It is interesting that since the late 1980s when there was a concerted political campaign in the UK to prevent Sunday trading and ‘Keep Sunday Special’, shopping on Sundays is much more acceptable for Christians these days. In fact, many of the arguments made by the Keep Sunday Special campaigners were prescient – Sunday has become just another day for many, and shopping is the number one leisure activity, far outstripping church attendance.

The idea that Sunday should be set apart as the ‘Lord’s Day’ really grew to prominence in the Puritan and non-Conformist tradition in Britain. Detractors often referred to it as ‘Sabbatarianism’, because of Sunday often being referred to as the Sabbath, and the strict restrictions on what could and could not be done on that day. Anecdotes abound of families having to go to church three times a day, and not being able to play games or have any fun whatsoever.

Some of this stereotyping of non-Conformist practice as legalistic and joyless is unfair. But certainly the stricter churches did outlaw many things seen as unspiritual and unworthy of the Sabbath. Shopping on Sundays would have been considered taboo.

However, despite the religiosity of churchgoers, life goes on outside the church. For the first few centuries of the Church’s existence, Sunday was a normal weekday. For Jewish believers, meeting fellow followers of Christ meant observing the Sabbath rules, then getting up early the next day to worship Jesus before going to work. Gentile converts would also have to meet before work.

In the middle ages most people worked a seven-day week and the Church carried on its rituals with little impact on the majority of people, who would turn up for the festivals and possible an ordinary service if they had the time. It was only with the passing of certain worker-friendly laws as Britain industrialised that ordinary people ever got time off. The weekend is a fairly modern innovation in human history.

But as people were given more free time, and because many mill owners (for example) were also devout men, workers were compelled to go to church. Gradually, particularly among Reformed and evangelical churches, it was felt that Sunday, the Lord’s Day, should be set apart for worship and service, much like the Jewish Sabbath. The fourth commandment[1] – of setting one day a week apart for ‘rest’ – began to be seen as a requirement.

But of course ‘rest’ is a vague term. Defining ‘rest’ as sitting in church listening to a sermon, and other things, for example buying fair trade items from a stall at the back of the church, is highly subjective. Basically, it comes down to personal preference and tradition.

However, if the ‘Lord’s day’ is really going to mean a day given over to God, then any activity that is in line with God’s agenda is perfectly acceptable. There is Biblical and theological justification for selling fair trade goods, so there should be no issue with selling them on a Sunday.

There is one more point to make here, though. The use of the story about Jesus driving traders out of the Temple to justify selling fair trade on a Sunday is interesting. Yes, Jesus was reacting to the injustice and swindling that was going on. But Jesus was also reacting to the way the outer court of the Temple had become a market place. [2]

The outer court was supposed to be the area where the Gentiles could worship God – in fact, probably one of the most important places in the Temple, in that through it Israel could fulfil their calling and be a light to the Gentiles. By trading there, Gentile worship was rendered impossible, and Gentiles were excluded. Jesus’ reaction was also about making sure the rights of worshippers on the fringes weren’t impinged upon.

Without a doubt, trading in any church can be done with a minimum of disruption and fuss. However, there may be a good rationale for not having stalls set up at the back of the church, if they would distract people from worshipping.

Related article
Read Jon the freelance theologian talk about Fair Trade as a prophetic act

Reference
[1] Exodus chapter 20, verse 8
[2] The story of Jesus clearing the Temple appears in all four gospels. John places it at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry (John chapter 2, verses 12-16). The Synoptic gospels place it in the last few days of Jesus’ life (Luke chapter 19, verse 45-46; Mark chapter 11, verses 15-17; Matthew chapter 21, verses 12-13). The Synoptic accounts reference Isaiah chapter 56, verse 7 – “for my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations”.

I recently went on vacation to the U.S. and was just blown away by the “Christian” right wing movement that seems to be rampant. I had no problem using my dusty memories from bible college to defend my “socialist” ideas of health care, but drew a blank when it came to being eco-friendly. Somehow the Genesis passage about subduing the earth became the rallying cry for consumption, the earth was made for us to use (and apparently abuse.) I know we are to be good stewards of the gifts that God has given us and I believe the environment is a gift. How is a “pinko liberal communist tree hugger” to respond?

The following article was written by guest theologian, Abi.

This is an interesting question, especially in the light of lots of international talk about carbon footprints, zero gas emissions and reaching Kyoto protocol targets! Theologically, the issue of ecology, climate change and the environment can be a confusing one, and with so many approaches it is difficult to know how respond. Therefore, in order to answer your question, it seems best to first look at the creation narrative with which the Bible begins, especially as it is being used to justify environmentally damaging activity.

In Genesis chapter 1, verse 18, God commands Adam and Eve to “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” However, the English word ‘subdue’ doesn’t really do justice to the meaning of the God’s command. By definition, ‘subdue’ has negative connotations. The Oxford Dictionary states the word to mean “Conquer and bring into subjection with military force. Overcome or overpower with physical strength or violence.”[1]

For some then, to ‘subdue’ the earth means to bring under control by forceful dominance, intimidation and ultimately, consumption and abuse. Almost as if creation itself is rebellious and unruly and needs humanity to take it under control and submission.

However, even before humankind comes into existence on day 6 of the account, the rest of the creation has already been described as ‘good’. [2] Creation then, isn’t a bad thing that is defiant and disobedient but has an intrinsic value. The ‘use and abuse’ philosophy of ecology doesn’t seem to fit in with how God defines what He has made.

The commands to ‘rule’ and ‘subdue’ come before the fall of man in Genesis chapter 3. If the earth was perfect before the fall, then the outworking of these commands will also be perfect. Therefore, the verbs to rule and to subdue cannot have negative connotations in the context of the creation story. As man was created “in the image of God” [3], humanity’s ‘rule’ over creation should mirror God’s rule over all things: loving, patient, leading, caring and compassionate.

Additionally, although humans were made in the image of God, putting the human race above and of more value than the rest of creation [4], the Bible states multiple times that creation in its entirety, humanity included, belongs to and is ruled by God.[5] As it belongs to God, it is of immeasurable value.

It therefore follows that humans are not the owners of creation; rather, it has been entrusted into their care. Psalm chapter 115 verse 16 says that “The highest heavens belong to the Lord, but the Earth has given to man.” The world has been gifted to humans, to make use of and enjoy but not to abuse and destroy.

Another common view in fundamentalist theology is that the earth is in a state of increasing decline until the point where Jesus returns. Therefore, destroying the environment, or leaving it to be destroyed by others, essentially speeds Jesus’ coming.

This viewpoint is often held by Christians with a dispensational premillennialist view of the end times (for more on this viewpoint, see this previous article on freelance theology).This view would see ecological collapse and destruction such as famines, droughts, floods and pestilence to be signs of the forthcoming apocalypse.[6]

Although this is not the place to get into a discussion about the views about the end times, a response would be to reiterate that creation is of intrinsic value, and that God has entrusted humanity with the care of His creation. Is speeding the fate of the world through destructive action really the way Christians should act? If the apocalyptic destruction of Earth is due to evil and sin, maybe Christians should do all they can to oppose it? To do otherwise is to surrender to evil.

In conclusion, Christisn theology states that it is humanity’s privilege as the pinnacle of God’s creation to care for and rule lovingly over the rest of the Earth. This should inspire Christians to recognise the value that God has given creation and act accordingly.

Related articles
Millennial Fever
Global Warning

Notes and references
[1] ‘Subdue’ in Oxford Shorter Dictionary (5th Edition): Volume 2, Oxford University Press, 2003.
[2] Genesis chapter 1 verse 10, 12, 18, 21, 25.
[3] Genesis chapter 1 verse 26.
[4] For example: Matthew chapter 6 verse 26; Matthew chapter 10 verse 31; Matthew chapter 12 verse 12; Luke chapter 1 verse 27; Luke chapter 2 verse 4.
[5] Psalms chapter 24 verse 1,Psalms chapter 104 verse 24, Deuteronomy chapter 10 verse 14, Job chapter 41 verse 11, 1 Corinthians chapter 10 verse 26.
[6] See for instance Matthew chapter 24 verse 7.

The talk began with a rough “timeline” of what is often taught in churches about satan. An adapted version is shown here:

In the beginning, God exists alone (but in Trinity). Angels are created. Lucifer is created as one of the angels.

