Logical arguments against the devil's existence: (3) 'The Devil made me do it'

This is the final installment in a series responding to logical arguments against the existence of a personal devil. Previously we looked at the empirical argument (which decries the lack of tangible evidence of the devil) and the theistic argument (which says an all-powerful, all-good God could not allow the devil to exist). We found that, upon closer examination, both of these arguments are self-defeating.

We now turn to an argument which is probably more popular than either of the other two. This argument is more often insinuated than stated logically, but it goes something like this: "People who believe in a personal devil tend to use it as a convenient excuse to avoid taking responsibility for their sins." The catchphrase that is often placed on the lips of these guilt-shirking Christians is, "The devil made me do it!"

As it stands, this is nothing more than an unsubstantiated ad hominem. There probably are people who use the devil as an excuse or a license for sin, but to my knowledge no evidence has been published to suggest a negative correlation between belief in the devil and perceived moral responsibility. Conversely, the studies of Swatos (1988)¹ and Wilcox et al (1991)² found a positive association between belief in the activity of Satan and political activism for moral causes. This is not what would be expected if belief in Satan inspires complacency toward sin.

However, let us return to the logical form of this argument. As a syllogism this argument might proceed something like this:

(1) If human beings were influenced by an evil tempter too powerful to resist, God would not hold them morally accountable for their sins.

(2) God holds all people morally accountable for their sins (apart from the redemptive work of Christ).
(3) Therefore, no person is influenced by an evil tempter too powerful to resist.

In this case, the conclusion (3) really does follow from the premises. However, it will be seen that premise (1) is not valid. Regardless of belief or disbelief in a personal devil, all Bible believing Christians would agree that human beings are influenced by the carnal mind, or sinful flesh. Paul is quite clear in Romans 6-7 that 'sin that dwells in us' is an evil tempter too powerful to resist, try as we might. We who are of the flesh are enslaved to sin, "sold under sin" (Romans 7:14). Paul is also clear throughout Romans (especially chapters 1-2, and see Romans 14:10) that God holds all people morally accountable for their sins.

Here is an inconvenient truth: all human beings, left to ourselves, are powerless to resist the temptation to sin which is built into our nature through no fault of our own. And yet God holds all human beings morally accountable for sinning. This is why, apart from faith in Jesus Christ we are utterly lost.

'The flesh' therefore serves as a counter-example to premise (1), and proves that sources of temptation - whether internal or external, powerful or weak - do not absolve human beings from guilt should they yield to the temptation and sin. In short, the existence of a personal devil is no more problematic for the issue of human moral responsibility than the existence of a fallen human nature. Said another way, if the syllogism above rules out the existence of the devil, it also rules out the existence of the carnal mind. Therefore, whoever believes in the carnal mind and in moral accountability cannot use this argument to disprove the devil's existence.

This is no different from human legal systems. The intentional criminal act of a sane person incurs guilt before the law, regardless of what pressures and influences the person faced. A judge might show leniency in sentencing a youth who ‘fell in with the wrong crowd’, but such circumstances do not remove the guilt.

This principle can be seen in the very first sin in the Garden of Eden. Adam tried to shift responsibility for his sin to Eve, and perhaps indirectly to God. Eve tried to shift responsibility for her sin to the serpent. However, God still held both of them responsible for their sins notwithstanding any external influences (even supernatural influences, in the serpent’s case, as it is difficult to see how the serpent came to have the powers of speech and reason naturally). In fact, God held the serpent morally responsible for luring Eve into sin, but this did not absolve Eve of her own guilt. Thus we can say generally that while external temptation may bring guilt upon the tempter (cf. Luke 17:1-2), it does not remove the guilt of the tempted if he or she yields to the temptation.

To conclude this series we can simply remark that these three logical objections have failed to dislodge the biblical testimony that mankind faces a great personal enemy called the devil and Satan. He cannot be detected by the scientific method, but then neither can angels, or God himself. His existence is compatible with God's limitless power and righteousness, because God is able to use evil to accomplish a greater good that is beyond our comprehension. His power over us is compatible with our own moral accountability, just like the carnal mind's power over us is.

Most importantly, Jesus Christ has promised that through him, the Father will "deliver us from the Evil One" (Matthew 6:13).

---

1 Swatos, William. (1988). Picketing Satan enfleshed at 7-Eleven: A research note. Review of Religious Research 30(3): 73-82 (September).^↩

2 Wilcox, Clyde, Linzey, Sharon & Jelen, Ted G. (1991). Reluctant Warriors: Premillennialism and Politics in the Moral Majority. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 30(3): 245-258.^↩

Logical arguments against the devil's existence: (2) the argument from theism

This is the second part of a three-part series looking at logical arguments which have been raised against the existence of a supernatural personal devil. In the previous installment we looked at the empirical argument, which denies the devil's existence on the basis of a lack of empirical evidence for his existence. We saw that this argument requires the professing Christian to maintain a double standard, because s/he is happy to believe in angels and the Holy Spirit in the absence of empirical evidence for their existence.

Another argument claims that if a supernatural, personal devil existed this would contradict the theistic view of God as omnipotent and absolutely good. If the devil roamed about wreaking havoc, this would imply either that God is unable to stop him (and therefore not omnipotent) or else that God is unwilling to stop him (and therefore not absolutely good). Thus we must either reject theism or else reject the existence of the devil.

In fact, this is nothing other than a special case of the argument from evil which has long been used by atheists to argue against the existence of God! The atheistic argument from evil goes like this:

1) A theistic (all-powerful and all-good) God would not allow evil to exist.

2) Evil exists.

3) Therefore, no theistic God exists.

