Satan, Part 1

Worshiping God in Spirit and Truth

Live from Salt Lake City, Utah, this is heart of the MatterTGNN’s original show where Shawn McCraney deconstructed religion and developed fulfilled theology. where we do all we can to worship God in Spirit and in Truth. I’m Shawn McCraneyFounder of TGNN and developer of the fulfilled perspective—calling people to faith outside of religion., your host.

Show 18 495 Satan Part I, May 3rd 2016

Our prayer tonight will be given by:

Remember, we have a new book out now and I personally believe it is the most important thing I have ever put together. It’s called Knife to a GunFight – misinterpreting the purpose and place of the New Testament. It’s what I feel is one of the only reasonable critiques of the man-made doctrine called Sola Scriptura and I would really like to hear a non-religious, non-dogmatic response to its contents. Knife to a Gunfight is available by going to www.hotm.tv

Okay, we are going to have a special guest back in the CAMPUS church/studio on Tuesday Night May 17. He is the founder of CARM, noted Five Point Calvinist, Trinitarian and a guy who really knows scripture from those particular points of view. He hosts a daily radio program on radio stations here in Idaho and Utah and is someone I consider a great Brother in the Lord, Matt Slick. While I consider Him my brother we could not possibly see SOME things more differently in the faith. We are NOT getting together to kill each other. We are getting together to reason with one another. And it will be a time for us to talk. So prepare to join us online for a two hour special Tuesday May 17th at 7PM till 9PM.

Subjective Christianity

How to Best Explain

ROCK
Represents the Law written in stone. It breaks scissors (the spirit) but is engulfed by the paper (word)

PAPER
Represents the written word which covers the law (rock) but can be cut through by the Spirit (scissors)

SCISSORS
Represents the Spirit with is broken by the Law but rightly discerns the Word of God (paper)

Old Covenant Approach

Moses with the Law written in stone

New Testament Approach

Apostles writing to saints in that day with instructions on how to survive then

Spirit Approach

The Holy Spirit governing people from the heart who have come to Christ by faith.

JOSEPH SMITH

CHUCK SMITH

SMITHEREENS

RELIGIOUS LEGALISMRule-based religion is over. Faith and love—not law—define life with God now.
ATTEMPTS AT OBJECTIVE RELIGION
SUBJECTIVE RELATIONSHIPS with God through Christ

TEMPLE RITES, PRIESTHOODS and PROPHETS

BIBLICAL “ISTS” and “isms”

SPIRIT AND WORD

CERTAINTY and SUPERIORITY

FACTIONAL WARRING

ABSOLUTE FREEDOM to LOVE IN HIS NAME all the time.

“All mankind may be saved by obedience to the Laws and Ordinances of the (LDS) Gospel”

“Accepting our view of biblical interpretation is mandatory for another person to be considered a saved Christian. There is a vetting process we put all said believers through as a means to determine if they are legitimate in their stated faith.”

The Spirit is Primary and Preferential.

The Word is Secondary and Referential.

Religious Traditions are, at best, tertiary and deferential,

Organized Religious rule is obsolete and inconsequential.

And with that let’s get right into our program and talk about . . . that’s right, Satan. Now, we will get into all the discussions about the name Lucifer and the like but if I have learned anything over these past fifty four years it has been that the Good News – and elements and topics related to it – have often been slowly revealed over the course of human history. In many ways the ideas we maintain as absolutes of the faith have, over time, morphed into what we presently maintain today. Contrary to the LDS belief (that God revealed the Gospel and Jesus Christ (by name from the beginning) the Bible reveals another story, one where God step by step, slowly and through various revelations, makes Himself (and His plans and mysteries) known.

Paul said in Romans 16:25

“Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began”

Jesus said to His disciples in Mark 4:11

“Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of GodGod’s spiritual reign—fulfilled and present, not political or future.: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables”

Paul added and speaking of the Gospel in Ephesians 3:5-6,

“which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it is now revealed to His holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit, 6 that the nations should be fellow heirs, and of the same body, and partaker of His promise in Christ through the gospel.

And then in verse 9

9 and to bring to light what

The Unfolding Mystery of God's Wisdom

"is the fellowship of the mystery which from eternity has been hidden in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ.”

Colossians 1:26 reads:

“the mystery which has been hidden from ages and from generations, but now has been revealed to His saints. 27 For to them God would make known what are the riches of the glory of this mystery among the nations, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory, By the Spirit.”

