Satan

[Bill]

Hey all,

I'm trying to understand who or what Satan is today and I would appreciate your input. I'm especially interested in the temptation in the wilderness but any other thoughts would be helpful too.

Thanks,

Bill

[Infinite Grace]

Bill, from a covenantal standpoint, I'm not sure that there is technically a "satan" today, since all of God's purposes have been and are being achieved.

However, if there is one, it would be the same as prior to the Parousia, IMO - the "ultra-religious." Literally, satan is the one who opposes God's purposes. This is what religion does.

[kevinbeck]

Bill,
I think Ed is on to something, and he can probably give you a much more thorough answer than I. But a couple resources you may want to conider is an atricle I wrote (how arrogant of me is it to suggest my own work!?) about 5 years ago. http://www.presence.tv/cms/finalbattle.php. It is a little dated, but it might have some food for thought.

Second, and much lengthier, is a book by Elaine Pagels called, "The Origin of Satan." Pagels is a Yale scholar and this is a top notch book.

What are your thoughts on Satan?

Blessings,
Kevin

[Paige]

Kevin,

Thanks for the link to your article. It was one I was going to suggest, and you saved me the time of rounding it up myself :)

I think I need to get a copy of that book by Pagels. It sounds very interesting!

Paige

[Infinite Grace]

First of all, let me say that I believe in "spirits." However, I do not believe that "satan" was a celestial being that fell. I believe that satan has always been "a liar;" i.e., he is whoever has opposed the grace of God. Liars deny that the Messiah came "in the flesh." Liars deny that the grace of God is sufficient. Liars claim that Christianity is grace PLUS something else. Yadda, yadda, yadda. Just as Peter claimed that Jesus didn't need to die, and Jesus rebuked him as "a satan," we become satans when we oppose God's purpose.

Angels in scripture are exactly what the Greek word implies: messengers. Prophets were "angels" who administered the old covenant. Angels in the NT were pastors/bishops; i.e., messengers of the new covenant. We have allowed Roman Catholic theology to warp our understanding of scripture.

[Paige]

Ed,

How do you see spirits today? The reason I ask is this seems to be a hot button issue. IMO, it seems that we have a tendency to label what we don't understand as "demonic". I see the potential of so many things that were thought of as being from demonic sources, actually may spring from the strength of our own minds. For example; the powerful belief the Aborigines have in the shaman who can hex them. I feel the power lies more in the mind of the one hexed, than in any demonic power.

I vividly recall being told that I shouldn't listen to rock music because the beat in it is the same beat used to call up evil spirits in other countries. The way I see it now is it may share a beat, but the problem is in the minds of those still held captive by false beliefs. If I were a missionary in their culture, I would respect their fear and try to work with them to gain victory over it. However, I would not come back to the states and start a fear campaign against contemporary music...

Paige

Bill, I apologize if you feel this is getting off track. Just let me know if you want to move this discussion elsewhere. :)

[Infinite Grace]

Paige,
In reality, there are only a couple of verses in scripture that can be tied to any kind of "spirit activity." One was where God sent a "lying spirit" to one of the kings so that he would go to war and get killed. Another is where Saul is tormented by an "evil spirit." The remaining ones are NT where Jesus casts out evil spirits.

#1) I don't know about spirits today. #2) I don't CARE about spirits today. Even in the OT times, the evil spirits were "SENT" by God on men who were already doing wickedly. The spirits didn't do anything that violated the person's free choice of disobeying God. So today, no one is being "overtaken" or "overpowered" by an evil spirit. Spirits, if they are still operating today, are sent by God and only enhance the behavior of those upon whom that spirit has come. Again though, this is only IF they are still operating today.

Since Jesus gave his followers victory over spirits, why should we care about them? It's all about not dealing with the truths at hand. If we can blame behaviors on "spirits" then we don't have to take responsibility for our actions: "the devil made me do it!" (Flip Wilson).

[Paige]

Since Jesus gave his followers victory over spirits, why should we care about them? It's all about not dealing with the truths at hand. If we can blame behaviors on "spirits" then we don't have to take responsibility for our actions: "the devil made me do it!" (Flip Wilson).

