|
The patriarchs would have told their sons about God and the history
of their ancestors. As Abraham came from Sumer he brought with
him the knowledge of all that happened at the flood and before.
In fact he was alive when Shem was to tell it first hand. These
stories were now a family affair, although the history of mankind
.
It seems to have been given to Moses to write it all down.
As Israel came out of Egypt they were being formed into a nation
from a group of families.
Moses came to this work with his background out Egypt and its
version of prehistory
And its obsession with overcoming death, and the time he spent
in Midian, no doubt learning of their beliefs.
So Genesis is Moses' explanation of how things are the way they
are.
The sum of the Torah (first five books of the Hebrew Bible) is
to love God with all your heart, mind and strength and your neighbour
as yourself.
As far as we know if all humans did this there would still be
death, from disease, accidents, natural disasters. Death is not
the wage of sin, as Paul says, -it is not having eternal life.
Death was there before they had the encounter with the serpent
who tempted them -("dying, you will die" .. because now
they could not eat of the tree of life as they were banished from
it.)
They and the animals were to multiply, and if they did the earth
would be filled eventually and no longer be able to support them
all - so death was there before.
If they had eternal life why was the tree of life necessary?
Why did God say they will NOW reach out and eat of it after the
encounter with the serpent (chapter 3 v 22)?
They choose to eat of the wrong tree and took the consequences.
So death continues because they did not eat of the tree of life,
but ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil ("bad "in
Hebrew). They preferred knowledge that was partly forbidden and
bad, to eternal life. But they also were choosing between two unknowns
: that was why they needed to trust God and obey what He said-
He knew what they did not.
If Adam and Eve had eaten only of the word of God and not t he
serpent's they would have continued to have a chance to eat of
the tree of life.
The Jews call the Torah a tree of life (a tree is the oldest living
thing)
So why did they not eat of the tree of life? All Moses knows
is that they obviously did not, and found the other tree more appealing.
This story of how things are in the human predicament is not referred
to again in our old testaments; so where have all the ideas of
Satan, the Devil (who looks like a goat), and snakes and dragons
etc come from?
The goddess Asherah was represented by a stylized tree and many
paintings show the serpent (a male satan) wrapped round her. But
Genesis does not say the serpent was in the tree at all. In fact
it says he was a beast of the field rather than the forest. This
image probably comes from the mistaken idea that the forbidden
knowledge was something to do with sex! But there was only Adam
and Eve and they had been told to multiply - how could they without
sex? The desire to cover up was realizing they were naked and vulnerable
now (see notes on Genesis 3).
The goddess Asherah and Venus were the same and connected with
the planet called the morning star. The Hebrew for the planet Venus
is Khazazel.
It is interesting that azazel is mentioned in the book of Enoch,
which is an apocryphal book kept out of the Hebrew canon for fear
it would encourage the worship of angels. He was the leader of
the fallen angels who lead the humans into evil things after they
had come down to earth and had children with human women (see Gen
ch. 6) . This brought about such wickedness that the flood came
to destroy them all. Significantly " azazel" is the Hebrew
word for the scapegoat that carries away the sins of the people
of Israel into the desert. Note the connection with "goat" ,
and going into a dry place, and think of Yehshua's words about
sending demons away into a dry place and other references in the
OT. To demons roaming dry places . and some of the teachings i
in demonology about them not liking water.
This connection with the morning star and someone evil comes again
in Isaiah 14 where we have in our Bibles that Lucifer falls. This
is not in the Hebrew at all and was probably added by St Jerome
long after ; when he did his translation. Lucifer means the light
bearer and was appropriate for the star that shone so brightly
a dawn. The passage in Isaiah is referring to the fall of the king
of Babylon.
The bright morning star to the Jews heralding a new day meant
the dawn of the Messianic age, and so when it appears in NT in
Revelation saying " I will give you the morning star" and "I
am the root and offspring of David, the bright and morning star" it
is speaking of the dawn of the Messianic age. This is typical Jewish
thought and nothing to do with the devil or satan.
From these ideas one can see how the confusion over time has
come about with an evil being who is responsible for leading humans
into sin and is personified by a goat, or a star, or snake, and
a demon who hates water etc.
But in Judaism there is no devil, but there are adversaries sent
and allowed by God to bring about His purposes. There is also the
adversary of the inner self.
So what does that make of the serpent in Genesis 3? Why does the
adversary (that is what "satan" means : it is the Hebrew
for adversary.) come in the form of a snake? The word used in the
Hebrew is not that used usually of snake, but is onomatopoeic,
meaning the hissing one. It is a beast of the field, naked as they
are, and in the Hebrew it is shedding its skin and so looking more
beautiful in its freedom from restriction by the old skin. It is
a perfect choice for the test for Eve and Adam.
All the times "satan is used in OT. It means an adversary.
Sometimes it is an angel of God, as in Job, but sometimes a person
who is putting difficulty in the way as in the case of the Samaritans
in Zechariah 3 shown as a satan standing with Joshua, or tempting
with suggestion (as David wanting to do a census) Yeshua call Peter
a satan for trying to prevent him going to Jerusalem.
So we cannot blame this wicked being for sin, and what humans
choose to do. The problem is in us.
Through the centuries the church has played on man's fears, ignorance
and superstition, need for someone else to blame, and inability
(until recently) to read God's word for themselves.
Medieval religion was a struggle against evil and this created
great anxiety, which was a tool to control the people.
Darkness, chaos, pandemonium, carnal desires and temptation were
all of the devil.
Order and light, other worldliness, were all of God.