The Wisdom of God

And then in first Corinthians 2 beginning at verse 6:

“But, we speak wisdom among those who are perfect; yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the rulers of this world, that come to nothing. 7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, which God has hidden, predetermining it before the world for our glory; 8 which none of the rulers of this world knew (for if they had known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory). 9 But as it is written, "Eye has not seen, nor ear heard," nor has it entered into the heart of man, "the things which God has prepared for those who love Him." 10 But God has revealed them to us by His Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, yea, the deep things of God. 11 For who among men knows the things of a man except the spirit of man within him? So also no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. 12 But we have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit from God, so that we might know the things that are freely given to us by God. 13 These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is judged by no man. 16 For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Progressive Revelation

All of these passages (plus more) prove that God did not pour everything out on a table to Adam and all the prophets thereafter. He has instead allowed us to break forth into new areas of understanding as time has rolled forward. We’ve noted that in the Old Testament even the concept of God being a Father can at best be seen as extremely scant, that idea of God having a Son (before the Word was made flesh) is almost non-existent, and then as late as last week we’ve seen that notions about the Holy Spirit being a person is in contradiction to it being seen for thousands of years as just “the Spirit of the Lord,” and was never viewed by the Jews as having a “personage or independent” personality or being.

So like it or not, believe it or not, God has chosen (in almost every areas we can imagine) to let out bits of information to human beings over the course of thousands of years, and our ideas and notions of what He has shown us along the way HAVE changed, and altered, and shifted – sometimes in the wrong way. Christian apologists will say that all of this information collectively builds upon itself with each successive revelation contributing to the next and I might agree. But God has absolutely allowed for His truths to dawn upon human-kind slowly, processionally, and even over long spans of time. I would even go so far as to say that new insights of truth are still dawning on us – which are always consistent with His living Word (and never in opposition to it) but that these new insights are unveiled as human beings are ready to understand and receive them.

Got all of that?

So here we go folks – we find this principle I just talked about never more true (once again) when it comes to our understanding of . . . (beat) . . . “Satan.” (Tongue – blahhhhh). Now, our discussion is certainly going to cause our religiously zealous brothers and sisters to freak out even more over this ministry but (dimples) “dat oat-tay cause we jus twellin the tooth . . . wike it or nots.”

The Genesis of Satan

So let’s start way back in the book of Genesis where most Christian believe we discover the origin or first mention of Satan. There, in Genesis one three we read:

“Now the

Exploring the Nature of Genesis 3:1

"Serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?” Have you ever given this verse any thought? Now ask yourselves (right now) is this an allegorical verse or is this literal? ANSWER IT! NOW!

If you go into a Mormon temple they will show you a film that reveals what is supposed to be the “real story” behind the creation and garden of Eden and in it a man shows up and tempts Eve with a piece of indistinguishable fruit. He is always attractive and well appointed and always seems to speak with some sort of theatrical accent. This representation shows that the LDS view Genesis 3:1 and allegorical, that the “serpent” mentioned is just a representation of an actual being, the fallen angel (in Mormon nomenclature) “Lucifer.”

Genesis 3:1 Analysis

What about the Christian view? Before I answer this let me read a little bit more from the Genesis account:

Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was

• more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made.
• And he said unto the woman, (with a mouth and tongue that could articulate words that Eve would understand) “Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?”
• He or it also had Ears that could understand human language and reasoning because we read, “And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden.”

After Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit God shows up and asks Adam how he knew he was naked? And Adam said, “the woman you gave me told me so.”

(Then in Genesis 3:13 we read)

13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said,

• The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, (so God talked to the serpent and said)

• Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
• And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Interpretation Dilemmas

Now, again, as Christians we have to ask – is this a real account or is it in any sense allegorical. If we say it is allegorical we are faced with a whole load of issues but if we say it’s literal we are presented with a whole bunch of others.

See, in the least, if we say the story is allegorical we have to also ask, “What else is allegorical in the Word?” That’s a big question – especially for biblical literalists. And if we say it is NOT allegorical, and we have to take the word literally, we must ask (relative to these specific verses):

• Was this an actual serpent? If so, what kind? A snake? If a snake why did God have to curse the snake that it would from there on out that it would “go about on it’s belly” aren’t snakes already belly goers?
• And then how was this serpent able to speak and then respond reasonably to Eve?
• If it was Satan (being referred to as a serpent, what’s the deal with belly crawling and eating dust all the days of its life?)