The argument against the devil’s existence basically replaces ‘evil’ in the above syllogism with ‘the devil’ and then observes that if we assume the devil’s existence (premise 2) we arrive at an unacceptable conclusion, namely atheism. However, this argument is again self-defeating. If the above syllogism is valid then no theistic God exists, regardless of whether there is a devil. Hence, every professing Christian must reject the syllogism, and to use the very same logic to argue against the devil's existence would appear inconsistent.

On what basis do theists reject the above syllogism? The theist admits premise 2 but denies premise 1, at least with respect to every kind of evil whose existence he or she admits, such as nuclear disaster-inducing tsunamis and genocidal tyrants. How can theists deny premise 1? One approach is to argue that God may allow evil because in so doing he allows a greater good to be achieved than would be possible otherwise. This greater good could include things like free will, the prevention of even greater evils, character development through trials, and the joy of deliverance and salvation.

If a theist wanted to rework the syllogism above into an argument against the devil, s/he would need to show that, while premise 1 does not hold for evil in general, or for specific instances of evil such as tsunamis and tyrants, it does hold for a supernatural personal devil. The question is, why would premise 1 hold for a supernatural personal devil if it does not hold for any other kind of evil? What is it about the devil that makes it impossible for God to allow his existence but possible for God to allow Hitler's existence? Is it that a supernatural devil would be more evil and more powerful than Hitler? How far then does a being have to slide on the ‘evil scale’ or ‘power scale’ before it stops being morally justifiable for God to allow his existence and becomes morally reprehensible?

Put another way, if God could allow a being as evil and powerful as Hitler to exist because doing so allowed some greater good to be achieved, then couldn't God do the same for an even more evil and powerful being such as the devil? To deny that God could is to deny his omnipotence. Thus, ironically, the argument which sought to uphold theism actually undermines it.

The only other conceivable way to rescue premise 1 in the special case of the devil is to argue that the natural/supernatural or human/angelic distinction fundamentally alters the logic. However, such ontological distinctions are of no logical consequence. An archangel and an ant are equally powerless to thwart the prerogatives of an infinite God.

Praise for Christadelphians

Over the last couple of years, a large proportion of my blog posts have been on theological topics, and specifically topics on which I disagree with Christadelphian teachings. To some I probably come across as quite obsessed with some of these topics, particularly the biblical devil. This is because it's an issue on which I'm firmly convinced that my previous understanding was simply wrong, and it's an issue that has real implications for our walk with God and our struggle against sin. These issues are fascinating to me and I am passionate about exploring the depths of biblical revelation and sharing whatever insights I can glean with others.

Since I believe Christadelphians are mistaken on some of the points by which they distinguish themselves from other Christian denominations and sects, I do wish to reach out to Christadelphians in whatever small way I can. However, I don’t enjoy disagreeing with Christadelphians. Indeed most of my family and many of my dearest friends are zealous members of the Christadelphian community.

For this reason, I've decided to dedicate this post to highlighting seven praiseworthy qualities which I think characterize the Christadelphian community. This is not intended as flattery. It may perhaps be an olive branch. But mostly it's just my own authentic opinions.

1. Simple Faith

Christadelphians are, organizationally speaking, very simple. The movement is united by its name, its very specific set of core beliefs, and the network of personal relationships at the local and global levels that make it a community. There is also a certain 'culture,' based on shared history and practice, that is uniquely Christadelphian. However, the cohesion that exists within the community is achieved through consensus rather than being imposed hierarchically.

2. All Hands on Deck

The various duties involved with maintaining the spiritual life of a Christadelphian ecclesia are generally spread quite evenly among the members. This means that nearly everyone can make a meaningful contribution to the ecclesia if they are so inclined. While not investing in clergy has certain disadvantages, it does put the onus on those in the pews to do their bit, since there is no one to point to and say "But he's paid to do it!" It also allows an ecclesia to run very cost-effectively.

     3.  People of the Book

Several Christian denominations, including Baptists and Seventh Day Adventists, have been known to describe themselves as 'People of the Book.' I have heard the term applied by Christadelphians to themselves as well, and not without justification. Christadelphians are strongly encouraged to follow a daily reading plan which takes them through the Old Testament once a year and the New Testament twice a year. The proportion who engage in such rigorous Bible reading are undoubtedly much higher than in most other denominations and sects.

I have little doubt that if a random sample of ordinary Christadelphians were taken and compared to a random sample of Evangelical pastors, the Christadelphians would, on average, show greater general knowledge of and familiarity with the entire Bible. As a result, Christadelphians have an excellent grasp of the unifying thread of divine truth which runs through the whole Bible, sometimes known as the promise-plan of God.

    4.  Quality over Quantity

If one compares Christadelphians numerically with some of the other new religious movements that arose during the 19th century, such as Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists, the relatively smaller size of Christadelphians may suggest a failure in terms of evangelism. In general it is probably fair to say that Christadelphians have not prioritized missionary work and planting of new congregations to the same extent as these other movements. Christadelphians prefer quality over quantity. They are not interested in instantaneous (and perhaps temporary) mass conversions, but instead work methodically to win converts whose faith will abide. This is probably a reason why, while the Christadelphians have seldom experienced rapid growth and still have little name recognition among the general population, the group has persisted and persevered where others have dwindled into oblivion.

    5.  Close-Knit Community

Any Christadelphian would tell you that one of the coolest things about being part of the group is the idea that you can show up in just about any corner of the world where there are Christadelphians, find a name and number in an ecclesial directory, and soon find yourself enjoying hospitality in the home of a family you've never met. I suppose it's one of the perks of the quality-over-quantity approach.

Importantly, Christadelphians manage to maintain a small, close-knit community while avoiding most cult-like social characteristics, such as devotion to a charismatic leader, insulation and isolation from the outside world, brainwashing with sectarian literature, and shunning of ex-members. Christadelphians are, by and large, ordinary people who are productive, exemplary members of society. Yet they share a very special bond with those of their own.

