Page 1.

An Investigation into the Validity and Origins of the Christadelphian “internal devil” theory.

Chap. 1 – Making a Start to a Difficult Subject. (pages 1 to9).Chap. 2 – Why even Some Christadelphians are Puzzled (pages9 to 12).Chap. 3 - A Closer Look at Hebrews 2:14 (pages 12-16). Chap. 4 - The Need for Humility (pages 16-19).Chap. 5 - A Pressing Need for Effective Evangelism (pages 19-20).Chap. 6 - The Pioneering Christadelphian Studies of John Carter (pages 20-32).Chap. 7 - The Doctrinal Implications of the ‘Beelzebul’ Slander (pages 32-36).Chap. 8 - Evidence for an External Devil (page 36-45)Chap. 9 - The Need to Respond to Clearer Evidence (pages 45-51).Chap.10- The Alleged link between the ‘internal devil’ and the Atonement (pages 51-53).Chap. 11 – Factors Influencing Christadelphian Philosophy (pages 53-55).Chap. 12 – The Evolution of ‘the Satan’, ‘the Devil’ and ‘Belial’ Concepts (pages 55-56).Chap. 13 – Debunking Some Common Misconceptions (pages 56-60).Chap. 14 – The Historical Peculiarities of the ‘internal devil’ Doctrine (pages 60-63). Chap.15- Some Weaknesses of Traditional Christadelphian views (pages 63-68)Chap. 16 – Was Jesus Tested by an External Source? (pages 68-73).Chap. 17 – The True Origins of the ‘internal devil’ Theory (pages 73-76).Chap. 18 – The Rise of post-70 C.E. “Rabbinic” Judaism (pages 76-79).

Chap. 19- How “Rabbinic” Judaism Subsequently Developed (pages 80-84).Chap. 20 – The Rise of Medieval, Jewish Rationalistic Philosophy (pages 85-86).Chap. 21 – Final Conclusions (page 86-87)

Chapter One – Making a Start.

“Whoever claims ‘I am always in union with Him’ (Jesus), ought to live as He lived .. Whoever claims to be in the light, and yet continues to hate his brother is still in darkness. Whoever continues to love his brother is always inthe light, and he is no hindrance to others’. (1 John 1:6,9)

Christadelphians - especially since 1864 - have tended to make an extremely important subject out of ‘the devil’

Christadelphians have traditionally believed that ‘the devil’ is essentially, only an extended metaphor, (or an allegory) which denotes a person’s inner tendency to commit sin. The work below refers to this view as ‘the internal devil theory’, and it will be Scripturally, and historicallyassessed. Most Bible students have to reject the ‘internal devil’ theory, for solid Scriptural reasons. Unfortunately these Scriptural reasons appear to be largely unknown to most Christadelphians, but being aware of these Scriptural reasons, may make Christadelphianism evangelism more credible, and more effective.

The English Huddersfield ecclesia, in 1867 stated that :

“ Subjects more or less abstruse, such as the personality or non-personality of the devil …we cannot exalt into portions of the glad Tidings….but are questions that do

gender strife.” [‘The Ambassador of the Coming Age’, p. 13,Vol. iv, 1867].

Robert Roberts’ brother-in-law, and fellow Christadelphian, William Norrie, noted the following :

“This question of the nature of the devil was the first of a number of additions that were afterwards made to ‘the gospel according to Dr. Thomas’, as originally propounded byhim in the course of his first visit to this country, and subsequently in ‘The Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come’,and which were adopted by those who about this time began tocall themselves ‘Christadelphians’. In the course of a talk that I had with with R. Roberts respecting this first addition he had made to the Gospel of the Kingdom of God necessary to be believed in order to have the right faith, I suggested that, if every addition to our knowledge, or apprehension of the true teaching of the Scriptures upon any subject, was to be incorporated into the ‘creed’, as it might be termed, there would be no end to it. To this he replied, it was not so – that, with the true apprehension of the nature of the devil of the Bible, ‘finality’ had been reached, and there could be no more additions to the things to be believed or disbelieved. Alas! He did not know what ‘heresies’ were soon to be brought in, requiring, as he considered, special abjuration in order to continue fellowship. It was not long afterwards that the doctrine of ‘mortal resurrection’ was added; then came the question as to the nature of Christ, and the ‘Renunciationist’ heresy had to be specially provided for. Afterwards the question of‘partial inspiration,’ and more recently that of ‘resurrectional responsibility,’ had to be grappled with, and all had to find a place in the ever-expanding Christadelphian creed. All these several questions gave riseto bitter controversy, resulting in separations among those who had previously been harmoniously united in the one faith ; and thus

leaving one to doubt whether finality has even yet with a creed which seems capable of indefinite expansion, and making one wonder to what dimensions it may yet attain, should our Lord much longer delay His coming.” [p. 102 ; Vol. II; of ‘The Early History of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God in Britain” , by William Norrie; Three volumes, 1904, 1906].

Whenever the ‘internal devil’ theory is ever questioned, Christadelphians often instinctively respond by posing a whole series of counter questions. These typically include the following:

Where does the Devil come from ?Was he always evil?What is the source of his supernatural power ?Is the Devil immortal ?Where does the Devil dwell ?What is lost from Christianity, if the Devil does not exist ?What is the compelling objective evidence for the Devil’s existence ?

The well respected English Christadelphian scholar Harry Whittaker, after much prolonged study, eventually came to the conclusion that the ‘demons’ mentioned in the Gospels, must be functionally evil, supernatural Angelic beings. Furthermore, he also believed that on occasions, the concepts of ‘the Devil’ and ‘the Satan’, mentioned in the New Testament, could also be legitimately interpreted as references to a functionally evil, supernatural Angelic being. Most of the above mentioned type of common Christadelphian questions, can therefore have equal applicability to the whole subject of supernatural Angels. For example :

Where do Angels come from? Are they the redeemed creatures of another race of beings ? Why are there

apparently different types of Angels (Seraphim, Cherubim, and Watcher Angels) ? Why do some angels have the elevated rank of ‘Archangel’ ? Why are some Angels specifically described as being ‘the holy Angels’ ? (Matt. 25:31, Mark 8:38, Luke 9:26). Who are the Angels that sinned ? (Jude 6).Who are the Elect Angels (1 Tim. 5:21; A.V.), and who are the Angels who are to be judged by the saints ? (1 Cor. 6:3). Is it only the Angels in heaven, during the times of restitution, who are immortal ? (Mark 12:25; Matt. 22:30; Acts 3:21) Why was the eternal fire said to be originally created - not for human beings - but for the Devil and his angels ? (Matt. 25:41). Why did the Septuagint translate theterm ‘the Satan’ in Job and Zechariah, as ‘the Devil’ ? Why are the personality characteristics of the ‘the Satan’ mentioned in the book of Job, the antithesis of the personality characteristics that typify ‘agape love’ (detailed in 1 Cor. 13:4-7) ? When the Apostle Paul said that ‘the Satan’ can outwardly transform himself into an Angel of Light (2 Cor.14) , does this mean that in reality, ‘the Satan’ may be an Angel of Darkness ? If full Truth only came through Jesus Christ (John 1:17), then is it conceivable that Jesus could have revealed more information about ‘the Satan (‘the Devil’), than what had hitherto been revealed in the Old Testament Scriptures ? (cf. Mark 2:21, 22; John 8:44). Should the Old Testament Scriptures to be interpreted by the Light of Christ ? What is the compelling objective evidence that Angels literally exist ? What is lost from Christianity, if Angels do not literally exist ?

However, the problem in asking questions about Angels, is one that was recognized by the Christadelphian, Harry Tennant, when he observed :

“For all of us there may be an air of incompleteness in our understanding of the person and function of angels simply because we have a limited amount of information on which to draw.” [p.. 172, ‘The Christadelphians – What They Believe and Preach]

In any discussion of ‘the Devil’, an important point to initially establish is that within the New Testament, the terms ‘the Satan’ [Greek: ‘ho satanas’] and ‘the devil’ [Greek : ‘ho diabolos’] are entirely synonymous, and interchangeable. The Hebrew term for ‘the Satan’ [‘ha-satan’] occurs thirteen times in the Hebrew Old Testament – ten times in book of Job, and three times in the book of Zechariah. In the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint) the Hebrew term ‘ha satan’ is always translated as ‘ho diabolos’ (‘the devil’). The version of the Jewish Scriptures that is most commonly quoted in the New Testament, is the Septuagint. For example, all the Old Testament quotes made in the Epistle to the Hebrews, come exclusively from the Septuagint.

This Jewish equation of ‘the Satan’ and ‘the Devil’ carries forward into the New Testament, and this fact hasbeen fully recognized by observant Christadelphians.

The Christadelphian scholar James White, in the August 1950 edition of “The Christadelphian”, stated that : “The Devil and Satan have quite clearly an identical reference, as a brief examination of relevant passages will show; Math. 4:1, 10 with Mark 1:13 and Luke 4:2, 5, 8 ; Mark 4:15 with Luke 8:12; John 13:2, 27;Rev. 12:9.”

The Christadelphian, Dr. Alan Hayward, also acknowledged the identification of ‘the Devil’ with ‘theSatan’, on page 15 of his booklet “The Real Devil.”, where he wrote : “There [in the New Testament] Satan is given a second name, the devil”.

The Christadelphian scholar Peter Watkins, in his book, “The Devil – the Great Deceiver”, admitted that:

“The words Satan and Devil in the New Testamentare different names for the same power.” [p.44].

Traditionally, Judaism has always regarded ‘the Satan’ to be a title for a supernatural angelic being. The Encyclopedia Judaica, in its article on ‘the Satan’ states :The oldest traditional Jewish interpretations of ‘the Satan’, and ‘the Devil’, in the books of Job and Zechariah, are that these terms refer to a supernatural Angelic being. The authoritative ‘Encyclopedia Judaica’, in its article on ‘Satan’, states :

“ ‘The Satan’ as the standing appellation of a particular angel first appears around 520 B.C.E. in Zechariah 3 and then in Job 1-2. In Chronicles 21:1 [writtenaround the third century B.C.E.]...the article [‘the’] is disposed with, and ‘Satan’ seems to be a real proper name.”

Indeed, many [perhaps a majority of] knowledgeable Christadelphians now concede that ‘the Satan’ mentioned in the book of Job, must refer to a supernatural Angelic being.Such Christadelphians include Harry Whittaker [‘Bible Studies’, 1987, pp. 372-3], Page 6.

Cyril Tennant [‘The Book of Job’, 1991, pp. 48-54]; and Jack Balchin [‘Sitting with Job, 1998, p. 6].

Regarding the assumption that ‘the Satan’ in Job was some human being(s), the well respected Christadelphian Harry Whittaker intelligently writes :

“All such suggestions fall down through one simple consideration – the complete lack of parallel in the rest ofthe Bible. It is inconceivable that the Almighty would hand over to unworthy human hands miraculous powers to inflict extremes of adversity on one of His finest servants. This consideration seems to have been almost completely ignored.”[p. 372 ibid.]

The books of Chronicles were among the final books of the Old Testament to be written, and their date of composition is considered to be somewhere around the third century BCE. In 1 Chronicles 21:1, the word “Satan” in the Hebrew text, occurs without the use of the definite article, and, as mentioned, this may well signify that for the first time, the word ‘Satan’ is being used as a personal name, for a specific Angelic being, who acts on behalf of God. That “Satan” mentioned in 1 Chron. 21:1, could be a supernaturalAngelic being, is a point that is conceded by Christadelphian scholars such as Harry Whittaker [Bible Studies – An Anthology”, p. 373]; by Bill Davison [“The Devil and Demons – A New Approach”, p.3]; Peter Watkins [‘The Devil – The Great Deceiver’, p.34] and by Duncan Heaster [“The Real Devil”, p. 258]. This probable Angel, mentioned in I Chron. 21:1, with the personal name of “Satan”, is very likely to be ‘the Satan’, that we find in the books of Job and Zechariah; And which the Septuagint calls ‘the Devil’. These facts therefore, provide the historical and Scriptural background,for the sudden first appearance in the New Testament, of ‘the Devil’ [without explicit explanation], in the Gospel ofMatthew chapter four. The notion that ‘the Devil’ is an Angelic being, most perfectly fits the narrative of Mathew chapter four.

Evidence that the term ‘the Devil’, when used as a particular special title, was always originally regarded by the Jews ,as a supernatural Angelic being - comes from the Septuagint.

During the time of Christ, the vast majority of Jewslived outside of Palestine. Many of these Jews would have understood the Jewish Scriptures in the Greek Septuagint translation, and the Angelic being known as ‘the Satan’, would have been more commonly known to them, as ‘the Devil’.

So for example, Zechariah 3:1-3, in the Septuagint, reads :

Page 7.

“And the Lord showed me Jesus [Joshua] the high priest

before the angel of the Lord, and the Devil stood on his

right to oppose him. And the Lord said to the Devil, ‘The

Lord rebuke you, O Devil’.

Job 1:6, 12 in the Septuagint, reads :

“..the Angels of God came to stand before the Lord, and the

devil came with them. And the Lord said to the devil ,

Whence art thou come ? And the devil answered the Lord, and

said, I am come from compassing the earth (cf. 1 Peter 5:8)

…The Lord said to the devil, behold I give into thine hand

all that he [Job] has, but touch not himself [with physical

affliction; cf. Acts 10:38]. So the devil went (cf. Matt.

4:11) out from the presence of the Lord”.

If ‘the devil’ in Job 1:6, and 2:1, arrives in the

company of Angels, then presumably, ‘the devil’ is himself,

also an Angelic being ? The context of Job 1:6-12, seems to

clearly suggest that ‘the devil’ is an external Angelic

being, who can enter and leave God’s presence, and who is

cynical of God’s assessment of Job. It is not stated in the

book of Job, for example, that God is speaking to anyone’s

‘inner evil inclination’.

The original Septuagint translated the term ‘sons of God’

found in the book of Job, as ‘angels of God’. The Jewish

Aramaic translations of the book of Job, known as the

Targums of Job, also (as with the Septuagint) translated the

Hebrew term ‘sons of God’ as ‘Angels’.

Matt. 4:11 and Luke 4:13 both explicitly state that the

devil left Jesus, after testing Him in the wilderness.

Again, this clearly suggests that ‘the devil’ is an external

being,

Page 8.

and not a reference anyone’s inner human ‘evil inclination’,

which is always resient within a person. The ‘angelic model’

of ‘the devil’, portrayed in Job, also seems to fit the

context of narratives of Christ’s testing in the wilderness.

Matthew. 4:11 states that ministering Angels came to Jesus,

after the devil had left Him. There is no necessary

indication in the text of Matthew 4:1-11, that the terms

‘the devil’ and ‘Angels’; and the words ‘came’ and ‘left’,

are all to be understood figuratively. Amazingly, these were

also the conclusions of Robert Roberts.

Both Robert Roberts, and Dr. John Thomas carefully statedtheir “internal devil theory” in “Elpis Israel” (pp.76-77; 14th edition revised; 1979), and “Christendom Astray..” (The original Eighteen lectures edition, reprinted circa 1965), respectively.

Robert Roberts, taking his cue from the Doctor, stated :

“There is no devil but his [a person’s] own inclinations, which tend to illegitimate activity.” [p.203 ibid.]; and

“The great Satan or adversary then, which every man has to fear, and which is ever inclining him to a course opposed to wisdom and godliness, is the tendency of the mere animal instincts to act on their own account.” [p. 191 ibid].

However - when these pioneers took their ‘internal devil theory’ out upon its first ‘test run’, within the pages of the New Testament - at Mathew 4:1-11 (concerning the testing of Jesus, by the devil) - the ‘internal devil’ idea, fell flat on its face.

Dr. Thomas wrote concerning Math. 4:1-11:

“ The Tempter came to Him. Who he was does not appear. Perhaps Paul refers to him, saying ‘Satan himselfis transformed into an angel of light [2 Cor. 11:14] ….the adversary assumed the character of an angel or messenger of light to Him [i.e. Jesus] …he [Satan] [was] the god of the world … but He [Jesus] believed not this angel of light and power, and would have none of his favors.” [pp.77-79].

In ‘Eureka’ (Vol. 3, p.65), Dr. Thomas again expressedhis unshakable conviction that ‘the Satan’ that tested Jesus in the wilderness (cf. Matt. 4:1-11; and Luke 4:3-13) was definitely a supernatural Angelic being.

Page 9.

Robert Roberts wrote about the wilderness testing of Jesus (Luke 4:, in a similar fashion. He stated, regarding the incident in Luke 4:3-13 :

‘Some think the devil in this case was Christ’sown inclinations, but this is untenable in view of the fact when the devil had ended all temptation he departed from Him for a season (Luke 4:13). It is also untenable in view of the harmony that existed between the mind of Christ and the will of the Father (John 8:29). [p.203 ibid]’

Robert Roberts then went on to mention, as a possibility, that the devil could have been :

“ the angel that controlled the political position ofthe Roman Emperor.” (p. 203 ff, ibid. Unfortunately, this original comment was edited out of some later editions of “Christendom Astray..”).

Chapter Two – Why even Christadelphians are puzzled.

The issue of the devil and demons is, according to the Christadelphian scholar, Peter Watkins, a vast and complex subject [ibid. p. 9].

Steve Cox, writing from a Christadelphian perspective, stated that the issue of ‘the devil and demons’, is probablythe last subject that most Christadelphian converts come to understand [p.1, ‘The Angels that Sinned ..’].

However, this issue of the devil and demons, also often troubles many knowledgeable Christadelphians.

The Christadelphian scholar Harry Whittaker once informed me, that for many years he had accepted the Accommodation theory of demons, but he had never been entirely satisfied with it. Harry eventually settled on a supernatural Angelic view of ‘demons’, believing that theywere supernatural Angels, who had merely been commissioned by God to perform ‘evil’, or ‘unpleasant’, tasks. [Chap. 30,‘Studies in the Gospels’]. Harry Whittaker understood these supernatural Angels ‘of evil’ (cf. Psalm 78:49) to be merely‘functionally evil’ - but not ‘intrinsically evil’. Harry Whittaker also believed that the concept of a ‘functionally evil’, supernatural Angel, could also, on occasions, apply to the terms ‘the Devil’ and ‘the Satan’. He believed that ‘the Devil’ in Mathew 4, and ‘the Satan’ in Job 1:6 ff, 2:1ff, and Luke 10:18, could all possibly refer to a functionally evil, supernatural Angel.

Peter Watkins on the other hand, believed ‘the devil anddemons’ were to be understood not as any ontological supernatural beings, but as ‘literary characters’, who played roles in an alleged allegory. In reality, Peter Watkins believed that that the ‘the devil and demons’ were an allegorical depiction of Mankind’s “inner inclination to Page 10.

commit sin” [ibid. p. 65]. However, Peter Watkins admitted that his analysis of ‘the devil and demons’ was not the final word. He stated that even with this allegorical interpretation of ‘the devil and demons’ -

“The task is by no means completed : there are still depths to be explored, and loose ends to tie up.” [ibid. p. 11].

Another Christadelphian scholar who agreed with Peter Watkins, was my dear friend Dr. Alan Hayward. In response to

a number of theological questions that I initially sent him,Alan wrote :

“Turning to the devil and demons, I must confess to being less confident in this area. (Shall we say, only 80 per centcertitude here). This is because there are far too many loose ends left over for my liking – despite the fact that my pamphlet on this subject [‘The Real Devil’] is three times as long as the other ! [‘Did Jesus really come down from heaven?’] And in any case I must grant you that the subject cannot possibly be of fundamental theological importance; our Lord would not have accommodated Himself to the language of the devil and demons if it were important that this theological error should be refuted.” Alan’s sense of caution, and ‘reverent agnosticism’, even came across in his booklet ‘The Real Devil’, published in the 1980’s. On page 27, he wrote :

“It would be extremely interesting to know exactly what thewriters of the New Testament believed about demons. Alas, they have not seen fit to tell us.”

On pages 30, 31 Alan wrote :

“Why did Jesus and His apostles describe illness in this strange way [via reference to ‘demons’’spirits’ ‘the satan’ and ‘the devil’ ; cf. Luke 10:17-20; 13:10-16; Acts 10:38],when it would have been a lot simpler just to call it illness ? Unfortunately we have no way of answering this question without guessing. We really do not know why, because God has not seen fit to tell us.”

The Christadelphian scholar Alfred D.Norris agreed. In correspondence with myself in 1990, Alfred wrote : “The Lord Jesus never tells us, I think, who demons are, nor does He require us to make a declaration about them.”

Alan Hayward’s view here on the devil, was also shared by Sir Isaac Newton. Isaac Newton eventually came to a metaphorical or allegorical understanding of ‘the devil’, but he didn’t seem to regard ‘the devil’ issue, as an essential doctrine which was Page 11.

necessary for personal saving faith in Christ. Neither did Newton hold to the Christadelphian view of the Atonement, whereby the devil was supposedly destroyed, through Jesus submitting his human body (which supposedly contained ‘the internal devil) to destruction upon the cross.

These sentiments of Alan Hayward and Sir Isaac Newton concerning the devil, were also shared by many of the early Christadelphians. The brother in law of Robert Roberts, William Norrie, noted that different views on the devil, were known to exist amongst Christadelphians, from the 1850’s, and that Robert Roberts was well aware of this fact.Robert Roberts’ future wife, Jane Norrie, had been baptizedinto the Christadelphian Faith, whilst still personally believing in a supernatural Angelic devil. However, prior to1864, Robert Roberts had never suggested that Christadelphians who believed in a supernatural Angelic devil, had an invalid saving faith in Christ. (See ‘The Early History of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God in Britain’, by William Norrie; vol. 2, p. 93). The Christadelphian scholar George McHaffie wrote :

“With regard to the Devil, our [Christadelphian] contention that the Bible teaches this to be flesh or human nature ‘in its various manifestations’ will simply not matchup to Ephesians 6:11,12 : ‘..stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood…but wickedness in high places.’ The repeated reference to the devil, the

power of demons, and their being exorcised without any statement that there is no devil, or even an ‘as is supposed’ in reference to a demon, would carry conviction tomost people that the Bible writers believed in the devil anddemons. Supposing they did : would they have written any differently ? Yet it seems beyond question that the phenomena once thought to be the work of demons etc., are more rationally explicable on other grounds. The only explanation of all this seems to be that the Bible contains references to contemporary beliefs on many things incidentalto the main intention of revelation. It would make our [Christadelphian] witness much more frank if we could acknowledge this primitive element, rather than endeavor to build up a case to show that it is not actually in the Bibleat all. This carries with it, also, the implication that if anyone, out of conviction, believes in the devil and demons,he is nevertheless acceptable to God providing his behavior is otherwise Christian.” [pages 26-27 of “Christadelphia Redivivus”, by George McHaffie].

The knowledgeable Christadelphian scholar Ron Coleman, courageously wrote the following:

“These and other passages [in the New Testament] about Satan and demons present peculiar difficulties. Is there a supernatural power of evil, or is Satan just a personification of fallen human nature ? I myself doubt whether there can be a supernatural power of evil, because of the immense problems that dualism brings. But the references to ‘demons’ and ‘Satan’ are so many, so explicit and so emphatic, that one can Page 12.

sympathize with those who take them literally and say ‘This is what the Bible teaches.’ It is certainly the case that in those [New Testament] times, Judaism was fully committed to a belief that there were spiritual powers of darkness. Neither Jesus nor Paul contradicted this belief; on the contrary they seemed to endorse it. The argument

that ‘Satan’ by its etymology means ‘adversary’, and therefore we can substitute ‘adversary’ when we meet the word ‘Satan’ , is one that modern linguistics dismisses immediately. It would be as legitimate to argue that when wespeak of a ship ‘sailing’ we really mean ‘it is propelled by wind power, not by diesel engines.’ Words mean what their utterers intended them to mean, and the intentions of the Jews of Jesus’ day are perfectly clear. The conquest of Satan must be literally true, or if not, stand for something so important that it had to be allowed to remain uncorrected, dressed in the clothes of themistaken belief. In one way or the other, the coming of Jesus was a decisive event in the struggle against evil, of immediate significance in the history of the redemption of the World.”