Biblical Interpretations of 'Serpent' in Genesis 3

If Satan was in the serpent, why doesn’t Moses say so? Part of the problem you might already be seeing here is it’s impossible to take the story entirely literally. There must be some allegory to the message OR the message is entirely allegorical.

So these are some of the first issues with Genesis 3. But we not done. Most Christians believe that the term serpent is either representational of Satan (which is the LDS view) or that God allowed Satan to speak through an actual snake. We view it this way because of tradition and because in English the term serpent generally means snake. The notion is so ingrained that there is little room for divergent opinion.

Adam Clarke, a Wesleyan, and a respected Bible commentator who lived between 1760 and 1832 thought differently. Many people read and enjoy his insights to the Bible today. He wasn’t perfect, and had issues with the Eternal Sonship of Christ (which put him at odds with some in the faith) but he was an ardent believer, an astute scholar, and a man whose vast commentaries in the Old and New Testaments are considered viable today. Clarke says the following about Genesis 3:1:

“We have here one of the most difficult as well as the most important narratives in the whole book of God. The last chapter (Genesis 2) ended with a short but striking account of the perfection and felicity of the first human beings, and this (chapter) opens with an account of their transgression, degradation, and ruin. That man is in a fallen state, the history of the world, with that of the life and miseries of every human being, establishes beyond successful contradiction. But how, and by what agency, was this brought about?"

Diverse Interpretations of the Serpent

(After stating that he has searched as many accounts as possible to understand this passage he asks)

“Who was the serpent? Of what kind? In what way did he seduce the first happy pair? These are questions which remain yet to be answered. The whole account is either a simple narrative of facts, or it is an allegory. If it be historic its literal meaning should be sought out; if it be an allegory, no attempt should be made to explain it, as it would require a direct revelation to ascertain the sense in which it should be understood, for fanciful illustrations are endless.” He goes on and says:

“By a careful examination of the original text, (I shall) endeavor to fix the meaning, and show the propriety and consistency of the Mosaic account of the fall of man.”

The chief difficulty in the account is found in the question, “Who was the agent employed in the seduction of our first parents?” Now this is the question we have asked tonight. Mormons say it was Lucifer, a fallen angel, dressed in robes and handsomely delivering Shakespearean lines to sway Eve. Some Christians say it was also Satan, referred to as a snake, but others say it was a snake not only filled with Satan but had the ability to chat and reason.

But Adam Clarke points out that there is a problem with all of this and says:

Meaning of 'Nachash'

The word in the text which we, following the Septuagint, translate “serpent,” is “nachash;” and, according to Buxtorf and others, this word has three meanings in Scripture.

1. It signifies “to view or observe attentively, to divine or use enchantments, because in them the augurs viewed attentively the flight of birds, the entrails of beasts, the course of the clouds, &c.; and under this head it signifies “to acquire knowledge by experience.”

2. It signifies brass, brazen, and is translated in our Bible, not only brass, but chains, fetters, fetters of brass, and in several places steel. (He adds) in one place it is translated filthiness or fornication.

And 3, It signifies a serpent, but of what kind is not determined.

Regarding point number three Clarke says:

In Job 26:13, “the word” seems to mean the whale or hippopotamus.

(Then Clarke says)

In Ecclesiastes 10:11, the creature called “nachash,” is described as “a babbler.”

Then in Isaiah 27:1, the crocodile or alligator (Leviathan) seems particularly meant by the “Nachash.”

Then he points out that in Isaiah 65:25, the same creature is meant as in Ge 3:1, for in the words, “And dust shall be the serpent's meat, there is an evident allusion to the text of Moses.”

He adds that in Amos 9:3, the crocodile is evidently.

Understanding "Nachash"

Then Clarke concludes:

“Hence it will be necessary to examine the root accurately, to see if its ideal meaning will enable us to ascertain the animal intended in the text. We have already seen that “nachash” means (in scripture)

• to view attentively, to acquire knowledge or experience by attentive observation

and this seems to be its most general meaning in the Bible.

Sources of Clarity

Then He points out that “from the Septuagint we can expect no light, nor indeed from any other of the ancient versions, which are all subsequent to the Septuagint, and some of them actually made from it.”

He then tells us that the Greek translators of the Septuagint used the same Greek term to describe all of these different things too and so Clarke concludes: “In all this uncertainty it is natural for a serious inquirer after truth to look everywhere for information.” Because the Arabic is so closely related to the Hebrew Clarke decided to check it and says: “a root in this language, very nearly similar to that in the text, seems to cast considerable light on the subject.”

