For a long time, I’ve held the belief that the entities referred to as “Satan” (or “the Adversary”), the “Devil” (or “the Slanderer”), and “demons” in the New Testament are personal beings, a view which is common to most Christians. However, after reading and interacting with the opposing view that these entities are personifications of evil and/or references to human adversaries, I’ve found many of their arguments convincing. The arguments that “Satan,” the “Devil,” and “demons” don’t refer to personal beings hold more weight than I initially believed, especially when the New Testament texts are considered in their overall context, including both the Old Testament and Second Temple Judaism. In this post, we’ll look at how these entities (under the broader umbrella of “supernatural evil”) were viewed throughout the development of ancient Jewish and Christian theology.
Disclaimer: I don’t reject the belief that “satan,” “devil,” and “demons” refer to personal, supernaturally evil beings. This post is simply an attempt to fairly present the case that they aren’t. For the case in favor of the traditional view, see for example this post by Aaron Welch. I may present my own case for a personal satan and demons at a later date.
Supernatural Evil in the Hebrew Bible
The word translated as “demon” (Heb: sheyd) is found only twice in the Hebrew Bible (Deut. 32:17; Ps. 106:37). In both cases, it refers to the gods of the surrounding nations, and to the fact that the surrounding peoples sacrificed to these shedim rather than Yahweh. The shedim are equated by parallelism to “idols” at Ps. 106:36-38. Yet according to the Hebrew prophets, the idols were merely the work of human hands, despite what the nations believed. They didn’t correspond to any really-existing gods, having no “breath” in them, and the ‘gods’ of the nations (i.e., physical idols) would pass away like all other material objects (Deut. 32:21; Ps. 115:4; 135:15; Isa. 2:8, 20; 40:18-20; 41:21-24; 44:9-20; 57:12f; Jer. 10:2-15; 51:17f; Ezek. 30:13; Dan. 11:8; Hos. 8:4-6; 13:2f; Hab. 2:18f; Zech. 13:2). [1] The LXX for Isa. 65:3 even says explicitly that “demons… do not exist.”
Thus, the shedim (LXX: daimōnia) of the Old Testament were not personal beings, although they were believed by the nations to be such. But what about the “evil spirit” sent by God to torment Saul (1 Sam. 16:14-16, 23; 18:10; 19:9), which is sometimes seen as a precursor to the demon possession found in the New Testament? The word “spirit” (Heb: ruach) is often used in the Hebrew Bible to describe a mental disposition, not a personal being, which seems to be its meaning here. [2] In the book of Judges, we’re told that God sent an “evil spirit between Abimelech and the lords of Shechem,” which meant that they had animosity for each other (Judg. 9:23-25). Likewise, Saul’s “evil spirit” was a troubled state of mind, which David alleviated by his music (1 Sam. 16:23).
No demonology as such can therefore be derived from the Hebrew Bible. But what about the being referred to as “the Adversary” (Heb: satan)? In fact, this title (not a proper name) is used to describe many individuals in the Hebrew Bible. Typically, it’s humans who are referred to as satans (i.e., adversaries), but angels of Yahweh can also be satans (Num. 22:22, 32; 1 Sam. 29:4; 2 Sam. 19:22; 1 Kgs. 5:4; 11:14, 23, 25; Ps. 109:6). In one instance, it’s possible that Yahweh himself, or at least an angel of Yahweh, is spoken of as a satan to king David, although some scholars see it as a reference to a human adversary instead (1 Chron. 21:1; cf. 2 Sam. 24:1). [3]
The most interesting satan in the Hebrew Bible is the satan found in Job 1-2, who is clearly a personal being among “the sons of God” that accuses Job of being unfaithful (or imperfectly faithful) and afflicts him with various evils. Scholars disagree on whether this satan acts as a ‘prosecutor’ or ‘executioner’ of sorts in God’s heavenly court, but there is a general consensus that he isn’t related to the later concept of the satan as a personal being of supernatural evil. The same is true of the satan in Zechariah 3, who also seems to act as a ‘prosecutor’ or ‘executioner.’ [4] The satan(s) of Job 1-2 and Zechariah 3 are certainly celestial, personal beings, but they’re part of the heavenly council of “sons of God” (cf. 1 Kgs. 22:19; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Ps. 89:7; Isa. 6:1-3; Jer. 23:18-22) and not evil being(s) implacably opposed to God’s will.
