On the Supernatural: Framing Our Response
Image
Read the series.
Christians have a broad range of attitudes toward the “supernatural” in society—mostly in fiction, film, and gaming. To hark back to the 70’s and 80’s, many Christians were concerned about Ouija boards, 8-balls, Dungeons and Dragons, and the symbology of the traditional card deck. That expanded to various heavy metal rock groups and “backward masking.”
In more recent memory, the Harry Potter series of novels and movies was controversial among Christians. I haven’t noticed an uproar about Wicked and Wicked: For Good, but I’m sure disagreements exist. Movies, streaming content, and novels of concern abound.
How are we to evaluate and respond to these cultural phenomena as followers of Christ, who seek to be “not conformed to this world” (Rom 12:2) and also to be “salt” and “light” to those around us? (Matt 5:13-16).
The Church has also long struggled with another question, equally important—though often overlooked: How do we fulfil the creative image of God in our work and in our artistic output? We are here to be holy and influential but also to be properly and fully human, vehicles of His glory as image-bearers.
The big question of Christians’ relationship to culture, and church relationship to culture, is beyond the scope of this article (Christ over culture? Christ in culture? Some other model?). But it’s important to include our call to be creative and contribute to human thriving as one of the tensions as we try to respond biblically to how our culture interacts with unseen realities and fictions.
Points of Agreement & Disagreement
Christians agree that the Devil and his spiritual minions are real and that they are top-tier enemies of God and His Church. We also agree that he and his are not to be worshiped or served in any way. Further, we agree that we should be wary of anything that increases our vulnerability to the Enemy’s influence.
From there, disagreement multiplies. We should avoid worshiping, serving, or increasing vulnerability to the Enemy, but what actually does those things?
We differ a lot also in attitude and emphasis. How important is “the occult” relative to other dangers and influences?
Attitude and emphasis arise directly from convictions—conscious or not—about how Satan really works and what the supernatural realm is really like. With that in mind, I have focused in this series mainly on those, often assumed, convictions.
After a survey of some systematic theologies on demonology and cosmology, I challenged the categories of “natural” and “supernatural” as we tend to think of them in the modern and post-modern West. The Bible presents reality as full of both visible and invisible features everywhere and all the time. In that sense, “the supernatural” is not all that special.
Later, I aimed to confront two common errors: (a) naturalistic secularization, where we don’t take the unseen realities as “really real” enough, and (b) a kind of spooked, superstitious attitude, based mainly on common knowledge and folklore.
These are both counter-biblical ways of looking at the unseen realities of the creation.
My aim in this article is to tie up some admittedly miscellaneous loose ends closer to the practical theology. The prior three articles are context.
Here are the main points:
- It is possible to worship something to a degree with incomplete awareness and intention, though this worship is mitigated by ignorance.
- Satan’s primary tool is deception and his primary process is ideas and words. In Scripture, objects associated with Satan are not depicted as powerful.
- Satan’s primary goal is idolatry.
- Our attitude toward “supernatural” and “occult” features in culture should consist of sobriety and vigilance, not being spooked.
- We should always bear in mind that our own flesh (sarx, not exactly “body”), is closer, more constant, and offers more spiritual “attack surfaces” than externals like fiction, film, games, or occultic objects.
Let’s consider these one at a time.
Worship: Knowing and Unknowing
If some element of our culture has demonic origins or occultic purposes in the past (or obscure present), could a Christian—by using it in some way—unknowingly offer worship to Satan or demons? Can items used that way carry evil spiritual influence?
1 Corinthians 10 is helpful:
Consider the people of Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar? 19 What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20 No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. 22 Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? … (1 Co 10:18–22)
The apostle is clear that an idol is not really “anything,” and that food previously used in an offering to one is not really “anything” either (cf. 1 Cor 8:4-5). But, at the same time, we learn that participating in idolatrous feasts was more than it might seem. Regardless of intent, it was, objectively, a spiritual participation with demons. It carried meaning independent of intent.
We do well to remember, though, that worship in the fullest sense, is a thing humans do “in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24).
1 Corinthians 8-10, together with other passages argues that believers should be alert to the possibility that participation in cultural events could have more significance than we intend. But the passage argues against the notion that objects used in demonic worship can convey spiritual influence.
Satan’s Modus Operandi
Jesus’ direct teaching on how the Devil works is fundamental.
You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. (Jn 8:44)
Jesus first characterizes the Devil as “a murderer,” but everything after that focuses on his character as a deceiver. Consider also Revelation 12:9, the events of Genesis 3, and 2 Corinthians 11:3.
The implication is that Satan’s method is to get humans to believe things that are not true. Even in his role as tempter, he relies heavily on communication of untruths (see Matt 4:1-11) as well as appeals to the desires of fallen minds and bodies (James 1:14).
Occultic symbols that carry no meaning to an observer are not deceiving, because they aren’t communicating anything. Even if the observer knows what the symbols mean, it doesn’t follow that deception is ocurring. You can read Mein Kampf without the slightest risk of becoming a neo-Nazi. Similarly, Satan speaks in familiar language to Jesus during the temptation in Matthew 4 (Luke 4, Mark 1), but Jesus is not at risk of being deceived.
I’m not about to populate my shelves with objects covered in occultic symbols. But the reasons for that are aesthetic, not protective. I would not be in danger of absorbing evil influence. If I could read the symbols, there might be some increased vulnerability there, but Christians are far more at risk of deception through Satanic communication that is subtle.
A study of phrases like “be not deceived” in Scripture rarely references Satan and never references occultic symbols. This is because we’re so often ready to deceive ourselves (e.g., James 1:22) or to believe lies and half-truths from sources we find appealing (2 Tim 3:13-14, 4:3-4).
