The Devil You Know… or Don’t

The following was adapted from a now-several-years-old answer elsewhere on the web to a user asking about the truth of the claim that Dante, rather than the Bible, is the origin of much of modern beliefs about Satan.

Introduction & Disclaimers

While I’ve never read either Dante or Milton (and therefore can’t speak to that aspect) and can’t speak to what “many Christians believe” beyond saying that that does match my personal experience, I can shed some light on what the (Protestant) Bible says regarding Satan. And while those who know more are welcome to chime in, I doubt that on this issue Catholic/Orthodox/Jewish scriptures have much different content, except perhaps in Satan’s “origin story” and fall from Heaven.

I will be using the English Standard Version here for reasons of familiarity. Other translations may be more accurate or better suited to addressing this subject.

Overview

It might be surprising to the Biblical newcomer to learn that Satan just doesn’t show up in the Bible very much at all, but let’s go through the most salient verses about him.

First, note that the Old Testament mentions Satan, but never mentions “devil” or “devils”, though there are a few mentions of “demons” in Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Psalms. But all three mentions of demons seem to treat “demon” as meaning “idol” or “false god” – they’re all mentioned in the context of condemning those who sacrifice to them. Note that Leviticus does say “goat demons”, which might have something to do with the modern image of the devil, which otherwise is very lacking in biblical basis (the Bible all but completely lacks physical descriptions of Satan / the Devil).

The Serpent

Most people are familiar with the serpent in the Garden of Eden who convinces Eve to break God’s rule and eat from the tree of forbidden fruit. But while people tend to equate this serpent with Satan, nothing in the Old Testament really indicates this, beyond some similarities between the Eden serpent and, say, Satan the accuser’s role in Job or references to serpents being crushed. In fact, Genesis 3 seems rather focused on the serpent being a serpent, as his temptation of Eve is stated to be the reason why serpents have no legs – God removed them as punishment for his actions.

Job

Job is the main book where Satan proper shows up, which is really quite interesting. Job is very much an outlier book. Most of the Old Testament is concerned with the history and fortunes of Israel and its people, and even most of the remainder (really, just a big part of Genesis) could be considered simply prelude to that. Job stands apart. None of the characters seem to be Israelites or directly related to Israelites. The best I can do to connect Job to Israel is to say that Abram’s (Abraham’s) original home is generally considered to be somewhere to the east of Israel, and so is Uz, Job’s land of residence.

However, the Septuagint does claim Job lives in Edom (a nation/region near Israel to the east) as a grandson of Esau, who was brother to Jacob (aka “Israel”). This would make him roughly a contemporary of some of the first Israelites born in Egypt (prior to the institution of the Levitical law) and is consistent with Lamentations, which seems to equate Uz and Edom:

Rejoice and be glad, O daughter of Edom, you who dwell in the land of Uz […]

Lamentations 4:21 ESV

It’s hard to even say what “religion” Job practices per se. He, his wife, and his friends clearly worship the same God as Israel and Jacob, and appear culturally similar to Israel, but there’s no mention of Israel or of priests, though Job is explicitly stated to make sacrifices that are certainly at least reminiscent of those prescribed by Levitical law. One might conclude he engages in a form of proto-Judaism (like Noah or Abraham himself), or that he is a YHWH worshiper outside of Judaism (perhaps akin to Naaman of Syria), or that he does indeed participate in “The Law” of Israel, his sacrifices outside the prescribed procedures notwithstanding (since Israel itself did much the same thing throughout much of its Biblical history). This, among other things, has led some to argue that Job is not intended to be read literally, which poses a minor problem for using it as a basis on which to build an image of Satan.

In any case, Satan in the book of Job is at odds with God and wishes to prove to God that those humans who are faithful to Him are only faithful because God blesses them. But he is also, so to speak, on speaking terms with God. He comes and goes before God (presumably in Heaven) and God gives him permission to test Job’s faith – at first by material privation and deaths in his family, and eventually with disease and illness.

Satan the Accuser/Tempter

This “Satan the accuser” is elsewhere in the Old Testament. He is credited in 1 Chronicles 21 with inciting King David to conduct a census (considered a sin because the motivation was to assess Israel’s military strength, which betrayed a lack of trust in God to win their battles for them). He is present in the vision in Zechariah 3, where an angel rebukes him and reassures Joshua “the high priest” that God will bless him if he is righteous (clearly intended as a general message to the Israelites, with Joshua as a stand-in for or representative of Israel as a group). (Joshua son of Nun presided over the initial conquests of Israel/Canaan following the exodus from Egypt. “Joshua” here may be a reference to Jesus – “Jesus” and “Joshua” translate from the same Hebrew name through different linguistic paths.) Satan is present “to accuse him”.

And that’s basically it for Old Testament mentions of Satan. Based on this source material, many argue that Old Testament Satan isn’t even evil; that he is more analogous to a state prosecutor than an agent or architect of evil. But note that if Satan were a modern prosecutor, his cases might get thrown out as entrapment.

The New Testament

What about the New Testament? Well, Satan/the devil is certainly more prevalent.

Jesus and other figures make frequent mention of “the evil one”, the devil, Satan, or Beelzebub (who is associated with the Old Testament idol/false god Baal, but which is considered a pseudonym for Satan).

After Jesus’ baptism, he is tested by a devil known as Satan, who bears strong resemblance to the Accuser of the Old Testament:

Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. And after fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. And the tempter came and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread.” But he answered, “It is written, “‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’” Then the devil took him to the holy city and set him on the pinnacle of the temple and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down, for it is written, “‘He will command his angels concerning you,’ and “‘On their hands they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone.’” Jesus said to him, “Again it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’” Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. And he said to him, “All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me.” Then Jesus said to him, “Be gone, Satan! For it is written, “‘You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.’” Then the devil left him, and behold, angels came and were ministering to him.

Matthew 4:1‭-‬11 ESV

Mark also makes this resemblance explicit:

And he was in the wilderness forty days, being tempted by Satan. And he was with the wild animals, and the angels were ministering to him.

Mark 1:13

Satan is frequently mentioned elsewhere as a clear reference to an evil tempter.

The bleeding woman of Luke 13 is described by Jesus as having been “bound by Satan”.

Satan is described as “entering” Judas Iscariot just before he betrays Jesus in John 13.

Jesus calls Peter “Satan” when Peter asserts that Jesus will not be killed in Matthew 16, as Jesus had just stated he would be.

In Acts 5, Peter credits Satan with Ananias and Saphira’s lies, for which they are struck down by God.

1 Corinthians 5 talks about “delivering” a man to Satan “for the destruction of his flesh”. More on that topic later. Chapter 7 refers to Satan as a tempter.

2 Corinthians 2 talks about “we” Christians not being outwitted by Satan.

Ephesians 4 warns to “give no opportunity to the devil”.

James 4 tells the faithful to “resist the devil”.

1 Peter 5 refers to the devil as the enemy and likens him to a rampaging lion.

Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.

1 John 3:8 ESV

The letters in the early chapters of Revelation generally describe those who sin or who persecute the church as being of Satan or his “synagogue”.

One gets the idea. The New Testament generally equates Satan and the devil, and considers him evil, the source of temptation, dangerous, and destructive.

The Devil’s Eternal, Infernal Job

Notice what was absent from the various passages mentioned (and from the many, many passages omitted for brevity and time). There’s no mention of him ruling Hell. Indeed, a close reading of the New Testament will show that if Hell “currently” exists, it’s empty. Hell is only a place people go to after the day of Judgment. Some even argue that Hell isn’t even a long-lived place of torment, but rather that the “lake of fire” is destructive and those cast into Hell receive not torture, but oblivion. (Though I should mention this is inconsistent with a literal reading of the verse below.)

As for the devil’s role in Hell when it “opens for business” so to speak…

To humorously understate matters, Revelation’s predictions don’t bode well for him:

[F]ire came down from heaven and consumed [those who serve Satan], and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

Revelation 20:7‭-‬10 ESV

Now, as in my previous post concerning angels, I’ll caution that most of Revelation – including the verse above – is apocalyptic literature and is to be treated with caution and not taken too literally. But that said, it’s pretty clear that whatever the Biblical devil/Satan does or doesn’t do, he isn’t reigning in Hell, tormenting those who fell for his deceits. Nor is he likely to engage in contests where golden stringed instruments are wagered against souls, regardless of whether the fiddle in question is played or merely wagered. And he definitely isn’t asking for rematches after the fact.

Physical, Angellic

I’ve skipped over a few verses that touch on another aspect of Satan: that of a fallen angel. Jesus says in Luke 10 that he saw “Satan fall like lightning from heaven”, though it’s unclear if he’s saying he witnessed this while his 72 disciples were out preaching and miracle-working for a time, or at some earlier point, perhaps as far back as pre-Genesis.