Supernatural Evil in Second Temple Judaism
We’ve seen that the idea of a personal satan and personal demons can’t be justified from the Hebrew Bible alone. But was this perhaps a later development associated with Second Temple Judaism? In fact, the idea of supernaturally evil beings did creep into Judaism at this time, probably as a result of influence from the Zoroastrian religion with its cosmological dualism. Some Second Temple Jews believed in “evil spirits” that could possess people; these “spirits” were not fallen angels as in later Christian mythology, but the spirits of dead, evil men who roamed the earth searching for bodies to possess. [5] The concept of “demons,” i.e., fallen angels, possessing people would have been an anachronism in the 1st century CE.
Jews were divided on the concept of supernatural evil as a source of sin in the Second Temple period. Some apocalyptic texts do emphasize ontologically evil angels as a source of people’s temptations, but other texts (e.g., 1 Maccabees; 2 Maccabees; Wisdom of Sirach; 4 Ezra; 2 Baruch) explicitly reject the idea of supernatural evil, and instead find the source of evil in Adam and human temptations. The idea of supernatural evil seems to disappear for the most part from Jewish apocalypticism by the end of the 1st century CE. [6] By the time of rabbinic Judaism, most rabbis rejected supernatural evil and interpreted the “devil” as the human inclination to sin. [7]
The use of the title “satan” in Second Temple Judaism is interesting. In the Wisdom of Sirach, this title is used of a man’s own evil inclinations, as it’s said that the one who “curses the satan curses himself” (21.27). “The satan” is also used to describe the evil inclination in the Qumran text 11Q5 (19.13-16). [8] Another text (4QBarkhi Nafshi) interprets “the satan” of Zechariah 3 as yetser ra (evil inclination), showing that some in the Qumran community saw the satan of the Hebrew Bible as the human tendency to sin. Apart from these instances, “the satan” is used as a common noun and title to denote any adversary, whether a human, an evil angel, or a good angel (Jubilees 23.29; 40.9; 46.2; 50.5; 1 Enoch 41.9; 53.3; 54.6; 1QH 4.6; 45.3; 1QSb 1.8; 4Q504 1-2 iv 12; T12Dan 3.6; 5.6; 6.1; T12Gad 4.7; T12Ash 6.4). “The satan” does not seem to be used as a proper name for a singular being at this point in time.
The same is true of the title “the devil” (Gk: ho diabolos). In the Septuagint, this title is used to translate the Hebrew satan, and has the same range of meaning in referring to human or angelic adversaries (LXX 1 Chron. 21:1; Esth. 7:4; 8:4; Ps. 108:6; Job 1-2; Zech. 3:1-2; 1 Macc. 1.36). The only other place where this title is used in pre-Christian Jewish texts is in Wisdom of Solomon 2.24, which states that “through the envy of the devil death entered into the world.” This could be seen as a reference to a singular being of supernatural evil, but it was interpreted by both Clement of Rome and many modern scholars to refer instead to Cain, the ‘adversary’ who in his envy killed Abel and caused the first human death. [9] The same book elsewhere attributes the origin of death to Cain rather than Adam (Wisdom 10.1-4).
Other titles used in the New Testament, such as “the evil one,” aren’t found in Second Temple literature. This title is, however, used in the Talmud to refer to the yetser ra, the human tendency to sin (b. Ned. 1:1g, II.2.H, b. Naz. 1:2d, I.4.D; y. Ned. 1:1, V.2.D, y. Naz. 1:5, II.1.P). This “evil one,” i.e., the yetser ra, is even personified and argued with. The Talmud also speaks of some people as “sons of the evil one,” in contrast to Jews who are “sons of the righteous one” (b. Sanh. 4:5, IV.1.H; y. Sanh. 4:9, I.1.I, y.
Sanh. 4:10, I.1.), but this doesn’t seem to refer to a supernaturally evil figure.
Overall, evidence for a well-known supernaturally evil figure called “the satan” or “the devil” in Second Temple Judaism is extremely scanty. Although many Jews believed in such figures, they were given names like Mastema (Jubilees), Shemihazah, and Azazel (1 Enoch). “The satan” and “the devil” were generic titles, which could be given to these evil angels, but could also be used of humans, good angels, and even the human tendency to sin. Many Second Temple era texts rejected the concept of supernatural evil in favor of a more humanistic view.