The world is created. Human beings are created ‘in the image of God’. Lucifer becomes jealous of the relationship God has with human beings and leads an angelic rebellion against God, which fails. Lucifer battles with the arch-angel Michael and is ‘cast down’ from Heaven. (Sometimes this is placed before the creation of the world, with Lucifer jealous of God’s plans to create humanity.)

In Eden, Lucifer takes the guise of a serpent, and persuades Eve to eat the forbidden fruit, thus sparking off the Fall of Man.

Later in Genesis, the fallen angels (‘the sons of God’) copulate with the daughters of men and produce a race of ‘giants’, which some creationists think is a reference to dinosaurs. All these creatures presumably die in the Great Flood.

In the Old Testament, Satan is described as ‘the accuser / adversary’. He accuses Job of only being righteous because God has blessed him. God tests Job as a result. Satan also ‘rises up’ against Israel and incites David into disobeying God (1 Chronicles, chapter 21, verse 1).

In the gospels, Satan plays a key role. Satan attempts to tempt Jesus with promises of food and power, and tries to trick Jesus into testing God. Jesus tells his disciples that “I saw Satan fall from Heaven like lightning” and refers to satan as “the prince of this world” and “the father of lies”.

Jesus and his followers cast out many “evil spirits”. Notable exorcisms include ‘Legion’ from the Gadarene Demoniac and the seven spirits from Mary Magdala. Luke’s gospel records that satan “entered” Judas Iscariot, when Judas chose to betray Jesus. Jesus rebukes Peter at one point and calls him satan. (“Get behind me, Satan.”)

In the Garden of Gethsemene, Jesus tells Peter that satan has “requested to sift you like wheat.” Jesus dies on the cross. He descends into hell and liberates the captive souls of righteous people who died under the old covenant – this is called the ‘Harrowing of Hell’ and is referenced in the Apostle’s Creed. Through the resurrection satan is defeated.

In the Age of the Church, the devil is still active as a tempter and adversary. Typically regarded as ‘lord of hell’, satan is said to rule over various demonic spirits – some of whom dwell in human beings, and others that rule over various territories (‘territorial spirits’). These are also known as ‘principalities and powers’. Christians are called to engage in “spiritual warfare” against these beings.

In the End Times visions of St John, recorded in Revelation, the devil, ‘all his angels’, a human figure called the antichrist and a monstrosity called the Beast are thrown into the Lake of Fire (“the second death”). Satan is removed utterly from the cosmos.

This particular ‘history’ of satan is ancient. Tertullian, writing in the second century recounts the story of a prehistoric fall of the angels and Augustine gives an account too.

But there are a few problems with it, not least of which a lack of Biblical evidence for most of the first bit.

Being limited by our own understanding of ‘being’
But before we discuss Biblical references to satan, I’d like to address something that I think is quite crucial regarding how we think about satan or the devil.

One of the problems we face in trying to understand anything is that we do so informed by our experience as human beings. So when we talk about ‘Satan’ or ‘the Devil’ we imagine a being a bit like us.

We imagine a created being with free will, perhaps. We imagine a being with a moral sense of right and wrong. And we use words like ‘rebellion’ to indicate this free will being misused. People may refer to the ‘Fall of Satan’ as if there was some kind of moral choice in the matter.

Three issues with this are:
1) We are never told that angels, whether fallen or otherwise, have the same attributes as human beings. ‘Angelou’, the Greek word, literally translates as ‘Messenger’. An angel is a messenger acting on behalf of God. Or, sometimes in the Old Testament, an angel carries out God’s business (e.g. the Angel of Death during Passover). Angels are thus created for a purpose and have no separate existence apart from the purpose they were created for.

Human beings on the other hand were created in the ‘image of God’, which means they have a separate existence. We can exist separately from God. We can be, in a sense, ‘self-sufficient’. That existence may be lesser, it may be ‘fallen’, it may be less good, but it is still existence.

2) ‘Personhood’ in the sense that we are persons and individuals is, I think, part of that Godly image that still resides in us. So I don’t think it’s right to regard other beings as ‘persons’. Especially not angels, which, whatever they are, are not human, and are not made in the image of God. We are persons because God is personal.

3) Regarding ‘Satan’ as a ‘personal being’ implies creation of that being with either a tendency towards evil, or as evil. Regarding ‘Satan’ as a personal being makes God ultimately responsible for the existence of ‘Satan’. But there isn’t much evidence that God created a personal being called ‘Satan’ to cause evil and suffering in the world.

That has been a viewpoint in Christian theology, as it helps to explain why a personal being called ‘Satan’ exists. But if you don’t accept that ‘Satan’ is a ‘personal’ being in the way that we are personal beings, then you don’t need to invent explanations for why God created such a being.

Using a lower case ’s’
So, having made those points, is it right to talk of the devil or satan as a person? On freelance theology satan is usually written with a lower case s, and the devil with a lower case d, precisely to undermine the ‘personal’ element. And satan is referred to as ‘it’, not ‘he’.

And the reason for doing that is very simple. As Christians it is right to believe there is a negative spiritual force at work in the world, which opposes God and opposes God’s followers. That viewpoint can be based on the words of Jesus, the tradition of the Church, and sometimes from personal experience.

But Christian theology insists that God has the mastery over that force; the battle is won and is being won as we speak. The force we call satan has no place in this universe, and ultimately will have no existence to speak of.

So if we say satan exists, what form does it take? One way to think of it is that satan exists ‘parasitically’. It has no form of its own and seeks to mimic the most powerful things it can. Human beings are immensely powerful. We are made in the image of God and like God we can shape worlds and futures. We have freedom and individuality and conscience and imagination. We exist self-sufficiently.

When human beings personalise or embody evil in a character or persona called ‘Satan’, we, in a way, give power and validity to the force that opposes God’s plans and purposes and will. Thinking of satan as a being a bit like us is both perfectly natural, and yet wrong, because in doing that we give this opposition form, and voice, and being.

It’s natural to think of satan as personal, though, because we have a tendency to anthropomorphise. We treat out pets as people. We ascribe human emotions to dogs, cats and hamsters. We even name our cars and talk to our appliances. We caress out phones and iPods. We imbue these things with a sense of us, and they become important to us as a result.

But even though it’s natural, when it comes to satan it’s wrong, because when we anthropomorphise satan we ascribe it more power, more validity, and more personality than we should. Many Christians believe that ‘Satan’ is a powerful, malevolent, intelligent being bent on their destruction. And for those Christians that may be true. But only because they gave that being form and existence, even if only in their own heads.

Having said that, let’s return to the traditional view, and some of the problem areas around it:

Wars and rumours of wars
There is no real Biblical evidence for a pre-historic ‘war in Heaven’ between rebellious angels and God. Let’s consider the references that are sometimes cited for this, but first two ‘non-references’.

There is no mention in Genesis, the ‘Book of Origins’, or in the writings of the Apostle Paul, who is probably the biggest source of quotes from Genesis in the New Testament and uses Genesis to support many of his arguments. The ‘Fall’ is a pivotal part of his theology, and he adheres to the Genesis account as literally true. It seems strange that there is no mention of Lucifer’s fall from grace.

The Old Testament references sometimes used to back this idea up are Ezekiel chapter 28, verses 13-17.

“You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone adorned you: ruby, topaz and emerald, chrysolite, onyx and jasper, sapphire, turquoise and beryl. Your settings and mountings were made of gold; on the day you were created they were prepared.

“You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you. You were on the holy mount of God; you walked among the fiery stones.

“You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you.

“Through your widespread trade you were filled with violence, and you sinned. So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God, and I expelled you, O guardian cherub, from among the fiery stones.

“Your heart became proud on account of your beauty, and you corrupted your wisdom because of your splendour. So I threw you to the earth; I made a spectacle of you before kings.”

That does read very much like the traditional view of the Fall of Satan. Thing is, if you look up these verses, they come in a prophetic section labelled “A Prophecy against the King of Tyre”. In fact, verses 11-12 say: “The word of the LORD came to me: “Son of man, take up a lament concerning the king of Tyre and say to him: ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says’…”

So, this text may have been applied to satan after it was written to support a tradition of a pre-historic angelic fall. But it probably wasn’t written that way.

Similarly Isaiah chapter 14, verses 12-15 is about the King of Babylon, which isn’t a metaphorical name for satan. It really was the King of Babylon. This is the section where the name Lucifer comes from. The King of Babylon is called ‘morning star; son of the dawn’ – or in Latin, luciferous.

In the New Testamant we have three possible references to a pre-historic angelic rebellion.