    6.  Doctrinal Strengths

19^th century Christadelphian theology anticipated a number of the important results of 20^th century biblical scholarship (even if Christadelphians themselves historically eschewed such scholarship). They emphasized the continuity of the Old Testament promises with the gospel, the resurrection of the body, the future kingdom of God to be consummated on earth, and the continuing relevance of natural Israel at a time when these ideas were neglected in large sectors of Christianity.

    7.  Moral Integrity

Christadelphians have some distinctive moral positions, for instance non-participation in voting, politics, the military, police force, juries and litigation. These stances have in some cases been maintained in the face of persecution or great personal loss, which is a testimony to the integrity of the group.

In conclusion, there are numerous characteristics which can generally be found among Christadelphians which are admirable. A number of the above traits can be disadvantageous if taken to an extreme, as sometimes occurs. Nevertheless, they collectively show the vast potential that exists within the Christadelphian movement. No doubt God has a purpose in this community.

The devil in early post-apostolic Christianity

The term "Apostolic Fathers" refers to a collection of writings which 

are considered to be consistent with the general principles and theologies of an apostolic tradition that circulated among the churches from the end of the first century into the middle of the second century. These texts, only tentatively defined, are generally seen to include the following works: Epistle of Barnabas, 1-2 Clement, Didache, Epistle to Diognetus, Epistles of Ignatius, Epistle of Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp, Shepherd of Hermas, and the fragments of Papias.¹

They were not ultimately not included in the New Testament canon but were also not viewed as scandalous or heretical, and “for some Christians at least, a few of the texts that came to form the Apostolic Fathers were viewed with a reverence that may have approached that of Scripture.”² Their relevance to us is due not any claim that their testimony is inspired or authoritative, but because “As a combined voice they speak loudly about the origins of early Christian faith and culture.”³

Christadelphian apologist Jonathan Burke has implicitly affirmed the importance of these writings as a witness to early Christian faith and culture by appealing to them in support of what he calls the "Christadelphian model" of the early church as a gradually maturing community which put away belief in literal demons (and, by implication, a literal Satan).⁴

Burke argues that this trend can be observed in the "marginalization" of Satan and demons within the New Testament, outside the Gospels and Acts.⁵ As far as Satan is concerned I addressed this claim in a previous post, The Statistics of Satan. 

However, Burke also claims support for the Christadelphian model in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers. In the case of demons he appeals to the entire body of writings.⁶ However, in the case of Satan, for reasons that will become apparent, he appeals to only one text - the Didache. He calls it "significant" that this work makes no reference to Satan.⁷

Now, before looking at Burke's claims regarding the Didache, let us examine the rest of the writings of the Apostolic Fathers. Do they bear out the idea that belief in Satan was progressively being jettisoned by the early church?

Epistle of Barnabas

"We take earnest heed in these last days; for the whole [past] time of your faith will profit you nothing, unless now in this wicked time we also withstand coming sources of danger, as becometh the sons of God. That the Black One may find no means of entrance, let us flee from every vanity, let us utterly hate the works of the way of wickedness...Each will receive as he has done: if he is righteous, his righteousness will precede him; if he is wicked, the reward of wickedness is before him. Take heed, lest resting at our ease, as those who are the called [of God], we should fall asleep in our sins, and the wicked prince, acquiring power over us, should thrust us away from the kingdom of the Lord. (Barnabas 4)⁸ 

“But let us now pass to another sort of knowledge and doctrine. There are two ways of doctrine and authority, the one of light, and the other of darkness. But there is a great difference between these two ways. For over one are stationed the light-bringing angels of God, but over the other the angels of Satan. And He indeed [i.e., God] is Lord for ever and ever, but he [i.e., Satan] is prince of the time of iniquity.” (Barnabas 18)

Comment: some scholars have seen other references to the devil in Barnabas 15:5 (which translates literally as 'the lawless one' and could refer to Satan or the man of sin as in 2 Thess. 2:8); Barnabas 20:1 (which could be rendered 'the way of the Black One' or 'the way of darkness'), and Barnabas 21:3 ("For the day is at hand on which all things shall perish with the evil [one].")⁹

1 Clement

“For all our transgressions which we have committed through any of the wiles of the adversary, let us entreat that we may obtain forgiveness” (1 Clement 51)

Comment: The word translated 'adversary' here is a form of the Greek verb antikeimai. This verb is used of the "man of sin" in 2 Thess. 2:4, who is closely associated with Satan (2 Thess. 2:9). It is also used in 1 Tim. 5:14, possibly of Satan, but certainly in connection with Satan (cf. 1 Tim. 5:15).

This text from 1 Clement is taken to be a reference to the devil by the best lexical authority,¹⁰ and the word clearly refers to the devil in the Martyrdom of Polycarp (see below).

2 Clement

"For I myself too, being an utter sinner and not yet escaped from temptation, but being still amidst the engines of the devil, do my diligence to follow after righteousness, that I may prevail so far at least as to come near unto it, while I fear the judgment to come." (2 Clement 18)

Epistle to Diognetus

This document contains no reference to the devil.

Epistles of Ignatius 

There are seven epistles of Ignatius extant which are generally regarded as authentic. There is a longer and shorter version of most of these, so to be conservative we will limit ourselves to references from the shorter version. Going by the shorter version, six of the seven epistles refer to the devil. Only the epistle to Polycarp does not. In addition to "the devil" (ho diabolos) Ignatius uses the term "prince of this world" (archontos tou aionos toutou) which is close to the term used in John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11; cf. 2 Cor. 4:4.