Supernatural Evil in the New Testament
First, let’s note that according to Jesus, Paul, and the other apostles, the main source of sin is “from within,” i.e., natural human desires (Matt. 15:19; Mark 7:21-23; Luke 6:15; Rom. 1:24; chap. 7; 8:5, 9; Gal. 5:17; Jas. 1:14f; etc.), and the way to prevent sin is self-discipline, relying on God’s spirit, and prayer (Matt. 5:28-30; 6:13; Mark 9:43-47; Luke 11:4; Rom. 6:6, 12-14; 8:4, 13; 12:2; 13:14; Gal. 5:16-18, 24; 1 Thess. 4:3-5; 5:22; etc.). This automatically places these texts closer to the ‘humanistic evil’ view of the Second Temple period, rather than the ‘supernatural evil’ view, which attributed temptation to external beings and presented exorcism and apotropaic prayer as solutions.
Paul consistently presents Adam as the original source of sin and death (Rom. 5:12; 1 Cor. 15:21f), not supernatural beings. Jesus presents “your father the devil,” who was “a murderer from the beginning,” as the original source of evil (John 8:39-44). There is a grammatical ambiguity in this verse, as it could say that “the devil” is “a liar and the father of it [lies],” or that he is “a liar and so is his father”! But how could the devil have a father? The early church theologian Cyril of Jerusalem interpreted “the devil” as Cain based on this ambiguity. This seems correct, based on the parallel from the Wisdom of Solomon (2.24), which attributes the origin of death to Cain and associates all evildoers with him, [9] and the fact that 1 John 3:8, 12 appears to equate “the devil” who has “been sinning from the beginning” with Cain. Thus, both Paul and Jesus attribute the origin of death and sin to a human being (Adam or Cain), rather than a supernaturally evil figure.
Elsewhere in the NT, “the satan” and “the devil” are used to refer to human adversaries (Matt. 16:23; Mark 8:33; John 6:70; 1 Thess. 2:18; 1 Tim. 3:11; 2 Tim. 3:3; Tit. 2:3; Rev. 2:10, 13; possibly 1 Cor. 5:5; 2 Cor. 2:11; 1 Tim. 1:20; 3:6f; 5:15; 1 John 3:8-10; Rev. 2:9; 3:9). Peter says to Ananias that “the satan filled your heart to lie” and also that “you contrived this deed in your heart” (Acts 5:3, 5), which shows that, as in other Second Temple and rabbinic texts, “the satan” could refer to the yetser ra, the human inclination to sin. This seems to be the case in several other places in the NT (Mark 4:15; Luke 22:3; John 13:27; Acts 26:18; 1 Cor. 7:5; 2 Cor. 12:7; cf. John 13:2; Acts 13:10; Eph. 4:27; 2 Tim. 2:26; Jas. 4:7; 1 John 2:13f; 5:18f). The fact that “the satan” and “the devil” are articular is not a good reason to interpret them as a single being across the NT, because the generic title is also articular in many other places in Second Temple literature (see above).
What about Jesus’ temptation by “the devil” and “the satan” (Matt. 4:1-11; Mark 1:12f; Luke 4:1-13)? This account is interpreted by most scholars, including conservative scholars, as a visionary sequence, symbolic narrative, or haggadic midrash. [10] For example, it’s obviously impossible to literally see the entire world from atop a mountain (Matt. 4:8-10)! That doesn’t prove that the “satan” in view here is not a supernaturally evil being, but it does caution against deriving an entire satanology from this passage. If this was a visionary or symbolic experience, “the satan” could simply refer to Jesus’ yetser ra. In later rabbinic literature, the yetser ra was personified and even argued with (see above). Jesus was tempted in the same way that we are (Heb. 2:18; 4:15), and our temptations are internal (Jas. 1:14). On the other hand, certain features of the narrative suggest that “the satan” could refer to an angel subservient to and sent by God for this purpose (Luke 4:13; cf. Job 1-2). This view of “the satan” is plausibly found elsewhere in Luke-Acts (e.g., Luke 22:31). [11]
Finally, the last satanological text to consider is Revelation 12:9, which says that a seven-headed, ten-horned red dragon represents “that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and the satan, the deceiver of the whole world.” This seems to refer back to Genesis 3, where Eve is deceived by a serpent, a “beast of the field” (Gen. 2:19; 3:1), into eating the fruit of the forbidden tree. In some Second Temple texts, this was seen as a literal serpent, which could talk because all animals could speak at that time (Jubilees 3.17-19, 28; Josephus, Antiquities 1.1.4); others interpreted it as an evil angel, Gadreel (1 Enoch 69.6); and still others interpreted it as symbolic of the yetser ra (Philo, Opif. 163ff; Leg. All. 2.71ff). In light of the overall teaching of the NT that the source of sin is internal (see above), the dragon of Rev 12 likely represents the yetser ra, now manifest in the persecuting power of the “beast” and “false prophet” (chap. 13).
