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.↩︎
The following is a (summarized) transcript from a renewal weekend retreat victory meeting (Secuela) a few weeks following the retreat. This retreat was a TRES DIAS weekend, but there are many renewal type weekends and if you have the opportunity to attend one you should!
4th day YES!!! Today we reflect back to the victory of the three-day weekend. Perhaps the most prolific mountain top experience you have ever had. I bet some of you have come down from that mountain though. Anyone actually hit the dirt yet? That happens. Luckily, we have a brotherhood and sisterhood now to help pick you up. On the weekend I shared from Psalm 22. Psalter is divided into five books (Psalms 1-41; 42-72; 73-89; 90-106; 107-150). Book one is significant in several ways. Book I of the Psalms corresponds to the Song of Songs which was sung at the Passover season. The whole of the 41 psalms (1 of Introduction plus 40) relate to this theme. Note, as an example, Psalm 22 which says that the wicked “pierced my hands and my feet” (verse 16). This reference, in prophecy, referred to the crucifixion of Christ – who died at the Passover! Also, since Israel came out of Egypt at Passover, the 40 psalms of Book I (after the introductory one) probably denote the 40 years of wandering in the wilderness. The 30 psalms of Book II (after the introductory one) may show the 30 years for the establishing of the nation of Israel in the land of Canaan – and this took exactly 30 years from their crossing of the River Jordan to the death of Joshua. If you really dive in, after a careful analysis you will find a multi-layered, subtle, and profoundly meaningful structure and arrangement of the entire book. This arrangement is apparent in all five Books of Psalms, but it is particularly striking in Book I, Psalms 1-41. Keys to understanding the arrangement of the psalms are the awareness of chiasms, the linking together of psalms with common themes, words, and thought development, and the use of symbolic numbers. One of my favorite features of Hebrew poetry is the chiasm.
I wanted to show you how Psalms 15-24 are connected. I shared Psalms 15-24 today because they were meant to be read together in complete context and it is about our VICTORY! Together with Psalms 20 (a prayer for the king to be victorious) and 21 (a response from the king praising God for victories granted), these three royal psalms frame Psalm 19, the central psalm of the second chiasm. Like the first hymn of the Psalter (Psalm 8), this second hymn (Psalm 19) speaks of YHWH’s glory in creation and man’s responsibility to live in a covenant relationship with him. The psalm expands on the meditation of the Torah first introduced in Psalm 1:2-3, and it provides a glimpse of what is to come in the magnificent Torah psalm, Psalm 119. It is so beautiful!
Different people interpret Psalm 22 differently. But at ALTD we rejoice in what we have in common, not what we might see differently and regardless of your denomination or theological leaning we can all agree on Psalm 22 pointing to Jesus (Luke tells us that the risen Lord interpreted the Psalms to His disciples as referring prophetically to Himself in Luke 24:44) and revealing victory.
Of the thirteen (some count seventeen) major Old Testament texts that are quoted in the Gospel narratives, nine come from the Psalms, and five of those from Psalm 22. The best known of them all is the cry of dereliction, “Eloi, eloi, lama sabachthani” -My God My God Why have you forsaken me- (Mt 27:46; Mk 15:34).’ I talked about that on the women’s Tres Dias 50 weekend a bit but I will expound for those that were not there!
The Psalm has two strongly contrasting divisions: vv1-18 – a song of lament, speaking of the psalmist’s suffering, vv19-31 – a song of praise, speaking of the psalmist’s vindication. We could characterize it as, “From trauma to triumph.”
When you see that Christ shared this section of Psalms 22 with his disciples and identified himself prophetically, you understand that when he says, My God my God why have you forsaken me,” He was actually quoting the song of victory! Anyone that understood anything about Hebrew at the place of the crucifixion would have understood the quote then as not saying that God was forsaking Him but quite the opposite. Even though it may have looked to some or felt like that, Jesus was reminding them of the victory that was happening. This was a regularly sung song. I would contend that even those that weren’t of Israel would have known it much the way our world is aware of the hymn “Amazing Grace.”
When we use the words forsaken what do they mean? They refer to turning your face or back on someone. We here this in our language today when we say to someone, “don’t you turn your back on me,” or “don’t you walk away from me.” To turn away meant that you were no longer with them. It is the first step to leaving someone. The Bible calls this forsaking. Now, I have to go back to where I started. Some theologies do see God turning His face on Jesus but when you really follow their reasoning or understanding of the text here, I might reason that a lot of the differences might be simply definitions and semantics. I actually think we all (nearly) agree with what took place. We just frame it slightly differently as it is going to support different theologies. Free Will theology (for lack of better terminology) doesn’t have God turning His back on Jesus as that would be majorly problematic to God’s statement of promise and his character itself. However, a reformed theology is going to position him for a moment turning his back on Jesus to line up better with substitutional theology. (Did he “slightly” turn His back as He seems to have done with Israel? – I think that is the best framework for seeing it that way.) Every theology has to make a deduction here to line up with the rest of their atonement theory. I will still content that both views can be “close.” There are also some extreme views here such as viewing God as a cosmic child abuser that I won’t get into here.)
Yet God tells us more than 30 times in the Bible as His enduring covenant promise (many people will call an unconditional covenant) that God will never leave or forsake us. So theologically now it seems like we have a contradiction in scripture. Whenever it appears like scripture is in contradiction, we have to ask what is going on and look deeper into the text. We know that scripture doesn’t contradict itself so how do we theologically reconcile this? I think the answer is quite simple actually.
I can’t speak for how the reformed circles answer this (more than I briefly have), but I will speak to why I lean towards simply saying God never turned His back on Jesus. If you say God did turn His back on Jesus and connect it to Ransom and PSA versions of atonement, you’re going to have a lot of theological gymnastics needed. (But I will admit there is a framework for that view.) Most theologians I know are going to take the far more simple and defendable view that God didn’t turn His back on Jesus (but that is also going to create a problem if you hold to PSA and Ransom theories.) In quoting Psalm 22 Jesus is reminding all of the faithful that God actually ISN’T turning his back or his face on Jesus. That God is with him in the healing moment and reconciling the world in what looks like defeat but is actually the biggest victory the world will ever know. That is exactly the context of Psalm 22. This is important because the promise is likely the most thematic promise of the entire scripture -that God will never leave us or forsake us. By taking this view, I don’t have to then try to explain how God would say this and then seemingly turn away from Jesus at the cross. My theology overwhelmingly would state that He didn’t do that to Jesus and He won’t ever leave you despite what you do. (I would also argue he never turns His back on Israel which is in part what Jesus was clarifying in the parable.) In fact I would claim that is the continued message (and even central theme) of the Old Covenant and the New. It is the prodigal story; God is always arms open to you and there is victory. These truths are fundamental to the TRES DIAS journey as well as to our deepened trust in the LORD unto the rest of our calling.
All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the Lord; and all the families of the nations shall worship before You. Psalm 22:28
Turn – the Hebrew word here is shuv. It is used more than 1000 times in Hebrew Scripture and carries a couple dozen different ideas or meanings but all of them have an idea of “coming back.” Now if I asked you what the gospel is. The answers would greatly vary which I always think is interesting. (your answers are based on how Jesus has personally revealed Himself to you.) You might say, freedom, or the good news, the covenant story, or something similar. These are all true! (Chapter 7 of This is the Way of Covenant Discipleship gets really into this.) My point is no one would use the word SHUV!!! All of these other words are nouns and the Hebrew word SHUV is about different because it is a verb. I like the word SHUV for this reason, living out the gospel should look like a verb in your life. There should be 1000 different ways that you live out the revelation of Jesus!
“Christians typically focus the attention of “conversion” on the future. Usually this involves concern about where you will go when you die. Getting to heaven is, too often, the goal of religious experience. Ultimately, this preoccupation with what happens after death is based in a Greek philosophical belief that the world is a bad and terrible place and the only real solution to problems here on earth is escape. Heaven will solve it all. If Jesus just comes back soon, our problems will be over.”1 This is called escapism and has led many people into poor theology.
I always think is interesting that in the Old Testament they had no revelation of any other further life. Other than God Himself, the concept of eternal life in the Bible is revealed in the New Covenant in Jesus. Yet in the Old Testament they possibly lived far greater lives of devotion than most of us do today. This Hebrew word SHUV reminds us that the object of return to God’s ways. A return to a life of devotion, piety study and action – a return to Eden type of communion, walking with God. This kind of life takes action here and now and it is not an escape plan.