Satan’s Idolatrous Goal
Though the scene in Eden doesn’t include a call to bow down before the serpent, there is a clear strategy to replace devotion to God with devotion to something else (self). And even in the temptation of Jesus, the Devil does not content himself with trying to disqualify Jesus from His mission. He directly calls on Him to bow (Matt 4:9). Further, Paul directly links worship of idols to worship of demons (1 Co 10:20).
This is important, because any study of what is actually “demonic,” has to deal adequately with the overall narrative of the Bible, which is one of constant falling into idolatry of one sort or another.
Evaluating supernatural elements in culture involves asking if we’re participating in something that carries more meaning than we intend, asking if we are likely to be deceived, but also asking if we’re likely to have our devotion to God pulled toward some competing object.
Our Attitude
There are tensions we need to preserve in our attitude and emphasis regarding the unseen forces of evil.
Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. (1 Pe 5:8)
Though fear has a place in our motivations and attitudes as believers (e.g., 1 Pet 1:17) we’re never told to be afraid of the rulers of the darkness of this age (Eph 6:12), meaning Satan and his servants. Rather, the key words are sobriety and alertness, along with a diligence to be “armored” spiritually (Eph 6:13-18).
Superstition and feeling spooked—common attitudes in non-Christian folklore—are not in view. More to the point, mindfulness of Satan’s primary goals and methods is in view. The Scriptures tell us where our sobermindedness and alertness need to be aimed.
The Flesh
The classic formula of “the world, the flesh, and the Devil” as the enemies of the Christian holds up well to biblical scrutiny.
Looking again at the temptation of Jesus, Satan tries to tap ordinary human weakness, physical appetites, and (in Jesus’ case, non-existent) human aversions to God’s authority and supremacy.
We could all cloister ourselves and never see a novel with witches in it or a movie with demons in it. We could sing only Psalms, a cappella, to tunes with all quarter notes (to avoid questions about rhythm). We could avoid games and decorative or ritual objects entirely.
To add a first century context, we could eat only the food we hunted or grew ourselves.
We’d still have what is, by far, the largest and most present vulnerability to Satan’s influence (if he even needs to put in any effort): our own flesh. The word “flesh” has some different meanings, depending on the context, but these are clear enough:
- Romans 13:14
- 1 Corinthians 3:1
- Galatians 5:13
- Galatians 5:17
- Galatians 5:24
- Colossians 2:23
- 1 Peter 2:11
- 1 John 2:16
When we consider the increasing interest in “the supernatural” we’re seeing in Western culture, we do need to consider factors like meaning, influence, deception, devotion, and self indulgence. If we can be influenced by objects, spells, historic associations of obscure symbols, etc., the Bible certainly does not emphasize these in the array of threats we face.
I conclude with a benediction that seems apt:
The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. (Ro 16:20)
Aaron Blumer 2016 Bio
Aaron Blumer is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in small-town western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored for thirteen years. In his full time job, he is content manager for a law-enforcement digital library service. (Views expressed are the author's own and not his employer's, church's, etc.)
I haven’t noticed an uproar about Wicked and Wicked: For Good, but I’m sure disagreements exist. Movies, streaming content, and novels of concern abound.
My cynical take on this is that American, mainstream entertainment culture used to have enough quality to at least be tempting, even if you thought it was pure evil.
I haven’t seen any of the ‘Wicked’ installments. There’s a Filings item on a CPost article. https://sharperiron.org/filing/46669 Interesting perspectives there. I get the impression that the magic and stuff is not really central to those, since there seems to be no Harry Potter like reaction to the witches and spells and whatnot. But it’s nowhere near the scale of popularity either, so maybe it’s just that.
I occasionally still hear people express concern about the magical stuff in C.S. Lewis’ Narnia series. It’s been a while, though.
Seems like mostly people react more when the fiction/film is creepier, and there’s a fair amount of creepy vibe in the Potterverse, though to me it seems mild. I’ve read that entire series a couple of times, and to me the ethical questions are more of concern for, say, children, than the fantasy elements.
… though I have occasionally wished I could “Reducto!” or “Stupify!” someone. 😀
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I have actually heard more concern about "Wicked" from secular sources. Of course some of those secular sources have Christian contributors. I am not very familiar with "Wicked," but the concerns I keep hearing is that it is blurring the lines between good and evil. I have heard that the "wicked" individual is shown as good and the good individual is shown as bad. This problem however is not limited to movies that involve the supernatural. The same issue often came up in the old westerns of days gone by. The reality is that we live in a world that long ago drifted away from a biblical standard for right and wrong and has replaced it with other standards.
Regarding movies, I've always been blessed by looking at the "parental guidance" section at imdb. There are any number of movies, even ones considered "classics", where I've said "pass" because I simply didn't want to see certain parts of it.
Maybe I'm too picky--I chose not to see "Saving Private Ryan" because I didn't want to bother with the opening scene, for example--but it avoids a lot of trouble at times.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
In my experience, a lot of fiction and film wrestles with the themes of things seeming evil that turn out not to be and vice versa, or the complex motives of humans in doing things they think are right that aren’t, or that they know aren’t right but they think are necessary, etc.
So it’s often a fine line between realistic portrayal of moral and ethical dilemmas and character complexity vs. genuinely trying to just blur lines. But the lines are often blurry from our human perspective, which is why it’s so important that the sequence is “fear God… and keep His commandments” and “love the Lord your God with all your heart…. strength.” Having our hearts in the right place doesn’t guarantee we will correctly identify what’s right, true, and good, but it goes a long way. If nothing else, it mitigates the wrong choices we make when we thought we were on the right track.
Edit: I think it’s fascinating, too, how obsessed humans are with the topic of good vs evil. Is it what CS Lewis and others called the moral argument? It’s certainly a testament that the law of God is “written on our hearts” (Romans 2:15).
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
From there, disagreement multiplies. . . .
Having carefully read this article several times, I disagree to varying extents, in various ways, and for varying reasons with all of the following statements (emphasis added in bold).
