Moving right along, I'll go on to this point: The
figure of speech known as personification was addressed quite a bit, and the
question was put to us: Is sin personified? We were referred to the Book of
Romans for example, as well as other passages. My answer is, Yes, sin is
personified. However, I think I was misinterpreted. I did not say that we find
the language of personification only in the poetic books. What I said was that
we find the language of personification, we find that particular figure of
speech in particular types of literature. I specifically mentioned parables,
allegories and that sort of thing, but I didn't say that personification is not
used in the epistles.
What I did say is that the language of personification
is not used in historical narratives. I believe that point deserves to be taken
seriously. I would like anyone to produce for me any historical narrative
anywhere in the Bible where a personification talks to a person. No such passage
exists. I have no problem at all with personification and figure of speech.
Indeed, I believe the Bible is filled with it; however, I do believe we must
remain sensitive to the literary text of the scriptures. There were several
references to metaphors that are used throughout the scriptures; for example,
the devil is roaring lion, the devil is a dragon, that sort of thing, and of
course those are not personifications. Just for the record, those are metaphors
and those metaphorical uses of course do not argue against the personal
existence of such a devil.
Let us see, the question was also asked if the
words Satan and Devil can be used just as descriptive nouns without referring to
the supernatural devil. I also addressed that in my presentation and I believe
that they can. For example, John 6: 70 was cited in which Jesus called Judas a
devil; however, in that case, and the other cases in which we find this, as I
stated, the article is not used.
Now Matthew 16 and verse 23 was cited in
which Jesus called Peter Satan. Now I don't think that Jesus intended to call
Peter just an adversary there because of course in the Greek New Testament the
word 'satanas' is a direct transliteration from the Hebrew word 'satan' and it
is being used almost as if it were a name - the enemy - and I believe that Jesus
was using a figure of speech known as antonomasia in which someone is called by
a name to imply something about them; for example, if I said to you, " You are a
Hitler" , what I am implying is that you are a very cruel person indeed. This
figure of speech is used several times in the Bible; for example, I believe it
was Jezebel who called Jehu Zimri, not meaning that his name was really Zimri,
but meaning that he was a murderer. This was that figure of speech. I believe
that Jesus' point is that Peter's suggestion had such radical consequences for
God's plan of salvation that it can be characterised as having come from the
great arch enemy, the devil himself.
Let's see, okay, next we move on to the
origin of sin. Several passages were referred to in this context, Mark chapter
7, Romans chapter 7 and also James chapter 1. Now I would like to go on record
as saying that all of these passages are quite irrelevant and they only relevant
if they are based on a misunderstanding of what temptation really is. For
example, our Christadelphian friends often go to Mark chapter 7 and say sin
comes from within and then they reason well, if you can prove that sin comes
from within, then the existence of an external tempter is thereby refuted. Well,
that is only if temptation and sin are identical, but the Bible does distinguish
between these two things. Temptation often comes from without, and I would like
to offer an example: in Genesis 3 when the serpent tempted Adam and Eve, the
temptation came from without, the sin came from within and there is a
difference. I would like to turn for example to Romans 7 where it talks a great
deal about our struggle with sin. The devil isn't mentioned, no, and he doesn't
need to be because the devil does not make us sin. In fact there was a statement
made to the effect that Christianity teaches a form of dualism, but I think one
will find that the Church by and large does not teach such a doctrine and one
cannot find in the systematic theological text books the teaching that the devil
makes us sin.
James 1 was referred to so let's turn over there and see what
we read there. Chapter 1, verses 13 through 15: " When tempted, no one should
say God is tempting me, for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He tempt
anyone but each one is tempted when by his own evil desire he is dragged away
and enticed. Then after desire is conceived it gives birth to sin, and sin when
it is full grown, gives birth to death." Now the Christadelphian argument from
this passages is, as Christadelphian author Peter Watkins has admitted, actually
an argument from silence, because the text here does not rule out external
temptation; what it says is that temptation is temptation because of wrong
desires.
For example, if you were to wave a packet of cigarettes underneath
my nose I would not be tempted by that, because I have no desire. On the other
hand, if I did have desire for that, I would find that to be a temptation. To
give another example: if you are on a diet and I know you are on a diet and I
know you love chocolate and I want to tempt you I can wave a chocolate bar
underneath your nose. Now if you like chocolate then I am leading you away by
your own lusts. It's your own desire that makes this a temptation, but without
those desires, I would not be able to tempt you, but if you have that desire, I
am tempting you. You then have a decision to make, are you going to eat the
candy bar and suffer the consequences of bad complexion, weight gain and all the
rest of it, or are you not going to eat the candy bar. Whatever you do, you are
responsible for; I am not responsible for that. I am tempting you but you are
going to suffer the consequences of what you have to do, and similarly, I would
suggest the Bible does not rule out external temptation, because it clearly
teaches this. Also in Christendom Astray, p. 179 I think it was, Robert Roberts
talked about external temptation. So if men can tempt men, and this is not ruled
out by James 1, why cannot the devil be a spiritual tempter who tempts men.
I don't know if I've reached all my notes, but I'm sure my time is up, but I
would say one last thing. We referred to several verses, for example, a
comparison of Hebrews 2: 14 and Romans 6: 23 - a verse snatched from here and a
verse snatched from there and we looked at words and we said, " Okay, this word
and this word are identical, well, I don't think that is a very sound method of
interpretation. I think if there were a single passage which said, " Here is sin
and here is the devil" and it makes the equation that would be a little bit
different, but to take verses from different authors and say that these words
are parallel, that's not necessarily the case. And there is some more to say,
but maybe we'll get to it in questions and answers. Thank you very much.