OT Texts Regarding Satan's Origin

There are a couple of OT passages that are commonly used to explain Satan's origin.

From Ezekiel 28:
"11 Moreover the word of the Lord came to me, saying, 12 “Son of man, take up a lamentation for the king of Tyre, and say to him, ‘Thus says the Lord God:

“You were the seal of perfection,
Full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
13 You were in Eden, the garden of God;
Every precious stone was your covering:
The sardius, topaz, and diamond,
Beryl, onyx, and jasper,
Sapphire, turquoise, and emerald with gold.
The workmanship of your timbrels and pipes
Was prepared for you on the day you were created.

14 “You were the anointed cherub who covers;
I established you;
You were on the holy mountain of God;
You walked back and forth in the midst of fiery stones.
15 You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created,
Till iniquity was found in you.

16 “By the abundance of your trading
You became filled with violence within,
And you sinned;

Therefore I cast you as a profane thing
Out of the mountain of God;
And I destroyed you, O covering cherub,
From the midst of the fiery stones.

17 “Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty;
You corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor;
I cast you to the ground,
I laid you before kings,
That they might gaze at you.

18 “You defiled your sanctuaries
By the multitude of your iniquities,
By the iniquity of your trading;
Therefore I brought fire from your midst;
It devoured you,
And I turned you to ashes upon the earth
In the sight of all who saw you.
19 All who knew you among the peoples are astonished at you;
You have become a horror,
And shall be no more forever.”’”

From Isaiah 14:

12 “How you are fallen from heaven,
O Lucifer,[b] son of the morning!
How you are cut down to the ground,
You who weakened the nations!
13 For you have said in your heart:
‘I will ascend into heaven,
I will exalt my throne above the stars of God;
I will also sit on the mount of the congregation
On the farthest sides of the north;
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds,
I will be like the Most High.’
15 Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol,
To the lowest depths of the Pit.

16 “Those who see you will gaze at you,
And consider you, saying:
‘Is this the man who made the earth tremble,
Who shook kingdoms,
17 Who made the world as a wilderness
And destroyed its cities,
Who did not open the house of his prisoners?’

In the Ezekiel passage, the specific language indicates a judgment on the "king of Tyre" and in the Isaiah passage the king of Babylon is specifically in view. Both texts are surrounded by various pronouncements of judgments against different literal kingdoms.

Does anyone know how these scriptures came to be understood to be talking about Satan's origin? I am not sure that simply reading the texts without presuppositions gives that impression. Remember "Lucifer" simply means "morning star" or "shining one."

Everest wrote:

"Like all Hebrew prophecy it contained a double meaning. It was literally against Tyre (the peshat midrash) and also about Satan (the pesher midrash), as we see elements in the prophecy that could not have been about a physical mortal."

But how do we know the double meaning was about Satan? There is a lot of apocalyptic language in the prophetic writings that can't be taken literally-- e.g. they are hyperbole. For example, in Isaiah's pronouncement against Edom in Is. 34, it says:

"Its streams shall be turned into pitch,
And its dust into brimstone;
Its land shall become burning pitch.
It shall not be quenched night or day;
Its smoke shall ascend forever."

I don't believe smoke is still ascending in that part of the world.

So I am just trying to determine how we are CERTAIN that the passages in the OP refer to Satan, and are not just hyperbolic images of judgment, or rather hyperbolic images of why judgment was necessary (i.e the pride of the kings in question). Just like there is very disturbing imagery in Ezek. 23 that cannot be taken literally.

These are important insights by Jesus that help to explain your scriptures.

We know Satan fell from heaven.

Luk_10:18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

2Co 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

These two verses pull together that Satan was the Serpent and is the Devil.

Rev_12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Rev_20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

Pilgrim

Here is a summary of the available biblical data on this topic:

1. Jesus and John inform us that Satan was evil "from the beginning" (John 8:44/1 John 3:8)

2. Proverbs states that God made everything for Himself...even the wicked for the day of doom (16:4)

3. These verses may or may not be addressing the origin of Satan, but if they are, they suggest that God may have created Satan as a divinely-appointed "tester" (the literal meaning of "tempter"), to test His people's loyalty (as He tested Israel with false prophets--Deut.13:1-4).