Thats the way I see it, too. :clap2:

Paige

[Bill]

Ed,

So do you think that perhaps the Satan who tempted Jesus in the wilderness could have been a messenger from God, an "evil spirit" or angel sent to tempt Him so that we could see the contrast between the two kingdoms and so that Jesus could experience the conflict that we experience in choosing between the two kingdoms?

Bill

[Infinite Grace]

Bill,
I actually never thought of it that way before. I suppose that could be how it was. I have, since my coming into IG, believed that "satan" in Jesus temptation was either an actual Pharisee, or a symbolic representation of Israel after the flesh. IOW, the pharisees considered the Messiah one way, while the truth of the Messiah was JESUS. The pharisees felt that the Messiah should support what they supported, etc. Just as later on Jesus was challenged about the people worshipping him, he made a comment about turning stones into worshippers. In the same way, Jesus was tempted to turn stones into bread. There was a sort of "Be what WE WANT you to be" temptation. Jesus instead chose to be what God wanted him to be. Another example of this is Jesus prayer in the Garden about God taking the cup away from him.

I hope this makes sense.

[backtothefuture]

Hi,
I have been lurking and find this very interesting. I confess I use to be a spiritual warfare person. Constantly wailing for the devil to get away from my family. I figured that all our troubles surely had to come from him, since God was good. When I crossed over to now, believing all things fulfilled, it was like a weight taken off my back. Heck, the devil use to get more credit around here than God did.
I personally believe that the devil represents those things that don't believe in the goodness of God. Same as with the Anti-Christ. That is my personal opinion. Anyone who is not with God is against him.
I would like to know when the Bible says to put on the whole armor of God, what would that mean today. I think one of the verses after that was resist the devil and he will flee from you. Again, when you think about it. You resist those things that are negative and not within a good boundary, or would bring about a bad consequence, you then naturally would have those things flee, because you wouldn't be opening yourself up to them.
Have I confused you yet:biggrinbounce:
Nancy

[Truthseeker]

Hi Ed,

Excellent! Well said! I've been seeing "Satan" as "the flesh" or "the desire of the flesh" for some time--but what you've said here seems to really narrow it down to the proper context. It gives me a flashback to Job; the heavenly assembly and "Satan entering in among them" making accusations against Job. I feel these accusations were the thoughts of those who looked at Job--the thoughts his contemporaries would have had, and that's also revealed in the words of his so-called "comforters". (Of course, Job is a "type" of Christ, aisi.)

This also brings to mind when Jesus rebuked Peter by saying, "Get behind me, Satan! You think man's thoughts and not God's." The fleshly thinking of that day would be that Messiah would be a fleshly king, overthrowing Rome and ruling from Jerusalem over the world.

Thank you SO much! This is all very clear to me now. I appreciate the question and all the comments here from everyone else as well--bravo!--rhonda

[Truthseeker]

Hi Dear Sis Nancy,

I appreciate what you said--that the devil got more credit than God did. This has also been my experience in the various religions I used to be part of.

You said: "Again, when you think about it. You resist those things that are negative and not within a good boundary, or would bring about a bad consequence, you then naturally would have those things flee, because you wouldn't be opening yourself up to them."

Insightful wise words, Nancy! I hadn't ever thought of it that way before. YES--that makes SO much sense. Bless ya--:)--rhonda

[Amie]

Since Jesus gave his followers victory over spirits, why should we care about them? It's all about not dealing with the truths at hand. If we can blame behaviors on "spirits" then we don't have to take responsibility for our actions: "the devil made me do it!" (Flip Wilson).

Ed,

What do you mean by "why should we care"? Do you mean as in worrying about them? I agree btw, with the point of your statement. I think it might be important to get a handle on defining the "spirits" so those who do believe that they are possessed might find healing.


I have, since my coming into IG, believed that "satan" in Jesus temptation was either an actual Pharisee, or a symbolic representation of Israel after the flesh.

Bill,

I agree with Ed. I think the tempter was a Pharisee, or maybe even a temple priest. I think that the "Devil" was trying to tempt Christ to worship him, etc, but he was truly tempting Jesus to wrap up the Old Covenant early. One of Jesus's answers is "You shall not tempt the Lord your God." That was taken from Deut 6:16, which reads "You shall not test Jehovah your God as you tested Him in Massah." If you read the story of what happened in Massah (Ex 17), the people of Israel question whether or not God is in their midst.