Revelation 12 talks about Michael and the other angels fighting the dragon and his angels. So the idea of Satan being a fallen angel is – at minimum – consistent with the Protestant Bible. This is a topic on which other books not included in the Protestant Bible (such as Enoch) certainly have more to say.

There’s also the subject of “Lucifer” (and also NT demons), which I’m just not going to get into now, but on which there is much to be said.

“But, wait!” you might say. “That verse about the dragon doesn’t mention Satan!”

It doesn’t mention Lews Therin Telamon or Rand al’Thor either, but that’s not important right now.

Anyways, this possibly brings us back full circle to the Eden serpent, because:

And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years,

Revelation 20:2

So, one can easily conclude that as far as Revelation and the rest of the New Testament are concerned, the dragon is the devil is Satan is the serpent.

This makes ascribing him a physical form rather tricky, but we can say with some confidence that it isn’t a red humanoid with horns and a pointy tail wielding a pitchfork.

Appendix A – Delivering a man to Satan

Earlier, I wrote:

1 Corinthians 5 talks about “delivering” a man to Satan “for the destruction of his flesh”. More on that topic later.

This could conceivably be used as the basis for asserting that Satan torments people in Hell, but context shows that this is fallacious:

It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father’s wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you.

For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing. When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.

Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”

1 Corinthians 5 ESV

This, er, loving son seems to also be the subject of Paul’s later letter to the same church:

Now if anyone has caused pain, he has caused it not to me, but in some measure—not to put it too severely—to all of you. For such a one, this punishment by the majority is enough, so you should rather turn to forgive and comfort him, or he may be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. So I beg you to reaffirm your love for him. For this is why I wrote, that I might test you and know whether you are obedient in everything. Anyone whom you forgive, I also forgive. Indeed, what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the presence of Christ, so that we would not be outwitted by Satan; for we are not ignorant of his designs.

2 Corinthians 2:5‭-‬11 ESV

So one can pretty clearly see that handing someone over to Satan in this context (a) means metaphorically handing him over to temptation and expelling him from the church fellowship and (b) has nothing to do with supernatural locations like Hell.

Appendix B – Feedback

I’ve received some responses to this post in one form or another that bear acknowledging.

Validity of using the Protestant Bible to answer the question

One respondent claimed that the Protestant Bible is not a valid source to answer the original question about deviations between the Biblical Satan and the modern popular perception of Satan. They also contend that it would be historically significant to be more comprehensive in answering that question (which of course it would be).

Citing the Protestant Bible does not avoid the question of the original Biblical work. There are many points of uncertainty and minor deviations concerning which manuscripts are used as the basis for a translation, not to mention the translation itself, but nothing to my knowledge that’s going to meaningfully affect a response to the question at hand, or at least the verses I used to respond and the points I made.

The references to Satan and the devil in modern Bibles are not simply retcons included in later centuries. I deliberately avoided the specific verses that I see as possibly misleading due to potentially fallacious interpretations or “retcons” (most notably, Isaiah 14 specifically and the subject of “Lucifer” in general).

Also, the original question was an inquiry about the disconnect between the typical beliefs of a typical modern self-identifying Christian and the text said Christian purports to use as the basis for their belief. In that light, any differences between modern translations and the original manuscripts are going to pale in comparison to the differences between any version of the Bible and the modern popular conception of Satan.

It would be useful to give a more comprehensive answer drawing on deuterocanon and other ancient sources, but I limited my response to the areas in which I have sufficient knowledge to respond.

Satanic Puppeteering

A couple of people took several of the New Testament verses about Satan to mean that the people in question were puppeteered by Satan and therefore were condemned or punished despite not being guilty.

Certainly, there’s no reason to presume that the woman of Luke 13 is guilty of anything (at least concerning the bleeding issue specifically).

But nothing in 1 Corinthians 5 could remotely be read as absolving the adulterous son of any wrongdoing. He was to be “delivered” to Satan as a consequence of the adultery already committed.

Satanic mind control is one (improbable) way to interpret Matthew 16. But another is that Jesus is using the word “Satan” as a common noun to mean something like “enemy” or “adversary”. It would take someone with actual Greek knowledge to say. A third way to read it is that Jesus is referring to “Satan” (as in, the devil), but is merely doing so to impress upon Peter the magnitude of his mistake. But even assuming that Jesus is, as some inferred, addressing Satan through Peter, that does not absolve Peter of wrongdoing. With one or two debatable exceptions (such as the Pharaoh of Exodus), Biblical temptation to evil is not mind control. The implication is consistently that the wrongdoer gave into temptation, not that they were puppeteered against their will.

To use Ananias and Saphira as an example, the verse in question reads:

But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, and with his wife’s knowledge he kept back for himself some of the proceeds and brought only a part of it and laid it at the apostles’ feet. But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to man but to God.” When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and breathed his last. And great fear came upon all who heard of it.

Acts 5:1-11 ESV

If the author of Acts (or Peter) were implying that Ananias and Saphira did not do wrong, why spend so many words questioning their actions? And why should they die?

Peter’s mention of “Satan” here is useful in forming an image of how the Biblical authors thought of Satan (essentially what this post has attempted to do), but it is in my opinion a mistake to read revolutionary philosophy or metaphysical implications into such phrases. To me, the intent of this wording seems obvious: to emphasize the degree to which Peter considers Ananias to have transgressed. And not to indicate a philosophy counter to the individual responsibility for righteousness or sin that the rest of Acts and, more generally, the New Testament (with the adulterous Corinthian as a prime example), generally reinforces.

Indeed, Peter’s later address to Saphira reinforces their agency in the deception:

But Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord?

Acts 5:9 ESV (truncated excerpt)

As for Judas, well, one can easily conclude that “Satan entering” Judas caused his betrayal. But assuming that this isn’t intended simply as a poetic way of describing Judas’ moral state (which seems a reasonable assumption in context), what caused Satan to enter or to be able to enter Judas? The author of John seems to take a dim view of Judas’ willingness to resist temptation:

Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve? And yet one of you is a devil.”

John 6:70 ESV

But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (he who was about to betray him), said, “Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?” He said this, not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief, and having charge of the moneybag he used to help himself to what was put into it.

John 12:4‭-‬6 ESV

Concern with the sins of non-Christians

1 Corinthians 5, as referenced above, was taken by some to mean that Christians should not worry about the sins of non-Christians. This is true provided that by “should not worry” one means that one “should not be preoccupied with or overly focus on” the sins of non-Christians. It certainly means that Christians should be willing – even eager – to associate with “sinners”.

It does not mean that Christians should not criticize sin, point out the negative consequences thereof, or encourage people to abstain from sin. And of course, it absolutely does not mean that Christians shouldn’t be concerned with the sins of fellow Christians.

The hypocrisy of Paul on forgiveness

1 Corinthians 5, as referenced above, was understood by some to be hypocritical in saying that “Judgment is God’s business” while Paul “judges and condemns” others. This is not the case.

“Outsiders” in 1 Corinthians 5 refers to, essentially, people who aren’t Christians. Who is and isn’t a Christian is something people can and have argued for millennia about, and I’m not going to tackle the subject in this post. To interpret Corinthians, let’s use whatever criteria Paul uses.

The text makes this distinction between those “of this world” (i.e. non-Christians, more or less) and (s)he who “bears the name of brother [or sister]” or who is “inside the church” (“church” in the Bible refers to all Christians in existence or sometimes all Christians within a given area or city, but never to a building) quite explicit:

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”

1 Corinthians 5:9-13 ESV

This could perhaps be summarized and paraphrased as “Hold anyone who calls themself a Christian accountable to being like Christ. But don’t try to hold anyone who isn’t a Christian to our standard, nor try to avoid them.”

So Paul’s statements in 1 Corinthians 5 are no more hypocritical than, say, a Jewish rabbi who insists that Jewish infants be circumcized while asserting that it does not matter if a Gentile infant is circumcized (or even that Gentile infants should not be circumcised).

Paul’s Freudian slip

A couple of people took the content of 1 Corinthians 5 (as referenced above) as possibly being indicative of Paul projecting his own issues. This is not the case and seems to stem from an incomplete understanding of the chronology of the Corinthian epistles, and in particular, interpreting the text to mean that Paul wants the “loving son” to be simultaneously cast out and forgiven.

The exhortations to cast out the immoral brother and to welcome him back are not simultaneous. They are in separate letters and separated by time. The general idea is that expulsion/shunning/disfellowship/excommunication helps induce repentance and that, once repentant, the “guilty party” is to be welcomed back into the fold.

It is not at all odd that one who considers himself forgiven for the murders of his fellow Christians would want such an offense also forgiven. It is standard Christian doctrine across most sects that any sin can be forgiven, often (but not in all sects) contingent on repentance, with the debatable exception of “blasphemy”.

Baphomet

One respondent claimed that the modern image of a goat-like Satan is fairly recent and derives from Baphomet.