Chapter three – A Closer Look at Hebrews 2:14..

Christadelphians have often attempted to defend the ‘internal devil theory, by claiming that Jesus destroyed this supposed ‘internal devil’, allegedly within His human nature, when He allowed Himself to be crucified upon the cross. Christadelphians have believed that ‘the devil’ is ‘destroyed’, when the human nature, which supposedly contains it, is also destroyed. This is how Christadelphians have traditionally iunderstood Hebrews 2:14, which reads in the Authorized Version :

“Foreasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He [Jesus] Himself likewise took part of the same; that through death He might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil.”

This leads Christadelphians to ask : ‘How can there possibly be a supernatural devil, when Jesus has already ‘destroyed’ him, on the Cross ?

However - the word ‘destroy’ which is used in the King James translation of Hebrews 2:14, is the Greek word ‘katargese’, which is a form of the Greek word ‘katargeo’.

But the vital point to note is that ‘katargeo’ does not literally mean ‘destroy’ Katargeo means ‘to render unemployed’; ‘to reduce to inactivity’; or ‘to render ineffective’.

Strong’s Concordance states that the primary meaning of ‘katargeo’ is :

“to leave unemployed”.

Page 13.

Katargeo therefore, does not literally mean to ‘destroy’ – in the sense of annihilation. Unemployed persons do not necessarily cease to exist ! The Greek word that does mean “to destroy utterly” is ‘exolothreuo’ , but ‘exolothreuo’ is not used at Hebrews 2:14. William Vine in his ‘Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words’ claims that with respect to ‘katargeo’ : “not loss of being is implied, but loss of well being” .

That ‘katargese’ should not be translated as ‘destroyed’,was a fact well known to Bible translators – both before, and after, the production of the Authorized version of the Bible, in 1611.

Coverdale’s version, for example, renders ‘katargese’ as : “take away the power of”, And William Tyndale renders ‘katargese’ as : ‘to put down’.

The following responsible Bible Versions translate ‘katargese’ as follows :

“render inoperative” (Kenneth Wuest’s Expanded)

“render ineffective” (The Complete Jewish Bible,“ “render powerless” (The NASB; and Weymouth versions), “reduce to impotence” (Dr. George Wade’s translation) “make impotent” (A Conservative Version),

“break the power of” (The NEB, REB and TEV translations)

“dethrone” (Goodspeed’s translation) “to disable” (Dr. Henry Hayman’s translation); “make powerless” (Benjamin Wilson’s Emphatic Diaglott), “defeat” (The Riverside New Testament) “render useless” (Jonathan Mitchell’s New Testament) “make of no effect” (The Amplified Bible); “paralyze” (Rotherham’s version); “inactivated” (The Exegeses Companion Bible), These more accurate translations of the Greek word “katargese”, are fully consistent with the Jewish context ofthe New Testament. Christianity was originally just another Jewish sect, that comprised the Jewish landscape of the New Testament period (Acts 28:22). Within Judaism, ‘the Satan’ [sometimes referred to, by the Jews, as ‘Sammael’] was a supernatural Angelic being, who had the delegated authority from God, to inflict the death penalty on human beings. Thisidea is implicit in Job 2:6, where God has to restrain ‘the Satan’ from killing Job. That ‘Satan’ is ‘the Angel of death’ is explicitly declared in the Jewish Talmud (Bava Bathra 16a); and in the Jewish Midrashim (including Numbers Rabba v.7); and the Jerusalem 1 Targum [Genesis 3].

Page 14.

The knowledgeable Christadelphian scholar James White, who was aware of the Jewish context of the New Testament, was personally of the opinion that ‘he who had the power of death’, mentioned at Hebrews 2:14, was a reference to the supernatural Angelic being, who was ‘the Angel of death’ – otherwise known by Hellenistic Jews as ‘the devil’ [ = ‘the Satan’.] James White therefore, conceded the point that ‘thedevil’ of Hebrews 2:14, was not human nature, nor a reference to a proneness towards transgression, within human nature – but was instead, a supernatural Angelic being. His informed view was published in “The Christadelphian” magazine, for August 1950, in an article entitled “The Devil and his Angels”.

Although Dr. Thomas believed that Satan in the book of Job,referred to a human enemy of Job - it is now generally conceded by most British Christadelphian scholars, that ‘theSatan’ in the book of Job, is very definitely a supernatural, Angelic being. The Hebrew term ‘the sons of God’ (amongst whom, the Satan comes) is translated in the Greek Septuagint, as ‘the Angels of God’. In the Septuagint version of Job, ‘the Satan’, is translated as ‘the Devil’. The Septuagint was the version of the Jewish Scriptures which was most often quoted by the New Testament writers. All the quotations from the Jewish Scriptures, for example, made by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, come exclusively from the Septuagint version. It seems reasonable therefore, in line with the Septuagint translation, to suppose that the original Christians viewed ‘the sons of God’ mentioned in Job, as ‘Angels’. And if ‘theDevil’ comes amongst the Angels of God, to meet with God, then the natural assumption must be that the Devil also is an Angel.

Indeed, many Christadelphian scholars such as such as Harry Tennant, Harry Whittaker and Ralph Lovelock concede that

‘the Satan’ in the book of Job is a supernatural Angelic being. But again, the point to note is that this supernatural, Angelic Satan, in Job, is called ‘the Devil’ in the Septuagint.

Scholars have long recognized that the terminology in the Epistle to the Hebrews, has striking similarities with the ‘Logos doctrine’ terminology, as used by the First century, Hellenistic Jewish scholar, Philo of Alexandria [c. 20 BCE to c. 50 CE]. Alexandria was also where Apollos was from [Acts 18:24], so it is consequently very possible, that Apollos was the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Philo, like many Hellenistic Jews, regarded the Septuagint version [LXX] of the Jewish Scriptures as inspired. This may explain why Apollos, in quoting from the Jewish Scriptures, always uses the Septuagint version – even when it differs markedly from the proto-Masoretic Hebrew text e.g. [at Heb. 10:5 = LXX Ps. 40:6-8; and Heb. 1:6 = LXX Deut. 32:43].

Now it appears from the works of Philo, that Jewish Alexandrian Angelology, considered that fallen, unholy supernatural Angels, to be now, totally unworthy of being called ‘Angels’.

Philo in his work ‘On the Giants’, wrote :

Page 15.

“And when the angels of God saw the daughters of men that they were beautiful, they took unto themselves wives of all of them whom they chose, [Genesis 6:2] Those beings, whom other philosophers call ‘demons’, Moses usually calls angels… But as men in general speak of good and evil demons …so also do they speak of angels, looking upon some as worthy ofa good appellation, and calling them ambassadors of man to God, and of God to man, and sacred and holy on account of this blameless and most excellent office; others, again, youwill not err if you look upon as unholy and unworthy of any

address. And the expression used by the writer of the psalm,in the following verse, testifies to the truth of my assertion, for he says, ‘He sent upon them the fury of His wrath, anger, and rage, and affliction, and He sent evil angels among them [Psalm 78:49]. These are the wicked ..assuming the name of angels..” [“On the Giants”, see chapters ii, and iv]

This fact would explain why all mention of ‘Angels’, within the Epistle to the Hebrews, refer only to God’s holyangels - as the pivotal verse of Hebrews 1:6 makes plain. This verse sets the controlling context, for all the other citations of the term ‘Angel’, within the Hebrews Epistle.

This would also explain why Apollos, could refer to ‘the Devil’ as being the Angel of death, but refrain [in line with Alexandrian Jewish Angelology] from actually calling him ‘an Angel’ - especially in the light of Christ’s revelations, clearly allude to the Devil, as being an unholy Angel (cf. Matt. 25:41; Matt. 13:38-39; Acts 26:18).

Another strong indication that ‘the devil’ in Hebrews 2:14 is an Angelic being, comes from verse Heb. 2:16. Why would Apollos ever feel any need to make the obvious point (soon after mentioning ‘the Devil’) that Jesus did not take upon Himself the nature of Angels, in order to offer them help –unless there were such a thing as apostate, supernatural angels ? Indeed, Jesus Himself, seems to clearly allude to such beings in Mathew 25:41 – where He states that eternal destructive fire, was originally prepared only for the Devil, and his angels – but not for mankind.

Another relevant fact is that the Jewish work “The Wisdom of Solomon”, which is commonly accepted as having originated from Alexandria, in the first century BCE, states, at 2: 23–24 :

“ God created man for incorruption …but through the devil’s envy, death entered the world [cf. John 8:44], and those who belong to his party experience it.” [cf. 2 Thess. 1:6-9; and 1 John 3:7-10 ].

This statement would be thoroughly consistent with the notion that the Devil is an apostate Angelic being – a Jewish concept which again clearly shows up in the Book of Revelation [Rev. 12:7-9; 20:1-2].

Page 16.

When discussing this whole area of ‘Angels’, ‘spirits’, ‘the Satan’ and ‘the devil’, one is hampered by a number of considerations.

Deuteronomy 29:29 states :

“There are hidden things, and they belong to the Lord our God, but what is revealed belongs to us and our children forever; it is for us to observe all that is prescribed in this law.” [NEB version].

Chapter Four – A need for Scripturally induced humility.

Not everything to do with spiritual, or supernatural, matters is revealed to us. The Christadelphian scholar Harry Tennant recognized this important point when he stated:

“For all of us, there may be an air of incompleteness in our understanding of the person and function of angels simply because we have a limited amount of information on which to draw. The Bible provides a great deal of backgroundknowledge, but by no means answers all the questions we might care to ask.” [p. 172, ‘The Christadelphians – What They Believe and Preach’]

Orthopraxis (right behavior), rather than orthodoxy (exhaustive ‘right’ theological beliefs) is what has always characterized Judaism. Christianity originally emerged as just another Jewish sect (Acts 24:24), and its own emphasis on ‘orthopraxis’ (John 8:31;1 John 2:6, 2:29; 2 John 1:6; Matt. 7:16-20,) is often something that is undervalued, at the expense of an over-intellectualized conception of the Christian Faith. Where Jesus said that we can ultimately judge people by deeds (cf.also Acts 26:20), most of Jesus’ professed followers today, claim to be able to almost infallibly judge people by their intellectual assent to (over ?) detailed creeds.

A second consideration to bear in mind, is that limited human beings lack the capacity to understand all the methodsand ways of God. Romans 11:33 states :

“O depth of wealth, wisdom, and knowledge in God ! How unsearchable His judgments, how untraceable His ways ! Who knows the mind of the Lord ?”

It is difficult for us to understand for example, how God could make wicked persons into His ‘servants’ ! Nebuchadrezzar for example, was a cruel and ruthless tyrant,who had Zedekiah’s sons executed before their father, beforehaving Zedekiah’s blinded. And yet - God repeatedly refersto Nebuchadrezzar as : ‘My servant’ (Jeremiah 25:8; 27:6; cf. also 51:20). However - despite acting in the role of ‘God’s servant’, the deeds of Nebuchadrezzar, are later adversely judged by God, and receive a due punishment (Jer. 51:24-25; 25:11-12). This same principle is evident in Isaiah 10:5-19, where Page 17.

Sennacherib, the king of Assyria is described as being ‘the rod of God’s anger’; but he too, later suffers an adverse divine judgment – despite being used by God as a kind of ‘servant’. Similarly, Joseph’s brothers schemed to harm Joseph, but all that they ultimately accomplished, was the

fulfillment of the divine plan. Were they therefore ‘enemies’ of God, or ‘servants’ of God, or paradoxically, both ?

This notion of how persons can act as ‘servants of God’, and yet still, because of this, come under an adverse divinejudgment, is something that the human mind cannot readily comprehend. But on a face value reading of Scripture, this principle, may also seem to operate on the Angelic level as well - where ‘the Satan’ [= ‘the devil’] may appear to be a malicious supernatural personage, but at times, he too can paradoxically operate as a kind of ‘servant’ of God, when he[‘the Satan’] is used to chastise, and discipline sinners (1Cor. 5:5; 2 Cor. 12:7; 1 Tim. 1:20) . Dr. John Thomas himself, always believed that ‘the Satan’ who tested Jesus in the wilderness, was definitely a supernatural Angel (Eureka 3.65). Robert Roberts, in the original edition of ‘Christendom Astray..’, believed that ‘the devil’ who tested Jesus in the wilderness, was very definitely an external personage, whom Robert Roberts believed, could havebeen the supernatural Angel that controlled the political position of the Roman Emperor. Many Christadelphians (perhaps a majority ?) believe that ‘the Satan’ in the book of Job ( who is called ‘the devil’, in the Septuagint version), is a supernatural Angel. This view is supported byChristadelphian commentators such as Cyril Tennant, Harry Whittaker and Jack Balchin ( although they all see ‘the Satan’ as a ’functionally evil’ supernatural Angel, and not‘intrinsically evil’).

In the explanation of the parable of the sower however, Jesus equates the terms ‘the devil’ (Luke 8:12), ‘the Satan’(Mark 4:15) and ‘the Evil One’ (Matt. 13:19) i.e. the devil = the satan = the evil one. In Matt. 25:41, Jesus implies that ‘the devil, and his angels’, will eventually be destroyed. This fact that Jesus Himself seems to clearly indicate that the devil is an intrinsically evil supernatural Angelic being, has lead other Christadelphian

scholars such as Ron Coleman and George McHaffie, to put forward the view that although Jesus, and the New Testament writers, may themselves have personally believed in ‘the devil’ and ‘demons’ [‘spirits’] as intrinsically evil, supernatural beings - Bible scholars today, living in a more scientific, post enlightenment Age, are now at liberty to de-mythologize these ‘primitive’ (?), first century, New Testament concepts, and re-interpret them, as metaphors which denote ‘sin’, and various types of maladies. A third consideration to bear in mind, concerns the revelatory significance of Jesus Christ, as the divine Son of God. Jesus lived on a higher plane to rest of humanity (John 8:23). He was the only man who had ever seen God’s form and heard His voice (John 5:37, 6:46), and He was the only human being who fully understood God’s character (Matt.11:27). Jesus was consequently uniquely privy to Divine revelations, and actually

Page 18.

embodied ‘Truth’ (John 14:6; 5:19, 7:16, 8:28, 38, 40; Luke 10:18). Whereas the Law came through Moses, ‘Truth’ came through Jesus Christ (John 1:17). The disclosures that Christ brought were so revolutionary that they could not be simply poured into Old Testament theological parameters, without explosive expansion (Mark 2:21, 22). Jesus was spiritually qualified to be the infallible interpreter of previous revelations, given in the Jewish (Old Testament) Scriptures. Concepts such as the temporary nature of the Lawof Moses, the death and resurrection of the Messiah, and thetwo-stage coming of the Messiah, are only in latent or embryonic form, within the Jewish Old Testament Scriptures. These concepts are clarified, and filled out, bythe revelations of Christ. Most Bible scholars believe that yet another embryonic teaching, which is outlined in the Jewish Scriptures, but given much greater clarity by Jesus Christ, in the New Testament, is the doctrine concerning theAngelic being, called ‘the Satan’ (or ‘the Devil’, in the

Greek Septuagint), in the books of Job and Zechariah. The version of the Jewish Scriptures that is most commonly quoted in the New Testament, is the Septuagint, and the Septuagint version of Job, translates the Hebrew term ‘the sons of God’ (Job. 1:6, 2:1 and 38:7) as ‘the angels of God’ (as too do the Targums [Aramaic translations] of Job). This would strongly imply that ‘the devil’, who comes amongst ‘the angels of God’, must most probably, also a supernatural angelic being, who is given permission by God, to test Job.

Jesus, in His revelatory capacity as the divine Son of God, also implies that ‘the devil’ (= ‘the Satan’] is an Angelic being, who, with the other angelic beings under his command,will eventually face an adverse divine judgment, leading to destruction (Matt. 25:42; Rev. 20:2, 10 cf. John 8:44, Matt.4:10). In the Old Testament, according to the Authorized Version, ‘evil’ is created by God, and apparently it is God Himself, who is directly responsible for making people dumb and blind (Ex. 4:11], for killing [Deut. 32:39], for sending evil spirits [1 Sam. 16:14], for making people stubborn [Ex. 4:21], for giving laws that were not good [Ez. 20:25] and for deceivingpeople [Jer. 4:10]. However such Old Testament statements, merely represent Hebrew idiomatic expressions, which mean that God, in His inscrutable wisdom, temporarily allows evilto exist, for the sake of a greater future good. Such Hebrewidioms include ‘the Hebrew idiom of permission’, ‘prophetic metonymy’ and ‘metonymy of the subject’. By the use of such idioms, God can be pictured in Scripture as being in supremecontrol of the universe, without the need for the role of the Angelic Satan (Devil in the Septuagint) to be over-emphasized. The role of the Angelic Satan [or ‘the Devil’ inthe LXX], within the book of Job - who is portrayed as the initial motivating cause of sickness, distress and death (Job chapters 1-2) - is seen as something which God allowed to take place - in the interests of a greater future good.

In the New Testament however, Jesus brings unique revelations concerning supernatural, and spiritual matters, which were previously unknown to previous the Old Testament prophets and kings. [Luke 10:23-24]. Jesus dispense with the need Page 19.

of Hebraic idioms, and He ultimately ascribe illness, not toGod, but to the Angelic Satan [ = the Devil] (cf. Luke 13:16). The Apostle Peter claimed that Jesus healed those who were oppressed – but oppressed not by God, but by ‘the Devil’ (Acts 10:38). Jesus raised the dead, and healed the blind, the lame, the deaf, and the lepers (Matt. 11:5). But 1 John 3:8 describes such activity by Jesus, as being a destruction, not of the works of God, but of the works of the Devil. The revelations brought by Christ, rendered much of the Old Testament into only a partial and fragmentary revelation (cf. Heb. 1:1-2), which was only an ‘outline’ of things to come (Heb. 10:1, Weymouth). The Law came through Moses, but full Truth came by Jesus Christ (John 1:17). In John 8:44, Jesus states, in reference to the Devil, that :

“He was a murderer from the beginning, and stayed not in the truth, because there is no truth in him.” [American KingJames Version]

The work below puts forward the case that a supernatural Angelic model of ‘the Satan’ [ = ‘the devil’] is more harmonious with the Biblical evidence, than any metaphoricalview of ‘the devil’. This principle would hold true, regardless of whether one sees ‘the Satan’ or ‘the Devil’, as a ‘functionally evil angel’ (i.e. an angel who is merely authorized by God, to perform ‘evil’ or unpleasant tasks), or as an intrinsically evil angel. The Angelic model of ‘theDevil’ [‘the Satan’] also seems to be more harmonious with the historical and cultural contexts, within which the Biblical documents were originally written.

Whilst it is true that with the Sadducees, rationalistic, and metaphorical theories concerning angels, spirits, the Satan and the Devil, seem to have existed in New Testament times, such metaphorical theories do not seem to have been taken up by Jesus and the New Testament writers. Evidence for these claims will be duely presented. Thinking Christadelphians, with a concern for evangelism, and a genuine interest in the Bible, are asked to patiently reviewthe evidence for themselves - with an open mind, and with anopen Bible.

Chapter Five : The pressing need for effective Evangelism. In 1987, my friend, the Christadelphian scientist Alan Hayward, estimated that the number of baptized Christadelphians (from the Central Fellowship) in the UnitedKingdom, was between 10,000 to 12,000. Alan’s estimate was based on an unofficial survey, conducted by some statistically minded Central Christadelphians, around about the year 1960 - coupled with the fact that the Christadelphian community since then (1960), had been declining at a steady rate of between 100 – 150 baptized members per year (according to the ‘ins’ and ‘outs’ figuress, reported in the ‘Intelligence’ section of ‘The Christadelphian’ magazine). Page 20.

In a 2001 edition of ‘The Endeavour’ magazine, the Christadelphian Peter Baylis claimed that there were approximately 9,000 Christadelphians within the United Kingdom. He stated that there had been a fairly constant rate of numerical decline in Central Christadelphian membership, during the previous 25 years, within the United Kingdom. Peter Baylis also claimedthat the decline rate had been between 150-200 per year, again according to the reported ‘ins’ and ‘outs’ figures, reported in the Intelligence section of ‘The Christadelphian’ magazine. However, Peter Baylis believed

the actual annual rate of decline was probably higher (perhaps up to 400 per year), due to Christadelphians leaving the community, but not being officially reported by their ecclesias, as having left. The Christadelphian GrahamSmith, in a follow up letter, later published in ‘The Endeavour’, gave anecdotal evidence which tallied with PeterBaylis’ statistical assessments.

Most Christian ecclesias in the United Kingdom are now much smaller than they were in the 1960’s. Many of them have disappeared altogether. In the 1972 ALS diary there were about 316 ‘Central’ ecclesias within Britain. In 1999 this number had declined to about 290; and by 2011 it was down to 266. There is also an apparent decline within the ‘Dawn’ Christadelphian community, with a present estimated United Kingdom (baptized) membership of around 700.

One of the primary reasons for these declines, is the

lack of success that often attends Christadelphian attempts

to evangelize – and the primary reason for this, is the

profound difficulty that most Bible students experience, in

accepting the traditional Christadelphian view that ‘the

devil’ is a mere metaphor, or an allegory, which

allegedly denotes Mankind’s ‘inner inclination to commit

sin’. The work below, refers to this view of ‘the devil’,

as the ‘internal devil’ theory. For those Christadelphians

who have a love for truth, and the fruit of the Spirit in

patience, the flaws of the ‘internal devil’ theory can be

quite straight forwardly demonstrated.

CHAPTER Six - The Pioneering Christadelphian studies of

John Carter.

Page 21.

Christadelphians have traditionally believed that Mankind’s

‘inner inclination to commit sin’ is figuratively (via

metonymy) termed ‘sin’ ( Rom. 7:17,20), or, ‘sin in

the flesh’ (cf. Rom. 8:3, A.V.). This is because the ‘inner

proneness to commit sin’, does, within sinners, eventually

(given sufficient time) issue in actual moral sin.

Traditionally , Christadelphians have alleged that ‘the

devil’ is identical to that figurative ‘sin’ that indwelt

Paul [mentioned in Romans 7:17, 20] - which in turn, is

alleged to be that ‘sin’ , in the flesh’, which is

mentioned in Romans 8:3. Christadelphians then equate this

‘sin in the flesh’ with the expression ‘sinful flesh’ [Greek

: ‘sarkos hamartias’], which is found at Romans 8:3, in the

Authorized Version of the Bible.

Therefore – according to traditional Christadelphian

interpretation :

‘the devil’ = ‘sin in the flesh’ = ‘sinful flesh’.

However, the Editor of ‘The Christadelphian’ magazine,

John Carter, in something of a ground breaking article

entitled : ‘Sin and its Condemnation’ [published in ‘The

Christadelphian’ magazine; April, 1956; Vol. 93, pp. 127-

132], stated two important points, that inadvertently

undermined the theoretical basis of the ‘internal devil’

theory. I ask the reader to patiently consider the following

facts :

[Fact 1.] John Carter stated that the Authorized

Version’s rendering of the Greek phrase ‘sarkos

hamartias’ as ‘sinful flesh’ (Rom. 8:3), represented a

misleading translation, and that the true translation of

‘sarkos hamartias’ should read : ‘flesh of Sin’, meaning

‘Sin’s flesh’. This corrected translation, according to

John

Page 22.

