SATAN: Old Testament Servant Angel or New Testament Cosmic Rebel? by Richard Murray

SATAN: OLD TESTAMENT SERVANT ANGEL OR NEW TESTAMENT COSMIC REBEL? 

The problem is one of definition and differentiation. The Old Testament saints had a largely UNDIFFERENTIATED view of God and Satan. They believed Satan was God's "left hand," His "angry voice," His official "minister of wrath."

Old Testament saints wrongly included Satan in their functional definition of God. Whenever there was temptation, destruction, wrath, and death, all activities which the New Testament would later assign to Satan, the Old Testament would instead attribute these destructions to God Himself. They would not pray against the wiles of the devil, the way the New Testament instructs, but would rather beg God to stay His own wrathful hand. Satan was nowhere in their causative equation. God was the ONLY cause of both good and evil.

The New Testament, by contrast, DIFFERENTIATES the identities of God and Satan totally. What is joined at the conceptual hip in the Old Testament is separated and forever severed in the New. Jesus, it could be argued, IS the DYNAMIC DIFFERENTIATION of God's image from Satan's image. He is the refining fire which burns all the unworthy attributes the Old Testament God out and away from the pure and perfect divine nature.

Let's start with the definition issue. How did the Old Testament saints functionally define God? This requires us to look at the theological context of the Old Testament authors, the foundational presumptions they brought to the table.

When the Old Testament uses the terms "the Lord," or "the voice of the Lord," what did that mean to the believers back then? How did they define "God?" Was it the same way Jesus defined "God?" Would it shock you to know the answer is a resounding NO? Fasten your seat belts. We are about to take a flight into freedom from Biblical misunderstanding.

Simply stated, the Old Testament view of Satan is lacking New Testament illumination. And, as a result, the Old Testament often blends the identities of God and Satan TOGETHER, which ends up confusing the true source of Old Testament "wrath." Only as we NOW reinsert Satan back into the destructive Old Testament passages can we rightly understand what Jesus was doing in the Old Testament versus what Satan was doing. Learning to do this instinctively will forever free up our thinking and our understanding of the Old Testament.

Jewish and Christian scholars alike have both noted that the Old Testament view of God differs SIGNIFICANTLY from the New Testament view in one key aspect-- the way Satan is viewed. THE WAY SATAN IS VIEWED explains the vast majority of "tone" discrepancies between the Old and New Testaments. Let me explain.

For the Old Testament believer, Satan was an obedient angel who had a tough job as God's enforcer who was in charge of 1) executing the wrath of God's curses on disobedient men, 2) dispensing eventual death to all men, 3) testing men's faith by oppressing them with circumstances to see if they remain righteous, 4) hardening the hearts of certain men to commit acts of rebellion so that they quickly destroy themselves, 5) destroying what God commands through war, plague, famine, and natural/ supernatural disasters, and 6) accusing men of their failures before God based on his eyewitness reports.

BUT in all this, Satan is merely fulfilling his role in the heavenly train. He is not seen as an enemy of God or a rebel opposed to the Kingdom of God on every level, the clear way he is portrayed in the New Testament. For sure, the New Testament confirms that Satan does engage in wrath, accusation, destruction, and temptation, BUT NEVER under the approval or direction of God. The Old Testament says Satan is just following orders, while the New Testament says Satan is "off the grid" in complete disobedience to God.

In short, Old Testament saints see Satan as a Luca Brasi figure. Brasi was a character from THE GODFATHER novel and movies who did the Godfather's dirty work, but who was absolutely loyal to his leader, perhaps even the most loyal. Brasi was an assassin, spy and fixer who always worked behind the scenes to discover and destroy those disloyal or opposed to his Godfather. He rooted out, then disposed of the Godfather's enemies. He always had his Godfather's trust and blessing. This was the Old Testament view of Satan.

As THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF JEWISH CONCEPTS by Philip Birnbaum says, "Satan...is...identified with the angel of death. He leads astray, then he brings accusations against man, whom he slays eventually. His chief functions are those of temptation, accusation and punishment. Under the control of God, he acts solely with the divine permission to carry out his plots." (Sanhedrin Press, page 594). Rabbi Benjamin Blech similarly writes, "Judaism sees Satan as a servant of God whose function is to set up choices between good and evil so that we can exercise our free will.... [His] apparent harshness is merely camouflage for divine concern and love." IF GOD IS SO GOOD, WHY IS THE WORLD SO BAD? Simcha Press, pages 7-9.

Author Stephen Harris notes that the Old Testament Satan is not the same entity as the New Testament Satan. In the Old Testament:

"The Satan figure acts as Yahweh's spy and prosecuting attorney whose job is to bring human misconduct to the deity's attention and, if possible, persuade Yahweh to punish it. Throughout the Old Testament the Satan remains among the divine 'sons,' serves as God's administrative agent, and thus reveals a facet of the divine personality....

At the outset, some Bible writers saw all things, good and evil alike, as emanating from a single source-- Yahweh. Israel's strict monotheistic credo decreed that Yahweh alone caused both joys and sorrows, prosperity and punishment (Deut. 28).... The canonical Hebrew Bible grants the Satan scant space and little power. Whereas the Old Testament Satan can nothing without Yahweh's express permission, in the New Testament he behaves as an independent force who competes with the Creator for human souls....

According to Mark's Gospel, one of Jesus' major goals is to break up Satan's kingdom and the hold that he and lesser evil spirits exercise on the people. Hence, Mark stresses Jesus' works of exorcising devils and dispossessing the victims of demonic control. The New Testament, then-- in sharp contrast to the Old-- shows Satan and the devil as one, a focus of cosmic evil totally opposed to the Creator God. This 'evil one' is the origin of lies, sin, suffering, sickness and death." UNDERSTANDING THE BIBLE: A READER'S INTRODUCTION, pages 26-28.

The renowned INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPEDIA is in full agreement with this in its entry on Satan:

"The Old Testament does not contain the fully developed doctrine of Satan found in the New Testament. It does not portray him as at the head of a kingdom, ruling over kindred natures and an apostate from the family of God....

It is a significant fact that the statements concerning Satan become numerous and definite only in the New Testament. The daylight of the Christian revelation was necessary in order to uncover the lurking foe, dimly disclosed but by no means fully known in the earlier revelation....

In the early states of religious thinking it would seem to be difficult, if not impossible, to hold the sovereignty of God without attributing to His agency those evils in the world which are more or less directly connected with judgment and punishment....

The progressive revelation of God's character and purpose, which more and more imperatively demands that the origin of moral evil, and consequently natural evil, must be traced to the created will in opposition to the Divine, leads to the the ultimate declaration that Satan is a morally fallen being to whose conquest the Divine Power in history is pledged."

Finally, scholar Jeffrey Burton Russell, who has written multiple volumes on the the historical development of our understanding of Satan, notes that the reason early Jewish thought saw Satan as God's servant is as follows: "Since the God of Israel was the only God, the supreme power in the cosmos, and since, unlike the abstract God of the Greeks, He had personality and will, no deed could be done unless He willed it. Consequently, when anyone transgressed morality, God was responsible for the transgression as well as for its punishment." THE PRINCE OF DARKNESS: RADICAL EVIL AND THE POWER OF GOD IN HISTORY, Cornell University Press, 29-30.

Russell goes on to trace that later in Jewish history, closer to Jesus' day, more and more Jews began to see Satan as an evil entity acting independently of God's approval. This is easily proven by considering the incident in which King David sinned by numbering Israel. This incident is first recorded in 2 Samuel 24:1, and then centuries later in 1 Chronicles 21:1. In the earlier entry, David's sin is caused by "the anger of God," while in the later passage "Satan" is the cause of David's sin.

Do you see? Same sin, same event, entirely different cause. The Jews were beginning to see that they could not attribute BOTH sin and punishment to God, good and evil to God, love and hate to God. They began to develop the idea that Satan was an enemy to God's purposes rather than an obedient friend. Unfortunately, when Israel as a nation rejected Jesus as Messiah, they also rejected the truth about Satan and have since sadly regressed back to their early Old Testament view, as the earlier quotes above show.

But let's catch our breath and think about this for a moment. If in the passage above, Satan's destructive activity is wrongly attributed as God's wrath, then where does that leave us? It leaves us falsely accusing God of of all sorts of evil events, motives and destructions. We have chained God and Satan at the spiritual hip, good and evil at the spiritual hip, love and wrath at the spiritual hip--- God is blamed for all that Satan does, while Satan gets partial credit for the good God does. The end result is that the character of God is clouded and men are unable to fully see, trust and rejoice in his love and forgiveness.