Ezekiel & Isaiah

One respondent pointed out that Ezekiel 28:12-18 and Isaiah 14:12-14 are considered Satanic references by many Old Testament scholars.

Old Testament Demons & Devils

One respondent, a native speaker of modern Hebrew, had this to say concerning the translation of Hebrew words into “devil” or “demons” in the Old Testament:

Your comment made me curious, so I went and checked out the Hebrew text (not a Biblical scholar, but I am a native Hebrew speaker). Deuteronomy and Psalms mention שדים “shedim,” a word currently used to translate “demons.” OTOH, Leviticus mentions שעירים “se’irim,” which may have a nuanced usage but is often used to simply refer to goats (as in “sa’ir la’azazel,” a sacrificial goat). In translations other than ESV, I’ve seen “idols” as a translation, which seems reasonable but I’d still be curious as to whether Biblical scholars agree on what exactly is being referenced.

/u/SeeShark

“Biblically Accurate” Angels are not Biblically Accurate

The following was adapted from an answer elsewhere on the web to a question presupposing that creatures in the vein of Ezekiel’s “living creatures” are the true, “biblically accurate” angels.

Let me be clear: the exact physical form of angels or other supernatural creatures in the Bible is of little practical import. My motivation for this analysis and explanation comes rather from a strong distaste for what I perceive as some atheists, self-identified Christians, and others acting derisively or dismissively toward more “serious” or “devout” Christians on the basis that the latter don’t know their Bibles, with the implication that much of their beliefs are, for example, invented out of whole cloth. Popular perceptions of angels even amongst more committed Christians are often quite inaccurate. And Biblical literacy is shockingly low even among those who self-identify as devout or practicing Christians. However, this issue of “biblically accurate” angels is generally more indicative of ignorance of the mockers rather than of the mocked. (I say all this fully aware that many such memes and references are made as light-hearted jokes not intended to belittle anyone; those are not what I am addressing.)

Introduction & Disclaimers

  1. I am not a true scholar, nor do I have any familiarity to speak of with biblical Greek or Hebrew. For reference, I will be using the English Standard Version here. This is purely for reasons of familiarity; it is not necessarily the best translation for this sort of discussion.
  2. This is not an attempt to summarize or explain the post-Bible history of popular perceptions of angels throughout history. Beyond mentioning that Renaissance artists contributed to the modern image of the winged human image of an angel, and a couple of references to statements by others more knowledgeable on the subject, I won’t address it. What I am doing is analyzing the biblical accuracy (or lack thereof) of various angelic imagery.

The short version is that winged humans are not entirely biblically accurate. Still, they are much, much closer than the terrifying eldritch creatures that have recently come to embody “biblically accurate angels” to the meme-smiths of the Internet. Terrifying chimeras are not described as “angels” in the Bible, though angels are often terrifying in other ways (usually in action, and sometimes in appearance). The eyeball-covered wheels aren’t even described as creatures per se. Angellic physical descriptions are somewhat limited, but generally indicate (wingless) humans, albeit often with something “special” about their appearance.

Let’s take a look at various passages where angels (or characters/creatures that might be angels) appear in the biblical narrative.

Old Testament

Sodom

In Genesis, “the Lord” appears to Abraham:

And the Lord appeared to [Abraham] by the oaks of Mamre, […] three men were standing in front of [Abraham]. When he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them and bowed himself to the earth and said, “O Lord, if I have found favor in your sight, do not pass by your servant. […] So they said, “Do as you have said.” And Abraham went quickly […] and set it before them. And he stood by them under the tree while they ate.

18
ESV

Then the Lord said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave, I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry that has come to me. And if not, I will know.” So the men turned from there and went toward Sodom, but Abraham still stood before the Lord.

Genesis 18:20-22 ESV

The two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom.

Genesis 19:1 ESV

The story of Sodom is too lengthy to recount here, but hopefully this is enough to demonstrate that these angels were hardly eyeball-festooned creatures of terror. If it is not, one need only consider this particular part of the story:

And [the men of Sodom] called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.”

Genesis 19:5 ESV

Note that the Bible here is unsurprisingly using “know” in the “biblical” sense (as evidenced by Lot offering his daughters in their place in his response). In other words, the Sodomites wanted to sodomize the angels. Go figure.

These angels are consistently described as “men”. One can reasonably conclude that there was something not entirely normal about their appearance, but they are unlikely to have wings and certainly don’t resemble monstrous creatures.

Balaam

During Israel’s wandering in the desert, a prophet known as Balaam is riding a donkey when an angel appears several times.

But God’s anger was kindled because [Balaam] went, and the angel of the Lord took his stand in the way as his adversary. Now he was riding on the donkey, and his two servants were with him. And the donkey saw the angel of the Lord standing in the road, with a drawn sword in his hand. And the donkey turned aside out of the road and went into the field. And Balaam struck the donkey, to turn her into the road. Then the angel of the Lord stood in a narrow path between the vineyards, with a wall on either side. And when the donkey saw the angel of the Lord, she pushed against the wall and pressed Balaam’s foot against the wall. So he struck her again. Then the angel of the Lord went ahead and stood in a narrow place, where there was no way to turn either to the right or to the left. When the donkey saw the angel of the Lord, she lay down under Balaam. And Balaam’s anger was kindled, and he struck the donkey with his staff. Then the Lord opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam, “What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?” And Balaam said to the donkey, “Because you have made a fool of me. I wish I had a sword in my hand, for then I would kill you.” And the donkey said to Balaam, “Am I not your donkey, on which you have ridden all your life long to this day? Is it my habit to treat you this way?” And he said, “No.”

Then the Lord opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the Lord standing in the way, with his drawn sword in his hand. And he bowed down and fell on his face. And the angel of the Lord said to him, “Why have you struck your donkey these three times? Behold, I have come out to oppose you because your way is perverse before me. The donkey saw me and turned aside before me these three times. If she had not turned aside from me, surely just now I would have killed you and let her live.” Then Balaam said to the angel of the Lord, “I have sinned, for I did not know that you stood in the road against me. Now therefore, if it is evil in your sight, I will turn back.” And the angel of the Lord said to Balaam, “Go with the men, but speak only the word that I tell you.” So Balaam went on with the princes of Balak.

Numbers 22:22-35 ESV

The Bible is clear on this point: the donkey is female and therefore is unlikely to have the voice of Eddie Murphy.

More importantly, this depiction of an angel, as with Sodom, clearly indicates they are not to be trifled with, but neither are they monstrous creatures. This one is not quite called a “man”, but his behavior is more consistent with a human (or at least a humanoid) than, say, an eyeball-covered “wheel within a wheel” – he stands, he has hands, etc.

Gideon

In Israel’s days of the judges before the institution of the monarchy, an angel appears to a young man named Gideon:

Now the angel of the Lord came and sat under the terebinth at Ophrah, which belonged to Joash the Abiezrite, while his son Gideon was beating out wheat in the winepress to hide it from the Midianites. And the angel of the Lord appeared to him and said to him, “The Lord is with you, O mighty man of valor.”

Judges 6:11-12 ESV

The angel and Gideon converse a bit and the angel charges Gideon with leading Israel against the oppressive Midianites. This part of the conversation ends with Gideon requesting a supernatural sign that the angel (or the Lord?) is who he says he is.

And the Lord said to him, “But I will be with you, and you shall strike the Midianites as one man.” And he said to him, “If now I have found favor in your eyes, then show me a sign that it is you who speak with me. Please do not depart from here until I come to you and bring out my present and set it before you.” And he said, “I will stay till you return.”

Judges 6:16-18 ESV

Gideon prepares some meat and “cakes” and then:

Then the angel of the Lord reached out the tip of the staff that was in his hand and touched the meat and the unleavened cakes. And fire sprang up from the rock and consumed the meat and the unleavened cakes. And the angel of the Lord vanished from his sight. Then Gideon perceived that he was the angel of the Lord.

Judges 6:21-22 ESV

Setting aside that “the Lord” and “angel of the Lord” seem to be used interchangeably here (a recurring theme in such passages), note that the text explicitly states that it was the supernatural events that convinced Gideon this was indeed an angel. That would be rather odd if he were conversing with a creature that was convincingly supernatural in its very physical appearance.

Samson’s Parents

Later on in the Judges period, an angel appears to a married couple and informs them that they will have a son (Samson), himself a future judge of Israel.

And the angel of the Lord appeared to [Samson’s mother] and said to her […] Then the woman came and told her husband, “A man of God came to me, and his appearance was like the appearance of the angel of God, very awesome.

[…] the angel of God came again to the woman as she sat in the field. But Manoah her husband was not with her. So the woman ran quickly and told her husband […] And Manoah arose and went after his wife and came to the man and said to him, “Are you the man who spoke to this woman?” And he said, “I am.”

