“Vanity of vanities, said the preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.” (Ecclesiastes 1:2, LXX)

Last May, I voluntarily admitted myself to a psych ward after a suicide attempt left me questioning my place in this world. They had about five books available for patients, including a shoddy translation of the Bible. After a few days of being stabilized on medications, I picked it up and turned to Ecclesiastes. I had just survived an overdose; needless to say, I possessed quite a somber mindset. I found a slight sense of relief in knowing that the biblical authors were not exempt from the feelings I experienced at that time.

I felt that I had let myself down. Moreover, I felt that God had abandoned me. While in active psychosis, I experienced severe auditory hallucinations. Specifically, I heard the voice of God telling me that I needed to end my life. Earlier that year, after reading Amos and determining that the God of the Bible is a monster, I became an agnostic. Because I had rejected the God of Christianity, I carried the guilt of apostasy. This guilt, along with severe alcohol use and medication withdrawals, led me to believe that God was punishing me for rejecting him.

In the weeks and months following my attempt, I carried the burden of being a moral failure. I found consolation in Ecclesiastes’ message that human beings possess a strong moral standing, while the divine does not. In this post, I wish to survey the Ecclesiastical theodicy that, in many ways, saved my life.

All is Vanity: An Overview

The book of Ecclesiastes may be considered a long list of grievances its author holds concerning God, the world, and human life. At the core of Ecclesiastes, as with much of the ancient didactic wisdom literature (especially in the Bible), is the human experience of suffering. The author of Ecclesiastes, without a doubt, understands the impact suffering has on all breathing creatures; this pain, he understands, is vanity.

The book begins with the repeated use of the word vanity. The Hebrew word he employs, hebel, literally translates to “vapor.”¹ This term indicates that which “is lacking substance, ephemeral, without any result.”² The author does not refer to one singular item or belief, but that all or everything lacks substance. This opening phrase sets the tone for the remainder of the dialogue.

Theology as an Ancient Coping Skill

In antiquity, suffering humans did not have access to resources such as therapy or psychiatry. The field of psychology would not develop for millennia. But trauma is certainly as old as life itself, as is the belief in beings greater than ourselves. People needed a way to cope with suffering, and the greatest help available resided in the hands of the divine. To this day, belief in deities remains a coping strategy in times of hardship.

The picture I have painted in the preceding paragraph is exactly why the question of theodicy is so important. Those of us who believe in something(s) higher than us find it hard to rectify our suffering with their existence. It was no different for the ancient Israelites. To understand what these ancient texts mean, we must consider the framework of the authors’ psyches.

As one researcher says, “[T]here was a common tendency in Israel and Mesopotamia to understand human suffering and trauma in terms of divine punishment and human flourishing in terms of divine favor.”³ …or “both Israelite and Mesopotamian cultures operated within a worldview in which sin—whether disobedience to God/gods or failure to complete a religious ritual to the deities’ satisfaction—resulted in human suffering.”⁴

This concept is seemingly instinctual. We suffer, then we wonder why we are suffering. We ask questions such as, “What have we done to deserve this? Why is God doing this to me?” As I mentioned early on in this blog, such questions alone beg the problem of suffering. The idea that God inflicts suffering upon a person due to that person sinning is known as retributive theology. I think we can all acknowledge that this branch of theology does not provide a satisfactory resolution for the problem of suffering.

And neither does it for Qoheleth.

Retribution Theology Cannot Explain All Suffering

The book of Ecclesiastes is probably the least theological and most philosophical book in the Bible. The key belief behind Qoheleth’s monologue is, “Life is meaningless because actions fail to correspond with their consequences.”⁵ I think our modern translations are flawed in that meaningless carries an overwhelmingly pessimistic connotation. We all know that life is not meaningless. That life is a vapor, and thus it is fleeting, seems to fit better with the overall message of Ecclesiastes.

As I have heard the great biblical scholar Bart Ehrman explain in many debates on suffering, “vapor,” the literal transliteration of hebel in Ecclesiastes, means something that is here one moment and gone the next. That is life. We never know when our last day will be. We never know what tomorrow will bring. Life is not meaningless; our English Bibles do a great injustice to the original text with such translations. Life is a vapor—we need to enjoy it while it lasts.

We cannot live our lives believing what the church says. “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). Yes, this verse is true; but it is not the end of the story. There is no need to spend each day worrying that our pasts sins will result in hardships. We need to accept that we are wrong, we sin, and we can still enjoy life. As Qoheleth observes to be true, “A person can do nothing better than to eat and drink and find satisfaction in their own toil. This too, I see, is from the hand of God” (Ecc. 2:24).

Coherence, Significance, and Purpose in Ecclesiastes

Ecclesiastes is certainly a grim book; however, it is also extremely hopeful. It is truthful in the sense that it acknowledges the pain and misery we face in life. But it also serves as the example of one who, seemingly hopeless, hopes to find the meaning of life. And in my honest opinion, Qoheleth achieved his goal.

We as humans are instinctively inclined to seek out the meaning of life with hopeful hearts. Everyone hopes to see the sun rise another day. It is basic human psychology. In our quest for the meaning of life, psychologists have determined a “threefold scheme comprised of coherence, significance, and purpose.”⁶ Qoheleth, even if indirectly, addresses each of these in Ecclesiastes.

Coherence

We all long for coherence. We become frustrated when life does not make sense; the righteous suffer and the evil receive blessings. This, truly, is meaningless. Being upset when life is illogical is only part of being human. We know that we cannot change this, but we hope that it will all work out in the end.

Significance

We all crave significance. Nobody wants to simply lie down in isolation until the day we pass on. We want to forgive our pasts, make the most of the present, and hope for a better future. It is without a doubt that death is evil, but also inevitable. We all have that same ultimate destiny (Ecc. 9:3) and we hope that when that day comes, we can look back and appreciate our achievements.

Purpose

Lastly, we desire purpose. Whether our goals are to have a great career, find the love of our lives, or provide hope to the hopeless, we desire to know that our efforts are not in vain. We want to know that, at the end of the day, we have done something to make the world a better place. This, too, is not meaningless; it is being human.

Conclusion

Life is fleeting. Qoheleth knew this to be true, and you and I know it to be true. Ultimately, we desire to find the meaning of life through coherence, significance, and purpose. There is no sense in regretting the past, hating the present, and dreading the future. Of those three, the only two that are certain are the past and present. Tomorrow is never guaranteed.

Live each moment like it is your last. Do not waste your time beating yourself up over not going to church that one Sunday, or not making a donation to United Way (it’s only going to their CEO, anyway). We sin. Christian or not, it is important that we correct our ways of wrongdoing, but we cannot forget that life is only a vapor. It is here today, gone tomorrow. We must make it count.

1. Fox, Michael V. “Ancient Near Eastern Wisdom Literature (Didactic).” Religion Compass 5, no. 1 (2011): 6, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-8171.2010.00251.x

2. Murphy, Roland E.. Ecclesiastes, Volume 23A. Grand Rapids: HarperCollins Christian Publishing, 2015, 88.

3. Meek, Russell L. and Elizabeth Mehlman. “Resilience through Disclosure and Meaning Making in Qoheleth and the Babylonian Theodicy.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 47, no. 3 (2023): 292. https://doi.org/10.1177/03090892221149047

4. Ibid.

5. Keefer, Arthur. “The Meaning of Life in Ecclesiastes: Coherence, Purpose, and Significance from a Psychological Perspective.” Harvard Theological Review 112, no. 4 (2019): 453. Gale In Context: Biography (accessed June 23, 2024). https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A603404458/BIC?u=vic_liberty&sid=summon&xid=605c1299.

6. Ibid., 450.

I am not actively involved in the LGBTQ community. I am what one may consider asexual but heteroromantic; however, I do not believe this is a vital or strict part of my identity. That being said, I understand the importance of sexuality for the majority of people in this world. For many, sexual preferences and gender identity are key components of one’s personal identity. And Christianity is wrong to condemn such orientations as sin. In this post, I would like to address a seemingly everlasting debate: is homosexuality a sin?

I will go ahead and answer that homosexuality is not a sin, and the Bible never declares it to be. I will address two key verses that evangelicals often use to attack gay rights, both from one of my least favorite biblical books: Leviticus. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are frequently used to uphold the ill-meaning belief that “God hates the gays.” The problem we have with this, as with most scriptures that I address on Living by the Logos, is that Christians read modern translations of ancient writings in completely different languages, cultures, and parts of the world.

Christianity’s Stance on Homosexuality is Why I Stopped Going to Church

Nearly all branches of Christianity have, at least until recently, upheld the belief that homosexuality is a vile sin. This topic alone is exactly what led me to stop attending church; it did not lead me away from Christianity yet, but it made me lose interest in the popular Sunday ritual. After leaving the Baptist and nondenominational churches of my youth, I joined a tiny United Methodist congregation. Anyone keeping up with church politics knows that the United Methodist Church recently decided to allow LGBTQ clergy. This caused quite a stir among evangelicals, leading to the UMC itself splitting.

