a sacred garden wouldn’t align with God’s order. This leaves three options. The first is Walton’s option – It isn’t evil it is just a chaos “monster.” The second option would be understanding it as dual fall happening together (my view) – the serpent is falling as he is “tempting” Adam and Eve. The third view is the traditional view which doesn’t work in my opinion (but I will spend some time on it further on) – The snake is already evil and somehow gains access to the garden. As we explore these three options, the question hinging on this then is, “was the snake displaying sinful (The Greek term for sin “hamartano” (ἁμαρτάνω) – “to miss the mark”) or evil action? I agree that Adam and Eve are to blame for their own decisions (neither I, nor Walton, or Heiser would agree with any theory close to original sin or total depravity here, we are only responsible for our own actions). Is the snake also acting in free will in a way that (using the Bible’s own definition) – would be missing the mark for a free will thinking spiritual being? I would say traditionally the snake has always been portrayed as cunning and I would agree. It is also interesting (but I agree with Walton, we aren’t given an exegetical answer here) that the snake is portrayed as a challenger which is also representative of the challenger in the book of job. The question that will define this is whether or we can interpret the text to indicate that the free will serpent had “evil” intention.
The Challenger of Job
X44 did a long video series on the book of Job. Is the challenger of Job a.) the Satan of the NT and/or b.) the same spiritual being as the snake in the garden? We don’t know the answer to this directly from scripture. We know that the “challenger” of job is seemingly involved at a divine court or council meeting6, but the genre7 of the text would also come into play, as well as the timing as we make an educated assessment.
The language of the Book of Job, combining post Babylonian Hebrew and Aramaic influences, indicates it was composed during the Persian period (540–330 BCE), with the poet using Hebrew in a learned, literary manner.8 Although controversial, the story of Job could take place much much earlier and be handed down orally over generations. If you haven’t learned this yet, our lens of theology on a particular subject is influenced by other personal views of theology in regard to other subjects. Our theology needs to fit from one framework to another and be in harmony. The difficulty with rendering the challenger of Job as the NT Satan figure is that either has him in cahoots with God after the garden (which most people can’t -and rightly shouldn’t -theologically accept according to the order and character of God). Or that leaves you either saying it simply isn’t Satan, or we don’t know (certainly seems like the simplest choice without much in stake), or it is Satan, and the story takes place before the garden banishment, which you might be surprised to hear is my view. I go with the simple we don’t know here but also would suggest that if we are going to start guessing I lean towards the challenger of Job as the NT Satan figure. But this becomes very complicated.
Adam was the first man, but the Bible doesn’t say Eve was the first woman, in fact quite contrary, it says there were no other suitable partners. I am sure you have also heard stories of a first spirit wife named Lilith. The implication is there were other woman and thus other people. In other words, we have the story of Adam and Eve in the mountain high cosmic temple garden (that I believe were functioning as the first priests) but you also have the rest of humanity in lower earth (notice the Tolkien language). At first you will challenge me on this, but the more you think about it the more you are going to find that theologically the view makes the most reconciliation or harmony of the texts. This view then would have the challenger of job playing a role in the divine council, then doing something similar in the garden. This is when you could still reconcile Walton’s view. The challenger might not be inherently evil, but just positionally fulfilling his role or function in the divine council as a challenger and do so in the garden similarly to what he did in the book of Job. But I have to “question that,” there are too many things that don’t align.
The Challenger (serpent) in the garden missed the mark
I believe the serpent “falls” in the garden which then sets the tone for the other spiritual beings to follow suit.