I want to show you one more thing in the text. Hebrew reads a bit different than English. Often the first word is the main emphasis of the structure. So here the verb comes first! Literally, the verse reads, “Remember and return to YHWH all the ends of the earth.” The action is at the forefront. What do we need for this kind of action? Well, it tells us that to! Despite what things sometimes look like, remember who is in control, remember who will bring the victory. Remember the and live that out (as a note some scholars would interpret the Hebrew to not make the statement that all will actually return, but all are offered to return.) When we do that, it means that we run back into his arms. That we live out goodness, peace, edification of the body of Christ. We demonstrate compassion and image grace. We find ourselves with the father again on those walks in the cool of the evening when there was nothing to hide. We live transparently in the body of Christ through His amazing grace. In Philippians 2:5-8, believers are encouraged to adopt the “mind of Christ,” which embodies humility, obedience, and selflessness demonstrated in Him aligning our thoughts and decisions with Jesus’ way of thinking, promoting love, humility, and wisdom.
TODAY IS THE DAY OF VICTORY!!! There will be days that don’t feel victorious. We are actually PROMISED THAT! In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.” James 1 actually says to “Consider it all joy, my brothers and sisters, when you encounter various trials, 3 knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance. 4 And let endurance have its perfect result, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.”
COMMUNION: The table should be a reminder of many things in your life. We are welcomed to regularly come to the table and remember the full picture (1000x) of what Jesus revealed to us. One of the pictures is victory. I invite you today to the table of victory. The bread that is broken, the cup offered to you as a sign to remember who you are. Your identity in Jesus. The rest of the world can fade away, but that that victory is part of you. It is literally what creates and embodies you. Remember and lay claim this day and every day.
This year at our Friday May 2 6pm outdoor Season kickoff. TOV will be commissioning Paul Lazzaroni in his gifting as a shepherd (pastor). We will start at 6pm with praise and worship and transition into a teaching and commissioning service. Towards the end of the night, we will call Paul and His wife Megg up and commission them. Paul is completing his BA in Biblical Studies from Covenant Theological Seminary (CTS) and will be installed as a TOV associate pastor. Tov also affirms women in Ministry and that the two have become one and therefore will be recognizing Paul and Megg together. Upon completion of His BA in Biblical Studies at CTS Paul will be enrolled in The King’s Commission School of Divinity in their Master of Divinity program. Friday night he will be presented with a certificate of ordination from TKC and the International Association of Theological schools (IATS). If you have walked closely with Paul, I want to personally thank you for the investment you have made and the fruit that it has and will continue to bear in our TOV community.
TOV believes in the priesthood of all believers. That means that from the opening pages of the Bible we believe that our vocational identity was to live out our giftedness as an ambassador that represents Jesus and His Kingdom. We believe that every believer is called this way and that it is a process within sanctification. However, some are recognized by the body as leaders that shepherd the shepherds.
Pastor – Shepherding those who shepherd
In this sense, we are recognizing Paul’s gifting. As TOV is not into titles, we view a commissioning of one’s life in relation to the recognition of the community and the fruit they bear. This is a functional calling based on unique gifting, spiritual maturity, and sacrificial service. We are setting apart Paul as one who has made the decision to live set apart and wholly devoted to shepherding others out of meekness and sacrificial love. To some regard TOV is hesitant to use the term “pastor” as it isn’t in the Bible. (The Greek in Eph 4 uses the term poimenas which is better translated shepherd.) Therefore, the term is a bit of a theological construct of humanity. We also believe everyone in some way functions ministerially. So, the term also becomes problematic in that sense. However, we do recognize in a modern definition of the word as someone who is identified as a central leader of the body of Christ. In that sense both Paul, myself, and my wife Krista are identified as those that are recognized and functioning as TOV shepherds who shepherd.
In a sense we recognize every believer this way, but in another sense, we see the Biblical example of those that lead the shepherding, and the world refers to these people as pastors. So, will you call him Pastor Paul from here on out? Well, I guess I will leave that up to you. I think He would prefer you just call him Paul. At the same time, it makes complete sense that nearly every other church uses the title pastor before someone’s first or last name. We certainly are not saying it is wrong or that churches shouldn’t do that. The roots of TOV are to return to a first century style church and they didn’t seem to call anyone pastor back then, so out of consistency, that is more of our reasoning. We also like to think this roles self sacrificially with the New Testament descriptions such as a gardener, one who cultivates growth.
1 Corinthians 4:1-2
“This, then, is how you ought to regard us: as servants of Christ and as those entrusted with the mysteries God has revealed. Now it is required that those who have been given a trust must prove faithful.”
Today’s leadership structures in the church are based on a contemporary hierarchical and positional mindset. According to the positional mindset terms and titles like pastor, elder, bishop, deacon, the 5-fold ministry positions/offices, etc. are positions of church leadership or “ecclesial offices”.
By contrast we would believe that the New Testament vision is that of a functional mindset. Each of these “offices” in the positional view are actually giftings and not a position. Leadership in the New Testament places a high premium on the unique gifting, spiritual maturity, and sacrificial service of each member. It lays stress on functions, not offices. It emphasizes tasks rather than titles. Its main concern lies in activities like pastor-ing, elder-ing, prophesy-ing, oversee-ing, apostle-ing, etc. Positional thinking is hung up on nouns, while functional thinking stresses verbs.
Jesus was pretty clear on hierarchy in Matt 20:25-28 in that it should “not be so among you” and led by example from an upside-down kingdom perspective of complete self-sacrificial servanthood exhibiting power under rather than a power over.
Jesus on hierarchy:
Worldly leadership operates on the top-down command structures. The Kingdom of God operates on leadership that is not positional and that flows out of meekness and sacrificial love.
Worldly leadership is based on rank. The Kingdom of God operates based on Godly character.. Christ’s description of a “leader”- “let him be a servant”
Worldly leadership is measured by greatness and prominence. In the Kingdom greatness is measured by humility and servanthood.
Worldly leadership use their positions to rule over others. In the Kingdom of God leaders deplore special reverence “to regard themselves as the younger” (As the one with least power) or power under.
In Matthew 23:8-12 Jesus comes against the titles of the Pharisees and teachers of the Law- positional authority
In the Religious climate of the Jews a class system existed made up of religious specialists and non-specialists (clergy and laity?). Yet in the Kingdom all are brothers and sisters in the same family.
In the Religious world leaders are recognized with honorific titles (Pastor, Elder, bishop, minister, director, etc.). In the Kingdom there are no distinctions or titles- we are all a kingdom of priests unto our God.
Religious leaders lead through outward prominence and display. In the Kingdom we wash feet as humble lowly servants.
Religious leadership was rooted in status, title, and position. In the Kingdom everything is rooted in inward life and character.
Jesus comes against both the worldly view of hierarchical power and the religious view of positional authority. Why? Because they stunt the organic nature of his body. They impede the functioning of the gifts when just the “professionals” do all the “kingdom work”. And they create a 2-class system in the church.
Submission
We hear a lot about submission to authority in the church but in reality we have “no king but Christ” and the key verse in the New Testament for submission says:
Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ (Eph 5:21)
Submit= hypotasso= voluntarily yield
Jesus is your only spiritual covering- there is not case in the Bible for any man or religious leader to be so.
The view of oversight in the NT church is about the whole body operating in their giftings and being discipled by those who are wise, mature, and have the character of Christ in them. This is what leadership and oversight looks like rather than the CEO structure that focuses on offices and hierarchy which hurts the church.
We need all the gifts to be a healthy body.
Apostolic work sets the culture and plants, waters, and weeds in the community. They are often itinerant workers plowing new roads for the kingdom.
Prophets are covenant enforcers exhorting the body to stay on course and listen to the Lord for his vision.
Evangelists embody the gospel message and share it boldly through invitation, which results in a growing community pursing discipleship.
We talked about hospitality as the primary method of early church discipleship
Shepherds/Teachers help the church in times of personal crisis (shepherding) and cultivate the church’s spiritual life by revealing Christ through the exposition of Scripture (teaching).
We noted that shepherd-teacher are combined here (4 fold?). This is also the only mention of “pastor” in the Bible and it’s better as shepherd and it’s plural. In 1 Peter it is a verb and here it’s a noun acting as a verb (function not position)
Also when someone says there are no women pastors in the Bible you can also say there are no male pastors in the Bible. Shepherding is biblical but it’s not a position.
Ephesians 4 describes these as “ascension gifts” not “ascension offices”
Does Romans 12 list a 7 fold ministry? Does 1 Cor 12 list an 8 fold ministry? No! Hardly anyone takes there lists hieratically so why Eph 4? We may have up 22+ gifts listed in the Bible but there are more.