The United Methodist Church’s allowance of LGBTQ ministers has been in the works for several years. From the time I joined the UMC in 2017 until I stopped going in 2020, this was a major discussion within my church. The church I attended was a small white chapel, made up of about 50 congregants (all but one being white). I was the youngest member of the church by about 20-30 years. As you can imagine, the church opposed the LGBTQ community entirely.

The reason I stopped attending this church is because every Sunday, the pastor spoke about this issue. Sermons became lessons on church politics; out was the message of Jesus, in was the message of then-president Donald Trump. Keep in mind that I lost my mother (whose body rests at the church) in February of 2019. I was still grieving her loss in 2020. The problem of suffering became the most important question of faith. I needed consolation, I needed to know God loved me, and I needed to know that things would get better.

Instead, I received an endless supply of messages on why churches should not allow gay congregants or pastors. I became so frustrated that, one Sunday morning, I woke up and started getting ready for church. And I remember sitting on my bed wearing Sunday’s best trying to muster the strength to get in my car and go to church. I never went that day. I never went anytime after, either. The only times I have since visited have been to visit my mother’s grave.

What Does the Logos Say About Homosexuality?

“Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.” (Lev. 18:22, NIV)

“If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” (Lev. 20:13, NIV)

At first glance, it seems like the Bible does indeed condemn homosexuality. However, the majority of English-speaking Christians do not know the biblical languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek). Pastors are not trained to read the Bible in its original languages; seminaries, at best, offer introductory courses on these languages, but not enough to make one fluent. Besides, pastoral education typically relies more on systematic theology than biblical theology, thus pastors are familiar with the Christian interpretation of the Bible and not the Bible itself.

So, if we read Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 out of the English NIV, KJV, ESV, or even CJB, we find that homosexuality is a sin. But with a little familiarity with ancient Hebrew, the verses change drastically, and thus the interpretation does as well. The problem with these translations is that rather than providing a literal translation of the ancient texts, they are intentionally elaborate; thus, the nature of some verses changes completely.¹

But is Homosexuality Really a Sin?

I have incorporated literal translations of the Levitical passages from a biblical Hebrew expert below:

“And with a male you will not lie down the bed(ding)s of a woman; it is an abomination.” (Lev. 18:22)²

“And a man which lies down with a male the bed(ding)s of a woman, the two of them have made an abomination. Dying, they will be put to death. Their blood is upon them.” (Lev. 20:13)³

Do you see the differences between the NIV and the literal translation? The verses do not say “lying with a man like a woman,” but “lies down the bed(ding)s of a woman.” Now, we can acknowledge that the phrase “lying with” does mean sexual intercourse. In the Old Testament, we find quite a few words for sex that we would not use today (lying with, knowing/knew, becoming one flesh, etc.). So, although the literal Levitical verses speak of lying on the bed of a woman, the act is still condemned… or is it?

Context is Key

Now that we have looked at the syntax of the verses, let’s look at the context. Any good Bible student knows that context is key… except pastors, context is a foreign language to (most of) them. Well before I began my study of the Bible, I remember reading somewhere about the importance of context in reading the Bible. Christians tend to isolate verses (think Jeremiah 29:11) and thus, they develop a twisted meaning. I remember reading that to interpret a verse correctly, one must not exclusively interpret the singular verse but the preceding and following verses.

Leviticus 18:21 speaks of sacrificing one’s children, while 18:23 speaks of having sex with animals (bestiality). Leviticus 20:12 speaks of men having sexual relations with their daughter-in-law, while 20:14 speaks of men marrying a woman and her mother. The author is not just listing off a bunch of random things a person should not have sex with. One scholar summarizes, “The context of Lev. 18:22 is a series of laws on incest: sexual intercourse with a mother, sister, granddaughter, aunt, and proximate female in-laws is forbidden (Lev. 18:6–17).”⁴

The verses appear to prohibit incestuous relations between men; however, there is another interpretation we should consider. That is, that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 proscribe men having sex with married men. In all the primary and secondary research I have done for this article, this option appears to be the most likely and most agreed upon by scholars. Those of us who are or have been Christians know that adultery is one of the most formidable sins. Is it possible that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 form the basis of this view?

Levitical Law is Outdated, Anyway

I would like to add one final point to this discussion. While we may not have a definite answer on what Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are specifically speaking of, we know that it is not condemning consensual, same-sex relations between two single, unrelated people. This is truly great! But does it even matter? Unfortunately, so long as the church is preaching hatred of “sinners,” this debate will not end for a long time.

I cannot believe the issue is still a question within the church. I remember hearing the late reverend Timothy Keller explaining once that men who have sex with men are no different than men who abuse alcohol. Because, as he explained, in God’s eyes, both acts are sinful. Hearing him explain this is what really made me question the church’s approach to the LGBTQ community. And this was years before I found out that I am an alcoholic!

Now, I disagree that both acts are sinful. Love is not a sin, whether it is between a man and a woman, a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. I furthermore see alcoholism as an illness, not simply a choice (although most Christians cannot comprehend this). But if Jesus is the Messiah, then should it even matter? Jesus was the fulfillment of the law. And yet, Christians still consume pork! Are we picking and choosing which Old Testament laws we keep?

I mentioned earlier that Leviticus is one of my least favorite books in the Bible. Why? Because it is irrelevant. One researcher points out that while Leviticus does condemn homosexuality (it doesn’t), it also prohibits wearing clothing of different materials and eating shellfish.⁵ Of course, the debate on which laws are still valid is not as simple as picking and choosing I mentioned before, but space does not allow a full treatment of this issue. Maybe for a book someday.

Conclusion

There is no reason for the church to continue its crusade against the LGBTQ community. It is inefficient, bigoted, and wrong. Jesus ate with prostitutes, but 21st-century American pastors cannot even look at someone who is not heterosexual or cisgender. To use the words of Leviticus against the church: this is an abomination. Although I can never again associate myself with the United Methodist Church (or any church, for that matter), I am proud of the steps it has taken to resolve this dilemma.

Would Jesus turn a blind eye to a gay person? Would Jesus say to a transgender, “My father hates you?” No, he would not! Leave it to the likes of James Dobson and Jerry Falwell to deride people based on gender or sexual orientation. It is a total shame that this is what Christianity has become. It worships a man who welcomed the outcasts but turns away the same people in the modern world.

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are not the only passages that have been used to advance Christianity’s hateful message against the LGBTQ community. I hope to dive into some of the others in the coming days. For now, we can acknowledge that the two favored verses do not mean what fundamentalists think they mean.

1. Töyräänvuori, Joanna. “Homosexuality, the Holiness Code, and Ritual Pollution: A Case of Mistaken Identity.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament., vol. 45, no. 2, 2020, pp. 239, https://doi.org/10.1177/0309089220903431.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid., 240.

4. Joosten, Jan. 2020. “A New Interpretation of Leviticus 18:22 (Par. 20:13) and Its Ethical Implications.” Journal of Theological Studies 71 (1): 2. https://doi.org/10.1093/jts/flaa002.

5. Sklar, Jay. 2018. “The Prohibitions against Homosexual Sex in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13: Are They Relevant Today?” Bulletin for Biblical Research 28 (2): 168. https://doi.org/10.5325/bullbiblrese.28.2.0165

How long can you stand the pain
How long will you hide your face
How long will you be afraid
Are you afraid
How long will you play this game
Will you fight or will you walk away
How long will you let it burn
Let it burn

Red, “Let it Burn,” track #4 from Until We Have Faces, Essential and Sony Records, 2011

Introduction

Verse 14 harkens back to verses 2-3 and 10, where the psalmist describes his ardent devotion to Yahweh. As the author draws the psalm to a close, he paints one of the most vivid images of hopelessness in the entirety of Scripture or even human literature as a whole. The final line, from whence I have taken the name of this article, is one of the hardest, yet most relatable verses in the Bible. Here, as I will discuss later, the less accurate translations of the Bible (NLT, NIV, ESV, etc.) provide a beautifully creative distortion in the English text.

We do not find the words “happily ever after” at the end of Psalm 88. Instead, we depart from the psyche of a man who has lost it all; hope is not only diminished, it is foreign to him. God has let him down. People have let him down. He has let himself down. And now, he lies on his death bed, possibly composing his final words. They are tragic. The ending alone is part of what makes Psalm 88 the most unique chapter of the Bible.

Psalm 88:14-15 and Divine Hiddenness

But I cry out to you, Adonai;
my prayer comes before you in the morning.
So why, Adonai, do you reject me?
Why do you hide your face from me?