Genesis 3:2-4: And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
I am going to land more traditionally lining up with the way people have thought about this text largely over the last 3000+ years. In Genesis 3:4, the serpent’s statement, “Ye shall not surely die,” plainly read seems like an act of deception. This declaration directly contradicts God’s warning, suggesting that disobedience would not lead to death, which sets the stage for Eve’s disobedience and the subsequent “fall” from a life-giving provisional hand and tree of grace. The serpent’s words create doubt and lead to Eve’s temptation. I would say that this is where the serpent crosses the line and thus “falls.” If you have deconstructed enough to still be with me, then continue the line of logic – the snake whose vocation was to challenge is then kicked out of the garden, but the Bible doesn’t say this again, it has to be deduced (but that’s ok, that is part of theology). However, don’t get me wrong, the banishment was similar to Adam and Eve’s. I don’t see the snake actually losing his function completely because he was off the mark, neither did Adam and Eve as Walton points out. I see the “fall” in both cases then happening as archetype’s of what is to come. Both the snake and Adam and Eve make their own choices to be separated. The garden story then simply describes the beginning of “the fall” or the handing over to their decisions/desires, both of which are to seize wisdom for themselves and become like God.9 Could the job story be chronologically slightly after this? Maybe but it doesn’t fit the “fall” narrative as well. I see the deception of the snake being met with perhaps a demotion of the heavenlies (cast down to lower earth to crawl on its belly.) The snake is clearly cursed. This movement by God then has the snake feeling like he was wrongly demoted (as he might argue he was just playing his kingdom given role of a challenger) and eventually aligns other spiritual beings that follow him “down” likely becoming his “minions.” (Although I will admit, this notion is lacking exegetically as well, I will get to that.) From there perhaps the challenger of job and serpent seems to arise as the leader of the cosmic bad guys in the second temple period and New Testament. Nearly all of the intertestamental apocalypse literature seems to point this way. If they had that in mind, perhaps we should too, but it also doesn’t make it true. Of course, your view of inerrancy and the canon is going to influence thoughts here as well as you make your own decisions.
Do we get the answer in Hebrew? That is a great question, and it is really complicated. As I described in the inro the Hebrew is rather difficult to make any kind of deduction from in my opinion. Is there any semantic link or word play going on with nakedness or a sense of transparency? Could you interpret in Gen 2:25, as an adjective (in a ‘static’ mode) ‘naked’ – without a veil (seen differently from many other beasts that are covered or veiled by hair, bristle, quills, spines, plates)? In this sense it could be explained that the Serpent (spiritual being) claimed to be a “being without a (mental) veil”, and capable, too – in this state – to help others to remove the “veil from their mind’s eyes”. Of course that denotes ill intentions. And in this capacity the Serpent presented himself to Eve, claiming to be a revealer to her, since her ‘closed eyes’ were not capable to ‘see’ (Gen 3:5, 7). In the matter we are discussing (orumim/orum) we are facing with a kind of ‘semantic oscillation’, where two terms could be derived by the same conceptual root.
It is true that the Hebrew word and phrasing could be interpreted without a negative or evil intention – “missing the mark” connotation. For instance, in the ten times the word arum was used in the book of Proverbs, it pointed towards a positive attribute. To be arum was a good thing, and it was always directly compared to a naive (peh’ti) person or a fool (eh’wil). You could say that if we take the Proverb’s use of the word arum and apply it to the Genesis account, we can see that the snake was the crafty prudent character and humanity was the fool. To take this notion one step further, this specific root can only be found (arguably) in a negative connotation in one other place in the Bible, Job 5:12. In other words out of 11 occurrences 9 seem positive and two could be interpreted as negative. I always found it interesting that Jesus took the concept of the shrewd serpent and applied it to his own disciples in Matthew 10:16-20. So coming back to the text, I would argue that the word arum could go either way here, so then we go back to textures of interpretation – what does the context give us? Do we get the answer in 3:14:
14 So the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this,
“Cursed are you above all livestock and all wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.
As I allude to earlier, the use of the word “curse” is key here. Many have made the point that God doesn’t curse Adam and Eve, but the serpent is cursed by God. What does that tell you? We don’t have that answer but I have to say the text certainly infers something negative in the curse. I have a difficult time reading this (even after much deconstruction and unbiased training) to read it without a negative connotation. (i.e. does God curse chaos monsters?)