"Flee therefore the wicked devices and snares of the prince of this world, lest at any time being conquered by his artifices, ye grow weak in your love." (Philadelphians 6)

"...I commend the Churches, in which I pray for a union both of the flesh and spirit of Jesus Christ, the constant source of our life, and of faith and love, to which nothing is to be preferred, but especially of Jesus and the Father, in whom, if we endure all the assaults of the prince of this world, and escape them, we shall enjoy God." (Magnesians 1) 

"Not that I know there is anything of this kind among you; but I put you on your guard, inasmuch as I love you greatly, and foresee the snares of the devil." (Trallians 8) 

"I therefore have need of meekness, by which the prince of this world is brought to nought." (Trallians 4) 

"Let fire and the cross; let the crowds of wild beasts; let tearings, breakings, and dislocations of bones; let cutting off of members; let shatterings of the whole body; and let all the dreadful torments of the devil come upon me: only let me attain to Jesus Christ." (Romans 5) 

"The prince of this world would fain carry me away, and corrupt my disposition towards God. Let none of you, therefore, who are [in Rome] help him; rather be ye on my side, that is, on the side of God." (Romans 7) 

"and let us seek to be followers of the Lord (who ever more unjustly treated, more destitute, more condemned? ), that so no plant of the devil may be found in you, but ye may remain in all holiness and sobriety in Jesus Christ, both with respect to the flesh and spirit." (Ephesians 10) 

"For when ye assemble frequently in the same place, the powers of Satan are destroyed, and the destruction at which he aims is prevented by the unity of your faith. Nothing is more precious than peace, by which all war, both in heaven and earth, is brought to an end." (Ephesians 13) 

"Be not ye anointed with the bad odour of the doctrine of the prince of this world; let him not lead you away captive from the life which is set before you." (Ephesians 17) 

"Now the virginity of Mary was hidden from the prince of this world, as was also her offspring, and the death of the Lord; three mysteries of renown, which were wrought in silence by God." (Ephesians 19) 

"He who honours the bishop has been honoured by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve the devil." (Smyrnaeans 9)

Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians

"For whosoever does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, is antichrist;" and whosoever does not confess the testimony of the cross, is of the devil; and whosoever perverts the oracles of the Lord to his own lusts, and says that there is neither a resurrection nor a judgment, he is the first-born of Satan." (7:1)

Martyrdom of Polycarp

"For the devil did indeed invent many things against them; but thanks be to God, he could not prevail over all." (Martyrdom of Polycarp 3) 

"But when the adversary of the race of the righteous, the envious, malicious, and wicked one, perceived the impressive nature of his martyrdom, and [considered] the blameless life he had led from the beginning, and how he was now crowned with the wreath of immortality, having beyond dispute received his reward, he did his utmost that not the least memorial of him should be taken away by us, although many desired to do this, and to become possessors of his holy flesh." (Martyrdom of Polycarp 17)

Shepherd of Hermas

This document contains no less than 23 references to the devil, of which the following are a sampling:

“For the Lord, knowing the heart, and foreknowing all things, knew the weakness of men and the manifold wiles of the devil, that he would inflict some evil on the servants of God, and would act wickedly towards them. The Lord, therefore, being merciful, has had mercy on the work of His hand, and has set repentance for them; and He has entrusted to me power over this repentance. And therefore I say to you, that if any one is tempted by the devil, and sins after that great and holy calling. in which the Lord has called His people to everlasting life, he has opportunity to repent but once.” (Fourth Commandment, chapter 3)

“For if thou art long-suffering, the Holy Spirit that abideth in thee shall be pure, not being darkened by another evil spirit, but dwelling in a large room shall rejoice and be glad with the vessel in which he dwelleth, and shall serve God with much cheerfulness, having prosperity in himself. But if any angry temper approach, forthwith the Holy Spirit, being delicate, is straitened, not having [the] place clear, and seeketh to retire from the place; for he is being choked by the evil spirit, and has no room to minister unto the Lord, as he desireth, being polluted by angry temper. For the Lord dwelleth in long-suffering, but the devil in angry temper. Thus that both the spirits then should be dwelling together is inconvenient and evil for that man in whom they dwell.” (Fifth Commandment, chapter 1)

“But fear not the devil; for, if thou fear the Lord, thou shalt be master over the devil, for there is no power in him. [For] in whom is no power, neither is there fear of him; but in whom power is glorious, of him is fear likewise. For every one that hath power hath fear, whereas he that hath no power is despised of all. But fear thou the works of the devil, for they are evil. While then thou fearest the Lord, thou wilt fear the works of the devil, and wilt not do them, but abstain from them.” (Seventh Commandment, chapter 1)

"He pointed out to me some men sitting on a seat, and one man sitting on a chair. And he says to me, "Do you see the persons sitting on the seat?" "I do, sir," said I. "These," says he, "are the faithful, and he who sits on the chair is a false prophet, ruining the minds of the servants of God. It is the doubters, not the faithful, that he ruins. These doubters then go to him as to a soothsayer, and inquire of him what will happen to them; and he, the false prophet, not having the power of a Divine Spirit in him, answers them according to their inquiries, and according to their wicked desires, and fills their souls with expectations, according to their own wishes. For being himself empty, he gives empty answers to empty inquirers; for every answer is made to the emptiness of man. Some true words he does occasionally utter; for the devil fills him with his own spirit, in the hope that he may be able to overcome some of the righteous. As many, then, as are strong in the faith of the Lord, and are clothed with truth, have no connection with such spirits, but keep away from them" (Eleventh Commandment, chapter 1)

These, then, are the evil desires which slay the servants of God. For this evil desire is the daughter of the devil. You must refrain from evil desires, that by refraining ye may live to God. But as many as are mastered by them, and do not resist them, will perish at last, for these desires are fatal. Put you on, then, the desire of righteousness; and arming yourself with the fear of the Lord," (Twelfth Commandment, chapter 2)