Satan’s primary tool is deception and his primary process is ideas and words. In Scripture, objects associated with Satan are not depicted as powerful.
- Satan’s primary goal is idolatry. . . .
1 Corinthians 8-10, together with other passages argues that believers should be alert to the possibility that participation in cultural events could have more significance than we intend. But the passage argues against the notion that objects used in demonic worship can convey spiritual influence. . . .
Jesus first characterizes the Devil as “a murderer,” but everything after that focuses on his character as a deceiver. Consider also Revelation 12:9, the events of Genesis 3, and 2 Corinthians 11:3. . . .
Occultic symbols that carry no meaning to an observer are not deceiving, because they aren’t communicating anything. Even if the observer knows what the symbols mean, it doesn’t follow that deception is ocurring. You can read Mein Kampf without the slightest risk of becoming a neo-Nazi. Similarly, Satan speaks in familiar language to Jesus during the temptation in Matthew 4 (Luke 4, Mark 1), but Jesus is not at risk of being deceived [My comment: It is true that Jesus was "not at risk of being deceived," but the relevance of that truth to us in the context of this discussion is what needs to be probed].
I’m not about to populate my shelves with objects covered in occultic symbols. But the reasons for that are aesthetic, not protective. I would not be in danger of absorbing evil influence. If I could read the symbols, there might be some increased vulnerability there, but Christians are far more at risk of deception through Satanic communication that is subtle.
A study of phrases like “be not deceived” in Scripture rarely references Satan and never references occultic symbols. This is because we’re so often ready to deceive ourselves (e.g., James 1:22) or to believe lies and half-truths from sources we find appealing (2 Tim 3:13-14, 4:3-4). . . .
This is important, because any study of what is actually “demonic,” has to deal adequately with the overall narrative of the Bible, which is one of constant falling into idolatry of one sort or another. . . .
To add a first century context, we could eat only the food we hunted or grew ourselves. . . .
When we consider the increasing interest in “the supernatural” we’re seeing in Western culture, we do need to consider factors like meaning, influence, deception, devotion, and self indulgence. If we can be influenced by objects, spells, historic associations of obscure symbols, etc., the Bible certainly does not emphasize these in the array of threats we face.
As time allows (I have been very busy caring for an ailing family member since early November), I hope to elaborate on my disagreements and show biblically why I believe that the statements from this article that I have quoted in this post are problematic at best and dangerously wrong in some cases.
Something that might save you some effort: factor in synonymous words and phrases. A statement is not false because it contains one term that is not exactly the same term used this verse or that verse. The Bible repeats most of what it teaches—in different contexts and using synonymous or “very close adjacent” terms.
So, hypothetically, if the Bible uses ‘feline’ and I use ‘cat,’ that isn’t evidence I’m wrong.
My second tip, just for saving some time and energy, is to weigh what’s essential and not essential to the argument. So, hypothetically, if my claim is that cats are good furry pets and the Bible notes that some felines don’t have fur, that’s also not evidence that I’m wrong.
Counterargument is most effective when it focuses on what’s relevant—maybe probative is a good term, in the legal sense (nice summary of the term here). In a court setting, if I’m trying to prove that cats are good pets, testimony that some are furless would be set aside as “not probative.”
One more piece of advice: If I didn’t say it, I didn’t say it. So there’s no point in arguing against claims I have not made.
I’m not laying down rules or anything like that, it’s just not worth the effort to form counterarguments against claims that haven’t been made or to form counterarguments against “non-probative” details.
I’ll anticipate one point of contention
Can people hear false claims and not be vulnerable to being deceived? There are a lot of factors that would shape the vulnerability, but the answer to the basic question is obviously yes. Someone could insist all day long that 2+2=5 and my “vulnerability to deception score” on that claim would not budge a nanometer above zero. Of course, more complex claims delivered in more complex ways up that potential to be deceived. Everybody knows that. My assertion on that point is that it is not accurate to say that hearing/seeing/reading alone constitutes vulnerability to deception. Vulnerability is not inherent in exposure. Other factors are required.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
In Scripture, objects associated with Satan are not depicted as powerful.
But the passage argues against the notion that objects used in demonic worship can convey spiritual influence. . . .
I don't want to get ahead of Rajesh while he is considering his posts, but a couple questions come to my mind while looking at these two highlighted sentences.
First, what would be the "power" in an object itself that is powerful? In a non-spiritual sense, I can think of an object itself that has a type of power. A magnet can pull a piece of metal toward it. Magnetism is a power that a physical object can have. What kind of "spiritual power" can be inherent in a physical object? Does a physical object get indwelt by an evil spirit, thus giving it power? I'd have to have an understanding of the power concept before I could agree that an object itself has power. Is the idea of power just metaphorical rather than the object itself having some sort of power?
The second question is about conveying "spiritual influence." What is this "spiritual influence" that could be conveyed by an object itself? I hope the answer isn't circular like "spiritual influence is power" and then when I'd ask, "what is power?", I'd hear, "power is spiritual influence." Do objects used in righteous worship also have the same sort of "spiritual influence?" If I carry a Bible with me, does it have spiritual influence even if I don't open it or read it? If I owned a piece of the cross that Christ died upon, would that object have power or spiritual influence?
Acts 19:11-12 says, And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul: So that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them.
Does this passage mean that the handkerchiefs and aprons themselves were actually containing power? If these objects themselves did contain power, wouldn't this really be a "special miracle" and not indicative of whether occult objects had any power?
I do think it helps to get down to where the rubber meets the road on some of these things.
If we’re going to say an object is dangerous because it can zap you, it’s reasonable to ask what is this ‘zap’ and how does the object do that?
One of the really interesting features of Paul’s argument in 1 Cor 8-10 is that human subjectivity in these matters is essential for them to “work.” He’s clear that the meaning you attach to the thing (there, food offered to idols) is what matters most in terms of how it effects you (stumbling, being made weak).