How do we get to a better place?
Every day is completely, wholly given to Jesus and the calling to be a disciple and make a disciple by Jesus’ definition not the worlds
You don’t give your time, treasure, and talents to the world in any way, they are reserved solely for Jesus
You train up your kids as your primary responsibility and your core act of making disciples
You live intimately with Him and present deeper devotion to the king and His kingdom within your family and surround yourself with one accord of a body of believers that think the same way.
Don’t be immersed in the world, let the world find Jesus through you. Offer living water at each and every opportunity. You don’t need to drink the worlds water anymore.
Bring your gifts to and for the body each and every day
Meet regularly as a spiritual family communing with Jesus as a central strand of life together
Your best should be given to Jesus, everything points that way
Work repeatedly and regularly to present yourself completely devoted to Him (a living sacrifice) and your spiritual family of disciples.
Get back to God’s ideals, perhaps 7 feasts for 7 days and each sabbath together; or perhaps that was just the beginning of what God wants. Eventually in a recreated heaven and earth we are going to be in fellowship not just 7×7 but completely. That should be the goal today too, not once a week, but wholly given in complete life pursuit. That is the thrust of the New Covenant disciple, not just a tithe, or a first fruit, but all in all the time.
What would it look like if your spiritual family lived this way. Can you imagine it? Could you survive in America? What if you had 10 families that made this commitment. Your gifts enabled housing out of debt. (pipedream, impossible? I think your limiting yourself and God) You shared what was “needed”; you provided for not only your own but the others. You all learned to live this way. I would actually venture to say that it is not only possible but is the ONLY Biblical model and is a recipe for amazing life in Jesus. You might conduct a business but it is surrounded together in Jesus. Maybe the Amish building houses together weren’t too far off from a New Testament picture of working together, they just got hung up on legalism along the way.
In short, whenever the church gathers together, its guiding and functioning principal is simply to incarnate Christ (1 Cor 12:12)
The Edenic Ideal:
We always take everything back to God’s ideals. The Bible begins and ends with Eden. New Creation has broken into the present through the resurrection, so the church should be living according to God’s ideals in our communities even if the world looks completely opposite.
God’s eternal purpose was to have a people in relationship with him working in equality under God’s kingship. This is God’s ideal for his church too. Each of us bringing our gifts to the altar/table and using them to image him to creation.
A couple times a month I get asked similar questions about demons and possession. Are there really spirits in the Old Testament that are still plaguing people today or are people really just experiencing mental illness? Can Christians be afflicted or possessed? What kind of intervention is best? All of these are great questions and as with many Biblically or spiritually related things, theology is important. In my normal scholarly approach, I am going to try to NOT spoon feed you with what I think but offer you some things to consider as you form your own thoughts.
First, there is no demon possession in the Old Testament.1 Some might even say that there are not even any demons attested, although translations are problematic here.2 Secondly, this article centers on a foundation of biblical theology, not on phenomenology, however I will touch on this at the end. In a traditional sense, most scholars understand that when the snake or nahash3 figure tempts eve it is the introduction to a fallen spiritual being, something we would later call a demon. Adam and Eve are permitted to eat the fruits of all the trees except one, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The woman is tempted by a talking serpent to eat the forbidden fruit, and gives some to the man, who eats also.4
There are several non-traditional views, one option within this narrative is to see it as a dual fall5. In this view, it is not only the fall of humanity but the first (or what becomes main*) spiritual being to deny their vocational calling and “fall” as well. We also get insight into spiritual beings continuing to fall and Genesis 6 and Revelation seems to imply that fall continues and that when Jesus come 1/3 of all the spiritual beings will fall.6 The lake of fire was intended for these beings.7 The snake could then be reconciled as the “Ha Satan” figure of later notoriety and becomes the leader of the fallen spirits we call Satan. If you haven’t read this post, it might help before you get too much further.
All of this is highly debatable. To be clear I am still on the fence as to what I think the best options are. There may have been other spiritual beings that fell before this one. If the snake had already fallen, he likely would not have been allowed in the garden, therefore logically it seems we are reading the dual fall. Therefore, the story might not necessarily be giving us a narrative of the first spiritual being falling, but simply a story telling the fall of humanity while inferring the other fall. But we don’t know if it is the first fallen spiritual being or not. We aren’t ever given that in the Bible. We may be reading partially the significance of this later turning into the leader of the cosmic bad guys, Satan but we don’t know this for sure either. The central story is about the fall of the man and woman in the garden. The primary message is the casting out of the garden and hermeneutically we shouldn’t deduce much else.
Extra-Biblical Source
You might be surprised to learn that there’s no verse in the Bible that explains where demons came from. Christians typically assume that demons are fallen angels cast from heaven, but the Bible doesn’t actually state that, we would have to deduce it. When it comes to theology I don’t particularly like deductions or constructs or theologies of man, I like exegesis (which is still going to require some deductions!) But we do get some clues in the Bible and some other extra biblical sources that could help. In ancient Jewish texts like the Dead Sea Scrolls, demons are the disembodied spirits of dead Nephilim giants who perished at the time of the great flood8. I am tempted to save the time and not go where I am going to go, but Matt and I wrote a book9 partially on this and it is fascinating so I want to share some of it. Let me see if I can keep it brief here. I think you will be glad I decided to indulge. I will essentially attempt to summarize the content largely found in Michael Heiser’s Unseen Realm.10
In several contexts the Apkallu are seven divine beings, sometimes described as part man and part fish or bird, associated with human wisdom; these creatures are often referred to in scholarly literature as the Seven Sages.11 They are central to the Mesopotamian version of the flood story and important to Ugaritic text.12 The apkallu were dispensers of divine knowledge to humanity.13 Gilgamesh is perhaps the most familiar example. He is called “lord of the apkallu”14 in a cuneiform inscription on a small clay seal. But this is controversial, I might ad, he might not actually be considered one of the apkallu, but has that title attributed to him on a cylinder seal that proclaims his mastery (similar to apkallu). Again, my point is we have to use care with this. Both the divine fathers and their giant children are called apkallu. The apkallu are sometimes referred to by another Mesopotamian term: mats-tsarey, which means “watchers.”15 Genesis 6:1–4 was written by Israelites who wanted to make a statement: the apkallu before the flood were not good guys. Heiser would assert that what they did was wicked, and the giant offspring apkallu produced by their transgression were enemies of the true God of heaven. In fact, their own giant offspring were bent on annihilating Israel many years later. However, I would agree with Walton that there are a number of arguable points here. In Genesis it is not clear that the Nephilim are the offspring of the sons of God, and in Numbers 13, it is not clear that they are giants (that may refer only to the Anakim, and some interpreters conclude that the grasshopper comment there has to do with insignificance rather than with size). As you can imagine, there are certainly some questions to the interpretation.
Later in biblical history, during the days of Moses and Joshua, the Israelites ran into groups of very large warriors called Anakim in Numbers 13:32–33 and tells us explicitly that the Anakim came from the Nephilim.16 Heiser claims that the “The key to understanding how these giants were perceived as demons in the biblical material—an idea that got a lot of focus in Jewish writings produced after the Old Testament—is the term Rephaim.”17 I also might note that the Rephaim are perceived as spirits of the dead in the netherworld, but that does not make them demons.
You also might consider the Rephaim in this discussion, but these discussions are highly controversial and deeply debated. I would be reticent to derive confident conclusions about demons from what we know of them. But to give you a background, in the Old Testament, the Rephaim are described as giant warlords18 (Deut 2:8–11; 3:1–11; Josh 13:12), but also as frightening, sinister disembodied spirits (“the shades”) in the Underworld, called Sheol in Hebrew (Isa 14:9; 26:14; Job 26:5). The disembodied spirits of these giants were therefore associated with the abode of the dead, something everyone feared, since everyone feared death. But the Rephaim also had another awful association. There are nearly 10 references in the Old Testament to a place called the Valley of the Rephaim (e.g., 2 Sam 5:18, 22; 23:13). Joshua 15:8 and 18:16 tell us that the Valley of the Rephaim adjoined another valley—the Valley of Hinnom, also known as the Valley of the Son of Hinnom.19 In Hebrew “Valley of Hinnom” is ge hinnom, a phrase from which the name gehenna derives—a term conceptually linked to Hades/Hell in the New Testament.20 In the book of 1 Enoch the villainous sons of God of Genesis 6:1–4 are not only called angels—they are called Watchers. The link back to the Mesopotamian apkallu is transparent and unmistakable. First Enoch spells out how the Watchers and their offspring were the source of demons:21 From here I would urge you to read for yourself —1 Enoch 6:1-2; 7:1; 9:1, 9-10; 10:9; 15:8-9 1 Enoch calls the giants “bastard spirits”—a phrase used of demons in several Dead Sea Scrolls. Essentially, we get the idea that fallen beings are a bit more complex than we might at first think.