"Tempting" God was synonymous with "provoking" Him in the OT. Here is a link to a crosswalk search under the key word "tempted" so you might see that it is consistently used in that way: http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=tempted&section=1&version=str&new=1&showtools=1&oq=massah

In the OT, there is most definately a general use of the word "adversary" ("satan"), however there is a specific, unnamed adversary spoken about in the OT (see Zech 2:10-Zech 3:1-2) who would later be the accuser of his brethren. That specific adversary of God imo, would be those who fought against the will of God - or the delivery of the New Covenant. That specific adversary also being the manifestation of fleshly desires.

Amie

[kevinbeck]

Very important conversation happening here. Thanks for sharing it with us.


Amie;
What do you mean by "why should we care"? Do you mean as in worrying about them? I agree btw, with the point of your statement. I think it might be important to get a handle on defining the "spirits" so those who do believe that they are possessed might find healing.

That is a great point. Recently, the Hilaros group in Johannesburg published an article on Demons by Paige in their magazine "The Practice of Presence." We (at least a large number of us) in the post-industrial west may poo-poo demons, but vast numbers of people worldwide see them as being very active. Dead ancestors, etc. They tend to see the world from their position in the "purple meme" (to use Spiral Dynamics terminology). There are also large numbers of Westerners who are very keen on seeing malevolent spiritual forces around every corner. I knew a highly educated person with advanced degrees who was influenced very heavily by thinking on the influence of devils.

Then, there are others of us who may not believe in demons per se, but be see forces controlling the affairs of humanity. The Market, The Housing Bubble, The Economy. We're turned them into our own sort of demi gods. Anyway, if we can demonstrate the all-permeating influence of God's love, God's infinite grace (to use Ed's great term), then people may find themselves more at ease, more confident, not as fearful of the principalities and powers.

Have you read any of Waler Wink's books? Very good stuff.

Blessings,
Kevin

[Amie]

Have you read any of Waler Wink's books? Very good stuff.


Sure haven't, what are they about?

Amie

[kevinbeck]

Amie,
Walter Wink is a theologian who is concerned with power and power relationships. He is usually branded a "liberal" (gasp!). :eek:

Here is a link to his books on Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=br_ss_hs/103-1144264-0771038?search-alias=aps&keywords=walter%20wink).

[lynn]

As you all have been thinking, I also think that perhaps Satan was human, not a supernatural, immortal entity. I’m considering the possibility that he doesn’t now exist because all first-century believers’ adversaries were soon, after Romans’ writing, crushed under their feet. :)
Romans 16:20 The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.
John 12:31 Now judgment is upon this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out.
Revelation 20:10 And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; Conversely, other Scripture seem to support the conventional view. Consider these questions from a traditionalist:
In Matthew 12:22, can someone be possessed by a human so much as to make him blind and mute?

In John 8:44, how could any human be a murderer from the beginning? That human wasn’t in the Garden of Eden. Likewise, how could said human be the father of lies?

In Genesis 3 was the serpent a human; was he Adam? If so, why doesn’t the Bible just say so? Adam didn’t crawl on his belly the way God cursed the serpent. And regarding the curses, why did God separate Adam’s curse from the serpent’s if the two were the same person?

In Job 1:7 is Satan Job?

Here’s the one that really stumped me: :confused:
Ephesians 6:12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places. Paul here said that their struggle was not against flesh and blood. But I’m thinking that it was. I think that their struggle was against the Pharisees, humans, flesh and blood humans. Satan, their (Chief High Priest?) adversary, was a flesh and blood human.

How would you answer the these traditionalist’s questions, especially the one about Ephesians 6:12? ;)

[Paige]

Hi Lynn,

For me, I see Eph. 6:12 as referring to the rulership of the OC. In that way, it wasn't about struggling with people so much as the power those people thought they had over others. Rev. refers to them often as the "synagogue of Satan". The darkness referred to in Eph. can be compared with the darkness spoken of in John 1. (The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it...). This darkness was the OC world, and it is referred to as such throughout the NT.