But in the same set of chapters he does argue that participating in the idolatrous ritual has objective meaning. In that case, it’s not a matter of being influenced or being deceived—that requires subjective context—but rather a matter of what the act means, whether you “mean to mean it” or not.
But as for the “being influenced” angle, Paul’s qualifying phrases are fascinating—the “we know” phrases and the “not anything” phrases. He is denying that the idols and the food offered to them carry any real taint or any real power in themselves.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
- Satan’s primary tool is deception and his primary process is ideas and words. In Scripture, objects associated with Satan are not depicted as powerful.
The highlighted statement is an important truth claim for which no biblical support is provided. As it stands, it is merely an assertion.
Furthermore, this statement is an argument from silence. As such, its validity is at least debatable.
Scripture, in fact, provides an explicit NT account in which believers destroyed occult objects that were of a vast monetary value:
Acts 19:19 Many of them also which used curious arts brought their books together, and burned them before all men: and they counted the price of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver.
For believers to do so shows that they regarded these distinctively occult objects as objects that had to be destroyed, which plainly shows that they were regarded as occult objects that had deleterious qualities to them that necessitated their total and public destruction.
The Spirit has not put this passage in Scripture to be merely "filler." It provides divinely inspired direction for what NT believers should do with distinctively occult objects--rid their lives completely of them.
For believers to do so shows that they regarded these distinctively occult objects as objects that had to be destroyed, which plainly shows that they were regarded as occult objects that had deleterious qualities to them that necessitated their total and public destruction.
The highlighted statement is an important truth claim for which no biblical support is provided. As it stands, it is merely an assertion.
Furthermore, this statement is an argument from silence. As such, its validity is at least debatable.
The passage does not assign "deleterious qualities," whatever that means, to the objects themselves. What does that mean, anyway?
The passage does not assign "deleterious qualities," whatever that means, to the objects themselves. What does that mean, anyway?
Try again yourself to understand what the passage shows about how these NT believers regarded those distinctively occult objects.
When you do so, ask yourself whether how you are choosing to interact with the text is in accord with what God wants:
Psalm 51:6 Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know wisdom.
Here’s Acts 19:19
19 And a number of those who had practiced magic arts brought their books together and burned them in the sight of all. And they counted the value of them and found it came to fifty thousand pieces of silver. 20 So the word of the Lord continued to increase and prevail mightily. (Ac 19:19–20)
And here are some facts:
- It says “a number of” not “all of.”
- It says “their books”—they were burning their own books.
- It does not say the books had any power. (I already hear the protest, but no, this is a fact. It is not said in the text.)
- We are not told what their thought process was.
- v.20 says “So,” linking the whole sequence of events to the advance and triumph of the “word of the Lord.”
- 1 Cor 10:19 and 8:4-6 still exist.
- Acts 2:44-45 exists.
Here’s my view, based on the biblical facts above (and others):
What:
The book burners had rejected their former religion and burned the books that religion was based on. Their behavior was evidence of the power of the word of the Lord.
Why:
Because (a) they no longer had any use for these books, or (b) openly burning them was a vivid expression of their rejection of the teaching in the books, or (c) their still weak conscience made them vulnerable to stumbling (1 Cor 8:12; see also Rom 14:14) (d) they wanted to openly demonstrate that the books had no power over them, or (e) all of the above or some other combination of them.
Problem for the view that the books had power:
1 Cor 10:19 and 1 Cor 8:4-6.
Problems for the view that what the book burners did is required of all of us just because it is reported:
The events of Acts 2:44-45 are also reported. Of course we all agree that the Spirit inspired Acts 19:19 and it is not there for no reason. The Spirit also inspired Acts 2:44-45, and it is not there for no reason. But in both cases, the report isn’t automatically a prescription for everybody everywhere forever after. It could be prescriptive, but a case has to be made for that, since it is simply reported and we are not told it has the weight of a command from God.
____
Topic shift…
- Satan’s primary tool is deception and his primary process is ideas and words. In Scripture, objects associated with Satan are not depicted as powerful.
The highlighted statement is an important truth claim for which no biblical support is provided. As it stands, it is merely an assertion.
The claim here is that something is absent from Scripture. The biblical support is to point out, as the claim itself does, that it is not there. It is not “merely an assertion.”
I anticipate the objection that I’m arguing from silence. Yes. Arguing from silence is sometimes valid. It’s obviously valid when your claim is a silence claim. If I claim there are no socks in my drawer, all I need for evidence is to point out that the socks are not there.
In other words, since I’m claiming something is absent from Scripture, I’ve set up a simple counterargument. An effective counter would be to just show that it is there. An example.
I suppose the Acts 19:19 case could be an attempt at that, but it doesn’t hold up, since it never says any objects had any real power.
While I’m at the keyboard, I’ll to also attempt to cut counterarguments like that one off at the pass, to avoid dealing with them one by one: It is possible that there could be one or two exceptions, where objects themselves seem to truly carry some kind of evil power within them. If they can be found, my new claim on that topic would just be a qualifier, “rarely” like this:
- In Scripture, objects associated with Satan are rarely depicted as powerful.
The reason that qualified claim doesn’t irk me much is that in the overall argument of the article, it’s fine if once in a while there is an object that seems to be a genuine evil power—because that doesn’t support locating our emphasis there. The main argument that Satan doesn’t primarily work that way and our focus needs to be on other threats stands.
But at the moment, I don’t see a need for the ‘rarely’ qualifier. I have yet to recall or see an example.
This scene just came to mind, though:
2 Then the Philistines took the ark of God and brought it into the house of Dagon and set it up beside Dagon. 3 And when the people of Ashdod rose early the next day, behold, Dagon had fallen face downward on the ground before the ark of the Lord. So they took Dagon and put him back in his place. (1 Sa 5:2–3)
See also Isaiah 44:9-20, Isaiah 46:6-7, Jeremiah 10:1-16 (especially Jer 10:5, 15)
In these contexts, objects people thought of as powerful are mocked as powerless and ridiculous.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
What:
The book burners had rejected their former religion and burned the books that religion was based on. Their behavior was evidence of the power of the word of the Lord.