So was the Old Testament view of Satan different than the New Testament view? Yes, vastly different, but perhaps the best way to put it is not so much that the Old Testament was wrong about Satan, but that the Old Testament was almost completely uninformed about him. The first reference to Satan is not even until 548 pages into the Old Testament. Satan is first mentioned only 3 pages into the New Testament. The total number of times Satan is mentioned in the Old Testament is 19 times, 14 of which are in the book of Job. The New Testament mentions Satan (or his devils) nearly 200 times, despite the fact that it is five times shorter than the Old Testament in length.

Only three Old Testament writers ever even mention Satan, and that only briefly. EVERY New Testament writer mentions Satan. Amazingly, Moses, David, Abraham and Solomon NEVER mentioned Satan at all-- never. Their clueless silence is hard to imagine, given the fact that these men are considered giants of the faith.

Contrast this with the New Testament, where Jesus repeatedly calls Satan "the ruler of this world" (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11), the Apostle Paul calls Satan "the god of this world" (2 Corinthians 4:4) and "the prince of the power of the air" (Ephesians 2:2) who can appear as "an angel of light" (2 Corinthians 11:14). The Apostle Peter calls Satan-- "your adversary... a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour" (1 Peter 5:8), and the Apostle John calls Satan-- "the evil one... in whose power the whole world lies." (1 John 5:19).

What is going on here? Not one Old Testament verse warns us of Satan's evil influence in our hearts or minds, much less his rebellious rule over the entire fallen world. Not one demon is cast out in the Old Testament. Legions of devils are cast out in the New Testament. Evil spirits are sent FROM the Lord in the Old Testament (1 Samuel 16:14), but are sent FROM Satan as Beezlebub, the ruler of demons, in the New Testament (Matthew 12:24-29).

Jesus' main thrust in ministry was to destroy the works of Satan, not enable them or approve of them in ANY way. "He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil." 1 John 3:8. When summarizing the Gospel for the first Gentile converts, Peter described "how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power, who went about DOING GOOD and HEALING ALL who were OPPRESSED OF THE DEVIL; for God was with Him." Acts 10:38.

The point? Jesus continually exposed Satan as an ENEMY of His Father, and NOT a SERVANT. Jesus described Satan as: "a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it." John 8:44.

This is a crucial passage for it shows Satan's evils come from "his own resources," not God's, and that he is in essence a KILLER and a LIAR, in fact the "father" of all killing and lying. Remember, Satan tried to both deceive and kill Jesus in the wilderness temptations in Luke 4. Jesus defeated him then and went on defeating him throughout the rest of Jesus' life, death and resurrection.

Jesus not only opposed Satan personally, he fought against Satan's ENTIRE kingdom of demonic elements, "against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places." Ephesians 6:10.

Through the work of the cross, Jesus defeated all of Satan's armies, "Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it." Colossians 2:15. Greek scholars tell us these words describe Jesus having a victory parade wherein He brandishes all the captured armor of Satan's kingdom for all to see and celebrate. Satanic captivity has been taken captive by the Lord of love and light who has ransomed and rescued us from our dark kidnappers.

Now we see what one of the main problems was with Old Testament believers. They simply did not have the depth of understanding to see the truth about God's Kingdom as it related to Satan's kingdom. Their understanding of what we call New Covenant truth was at most only embryonic. This is the perfect example of John Calvin's claim that Old Testament saints had only "sleight capacity" to understand deeper New Testament concepts-- the true nature of Satan being just such a concept.

Without the indwelling Holy Spirit to lead them into all truth, Old Testament saints simply could not accurately process HOW the two invisible personalities of God and Satan operated on the earth. It wasn't God working WITH Satan as they supposed. It was God working AGAINST Satan as Jesus revealed. Jesus revealed that between their two kingdoms, there was no treaty, no cooperation, no partnership, no under-the-table deals, no compromise, no joint operation going on.

IT WAS WAR between God and Satan, NOT cooperation!

Jesus stated the battle lines of this war in John 10:10, "The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. But I have come that they may have life, and have it more abundantly." Satan = stealing, killing, destroying. Jesus = life abundant.

Once we continually make this adjustment, we have become ABLE MINISTERS OF THE NEW COVENANT SPIRIT. 2 Corinthians 3:6. We will have substituted the Old Testament "letter" for the New Testament "better."

So, for the Old Testament saint to say, "The Lord called down fire from the sky," or "The Lord brought down curses on a person," or "The Lord struck someone down with pestilence, sword, famine or death" ----- all simply meant that they believed "Satan" did the destructive act at the Lord's command. So, when God is quoted in the Old Testament, it could EITHER refer to "Yahweh" OR to "Satan."

As established above, the Old Testament saints wrongly thought "Satan speaking" WAS "God's angry voice." Since they assumed Satan was God's official "minister of wrath," they attributed EVERYTHING that worked death and destruction as coming from God. BUT, since we NOW know from Jesus' teachings that Satan operates NOT as an obedient minister OF God, but rather as a vile enemy rebel AGAINST God, then we know their voices and actions need to be "redivided and wholly separated" from each other whenever we read the Old Testament.

I want to call this way of Old Testament reading The "the Jesus Hermeneutic." Simply put, this hermeneutic holds that all Scripture must be interpreted according TO and BY the revealed nature of Jesus. The revelation of Jesus IS the revelation of the nature of God. When reading the Old Testament, we must allow the living Jesus to DIFFERENTIATE the works of Satan FROM the works of His Father. He did it for the Emmaus disciples, and He will do it for us as well.

On the road to Emmaus, Jesus told the two disciples "And beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, He (Christ) INTERPRETED to them in ALL THE SCRIPTURES the things concerning himself....And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight. And they said one to another, Was not our heart burning within us, while he spake to us in the way, while he opened to us the scriptures?" Luke 24:26-27, 31-32.

Jesus came to forever slice, sunder and separate our image of God from the image of Satan. But, to do this, Jesus had to reveal the "YE-KNOW-NOT-WHAT-SPIRIT-YE-ARE- OF" SYNDROME. Luke 9:51-56.

This is the Jesus Hermeneutic at its best. When James and John wanted to call down fire on the Samaritan village for rejecting them, Jesus had to show the disciples these two disciples that Old Testament saints frequently did not know WHICH spirit they were operating out of. Jesus showed them that not everything in the Old Testament that is called "God's fire," or "God's wrath," or "God's judgment" IS in fact "OF" God's Spirit.

There are only TWO SPIRITS--- the Satanic SPIRIT of the world, and the Holy Spirit which is of God. 1 Corinthians 2:12; Ephesians 2:2. Jesus said in John 10:10 that Satan "comes to steal, kill and destroy" while Jesus "comes that they might have life, and have it in abundance." The Jesus Hermeneutic calls us to route all death passages to Satan's spirit and all life passages to Jesus' Spirit, no matter what they literally "say."

Really, the goodness of God is based on this foundational truth-- God never kills--- EVER. He warns us not to kill, either physically or even within our heart's imagination, and that by so doing, we will be "perfect" like our Heavenly Father. Matthew 5:38-48. The Holy Spirit doesn't test us on Bible knowledge, but the Bible certainly tests us on Holy Spirit knowledge.

A NEW WAY TO READ THE OLD TESTAMENT: THE BRACKET OF TRUTH

Reading and rightly dividing the Old Testament by the Spirit requires the use of something I call THE BRACKET. It works this way: EVERY TIME YOU READ THE WORDS "GOD" OR "LORD" IN THE OLD TESTAMENT, MENTALLY ADD THE FOLLOWING BRACKET RIGHT NEXT TO IT-- [JESUS OR SATAN]. Then, apply the New Testament light and love you know, along with inner Holy Ghost promptings, combined with the sweet stirrings of a sanctified conscience, all bolstered by the mind of Christ which all Christians now freely possess.

THEN, look at THE BRACKET and discern whether the act, event, or statement recorded in the Old Testament is more consistent with the nature of Jesus OR the nature of Satan. Make your call, insert the right name, AND THEN you will rightly understand the Scripture in question. It's pretty simple really. But before I give you some examples, I want to show why this must be done OR the Old Testament will, at times, continue to harden us, frighten us and discourage us.

Because the Old Testament saints' view of Satan was dim and partial at best, they were clueless that Satan was an enemy of God to be resisted wholeheartedly. Rather, they simply resigned themselves to the fact that all the "occurrences of evil and destruction" on the earth were just the judgments of God to be humbly endured RATHER than zealously opposed. God first brought the evil according to His secret and mysterious purposes. Then, God wrathfully punished us for the very evil He brought by inflicting the various curses of Deuteronomy 28. Satan was merely the executing angel obeying God's orders. Satan had no "dog in the hunt," nothing personal, just doing his job.