Firstly, Jesus tells his disciples that “I saw Satan fall from heaven like lightning” (Luke chapter 10, verse 18). However, this conversation takes place just after the 72 disciples had gone out and done amazing acts of healing and exorcism.

Jesus may be referring to what has just happened – the actions of the disciples have pushed back the effects of evil. There is no way of knowing whether it’s a reference to a pre-historic fall, or whether Jesus is just using it as a symbolic way of saying ‘yeah, you have guys have done God’s work, and you have done good.’

The other NT references are:
Jude, verse 6 “And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgement on the great Day.”

2 Peter chapter 2, verse 4 “God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, [Greek: ‘Tartarus’] putting them into gloomy dungeons [or chains of darkness] to be held for judgement.”

These two verses present their own difficulties. Jude also refers to the devil ‘disputing’ with the archangel Michael over Moses’ body (verse 9) and a prophecy of Enoch (verses 14-15). Neither is found in the Old Testament. It appears the writer of Jude is using stories from Jewish legend to appeal to those he is writing to. So, how much credence we should give any of the stories he refers to is a matter of personal opinion.

The 2 Peter reference may well refer to the strange reference in Genesis chapter 6, verses 1-2. “When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose.” However, this occurred after the creation events and the ‘Fall of Man’ in Eden, not beforehand. So the chronology is out of sync.

In fact, the only clear reference to a ‘war in Heaven’ is found in Revelation chapter 12, verses 7-9. “And there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.”

Confusingly, though, this is in John’s vision of the future, not the past. So the only clear reference to this idea locates the fall from Heaven at a future point. And, in addition, care needs to be taken in the use and interpretation of apocalyptic writings, because they are highly symbolic and may not have been designed to be read in any way literally in the first place.

There are good reasons for believing in a pre-historic ‘fall’ of angels. It offers an explanation of sorts for the existence of a negative spiritual force known as satan. It also locates satan firmly within the created sphere – evil is not something breaking into, or impinging upon, creation. God’s mastery over satan is assured because God has created the sphere in which satan has arisen.

So there are good reasons, even if there are no good Biblical reasons.

“The old serpent…”
And so to the Eden story, where satan is often identified as one and the same as one of the main protagonists: the serpent. As I’ve already said, there is nothing in the Eden narratives to suggest a pre-historic fall of angels, and similarly there is no textual evidence that the serpent is satan. Apart from the fact that it talks to Eve, it’s an ordinary serpent.

There’s no way to know exactly who first identified the serpent as satan. When Paul refers to it in 2 Corinthian’s chapter 11, verse 3, he doesn’t make the link. However, in Revelation, John identifies satan as ‘that old serpent’, twice (Revelation chapter 12, verse 9, and chapter 20, verse 2). So, this idea has some New Testament provenance, but equally there are other things it could be.

The Genesis creation stories have borrowed a lot of language and style from Babylonian creation myths (see this previous article on freelance theology). In Babylonian mythology, there are dragons (serpents) and they represent chaos. The article about evil mentioned that one way of looking at evil is that God imposes order on chaos, but chaos fights back. Isaiah uses the imagery of Leviathan, “the serpent of the sea” to represent chaos, and God’s mastery over it, in Isaiah chapter 27, verse 1.

So, is the reference to a serpent a creative way of expressing something else? A serpent represents destruction and chaos. Disobeying God brings destruction and chaos (the ‘Fall’ and the introduction of sin into the world). The serpent of Eden may be a ‘literary device’ to warn the reader about the perils of doubting God’s words.

Satan the lawyer
The Job story is very interesting. Satan appears to be allowed into Heaven. Satan comes, like a lawyer, to bring a case against Job. Job, it is claimed, is only so righteous because God has blessed him – God is ‘buying his love’. God accepts it may look that way and removes all of Job’s blessings. Job does not recant his faith in God and his righteousness is proven to all.

It’s noticeable that Satan appears to fulfil a similar function in Zechariah chapter 3, verses 1. “Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right side to accuse him.”

Jesus and satan
Without a doubt Jesus referred to satan as a personal being or described satan as having personal attributes. Jesus’ ministry is marked by significant temptations, spiritual encounters, exorcisms, and references to satan as ‘the prince of this world’ and ‘the father of lies’.

As an aside, it is worth pointing out that even as God incarnate, Jesus was born into a culture that believed in the existence of ‘Satan’ as a personal being. In his human-ness it would be only natural for Jesus to think of ‘Satan’ this way. We need to exercise caution about saying that the way Jesus talks about ‘Satan’ is an indicator that ‘Satan’ exists that way.

But the life of Jesus does reveal some very clear indicators about the nature of satan. There are several different ways of interpreting these key events and I just want to throw out a few of them:

The Temptation
This is an important part of Jesus’ life at the start of his ministry. He knows who he is, and has had that confirmed at his baptism. Now he must decide what kind of messiah he is going to be?

Is he going to use his power to look after his own needs (bread)? Is he going to be a military leader (commanding angels)? Is he going to be a political leader (ruling countries)? All three options are open to him.

However, the accounts don’t really talk about Satan in any external way. “The tempter” ‘comes to’ Jesus, in the same way that thoughts come or doubts come. These ideas take the form of ‘You could make bread’. Jesus identifies it as a wrong thought.

How did his followers know about the temptation he faced? He must have told them. He may have identified these thoughts as satanic, because they are not relating to the way of God. So we can look at this ‘spiritual experience’ as an internal experience without losing any of the power or the meaning, or the wonderful truth that Jesus chose to go God’s way.

I’m not trying to explain away the Temptation of Jesus as ‘he was hearing voices’. What I’m trying to show is that the fact of Jesus being tempted by the devil, is not evidence of the devil’s self-sufficient existence. To put it another way, the devil wasn’t waiting for Jesus in the desert. If Jesus had not gone out there, satan would have ‘come’ to him in another place.

Exorcism and liberation
I think its very interesting that exorcisms are carried out by Jesus in much the same context as healings. They have very similar effects. For example, Jesus heals Peter’s mother-in-law and she gets up and starts to make them dinner (Luke chapter 4, verses 38-39). She gets back to normal. Jesus drives out Legion from the Gaderene demoniac and then the next vignette is of Jesus sitting chatting with the man who is now in his own mind (Mark chapter 5, verse 15).

A way of looking at the exorcism of evil spirits is to regard them like sickness. These are people who have been profoundly affected by something that goes against the will of God. Sickness is not in the original plan of God therefore Jesus opposed sickness and cured people. Possession by something other than God is also not in God’s original plan, so Jesus opposes it and drives it out.

But note how these ‘demons’/’evil spirits’ are defined only within a context of ‘occupying’ things that exist – mainly humans. Legion is interesting. Legion begs not to be destroyed and asks to be driven into the pigs (Mark chapter 5, verse 12). This (slightly bizarre) story seems to imply that the evils spirits can’t exist apart from a ‘host’.

Peter = satan?
What does Jesus mean when he calls Peter ‘Satan’ in Matthew chapter 16, verse 23? Is he identifying the ‘opposition’ in Peter – the adversary that was thinking and acting counter to God’s plans?

This is the same kind of thing that affected Judas. It’s interesting that Luke claims that satan entered Judas when Judas decided to betray him (Luke chapter 22, verses 3-6). It was as if, at the point when Judas fell out with Jesus, Judas fell under the influence of something else.

‘Spiritual warfare’ and the power of satan in the age of the Church
Throughout the New Testament the influence and ‘power’ of satan is regarded as temporary. The Revelation of John predicts an end to satan, and claims that in the new heaven and new earth there will not be any ‘sea’ – again a word that could be read as a reference to the primordial chaos.

God will put an end to sin and suffering, death and chaos. Order will be restored, the order that always meant to be there. Satan, whatever satan was, will be out of the picture.

In Ephesians chapter 6, verse 12 Paul talks about battling against spiritual forces, ‘principalities and powers’, and often that is interpreted literally, as if there are areas of the world controlled by particular demons. That’s not particularly helpful as it breeds a ‘devils under the bed’ mentality, where we ascribe everything that goes awry as part of a satanic plan to oppose us. The danger in that is we spend all our time looking for demons at work, and too little time looking for God at work.

Paul may be speaking metaphorically. Yes, he was talking about those things that oppose the will of God, but he wasn’t laying out a systematic demonology. This is a rhetorical exhortation to suit up as a soldier for God and resist evil wherever you find it.