4. That God has tolerated the presence of Satan until now demonstrates at least one irrefutable fact: God has use for him, or else He would have tossed him into the lake of fire before now. If God has use for a devil, would He not be entitled to create one for His purpose?

5. Though scripture affirms that some angels have fallen (2 Pet.2:4/Jude 6), no scripture anywhere ever states that Satan is or was himself an angel.

6. In the poetic language of Ezekiel (which never mentions Satan), the king of Tyre is said to have been a cherub in the garden of Eden (28:13-14). But later, in the poetic language of the same prophet, the Assyrian is said to have been a tree in the garden of Eden (31:3, 9)! Why should one passage be taken more literally than the other?

7. A few verses earlier than the disputed Ezekiel passage (v.2), the ruler of Tyre is specifically said to be a "man" (not an angel). The statements that the king of Tyre is "full of wisdom," "perfect in beauty" and "perfect in all thy ways" are clear hyperboles, which were used earlier in the book about the city of Tyre itself (27:3, 28:3). This "king of Tyre" was corrupted by "trading" or "merchandise" (v.16), a distinctive of the city of Tyre, but hardly fitting any scenario of the activities of an un-fallen angel in heaven.

8. Likewise, "Lucifer" (Isaiah 14:12) is clearly identified as the "king of Babylon" (Isa.14:4) and as a "man" (v.16). The lofty aspirations of "Lucifer" are exactly those of the builders of the Tower of Babel (the origins of Babylon). Lucifer is nowhere identified with Satan in the Bible.

9. The fact that Satan was seen by Christ falling "like lightning from heaven" (Luke 10:18) does not tell us anything about Satan's origin. Jesus did not state a time frame for what He saw, and might have been seeing prophetically the downfall of Satan which He later describes in John 12:31, and which John describes in Revelation 12:9---both of which seemingly were fulfilled at the cross (cf. Col.2:15/Heb.2:14).

10. None can doubt the devil's ability to "be transformed into an angel of light" (2 Cor.11:14), but this does not tell us any more about his actual nature than we can learn about the true character of his ministers from the fact that they "are transformed into ministers of righteousness" (v.15

interesting thread.

Satan was known as Lucifer.

No one knows the mystery of "Theodicy", which is the origin of evil, whom Christians know as Satan.

God obviously gave Lucifer freedom of choice, but how he exercised it is a mystery. Adam and Eve needed a "Tempter", and they decided to hearken to Satan's voice.

But, whose voice did Lucifer hearken to? Who tempted him?

Who did he derive his evil nature from? Adam and Eve had a model of evil in which to derive their lawlessness (disobedience) from.

This is the mystery of Theodicy and no one has ever been able to answer it to my knowledge.

It is enough to know that Satan exists and is God's adversary and thus our adversary. The Bible teaches much about who he is and how he operates, just not how he became. We know it was through pride, but again, since Lucifer was not totally self-independent and self-existent, how did he come by this pride? Where did he get the idea? We know where Adam and Eve got their idea to rebel, but what about Lucifer?

Food for thought?

Pilgrim

Pilgrim wrote: "Food for thought?" Very much so, and here is some more:

---Since sin presupposes temptation, who tempted a holy angel to sin? (If Satan was an angel)
---If an angel could sin without a devil to tempt him, may we not sin without a devil to tempt us?
---If a holy angel was tempted to sin by surrounding evil, is heaven a holy place?
---If an angel was tempted by his own evil passions, could he have been holy?

Everest wrote:
"Again, if you understand midrash, all the verses you quoted and everything you've questioned here will make perfect sense, as you'll be much more adept and knowledgeable about Jewish metaphor, prophecy, and pattern.

The topic is extensive,"

In "The Pursuit of God," AW Tozer talked about reading scripture as "an intelligent plain man" and commended this approach. He said the intelligent plain man "approaches the Bible without any previous knowledge of what it contains. He is wholly without prejudice; he has nothing to prove and nothing to defend."

