I want to set the stage for today's message with this quote that I believe hits a nail right on the head.
Two major difficulties face the modern student of Scripture trying to understand a text produced in an ancient culture. One is that of grasping the historical, cultural, and geographical context of the Bible; the other is trying to shed the deadening materialistic baggage the modern Western world has lumbered him with. By materialism I mean the denial of that supernaturalism which is fundamental to a biblical worldview, and which was universal in the ancient world. (Wesley Callihan, The Forgotten Heavens – Satyrs, Lilith, & Lunatics, pg. 115)
For over a month now, Dave has been dealing with the issue of the devil, and along the way, has dipped his toe into this topic along the way. This morning, In continuing with some of that, I'm going to go further into examining some often ignored "oddities" in Scripture and Hebrew history that relate to the much deeper spiritual worldview possessed in antiquity, but that is generally overlooked by most today.
The church as a whole, in many cases, has lost the supernatural mentality that is laced throughout the very biblical text that they stand on for their general doctrine. Because of this fact, more and more differing materialistic interpretations are produced on certain topics, causing more and more interpretive and doctrinal confusions.
I think there are at least two root causes that have led to this problem. First, there is the lack of desire to do the work necessary to acquire a better understanding of the ancient cultures behind the text. And second is a misconstrued application and understanding of the idea of Sola Scriptura.
For the study of the ancient cultures and worldviews, this is generally not extremely difficult, since so much work has already been done in this area, that it just requires reading the material produced. However, the typical pastor does not care to engage in such studies, and the average pew sitter even less so.
As for Sola Scriptura, many in the modern church suffer from a warped application of the historic practice of this idea. As most of you probably already know, Sola Scriptura is Latin for "by Scriptura Alone" and stems from the Protestant Reformation. At the time of the Reformation, the Roman Catholic church, with all of her rites and rituals, were the reigning theological power, and the argument became about what was more authoritative – Scripture, or the tradition and historic practices of the church and councils.
While many today still proclaim to hold to the idea of Sola Scriptura, their understanding and application of it has often become blurred. Yes, the root idea that Scripture is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice is a good position to hold.
However, the issue them becomes how one regards their approach to understanding exactly what it is that Scripture teaches to begin. In order to apply it properly in all matters of doctrine and practice, we must know how to get to the root of what it is teaching at times.
Part of the underlying problem with Bible students today is they have twisted this idea of Sola Scriptura, making it something it was never really meant to be. Many modern users look at this idea as more of a way of saying that all we need is Scripture alone to understand all things related to theology. "Bible alone" is a better way to express the modern idea.
I frequently hear people say things like "all I need is the Bible to understand the Bible" – and by this, I am not speaking of it within the context of letting Scripture interpret Scripture, we'll look at that in a moment. I am speaking of people who think that all they need to understand exactly what Scripture means can be found within the pages of Scripture itself.
It is almost as if they seem to think that Scripture was written divinely and handed down in a complete vacuum, and that within itself is contained all of the pieces necessary to fully understand all that it means by what it teaches.
So, when I speak to them of the importance of understanding the cultural context of Scripture, or the need to use other historical writers from the same time period in order to get a better understanding of how the Scripture writer at the time was using certain terms or sayings, they write me off as being against Sola Scriptura.
Many feel it adequate to simply approach their biblical understanding by looking to a current dictionary meaning of the original words, and come up with a specific wooden meaning for terms, and then apply that consistently through all of its uses in Scripture.
They define the original word, and then they apply that meaning everywhere it appears, as if it is impossible to conceive that the term in question may have changed or morphed or have different applied nuances in the understanding and use over the thousands of years since it first appeared.
I have actually had others, even from our own camp, argue with me online, saying that to the Hebrew, the term and idea of resurrection has always meant the same thing. It is this kind of outspoken naïve ignorance that continues to cause our position much shame.
Sadly, for many today in the modern church, there is a severe lack of knowledge of the ancient cultures that provide the backdrop that helped shaped the words, teachings, meanings and understandings in Scripture. Put it into a modern scenario. Just in the past hundred years, terms and words have been used differently than commonly used today.
Pick up a book written just a couple hundred years ago, and you'll probably find yourself occasionally stopping to look up words being used that are no longer commonly used today. You'll also find terms used in ways that are not the way we used them today. You'll find references to things long past to us, as well as idioms that were common at the time of the writing, but totally alien to us today.
Even though those in our eschatological camp are quick to shout about the importance of audience relevance, the greater majority of the time they apply it only to prophetic instances and time statements as they see fit. Rarely do they stop to seek understanding on other terms based on the understanding it had in the culture at the time the book in question was written.
Related to this is something I have often seen in my discussions among the social media preterist groups. Now, I try to not engage in the numerous daily Facebook battles that take place – though at times I toss my thoughts into the ring. For the times I do stay quiet, I will often read bits and pieces, and more times than not I find it so sad how disjointed the views can be.
By disjointed, I mean just how these novice theologians have obviously come to their view by using only an English concept of Scripture alone – while obviously being ignorant to the Hebrew concepts that underlie the Scripture.
There are many out there, who, once they see how much the preterist hermeneutic changes their understanding of prophecy, they want to get overzealous and change everything. They become quick at throwing out many core doctrines and desiring to start over from scratch in their approach to Scripture.
Rather than seeking to reform existing views where needed, they end up almost dismissing everything, and in the end, end up reinventing a whole new set of theological teachings. Because of that, we find an ever-growing amount of diverse and fringe views that grows as the boundaries of interpretation are stretched and stretched.