Could a fallen or “evil” Satan exist in the garden?
Okay, what about the traditional view—could this have been an evil (already fallen) Satan who showed up in the garden to tempt Eve? There are a number of problems with this that I am not convinced can be reconciled within a solid hermeneutical approach to the text. Perhaps the only way this works in a traditional sense would be to say that the serpent was created good but fell before the garden story. Some literalists lean toward this view, suggesting that Satan was essentially “possessing” a snake. Therefore, when it ‘spoke’—which you might argue a snake cannot do—it was Satan speaking through it as an already fallen, evil being.
The difficulty, then, is how does an evil snake get into a sacred garden? God’s order seems to be disrupted, but the question is whether this could be possible. Everything in the garden was good, except Satan, and perhaps the (could you say) “evil” of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. In this view, God did not create evil; evil is the very antithesis of God. But regardless of one’s view, there is a fruit in the garden referred to as “evil.” That seems to imply some conception of evil existing in the garden.
Now, we need to address the translation issue here. The Hebrew word for “evil” in Genesis is ra’ (רַע). However, ra’ does not inherently mean “evil” in the sense of a malevolent force or being. It is more accurately translated as “bad,” “disorder,” or “calamity.” The concept of “evil” as a metaphysical, moral entity distinct from God is not necessarily what is being communicated here. Instead, ra’ can refer to anything that is not aligned with tov (goodness/order), but it is not necessarily the ontological evil that later Christian theology would define.
In the context of the garden, the focus is on “the knowledge of good (tov) and ra’.” The emphasis is not on the intrinsic evil of the tree but on the human choice to engage with ra’—to experience and define for themselves what is good and what is not. It’s about autonomy, the desire to determine what is good and what is bad apart from God’s established order.
We see the consequences of choosing ra’ in Genesis 6:5, where it says, “The LORD saw that the wickedness (ra’) of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil (ra’) continually.” The ra’ in Genesis 6:5 is not some inherent, ontological evil but the chaotic, disordered state that humanity descended into after choosing ra’ in the garden. It is a natural progression—a consequence of rejecting tov and embracing autonomy.
In Romans 1:24-28, Paul describes a similar dynamic, where God “hands them over” to their desires. God is not directly causing evil but allowing humanity to experience the consequences of choosing ra’ over tov. In this way, God’s “wrath” is not active punishment but a passive allowance for people to reap the consequences of their choices. This same dynamic is at play in the garden. God is not bringing evil into the garden; rather, He is allowing Adam and Eve the freedom to choose, to step outside of His tov order, and thus enter a state of ra’.
For instance, in Isaiah 45:7, God says, “I form the light and create darkness; I make peace and create calamity (ra’).” Here, ra’ is not moral evil but calamity or disorder brought as a consequence. And “make” and “create” are two different words in hebrew where God makes shalom and “orders” (br’) ra’. Similarly, in Amos 3:6, it says, “When disaster (ra’) comes to a city, has not the LORD caused it?” Again, the emphasis is not on moral evil but on God allowing or ordaining calamity as a form of judgment or consequence.
Therefore, the ra’ in the garden is not an ontological evil but the potential for chaos, disorder, and calamity—a choice that leads to a state of ra’, as seen in Genesis 6:5. When humanity chooses to step outside of God’s good order, what remains is ra’—a state of disorder and chaos. This is not about a fallen Satan bringing ontological evil into a sacred space but about humanity’s choice to step outside of God’s established order and thus bring ra’ into God’s good creation.
Thus, the serpent, then, functions as a tempter, not a cosmic evil being, leading humanity to embrace ra’ as the absence of tov, aligning with the pattern seen throughout the biblical narrative of God “handing them over” to the consequences of their choices. This interpretation avoids the theological problem of making God the author of evil while still accounting for the serpent’s role in the narrative.