In fact, you could say that a phrase like “against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms” implies that the first three are human, worldly elements. Maybe we have missed the point of Paul’s words by overly spiritualising them and applying them only to ‘spiritual warfare’.

So, what is satan?
Satan as a ‘function’
The problem is that we think of Satan in personal terms – to the point where we write Satan or the Devil with capital letters as proper nouns, as if those words were proper names.

But what evidence do we have that those are proper names. In Job, the accuser / adversary is a function; a role, not a name. Is satan a function?

When Jesus is tempted by satan, is this just ‘testing’. Is ‘Satan’ a personalisation of a function within creation? Is satan an in-built element of creation that holds it to account? It tests. It’s a stress-test. And when it gets out of hand there are problems.

I think there is an element of truth to this. I think it can be helpful if you want to maintain that satan is a semi-personal force that is allowed to exist in opposition to God. It does tie in with the idea of satan tempting humans. It does allow you to think of satan as force with its own existence and more than just parasitically drawing on existence.

Satan as the ‘nothing option’
Another way of regarding satan is that idea of chaos, interloping into order. We have two potential alternatives: order and chaos, or lets call them existence and nothing. God creates order, according to Christian theology. God calls existence into being – ‘creatio ex nihilo’, or creation from nothing, is a standard starting point for most systematic theologies – and the alternative is non-existence.

For the purpose of this exercise, let’s assume the literal truth of the Genesis story about the Fall of Man. When Eve doubts God’s words, and acts in accordance to her own wisdom, trouble follows. She makes a choice – a wrong choice – and something is set up apart from God. But what can be apart from God, and yet exist? Nothing can, according to Christian theology, so trusting in anything – ‘leaning on your own understanding’ – is an exercise in trusting in nothing.

When Eve chose to trust something other than God, she chose the path of non-existence. She is warned that is she disobeys God she will surely die. Death is ceasing to live; to exist. She disobeys God and non-existence enters the existing world, bringing with it discreativity and chaos. Or evil, if you want to call it that.

Satan then is this ‘option’. If you choose not-God, non-existence, then you choose to be apart from God and to be in opposition to God. Jesus calls Peter ‘Satan’ when Peter is expressing terms that are counter to God’s plan. This is how satan ‘enters’ into Judas, because Judas sets himself in opposition with Jesus who is God incarnate. For whatever reason Judas chose to do it, in that choice satan enters him and he becomes the enemy of Christ.

The frightening thing about this is that all human beings have the capacity to be either divine or satanic, depending on which side of the barricades we choose to stand.

Satan as anything that opposes God
A third way of making sense of satan is to define it as anything that is not of God. Doubting God, opposing God, self-worship, idolatry, falsehood, sin, all of it could be classed as satanic because it is in opposition to God.

In the verse already quoted from Ephesians we are to stand “against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms”. Anything that is arraigned against God is ‘of the devil’. That’s the stuff we label as satan. And sometimes that may include persons and cults of personality, and in that sense the devil may take on personality, but only ‘borrowed’ as it were, from corrupted persons.

Conclusion
So, should we believe ‘in’ the devil?

I would say, no. Even if I’m wrong and there is a real, spiritual entity who was thrown out of Heaven before the creation of the world, and has subsequently messed up the whole of human existence, I would still say ‘No’.

If anything we must believe ‘against’ the devil. We must deny satan or lucifer or the devil or whatever we call it, its validity. One way we do that is be refusing to think of it as a personal being.

We must say ‘whatever this is, it has no reason to exist’. Whether it’s a fallen angel, or a sinful system, or a parasitic incursion into our universe, we need to say ‘no, we do no recognise the legitimacy of anything or anyone who would seek to oppose our God.’

I said earlier the battle is won, and it is being won. We know where the devil will end up. There is no place for it in the renewed cosmos. There may still be a struggle in this world. The promise is there will be no such struggle in the next.

So when we think of the way things should be, there should be no place for the devil.

Is it possible to think of God as having a gender?

This is an interesting question because most Christians, and most Christian writers, automatically use the personal pronouns ‘He’ or ‘Him’ to describe God. This is partly due to the limitations of human language, and also the longstanding tendency to describe God in human terms that have gender-specific connotations, for example, the word ‘Father’.

While most Christians would acknowledge that “God is Spirit to be worshipped in spirit and truth” and that both men and women were created in God’s image, there is still an underlying temptation to ascribe the male gender to God.

However, although Yahweh is often described in male terms, for example as a ‘King’ [1] or a ‘Warrior’ [2], feminine imagery is also used descriptively of Yahweh’s nature. One metaphor for Yahweh’s protection is of a mother hen gathering her chicks beneath her wings to shield them from predators. This imagery is found in the Psalms [3] and is also echoed by Jesus when he grieves over the destruction that will befall Jerusalem [4].

God becomes male
Jesus, of course, was born a boy. (There can be no doubt about his maleness as the Bible says he was circumcised according to Jewish custom! [5]) So, in one sense it is right to say there is a gender-specific element within the Godhead. It’s quite correct to use masculine personal pronouns to talk about Jesus, the man.

However, Jesus broke with the masculine culture in his ministry, speaking with women and even travelling with them. On one occasion in his teaching, he was pressed to answer a question about marriage in heaven and responded by saying that there is no male and female in heaven, but humans are “like the angels”[6].

Jesus’ response could mean that resurrection bodies are gender neutral or that gender is an irrelevant division in heaven. This would echo the teachings of the Apostle Paul who stated that there were no divisions “in Christ”, meaning the resurrection life experienced by believers after conversion. One of the divisions broken down is between men and women [7].

Jesus, of course, also introduces the most important ‘masculine’ term applied to God: the word ‘Father’. Technically the word Jesus uses is ‘Abba’, an Aramaic word of very close familiarity – a comparative term in English would be the word ‘daddy’, rather than Father.

Anecdotes abound of people insisting that because God is called ‘Father’ that means God is ‘male’. This has led to some contemporary theologians rejecting the term ‘Father’ and addressing God as ‘Mother’, or even ‘Father and Mother’, following a long-standing mystical tradition that addresses God as ‘Mother’ [8].

However, many feminist theologians are content to retain masculine descriptive terms, but stress the need to treat them as metaphors [9]. In the case of ‘Father’, the metaphorical meaning includes the idea of a ‘familial likeness’ and relationship between God and human beings. It also acknowledges God’s authority over humans, and that God is the ultimate source of life. There is also the idea that God’s children receive an ‘inheritance’ – an important concept in the culture from which the New Testament emerged [10].

‘Father’ is therefore a useful term because of what it means, but the metaphor is just that, and applying the name ‘Father’ to God to determine God’s gender could be thought of as naïve.

‘Divine Wisdom’ and the Holy Spirit
Some parts of the Old Testament use personal pronouns to describe ‘Wisdom’ as an attribute of God that seems to have its own identity. The most well-known passage is Proverbs chapters 1 to 9, where Wisdom, a ‘feminine’ noun, is described in female terms like ‘sister’ [11].

It may be that the writer of Proverbs is subverting pagan terminology applied to goddesses such as Asherah, a Canaanite goddess worshipped in Israel at the time. Some scholars believe that ‘Wisdom’ as a female divinity reflects a belief that Yahweh had a ‘consort’. Most tribal religion in Old Testament times had ‘married’ male and female gods. It is possible that as Israelite religion developed a more rigid form of monotheism, Yahweh’s divine consort was understood in a new way – as part of Yahweh, emanating from the one God, and in that way divine.

‘Wisdom’, translated as ‘Sophia’ in Greek, was also identified with the word ‘Logos’, meaning ‘Word’. Logos was a term directly applied to Jesus Christ by early Christians, for example at the beginning of John’s gospel. The Apostle Paul calls Christ “the wisdom [sophia] of God” [12], which means that an element of the divine nature identified as female is also applied to God’s male incarnation. This is an interesting twist on the idea of God being both male and female.

As Christian theology developed its trinitarian doctrines, there were several attempts to legitimise statements regarding the divinity of the Holy Spirit. In addition to references to the ‘Spirit of Yahweh’ in the Old Testament, the imagery of ‘Divine Wisdom’ was applied to the Holy Spirit by those in favour of ascribing divinity to the Holy Spirit. Divine Wisdom was identified as the Holy Spirit in action in the Old Testament.

If the Holy Spirit and Divine Wisdom are thought of as synonymous, that would mean that the Christian Trinitarian God includes a ‘female’ element in the Holy Spirit. Interestingly the Christian fictional work The Shack by William P Young that has attained great popularity in the last couple of years depicts the Holy Spirit as a woman. This literary device is less innovative than many Christians would think, as it appears to hark back to the identification of the Holy Spirit as the female personification of Divine Wisdom.