Yes, in many ways, traditionalism much be re-evaluated and given a good shake, just like was needed back in the Reformation. But that doesn't mean scrapping all historic teachings and having every zealous bible novice doing their own thing, again, relying solely on a "Bible alone" mentality.
Especially when the greatest majority of these new views end up having zero basis or foundation to be found in any historic or cultural Hebrew worldview.
I have had discussions with many people in our eschatological camp who will speak as if having a grasp and authority about what the ancient Hebrews historically believed on such-and-such a topic. The, when I ask them what extra-biblical Hebrew and Ancient Near Eastern writings they have used to come to such a concrete conclusion, there is usually none involved in their decisions – only the Bible.
They have simply taken the limited content on the subject that is found within Scripture, and using their only surface level, wooden definition understanding of what words may mean, they come to a supposedly thorough and conclusive understanding of exactly what Hebrews believed on that topic – at least in so much as the Bible is concerned.
As if all necessarily content on the subject is contained in the sixty-six books, and nothing outside of that was influential to its writing. That is to ignore a very important application of audience relevance, for you must first understand what the audience would have understood, and that is not always clearly found within the canon of Scripture.
Back in November I brought up this basic idea in a message focusing specifically on how the Pseudepigraphal Book of 1st Enoch was obviously very influential on a large part of New Testament theology. If you missed that, I encourage you to go back and give it a listen.
Without understand that influence, or how some of those terms were used or understood in the writings of Enoch, then one could easily misunderstand their proper use in the New Testament canon. The bottom line was, regardless of whether one thinks the Book of Enoch should be canon or not, the truth is that it was widely read, understood, and very influential on the writings of New Testament authors.
That was only one specific book, and yet there are many more out there of a similar nature and influence. Again, these books hold no authority over Scripture, but they do provide a background and foundation in the understanding of cultural teachings, terms, concepts or understandings of at least a portion of the ancient Hebrews at the time.
As such, they may have likewise been influential on other writers contained in the Scripture canon. And if not directly influential, such as being quoted, they still provide the cultural backdrop upon which the canon Scripture appeared in history, and often lend insight into properly understanding terms and idioms not as familiar to us. Kind of like additional tools to help build a dictionary of how things were used at that time period.
Another similar cry that gets affected in this discussion, is the "let Scripture interpret Scripture" guideline. This is a great guideline, and needs more widespread practice in the mainstream church as we know. However, a similar root issue exists – what exactly does text "A" mean in order to properly apply it to interpreting text "B" properly?
One writer, when dealing with this issue, put it like this:
Just as with every text there is a context, so with every context there is a worldview. Actually, in any context there are several worldviews, the prophet's, the hearer's, and the one progressively unveiled through revelation, to which the first two must conform.
Let me break right there to point out something that many Bible interpreters seem to misunderstand. This ties in to the same type of issue mentioned before, about always applying a wooden definition to a word and carrying that definition solidly through every verse it is used in throughout Scripture.
As he mentions in this quote, "in every text there is context." Meaning, throughout the different generations of people, as Yahweh was revealing and teaching the people more and more, their knowledge and practices can and did change.
The people of God in one era of history were not necessarily of the same exact worldview and understanding on all things as the people hundreds of years later when another text of Scripture was written. So, it is entirely possible that the usage and concepts of words could have changed over those times.
Now, back to the quote about the several worldviews:
Much of the labor of Bible study for the late twentieth century believer is the reconstruction of those worldviews, in order that the revelation may be more fully understood. Unfortunately for today however, the reconstruction of the prophet's worldview is replaced by the imposition of the modern reader's worldview. (Terry Morin, The Forgotten Heavens: Celestials & Thronophanies)
The scientific and materialistic worldview that is prevalent these days tend to cause people to approach the Scriptures with an almost reversed gnostic approach. Instead of material being bad and spiritual good, they dismiss spiritual as impossible, and seek to explain things more physically.
Novel interpretations become the norm, as interpreters deal with those things in the Scripture that do not fit any adequate mental category for them. What the Bible states clearly, is often explained away as being there just because the ancient people lacked the scientific knowledge that we now possess, and so they write them off as superstitious and believing in mythological things.
I have heard people today explain away things like angels, saying they are rarely ever spiritual beings, but simply human messengers. Or similarly the idea of all New Testament references to the "Satan" being simply a human adversary. Or that all ideas of demonic possessions in the NT are simply mental illnesses. These are the types of things that made it necessary for the last five weeks of messages from Dave.
Another common approach to Scriptures is the neo-orthodox view. They would hold that there is the spiritual "otherness" of God but to the degree that there is no real way to be in contact with Him. So, the Scriptures themselves are not truly the Word of God, but only become the Word of God to each individual person in a mind-numbing encounter which ends up leaving the prophet unable to relate any real content.
Terry Morin continues in his writing to discuss what I think is probably the most common approach to the Bible that I tend to find today, and that is those who practice a historical-critical brand of exegesis. This approach has contributed very little to the church's understanding of the message of the texts of Scripture. I kind of see this as a dry, scholarly view of sorts.
Morin describes this exegetical method as giving us an analysis of the literary form, textual history and variants, linguistic context of the text, all the while it fails to give what the prophet means to say. What should be a living, breathing storyline, becomes a silent dissected corpse. He states:
In their application of rules of scientific evidence to the Scriptures, they at once dismiss the miracles, visions, and theophanies, and with them, any possibility for serious consideration of the celestial creatures. (Terry Morin, The Forgotten Heavens: Celestials & Thronophanies)
It seems today that Christians make the mistake of wanting to be acceptable in the modern age, and so they interpret things in a way that is palatable to moderns. If an acceptable interpretation is not found, then things are often retranslated into something more fitting.