Psalm 88:13-14, Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)

I have already mentioned that the author returns to expressing his loyalty to God in the midst of anguish. Now, this is the third time the psalmist speaks of his prayer coming before God. In verse 2, he cries out to God at night; the second time, in verse 10, his prayer comes before God “every day.”

In verse 14, his prayer comes before God in the morning. What is the significance of this? According to Hebrew tradition, morning is a “time of new beginning when God was expected to demonstrate anew his steadfast love for his people.”¹ Another commentator believes this is a metaphorical reference to the pagan sun god, who puts an end to evil “in the morning” and restores justice.²

A Return to Interrogating God

In verse fifteen, the author again interrogates God. Like the previous questions in the psalm, the author’s goal is to provoke God to act. Unlike the earlier questions, these two are not sarcastic; they should be taken literally. A good comparison, again, would be Job. The entire purpose of Job’s plea is to get answers from God. As we know, the answers Job receives are unsatisfactory; in Psalm 88, there is no answer at all. The two pieces share common ground in that the “supplicant wants God to account for his contractual breach.”⁴

It is also imperative to note the author’s choice of words in questioning why God hides his face. The reference to God hiding his face occurs numerous times throughout the Hebrew Testament. And it is never a good thing. A thorough article on this phrase, as it relates to Psalm 88, contends that it denotes either divine hiddenness with hostile divine presence or divine hiddenness with divine absence.⁵

Job and Psalm 88 are excellent examples of the former. While God is not entirely absent in either, he remains hidden except to provide hostile intervention. Think of it this way: God is either acting passive-aggressively, as he does in Job and Psalm 88, or he is completely invisible and silent.

Psalm 88:16-18

Since my youth I have been miserable, close to death;
I am numb from bearing these terrors of yours.
Your fierce anger has overwhelmed me,
your terrors have shriveled me up.
They surge around me all day like a flood,
from all sides they close in on me.
You have made friends and companions shun me;
the people I know are hidden from me. (CJB)

Psalm 88:16-18, CJB

From my youth I have suffered and been close to death;
    I have borne your terrors and am in despair.
Your wrath has swept over me;
    your terrors have destroyed me.
All day long they surround me like a flood;
    they have completely engulfed me.
You have taken from me friend and neighbor—
    darkness is my closest friend.

Psalm 88:16-18, New International Version (NIV)

For the conclusion of Psalm 88, I have included a textually accurate translation (CJB) and a popular English translation of the Bible (NIV). As you know, I almost exclusively use CJB or NIV, though I often feel the CJB is the superior translation. In Psalm 88, however, I think the NIV translation succeeds in providing an artistic translation, if you will.

Once again, the psalmist decries God’s wrath and identifies him as the enemy who has inflicted him with suffering. He formalizes his final grievance against God, not holding back in his reproach. Heiman is no stranger to suffering; he complains that it has marred his life, since his youth. For the length of his existence on earth, up until his deathbed poem, he has experienced the wrath of God.

Divine Terrors

The writer accuses God of forcing him into situational pain throughout his life, unloading his “divine terrors” that leave him in despair, the wrath that has smothered him, and, again, terrors that have destroyed him. God’s horrors have engulfed him as a flood that consumes everything, with the waters representing the chaos God has caused in his lifetime.⁶

Here again, God is not only the psalmist’s reverent enemy, to whom he makes his plea but also the subject. Heiman acknowledges that God has always terrorized him, but now these terrors have intensified and pushed him to the brink of death (v. 15).⁷ The author again relies on the imagery of drowning, climaxing in the final word, “darkness.”⁸ He is drowning in God’s wake, reaching for his help but being ignored, and finally sinks to the bottom of the sea, encapsulated by darkness.

Most psalms end on a positive note; Psalm 88, on the other hand, contains the most tragic ending of all. Once again, to top the pain and suffering God has caused the psalmist, he has abandoned him in social isolation. Not only is God not actively present, but he has taken friends, family, and neighbors away from this man. He is eclipsed by darkness. And despite the increasing pain and suffering, the psalmist knows he must suffer alone.

Everything he loves is gone. As his life draws to a close, he has nothing but himself and the God who has both hidden himself and tortured him. He cannot even reach out to his friends; they have abandoned him. This is precisely where I prefer the NIV translation, but not under the standard of accuracy. For portraying the picture in full. His friends are gone; the only friend that remains is darkness. As some scholars argue, the final word, “darkness,” sums up Psalm 88 perfectly.⁹

Conclusion

This concludes my in-depth study of my favorite psalm, Psalm 88. As I mentioned in the first entry, this psalm helped me through the process of grieving my mother’s death. I watched a sermon on it a week or two before her passing; never before had I found a scripture that so clearly resonated with my soul. Like Heiman, I could see nothing but the darkness; I had no reason or desire to seek the light because the light had abandoned me.

I did not need positive, Christian affirmations when I lost my mom. I needed to know that it was okay to feel abandoned by God. It was okay to be angry, depressed, and sorrowful. There was no use in finding the goodness of God at that time; it was far more important to search for the significance of self. God had forsaken me. His face was hidden. I did not have time to thank him for making me suffer. I needed nothing more than to know my darkness so that I could defeat the darkness. God made it clear to me that he would not help with that.

The message that I take away from Psalm 88 is that it is okay to call God out. Sometimes, as Psalm 88, Job, and Amos make crystal clear, God causes our suffering. In these moments, while Christianity encourages us to be ignorant and continually praise God, the Bible instructs us to be upset. If God can be upset with us, we can be frustrated with God.

On a more personal note…

I do not believe the God of the Bible is perfect or entirely moral. This is a controversial position to hold, but I cling to it. I encourage everyone to think and believe for themselves, without the aid of church or religion. My beliefs are not perfect; but beliefs in the supernatural cannot be proven correct, at least not in this lifetime. My goal in this project has been to present my beliefs of God, which are significantly based on Psalm 88.

I hope you have enjoyed these posts. I hope that you will find the light in any darkness you face. I hope that light will overcome the darkness. It happened for me, although not in the way I expected. I learned that I could not accept the God I was forced to believe as a child. Despite this lesson, I found one thing for certain: there is always hope.

1. Thornhill, A. Chadwick. “A Theology of Psalm 88.” Evangelical Quarterly 87, no. 1 (2015): 52.

2. Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar, Erich Zenger, and Linda M. Maloney. Psalms 2: A Commentary on Psalms 51-100. Edited by Klaus Baltzer. 1517 Media, 2005. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvb6v84t. 396.

3. Mandolfo, Carleen. “Psalm 88 and the Holocaust: Lament in Search of a Divine Response.” Biblical Interpretation 15, no. 2 (2007): 164.  https://doi.org/10.1163/156851507X168476.

4. Ibid.

5. Fabrikant-Burke, O. Y. “Rethinking Divine Hiddenness in the Hebrew Bible: The Hidden God as the Hostile God in Psalm 88.” The Harvard Theological Review 114, no. 2 (2021): 178.

6. Longman, Tremper, III. Psalms: An Introduction and Commentary, InterVarsity Press, 2014. 418.

7. Thornhill, A. Chadwick. “A Theology of Psalm 88.” Evangelical Quarterly 87, no. 1 (2015): 53.

8. Grogan, Geoffrey W. Psalms. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2008. 134.

9. Ibid.

“Left by myself among the dead,
like the slain who lie in the grave —
you no longer remember them;
they are cut off from your care.”

Psalm 88:6, CJB

In verse 6, the psalmist upholds the Jewish belief that the dead are simply cut off. They are outside of God’s presence, and he no longer cares for them, as Heiman states. More important to the context of the psalm, however, the author is comparing his suffering to death. Beginning in verse 6, the “rhetoric shifts so that this is no longer description but accusation addressed to ‘you,’ to YHWH, who has caused the precarious situation of the speaker.”¹

To reiterate what I described in the previous post, Psalm 88 touches on the topic of death and Sheol, the holding place of the dead. In this verse, we learn something remarkable about the ancient Judaic views on Sheol. The author vents that those who rest in Sheol are alienated from the presence of God. God, he writes, no longer remembers them and has cut them off from his care.

The psalmist denies one of the three tenants of the problem of suffering: that God is omnipotent. The author suggests that God does not retain any control or concern for those in Sheol. This is a rarity in Scripture, that the writer contests God’s power. We should expect to find some sort of theodicy, as we do in other biblical laments. However, this psalmist does not. Why? Because theodicy consists of justifications and answers, but the author of Psalm 88 refuses to justify God’s actions.² We can most certainly assume that the psalmist cannot find any rational way to justify the actions of God. His suffering is just that overwhelming.

Psalm 88:7-10a

You plunged me into the bottom of the pit,
into dark places, into the depths.
Your wrath lies heavily on me;
your waves crashing over me keep me down. (Selah)
You separated me from my close friends,
made me repulsive to them;
I am caged in, with no escape;
my eyes grow dim from suffering.