"I say to him, "Sir, listen to me for a moment." "Say what you wish," says he. "Man, sir," say I, "is eager to keep the commandments of God, and there is no one who does not ask of the Lord that strength may be given him for these commandments, and that he may be subject to them; but the devil is hard, and holds sway over them." "He cannot," says he, "hold sway over the servants of God, who with all their heart place their hopes in Him. The devil can wrestle against these, overthrow them he cannot. If, then, ye resist him, he will be conquered, and flee in disgrace from you. As many, therefore," says he, "as are empty, fear the devil, as possessing power. When a man has filled very suitable jars with good wine, and a few among those jars are left empty, then he comes to the jars, and does not look at the full jars, for he knows that they are full; but he looks at the empty, being afraid lest they have become sour. For empty jars quickly become sour, and the goodness of the wine is gone. So also the devil goes to all the servants of God to try them. As many, then, as are full in the faith, resist him strongly, and he withdraws from them, having no way by which he might enter them. He goes, then, to the empty, and finding a way of entrance, into them, he produces in them whatever he wishes, and they become his servants." (Twelfth Commandment, chapter 5)

Fragments of Papias

These brief fragments contain no reference to the devil.

In summary, aside from the Didache, all but three works of the Apostolic Fathers refer to the devil at least once (Epistle to Diognetus, Ignatius' epistle to Polycarp, and the fragments of Papias being the exceptions). Many of these undeniably refer to the devil as a personal being. This is far more significant in appreciating the satanology of the early post-apostolic church than the supposed absence of the devil from the Didache!

Is the devil absent from the Didache?

What of the Didache itself? The focus of this document is practical guidelines for the initiation of converts:

“As an oral tradition, the Didache encapsulated the lived practice by which non-Jews were initiated into the altered habits of perceiving, judging and acting characteristic of one branch of the Jesus movement during the mid-first century.”¹¹

Note that in spite of the quotation above, most scholars date the Didache to the end of the first century.¹²

At any rate, it is plausible that the original text of the Didache did contain an explicit reference to the devil, and the extant text may contain a second implicit reference. The Didache tradition survives in only one complete manuscript dating from the 11^th century.¹³ It is likely that the ending of the Didache is lost. The ending in chapter 16 is “abrupt and unresolved...obviously only half-complete”¹⁴ , and the way in which the scribe uncharacteristically left space at the end of the work and omitted the usual punctuation mark indicating the end of a literary work suggests that he “knew his exemplar was defective”.¹⁵

The Apostolic Constitutions are a “moderately edited version of the Didache included in a larger church manual compiled around 380 C.E.” Milavec explains that “The longer ending found therein has been widely accepted as providing a ‘very loose reproduction’ (Niederwimmer 1998: 227) of the ‘lost ending’ of the Didache.”¹⁶ Aldridge states, “There is good evidence that this is the Didache’s true ending (approximately).”¹⁷

Aldridge renders what he believes to be the proximate true ending of the Didache as follows:

“8 Then the world will see the Lord coming upon the clouds of heaven with the angels of His power, in the throne of His kingdom, 9 to condemn the devil, the deceiver of the world, and to render to every one according to his deeds. 10 Then shall the wicked go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous shall enter eternal life, 11 to inherit those things which eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nor have entered into the heart of man, such things as God hath prepared for them that love Him. 12 And they shall rejoice in the kingdom of God, which is in Christ Jesus.”¹⁸

Since the Apostolic Constitutions contain interpolations in its version of the Didache, even if Aldridge is correct that it preserves the Didache’s true ending it cannot be said with certainty that the devil was mentioned in the original. On the other hand, the possibility cannot be discounted.

Moreover, the full 11th century manuscript of the Didache contains a reference to the “world-deceiver” at 16:4: "and then shall appear the world-deceiver as Son of God, and shall do signs and wonders, and the earth shall be delivered into his hands". There is an apparent link between the tradition recalled here and that of 2 Thess. 2:3-10, where the person so described is likened to Satan. Milavec observes that the Didache does not endorse this link,¹⁹ but Jenks states that “the description seems to be a clear allusion to the satanic connections of this figure.”²⁰ Verheyden concurs that “This character calls forth associations with traditions on the Antichrist and Satan.”²¹ Peerbolte even argues on the basis of linguistic similarity with Rev. 12:9 that Didache 16:4 refers to Satan himself: “it is best to regard the title ‘deceiver of the world’ as a description of Satan.”²²

In summary, it is at least plausible that the original text of the Didache contained one or two references to the devil. As such, Burke's argument from silence rests on very thin ice.

The reality, as we have seen, is that the Apostolic Fathers witness to a robust doctrine of the devil and Satan in the post-apostolic church of the late first and early second century. This is not surprising given that a robust doctrine of the devil and Satan is also found within the New Testament; but it is exceedingly difficult for the Christadelphian model of the early church to explain.