Such an example can be seen in Isaiah 34, and the discussion of satyrs and liliths. In this prophecy against Edom, Isaiah tells us:
Thorns shall grow over its strongholds, nettles and thistles in its fortresses. It shall be the haunt of jackals, an abode for ostriches. And wild animals shall meet with hyenas; the wild goat shall cry to his fellow; indeed, there the night bird settles and finds for herself a resting place. (Isa 34:13-14 ESV)
This is a typical modern translation of this verse. Yet, if we look at that verse in the KJV from hundreds of years ago, we find different creatures mentioned:
And thorns shall come up in her palaces, nettles and brambles in the fortresses thereof: and it shall be an habitation of dragons, and a court for owls. The wild beasts of the desert shall also meet with the wild beasts of the island, and the satyr shall cry to his fellow; the screech owl also shall rest there, and find for herself a place of rest. (Isa 34:13-14 KJV)
Instead of jackals and ostriches, we have dragons and owls. Instead of a wild goat and night bird, we have a satyr and a screech owl. Usually, in reading this, we notice the exotic word dragon, which in this case most likely is better viewed as jackal – though such a translation in other Old Testament passages is not always acceptable.
However, readers would tend to not stop to think twice about the use of owl in this passage, even though the underlying word found here shows that translating this as "owl" is a very poor translation. And while the exotic word "satyr" appears here, most do not stop to even see what that word means.
Satyr means hairy one, which is where the goat gets its name, and is translated as such. However, these creatures are described as half goats and half men. In the Targam, the Aramaic translation of Hebrew Scripture, they render this word as demon. 18th century theologian John Gills states this about satyr:
a sort of monstrous creatures with the ancients, painted half men and half goats; the upper part of them like men, except the horns on their heads, and the lower parts like goats, and all over hairy; and the word here used signifies hairy; and is used for goats, and sometimes for devils, either because they have appeared in this form, as Kimchi says, to them that believe them; or because they, by their appearance, inject such horror in men, as cause their hair to stand upright: hence the Targum, Jarchi, and Kimchi, interpret it of devils here; and so the Septuagint version, and those that follow it, the Syriac and Arabic, render it, "and demons shall dance there": with this agrees the account of mystical Babylon, Rev 18:2
Keep in mind his reference to Rev 18:2, as we'll be circling back to that in a bit. Now, there are four places in Scripture that this word satyr is used that can help with this understanding, so let's look at them. One of those places is in an earlier prophecy from Isaiah dealing with Babylon, he states that satyrs will dance on their ruins.
But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there. (Isa 13:21 KJV)
So, in both places verses examined, these creatures appear after the judgment and ruin of a place. And then, stepping back to around 1200-1400 BC, in Leviticus, the Lord tells the Israelites that they:
…shall no more sacrifice their sacrifices to goat demons (satyr), after whom they whore… (Lev 17:7 ESV)
Note that while the ESV in our earlier Isaiah passage translated the word satyr simply as goat, in this instance the same translators translate it as goat-demon. Some translations say devils in this place. And then there is the use in 2 Chron. 11:15:
And he ordained him priests for the high places, and for the devils (satyr), and for the calves which he had made. (2Ch 11:15 KJV)
So, we are told in this verse, that Rehoboam, Solomon's son, who ruled in the tenth century BC, had established priests for three purposes – the high places, the "devils" and the calves that he had made. If we jump forward a few hundred years, onto the scene comes Josiah, and we are told:
And he broke down the high places of the gates that were at the entrance of the gate of Joshua the governor of the city (2 Kings 23:8)
We read this and we understand that he is breaking down the idols, but this phrasing "high places of the gates" is not as well understood as it should be, and we get a better grasp of what is being said when we see a translation like that of the New English Bible that says he:
Dismantled the hill-shrines of the demons (satyr) in front of the gate of Joshua… (NEB)
The Masoretic Text of the Old Testament contains the word "satyr" here, which is why the NEB translates the word as demons, but it has been noted that some manuscripts have a slight scribal error – a minor slip – which results in the rendering of the word as "gate" – since orthographically the Hebrew words are similar.
Most every culture understood the satyr to be a creature with goat-like characteristics, and that continued to be the impression even into Roman times, as we are probably all familiar with if studying mythology. The Hebrew word transliterated here is related to the word for "hairy" and which is closely related to the word for "he-goat" which again, is why many translate it more as a goat.
Yet in at least these verses mentioned, it is admitted by some Hebrew word dictionaries that the usage of the word satyr does align with a demonic goat creature as classically understood. This is most evident in the verses we mentioned in Leviticus, Chronicles and Kings mentioned before, since the context clearly shows them to have been objects of idolatry.
The Jewish Encyclopedia claims that to think of this as a he-goat is incorrect:
The demons mentioned in the Bible are of two classes, the "se'irim" and the "shedim." The se'irim ("hairy beings"), to which the Israelites sacrificed in the open fields (R.V. incorrectly, "he-goats"), are satyr-like demons, described as dancing in the wilderness … To the same class belongs Azazel, the goat-like demon of the wilderness, probably the chief of the se'irim, and Lilith (Jewish Encyclopedia: Demonology)
So, while most consider it simply mythology, the Bible gives evidence that such a creature truly did exist, and in fact were a type of minor god or what is classically thought of when we say demon. They were malevolent entities that possessed some special supernatural quality. Standard translations have recognized this, which is why they have translated the word demon or devil in place of the word satyr.