Carter, preserved Paul’s intended meaning, which saw a

personification of ‘Sin’ as a ‘Slave master’ and as a

‘Litigant in a law case’. John Carter had noted that Paul

had previously personified ‘Sin’ as a ‘Slave Owner’, a

‘Paymaster’, a ‘King’ and a

‘House occupant’ . These personifications of ‘Sin’ occur

in Romans 3:9; 5:21; 6:6, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23;

7:14,17,20, where, according to both John Carter, and

Editorial predecessor C.C. Walker, ‘sin’ should

designated with a capital ‘S’, in order to emphasize its

personification in various roles. The term ‘Sin’s flesh’

therefore refers to a metaphor, in which ‘Sin’ is

depicted as a ‘Master’, who possesses human beings

[‘flesh’] as his slaves.

John Carter’s later studies on the Epistle to the

Romans, thus led him to agree with the nineteenth century

Christadelphian Edward Turney, regarding the Authorized

Version’s [A.V.’s] mistranslation of the Greek ‘sarkos

hamartias’ as ‘sinful flesh’, which is found only once

(at Romans 8:3), in the entire Bible. Although Edward

Turney’s analysis of ‘sarkos hamartias’ was heavily

criticized by Robert

Roberts in ‘The Slain Lamb’, John Carter’s careful

analysis vindicated Turney’s assessment.

Compare the similarity of the relevant quotes,

concerning the mistranslation of the Greek ‘sarkos

hamartias’, as ‘sinful flesh’ (Romans 8:3; Authorized

version) :

John Carter’s quote : “ The translators [of the A.V.]

have obscured this [the term ‘sinful flesh’] somewhat.

The R.V. [Revised Version] margin substitutes the literal

Page 23.

translation ‘flesh of sin’ [Sin’s flesh] for the text

‘sinful flesh’…In the present context it becomes clear

that ‘sinful flesh’ does not strictly set forth Paul’s

thought …in the phrase ‘flesh of sin’ [Sin’s flesh], Paul

is carrying on the figure of personification that he had

used in [Romans] 6 and 7.” [‘The Christadelphian’, April,

1956]

Edward Turney’s quote : “ We say that ‘sinful flesh’ is

not the form of words used by Paul, in Romans 8:3; and no

such expression is to be found in the Scriptures …

‘sarkos hamartias’ is ..sin’s flesh. Every reader of the

New Testament knows that sin is spoken of, as if it were

a living being, a master .. Sin is therefore spoken of as

a Possessor of men, and sin’s flesh’ is flesh which

belongs to sin.” [‘The Christadelphian Lamp’, p.11, Vol.

1, No. 1, Nov. 1873].

John Carter further claimed that ‘Sin’, is also later

personified in Romans 8:3, personified as a ‘Litigant’

in a Lawsuit - who is pictured as having lost any legal

claim to be the master of Jesus (as a human being),

because Jesus did not commit any sin. The result was that

in the unique case of the human Jesus, it was the

Litigant, ‘Sin’, who was legally ‘condemned’, but not the

man (Jesus).

As John Carter put it :

“In Romans 8:3, Paul pictures a contest at Law, in which

‘Sin’ [as a litigant] claims a title to all mortal sons

of Adam. But the case goes against Sin. Sin is condemned

by God the Judge, and the issue is decided in Christ.

Since Christ has not yielded to sin, ‘Sin’ has lost his

claim, in the very domain that he regarded as his own –

the domain of the flesh. So Paul’s figure runs.” [ibid]

Page 24.

This same ‘legal metaphor’ also occurs at Romans 6:7,

where personified ‘Sin’ is depicted as being unable to

press any legal claims over a dead slave.

Cambridge Professor, Harold Dodd, shared John Carter’s

belief, on this issue.

Harold Dodd’s translation of Romans 8:3, (contained

within his commentary on ‘Romans’), reads :

“Christ entered this human nature of flesh and blood

….Sin put in its claim to be his master, but Christ won

the case; Sin was non-suited; its claim was disallowed,

and human nature was set free” (‘Paul’s Epistle to the

Romans’, a commentary by Harold Dodd).

Professor William Barclay’s revised New Testament

translation, is also consistent with John Carter’s

analysis of Romans 8:3. This version reads :

“He [God] sent him [Jesus] to deal with sin, and deal

with it as a human person. He thus left sin without a

case, and because he [Jesus] won the victory over sin,

the legitimate demand of the law is satisfied in us, too

…by the Spirit.”

John Carter believed that the corrected translation of

the Greek phrase ‘sarkos hamartias’ (Rom. 8:3), as ‘Sin’s

flesh’ (rather than the A.V. mistranslation ‘sinful

flesh’), preserved Paul’s intended metaphor, which saw

personified ‘Sin’ being legally defeated, or

‘condemned’. In contrast, it was Jesus who was legally

‘vindicated’ (justified) [cf. 1 Tim. 3:16], and all

those “in union” with Christ, share in His ‘vindication’

or ‘justification’ (cf. Rom. 5:1). This is the basis on

which the Apostle

Page 25.

Paul can say : ‘there is now, no condemnation, for those

who are in Christ Jesus’ (Romans 8:1).

The ‘Aramaic Bible’ by Victor Alexander, renders Rom. 8:3

as :

“God sent his Son …because of sin, so he may subjugate

sin through his flesh”.

Where the Authorized Version [A.V.] renders Romans 8:3 as

“condemned sin in the flesh” - the Greek word that the

A.V. translates as “in” here, is the Greek word “en”.

But this Greek word ‘en’ can also mean : “by means of”

or “through”. Indeed, the Authorized Version frequently

translates ‘en’ as ‘through’, and examples of this occur

at Romans 1:24, 6:11 and 6:23.

The meaning of Romans 8:1-3 therefore, seems to be that

Jesus, as human being (who was in the flesh), lived a

life of full obedience to God, which amounted to a legal

defeat of ‘Sin’, achieved through the agency of his human

flesh.

This then leads to a situation, in which those who are

‘in union’ with Christ, are also (like Christ) set free

from the law of sin and spiritual death (Rom. 8:2), so as

to serve God in a new way – which is the way of the

Spirit (cf. Rom. 7:6).

‘Sin’ has lost any legal claim over us, to be our

Master, so that we are now, (through the empowerment of

the Spirit) under no obligation to be ‘debtors to the

flesh’ (Rom. 8:12); Nor are we to let ‘Sin’ reign within

our mortal bodies (Rom. 6:12).

John Carter’s successor as Editor of ‘The

Christadelphian’ msagazine – Louis Sargent, concurred

with John Carter, in believing that Rom. 8:3, depicted

Page 26.

personified ‘Sin’, acting in the roles of a Slave master

and a Litigant in a lawsuit (See ‘Comment’, in the ‘The

Christadelphian’, March, 1965; Vol. 102; p. 127).

Louis Sargent wrote :

“ ..we come to Romans 8:3: …the subject of the sentence

is God : He it is who ‘condemns sin’ as Judge. Because

the Law could not establish righteousness, He

sent His Son; sending him ‘in the likeness of sin’s

flesh’. In these words we pick up the metaphor of sin as

a master who possesses men as his slaves, but Christ was

not his slave, though it is the same flesh…..It was not

‘human nature’ that was held under judgment and condemned

: it was sin..”

[Fact 2.] John Carter’s second important point, made in

his article ‘Sin and Its Condemnation’ [ibid], was that

because Jesus did not personally commit sin, then

personified ‘Sin’ could never have been said to have been

His ‘master’; NOR, claimed

John Carter, could personified ‘Sin’ ever be said to have

dwelt within Jesus, as a ‘House occupant’.

[Fact 3.] Furthermore, John Carter believed that, as the

flesh of Jesus was never mastered or ruled by ‘Sin’,

Jesus consequently, could only be said to have had ‘the

likeness of Sin’s flesh’.

This is because only those who commit sin, (as well as

those who will necessarily commit sin, given sufficient

time) are said to be ‘slaves of sin’ (see John 8:34, and

Rom. 7:14). Jesus and Adam however, were the only two men

who did not necessarily have to commit sin (cf. Rom.

5:14). However, whereas Adam missed

Page 27.

his real opportunity not to commit sin, Jesus succeeded.

Jesus was always obedient, and always pleasing to His

Heavenly Father (see John 8:29). Because Jesus never

sinned, He never became a ‘slave of Sin’. Consequently

his physical body, or His physical ‘flesh’ was never used

as an instrument of Sin (Rom. 6:13), nor was it ever a

‘slave of Sin’ (contrast Paul’s plight, at Rom. 7:14).

Jesus’ physical flesh therefore,

was never mastered by Sin. Consequently, His flesh,

although physically the same as ours, could nevertheless

not be described as ‘Sin’s flesh’, (i.e. ‘flesh’ under

the moral mastery of Sin). Jesus therefore, only had ‘the

likeness’ of ‘Sin’s flesh’.

John Carter wrote :

“He [the Apostle Paul] achieves what he means, by saying

that the flesh of Jesus was identical with the flesh over

which sin reigns, but it was only the physical nature He

shares with other members of the race. He does not share

their sinfulness. His [Jesus’]

flesh did not yield to sin. Jesus had not say with Paul that

He failed to do what He would [Rom.7:15], or to bemoan that

Sin dwelt in Him….He [Jesus] knew the flesh was weak, but

He, not Sin, was the master. His flesh was not enthralled to

Sin, and so Paul must avoid saying it was the flesh owned by

Sin, while asserting its essential sameness

as flesh. The word ‘likeness’ [i.e. Jesus came in the

‘likeness’ of Sin’s flesh] is thus seen to be a strong and

important word in the definition of Paul’s thought.”

This analysis by John Carter, was later fully endorsed by

another Editor of ‘The Christadelphian’ magazine - Michael

Ashton, who wrote :

Page 28.

“Yet others believe that His [Jesus] nature, which He

shared with us, deserved God’s condemnation, and that this

was declared at the crucifixion. Although the word ‘flesh’

is often used in Scripture pejoratively, because in all

mankind, with the exception of Christ, it has resulted in

sin, flesh is not of itself condemned. While in man it is

impossible to separate flesh and sin, in Christ they were

separated. If ‘flesh’ is worthy of condemnation, how in

Christ could it be said that ‘the Word became flesh’?

Michael Ashton also stated :

“..God… condemned sin in the flesh (Romans 8:3). This

phraseology has created confusion in the minds of many

[Christadelphians], who believe it is saying that in the

sacrifice of Christ, God was condemning flesh. If this is

what is meant, we are asked to believe that our very

natures, not only the disobedience which results from them,

are worthy of God’s wrath – and so also must Christ’s have

been. Any doctrine which makes the son of God a child of

wrath, must be rejected.”

[See the article ‘Jesus Christ Came into the World to Save

Sinners’, published in ‘The Christadelphian’ magazine, June,

1987; Vol. 124, pp.225-228 ].

But - if in the case of Jesus, the concepts of ‘sin’ and

‘flesh’ were capable of being separated (according to

Michael Ashton), and if ‘sin’ could not be said to have

dwelt within Jesus, (according to John Carter), and if the

term ‘Sin’s flesh’ ( A.V. mistranslation : ‘sinful flesh’)

had no applicability to Jesus (according to John Carter) -

then how could ‘the devil’ (when allegedly, the devil =

‘sin in the flesh’, or ‘sinful flesh’) have existed within

Jesus ?

Page 29.

This is probably why John Carter’s successor as Editor of

‘The Christadelphian’ magazine – Louis Sargent, was at pains

to point out that :

“It is abundantly established in our literature …that the Devil is sin. This is a different proposition from saying that the Devil is human nature …..human nature is prone to sin, it is not sin …Sin is lawlessness”

In the same article, Louis Sargent also wrote :

“ ‘Let not sin reign in your mortal body’ [Romans].. 6:12. Notice that sin is not the mortal body, but it may have the mortal body, as its domain.”

[ See the article ‘Comment’ in ‘The Christadelphian’

magazine, March, 1965, Vol. 102, p.127].

Similarly, The Christadelphian Editor of ‘The Christadelphian Tidings’

magazine, Don Styles, wrote :

“While human nature is inherently prone to sin, which condition readily leads to

sin, it is not inherently sinful.” [p. 498, December, 1996

edition].

So, in the light of above statements from these

Christadelphian magazine Editors, the fundamental question

now becomes :

If Jesus, merely as a human being was not inherently sinful

(according to Don Styles and Michael Ashton),

and if ‘the devil’ is not human nature (according to

Louis Sargent),

and if Jesus could not be said to have had ‘sin’

figuratively dwelling within Him (according to John Carter),

Page 30.

and if Jesus had neither ‘Sin’s flesh’, nor the

mistranslation ‘sinful flesh’ (according to Louis Sargent

and John Carter) ;

then :

Christadelphians are now forced to admit that Jesus

could not have had ‘the devil’ [ which allegedly = ‘sin in

the flesh’ = ‘sinful flesh’] within Him .

The invaluable Scriptural insights of both John Carter and

Louis Sargent (discussed above) were not lost on Louis

Sargent’s successor as Editor of ‘The Christadelphian’

magazine - Alfred Nicholls. He, along with the whole

Editorial Committee, produced a fascinating article on the

issue of the Atonement (a doctrine that is traditionally

associated with the devil issue) - which was entitled ‘For

Whom Christ Died’. The article claimed that : “It follows

from this that any knowledge we have at any time on this

subject [the Atonement by Christ] should continue to grow as

our experience, both of life and the Word of God, becomes

deeper and richer, and new needs call forth new

understanding.” [‘For Whom Christ Died’; ‘The

Christadelphian’ magazine, 1971, pp. 358-363]

That such an increase in Biblical understanding, within the

Christadelphian community (since the days of Robert Roberts)

is necessary, was made evident by the Christadelphian

historian Andrew Wilson, in his published post-graduate

degree thesis : ‘The History of the Christadelphians’. On

page 250, Wilson claimed that historically, the

Christadelphian movement had suffered from a lack of

thorough, informed debate

Page 31.

(especially after 1871) upon key theological matters. Andrew

Wilson argued that issues such as the Atonement doctrine

were :

“never argued out substantially by a thorough and

exhaustive opening up of all the issues, but were rather

glossed over to prevent friction and fissiparism”.

Mark 3:22 states that Jesus was accused of being

‘possessed’ by ‘Beelzebul’ (see the New American Bible, the

Translator’s New Testament, the Jerusalem Bible, William

Beck’s New Testament, et al). It is now widely recognized

by scholars that ‘Beelzebul’ [‘Beelzebub’] was an

alternative jokey name for ‘the Devil’, or ‘the Satan’. The

Christadelphian Peter Watkins concedes this important point,

on pages 63-64 of ‘The Devil - the Great Deceiver’, where

he writes :

“Jesus acknowledges a connection between Beelzebub and the

demons, and because He equates Beelzebub (Beelzebul) with

Satan (Matt. 12:26, 27), this means that there is a link

between Satan, or the devil, and demons.”

Alan Hayward stated :

“They called Him [Jesus] both mad and bad : a man who was

both possessed of the devil, and in league with the devil.”

[See p. 174, ‘God Is : A Scientist shows why it makes sense

to believe in God’.]

The traditional Christadelphian claim therefore, that

Jesus supposedly had ‘the devil’ within Him, or was

supposedly ‘possessed’ by the devil, cannot be right -

because linguistically, it amounts to the very same kind of

charge levelled against Him, by the misguided Jewish

scribes [Mark 3:22].

Page 32.

It is evident therefore, that there must be something wrong

with the ‘internal devil’ theory.

CHAPTER SEVEN – The Implications of the Beelzebul slander.

1 John 3:5 literally stated (in the Greek), with

reference to Jesus :

“sin in Him is not”.

Hebrews 4:15 literally stated in the Greek, that the

earthly Jesus shared our likeness “apart from sin”.

John Carter stated that “Jesus had not to say with

Paul that He failed to do what He would, or to bemoan that

Sin dwelt in Him.”

As that Jesus did not have ‘Sin’ within Him, it seems to

naturally follow that Jesus obviously could not have had any

‘internal devil’ within Him. This fact also appears clear

from the words of Jesus Himself, at John 14:30. Here, Jesus,

as a Jew, is most probably referring to the Angelic Satan as

‘the ruler of this world’. That the phrase ‘the ruler

[prince] of this world’ is a reference to ‘the Satan’ [the

devil] is conceded by Peter Watkins on page 71, of ‘The

Devil – the Great Deceiver’. The Jewish Talmud describes

Satan as ‘the Angel of death’ [Bava Bathra 16a]. The Jewish

rabbinical work, ‘Leviticus Rabba’, (XVIII:3), describes

the Angel of death as ‘a world ruler’. This passage reads :

“When Israel; stood by Mount Sinai and exclaimed ‘All that

the Lord has spoken we will do and hear’ [Ex. 24:7], the

Holy One [God], blessed be He, summoned the Angel of

Page 33.

death and said to him, ‘Although I have appointed you a

world ruler over human beings, you have no concern with this

people [Israel] because they are My children.’

[Leviticus Rabba XV111.3]

The Jewish work ‘The Ascension of Isaiah’ [circa 25 B.C.E..]

describes the Angelic ‘Beliar’ - which is an alternative

name for ‘the Satan’ – [see 2 Cor. 6:15; and the Qumran

Scrolls, especially 1 QS] as ‘the ruler of this world’ [1:3;

2:4; 4:2]. Chapter 2:4 reads :

“And Manasseh turned aside his heart to serve Beliar; for

the Angel of lawlessness, who is ruler of this world, is

Beliar.’

‘The Ascension of Isaiah’, Chapter 4:1 describes Beliar

as : ‘the great ruler, the king of this world’.

Within a Jewish context, therefore :

The Satan = the Devil =the Angel of death = the ‘ruler of

this world’ = ‘The Evil One’.

This belief seems to be echoed in the New Testament,

where it is the Satan [the Devil] who is most likely

described as being, the ‘god’ of this [evil] world [2 Cor.

4:4], because it is ‘the Satan’ who ‘blinds the minds of

unbelievers [cf. Acts 26:18], and who ‘energizes’ [Greek :

energountos] the children of disobedience [Eph. 2:2]. This

enables the Satan [the Devil], under God’s permission

[according to His inscrutable will (Eph.1:11; Rom. 11:33-

35)] to have a controlling influence upon the sinful ‘the

kingdoms of this world’ [Luke 4:6]. Jesus states, in John

14:30, that ‘the ruler of this world’[the Satan/ the Devil]

“has nothing in Me” . The underlying Greek here is: “en emoi

ouk

Page 34.

echei ouden”, which literally reads : “in Me [Jesus] he

[‘the ruler of this World’] has not anything”. The clear

implication therefore, is that Jesus, could not have had

‘the devil’ within Him.

Jesus also repudiates any suggestion that He is

possessed by the Devil, in the ‘Beelzebul incident’, which

is recorded in all of the three Synoptic Gospels ( Mark

3:22-27; Matt. 12: 24-26, and Luke 11:15-18 ). The name

“Beelzebul”, is a very rare word, and never turns up in any

undisputed Jewish literature. This fact has led scholars to

believe that “Beelzebul” is actually a jokey name for the

Devil, based upon a pun concerning the name of the god of

Ekron. This particular pun is also possibly combined with

the Aramaic word for “the Enemy”, which is – “beel

debaba”. The name “Beelzebul” then, was probably made up by

misguided Jewish Scribes, who then specifically applied the

name to Jesus. Jesus Himself, equates ‘Beelzebul” with ‘the

Satan’ [Matt. 24:26] - and this Jewish identification of

‘Beelzebul’ with ‘the Satan’ is acknowledged by the

Christadelphian, Peter Watkins :

“The enemies say that Jesus is casting out demons through

the power of Beelzebub, or Satan, the demon prince.” [ibid.

p. 59]

But the central point to note, is that these misguided

Scribes may well have have been slanderously accusing Jesus

of being “possessed” by Beelzebul (= the Satan = the

devil).

The Christadelphian Alan Hayward wrote on page 174 of his

work “God Is – A scientist shows Why it Makes Sense to

believe in God “ :

Page 35.

“There were two views of Jesus of Nazareth amongst those

who knew Him personally. On the one hand were His friends.

They called Him, ‘the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ or

even ‘My Lord and my God! On the other were those who

rejected Him. They called Him both mad and bad : a man who

was both possessed of the devil and in league with the

devil. Above all they accused Him of blasphemy.”

The renowned Jewish scholar, Geza Vermes (former Oxford

University Professor for Jewish Studies), recently wrote,

with respect to the Beelzebul incident (mentioned at Mark

3:22-26; Math. 12: 24-26; and Luke 11: 15-18) :

“ The visiting Jerusalem scribes …. considered his [Jesus’]

power to control evil spirits as itself a sign of a

partnership with Satan. … Jesus gave a commonsense reply :

to imagine that the devil fights the devil (Mark 3: 23)

simply does not make sense. Internal division always leads

to the collapse of any regime; yet as the many cases

believed to be possessions proved, the empire of the prince

of darkness was still flourishing. Therefore Jesus, its

chief adversary, could hardly be a citizen of that empire.

His authority came from God, not from Beelzebul (Math.

12:27-28; Luke 8:18-20.) The story illustrates the

charismatic action of a holy man of the eve of the

establishment of the Kingdom of God, which was believed to

coincide with the collapse of the reign of Beelzebul.”

[ pages 50-51, of : “The Authentic Gospel of Jesus” ;

Penguin Books , London, 2003]

According to eminent, Jewish, New Testament scholarship

therefore :

Page 36.

‘the Devil’ = ‘Beelzebul’ = ‘the Satan’.

These three terms were interchangeable synonyms.

The Greek text of Mark 3:22 reads : “ Beelzeboul

echei”; and this literally reads “He [Jesus] has Beelzebul”.

Mark 3:30 in the Greek, literally reads : “They said He

[Jesus] had an unclean spirit”.

This seems to suggest that misguided scribes may have

been slanderously implying that Jesus was possessed by

‘the devil’ [= ‘the Satan’ = ‘Beelzebul’].

Indeed, many translations render the Scribes’ misguided

accusation, in Mark 3:22, along this line – that is, that

Jesus was being slanderously accused of having the devil

within Him.

The New Jerusalem Bible, for example, renders Mark

3:22 as :

“Beelzebul is in him”;

And most other translations - including the RSV, NEB,

REB, NIV, ESV, JB, NASB, TEV, Weymouth, Beck and Wade -

render Mark 3:22 in similar manner.

Unfortunately however, due to a serious category

mistake, the Christadelphians have also traditionally

believed that Jesus, supposedly, had the devil within Him.

But the Beelzebul incident - when interpreted within its

Jewish context - demonstrates the error of such a claim.

Jesus clearly could did not have ‘Beelzebul’ or ‘the

Devil’, within Him.

Chapter 8 – Evidence for an External devil.

Page 37.

Rather than being an internal human phenomenon, Ephesians 6:

11,12 seems to clearly state that ‘the devil’ is

essentially, no ‘flesh and blood’ (human) phenomenon, at

all. Instead, ‘the Devil’ is associated with ‘the

principalities and powers’ in the ‘heavenly

places’. The very well respected British Christadelphian

scholar, Harry Whittaker, after conducting his own thorough

independent analysis of the term ‘principalities and

powers’, was forced by extensive evidence to conclude that

the ‘principalities and powers’ mentioned in the Epistles to

the Ephesians and Colossians, must refer here, to

supernatural Angelic beings. Ephesians 6:12 reads :

“For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but

against principalities, against powers, against the rulers

of the darkness of this world, against the spiritual forces

of wickedness in the heavenly places”;

And Harry Whitaker concluded, regarding this verse that :

“the entire verse [Ephesians 6:12] is about angelic

powers” [See p. 379, ‘Bible Studies – An Anthology’].

On page 380 [ibid.], Harry Whittaker re-asserted

this fundamental point, when he wrote :

“The entire verse [Ephesians 6:12] is

definitely about angels.”

However, the previous verse, Ephesians 6:11, which reads

: ‘stand against the tactics [or ‘wiles’] of the devil’,

is semantically linked with Ephesians 6:12, by the Greek

word “hoti ”, and ‘hoti’ means ‘because’. Therefore, If the

‘principalities and powers’ of Eph. 6:12 are supernatural

Angelic beings, then this would strongly imply that ‘the

Page 38.

devil’ of the previous verse (Eph. 6:11) is also, most

probably, a supernatural Angelic being.