I'm going to have to think on your other questions a while. I know I've read some here and there on it. In fact, Lou had written a great piece on "the beasts of the field", which gave some insight on the possible identity of the "serpent" spoken of in Gen.

As for the accounts of demon possesion in the NT, I've also wondered about the same. From what I know about things today, it is still true that we are affected by our beliefs. Michael Chrighton (sp?) tells a story about a doctor friend of his, who had done everything to heal a man who had been put under a Shaman curse. The man was failing by the day, and the Dr. could find nothing wrong with him. The Dr. decided to cook up a scheme whereby he "made up" a spell and a ritual that would "undo" the curse of the Shaman. Lo and behold, the man got better and soon left the hospital. The story illustrates how powerful the human mind can affect the human body, IMO. (As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he...) So, the demons would be real, but possibly our understanding of their origin is flawed??? I don't know if much of this is helpful. I know that Amie has done some extensive research into the topic.

Paige

[davo]

Here’s the one that really stumped me: :confused: [/I] Paul here said that their struggle was not against flesh and blood. But I’m thinking that it was. I think that their struggle was against the Pharisees, humans, flesh and blood humans. Satan, their (Chief High Priest?) adversary, was a flesh and blood human.

How would you answer the these traditionalist’s questions, especially the one about Ephesians 6:12? ;)
Lynn, I'm inclined to think Paige is on the right page :biglaugha: -- there is much to be thought through on this stuff. As for Eph 6:12, and following along the lines mentioned here, have a listen to the audios on my site on this whole issue of 'spiritual warfare' as I believe they clear up the mumbo jumbo "crap" out there on this.

[Amie]

Lynn,

I don't think that "satan" is supernatural either, though I don't dismiss the existance of a "satan". I think that context defines who "satan" is in each passage. The only undefined one, in my opinion, is in Genesis 2-3, but that's because the serpent's identity is revealed much much later (at least in Revelation).

I wrote an article on this one which might address some of your questions here: http://www.presence.tv/cms/con-out-of-darkness.php. In the least, it is probably a good conversation-stirrer.

My thought on Ephesians 6:12 is that both apostate Israel and faithful Israel were working toward redemption ("all Israel" would be saved). If "flesh and blood" refers to the offspring of Israel (and it most often does), then they really weren't struggling against that itself, but the rulership thereof... eh, like Paige said, haha.

Amie

[lynn]

Thank you so much! I appreciate the articles, Amy and Davo. Great jobs! Bravo!

For me, I see Eph. 6:12 as referring to the rulership of the OC. Great insight, Paige! :clap2: I agree.

If "flesh and blood" refers to the offspring of Israel (and it most often does), then they really weren't struggling against that itself, but the rulership thereof... eh, like Paige said, haha. AmieGreat minds think alike! :)


In Matthew 12:22, can someone be possessed by a human so much as to make him blind and mute?

In John 8:44, how could any human be a murderer from the beginning? That human wasn’t in the Garden of Eden. Likewise, how could said human be the father of lies?

In Genesis 3 was the serpent a human; was he Adam? If so, why doesn’t the Bible just say so? Adam didn’t crawl on his belly the way God cursed the serpent. And regarding the curses, why did God separate Adam’s curse from the serpent’s if the two were the same person?

In Job 1:7 is Satan Job?
Perhaps the above questions are difficult to explain to futurists who tend to understand prophetic fulfillments as physical only. It's like trying to explain to traditionalists how the stars have already fallen from the sky (Matthew 24:29). They think we're nuts. :rolleyes:

[Amie]

True Lynn, lol!

I don't have the reference memorized (it's in my article), but pointing them to the law about the adversary and the accused presenting themselves before God in the tabernacle is fairly simple at least :). It clearly isn't taking place in heaven, nor was the law for all of the "supernatural satans".

Amie

[lynn]

Amy, I found the reference. Thanks. :)

A good rule-of-thumb I’ve adopted is that when given a choice of interpretations, the more grace-oriented one is usually the more likely correct. IMO, thinking that satanas was only a pre-parousia adversary is more grace-oriented than thinking Satan, proper noun, now still exists. Therefore, I tend to lean toward the former interpretation. Besides, I think it’s biblical. :cool:

Thanks to the leadership here at Talk-Grace for the opportunity you give us to talk grace! :clap2:

lynn

[Amie]

Lynn,

I value your talking! Thank you :)

Amie

[Amie]

1. In Job 1:7 is Satan Job’s friends? If so, who caused Job’s boils and who caused the wind to sweep away his children? Satan's power seems more like God’s than the friends’.