Psalm 88:7-10a

Now that the psalmist has described his unpleasant circumstances, he moves to understand their source. The conclusion he comes to is that God is behind his suffering. I have added italics to “you” and “your” in the preceding verses to emphasize what fierce accusations the author makes. He has described what suffering he is experiencing in the verses leading up to 7, now he unleashes his anger on God.

Now, let’s take a look at what accusations he levies against God:

1. God has led the psalmist near to death
2. God has filled his life with trouble and overwhelmed him with wrathful waves
3. God has alienated him from friends and loved ones
4. His eyes go dim because of the suffering God has sentenced him to

These accusations are not to be taken lightly. If a Christian were to stand up in the middle of a Sunday sermon and levy these offenses against God, they would be excommunicated in a heartbeat. Blasphemy. Heresy. Profanity. Desecration. The author commits each of these, yet the psalm is included in the biblical canon. But I must ask… is the psalmist wrong? No! Whatever wrongs he has committed in life, surely he does not deserve this excruciating pain.

Led Near to Death

As we can notice thus far, the psalmist is not merely complaining for no reason. Analysis of the text shows that “YHWH is unmistakably accused as the sole and incomprehensible author of the destructive situation of the petitioner, who is medically still alive, but ‘really’ already dead.”³ The psalmist is staring straight into the eyes of death and rather than a happily ever after, he lives knowing that he will die in agony.

Overwhelming Waves

God has filled his life with trouble and crushes him in his waves. The CJB renders this verse “your waves crashing over me keep me down;” the Hebrew word translated “keep me down” here also translates “to overwhelm” or “to answer.”⁴ If we take the latter interpretation, we see that the only sign God gives him is more, consecutive suffering. The metaphor of waves is common in the psalter; it emphasizes the chaotic nature of God’s fierce anger. Katherine Southwood says of this metaphor, “It  evokes  a  sense  of  chaos,  being  overpowered,  gasping  for  breath,  while also depicting a recurring action.”⁵

Social Separation

By far the most extreme of these accusations, the author accuses God of cutting him off from his community. As we all know, we rely on our loved ones the most during times of suffering. When we experience loss, or sickness, we reach out to our friends and vice-versa. Not only is he not present in the man’s suffering, but Yahweh has made it so that his friends are not there for him. The speaker suffers from acute social isolation, the final nail in his coffin.⁶ He has been abandoned by both God and friend.

Eyes Grow Dim with Suffering

What exactly does the psalmist mean when he says “my eyes grow dim from suffering?” What I think we can detract from this statement is that the author has conclusively determined he is hopeless. He has just laid out struggles that, quite frankly, are hard to imagine. He is dying. He is drowning. He is crushed. He is isolated. As these struggles culminate, the light that he clings to slowly fades away. As the light in his eyes dim, so does the hope in his soul.

Psalm 88:10b-12

I call on you, Adonai, every day;
I spread out my hands to you.
Will you perform wonders for the dead?
Can the ghosts of the dead rise up and praise you? (Selah)
Will your grace be declared in the grave,
or your faithfulness in Abaddon?
Will your wonders be known in the dark,
or your righteousness in the land of oblivion?

Psalm 88:10b-12

The following section begins with the poet recognizing that despite his troubles, he still calls upon God. Although he seemingly knows that God refuses to answer him, he remains in prayer. It is the smallest morsel of hope that he has left, and he does what we should all do when we are suffering: cling to that hope, no matter how miniscule it may appear. He is at his end and God refuses to acknowledge him; yet, he proceeds to stand before God.

Now that the author has laid out his struggles and accused God of betraying him, he turns to interrogation. The rhetorical questions he poses in this section are likely meant sarcastically. Can God perform wonders to the amusement of the dead? Will the dead rise and praise him? Can the dead declare his grace? Will his wonders and righteousness be known in the darkness or oblivion? Although the author does not answer, we can be right to imagine his response is a resounding, “No!”

The psalmist recognizes God has caused his suffering and continues to pray to him. This gives us an idea of the purpose of the series of questions. Tremper Longman III argues, “The series of questions in verses 10-12 almost taunt God to provoke him to action.”⁷ The author is so desperate in his suffering that he is attempting to elicit a response from God, similar to Job. The questions serve the purpose of establishing that “the suffering and death of the speaker have direct and devastating consequences for YHWH.”⁸

At this point, the psalmist has nothing left to lose. The psalmist is so terminal and hopeless that he can shock God into answering.⁹ There is a pattern to be noted here: in each question, the psalmist compares terms of life/divinity with those of death (e.g., dead/grave/Sheol/dark and wonders/praise/faithfulness/righteousness).¹⁰ As Leonard P. Mare writes in his analysis, praise can only be given if the donor is alive; therefore, “When those who are alive cease to praise God, they are in fact already dead.”¹¹ Heiman recognizes the incongruity between God’s wonders and the emptiness of death, where he shall soon enter.

Conclusion

There is much to unpack in Psalm 88; this blog entry serves as a thorough overview, but I, of course, cannot touch on everything. What I have presented is that, like Amos and Job, God is the direct cause of suffering in Psalm 88. The psalmist uses his terminal position to taunt and provoke God. When faced with such daunting suffering, it is only rational to demand a sign from God.

And yet, as many of us can relate, the unfortunate author never received his sign. However, he makes it crystal clear that sufferers are not the only ones with consequences; God faces consequences as well. While modern Christianity frowns upon people who question God, this is truly something admirable. The psalmist demonstrates his courage, as he faces the ultimate punishment, in literally standing up to a divine bully. Even in the face of such tumultuous suffering, the author refuses to give in.

The speaker’s reproach is something that should inspire us. Instead, church leaders prefer to sweep this psalm under the rug. They do not want us to question God, even when we are on the brink of death. But what is often forgotten as the result of religious ignorance is that we have every right to question God. The Bible, particularly Psalm 88, makes this quite clear.

1. Brueggemann, Walter, and Jr Bellinger. Psalms. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014. 379.

2. Mandolfo, Carleen. “Psalm 88 and the Holocaust: Lament in Search of a Divine Response.” Biblical Interpretation 15, no. 2 (2007): 157. https://web.p.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=b7025e72-5146-4847-8b0e-b1559c8ed8ef%40redis

3. Baltzer, Klaus, Linda M. Maloney, Erich Zenger, and Frank-Lothar Hossfeld. Psalms 2: A Commentary on Psalms 51-100. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2005.

4. deClaisse-Walford, Nancy L., Jacobson, Rolf A., and Tanner, Beth LaNeel. The Book of Psalms. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2014. 512.

5. Southwood, Katherine. “Metaphor, Illness, and Identity in Psalms 88 and 102.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 43, no. 2 (2018): 241. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/epdf/10.1177/0309089217704549

6. Brueggemann, Walter, and Jr Bellinger. Psalms /. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014. 379.

7. Longman, Tremper, III. Psalms: An Introduction and Commentary. Westmont: InterVarsity Press, 2014. 417.

8. Brueggemann, Walter, and Jr Bellinger. Psalms. 379.

9. deClaisse-Walford, Nancy L., Jacobson, Rolf A., and Tanner, Beth LaNeel. The Book of Psalms. 512.

10. Thornhill, A. Chadwick. “A Theology of Psalm 88.” Evangelical Quarterly 87, no. 1 (2015): 52.

11. Mare, Leonard P. “Facing the Deepest Darkness of Despair and Abandonment: Psalm 88 and the Life of Faith.” Old Testament Essays 27, no. 1 (2014): 241. https://journals.co.za/doi/epdf/10.10520/EJC152826

Psalm 88 is a chapter of the Bible that evangelicals and fundamentalists prefer to skip over. Whereas much of the Bible is full of people singing God’s praises and speaking of his perfection, Psalm 88 does the opposite. The author of this psalm is so entrenched in suffering that he cannot speak of God the way his biblical counterparts do. The result we have today is one of the rawest, most insightful, and most human chapters of the Bible. And it is absolutely beautiful.

I first stumbled across this Psalm during my second semester of biblical studies. It was also two weeks or so before my mother passed away from liver cancer. One of the few pastors I have ever appreciated, the late Timothy Keller, preached a sermon on living through dark times. His source for this sermon, the greatest sermon I ever heard, is Psalm 88. When I heard him read this chapter, I was stunned. This biblical author did not sugarcoat his struggles. He radically questions the goodness of God. Can we not do the same?

Hearing this sermon, which I have included the link to in the footnote, certainly changed my life.¹ Had I not heard this sermon or read this Psalm, the process of grief would have been much darker and strenuous than it already was. Whereas Christians have always answered my question of suffering with “God works in mysterious ways” or “Everything happens for a reason,” Psalm 88 opened my eyes to the need for skepticism of God’s “mysterious ways.”