[…]

And the angel of the Lord said to Manoah, “If you detain me, I will not eat of your food. But if you prepare a burnt offering, then offer it to the Lord.” (For Manoah did not know that he was the angel of the Lord.) And Manoah said to the angel of the Lord, “What is your name, so that, when your words come true, we may honor you?” And the angel of the Lord said to him, “Why do you ask my name, seeing it is wonderful?” So Manoah took the young goat with the grain offering, and offered it on the rock to the Lord, to the one who works wonders, and Manoah and his wife were watching. And when the flame went up toward heaven from the altar, the angel of the Lord went up in the flame of the altar. Now Manoah and his wife were watching, and they fell on their faces to the ground.

The angel of the Lord appeared no more to Manoah and to his wife. Then Manoah knew that he was the angel of the Lord. And Manoah said to his wife, “We shall surely die, for we have seen God.”

Judges 13:3-22 ESV

Again, there is something remarkable about the angel. But again, there is a large degree of uncertainty pending supernatural events. Manoah seems to think that the angel is a human man.

Early Monarchy

Angels make several appearances in the early days of the Israelite monarchy, particularly around Elijah the prophet. Suffice to say that when there is a physical description of some kind, it is consistent with what we’ve seen so far – humanoid, but often impressive, powerful, or even terrifying (in action, if not appearance). Here are a few relevant quotes from mostly unrelated events and passages.

And when the angel stretched out his hand toward Jerusalem to destroy it, the Lord relented from the calamity and said to the angel who was working destruction among the people, “It is enough; now stay your hand.” And the angel of the Lord was by the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite.

2 Samuel 24:16 ESV

And behold, an angel touched [Elijah] and said to him, “Arise and eat.”

1 Kings 19:5 ESV

And that night the angel of the Lord went out and struck down 185,000 in the camp of the Assyrians.

2 Kings 19:35 ESV

Then the Lord commanded the angel, and he put his sword back into its sheath.

1 Chronicles 21:27 ESV

Old Testament Prophetic Literature

The book of Zechariah (not to be confused with the father of John the Baptist) describes some interactions between the eponymous prophet and angels. I am uncertain whether this is intended to be interpreted as a depiction of literal physical events or if, like Ezekiel, it is depicting a “vision” of some kind. Regardless, the narrative describes a dialogue between Zechariah and the angel but has virtually no physical descriptions. That said, the narrative is entirely consistent with a human or humanoid conception of angels. The closest I can find to a physical description is the final mention of angels in Zechariah, which merely reinforces that angels are strong or powerful in some way:

On that day the Lord will protect the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the feeblest among them on that day shall be like David, and the house of David shall be like God, like the angel of the Lord, going before them.

Zechariah 12:8 ESV

Now, it is important to note that the “biblically accurate” terrifying creatures are absolutely not invented out of whole cloth. They generally bear close resemblance to descriptions that are indeed found in the Bible. Here is perhaps the most relevant description, from Ezekiel:

And from the midst of it came the likeness of four living creatures. And this was their appearance: they had a human likeness, but each had four faces, and each of them had four wings. Their legs were straight, and the soles of their feet were like the sole of a calf’s foot. And they sparkled like burnished bronze. Under their wings on their four sides they had human hands. And the four had their faces and their wings thus: their wings touched one another. Each one of them went straight forward, without turning as they went. As for the likeness of their faces, each had a human face. The four had the face of a lion on the right side, the four had the face of an ox on the left side, and the four had the face of an eagle. Such were their faces. And their wings were spread out above. Each creature had two wings, each of which touched the wing of another, while two covered their bodies. And each went straight forward. Wherever the spirit would go, they went, without turning as they went. As for the likeness of the living creatures, their appearance was like burning coals of fire, like the appearance of torches moving to and fro among the living creatures. And the fire was bright, and out of the fire went forth lightning. And the living creatures darted to and fro, like the appearance of a flash of lightning.

Now as I looked at the living creatures, I saw a wheel on the earth beside the living creatures, one for each of the four of them. As for the appearance of the wheels and their construction: their appearance was like the gleaming of beryl. And the four had the same likeness, their appearance and construction being as it were a wheel within a wheel. When they went, they went in any of their four directions without turning as they went. And their rims were tall and awesome, and the rims of all four were full of eyes all around. And when the living creatures went, the wheels went beside them; and when the living creatures rose from the earth, the wheels rose. Wherever the spirit wanted to go, they went, and the wheels rose along with them, for the spirit of the living creatures was in the wheels. When those went, these went; and when those stood, these stood; and when those rose from the earth, the wheels rose along with them, for the spirit of the living creatures was in the wheels.

Ezekiel 1:5-21 ESV

There are a few things I’d like to point out about this passage. First, you’ll notice the word “angel” is never used. Instead, this is describing “חַיּ֑וֹת” (variously translated as “living creatures”, “living beings”, “Chayos”, “beasts”, or “creatures”). Ezekiel 10 names these creatures “cherubim”. (To quickly summarize: cherubim are not winged infant archers. Their limited physical descriptions elsewhere, such as in the descriptions of the Ark of the Covenant, are similar to Ezekiel’s, though there are variances. For example, the cherubim “decorations” of Solomon’s Temple as described in 2 Chronicles 3 and 1 Kings 6 have two wings each.) The Protestant Bible (and, to my knowledge, other Bible variants) never describes “living creatures” as “angels”. According to one historian of medieval and early modern Europe, classifying cherubim and seraphim as “angels” originated with early Church Fathers considering them to be “prophets” (i.e. messengers) and therefore “angels” (Biblical angels almost always fill the role of messenger, and one could argue that they always do, given a sufficiently broad definition of “messenger”), but this is a matter of later interpretation, and not strictly what the Bible states. And neither the Bible nor the Church Fathers made any claim that “living creature” descriptions in any way overrode the more common human form as the “true”, “biblically accurate” angelic form.

Second, even these outlandish descriptions more closely resemble humans than they do some of the eldritch depictions of angels in, for example, this meme. Though it need not be said they are still clearly terrifying and strange, they are vaguely humanoid, with faces, legs, feet, etc.

Third, these have wings (though four each).

Fourth, in this passage descriptions of wheels and eyes are not even in reference to the “living creatures”. So even if we take “living creature” to mean “angel”, the eye-covered wheels are described more like an accompanying construct of some kind than the “angels” themselves.

Fifth, this passage (along with similar descriptions in Isaiah and Revelation) is describing an apocalyptic vision. Regardless of how one views the veracity and historical accuracy of the various Biblical books, it would be inadvisable to prioritize apocalyptic visions over more mundane conventional narratives when determining how the authors intended to depict angels as physical beings.

New Testament

The New Testament also has several mentions of angels, most of which lack physical descriptions. They generally lend themselves well to being quoted more concisely than the Old Testament passages, so I will briefly mention the more salient ones here.

In Luke, the angel Gabriel who appears to Zechariah the father of John the Baptist (not to be confused with the Old Testament prophet), is described as “standing”:

And there appeared to him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense.

Luke 1:11 ESV

When Gabriel later appears to Mary, there is even less physical description, but it bears mentioning that Mary seems more bothered by Gabriel’s greeting and words than by his physical appearance:

In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to […] Mary. And he came to her and said, “Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!” But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and tried to discern what sort of greeting this might be. And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.”

Luke 1:26-30 ESV

Around the temptation of Jesus in Mark, angels are described as “ministering” to him.

And he was in the wilderness forty days, being tempted by Satan. And he was with the wild animals, and the angels were ministering to him.

Mark 1:13 ESV

After the crucifixion and resurrection, an angel is described in Matthew as sitting on a stone. Similar descriptions appear in John.

And behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat on it.

Matthew 28:20 ESV

Much later, the author of Acts describes the martyr Stephen’s face as being “like the face of an angel” (Acts 6:15).

In what might be the most interesting New Testament verse to someone analyzing the history of depictions and conceptions of angels by Christians, the author of Hebrews states in chapter 13 that, by showing hospitality to strangers, “some have entertained angels unawares.”

Revelation

Revelation is another area where we get more of the descriptions in the vein of “terrifying abominations”. In particular, Revelation 4 describes some “living creatures”:

And around the throne, on each side of the throne, are four living creatures, full of eyes in front and behind: the first living creature like a lion, the second living creature like an ox, the third living creature with the face of a man, and the fourth living creature like an eagle in flight. And the four living creatures, each of them with six wings, are full of eyes all around and within

Revelation 4:6-8 ESV

In this case, the plethora of eyes is actually describing the living creatures. But generally, the observations in Ezekiel still apply here: this is a visionary description, “living creatures” is used instead of “angels”, etc.

Perhaps more importantly, Revelation (unlike Ezekiel) actually does contain the word “angel”. Many times, in fact.