Anyone who did not share your beliefs was demonized. This began
with the Romans who said the Christians were the devil's servants,
doing his work by black magic. In time the church began to do the
same to others - church and state combining to persecute all who
did not fit in with the official line and deviated from the "norm" as
they saw it to be.
Dualism came from the teaching of Paul and the Gnostics .It was
war against the flesh. The devil had made all things material and
bad, and God who was only good and spiritual, must, therefore,
have to do only with the spiritual.
Martin Luther, who is revered in Christian circles of the Protestant
kind for the reformation of doctrine from the Roman church, encouraged
demonology and the idea of the devil and hell. The devil was a
person and if you did not attend the sacraments (which must be
administered by a priest) you would go to eternal punishment in
hell where the devil would torment you for ever. People lived in
the fear of eternal damnation whether they were Protestant or Roman
Catholic.
Luther produced 70% of all the literature in Germany - which in
th e early days of printing was very significant and gave him great
power.
Anyone who was a misfit or presented a threat was demonised. Women
were thought to be easily seduced by the devil. Anything was allowed
to get a conviction and torture was widely used to get "confessions " out
of "witches" and "heretics" and Jews.
People under threat demonise the enemy. Anti Semitism is demonising
Jews.
It was what Jews were: not what they did. They had killed God
and so must be the agents of the devil.
The medieval myths promoted by Luther that the Jews were vermin
and to be exterminated were carried on into Nazism.
These are Luther's own words-
"I chased the devils away with a fart!"
"What is a world where Jesus Christ is not; but a perfect
hell where the devil rules."
"The Jews ought to be burned - they live by plunder and evil
: they live like wicked beasts and ought to be driven out like
mad dogs. If this does not suit you - find a better solution so
that you and I should be free of this devilish burden - the Jews!"
Hitler thought the same way.
Another passage that is often brought out by Christians as being
the proof of Satan being a actual being is Ezekiel 28 verses 12
to 19. This is a prophecy given to Ezekiel about the downfall of
Tyre and its king, who had come to think he was a god.
In verse 17 comes the phrase which makes the link " I have
cast you to the earth" - this together with the verses which
speak of this person having been in the garden of God and walking
among the stones of fire on the mountain of God, having apparently
in his body "taberets and pipes" has led some people
to say this is evidence that the devil. Or Satan was once in heaven,
a great and beautiful angel who led the worship in heaven and his
very body was a musical instrument for that purpose. But he rebelled,
wanting to be as God himself, and so was caste down to earth from
heaven.
Again, a study of the Hebrew and context shows this is not so.
The passage is speaking about the king of Tyre all the way through.
Comparing Young's Literal translation and the Jerusalem Bible
with the ones being used to come to those conclusions by people
who want to find evidence for the devil in the Old testament, it
becomes plain what Ezekiel is saying. The language needs to be
compared with the ways he speaks elsewhere.
All versions make it clear in verse 12 that this is about the
king of Tyre. In the Jerusalem Bible Tyre is called in the Hebrew "Zor" which
means a rock or the form of a temple. This gives the clue to what
the connection is to the mount of God. It is the common play on
words of ten used in Hebrew to make a point - the king thinks he
is god and his dwelling place as the temple of a god. He began
well and had everything : wealth, beauty, precious stones to cover
his clothes, intelligence, strength, swiftness and courage. These
are all contained as attributes of the cherub - refer to Ezekiel
chapter one and 10. The cherubs guarded the garden of Eden and
supported the throne of God, and also overlooked the mercy seat
of the ark. So, until pride got hold of him, and he made himself
as a god this king lived as if he was in the garden of God. The
Hebrew does not say he is an anointed cherub, but is a far covering
cherub (as the Jerusalem Bible has it -" mimishah" )
which means his domain stretched wide, as did that of the king
of Tyre. Young has just "covering cherub" which is more
suggestive of those on the ark.
In verse 13 the King James version has " .. the workmanship
of thy taberets and pipes". which is what has caused the idea
he led worship music in heaven - even Young has this translation.
The Jerusalem Bible has the " workmanship of thy settings
and sockets was in thee in the day you were created they were prepared." Possibly
this means that he settings for the precious stones he wears were
given to him by God as was everything else he has and is - this
is what he has forgotten!
In verse 14 he walks up and down in the midst of these stones
of fire (the Hebrew is " flashing stones" } His clothes
are covered in them, and they sparkle and flash as he moves.
He was" perfect" in his ways from the day he was created
until iniquity (that of pride and belief that he was a god) as
Job - see Job ch 1 v1 .
Because of this he will be caste out and to the ground and humiliated
by his enemies (other kings) (verses 16- 19).
A similar thing has happened with Isaiah chapter 14 where the
king of Babylon's downfall is prophesied.
The problem has come in verse 12 where the King James has " How
art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning". and
Young's has " Oh shining one, son of the morning" ..
which is much closer to the Hebrew, which does not, and cannot
have the word " Lucifer" because it is not a Hebrew word.
Even we, today speak of a person of importance and charisma as
a star. So this King of the east was as the morning star which
appears in the east and is so bright, second only to the sun in
brilliance, but he would fall - actually " cut down to the
ground" in humiliation, as both Young and the Jerusalem Bible
have. This the same idea as in Ezekiel 28.
It has nothing to do with an angel who rebels and is thrown out
of heaven to earth and causes trouble down here.
So where does this leave the passage in Revelation ch. 12? Without
the supporting passages in the Old Testament it stands alone --where
are the other witnesses to it as truth? In fact the efforts to
find "backup" in Ezekiel and Isaiah have come about to
try to do just that and consequently the twisting of the meaning
of these texts to fit the New Testament. Surely if the Old comes
before the New, the new should fit the old not the other way round?
next section : Blessing and Cursing
|