BECAUSE of this, when the Old Testament authors used the word "Lord," for them the word COULD mean the loving works and words of Yahweh in saving and blessing His people. HOWEVER, the word "Lord" could ALSO mean the wrathful works and words of Satan in testing, judging, accusing, and cursing His people.

HERE LIES THE LOST KEY TO RIGHTLY READING THE OLD TESTAMENT. When the Old Testament describes Yahweh's great life-giving works of mercy, healing, blessing and deliverance, we can rest assured that it is our Lord Jesus being manifested. But, when the Old Testament APPEARS to say God is violent, angry, cruel and oppressive, it is NOT talking about the GOD we know through the New Testament revelation of Jesus Christ. Rather, it is talking about the motives and methods of Satan, the rebel ruler of the fallen world, who seeks the destruction of every man, woman and child who has ever lived.

The term is MISATTRIBUTION. It means "assigning the WRONG source or cause of an action, purpose or event." Simply put, the Old Testament destructions of Satan have been wrongly attributed as "the wrath of God." This is the MOTHER OF ALL MISATTRIBUTIONS because it ultimately FRAMES GOD for EVIL. The result is a bipolar image of God that leaves us double minded and unable to receive much of anything from Him. We become poor petal-pluckers who vacillate back and forth-- "God loves me, He loves me not--- God hates me, He hates me not--- God blesses me, He blesses me not--- God saves me, He saves me not--- God answers my prayers, He answers my prayers not."

So how do we read the Old Testament in New Testament light? How to we retranslate the Old and dimmer understanding of Satan to accommodate the New and better understanding of Satan? Simply put, we must allow the Spirit to re-divide the terms "God" and "Lord" in the Old Testament. We must use THE BRACKET.

We have to PURGE THE DEVIL OUT of the Old Testament's usage of the names of the Lord. This explains why John 1:18 says that nobody prior to the Gospels had truly seen God at ANY time-- because all had wrongly blended the nature of Satan INTO their image of God. The result was that nobody had a pure understanding of God's absolute love and goodness.

For sure, Old Testament saints had a partial view of God's goodness, but not a full frontal view of His nature. This dynamic is revealed in Exodus 33:18-23, where Moses prayed to see the Lord's glory. The Lord then responded, "I will make all my goodness pass before you...." But Moses, from the cleft of the rock, could only see the Lord's goodness after He passed by. In other words, Moses could only see God's true goodness from behind and at an angled distance. Again, as Calvin said, Old Testament saints had only a "sleight capacity" to grasp God's perfect goodness as revealed by Jesus Christ. They lacked the indwelling of the Holy Spirit which God sent at Pentecost to lead believers into all truth. They also lacked the full knowledge of Jesus' coming life, death and resurrection, which we thankfully have through the preaching of the Gospel.

Where would any of us be without the Sermon on the Mount defining for us the pure nature of God? Where would we be without the Gospel revelation of grace, forgiveness, Abba-hood and life in the Spirit? Where would we be if we still thought God and Satan were working together in joint purpose and cooperation?

Well, we would be limited to the same Old Testament view that Moses had-- seeing God's goodness from behind and at an angled distance. We could know some aspects of his goodness, but we would stumble around in the "strobe light" effect of the Old Testament, with alternating flashes of light and dark disorienting us and making it difficult to perceive the nature of God in an abiding way. We would "choppily" see God as BOTH light and dark, good and evil, loving and wrathful.

Simply put, we would not have the FULL FRONTAL VIEW of His glory revealed only by the face of Jesus Christ. We would not have the revelation of 1 John 1:5 that, "God is light and in Him is no darkness at all." We would not have the revelation of James 1:12-17 which says we are "to let no man say" that God has any connection to evil and that only "good and perfect gifts come from the Father of lights." We would not have the revelation of Satan as the enemy ruler of this world from John 12:31 and 1 John 5:19. In short, we would still be largely confused about who was doing what in this fallen world.

Old Testament saints simply could not process the pure nature of God without first receiving the full revelation of Jesus. For that reason, we need to put THE BRACKET around the words "Lord" and "God" EVERY time we read them in the Old Testament. Whenever Old Testament Scripture says the "Lord" kills, destroys, curses, crushes, afflicts, oppresses or devastates, we need to "open the husk" of the word "Lord" to see WHO is really being referred to in the particular passage-- God or Satan.

Let's use a couple of easy examples. In Deuteronomy 28:63, let's apply THE BRACKET "the Lord [Jesus OR Satan] will rejoice over you to destroy you, and to bring you to nought." What are we to make of this bloodthirsty statement? Does this sound like the compassionate Jesus we know as the God who is "the same, yesterday, and today, and forever" (Hebrews 13:8)?

Deuteronomy 28 again and again describes how the Lord will torture, oppress and joyfully destroy us, our families and our nation if we stop listening to God. The Lord will send "enemies" to enslave us, "wonderful plagues" to afflict us, and "famines" to cause us to become cannibals who eat our own children. I am just scratching the surface here. It gets worse, much worse. But the point is this-- Satan is the one doing the plaguing and destroying and evil rejoicing here, not God.

The New Testament couldn't be any clearer that all these curses of Deuteronomy 28 are the areas where Satan rules in his wrath, "wrath" which Revelation 12:12 says is "great" against the "inhabiters of the earth." The Old Testament saints used the word "Lord" because they thought that the destroying force at work here was under God's direct and obedient command. Bottom line: a New Testament reading should retranslate the word "Lord" here to read "Satan." The wonderful blessings in the first fourteen verses should remain as clearly coming from Jesus, for that is the essence of His nature as a blesser, protector and healer. All references after this describe the devil's work, not God's, so they must be properly assigned to Satan.

Another easy example. 1 Samuel 16:14 says "an evil spirit from the Lord troubled him [Saul]." Now, bracket the word "Lord" with [Jesus OR Satan]. We know all evil spirits are of Satan as the ruler of demons. God never sends evil spirits on anybody. Let no man say this, including Samuel. Jesus always cast evil spirits OUT of men, never INTO men. This is really a great example where the word "Lord" is OBVIOUSLY talking about "Satan," who again, the Old Testament saw as a servant of God rather than an enemy.

What about the flood? Who killed everybody? Satan did. Who saved Noah? Jesus did. God would have saved all who believed, but their universally hard hearts allowed Satan as the god of THIS world to destroy them. God's protective hedge constricted down to the size of an ark, but it fully protected the righteous remnant from Satan's destructions. Remember, Satan has the power of death, NOT God (Hebrews 2:14). God saves, heals and delivers. Satan steals, kills and destroys.

Death only became real when Adam started listening to the voice of the dark Lord RATHER than the voice of the Lord of life. What do we think? That Satan was twiddling his thumbs in the Old Testament while God was killing and afflicting everybody? NO-- NEVER! Every foul and unworthy thing we have thought about God should be laid at the doorstep of Satan.

Let's look at another example. If the Old Testament Scripture says "the Lord" commanded that the people "surely stone to death" a man who merely picked up sticks on the Sabbath, then we can again use THE BRACKET: "And the Lord [Jesus OR Satan] said unto Moses, 'The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.' And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died, as the Lord [Jesus OR Satan] commanded Moses." Numbers 15:35-36.

Does anybody really see Jesus ever commanding anybody to be stoned to death for ANY thing, much less merely picking up sticks? Jesus' own disciples violated that same law when they picked grain on the Sabbath. Jesus sure didn't command them to be stoned. Rather, He defended them against their accusers by saying, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." Mark 2:24. Wow!

If that weren't enough, in John 8, when a woman caught red handed in adultery was about to be stoned in His presence, Jesus STOPPED IT! God doesn't stone us or order us to be stoned. Jesus saves us from the stonings we do deserve and the ones we don't deserve. Out of His non-condemning love for the woman, Jesus was able to tell her in a tone that was tender, tried and true, "I don't condemn you. Go forth and sin no more."

So who told Moses to stone the Sabbath breaker? Well, who stones us today with accusations, condemnations and oppressions of every kind? All together now--- "SATAN." Revelation 12:10 says Satan is "the accuser of the brethren... which accused them day and night." Satan operates in "the ministry of condemnation," not Jesus. "There is now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Romans 8:1.

Satan is the one who stones, both literally and figuratively, those who walk in the flesh apart from God. This is why Ephesians tell us to "not give place to the Devil," which is another way of saying don't allow Satan, through our neglect or unbelief, to gain ACCESS to stone us with his various oppressions.