Those of us who have departed the church, or are still involved to some degree, have all been told that it is wrong to question God. After all, he is always right, just, and moral, correct? When somebody is going through a crisis, we do not need to tell them that they are in the wrong to question God. We should encourage them to ask these questions. Repressing our true feelings of God and the world cause nothing but more harm.

Background: An Anonymous Psalmist?

We do not know much about the author of Psalm 88; unlike most psalms, it is not attributed to King David or Asaph. Verse 0 in the CJB reads, “A song. A psalm of the sons of Korach. For the leader. Set to ‘Sickness that Causes Suffering.’ A maskil of Heiman the Ezrachi.” This is the only contribution attributed to Heiman in the Hebrew Bible (whether he truly wrote it or not). Heiman is mentioned in 1 Kings 4:31, described as a wiseman and poet during the time of King Solomon.²

Throughout the psalm, Heiman speaks as though he is on his deathbed. Scholars debate whether this is literal or figurative; suggestions include that he is indeed dying, he is struggling with spiritual depression, or the psalm is a reflection of the biblical character Job.³ Whatever the case may be, one thing is for certain; whatever evil circumstances the psalmist is facing, he struggles with knowing that it is all God’s fault.⁴

Psalm 88:1-2

Adonai, God of my salvation,
when I cry out to you in the night,
let my prayer come before you,
turn your ear to my cry for help!

Psalm 88:1-2

The psalm begins with an honest, sincere cry to the God of the author’s understanding. As one commentator denotes, “Indeed, by the end of the psalm, this one line will scarcely be remembered for all of the pain that pours out.”⁵ Another writes that verse one is the “only clear statement of faith” within the psalm.⁶ The psalmist is both angry and depressed throughout the remainder.

There exists plenty of quality research exploring the psychological connotations of the psalmist’s plea in Psalm 88. Humans behave and react in psychological manners as a result of trauma.⁷ The Kubler-Ross model, for instance, offers behavioral responses to times of distress including denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. Each of these emotions is present in Psalm 88 except for denial and acceptance.⁸ In verses 3-5 particularly, which we will explore below, the author clearly expresses depression.

Psalm 88:3

For I am oversupplied with troubles,
which have brought me to the brink of Sh’ol.

Psalm 88:3

After the psalmist’s singular thought of adoration, the tone immediately changes to death and despair. Heiman speaks of being troubled to such an extreme that he is close to Sheol (death). Richard D. Philips believes that, if composed today, the author would likely be battling cancer because he continually grows weaker and knows that death is imminent.⁹

Now, I of course want to comment on the psalmist’s statement that he is close to Sheol. I have previously discussed the concept of Sheol as it pertains to the afterlife. Sheol is not our contemporary concept of hell. It is simply the grave. It is the place everyone goes after death, according to the Hebrew Bible.

Psalm 88:4-5

For I am oversupplied with troubles,
which have brought me to the brink of Sh’ol.
I am counted among those going down to the pit,
like a man who is beyond help,

Psalm 88:4-5

When fraught with suffering, we tend to question where God is. The church tells us that God is everywhere; he is omnipresent. But in this Psalm, God is not absent from the psalmist’s suffering; he is actively present, but in a hostile manner.¹⁰ Much like in the book of Amos, God is the direct cause of the psalmist’s suffering. Contrary to another modern theodicy, the psalmist’s suffering does not come from a satan figure. It comes from the God he serves.

Now, let us examine the feelings this psalmist is conveying. He speaks out of great anguish and despair. In verses 4-5, he identifies himself as: one cast down to Sheol, one “going down to the pit” and “like a man who is beyond help.” Whereas much of the Bible states that God is present during times of suffering, Psalm 88 is marred with images of abandonment, divine hostility, and lostness.¹¹

Another focus in this psalm is satisfaction with life. Throughout the Hebrew and Greek Bibles, we read stories of characters who depart from life having lived a successful or fulfilled life or finding the favor of God before death.¹² However, in Psalm 88, the author recognizes that he has achieved neither of these. Instead, he accepts that he must find satisfaction in the pain and misery that has marked his life; that is his greatest accomplishment, which he is forced to reflect upon on his deathbed.

Conclusion

The composer of Psalm 88 has every right to protest the goodness of God. In what I have described of Psalm 88, the psalmist paints a picture of the suffering through which he is living. Verses 1-5 describe the psalmist’s suffering; the remainder of the psalm consists of his rebuke of God. What we understand thus far is that Heiman is dying. Whether is death is physical, mental, or spiritual, we know that he is at his end.

He has faced the wrath of God. For what cause? For any cause at all? We will explore this more in future posts. We can acknowledge that the suffering Heiman faces is not the direct cause of Satan. It is not the cause of physical enemies. It is God’s fault. It is God’s fault that that Heiman is in such agonizing pain. And we shall soon see what the biblical author has to say about the inflictor of his suffering.

1. Timothy Keller, “How to Deal With Dark Times,” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulmaUtbayGY

2. Phillips, Richard D. Psalms 73-106. Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 2020, 154. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/liberty/reader.action?docID=6470298

3. Ibid.

4. Laha, Robert R. “Between Text and Sermon: Psalm 88.” Interpretation (Richmond) 69, no. 1 (2015): 81. https://web.p.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=2a863135-7b18-43e7-9255-23aca6885a2e%40redis

5. deClaisse-Walford, Nancy L., et al. The Book of Psalms, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/liberty/detail.action?docID=4860097, 511.

6. Phillips, Richard D. Psalms 73-106. Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 2020, 154.

7. Jameson, Beverley. “Difficult Texts: Psalm 88.” Theology. 117, no. 5 (2014): 357. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/epub/10.1177/0040571X14537435

8. Ibid., 358.

9. Phillips, Richard D. (Richard Davis). Psalms 73-106. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing, 2020. 154.

10. Fabrikant-Burke, O. “Rethinking Divine Hiddenness in the Hebrew Bible: The Hidden God as the Hostile God in Psalm 88.” Harvard Theological Review 114, no. 2 (04, 2021): 159-81, https://go.openathens.net/redirector/liberty.edu?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/rethinking-divine-hiddenness-hebrew-bible-hidden/docview/2529142003/se-2.

11. deClaisse-Walford, Nancy L., et al. The Book of Psalms, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2014, 512.

12. Mare, Leonard P. “Facing the Deepest Darkness of Despair and Abandonment: Psalm 88 and the Life of Faith.” Old Testament Essays 27, no. 1 (2014): 182.

As I have mentioned before, Satan is a creation of the early church. Satan never appears in the Old Testament. The closest we have is “The Satan” in Job, who does slightly parallel the figure from the aforementioned Christian fable. The Satan, literally the Adversary or Executioner, is a member of God’s divine council. His role is to test, tempt, or accuse human beings.  

But Job never refers to the satan as Lucifer. And the name Lucifer only appears in one verse in a handful of translations (KJV is the primary culprit). Yet, if you ask anyone in our modern world to define Lucifer, the answer will be “Satan.”  

It’s a rather odd and uncommon question to ask. My inspiration for this post is that I call one of my coworkers “Satan,” who in turn calls me Lukecifer. It’s a cool nickname and one that I wholly embrace (pun intended)… perhaps even more so now that I have done my research. Plus, it is always fun to deconstruct the tiniest lies Christianity has embedded in our culture. 

The Passage in Question: Isaiah 14:12 

“How did you come to fall from the heavens, 

morning star, son of the dawn? 

How did you come to be cut to the ground, 

conqueror of nations?” Isaiah 14:12 CJB 

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! Isaiah 14:12 KJV 

Notice a difference? I sure do. Fundamentalists have a rather toxic love for the King James Version; it’s the oldest English version we have, so it must be the most accurate! Although the Shakespearean tone does make the Psalms more emotional, it falters in numerous ways. Isaiah 14:12 is one, breeding a baseless story that has become accepted as the norm. 

It seems that the translator(s) of the KJV either did not know how to interpret Lucifer, forgot to translate it, or just thought it might sound cool. The text in its original Hebrew reads “helel ben-shahar.”¹ Scholars frequently translate the word helel as “shining one,” “day star,” or “morning star.”² The Septuagint, the earliest Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible we have, renders it heosphoros, meaning “dawn-bringer.”³ 

This is strikingly similar to the issue with the Adversary in Job. Both Satan and Lucifer in Job and Isaiah, respectively, seem to be nouns that were simply not translated. Satan in Job comes from the Hebrew ha-satan, while Lucifer in Isaiah comes from the Latin luceo, meaning “to shine.”⁴ That the name Lucifer comes from Latin, rather than Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic, should be our first immediate clue that Christianity’s Satan/Lucifer theology is rather defective. 