While to some it may be a solution to think that goats simply became the objects of superstition connected to the scape-goat law of the Hebrews, it is not likely the case, because so many other cultures believed in the satyr as well.
The belief in these creatures was not limited to a small time in history, for the verses mentioned before cover at least a six-hundred year period, plus the Greeks and Romans have them in their history for a thousand years. This also shows that the belief was not isolated to a small geographic area or single people group.
Many will try to write this off as merely superstition, mythology, or simply symbolic or poetic liberty – but these objections do not come from the natural reading, nor a historic understanding – they come from a presuppositional disbelief in supernatural creatures.
LILITH
Now returning to our original verse in Isaiah, after it mentioned the satyr, it ends by saying "the screech owl also shall rest there, and find for herself a place of rest." When we examine the term behind the translation for screech owl, we find another not so familiar creature to our worldview. The word here is "Lilith," and there is really only one meaning for it — that of a female night demon. The Complete Jewish Bible translation actually clearly translates it as:
Lilith [the night monster] will lurk there and find herself a place to rest. (Isa 34:14b CJB)
Lilith is found mentioned in Babylonian records, and scholars say it most likely stems from the Assyrian word lilitu from when the Jews were under the influence of their language while in captivity. And while this definition may lean a little to the sarcastic side, the New Bible Dictionary says about this word:
Some scholars regard [Lilith] as the equivalent of the English vampire. (New Bible Dictionary, Pg. 701)
A limestone amulet has been discovered in the Near East, and experts have dated it to around the seventh century BC – which would be about a hundred years after Isaiah – and on this amulet was inscribed an incantation to be used to expel the female flying demon from one's dwelling place.
These creatures, often called "stranglers," were believed to cause the death of infants and small children. The Dictionary of Judaism in the Biblical Period says of Lilith:
Female demon who, according to legend, endangers women in childbirth and kills newborn children. (The Dictionary of Judaism in the Biblical Period, Neusner & Green, Editors)
The word used in the original language is the same word used by Isaiah, and since he offers no redefinition of it, it validates the meaning of it which surely his hearers would have held to at the time. So, audience relevance in this case would mean that to Isaiah's hearers, it was understood as a female flying demon also known in some parts as a strangler.
Now, a quick side note on Lilith. Some of you may know that name from the other alternate story about her that gets told. It is the story that Lilith was actually Adam's first wife, and she left him, and God later gave him Eve.
This story seems to stem from Jewish folklore that was created as a way for them to reconcile what they perceived as two contradictory creation accounts contained in Genesis 1 versus the one found in Genesis 2. They say Genesis 1 tells of the first creation, and Adam and Lilith, and because they did not get along, she left, and in Genesis 2 God gives Adam Eve.
The name has made an appearance in the past few decades, used mainly by feminist groups because they see her as an independent woman. They have stripped away her demonic characteristics, and recreated her as a strong woman who not only sees herself as man's equal, but refuses to accept anything but total equality.
Dave mentioned this writing a few times over the past couple weeks, so let's look at what we're told in The Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (which I'll refer to as DDD going forward) has much to say on the background of Lilith, but near the end of the listing it does mention this:
Well known is also the legend of Lilith who was Adam's first wife but flew away from him after a quarrel; since then she has been a danger to little children and people have to protect themselves against her by means of amulets. Solomon in his great wisdom possessed might over demons and the Litliths. (Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, 2nd ed. 1999)
Note that closing mention of Solomon, we're about to enter into interesting territory here in a moment on that.
Lilith is mentioned in the Babylonian Talmud four times though never in any connection as Adam's wife. It is not until the Alphabet of Ben Sira – an anonymous collection of midrashim written somewhere around the 9th and 11th century – where the full story is created.
And even though scholars note that the set of writings are satirical in nature, there are some who still hold to this view of Lilith as if it were true history.
Now, putting that more recent story of Lilith aside, we return to the more biblical understanding, and note that even in later Christian eras, the belief in the Lilith as a female demon creature was still a popular one. One author reveals that:
Aramaic Incantation Bowls found in Babylon, and dating from the third to sixth century AD, have images and descriptions of demons inscribed on them, along with incantations about their binding; they commonly refer to "King Solomon, Son of David" and his seal ring, and show a bound demon surrounded by the incantation that binds it. One says, "bound is the bewitching Lilith who haunts the house of Zakoy"…
The incantation and accompanying image indicate the nature of the creature referred to: it is female, it has shape roughly reminiscent of a human form, and it is malevolent, haunting demon. The word used in the incantation is the same as that word in the Isaiah passage. (Wesley Callihan, The Forgotten Heavens – Satyrs, Lilith, & Lunatics, pg. 120)
So, the main thing we see in this, is a long historical belief in a demonic creature known as Lilith – something that many today would write off as unbiblical mythology. Yet, it is found in Scripture – though somewhat hidden by translations these days — and was understood and believed throughout multiple cultures and over multiple centuries of Hebrew and Christian belief.