Frankly, at this point in my life this is the only way I want to approach scripture. I have heard enough of everyone else's theories. If I have to know "midresh" or whatever to understand the scriptures, then I am hurtin' for certain. Of course, I don't believe a person has to know midresh to understand the scriptures.

The philosophical issue is that a benevolent God would want to prevent or overcome as much evil and suffering as possible. An all-powerful God would be able to overcome evil and suffering. But since there is a lot of evil and suffering in the world, it would appear that either God cannot or will not prevent it or overcome it. If God cannot, that impugns omnipotence. If God will not, that impugns divine love.

This is usually what non-Christians say and they don't think it is a proper answer when Christians just say, "His ways are higher than our ways."

I have been in discussions where Christians are derided because they seem to know so much about God, the meaning of life, sin, grace, salvation, the nature of the Trinity, the divine and human natures of Jesus, and so on. But when it comes to theodicy, they suddenly get ignorant.

Maybe evil is not a problem to be solved but a challenge to be met. We know Jesus Christ has solved the issue of sin and now the the issue of suffering is to be endured, conquered, and otherwise dealt with in ways that deepen trust in the God of grace who has a purpose in all things. Although, I do believe in Divine healing, it seems very few people get healed.

Then, there is the Calvinistic notion that God created and then condemned to eternal damnation a good portion of the human race.

So, this is a very big subject for sure, but underpinning a Christian who is filled with the Spirit of God should be two things:

God is love
All things work together for good, for those that love God.

Pilgrim

Hi Everest--

I didnt mean to come across like I see no value in knowing "midrash" etc because I am sure it IS valuable. I have no idea what it is, but I am sure it was valuable and if I could snap my fingers and know all about it I would do so.

But honestly I don't think I have the time or patience to begin a study of that now. That probably sounds bad but it's the truth.

Perhaps you can succinctly explain for me how using midrash would result in the conclusion that the Isaiah passage and the Ezekiel passage in the OP are talking about Satan. I mean, assuming the passages DO have the dual meaning you describe, how do we know the "hidden" meaning is about Satan, and not something or someone else?

Hi Pilgrim--

I certainly agree with your last post!

Satan as a serpent?

Why was the word in the Hebrew ever translated "serpent"? It has given rise to a very false idea about the facts of Genesis 3: 1-5 - that there was in the Garden of Eden a talking snake.

I have no doubt in my mind that if God chose to make a snake talk, He could. I accept fully the other account in the Bible of a talking animal, when God opened the mouth of Balaam's ass and spoke to the prophet through the donkey. I have no problem with this. Even man can teach animals to talk, and surely God can do so.

But the interesting thing is that this account in
Gen. 3: 1-5 does not really say that there was a snake in the Garden of Eden. The Hebrew word here is a verb form of "nachash", which means literally "to shine", or in the noun form here, "a shining one." If you read it that way, an entirely different being emerges,

"Now the shining one was more subtle than any other wild creature that the Lord God had made..." (Gen. 3: 1).

So, how did we get a "serpent" from a "shining one"?

Love-in-Christ

KP

Amen!

Are we forgetting the power of the Holy Spirit in revealing God's Word to his people?

Only a god of the Pharisees would want his word to be a secret or inside joke in which only a few and proud get the punchline.

"I mean, that's fine, man. I'm not saying you need midrash to understand the basic truths about the Bible, but if your question is to understand why certain things in Jewish prophecy are interpreted the ways that they are, you're going to need to understand the way Jews read and interpreted prophecy themselves (midrash)."

"the basic truths about the Bible" is Christ, Him Crucified and Resurrected. I can see Christ making incarnate cameo appearances all through the OT. Though the OT and NT are all the more enriching as they are embedded into the cultural identity and values of a particular nation.

The Jewish nation is a macrocosmic example of what goes on in the spiritual life of every individual who comes to Christ. They are a truly blessed people, the very wife of God as the church is the bride of Christ. And both Jew and Gentile have the appropriate revelation which God allots thru His Word.