---

1 Jefford, Clayton N. 2005. The Apostolic Fathers: An Essential Guide. Abingdon Press, pp. 7-8.^↩
2 Jefford, Clayton N. op. cit., p. 7.^↩
3 Jefford, Clayton N. op. cit., p. 8.^↩
4 The correspondence between myself and Burke can be viewed here. The claim in question is from Burke's correspondence of 13/05/2013, p. 12.^↩
5 Burke, Jonathan. Correspondence of 10/10/2012, p. 1.^↩
6 Burke, Jonathan. Correspondence of 13/05/2013, p. 10.^↩
7 Burke, Jonathan. Correspondence of 10/10/2012, p. 2.^↩
8 All translations are taken from Roberts, Alexander & Donaldson, Sir James. 1867. Ante-Nicene Christian Library: The Apostolic fathers. T&T Clark.^↩
9 See Russell, Jeffrey B. 1987. Satan: The Early Christian Tradition. Cornell University Press, p. 38ff; Boyd, James W. 1975. Satan and Mara: Christian and Buddhist Symbols of Evil. Brill Archive, p. 15; Byron, Gay. 2003. Symbolic Blackness and Ethnic Difference in Early Christian Literature. Routledge, p. 60ff.^↩
10 Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., and Bauer, W. 2000. A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature. University of Chicago Press, p. 88.^↩
11 Milavec, Aaron. 2003. The Didache: Text, Translation, Analysis and Commentary. Liturgical Press, p. ix.^↩
12 Draper, Jonathan. 1996. The Didache in Modern Research. BRILL, pp. 244-245.^↩
13 Milavec, Aaron. op. cit., p. xiv.^↩
14 Aldridge, Robert E. 1999. The Lost Ending of the Didache. Vigiliae Christianae 53(1), p. 3.^↩
15 Aldridge. op. cit., p. 4.^↩
16 Milavec, Aaron. 2003. The Didache: Faith, Hope and Life of the Earliest Christian Communities. Paulist Press, p. 833.^↩
17 Aldridge. op. cit., p. 5.^↩
18 Aldridge. op. cit., pp. 12-13. Emphasis added.^↩
19 Milavec, Aaron. 2003. The Didache: Faith, Hope and Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, p. 648.^↩
20 Jenks, Gregory C. 1988. The Origins and Development of the Antichrist Myth. University of Queensland, p. 310.^↩
21 Verheyden, J. 2005. Eschatology in the Didache and the Gospel of Matthew. In Matthew and the Didache, ed. H. van de Sandt. Uitgeverij Van Gorcum, p. 204.^↩
22 Peerbolte, L.J. Lietaert. 1996. The Antecedents of Antichrist: A Traditio-Historical Study of the Earliest Christian Views on Eschatological Opponents. Brill, p. 181.^↩

The devil's demand of worship from Jesus

In the previous two posts we looked at the setting of the third of Jesus' wilderness temptations (second in Luke's ordering) and then more specifically at the devil's offer of world power to Jesus. We now turn our attention to what the devil tempted Jesus to do. Our main objective is again to assess the Christadelphian interpretation that the temptation narratives are figurative representations of an internal struggle, in which ho diabolos (the devil) is a personification of the evil inclination (Hebrew yetzer hara) within Jesus' heart.

Our focus is again on the third temptation (second in Luke's ordering) because it is the most problematic for Christadelphians:

8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor; 9 and he said to him, “All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me.” 10 Jesus said to him, “Away with you, Satan! for it is written, ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve only him.’” (Matthew 4:8-10 NRSV)

5 Then the devil led him up and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. 6 And the devil said to him, “To you I will give their glory and all this authority; for it has been given over to me, and I give it to anyone I please. 7 If you, then, will worship me, it will all be yours.” 8 Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve only him.’” (Luke 4:5-8 NRSV)

Anthony Buzzard succinctly stated the difficulty that the Christadelphian interpretation faces here: "It is most unnatural to think that Jesus invited himself to fall down before himself and worship himself!".¹ To this, Christadelphian apologist Jonathan Burke responded:

It is not argued that Jesus 'invited himself to fall down before himself and worship himself'. It is argued that the narrative represents the internal struggle in Christ using the language of personification.²

In this response, Burke does not say what Jesus was actually tempted to do. Following on the precedent of the other two temptations, it stands to reason that Jesus was actually tempted to do something concrete, and the text tells us what it was: to fall down and worship the devil (ho diabolos). Burke, however, proposes a figurative interpretation of what Jesus was tempted to do:

"The temptation represents Christ as the one having power to elevate himself, and self-worship, rather than the worship of God, is both the requirement and result."³

Thus, although Burke denies that Jesus was tempted to fall down before himself and worship himself, he affirms that Jesus was tempted to self-worship (i.e. worship himself!) The only difference between what he denies and what he affirms is the 'falling down' part. Thus it appears that Burke believes Jesus was tempted to worship himself in mental attitude and not in a physical act of obeisance. The problem is that the text of Matthew says "fall down and worship me". That this is a demand for a physical act of worship is even clearer in the Greek than in the English.

The Greek verb translated "worship" in both Matt. 4:9 and Luke 4:7 is proskuneo. The most respected lexicon of ancient Greek defines this verb thus: "to express in attitude or gesture one’s complete dependence on or submission to a high authority figure, (fall down and) worship, do obeisance to, prostrate oneself before, do reverence to, welcome respectfully".⁴ While Christadelphians might seize on the words "in attitude", it is plain from the list of synonyms that even this refers to an outwardly expressed attitude and not merely a mental state.⁵

There is no known evidence that proskuneo was ever used as a reflexive verb (i.e. in relation to oneself) in ancient Greek. The only known use of this verb with an abstract direct object is a reference to worship of wealth by Philo, in which he explicitly stated he was using "figurative language".⁶

Greeven further emphasizes the "concreteness" of the term, observing that, as used in the New Testament, "Proskynesis demands visible majesty before which the worshipper bows".⁷. Thus, in order to take proskuneo in the sense of figurative self-worship instead of physical other-worship, one must give it an unprecedented meaning.

Furthermore, although the mere use of the word proskuneo virtually settles the matter, both Matthew and Luke qualify it with another word which makes the physicality of the worship even more explicit. In Matthew, the qualifier is the participial form of the verb pipto, which means "to move with relative rapidity in a downward direction, fall".⁸ It usually has a literal sense, and one of the lexical meanings is "fall down, throw oneself to the groundas a sign of devotion or humility, before high-ranking persons or divine beings".