What about “demons” in the NT? As in the Hebrew Bible, demons (Gk: daimōnia) refer to the idols and false gods of the nations (1 Cor. 10:20f; cf. Acts 17:18, 22; 25:19). Yet Paul also says, “we know that ‘no idol in the world really exists’ and ‘there is no god but one’” (1 Cor. 8:4); therefore, it’s okay for Christians to eat food sacrificed to idols, unless it causes less mature brethren, who believe that these gods really do exist, to stumble (1 Cor. 8:7ff). Thus, it seems that at least Paul didn’t believe in the real existence of demons. James says that demons “shudder” at the knowledge of God (Jas. 2:19), which seems to be no different than the depiction of the (non-existent) idols of the nations trembling and bowing before Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Ps. 97:7; Isa. 19:1; 46:1; Jer. 50:2).
Demon possession is found frequently in the synoptic gospels and Acts, but interestingly, in no other book of the NT. Furthermore, as noted earlier, such possessing demons were believed by the Jews of the time to be the spirits of dead humans. [5] Unless Jesus and his disciples were condoning this extra-biblical belief, this should be understood as accommodation to the Jewish beliefs of the time, used to demonstrate Jesus’ power. Such “demons” are no more real than the parable of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19-31), where Jesus also accommodated his speech to existing Jewish beliefs to prove a point, or the Delphic “Python spirit” which Paul is said to have cast out (Acts 16:16-18). Jesus “rebuked” possessing demons, but he also “rebuked” a fever and a storm (Matt. 8:26; Mark 4:39; Luke 4:38f; 8:24).
Therefore, such ‘demoniacs’ were most likely mentally ill people that Jesus miraculously cured, rather than people who were possessed by the spirits of dead, wicked men. The references to “demons” are only found in the synoptic gospels because they were an accommodation to the beliefs of new, Jewish converts, whereas they’re not found in later epistles written to mature believers, because those believers knew that ‘demons’ were merely false gods. Paul makes the same distinction between mature believers, who “know that no idol in the world really exists,” and immature believers, whose false concepts about idols should be accommodated (1 Cor. 8:4-13; cf. 10:20f). [12]
Supernatural Evil in Post-Apostolic Christianity
If the New Testament clearly taught the existence of demons and a supernaturally evil being called the satan and the devil, we would expect this to be reflected in post-apostolic Christian writings. However, there is a surprising lack of demonology and satanology in these texts. The Didache, a mid-1st century Christian writing, explains sin without any recourse to supernatural evil or exorcism (1.2; 3.2; 6.1). In fact, where it references contemporary Jewish and Christian texts, it actively removes any reference to evil angels (Didache 1.1; cf. 1QS 3.17-21; Barnabas 18.1). Clement of Rome never once refers to “the devil” or “the satan” in his epistle, and presents a humanistic explanation of sin, interpreting the devil of Wisdom 2.24 as Cain (1 Clement 3.4ff). The later Christian writers Papias and Polycarp, along with the Shepherd of Hermas, also present an internal explanation of sin without recourse to demons or the Devil. [13]
On the other hand, the Epistle of Barnabas (late 1st century CE) and the letters of Ignatius (early 2nd century) present a strongly mythological worldview, with satan and demons as the primary cause of sin. [13] From this point onward, “the satan” and “the devil” became widely used in Christian texts, not just as titles, but as a proper name for a supernaturally evil figure. This range of demonologies and satanologies in early Christianity is difficult to explain on the view that the New Testament consistently and clearly teaches the existence of supernaturally evil beings, but is easy to explain if, as I have argued, the authors of the NT both accommodated the ideas of immature believers about these beings and taught mature believers about their non-existence (cf. 1 Cor. 8:4ff).