But getting back to the traditional view and consideration of it; through the snake, if you can reconcile evil being allowed in the sacred garden then perhaps Satan falling early (possibly before the creation) and showing up in the garden can work for you. But again, the traditional interpretation hinges on the assumption that the serpent represents a pre-fallen Satan who is already evil. However, as discussed earlier, the Hebrew concept of ra’ is not inherently “evil” as in a cosmic, malevolent force. It is more accurately understood as disorder, calamity, or badness—essentially a deviation from tov (goodness/order). This nuance becomes crucial when considering the nature of the serpent and the so-called “evil” present in the garden.
If we accept that ra’ in Genesis does not inherently indicate a cosmic evil but rather the potential for disorder and chaos, then the serpent may not be some intrinsically evil being but rather a creature operating within the framework of ra’—a tempter, yes, but not a pre-fallen Satan in the classic sense. The text itself does not state that the serpent was Satan, nor that Satan was a fallen being at this point.
Satan put the words in Eve’s mind that caused or gave way for her to make a decision to disobey God’s command. That warranted banishment by God to both Eve and the snake, who traditionally is viewed as Satan, an instrument of evil. But here, we run into further problems. If we adopt the traditional view that Satan had already fallen, we are left with the question of how a fallen, evil being could be allowed into the sacred garden—a space characterized by the presence of God’s tov order.
Some might say that God “allows” Satan into the Garden similar to the book of Job, which could be seen as a test for Adam and Eve, giving them the choice to obey God’s command or succumb to temptation. Yet, in the Job narrative, Satan is depicted as a member of the divine council (Job 1:6-12), not a pre-fallen being operating as an evil entity. The Satan figure in Job is portrayed more as an accuser or tester, not the cosmic evil adversary developed in later Christian theology. Thus, to read Genesis 3 through the Job lens is problematic and potentially anachronistic.
I don’t see God operating with the enemy this way. To me, seeing God negotiating with the enemy is theologically problematic. If God is negotiating with a pre-fallen Satan to test humanity, this casts God in a complicit role in the introduction of ra’ (disorder) into the sacred space, making Him a participant in the very disorder He is meant to oppose.
Others wonder if by presenting the choice between obedience and disobedience, God established a framework for humans to exercise their moral agency or responsibility. But this still has God and Satan in cahoots. From a theological standpoint, some Reformed and Calvinist traditions suggest that God’s sovereignty encompasses even the activities of Satan, allowing Satan to enter the Garden as part of a divine test. However, this framework positions God as the author of evil, effectively undermining the character of God as wholly good and holy.
This interpretation also fails to account for the consistent biblical narrative that God is not the author of ra’ but rather the one who brings order from chaos (Genesis 1:1-3). To frame Satan as an already fallen being actively working with God in the garden disrupts this order and introduces theological inconsistencies.
All of this has us asking, did God “allow” a “fallen” Satan to tempt his sacred image bearers? Well, God certainly allows us to be tempted, as is clear in the New Testament (e.g., Matthew 4:1; 1 Corinthians 10:13). But the context of Genesis 3 has a different feel. The serpent is depicted as a cunning creature, not as a cosmic enemy of God. There is no explicit indication that this serpent is Satan or that it is a fallen being acting in opposition to God’s order.
I am not sure the best theological plan has sacred space invaded by literally the most evil entity the world has ever known and God seemingly working with Him. Everything we read in the New Testament is contrary to this. Satan is depicted as the “god of this world” (2 Corinthians 4:4), the “accuser of the brethren” (Revelation 12:10), and a “roaring lion” seeking to devour (1 Peter 5:8)—but these depictions are framed in a post-fall, post-Genesis context. The New Testament portrays Satan as having already been cast down, not as an evil entity roaming freely in God’s sacred space.
Did Satan’s place with God change later in the Old Testament? Could the “fall” have even been later when the extra-biblical material got so apocalyptic? Possibly. This is an option for a later fall, but again, it goes against the traditional view of an already evil, pre-fallen Satan in the Garden.