In particular, Revelation mentions “living creatures”, “elders”, and “angels”, all as being distinct from each other:

Then I looked, and I heard around the throne and the living creatures and the elders the voice of many angels, numbering myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands,

Revelation 5:11 ESV

This same distinction is made elsewhere:

one of the four living creatures gave to the seven angels seven golden bowls

Revelation 15:7 ESV

There is not much in the way of physical descriptions of angels in Revelation – and it’s still apocalyptic visionary writing – but what there is is more consistent with human-like angels than any of the permutations of the “terrifying abominations”. (Though they are not without causes for fear and awe themselves.) Revelation 8-9 mentions angels “standing”, using trumpets, and having hands. Revelation 10 describes an angel with a face “like the sun” and legs “like pillars of fire”. Revelation 14 describes an angel flying, for what that’s worth.

Conclusions

There are arguments (perhaps based on other ancient books such as Enoch), that there are different categories and types of angels – that “living creatures” are one type, humanoids another, etc. Aside from previously-mentioned “cherubim” and the “seraphim” of Isaiah, this is where words like “Thrones” and others come into play. I cannot speak to how consistent this view is with whichever texts it is based on, but if true, it would mean that “terrifying abominations” are not any more or less accurate than human-like depictions. Rather, it would mean that they are roughly equally accurate depictions of different types of “angels”. According to the same historian mentioned earlier, the idea of a hierarchy of angels (indeed, the origin even of the word hierarchy itself) and the classification of cherubim and seraphim as sub-categories (and high ranks) of angels comes from “Pseudo-Dionysius”, the author of On the Celestial Hierarchy.

Memes and comments around “biblically accurate” angels will sometimes belabor the point that biblical angels frequently say “be not afraid” or something similar. This is frequently true, but its prevalence amongst biblical incidents involving angels is often overstated (possibly due to a bias towards the relatively small New Testament, where these “be not afraid” statements are more prevalent). Such arguments also draw a typically false connection between such statements and the angel’s physical body (see Gabriel’s appearance to Mary as an example of an angel dispelling fear for reasons unrelated to his physical form). These pacifying remarks more often relate to the fear the person in question might have of (a) events that are going on or which are foretold by the angel, or of (b) the manner in which the angel supernaturally appears to them, but they do seem to sometimes relate to (c) the impressiveness of the angel’s physical appearance.

In conclusion, the image of an angel as being roughly equivalent to a human is more textually accurate than describing various permutations of eye-covered eldritch creatures as “angels”. Humans with two wings and certainly a halo are later inventions. And the modern perception of angels as pacific harp-strummers is rather… mild (to put it mildly) compared to much of biblical angelic activity. But ultimately humanoid depictions of angels have a firm basis in biblical texts, and more so than the eldritch creatures that are ostensibly more “biblically accurate.”

American Indian Cultural Superiority

Around this time of year, we often see a lot of posts about American Indians, Columbus, and various related subjects.

The general points that (1) the natives were greatly mistreated, (2) that Columbus and those who followed did a lot of horrible things, and (3) that native culture had a number of good points are quite valid.

However, people really tend to go overboard and pendulum-swing in the opposite direction.

No, we do not have evidence that Columbus approved of and participated in sexual trafficking of young native girls. The single quote supporting this conclusion, in its full context, is at worst neutral and is arguably actually criticizing the practice. Columbus’ 1500 letter to Doña Juana de la Torre (pages 434-435).

And, no, American Indian culture was not some perfect utopia, free of greed, selfishness, violence etc. Here is the latest iteration of these sorts of claims that I’ve seen:

Before our white brothers came to civilize us we had no jails. Therefore we had no criminals. You can’t have criminals without a jail. We had no locks or keys, and so we had no thieves. If a man was so poor that he had no horse, tipi or blanket, someone gave him these things. We were to [sic] uncivilized to set much value on personal belongings. We wanted to have things only in order to give them away. We had no money, and therefore a man’s worth couldn’t be measured by it. We had no written law, no attorneys or politicians, therefore we couldn’t cheat. We really were in a bad way before the white men came, and I don’t know how we managed to get along without these basic things which, we are told, are absolutely necessary to make a civilized society.

RedHawk – Seeker of Visions (as quoted by the Intothewild Facebook page)

Just about every statement here is categorically false. I won’t argue the facetiously-articulated conclusion that natives were doing alright and were not in desperate need of Europeans to improve their societies (at least not among the North American tribes); that is a reasonable point. But all the supporting claims and evidence are almost entirely false.

Let’s start with matters of fact. As far as I know, it is true that the natives didn’t have prisons, locks, or keys. However, it is absolutely false that anyone who lacked things would always be given them. No one with even the slightest understanding of humanity could possibly believe such a thing without being blinded by ideology. In particular, the claim that horses would be provided to those without is particularly noteworthy, considering that horses were extinct in the Americas for thousands of years prior to Columbus. They could no more provide their poor with horses than we can provide our poor with Star Trek transporters. The claim that natives had no money can be considered true if you use a reasonably strict definition of money. The claim that they had no written law is, strictly speaking, false. Aztecs, for one, did have written law. However, the alleged speaker in this post is likely referring to the tribes of what is now the United States, and I couldn’t say whether they had written law or not, so let’s assume that’s true. The claim that they had no attorneys is arguable, but the claim that they didn’t have politicians is utterly false.

Now let’s move on to the arguments and reasoning.

It takes a special kind of ignorance to conclude the lack of prisons implies they did not have crime or criminals. This argument is particularly amusing to me since the people who post this sort of thing are often the ones most strongly criticizing the prison system (both with and without reason) and suggesting alternative forms of correction. Well, natives had plenty of alternative forms of correction. Some form of ostracization, shunning, or exile were common. And those who take issue with the prison system might want to know that other alternatives included torture and capital punishment. So, you know, there’s that.

Similarly, the lack of locks or keys does not imply a lack of thieves. Locks and keys exist because of thieves, not the other way around. “But,” one might say, “it’s still true that there weren’t thieves because they had no money and didn’t value property.” That argument is so ridiculous I can’t believe actual grown adults believe it. The idea that natives didn’t really concern themselves with property is just totally absurd. It might be true that they were less concerned with property than Europeans, but if so I would argue that has more to do with a narrower variety of property to own than anything else. And it’s seemingly true that they weren’t concerned with individual ownership of land, insofar as they had such a concept.

But the idea that they weren’t really concerned with property has no basis that I can see unless it’s a paternalistic, borderline racist conclusion based on the assumption that there just wasn’t much property worth being concerned about. Just because we don’t see native clothing, archery equipment, etc. as being particularly valuable, doesn’t mean they didn’t. And as for natives not being concerned about property at all, and being totally selfless with what they had, natives literally fought wars over territory and resources. These wars were certainly smaller-scale and less destructive than European wars, but that can easily be chalked up to differences in technology, geography, and population size (both overall and of individual “states”), not to some magical goodness inherent to natives. That’s not to say that natives were just as concerned with materialism as Europeans, but only to say that this asinine view of natives being as pure as the wind-driven snow is absolute drivel.

Next, the idea that natives couldn’t cheat is utter nonsense. With their smaller-scale communities, I don’t doubt it would be harder to cheat (or at least, to get away with it). Smaller social circles beget greater accountability, after all. But (a) it is absurd on the face of it to claim that any civilization throughout history lacked cheaters. And (b) it is even more absurd to claim that laws being oral would make cheating less common. One of the greatest features of written law is that anyone with enough literacy can, for the most part, understand what the law says. To illegitimately change the law without anyone noticing (in a democracy, anyway) requires a grand conspiracy, probably involving thousands of individuals. To illegitimately change an oral law could, depending on the law, conceivably be done with the cooperation of a bare handful (though as with the positive differences, this is also largely due to differences in scale).

Finally, let’s address the idea that a man’s worth couldn’t be measured by money. If a tribe or civilization did indeed lack money (i.e. currency), then this is true, strictly speaking. However, the implication that material possessions and wealth did not play any role in how natives viewed one another is ridiculous. Like every other culture on the planet throughout all of history, even including many, many animal “societies”, American Indian cultures had hierarchies. And as with literally every other culture, those higher in the hierarchy generally had more material wealth. It baffles me that educated adults could think it was otherwise. Perhaps it was less severe among American Indians than amongst Europeans, Africans, or Asians, but Red Hawk’s claims (assuming this is something he, whoever he is, actually said) of concern with material things being totally absent are pure fiction.

In conclusion, let’s treat American Indians, and other indigenous cultures, the same way we should treat everyone else: by considering them to be actual people who live/lived in the real world; neither ignorant savages who need guidance nor noble savages without failings.