Moses sometime heard the true God. Sometimes he heard the true Satan. Since he didn't know they were opposed to each other on every level, but rather working together, he confused their personalities, words and actions. We have a better understanding because of Jesus' indwelling and because of Jesus' Gospel teachings. Moses often misrepresented the character of God.

In fact, this is the sin-dynamic that kept Moses from entering the Promised Land. The story is told in Numbers 20:1-12, where Moses hears the true God tell him to "speak" to a "rock" to supernaturally command it to miraculously gush water to save His parched people. Instead, Moses "struck the rock" in anger while openly rebuking the people's lack of faith.

What Jesus sent to show His tender love and care, Moses deformed with his own Satan-inspired wrath. Now, the people thought God was disgusted and angry with them rather than tenderly concerned. In this episode, Moses heard BOTH God and Satan, first God but then immediately on top of it he heard Satan's wrathful distortions. The result-- God's character was misrepresented. Makes you wonder how many other times what God first spoke in love to Moses, Satan then quickly distorted with wrath by the time the people heard it.

Let's consider another example. When the Scriptures say, "the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart," form THE BRACKET around the word "Lord" as follows: "the Lord [Jesus OR Satan] hardened Pharaoh's heart." Now, we know from the New Testament that it is Satan who hardens hearts, not God. Satan, not God, hardened Judas' heart and Ananias' heart. Combine this with Jesus' teaching on the soils where Jesus clearly related hardness of heart to Satan's presence and activity, and the truth is clear as to who really hardens hearts.

Jesus never came close to teaching or preaching that His loving heavenly Father EVER hardens anybody's hearts. So, if we can't imagine through the Holy Ghost's illumination within that Jesus would EVER harden anybody's heart to reject God, then we sure can't imagine the Heavenly Father doing it either. Jesus said, "If you have seen me, you HAVE seen the Father." John 14:9.

I do think that the Apostle Paul had a little wrathful residue remaining from his Old Testament training as a Pharisee which led him to quote the original Exodus verse about God hardening Pharaoh's heart in Romans 9.

Most commentators agree that Paul, at the moment he was writing this chapter, was uncharacteristically frustrated because of national Israel's rejection of Christ as Messiah. This frustration caused his words to tip a little too far back into an "Old Testament" tone of thought. He quickly recovered and was back to trampling Satan underfoot with the peace of God by Romans 16:20.

Besides, no other New Testament verse comes close to saying God hardens hearts, instead attributing all heart invasions to Satan. Paul's anguished cry about Israel's hardened state, then, was less about theological precision and more about Paul's personal frustration toward his kinsmen. Frustration often distorts our precision.

But, this was just a speed bump on the highway of grace. Paul's teaching, on the whole, reveals as much as any other New Testament writer that Satan is the one who hardens and blinds the hearts of men, not God. Just consider such verses as Ephesians 2:2; 4:18; 6:10-17; 2 Timothy 2:26; 2 Corinthians 4:4. These verses confirm Paul's repeated emphasis on Satan as the source of world wide heart corruption, not God.

Moreover, Paul's name is not in the proposed bracket. Jesus' name is. I might imagine ANY man, even Paul, being momentarily wrathful and destructive in word, thought or deed given the right provocation, regardless of how spiritual he usually is, BUT I can honestly say I can't see Jesus EVER exploding in destructive wrath, cruelty, violence or rage. He might turn over a few "religious" tables of obstruction which are blocking our access to true worship of His Father, but He would never physically harm, afflict or kill anybody. I have gotten to know Him too well through His indwelling Spirit to fool myself into believing that. We, under Satan's influence, harden our OWN hearts against God, never vice versa.

But more than this, we intuitively know that Jesus only tenderizes hearts. Our conscience must be consulted on these matters. A spirit-sanctified conscience is one of the major ways we hear the promptings of God. God tenderizes our consciences. He never hardens them. Satan is the "hardening agent," not God, never God. The Holy Ghost teaches us to compare spiritual with spiritual and know what is of God and what is not. Wrath is of Satan. Love is of God. Again, THE BRACKET is the solution to most all Old Testament confusion. I want to conclude by repeating the explanation of THE BRACKET. It works this way: EVERY TIME YOU READ THE WORDS "GOD" OR "LORD" IN THE OLD TESTAMENT, MENTALLY ADD THE FOLLOWING BRACKET RIGHT NEXT TO IT-- [JESUS OR SATAN]. Then apply the New Testament light and love you know, along with inner Holy Ghost promptings, combined with the sweet stirrings of a sanctified conscience, all bolstered by the mind of Christ which all Christians now freely possess. THEN, look at THE BRACKET and discern whether the act, event, or statement recorded in the Old Testament is more consistent with the nature of Jesus OR the nature of Satan. Make your call, insert the right name, AND THEN you will rightly understand the Scripture in question.

It's pretty simple really. If we don't learn to do this and end up rejecting THE BRACKET, then the Old Testament will continue, at times, to harden us, frighten us and discourage us. When the disciples wanted "to call down fire" on the unreceptive Samaritans just like Elijah did in the Old Testament, Jesus rebuked them,"You know not what spirit you are of, for the Son of Man has not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them." Luke 9:56.

We too need to make sure we don't slip on the "wrong spirit" when we read and quote fear-inducing and hate-justifying "wrath of God" verses from the Old Testament. "He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.... There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear has torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love." 1 John 4:8,18. THE BRACKET allows all Satanic fear, condemnation and wrath to be "casteth out" by the love of God in Christ Jesus.

Richard Murray is a criminal defence attorney and holds a Masters of Practical Theology from Regent University. His forthcoming book is entitled "GOD VERSUS EVIL: Sculpting an Epic View of God's Heroic Goodness."

Comments

[Simon Adler]

Having a debate about the devil being God's servant, or, the devil acting of his own will, is actually very unimportant. If you're a Christian then you must believe that God will accomplish HIS will and HIS plan. He already has it all figured out. There is no debating that.

Satan opposes GOD and acts against him with his own will. God is all knowing and all powerful. How can anything that happens not, in the least, be allowed to happen by God's will? If God created the universe and allows a devil, or evil men, or negative events to occur then he is, at least, secondarily responsible through inaction by HIS divine will. And, regardless, God's divine plan will never be altered by the devil, or anyone else.

Of course, that assignment of responsibility can only be attributed by looking at the world through our view of linear time. God's will encompasses all of time. I've heard God's will described as a tapestry - each small event is described as a thread in the rug. God can see the whole rug - which is good (or HIS plan, which must be good, if you believe in God as holy) - but we can only see the threads which may appear as good, bad, disastrous, filled with blessings, etc.

Therefore, trying to determine the devil's position, whether or not free will exists for the devil, or humans, is actually insignificant, because it will never change God's will.

You can not have a God that is all powerful, omnipresent, outside of time, and has a 'master plan,' without coming to terms with the reality that bad things happen. The hard truth is that God allows "bad" things to happen because these "bad" things are threads that fit within the greater tapestry of his plan. I think this better explains the Jewish view. They understood that the world, in reality, is filled with good and "bad" events. If an all powerful God exists, then we have to come to terms with this belief by attributing these events, good and bad, to God's all knowing plan.

Devils, demons, bad men, bad events, sin...it all is allowed to happen under God's plan for HIS ultimate glory in a way that mortal men can not understand.

How else can you logically explain it?

[rafael kratka]

The best article i ever read on bible!

[J Daniel]

This article is really good. I too thought the same way for long, but still questions remain. Can God be impotent to permit the evil angel continue to wreak havoc in the world for thousands of years thwarting God divine plans? How can we call the old testament as inspired by God? There is a great contrast between the God Jesus Christ revealed and the people of OT revealed? Can it both be from God? How can our short-term physical sins can have punishment of eternal consequences, if God is just and loving? Even after Jesus came to destroy the work of the Devil, the work of darkness of stealing, killing, and destruction has increased manifold from religions that came after Jesus Christ left the world?

[Hermano]

“Fighting For God's Nonviolence” at The Evangelical Universalist at

http://www.evangelicaluniversalist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5596

also discusses this article, contrasting it with the ideas of René Girard and his Mimetic Theory. (There are comments by Richard Murray, Kevin Miller, and Michael Hardin, among others.)

[Hermano]

Please consider “Is God Violent, Or Nonviolent?”
at
http://www.evangelicaluniversalist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=6581

which serves as a pointer to this article.

Blessings.

