Nov 13 2007
Your Worst Life Now
Since we are discussing a heavy chapter like Genesis 3, I thought I might lend a little levity to the discussion with the title. 3 points to anyone who can tell me what the reference is, and yes I am keeping track of points! I have written a companion paper with this video that covers some of the secondary stuff going on in this chapter. The video of course hits the high points, but there is just so much happening in this one chapter! Well, enjoy, and as always please feel free to post with comments, questions, and discrepancies. Notes on Sin and Its Nature
Posts
Also, for future reference, his notes for the video have been posted in the “Resources” section for later viewing.
Joel Olsteen.
I want my three points. Too bad for you you did not specify who could and could not receive points.
And no, you are not permitted to retroactively amend your offer.
Three aggressive points to Jim.
Drat, I was going to say ‘Joel Osteen’, but somebody beat me to it. Do I get a consolation reward for answering ‘Joyce Meyer’?
Well, I at least give you props for refering to the serpent of Genesis 3 as ‘the serpent’, in both your video and your paper. He is never identified in Scripture as ‘the devil’ like many people think (no, ‘that old serpent’ in Revelation does not count).
Actually, HIS, i meant to comment on that very fact. The Sunday school answer that Satan was the serpent is true, but they never tell you why it is true. It is not in Genesis 3 that fact is revealed, but it is actually taken from Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28. In both cases the prophets recognize that a king is so wicked that the spirit behind them is actually that of Satan. When the prophet describes Satan and his rebellion, we are given more information as to the nature of Satan’s fall. The one that relates most to the Garden is Ezekiel, but I thought it was interesting that it wasnt the Genesis account that names the serpent as Satan.
And yes, you get 4 points for Joyce Meyer and thinking outside the immediate box. That means you are one up on Jim, and I give you permission to gloat.
Mike, Satan is not present in Isaiah 14, nor Ezek 28.
Isaiah 14 is the sole place in Scripture where the name ‘Lucifer’ is found - at least in the King James Bible. But this is never equated with Satan in Scripture. Not once.
Rather, have you ever wondered why most personal names in the Old Testament were transliterated from Greek back into the Hebrew from the Septuigent, with the strange exception of ‘Lucifer’? Lucifer is a *Latin* word for ‘Light Bearer’. What is a Latin word doing in the Hebrew old testament? Look up what the Hebrew name for ‘Lucifer’ should be. Ask yourself again why it was left in the Latin.
I think I know the clue to Isaiah 14, but Ezek 28 is not so clear cut to me. Again though, there is no reference to Satan anywhere there. Only an ‘annointing cherub that covereth’ who was in Eden. What does that mean? Where is the serpent? Where is Satan? nowhere. Who it is, I don’t know, but equating both references to Satan or The Devil seems imposed by church tradition more than anything else. The text of Scripture does not hint in either case that we are dealing with Satan here. By the way, in the Genesis story, YHVH Elohim was talking to *somebody*, but we are never told who.
From what I have read, Satan only appears in the Old Testament as God’s henchman or private prosecutor. He tempts people, then reports back to God on people’s failures. I just don’t see him in the Old Testament as God’s mortal enemy though. That comes much later after the exile and pops up in the New Testament as these myths evolved.
I never meant to infer the name Satan was stated in either of these texts, I meant that the function and character is present. Yes there are some curious features to both of these accounts that we cannot take for granted, but in both Isaiah and Ezekiel the prophet is speaking against a living king who is described as having done things at the beginning of time or being in the Garden. I dont think you have to put the name Satan to the persona for it to be the character God was speaking against as the serpent.
I’m starting to view these first few chapters in Genesis as kind of comic book sketch trying to describe for us a greater reality. It is attempting to describe our current condition not just something that happened in the beginning. It seems to be saying we were created good, but there is something terrible wrong with us. Well, how did that happen? It attempts to answer the question by drawing for us a serpent and a couple of trees and the rest of the story. Genesis 1-3 happens everyday. It describes what happened to me. In my beginning, I was born innocent or maybe ignorant is a better word, did not even know I was naked. Some where along the line I partook of the fruit. I now have knowledge of good and evil. I know somethings wrong. I have hope.
In the New Testament we are told that Jesus had more success resisting the tempter. We are also told that he is the 2nd Adam.
Mike says:
Don’t worry - church tradition has already done that for us. Really, there is no reason to think you can read Isaiah 14/Ezek 28 and come away with the conclusion that it is talking about Satan. Especially Isaiah 14 - that one seems the most obvious to me.