Here we encounter an issue of biblical literalism and dogmatism. Fundamentalists believe every word of the Bible, especially the English Bible, should be taken literally. Moreso, fundamentalists believe every word of the Bible deals with the mythical cosmic war between God and Satan. Thus, Isaiah 14:12, rather than dealing with astronomical metaphor, is depicting the literal fall of Lucifer, an angel, to the leader of the underworld, Satan. Far-fetched, isn’t it? 

Finding Lucifer: Context is Key

The proper way we should read this verse is by examining it in light of the context of the full chapter. Perhaps more significantly, we need to read it as its original audience would have. Isaiah’s first Hebrew and Greek audiences would have never assumed the author is discussing Satan. The Lucifer title in 14:12 succinctly translates to, “Day Star, son of the Dawn.” Virtually all scholars agree that the author is describing the morning star, Venus.⁵ 

The major clue we find for interpreting the whole of Isaiah 14 is within in verse four. After a compassionate section describing Yahweh’s promise to the land of Jacob, the author states, “you will take up this taunt-song against the king of Bavel (Babylon).” The song begins, with our key verse centered right between a dichotomy of Sheol and the heavens. The author compares the evil Babylonian king to the morning star, which has “come to be cut to the ground” (Isa. 14:12). The chapter continues to explain how the great king, thinking he is god, will be sent to the depths of Sheol when he dies.  

Ishtar or Lucifer?

As with all biblical research, it is helpful to compare and contrast the text with other literature that originated during this historical period. One helpful example is the Mesopotamian myth of Istar’s Descent to the Netherworld. The protagonist of this story, Istar or Ishtar (arguably from where the holiday name “Easter” is derived), is the Akkadian goddess of love, fertility, and sex.⁶ Istar is also frequently associated with the planet Venus.⁷ The Roman goddess Venus, for whom the planet is named, is Ishtar’s later, Roman counterpart, sharing the title of goddess of love, fertility, and sex.

An ancient tablet contains the story of Ishtar’s Descent to the Netherworld. The story describe Ishtar’s visitation of her sister, Ereshkigal, who then holds Ishtar captive in the underworld. Finally, with the world suffering from the lack of her presence and thus, love and fertility, the god Ea intervenes and persuades Ereshkigal to release Ishtar. This myth has frequently been used to explain the disappearance and reappearance of Venus from the night sky.  

While Ishtar’s Descent to the Netherworld does not provide a perfect parallel for interpreting Isaiah 14:12, it does give us a hint as to why the Lucifer/Satan origin story became the accepted tradition. The problem we encounter in interpreting this verse is that Lucifer is a hapax legomenon, that is, a term which has only been recorded once.⁸ We find no other use of the term elsewhere in the Bible or extrabiblical literature of its time.  

Why is any of this important?

The Bible is a powerful book; in many ways, it has shaped the world we live in. But Christianity abuses its power. It is quite obvious that the Christian religion fosters cultural, historical, and literary ignorance. Modern beliefs and convictions are seemingly jammed into the biblical narrative; for what purpose, other than to gain notoriety? This is just a small example of the church infecting Scripture with presuppositional thinking. Sadly, the same process results in Christians using the Bible to defend racism and push anti-LGBT+ propaganda.

Pastors who preach that Lucifer fell from heaven and became public enemy #1 should not be leading congregations of believers. This concept might make for a cheesy Christian Marvel movie, but it has nothing to do with faith, mitigating suffering, or living like Christ. As I stated, the danger of pushing this message is that it boosts ignorance. Christians trust their pastors to be experts in theology; instead, we are stuck with the doctrinal brainwashing of Jonathan Edwards centuries ago.

There are far more important things to be discussing with believers. Mythical, biblical fairy-tales are not one. If we give pastors and church leaders the authority to preach small messages like this, then it is no surprise that messages will also be taught on “God hating the gays.” This is not the way it should be. This is not what the authors of Scripture had in mind. The Bible intends to provide insight for spiritual healing; instead, we get pastors preaching farcical tales that have nothing to do with our lives on earth.

Conclusion

In the now-traditional understanding of Isaiah 14:12, Lucifer parallels the Icarus myth I discussed in my previous post. Lucifer was, according to mainstream Christianity, the name of Satan as an angel in heaven, and he was the greatest of them all. However, thanks to a severe increase in pride and hubris, Satan flew too close to God and fell to the underworld. While this makes for a neat Christian mythology, it is not biblical.  

Lucifer is not synonymous with Satan. Lucifer is a word that was not translated, possibly due to the translators’ ignorance, the fact that the term is a hapax legomenon, or to fit the theology of the time. In the most literal sense, Lucifer is a reference to the morning star, Venus. The passage, or the chapter from whence it belongs, does not reference the fall of an angel called Lucifer. It certainly does not speak of the Christianized concept of a devil.  

1 Youngblood, Ronald F. “Fallen Star.” Br, 12, 1998. 25, https://go.openathens.net/redirector/liberty.edu?url=https://www.proquest.com/magazines/fallen-star/docview/214716404/se-2.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid., 26.

4. Peter Goeman, “Why Lucifer is Not Satan’s Name,” The Bible Sojourner, 2023, https://petergoeman.com/why-lucifer-is-not-satans-name/.

5. Quick, Laura. “Hêlēl Ben-Šaḥar and the Chthonic Sun: A New Suggestion for the Mythological Background of Isa 14:12-15.” Vetus Testamentum 68, no. 1 (2018): 129. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26566810.

6. Ibid., 131.

7. Ibid.

8. Ibid, 139.

Well no, actually. I can already hear the fundamentalists screaming, “But the snake in the Garden was Satan!” But where does the Bible say this? My favorite Christian dumbtank, Answers in Genesis, argues that it is no stretch to believe the Genesis serpent is Satan, because two verses in Revelation assert that Satan is a serpent.¹ Satan and his minions possess the ability to enter humans and animals to complete their evil tasks. Great, demon-possessed snakes… sounds like an idea for the creators of Sharknado.

My concern in this post is not on the Genesis serpent, however. My concern is with the first reference to “Satan” we have in the Bible. Satan first appears in the Book of Job, which some argue to be the oldest book in the Bible. But the Satan of Job is not the Satan of contemporary Christianity, or even Second Temple Judaism. The Satan is a member of God’s heavenly council. Let’s take a closer look at who this figure truly is.

The Satan: Who?

The Satan, in Job, is not so much a character as an office that reports to God. Modern scholars typically accept that the Hebrew title, ha-Satan, means “adversary,” “accuser,” or “executioner.”² Looking at the dynamics between the two in the prologue to Job, it is clear that Satan is more of a subordinate to God, rather than an adversary. In the book, Satan carries out the work of God. He is, after all, a member of God’s celestial council.

There is some debate that the book of Job is actually a pagan book. This is because God does not act alone; he acts through his henchmen, including the Satan. These council members are, however, lower than God. In Job, they are literally identified as “the sons of God”—including the Satan. This makes us stop and wonder, who is really the bad guy in Job? Is it the Satan, for attacking Job? Or is it Yahweh, for selecting Job and allowing his subordinates to determine to torture Job?

The Satan, in Job, is God’s instrument of suffering. We in our 21^st Century thinking typically believe that “the mean ol’ devil” is the enemy of Job. But this could not be any further from the truth. God is the cause of Job’s suffering. As one commentator notes, “The dialogue does not explore the possibility of Job’s suffering coming from any hand other than God’s.”³ In this proper reading of Job, the Satan is the knife that God uses to cut Job. God is the antagonist of this story, not Job, and not the Satan.

The Satan: What does he do?

What do you think the Satan of Job does for work? Poke people with his pitchfork? Do the exact opposite of everything God does? Lead an army of demons against the church? The answer may shock you: he is sent to judge and punish the wicked. He does not recruit humans to torment the righteous, he tortures those who are not righteous. One researcher argues that the Satan functions as “the eyes of Yahweh,” in finding the unrighteous and serving retribution.⁴ Because Job is righteous, the Satan must receive special permission from God to chastise him.

The figure of Satan as we know today is the product of intertestamental books. As we already know, the God of the Hebrew Bible is violent and wrathful. Once we get to the prophets (e.g., Amos) God is all but Israel’s greatest adversary. Portraying God as the source of suffering started to become a bit complicated. Thus, the apocryphal literature made the manifestation of evil a powerful deity named Satan. The New Testament would go on to expound upon this figure, the scapegoat of causal suffering, and make him the archenemy of God.

But in Job, Satan is not a monster. The Satan we know today is not present in the book of Job. The Satan, the office of God that causes human suffering, accomplished the necessary work of Yahweh. The Hebrew Bible never posits that God has an archenemy who inflicts the world with suffering. No, the deity who makes Job suffer is the same deity who created him and the world. The God of the Bible is the cause of suffering throughout the Old Testament. He is not merely a God who is sometimes wrathful, as the church often portrays the Hebrew God. The Hebrew God is the God who makes both the righteous and the wicked suffer.