Love-in-Christ,

KP

But why choose "snake" over "shining one"?

Wouldn't the second meaning adequately capture satan's deceptive guise as an "angel of light"?

And the "shining" feature of the tempter would more likely attract the desire of woman than the features of a serpent.

This is a big deal to me because Satan is a tempter and it would be helpful to know the form and matter in which the tempter presents itself.

Maybe there was something about the "shining" feature of this tempter which contributed to its potency in deception.

KP

Thank you for the above references.

Sure!

Give me a second...

KP

Кощей קושצ'אי * נָחַשׁ ‎ (nâchash) * नाग (nāgá)

Hebrew Nachash (נָחַשׁ ‎ nâchash) IS A COMBINATION OF TWO WORDS – NA-GA & NA-CHASH - THE FIRST PART OF THE WORD NAGA - NA and THE SECOND PART OF THE WORD NACHASH - CHASH. The neuro-lingual container of word nâchash is CHSH or SHCH. Together it will fuse or morph two neuro-lingual containers together “NA” and “CHASH” as NA-CHASH. Both words NAGA (नाग) and NACHASH (נָחַשׁ) are describing absolutely completely the same SEED or ANCESTRAL BLOODLINE AND THE ORIGIN OF THE FIRST CROSSBREEDS – CALLED HEBREWS, except the neuro-lingual container of NAGAS as it is in Sanskrit (NAGI) is older approximately 110,000 years than NACHASH (נָחַשׁ).
The origin of word nâchash is Old Slavic – H’Aryan. The original word and neuro-lingual container was COSCHEI (Кощей קושצ'אי) with neuro-lingual root CHSH or SHCH. After transliteration in/into Hebrew it became the word NHSH (נָחַשׁ) with the same neuro-lingual container as in Old Slavic and before that in H'Aryan. Word COSCHEI in Old Slavic is almost (with slight diviation) means exactly the same as neuro-lingual container of Sanskrit NAGI. Simply put two words abbreviate the entity whis is Saurian in nature. As in Hebrew Torah the same entities are called NHSH (נָחַשׁ ‎ nâchash) or Shining Ones, including Shining One in Torah behing the Tetragrammaton called YHWH (Jehovah).

Citation: http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/nachashnotes.pdf

Love-in-Christ,

KP

Yes, and I can see the references to Satan as a "dragon" can correlate with mythical reptilian derivatives.

YET, This is an issue with me for the following reasons:

(1) This is the very first appearance of Satan and encounter with man and woman - Hence, his identity in form and matter in this particular instance is especially important. It has to reflect an eternal Form which comprehensively captures the full nature of the tempter - "Shining" is an essential almost indispensible feature of a Tempter's premiere and nature.

(2) His identity as a shining one contextually matches the circumstances involved in the deception. The temptation was visually stimulating in its initial manifestation:

"And when the woman saw that the tree [was] good for food, and that it [was] pleasant to the eyes," (Gen. 3: 6)

(3) Consider the result of mankind's Fall...the birth of sin and death via the vehicle of "self-consciousness" -

(Please stay with me, here, I'm about to get a little allegorical)

(4) Self-consciousness was the matter of the Form of sin and death which ensued:

"And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they [were] naked;"

Self-realization. Eyes opened. Self-Image. Consciousness of a "self". They saw themselves for the first time. What's the easiest most immediate way to see oneself? Through a mirror. The "shining one" was this mirror into the human soul without God. "Look at me, I'm naked!" The immediate effect is shame and guilt.

Bad Move. Why? Because at this very moment of self-perception, man stops seeing the world as only God sees it and starts to have a competing perceptual experience of the world. His own. Afterall, what is knowledge of Good? Simply, knowledge of God alone. The world as only He sees it. Things as they REALLY are. Truth. Christ.

What is knowledge of Evil? Knowledge of things other than God. Primarily the "self". God did not make us to be primarily "self-conscious" but rather "other aware" - the latter of which is the essential element of true sacrifice. Sacrifice is a necessary element in man's
salvation. Self-consciousness impedes sacrifice. This is why we must "die to self" as exemplified by Christ's Death on the Cross before we can experience the Glory of Christ's Resurrection.