[Liam]

Something interesting to consider: Many times Christian people tend to side with the idea that all other religions are of Satan, but i disagree. I don't believe that Yahuah only spoke to Jewish people, especially when all people are his children. I tend to think he spoke with people all over the globe, but just like evidence of corruption in Judaism by Satan I think corruption occurred in other religions as well. That means there is some truth in all religions and the ability for elements to be harmonized with Yahusha (Jesus) as the measuring stick for concepts to be measured against. If it matches with Yahusha's portrayal of Yahuah then it works and if not then it doesn't.

Going one step further, consider that the truth of the nature of God was hidden and change during the middle ages. What entity would benefit from covering the truth? Of course it's Satan, but consider that Zoroastrianism was also lost during the middle ages. If Zoroastrianism was the work of Satan and a tool he would use to knock Christians off the right path, why discard your tool? Chances are Zoroastrianism was not as much of an enemy as most come to think, but probably exposure to evil being done by a different entity all together. This is exactly what Zoroastrianism teaches and the Jews had exposure to this after Cyrus set them free. I tend to think that Yahuah was using the Persians to explain why the evil was befalling the Jews during their exile.

[Murray bread]

there's Just one life......

[Larry Moore]

Good stuff Richard and the others who offered comments. Jordan Madison may want to look into the teachings of Dr Caroline Leaf from South Africa. Since you (Jordan) are integrating psych and theology, her research on brain and thought would blend wonderfully for the gestalt you are forming.

[Richard Murray]

Sorry for the delayed response Adam. Here are my thoughts on Sodom and Gomorrah. Hope it helps.

WHO "REALLY" DESTROYED SODOM AND GOMORRA? WHERE WAS GOD? WHERE WAS SATAN?

In Genesis 18 three men, thought by most commentators to have been angels appearing as men, came to Abram (Abraham) in the plains of Mamre. After the angels received the hospitality of Abraham and Sarah, his wife, the LORD revealed to Abraham that he would destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, because their cry was great, "and because their sin is very grievous."(Gen 18:20).

In response, Abraham inquired of the LORD if he would spare the city if 50 righteous people were found in it, to which the LORD agreed he would not destroy it for the sake of the righteous yet dwelling therein. Abraham then inquired of God for mercy at lower numbers (first 45, then 40, then 30, then 20, and finally at 10), with the LORD agreeing each time. (Gen 18:22-33).

Two of the angels proceeded to Sodom and were met by Abraham's nephew Lot, who convinced the angels to lodge with him, and they ate with Lot. Then (not having found even 10 righteous people in the city), they commanded Lot to gather his family and leave. As they made their escape, one angel commanded Lot to "look not behind thee. (Genesis 19:17). However, as Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed with brimstone and fire from the LORD, Lot's wife looked back at the city, and she became a pillar of salt. (Genesis 19:23-26).

What is going on here? Well, much like the flood, there was a continual increase in the wicked and a continual decrease in the righteous. The Lord here assured Abraham that a mere ten righteous men in the city would allow the Lord's protective presence to keep Satanic destruction from descending. But, there were NOT ten righteous men left. Satan had access to steal, kill and destroy because of the inflating lack of faith in the city. But Lot was righteous, even if only marginally so. For this reason, God sent angels to deliver him out of the coming destruction.

Do you see? God was, like a heroic fireman, rescuing Lot from a soon-to-be burning building. Satan, on the other hand, was calling in the airstrike of his wrath to destroy those he had increasingly corrupted and those who had increasingly quenched and grieved away God's protective presence. The Lord's protective presence had constricted down to just Lot and his family. Satan filled in the vacuum of God's quenched presence with his massive missiles of destruction.

Remember, the Lord's protective presence waxes and wanes depending on the various levels of individual and corporate faith present in those involved. This doesn't happen overnight. Only repeated and rampant quenching of the Holy Spirit can so enable Satan to kill on such a wide scale as this. And how do we know it was Satan who killed here with fire from the sky? Hebrews 2:14 is always the key in this type of question.

"Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood , he also himself likewise took part of the same ; that through death he might DESTROY him that had the POWER of DEATH , that is , the devil ; And DELIVER them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage ." Hebrews 2:14-15. Simply put, God does not kill. He quickens, heals, protects, purifies and purges, BUT He never kills---- NEVER! It is NOT in His nature, just like lying is not in His character, just like coercion is not in His character, just like cruelty is not in His character.

We know from earlier writings that the Old Testament Saints did not have a full or proper understanding of Satan. They thought the devil was an obedient angel of God lawfully executing God's wrath. They thought Satan was the death angel dutifully carrying out the Lord's instructions, RATHER than rightly seeing Satan as a cosmic villain, the father of sin and lies, a rebel murderer opposed to God on every level. Satan was indeed the death angel, but not in service to God, but rather in open rebellion to him. Jesus repeatedly revealed Satan as an enemy of God, NOT His servant.

The resultant problem was that the writer of Genesis wrongly attributed the works of Satan to God. This was BECAUSE the author had an UNDIFFERENTIATED view of God. He thought Satan was God's left hand. He was wrong. So, we are commissioned as "able ministers of the New Covenant, not of THE LETTER but OF the SPIRIT" (2 Corinthians 3:6), to go back in this Old Testament story and redivide it according to the New Testament truth of John 10:10, which states Satan comes to steal, kill and destroy, while Jesus comes only to give abundant life. We are called to DIFFERENTIATE the works of Satan from the works of God. The Old Testament couldn't do this without the indwelling Pentecost of the Holy Spirit. But we can! Hallelujah, we can!

[Richard Murray]

Thanks FI, here is my article on Ananias and Saphira. Hope it resonates.

"CSI" JERUSALEM: WHO MURDERED ANANIAS AND SAPPHIRA?

Were Ananias and Sapphira killed by the Holy Spirit as many claim (Acts 5:1-11)? Well, the passage doesn't even "literally" say that God killed them, so we have to look closer at the passage's subtext to do a fair CSI investigation as to the true cause of their deaths.

Peter asked Sapphira in the literal Greek of verse 9, "Why did the two of you agree to pressure the Spirit?" (Word Study Greek-English New Testament, Paul R. McReynolds, Tyndall, pp. 441 (1999). In other words, why did you two push away the protective presence of God? The implication is clear then that Satan, not God, is the culprit here. Satan "filled their hearts" to lie, then Ananias and Sapphira quenched away God's protective presence with their sin, then Satan filled the vacuum in their hearts with his oppressive condemnation, and they both died.
McReynolds' interlinear translation of 1 Corinthians 10:9 describes this same dynamic. "But not we might PRESSURE OUT the Christ, just as some of them PRESSURED and by the snakes were destroyed." Interlinear translations can be a little awkward to our ear, but they often give us the gold of better understanding Scripture texts.

Do you see what this Acts passage now describes? Ananias and Sapphira's rampant neglect and disbelief toward God, combined with their fear toward their circumstances, all combined to do the following. THEY PRESSURED OUT THE PROTECTIVE PRESENCE OF CHRIST AND WERE DESTROYED BY SATAN. And just how did Satan kill them? Below, we will see that Satan used his favorite weapons-- fear and condemnation-- to kill these two pathetic people.

But, how do we know God didn't kill them? Because Hebrews 2:14-15 says Satan has the power of death, not God. John 10:10 says Satan kills men, not God. 1 Corinthians 5:5 says Satan destroys the flesh of men, not God.
And actually, the passage doesn't say anybody actually killed them, but they themselves "gave up the ghost" (spirit) AFTER hearing Peter's words of condemnation. It may well be that they feared Peter's words so much that they just surrendered their will to live.

We all know, or have heard of, people who give up on life in despair, some gradually, others in an instant in time. Some "give up their spirit" because of a broken heart, or impending sickness or disaster. Perhaps they were so worried about their sin because it was one of the first of the church age, and they thought it was perhaps unforgivable.

In other words, it appears Annanias and Sapphira were condemned to death. But was this God's will? Was it God's best? Did Peter show them the same grace he himself received when he betrayed the Lord three times in one night? What if somebody in apostolic authority, James or John for instance, told Peter to essentially "drop dead" in the wake of his sin, might he also have given up the ghost?

Did Peter extend God's grace to them to NOT hold this sin to their account, as Jesus did, as the martyr Stephen did, or did he even try to minister repentance to them, to counsel them, to pray for them, to intercede for them, to lay hands on them to be forgiven and healed, or any of the other things Scripture and later Church practice advised?

What about this passage? "Brethren , if a man be overtaken in a fault , ye which are spiritual , restore such an one in the spirit of meekness ; considering thyself , lest thou also be tempted ." Galatians 6:1.

Why, in Jesus' name, was the space to repent NOT offered to Ananias and Sapphira in this situation by Peter?