Harry Whittaker also notes that the phrase ‘heavenly places’

requires a literal interpretation in Ephesians 1:20, and

2:6, and in Ephesians 6:12. The term ‘heavenly places’ is

better translated, as in ‘The Translator’s New Testament’,

as ‘the supernatural world’.

It therefore seems reasonable to conclude that the

Angelic principalities and powers’ of Ephesians 6:12, who

are in the ‘supernatural world’, are the ‘Angels’ who are

elsewhere the ‘the devil’ and with ‘the Satan’ ( cf. Matt.

25:41; Rev 12:7-9; and 2 Cor. 12:7, in the Moffatt,

Weymouth, Wycliffe, Jerusalem Bible et al translations,

which state that the Apostle Paul was disciplined, through

suffering, via the ministrations of

‘an Angel of Satan’. That ‘the Satan’ himself is an Angelic

being, is also strongly implied by the Apostle Paul, at 2

Cor. 11:14. There it is stated that ‘the Satan’ can

transform himself into ‘an Angel of Light’. The Greek word

rendered ‘transformed’ here is ‘metaschematizo’; and

‘metaschematizo’ always has reference to an external

transformation of appearance, but never to a transformation

of essential being (which would require the use of the Greek

word ‘metamorphoo’). This has led Greek scholars, such as

Spiros Zodhiates (in ‘The Complete (New Testament) Word

Dictionary’, to conclude that only a supernatural Angelic

being could attempt to superficially transform themselves

into a supernatural ‘Angel of Light’. This in turn would

suggest

Page 39.

that in reality, ‘the Satan’ is an ‘Angel of Darkness’ -

and It is probably not without significance, that the pre-

Christian Qumran scrolls literature, does describe the

Angelic

Satan’ (otherwise known as ‘Belial’, or ‘Beliar’; cf. 2 Cor.

6:15), as a supernatural ‘Angel of Darkness’.

Another important point, that has also been raised by

the Christadelphian scholar Dr. Patrick Brady, is that if

Christadelphian “internal devil” theory was correct, then

one would expect to find Biblical statements about people

being tempted by their own ‘devil’ or ‘devils’. But such

anticipated language is totally absent from Bible.

If the Christadelphian ‘internal devil’ theory was

correct, then we should expect to see the following kinds of

statements :

“Make no provision for the flesh, with regard to its

devil”; [cf. Rom. 13:14];

“Put to death therefore....your own evil devils” [cf.

Col. 3:5],

“They will follow their own devils” [cf.2 Tim.4:3];

“They will accumulate for themselves teachers, to suit their

own devils” [cf. 2 Tim.4:3],

“Mockers will come in the last days, following their own

devils” [cf. 2 Peter 3:3],

“Each one is tempted when he is drawn away, and enticed,

by his own devil” [cf. James 1:14];

Page 40.

“Flee the devil of youth” [cf. 2 Tim. 2:22];

“The devils of the flesh” [cf. Gal. 5:16, 2 Peter 2:18],

“Do not be conformed to your former devils” [cf. 1

Peter 1:14],

“Abstain from the fleshy devil, that wages war against

the soul” [cf. Peter 2:11],

“These are grumblers …following their own devils” [cf.

Jude 16]

However, not one such statement is ever found within the

Bible. This would strongly indicate that ‘the internal

devil’ theory rests upon wrong assumptions.

Indeed, the terms ‘Sin’, and ‘the Devil’[/the Satan], seem

to be portrayed in the Bible, as quite distinguishable

concepts.

This is exemplified by the Epistle to the Romans, where

‘sin’ is frequently personified in Romans chapters 5-8,

simply as ‘Sin’, but never as ‘the devil’.

In Romans 7:17 and 7:20, Paul says that ‘Sin’ dwells in

him [by metonymy] - but he never says that ‘the devil’

dwelt in him.

Indeed, the Apostle Paul always seems to use the

terms ‘devil’ and ‘Satan to refer to external persons. Even

when ‘diabolos’ is used merely as a common noun [rather than

as personal name – ‘Ho Diabolos’], it always has reference

to external persons [see 2 Tim. 3:3; Titus 2:3]. This also

seems to occur with Paul’s use of the term ‘the

Page 41.

Satan’, where at Romans 16:20, ‘the Satan’ seems to

naturally refer to some external entity, which is clearly is

differentiable from personified human ‘Sin’, mentioned in

Romans chapters 5 to 8.

This leads most scholars to believe that the Apostle Paul

had a separate doctrine concerning ‘the satan’, that was

differentiated from his doctrine of human nature.

In the Epistle to the Ephesians, the Apostle Paul can

discuss various kinds of sin, in Ephesians 4:17-31, but

still, nevertheless, strongly allude to ‘evil’ also having

a seperate supernatural, Angelic dimension, in Ephesians

6:10-19.

The common Christadelphian claim that all supernatural

Angels are supposedly immortal, was effectively challenged

by Dr. John Thomas himself [in ‘Elpis Israel’], and

by Robert Roberts [in ‘Christendom Astray’]. They claimed

that ‘the Angels who sinned’ mentioned in Jude 6 and 2 Peter

2:4, were supernatural pre-Adamic beings, who would

eventually face a future divine judgment, as a prelude to

their permanent destruction.

Christadelphians also often focus on Luke 20:36,

which states that those worthy of entering God’s kingdom,

will be like the Angels, who cannot die. However, most New

Testament scholars believe that Luke used the earlist Gospel

of Mark, as one of his sources (cf. Luke 1:1-3) - and the

original saying of Jesus, on this issue, in Mark 12:25 (as

well as in Matt. 22:30) states that Jesus was referring only

to ‘the angels in heaven’, which seem to refer to holy

angels (Matt. 24:31). The supernatural angels mentioned in

Page 42.

Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4 cannot be holy angels, because they

are angels who have sinned. Indeed the original Septuagint

identifies the ‘sons of God’ who sinned with women (Gen.

6:1-4), as ‘Angels’.

The holy Angels who are associated with Christ (Matt.

25:31), appear to be the antithesis to the ‘angels of the

devil’, or ‘the angels of Satan’, mentioned at Matt. 25:41;

Rev. 12:9; and 2 Cor. 12:7, Weymouth, Moffatt et al).

Even Judaism recognizes that supernatural Angels are not

necessarily immortal. Verse ‘Sanhedrin 38b’ in the Jewish

Talmud states that God may, on occasions, destroy angels

when they withstand His will. The ancient Jewish commentary

‘Genesis Rabbah’, at LXXVIII.1, even states that Angels can

only be temporary creations of God. The common

Christadelphian claim therefore, that all Angels must be

immortal, seems to be without Scriptural, or historical

contextual support.

Although many Jewish writers have adopted a rationalistic

philosophy that denies the literal existence of angels, and

consequently denies any literal conception of an Angelic

Satan [‘the devil’], this rationalistic Jewish philosophy,

adhered to by the Sadducees, doesn’t seem to reflect that

branch of Judaism, in which Jesus and the New Testament

writers operated. This is why objective, specialist

historians, involved in the

study of the New Testament, within its first century Jewish

context - such as Professor E.P. Sanders, and the Jewish

scholar Geza Vermes - can make statements such as :

Page 43.

“I think it is quite likely that Mathew and Luke, who

believed in angels, demons and the Spirit of God, thought

that the devil actually carried Jesus to the pinnacle of the

Temple and showed him visions.” [p. 114; ‘The Historical

Figure of Jesus’, E.P. Sanders].

In contrast, many Jewish scholars, influenced by various

forms of Jewish rationalism, have tended to deny the literal

existence of all angels, demons and the Satan [the devil].

The Jewish scholar ‘rabbi’ Dr. Solomon Grayzel, for

example, writes :

“In the authoritative literature of the Jews, angels and

devils play no part. They were confined to the poetic and

folk literature which expressed Jewish imaginations.” [p.

127; ‘A History of the Jews’; 1968].

Another example of this very common rationalizing Jewish

trend, comes from the Jewish scholar, ‘rabbi’ Professor

Morris B. Margolies, who confidently states :

“Angels are metaphors for the most basic human drives and

emotions : love, hate, envy, lust, charity, malice, greed,

generosity …This interpretation of angels reconciles their

existence with the teachings of a monotheistic faith…If we

view angels as part of

our own beings, we affirm that God needs no angels – but we

mortals do. Moreover having angels within us helps narrow

the vast chasm that separates us from God.” [pp.10,11; ‘A

Gathering of Angels’; 1994].

Morris Margolies then goes on to quote the rationalistic

Jewish philosopher Maimonides [1135-1204] in support of his

rationalistic views. The rationalism of the

Page 44.

Sadduccees influenced various ‘rabbis’ of the post- New

Testament era, and resurfaced in controversial Talmudic

figures such as Shimon Lakish in the third century C.E.,

Rationalistic Jewish views were then further revitalized in

the early middle Ages, when the rationalistic views of

Aristotle were adopted by both Islamic scholars and those

Jewish philosophers who lived within the Islamic Empire of

the seventh century, onwards. The rationalistic brand of

Judaism thus produced, is known as ‘Jewish Aristotelianism,

and Maimonides was a great exponent of it. Unfortunately,

Jewish Aristotelianism had a tendency to deny the literal

existence of all supernatural Angelic

beings. These post-Biblical rationalistic Jewish views, then

infiltrated certain Christian circles during the

Renaissance, Reformation and Enlightenment periods, and

helped publicize Jewish rationalistic ideas, concerning

Angels. The Angelic Satan was consequently, increasingly

viewed as being a mere metaphor, ALLEGEDLY denoting the

Mankind’s inner ‘inclination to sin’, and selected

Scriptural evidence was forced to fit this presupposed

theory. Some Christian groups during the Reformation, also

began to openly deny the literal existence of all

supernatural Angels. Such rationalistic Jewish views also

became widespread during the nineteenth century, when

Medical science was increasingly moving away from the notion

that any human illness was ever mediated by supernatural

Angelic beings [contrast 2 Kings 19:35; Ps. 78:49-50; Acts

12:23]. The medical doctor, John Epps [1805 – 1869],

published a work in 1842 [‘The Devil…’], which identified

‘the Satan’ and ‘the Devil’ as being mere personifications

of ‘the lustful principle’ within human nature. This work by

John Epps, very likely

Page 45.

influenced Dr. John Thomas, sometime after 1834. This was

because somewhere between 1835 and 1848, Dr. Thomas changed

his mind over the nature of ‘the Satan’ and ‘demons’. In his

magazine ‘The Apostolic Advocate’, Vol. 2, p. 178, 1835, Dr.

Thomas expressed his view - based upon the Scriptural

evidence alone - that ‘the

Satan’ and his ‘demons’, were Supernatural Angelic

personalities, who may well have originated from a previous,

pre-Adamic race of beings. Even by 1848, when Dr. Thomas had

changed his change of mind on ‘the Satan’ and ‘demons’ (very

possibly via the influence of John Epps), Dr. Thomas

nevertheless still retained his conviction that the

‘fallen angels’ of Jude 6, and 2 Peter 2:4, referred to

Angelic personalities, who were currently constrained, and

awaiting a future divine judgment.

Chapter 9 – A Need for Change, in the Light of Clearer

Evidence.

The invaluable Scriptural insights of both John Carter and

Louis Sargent (discussed above) were not lost on Louis

Sargent’s successor as Editor of ‘The Christadelphian’

magazine - Alfred Nicholls. He, along with the whole

Editorial Committee, produced a fascinating article on the

issue of the Atonement (a doctrine that is traditionally

associated with the devil issue). This was entitled ‘For

Whom Christ Died’, and it contained the following

statement :

“It follows from this that any knowledge we have at any

time on this subject [the Atonement by Christ] should

continue to grow as our experience, both of life and the

Word of God, becomes deeper and richer, and new needs call

forth new

Page 46.

understanding.” [‘For Whom Christ Died’; ‘The

Christadelphian’ magazine, 1971, pp. 358-363]

That such an increase in Biblical understanding, within the

Christadelphian community (since the days of Robert Roberts)

is necessary, was made evident by the Christadelphian

historian Andrew Wilson, within his published post-graduate

degree thesis : ‘The History of the Christadelphians’. On

page 250, Andrew Wilson claimed that historically, the

Christadelphian movement had suffered from a lack of

thorough, informed debate upon key theological matters.

Andrew Wilson argued that issues such as ‘the Atonement’

doctrine were :

“never argued out substantially by a thorough and

exhaustive opening up of all the issues, but were rather

glossed over to prevent friction and fissiparism”.

The main difficulty for the vast majority serious Bible

students, in accepting the ‘internal devil’ theory, is the

recognition that whilst the Sadducees, and later on, some

rationalistic Medieval Jewish philosophers, may have

occasionally viewed ‘the Satan’ (= ‘the Devil’) as a

personification of Mankind’s ‘proneness to sin’, this view

of ‘the devil’ doesn’t seem to have been shared by Jesus,

and the New Testament writers. Even many knowledgeable

Christadelphians, are somewhat uneasy with the ‘internal

devil’ theory, because it often appears to be Scripturally

counter-intuitive. Peter Watkins makes mention of this fact,

on page nine of his work “The Devil – the Great Deceiver”,

where he strongly implies that the Scriptural evidence has

meant that many Christadelphians have, in reality :

Page 47.

“been frightened away from the subject (of the devil and

demons)”.

Peter Watkins then asks : “what are we [Christadelphians]

to make of that bewildering array of Scriptures concerning

the devil, satan and evil spirits ? Are they there only to

embarrass us ?” [ibid. p. 10]’

In the past, it has always been a Christadelphian principle of interpretation, to preferably understand the Bible according to its literal sense. As a religious community, this principle has been applied to concepts such as the talking serpent [Genesis 3], the six days of creation, a worldwide flood, and the literal ontological existence of supernatural ‘angels’. When it comes to the subject of ‘thedevil’ [‘the satan’] and ‘demons’ however, Christadelphians have traditionally refused to take the Biblical evidence, atits face value. Most Christadelphians take the view that ‘the devil’ represents an extended metaphor, or an allegory,denoting Mankind’s proneness to commit sin. Furthermore, most Christadelphians believe that this allegorical or metaphorical understanding of ‘the devil’, was also shared by Jesus, and the New Testament writers. The Christadelphian Apologist Jonathan Burke, points to the fact that the clearest explicit expression of an alleged identity between ‘the Satan’, and Mankind’s inner inclination to commit sin, are to be found only in a statement by the anti-Jesus Jewish teacher, Shimon Lakish, and the views of the Medieval rationalistic Jewish philosopher Maimonides. One of the major problems with Jonathan Burke’s type of analysis however, is that neither Jesus, nor the New Testament authors, acted or spoke about ‘the Satan’ (= ‘the Devil’), in the manner that any Sadducee, or any anti-Jesus Jewish ‘rabbi’ like Shimon Lakish, or any rationalistic Medieval Jewish philosopher, like Maimonides, would have done. Any rationalistic, Sadducean-type interpretation of ‘the Satan’ (the Devil), definitely appears to have been firmly rejected by both

Jesus, and His disciples; [(Cf. Luke 4:13; 4:41; and 10:17-21]. It is also important to note that Talmudic and “Rabbinic Judaism”, even today, still recognizes the notionof an ontological, supernatural, Angelic concept of ‘the Satan’, who can exploit Man’s weakness, by attempting to work through his ‘bias to commit sin’ [ ‘the ‘yetzer ha ra’]. New Testament passages such as Acts 5:3; John 13:2 and27; would also harmonize this Angelic model of ‘the Satan’. The process of an Angelic Satan, seeking to work through Mankind’s ‘inclination to sin’, would be the counterpart, ofGod working through human beings [cf. Phil. 2:13; Luke 6:45;Matt. 12:35; Rom. 2:14], via their ‘desire [or inclination] for righteousness’ (Rom. 7:15b, 16, 18b).

Within Rabbinic, and Orthodox Judaism, the Angelic Satan onthe one hand, and the yetzer ha ra [the ‘evil inclination’] on the other, are two distinct concepts. At times, Page 48.

there is a correlation between the two [i.e. the Angelic Satan can work through the ‘evil inclination’], but there isno literal identification.

The Christadelphian scholar Peter Watkins , in his work

“The Devil – the Great Deceiver”, proposed a parabolic

theory, in order to explain ‘the devil’ and ‘demons’, found

within the New Testament. He believed that the New Testament

writers did employ common contemporary, First century C.E.

Jewish concepts of ‘the devil’ and ‘demons’, as supernatural

spirit personalities - but the New Testament writers then

subtly re-casted them as mere ‘literary characters’, set

within an allegory, or an extended parable. Peter Watkins

saw this allegory or parable as pointing to Mankind’s

‘inner inclination to commit sin’. However, a variety of

other Christadelphian theories have been put forward, in an

attempt to explain the Devil (the Satan) and demon language

of the Bible. These include :

1. The idiomatic theory. This proposed that demon languagein First century C.E. Palestine, was a common form of idiomatic expression, used to describe certain illnesses.

2. The accommodation theory. This affirms that Jesus and the New Testament authors only accommodated themselves,to the prevailing common [but allegedly erroneous] belief, that ‘the devil’ and ‘demons’, were external spirit personalities.

But would Jesus, and the New Testament writers, have accommodated themselves to serious theological error ? The Gospel writers in particular, areat pains to elucidate, as fully as possible, everything to do with the good news about Jesus. For example, Aramaic terms such as ‘Talitha koum’ [Mark 5:41], ‘Cephas’ [John 1:43], ‘Immanuel’ [Matt. 1:23], and ‘Corban’ {Mark 7:11] are all given helpful translations. Both Mark and Luke also provide interesting and relevant,historical background information [Mark 7:3; Acts 23;8], as well as useful theological comment [cf. Mark 7:19]. Phrases such as “as was supposed”, occur several times inthe Gospels and in the book of Acts - Luke 3:23 states that Jesus was the son of Joseph – ‘as was supposed’; Luke 24:37 states that the disciples ‘supposed’ that theyhad seen a spirit; Jesus was ‘supposed’ to have been a

gardener [John 20:15]; and the Apostles were ‘supposed’ to have been drunk. But there is no statement that ‘the Page 49.

devil’ and ‘demons’ were only supposed to exist as spiritbeings; or that people were only ‘supposed’ to be possessed by demons.[cf. Luke 4:41]. The Christadelphian Harry Whittaker, was eventually led to confess, after much Biblical study, that the Scriptural evidence concerning ‘demons’, actually :

“reduces to nonsense the much-too-popular ‘accommodation’ theory”, [p. 113 of ‘Studies in the Acts of the Apostles’];

And that the accommodation theory of demons was :

“threadbare and quite inadequate” [p. 119 of ‘Studies in the Gospels’].

3. The ‘pre-Adamic elohim’ theory. This view proposed that the fallen angels of Jude 6, and 2 Peter 2:4, were members of a pre-Adamic race of beings, who once populated the earth. They allegedly left the earth without divine permission, and are now alleged to be awaiting a future divine judgment. This was the interpretation of Jude 6, and 2 Peter 2:4, given by both Dr. Thomas [‘Elpis Israel’ 14th ed. Rev. p. 11], and Robert Roberts [‘Christendom Astray..’ ; 18 Lectures edition, p. 179].4. The mistranslation theory. This view proposes that the

terms ‘the satan’ [from the Hebrew] and ‘the devil’ [from the Greek Septuagint] do not refer to any specialtitle, nor any personal name for an Angelic being. Instead these terms should be directly translated from the Hebrew and Greek, and rendered into English as ‘theadversary’ and ‘the accuser’ (or ‘the slanderer’) -

and then regarded as references to human beings, or human organizations.

5. The ‘functionally evil’ Angels theory. This view is based on the citation of ‘evil angels’ mentioned in Psalm 78:49. The Christadelphian scholar Harry Whittaker [in ‘Studies in the Gospels’, chapters 30 and127 and 18], believed that the ‘demons’ of the Gospels,and occasionally ‘the Satan’, as well as ‘the Devil’, were references to ‘functionally’ evil supernatural Angels. These were allegedly not ‘intrinsically evil’ supernatural Angels - but merely supernatural angels who were commissioned by God, to perform unpleasant, or‘evil’ tasks (as viewed from a human perspective, alone).

6. The ‘Human Jesus’ theory. This view proposes that because Jesus was truly a human being, who lived a truly human life, set within a context of First centuryC.E. Palestinian Judaism, then He would naturally assume, like most His contemporaries, that demons were external spirit personalities. This viewpoint was proposed by the Christadelphian scholars Edward Whittaker, and C.S. Crawford [See ‘The Problem of Demons’, in ‘The Testimony’ magazine; 1965, p. 116 ff] .

7. An extension of the above view, was held by the Christadelphian scholars Ron Coleman and George McHaffie. They (as well as Wilfred Lambert) emphasized the fact that the first task of Biblical exegesis, is to attempt to honestly discover

Page 50.

what the Biblical texts would have meant to their original authors, and their original recipients. As a consequence of this, these scholars believed that the NewTestament does genuinely, put forward the belief that thedevil and demons, are intrinsically evil, supernatural spirit beings; but that that Bible students today, livingin a more scientific, post-Enlightenment Age, can now be legitimately allowed to de-mythologize the concepts of

‘demons’ and ‘the devil’. ‘Demons’ can now today, be legitimately reinterpreted as signifying various illnesses, and ‘the devil’ can now be reinterpreted as a personification ‘Sin’. 8. The ‘telepathic’ theory. This theory was also proposed

by Edward Whittaker and C.S. Crawford [ibid]. They believed that the demonaics in the Gospels were able toinstantly recognize Jesus as the Messiah, and divine Son of God (long before Jesus revealed these facts to His disciples at Matt. 16:16), because they were able to derive this information, via the paranormal means of‘telepathy’ or some other form of Extra Sensory Perception (cf. Mark 1:24, 34, Luke 4:41).

9. The ‘external devil’ devil theory. This view recognizes that ‘sin’ is personified in the Bible, but it is personified simply as ‘Sin’. As with other personified entities in the Bible (e.g. Wisdom, rivers, trees, stones, the sun, etc),‘Sin’ is merely personified as itself (but ideally spelt with a capital ‘S’, to denote its personification, in anyparticular place). In the Epistle to the Romans for example, ‘Sin’ (with a capital ‘S’) is personified as a ‘litigant’ in a Lawsuit [8:3], as a ‘King’ [6:12], as a ‘Slave-Owner’ [6:17], as a ‘House occupant’ [7:20], as a ‘Paymaster’ [6:23], and as a ‘Military enemy’ who takes prisoners of war, and who can use ‘weapons of wickedness’[7:23, 6:13, J.B.]. ‘Sin’ is also personified by the Apostles James and John [cf. James 1:15; John 8:34] Theapostles Paul, James, Peter and John therefore, are all able to personify ‘sin’, as ‘Sin’ - but over and abovethis, they also seem to consistently refer to ‘the satan’or ‘the devil’, as an external person. [cf. John 8:34-47; I Cor.11:14, Rom. 16:20; Acts 10:38; James 4:7, 1 Peter 5:8-9]. Scholars such as Oxford Professor, Christopher Rowland, believe that there is always a cleardistinction in the Apostle Paul’s mind, between the personification of ‘sin’ on the one hand, and Paul’s consistent belief in an Angelic Satan (= the Devil), on the other.

Robert Roberts himself claimed [according to the original version of ‘Christendom Astray’], that ‘the devil’ of Luke 4:1-13 must refer to some external person, because : [i] Jesus always did that, which pleased His Heavenly Father [see John 8:29]; and [ii] Luke 4:13 categorically states that ‘the devil’ left Jesus (which would be impossible if ‘the devil’ was any proneness to commit sin, within Jesus . As a possibility, Robert Roberts claimed, in the original editions of ‘Christendom Astray ..’ [since deleted in some later editions,] that ‘the devil’ of Lukechapter four, could have been a supernatural Angel, who controlled the political position of the Roman emperor.