There are also figurative meanings of pipto which include to fall in a transcendent or moral sense. It might be argued that Jesus' evil impulse tempted him to fall (morally) and elevate himself in self-worship. However, this would again be an utterly unprecedented meaning. The words proskuneo and pipto modify each other in two passages of the LXX and eleven other passages in the New Testament, and in every single instance they clearly denote a physical act of worship (2 Chr. 20:18 LXX; Dan. 3:4-15 LXX; Matt. 2:11; Matt. 18:26; Acts 10:25; 1 Cor. 14:25; Rev. 4:10; 5:14; 7:11; 11:16; 19:4; 19:10; 22:8). Particularly noteworthy are the two other Matthean texts:

"On entering the house, they saw the child with Mary his mother; and they knelt down (pipto) and paid him homage (proskuneo). Then, opening their treasure chests, they offered him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh." (Matt. 2:11)

"So the slave fell to the ground (pipto) and prostrated himself (proskuneo) before him, saying, ‘Have patience with me and I will repay you everything.’" (Matt. 18:26)

Thus, when used together, pipto and proskuneo depict a physical act of homage. It is all but certain that this is what the devil demanded of Jesus in Matt. 4:9; this is undoubtedly how most readers in the first century would have understood the narrative. To take this text as a temptation to figuratively worship oneself requires abandoning the usual lexical and syntactical meaning of these words and giving them a sense which is foreign to Matthew, to the New Testament, and to the ancient Greek language!

The verb pipto does not appear in Luke's parallel account. Nevertheless, while most Bible translations render the key phrase in Luke 4:7 simply as "if you worship me", there is also a qualifying word in the Greek here which makes the physical nature of the temptation explicit. This is the adverb/preposition enopion, which primarily means "before; in the sight of; in the presence of".⁹ Thus a more literal translation of this phrase in Luke 4:7 is, as the NASB has it, "if you worship before me" (the NASB has 'bow down before me' as a marginal rendering; Young's Literal Translation also translates 'bow before me'). This makes it clear that the worship was to take place in front of or in the presence of some external party. This word is superfluous if the temptation refers to self-worship.

Once again, if we look at other occurrences of proskuneo with enopion in Scripture, we find that it always denotes a physical act of worship (2 Kings 18:22 LXX; Ps. 22:27-29 LXX; Ps. 86:9 LXX; Isa. 66:23 LXX; Rev. 3:9; 15:4). Typical is Rev. 15:4b: "All nations will come and worship before you, for your judgments have been revealed".

Responding to Buzzard's analysis of the verb proserchomai in Matthew 4:3 (also problematic for Christadelphians), Burke writes that Buzzard

"deliberately over translates the Greek...in order to create the sense of a greater distinction between Christ and the satan, giving the false impression that the text wishes us to understand that Christ and the satan are two separate individual beings".¹⁰

Regardless of whether or not Burke's statement is accurate with regard to Matt. 4:3, we have seen that the Greek text of Matt. 4:9 and Luke 4:7 unmistakably create a distinction between Christ and the devil/Satan, demonstrating that they are two separate individual beings. Given that Matthew and Luke use the language of physical worship, it simply is not plausible that Jesus was tempted to engage in an act of obeisance either to himself, or to his personified 'evil inclination'.

We can say with certainty, then, that the text indicates Jesus was tempted to physically bow down before the devil. In view of this, the only way to sustain the Christadelphian 'internal struggle' interpretation is to take the temptation narrative figuratively at a more fundamental level. That is, none of the temptations actually happened as such; instead, they use vivid pictures to portray Jesus' battle with his evil inclination.

The problem with this approach is that the other two temptations are clearly concrete: Jesus was literally in the wilderness, was literally hungry and was literally tempted to turn stones into bread to satisfy his hunger. Similarly, Jesus was literally placed atop the temple pinnacle and tempted to throw himself down to test God's providential care. Neither 'turning stones into bread' nor 'throwing himself down' can be understood metaphorically. Consistency thus dictates that we take the temptation narratives at face value as concrete events in the life of Jesus. The idea that ho diabolos refers to a personification of an abstract entity is grammatically impossible and must be rejected. Jesus was tempted to physically worship a concrete personal being external to himself.

In fact, this conclusion brings Christadelphians back to the interpretations of the founders of their movement, John Thomas and Robert Roberts, both of whom identified ho diabolos in the temptation narratives as an unknown human tempter.^{11 12} This earlier interpretation makes better grammatical sense, but is also fraught with difficulties. It fails to account for the definite article: the tempter as opposed to a tempter. It also fails to account for the reappearance of ho diabolos/ho satanas elsewhere in the Gospels, and indeed, the prominence of this theological term throughout the New Testament.

If we attempt to ascertain the identity of ho diabolos just from what the temptation narratives tell us, we can infer that the tempter (a) knew Jesus' identity at the outset of his ministry (as the demons also did), (b) had the supernatural power needed to place him atop the pinnacle of the temple or induce a visionary experience, and (c) could make a credible claim to absolute temporal power. As there was no human being external to Christ who met these three criteria, we are left with only one possibility: ho diabolos refers to a supernatural personal being.

---

1 Buzzard, Anthony F. Satan, the Personal Devil. http://focusonthekingdom.org/articles/satan.htm ^↩
2 Burke, Jonathan. 2007. Satan and Demons: A Reply to Anthony Buzzard. Can be downloaded from https://sites.google.com/a/dianoigo.com/dianoigo/Jonathan_Burke_Satan_and_Demons.pdf, p. 40.^↩
3 Burke, Jonathan. op. cit., p. 181.^↩
4 Arndt, W., Danker, F.W. and Bauer, W. 2000. A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, p. 882.^↩
5 See, for instance, the first definition of 'attitude' at http://www.thefreedictionary.com/attitude^↩
6 Philo of Alexandria. Delineation of the Mosaic Legislation for non-Jews, Book 27, IV.25.^↩
7 Greeven, H. 1968. proskuneo. In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. 6. ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, tr. Geoffrey Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, p. 765.^↩
8 Arndt, W., Danker, F.W. and Bauer, W. op. cit., p. 815.^↩
9 Arndt, W., Danker, F.W. and Bauer, W. op. cit., p. 342.^↩
10 Burke, Jonathan. op. cit., p. 37.^↩
11 Thomas, John. 1867. Elpis Israel: Being an Exposition of the Kingdom of God; with Reference to the Time of the End, and the Age to Come. 4th edition, p. 78.^↩
12 Roberts, Robert. 1880. Seasons of Comfort at the Table of the Lord: Being Fifty-two Addresses, Etc. Birmingham, No. 51.^↩

Is an understanding of the promises to Abraham necessary for salvation?