This leads us to some questions. “Are they still around? Are they to be identified with the demons that we engage in spiritual warfare today?” From here we drift farther from an exegetical approach. Walton reminded me here that just because Enoch connects them to demons doesn’t make that a biblically defensible view and I have to agree. We begin to drift into the guessing game. Every scholar seems to have a slightly different take on it. Nobody really knows the exact answer. Much of what we know is just the way people in the ancient world perceived things, we don’t know that their narrative was actually true. So now, let’s see what the Bible tells us.
Where are they in scripture?
Well after we just progressed to the guessing game, let’s get back on exegetical track! The New Testament is a different “cultural river”22 to use Walton’s terminology. There is little or no connection to Nephilim, apkallu or rephaim. In Jesus Christ’s teachings and ministry, He often confronted demons and their activities, i.e., demonic possession of individuals (Matthew 12:22-29, 15:22-28, 25:41; Mark 5:1-16). Christ demonstrated His power over demons and, furthermore, He gave His disciples power to cast out demons (Matthew 10:1).23 Some cessationists would say this period dies with Jesus and His victory at the cross meaning the demons are gone or phased out within a generation. That notion seems far-fetched. Jesus seemed to spend a great deal of time training the disciples for spiritual warfare and imparting the same aspects in scripture for those after to glean. We might distinguish between casting out demons and spiritual warfare at this point in the discussion. The former would be one aspect of the latter, but we know that spiritual warfare as it is envisioned today is a much broader concept.24
The New Testament does testify to the fact that demons are able to enter and control both humans and beasts. It is not mere psychological dysfunction on the part of a person. We find this from general statements the New Testament gives as well as specific examples of demon-possession.
This is an ADD squirrel moment, but again interesting – The gospel of John has very little about demons as you will see below, ironically the only times demons are mentioned is when someone accuses Jesus of being demon possessed in John 7:20 and John 8:48. While John’s gospel does not record any account of the healing of those demon possessed, it certainly acknowledges that the people believed demon-possession was a reality. Some have used this to say that John may not have had the same feelings about demons as other writers.
After Jesus ascended into heaven, the exorcism of demons continued through the ministry of His disciples. They were able to drive out demons through the authority of Jesus. You might remember Acts 8:7, “for unclean spirits, crying with loud shrieks, came out of many who were possessed; and many others who were paralyzed or lame were cured.” There is another account of a Slave Girl At Philippi in Acts 16:18.
Here are all the accounts in the NT in harmony for you:25
Synagogue At Capernaum (Mark 1:25-27; Luke 4:51-56)
The Gadarene Demoniacs (Matthew 8:28-34) (Mark 5:1-20) (Luke 8:26-39)
The Daughter Of The Gentile Woman (Matthew 15:21-28; Mark 7:24-50)
The Demoniac Boy (Matthew 17:14-21; Mark 9:14-29; Luke 9:37-42)
The Mute Man (Matthew 9:32-34)
Mute, Blind, And Demon-Possessed (Matthew 12:22-30; Mark 3:20-27; Luke 11:14-23)
Slave Girl At Philippi Acts 16:18
What do we learn from these texts?
1. Demon-Possession Does Occur 2. Possession May Be Voluntary Or Involuntary 3. Those Possessed May Not Necessarily Live Immoral Lives 4. May Or May Not Be Permanent 5. Can Affect The Body 6. Can Also Affect The Mind 7. There Can Be A Wide Variety Of Symptoms 8. When Someone Is Delivered It Is Immediate
Do Christians need an exorcist?
This is the central question, and this one is up for debate. Different theologies see it differently. Michael Heiser in His book, Demons would say that,
“The jurisdictional authority of these sons of God has been nullified by the resurrection and ascension of Christ. That reality is what frames the Great Commission—the call to reclaim the nations (“go into all the world and make disciples”). The kingdom of darkness will lose what is essentially a spiritual war of attrition, for the gates of hell will not be able to withstand the Church. This is why believers are never commanded to rebuke spirits and demand their flight in the name of Jesus. It is unnecessary. Their authority has been withdrawn by the Most High. Believers are in turn commanded to reclaim their territory by recruiting the citizens in those territories for the kingdom of God.” 26
However, I don’t personally see eye to eye with Heiser on this one. There are at least two instances when Jesus seems to be preparing His disciples for coming spiritual warfare and still possibly needing to take command over them. Both come as field trips by Jesus which should show us that they were strategic in genre. The first is the crazy pigs story and the second is the grotto of pan. I have written on both instances. At the cross we see a Christus Victor sense of atonement where Jesus gains the keys of death back and the fallen spiritual beings are bound but not completely done away with, imprisoned, or cast into the lake of fire. That comes later after judgment. Until then, I would say they are still active but restrained.
Walton also would not agree with some of what Heiser states here, would have reservation about the cavalier identification of the sons of God with demons (which Heiser believed he built an evidential case for). Walton might disagree with the notion of the Great Commission as saying anything about the activity of demons in the world. Making disciples is not the same as making converts or followers. It is training apprentices who will take up the mantle in the next generation.27
Many of you know that one of my life mentors is John Walton. He and his son wrote an excellent book entitled, Demons and Spirits in Biblical Theology: Reading the Biblical Text in its Cultural and Literary Context. 28 The book runs quite contrary to Dr. Heiser’s take on Demons. Both books shed good light on the subject, but I actually don’t agree with all of the assumptions of either. Walton and Walton think that a lot of what we believe about demons is wrong, I agree. They would assert that Bible is not meant to teach us any kind of demonology as the beliefs about the demons came from the culture much like one could talk about geological beliefs about the shape of the Earth and the nature of creation without having that be meant to give us scientific details. The Waltons also say this doesn’t serve the cause of what they call conflict theology, where God is fighting against the ways of the devil as classically understood, in a good light.29 The book serves a useful purpose of deconstructing some false “churchianity” stuff that is likely in your head, and I found it very useful. I can’t summarize everything that I would like to, so I highly suggest you buy the book and read it. It also seeks to challenge mental illness related to spiritual world assertations. I will get to this.
My personal take is that Christians can’t be possessed. If your life is in Jesus and you are fully inhabited as the temple of the holy spirit you can’t also be inhabited by a demon. You can however not be in good space or be weak and susceptible to nagging or leaching. Think of it as a spirit holding on to your ankles like a dog. They can be cast away in the name of Jesus in my opinion based on scripture. Sacred space might also creep into this conversation but I have written on it before so I think I will leave it alone here. Do you need continual checkups? Do demons creep in? Are they waiting at the gate? We simply don’t have all those answers, but we have enough to make biblically educated deductions.
Satan has been defeated
Can we equate Satan and demons? The only Biblical connection is in the designation of Beelzebub as the “prince of the demons” (Mt 9:34)–but even that is only stated as the opinion of the critics of Jesus. In other words, narrative simply tells us that is what they thought, we aren’t given this as Biblical truth. If that is indeed the case, we cannot say that Christians are immune to possession because demon possession is the invasion of something evil.
Satan has been defeated, but this is theologically foreseen as already not yet instance. I will use some of Andrew Womack’s wording but find the need to slightly edit towards a better theology (I love Andrew but not all of his theology or lack thereof). Satan has already been completely defeated according to Heb. 2:14. But he is still present as the New Testament goes on to clearly emphasizes.
Exegetically, I should again remind you that Satan is never indicated as a fallen being in the Bible (in Enoch, yes but not specifically in the Bible), nor are demons identified as fallen beings.30 Casting them out of heaven in Revelation is future and may or may not be another matter. In other words, your theological convictions are going to continue to matter in the way that you go on to interpret how we are personally affected. Walton and Walton are going to take a different trajectory than anything you might be familiar with. From their perspective, it is even difficult to Biblically prove that demons are the minions of Satan. If you think this way, whatever power Satan does or does not have cannot be associated with demon possession. Satan’s work is not represented as demon possession and demon possession is not associated with Satan. Judas (Satan entered into him) cannot be brought into this conversation any more than Peter (get behind me Satan) can be at Caesarea Philippi.