Self-consciousness is evil. Why? Truth is no longer rooted solely upon the consciousness of God alone, but instead God's perfect and good reality becomes subject (instead of object) to a 4-billion headed relativistic monster constantly distorting truth into the form of man's image and imagination:

"The Lord saw that the wickedness of humankind was great in the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually" (Gen. 6: 5).

Why? Because they were rooted in "self-consciousness" not God's. Just read up on moral relativism.

Christ redeems us by turning our eyes from self to "Him". This is why Christ should replace our indwelling consciousness as illustrated by the new covenant truth expounded upon via Paul's letters: "Christ in me, me in Thee". Christ's self is the sufficient indwelling consciousness I need to replace my own.

Hence, the tempter first presented himself as a "shining one" essentially because he was a mirror. Mirrors reflect and shine. The mirror that this shining one reflected revealed the self to Adam and Eve for the first time and they've never looked back since.

What do you think?

I know...I know...EVERYbody's got a theory.

Love-in-Christ

KP

Yes, thank you for reminding me of this.

It is just fascinating to get a glimpse into the eternal pattern of things, in that it's all about Christ and not us.

KP

Yes, Jesus-Is-GOD!

I will continue to accept the "serpent" translation / interpretation.

Yet, where "nachash" is used in Exodus in the turning the rod/staff to a snake especially in the battle with Pharaoh's gods, another translation of the word "nachash" includes words that connote "one who practices divination" which matches the context of Exodus 7: 10-13...

Exodus 7: 11:

"Pharaoh then summoned wise men and sorcerers, and the Egyptian magicians also did the same things by their secret arts:"

...whereby Pharoah's "serpents" represent this particular translation of the "nachash"

NASB Exhaustive Concordance:

results of divination (1), divined (1), enchantments (1), indeed practice divination (1), indeed uses (1), interprets omens (1), practice divination (1), took as an omen (1), used divination (2).

Hence, I find that all of these translations of the Hebrew "nachash" have equal contextual and lexical relation to the identity of the Tempter as revealed in both the OT and NT.

Thanks to your insight, however, I will continue to interpret the "nachash" of old as a "serpent" as well as all other related translations.

And Vice Versa, yeah?

More insight into the Serpent.

Job 26:13 By his spirit he hath garnished the heavens; his hand hath formed the crooked serpent.

Isa 27:1 In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea (sea can be a metaphor for world or peoples in the world, great multitude).

The phrase ‘crooked or piercing serpent’ comes from the Hebrew 'nachash beriyach.’ ‘beriyach’ literally means bars which a fugitive flees from. This is the word used for the bars in the Tabernacle (Exodus 26:26-29).

Psalm 107:16 speaks of GOD delivering man from these bars.

Psalm 107 has amazing imagery of GOD delivering mankind from the hand of the enemy….

Psa 107:1 O give thanks unto the LORD, for he is good: for his mercy endureth for ever.
Psa 107:2 Let the redeemed of the LORD say so, whom he hath redeemed from the hand of the enemy;

{Satan is the enemy of mankind, in Hebrew Satan’ literally means enemy or the one who opposes}

Psa 107:3 And gathered them out of the lands, from the east, and from the west, from the north, and from the south.
Psa 107:4 They wandered in the wilderness in a solitary way; they found no city to dwell in. {The wilderness is where serpents dwell Deuteronomy 8:15; Job 30:29; Psalm 44:19; Malachi 1:3}

Psa 107:5 Hungry and thirsty, their soul fainted in them. {This is where Satan tempts - Matthew 4:2-4}

Pilgrim

Thank you for keeping me on the right path about this translation stuff.

Yes. I accept the "serpent" interpretation.

Thank You.

Love-in-Christ,

KP

Wow!

Thank you for the expansion of the "nacash" and "nachash tanniym" translations.

I contribute nothing except enthusiastic curiosity and fascination with God's Word. It is a sustaining delight.
I'm afraid that I have spoiled myself with His Word because the only time my brain lights up is when its touched by His Word.