Conclusion
Although a belief in supernaturally evil personal beings (demons and the satan/the devil) is common to most Christians, this idea can’t be found in the Hebrew Bible. It originated in Second Temple Judaism, where some Jews believed in supernatural evil and others held a more human-centered view of evil, in line with the Hebrew Bible. The New Testament appears to take the latter approach to evil, agreeing with the Hebrew Bible that demons/idols have no real existence (while also accommodating immature believers who held these ideas), and using “satan” and “devil” as titles and personifications of the yetser ra. Unfortunately, in the interest of time, I was forced to pass over such interesting texts as Deut. 32:8-9, [14] 2 Cor. 6:15, [15] Eph. 2:2, [16] 6:12, [17] 2 Pet. 2:4, and Jude 6. [18] (See the footnotes for a brief discussion of each.) Overall, however, the Bible consistently teaches that evil is the result of the human inclination to sin, and that all supernatural beings are obedient and subservient to God (cf. Ps. 103:19-21; 115:16; Matt. 6:10; Heb. 1:14).
Finally, I invite the reader to consider the “fruit” of the belief in supernatural evil (including a personal satan and demons). During the period of witch hunts in Europe from the 15th to 18th centuries, about a hundred thousand women were tried for being ‘witches,’ and an estimated 50,000 were murdered. [19] ‘Exorcisms’ result in an estimated ~1,500 child abuse cases every year in the UK alone. [20] Many people who require medical intervention for their mental health are instead forced to go through the traumatic process of so-called ‘exorcism.’ Belief in supernatural evil and ‘exorcisms’ result in no demonstrably better health outcomes, and indeed progress has only been made in the field of mental health since this belief has been discarded. This is quite the opposite of what Jesus did, which was actually heal the people who were believed to be ‘demoniacs’ in 1st-century Judaism. What does this “fruit” tell us about the validity of the belief in supernatural evil? (Matt. 7:15-20)
______________________________
[1] Although some Christians today believe that the pagan gods were actually ‘demons’ (i.e., evil personal beings) that ruled the nations, this was a much later development in the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE.
[2] Gen. 41:8; Ex. 28:3; 35:21; Num 5:14, 30; Deut. 2:30; 34:9; Josh. 2:11; 1 Sam 1:15; 1 Kings 21:5; Ezra 1:1, 5; Job 7:11; Psalm 51:17; Prov. 15:13; 16:2; 18-19; 29:11; Eccl. 7:8-9; Isa 11:2; 19:14; 26:9; 54:6; 57:15; 61:3; 66:2; Ezek. 11:19; 18:31; 36:26; Dan. 2:3; 7:15; Hos. 5:4; Hag. 1:14; Mal. 2:16; see also the similar use of the Greek equivalent pneuma in the NT: Matt. 5:3; 26:41; Mark 2:8; Luke 1:47; John 11:33; 13:21; Acts 17:16; Rom 11:8; 1 Cor. 4:21; 5:5; 2 Cor. 7:1; Gal. 6:1; Eph. 4:23; Phil. 1:27; 4:23; Col. 2:5; 2 Tim 1:7; 1 Pet 3:4.
[3] For a range of views on this passage, see John W. Wright, “The Innocence of David in 1 Chronicles 21,” JSOT 18 (1993): 87-105; Noel Bailey, “David’s Innocence: a Response to J. Wright,” JSOT 19 (1994): 83-90; Paul Evans, “Divine Intermediaries in 1 Chronicles 21,” Biblica 85, no. 4 (2004): 545-558; Pancratius C. Beentjes, “Satan, God, and the Angel(s) in 1 Chronicles 21,” in Angels: The Concept of Celestial Beings, ed. Friedrich V. Reiterer, Karin Schöpflin, and Tobias Nicklas (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008): 139-154; Ryan E. Stokes, “The Devil Made David Do It... or Did He?”, Journal of Biblical Literature 128, no. 1 (2009): 91-106; see also NET Bible commentary on 1 Chronicles 21:1.
[4] For a summary of the scholarly consensus and presentation of the ‘executioner’ view, see Ryan E. Stokes, “Satan, Yhwh’s Executioner,” Journal of Biblical Literature 133, no. 2 (2014): 251-270.
[5] 1 Enoch 15.8-11; Josephus, Wars 7.6.3.
[6] Eric Eve, The Jewish Context of Jesus’ Miracles (JSNT supplement no. 231, 2002), 173; Bernard J. Bamberger, Fallen Angels: Soldiers of Satan’s Realm (Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication Society, 2006), 42-43.
[7] Jeffrey B. Russell, The Prince of Darkness: Radical Evil and the Power of Good in History (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1992), 51.