But theologies differ, in a traditional sense of fallen spiritual beings being thought of as demons, Satan and the other fallen degenerate spirits only power is the power to deceive Christians. I might call these leaching or nagging demons. Our battle should be against the schemes of the devil and his minions (Eph. 6:11), not the devil himself. Any other approach is cognitively giving the devil authority and power which he doesn’t have or deserve. The only weapon Satan has is the power we give him when we believe his lies.In this sense Satan is powerless towards Christians, Satan was defeated in a Christus Victor sense at the cross.31
As I have been going back and forth, I need to go back to Waltons view here and make the point that demon possession is dependent on associating demon possession connected to the power of Satan.32
Colossians 2:15 says, “And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.” The archaic meaning of the word “spoiled” here is “to plunder; despoil” (American Heritage Dictionary). This means that after Jesus defeated Satan, He stripped him of everything he had, specifically the keys of death and hell (Rev. 1:18). Satan has no power to imprison anyone.
Despite the fact that Jesus and his disciples certainly believed the world was oppressed with evil forces, they exhibited a complete freedom from fear in regard to such entities. In fact, the fearlessness of the early Christians was one of the chief “selling points” of early Christianity, since most people in the ancient world lived in fear of demonic forces.33 In large part, that is why the later second temple period had such an apocalyptic genre to so much of its writing including Biblical literature. 34
Mental Illness and demonology
This is going to be a controversial section. Different people see it differently. We are certainly plagued by our demons. In other words, some of the things we refer to as “demons” are figments of our own inability within a fallen world. Since I believe both in literal demons as well as metaphorical “demons” that are behavioral health issues, it’s important to distinguish between the two.I agree with C.S. Lewis, who said, “There are two equal and opposite errors into which our [human] race can fall about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them.”35 We need a balanced approach. There are literal demons, but there are also metaphorical ones. Around the world, in countless cultures and religions, people experience both intentional and unintentional spirit possession, as well as exorcisms to cure them of unwanted possessions.
One view is that Jesus never conducted rituals to free someone of a demon. In some cases, he engaged them in conversation that resulted in their expulsion. In other cases, the reader is not given details but is left to assume that Jesus summarily dismissed the demons without discussion.36 I would go on to represent this view by stating that the examples of demonic possession listed in the Gospels were not provided as a manual for modern exorcism (let alone as a diagnostic manual of mental disorders), just as Jesus’ miracles are not a blueprint for a higher Christian life. This is a general hermeneutical rule: We shouldn’t automatically deduce general principles or doctrines from a Biblical narrative. There is also a perspective that we aren’t Jesus and won’t ever be (yet are always called to image Him), so perhaps the better question is what did He instruct of His disciples? Sometimes rather than casting out demons we need to seek mental health care for people. However, some theologies of healing would disagree (such as Andrew Womack) and believe that Christ heals all spiritual and physical ailments through his atoning work at the cross. This is where I remind you to read about the theological differences of healing of you haven’t already. I also do not subscribe to Bill Johnson’s theology of healing, but you should see for yourself. I certainly respect the approach.
Dr. Steve Cassell ads, when a person is demon-possessed (non-born-again person), oppressed (born-again person), or mentally unwell, they all can exhibit the exact same ’symptoms’, so there is no way to truly know without the ‘discerning of spirits’ that is offered as a gift from the Holy Spirit. I lean into 1 Cor 2:10-16.
CASTING OUT DEMONS:
Will you cast out demons from non-believers and nagging or leeching demons from Christians? That is for you to decide. Luckily, we have the Holy Spirit to help us there. I believe this is something that is influenced by God’s order and gifting. Much like miraculous healing there are several things that come into play such as the faith of the healer, the faith of the crowd, and the faith of the one being healed. You also have to take into account the glory of God, what scripture already says about the situation, God’s will and ways, and a plethora of other influential spiritual dynamics. I believe we should all be open and working on all the gifts. Some see casting out demons as a gift. Some are better than others but (if you follow this theology) all should be working on their gift. So, if you go that way, let me give you a better theological framework for it.
This is sometimes called “Deliverance.” As I am weary as to all of the “encounters” I am convinced possession is real and there is a need to call out the demons in the name of the Lord. As I have mentioned, I respect Andrew Womack’s ministry, and I think He has done some good work in this area. As I am hesitant to share this as I don’t agree with all of it. I think you should read it. 37 It is set up in the form of a group discussion should you want to use it that way. Here is a sermon by Bill Johnson that gets into this, more of a cheerleading piece in my opinion, but you still might find it helpful.
I have cast out more demons than I can count. Here are some things to consider: I believe in counseling and the person may need some through this process. I dislike step plans for anything. God doesn’t always work that way, but here is some framework.
Ask for the spirit to guide you. Seek a fresh anointing and the presence of God. The person needs to be honest and transparent (if they are cognitively able).
What might be holding them back? Bitterness, unforgiveness, communion, unreconciled sin. You might need to bring out what is hidden. What needs to be revealed?
Faith – Your faith, their faith. I believe in counseling and the person may need some.
In the name of Jesus renounce – I have found it the most powerful to shepherd this. Start by saying it and urging the person to affirm in their own words. This means to repudiate; disown; to give up or put aside; to give up by formal declaration; to deny, disavow, discard, recant, cast off, and sever oneself from.
Sometimes I think it is important to make a proclamation to live this out. This comes back to faith. Do they need to break every hereditary curse coming down from their ancestors or through their bloodline? Jesus can break generational chains. I would be careful to call these curses. I don’t think that is always accurate or the best theological framework.
CONCLUSIVE THOUGHTS:
I have grown to very much appreciate Waltons criteria for a faithful interpretation over the years. I really like how he finished one of our conversations and I will share it in hopes that it will also help you come to your own conclusive thoughts. John Walton concludes, “I should make it clear that I have no hesitation at all in my belief that demon possession is a reality and that casting them out is an activity in which Christians may be called upon to engage, though I have never been in that situation myself. Nevertheless, I have questions about how confident we can be in connecting some of the dots (sons of God to demons, demons to evil, Satan to demons) and about some traditional teachings (fallen nature of spiritual beings) that are not taught in the Bible (none are). I hope that my comments will help you sharpen up the post a bit, even when you continue to hold a position that may differ from mine.”38 I love that heart!
I pray that you come to your own well exegeted conclusions. I am going to land with Brian Zahnd39 again on this one (which might point to some of my personal theology here different than where you land.) There is nothing to be done with demons but to wage war upon them and their works. That means setting people free by the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the unique Kingdom manifestation of displacing demons. Every human vice and mental torment is a haunt of demon power. (Some would say this is over spiritualizing things but personally I don’t think so.) We can only imagine what led Mary Magdalene to become vexed by seven demons and how can we imagine the nightmarish road the Gadarene with his thousands of demons walked? But Jesus set them free. And He commissioned His followers to do the same in His name. I have to admit I still have a lot of unanswered questions for Jesus on this one! Don’t live in fear, don’t put the rest of the Bible on the shelf and go on a witch hunt, simply follow Jesus, love people, learn the power of God, and you will have opportunities to set people free from demon power by the authority of Jesus’ name. And finally, remember Revelation 20:10!
A special thanks to my good friend and mentor John Walton for his continued impact in my theological studies and so many others through his writing. He has been a lifelong source of inspiration and great advocate of faithful interpretation. Thank you, John.