Page 51.

The Christadelphian scholar, Professor Steve Snobelen concedes that ‘the Satan’ in the book of Job [= ‘the Devil’ in the Septuagint version of Job], was a supernatural Angel - and that this concept of a supernatural Angelic Satan (Devil) is carried over into the New Testament – at least with respect to his first appearance at Matt. 4:1-11.

There also appear to be very distinct parallels between the Angelic Satan [ = ‘the Devil’ in the Septuagint version] of the book of Job, and ‘the Satan’ mentioned in the New Testament. In both cases :

i. Satan endeavours to tempt or incite rebellion against God (cf. Job 1:11 with Matt. 4:1-11).

ii. Satan must first request divine permission to attackGod’s people (cf. Job 1:11-12 with Luke 22:31).

iii. Satan works to destroy human beings (cf. God’s restraining order to Satan, in Job 2:6; and 1 Cor. 5:5).

iv. Satan roams the earth, looking for victims (cf. Job 1:7 with 1 Peter 5:8).

v. Satan accuses God’s people (cf. Job 1:11 with Rev. 12:10).

vi. Satan is divinely rebuked (cf. Job 2:3 with Jude 1:9).

vii. Satan appears to be an Angelic being. Both the twoTargums of Job (the Rabbinic and the Qumran versions), and the Septuagint [LXX], interpret the term ‘sons of God’ as ‘angels of God’. Even the Masoretic text at Job 38:7 shows that ‘the sons of God’ in Job, must be supernatural Angels. If ‘the Satan’ [‘the Devil’; LXX] comes amongst the Angelic ‘sons of God’, who present themselves before God [Job 1:6], then ‘the Satan’ [= ‘the Devil’, in the LXX], must presumably, also be a supernatural Angelic being (Compare also 2 Cor. 11:14, where ‘the Satan’ also appears to be an Angelic being; plus Matt. 25:41; and Rev. 12:7-12, where ‘the Devil’ is said to have his own contingent of ‘Angels’).

Dr. Patrick Brady, is convinced by the totality of the Scriptural evidence, that the terms ‘the devil’ and ‘the satan’ in the New Testament, always refer to external entities, and never to anyone’s inner ‘sinful inclination’. Dr. Brady however, believes that the external devil of the New Testament is primarily the Jewish High Priest, and/or the Jewish religious system, that he represented. The Christadelphian scholar Paul Wasson [in the article ‘The Identity of Satan’, from ‘TheEndeavour’ magazine, No. 127] suggests that ‘the satan’ and ‘the devil’ are synonymous terms, and they represent an outside influence - which Paul Wasson seems to equatewith sociological forces.

CHAPTER 10 – The Alleged link between the ‘internal devil’ and the Atonement.

Page 52.

The traditional Christadelphian understanding of ‘the Devil’provides the basis for the Christadelphian interpretation ofthe Atonement. Verse Hebrews 2:14 in the King James Version of the Bible, is explained by the Christadelphians, as meaning that Jesus could only deal with His proneness to sin, by having His physical body submitted to execution. Only in this way, it is alleged, could ‘the devil’ have been‘destroyed’.

The Christadelphian Peter Watkins, put it this way, in another work entitled : “The Cross of Christ” :

“Until people learn the humbling fact that they are sinners who deserve to die, salvation is impossible …The Sonof God came in human form. In character He was perfect, yet He inherited from Adam a ‘serpent’ nature - a nature which could be tempted to sin. This nature was the cause of the trouble. It had to be cursed and crucified…the Lord Jesus, an innocent bearer of this rebellious nature, showed what todo with it. He crucified it…all His virtue and the perfection of His character had come from God and was offered up to God….human nature is evil and offensive to God. It must be destroyed.”

The implications therefore, of the ‘internal devil’ theory, for Christadelphians like Peter Watkins, seem to be that Jesus, as a sharer of human nature, was supposedly ‘evil andoffensive to God’ – because He possessed a ‘rebellious nature’, which being prone to transgression, could be tempted to commit sinful acts. The fact that Jesus did not commit any transgressions, was only [allegedly] because all of His moral perfection and virtue, had come entirely come from God. Jesus therefore - on this understanding - could have no personal moral grounds , on which to offer any mitigating plea against a sentence of death, to be inflictedupon his human body. All His moral virtue [allegedly] had come from God, and Jesus’ physical body [allegedly],

contained ‘the devil’ [ = allegedly, ‘a proneness to committransgression’].

An immediate, brief response to this line of reasoning is required because there is a definite Christadelphian link between the doctrines of the devil, and the Atonement.

Although Jesus was a human being, He is never described as being evil, or offensive to God. Jesus always did what was pleasing to God (John 8:29), and He is always described as God’s dearly beloved Son (Matt. 3:17, 17:5; Mark 12:6; 2 Peter 1:17). God worked within Jesus (John 10:38), but God also worked within the Apostle Paul (Phil. 2:13), and within other believers (Eph. 3:20; Col. 1:29, Eph. 1:11). However, this Divine activity within such human beings, didnot absolve them from personal moral responsibility, nor from a future judgment (cf. 1 Cor. 4:4). What God worked into people, had to be faithfully ‘worked out’, through godly obedience (Phil. 2:13, Rom. 12:1), which co-operated with God (cf. 1 Cor. 15:10, Rom. 8:13-14, John 4:34, 5:17).Because of His successful obedience (cf. Rev. 5:5), Jesus was rewarded with the title of

Page 53.

‘Lord’ (Phil. 2:8-11), and He became worthy of receiving joint honor and praise with God, as a joint Savior of Mankind (see John 5:23 and Rev. 5:13-14). We must also not be forgetful that Adam was created so as to be capable of temptation. However, whereas Adam failed to obey God, Jesusresisted His proneness to transgression, and lived a life of constant obedience. After Jesus had been tested in the wilderness, Luke records that ‘the Devil’ left Jesus [Luke4:13]. This fact alone strongly indicates that ‘the Devil’ could not have been Jesus’ mere inner proneness towards transgression – since a proneness to commit transgression,has an enduring inner presence within human beings, since the fall of Adam.

Most serious Bible students believe that the ‘internal devil’ theory represents a serious category mistake, which in part, derives from a limited understanding in previous centuries, of the Biblical languages, and the cultural context, within which the Bible was originally written.

CHAPTER 11 : Factors Influencing Christadelphian Philosophy.

The following will hopefully, be of use to Christadelphians, who are interested in their own history. It may also perhaps encourage Christadelphians to think more deeply, in order to better ‘fine tune’ their arguments concerning ‘the Devil’. This, in many respects, may be a very timely exercise, because the Christadelphian movement , is not only organizationally fractured into manyseparate, and competing Christadelphian Fellowships ( including the Berean, Dawn, Central, Unamended, Old Path Christadelphian, Watchman, Companion, The Ecclesia of Christ, the Apostolic Ecclesia, the Apostolic Fellowships, The Servants of Christ, etc, etc ), but is also, within the United Kingdom, generally suffering from appreciable numerical decline.

The Christadelphian historian, Andrew Wilson [in his published degree thesis ‘The History of the Christadelphians’], states that the Christadelphian movement, since 1885, has found it increasingly difficult toattract outside converts. He correlated this, with an historical refusal within the Christadelphian movement, to submit certain Christadelphian doctrines, to a proper, in depth examination. Andrew Wilson believed that fellowship splits within the Christadelphian body were, under Robert Roberts’ control, often due a process of ‘political manoeuvring’, rather than as a resultof a proper, and detailed examination of the Scriptural evidence.

Open and detailed examination within the Christadelphian movement, appears to have been hampered by three related factors :

i. When Dr. John Thomas conducted his Bible studies, inthe nineteenth century, comparatively little was known about the historical, religious and cultural contexts, within which the Bible was originally written. It was then wrongly assumed for example, that post-New Testament ‘Rabbinic Judaism’ was the same kind of Judaism, as that practiced in the New Testament period.

Page 54.

Consequently, later post- New Testament Jewish ideas, were sometimes illegitimately, and forcibly, imposed uponthe New Testament data. Since the days of the Christadelphian ‘pioneers’ [Dr. John Thomas and Robert Roberts], there has been a great increase in our understanding of Judaism in the first century C.E., as well as an increased understanding of the Biblical languages, and Biblical cultures.

ii. A powerful ideology quickly arose within the Christadelphian community, that posited the belief that Dr. John Thomas had been providentially risen up by God, to successfully complete a historical task – the rediscovery of all genuine, Apostolic, Biblical doctrines. This powerful ideology ultimately seems to have originated from Dr. Thomashimself, when, in self-reference, he wrote :

“The spirit of life from the Deity …had entered into the witness of gospel truth at his second immersion in 1847.” [Eureka Vol. 11, p. 671]

It is this powerful ideology that in part, motivated Robert Roberts to write :

“The truth is not with us [Christadelphians] an object of search, or a subject of investigation; it is a possession and a finality. To the charge of holding ‘thatthe knowledge of Scripture, in the writings of Dr. Thomas, has reached a finality,’ we plead guilty.” [“The Christadelphian”. Sept. 1874, p. 407, 408];

And :

“There is but one safe position, and in that we [Christadelphians] mean, by the favour of God, to entrench ourselves ‘for better or for worse’ viz., the whole truth as brought to light by Dr.Thomas .” [The Christadelphian, 1873, p. 564].

iii. One of Dr. Thomas’ important teachings was his firm expectation ( based upon his Biblical prophetic studies) that the Kingdom of Christ would be fully

iv. established upon this Earth, by 1910. Dr. Thomas hadexpected the Second Advent of Christ to occur in 1866. When this failed to occur, the Advent was thenanticipated by Christadelphians at any immediate time, proximate to 1866.

In ‘The Ambassador of the Coming Age..’ magazine, for January, 1866, Robert Roberts wrote :

“ We may remark in general terms, there can be no manner of doubt that the allotted times of the Gentiles’domination expire in 1866-68, and there can be as little doubt that the second advent of Christ is epochally coincident with the

Page 55.

termination of those times …it is pretty certain that Jesus will return within the lifetime of the present generation.”

The question to be asked of Christadelphians is : If Dr. Thomas was wrong in his prophetical studies, then is it not possible, in principle, that Dr. Thomas could also have wrong in some of his other beliefs ?

Chapter 12 – The Evolution of ‘the Satan’, ‘the Devil’ and ‘Beliar’ Concepts.

Individual words usually evolve in meaning over time. Linguiostic experts agree that the current meaning of any word is rarely, if ever, its original etymological meaning. The original meaning of the word ‘ignorant’ was ‘nice’, andthe word ‘person’ originally meant ‘mask’. The Hebrew word ‘Belial’ originally meant ‘wickedness’ or‘scoundrel’. The word ‘satan’ originally meant ‘accuser’, with overtones of ‘adversary’ or ‘slanderer’, according to literary context. Over time, these words came to be associated by the Jews, with a particular Angelic being. Eventually these words were used as proper names or proper titles, for a particular Angelic being, variously known as ‘the Satan’ [ha-satan’ in Hebrew], or ‘the Devil’ [‘ho diabolos’ - according to the Septuagint Greek translation of ‘ha satan’] or ‘Belial’ [which is an alternative name for ‘the Satan’, and occurs at2 Cor. 6:15, and frequently in the Qumran Scrolls 1QH, 1QS and the Damascus Document (CD)]. All Hebrew names and titles, mean something. The name ‘Solomon’ for example, means ‘Peace’. But this doesn’t mean that there was no literal king called ‘Solomon’, but that the word ‘Solomon’ is to be used as a mere metaphor, or a personification of the political ‘peace’ that characterized the kingdom of Israel from 970-930 B.C.E.

The name ‘Peter’ in Greek, and ‘Cephas’ in Aramaic, both mean ‘Rock’. But this doesn’t mean that there was no literal disciple called Peter – but only a personified ‘stone’, which was part of an allegory, which denoted the ultimate ‘rock-like endurance’ of Christ’s disciples.

The Hebrew title ‘ha-Satan’ [‘the Satan’ in English] literally means ‘The Accuser’ and/or ‘The Adversary’. The term ‘The Accuser’ in Greek is ‘ho Diabolos’, and this is how ‘the Satan’ of Job 1-2, and Zechariah 3, is translated in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. ‘The Satan’ therefore is linguistically equivalent to ‘the Devil’, in the Jewish Scriptures - and this is exactly how we also find the matter in the New Testament. The translation of the Greek Jewish Scriptures is known as the Septuagint, and it was this Septuagint version of the JewishScriptures that was most used by the writers of the New Testament. Where the Hebrew text mentions ‘the Satan’ [ha-satan, in Hebrew], the Septuagint has ‘the Devil’ [ho diabolos, in Greek]. This is why in the New Testament ‘the Satan’ and ‘the Devil’ are perfectly synonymous, and interchangeable terms. Jesus Himself demonstrates this on several occasions. Compare for example Mark 4:15 with Luke 8:12.

CHAPTER Thirteen : Debunking Some Common Misconceptions.

At the outset, it is vitally important to stress that those scholars who do interpret the Devil as being some kindof Angelic being, nevertheless deny that the Bible teaches any form of genuine dualism. If the Devil is only an Angeliccreature, then there can be no real dualistic threat to a supreme God. Any apparent cosmological dualism within certain Biblical texts, is always something that is permitted to existed for the time being, by an Almighty God.Any ‘apparent dualism’ within any Biblical text is thereforelimited, relative and temporary. All ‘evil’ is only tolerated by God, for the time being. God’s victorious plan for humanity is certain, and ‘the Devil’ (or ‘the Satan’,

cf. Rev. 20:2), whoever or whatever it is, is always portrayed in the Bible, as an ultimate loser.

In the New Testament, the term ‘the Devil’ is perfectly synonymous with the term ‘the Satan.’ In Matthew 4: 8-11, Jesus Himself clearly equates the term ‘Satan’ with ‘the Devil.’

Indeed, even when the Hebrew word ‘satan’ is used as a common noun in the Jewish Scriptures [to mean ‘enemy’, ‘adversary’, or sometimes ‘accuser’], it always refers to anexternal adversary – and never to anyone’s ‘sinful inclination. The same is also true of the Greek word ‘diabolos’ [ meaning ‘liar’, ‘slanderer’, or ‘accuser’]. When this Greek word is used as a common noun, both in the Septuagint, and in the New Testament [cf. 1 Tim. 3:11, 2 Tim. 3:3 and Titus 2:3], it always has reference to an external person(s), and never to anyone’s internal, sinful inclination. This fact is highlighted by Esther 7:4 and 6, in the Septuagint. Here, the Greek ‘ho diabolos’, for the only time in the Septuagint, has very obvious reference to ahuman being. There, ‘ho diabolos’, in context, obviously refers, not to an Angelic being, but to the man ‘Haman’ – who is called by Esther ‘the adversary’ (= ‘the enemy), of the Jews. However, ‘ho diabolos’ [the adversary/the enemy] is not a reference to ‘the sinful inclination’ - which Haman shares with the rest of fallen humanity. Consequently,there is absolutely no Old Testament support, for the notion that the words ‘satan’ and ‘devil’, ever refer to anybody’s internal, sinful inclination. The Christadelphiandefinition of ‘the devil’ therefore, is totally without support from the Old Testament Jewish Scriptures.

Within the books of Job, Zechariah, and the New Testament, ‘the Satan’ [= ‘the Devil’] is always consideredto be an external Angelic being, who is subordinate to God, and who can only act with God’s permissive will. The totality of God’s will is a mystery, and is currently

inscrutable to human beings - as verses Deut. 29:29, Romans11:33-35 and 2 Cor. 12:4 all readily testify. How God can ‘use’ evil persons, to Page 57.

still carry out His ultimate purposes, is beyond human comprehension. Nebuchadnezzar, for example, was a cruel, idolatrous, and ruthless tyrant - who had Zedekiah’s sons executed before their father, before having Zedekiah blinded, chained and deported to Babylon. [Jer. 39:4-7]. And yet - Nebuchadnezzar is repeatedly referred to by God as

“My servant.” [Jer. 25:9; 27:6; 43:10] The kingdom of Babylon however, will eventually suffer divine punishment for Nebuchadnezzar’s cruelty [after Judah’s punishment is complete], as Jer. 25:11-12 intimates. This same principle operates with respect to the cruel, and idolatrous Assyrian tyrant, Sennacherib - who is used byGod as a His ‘servant’, and as His instrument. Sennacherib is called by God “the rod of My anger, the staff of My fury”[Isa. 10:5; RSV]. However, despite being God’s ‘servant’, Sennacherib will still be punished for his cruel sins [Isa. 10:12-15]. We also see the same principle of divine operation, in Genesis 50:15-21. There, we see that the cruelty of Joseph’s brothers, was mysteriously used by God, to still keep His ultimate divine purposes ‘on track.’ This fact however, does not absolve the sins of Joseph’s brothers, who will still have to answer for their sins, at the Divine Tribunal [cf. 2 Cor. 5:10]. Jesus and the New Testament writers seem to take an identical view, with respect to the Angelic Devil [the Satan]. An ‘angel of Satan’ for example, acts as God’s servant, in order to discipline Paul, in the way of humility[2 Cor. 12:7]. The Apostle Paul, in like manner, prays that Hymenaeus and Alexander will be delivered to ‘the Satan’ fordivine discipline. Paul also advocates the same practice foran incestuous Christian in Corinth. This sinner is to be handed over to ‘the Satan’, so that his sinful practices

will be destroyed, so that he himself, may be saved in Christ [1 Cor. 5:5].

However, ‘the Satan’ [‘the Devil’] does not appear to be a merely a ‘functionally evil angel’, as some Christadelphians, such as Harry Whittaker, have sometimes claimed. This is the notion that the Devil [the Satan] is anAngelic servant of God, who purely does God’s bidding in testing, disciplining and punishing individuals [cf. Luke 22:31; I Tim. 1:20]. The Satan [the Devil] therefore, on this understanding, is not a ‘morally fallen’ Angel, but merely an obedient Angelic servant. While there is some truth in this idea, two important points have to be recognized :

i. As previously demonstrated, God can use morally flawedpersons, as His ‘servants’.

ii. It is Jesus Himself, who describes the Devil [the Satan] as evil, without any apparent qualification. Inthe explanation to a parable, Jesus clearly describes ‘the Devil’ as ‘an enemy’, and as ‘the Evil One.’ [Matt. 13:38-39] A comparison of Matt. 13:38-39 with Matt. 13:19, Mark 4:15 and Luke 8:12, shows that for Jesus :

‘the Devil’ = ‘the Satan’ = ‘the enemy’ = ‘the Evil One’.

This equation of ‘the Devil’ [ = ‘the Satan’], with ‘theEvil One’, is reinforced at Luke 13:16 [cf. Luke 10:17-24],where Jesus ascribes illness, ultimately to ‘the Satan’. Page 58.

This is why Mark 1:41 [in the Revised English Bible; and the N.E.B. and Lexham Bibles] state that Jesus was ‘moved to anger’ , by the presence of human illness - because behind human illness, Jesus perceives the work of ‘the

Satan’/ ‘the Devil’ [cf. 1 John 3:8]. This ‘Satan’ is the same as ‘the Devil’ , whom the Apostle Peter describes as the One who had ‘oppressed’ those who were in need of healing, by Jesus [Acts 10:38]. Jesus consequently, described ‘the Devil’ as ‘a murderer’, and as ‘a liar’ (slanderer) [John 8:44]; who will ultimately face divine judgments [ Matt. 25:41, Rev. 20:10. Note also Matt. 28:18 = Rev. 12:10; and Heb. 2:14 = Rev. 12:7-12]

The ‘Lord’s Prayer’ at Matt. 6:13 [in the ‘Authorized Version], includes a request to be delivered from ‘Evil’.But the underlying Greek for ‘Evil’, at Matt. 6:13, is ‘tou ponerou’ – and ‘tou ponerou’ at Matt. 13:19 [in Mathew’s account of the Parable of the Sower] clearly means ‘the Evil one’, who Jesus later explains (in Matt. 13:39), is ‘The Devil’. It therefore seems that the ‘Lord’s prayer’ contains a request to be delivered from unnecessary ‘testing’ [Greek : ], mediated by ‘the Devil’ [=’the Evil One’] The Devil [the Satan] in the Bible, however, is always portrayed as an ultimate loser, with a limited, temporaryand permitted power. We can see this clearly portrayed at Revelation 20:1-3 where it takes only one unspecified [holy] Angel, to both seize and bind “the Devil, or Satan” [Rev. 20:2].

In recent centuries, various views concerning ‘the Devil’ have been posited. Apart from the natural literal understanding of ‘the Devil’, as an Angelic being, other scholars in more scientifically ‘enlightened’ times, preferto see ‘the Devil’ as ultimately, some sort of ‘parapsychological’ phenomenon, that can, at times, be described heuristically, ‘as if’ it were a real personal being [e.g. the theologian, Nigel Goring Wright; compare also the insights of Dr. Thomas in his work ‘Odology’]. Other scholars - including some knowledgeable Christadelphians, such as Ron Coleman, and George McHaffie -whilst fully conceding that Jesus and the New Testament

writers, may well have believed that ‘the Devil’ [The Satan] and demons, were supernatural beings, nevertheless claim that Christians today, are at liberty to reinterpret [demythologize] these concepts, in line with more modern ‘scientific’ thought. The Christadelphians, however, have traditionally insisted on making the following two assertions, into dogmas :

i. That both Jesus and the New Testament writers, believed that ‘the Devil’ was essentially, only a mere personification, or an allegory, of Mankind’s inner ‘sinful inclinations’ [See item 11, of ‘Doctrines to beRejected’, in the ‘Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith’].

ii. Intellectual assent to the above point, is essential doctrine, necessary for belief, in order to procure personal salvation, in Christ.

Page 59.

But where is the hard historical evidence, and the irrefutable Scriptural proof, for these dogmatic Christadelphian assertions ? Where is the conclusive evidence that Jesus Himself, actually shared Christadelphianattitudes beliefs and beliefs ?

Indeed, it could be legitimately asked, where is the Scriptural evidence that Jesus regarded any ‘correct’ understanding of ‘the Devil’, to be essential for personal salvation ? And why was it that Jesus often seemed to actually go out of His way to positively encourage the belief, that the Devil and demons were literal Spirit personalities ? This latter point has greatly puzzled even some eminent British Christadelphians – including Edward Whittaker, Alan Hayward, C.S. Crawford, and Harry Whittaker [See ‘Studies in the Gospels’ by Harry Whittaker, chapter 30; ‘The Problem of Demons’ by Crawford and E. Whittaker, in‘The Testimony’ magazine, April, 1965]

Perhaps a little more ‘reverent agnosticism’ from the Christadelphians, concerning the related issue of ‘The Devil’, would also be in order ?

This is especially so, because the Scriptural evidence, as it stands on face value, seems to be naturally against the traditional Christadelphian position. Why for example, would Jesus relate the narrative of His testing in the wilderness , in the form in which He did - if ‘the Devil’ [’the satan’] was not in fact, an external being ? Nor should one expect Jesus to equip His disciples to cast out ‘demons’ [which were universally considered to be spirit personalities], if Jesus Himself did not Himself, share the belief that ‘demons’ were ontological spirit personalities. Both the Apostle James and John, describe ‘demons’ as knowledgeable, sentient beings, [James 2:19; Rev. 16:14] - who have paranormal powers to recognize that Jesus is the Messiah, long before anyone else does [cf. Mark1:23, 34; 5:7]. Jesus Himself describes ‘demons’ [= ‘spirits’; cf. Luke 10:17 with 10:20] as knowledgeable, sentient beings [Luke 11:24-26] , and, on occasions, He evenconverses with them. But the crucial fact is that Jesus states that His amazing ability to cast out ‘demons’, was anirrefutable sign that God’s Kingdom powers were truly evident within His healing ministry.