Edits

  1. 2020-11-30 14:06 EST – In the interest of completeness, added “Africans” to the list of groups possibly more materialistic than American Indians

Race History

I’m known to generally favor the conservative side of most issues. This is particularly notable when it comes to issues that are in some way related to race. Not that I am especially conservative in racial issues. For the most part, I am actually more agnostic or liberal on such issues than other issues. However, this conservatism frequently makes me the target of assertions of racism or at least racial insensitivity (usually by white people). It is also often implied and occasionally stated outright that I have little to no experience and do not know what (usually) black Americans go through.

While it is true that while there is any racial discrimination in the world – or even demographic disparities – I’ll never know precisely what it is to be a black American, I’d like to dispel the myth that I’m a sheltered white boy with no knowledge or exposure to other races and cultures.

I know that this will open me to mocking references to “I can’t be racist; I have black friends!” But I don’t think that applies. First, because no amount of racial exposure necessarily means that one can’t be racist; that’s not what I’m going for here. Indeed, there are some who are racist against their own race, whether they be contemptuous black Americans or self-flagellating white Americans. Second, as you will see, this is far more than simply having a token friend who happens to be black.

I’ll attempt to make this a comprehensive list of significant interactions/relationships with black individuals, both good and bad.

Heritage

While branches of my family tree stretch back to the Mayflower, my patrilineal line (the branch of the family tree with which I am most familiar and which has had the most impact on my life) emigrated to the southern United States from Germany in the mid-1800s. To the best of my knowledge, the family stayed largely in southern Mississippi until my grandparents moved to the DC/Maryland area for schooling and work, where my white father was born and raised. My white mother later moved to the area for university. In the intervening years of my father’s childhood, the schools were integrated. With the exception of a few years spent further North, my parents lived the rest of their pre-children years in the Maryland area.

I do recall once asking my dad as a child if my grandparents had black friends (I don’t recall why) and he said not many, but explained that it was circumstantial due to there not being many black people around them. Their openness and inclusiveness was very much confirmed much later when they profusely welcomed my adopted Indian brother to the family, and more recently in their adoration of his half-Indian, half-black daughters. And if I’d been able to use my brain a bit more as a child, it would have occurred to me that my uncle (their son-in-law at the time) was Indian and my cousins were very much visibly his children, to the point of strangers doubting my aunt’s claims of maternity.

Maryland

My earliest memories are of years spent in the house my father purchased as a single man, courtesy of earning money through manual labor and not incurring debt with unnecessary (for him) schooling. These earliest memories are mostly black, because our 3-5 person white family spent a few of those years hosting two other families (at separate times) for reasons I’ve never fully understood. One white family with three girls lived with us for a period of about six months. While I remember the family well, I do not remember much of this time.

Much more prominent in my mind was the longer time that a black family of six spent living with us. Probably because they had four boys who ranged in age from slightly older than me to several years older. They are, with one possible exception, my oldest friends in the world. I still have occasional contact with one or two of them. But in those years they were the older brothers I never had. And though it happened later (ironically when they lived in the same house but we had moved), my only memory of receiving physical discipline from outside my blood family came from their oldest son. That shows you just how close our families were. For the sake of comparison with the rest of these recollections, I recall their family generally being a bit “poorer” than we were, though the accuracy of that perception is uncertain. If true, whether it was due to total income or the strain of four rambunctious young males running around, I do not know.

At the age of 5 or so, my family moved to another Maryland suburb. While a great many white people seemed to live in the subdivision beyond the woods behind our home, our only neighbors were a small black family with a boy maybe 5 years older than me. This boy, too, became an older brother to me. Though I cannot even recall his name now, he is the one who taught me how to ride a bike. He’s is also the one who taught me not to lend fragile toys to stronger older boys, so, you know. Ups and downs.

Sometime around then, my grandparents retired to Mississippi.

After a couple years, the woods on the other side of our house were partially cleared and a new home was built for a black family with three girls around the age of myself and my two younger sisters. At this point, it bears mentioning that any who look up my old street address here (which I will not give) will discover a mansion with a tennis court. That is not where we lived. We lived in the now-demolished three-bedroom single-story that could probably fit in the mansion’s garage.

However, the neighbor’s houses? While not mansions, they are impressive homes. Those are the same as when we lived there. In fact, I drove by during my honeymoon a few years ago, and happened to pass by as the father of the family with three girls was returning home – they’re still there twenty years later. I say all this to say that while I didn’t pay much attention to race as a kid, my general experience in these years was that the black people I knew – as with most people I knew – were wealthier than my family.

My closest secular friend during this time – indeed, the only male school friend who’s name I can recall – was a black boy. As an aside, I recall the older of my younger sisters had a crush on him for some time.

During all our years in Maryland, my family belonged to a particular church, the Maryland branch of which my parents had been members since they returned to Maryland six months after the planting (they had been members of the parent church up North). This is the family of churches to which we still belong, and they were particularly noteworthy then for having racial makeups that represented the areas in which they were located. (I say ‘then’ only because this is thankfully less unique now.) In this case, this had the result that the majority of my friends were black. In particular, I want to mention a Jamaican then-couple, now-family who have been lifelong friends of our family – I believe they have visited us in every house we’ve ever lived in, aside from one temporary situation. I always enjoyed how the father would always go out of his way to refer to me by my full name since his first name is my middle name.

Virginia

When I was just turning 8, we moved to white people country. I’m not sure I saw a single non-white person in my school or “neighborhood” during the second half of second grade. For six months we lived on a farm while my father scouted locations for a new church summer camp. Even though we were in definitively white people country, somehow this church location was still very integrated; I assume because we drove some distance to maintain fellowship with the same church, one of the members of which owned the property we lived on.

That summer, we moved to a different part of rural northern Virginia. And should you or I ever meet, dear reader, I don’t want to hear any nonsense about you coming from a small town if your town had any commercial property or stoplights. We had two stop signs, a volunteer fire department that existed mostly to produce a haunted walk on Halloween, and a country store that was occasionally in business. And three separate campgrounds, including the tree farm my family moved to. I’ve since seen smaller towns, but I had to travel to the third world to do so!

This was certainly still white people country. The denser part of “town” had a mixed population, but the town’s side road on which we lived was mostly white. School, however, was still quite mixed. The county is mostly white by a modest majority and one-fifth black, so naturally there was a fair degree of diversity for a rural area. Something odd did happen here. While I had antagonistic relationships with only two or three classmates at all, my actual friendships in school seemed to shift to being almost entirely white, even while my (much closer) church friendships remained as diverse as the area.

The elementary school here was also the one time in my life that I’ve ever said the n-word. During a 4th grade discussion of a book we’d read for class which took place in the rural south shortly after the Civil War, I wanted to know the meaning of the one word I hadn’t understood and blurted out “What does n***** mean?” I got some of dirty looks and someone told me not to say that word, but no one answered. I eventually figured it out; I suppose I’m fortunate this occurred in a special class with a white teacher rather than in our normal class with the black teacher.

Anyways, I think we (along with the charity-based camp across the street) single-handedly shifted the demographics of town every summer when hundreds of children of all races flooded the cabins across the street and the tents of “our” property. The vast majority of my childhood memories stem from these summers. Imagine the strangeness of living a mile from your mailbox and even further from the nearest people for 9-10 months of the year, but to be surrounded by friends you potentially haven’t seen in years every summer, in a structured environment that produces new friends as well. Camping pro-tip: when you form teams for capture-the-flag, force the property resident to play on the side based around the house or you’re just asking for espionage. And when the son of the man who built the camp from nothing tells you something’s against the camp rules, maybe take him at his word.

It was a fine time for me. I learned to fence hike, to fight swim – anything anyone would teach me. Sorry, I tend to lapse into Morgenstern references at the slightest opportunity. I assume you wish me to return to the topic at hand? As you wish.

During this time we adopted my Indian brother from a New Delhi orphanage. I’ve often teased my brother about thinking he’s black, because he will actually tell people he’s black and can visually pull it off. I learned just this week that a very, very black (I am referring to skin tone) mutual friend of my brother and mine is of the opinion that my brother has earned that right, for reasons which mystify me.

North Carolina

After possibly the five most memorable years of my minority, major changes occurred in the leadership of our churches. This was mostly for the good, but it resulted in decentralization and a precipitous, somewhat temporary loss in membership, which meant a loss of income for the church, which meant the camp (owned by the church) was no longer feasible. Out of a job and disillusioned with much of the goings-on at the time, my parents sought a new home in a new region of the church, and we settled in North Carolina, and we’ve been here ever since. I want to note one standout memory of this move. When I told my three closest friends that I was moving, the one black friend (though this only stands out to me upon recollection) had by far the most intense reaction. It was at church, which was meeting in a high school. This stocky friend (in a jocular manner) grabbed me by the shirt, lifted my scrawny self up against the lockers and told me I wasn’t moving. Unsurprisingly, he’s the friend from those days I’ve kept up with the most, though he is decidedly not the one with whom I agree about things the most. He even incidentally introduced me to possibly my favorite modern Country song. While he and I disagree on many political points and have been on opposing “sides” of race-related controversies, I think it’s worth pointing out that he’s never been among those implying that I don’t talk to black people or have any understanding of their perspective.