Matthew 18:15-17 instructs us how to FIRST go privately to one caught up in a trespass, THEN to go with other witnesses if the private correction is not received by the person, and only THEN to bring public confrontation if the person remains unrepentant. And even then, the worse punishment is excommunication, NOT murder.

Do you see? God's way is to confront a sin WITH the goal of restoration and repentance of the sinner, NOT summary execution. Why wasn't this gracious dynamic followed?

Was the spirit of these merciful passages just cited above followed by Peter? No, Peter appeared to quickly and immediately condemn them, after which he basically just stepped out of the way and let the Devil have them. If lying to the Holy Spirit by holding back some of our resources REALLY mandated immediate Holy Ghost execution, then how many of us would still be standing? How many of us would not have been executed long ago? Perhaps the morale of this passage is more about Peter's mercy-deficit than it is about Annaias and Sapphira's faith-deficit.

Peter was not perfect. He had a well known quick trigger when it came to anger or frustration. He was quick to use the physical sword to cut an ear off an approaching soldier. He was also quick to use the verbal sword, such as when he told Simon the sorcerer to perish on the spot along with his money. Perhaps, Peter was also quick here to likewise thrust a murderous impulse here to Ananias and Sapphira.
If Paul had the guts to "withstand Peter to his face" (Galatians 2:11) for possible spiritual error, shouldn't we too have the guts if, of course, the Holy Spirit so leads?

But, didn't great fear come on the church in the wake of these deaths? It can be argued that the "great fear" that came on the church in the wake of this event, and the subsequent healing of the sick from Peter's cast shadow, came more from men wrongly, excessively and fearfully elevating Peter rather than through the exercising of pure faith in Christ.

If we, as part of a young and inexperienced church body, saw a revered leader such as Peter appear to instill such fear that people dropped dead, literally scared and condemned to death, then we too might start to idolize his "shadow." His presence, word and opinion might supplant or displace our faith in Jesus. We might turn Peter into an earthly Pope, kiss his ring, worship his shadow, etc. If people got legitimately healed from Peter's ministry, it was despite Peter's anger, not because of it.

And here is another thought. If the common interpretation is correct that God had Peter denounce Ananias and Sapphira to death for withholding truth and resources from the Holy Spirit, then Church history should be full of famous Christians who likewise verbally struck down and assassinated all the millions upon millions who have, at one time or another, withheld truth or resources from God ever since Ananias and Saphira. In fact, we should still be seeing people regularly executed as a normal part of Church meetings and discipline.

But, that is not the case.

So, again, when Peter appears a little too quick on the trigger to tell people to "drop dead" for their transgressions ( Sapphira and Simon in Acts 5 and 8), should we willing to withstand his actions if our conscience compels us?
Do we follow the Holy Ghost or Peter? Jesus or Peter? I honestly can't see Jesus telling anybody to drop dead on the spot. That ain't the way He rolled. Jesus might rattle their religious cage, but He never cursed someone to die on the spot. Be merciful seven times seventy, overcome evil with good, bless your enemy and pray for them that despitefully use you. Don't see "curse them to die or perish on the spot" on that list in Matthew 5:38-48.

And don't get me wrong, I love Peter, but are we to assume he was flawless in his every dealing? Paul sure didn't.

None of us are yet flawless in ministering the mercies of God. After telling Simon to "perish" along with his money, Simon asks Peter to pray for him that the things Peter spoke not happen to him. But, Scripture is silent as to whether Peter then prayed for him. I sure hope he did. I would definitely withstand Peter to his face if he didn't on that issue. Jesus is our model, not Peter.

These are all questions the Holy Spirit wants to minister to us. It is understandable that the infant Church might have less tolerance and patience than a more mature and experienced group of believers. I know when I was newly converted and freshly fervent in the Spirit, my tolerance level for others' unbelief was small. I would have been just as firm and ferocious as Peter. But, with time and maturity, and after suffering through many of my own grievous failures, my patience for people's shortcomings, sins, and failures has exponentially increased. I am not nearly as quick to pull the condemnation trigger as I used to be.

Paul had the courage to "withstand Peter to his face" when Peter was wrong (Galatians 2:11). Perhaps WE should "withstand Peter to his face" in this passage as well. But regardless, one thing is certain. God did not kill Ananias and Sapphira. Satan did. Satan was certainly working lies and crippling condemnation in their hearts, and possibly in the hardening Peter's heart toward them as well which kept him from ministering protective mercy. But, Satan was the true assassin here any way you look at it.

Here are two audio teachings I did on the Ananias and Sapphira issue. They are really worth a listen.

Part one begins at the 7:50 mark of this recording. http://www.thegoodnessofgod.com/01_SESSION_5__2_1.mp3
Part two begins immediately on this recording. http://www.thegoodnessofgod.com/01_SESSION_6__1_1.mp3
SESSION 5 2 1
THEGOODNESSOFGOD.COM

[Fi]

Thanks for this article Richard. It is like a glass of fresh, cool, logical water in a parched, topsy-turvy desert of Christian thinking! An oasis. You do not mention the story of Ananias and Sapphira in NT times. It has always troubled me since it spreads fear that God will zap us if we lie to him. I know Peter attributes the attitude of their hearts to Satan, but the passage leaves the impression that God dealt with them by snuffing them out. Perhaps the reference to the 'great fear' that seized the church is a clue as to the source? Since God is not the author of fear and he does not use fear to manipulate us into being 'good'? I hope I'm getting it. This Bible is a tricky book to handle.

[Adam]

Does this also apply to the story of Sodom and Gamora? cause that one has been causing me quite a bit of worry. especially since it's debatable what the moral of the story actually is(some say it's that being homosexual is wrong, others that it's the act of trying to rape people is wrong.i just have a hard time believing god punishes us for for genuinely loving people of the same gender. i myself am a heterosexual but i know quite a few good people who are gay).

[Richard Murray]

Rene, Thanks for the insightful comments. That it makes you "want to love more" is the very best compliment you could give. Blessings!

[Richard Murray]

Jordan, I am intrigued by your specialized terminology. As you develop this, I would like to stay in the loop. I am honored and excited the article blessed you. May there be many more revelatory "clicks" to come for both of us. :)

[Jordan Madison]

Richard, I want to say thank you for posting this. I shared it with a private group on Facebook and posted the following along with the link:

"About five years ago, I set out to try to read the Bible from cover to cover. After I read the story of "god" slaughtering thousands of Israelites because David counted the soldiers he had, I had to put it down. I just could not handle the wrathful, seemingly evil deity the OT portrayed. I've barely touched it since. It is to me almost like a trigger to someone with a spiritual version of PTSD. I remember telling God that if He were really loving, then there had to be a different way to understand these OT scriptures. Well, Brad Jersak's blog, The Clarion Journal, published this essay by Richard Murray a couple of weeks back. I found it after listening to Brad and Michael Hardin do (a podcast) on "the satan." I was beyond floored. I have been thinking through the implications since I first read it and there's lot to digest still, but I believe that God has finally answered my prayer, one prayed in earnest and in the midst of great struggle over 5 1/2 years ago. God is love and in Him there is NO darkness at all!!"

You have also helped me greatly to try and define what the satan is in the words and language of my own field, clinical psychology. I focus my research on interpersonal neurobiology currently and have formulated some thoughts on how "mind" as an embodied and relational process manifests the satanic when we act selfishly in our relationships. I am big on integrating psychology and theology (or any conciliatory attempt in various fields of knowledge). This view on evil is liberating for me personally and professionally. Thank you so much for sharing your love of God and what He has taught you about Himself! It's contagious :)

[Richard Murray]

Happy to respond to your two questions Lazarus. :) I have just completed an in depth article I have called the JESUS HERMENEUTIC: THE GLOrY OF ALLEGORY. It will help with some of your questions. Here is the link.
https://www.facebook.com/richard.murray.1840/posts/616465755080145

Now, as to your specific questions, here are my responses.

1) THE INSPIRATION OF SCRIPTURES

This leads us to a very important question. What is the inspiration of Scriptures? “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” 2 Tim. 3:16. Does the term “given by inspiration of God” mean that God took over the minds of the authors and dictated every word of the Bible in the exact order and sentence structure used? Or, does “inspired” have another meaning.

For instance, Oprah Winfrey was recently embroiled in a controversy about her recommendation of a book entitled A Million Little Pieces, which was allegedly a true story of a drug abuser’s fall and eventual recovery from severe addiction. Although Oprah’s support helped make the book a bestseller, trouble came when certain events in the book were proven to be exaggerated, embellished and occasionally untrue. The author was humiliated and disgraced, although book editors all agreed that there would have been no controversy if the author had affixed the following language to his manuscript - - “Inspired by a True Story.”