Before moving on, and this is for those who may still be struggling to see the understanding of demons in this verse in Isaiah, let us see how the same thought appears in the New Testament as well. First, let us revisit the Isaiah passage:
And thorns shall come up in her palaces, nettles and brambles in the fortresses thereof: and it shall be an habitation of dragons, and a court for owls. The wild beasts of the desert shall also meet with the wild beasts of the island, and the satyr shall cry to his fellow; the screech owl also shall rest there, and find for herself a place of rest. (Isa 34:13-14 KJV)
And now we come to where I mentioned remembering that Rev 18:2 reference that theologian John Gill referenced in his comment on satyr. For when we look at Isaiah and then compare the scenery with what we are told in Revelation 18:2, we again find demons more clearly mentioned:
And he called out with a mighty voice, "Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great! She has become a dwelling place for demons, a haunt for every unclean spirit, a haunt for every unclean bird, a haunt for every unclean and detestable beast. (Rev 18:2 ESV)
In both cases, same type of language, same type of creatures present. The connection we find is, when a nation is destroyed, their location is left desolate and becomes the home to all type of unclean and detestable entities.
Now, we change directions ever so slightly, and take the path I brought to your attention earlier on Solomon. In the DDD quote, it mentions:
Solomon in his great wisdom possessed might over demons and the Litliths. (Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, 2nd ed. 1999)
And then there was the other quote after that where they found:
Aramaic Incantation Bowls found in Babylon, and dating from the third to sixth century AD, have images and descriptions of demons inscribed on them, along with incantations about their binding; they commonly refer to "King Solomon, Son of David" and his seal ring… (Wesley Callihan, The Forgotten Heavens – Satyrs, Lilith, & Lunatics, pg. 120)
Both mention Solomon in connection to dealing with evil spirits, and then we have mentions of his seal ring. Further investigation into this topic reveals a linking of Solomon even further with the work of dealing with demons, which is something we do not get from a natural reading of our canonical Scripture.
In the Psuedepigraphal book known as the Testament of Solomon we are told of Solomon interrogating a female demon named Obyzouth, and she is described as having "disheveled" and "savage" hair, and her body was darkness.
The idea of disheveled hair is understandably connected to the more commonly known Greek creature Medusa, a character known also to the Jews, as is evident from an amulet found on a corpse in a Jewish burial site that contained an image of Medusa on it.
Also, in this Testament of Solomon, we are told that the angel Michael had brought this special ring to him from the Lord, and it gave Solomon power over the demons:
And it came about through my prayer that grace was given to me from the Lord Sabaoth by Michael his archangel. [He brought me] a little ring, having a seal consisting of an engraved stone, and said to me: "Take, O Solomon, king, son of David, the gift which the Lord God has sent thee, the highest Sabaoth. With it thou shalt lock up all demons of the earth, male and female; and with their help thou shalt build up Jerusalem. (Testament of Solomon 1:6-7)
So here we see more clearly what this seal ring is that was spoken of on the incantation bowl. Also notable, is what we find in an early Jewish Targum. For those who don't know, a Targum was basically like the commentary of the Rabbis that they gave to help the common people understand the Hebrew Scripture.
So Targums tend to be basically like a sort of commentary revealing what the common rabbinic and cultural thoughts were at the time the Targum was written. In a Targum on 1 Kings 4:33, we are told:
Solomon ruled over the wild beasts, over the birds of the heaven, and over the creeping beasts of the earth, as well as over the devils, the spirits of the night. (Targum Sheni to Esther)
The term here for "spirits of the night" is yes, the same term used in our Isaiah passage – the Lilith. We find even more in early Church history to show that it was somewhat common knowledge to associate Solomon with control and knowledge of demonic entities.
There are two books, written in the early centuries, that both related to Solomon and David with this connection. One is called the Selenodromion of David and Solomon, and is known as an esoteric writing that was popular in late antiquity in Jewish and Christian circles.
The book itself reads almost like a horoscope, as it contains information on each day of the month, things like significant biblical events that occurred, and whether the day is lucky or not, and a list of other horoscope-ish sounding information.
Another book in antiquity is The Hygromancy of Solomon – also known as the Epistle to Rehoboam, another such writing as above, seen in both Jewish and Christian circles. This book is another odd one, for aside from speaking on planets, zodiac signs and such things:
[T]he text presents a hierarchy of planetary gods, angels and demons and furnished a detailed account of the actions to be undertaken in every hour of each day of the week, depending on what planet…rules it. (Bauckham, Davila, Panayotov, Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: More Noncanonical Scriptures, Pg. 305)
Now, I do not mention either of these writings because of anything content wise that they hold, but simply to show that there was this idea of the handling of demons attached to Solomon in many eras. Even the historian Josephus comments on this view of Solomon by saying:
He [Solomon] also composed books of odes and songs a thousand and five, of parables and similitudes three thousand… God also enabled him to learn that skill which expels demons, which is a science useful and conducive to men. He composed such incantations also by which distempers are alleviated. And he left behind him the manner of using exorcisms, by which they drive away demons, so that they never return; and this method of cure is of great force unto this day; (Josephus, Antiquities 8.2.5)
He continues on to describe an instance he witnessed, and how the man used Solomon's method to draw out the demon. Now Josephus quotes part of 1 Kings here, where we are told:
He spoke three thousand proverbs, and his songs were one thousand and five. (1Ki 4:32 LEB)
So, we see Solomon was quite a musician himself, and like his father, wrote many songs, though obviously not all of them appear in the canon of Scripture. Now, this same verse in the Septuagint actually says he wrote five-thousand songs.
The difference in the numbers, some say, could be because at the time later in history when the Septuagint was translated, more songs were in known and in circulation than had been accumulated when the Hebrew edition was written.
The same thing is thought to be the case with the Psalms of David. While we have a good collection in our Bibles, it is not necessarily the case that we have all of the ones he wrote. Our Bible has one-hundred and fifty Psalms – but the Septuagint edition of the Old Testament has a hundred and fifty-one.