The real issue here is that the traditional view seems to require theological gymnastics that complicate the narrative and obscure the focus of Genesis 3. The narrative seems more concerned with humanity’s choice to step outside of God’s tov order and embrace ra’, not with the cosmic conflict between God and a fallen Satan. Therefore, to frame the serpent as an already fallen Satan may be to import later theological constructs into the Genesis text, rather than allowing the text to speak for itself within its own ancient Near Eastern context.
When did Satan “Fall”
As we continue our last set of questions we then start to ask, when exactly did Satan and the other spirits fall? Before creation, during early Genesis, towards the end of the OT, or are they continuing to fall until the day of judgment? One of the more enigmatic verses in the Gospel of Luke, Jesus tells his disciples, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven” -Luke 10:18. Hesier points out, perhaps the most common interpretation is that Jesus is seeing or remembering the original fall of Satan. This option makes little sense in context. Prior to the statement, Jesus had sent out the disciples to heal and preach that the kingdom of God had drawn near to them (Luke 10:1–9). They return amazed and excited by the fact that demons were subject to them in the name of Jesus (10:17). Jesus then says, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.”10 Personally, I view this as an already not yet. It was a Christus Victor, at the cross, CS Lewis style regaining the keys over death victory. In this sense I think the words “like lightning from heaven” was a very clever word play of double proportion that Jesus seems quite well known for. The language style used by Luke (“I saw”) was apocalyptic in prophetic visions, especially in the book of Daniel (Dan 4:10; 7:2, 4, 6–7, 9, 11, 13, 21). But I also don’t see the final culmination of this until the second coming of Christ. Therefore, I see it as past (Satan falling seems to be how everyone else in that generation would have interpreted it) and yet to come. This fits my theology well in first understanding how the intended audience would have interpreted it, then applying it to the modern day “see it all” lens that we have for everything biblical. To sum it up, I agree with Walton that the Bible never actually describes or concretely gives us the details of a fall, but I think it is a logical and theological deduction. This conclusion seems obvious, since the New Testament identifies the serpent as Satan or the devil (Rev 12:9). The implication of seeing Eden through ancient Near Eastern eyes is that God was not the only divine being. God had created humankind as his imagers and tasked them with bringing the rest of the world outside Eden under control—in effect, expanding Eden through the rest of creation. God’s will was disrupted when an external supernatural tempter (I think challenger is a better word), acting (cunningly) autonomously against God’s wishes, succeeded in deceiving Eve.11
Satan in Ezekiel 28 & Isaiah 14
Ezekiel 28:1-19 and Isaiah 14:12-15 are pivotal passages often cited to support the traditional view that Satan was already a fallen, evil being by the time he appears in the garden of Eden. However, a closer examination of these texts, along with a more nuanced understanding of the Hebrew language and ancient Near Eastern context, suggests a different narrative. Rather than depicting a pre-creation fall of Satan, these texts situate the divine rebel’s fall within the context of pride and hubris connected to earthly rulers and their supernatural counterparts.
Both Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14 are structured as mashal, a Hebrew term meaning a “comparative story” or “taunt.” The prophets are not merely describing historical kings but using these figures as representative echoes of the original deceiver in Eden. In both cases, the kings of Tyre and Babylon embody the characteristics and trajectory of the divine rebel in Genesis 3.
Isaiah 14:4 explicitly introduces the passage as a mashal against the king of Babylon. The text reads:
“You will take up this taunt (mashal) against the king of Babylon” (Isa 14:4).
The prophet is comparing the king’s pride and downfall to that of a celestial being who sought to elevate himself above the stars of God—a clear echo of the serpent’s desire to corrupt humanity’s allegiance to God in Genesis 3. This heavenly being in Isaiah 14 is depicted as seeking to ascend the divine council, placing himself above the other divine beings, only to be cast down to the earth (erets), the realm of the dead.