The claim that they rejected their former "religion" has zero basis in the text. This is not an account about a false religion--it is an account about practitioners of the occult. The two are not the same thing.
Conflating the two is a serious but not uncommon error.
Try again yourself to understand what the passage shows about how these NT believers regarded those distinctively occult objects.
When you do so, ask yourself whether how you are choosing to interact with the text is in accord with what God wants:
Psalm 51:6 Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know wisdom.
So instead of answering my question, you're telling me to try to understand myself what you mean. Do you want me to make assumptions about what you mean by your wording? Isn't it far more efficient for you to just explain what you mean by "deleterious qualities?"
Do you want me to assume that because the objects were burnt, then that means the objects must have had deleterious qualities? Why would I assume that? There are plenty of other logical reasons for burning than to get rid of deleterious qualities. How do we even know that burning would destroy the deleterious quality rather than dispersing it into the air with the smoke?
If the people had sold the occult items, then they could have simply bought them back. If the people had buried the occult items, they could have dug them back up. Burning the items prevented the people from being tempted to use those particular items ever again. Also, burning was a very public testimony they would never use those items again. I'm in full agreement that God didn't want those items to be in their possession, but I don't see where you are getting the notion that the items themselves must have had some deleterious qualities.
The claim that they rejected their former "religion" has zero basis in the text. This is not an account about a false religion--it is an account about practitioners of the occult. The two are not the same thing.
How can you say that the claim that they had rejected their former religion is not in the text? Didn't you read the previous verse, verse 18? It says, "And many that believed came, and confessed, and shewed their deeds." The fact that they believed shows that they rejected any former religion that they had.
The two are not the same thing.
Conflating the two is a serious but not uncommon error.
This claim “has zero basis in the text.”
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
If the people had sold the occult items, then they could have simply bought them back. If the people had buried the occult items, they could have dug them back up. Burning the items prevented the people from being tempted to use those particular items ever again. Also, burning was a very public testimony they would never use those items again.
You claim that had they sold the occult items, they could have simply bought them back. So what? They could still have bought the same occult items from other occultists even after having burned their own occult items of that sort.
Burning them publicly did not guarantee anything about their not falling back into those same practices later.
I'm in full agreement that God didn't want those items to be in their possession, but I don't see where you are getting the notion that the items themselves must have had some deleterious qualities.
Finally, you are getting to my point. The most important consideration of all is that the passage very plainly shows their understanding of what God wanted for them without having to say anything explicitly to the effect that God did not want them to have those wicked objects in their possession period.
Many other passages show the same thing when godly people destroyed wicked things that they had used in sinful practices in the past.
Perhaps it would help for you to look up some dictionary definitions of "deleterious." The passage plainly shows that the believers destroyed those items because they understood that it would be harmful for them to continue to have those items.
In that regard, the passage does not support Aaron's contention that choosing not to have occult items around is a matter of aesthetic value and not one of protective value.
The two are not the same thing.
Conflating the two is a serious but not uncommon error.
This claim “has zero basis in the text.”
The text plainly talks about their activities being occult activities and not about their activities being religious activities. You claimed that those occult activities were part of their religion but did not provide any evidence that was true.
Furthermore, I did not say anything about the text's showing that "conflating the two is a serious but not uncommon error."
The rest of the Bible repeatedly distinguishes between idolatry and the occult (for example, 2 Chron. 33:3-7), including in key NT passages (for example, Galatians 5:19-20 and Revelation 9:20-21), which does not support your claim that their occult activities were their religious activities. (Those who want a further treatment of this important point can access it here on my blog.)
There are other NT passages as well that make the same point.
You claim that had they sold the occult items, they could have simply bought them back. So what? They could still have bought the same occult items from other occultists even after having burned their own occult items of that sort.
Burning them publicly did not guarantee anything about their not falling back into those same practices later.
You sound as though you think they may not have been true believers. Why would they have bought them back or fallen back into the same practices if they were now believers and had repented of those practices? Sure, some of the professions of faith may have been false, but I don't think I was wrong to say that a "particular item" that had been burned could never be used again if it had been burned up. I was talking, after all, about the particular destroyed items never being used again.
Finally, you are getting to my point. The most important consideration of all is that the passage very plainly shows their understanding of what God wanted for them without having to say anything explicitly to the effect that God did not want them to have those wicked objects in their possession period.
I agree that the passage doesn't say anything explicitly to that effect. Based on this silence, they could have sold them or buried them in order to get them out of their possession, since even getting them out of their possession was not explicitly commanded in the passage.
Perhaps it would help for you to look up some dictionary definitions of "deleterious." The passage plainly shows that the believers destroyed those items because they understood that it would be harmful for them to continue to have those items.
Wait. First you admit that the passage doesn't explicitly say that they had to get rid of the items, and then two paragraphs later, you're claiming the passage "plainly shows" that the believers understood the items to be so "harmful" they needed to be "destroyed." Where does the passage plainly show THAT? What "harm" does the passage plainly show? I can see the harm in the items being a "temptation prod," but I'm not sure if that's the full extent of the "power/spiritual influence/deleterious quality" that you consider an object to be able to have.
No, I do not think at all that they were not true believers. What the passage explicitly shows is that they completely destroyed those wicked occult items and calculated the full value of the items that they had destroyed.
Their completely destroying those items shows that they did not deem them fit to give or sell to anyone else in spite of the great monetary value of the evil items.
They could have sold them and used the money to support poor believers or missionaries, but they did not do so. Their not doing so shows that they regarded these wicked materials differently than the other possessions of believers that the other believers themselves deemed fit to sell voluntarily to other people in order to meet the needs of the believers (Acts 2:44-45).