And among the Dead Sea Scrolls there are found many more. And the Septuagint was produced in the time when the Dead Sea community was around. One of these additional Psalms found among the Dead Sea Scroll material tells us this about David:
And David, the son of Jesse, was wise, and a light like the light of the sun, and literate, and discerning and perfect in all his ways before God and men. And the Lord gave him a discerning and enlightening spirit, and he wrote 3,600 psalms, and songs to sing before the altar over the whole burnt perpetual offering. And all the songs that he spoke were 446, and songs for making music over the possessed, 4. And the total was 4,050. All these he composed through prophecy which was given him before the Most High. (Dead Sea Scrolls, 11 Q5 column 27, 2-10)
So, we see it was commonly understood that David wrote way more than those we have in our canon. But note one key point – he had four songs for use over the "possessed." The word for possessed here is better understood as relating to being assaulted or accosted. And these noted songs were all given directly by God for their use in these matters.
Now we may not find that too odd, since we know Saul kept David around specifically for relief from his tortured spirit as we are told in 1 Samuel 16:
So whenever the evil spirit from God came to Saul, David would take the stringed instrument and play it with his hand. Then it would bring relief for Saul; he would feel better and the evil spirit would depart from him. (1Sa 16:23 LEB)
So we know David had it in him, but we do not find these four mentioned Psalms in our Bible. And then in jumping to a different column on the same Dead Sea scroll as that other Psalm, we find David saying:
Let not Satan rule over me
Nor an unclean spirit;
Neither let pain nor the evil inclination
Take possession of my bones
(Dead Sea Scrolls, 11 Q5 column 19 line 15)
Now, parts of these snippets are what we find in that one-hundred and fifty-first Psalm that the Septuagint contains. In Psalm 151 we have this idea of David asking to not allow Satan or an evil spirit to rule over him. The implication here is that David had psalms for use against such an issue and is able to deliver from such circumstances.
With all of that in mind, we turn to Psalm 91, which does appear in our Bibles, from the Masoretic text. There is also a version of this Psalm in the Dead Sea Scrolls from Qumran, and interestingly enough, this psalm is found on the same scroll – 11 Q – that we have been looking at already. And then there is the version of this Psalm that is in the Septuagint translation. We are told:
He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High will abide in the shadow of the Almighty. I will say to the LORD, "My refuge and my fortress, my God, in whom I trust." For he will deliver you from the snare of the fowler and from the deadly pestilence. He will cover you with his pinions, and under his wings you will find refuge; his faithfulness is a shield and buckler. You will not fear the terror of the night, nor the arrow that flies by day, nor the pestilence that stalks in darkness, nor the destruction that wastes at noonday. (Psa 91:1-6 ESV)
We first take a look at this line about not fearing the terror of the night. Sounds kind of harmless in our English Bible and we read right over it. But in Hebrew thinking, this is a demonic entity. The term used here is pa·ḥaḏ lā·yə·lāh, the key portion to pay attention to being the lā·yə·lāh.
Looking again at DDD, it has quite a bit to say about this term "terror of the night." One article summing it up gives these details:
There have been some attempts to relate lā·yə·lāh etymologically to lî·lîṯ, which is referenced in Isaiah 34:14. This is Lilith, which is a demonic figure in Jewish tradition. But the Akkadian lî·lî is actually a better choice. Akkadian lî·lî was a night demon. So lî·lî, lā·yə·lāh, it's different than lî·lîṯ. It's close but not quite the same.
But this term pa·ḥaḏ lā·yə·lāh, DDD suggests there might be some relationship here. They say this is a folk etymology. Functionally, however, the demon pa·ḥaḏ lā·yə·lāh reveals traits similar to those of the Mesopotamian entities of lilu and ardat lî·lî, especially as it's referenced in the Song of Solomon 3:8, which talks about the terror of the night.
In a nutshell, they are saying that the term used here for "terror of the night" is related closely to the Akkadian term that relates to a night time demon. In Mesopotamia, the terror of the night demon was an aggressive attacking demon. DDD continues:
Among the host of Mesopotamian demons, lilu and lilitu/ ardat lî·lî, most resemble the biblical pa·ḥaḏ lā·yə·lāh. These demons seem to have been attached particularly to pregnant women and new-borns whom they harmed. A similar role is ascribed in cuneiform sources to the demon Lamashtu. In later texts, they are conceived as harmful to brides and grooms, whom they attack on their wedding night and prevent the consummation of the marriage. As an attacker of brides and grooms, lilu or especially in Jewish tradition lilit, comes close to the incubus and succubus demons known from all over the world.
I do not want to go too much further off track, but simply hope to have given you a look at some of what lies behind the worldview thought patterns in antiquity on this topic. These terms throughout the people of neighboring times and areas all pointed to similar demonic activity. The author continues:
A cursory look at the context in which pa·ḥaḏ lā·yə·lāh occurs in Psalm 91 reveals its demonic identity. This Psalm abounds with names of other demons.
And so we look back at this Psalm:
You will not fear the terror of the night, nor the arrow that flies by day…
So, we have looked at the terror by night aspect, but what is this "arrow that flies by day" speaking of? It seems it is simply referring to not being afraid of an arrow shot in war, but is that the idea? Of course you know my answer is going to be NO.
We get a whole different view when we look at this verse in the Septuagint. The word behind "Arrow" there is δαιμονίου μεσημβρινοῦ which means midday demon.