Talking about God requires personal words
In conclusion, there is a need to use something in order to be able to talk about God without repeatedly using the word ‘God’. A personal pronoun, for example ‘He’ or ‘Him’, is more acceptable than an impersonal pronoun like ‘It’. It simply sounds wrong to talk about ‘God revealing itself to humanity’ or ‘God working out its plans’, because the Christian understanding of God is of a person, and the human understanding of a person is of a being with gender.

However, the limitations of language (particularly the English language) when it comes to ascribing gender will probably mean God will always have gendered personal pronouns applied to him (or her). The important thing is to remember that all language applied to God, and all human terms and names, are essentially metaphorical in nature. They may reveal aspects of God’s nature, but they are unreliable indicators of God’s true essence.

Notes and References
[1] For example, Psalm 47, verse 2 “How awesome is the LORD most high, the great King over all the earth” (NIV) – the capitalised word ‘LORD’ indicates the presence of the Hebrew word YHWH (Yahweh, sometimes written as Jehovah) in the original text
[2] For example, Exodus 15, verse 3 “The LORD is a warrior” (NIV)
[3] See Psalm 17, verse 8 and Psalm 91, verse 4.
[4] Luke chapter 13, verse 34
[5] Luke chapter 2, verse 21
[6] Matthew chapter 22, verses 23-30
[7] Galatians chapter 3, verse 28
[8] For example the female mystic of the Middle Ages who is known as ‘Julian of Norwich’ after the church dedicated the St Julian, where she lived.
[9] For example, Sallie McFague, cited in McGrath, Christian Theology – An Introduction (1st edition), Blackwell 1994, p.101
[10] Many of these metaphorical attributes can actually be traced to St Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274AD), cited in McGrath, op.cit, p.135
[11] Proverbs chapter 9, verse 4
[12] 1 Corinthians chapter 1, verse 24

There were six theological ideas put forward:

• Evil originates in God and is misunderstood.
• Evil occurs when God ‘withdraws’ from a place.
• Evil is entropy/chaos seeking to reassert itself in a world that has been placed in order by God.
• Evil is the ‘no’ inherent in the ‘yes’ of God’s creative act. It is the ‘nothingness’ that exists apart from God.
• ‘Evil’ is down to natural probability.
• ‘Evil’ is a force in the world that springs from our collective psychic experience – interiority.

Much of the following is based on the excellent book A Theology of the Dark Side by Nigel G Wright (Paternoster Press 2003). However, any errors in the following summaries are the responsibility of Jon the freelance theologian.

Some preliminary notes to the discussion

Some evil is subjective
So, if, for example, my friend Ian opens his wallet and finds the £20 note he put in there is missing, he may curse his luck and think he’s the victim of misfortune and that the world is evil as a result. But if I’m walking down the street 100 yards behind Ian and suddenly a £20 note blows towards me I may praise the situation. Free money! And I may think the universe is a beneficial place for me.

For Ian, losing the money disadvantages him and therefore he feels wronged. For me, finding the money advantages me and therefore I feel happy.

But is that all evil is? Well, no, there are other things that seem more tangible and life-threatening than the movement of a £20 note. My point is that some “evil” is subjective, depending on whether we are hurt or damaged by it.

Events are compounded by moral choices
The recent earthquake in Haiti registered at 7 on the Richter Scale. They are still pulling bodies out of the rubble. In the early 1990s an earthquake hit Los Angeles, registering 7 on the Richter scale and only 68 people died.

Was the earthquake that hit Haiti any more or less evil than the one that hit LA? Was it the effects of the earthquake that were more evil? Should we really blame the earthquake at all, given that its devastating effects were the result of it hitting one of the world’s poorest countries not one of the world’s richest? What really caused that ‘evil’ event?

This is where we start to blur the lines between ‘natural’ and ‘moral’ evil. Often natural evil is magnified in its destructive intensity by moral evil. In the case of Haiti, the oppression of ‘poor’ countries by rich ones contributed towards it. But earthquakes are a case in point – we call their effects evil because they impinge on our freedom. But does that make it evil?

But where does moral evil come from?
Much has been written about the notion of free will, the ‘Fall of Man’, and supernatural intervention by a malignant force. But why would we (or any being) choose for evil to happen? What is the origin of evil in a universe created by God – who we would say is the ultimate good?

The origin of evil is the purpose of this article. Ultimately the big question we need to ask before we start seeing evil as a ‘problem’ is ‘does evil exist, and, if so, from whence did evil come from?’ Here are six possible philosophical/theological possibilities.

Option 1: Evil originates in God and is misunderstood.
But one important aspect of the idea of ‘satan’ is interesting to bring in here. There are some theological viewpoints that state that God uses satan/evil for God’s purposes. God is therefore the author of both good and evil.

Another way of looking at this is that evil is God’s ‘dark side’ – what philosopher Carl Jung called the ‘shadow’.

This presupposes that God is capable of any acts, including evil, and – because evil is subjective – sometimes God’s act appear evil. So, for example, God’s grace and God’s wrath are like opposite sides of a weighing scale. If you’re on the wrath side, then you may experience ‘evil’ that is authored in God.

Strangely this view has some Biblical authority – Exodus 32:14 (King James Version): “And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.” (New International Version) “Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.” (See this article on freelance theology for more on this.)

Some ideas in “Process theology” suggest that God is ‘working out’ his dark side in the drama of human history. Through interaction with the world, God is becoming more good. The Biblical story does seem to show a developing understanding of God from a bloodthirsty tyrant in the Old Testament to an incarnate God willing to enter his creation and die to reconcile human beings to himself in the New.

Option 2: Evil occurs when God ‘withdraws’ from a place.
There is a problem with ‘free will’. If God is the author and sustainer of the universe, that means that all potentiality finds its origin in God. Free will is an illusion if all actions are pre-known and/or pre-planned by God. The great criticism of Calvinism is that when predestination is asserted too strongly, it means that everything is ultimately God’s responsibility which makes the whole idea of sin, judgement and justice ultimately an illusion.

If God withdraws to allow free-willed beings to exist and make genuinely free choices, then his sustenance of that creation is withdrawn, allowing for a collapse into chaos and the emergence of ‘evil’ events and actions that are not aligned with God’s plans.

This has some Biblical backing, namely the use of the term ‘kenosis’ in Philippians chapter 2. The idea that in the incarnation, God the Son ‘emptied himself’ (kenosis) to become human, seems to illustrate a way that God could ‘deny his very nature’ and become less-than-God. Kenosis is a fairly popular topic within theology as it allows for God to experience mortality (death) as a reality in the person of Christ. (See this freelance theology article for more on kenosis.)

If God withdraws from the cosmos and allows it, and the creatures that dwell in it, to run along self-determinating lines, then those creatures and the very cosmos itself could deviate from God’s original plans. ‘Evil’ is deviation from the original plans.

A version of this was put forward as an explanation for evil by Augustine. (It wasn’t particularly original, but he summed it up well.) He talked about the ‘Privatio Boni’, the Privation of Good. So evil is only seen as evil because it is a falling away from perfection.

So, if a man blind it’s a privation of the good – being sighted – and therefore blindness is evil. But for a cave fish with no eyes anyway, being blind is not evil because it is not a falling away from perfection.

The idea of a ‘falling away’ from a state of perfection obviously has a Biblical basis in Genesis chapter 3, where sin enters the world and begins to distort it. But it doesn’t really explain where sin/evil originates; it just explains the form that evil takes.

Option 3: Evil is entropy/chaos seeking to reassert itself in a world that has been placed in order by God.

The two terms to be aware of are Creativity versus Discreativity. This is seen in dualistic religions such as Zoroastrianism, and has some Biblical basis – ‘the deep’ in Genesis chapter 1 is often thought of as the ‘primordial chaos’ as seen in, for example, Babylonian creation myths (more on freelance theology here). The creative act of God brings order in the midst of chaos, but chaos fights back

So, the natural state of things is non-order – and this seems to be evidenced by physics with the idea that due to entropy all matter will lapse into a uniform state.

As entropy seeks to discreate, ‘evil’ is the result. God’s role as sustainer becomes even more important, because it is only through God’s continual input into creation that entropy can be held at bay.

But occasionally it can’t be kept out, for whatever reason (probably the free will of autonomous beings again), and so ‘evil’/discreativity occurs.