In my own estimation, the greatest contribution that Christadelphians have made to biblical theology has been their understanding of the close relationship between the promises God made to the patriarchs of Israel (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and David) and the gospel or good news preached by Jesus and the apostles.

Christadelphians have correctly highlighted how much the New Testament writers emphasize the patriarchs and the covenants of promise that they received. This is particularly evident in the teaching of Paul. For instance, preaching in the synagogue at Antioch, Paul addressed the congregation as "sons of Abraham's family" (Acts 13:26 NASB). Having described the events of the death and resurrection of Jesus, he then declared, "And we preach to you the good news of the promise made to the fathers" (Acts 13:32 NASB). Later, explaining his relationship to Judaism as he stood on trial before Agrippa, Paul declared, "And now I am standing trial for the hope of the promise made by God to our fathers" (Acts 26:6 NASB).

 

In Paul's epistles, the same emphasis comes across. After a lengthy analysis of the promises to Abraham in Galatians 3, Paul concludes, "And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise" (Gal. 3:29 NASB). And again, in Romans 4, Paul emphasises that the promise to Abraham "will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all" (Rom. 4:16 NASB).

 

Now, it is not only Christadelphians who have grasped the importance of the promises. One only needs to pick up a book such as The Promise-Plan of God by Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. to see that there are also Evangelical scholars who have understood that the promises are the unifying thread that runs throughout Scripture. Where Christadelphians have differed, however, is in their insistence that comprehending the promises to the fathers is a prerequisite for salvation in Christ. The Christadelphian argument goes something like this:

 

C1. Salvation is by faith in the gospel of Christ.

C2. The gospel of Christ is none other than the fulfillment of the promises to Abraham.

C3. Therefore, one cannot understand the gospel of Christ without understanding the promises to Abraham.

C4. Therefore, one who does not understand the promises to Abraham does not have saving faith.

 

This, I believe, is a flawed argument with a thrust that is very different than Paul's. I would express Paul's argument as follows:

 

P1. Salvation is by faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ.

P2. The gospel of Christ is none other than the fulfillment of the promises to Abraham.

P3. Therefore, whoever puts their faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ becomes an heir of the promises to Abraham.

P4. Therefore, Gentile believers are heirs of the promises to Abraham, regardless of whether they keep the Law of Moses.

 

Observe that the first two premises are the same in both arguments. The difference is in the implications of these two premises. I would assert that premise C3 is nowhere in the New Testament, and consequently the conclusion C4 cannot be inferred.

 

By contrast, premise P3 is central to Paul's argument. In Galatians 3, Paul's central concern is not with the promises to Abraham per se, but rather with basis on which Gentile believers receive the Holy Spirit (Gal. 3:2 NASB). Paul uses Abraham as a vehicle in his argument. He emphasises that the gospel was preached to Abraham in the words, "All the nations will be blessed in you" (3:8), inasmuch as all those who have faith are blessed just like Abraham was (3:9). Thus in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham comes on the Gentiles, so that they can receive the promise of the Spirit through faith (3:14). This promise is contingent on faith in Jesus Christ (3:22). Whoever has faith in Christ Jesus is a child of God (3:26) and consequently becomes a descendant of Abraham and an heir of the promises (3:29).

 

A similar line of argument appears in Romans 4. As we read earlier, Paul writes there that the promises to Abraham's descendants are for those who have the faith of Abraham. The faith of Abraham does not refer to an explicit understanding of who Abraham was or what he believed. Abraham had an embryonic understanding of what has now been revealed more plainly through Jesus Christ. The key element of Abraham's faith was his belief that "what God had promised, He was able also to perform" (Rom. 4:21). This faith was credited to him as righteousness. Paul's conclusion is then unmistakable: righteousness will in like manner be credited to all those who "believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, He who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification" (4:24-25). This is none other than premise P3: whoever believes in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ effectively has the faith of Abraham and is a joint-heir of the promises made to him.

 

Space does not allow us to proceed much further, but it is worth mentioning that most discussion of the promises to Abraham in the New Testament occurs when speaking or writing to Jews or concerning Judaism. There is no mention of the promises to the fathers, for instance, in the message Peter preached to Cornelius (Acts 10:34-43), or Paul's speech to the Athenians (Acts 17:22-31). Although an argument from silence, this is contrary to what one would expect if the author of Acts sought to convey that understanding these promises was a prerequisite for Gentiles to be saved.

 

Now, all of this does not mean that the promises to the fathers are irrelevant or unimportant to Gentile Christians. An understanding of the covenants of promise in Genesis, and indeed of the whole Old Testament, is highly profitable for any servant of Christ (2 Timothy 3:16). One who is ignorant of these things is weak in his or her knowledge of the Word, and Christadelphians have done well to emphasize the promises in their teaching. However, there is a world of difference between saying a person's knowledge is limited and saying that such a person's faith is void.

 

What is wrong with the Christadelphian stance that a person cannot be saved without understanding the promises to Abraham? Firstly, it creates an unnecessary fellowship barrier. Secondly, and more seriously, it imposes a requirement for salvation the apostles did not impose. It comes dangerously close to violating the principle of Acts 4:12, by adding a second name (Abraham's) by which we must be saved.

 

Mercifully, God does not refuse to justify us due to flaws or limitations in our understanding of his Word:

"Now to Him who is able to do far more abundantly beyond all that we ask or think, according to the power that works within us, to Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever. Amen." (Eph. 3:19-20 NASB)