Some might consider (1 Sam 16:14) but here it uses the word “oppressed” not “possessed” and it is further not clear whether this should be identified as a demon ↩︎
Graf, Fritz (2018). “Travels to the Beyond: A Guide”. In Ekroth, Gunnel; Nilsson, Ingela (eds.). Round Trip to Hades in the Eastern Mediterranean Tradition: Visits to the Underworld from Antiquity to Byzantium. Cultural Interactions in the Mediterranean. Vol. 2. Leiden and Boston: Brill Publishers. pp. 11–36. doi:10.1163/9789004375963_002. ISBN978-90-04-37596-3. ↩︎
Galambush, Julie (2000). “Eve”. In Freedman, David Noel; Myers, Allen C. (eds.). Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible. Amsterdam University Press. ISBN9789053565032. ↩︎
It should be noted that “Fall” is not a Biblical term. It generally refers to a fall (from grace). Walton makes the point that this is not an exegetical conclusion concerning humans, Satan, demons, or the Sons of God. The snake is never connected with Ha-Satan exegetically and he is never the leader of fallen spirits in the Bible. The Bible knows of no fallen beings (except the King of Babylon in Isa 14;12, but that is metaphorical—not a fall from grace and he is not a spirit being). See discussion in W&W. ↩︎
Belial (or Beliar, a corruption of the original form) is the most common name for the leader of the demons in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and occurs in other intertestamental literature and in II Corinthians 6:15. Belial (Heb. Beliyya’al) is a Hebrew compound word which etymologically means “no benefit” or “no thriving” and in liberal usage is often equivalent to “scoundrel.” But already in the Bible “streams of Beliyya’al” means “streams of destruction” (II Sam. 22:5; Ps. 18:5). In the intertestamental literature Belial is “the spirit of perversion, the angel of darkness, the angel of destruction” and other spirits are subject to him. Mastemah, which as a common noun means approximately “enmity, opposition” in Hosea 9:7, 8 and in some passages in the Five Scrolls, is a demon “Prince Mastemah” in Jubilees (11:5, 11; 17:16; et al.), and perhaps also in the Damascus Document (16:5). Watchers (Aram. ʿirin) are a type of angel mentioned in Daniel 4:10, 14, 20. To this class the intertestamental literature assigns the angels who, according to Genesis 6:2, 4, cohabited with women before the flood and fathered the race of giants (Test. Patr., Reu. 5:6–7; Test. Patr., Napht. 3:5; cf. Genesis Apocryphon, ii 2:1, 16). Asmodeus (Tobit 3:8, 17) is a demon who had slain the first seven husbands of Sarah, who becomes the wife of Tobias son of Tobit. ↩︎
Rouillard-Bonraisin, Hedwige. 1999. “Rephaim.” In Dictionary of Deities and Demons, pp. 692–700. ↩︎
Kohler, Kaufmann; Ludwig Blau (1906). “Gehenna”. Jewish Encyclopedia. “The place where children were sacrificed to the god Moloch was originally in the ‘valley of the son of Hinnom,’ to the south of Jerusalem (Joshua 15:8, passim; II Kings 23:10; Jeremiah 2:23; 7:31–32; 19:6, 13–14). For this reason the valley was deemed to be accursed, and ‘Gehenna’ therefore soon became a figurative equivalent for ‘hell.'” ↩︎
Barker, Margaret. (2005) [1998]. The Lost Prophet: The Book of Enoch and Its Influence on Christianity. London: SPCK; Sheffield Phoenix Press. ISBN978-1-905048-18-2↩︎
Demons and Spirits in Biblical Theology: Reading the Biblical Text in its Cultural and Literary Context by John H. Walton and J. Harvey Walton (2019). ↩︎
Every year at Easter I practically have an aneurism from all the poor (or I should say Calvinistic) theology from the pulpit and social media. So much of what is shared and taught from mainstream Christians is Calvinistic Reformed Theology, but usually the person sharing has no idea, and most of them don’t realize just how reformed their language is. A friend posted this image over Easter, and it got me thinking about it. I agree with him that Calvinism is based on ideas that seem opposite to the humility of Jesus to the cross. For instance, as he points out, Calvinism sees sovereignty through or by control, victory needing irresistibility, and salvation as something predetermined and unilateral.
Here are some things that show Christ’s atoning work through the death, resurrection, and ascension as being very opposite of Calvinistic rhetoric, both TULIP and PSA (or ransom theories.)
Jesus emphasized victory through turning the other cheek or extreme surrender, this is referred to theologically as displaying “power under.” Calvinism is prefaced on the idea that God’s power is best shown through assertive dominance and total “power over.” Jesus’ life shows humility revealing that God doesn’t need to coerce to reign.
The very heart of Calvinism and its so-called “glory of God” is often defined by control, while the cross redefines glory as self-emptying love.
Jesus’ life through death shows that the cross was about love, restoration, and healing through self-sacrificial grace. Calvinism displays the cross as a legal hostage exchange but somehow Jesus gets away without actually paying anything and not having to serve any penal sentence. Calvinism frames this as if Jesus gives his life but then He somehow gets it back. They say it is such a great exchange but is really? 1 life for all of humanity? Wouldn’t anyone make that exchange if it were true. I think it greatly devalues what Jesus does through the cross. That sort of sounds like what we define as the world’s sense of trickery or thievery not honest sacrificial grace. This kind of purchase sounds more like a back-alley exchange than a picture of truth and unfailing love. Calvinism robs the beauty of Jesus’ mission.
Calvinism frames God as planning from the beginning of time to sacrifice Jesus as a debt to be paid. Jesus (who I will remind you is God in the Trinity) asks his father if there is any other way. This shows God uses what the world did to Jesus for unthinkable victory, He didn’t orchestrate it. To this note, some would say that Calvinism frames God as a “cosmic child abuser.”
From the beginning pages of the Bible God’s nature is described by His own decree as “merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love [hesed] and faithful” Yet through the cross, Calvinism defines God by pouring out His wrath on His son, turning His face on Jesus as the cross, and the need to make a deal with the Devil. These seem at odds.
Calvinism communicates that Jesus was stricken by God at the cross and that God left Jesus at the cross turning His back on Him, a better theology shows God in perfect unity with the son as 2 Cor 5:19 assures us that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. God was pleased to heal Him. By Healing His son, raising Him from the dead He accomplishes something great, He heals the nations.
Jesus is enthroned by humility and exhibits His power under; Calvinism is defined by coercion and control over.
Calvinism presses down to restrict, dominate, control, and subdue, while Jesus shows us how to humbly serve -even to death. Calvinism demeans, Jesus empowers; Calvinism controls, Jesus frees; Calvinism functions in superiority, Jesus functions in humility. The heart of Calvinism is rooted in pride exerting power over, but the heart of Christ exerts humility and calls for power under.
Wow! This is awesome! We are super excited for you! The heavens are rejoicing! You just made a decision to welcome Jesus as your King, and the Bibe says, He is LORD of your life now! That might sound a bit strange to you in our modern culture using terminology that is thousands of years old, but the meaning of who and what Jesus does in our lives for those that follow Him hasn’t changed. Making a decision to follow Him is the first step, the next step is to make that a public confession to the world. We do this through baptism. Baptism is an outward sign of the inner decision and declaration you have made to faithfully follow Jesus. Your local church would love to help guide you through this step. I would suggest looking for a solid non-denominational or mainstream denomination church. Hopefully that church was part of the process where you already decided to follow Jesus. Your pastor would love to talk you through this! We are praying for new confidence in your identity as you begin to walk boldly in the power and presence of Jesus who is in you. WE DECLARE FREEDOM!
From there we encourage you to start deepening your relationship with Jesus and His word (the Bible), this is usually “shepherded” by the body of Christ we call the church. This is actually the main thrust of the message of the Bible, to live in fellowship together in devotion to the Lord. The Bible describes it like this, “As you therefore have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him.” Colossians 2:6. Walking is a metaphor for intimate relationship. To better help you understand this idea, and the path that you are entering, read the beginning of this post right now, it is short, and sweet, and can be read in a couple of minutes.
Ok so now you might have a better idea of the way that God loves you and wants to have a deep relationship with you gathered around the community of Jesus. Together we represent the presence of Jesus to the world.
Next you should get into the word of God, the Bible!
Somehow you found your way here to Expedition 44. Expedition 44 is known for super deep theological Bible studies geared towards seminary students. You are certainly welcome to read all the articles here and watch videos, but it might be over your head right now… (but I guarantee we have videos and articles that will answer your TOUGH questions about God and Christianity if you have that need or desire. Just use the search bar to the right.) The good news is the basic message of Jesus is pretty simple! You have a lot to look forward to and it won’t take you long to get there! That is the best thing about this walk, it is super exciting and before you know it, you will be filled with joy & surrounded by a great community on your way to a transformed life getting to know Jesus. This process begins by joining a small group at your local church and a Bible study where people get transparent and are welcoming. Make a commitment ty to attend church regularly being immersed in whatever “events” they are offering. Next, the Bible Project is an awesome organization that is known for great theology through simple animated videos that everyone from children to adults can glean from. They are my favorite online site. This is a great resource to start learning about the Bible and its truths.
Make some time and start a prayer life! We are all really busy to be sure, but the addition of walking with Jesus to an already full schedule can be one of the largest obstacles to overcome in a new faith journey. We’ve got two suggestions that can really help. 1. Be intentional. Make a plan to set aside time in your schedule to meet with God. 2. Get practical. In the time you set aside, make use of tools to help you connect with God. In the church we have often called these “spiritual practices”. Find a Bible reading plan to work through perhaps on the Bible app. (The Bible project – above, also has a plan for this.) Learn to listen and speak with God through prayer. Setting aside time in and of itself is a spiritual practice called “sabbath” which helps us overturn the oppressive “busyness” in our lives in order to make way (sacred space) for Christ’s new rule and reign in a partnership with us. Through this you will start finding a new destiny and fulfillment for your life centered in Jesus.