Consider also Mark 9:38 -40 : “John said to Him, ‘Teacher, we saw a man using your name to drive out demons, and we tried to stop him, for he was not one of our followers.’ Jesus said, ‘Do not try to stop him, for there is no one who will use my name to do a mighty deed, and thenbe able soon to abuse me. For whoever is not against us is for us.’”

If Jesus did not believe in the ontological reality of ‘demons’, as spirit personalities, then why didn’t Jesus inform His disciples of this simple basic fact – and then

urge upon them, the necessity to correct common Jewish beliefs concerning ‘the Devil’ and ‘demons’ ?

As Harry Whittaker put it :

Page 60.

“Let the fact be faced that in any of these exorcism episodes, the Lord [Jesus] could have set the whole matter straight in a couple of clear incisive sentences – yet He didn’t.” [‘Studies in the Gospels’, p. 117}

The fact that Jesus never did this, seems to strongly suggest that the issues of the Devil and demons, were not were not as important to Jesus, as they later were with the Christadelphians.

If Jesus had believed in ‘the Devil’ and ‘demons’, as Spirit personalities, would He really have acted, and spokenany differently, to what He actually did ?

The Christadelphian scholar, Ron Coleman, perceptively wrote “The beginnings of the idea of ‘Satan’ are to be found in Chapter One of the book of Job…..This idea of a supernaturalspirit who opposes God and His People, was developed in Judaism by the time of Christ into a complicated demonology,with views of fallen evil angels. The New Testament reflectsthis belief – albeit in a much more restrained form - …[and] regarded the then present Age as a time in which God had allowed Satan to exercise control over men. It was Satanwho moved Judas to betray Jesus (Luke 22:3). Disease is bondage to Satan (Luke 13:16). Satan was eager to tempt the disciples (Luke 22:31) ….Jesus was able to cast out devils [demons] – the angels of Satan –by a word; and this was seen as remarkable evidence of His power …The significance of Jesus’ power to

exorcise demons seems to be that before the final conquest of Satan and evil, by God’s Kingdom, it [Jesus’ divine power] had invaded Satan’s realm to deal him a preliminary but decisive defeat (Mark 12:29).” [From “Kingdom of God (part iv)” by Ron Coleman]

When Christadelphians have traditionally exhibited an

attitude of membership refusal, to people who believe in at

least the possibility of the existence of a supernatural

devil and demons, then are not Christadelphians pursuing a

policy that has no explicit Scriptural support ? Are they

therefore attempting to unnecessarily divide ‘the Body of

Christ’, by creating unnecessary fellowship divisions ? (cf.

1 John 2:9-10 : “He who says that he is in the light, and

hates his brother, is in the darkness still. He who loves

his brother is in the light, and there is nothing in him to

cause anyone else to stumble.”

CHAPTER 14 – The Historical Peculiarities of the

Christadelphian ‘devil’ doctrine.

Page 61.

IF the traditional Christadelphian view on the Devil, wascorrect, then there are the following amazing historical occurences :

The doctrine of ‘the Devil’ [‘the Satan’] appears to be probably the very first Apostolic doctrine, to become corrupted within the Christian Church. This ‘corruption’ must have occurred so rapidly, that there is no trace whatsoever, of any ‘internal devil theory’, within extant post- New Testament Christian literature, of the first fifteen centuries.1. However, the ‘internal devil theory’ was the very last

major doctrine, to be “re-discovered” by Dr. John Thomas. By 1835, Dr. John Thomas had put together all themajor doctrines, that were later to constitute the Christadelphian Faith – except for one. This last major doctrine to be ‘rediscovered’, was the ‘internal devil theory’. In 1835, Dr. Thomas held to the conviction that ‘the Satan’, and ‘demons’, were supernatural spirit personalities. On page 177 of ‘The Apostolic Advocate’, Vol. 2, 1835, Dr. Thomas asks a series of questions whichwere directed only to the ‘wise’, so that they may perceive ‘the hints contained in the questions’. Question19 for ‘the wise’ - who would be ‘searching the Scriptures’, was :

“Where not these inhabitants [pre-Adamic beings, who once populated the Earth] be ‘the angels who kept not their first estate …(Jude 6), ‘the angels that sinned whom He spared not…confining them in Tartarus ..(2 Peter 2:4) – theangels whom Christ and the saints are to judge – may not these inhabitants of a former world [on this Earth] be the demons whom God in ancient times permitted to possess men, the chief of whom is Satan, and who cried out saying, ‘ ah ! Jesus of Nazareth, what hast Thou to do withus …(Mark 1:24)..Art Thou come hither to torment us BEFORE THE TIME ? – Mathew 8:29.”

One notes that on solely Scriptural grounds, Dr. John Thomas was of the opinion that Satan and demons, were evil spirit personalities. Somewhere between 1835 and 1848, Dr. Thomas had a change of mind. The reason for this, may have

been his reading of ‘The Devil – a Biblical exposition..’ by John Epps, which was published in 1842. Like Dr. Thomas,John Epps was a medical man, and it perhaps not without significance, that medical science in the 1840’s, under theinfluence of scientific rationalism, was rapidly moving away from any notion that human illness had supernatural causation. Dr. Thomas would have been greatly sympathetic to John Epps, because Epps too, rejected the doctrines of immortal soulism and the Trinity. Some Christadelphians have acknowledged this link between rationalistic Medical Science, and Dr. Thomas’ change of mind over the Devil. Writing about John Thomas’ later view, that the devil was fallen human nature [sin-in-the-flesh], the Christadelphianscholar George McHaffie observed :

“The origin of Dr. Thomas’ views here is not to be sought in the Bible primarily, but in the rationalistic spirit of the age in which he wrote…There seems little doubt on this point. Dr. Thomas was carried forward on a wave of reasoned skepticism which he shared with many of his contempories.” [pp 14,15; ibid.]Page 62.

2. The ‘internal devil theory’, once eventually adopted by Dr.Thomas, became the first major Christadelphian doctrine, concerning which, freedom for personal

3. opinion, was tolerated. The brother in law of Robert Roberts, William Norrie, in his work “The Early History of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God in Britain” [Three wovolumes published in 1904, 1906] stated that it was very well known to Robert Roberts in the 1850’s, that many Christadelphians believed in a supernatural, apostate, Angelic Devil. Although Robert Roberts always combatted this idea, he never, prior to 1864, suggested that Christadelphians holding this idea, had an invalid savingfaith, or should be dis-fellowshipped [see Volume ii., page 93]

4.However, the ‘internal devil theory’ eventually became the first major Christadelphian doctrine to occasion a split within the Christadelphian community. In 1864, the prominent Scottish Christadelphian George Dowie let it slip, in his Biblical Commentary of the Book of Revelation , that he believed that the Devil was an apostate, mortal, Angelic being. In expressing this view, George Dowie was only reflecting the view of many of his fellow Christadelphians. This included a Sister Jane Norrie(who later became the wife of Robert Roberts), who, like others, was baptized into the Christadelphian community, whilst personally holding to the opinion, that the Scriptures portrayed the Devil as a mortal, apostate, Angelic being. After 1864, the belief that ‘the Devil’ was merely an extended metaphor of Mankind’s sinful inclination, became strictly enforced within the Christadelphian community – but only for Christadelphian brothers ! [See William Norrie[ibid. Vol. ii, pages 98-99].

5. The ‘internal devil theory’ became the first major Christadelphian doctrine over which freedom for private opinion, was still allowed for Christadelphian sisters. The ‘test case’ was provided by the Christadelphian sister, Maria Henry - who was allowed by Robert Roberts, to remain within Christadelphian fellowship,as a legitimate ‘sister in Christ’ - despite her sharing George Dowie’s belief, that the Devil was an apostate, mortal Angelic being. Robert Roberts justified his decision,by claiming that, whereas George Dowie could disseminate hisbeliefs on the Devil, from the Lecturer’s platform, Maria Henry, as a Christadelphian sister, could not [See ‘Early History of the Kingdom of God in Britain’ Vol. 2, pages 98-99; by William Norrie].

5. The ‘internal devil theory’ however, eventually became the last major Christadelphian doctrine over which any Christadelphian, was officially allowed to retain freedomfor private opinion. Maria Henry – despite her having

made personal sacrifices for her Christadelphian faith - found herself the target for a prolonged barrage of sarcasm, and psychological bullying, from within the Christadelphian community. Worn down by incessant mental cruelty, she was effectively driven out of the Christadelphian movement. With her departure, official permission for freedom of private opinion, concerning ‘the Devil’, essentially ceased within the Christadelphian community. The view that ‘the devil’ wasnot any sort of

Page 63.

supernatural being, then became an essential article of Christadelphian Faith, which was written up into an immutable Statement of Faith, authored by Robert Roberts [Article 11 of ‘Doctrines to be Rejected’, in the ‘Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith’.

Chapter 15 : The weaknesses of traditional Christadelphian Views.

In the days of the Christadelphian pioneers [1860’s -1870’s], ‘demon language’ within the New Testament, was assumed to represent common, first century C.E. metaphoricalJewish expression, used to denote certain types of illness. The Hebrew term ‘Satan’, when it is used as a common noun, literally means in Hebrew ‘accuser’ or ‘adversary’. The Greek word ‘diabolos’, literally means ‘slanderer’ or ‘liar’. In the days of the Christadelphian pioneers [Dr. Thomas and Robert Roberts] , there was an attempt to dispense with any notion of a supernatural Devil [or Satan],by translating ‘ho diabolos’ as ‘the slanderer’ [rather than‘the Devil’], and ‘the Satan’, as ‘the adversary’. The attempt was then made to equate both 'the Devil' and ‘the Satan’, with Mankind’s sinful inclination; Or by translating these terms from the Greek and Hebrew [respectively], the attempt was made to mainly refer ‘slanderer’, and ‘adversary’, to human beings.

The flaw with this approach is that the term ‘the Satan’ is actually a Semitic term, which the New Testament authors transliterated [not translated], because it was a Jewish technical term, referring to an Angelic Satan. In the Greek language, there are several words that mean ‘Adversary’, but‘Satan’ is not one of them - because ‘the Satan’ is not a Greek term, but an Hebraic technical term for a specified Angelic Satan. The Greek term ‘the Devil’, is the translation of the Hebrew term for ‘the Satan’, and in non human contexts, ‘the Devil’always referred to the specific Angelic Satan.

The fact that the transliterated Semitic term ‘the Satan’, was imported into New Testament literature mainly intended for Gentiles [e.g. The Gospel of Mark; and the Epistles tothe Corinthians], strongly suggests that Gentile Christiansmust have received extensive teaching concerning the AngelicSatan.

Another flaw with the traditional Christadelphian approach comes from a common finding in linguistics. Words mean what their users intend them to mean – which is very rarely the meaning which words originally had. When we now say, for example, ‘the ship set sail’, we do not necessarilymean that the ship is wind powered, and not diesel powered.

Since the days of the nineteenth century, Christadelpian pioneers, our knowledge of Second Temple Judaism [c. 515 BCE to 70 CE] has increased enormously. As aresult, it is now commonly accepted - even amongst many Christadelphians - that the terms ‘demon’ and ‘the Satan’ [‘the Devil’], during the time of Christ, did commonly refer to external Spirit personalities. Consequently, in recognition of this fact, most Christadelphians now prefer to say that when Jesus spoke about ‘the Satan’ [‘the Devil’]and demons, He was [allegedly] only pretending to believe, and act, as if the Satan Page 64.

and demons were Spirit personalities. It is thus alleged that Jesus was only accommodating Himself, to false religious ideas.

This Christadelphian assumption affectively rests upon threemajor suppositions:

i. That Old Testament revelation is ‘the light’ by which the New Testament must be interpreted. The OldTestament therefore, is a kind of commentary upon the New Testament.

ii. The Old Testament contains a fully revealed doctrine of ‘the Satan’ [‘the Devil’], which is not amenable to any form of nuancing, or more complete explication.

iii. Despite Jesus having unique access to spiritual truth (John 3:31-32; 8:38), and despite Him having ascended to Heaven, during His earthly ministry [in visions ?] – and thereby seeing God’s form (John 5:19, 37; 6:46), hearing God’s voice (John 5:37, 8:20, 8:40), and receiving unique divine teaching (John 7:16; 8:45), Christadelphians believe that Jesus could not, and did not,

extend upon any ‘embryonic’ ideas concerning ‘the Satan’ [‘the Devil’], found in the Old Testament.

Most Bible scholars would take issue with all these Christadelphian suppositions. The consensus of scholarly opinion is that the New Testament is a commentary upon the Old Testament; and that the Old Testament has to be interpreted in the light of Christ’s revelatory powers. It is on this basis that Andrew Sims, a former president of theRoyal College of Psychiatrists, and the Professor of Psychiatry at the university of Leeds (United Kingdom), is willing to accept, [along with most Bible students] the

ontological existence, of a personal, supernatural Devil [Satan], who has been defeated by Jesus, the Son of God. [See ‘Medicine and the Bible’, edited by Bernard Palmer; Paternoster Press]. It is only through the light of Christ, that we realize that the Mosaic Law only had temporary validity, and that there would be a two-stage coming of the Messiah, after He had been crucified, and resurrected. The ‘light’ of the OldTestament, was totally inadequate, before the coming of Christ, to reveal these important truths.

Many Christadelphian scholars themselves, have also seriously questioned the common Christadelphian use of the “accommodation theory”. Harry Whittaker describes the ‘accommodation’ theory as : ‘threadbare and quite inadquate’, and he maintains that the actual Scriptural evidence : ‘reduces to nonsense the much-too-popular ‘accommodation’ theory.’ [see pages 119 and 113 of his ‘Studies in the Gospels’.]. Harry Whittaker carefully demonstrates how, instead of Jesus merely ‘accommodating’ Himself to popular, though erroneous, notions, concerning ‘demons’, Jesus actually goes out of His way to positively encourage the belief, that demons were ontological spirit personalities. [See chapter 30 in his work ‘Studies in the Gospels’]

Page 65.

The Christadelphian scholars C.S. Crawford and Edward Whittaker, believed that it takes only one small passage - Mathew 17:15-18 – to totally discredit the ‘accommodation’ theory of ‘demons’. They astutely pointed out that in this passage, the father of the afflicted child, gave a perfectly good medicaldiagnosis for his son’s condition (‘epilepsy’) – but the Gospel writer Matthew, totally ignores this purely medical diagnosis, and instead, attributes the child’s malady to a ‘demon’. Crawford and Whittaker then ask the telling question :

Are we to say that the father of the child, actually knew more about his son’s true condition, than the inspiredGospel writer (Matthew) did ? [See ‘The Problem with Demons’in ‘The Testimony’ magazine for 1965, authored by C.S. Crawford and Edward Whittaker]

Peter Watkins is another prominent Christadelphian, who recognized that the Devil [the Satan] and demon language within the New Testament, cannot be adequately explained by the traditional Christadelphian “accommodation theory”.

But even if it be conceded, for the sake of argument, that traditional Christadelphian views were correct, then generalChristadelphian attitudes would still be open to serious Scriptural criticism. Consider the following : In 1 Corinthians chapter 8, Paul mentions Christians who apparently, still believed that idols either represented, orwere perhaps even indwelt by, ontological spirit beings. Intheir former pagan experience, these Christians had wrongly identified these ‘beings’ as ‘gods’. The close connection between ‘idol worship’, and ontological, evil spirit personalities, was a common feature of ‘Apocalyptic’ and ‘Hellenistic’ Judaism. A direct link between between evil [unclean] spirit beings, and idol worship, is explicitly made in pre-Christian Jewish works, such as 1 Enoch 19:1, 99:7; Jubilees 1:11, 22:17, and the Qumran Damascus Document [CD 12:2]. This same idea also in the New Testamentat Revelation 9:20, where there is both a clear distinction,as well as a connection, between demons [who exist as sentient, ontological spirit beings at Revelation 16:14; andJames 3:15], and mere idols. Another contemporary First century C.E. Hellenistic Jewish belief, was that all nations [apart from Israel, which was governed directly by God; cf. Deut. 4:19-20 ] had their own individual Patron Angel, who helped to supervise that nation’s political affairs [cf. Heb. 2:5; and Daniel 10:13,21; see also Deut. 32:8 in the Septuagint, where God

assigns to each Gentile nation, a supervising Angel – a notion that is reiterated in the Jerusalem 1 Targum Genesis11:7-8, 1 Enoch 89:59-66, Hebrew Testament of Naphtali 8:4-6,and Jubilees 15:31].

Hellenistic Jews believed that the Gentiles misidentified these National Patron Angels, as being actual ‘gods’, and thus were misled in to giving them worship [cf. Philo : Fuga212, Som. 1.238; the Apocalypse of Zeph [6:15] and Apocalypse. of Abraham [17:2]. The Hellenistic Jews also believed that that these National Patron Angels were partially Page 66.

responsible, for the political misdeeds that Gentile nationscommitted. Consequently - these National Patron Angels were liable to a future, adverse judgment [1 Enoch 91:15; Job 4:18; cf. also 1 Cor. 6:2-3].

We can probably see this same line of thought in the ApostlePaul – who was himself a Hellenistic Jew. Paul states that the saints will one day, judge the whole world - and in addition, the Angelic powers, that are currently allowed [for reasons best known to God Himself] to govern this present world system [See Hebrews 2:5; I Cor. 6:2-3; I Cor. 2:8; Eph. 6:11-12]. Jesus describes this system as ‘the kingdom of Satan’ [Luke 11:18]. Paul describes it as “The Kingdom of Darkness” [Col. 1:13; New International Readers Version]. This ‘Dominion’ or ‘kingdom’ of Darkness, is said by the ascended Jesus, in Acts 26:18, to be under the ‘delegated authority’ [from the Greek ‘exousia’] of ‘the Satan’ - who, according to the Apostle Paul, operates within a realm of spiritual ‘darkness’ [cf. Eph. 6:11-12; 2 Cor. 4:4; John 12:31, 14:30]. Jewish works [the Midrashim]such as ‘Pesikta Rabbati’ 3:6 and ‘Perke de Rabbi Eliezer’ 13-14, 22, also describe this present Evil Age, as under thetemporary, and the permitted rule, of an evil Angelic Satan[sometimes called ‘Samael’], who will eventually have to give way to the Messiah [cf. Rev. 20:10].

But the main point to note in 1 Corinthians 8, is that Paul did not regard those Christians - who believed that ontological evil spirit personalities, underlay idol worship- as not being true Christians. Paul saw these Christians as those who had an over-sensitive conscience – for whom some provision had been made by the Council of Jerusalem (cf. Acts 15:29).

Indeed, Paul himself, still regarded these over sensitiveChristians as genuine ‘brothers of Christ’ [see 1 Cor. 8:11] - and he counsels those Christians who disagree with these ‘weaker brethren’ - when it comes to eating food offered to idols/’gods’/evil spirit personalities - not to encourage them to go against their conscience, by eating food that has been offered to idols/’gods’/evil spirit personalities. For such over sensitive brethren, Paul himself is willing never to eat meat ever again – so as notto imperil their present state of salvation. In this way, Paul exemplifies his working principle of ‘self-sacrificing love’, as ably stated it, in 1 Cor. 9:22: :

“To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, that I may by all meanssave some. And I do all things for the sake of the Gospel, so as to share with others in its blessings.”

Now these facts are of vital importance - because they seemto clearly show that a personal belief in the ontological existence of intrinsically evil spirit personalities, was NOT, in the opinion of the Apostle Paul, something which provided a barrier to salvation in Christ [ See 1 Cor. 15:1-11 for what Paul DID consider to be real ‘doctrinal essentials’]. Indeed later - in 1 Corinthians chapter 10 - Paul expands further upon his comments in chapter 8; when henow goes out Page 67.

of his way to emphasize that, although ‘idols’ are essentially ‘nothing’, and that no other being, apart from God Himself, can literally be called ‘God’ [points he had already established in chapter 8], there was nevertheless, areal danger associated with idols, because of an underlying spiritual reality, which was linked to ontologically evil, spirit personalities. Biblically forbidden religious practices, posed a very real danger, because there can be linked to dangerous parapsychological phenomenon [see 2 Samuel 28:13, where ‘Samuel’ is called an ‘elohim’]. The link between evil, sentient spirit beings, and wrong religious practices was well known within Judaism [1 Enoch 99:7; Jubilees 1:11, 22:7; CD 12:2; Qumran Scrolls 1QS 3:19-21; 1 QH 4:10], and is also reflected in the New Testament at 16:13.14, where the Apostle John identifies the ‘demons’, as essentially ‘unclean spirits’ cf. Rev. 9:20.

These insights have been recognized, by at least some Christadelphians, of the ‘Central Fellowship’, within the United States. In personal conversation, some years ago, with a well- known, American Christadelphian scholar, I was personally informed that some Afro-American Christadelphians, are allowed to retain a belief in ‘demons’, as malevolent spirit personalities, as long as such African-American Christadelphians refuse to make an important issue out of their private beliefs. This ‘concession’ for African-American Christadelphians is/was allowed, because it was the finding of many White American Christadelphians, that it proved almost impossible to disabuse African-American Christadelphians, of their personal belief in ontological ‘demons’ ( as malevolent spirit personalities). This was attributed to the feeling (amongst some of the white American Christadelphians) that a belief in ontological ‘demons’, was somehow, genetically endemic to the African race – and was therefore, practically impossible to eradicate.

I have also recently been reliably informed, that many of the newer Christadelphian converts within the African continent, still retain a belief in ‘demons’, are malevolent spirit personalities. And indeed, I myself have been personally told by a local Central Christadelphian lecturer, in the United Kingdom, that anyone can be admittedinto the Christadelphian community,while still believing in ontological demons, as malevolent spirits - because the ‘Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith’ contains no explicit mention of ‘demons’.

But there appears to be an inconsistency here. Why should Christadelphians be allowed to believe that ‘demons’ are malevolent spirit personalities, but not be allowed to believe the same thing regarding ‘the devil’ ? If a belief in ‘demons’ as evil spirit personalities, is not considered to constitute ‘dualism’, then why would a belief in ‘the devil’ as an evil spirit personality, constitute dualism ?

But the fact remains, that neither Jesus, nor the Apostles ever advocated the view, that those who believed that ‘ theDevil’ and/or ‘demons’, were Page 68.

malevolent, spirit beings, should be refused admittance to the Christian community. Chapter 16 – Was Jesus Tested by an External Source ?

The idea, that ‘the devil’ refers to Mankind’s internal, sinful inclination – “the internal devil” theory - is never mentioned, nor even suggested, within anyChristian literature outside the New Testament - commencing with Clement’s First Epistle to the Corinthians in c. 94 CE., onwards.

The “internal devil theory” only makes its first appearance within very limited Christian circles, in the

sixteenth century, probably under the influence of rationalistic philosophies.

It is a fact however, that the word ‘satan’ [with, or without the definite article] within the Hebrew Old Testament Scriptures; and the term ‘the devil’ in the Septuagint, always both refer to an external person, andnever to anyone’s internal, sinful inclination.

The Greek word for “temptation” is ‘peirasmos’. But ‘peirasmos’ can also mean ‘testing.’ God therefore, may ‘test’ people, in order to provide an opportunity for them, to build up moral character - but God does not ‘tempt’ people to sin [James 1:13]. God provides ‘tests’,that are meant for an ultimate beneficial purpose.

The Greek verb for “tempted” is ‘peirastheis’, but ‘peirastheis’ more frequently means ‘to be tested’ or ‘tried, by affliction’. The King James Version therefore,is wrong to render James 1:2 as : “Count it all joy when you fall into divers temptations”. The true meaning is : “Count it pure joy, when you encounter various trials”. (cf. 1 Cor. 10:13, James 1:2, Heb. 2:18 and Heb. 11:37) The Greek word “peirazomenos”, means : ‘tested’,‘tried’ or ‘tempted.’ The King James Version translates ‘peirazomenos’ as ‘tried’ ( meaning ‘tested’) at Heb. 11:17 - when Abraham was ‘tested’ or ‘tried’ by God, concerning the offering of Page 61.

