12 Propositions…#6

December 30, 2009

Tony Sig

If Isaiah 7.14 is speaking about Jesus (and it is), then Plato, in Book II, discussing the end of “The Just Man” is also speaking about Jesus.

“The ‘Just Man’ will have to endure the lash, the rack, chains, the branding-iron in his eyes, and finally, after every extremity of suffering, he will be crucified…” – Plato, Republic bk.II.362

Is the Devil in the Details?

November 25, 2008

Did the Devil lead worship in heaven, complete with a Taylor acoustic guitar with Fishman electronics? Was he there in the first place? Did he get thrown like a skydiver with no parachute?

I want to avoid a whole discussion on the history of this figure, but it is worth noting, even taking into account the developed tradition in the New Testament, that every reference source I have looked at stresses the ambiguity of the figure and his “personhood,” role and actions in the whole Biblical narrative.

My primary point in my recent post was that the passages in the prophetic books of the OT, primarily Isaiah and Ezekiel, did not and do not intend to speak about “The Satan, The Accuser, The Serpent, etc….” I base this off of the reality that the passages in question are dealing with real kings of real kingdoms. The Satan is nowhere mentioned, and the texts do not at all even hint at a “satan” figure. I would venture to argue that the passages loose any significance and meaning when they are taken metaphorically to speak of another “supernatural” figure other than the king in question or in addition to the king in question.

Picture if you will, a people dispossessed of their land which they were promised by divine right by YHWH the one God is Israel. The prophets had been telling them that the King in question was gonna do some damage if they did not repent of their sins. But, even though doing YHWH’s bidding, in the end these kings too would be judged for their arrogance and pride, as they were putting themselves in the position of god (a well known and well documented Ancient Near Eastern practice). So in the end Israel, and more importantly YHWH would be vindicated by judgement on the prideful kings.

Now try in that social and religious climate to suggest that the prophet actually meant (or God meant?) another malevolent spiritual figure unconnected to the narrative and I will say that one is reading between the lines in a big way. If authority lies primarily in authorial intent, then I would venture to assert again that the OT prophetic passages are not at all referring to “The Accuser” and that any subsequent interpretation of them in such a manner is using a different hermeneutic than I would deem reliable.

Perhaps Jeremy, we will have to agree to disagree :)   Or, make your case, iron sharpens iron right?

Tony Sig

I have been reading through much of the Prophetic books lately. I recently finished Isaiah (I know, I know…I’m pretty holy) and I was struck time and again as I read over certain passages that I had heard interpreted in various ways over the years. Now, I make no claim to be an Hebrew Bible Scholar, in fact the OT scares me half to death (you never know if it really happened, or when it happened), but I am pretty sure that 99% of the “end-times” doctrines taken from the OT fail on a basic, even “literal,” level to take the books seriously as what they are…Timely words for the community of Israel. Now perhaps we can get into a discussion on the sensus plenior of Scripture sometime (oohh, Latin. Jeremy, whatcha gonna do about it?), but at the very least one needs to let exegesis have it’s day.

That being said, I do not know how Isaiah 14.1-14 ever got used to talk about Satan falling from heaven. This is obviously talking about the real, on earth, human, King of Babylon. It is not at all talking about an “angel” or whatever. So yeah…let’s read the Bible literally and stop talking about “The Devil falling from heaven” as described in Isaiah.

Which brings us to the other passage, Ezekiel 28.1-19 Here again, the writer is focused on the King of Tyre. That is, the real, on earth, human, King of Tyre. On can easily get this by looking at the first few verses, where there is the purposeful title “Son of Man,” that is “man.” An intentional title as in the next verse you see that the king said “I am a god” The lament which is sung over the King of Tyre draws from extra-biblical Eden stories and likely other Near-eastern mythologys. Notice that there is extra material here that is not in Genesis. Though it uses mythological language, the theme is the very physical and present King. Otherwise the judgements on him for his arrogance lose any meaning and frame of reference.

So there you go, taking the Bible seriously, even “literally,” reveals that “satan” did not “fall from heaven;” at least not in the OT, perhaps at some other point we can look at Luke 10.18

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 201 other followers