They could have scrubbed the immensely valuable materials on which the information that these wicked occult books contained was written and made Bibles out of them, but they did not do so.
Their actions plainly display the wisdom of God concerning how believers are to rid themselves completely of any such products among their own possessions. By direct and necessary implication, their actions also show that such wicked occult items have no place in the lives of any believers.
The passage plainly shows that the believers destroyed those items because they understood that it would be harmful for them to continue to have those items.
The “Because…” part is not there, Rajesh. We have the what. We are not told why—unless I’ve overlooked that. Can you quote the words tell us what their thought process/motivation was?
The most important consideration of all is that the passage very plainly shows their understanding of what God wanted for them without having to say anything explicitly to the effect that God did not want them to have those wicked objects in their possession period.
Where does the passage say God wanted them to do this? Again, quote the words.
I’m usually not a ‘quote the words’ guy, because I believe in inferences, but I’m adopting the approach to evidence you frequently use for me and others, Rajesh. So… show me the words.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
No, I do not think at all that they were not true believers. What the passage explicitly shows is that they completely destroyed those wicked occult items and calculated the full value of the items that they had destroyed.
Since the passage explicitly states that the believers calculated the cost of the items, do you understand that accounting to be something believers today need to do when they get rid of items that God doesn't want them to have? Is that part of the passage informational, to show how great of a testimony they were presenting, or is it instructional, to show us we need to be doing the same counting today?
Regarding the destruction of those manuscripts, I can see a few possible reasons:
- They did indeed have some supernatural power for themselves (but this is not stated in the text)
- They were designed to allow snake oil salesmen to trick others (again, not in the text)
- They contain incantations which would indeed summon demons (again, not in the text)
- Something else?
But as Aaron is repeatedly noting, we don't have an indication as to which of these, if any, is actually the case.
One side note is that regarding the claim "they could have bought them back", that is sort of true. Keep in mind that a portion of every purchase you make is the transaction cost--a good example is the difference between dealer retail, private party, and trade in value for a car. So if you "traded in" your magic books, you would find yourself a fair amount short if you wanted to buy them back.
We don't know from the text whether those who practiced magic arts knew this economic principle, though.
It's also worth noting that copying books by hand is hard work--I actually just finished the book of Judges in my copywork of the Scriptures. Probably 500 hours of effort with a good modern fountain pen, and the ancients made do with goose quill and parchment. So a good portion of the value of those books was simply that you had to pay a literate person (rare in those days) to write it, and provide him with parchment/vellum, quill, and ink. I'm guessing that a good sized book would probably be worth 2000 pieces of silver or more--get a few dozen, and you're at the full 50,000 pieces.
So was it power of magic, power of trickery, or just that it was an awful lot of work and parchment? Again, we don't know, because it's not in the text. All are plausible reasons.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Aaron Blumer] The “Because…” part is not there, Rajesh. We have the what. We are not told why—unless I’ve overlooked that. Can you quote the words tell us what their thought process/motivation was?
[RG]The most important consideration of all is that the passage very plainly shows their understanding of what God wanted for them without having to say anything explicitly to the effect that God did not want them to have those wicked objects in their possession period.
[AB] Where does the passage say God wanted them to do this? Again, quote the words.
[AB] I’m usually not a ‘quote the words’ guy, because I believe in inferences, but I’m adopting the approach to evidence you frequently use for me and others, Rajesh. So… show me the words.
The burning of those books was not on some whim that came over some occultists totally out of the blue. Scripture says that what precipitated their actions was an unsuccessful exorcism of a demon from a man who was genuinely demon-possessed--there was no fakery, trickery, etc. involved in his state of being demon-possessed (Acts 19:13-16).
Having known (Acts 19:17) of what happened in the horrific humiliation of the unbelieving Jewish exorcists who were sons of a chief of the Jewish priests, "all the Jews and Greeks also dwelling at Ephesus" were in a state of having fear fall "on them all" (Acts 19:17). What were they afraid of?
The plain answer is that they became fearful of the power and dangers of having authentic encounters with demons, as these failed Jewish exorcists experienced when they tried to exorcise a demon from a truly demon-possessed man. In fact, all the Jews and Greek dwelling at Ephesus came to know (Acts 19:17) about how a demon actually answered and spoke to those failed exorcists (Acts 19:15) prior to their being violently assailed by the demon-possessed man and their having to flee naked and wounded out of that house as a result (Acts 19:16)!
In that context, these former occultists who also received the word of the Lord through some unstated means turned from their wicked occult activities and did so out of legitimate and proper fear of being involved in activities and practices that would genuinely put them in contact with real demons. Because they feared to have any such things happen to them, they burned those books that they knew were part of what they themselves had previously used to engage in their occult activities.
Furthermore, the passage tells us that all these things that transpired manifested how "mightily grew the word of God and prevailed" (Acts 19:20). The passage, however, does not give us any information about when and how specifically these former occultists had received the word of God and what specifically was told them when they did. It is fully plausible that they had received authoritative confrontation--from those who ministered the word of God to them--that they needed to repent of their occult practices and rid themselves of all their involvements with such practices and rid themselves of all the sources of occult information that they had in their possession.
The burning of those books was not on some whim that came over some occultists totally out of the blue.
Of course it wasn't. Nobody here said it was. There's no reason to invent an exaggerated counter argument that no one here has used.
In that context, these former occultists who also received the word of the Lord through some unstated means turned from their wicked occult activities and did so out of legitimate and proper fear of being involved in activities and practices that would genuinely put them in contact with real demons. Because they feared to have any such things happen to them, they burned those books that they knew were part of what they themselves had previously used to engage in their occult activities.
This is well-stated. Any fear would have been a fear of involvement in activities and practices. It is those activities that put them in contact with demons. There's no reason to imagine some "power" in the items themselves, or some "deleterious quality" to the items themselves, when the real danger was in the activities and practices.