So this verse tells us that you will not fear the terror of the night – the nighttime demons, nor the midday demons. Now, looking back at DDD, it says this:
The midday demon is found in the Septuagint version of Psalm 91:6, English Bible it's going to be verse 5. In these verses, the Hebrew psalmist declares the one who takes refuge in the Almighty will not fear - Masoretic Text: terror of the night - nor the arrow that flies by day and then it continues to the pestilence and the destruction.
The Septuagint translators confronted a different Hebrew text, then he references probably the same ones Priscilla and Aquila used. He gets into the Hebrew that they probably read. Destruction and demon of noon time, according to the Hebrew text they probably had, which the Septuagint renders as misfortune and the midday demon.
So, it is assumed that the translators of the Septuagint had a slightly different Hebrew text they worked from because it produced a much clearer idea of these terms being demonic entities. The verse ends up telling us that, if you are under the shelter of the Most High – the one who is really in charge of all of these spiritual entities, then you will not fear the night or day demons.
Now, there are some scholars who – using strictly the Masoretic text and not the Septuagint – say that the term "arrows by day" alone provides clues to demonic activity. They explain that in the Canaanite religion, the god resheph was a plague god and was known as an archer – one who shoots arrows, possibly even fiery arrows.
So it can be understood that in this verse it is still dealing with night and day demons without even looking to the Septuagint version.
Now, we return the last portion of our verses in Psalm 91, which states:
…nor the pestilence that stalks in darkness, nor the destruction that wastes at noonday. (v 6)
The Psalmist here is essentially repeating the pattern of the previous verse. We just saw how it spoke of terror of the night, the night time demon, and the arrows by day, the day time demon. Now, he basically reiterates the point, saying the pestilence that stalks the darkness – again with the night time, and the destruction of the noonday – the midday reference again.
One Septuagint English translation puts it as:
nor of the evil thing that walks in darkness; nor of calamity, and the evil spirit at noon-day. (Psa 91:6 Brenton)
So, what we have mentioned here is either just a parallel, discussing two demonic entities – or as some would argue it could be four separate entities. Either way is fine, but the emphasis is in seeing that these are references to Canaanite hostile divine figures.
The Hebrew word here rendered "pestilence" is deber, and while it is usually translated simply as pestilence, it is worth noting that deber is a deity name in the Ugaritic text, where he is the god of destruction.
Quick rabbit trail – for those who do not know what I mean when I mentioned the Ugaritic text. Ugaritic text comes from the ruined city of Ugarit, Syria, and is a Northwest Semitic language that would have been commonly known and influential to their neighbors, the Hebrew people of our Old Testament Scriptures.
Since it was discovered in 1929, the language has been used by scholars as a great source for understanding and clarifying the Hebrew Bible and ancient Israelite culture. So, when I refer to things Ugaritic, it is commonly understood to be culturally relevant to the ancient Hebrew people and helpful in understanding some of their terms, beliefs and context of their time.
Now, the word behind the term "destruction" in this verse, is qeteb. The Jewish Encyclopedia says this about these two words:
Deber ("pestilence"), originally the death-dealing sting of the midsummer sun-god Nergal, and Keṭeb ("smiter"), the deadly hot wind (Deut. 32:24; Isa. 28:2), are demons, the one walking in darkness, the other storming along in midday, against which God's protection is invoked in the incantatory psalm… (Jewish Encyclopedia: Demonology)
In this reference, it mentions Deut. 32:24, where we actually find our arrow wielding resheph working in conjunction with our destructive qeteb:
They shall be burnt with hunger, and devoured with burning heat (resheph = firebolt), and with bitter destruction (qeteb)… (Deu 32:24 KJV)
We also at times find this pestilence deber deity mentioned in tandem with resheph, the arrow demon. We see this in Habakkuk 3.
O LORD, I have heard the report of you, and your work, O LORD, do I fear. In the midst of the years revive it; in the midst of the years make it known; in wrath remember mercy. God came from Teman, and the Holy One from Mount Paran. Selah. His splendor covered the heavens, and the earth was full of his praise. His brightness was like the light; rays flashed from his hand; and there he veiled his power. Before him went pestilence (deber), and plague (resheph) followed at his heels. (Hab 3:2-5 ESV)
So here we have both entities mentioned, and this time they are tools of Yahweh, beings within His service. This is consistent with traditional Hebrew understanding of these beings under Yahweh's control, as the Jewish Encyclopedia plainly states:
In II Sam. 24:16 and II Chron. 21:15 the pestilence-dealing demon is called = "the destroying angel," because, although they are demons, these "evil messengers" do only the bidding of God, their Master; they are the agents of His divine wrath. (Jewish Encyclopedia: Demonology)
And in the same section of the encyclopedia as the reference to deber mentioned a moment ago, they mention our verse in Habakkuk, and these two demons:
It is the Lord who sends pestilence and death (Ex. 9:3, 12:29); Deber and Reshef ("the fiery bolt") are His heralds (Hab. 3:5).