The same power inflicted Job that was used by Moses to part the red sea. In Chapter 6 for example, Job says "For the arrows of the Almighty are within me; their fury is drinking my spirit; the terrors of God are set against me."

I break Job down fully in this article http://www.presence.tv/cms/con-out-of-darkness.php, especially under the section "satan and Job".



2. In John 8:44, how could any human be a murderer from the beginning? John 8's humans were not in the Garden of Eden. Likewise, how could a human be the father of lies?”


44 You are of the Devil as father, and the lusts of your father you desire to do. That one was a murderer from the beginning, and he has not stood in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own, because he is a liar, and the father of it.

They knew their "father" Abraham, and it could be said of him that he was faithful, and those in him would be seen as the same or "of their father Abraham".

In verse 39 (John 8), they had just claimed to be children of Abraham and literally/biologically they may very well have been. Jesus goes on to compare the works of Abraham to their works - they who seek to murder and kill. Abraham had not done that, no, Abraham had been faithful.

There is a person of their lineage who is described as lacking faith in the love of God and killing his brother because of it (Cain: Gen 4, Hebrews 11:4, 1 John 3:2, and Jude 1:11). Jude 1:11 actually says that those under "woe" were going the way of Cain who ran after the err of Balaam.

According to 2 Peter 2:15 this "Balaam" isn't a supernatural being but a man, "son of Bosor who loved the wages of unrighteousness". Revelation 2:14 mentions what he taught "Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication." "Balac" is the "King of Moab" which hired Balaam to curse Israel. Isn't he also the guy who wouldn't listen to his own ass? (hahaha.. Numbers 22:22-45).


3. Speaking of the Garden of Eden, how could anyone believe that the serpent was Adam? Why doesn’t Genesis 3 just say so? Adam didn’t crawl on his belly the way God cursed the serpent (3:14). And regarding the curses, why did God separate Adam’s curse from the serpent’s if the two were the same person? (3:17)

The serpent is hidden. He is the most cunning of all of the beasts. The original Hebrew language even suggest that he is comparable to an arrow, hidden in a quiver. His identity is not revealed until he is cast into the lake of fire at the end of the story..



vs 2 And he laid hold of the dragon, the old serpent who is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years
vs 10 10 And the Devil leading them astray was thrown into the Lake of Fire and Brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet were. And they were tormented day and night to the ages of the ages.

Adam is a good theory imo. Christ was the last Adam (IOW, after Jesus - no more Adam). He was passing away.


4. In Matthew 12:22, can someone be possessed by a human so much as to make him blind and mute?
5. In Mark 5:13 did a flesh-and-blood human force two thousand swine to rush down a cliff and drown?

Possess is a combination of culture, personal belief, and sometimes mental and physical illness. I covered my thoughts on it here: http://www.presence.tv/cms/con-out-of-darkness.php

If Jesus cast an illness, or even a "strong delusion" into the swine, there is no reason why they would not have ran into the sea.

Historically, the human belief in supernatural beings evolved through belief in other gods, and then demi-gods and those that serve them. It is a pagan idea that even Israel feared. No one has power other than God most assuredly. There is one God, and no threat to Him imo.

Amie

[loveroftruth]

However, if there is one, it would be the same as prior to the Parousia, IMO - the "ultra-religious." Literally, satan is the one who opposes God's purposes. This is what religion does.

:wow2: That was a nougat!!

[Me Again]

In Job 1:7 is Satan Job?

Here’s the one that really stumped me: :confused: [/I] Paul here said that their struggle was not against flesh and blood. But I’m thinking that it was. I think that their struggle was against the Pharisees, humans, flesh and blood humans. Satan, their (Chief High Priest?) adversary, was a flesh and blood human.