However, a problem for this point of view is that chaos is pre-existent, and Christian theology traditionally asserts creatio ex nihilo, i.e. that there was nothing pre-existing God and God’s creative acts.

And yet there must have been something other than God for God to be defined against. This leads us onto a new option: evil as ‘nothingness’

Option 4: Evil is the ‘no’ inherent in the ‘yes’ of God’s creative act. It is the ‘nothingness’ that exists apart from God.

Ways to think about this: You cannot create light without creating dark. You cannot create matter without it having vacuum to move frictionlessly in. God cannot exist without something to define God against, otherwise in what sense does God exist?

The ‘nothingness’ is a key element of Karl Barth’s explanation for the origin of evil. Barth coined the term ‘Das nichtinge’ – and defined ‘the nothingness’ as a negative force that exists ‘improperly’ because it is not planned or purposed by God

Barth said that evil is the ‘no’ of God that is inherent in the ‘yes’ of the creative act. God said ‘let there be light’ and as a result created darkness. When God sets out creation and says ‘let it be like this’, he also in a strange way creates an alternative mode of being at the same time for it to be defined against. There is something profoundly poetic and therefore compelling in the way Barth describes this.

“Let it be good” means you create the potentiality for it to be bad at the same time. Evil becomes the potential by-product of creating ‘good’. When it takes form, as all potentialities can, evil affects a discreative influence upon the universe. That can be in the moral relationships and behaviour of autonomous agents operating in a space that God has withdrawn from to allow free autonomy, or just the workings of said world deviating from it’s original ‘good’ plan.

This definition of evil is similar to privatio boni and discreativity in that evil feeds parastically on existence as a failing of existence, in all three ideas.

But there is a problem with this view, when it states that God’s ‘yes’ was within God’s will, but that God’s ‘no’ was outside his will. Actually both may be within God’s will, in that God may actively choose the good and reject the bad at the same time. God may choose to create and therefore choose not to discreate in the same action, much as you or I often have a choice between two eventualities.

Option 5: ‘Evil’ is down to natural probability.
This isn’t a particularly Christian idea, but it’s found in modern pandeism, notably in God’s Debris by Scott Adams (Andrews McMeel Publishing, 2001). And yet, it does resonate with some of the process theologies, as probability is one way for God to work out his creative processes.

It also seems to chime with a lot of the ‘wisdom literature’ you find in the Old Testament, like the books of Job and Ecclesiastes that try to explain why bad things happen to good people. Jesus’ comments about how God ‘sends rain on both the righteous and the unrighteous‘ (Matthew chapter 5, verse 45) also seem to indicate that bad things are as likely as not to happen to good people.

So, what is meant by probability?

We live in a universe that is mathematically ordered along strong lines of probability. Many things happen every day – some favour us and some don’t. We all attract a certain amount of things to us and how favourable those things are could be plotted on a probability graph – very favourable things towards the top, and very unfavourable things towards the bottom.

Most of us bumble along the middle of the graph, very occasionally attracting one or two very good things – we meet our life partner; we win the lottery – or very bad things – we are made redundant; we get cancer.

But some people get all good things – they are born in privilege and everything they touch turns to gold. And others get all bad things – they are born in a third world hellhole, scrape a meagre living, catch a horrible disease and die a horrible death.

Well, that’s the way probability works.

But there are ways of shading probability. You can exercise to avoid heart disease. Or apply yourself to your job to make sure you don’t get laid off. And as a race, we can spread the wealth and raise people up out of grinding poverty, thereby shading their probability towards the top end of the graph.

Probability isn’t a particularly good way of comforting people, you’d think, but personally I like to think that we live in a world where favourable and unfavourable events happen, and when unfavourable events happen to me it’s not because God is angry, or doesn’t love me, or doesn’t care. It’s just that in life some unfavourable events are going to happen.

And when those things happen to other people, I have a choice whether I turn to help them or not. I think there’s a call on us to react to ‘evil’.

I’m aware that this approach does lead onto more questions – why would God create a world where probability is a driving force. My guess is that it’s because only such a world would work if God withdrew from it to allow beings within the universe to have free will.

Option 6: ‘Evil’ is a force in the world that springs from our collective psychic experience – interiority.

Let’s start by talking about institutionalised evil: The institutions end up controlling us. They become their own ‘thing’ that we give the power to and then become enslaved by. Think of how people can get caught up in church traditions. At one point they created those traditions to serve a purpose, but soon they became enslaved by them.

How does this happen? Well, some thinkers point to the notion of ‘interiority’. This is the idea that somehow humans create structures and institutions which take on ‘a life of their own’. The power that we give them gets turned back on us and ends up ruling us. Think of a democracy – we effectively control the democracy because we give law-making powers to people we elect. Does it feel that way?

At a simpler level – the ‘spirit of the mob’ occurs when we abdicate responsibility for our own actions and become part of a larger whole which is capable of doing terrible things. I have shouted things at soccer matches I would never shout if I was an individual on my own. Being part of ‘the mob’ meant I was part of a collective and the mob was shouting those things so I shouted along with it. But by shouting along with it I helped create it.

The theologian who talks most about interiority is Walter Wink. He points out that most of the Biblical references to ‘evil’ references structures of control and power – in fact evil is defined as “principalities and powers”. Wink sees these powers as the crystallisation of the ‘innermost essence’ of human beings made manifest through word and action.

Evil thus manifests itself in human thought and action, but is based ultimately in human idolatry – trusting in something other than God and gifting that thing with power that should in reality belong to God. That power then comes back to haunt us by overpowering us and making us its slave. We effectively enslave ourselves.

Is this an adequate understanding of evil? Well, it doesn’t really answer the question on the origin of evil – we have to posit a withdrawing/self-limiting/autonomy-gifting scenario in order for human beings to develop the collective psychic consciousness and vest it with power.

But the strength of this point of view is that it does allow Christians to talk about negative spiritual forces arraigned in opposition to God – ‘devils’ and ‘demons’. The irony is that these negative spiritual forces have come into existence and are powerful because human beings have helped make them real and gifted them with power.

Conclusion
These six points of view are fairly esoteric, but they each have ideas worth exploring. Ultimately, no one option is an entirely satisfactory solution to questions about the origin of evil and maybe a more compelling answer will include elements of all of them.

What are the things that those who believe in Kenosis actually believe in? Do they believe that Jesus had a “veil” that concealed his divine powers while his incarnation on earth or do they believe that he actually “emptied himself” of all divine powers?

‘Kenosis’ is a term based on the Greek word ‘keno-oo’ used in Philippians chapter 2, verse 7, to describe Jesus Christ. Often translated as ‘Jesus humbled himself’ it literally means ‘to empty’ and has been interpreted as implying a shedding of divine powers by the pre-existent Jesus during the incarnation.

As a term, ‘kenosis’ came to prominence in Lutheran theology. Luther commented that the Christian revelation of God is found in the man, Jesus, which includes the death and resurrection of Jesus: often referred to as the ‘theology of the cross’. God is therefore seen in the crucified man, and God experiences death and resurrection.

This theme has been explored more fully since Luther’s time, and often feature theories of ‘kenosis’ to explain how God could potentially take on limitations.

Explaining human and divine natures
Theologians differ over the scale of how much divine power was retained by the incarnate Christ, and this has been a discussion in Christian theology since earliest times. The ‘Chalcedonian definition’ that dates from the Council of Chalcedon in 451 is often regarded as the final theological statement of the ‘early church’ and is the culmination of fierce debates about Christ’s divinity and humanity.

The creed of Chalcedon affirmed the ‘two natures’ Christology, saying that Jesus Christ was both fully God and fully human. This meant that gospel stories about miracles could be ascribed to his divine nature, while various weaknesses recorded in the gospels (the need for sleep, hunger, thirst, needing to ask questions) were ascribed to Christ’s human nature. This has become the basis for almost all strands of Christian theology active today, but has weaknesses, the most obvious one being ‘How can one being have two natures?’

‘Kenotic’ theology offers an alternative explanation to the two-natures Christology, as Christ takes on a human nature at the expense of the divine nature during the incarnation. The human Christ could even be thought of as lacking any divine powers because he had ‘emptied himself’ of them in the process of Incarnation.

