The one thing I've always gained from you is perspective. My years on this earth have been swallowed up by traditions that yield nothing and Institutions that want to own me or control me.
The past few years the Goid Lord has opened up a bit of a different world to me.
You've been part of this awakening along with many others.
If this isn't God's timing, I'm not sure I'll ever find it.
Brother, I love you and am blessed by what you write. I am afraid that after the response to the last essay and this one you will think I only want to challenge you! But it seems to me, even though your points are well taken, satan's pride might make him operate as if he actually does have an alternate kingdom! And it seems to me the eph 6 verses hint at some kind of organization! I absolutely agree we fight at point of entry, the mind
Genesis 3 never calls the serpent “Satan.” It calls him the nachash—crafty. Scripture connects the “ancient serpent” language later (Rev 12:9), but Genesis itself doesn’t give us a Satan/Lucifer biography or a demon hierarchy.
What it does give us is the core mechanism of evil:
He doesn’t rule. He reframes.
He doesn’t overpower. He persuades.
“Did God really say…?”
“God is withholding…”
That’s why your question fits perfectly here: the Bible keeps showing evil influence as deception aimed at covenant trust—and Messiah answers that kind of influence with Torah, not superstition.
Yes, Revelation is referring back to the Genesis serpent, but here’s what it actually means.
Revelation isn’t adding a new demon backstory. It’s giving a character ID set: “ancient serpent… devil… Satan” (Rev 12:9). “Satan” isn’t originally a pronoun or proper name—it’s a role-word meaning adversary/accuser. “Devil” means slanderer. John is basically saying: the same deceiver from the beginning is the adversary who accuses and opposes God’s people.
I appreciate this perspective. This is a topic (like the divine council I’ve written about) that is filled to the brim with assumptions, mythology, and a ton of prima facie interpretation.
With that said, however, I do believe that there is something to be said regarding an organized, hierarchical, spiritual opposition to kingdom of God. I don’t believe that Paul’s language of powers and principalities and rulers and authorities was mere flourish, but represented the core idea of organized spiritual opposition. And I do believe we see the same thing in the book of Daniel, but we have to be incredibly careful what we not extrapolate from that into speculation and that we’re not leaning on second Temple Jewish mythology to fill in the blanks for us where the Bible is silent.
This may sound simplistic but… evil is a corruption of the good, not a thing God created as its own substance. It begins when creatures with free agency reject God’s order and choose self-rule.
On demons, yes, the Gospels treat them as real unclean spirits. Yeshua confronts them and casts them out. But the Bible does not give us a detailed origin story about where they came from. It keeps the focus on Messiah’s authority and people being restored.
On Isaiah and Ezekiel, those passages are addressed to arrogant kings, Babylon and Tyre. The language is elevated and cosmic because that is how prophets expose pride. I do not read them as a clear Satan origin story because the text itself does not frame them that way.
As for where Satan came from, Scripture never gives one tidy biography. It shows his role. Satan means adversary or accuser in Job and Zechariah, and in the New Testament he is presented as a real tempter and deceiver. Beyond that, I am trying to stay where the text is clear and not build a system where it is quiet.
Significant for me is your dialectic centring on the heart as thought, will, intention, moral direction pitted against emotion rather than embracing love. This is probably why your analysis fails to see that whereas the God who went into the desert was the God of the Torah, the God who came out was the God of Christ having engaged intimately with evil and been transformed by love as subsequently laid out in Matthew 5:38-48.
I don’t see any transformation in God. The God of the Torah and the God revealed in Christ are one and the same, unchanging, always just, always loving. What’s different is the fullness of revelation. In Matthew 5, Yeshua’s call to love doesn’t show a change in God,it reveals what was always there. So, my analysis stands: we aren’t pitting anything against love, it’s all grounded in the same God.
The one thing I've always gained from you is perspective. My years on this earth have been swallowed up by traditions that yield nothing and Institutions that want to own me or control me.
The past few years the Goid Lord has opened up a bit of a different world to me.
You've been part of this awakening along with many others.
If this isn't God's timing, I'm not sure I'll ever find it.
Thank you brother 💙
Brother, I love you and am blessed by what you write. I am afraid that after the response to the last essay and this one you will think I only want to challenge you! But it seems to me, even though your points are well taken, satan's pride might make him operate as if he actually does have an alternate kingdom! And it seems to me the eph 6 verses hint at some kind of organization! I absolutely agree we fight at point of entry, the mind
Hamon ahavah 💙
This is very thought-provoking. Can you give us a little more tie-in to the serpent in the garden?