There are only three places in the Bible that make reference to “the Satan:” Job 1-2, Zecheriah 3, and 1 Chronicles 21. None of these verses depict a tall, red goatman holding a pitchfork. None of these passages depict an opponent of God. The problem of suffering produced the idea of a Satan character. Judaism reached a point where explaining God as the cause of suffering was not conducive; the religion needed to blame suffering on someone, and thus, Satan was created.

Conclusion

Is Satan real? I do not believe so. The Satan of Christianity evolved as a way to explain evil and suffering. The Satan of Job is an officer of God who accomplishes God’s dirty work. He is God’s hitman, in a sense. Christianity needed a scapegoat. Saying that God causes suffering is in line with what the Old Testament teaches, but that is not a pretty idea. It will not cause the church’s numbers to spike. So, a villain was necessary. Since the intertestamental period, the character of Satan has evolved into the being we know today. But in Job, Satan was not what we think he is today. Because of the church, we read our own ideas of Satan into Job. But that is not biblical exegesis. That is indoctrination by the church.

1. Bodie Hodge, “Was Satan the Actual Serpent in the Garden?” Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/angels-and-demons/satan/was-satan-the-actual-serpent-in-the-garden/

2. Ryan E. Stokes, “Satan, YHWH’s Executioner” Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 133, No. 2 (Summer 2014), 252. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/10.15699/jbibllite.133.2.251.pdf?refreqid=fastly-default%3Adfacac0deec924a3dd8e0051d71c9df1&ab_segments=&origin=&initiator=&acceptTC=1

3. Wilson, Lindsay. Job. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015, 190.

4. Stokes, Ryan E.. The Satan : How God’s Executioner Became the Enemy. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2019. 42. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/liberty/reader.action?docID=6172714#

For all I know, the driver of the truck does not match up to my stereotypical assumptions. But in the small Georgia town I live in, it is not uncommon for such vehicles to have stickers proclaiming Jesus while destroying the environment. As I’ve reflected on this the past few days, I’ve conducted some research on Christianity and environmentalism. Is it just American evangelicals that have no problem endangering nature? Why are evangelicals so opposed to having a cleaner earth? And is the contemporary evangelical interpretation of Genesis 1:26 correct?

Evangelical Christianity and Climate Change

Religion plays an enormous role in how humans act socially, culturally, and ecologically. The beliefs we assume regarding our basic needs, ontology, and identity engender our views on living, behavior, and responsibility.

The relationship between Christianity and climate change is complex and multifaceted, reflecting a diverse range of perspectives and beliefs across different faith traditions. Some religious communities emphasize the stewardship of the Earth, viewing environmental responsibility as a moral imperative rooted in their sacred texts. These groups often advocate for sustainable practices and environmental conservation as an expression of their spiritual values.

Conversely, there are individuals within certain religious traditions who may be skeptical of climate change or prioritize human dominion over the Earth, citing biblical interpretations that grant humans dominion over nature (i.e., Gen. 1:16).

The intersection of Christianity and climate change is continually evolving, with many religious leaders and communities increasingly recognizing the urgency of addressing environmental issues as a shared responsibility for the well-being of the planet and its inhabitants. Interfaith dialogue and collaboration have become essential in fostering a more comprehensive understanding of environmental challenges and promoting collective action across diverse religious communities.

Religion seems to outweigh ethnic and national identities in how individuals perceive environmental concerns. Many studies have revealed that American Christians are less likely to believe in contributing to environmentally conscious behaviors and actions. For example, the Pew Research Center revealed last year that American evangelical Protestants are the least likely religious group to say climate change is not a serious issue.¹

But it is not just American evangelicals who think this way. A scholarly study in Australia reveals that Christian literalists (fundamentalists) are the least likely to be alarmed or concerned about global warming and most likely to doubt that it is a serious problem.² A similar study in Indonesia shows Christian interpretation of the doctrine of imago Dei (man created in the image of God) correlates with more apathetic beliefs on ecological duties.³

Why are evangelicals opposed to bettering the climate?

Evangelicals tend to disregard the environment because of ontological beliefs. Generally, these beliefs are rooted in Genesis 1:26. This verse famously proclaims:

“Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image (imago Dei), in the likeness of ourselves; and let them rule over the fish in the sea, the birds in the air, the animals, and over all the earth, and over every crawling creature that crawls on the earth.”

The interpretation of this verse can influence attitudes toward climate change. However, interpretations vary, and most American evangelicals misconstrue this dominion as an unchecked authority, leading to environmental exploitation. The doctrine of imago Dei has become dangerous because it leads to the mindset that humans are the “crown of creation.” This leads to the belief that other forms of life and nature are to be used solely for the growth and advancement of humanity.

The prevailing Christian interpretation of Genesis 1:26 holds that nature has no other purpose than to serve humankind. The church uses this verse to assert human dominance and exploitation of nature, which is why Christianity is responsible for industrialization. The proper reading of this verse highlights that humans are to be stewards of nature. Why? Because God is spiritually present within nature.⁴

Genesis 1:26 is not the only verse to assert humankind’s responsibility to tend to nature. In the following chapter, God places Adam in the Garden of Eden to “work it and take care of it.” Job 38:34-38 (famous for God saying to Job, “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?”) encourages humans to practice “cosmic humility” and safeguard the natural world.⁵ Furthermore, the Psalms acknowledge that the earth belongs to God. As stewards of the earth, should we be destroying it?

I am certainly no radical climate activist. For many years, I even believed the distorted interpretation of Genesis 1:26 as “the earth is ours, let’s do whatever we want to make us feel more powerful.” But as the climate worsens, all humans have a responsibility to practice stewardship of the earth. Not only should Christians be leading the fight, but they rank the lowest in understanding of ecological concerns!

Sure, we may have greater power over the earth, but that does not mean we should murder it. For those who believe God has given them dominion over the earth, think carefully about what that means. Remember that the same book you are using as an excuse to destroy earth also declares the earth to be property of the God who created you.

Conclusion

Genesis 1:26, with its directive for humans to have dominion over the Earth, should be seen as a powerful call for Christianity and climate change activism rather than an endorsement of unchecked exploitation. Recognizing the responsibility that comes with dominion, this biblical passage should inspire a sense of stewardship and care for the environment. Climate activism grounded in Genesis 1:26 involves advocating for sustainable practices, conservation, and policies that prioritize the well-being of the planet and its inhabitants.

By embracing the notion of responsible dominion, individuals and communities can harness their faith as a driving force for positive environmental change. This interpretation encourages a proactive and ethical approach to climate action, aligning with the broader global effort to address the urgent challenges posed by climate change. According to Genesis, humans were given dominion over the earth; this should not mean destroying it, but preserving it.

1. Becka A. Alper, Pew Research Center, November 2022, “How Religion Intersects With Americans’ Views on the Environment,” https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/11/17/religious-groups-views-on-climate-change/

2. Morrison, Mark, Roderick Duncan, and Kevin Parton. “Religion does Matter for Climate Change Attitudes and Behavior.” PloS One 10, no. 8 (2015): 7, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4527763/

3. Pasaribu, Andar G., Roy C. H. P. Sipahutar, and Eduward H. Hutabarat. “Imago Dei and Ecology: Rereading Genesis 1:26–28 from the Perspective of Toba Batak in the Ecological Struggle in Tapanuli, Indonesia.” Verbum Et Ecclesia 43, no. 1 (2022): 2, https://go.openathens.net/redirector/liberty.edu?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/imago-dei-ecology-rereading-genesis-1-26-28/docview/2715183412/se-2.

4. Ikeke, Mark Omorovie. “The Role Of Philosophy Of Ecology And Religion in the Face of the Environmental Crisis.” Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies 19, no. 57 (Winter, 2020): 87, https://go.openathens.net/redirector/liberty.edu?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/role-philosophy-ecology-religion-face/docview/2475948341/se-2

5. Jung, Ji Young. “Ecological Challenges and Injustice from a Missiological Perspective.” Transformation 38, no. 4 (October 2021): 287, https://doi.org/10.1177/02653788211038976.

This is the question begged in the New International Version’s rendering of Psalm 121:1. Odds are, it won’t take you long to formulate an answer to this question. You answer may be, much like the following verse, “my help comes from God.” That’s it. That’s the end of the story, you could say.

Where will your help come from?

This is how the Complete Jewish Bible translates the same question posed in Psalm 121:1. Notice a difference? The question is not a matter of where your help surely comes from, but from where will it? Will your help come at all? Will your help come from God? Will it come from the church? Will it?

Readers of the Bible in the 21^st Century take this verse as a hopeful assurance that God is their help. There may be nothing wrong with this, but we need to keep in mind the same thing I address in every post: the Scriptures we read were written in a different time, under specific circumstances, and for specific audiences. The Psalmist did not simply decide to pen a few sweet words to remind him of his faith in God.