Isaac. But the King James version then translates the same Greek word ‘peirazomenos’ as ‘tempted’, when it comes to Jesus’ encounter with ‘the Devil’ [Matt. 4:1; Luke 4:2]. However, we probably here, have another mistranslation by the King James version., It is highly probable that ‘peirazomenos’ at both Luke 4:2 and Matt. 4:1, should be translated as “tested”, rather than ‘tempted.’

James gives a precise definition of the term ‘temptation’in his epistle, at James 1:14 : “each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his Page 69.

own lust”(New American Standard Bible”). The Greek literally reads : “But each man is tempted by the (his) own lusts, being drawn away and enticed”.

But when was the sinless Christ ever ‘drawn away’ and then ‘enticed’ by His own lusts ? Where not Christ’s human drives fully controlled, so as to always obedient ,and harmonized, to the will of God ? Must not the sinless Jesus always, in thought, word and deed, have done that which pleased His Heavenly Father (see John 8:29) ? When did Jesus, who was full of the Holy Spirit, and the fruit of the Holy Spirit (John 3:34) – which includes the fruit of ‘self-control’ [ Greek : ‘egkrateia’] – allow Himself to be ‘drawn away’, and then‘enticed’, by any uncontrolled human desires, or lusts ?

James’ definition of ‘temptation’ [James 1:14], refers tohuman desires, which escape from the influence of godly ‘self-control’ [‘egkrateia’] - and which then go on to result in actual sin, whether manifested in thought (Mark7:21-23; Matt. 5:28), and/or word (Matt. 12:36) and/or deed (Matt. 13:41).

But James’ particular definition of ‘temptation’, did notapply to Jesus. Jesus certainly shared our weak human nature, with its potential to sin - but despite being thoroughly ‘tested’, He (unlike us) never committed any sin. Jesus did not allow His natural human desires to escape from the influence of godly self-control. Jesus was sinless. This fact therefore suggests two important things : [a] Jesus was ‘tested’, but He was not ‘tempted’, in the sense in which James defines

‘temptation’; and [b]. The ‘evil thoughts’ and ‘evil suggestions’ , that Jesus faced in the Wilderness [Matt.4], must have come from an outside Agency.

It therefore appears that the Christadelphian pioneers,Dr. Thomas and Robert Roberts, were perfectly correct to realize that Jesus was conversing with an external being,in the Wilderness.

Recent Bible translations such as ‘The Non-Ecclesiastical New Testament’, ‘The New Jerusalem Bible’,The Amplified Bible, and ‘The Bible in Basic English’, are therefore probably correct, to translate ‘peirazomenos’ as ‘tested’. Jesus ‘tested’ by the Devil, at Math. 4:1; Mark 1:13 and Luke 4:2 – but not ‘tempted’, in the way that James defines ‘temptation’ [James 1:14].

In defining “temptation”, James is clearly relating a scenario where ‘temptation’ is unfortunately, successful.It is a case where potential ‘temptation’, is not fully resisted. But Jesus must have always successfully resisted any potential to transgress. This is the advantage that Jesus, as a direct Son of God, seems to have possessed, over us. We sinners are directly descended from our biological father, Adam - and we ultimately have no choice, but to eventually sin, as Adamdid. Jesus however, was directly fathered by God, through the life-giving power of the Holy Spirit [Luke 1:35]. Page 70.

This is why Jesus is called ‘the Son of God’. Jesus was adirectly begotten of God. God presumably created a humansperm, with twenty-three chromosomes, in order to producethe human Jesus. Adam was also a direct creation of God, and he too is called a Son of God [Luke3:38]. As directly created sons of God [one by direct

begetting, the other by direct creation], both Jesus and Adam had the capability, and the opportunity, not to transgress God’s will. This is probably why the Apostle Paul appears to describe Adam as “a type” of Jesus [Romans 5:14]. However, whereas Adam misused his opportunity to remain sinless, Jesus succeeded. Jesus, resisted all sin, and lived His whole life in full harmony with God. Everything that Jesus did,was pleasing to God [John 8:29], and so God was always able to refer to Jesus as His ‘dearly Beloved Son .’ [2 Peter 1:17; Math. 3:17, 12:18 and 17:5]. That Jesus (like the unfallen Adam) had certain capabilities to resist sin, that we sinners do not now possess, was a fact that was readily conceded by Robert Roberts. In 1874, Robert Roberts wrote in his published lecture, “TheSlain Lamb” :

“ It was the same flesh [as the rest of humanity], full of the same propensities, and the same desires. But in Christ, all these desires were kept in subjection to the mind of God, because the Father, by the Spirit, taught Him and led Him from the beginning.” In his later work ‘The Law of Moses’, p. 219, Robert Roberts wrote:

“ By means of paternity, Christ escaped the hereditary moral and mental bias of the race, and received such a divine intellectual impress as made Him strong, in spirit or mind, and of quick understanding.”

It is probable that Jesus experienced more moral “testing”, than any person who has ever lived. Hebrews 4:15, in the King James Version, is often appealed to by Christadelphians, to demonstrate the belief that Christ suffered exactly the same kinds of temptations [originating from lawless, and uncontrolled human desires], that all moral sinners experience. But Jesus was probably ‘tested’, rather than ‘tempted’ - in the

sense that as He never allowed his human desires to become wild, lawless and uncontrolled. However, the testing of Jesus was probably greater than any man will ever experience. No-one for example, has been tested by the guaranteed offer of total world domination. Nor has anyone, other than Jesus, been encouraged to misuse incredible supernatural powers. We also have to reckon with the fact that, althoughJesus was fully shared our frail human nature, with its inclination and potential to sin, Jesus nevertheless, didnot actually commit sin. Hebrews 4:15, in the King James Version, refers to Jesus as being : “tempted like as we are”. However, thisphrase ‘tempted as we are’, is not actually in the Greek text, and such a phrase may be misleading. The meaning ofPage 71.

Hebrews 4:15, according to the actual Greek text, is probably best represented by the ‘The New English Bible’, which reads :

“For ours is not a high priest unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who, because of His likeness to us, has been tested every way, only without sin”;

Ronald Knox translates Heb. 4:15 similarly :

“It is not as if our high priest was incapable of feelingfor us in our humiliations; he has been through every trial, fashioned as we are, only sinless.” [Heb. 4:15; in The Knox New Testament version].

The point of Hebrews 4:15 may not be that Jesus has suffered temptations from totally uncontrolled, and compulsive lusts, and desires - just like hardened, compulsive sinners – but that Jesus has been thoroughly tested in every possible way, but He never sinned, or ‘defiled’ Himself (cf. Mark 7:18-23). This is why Paul iskeen to stress that Jesus came in ‘the likeness of sinful

flesh’ (I.e. Sin’s flesh.’) It was the same ‘flesh and blood’ as our own – but the flesh of the sinless Jesus, was never used as the instrument of Sin. Hence the necessity for Paul to use the word ‘likeness’, in describing Jesus’ physical flesh (See John Carter’s article ‘Sin and Its Condemnation’ in “The Christadelphian” magazine, for April, 1956). That Jesus always did that, which was pleasing to God [John 8:29] - must mean that He never allowed any of His ‘human desires’ to become ‘lawless’, or ‘rebellious’ , towards God. This means that any potential to sin, withinJesus, was never realized. This has implications for how the Scriptures themselves, describe Jesus. At Mark 7:20-23, Jesus states that what ‘defiles’ a person are ‘evil intentions’ – which may, or may not, have opportunity for immediate expression. The Greek for ‘evil intentions’ is ‘dialogismoi hoi kakoi’, and this isa better translation of the Greek, than just ‘evil thoughts’. The following translations for example, render ‘dialogismoi hoi kakoi’ as :

‘evil reasonings’ [Whiston’s New Testament; William Godby’s translation and Young’s Literal translation] ; ‘evil plans’ [The Lexham English Bible]; ‘the designs of evil’ [ James Moffatt’s version]; ‘evil intentions’ [ the New Revised StandardVersion]; ‘the purposes of evil’ [Benjamin Wilson’s ‘Emphatic Diaglott’; ‘evil purposes’ [Weymouth’s version] But when did Jesus, who always did what pleased His Heavenly Father (John 8:29), ever indulge in ‘evil reasonings’, or have ‘evil intentions’, or ‘evil purposes’ ?Page 72.

In what sense then was Jesus defiled, on Jesus’ own definition of ‘defilement’ ?

Christadelphians have traditionally alleged that Jesus was supposedly ‘defiled’ , merely because He was a human being, with a proneness towards transgression. But Jesus,unlike others, always successfully resisted this proneness. It was if Jesus was born with an inherited disability [a proneness to transgress] - but it was a disability that which He always overcame. Christadelphians however, have traditionally seen Christ’s ‘inherited disability’ as being ‘sin’, in and ofitself. Do Christadelphians therefore, believe in a totally sinless Christ ?

Dr. Thomas put it this way, in ‘Elpis Israel’ [14th edition, revised, p. 128] :

“Sin could not have been condemned in the body of Jesus if it had not existed there. His body was as unclean as the bodies of those for whom He died; for He was born of a woman, and ‘no one’ can bring a clean body out of a defiled body.”

It is to Jesus however, that we look to, for a divine interpretation of the Old Testament Scriptures. Jesus clearly implied that it was the personal capitulation to sin, that constituted ‘uncleanness’, or ‘defilement’. Because Jesus always successfully resisted any innate inclination to sin, the Scripture never unambiguously claim that Jesus was personally ‘defiled’.

The 1971 Editorial Committee of ‘The Christadelphian’ magazine therefore, seem to have come to a more Scriptural understanding, when they published the statement :

“Yet though the Lord [Jesus] had our nature, to brandish when speaking of Him the words ‘defiled’, ‘cursed’ or ‘condemned’, is both unseemly and beyond the warrant of Scripture. No defiled word or deed ever escaped Him, and it were far better to concentrate on Hisbehavior (‘who did no sin, neither was guile found in Hismouth’) in spite of the limitations which He shared with us. And though it is true that fleshy nature is unfitted for immortality and fellowship with God, it is foolish tospeak as though the beloved Son was estranged from His Father by His nature.” Uncontrolled human desires within sinners (those who have the direct paternity of Adam), lead to sinful intentions to commit moral sin. This is why Jesus said that that for a man to merely look lustfully upon a woman, is just as evil as an immoral sexual sin [Mathew 5:28]. Consequently, uncontrolled evil desires within actual sinners, can figuratively be called ‘sin’ - because they constitute sin, and lead to further sin [cf.Romans 7:17,20]. This particular figure of speech is known as ‘metonymy’, and it operates upon the principle that a word, which describes an attribute of something , can be used to refer to the whole of that entity. ‘Jet engines’ are an attribute of an

Page 73.

aeroplane, which is powered by a Jet Engine. Therefore bymetonymy - the word ‘Jet’ can be used to refer to the whole aeroplane. A propeller engine aeroplane, however - despite being a genuine aeroplane - can never figuratively [by metonymy] be called a ‘Jet’, because a Jet engine is not one of its attributes.

The New Testament uses metonymy, with respect to moral sin. The cause of moral sin [in thought, word or deed] derives from uncontrolled human desires. These

uncontrolled human desires constitute sin, because “Sin is lawlessness” [I John 3:4]. Therefore, lawless human desires can, by metonymy, can figuratively be called ‘Sin.’ [cf. Romans 7:17 and 7:20].

But - the unique fact concerning Jesus, is that although He was a human being, like ourselves, He never allowed His human desires to become lawless. Therefore - the human desires within Jesus, could never ever, in His unique case, be figuratively called ‘Sin’ – because they never led to actual sin This is precisely why the Apostle John could truthfully write, concerning Jesus : “In Him was no sin.”The underlying Greek here is “hamartia en auto ouk estin”, which literally reads : “in Him is not sin” [1 John 3:5]. This is consistent with Hebrews 4:15, which states that Jesus was tested in every way, but was ‘without sin’. The Greek here is “choris hamartias”, which literally reads ‘without sin’. This same Greek phrase ‘choris hamartias’ occurs again at Hebrews 9:28, where Christ, at His second advent, is again said to be ‘without sin’. The returning Jesus therefore, is as equally ‘without sin’, as He was during His first appearance on Earth.

CHAPTER Seventeen – The True Origins of the ‘internal

devil’ Theory.

The question that now naturally arises is :

How did the Christadelphians, ever come to believe in the “internal devil” theory, when the totality of the Scriptural evidence, seems to be against it ?

From where did this ‘internal devil” idea really originate ?

Ultimately, there appear to be three very probable sources:

1. Sadducean Judaism2. Post-70 Rabbinic Judaism3. Early Medieval Jewish, Rationalistic Philosophy.

1. SADDUCEAN JUDAISM. Page 74.

The Sadducees were guided by a materialistic, anti-supernatural, and ‘rationalist’ philosophy. They denied the existence of angels, demons [spirits] and any form of personal afterlife. They also adhered to a very limited canon of Jewish Scriptural literature. Most Jews therefore, probably viewed the Sadduces as being ‘theological heretics’ - but the Sadducees would have been tolerated by their fellow Jews - just as long as they correctly fulfilled their ritual Priestly roles, within the Temple.

It is very possible, that in the rationalistic, Sadduceantheological system, the most ancient, popular Jewish viewof ‘the Satan’ [‘the Devil’], as being an Angelic being, was ‘de-mythologized’, so as to become a mere personifications of mankind’s inner proneness towards transgression. The Deuterocanonical book of ‘Ben Sira’, lays great emphasis on the Jewish Law, the Jewish Temple, and human free will. It also denies the existence of any meaningful, personal afterlife. It therefore has all the hall marks of being a Sadducean work.

Ben Sira 21:27, in the Greek translation [but not in the Hebrew version, where this verse is entirely missing !], reads:

“When a man curses Satan, he is really cursing his own self.”

This verse could well be interpreted to mean that because people possess genuine free will, it is futile to ultimately blame any Angelic Satan, for one’s own personal transgressions. God may test people’s characters, throughthe agency of an Angel [as in the case of Job; cf. also Genesis 22:15], but it is pointless to attempt to blame any‘testing Angelic being’, for one’s own personal transgressions. Ben Sira 21:27 could therefore, be an example of a common Jewish form of expression, known as witticism. But if Ben Sira is a definitely a Sadducean work, then verse 21:27 may actually reflect the Sadducean doctrine that Angels (including any Angelic Satan) do not exist.

An important point to immediately make here however, is that Jesus [as Harry Whittaker very discerningly, points outon p. 117 of his book “Studies in the Gospels”] could have quite easily, like the Sadducees, have denied the literal existence of supernatural, evil spirit beings. This could easily have been done, as Harry puts it, in :

“Just a couple of clear decisive sentences.”

Jesus could therefore, have quite easily have adopted a Sadducean doctrine, regarding ‘the Satan’ [‘the Devil’] -if indeed this Sadducean doctrine was correct. .Page 75.

Jesus is always depicted in the Gospels, as a man oftruth, courage, fairness and integrity. He was always willing to give important credit, where important credit

was due. Jesus, for example, is very willing to commend :

i. Those who were healed, as a consequence of their ownpersonal faith [Mark 5:34].

ii. The Pharisees, as the authorized teachers of the Mosaic Law [Math. 23:1-2].

iii. An unnamed Scribe, for an exceedingly perceptive comment [Mark 12:34].

iv. A despised Gentiles, who had faith to elicit healing[Mark 7:29]

But Jesus never commends any Sadducees for anything. But why would this be so, if the Sadducean doctrine of ‘the Satan’ [‘the Devil’] was correct ? This observation , would suggest that the Sadducean belief concerning ‘the Satan’ [‘the Devil’] was in fact, erroneous.

We must also never forget that Jesus was totally unafraid to make the most astounding theological statements - which even sometimes, left His disciples totally shocked.

These statements involved issues such as :

[a] The Messiah being a man of peace, not of military conquest [Matt. 11:2-6]; [b]The Messiah being someone who would be crucified [Matt. 16:21]; [c] A man [Himself] having a delegated divine right, to forgive sins [Luke 5:21]; [d] Material Riches actually being an obstacle, to attainment of eternal life [Luke 18:25]; [e] All foods, in principle, being ritually ‘clean’ [Mark 7:19]; [f] Another impending destruction for the Jewish Temple [Matt. 24:2];

[g] Divorce being totally prohibited (except for marriagesthat had been contracted within divinely prohibited degrees - cf. Leviticus 18:1-20; Matt. 19:9. [h] The Messiah would be resurrected. [i] There would be a two stage coming of the Messiah – the first stage to die for the salvation of sinners; the second stage to establish an earthly kingdom [Matt. 24:30] [j] That the Messiah would reveal divine truths to the common people, rather than to the ‘wise and the learned’[Luke 10:21].

These were all ‘mind-boggling’ statements, to Jesus’ contemporaries – and it demonstrates how Jesus was totally unafraid to declare unpopular, or astounding truths. If thisis so, then why would Jesus be persuaded not to endorse the Sadducean view on ‘the Satan’ [‘the Devil’], if this Sadducean belief was essentially correct ?

Why would Jesus actually go out of His way, to positively encourage the belief, that ‘the Devil’ [‘the Satan’] was a supernatural Spirit personality ? [see chapter30 of ‘Studies in the Gospels’ by Harry Whittaker, for a similar question and analysis, concerning ‘demons’].

Page 76.

The common claim that Jesus was merely accommodating Himselfto false Jewish beliefs, at least with respect to demons, has been heavily criticized, and debunked, by important Christadelphian scholars, such as Harry Whittaker, C.S. Crawford and Edward Whittaker [See : “The Problem of Demons”, published in “The Testimony Magazine” for April 1965; and chapter 30 of ‘Studies in the Gospels’ by Harry Whittaker].

CHAPTER Eighteen - The Rise of Post-70 C.E. ‘Rabbinic Judaism.’

After the destruction of the Temple by the Romans, in 70 CE, a coalition of some anti-Christian Jewish ‘rabbis’,met at Jamnia, in Galilee, in order to reconstruct a new, anti-Christian, form of Judaism. This movement began as a small, anti-Jesus, intellectual elite, whose views were unrepresentative of most Jews – including of course, Christian Jews. After a long and bitter struggle against other competing ‘rabbis’, and other forms of Judaism, the movement which is now called ‘Rabbinic Judaism’, eventuallywon out. Legitimate forms of Judaism that thrived in the pre-70 C.E. era – such as Christian Judaism, Hellenistic Judaism, Essene Judaism and Apocalyptic Judaism – eventually ceased to exist, as ‘legitimate forms of Judaism’, from the perspective of the post-70 C.E. Rabbinicmovement. However, from the second to the sixth century C.E., those Page 75.

‘rabbis’ [now called ‘proto-rabbinic rabbis’] who were responsible for the creation of post-70 C.E. Rabbinic Judaism, were not nearly as dominant, or influential, as they would later become. It is important to stress that most Jews, during the first few centuries C.E., most probably did not originally except these particular ‘rabbis’ as their religious leaders.

The slow radical transformation of Judaism, by ‘proto-rabbinic’ rabbis, now, according to eminent Jewish scholars such as Shaye J.D. Cohen [ Author of ‘From the Maccabees to the Mishnah’] makes it almost impossible to directly connect Judaism, that existed before 70 C.E., with the later, post 70 CE. development, now known as ‘RabbinicJudaism’. Rabbinic Judaism did not begin to dominate the religious thought and life patterns of large groups of Jews,until the third century C.E. at the earliest; And it did notfinally succeed until well after 650 C.E. The Harvard University Jewish scholar Shaye Cohen, who is an authority on Jewish-Christian relations during the first century C.E.,states that ‘Rabbinic

Judaism’ is essentially a different religion, compared with the different schools of Judaism , that existed in the pre-70 C.E. era. The Jewish scholar Jacob Neusner [author of ‘Judaism When Christianity Began’] also notes that the protorabbinic ‘rabbis’ had an unfortunate tendency to attribute,in the Rabbinic literature, their later post 70 C.E. Jewishideas, to earlier well known Jewish ‘rabbis’.

Consequently, much of the literature of ‘Rabbinic Judaism’ has little precise historical value.

Page 77.

These are very important points to stress, because some Christadelphians seem to have falsely assumed that post 70 C.E. Rabbinic Judaism, represents a kind the ‘gold standard’when it comes to a minority of Jewish ‘rabbis’ [under the influence of Sadducean views on ‘the Satan] who may have believed that ‘the satan’ was a personification of Mankind’sinclination to sin. These Christadelphians then imply thatthe New Testament data on ‘the Satan’ must be interpreted inaccordance with this particular ‘rabbinic’ strand of tradition.

By doing this, such Christadelphians are committing three major errors :

Error [i].

The error of not taking sufficient account of the factthat Jesus was privy to information, that no other human being ever had access to. Jesus had unique access to supernaturally derived knowledge [John 3:32]. He was the only man who could claim to have ascended to Heaven(in a vision?) [John 3:13], and to have seen God’s form (John 3:13; 5:19, 5:37, 6:46), and heard God’s voice [John 5:37, 8:28,40]. Jesus’ teaching therefore, was not His own, but was divine teaching [John 7:16, 8:45]. Furthermore, Jesus was the only human being who really knew God (Matt. 11:27;

Luke 10:20). It therefore not surprising that Jesus was qualified to be an infallible interpreter of the Old Testament Scriptures.

Although the Law came through Moses, truth came through Jesus Christ [John 1:17]. The Old Testament uses Hebraic idioms, which seem to state that God is the direct cause ofevil. An example of this is at Isa. 45:7, where it is said that : ‘God creates evil’. However, this is Hebrew idiomatic expression, which in English means that God temporarily permits evil to exist - for the sake of a greater good. In the book of Job, it is clearly evident that the idea of testing Job to the point of destruction, originated not with God, but with the Angelic Satan. God merely allowed the testing of Job, to take place. With the coming of the full truth in Jesus Christ, with divine spiritual power [which He shared with His disciples cf. Luke 9:1; 10:17-21], Hebrew idioms can be, and are dispensed with. Hebrew idioms in the Old Testament, which apparently illustrate God’s direct connection to ‘evil’, are dispensed with, by Jesus, and He always directly attributes evil and illness, to ‘the Satan’ [= ‘the Devil’cf. Luke 13:16, Acts 10:38, I John 3:8 = Matt. 11:5]. Jesus, as the directly begotten Son of God, had unique access to fuller information, concerning ‘the Satan’ [ = ‘the Devil’], and demons (see John 8:38; Luke 8:12, 10:18-20, 13:16; Matt. 25:41 andActs 26:18). It appears that only in the presence of ‘theSolution’ (that is, Jesus Christ Himself, with truth and divine power), could the true nature of spiritual reality be more accurately revealed in the Bible. Indeed Andrew Sims, former president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and a Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Leeds, England, personally accepts the literal existence of a supernatural Devil, on the basis of the testimony of Jesus Christ Himself, speaking as the divine Son of God [See ‘Medicine and the Bible’; Edited by Bernard

Page 78.

Palmer; Paternoster Press]. Most Bible students would concur with Andrew Sims’ sentiments.

Jesus stated in John 8:44 :

“ you [unbelieving Jews] who have the Devil for your father, will execute the designs of your father; he was a murderer from the beginning , and deserted [Greek : hesteken] the truth, since he has no love for the truth : when he lies, he speaks like himself : for he is a liar, and the father of a lie.” [Daniel Mace’s New Testament ].

The word ‘deserted’ mentioned here in John 8:44, is ‘hesteken’ which is a form of the Greek word ‘histemi’, meaning ‘to continue’ [as it does in the Authorized version, at Acts 26:22]; or ‘to persist’; or ‘to endure’ [cf. Col. 4:12, Rom. 5:2 and 1 Peter 5:12]..