Brian — great tie-in.
Genesis 3 never calls the serpent “Satan.” It calls him the nachash—crafty. Scripture connects the “ancient serpent” language later (Rev 12:9), but Genesis itself doesn’t give us a Satan/Lucifer biography or a demon hierarchy.
What it does give us is the core mechanism of evil:
He doesn’t rule. He reframes.
He doesn’t overpower. He persuades.
“Did God really say…?”
“God is withholding…”
That’s why your question fits perfectly here: the Bible keeps showing evil influence as deception aimed at covenant trust—and Messiah answers that kind of influence with Torah, not superstition.
Hope that helps!
So, the ancient serpent in Rev. 12:9 is alluding to that same nachash?
Yes, Revelation is referring back to the Genesis serpent, but here’s what it actually means.
Revelation isn’t adding a new demon backstory. It’s giving a character ID set: “ancient serpent… devil… Satan” (Rev 12:9). “Satan” isn’t originally a pronoun or proper name—it’s a role-word meaning adversary/accuser. “Devil” means slanderer. John is basically saying: the same deceiver from the beginning is the adversary who accuses and opposes God’s people.
Hope that helps B 😉.
Excellent! Thank you.
👊
In 2011 A View from the Bunker did a podcast on this topic. It was interesting.
https://vftb.net/?p=4406
I'll have to check it out.
Really well done!
I appreciate this perspective. This is a topic (like the divine council I’ve written about) that is filled to the brim with assumptions, mythology, and a ton of prima facie interpretation.
With that said, however, I do believe that there is something to be said regarding an organized, hierarchical, spiritual opposition to kingdom of God. I don’t believe that Paul’s language of powers and principalities and rulers and authorities was mere flourish, but represented the core idea of organized spiritual opposition. And I do believe we see the same thing in the book of Daniel, but we have to be incredibly careful what we not extrapolate from that into speculation and that we’re not leaning on second Temple Jewish mythology to fill in the blanks for us where the Bible is silent.
Like Susan, I do love you and am blessed by what you write...
I have a couple of questions...
Who/ What exactly are these demons that Jesus confronts and casts out? They seem to be an entity of some sort, where did they come from?
And it seems like you do not attribute isaiah and Ezekiel, an origin story of satan, (for lack of a better term)
is that not his beginning, if not, what does that story actually tell us?
And where do you think satan came from? If those stories aren't telling us that?
If you think it's only about the kings and not about an angelic creature?
This may sound simplistic but… evil is a corruption of the good, not a thing God created as its own substance. It begins when creatures with free agency reject God’s order and choose self-rule.
Thank you :) 🙏 hope this helps.
On demons, yes, the Gospels treat them as real unclean spirits. Yeshua confronts them and casts them out. But the Bible does not give us a detailed origin story about where they came from. It keeps the focus on Messiah’s authority and people being restored.
On Isaiah and Ezekiel, those passages are addressed to arrogant kings, Babylon and Tyre. The language is elevated and cosmic because that is how prophets expose pride. I do not read them as a clear Satan origin story because the text itself does not frame them that way.
As for where Satan came from, Scripture never gives one tidy biography. It shows his role. Satan means adversary or accuser in Job and Zechariah, and in the New Testament he is presented as a real tempter and deceiver. Beyond that, I am trying to stay where the text is clear and not build a system where it is quiet.
I appreciate that you are trying to stay where the text is clear. We need to do that.
So, that being said, where does evil originate then?
Significant for me is your dialectic centring on the heart as thought, will, intention, moral direction pitted against emotion rather than embracing love. This is probably why your analysis fails to see that whereas the God who went into the desert was the God of the Torah, the God who came out was the God of Christ having engaged intimately with evil and been transformed by love as subsequently laid out in Matthew 5:38-48.
I don’t see any transformation in God. The God of the Torah and the God revealed in Christ are one and the same, unchanging, always just, always loving. What’s different is the fullness of revelation. In Matthew 5, Yeshua’s call to love doesn’t show a change in God,it reveals what was always there. So, my analysis stands: we aren’t pitting anything against love, it’s all grounded in the same God.