Similarly, in Ezekiel 28, the prophet uses the king of Tyre as a comparative figure. The king, adorned with precious stones and positioned as a guardian cherub, is described as being in Eden, the garden of God. The language is strikingly similar to descriptions of divine beings in other ancient Near Eastern texts, portraying this being as resplendent, powerful, and shining—an image associated with the divine council.
“You were in Eden, the garden of God;
every precious stone was your covering…
You were an anointed guardian cherub.
I placed you; you were on the holy mountain of God;
in the midst of the stones of fire you walked.” (Ezekiel 28:13-14)
The king’s pride and hubris are directly connected to the serpent’s role in Genesis 3, echoing the desire to elevate oneself above one’s appointed station, leading to downfall.
The kings of Tyre and Babylon, like the serpent and the first humans in Eden, chose ra’ over tov, disorder over divine order. The Hebrew word ra’ is frequently translated as “evil,” but its primary meaning is closer to “bad,” “disorder,” or “calamity.” In the garden narrative, Adam and Eve’s choice to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (tov and ra’) was not a choice between moral opposites but between divine order and chaos.
The same choice is portrayed in Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14. The king of Tyre’s exaltation to divine heights and his subsequent casting down is framed as a choice to pursue self-exaltation (ra’) over alignment with God’s order (tov). This choice mirrors the serpent’s enticement of Eve—to become “like gods,” knowing good and evil, a pursuit of autonomy apart from God’s appointed order.
In Isaiah 14, the king of Babylon is likened to helel ben shachar, the morning star. This term, later translated as Lucifer in the Latin Vulgate, refers to Venus, the celestial body that rises brilliantly in the morning but is quickly overtaken by the sun, symbolizing a being who seeks to ascend but is inevitably cast down.
“How you have fallen from heaven,
O morning star, son of dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!” (Isaiah 14:12)
The imagery here is not about Satan being named “Lucifer” but about the hubristic attempt to ascend to divine status, only to be brought low. The term Lucifer became associated with Satan through later Christian tradition, but the original context is a mashal, a comparative story about a celestial being seeking to usurp divine authority—a theme that resonates with the serpent’s ambition in Eden.
Adam and the Divine Rebel
Heiser’s critique of the Adam view is that it misreads the prophetic texts. In Genesis 3, Adam is not depicted as attempting to ascend to the divine council or exalt himself above the stars of God. Instead, he passively follows Eve in choosing ra’ over tov, effectively failing to uphold his divine vocation as an image-bearer.
In contrast, the divine rebel in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 is characterized by active rebellion, pride, and the desire to ascend the divine council and claim divinity. The imagery of ascending to the mount of assembly (Isa 14:13) and walking among the fiery stones (Ezek 28:14) places this figure within the divine council, a realm Adam was never said to inhabit (though Eden was a mountain top garden- a divine council place).
The Rebel Spiritual Being and the Garden
In both prophetic texts, the hubris of thedivine rebel is the central theme. The king of Babylon, likened to the morning star, seeks to usurp divine authority, echoing the serpent’s enticement in Eden:
“You said in your heart,
‘I will ascend to heaven;
I will raise my throne above the stars of God;
I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly…
I will make myself like the Most High.’” (Isaiah 14:13-14)
This language mirrors the serpent’s enticement in Genesis 3:5, “You will be like gods.” The serpent’s offer was a lure to ascend beyond one’s station, to acquire wisdom apart from God’s ordained order. Thus, the divine rebel in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 is not Adam, but a divine being who, like Adam, chose ra’ over tov—autonomy over submission, chaos over divine order.
By framing Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14 as mashal, the prophets are not merely recounting historical events but drawing a comparative picture that connects the fall of earthly kings to the original divine rebel in Eden. The king of Tyre and the king of Babylon are embodying the traits of the serpent in Eden—choosing pride, self-exaltation, and rebellion against divine order.
This comparative approach underscores the consistency in biblical narrative. The fall in Eden was not an isolated event but part of a broader pattern of rebellion against divine order, echoing through earthly rulers and spiritual beings alike. The kings in Ezekiel and Isaiah are thus depicted as archetypes of the original deceiver, figures who, like the serpent, seek to exalt themselves above their appointed stations and are cast down as a consequence.