It is here that the Arabic equivalent to the Hebrew describes . . . (get ready) “any creature of the Semia, or the ape genus.” Interestingly enough, Clarke adds: “It is very remarkable also that from the same Arabic root comes “khanas,” which means, the DEVIL.” Clarke asks outright in his commentary: “Is it not strange that the devil and the ape should have the same name, derived from the same root, and that root is so very similar to the word in the text?”

Attributes of "Nachash"

He continues and says: “Let us return and consider what is said of the creature in question. Now the nachash was more subtle, (more wise, cunning, or prudent) than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made.” And concluding he says:

• That whatever this nachash was, he stood at the head of all inferior animals for wisdom and understanding.

• That he walked erect, for this is necessarily implied in his punishment-“on thy belly (i.e., on all fours) shalt thou go.”

• That he was endued with the gift of speech, for a conversation is here related between him and the woman.

• That he was also endued with the gift of reason, for we find him reasoning and disputing with Eve.

• That these things were common to this creature, the woman no doubt having often seen him walk erect, talk, and reason, and therefore she testifies no kind of surprise when he accosts her in the language related in the text.

Clarke points out at this point that had this creature (whatever it was) never been known to speak before his addressing the woman that it would have terrified her and in fear she would have refused the conversation. Therefore he believes that whatever the serpent was it had long illustrated an ability to communicate.

Examination of Serpentine Attributes

Then he says: “Now I apprehend that none of these things can be spoken of a serpent of any species. Saying . . .

• None of them ever did or ever can walk erect. The tales we have had of two-footed and four-footed serpents are justly exploded by every judicious naturalist, and are utterly unworthy of credit.

• The very name serpent comes from serpo, to creep, and therefore to such it could be neither curse nor punishment to go on their bellies as they had done from their creation, and must do while their race endures.

• They have no organs for speech, or any kind of articulate sound; they can only hiss.

Analysis of the Nachash

It is true that an ass by miraculous influence may speak; but it is not to be supposed that there was any miraculous interference here. GOD did not qualify this creature with speech for the occasion, and it is not intimated that there was any other agent that did it; on the contrary, the text intimates that speech and reason were natural to the nachash: and is it not in reference to this the inspired penman says, The nachash was more subtle or intelligent than all the beasts of the field that the Lord God had made?

Nor can I find that the serpentine genus are remarkable for intelligence. It is true the wisdom of the serpent has passed into a proverb, but I cannot see on what it is founded, except in reference to the passage in question, where the nachash, which we translate serpent, following the Septuagint, shows so much intelligence and cunning: and it is very probable that our Lord alludes to this very place when he exhorts his disciples to be wise-prudent or intelligent, as serpents, fronimoi wv oi opeiv and it is worthy of remark that he uses the same term employed by the Septuagint in the text in question: ofiv hn fponimwtatov, the serpent was more prudent or intelligent than all the beasts, &c.

Characteristics of the Nachash

All these things considered, we are obliged to seek for some other word to designate the “nachash” in the text (than the word serpent), which on every view of the subject appears to me inefficient and inapplicable. We have seen above that khanas, akhnas, and khanoos, signify a creature of the ape or satyrus kind. We have seen that the meaning of the root is, he lay hid, seduced, slunk away, &c.; and that khanas means the devil, as the inspirer of evil, and seducer from God and truth.

It therefore appears to me that a creature of the ape or ouran outang kind is here intended; and that Satan made use of this creature as the most proper instrument for the accomplishment of his murderous purposes against the life and soul of man. Such a creature answers to every part of the description in the text: it is evident from the structure of its limbs and their muscles that it might have been originally designed to walk erect, and that nothing less than a sovereign controlling power could induce them to put down hands in every respect formed like those of man, and walk like those creatures whose claw-armed paws prove them to have been designed to walk on all fours.

Dr. Tyson's Observations

One Dr. Tyson has observed in his anatomy of an Ouran Outang, that the seminal vessels passed between the two coats of the peritoneum to the scrotum, as in man; hence he argues that this creature was designed to walk erect, as it is not true in any other quadrupeds. The subtlety, cunning, endlessly varied pranks and tricks of these creatures, show them, even now, to be more subtle and more intelligent than any other creature, man alone excepted.

Being obliged now to walk on all fours, and gather their food from the ground, they are literally obliged to eat the dust; and though exceedingly cunning.