How would you answer the these traditionalist’s questions, especially the one about Ephesians 6:12? ;)


Hi Lynn,
So that you know - I am Infinite Grace. I just returned to this forum after a "sabbatical." Since Barry started using my old website's name, I decided that Infinite Grace belonged to him now, so I chose "Me Again." I just wanted to let you know who you might be talking to if you respond.

Anyway, "flesh and blood" refers not to physical skin and the fluid that flows through our veins. It refers to "the old covenant." The flesh (sarx) is that which was subject to the Law (couldn't keep it), and blood refers to "the life" of the old covenant ("the life is in the blood"). When scriptures speak of "in the flesh" or "according to the flesh" it is not referring to the physical, but to the spiritual man who was subject to "good and evil." This perhaps gives us insight into Adam's "nakedness." His flesh was primary.

In the same way, Jesus coming "in the flesh" doesn't have much to do with his skin and bones, but the fact that he was subject to the law. Think about it for a minute, if Jesus had not been subject to the Law, his law-keeping wouldn't have made a hill of beans of difference. He came into this world an Israelite - a Jew in particular - and the Israelites were under the Law. He kept it, and was crucified (suffered death - the wages of sin) anyway. He conquered DEATH (the Old covenant - flesh and blood) through his resurrection. All who believed on him were made as righteous as he. Those who did not believe suffered DEATH in AD70. Death of the old covenant. Death of flesh and blood for those in covenant with God.

Their struggle against flesh and blood meant that they no longer struggled with the demands of the old covenant on themselves. Their struggle now was with "principalities, powers," etc. These powers were those who controlled the old covenant. The accusers of the brethren were Pharisees and Judaizers who demanded a return to the carcass - the flesh and blood of the covenant. But, as John said that believers were without sin, so Paul stated categorically that believers would no longer struggle with the demands of the covenant - flesh and blood. Their struggle now got physical - for the Adversary had taken up arms against the Christians, demanding their execution and persecution. They were the "satans" of the Church, whom Paul assured them God would crush under their feet shortly.

ed

[skydreamer]

Hi Guys, this has really interested me lately. I intend to re-read this thread but in the meantime I wanted to put out some passages I find interesting and see if any have some insights on them:

Then Satan stood against Israel and incited David to number Israel.
1 Chronicles 21:1

Again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, "Go, number Israel and Judah."
2 Samuel 24:1

Could this be a key to understanding who/what satan is?

In fierce anger He has cut off All the strength of Israel; He has drawn back His right hand From before the enemy. And He has burned in Jacob like a flaming fire Consuming round about. He has bent His bow like an enemy, He has set His right hand like an adversary And slain all that were pleasant to the eye; In the tent of the daughter of Zion He has poured out His wrath like fire.
Lamentations 2:3-4

Just thought I'd throw that out there...

Peace and love,
Diana

[Me Again]

Diana,
Herein lies the problem with trying to determine who or what satan is. We see in these very chapters that God Himself was a satan to unbelieving Israel. He was their adversary.

The satan who was the adversary of the church was the accuser of the brothers. This was the leadership that blasphemed God's grace by demanding a return to the Law. This does not mean that each and every instance of satan in the bible meant Israel, or God, or anyone else we might be able to identify. Satan was simply "adversary."

We bring so much baggage to the theological mix, don't we? So many people can't get past topics like this because in their mind, satan was a demonic little dude with a pitchfork and a pointy tail. In reality, the satans are those who fight against God's grace. Jesus even called Peter "satan."

Thanks for those scriptures. You see in the Lamentation passage a clear reference to FIRE as it relates to judgment.

ed

[Amie]

Herein lies the problem with trying to determine who or what satan is. We see in these very chapters that God Himself was a satan to unbelieving Israel. He was their adversary.

I agree. I wonder if this is connected to the temptation of Christ (Matthew 4, Mark 1) where Jesus sites an earlier temptation of God. He refers back to Deuteronomy 6:16, which brings us further back to the time of Israels' wandering in the wilderness (after leaving Egypt), specifically in Massah.

It was there that they protested, believing themselves to be better off as slaves (many being introduced to the fulfilled view react the same way). They wanted proof of God, rather than having faith in him and God was tempted to bring the wrath down upon them right then -- just as Jesus was in the wilderness with "the devil".

By being provoked to wrath, God became adverse to the promise of life itself.

Amie