In this light, the prophetic use of mashal reinforces the connection between the garden narrative and the broader Deuteronomy 32 worldview, where human and spiritual rebellions are intertwined, illustrating how earthly kings align themselves with the fallen powers and perpetuate the same cycle of pride and destruction initiated in Eden.12
Does Revelation 12 talk about the fall of Satan and one-third of the Spiritual Beings?
In the Deuteronomy 32 worldview, we observe a series of pivotal dual falls involving both divine and human agents: the fall in Eden (Genesis 3), the transgressions of the sons of God in Genesis 6, and the divine disinheritance at Babel (Deuteronomy 32:8-9; Psalm 82). The question then arises: Is Revelation 12 depicting a fourth fall involving Satan and a third of the angels?
Many interpreters have traditionally viewed Revelation 12 as depicting a primordial rebellion occurring in Genesis 3, where Satan is thought to have taken a third of the angels with him in his fall. However, a close reading of the text reveals a different timing and context for the event. Rather than referring to an ancient, Edenic fall, Revelation 12 situates the conflict within the context of Christ’s first advent, aligning it with the incarnation, resurrection, and ascension of the Messiah.
The passage begins with the imagery of a woman clothed with the sun, representing Israel, giving birth to a male child “who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron” (Rev. 12:5). This is a direct allusion to the messianic prophecy of Psalm 2:8–9, a prophecy that concerns Christ’s rulership rather than a primeval angelic rebellion. The child is “caught up to God and to His throne,” an unmistakable reference to the ascension, not to any event in Eden.
Michael Heiser critiques the traditional interpretation, noting that there is no scriptural basis for locating Satan’s fall in Genesis 3. He writes:
“There isn’t a single verse in the entirety of Scripture that tells us (a) the original rebel sinned before the episode of Genesis 3, or (b) a third of the angels also fell either before humanity’s fall or at the time of that fall.” 13
Heiser further emphasizes that the timing of the conflict involving the third of the stars in Revelation 12 is explicitly linked to the incarnation and exaltation of Christ. This interpretation aligns with Daniel 8:10, where the stars represent faithful members of Israel and their suffering under hostile powers, rather than fallen angels.
Revelation 12:7–9 describes a heavenly conflict in which Michael and his angels expel the dragon and his host from heaven. This event is framed by the birth and exaltation of the Messiah, not by the events of Eden. John explicitly identifies the dragon as “that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan” (Rev. 12:9), but he does not associate the casting down of the third of the stars with Genesis 3.
The chronological markers are unmistakable. The casting down of a third of the stars is connected directly to the birth, death, and ascension of Christ—not to a rebellion in Eden. Beale notes that the defeat of the dragon occurs through Christ’s resurrection and ascension, aligning this passage with the inauguration of the kingdom of God and the consequent expulsion of Satan and his host. 14
Moreover, Revelation 12:13–17 continues the narrative by focusing on the dragon’s pursuit of the woman and her offspring—those who “keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus” (v. 17). This further confirms the eschatological focus of the passage, centering on the Messiah’s mission and the ongoing conflict between Satan and the church rather than a primordial fall.
Thus, interpreting Revelation 12 as a description of a fall of angels in Genesis 3 is a misreading of the text. Instead, the passage situates the conflict firmly in the context of the first advent of Christ, emphasizing Satan’s defeat through the Messiah’s resurrection and enthronement—a defeat that inaugurates the kingdom of God and the dragon’s intensified assault on the followers of Christ. This view not only aligns with the internal chronology of Revelation but also maintains consistency with the broader Deuteronomy 32 worldview, where divine and human rebellions are framed within specific historical and eschatological contexts rather than a single, primeval fall.