The faith walk is exciting, fulfilling, and offers a lot of transformative qualities for your life, but Romans 12:12 reminds us to “Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer.” In the years to come you will experience some spiritual highs and lows. But remember that God promises to be with you, He asks for one step at a time towards Him. You will still “Miss the mark” occasionally, but that DOESN’T invalidate the commitment and growth we’ve already experienced. Some areas in our lives are a long triathlon, not a sprint. When you asked Jesus to come into your life, He actually does that! His spirit is now indwelling you and will act as a spiritual helper with you. Romans 8:26 reminds us that the Spirit helps us in our weakness. Even when we do not know what to pray the Spirit Himself intercedes for us!
Maybe you are in a season of healing. Sometimes in Jesus this is miraculous and immediate, but sometimes it is a steady course. We wouldn’t go into a rehab where someone has had a decades long addiction, and when they come to Jesus, expect them to never struggle. If you stumble, let your pastor and/or discipleship partner know, and they will lovingly help you back up and continue the path before you hand in hand. That is what community in Jesus looks like. Jesus us here for you and the church is the physical hands and feet of Him in our lives.
Okay anything else? Here are some next steps for people that think more analytically…
Find a local church and introduce yourself to the host people or pastors letting them know you want to get involved and take the next steps of discipleship (this is an important word to use with them.)
Find a friend to help you walk through this. I would suggest entering into a relationship with someone that can help you on a weekly basis. A scheduled cup of coffee each week, phone calls and text messages are great! This helps you stay on track! If you don’t have a person like this, ask your pastor to help!
Build a solid foundation. Get in the word every day. The paragraph above will be great for you!
Next, start building Godly relationships. The community of Jesus is important and central to the faith journey. You don’t necessarily have to leave your old friends; but in some cases, you might consider particularly if they aren’t good influences in your life, each person’s situation is unique. We want to encourage you to start walking with people that will edify or build you up in your faith and are on a similar trajectory with Jesus. This decision should be an awesome new launch or maybe restart for your life. We hope you never look back!
Be discipled and start discipling! I bet your thinking wait how can I disciple? I don’t even know what that means yet! Just tell your story! Tell your family, your friends and those you’re meeting at church. Give a testimony as to what God is doing in you.
Start praying! Don’t know how? We can help, but it’s pretty simple! Just start talking to Jesus! He hears and you will be surprised at all the ways that He answers back!
Attend a three day renewal weekend. Ask us how!
If you need help, don’t be afraid to reach out to your local church. If you aren’t sure about any of this text us! We will help you! 2629031887 -Dr. Ryan or 2623524938 -Pastor Josh
This post was written by Dr. Will Ryan of the Tov Community with special thanks from a think tank of other contributors such as:
“Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani” “My God, My God, why have thou forsaken me?
You have three options to interpret Jesus’ words on the cross: 1. God turns his face from Jesus and the trinity is split. 2. Jesus was actually calling to Elijah which would have fulfilled the prophecy of Malachi four but would then have the words in the gospels “miss translated.” 3. Jesus is quoting Psalm 22 as remez* and the immediate audience knew that the end of the Psalm is victory.
1. If you go with the first option typically aligned with Calvinism and Reformed theology your going to have to reconcile Biblical covenant not lining up specifically with the phrase “I will never leave you nor forsake you” in Hebrews 13:5 and Deuteronomy 31:6 and echoed throughout the Bible as a covenant promise. If God turns his back on Jesus, will He turn it on you? Doesn’t seem to line up with the Character of God.
2. It seems that some of the original audience according to the synoptics interpreted what Christ was saying this way, (as a calling out to Elijah to return) but our texts seem to quickly correct that notion. However, that leaves Elijah not ever appearing as a mystery perhapsps we are atill waiting for. Some are also going to connect John the Baptist here as prophecy fulfilled. But the greater problem with this view is that you’re saying that there’s an error in the text which I don’t think works for most people’s theology.
3. In my opinion, the best option is to interpret the voice as remez of Psalm 22. Jesus used a lot of remez in His teaching so it fits theologically.
When you study Psalm 22 you find that the hymn acknowledges the pain of feeling abandoned (sign of Christy’s humanity), but it goes on to declare abiding faith in God, and that He will not abandon his righteous faithful one (sign of Christ’s divinity). The implication is that God does not turn his face from Jesus and doesn’t break covenant promises. The genre is actually in literary contranym form (found so much in the Scriptures, especially wisdom literature) showing unwavering confidence in the faithfulness of God. The text contrasts what we feel compared to what God is actually doing -as extremes. This also fits very well with the backwards or upside down kingdom dynamics of the humility of Christ to the cross.
*remez: The great teachers during that day used a technique that was later referred to as remez. When they were teaching they would use part of a scripture passage in a discussion assuming that their audience had knowledge of the Bible and a simple word or phrase (which was usually an idiom or something they wouldd have had menorized) might point the audience towards what they understood as a full teaching to a certain text, without actually having to recall the entire thing. Apparently Jesus who possessed a brilliant understanding of scripture and at the very least considered, the greatest teacher by the world’s standards, used this method regularly.
If you’re interested in really diving in and reading more about this follow this link…
JESUS QUOTES PSALM 22
Jesus was quoting the first line of Psalm 22, which was an especially beloved psalm by the Jews of this time. All of the Jews looking on would know what was going on. Jesus often taught using Remez and this is no different.1 The Psalm begins with the psalmist believing that God has forsaken him. This is defined in the psalm by God’s silence, not his abandonment. There are two voices in Psalm 22. Unfortunately, this is pretty common in scripture, but people fail to follow the poet genre or even realize what is happening. Isaiah 53 echoes the same type of two voice narrative. We have one voice saying what they think and then another one later that speaks clarity. Sometimes in scripture we read a narrative and never get the clarifying second voice of God. This can be tricky. We often want to read every passage as “thus saith the Lord,” but we would be mistaken and lead to poor theology. I am so thankful for Job because we get the first voice thinking His friends are giving “GODLY” counsel but the at the end God (second voice) actually says none of that counsel is of me. This is similar to the way we should read Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53.
Next the psalm says “I am a worm”… in Hebrew this is the same word for scarlet. Jesus was covered in blood, scarlet, some see this as a picture of the suffering servant of Is 53. Continuing, this prophetic psalm states he was despised, bones out of joint (but not broken), hands and feet pierced, clothes divided by lots…
Jesus’ next statement from the cross is “I thirst” which is the middle verse of this psalm.
But in verse 19 it says that God actually is not far off in all of this! Verse 21 says God answers his cry!
Verse 24 says God does not abhor the afflicted (Jesus) and has not hidden his face and has heard the cry for help…. I want you to get this…. I do not believe that God has not forsaken or abandoned Jesus! The trinity isn’t split here. This isn’t God turning His back. As hard as it is to read and witness it is actually part of a beautiful redemptive plan. God didn’t turn his back and Jesus and He won’t turn His back on you.
This is a completely different story than what people wanted or were looking for. It seems backwards or upside down. Christ leading by humility not power. But that is the way of Jesus.
Jesus, though He is suffering, has His mind set on the victory at the end of this psalm. The saving deed that brings the reconciliation of God and the nations. Remember in the garden, the table of nations and the feast of tabernacles? “Not my will but yours be done.” Christ knew that dying was what it would take to win the victory and when he was arrested in the garden, He stated that he could call legions of angels to save him if he wanted to and God would send them… God was not forsaking Jesus.2
NOTE: I think there is a valid argument for the splitting of the trinity but I don’t personally think it is the best explanation. I do however greatly respect Greg Boyd who constructs it this way.3
The psalm concludes stating: 22:31 They will come and tell about his saving deeds; they will tell a future generation what he has accomplished. Jesus’ next statement on the cross… “It is finished” or “it is accomplished” referring to the concluding line of this psalm and the accomplishment of His saving deed.
2 Cor 5:19… assures us that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. The perspective of the crowd in IS 53:10 is that we perceived that he was stricken by God (that’s what the world thought.) But the true perspective was that God was pleased to heal Him. By Healing His son, raising Him from the dead He accomplishes something great, He heals the nations. God takes the first step in reclaiming the nations and through the sending of His spirit at Pentecost will now partner and entrust us to be his physical agents of reconciliation.
Then with one last surge of strength, he once again presses against the nail, straightens His legs, takes a deep breath, and utters His seventh and final cry: “Father into thy hands I commit my spirit”.
Jesus dies as the Passover lambs were being slaughtered as our Passover lamb of the new exodus delivering us from the Spiritual Powers and rescuing us from enslavement to Sin by defeating Sin in the flesh.