A controversial point of view
This idea has attracted some criticism. Biblical scholar Gordon Fee says: “Historically, far too much has been made of the verb “emptied himself”, as though in becoming incarnate he [Jesus] literally “emptied himself” of something.” [1] Fee goes on to demonstrate a sound textual argument that Paul’s use of ‘kenosis’ is merely metaphorical and does not describe a change in the divine nature. The main theological revelation of this passage, according to Fee is the claim that Jesus Christ existed within the Godhead before the incarnation. The pre-existence of Christ is central to Paul’s metaphorical description of Christ ‘humbling himself’ as a ‘servant’.

Despite these criticisms, however, ‘Kenosis’ remains a way of understanding the Incarnation that remains popular among theologians because it allows a genuine human Jesus to also be a genuine divine Christ. The Incarnation becomes an event where God is limited in time, and underlines the uniquely Christian assertion about God that ‘God was in Christ’.

Notes
[1] Gordon Fee, Philippians, IVP 1999, p. 94

Is there only one ‘true’ religion?

The points of view about whether Christianity is ‘true’ in comparison to ‘truth’ found in other religions can be thought of as a spectrum. This ranges from those who would insist that Christianity is exclusively true and all other religions are in error, through to those who would quite happily view other religions as having an equal and valid view of God, and to be a means to salvation for some. (This is often referred to as pluralism.)

It should also be noted that at the extreme of the exclusivist end of the spectrum are Christians who not only believe their religion to be exclusively true, but their particular defining doctrines. Other Christians who are not of the same church are occasionally considered ‘as bad’ as those who belong to another religion entirely.

Somewhere in the middle of the spectrum, many people recognise that all religions are ultimately human constructions, in that they attempt to make sense of a divine revelation (or at least a ‘transcendent’ experience that is regarded as a divine revelation), and as such, every religion will contain flaws. In some sense, every religion has the potential to be untrue in parts. The commonality of most religions (recognition of a spiritual element to the universe; in most cases the existence of a deity and so on) implies that there is some truth to be found everywhere.

A gradual move towards pluralism
The other thing that is noticeable is ‘pluralist drift’. Historically, religions start off making exclusive claims. This can be seen in the Old Testament as Judaism sought to distance itself from Canaanite religion even to the point of forbidding inter-marriage with other tribes. There is some debate over how ‘monotheistic’ Judaism was originally as ‘other gods’ do seem to be considered as real in the earliest parts of the Old Testament. Later they are dismissed as lifeless idols, in comparison with the ‘true’ Living God.1

Similarly, as Christianity sought to establish itself, the claims of exclusive truth were a necessary part of the process. Christianity had to define itself against both the Jewish faith that birthed it, and the Greek and Roman religion that dominated the world it grew into. Much of the New Testament addresses both these competitors, with, for example, the deliberate use of the word ‘ekklesia’ that was associated with Emperor Worship to describe the church. The subtext is that Christianity is true and worshipping Caesar is a mistake.

Christianity’s adoption as the state religion in the Roman Empire in the fourth century AD confirmed its ‘exclusively true’ status. Several of Christianity’s darker moments (e.g. the Crusades, the persecution of Jews in Europe, the Inquisition, the conquest of America and extermination of the native peoples) have their roots in the ‘exclusivist’ mindset that justified, in the minds of the perpetrators, those acts.

However, in the last few centuries, the general trend within Christianity has been towards accepting other religions as valid voices to listen to. The growth of pluralism tends to be linked with branches of theology that are labelled ‘Liberal’, but even within ‘Conservative’ Christianity there is a growing awareness that ‘truth’ may not be the exclusive preserve of Christians.

The Bible can be used by both sides
Interestingly both the exclusive and pluralist points of view often appeal to phrases found in the Gospel of John. The most relevant saying of Jesus that is usually quoted to assert Christianity’s exclusive truth claims is: “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me.” (John chapter 14, verse 6).

However, while it seems this is quite an exclusive claim, it has been suggested that this is referring to the change that has been wrought in God’s relationship with humanity as a result of Jesus Christ’s life, death and resurrection. From a pluralist perspective, this statement of Jesus does not demand any assent on the part of a human being. What he could be talking about is that now human beings can connect with God. It does not necessarily follow that they must become Christians first.

Pluralists may then point to their own ‘Jesus quote’ where he tells his disciples that he has “other sheep, not of this sheepfold” and that he must gather them in (John chapter 10, verse 16). This may imply that there is a place for those in other ‘sheepfolds’, i.e. religions, to be saved.

Or, given the context, it may just be a metaphor for the expansion of the early Christian church beyond its Jewish foundations into the Gentile world. Certainly, the concept of the people of Israel being God’s sheep was a common one. Jesus may have just been subverting that idea and widening it to include people who were not part of the ‘Chosen People’. The growth of the Church through the inclusion of Gentiles had happened when the Gospel was written and this statement may have been included to justify it to ultra-orthodox members of the church who may still feel that Christians should also be Jews first.

Conclusion
In some senses the simple to this question is ‘no’ in that there may be no ‘true’ religions, as all religions bear the fingerprints of human creators. Christianity has a great number of beliefs that it claims are true, but so do many other religions. Where these conflict, it may be necessary to study them and pick one viewpoint. Where they converge, it can be seen that truth is a shared commodity. The challenge is addressing the differences in such a way that they do not prevent people from seeing the similarities.

Notes
1 A good example of this latter attitude can be found in Isaiah chapter 44, verses 6-20.

Christmas cards and nativity scenes depict Mary and Joseph being turned away from Inn and seeking sanctuary in a stable, but I was told that Mary and Joseph stayed with ‘family’ and were downstairs with the animals which was quite normal for that time. Which is right?

One problem with harmonising the two nativity stories in Matthew and Luke is that there seems to be some disagreement over where the story begins. Matthew makes no reference to Nazareth until after the family return from Egypt when Joseph settles there for safety (Matthew chapter 2, verse 22-23). In chapter 1, verse 24, it says he took Mary home as his wife even though she was pregnant, so Mary may have come from Nazareth, but Joseph may have come from Bethlehem.

This would make sense in the light of Luke’s story about ‘each having to go to their own home town’ during the census. It should be noted that the census and historical data that Luke gives to explain Joseph having to go to Bethlehem are almost certainly wrong, as external sources to the gospel record censuses being taken, but none that match to Luke’s description. Also, notably, Quirinius (mentioned in chapter 2 verse 2) wasn’t the governor of Syria until after the death of Herod the Great.

The traditional Nativity
If Joseph was from Bethlehem, then it is likely that Jesus was born in a humble family home, which may have contained animals. However, Luke’s account is the source for most traditional nativity imagery as it contains the ‘classic’ story of Joseph and Mary being turned away from the inn. It may be they took refuge in the stable below the inn, or possibly in an animal shelter in nearby fields. This latter possibility would explain the proximity to the shepherds, who Luke records were the first visitors to Christ.

The details in Luke’s account are sketchy and don’t mention a location for the ‘manger’ that Mary laid Jesus in (chapter 2, verse 7). However, Luke’s story has echoes of John’s gospel of Christ coming to a world ‘who did not receive him’ (John chapter 1, verse 11). The reference to there being ‘no place’ for Jesus is telling, as is his acceptance by the shepherds – ‘outsiders’ who were often unable to keep the religious demands of the day. The message Luke seems to be implying is that Jesus has come for the humble, the poor, and the marginalised.

Born in a cave?
Finally, if Jesus was born in a ‘stable’, it would probably have looked very different to the wooden constructions depicted on most Christmas cards. Animal shelters in the area were often little more than caves, perhaps with small constructions over them. The Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, allegedly founded in the fourth century by the Empress Helena, mother of Constantine, contains a small rock grotto which is claimed to be the site of Jesus’ birth, and which matches the kind of rudimentary animal shelters used at the time.

Why do the genealogies between David and Jesus differ so much?
Why are there only 12 (or 13 if you count Jesus) generations after the exile in Matthew’s account, when the writer claims there are 14 in each era?
How can the claim that one genealogy reflects Mary’s ancestry be supported?
Are we told anywhere in the Bible that Mary is descended from David?
Does this discrepancy cast doubt on the Bible as ‘the infallible Word of God’?

There are some preliminary points to make about the use of genealogies by the gospel writers. Firstly, they were a common way of starting a ‘biography’ in the culture of the time. Secondly, within Jewish circles genealogies were important as they proved whether you were a genuine member of the chosen people or not. At this point it’s also worth noting that the tradition of the ‘virgin birth’ would not effect Jesus’ genealogy, as there was a concept of ‘legal parentage’ in the Levitical tradition that saw the child’s mother’s first husband to be regarded as the father.