An important question to ask in biblical exegesis is this: where is the author at when crafting these words? I do not mean geographical location. I am not concerned with which mountain the psalmist has set his eyes upon. Where is he at spiritually? In many of the psalms, the writers are not in desirable states. They may write beautiful words and ideas about who God is, but they do this as they are walking in darkness you and I can hardly fathom.

For the record, we have no idea who wrote this Psalm. There is no mention of an author or geographical location, and what we do find of such in the text is ambiguous. It is widely believed that the psalmist is referring to Mount Zion, being the mountain where God resides in the Old Testament, but this is not definitive.¹ What we do know is that the psalmist “is full of ardent longing yet fearful of the dangerous journey” that lies ahead.²

So what purpose, then, does this psalm serve? According to one commentator, “Psalm 121 is about individual human life, always threatened, and the promise of Yhwh’s all-encompassing protection.”³ Our lives on earth are characterized by suffering. Indeed, I might argue, our lives are engulfed in suffering. Each day is a journey in which we gaze upon the mountains and ask, “From where will my help come?”

I would also like to address the symbolism in this passage. What do you think the psalmist means by “mountains?” Are they referring to physical mountains? Are they looking to the greatest heights on the earth and questioning if their help is greater than the grandeur before them? Maybe so. But commentators offer some different suggestions.

Firstly, the mountains may represent the difficulties we face in life. The mountain may be the mountain of grief, the mountain of pain, the mountain of loneliness, etc. Under this interpretation, “Verse 1 would then be a very concrete expression of concern and anxiety.”⁴ It is certainly a debatable point, but often what causes anxiety is not where we have come from, but where we are headed. Will God meet us at the peak of the mountain? Or will we find ourselves alone?

Another interpretation suggests that the mountains may represent various sources of help. I personally find this interpretation more fitting within the psalm’s context. It was written in a time and place where if you did not believe in one God, you believed in multiple gods. One mountain may represent Zeus, the other Astarte. Similarly, in a modern reading, one may represent the church, another the government. Will our help come from one of these?

The psalmist answers that question, “No.” There is one source of strength. There is one source of help in times of distress. It is not one mountain; it is not any of the mountains. That help, he proclaims, is “Adonai, the maker of heaven and earth” (121:2). His help comes not from the mountains; it comes from the maker of the mountains.

Personal Reflection

Recently, I found myself in a place comparable with that of the psalmist. I asked from where my help will come. I believed my help would come from those close to me. When that failed, I believed my help would come from what I do. That failed. I believed it would come from within. More than the previous, that failed and it hurt when it did.

Where does my help come from? Where will it come from? As I mentioned in my previous post, I found myself at the bottom—again. When you find yourself at the lowest depths imaginable, you can no longer look down. There is nothing there. It forces you to look up. Not to look up to the mountains, but to look beyond them. Beyond what our eyes can see. That, I believe, is where our help will come from.

1. Adamo, David T. and Bukola Olusegun. “The Assurance that Yahweh can and Will Keep His Own: An Exegesis of Psalm 121:1-8.” Theologia Viatorum (Sorenga) 46, no. 1 (2022), 2.

2. Ibid.

3. Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar, Erich Zenger, Linda M. Maloney, and Klaus Baltzer. Psalms 3: a Commentary on Psalms 101-150. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2011, 320.

4. Ibid., 321.

Wow! Is God speaking to me in this verse? He has a plan for my life, and I should not let my struggles discourage me from understanding that he is working things in my life for the greater good.

What I have just provided in a few short sentences is the contemporary Christian interpretation of one single passage from the Old Testament. But is this the way we should interpret the text? If you ask me, it seems rather self-centered. If you believe in God and if you believe that God has a plan for you, I do not wish to discourage you from this line of thought; what I would like to do, however, is correct the way we approach this verse from a modern perspective.

I will be the first to say it, and I will be rather blunt: Jeremiah 29:11 was not penned with you in mind. It is in the Bible and it may provide practical knowledge for navigating your life on earth, but the purpose of this passage is not the gratification of 21^st century readers. Its purpose is not to construct a theology of a God who intercedes on your behalf when you mess up or make the wrong decision. Like the rest of the Bible, it was written in a specific time, for a specific people, as part of the message of one of the biblical authors.

I’ve discussed the problems with isolating single verses before. When we do this, we ignore the greater context of the book and interpret it in the way we want to, rather than what it was written for. Again, I will use the trail-mix analogy. To read the Bible, you cannot pick out the pieces that you like and want and discard the rest. You have to take the whole scoop and process every part. Otherwise, you are doing yourself and the Bible a great disservice. You are seeing things only the way you want to, rather than for how they really are.

What Does the Text Say?

Jeremiah was written around the time of the Babylonian exile in 586 BCE. At the time of composition, the Northern Kingdom of Israel had fallen along with much of Judah.¹ The nation is in a dire state of suffering and continues to reject the teachings of the prophets, who preached repentance. The general message of Jeremiah is that Judah is going to be destroyed by Babylon if the nation does not repent; however, it will eventually recover, and Babylon will later be destroyed.² Jeremiah is attempting to wake the nation up so that they will not face doom, but the hearts of his audience are stone cold.

Now, let’s zero in on Chapter 29. Jeremiah 29:1-32 contains three letters. I will only deal with the first letter here, which comprises verses 1-23. It is believed that this letter was sent after the deportation of exiles around 597 BCE.³ Interestingly, there is no opening salutary superscription with this letter, leading many scholars to believe that what we possess in 1-23 is not a verbatim copy of the letter, but a general summary.⁴ Additionally, you will notice that the letter is preceded by an editorial superscription which describes the circumstances of the letter, what it concerned, who wrote it, and who delivered it.

In the letter, we find that God has orchestrated the exile (he has caused the suffering of Israel). He encourages the exiles to participate in the welfare offered by the land they have been sent to (29:7). He also warns them of false prophets active in the land, pleading with them to reject these teachings (8). He then explains that Babylon’s rule will only last seventy years, then he will fulfill his promise of returning them (10).

And then we have the verse in focus. God is aware of the plans he has made for these people, and he intends to bring them into fulfillment. After this promise, he continues to promise that he will listen when they pray, they will find him when they seek him, and, lastly, he will reverse their exile (12-14). And then, as is customary of the God of the prophets, he will incite violence against the Babylonians.

The promise of Jeremiah 29:11 is a specific promise. Does this mean that modern believers cannot find practical application of this text? Absolutely not. In the following section, I would like to offer my personal exegesis of this.

Personal Note

I have long noticed a very individualistic drive within the church when we interpret the Bible. Christians, including my former self, tend to ask “What does the Bible say to me?” It may not sound like there is anything wrong with asking this question, but there is. It promotes an individualistic worldview. It robs the Bible of its original context. And, most importantly, it promotes complacency.

When we read Jeremiah 29:11 from the perspective of the self, we fall into the trap of assuming “it’s just me and God; nothing else matters.” We lose sight of community. Our will to help others, and to be helped by others, diminishes. We become focused on the struggles of ourselves and reject that everyone is hurting. The Christian. The agnostic. The atheist. The pagan. Everyone is hurting. And while it is more than okay to be hopeful for ourselves, we need to think about how we can give hope to others. It doesn’t have to be religious hope. I am ABSOLUTELY NOT asking you to go converting people. Accept that there are differences and show love.

The Old Testament is the foundation of the three major Abrahamic religions. What Jeremiah 29:11 says will read differently to the Jew than the Christian, or the Christian than the Muslim. What I love about studying the Bible from a historical (and not religious) perspective, is that I find universal truths within it. I do not find truths confined to the church. This does not mean my view is greater than someone who reads it in a Christian or Jewish light, but it shows what I can apply from this text as a nonreligious person. And what I find is that there is something we can all agree on.

Lastly, and this point touches on a religious rendering of the text, I believe modern interpretations of Jeremiah 29:11 promote complacency. If God has a plan for me, then I do not have to do anything! Whether I love or hate, whether I attend church or don’t, whether I am active in my community or not, God has plans and he will bring them into fruition. This is dangerous. What will this do to minimize the prevalent suffering in the world? Nothing! If God has a plan for you, then he has a plan for the other person. For the Jew. For the Christian. For everyone. It is okay to believe that there is a god who has a plan for you, but please; do not become complacent.

Make a difference in this world. Every action, no matter how big or small, makes a difference. Make it a good one! Again, we all have trials. But let us not become so tied up in those or our hope to escape that we fail to help others in their suffering. God may have a plan for them, and that plan could be you.

1. Henry H. Halley, Halley’s Bible Handbook, 24^th edition, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1965, 307

2. Ibid., 308.

3. Kaiser, Jr., Walter C.. Walking the Ancient Paths : A Commentary on Jeremiah, Lexham Press, 2019, 242.

4. Ibid., 245.