It is fully plausible that they had received authoritative confrontation--from those who ministered the word of God to them . . .
I would say this is not only plausible, but probable, but as you admit, we just don't know what was told to them. As it is, obedience to authoritative confrontation, as a reason for their actions, means we don't even have to rely on an assumption of fear as a reason for their actions. They could have been fearful, but just as we don't know what was said to them, we also don't know all their motivations. They were now believers, filled with the Holy Spirit and filled with the intention to never go back to their occult practices. I think that burning the items clearly shows that they had no intention to go back to their occult practices, so why would they have had fear of contact with demons?
There's no reason to imagine some "power" in the items themselves, or some "deleterious quality" to the items themselves, when the real danger was in the activities and practices.
Wrong. There is no reason to imagine that the items themselves were innocuous.
As it is, obedience to authoritative confrontation, as a reason for their actions, means we don't even have to rely on an assumption of fear as a reason for their actions. They could have been fearful, but just as we don't know what was said to them, we also don't know all their motivations.
Wrong. I have not relied on "an assumption of fear . . . " Divine revelation is true regardless of what you would wish it not to say. The text explicitly says that fear fell on all the Jews and Greeks in Ephesus. There is no legitimate way to say that these former occultists were somehow exempted from having such fear fall on them when the text is explicit that everyone was in fear after having come to know what happened to those failed Jewish exorcists who had genuine contact with a demon in a demon-possessed man.
Wrong. There is no reason to imagine that the items themselves were innocuous.
When the Bible tells us that idols are just wood and stone, isn't there some lesson we need to learn from that direct revelation? The practice of using idols in worship is wrong, but the item, the idol itself, is just wood and stone with no power. Why should I consider the occult items to be any different? The practice of using occult books is wrong, but the book itself is just wood fiber.
The text explicitly says that fear fell on all the Jews and Greeks in Ephesus.
Was this before or after they became believers? Do you see any fear mentioned in the passage for the believers after the believers became believers? I don't.
When the Bible tells us that idols are just wood and stone, isn't there some lesson we need to learn from that direct revelation? The practice of using idols in worship is wrong, but the item, the idol itself, is just wood and stone with no power. Why should I consider the occult items to be any different? The practice of using occult books is wrong, but the book itself is just wood fiber.
Idolatry and the occult are two different categories of sin. Conflating the two is a serious error. Using passages about idolatry to assert that what those passages teach about idolatry and idolatrous objects also applies to the occult and to occult objects is not supported by Scripture.
Scripture distinguishes repeatedly between idolatry and the occult in key passages in both Testaments. It profoundly emphasizes that distinction in the capstone book of divine revelation when it teaches us about who will be punished eternally:
Revelation 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
Revelation 22:15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
These key passages that teach us about who will experience eternal punishment do not allow rightly holding that occult practices are essentially the same thing as idolatry.
Idolatry and the occult are two different categories of sin. Conflating the two is a serious error. Using passages about idolatry to assert that what those passages teach about idolatry and idolatrous objects also applies to the occult and to occult objects is not supported by Scripture.
So are you claiming that when people start practicing occult activities, they no longer practice idolatry? Are you saying that idolatry has no demonic connections to it? You're making a mountain out of a molehill, or I suppose, since you are talking about distinctions, you're trying to make a canyon out of a gully.
Of course there are distinctions that can be made in regard to various types of sins that are in lists of offenses against God. That doesn't mean we can't make analogous comparison between them, or consider those distinct sins to also be in the same "category" to make certain points. Paul lists both idolatry and witchcraft in Galatians 5:19-21. He doesn't do so to emphasize the distinctions between all those sins in the passage, though such distinctions can be made. Paul is listing them ALL as works of the flesh. It's interesting and instructive to study out all the distinctions, even between strife and seditions, or between adultery, fornication and uncleanness, but they are also ALL in the same category of works of the flesh.
Even in Revelation 21:8, which you posted, both idolaters and sorcerers are in the same category, that of having a part in the lake of fire. They are not so separate that it is a serious error to say that both have the same fate. The common fate is the point of that verse, so your use of that verse to emphasize a distinction is not really logical.
The burning of those books was not on some whim that came over some occultists totally out of the blue.
Nobody is saying that. Multiple people have listed multiple not-out-of-the-blue possible reasons for why they did what they did. Are you really not seeing that list of not out of the blue possibilities?
It’s there and not hard to find.
Still not answered:
- Where does the text say they did it because this is what all believers should do with these objects?
- Where does the text say these objects had any power?
- Where does the Bible say occult is not a religion and occult is not idolatry?
I’ll add a new question. If occult is not religion and is not idolatry, where does it even occur in the Bible?
In Acts 19, it’s quite clear that these are new believers who turned away from what they believed in before. Are you asserting that the books they destroyed had no part of the belief system they rejected in favor of the gospel? Were they involved in false worship and also, completely separately, involved in “occult”?
It seems absurd, but let’s say it’s not. Go ahead and prove it from the text.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Kevin has already noted that these verses don’t work as evidence that idolatry and religion and occult are distinct. But I want to add a little on why.
Revelation 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
Revelation 22:15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
For these lists to support the idea that sorcerers are not idolators, the lists have to consist of non-overlapping items.
If no sorcerers are idolators and no idolators are sorcerers, then no murders are liars, and no liars are idolators, and no sorcerers are liars, and no murderers are abominable, and no abominable people are liars, and so on.
But that’s clearly not the sort of list we are given here.
So, these are overlapping categories.
But we’re kind of off track, really. This is meta-debate about labels rather than things.
Here’s what really matters:
- Occult practices are features of beliefs that are opposed to the beliefs of the Christian faith. We normally call that false religion, but if a few folks feel like ‘religion’ is not the right label, it is still a system of beliefs at odds with Christianity. That’s the thing it is, regardless of how we label it for shorthand.