My area of North Carolina is pretty diverse. My parents’ county has a small white majority, large black minority, and large populations of Hispanics/Latinos and various immigrants. My county has a white plurality somewhat more numerous than the black population, and a large Hispanic/Latino minority, which I am actively increasing.

Eighth Grade

Anyways, while the lower-middle-to-middle-class street I spent my teenage years on is entirely white and the neighboring street is populated by hicks, I still attended very diverse integrated schools and church. Several things about my one year of middle school are worth mentioning. First, my Virginia school system was more advanced mathematically. In the seventh grade, I was one in a classroom full of Algebra 1 students. In North Carolina eighth grade, I was one of only two students (to my knowledge) in the zone of my high school at that level. For this reason, I spent the first hour of every morning of the first semester taking Geometry at the high school. I mention this to point out that the only other student in that situation that I’m aware of was a young black man, who unsurprisingly also had an accountant mother. We got to spend about fifteen minutes each day on the short bus while he was taken to his middle school and I to mine. While he disappeared without warning after the fall break and I’ve not seen him since, he was undoubtedly my first secular friend in North Carolina, and possibly my only school friend in the eighth grade.

Due to scheduling, we were in a remedial Geometry class, so we were classmates with such geniuses as a senior seated next to me who asked to cheat off my test (the final exam, I think it was), when different rows were given different tests. On the flip side, high school operated on semesters and middle school didn’t, which meant I got to spend the spring of eighth grade sitting in a class full of Algebra 1 students who had no idea why I showed up halfway through the semester, spent the entire class reading Star Wars books, never did any homework, and aced every test. And this is completely unrelated to anything, but there was a nice girl I unseated from her position as academic leader of this algebra class (evidenced by the teacher announcing that only one unnamed student [me] had aced the first test I’d taken and the entire class said her name in unison). It turns out she was born perhaps 30 feet from me and a few months afterwards. This is North Carolina. I was born in the DC area. Just thought it was amusingly and mildly interesting.

Second, partway through the year a black boy moved down from New York and joined a couple of my classes. I made an effort to bond over having moved from a more Northern state. He laughed at the suggestion that Maryland was “north,” but seemed to appreciate the gesture. Later, at the beginning of gym class he asked if he could use my locker (since he did not yet have one) and I agreed. Later that day or the next day, I was shocked when he went out of his way to mock me in front of a group of classmates. The next day he showed up looking to use my locker. I declined rudely. I’m a bit ashamed of that; I was raised to repay evil with good.

Third, I was always a gifted student. It is not pride, but simple fact, to state that I am intelligent. Passing the PSAT & SAT with flying colors in the seventh and ninth grades is evidence in favor. Getting my first and last name mixed up on the SAT scantron and completely overlooking 15 PSAT math questions is evidence against. But moreover, I was raised in a disciplined household. As such, I never even considered the possibility that I might get a C in a class prior to college. It just wasn’t something that happened in my family (except to my brother who had to deal with English as a second language). For that matter, B’s hardly seemed to happen for my youngest sister (who probably has the greatest raw intelligence of the family, or at least intelligence of a scholastic bent). So imagine my surprise when in my easy-A trivial Health class, I seemed to always get sub-par grades without obvious reason. At the time, I merely assumed that I just didn’t do well. The assignments were different from the more concrete STEM or language-based classes in which I excelled. So perhaps it wasn’t my thing. Case in point, one assignment (which I don’t think it was fair to grade us on if we were indeed graded on it), was basically a marketing recognition test in which we had to match up about fifty slogans with their products/companies. I got two correct, one of which was McDonald’s “I’m Loving It.” No doubt this was a result of the absence of TV service of any kind other than VHS/DVD from our home throughout my childhood until that time (we later got Netflix before and during its streaming incarnation).

One thing I hadn’t really noticed was that I was one of very few white students in a mostly black class with a black teacher. My parents (much) later informed me that I received sub-par grades due to the teacher’s racial prejudice. Unbeknownst to me, they had had meetings with the principal (who was apparently a phenomenal administrator and went on to work in the high school) and the teacher. I don’t know precisely what occurred in these meetings, but I know that my parents and the principal were in agreement that I did not deserve the grades I received, but the teacher was adamant for reasons unknown to me. I don’t say this as a pity party or to portray myself as a victim. If this is the worst thing to happen to me (spoiler alert: it isn’t), then I’ve got a lucky life. I say this merely as an example of how it is foolish to assume that someone does not know what it’s like at all to be a local minority or to suffer prejudice based on their skin simply because they happen to be a member of the national majority. I am not equating my experiences with anyone else’s. I know full well how easy my life has been on the whole and how minor this particular incident is. I merely wish to discourage people from making categorical assumptions based on race.

Fourth, my black Spanish teacher hated me. I never knew why; I’d never been disliked by a teacher prior to the 8th grade. She was very sociable, so I suspect it had to do with me being the quiet kid. It certainly wasn’t related to schoolwork since I doubt we were assigned two days’ worth of work that entire semester. I sincerely doubt race had anything to do with it, as there were plenty of white students with whom she got along with well in the class. I say this to point out that there are situations where cross-racial animosity exists, but in which we should not assume racism until given cause. I believe she was replaced by a long-term substitute at some point for reasons I don’t know. He was also black. I don’t remember anything about him other than his involvement in the fifth event.

Fifth, I have only been in one altercation in my life that even approaches a real “fight.” Once, while leaving my Spanish class, a black kid whose name I knew but who I’d never interacted with before, shoved me for no reason whatsoever. I shoved him back. He punched me in the face, broke my glasses, and fled immediately when he heard the teacher coming. The teacher came. Unlike the later event I will recount, he handled things correctly. Brought me to the principal and I told the story. Because I shoved back, I got a couple days’ detention. But as a school-friendless bookworm who could do a day’s classwork in an hour or so, that was fine by me.

There was one more memory that was unrelated to anything but which I treasure too much not to share. The science teacher one day decided to walk along the classroom and point at each kid and declare their future profession. Most kids took a few seconds’ thought. He passed me by without even stopping and declared “Engineer” without hesitation. I suppose software “engineer” is close enough.

High School

I did not attend my base school, but when to a high school with a STEM focus in a predominantly black community. It was here that I first experienced any degree of racial tension. Nothing significant, but the nearly entirely-black students of the base school tended to attend the regular and remedial classes, and so tended to keep to themselves. Those like me who came from a different base school for scholastic purposes were more diverse in race and background (white, black, Hispanic, Pakistani, etc.). We tended to attend honors and AP classes and therefore kept to ourselves. Among fellow Star Wars nuts, gamers, bookworms, engineering enthusiasts, and generally funny people, I found school friends aplenty. While there was nothing serious, hints of racial differences could seep through. One of my friends throughout high school was a black man with whom I share a birthday. A very cheerful, smart, quick-witted individual. I don’t know the origin of this, but it actually took me a while to learn his actual name, because at school he went by “Whitey”.

There was one substitute teacher who bears mentioning. Mrs. Solomon was the high school boogeyman. She was unpleasant, strict, and never taught anything. She is most notorious for reportedly declaring to a class of impressionable freshmen that prison’s purpose is to be the modern slavery of black men.

But in general, high school passed without significant racial incidents. Though I feel compelled to mention one particular event. It’s not particularly racial, but the perpetrator did happen to be black. This individual, with whom I had a contentious relationship through a good part of high school, once came up behind me and jabbed his finger into my rectum (through my pants/shorts). As bad as that was, what really stood out to me about this was not that a jerk harassed me in a crude manner. But that when I was emotionally recounting events to the teacher who happened by shortly thereafter, I was not treated to any sympathy. No action was taken or even attempted against this coward who (again) ran instead of facing consequences. No, what stands out to me is that the teacher – who knew me as an excellent student in her class – became angry and yelled at me. Because I used the word “gay” to describe a male inserting his finger into my rectum. That was the only time in my entire thirty years of life that I have used the word “gay” in a derogatory manner, since I was raised with an emphasis on Ephesians 4’s prohibition on unwholesome talk. Yet I was berated for the one time I used it (with complete accuracy). Is it any wonder that I developed an aversion to political correctness?

I will mention another event more for the humor value than anything. I took a Digital Electronics course taught by a redneck Vietnam vet. The class was laid back, and one of the black students played a song or two of some music with which I am unfamiliar. The teacher kindly told him to turn it off. A few minutes later, I started playing some Brad Paisley. The boy asked why I could play music and he couldn’t. The teacher said in very typical fashion for him, “Be-cawz he’s plaaayin’ country/western.” But he did have me turn it 0ff which I was glad to do, having extracted the intended humor from the teacher’s clear preferences. The same teacher was in the habit of smacking me upside the head whenever he saw me wearing my motorcycle helmet. Good times.