So back to our options. Did Satan fall before creation? I don’t think so, it doesn’t make sense in the garden “fall” narrative. By the intertestamental period and the tempting of Jesus we clearly have a “fallen” Satan. We also have a D32 fallen world problem early in Genesis that seems impacted by “fallen” spiritual beings and likely Satan rising as the cosmic leader of the evil “fallen” spiritual forces by the NT; therefore, as I have made the case for – the clearest choice theologically lining up with the rest of the lens of the Bible is for a dual fall in the garden.
The other “fallen” spiritual beings
So, then what about the rest of them? Back to my article on demonology. We don’t really have clear answers here either. The NT certainly talks about demons. I will admit there isn’t much if anything biblically that ties Satan specifically to other “fallen” spiritual beings. Revelation 20:10 is our best and possibly only source: “And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.” We also have Matthew 12:24 and Luke 11:15 also refer to Satan as the prince of demons, but that also could be interpreted a couple of different ways. But there is an inference I believe towards Satan being the leader of the cosmic fallen spirits at least by the time of the cross.
Conclusion
After working through all the options, I think you either need to sit back and agree with Walton that the Bible just doesn’t give us the answers. And I agree with Him. That is all we can concretely take away or say. If you decide to jump on the deducing train, you are going to have a wild ride, but hopefully I have given you some good framework for making a better theological choice.
This article was Written by Dr. Will Ryan and Dr. Matt Mouzakis based in part on the foundational research of our latest book, PRINCIPALITIES, POWERS, AND ALLEGIANCES: Interpreting Romans 13:1-7, 1 Peter 2:13-17, and Revelation 13 within a Deuteronomy 32 Worldview and research from our good friends Dr. John Walton, and the late Dr. Michael Heiser to whom we are both in deep gratitude towards.
WORKS CITED AND NOTES:
A good friend of mine likes to remind me of the traditional difference between deducing and deducting. Traditionally these words are rendered differently. “Deduce” refers to the process of reaching a logical conclusion or inference based on available information or evidence. Deduce is a transitive verb, related words are deduces, deduced, deducing, deductive, deductively and the noun form, deduction. It involves using reasoning or logical thinking to arrive at a particular deduction. “Deduct” means to subtract or take away an amount or value from a total. Deduct is a transitive verb, which is a verb that takes an object. Related words are deducts, deducted, deducting and the noun form deduction. Either can take the form of “deduction”. However, ARTHUR F. HOLMES made the point to the Evangelical Theological Society in his text, ORDINARY LANGUAGE ANALYSIS AND THEOLOGICAL METHOD that the terms become increasingly complicated in modern English, and specifically within theological applications, “deduct” finds a place in most biblical conversation, as exegetically you come to what the text offers to which you can deduce something logically, but then as you apply it towards modern application (such as life) you are making a “take away from the text” statement which could be more accurately described as something “deducted.” Holmes and many others since them have continued to make the point that in proper English “deduct” doesn’t simply apply to math but also theology. Languages evolve and take on different nuances. Induction is another conversation. ↩︎
The Hebraic Roots Bible’s footnote on Gen 3:1 states (bold is mine): “The word for ‘naked’ in verse 25 [of chapter 1] and the word for ‘cunning’ are derived from the same root word in Hebrew.” ↩︎
Edward L. Greenstein (2019). Job: A New Translation. Yale University Press. p. xxvii. ISBN9780300163766. Determining the time and place of the book’s composition is bound up with the nature of the book’s language. The Hebrew prose of the frame tale, notwithstanding many classic features, shows that it was composed in the post-Babylonian era (after 540 BC). The poetic core of the book is written in a highly literate and literary Hebrew, the eccentricities and occasional clumsiness of which suggest that Hebrew was a learned and not native language of the poet. The numerous words and grammatical shadings of Aramaic spread throughout the mainly Hebrew text of Job make a setting in the Persian era (approximately 540-330) fairly certain, for it was only in that period that Aramaic became a major language throughout the Levant. The poet depends on an audience that will pick up on subtle signs of Aramaic.↩︎
EXPEDITION 44 