Before returning to our look at Psalm 91, just a quick note on yet another demonic figure found in Scripture that we easily pass over - the leech, found in Prov. 30:15. This is the one Dave mentioned in his message a couple weeks ago:
The leech has two daughters: Give and Give. Three things are never satisfied; four never say, "Enough": (Pro 30:15 ESV)
I quickly bring this up simply to further solidify part of the title of my lecture. The Hebrew word behind this term is leech is alukah, of which the Jewish Encyclopedia states:
("horseleech"), the bloodsucker or vampire, whose two daughters cry "Give! Give!" is none other than the flesh-devouring ghoul of the Arabs, called by them "'aluḳ." She has been rendered in Jewish mythology the demon of the nether world, and the names of her two daughters have in all probability, as familiar names of dreaded diseases, been dropped. (Jewish Encyclopedia: Demonology)
Now, let us return to Psalm 91, here is a rundown on what we have seen:
You will not fear the terror of the night (night demon), nor the arrow that flies by day (day demon), nor the pestilence (demon) that stalks in darkness, nor the destruction (demon) that wastes at noonday. A thousand may fall at your side, ten thousand at your right hand, but it will not come near you. (Psa 91:5-7 ESV)
How often have we read about the thousand on one side and thousand on the other, and never thought much of it? Again, we look quickly to what the Jewish Encyclopedia informs us about this statement, as it is contained in a section discussing the various types of demons, stating that:
They surround man on all sides as the earth does the roots of the vine; "a thousand are on his left, and ten thousand on his right side" (Ps. 91:7); if a man could see them he would lack the strength to face them.
Yes, if a man could see them, he would lack the strength to face them, but as our Psalm 91 promises, he will not see them, for verses 8-10 tell us:
You will only look with your eyes and see the recompense of the wicked. Because you have made the LORD your dwelling place-- the Most High, who is my refuge—no evil shall be allowed to befall you, no plague come near your tent. (Psa 91:8-10 ESV)
So, that was the promise to those people of Yahweh before Yeshua came on the scene. So let us tie some of this in with what Christ came and did in regard to these entities. First, I want to bring back into view our demon buddy qeteb – or destruction as he is called.
In the Ugaritic language this would be pronounced qezeb and only occurs once, and is known as a buddy or relation with another entity known as Mot – and he was the Ugaritic god of death. To the ancient Hebrew mind, these are the deities that their Lord Yahweh reigned as the Most High over, so it was not uncommon for them to address these other powers in Scripture as we have seen.
In Hosea 13, we find this very issue come up – that Yahweh is the one Lord to be worshiped, even though the people continue to serve these other gods. We find him stating:
But I am the LORD your God from the land of Egypt; you know no God but me, and besides me there is no savior. It was I who knew you in the wilderness, in the land of drought; but when they had grazed, they became full, they were filled, and their heart was lifted up; therefore they forgot me. (Hos 13:4-6 ESV)
This was common in Israel's history, as we find them constantly straying from the Lord. The chapter goes on telling how they did more and more to anger Yahweh. They asked for kings and princes, ignoring God's rule, and He was going to come against them and destroy them.
Now, keeping these demon names in mind, and their appearance and use by Yahweh for divine judgment, we get to verse 14, a verse that should sound familiar to most all of you, where Yahweh exclaims:
Shall I ransom them from the power of Sheol? Shall I redeem them from Death [Mot]? O Death [Mot], where are your plagues [deber]? O Sheol, where is your sting [qeteb]? Compassion is hidden from my eyes. (Hos 13:14 ESV)
Should Yahweh rescue this rebellious people from these things? Should he protect them from the power of the underworld, the god of death or from the demons of pestilence and destruction?
Of course, we know ultimately that Yahweh does take action to deal with this situation as well as these entities. For in Corinthians Paul tells us that the power of Christ's resurrection deals with this situation:
When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: "Death is swallowed up in victory." "O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?" (1Co 15:54-55 ESV)
Through the resurrection of the Messiah, and the resurrection of those under that old covenant, these things are defeated. He has conquered the plagues and destruction that cause men to be sent to the underworld, into the realm of the dead. No longer do these powers have any power over the redeemed people of Yahweh. As scholar Michael Heiser puts in in commenting on this verse:
[1 Cor. 15:55 is] a reference to the power of the God of Israel over these forces, these entities, these things, and ultimately, even the power of death. Well that's important because all of those things, the resurrection, is tied to the Messiah. This was the plan of salvation. (Michael Heiser, Naked Bible Podcast #87)
Now in closing, let me bring back to memory what we discussed earlier. Solomon is the son of David – and that he was understood throughout much of Hebrew and early church history as being one in a special place that dealt with issues of a demonic nature.
And then, on to the scene comes the Yeshua, and He too displays special direct authority over things of a demonic nature. And what is a common reference used about Yeshua? He is also referred to as "the son of David." It kind of adds a possible new dimension to such verses as:
And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and was crying, "Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely oppressed by a demon." (Matt. 15:22 ESV)
Then a demon-oppressed man who was blind and mute was brought to him, and he healed him, so that the man spoke and saw. And all the people were amazed, and said, "Can this be the Son of David?" (Matt. 12:22-23 ESV)
It seems at times that this term meant more to the people than just recognizing that he was a descendent of David, but time doesn't allow to open that study at this time.
I end with these three points as closing comments.
First - Hidden within our English translations is a world of spiritual entities that we easily read right over if we are ignorant of their cultural worldview. Because of that, it is not uncommon to hear people say there is no mention of demons in the OT like they are in the NT.
Secondly - Within the Bibles we carry and read, is a world of gods and demons that is often completely clouded from understanding due to an ignorance of this Hebrew and Ancient Near Eastern worldview and culture.
Thirdly - Throughout the historical Hebrew and early Christian culture was a belief in the unseen realm that has been crippled, if not utterly destroyed, by an overly scientific anti-supernatural worldview in the modern world.
Lastly - An often-misapplied idea of Sola Scriptura keeps the church in a truncated world of understanding, refusing to read and understand cultural studies outside of what they glean from the 66 canonical books, and because of this, they miss the demons, vampires and Solomon, the lord of the ring, that our spiritual forefathers believed in.