During high school I also visited Guatemala for the first time. The group was very large, so we actually didn’t interact with the Guatemalans very much, other than the local schoolchildren.

University

I spent most of my college years with roommates. In terms of man-months, they were mostly black (meaning I had more white roommates in total, but most of the time had mostly black roommates). We got along splendidly, and I always hold up one of them as a shining example of how to have pleasant conversations about any subject imaginable, up to and including race. During this time, I was the “victim” of a couple of thefts. But what stands out to me is the one attempted robbery, where four or five black men once attempted to rob me. While I have no particular reason to suspect I was targeted for being white, this shows that I do indeed know what it’s like to be alone amongst a group of another race who are, shall we say, less than friendly. (Though I certainly am not implying that this is equivalent to a regular, daily experience of being a visible minority.) There was also the time when I was the only white person among about 200 black people at a recreational event, which was an odd experience. No one was threatening or unwelcoming, but I did happen to notice some inquisitive or mildly confused looks.

University was also when I first became aware just how fast and loose certain types of people will play with the race card. I had been aware that vague “liberal” types existed who might consider me racist for my opinions on immigration, affirmative action, or welfare. I had no idea I would personally be accused of racism by someone who actually sort of knew me simply for disapproving of a particular political candidate, or that the nation’s leaders would begin declaring any opposition to increased taxes “racist.”

During university I made a few additional trips to Guatemala and actually got to meet some of the people there, several of whom are still friends I keep in touch with.

Career

There’s no delicate way to put this. I seem to work in a profession with few black people. Perhaps it’s just been the three companies I’ve worked for, but software engineering – while generally a racially diverse profession – just does not seem to attract that many black men (or women, though that’s another subject). I’ve worked with white men, white women, a single black man (who performed his job admirably; much more so than his white counterpart at a different job), many Indian men and women, Chinese men and women, and technically one white transsexual who I didn’t really work with, but shared a cubicle wall with.

While in my career, I briefly lived with a white family of five, and I lived alone for a few months. The rest of the time, up until my marriage, I always had roommates, and they were always black, except for one guy who is half-Chinese and half-White but for some reason looks so Hispanic that twice now native Spanish-speakers have begun speaking Spanish to his English-only self apropos of nothing while my fluent Spanish self sits or stands at his side, barely controlling laughter.

During this time of increased income and ability to travel, I made enough trips to Guatemala that I’ve completely lost count at this point. It’s how I met my wife (who I brought to the US on a fiance visa) and was adopted into a family of twenty or so Guatemalans and counting when a black man married us while a Dominican provided interpretation to Spanish. We now have a son who will grow up bilingual. During the same general time period, my Indian brother has entered into a long-term relationship with a black woman and produced two beautiful mixed daughters. (As a Christian, I must point out that we do not approve of the sequence of events here, but that doesn’t mean we love anyone involved any less.)

I have also been involved in small groups and specific structured relationships within the church with people of all manner of backgrounds – Dominican, Jamaican, Haitian, Ghanese, Kenyan, Dixie, Yankee, black American, Peruvian, Mexican, etc. And when I say “background” in this context I mean that they’re generally from those places (or in a few cases are children of immigrants). They speak the language, they have the culture, etc.

Oh, and by the way, if anyone – particularly any white people – reading this are offended by my avoidance of “African American” in favor of the word “black”, none of these black people I’ve known have ever taken offense. And several of them have some issue with the term “African American” themselves (though would not consider it offensive). As one brother wisely put it: “It’s all about intent.”

Conclusion

So, do I know precisely what it’s like to be this sort of person or that sort of person? No, of course not. But nor do they know exactly what it’s like to be me, specifically.

Should I be more sympathetic to peoples’ feelings? Perhaps.

Feelings don’t care about your facts

Brian Adams, personal friend

But I’ll stress that while feelings are valid, they are irrelevant to certain discussions of policy, practical solutions, and sometimes morality.

Facts don’t care about your feelings.

Ben Shapiro, political pundit

I just hope people will take a little more time to consider what they may not know about others they dislike or disagree with before they take the lazy, intellectually cowardly route of assuming malicious intent in general and racism in particular. And avoid ascribing characteristics of a group, real or perceived, to particular individuals. That is, after all, the core of racism. As Jordan Peterson has noted, the variances between groups pale in comparison to the variances between individuals.

Black Lives Matter™ vs Christianity

Let me start by saying that, to the best of my knowledge, I have never uttered nor propagated any of these phrases:

  • Black Lives Matter
  • Blue Lives Matter
  • All Lives Matter

This is not because I disagree with the content of any of those messages. However, I think the use of these slogans is counter-productive. Those who agree don’t need to hear it. Those who disagree will not be swayed. And most of all, those who may agree with the content may be affronted at the utterance. By saying “X lives matter” you are implying to a non-receptive audience that someone, namely the person you are speaking to, does not agree that those lives have value. It is only natural for anyone to be perturbed at such an implication, even if they really shouldn’t allow that offense to dictate their response.

But this rant is not aimed at the well-intentioned who use these phrases. Neither is it aimed at protestors criticizing a system for its flaws, real or perceived. No, this rant is aimed squarely at destroying the all-too widespread image of the Black Lives Matter organization proper as a force for good. Even so, this is not aimed even at (perhaps) most rank-and-file members of this organization, though I do hope that they receive it, that they might know the sort of bedfellows they are keeping. Most of all, I hope for this to be read by those who follow both Christ and the Black Lives Matter organization.

I am not going to expose any secrets or opine about ambiguities regarding funding or ulterior motives. I am writing this simply because I finally got around to reading the Black Lives Matter website.

Black Lives Matter is not interested in truth and is founded on misinformation, whether received or produced. The Black Lives Matter About page declares in no uncertain terms that the organization is founded on the supposition that (1) George Zimmerman was guilty of murdering Trayvon Martin and that (2) his acquittal was a miscarriage of justice. I will not opine on the motives of Zimmerman, nor the correctness of his or Martin’s actions.

But I want to make one thing abundantly clear: Even if Zimmerman did murder Trayvon Martin – which is doubtful – there was insufficient evidence to overcome the “reasonable doubt” burden. It is likely that Trayvon Martin initiated the violence, perhaps justifiably so (believing Zimmerman to be a pedophile). Eyewitness testimony is conflicted, and the most condemning witness testimony (much publicized, of course) comes from relatives of eyewitnesses rather than the actual witnesses themselves! The zeitgeist version of events was not helped by a media which forsook its duty as a propagator of truth. MSNBC actually edited the 911 phone call to make it appear as though Zimmerman volunteered racial information! Couple all this with other known facts, such as Zimmerman’s Hispanic heritage and black prom date, and the confident assertion that Zimmerman was an anti-black racist who murdered a boy for no reason is simply unsustainable.

This insidious’ organization’s What We Believe page cites their “search of justice” regarding Mike Brown’s death in Ferguson as one of the first major acts of the organization. Any true seeker of justice (among the general public, at least) must conclude that it would have been a miscarriage of justice to convict Darren Wilson. Whether he should have been indicted is beyond my level of expertise, but a conviction (based on publicly available information) would have been wronging a man for his actions minutes after he sought to assist a baby with breathing problems. While Brown’s death does have a number of characteristics that are cause for concern, it is simpleminded to conclude that when a giant man reaches into a cop’s vehicle and later charges the officer (supported by the testimony of black witnesses), that the resulting altercation and any deaths are simply the result of racism. Particularly when Brown was the suspect mentioned and described in detail in a “stealing in progress” minutes before. The slogan “Hands up, don’t shoot” and the like are based upon testimony that was “inconsistent, fabricated, or provably wrong” and ignores testimony by a black eyewitness that Wilson was “in the right” or that he “would have f****** shot that boy, too.” None of this is to say that anyone was right, per se, but that to convict Wilson would have been wrong (based on what we know as members of the general public).

But these are minor quibbles for the earnest Christian seeking to address injustice. Perhaps they are merely guilty of trusting the wrong sources (though at this point, heavily involved parties like BLM™ confidently invoking Mike Brown as an innocent victim is indicative of either willful ignorance or dishonesty). And in any case, there are undoubtedly cases of police brutality, some subset of which involve racism in one form or another.

So let’s look at their goals and beliefs. There are some which give pause, but none more so than their Marxist view on the quintessentially Christian institution of nuclear families:

We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.

Black Lives Matter “What We Believe” page

There, in black and white, they go beyond the admirable goal of mutual assistance in the rearing of families to explicitly criticizing the nuclear family structure itself – a structure mandated for Christians who choose to procreate. Any student of the Bible would do well to avoid alliance with such a group.

Again, this is not a mark against the use of the slogan “Black Lives Matter” or of those who earnestly protest perceived injustices in good faith. But this organization does not deserve your support.