[8] E.J.C. Tigchelaar, “The Evil Inclination in the Dead Sea Scrolls, with a Re-Edition of 4Q468i (4QSectarian Text?),” in Empsychoi Logoi: Religious Innovations in Antiquity, ed. Alberdina Houtman, Albert de Jong, and Magda Misset-Van de Weg (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 347-358.
[9] 1 Clement 3-4; Philip R. Davies, “Sons of Cain,” in A Word in Season: Essays in Honor of William McKane, ed. Philip Davies and James Martin (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 1987), 56; John Byron, Cain and Abel in Text and Tradition (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 220-223; Richard J. Clifford, Wisdom (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2013), 21.
[10] For a summary of scholarly views on this passage, see Jonathan Burke, “Satanological terminology in the wilderness temptation accounts,” 1-3.
[11] Tom de Bruin, “In Defence of New Testament Satanologies: A Response to Farrar and Williams,” JSNT 44, no. 3 (2021): 445-448.
[12] For a counter-argument against this view, see Thomas Farrar, “’When an unclean spirit goes out of a person’: An Assessment of the Accommodation Theory of Demon Possession and Exorcism in the Synoptic Gospels.”
[13] Jonathan Burke, “Satan and Demons in the Apostolic Fathers: A Minority Report,” Swedish Exegetical Annual 81 (2016): 127-168; for a counter-argument, see Thomas Farrar, “Satanology and Demonology in the Apostolic Fathers: A Response to Jonathan Burke,” Swedish Exegetical Annual 83 (2018): 156-191.
[14] The author here incorporated an earlier text fragment (Deut. 32:8-9) into a larger poem that explicitly denies the existence of other gods (32:17, 21, 39). Although the author of the earlier fragment certainly believed in other gods, and that Yahweh was part of a divine council under the higher god ’El, the final author of this poem didn’t believe that “demons” or “idols” had any real existence.
[15] Paul uses the name of the evil angel from Jewish mythology, Beliar, to denote the non-existent idols (2 Cor. 6:15f; cf. 1 Cor. 8:4).
[16] Paul equates the “prince of the power of the air” with the “spirit at work among the disobedient,” and in the next verse seems to equate this with the “desires of our flesh” (Eph 2:2f). Therefore, the “spirit” here most likely refers to a mental disposition (cf. [2]; Ps. 78:5-8), and the “prince of the power of the air” is a personification of the yetser ra.
[17] Paul wished to prepare the Ephesians for the “evil day” (Eph 6:13), i.e., a coming period of great persecution (Nero’s persecution?). The “rulers” and “authorities” therefore most likely refer to the human rulers who would persecute the Christians. The “world-rulers of this darkness” also refer to human rulers; cf. when Jesus said that the Jewish leaders had the “power of darkness” (Luke 22:52f). “...in the heavenly places” most probably refers to a place of prestige, which believers already had in Christ (cf. Eph. 2:6), not that these rulers literally lived in heaven. The adjective “heavenly” (Gk: epouranios) was used of the Roman emperor in many 1st century texts: see Nijay Gupta and Frederick Long, “The Politics of Ephesians and the Empire,” JGRChJ 7 (2010), 118-120. The struggle of the Ephesians was “not with flesh and blood,” but was “spiritual” because they would not literally fight with their persecutors, but would use their faith to struggle in the midst of persecution (cf. 2 Cor. 10:3-5). The imperial powers are collectively referred to as “the devil” or “the slanderer” of the believers (Eph. 6:11).
[18] Peter and Jude here refer to legends about fallen angels from Jewish mythology (1 Enoch and the Assumption of Moses) to illustrate a point about God’s judgment. Unless one is willing to say that the stories in 1 Enoch and the Assumption of Moses were also inspired by God, this doesn’t indicate the truth of those stories, any more than (for example) a modern writer using a story from Star Wars to illustrate a point would indicate that he believed Star Wars is a true story.
[19] Brian P. Levack, “Introduction,” in The Oxford Handbook of Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe and Colonial America, ed. Brian P. Levack (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 5-6; Alison Rowlands, “Witchcraft and Gender in Early Modern Europe,” in The Oxford Handbook of Witchcraft, 452.
[20] Olivia Rudgard, “Belief in witchcraft and demonic possession linked to 1,500 child abuse cases,” The Telegraph, 24 November 2017, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/24/belief-witchcraft-demonic-possession-linked-1500-child-abuse/.
No comments:
Post a Comment