Did you look up the Latin name ‘Lucifer’ in the Hebrew?
Regarding Lucifer, son of the Dawn, check this out from from the Jewish Encyclopedia:
more at http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=612&letter=L&search=Lucifer
So the phrase Lucifer, son of the Morning, should be Halel, son of Shahar. Shahar, son of El or Baal (I forget which - my mythology is hazy at 400AM) is an ancient Caananite diety of the morning dawn. Lucifer, the ‘Light Bearer’, is Venus, and as planets were regarded as wandering stars to the ancients, it was thought to be a living entity. Regarding the Isaiah 14 passage, as Venus rises in the morning sky, only to have its brightness be overtaken by the overwhelming brilliance of the Sun, so shall the King of Babylon, he who is great now, be overtaken by the God of the Hebrews.
That is why there is a Latin word ‘Lucifer’ in your Hebrew bible. Lucifer was not equated with Satan or the Devil until early Christianity. I think that tradition was first made popular by Turtullian, and once church tradition sticks, it is very hard to release that grip, even if it is dead wrong. At least more modern translations, like the NIV, have caught up with this flawed notion of ‘Lucifer’ as Satan and removed it from their translation, so I have to give them credit there.
So again, I say there is no place in the Bible where the Serpent of Eden is equated with Satan. That is a much later Christian church tradition.
I can give you a couple of terrific books on this subject of mythology in the Old Testament if you want. It is fascinating stuff.
HIS,
How did you know that the title of this video was a reference to Joel Osteen? I didnt use his name in the title. His book has a different name. So what tipped you off?
So it is with the references in Isaiah and Ezekiel. It isnt the name that is important so much as the content of the character and their actions that clues the reader in to who is actually at work. In each case, action is ascribed to a living king something that happened way before their time. In the case of Ezekiel it explicitly references the Garden. I am not surprised at all that a name given to Satan in Isaiah would have roots in other cultures mythology. The Jews did that all the time to say that other cultures’ gods were imposters to the living God YHWH.
I dont want to get bogged down in tertiary issues though. Needless to say, the serpent represents the enemy of God, and as far as this text takes us in conjunction with who the author and the audience were, that is all we can say at this point. The main purpose of this text is to identify that God has created a land and a people for Himself, and in response to their rebellion He has now also given a promise of restoration. Land, People, Promise. These are the dominant themes we will see echoed over and over that illustrate the one massive, coherent story God is telling through His scriptures.
Mike says:
That is kind of my point. There is no reason to make the assumptions that you have made except to fit the text of Scripture into a pre-existing mold of Church Tradition. Who is is taking Scripture seriously here? In a recent video that you made, you made the charge that Christians were to read the Scriptures as best as they could through the eyes of the people who wrote it. What you are now doing is taking ancient Jewish texts and fitting them into a Christian tradition that came hundreds of years later!
So is tradition now trumping the Scriptures? You are a protestant, I assume?
In contrast, I have done my best to place these cherished assumptions aside for the moment, and do my best with reading and research with the meager tools that I have available to make sense of what the text of Scripture actually means. I don’t think I have all the answers, but I love learning, and I simply cannot go back to the simplistic harmonizations given by Evangelical Teachings.
With reference to Isaiah, there is simply no reason to attach that passage to Satan except to honor Christian Church Tradition! What happened to looking at the text through the eyes of the Jewish writers? I gave a perfectly reasonable interpretation that does not do violence to Christian doctrine, that takes the text of the passage seriously, which cites Jewish sources, and which answers a lot of loose ends that would not be otherwise answered. The alternative is to just stick with tradition and equate Lucifer with Satan because… well… just because it fits the model. I am sorry, but I think I am being honest with the Bible.
I don’t think this is really a tangential issue - but I’ll end my string of comments on your video here.
HIS,
My comment (#11) continues from the place you quoted with this:
“Needless to say, the serpent represents the enemy of God, and as far as this text takes us in conjunction with who the author and the audience were, that is all we can say at this point. ”
I am not backtracking nor reversing anything I have previously said. I consider the issue tangential because it isnt in the scope of the text, other than to indicate the one punished is the enemy of God. And again, the main purpose of this text is to explain God’s focus of a People, a Land, and a Promise. The world sucks because man has violated the guidelines for relationship with God, and God is at work now to redeem that relationship we have sundered.
I am sorry if our discourse on the nature of the serpent has distracted from all of this. In the future I will try to focus more on discussions that relate more directly to the scope of the text.
moses wrote Genesis?
i don’t agree at all. you’re layering like HeIsSailing has said.