Against this background the gospel writers wanted to establish Jesus’ credentials and make statements about him. However, the existence of two differing genealogies that contradict each other does seem to be problematic.

Construction problems
Some of the problems can be linked to source material. It has been noted that Luke’s account partly follows the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament that was in common use among Greek-speaking Jews from about the first century BCE, while the names in Matthew seem to parallel the names in the Masoretic Hebrew text 1. Names change in translation, so this may account for some of the discrepancies.

There is also an interpolation in Luke’s account, where he calls “Joanan” “the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel” (chapter 3 verse 27). In fact, Rhesa is the Aramaic word for ‘prince’. ‘Joanan’ is a Greek variant of Hananiah and in 1 Chronicles chapter 3, verse 19, Zerubbabel’s son is called Hananiah. Zerubbabel was considered a ‘prince’ among the Jews who returned from exile, so it would appear this title was mistakenly included in the genealogy that the gospel writer constructed.

Attempts at reconciliation
There have been other attempts to reconcile these differences. One way is to note that ‘son of’ can also mean ‘descendent of’. It was common for contemporary Jews to identify themselves as ‘children of Abraham’, that is descendants of Abraham. Also, it has been suggested that Matthew listed the heirs to the throne of David rather than the actual people involved, as an attempt to underline Jesus’ royal descent. This would explain why the two genealogies diverge at this point, with Matthew listing Solomon after David, while Luke lists Nathan.

Another attempt at reconciling the two is to suggest that one of the genealogies is actually Mary’s; the first known version of this ‘solution’ was by Annius of Viterbo in about AD 1490. There is a long-standing tradition that Luke gathered his unique material for his gospel in ‘interviews’ with Mary after the resurrection and ascension of Jesus. Also Luke’s account focuses more on Mary while Matthew’s focuses on Joseph. If this unverified tradition were true, then that would add weight to the idea that his different genealogy could have been Mary’s rather than Joseph’s.

Unfortunately for this theory, both genealogies claim to represent Joseph’s family tree. Neither gospel refers to Mary as having Davidic descent. In Luke Joseph has to go to the ‘town of David’ and takes Mary with him because she is betrothed to him. In Matthew, Joseph is called ‘Son of David’ when visited by an angel (Matthew chapter 1, verse 20). The account of Mary’s angelic visitation also includes a reference to Joseph’s ancestry (Luke chapter 1, verse 27).

A different purpose?
It would appear then, that at least one of these accounts cannot be accurate. However, it could be asked whether they were ever meant to be considered as accurate records. The genealogies in both gospels serve a particular theological purpose.

In Matthew the gospel writer breaks the genealogy down into three sections of fourteen names, each marking a section of time. The three sections are from the covenant with Abraham until the crowning of King David, from David until the exile in Babylon, and then from the return from exile until the birth of Jesus. Matthew appears to count the exile as a ‘generation’, as only 13 names are listed after it (although this might be a textual flaw).

Fourteen was a significant number in first century Jewish thought. The Hebrew letters that spell ‘David’ add up to 14 if used as numbers. In addition, what Matthew is outlining are six ‘weeks’. The arrival of Jesus is highly symbolic then, as it marks the beginning of a seventh ‘week’ in God’s plan. Matthew may be implying that Jesus’ arrival marks the culmination of God’s salvation work and the beginning of a ‘Messianic Sabbath’.

Including women
In addition, Matthew takes the highly unusual, and even potentially scandalous, step of including women in his genealogy. These aren’t just any women – he lists Tamar who was made pregnant by her father-in-law, Judah; Rahab the Canaanite prostitute who aided the spies in Jericho; Ruth who was a Moabite; and Bathsheba the adulteress and mother of Solomon.

Matthew’s purpose in including all four ‘fallen women’ could be a deliberate attempt to counter accusations related to Jesus’ own conception. Although Matthew claims that a ‘virgin birth’ took place, doubts were cast about who Jesus’ father was during his ministry 2. Matthew includes these four women to make the point that many of the great Jewish heroes had dubious parentage.

There are also similarities between the genealogies. Both are set up to show Jesus’ descent from King David. As Rob Bell notes ‘Son of David’ was a “volatile term… Just to say the name was to drag up all of the pain of exile and oppression and failure, and at the same time all of the hope and longing and suspended promises that hung in the first-century air.” 3

Pagan terms made acceptable
Similarly both emphasise Jesus’ humanity. This is particularly the case in Luke, where the genealogy follows the proclamation that Jesus is the ‘Son of God’ in chapter 3, verse 24. In the wider pagan culture that title could have been interpreted as Jesus being a ‘demigod’ like some of the Greek heroes. It was also a title applied to Roman Emperors whose divinity was to be worshipped throughout the Empire. Evidence of Emperor worship in first century Palestine has been found, so like ‘Son of David’, ‘Son of God’ was also a loaded term.

Luke’s insistence on the humanness of Jesus allows him to apply a ‘pagan’ title to Jesus without offending Jewish sensibilities. Luke also traces Jesus’ lineage back to Adam, the first ‘son of God’, to demonstrate this is an ‘acceptable’ term for Jewish believers to use.

Conclusion
These differences underline the twin aims of the gospel writers in constructing these genealogies. They wanted to reinforce their claims about Jesus Christ and to make specific religious claims about him. Perhaps the genealogies are best read like that, with the claims they make about Jesus being the Messiah, seen as the main point for their inclusion in the gospels.

Notes
1 G.B. Caird, Saint Luke (Pelican New Testament Commentary 1963), p.19
2 In a confrontation with the Pharisees in John chapter 8, they effectively call Jesus an illegitimate child (verse 41). This probably represents a genuine criticism of Jesus by the religious elite during his ministry.
3 Rob Bell, Jesus Wants to Save Christians (Zondervan, 2008) p.79

Several pre-Christian traditions were reinvented, or ‘Christianised’ as Christmas was established. The date of Christmas was established as the 25 December, partly to supersede the Roman festival of Saturnalia1. And it is notable that even certain elements within the birth stories of Jesus contained in the gospels have parallels in pagan religion2. However, the link between Christmas tree baubles and so-called ‘witch balls’ is harder to prove.

Like the Christmas tree itself, glass baubles seem to have originated in Germany. The practice of having a decorated evergreen tree in the home was a German tradition from the middle ages. It originates from the probably-legendary story about St Boniface who sought to convert Germanic tribes in the eighth century.

Boniface is alleged to have cut down a sacred oak tree during the winter, and hailed an evergreen tree growing in the oak’s place as a symbol of Christ, the ‘ever-living’ Saviour. As such, the evergreen replaced the oak at the centre of midwinter festivities, by those Germans who had converted.

The Christmas tree was apparently ‘imported’ to Britain by Prince Albert, husband of the British Queen Victoria, in 1840. Albert was German and the presence of an evergreen tree was a traditional part of the German festival by that point. The practice soon spread to the USA and other parts of the world. According to claims of modern ornament-makers, glass baubles were invented in Lauscha, Germany, in 1847. They soon became popular in Europe, and then in the USA after Frank Woolworth, of Woolworths fame, began importing them.

Like a Christmas bauble, a ‘witch ball’ is a hollow sphere of glass. Apparently they were traditionally hung in the windows of the home to ward off evil spirits or curses, usually having been ‘blessed’ by a ‘witch’. It’s not known how widespread their use was in folk traditions. They have undergone a bit of a revival due to the modern-day rise of Wicca as contemporary belief system.

The provenance of ‘witch balls’ is hard to ascertain. They may be a more modern invention with exaggerated claims being made for their history. Obviously, if this is the case, claiming that baubles are derived from ‘witch balls’ makes ‘witch balls’ appear to have been used for longer than they in fact have.

The similarity in construction between baubles and ‘witch balls’ probably explains the way these two items have been linked. There is a tendency among some Christians to ascribe ‘occult’ or ‘satanic’ origins to just about anything, and this seems to be the case here, but there is no real evidence that baubles have an occult origin.

Notes
1 ~ JCJ Metford, Dictionary of Christian Lore and Legend, (Thames & Hudson 1983), p.67
2 ~ There are similarities between Matthew’s infancy narrative and legends about the birth of Caesar Augustus, hailed in the Roman Emperor as ‘Son of God’, including the ‘virgin birth’ and astronomical signs. Similarity does not necessarily imply plagiarism, but some commentators have suggested that the author of Matthew invented these stories to bolster the claims made about Jesus Christ by his followers.