William Vine in his ‘Expository Dictionary’, says of ‘histemi’ – as used in John 8:44 :

“This word [histemi] is suggestive of fidelity and stability.”

Jesus therefore, seems to strongly suggest that ‘the Devil’was once fully faithful to God’s purposes, but then, to some degree, deserted them. This would explain why ‘the Angelic Satan’ in the book of Job [who is called ‘the Devil’ in the Septuagint Greek version of Job] doesn’t seem to pay God appropriate respect, and he appears to cast doubt on God’s opinions. It would also explain Jesus’ hostility to ‘the Devil’ [‘theSatan’], which is a constant feature of the Gospels (cf. Matt. 4:10, 13:39; Luke 10:18, 13:16, 11:21-22).

John Worsley’s New Testament translation, at John 8:44 states that ‘the Devil’ :

“ continued not in the truth”.

The American King James Version at John 8:44, states ‘the Devil’ :

“stayed not in the truth”.

The strong implication is that ‘the Devil’, once stood in the Truth, but then left it , to become a liar, and a murderer.

This identical teaching is again reiterated, by the ApostleJohn, in his Book of Revelation, verses 2:10, 2:13, 2:24, 12:9; 13:2; 16:13-14; 20:1-3; and 20:7-10 [cf. Matt. 25:41].

It is also noteworthy, that Jesus’ statements concerning the Devil, at John 8:44, are set within the context, that Jesus was speaking words of definite, sober truth [cf. John 8:26; 8:28; 8:40; 8:46].

Page 79.

That Jesus’ listeners understood Him, in John 8:44, to bereferring to an Angelic Devil, seems clear from their immediate counter reaction, in falsely accusing Jesus of being possessed by a ‘demon.’ That the word ‘demon’ in John’s Gospel, follows the contemporary, normal Jewish usage, as a reference to an evil, supernatural being - seems clear from John 10:21 [cf. also Rev. 16:14, where theApostle John clearly refers to ‘demons’ as external, conscious, Spirit personalities]. Error [ii]. The apparent error, of Christadelphians seemingly, putting themselves (as pupils), intellectually above their Teacher (Jesus) [Matt. 10:24]. Christadelphiansgive the impression of knowing more about ‘the Devil’ and ‘demons’ than Jesus apparently did.. But it is quite

obvious - even to such an esteemed Christadelphian scholar as Harry Whittaker - that Jesus personally believed, and, actively encouraged His listeners to also believe, that demons were ontological Spirit personalities. Harry also concedes that the New Testament, in certain places at least, could well be presenting ‘the Satan’ [at Luke 10:18] and ‘the Devil’ [at Matt. 4:1-11], as an ontological, Angelic personality.[See chapter 30 of “Studies in the Scriptures” by Harry Whittaker; and his interesting notes concerning chapter 127).

Harry Whittaker states that the refusal to recognize that Jesus was actively encouraging his listeners to believe in demons, as ontological spirit personalities, amounts to a blatant denial of the clear Scriptural evidence.

Error [iii] The error of doing something, which Jesus clearly implied we should never do – and that is, to go chasing after other ‘rabbis’, in the pursuit of spiritual enlightenment. Christians are to have only one Rabbi – andthat Rabbi is Jesus Christ Himself (cf. Math. 23:8), not any of the anti-Jesus ‘rabbis’ of the post 70 C.E. period.. Christadelphians have traditionally, refusedto take the plain words of Jesus, regarding ‘the Devil’ and‘demons’, at face value. Christadelphians have instead, insisted that these concepts should be given a (forced) metaphorical meaning. In order to attempt to bolster this contention, a few Christadelphians are effectively willing to run after other Jewish ‘rabbis’, in order to find anything, that may contradict the face value meaning of Jesus’ statements concerning ‘the Devil’ [‘the Satan’].

However, the teachings of Jesus were never meant to be for intellectuals (Luke 11:17-21, 1 Cor. 1:26, Mathew 18:2) - but for common people, who were unlikely to seek sophisticated metaphorical and allegorical meanings, in the explanations, that Jesus Himself gave, of His

parables. Jesus explained the Parable of the Weeds [Matt. 13], by saying that ‘the enemy’ in the Parable, was in reality ‘the Devil’ - and it is unlikely that He intended His uneducated and unsophisticated listeners to ‘de-allegorize’ the common notion of the Devil, as an Angelic being, along Sadducean lines. Page 80.

Chapter Nineteen - How ‘Rabbinic Judaism’ Developed’.

The vast majority of Jews lived outside of Palestine, during the New Testament era. Palestinian Jews launched twomassive rebellions against the ruling power of Rome in 70 C.E. and 135 C.E. These rebellions were partially fueled byreligious fervor, which had been excited by the hopes offered by Apocalyptic Jewish literature. Many Jews living outside of Judea, in the Diaspora, were exceedingly alarmed by these Jewish rebellions. These Palestinian Jewish revolts, threatened Jewish religious liberties, throughout the Roman Empire, and also fueled widespread, anti-Semitic feeling.

The literature of Pre-70 CE Apocalyptic Judaism, often raised expectations of an imminent appearance of the Jewish Messiah, who would defeat a supernatural, Angelic Satan, along with his demons. This would be a prelude, to the divine ushering in, of a Golden Age upon this earth – with a pious Jewish nation playing a prominent role, amongst the nations [cf. Acts 1:6]. We can see echoes of this Apocalyptic belief in Revelation chapters 12 and 20; and in the teachings of the Apostle Paul [2 Thess. 2:1-12];and in the teaching of Christ Himself [Matt. 25:41; cf. 10:17-20; 11:17-22) .

Indeed, Christianity [Christian Judaism] was originally just one of several contemporary Apocalyptic Jewish sects (cf. Acts 24:5,14; and 28:22). We can see typical

characteristics of Apocalyptic Judaism, within Jesus’ initial preaching mission, with the proclaimed imminence ofthe Kingdom of God (Mark 1:15); and Jesus’ own personal conviction that His unique ability to drive out demons, wasan unmistakable sign that the powers of God’s coming Kingdom were now being clearly evidenced (Luke 11:16-23). This in turn, meant to those acquainted with the literatureof Apocalyptic Judaism (who were frequently the poor, and the oppressed) could easily appreciate that in Jesus, the Messiah had arrived, because ‘the Satan’ [‘the Devil’] and his demons were being defeated (Luke 10:18; see also Rom. 16:20; Acts 26:18; 2 Thess. 2:7-12).

Jewish Apocalyptic literature however, could be utilized for political purposes. The Jewish Zealots, for example, may have wanted to initiate a rebellion against Rome, in the hope that God would intervene, on their side.Apocalyptic Jewish literature, has been discovered at the fortress of Masada, which was the last major Jewish strongholds, in the 67-73 CE Jewish rebellion. Probably well over a million Jews, inspired by ‘Apocalyptic fervor’,were slaughtered, or expelled from Judea, after the first Jewish rebellion against Rome, in 73 CE.

In the eyes of Anti-Christian Jewish “rabbis”, Apocalyptic Judaism was probably seen as a contributory factor for the political disasters that had fallen upon the Jewish people.Not only had the Jewish Temple been destroyed, and many Jews killed, or deported from Judea, but Apocalyptic Judaism had produced another Apocalyptic Jewish sect in ‘the Jesus movement’ [Christian Judaism], which became an increasingly rival to non-Christian Judaism.

Page 81.

The “rabbis” therefore set out to destroy both Apocalyptic Judaism and Christian Judaism. They attempted to construct a new monolithic form of Judaism, which would repudiate Christian Judaism [The Jesus movement] and Apocalyptic

Judaism as legitimate forms of the Jewish Faith [which these two movements were, before 70 CE]. Rabbinic Judaism therefore had an ‘anti-Jesus’ agenda, at its very core. TheTalmud, the major work ‘Rabbinic Judaism’, still contains words directed against Christ Himself.

One of the ways in which the ‘rabbis’ attempted to repudiate Apocalyptic and Christian versions of Judaism, was by taking the Angelic Satan out of the Apocalyptical and Christian theological frameworks - and then claim that‘the Angelic Satan’ was merely an obedient servant of God.In contrast to this, the New Testament clearly portrays ‘the Satan’ [’the Devil’] as being the enemy, not only of Man, but also of God Himself (See Matt. 25:41, 13:38-39; Acts 26:18; Rev. 12:7-8; John 8:43-45) By trying to officially repudiate the Apocalyptic and Christian forms of Judaism, the ‘rabbis’ attempted to stabilize the Jewish political situation. Apocalyptic concepts such as ‘Messiah’, ‘The Kingdom of God’, present day prophecy, and an intrinsically evil supernatural ‘Satan’, were down played by the ‘rabbis’, because of theirpotential to excite Jewish political revolution.

The eventual success of these ‘rabbis’ in purging Judaism of its Apocalyptic Jewish sects, is seen in the fact that today, the only surviving First century CE Jewish Apocalyptic sect, is Christianity.

The anti-Jesus agenda of these ‘rabbis’ is well expressedby the Jewish scholar Samuel Sandmel :

“The profound Rabbinic dislike for Christianity madeit well nigh unthinkable for Jews of the Talmudic period, to accept and acknowledge any doctrine presumed to have originated with Jesus.”

[“A Jewish Understanding of the New Testament”; S.P.C.K.;page xvii]

This is particularly evident regarding the rabbinic attitude to Jesus’ claims that His exorcisms constituted adecisive defeat for Satan [the devil], as an Angelic enemy of both God, and of Mankind [Luke 11:17-22]. This whole Apocalyptic idea was totally rejected by the ‘rabbis’.

Any imminent expectation of another Jewish Messiah was also actively discouraged, by the ‘rabbis’, including the famous First century CE Jewish ‘rabbi’ Johannan ben Zakkai.The Jewish teacher Eliezar ben Hyrcanus - whom Johannan ben Zakkai formerly described as “ the most pre-eminent Sage in Israel” - became charged with heresy, and was excommunicated – merely for being impressed with Jesus exegetical skill in interpreting Scripture.

Page 82.

However, it is very important to stress, that ‘Rabbinic Judaism’ originated, and long existed, as a mere scholasticexercise, for a small, anti-Jesus, ‘intellectual elite’ [cf. Luke 11:21]. The views of these ‘rabbis’ were very probably unrepresentative of the vast majority of Jews - who could neither write, nor had any reason to write. It isthese latter kind of people, that Jesus preferred to mix with, not the former. These ‘rabbis’ become locked in a competitive struggle, with all the other forms of Judaism, which survived the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE., including‘Apocalyptic Judaism’, ‘Hellenistic Judaism’ and ‘ChristianJudaism.’ In the centuries after 70 CE, various different Jewish groups produced their own different Jewish versions of the Mishnah , but in time, only the Mishnah of the ‘Rabbinic movement’, was allowed to exist. Indeed, if it had been left to the wishes of ‘the rabbis’, all literature associated with different rival forms of Judaism, would

have been destroyed. This would have included the New Testament, the original Septuagint, the works of Philo, theDeuterocanonical Jewish works and Apocalyptic Jewish works.However, it is important to stress that ‘Rabbinic Judaism’only became the most dominant form of Judaism, in the seventh century CE. Before then the ‘Rabbinic movement’ had far less influence – and was just one of several competing forms of Judaism. There is therefore, a very great danger in exaggerating the importance of the “rabbis”in the first century C.E. Indeed our very best source for ascertaining the actual views of the vast majority of Jews, in the first century CE, is most probably the New Testament. Somewhere around about 132 CE, the anti-Christian “rabbis” Johanan ben Yochai, and Jose, attempted to obliterate the most ancient of Jewish interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4. This most ancient interpretation saw the ‘sons of God’ in this passage, as supernatural Angels. The translators of the original Septuagint, also adopted this view, and considered “the sons of God” mentioned at Genesis 6 : 1-4, as supernatural Angels. This “supernatural Angelic” interpretation, of “the sons of God”, was seemingly widespread and popular within First century [BCE and CE] Judaism, and is witnessed in a large variety of Jewish works, including those of Philo and Josephus. It is not surprising therefore, that this interpretation seems to be clearly endorsed in the New Testament [Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4].

A much later Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures was produced around 130 CE, by Aquilla - who was a pupil of the anti-Christian “rabbi” Akiba. This later Greek version of the Hebrew Scriptures was produced in order to change the original Septuagint, in an attempt to discredit Christianity, which had adopted the original Septuagint, as its own preferred form of the Jewish Scriptures. All the quotations from

the Jewish Scriptures, in the Epistle to the Hebrews - for example – are all taken from the original Septuagint versionof the Jewish Scriptures. Second century anti-Christian Jewish Septuagints, tampered with Isa. 7:14,where the Greekword “virgin” [parthenos] Page 83.

was deleted, and replaced by the Greek term for ‘young woman’ [neanis]; thus undermining the Christian doctrine of Christ’s virgin birth. All reference to the word ‘Angels’ in Genesis 6:2-4, which appeared in the original Septuagint, were also removed.

Overall therefore, it could be said that there was a certain “rationalizing” effect upon Judaism, exerted by the ‘Rabbinic movement’ - which may have been partly derived from possible Sadducean influence upon the very earliest of the scholarly debates, that took place in Jamnia, after 70 C.E. However, it must be emphasized that the Talmud, which isthe main textbook of Rabbinic Judaism, still firmly espousesa belief in an Angelic Satan - who attempts, (as in Matt. 4:1 ff,) to work through human weakness, or ‘the evil inclination.’ The Talmud, still strongly distinguishes between the personified Satan outside of Man, and ‘the evil inclination’ (also known as ‘the yetzer ha-ra’) that exists within man. It is the evil inclination, that allows the external Satan the opportunity to work his will, against Man. There is therefore a correlation between ‘the evil inclination’ and Satan, but not an identity.

It is true to say that at times, the ‘evil inclination’ (the yetzer ha ra) is personified in certain sections of Rabbinical literature – but this also applies to Mankind’s ‘good inclination’, known as the yetzer ha tov [cf. Avot de rabbi Natan, 16]. However, no ancient Jew, would ever have made the mistake of claimingthat God was only a personification ‘the good inclination’

within human beings. ‘Righteousness’ is also personified as a Master, at Rom. 6:18, but it would be wrong to assume thatPaul did not believe in a conscious, ontological God – but only saw God as an allegory or a personification of ‘righteousness’.

There always appears to be an implied, or explicit distinction, within earliest Rabbinic literature, between the Angelic Satan, on the one hand, and Mankind’s evil inclination, on the other [cf. 2 Thess. 2:9 where a similar idea is expressed. See also Eph. 2:1-3, where the ‘ruler of the powers of the air’ is probably a reference to ‘the Devil’ – compare also Eph. 6:11-12, where according to HarryWhittaker, Angelic powers are obviously meant). The Angelic Satan works through the evil inclination, just as God works can work through Mankind’s desire to serve Him [cf. Rom. 7:16 and 25, - with Phil. 2:13 and Rom. 8:13-14; Ezra 1:5]

This clear distinction between an external Angelic Satan, and a person’s inner, evil inclination, is also clearly emphasized in the pre-rabbinic types of Judaism, that preceded the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE.

The following examples make this point clear :

“ Sammael [an alternative name for ‘the Satan’] abode in Manasseh... he [Manasseh] served Satan and his angels…he [Manasseh] turned aside his heart to Beliar, for the angel

Page 84.

of lawlessness, who is the ruler of this world, is Beliar [from ‘The Ascension of Isaiah’ 2:1-4; circa 30 CE. CompareJohn 12:31 and 2 Cor. 6:15];

“The spirit of hatred worketh together with Satan, through hastiness of spirit” [‘The Testament of Gad’ 4:4; circa 104 BCE]

“My heart is dismayed by the mischievous design [of the wicked] … for Belial [an alternative name for ‘Beliar’] is manifest in their (evil) inclination” [Qumran scroll 1QH xv, c. 150 BCE. ]

“Cleave unto goodness only, for God hath His habitation therein …But from wickedness flee away, destroying the (evil) inclination by your good works; for they that are two-faced serve not God, but their own lusts, so that they may please Beliar, and men like unto themselves.” [‘The Testament of Asher’, chapter 3; Circa 104 BCE.Compare Matt. 12:35] “All the Levites shall curse all the men of the lot of Belial, saying ‘Be cursed because of your guilty wickedness ! … all the children of perversion are ruled by the Angel of Darkness [cf. 2 Cor. 11:14; Acts 26:18], and walk in the ways of darkness [cf. Col.1:13].” [Qumran scroll 1 QS 2:5ff; Circa 125 CE.]

“Two inclinations are in our breasts .. if the soul takes pleasure in the good (inclination), all its actions are righteous, and if it sins, it immediately repents…But if thesoul incline towards the evil inclination, all its actions are wicked, and it drives away the good, and clings to evil,and is ruled by Beliar.” [‘The Testament of Gad’ 4:7; Circa 104 BCE. Compare Acts 5:3; Luke 22:3; and John 13:27].

“If fornication does not overcome your mind, [then] neither can Beliar overcome you” [‘The Testament of Reuben’ 4:11; circa 104 BCE. Compare 1 Cor. 7:5 , Acts 5:3 and John 13:27]

Chapter Twenty - Medieval Jewish Rationalistic Philosophy.

In the early Middle Ages, many Jews enjoyed freedom of religion, in Muslim occupied countries, which included southern Spain. This period was a golden Age for Islamic

Science and Philosophy, and one of the contributory causes for this, was the rediscovery of the rationalistic, philosophical works of the Greek philosophers - especiallyAristotle. During this period, these Greek rationalistic works were translated into Arabic and Hebrew. Islamic thought took on a very rationalistic hue, which enhanced the intellectual reputation. Many Jewish scholars within the vast Muslim Empire, then attempted to compete with this new Islamic intellectual challenge, by producing for themselves, a very rationalistic form of Judaism. This result of this Jewish scholastic endeavor, Page 85.

became known as ‘Jewish Aristotelianism’, which attempted to harmonize Scriptural data with “human reason”. It tried to accomplish this by making frequent use of allegoryand metaphor, in interpreting the Hebrew Scriptures. Medieval Jewish scholars such as Saadia Gaon, Levi ben Gerson, Maimonides and David Kimchi, were all heavily influenced by Greek rationalistic philosophy. But the great cost, was that in time, there was a growing tendency to see all “Angels” as mere personifications of natural, rationalistic, scientific causes. It was scholars like Maimonides, who gave an entirely new rationalistic “explanation”, not only of the Jewish Bible - but also of certain sections of the Talmud.

The very earliest Jewish scholars who produced the Talmud,are known as the “Tannaim” - and they flourished roughly, during the first two centuries of the Christian era. Their literal belief in an external Angelic Satan, is clearly shown by clear examples in the Talmud. Chapter ‘Baba Bathra’ 16a for example states :

“A Tanna taught : [Satan] comes down to earth and seduces,then ascends to heaven and awakens wrath; permission is granted to him and he takes away the soul [life].”

Just a few lines down, in this very same Talmudic chapter, a later scholar from the third century CE - Resh Lakish - attempted to confirm the above statement, by the use of a common mode of Jewish expression, known as ‘witticism.’

The ‘Encyclopedia Judaica’ suggests that Resh Lakish’s sole intention, was to warn against the personal commitment of sin, by illustrating it’s full heinous implications. His comment in the Talmud, reads : “Resh Lakish said : Satan, the evil prompter, and the Angel of Death are all one. He is called Satan, as it is written, [Job] ‘And Satan went forth from the presence of the Lord.’ He is called the evil prompter; [we know because]it is written in another place, [every imagination of the thoughts of his heart] was only evil continually (Genesis 6), and it is written here [in connection with Satan] ‘Only upon himself put forth not thine hand’ (Job). The same is also the Angel of death, since it says, ‘Only spare his life’ (Job), which shows that Jobs life belonged to him [Job2:6].”

Resh Lakish was not making a factual statement that the ‘evil prompter’ [ or Man’s ‘evil inclination’]) was Satan, per se; becauseas Resh Lakish clearly identifies ‘Satan’ as an Angelic being. The meaning therefore is that ‘Satan’ works through a person’s evil inclination – as illustrated in Qumran Scroll QH xv (cf. Acts 5:3-4; John 13:2 in conjunction with 13:27; 2 Thess. 2:9, Rev.13:1-2; Eph. 2:2; and 2 Cor. 4:4).

However, Maimonides’ work concerning Angels, can be taken as a classic example, of that type of Medieval Jewish Scriptural exegesis, that was over influenced by Greek rationalistic philosophy. Maimonides took Resh Lakish’s witticism, and semi-Page 86.

literalize it, in an attempt to totally equate ‘the evil prompter’ [‘the yetzer ha-ra’, or mankind’s ‘sinful inclination’] with ‘Satan’ per se. Consequently, the notionof an Angelic Satan totally disappeared - leaving ‘Satan’ asonly a mere metaphor, for a person’s ‘evil inclination.’

Medieval Rationalistic Judaism, become so successful,that today, many Jews do not believe in any literal supernatural Angels.

The “Encyclopedia Judaica” puts it this way, in its Article on ‘Angels’ :

“The modern Jewish attitude to angels tends to regard the traditional references, and descriptions, as symbolic, poetic , or representing an earlier world concept.”

By 1835, Dr. John Thomas had put together the major fundamental doctrines of what would later be termed the Christadelphian Faith. The one exception, was that Dr. Thomas [in 1835] was still fully persuaded on the basis of the Scriptural evidence , that ‘Satan’ and ‘demons’ were literal Spirit personalities. However - during the era of the early nineteenth century, Medical Science was increasingly moving away from any notion that illness was ever mediated by Angelic beings (cf. Isa. 37:36; 1 Chron. 21:12; Ps. 78:49-50, Acts 12:23 and 1 Cor. 5:4-5) Medieval, rationalistic, Jewish views of Satan (and demons), made inroads into certain limited Christian circles, during the Renaissance and Reformation periods. Dr. Thomas as a medical man, would have been exposed to these rationalistic ideas. Chapter twenty one : Concluding Comments.

The Christadelphian “internal devil” theory was never part of original Christian teaching. Furthermore, the idea that ‘the Devil’ [‘the Satan’] was an Angelic being, seems to have been one that was never ever contested within Christiancircles, until the Renaissance period, when Medieval, Jewishrationalistic ideas would have probably become more widely known.

Christ’s comments regarding ‘the Devil’ [‘the Satan’] seem to represent a certain advancement upon Old Testament revelation, by making more explicit, what seems to be implicit in the book of Job. There, ‘the Satan’ [ = ‘the Devil’ in the LXX] clearly appears to be an Angelic being, who is on the brink of a metamorphosis into evil. Satan’s personality traits are the antithesis of the personality traits that are said to characterize agape love, in 1 Cor. 13. Christ’s revelations concerning the true character of ‘the Satan’ [‘the Devil’] appear to be part of “new wine” teaching, which cannot be simply poured into old theological “wineskins” [derived solely from the Old Testament revelation], without expansion. [Mark 2:22]

Only in the light of ‘the solution’, (i.e. Jesus Christ Himself) – could the true nature of Man’s spiritual conflictbe revealed. This conflict appears to have ultimate reference to supernatural powers of evil [Eph. 6: 10-18]. However, all evil, however it is envisaged, has in principle, been defeated by Christ.

Any apparently perceived ‘dualism’ within the New Testament,is only limited, relative and temporary - and is permitted to exist by an Almighty God, for the sake of a greater good [cf. Gen. 50:15-21]. If the Devil is only an Angelic being,then there can never be any true dualism.

Overall, there is enough evidence, to cast serious doubts upon the Christadelphian view of ‘the Devil’ .

Consequently Christadelphians are probably wrong to elevate their ‘internal devil’ theory to the status of dogma, which should be imposed upon all true disciples of Christ.