In other words, the term “inspiration” doesn’t mandate perfect adherence to historical and literal fact. “Inspiration” allows and acknowledges that the author’s writing has a core motivation based in real experience, but that the author’s limited and unique perception as well as his freedom of expression result in the writing often being non- literal, only partially factual, and on occasion historically imprecise.

For instance, the Academy Award winning movie Braveheart is “inspired” by the life of the Scottish hero William Wallace, yet historians all agree that very few scenes were historically accurate. And yet the movie was deeply inspirational and moving on every level. Does it being factually less accurate take away from its legitimate inspiration? Thebook and movie The End of the Spear both tell the inspirational story of Nate Saint, Jim Elliot and several other Christian missionaries killed by Ecuadoran tribesmen, who later became Christians and friends of the martyrs’ families.

Both movie and book claim to be inspired by the true story. Yet, the book and movie don’t contain the literal, blow by blow, word for word, scene for scene, account of the historical event. Nobody could accurately account for every actual word said, every actual sequence of events, every actual tone of voice, every actual emotion\thought \impulse of the people involved. But does it really matter if the story is at all points and times 100% literal and factual? Or, is it more important the story catches the true essence and tone of a special occurrence?

If all we are looking for are just the facts, then newspapers are the highest form of written truth. But, if we are looking for deeper meaning, burning inspiration and compelling motivation, then we must go to a form of writing where the author has elbow room to excite and exhort the imaginations of its readers. Lower forms of these writings include novels, plays, essays, poems and editorials. The highest form of this type of writing is Holy Scripture.

Scripture can be read as a literal-historical document in that it contains much “newspaper” type of information. But the fact that it is also “inspired by God” takes it to another level altogether. This higher level is more concerned with Spiritual meaning from God’s viewpoint than with legalistic literalism from man’s viewpoint.

The prophet Isaiah warned that when the Bible becomes only literal propositions, it will cause the reader to be snared by the enemies of his soul.

“But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.” Is. 28:13. The Apostle Paul likewise warned us that reading only by “the letter [literally] killeth” (2 Cor. 3:6).

Most of the early Church Fathers focused on Spiritual reading rather than literal reading. Saint Augustine preferred the non-literal meaning of Scripture as the truest sense of Scripture. So did Clement, Origen, St. Ambrose and St. Jerome. It is only this deeper sense of Scripture which gives proper shape and meaning to the literal. In other words, the literal reading doesn’t dictate what is Spiritual, but rather a Spiritual reading dictates what and when literal reading is appropriate.

Think of it this way. If all we do is read Scripture “literally,” then we can do this without God. All we need is our own natural understanding. This is the very thing God doesn’t want for us. He wants to illuminate and guide us through all Scripture so that we can see where His inspiration burns in these passages. In other words, God would never send us a revelation inspired by Him without also providing that it could only be properly understood by reading it with Him.

Did you ever wonder why Jesus didn’t write the New Testament with His own hand? If He had, then nobody could argue that it wasn’t always literally and historically perfect. And yet, Jesus didn’t do this for a very obvious reason. Had he written the Gospels Himself, then we could read them without the Holy Spirit’s guidance, and never question the meaning as being anything other than literal. We would, in effect, idolize literalism since it came directly from the pen of Jesus.

This “idolatry of the literal” is exactly what happened to the Ten Commandments written by the “finger of God.” Today, millions of Jews and Christians worship the law of God instead of the Spirit of God. They worship the literal rather than the Spiritual. This is why God, in all His wisdom, used imperfect men to write Scripture so that we would have to depend on the Spirit’s guidance to properly read, understand and apply God’s inspiration.

Great Bible scholars like John Calvin noted the occasional human imprecisions and inaccuracies in the Scripture, such as when Matthew 27:9 misquotes Zechariah 11:13 as having been said by Jeremiah, and also when Acts 7:16 erroneously lists Abraham, rather than Jacob, as the purchaser of the sepulcher from the sons of Emmor\Hamor per Joshua 24:32. God is perfect. Men are not. The Bible’s inspiration is perfect. Men’s expressions of that inspiration are not always perfect.

As C. S. Lewis said: "The human qualities of the raw material show through. Naivety, error, contradiction, even (as in the cursing Psalms) wickedness are not removed. The total result is not 'the Word of God' in the sense that every passage in itself, gives impeccable science or history. It carries the Word of God.”

Do you see? The inspiration is the key. Just as the shell of a nut “husks” the seed within, so does the literal shell of Scripture “husk” the inspiration of God encased within. Scriptures are divinely inspired truths husked to varying degrees by human perceptions, mis-perceptions and partial perceptions. Let’s consider some examples.

Peter’s revelation that Jesus was the Christ was a perfect human perception of a divinely inspired truth. However, Moses’ striking of the rock in anger was a partial perception of God; part right and part wrong because while God inspired Moses to perform a miracle of provision for the parched Israelites, God did not want it delivered in Moses’ wrathful tone of striking the rock but rather in tenderly speaking to the rock.

Finally, many Old Testament saints totally mis-perceived the inspiration of God altogether, such as when Job attributed evil to God or when David prayed for Babylonian children’s heads to be bashed against the rocks (Ps. 137:8-9).

The bottom line is that Scriptural inspiration does not mean that the men who wrote the Bible had perfect perceptions of God. In fact, Scripture tells us that prior to Jesus, no man had “seen God at any time” (Jn. 1:18; 6:46).

Thus, without the Holy Spirit’s guidance through Scriptures, we are blind to God’s true nature. Even with God’s guidance and inspiration, we still can inadvertently husk His revelation with our own partial perceptions. The thinner the husk of the writer, the closer the literal and Spiritual meanings converge.

The thicker the husk of the writer, the more literal and Spiritual meanings will differ.The key to understanding inspired Scripture is to be an inspired reader. Deep calls to deep. Scriptures say that we too are “living epistles” of God. Only the living Word within us can translate the written Word before us.

2. "What do you think about the other cases like:"

A. DOES GOD REALLY HATE ESAU'S GUTS?

"And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, JACOB HAVE I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HAVE HATED." Rom. 9:10-13.

I have had more than one person cite these verses to attempt to show that God loves certain men and hates others. In fact, these persons believe that God hates the guts of certain unborn babies whom he has predestined and predetermined to grow up evil. This is sooooo wrong.

FIRST, the word “hate” is used in this passage NOT in the sense of outright emotional hostility or venomous resentment. Rather, the word is used to mean “loving less.” Charles Hodge, one of the the greatest American theologians of the nineteenth century, stated this view in his commentary on Romans concerning this passage, “It is evident that in this case the word hate means to love less, to regard and treat with less favor.”

Hate is certainly used this way in other key passages. In Gen. 29:32- 33 “hatred” is used of Jacob’s feelings for Leah, when in truth the clear meaning of the passage is that Jacob loves and favors Rachel more than Leah. The NIV translates this verse as Leah saying, “I am not loved.” Lk. 14:26 likewise uses the term “hate” in the sense of “loving less":

"If any man come to me, and HATE not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." Lk. 14:26. Jesus here is obviously not teaching us to hate our parents, siblings and children, for that would contradict thousands of other scriptures. Jesus is saying we must “love them less” than we do the Lord.

There is not any other verse in the Bible where God is said to hate any individual man, so using this verse to substantiate the view that God hates individual men is dangerously unwarranted. God hates evil deeds, not evil men (Rev. 2:6).

God loves all men. Christ died for all men. Christ offers salvation and forgiveness to all men. But, not all men choose to receive God’s free gift of salvation. But God even loves those who reject Him. Jesus loved the rich young ruler who rejected His call (Mk. 10:21-22). Jesus healed the ear of a soldier who came to arrest Him (Lk. 22:51). Jesus asked forgiveness for all who killed Him (Lk. 23:34).

SECOND, Paul uses Jacob and Esau in the Romans 9 passage above to represent God’s election of NATIONS, not the election of individual MEN. Paul was addressing the arrogant presumption of nationalistic Jews who believed Israel was the only chosen nation (people) of God, regardless of their corporate level of faith.

Paul’s purpose in this chapter is to show that election is now NOT by nation but by INDIVIDUAL faith alone. Paul in these verses is tracing back the historical development of Israel as God’s chosen nation (people). In Romans 9, Paul acknowledges the Israelite nation as the blessed recipient of “the adoption , and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came” (Rom. 9:4-5). He then traces back the call of God through Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

It is in this process that Paul quotes with regard to Jacob and Esau: "(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." Rom. 9:11-13.