It used to light up with philosophy but it has become the handmaiden to God's wisdom.

I live in the USA.

Perhaps the nachash showed Eve a mirror (which like, him, shines). Eve looked in this mirror, saw herself for the first time, and was captivated by her own image as it appeared in God’s image.

This image (which we still worship to this day and which Christ warned us about at the end of the Bible) was there from the very inception of sin. Self-Image and God's Image all in one creature. What a combination.

The response was not only shame and guilt, but pride. Pride which preceded the Fall of the nachash also preceded that of mankind. If the tempter wanted man to Fall, wouldn't he uses the same devices which ensured his own undoing?

Self-consciousness is a necessary condition for breeding pride, which "cometh before The Fall".

Pride which arose from Eve seeing her own reflection for the first time in God's image, yet taking credit for it.

This developed into an immediate self-preoccupation. Look a bit closer and they see themselves in the image of their "disobedience to God" - cover is blown, nakedness results. Shame and guilt arise.

What a horrific experience it is to see the world through one's own eyes. Self-focus upsets the subject/object barrier and balance of man's identity. yeah?

And most APA psych journals trace the origin of mental illness epidemics such as "Depression" and "Manic Depression" with narcissism.

Anxiety, even, can be traced to the absence of humility.

I used to be an objectivist in high school. Thank the Lord for His deliverance from that. My AP Biology and English teachers introduced me to Ayn Rand novels and almost damned my soul.

Yet, I remember what is what like to consider selfishness a virtue. It is a scary and dangerous place for the soul to tread. Selfishness is more vicious than any other vice.
It perpetuates all other evils. It is the very nucleus of malice.

This comment reminds me of the fact that the closer a lie is to the truth, the more deceptive it is. This pattern was set in the Fall.

Self-consciousness is soooo hard to criticize in this world, whereby, as you say, we are constantly "looking out for number 1".

Darwin was on to something with his first law of nature being that of "self-preservation".

Yeah. When I first studied the Gospel of Mark and God revealed the preciousness of the servant life through the actions of Christ, the Lord shifted my heart's motivation from self-interest to serving others.

Yet, when a new desire is born in one's spirit through Christ, an old one dies and it can be very painful. Now, I am only energized, motivated and happy when I'm not conscious of myself and acting in the interest of others.

The focus inevitably shifts back to the corpse of the self-interest and I fall into a pit of despair, almost automatically. When I am depressed or unhappy, without peace, I know it is because I am focusing on my self rather than Him. The focus must remain on Him, not necessarily others, because "otherness" can also be a manifestation of selfishness.

Otherness can entrap you into the "Romeo and Juliet" syndrome. My focus has to be on serving Him and then the Lord directs me from there. It is not even up to me as to whom I shall serve, where should I voulnteer, which person or group should devote or commit to. I devote to Christ first and then He directs my interests from there.

This type of life is almost impossible to explain to people, so I don't bother. But I am so glad that I could share this with someone who knows what it means to truly care for others. It can only be done through abiding in Christ...and His Word abiding in you.

I lived most of my life as a self-worshipping knit-wit. Even to the point of "objectivism" (wow, what a miracle to be delivered from that level of deep self-deception). I really thought it was ALLLL About Me! Oh God, what a slippery slope to oblivion!

I understand why prosperity is more dangerous to a man's soul than poverty. Poverty keeps us in a blessed state where we are constantly looking to God for our material provision. A Blessed state, indeed. I used to look to the wealthy as a source of wisdom, but no more! Wisdom is more likely to be found in the hearts of the poor.

I love your salutation from Galatians! That's what it's all about.

Love-in-Christ,

KP

There's this Professor doing studies in "Positive Psychology" on forgiveness, mercy and humility. His name is E. Worthington and I found him giving a Chapel service on the Dallas Theological Seminary website (my dream school!).

His brother commited suicide and left his suicide note addressed to him. He was the last person he spoke to before he took his life and Prof. Worthington (unwittingly) suggested that his (own) brother see a therapist. Worthington was a successful psychology professor at the time but most importantly "Am I (not) my brother's keeper?"