The cross is hard but it was necessary. It was brutal but it was freeing. Something happens at the cross that we can’t full understand. The captives are set free, the keys to death are regained, and there is a victory won in the cosmos that we may never fully understand. The RESURRECTION POWER IS BEAUTIFUL.
JESUS FULFILLS The Day of Atonement: The purification, the cleansing of sacred space, becomes the sacrifice and the scapegoat, and transfers himself to be the forever high priest.
JESUS FULFILLS The Passover lamb by dying for everyone giving us unending freedom and reinstating our place in partnership with him in the royal priesthood of believers. We will soon become the temple of the Holy Spirit.
JESUS FULFILLS The feast of Tabernacles so that the nations may be regathered unto Him by us, manifested as His hands and feet.
THINKING SLIGHTLY REFORMED
I have many good friends that are reformed and several of them seemed to want to “justify” a modified view of God turning His back on us. I have a slight bit of respect and room for that, but it seems contorted. I started out the holy week with this premise. Here is the basic problem with any kind of framework going that way, and honestly it is really basic. The major theme of the Bible is that God makes covenant to Humanity to return to their destiny or vocation which is walking in partnership with him. It isn’t “just” the garden, it is actually even better than that towards the recreated Heaven and Earth. That covenant picture is based on humanity continually breaking the covenant but God saying despite your unfaithfulness I will continue to show complete faithfulness. That means in His words as the grand idiom of the Bible that he will never leave or forsake us. That phrase describes His covenant faithfulness over and over, more than 30x specifically and nearly 100 times in slightly different form. One of the greatest idioms that has ever come from the Bible that is still used every day in our culture and perhaps every culture of the world is to say, “I won’t turn my back on you.” That is the beginning or the foundation of leaving or forsaking someone. But it isn’t just the first step, it is the biggest picture we have of simple “unfaithfulness.” Therefore, when God says this, what He is saying is that despite your unfaithfulness I am not even going to take the first hint or appearance of unfaithfulness. So at the cross to say that God turns his back on Jesus is majorly problematic. It is saying that God isn’t a promise keeper and that His covenant means nothing. If the covenant means nothing than you just lost the entire thread or mission of Jesus. Furthermore, if you have to do all kinds of crazy theological gymnastics to reconcile what I would call poor theological phrases and doctrines, well then “houston, you might have a big problem.” It doesn’t have to be that way!
In the article I tried to give a shout out to what might be a better view of God turning His back by quoting my well-respected friend Greg Boyd. But I had a few other friends send me what they thought was a good version of God turning His back and frankly based on the causation above. I don’t see it.
It sounds good at first reading, things you have always heard, but to me it is problematic on a number of different levels and I will keep this pretty simple:
Why have you forsaken me is a feeling of simple abandonment, it isn’t faithful interpretation to try to frame it as if it isn’t. Even a kindergartener would tell you that. to get into all the “judicial sense” justification is a smoke screen. Any time someone abandons or forsakes you its relational. IF God is simply quoting Psalm 22 as remez you don’t get into any horrible hermeneutics.
The trinity wasn’t broken? Let’s again keep this simple. If one person or aspect changes than it’s “split”. That is why psychologically we describe this sense as a “split personality.” You have to start twisting common definitions to make sense of a contorted theology.
Jesus as taking on Sin Himself – Does Christ bear our sin? I personally didn’t put Christ on the cross as the reformed camp likes to say. DO I sein? Yes Christ atones for that. But we don’t have to frame it as if he is literally bearing our sin. Why would we want to say it like that? Perhaps in a very light analogy, but nothing more than that, and again why? – That isn’t the “justice of God.” It is the opposite of that. The character of God doesn’t act opposite of what it says in the Bible, that would be a logical fallacy. You can’t define the character of God and then do something that is opposite to it.
“Willingly stood in the place of sinners as their substitute.” Do you realize that there actually isn’t one verse that specifically says Christ is our substitute? You have to deduct that as a systematic theology. I can see this in a very basic metaphorical sense, but it is still problematic particularly as a doctrine especially when you get into double imputation.
‘The father poured out divine wrath” – oh boy – That sounds like an angry or even abusive father. I don’t think that is a great way to describe God. He never describes Himself that way. In fact. quite the opposite again. In Exodus 34, God describes Himself as compassionate, gracious, slow to anger, abounding with loyal love and faithfulness in Exodus 34.
The elect… Most simply you’re stating that God didn’t die for everyone as John 3:16 says, and now to try to make so many of the verses in the Bible that agree with the notion that God died for everyone you are going to have to continue to conjure up a bunch more hoops to jump through. I get tired just listening to this.
federal head – and that’s in scripture? But I don’t really think I need to go there.
Adam and the curse – The Bible is very clear that we are responsible for our actions and our sin alone (to borrow the favorite reformed theme.) I don’t have to pay God or Jesus back for some sin that someone else committed. Again, that would be a contradiction of the scripture. That would be framing God doing opposite of what his covenant promises to say to us.
“wrath satisfied & dept paid” – I never get the debt paid thing. Moses didn’t pay pharaoh and Jesus doesn’t pay God or Satan. It is simply freedom in Christ. To make that out to be anything more than that is quite conflating.
All of this is what I really don’t like about reformed theology. These systematic theologies are based on a couple atonement theories, the main one being Penal Substitution Atonement (PSA), with riding on its coat tails. First, PSA is not the gospel! Some would say if you don’t adhere to PSA that you don’t adhere to the Bible. Not true. There are several other theories of PSA that have been around longer and are “more traditional.” I tend to be a basic Christus Victor person, but see some support lightly for all the frameworks. X44 has sever videos on this. But with PSA, it creates a ton of complex negation and proof texting to try to get simply core verses to support things they don’t say. To think that all of this comes back to the desire to frame God as turning his back on Jesus at the cross makes zero sense! There is a better theology, and it is really simple! I can give it to you in one line and the entire Bible supports the statement in perfect harmony:
God will never leave you or forsake you. His covenant promises that over and over. He didn’t leave Jesus at the cross and he won’t ever leave you regardless of your actions against Him. That is the central theme of the Bible.
HERE IS A BASIC SUMMARY OF WHAT A “GOOD” PSA VIEW ENTAILS…
A TRADITIONAL PSA INFLUENCED VIEW: When Jesus cried out, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” He was not merely expressing a feeling of abandonment but was truly being forsaken in a judicial and covenantal sense by the Father as He bore the sins of His people. This forsaking was not relational in nature—the eternal love and union within the Trinity was never broken, nor could it be. The divine nature remains indivisible. Yet the Father, acting in perfect justice and holiness, turned His face away from the Son in terms of communion and blessing, treating Him as if He were sin itself—not because Jesus had sinned, but because He willingly stood in the place of sinners as their substitute.
As Scripture says, “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Corinthians 5:21). The Father withheld the comfort of His presence and instead poured out the full measure of divine wrath—not out of displeasure toward Christ personally, but because Christ was bearing the guilt of the elect as their federal head. He was suffering the penalty required by God’s justice. This is what it means when Scripture says, “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us” (Galatians 3:13).
This abandonment was covenantal: Jesus, as the second Adam, was enduring the curse that came through the broken covenant of works. He was fulfilling every demand of divine justice, drinking the full cup of wrath that should have been ours. The forsaking He experienced was real, but it was legal—not a break in divine fellowship, but an act of righteous judgment. Even in being forsaken, He remained the beloved Son, fully obedient and fully pleasing to the Father in His substitutionary work.
It’s important to recognize that Christ was not merely tasting wrath—He absorbed all of it. He endured the full fury of God’s justice, as if He had committed every sin ever committed by those He came to save. And in that moment, He bore it all alone, so that we would never have to. His cry from the cross is not a cry of confusion or defeat—it’s a declaration of fulfillment. Quoting the opening line of Psalm 22, He identified Himself with the Suffering Servant, and the very Psalm that begins in anguish ends in victory and vindication. That cry, then, was part of the triumph.
Because He was forsaken, we never will be. The wrath is satisfied. The debt is paid. The veil is torn. There is no more judgment left for those who are in Him. That cry from the cross is the deepest expression of God’s justice and His love meeting in one moment. The atonement was not theoretical—it was complete. Nothing remains to be added. Christ bore our judgment fully, so that we might be reconciled to God forever.
Lastly, for us to try to fully understand what this truly means is impossible on this side of the cross. I’m just thankful for all Christ has done for each of us. Every time I try to wrap my mind around this topic, my mind is blown! Praise Him who bore my sins.
EXPEDITION 44 