Paul quotes verse 12 from Micah 1:2-3. These verses in Micah are clearly referring to Jacob and Esau NOT as INDIVIDUALS but as the NATIONS of Israel and Edom. That Paul was referring to the call of a nation (Israel) rather than the call of an individual in these verses is highlighted in the following passage from F. F. Bruce’s commentary on Romans 9:11-13.

"‘The elder will serve the younger.’ From the birth oracle to Rebekah (Gn. 25:23). The prophecy relates not to the individuals Esau and Jacob (for Esau never rendered service to Jacob) but to their descendants; it relates to the long periods during which the Edomites were in servitude to Israel or Judah (cf. 2 Sa. 8:14; 1 Ki. 22:47; 2 Ki. 14:7; etc.).

‘Jacob, I loved, but Esau I hated.’ From Malachi 1:2-3, where again the context indicates it is the nations Israel and Edom, rather than their individual ancestors Jacob and Esau, that are in view. The way in which communities can be so freely spoken of in terms of their ancestors is an example of the common oscillation in biblical (and especially Old Testament) thought and speech between individual and corporate personality (cf. exposition of 5:12-21, p. 120, n. 1). Israel was the elect nation, and Edom incurred the wrath of God for its unbrotherly conduct towards Israel in the day of Israel’s calamity (cf. Ps. 137:7; Is. 34:5 ff.; Je. 49:7 ff.; Ezk. 25:12 ff.; 35:1 ff.; Ob. 10 ff.)." F. F. Bruce, Tyndall New Testament Commentaries, Revised Edition, Romans, p. 182.

The nation Israel sprang from Jacob and the nation of Edom sprang from Esau. Interestingly, in Amos 8:11-12, Edom is used figuratively to represent the Gentiles. Romans 9 seems to echo the use of Esau as a symbol of the Gentile nations by starting off comparing and contrasting Jacob and Esau, and then concluding by comparing and contrasting Israel and the Gentiles.

This allows for the possibility that this whole passage is dealing with the calling of Israel versus the calling of all the Gentile nations, and how their respective favor\disfavor from God has now essentially flip-flopped with each other. (Rom. 9:25-26, 30-33). All the Gentile nations are NOW favored through faith in Christ, while national Israel has reaped DISFAVOR from God because of their corporate and continual unbelief. But even that will change when national Israel is grafted back into favor as they become jealous of the nation of faith which fills the earth. (Rom. 11:11-30). Then ALL will be one in Christ!

Paul’s point in these verses is that Israel’s election as a chosen nation was already determined in Rachel’s womb. The Edomites were not God’s chosen nation, even though they too were Isaac’s seed. The key reason Edom could not be God’s chosen nation was that Jesus was not in their seed. God loved Esau less not because Esau was an evil baby in Rachel’s womb. God loved Jacob more because he carried the seed of Jesus in him. God did ordain that through the protected seed of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc. all the nations of the world would be blessed through the birth of one seed - - Jesus the Christ (Gal. 3:16).

Science is settled on the point that fraternal twins, which Jacob and Esau were, come from entirely separate sperm and eggs. Thus, there was a world of genetic difference between Jacob and Esau, a difference large enough to ultimately spawn two entirely separate nations. Only one of these nations had the exact genetic input to produce the destined seed of Jesus - - Israel.

God had promised Abraham his seed would bless all nations, but God also promised that the chosen seed would come from the people which would come to occupy the specific boundaries of the promised land. (Gen. 13:14-18; 15; 17; Acts 17:26). Esau and Edom could never fit this bill, thus only through Jacob and Israel could the blessed and prophesied seed come - - the seed of Jesus.

Nonetheless, God still greatly loved Esau and the Edomites as individuals, even if they did not stand in corporate favor with God. That God loved Esau and the Edomites is established by Isaac’s blessing of Esau (Gen. 27:39), the inclusion in scripture of Edomite genealogies (Gen. 36; 1 Chr. 1), God’s apparent siding with Edom against the Moabites (Amos 2:1-2), and, most importantly, the clear injunction of Dt. 23:7, “Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite; for he is thy brother.”

These mercies toward Esau and Edom hardly support the view that God hates their guts. They were certainly less favored corporately than was Israel, but God continued to love them dearly, for that is His nature. God is love and God loves all men.

Israel was only chosen as a nation because it carried the seed of Jesus within it. Abraham received this seed by faith from the Lord when he believed God for the miraculous birth of Isaac. Thus, it was God’s election of Abraham’s seed made possible through Abraham’s faith in receiving the MESSIANIC PROMISE for the nation of Israel. That hallowed promise is simply this: the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus.

Once Jesus arrived and imparted His righteousness to mankind, then no longer was a national election needed. Faith had come to all nations. The Holy Spirit had come. His bride, body and church had arrived. No longer was there Jew or Gentile, but one new man (Gal. 6:15; Eph. 2:12-15).

Similarly, we are not the elect because God loves us more than other men. We are of the elect because we have received the seed of Christ into our being through the exercise of our faith. "Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, ACCORDING TO THE FAITH OF GOD'S ELECT, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness; In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began" (Titus 1:1-2).

B. SPIRITUAL EXEGESIS OF ISAIAH 45:7

Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace and create evil, I the Lord do all these things."

Step 1) God sends a "divine impulse" to Isaiah. Satan is not involved in the original impulse. Thus, the original impulse IS "inspired" by God in totality. 2 Timothy 3:15-17.

Step 2) The divine impulse is not in any human language, and so the impulse must be processed by Isaiah through his mind and heart. Here Satan CAN be involved in "distorting" the TRANSLATION of that original divine impulse into human language.

Step 3) Because the Old Testament saints had an undifferentiated view of God, this further affected their ability to perfectly translate the original divine impulse into human language. The original divine impulse here contained information about BOTH the good things God does and the evil things He does NOT do (the evil which Satan does, in other words). Isaiah 45 says many wonderful things about God, but also a few "by the letter" misattributions, wrongly translated ideas about God which should have been EITHER attributed to Satan OR denied as being from God.

Step 4) As we now read Isaiah 45, both in proper context and by the Holy Spirit, we are compelled to "reverse-engineer" any verses inconsistent with God's New Testament character revealed in and through Jesus Christ. We spiritually "reverse-engineer" the troubling passage back to the original divine impulse, and then retranslate the verse with New Testament light. The result will be a redividing of the Scripture to better conform to our better New Cevenantal understanding of the goodness of God.

Step 5) Below is the new reading with just a slight "reverse-engineering" adjustment that reveals Jesus' nature. Doesn't this passage now become beautiful and full of glory!

"I am the LORD , and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: That they may know from the rising of the sun , and from the west , that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else. ****** I create the light , and in me is no darkness ******[per 1 John 1:5] . *********I make peace , and cause no evil******[per James 1:13-17] : I the LORD do all these things. Drop down , ye heavens , from above , and let the skies pour down righteousness : let the earth open , and let them bring forth salvation , and let righteousness spring up together ; I the LORD have created it. " Isaiah 45:5-8.

[Lazarus Soeharto]

What a view!

This reconciles most of the problems about the inconsistency and integrity of God's nature as demonstrated in OT vs the revelation given by Jesus in the NT.

However, there are still many questions to address, such as:

1. How we should view the bible as divinely inspired? Clearly we can't take it as it appears and says so, it is not either literal nor according to our own/human logical/reasoning, but in light to what Jesus revealed and demonstrated in the gospel.

2. What do you think about the other cases like {BRACKET} loves Jacob but hates Essau (Malachi 1:3, Romans 9:13), or {BRACKET} forms the light and darkness (Issaiah 45:7). It was said by the same person.

Perhaps they need to be addressed as well.

[Rene Lafaut]

I really like the point about God not having an agreement, or deal with devil. Sort of like Satan and his minions can set up shop and get all the bad people deceived and in the end the bad people and devil's kingdom get chucked into hell. Sort of an agreement. But truth be told: God wants to undo the devil's works, and is willing to fight for people with love, care, and compassion like there is a chance they can be won over... like it isn't all determined already in the future... like there is hope... Like God cares for each of us... and it makes me want to love and fight for people like God does. Thanks for hitting that point home for me. What the devil means for death, God means for waking us up: Like there is a battle going on... the more intense the temptation the more we know there is evil... and good in our hearts and we need to choose. God does not delight in seeing anyone perish.

[Rene Lafaut]

Love the idea that God's Kingdom is opposed to the devil's... And that Jesus came to un do the devil's works. Makes me to want to love more... And sets me free from all that foreknowledge/predestination bunk... thinking... We are all made in the image of God and therefore our true home is with Him. We have hope... Very little is written in stone... things are being determined now. Anything that propels us to love more deeply is a breathe of fresh air...