Uh, the guilt Prof. Worthington endured was resurrected into an academic career in developing Positive Psychology which included field studies and all. I would love to be his research assistant/servant. He works from the premise that most mental illnesses can be traced to unresolved guilt (a manifestation of the Fall).

I agree with him. He developed an APA approved group therapeutic model on forgiveness and has successfully applied it to "Victim's assistance" and "Forgiveness" projects which attempt to reconcile the victim with the aggressor in incremental face-to-face encounters.

See, Jesus-Is-God, there is still good working in this world. Just not as hard as darkness, which puts in overtime. I would love to work in contribution to Positive Psychology.

In particular, Worhtington is trying to secure a place in psychology for Christian psychotherapy as he believes that if not for his faith, he would not have been delivered from the guilt of his brother's suicide.

He used his own experience to deduce that many other individuals struggling with varying degrees of mental illness could possibly benefit from a psychology which incorporates their faith. He is a supporter of Christian psychotherapy and his academic work focuses on the elaboration of this branch of "Positive psychology".

I want to be a positive psychologist, Jesus-Is-God!

Psychotherapy originated in the Levitican priesthood. Isn't the role of a Levite priest identical to that of a psychotherapist? Did not the priest work to reconcile and restore a man's relationship with God via the system of sacrifices which God deemed appropriate at the time.

Peter reminds us of as our essential usefulness to God via faith through grace with our eternal role as priest-king. I'm not so much interested in the "king" part, but the priesthood is God's model for what the world refers to as "psychotherapy".

Melchizedek had such a profound impact of Abraham's psychological state, that he was able to refuse the offerings of the King of Sodom after his battle with the Kings of Cherdolamer (sp).

I would love it if the Lord called me to the field of psychotherapy! Boy! Would that be an opportunity to operate in discipleship or what?

The work of the priesthood is the penultimate experience of a disciple of Christ. The call to heal others by faith through grace AND glorify God at the same time! What a true labor of true love!

(Sigh...)

I don't catch rides on bandwagons but I would love to study more closely the field of christian psychotherapy.

I know that I must sound foolish, but it's worth the risk when sharing what is truly on my heart.

Love-in-Christ,

KP

Glasser! Yep, I've come across Glasser in my curiosities!

And I've heard of "Reality Therapy"!!!

I have a question for your advising, Jesus-Is-God:

If it is the Lord's will for me to pursue this profession of Christian psychotherapy research and practice, do you think that anchoring it into Glasser's research would help to promote or add credibility to this branch of psychology?

My mother worked in a state mental hospital for 22 years and it so saddens me when she reports that the same individuals who were receiving inpatient treatment when she first started were there when she retired recently.

Reality therapy would be a promising combo with Christian psychology, as God is a realist.

Remember, before the Fall, man saw objects and the world "as they REALLY are" without the distrotion of self-perception.

Just imagine, Jesus-Is-God, before the Fall, man's perception was so rooted in truth that God entrusted Adam with "naming" and labeling His creation.

God allowed man to participate in the development of reality!!! After self-consciousness replaced God's perception, man was immersed into a metaphysical nightmare!

There must be something that is deceptive unto death about man's own perception. Man's perception and conception about things as they really are is wrong. Wrong because truth cannot be filtered through self-perception without distorting it.

Ugh! It reminds of how stupid I can be when I was first fascinated with George Berkeley's philosophy through which, he coined the phrase "to Be is to be perceived" (esse est percipi)...as the starting point of any epistemology. Perceived by what or Whom?

This is reality if the "perceiver" is the Lord alone. Reality is all that matters to God. Thank God, we matter to Him. Thank God.

Reality is what metaphysicists have grappled with age after age. An effective reality therapy has to first acknowledge and identify the nature of the "qualified perceiver" - God alone (in the triune Godhead).

Man as a "perceiver" becomes a "deceiver", yeah?

Thanks for listening and responding,

Love-in-Christ

KP