- False religions involve worship that is not the true worship of the true God. We normally call that idolatry, but if a few folks feel like ‘idolatry’ is not the right label for it, it is still worship of not-God. That’s the thing it is, regardless of the shorthand label.
- The people in Acts 19 turned away from beliefs that were not Christianity and worship of what was not God.
- The text depicts their destruction of the books that were part of that not-Christianity and not-God worship as part of the advance of the gospel.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
So are you claiming that when people start practicing occult activities, they no longer practice idolatry? Are you saying that idolatry has no demonic connections to it? You're making a mountain out of a molehill, or I suppose, since you are talking about distinctions, you're trying to make a canyon out of a gully.
I have made no such claims as these. It is you who are trying to portray wrongly what I have said.
Paul lists both idolatry and witchcraft in Galatians 5:19-21. He doesn't do so to emphasize the distinctions between all those sins in the passage, though such distinctions can be made. Paul is listing them ALL as works of the flesh. It's interesting and instructive to study out all the distinctions, even between strife and seditions, or between adultery, fornication and uncleanness, but they are also ALL in the same category of works of the flesh.
This does not prove anything about occult practices being idolatry or vice versa.
Even in Revelation 21:8, which you posted, both idolaters and sorcerers are in the same category, that of having a part in the lake of fire. They are not so separate that it is a serious error to say that both have the same fate. The common fate is the point of that verse, so your use of that verse to emphasize a distinction is not really logical.
Wrong. If idolatry and the occult were essentially synonymous, the Spirit would not have had any reason to mention both because mentioning idolatry would have taken care of what He wanted to say. The fact that in both passages idolatry and the occult are mentioned separately is significant.
Kevin has already noted that these verses don’t work as evidence that idolatry and religion and occult are distinct. But I want to add a little on why.
Revelation 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
Revelation 22:15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
For these lists to support the idea that sorcerers are not idolators, the lists have to consist of non-overlapping items.
If no sorcerers are idolators and no idolators are sorcerers, then no murders are liars, and no liars are idolators, and no sorcerers are liars, and no murderers are abominable, and no abominable people are liars, and so on.
But that’s clearly not the sort of list we are given here.
So, these are overlapping categories.
Saying that they are overlapping categories does not prove anything about the occult and idolatry being essentially the same sins. Multitudes of people who never bow down to any objects of worship practice many occult practices and multitudes of people who are idolaters do not engage in any occult practices such as witchcraft, etc.
Yes, there are people who engage in both kinds of sins, but that does not mean that it is legitimate to conflate the two.
Multiple people have listed multiple not-out-of-the-blue possible reasons for why they did what they did. Are you really not seeing that list of not out of the blue possibilities?
It’s there and not hard to find.
No, I do not see any of those possibilities as being legitimate.
Still not answered:
- Where does the text say they did it because this is what all believers should do with these objects?
You can answer your own question. I have already said that the text does not explicitly say certain things. Obviously, I believe that the text clearly shows nonetheless what is the right course of action for all believers and have explained my thinking in a previous comment.
- Where does the text say these objects had any power?
I have not made any claim in support of this viewpoint, nor have I made any claim against it. I have explained my thought processes about why I believe the passage plainly shows the deleterious nature of those occult objects. You disagree.
- Where does the Bible say occult is not a religion and occult is not idolatry?
The Bible plainly teaches that the occult is not idolatry in many passages that I have already pointed out. Divinely inspired words cannot be explained away. The Spirit has chosen repeatedly and explicitly to speak of the occult separately from idolatry. Divinely inspired words have meanings. "Witchcraft," "sorcerers," "sorcerer," "sorceries," etc. do not equal "idolatry," "idolaters," or "idolater" in many passages.
I have made no such claims as these. It is you who are trying to portray wrongly what I have said.
Asking you a question is not making a claim about what you said. I was simply wondering how wide a distinction you are trying to make between two things. I totally understand that distinctions exist between the two, but my point earlier in the thread was directly about similarities between the two.
This does not prove anything about occult practices being idolatry or vice versa.
But it does show that scripture places BOTH of them in the same category of works of the flesh. Sinful practices can have both distinctions and similarities. If I make a point that "principle X" applies in a similar way to two different sins, I am talking about a specific similarity. Telling me that distinctions exist is beside the point because "principle X" doesn't relate to those differences. My attempt to discuss a similarity is not a refusal to acknowledge differences.
If idolatry and the occult were essentially synonymous,. . .
Is this what you think I said? If you do, you need to read over the conversation again. Having a similarity in one area of discussion does not make the terms synonymous. Adultery and fornication have distinctions because at least one of the participants in adultery is married, but those two sins are also similar in regards to being sexual sins. Sins that are distinct, such as idolatry and the occult, can also have similarities, so when I pointed out a principle that applied to the similarity, then the discussion should have focused on the validity of that principle rather than on superfluous differences.
Obviously, I believe that the text clearly
shows nonetheless what is the right course of action for all believers.
So it clearly shows that without saying it.
No, I do not see any of those possibilities as being legitimate.
You do not see them, therefore they do not exist?
It’s not really possible to have a debate if one side is required to provide evidence and supporting reasoning and the other side is not.
And, no, saying “it was not some whim” is not evidence either way. We all agree it was not some whim. We all also agree that “a demon from a man who was genuinely demon-possessed—there was no fakery, trickery, etc. involved in his state of being demon-possessed.” It’s simply not relevant. We’re also all agreed that, in Acts 19:17 “they became fearful of the power and dangers of having authentic encounters with demons.” Also not relevant. Your post there goes to great lengths to show that demon possession is a real thing that happens, but nobody here doubts that. It’s a different topic.
This might be the best short statement of the gist of my article:
When we consider the increasing interest in “the supernatural” we’re seeing in Western culture, we do need to consider factors like meaning, influence, deception, devotion, and self indulgence. If we can be influenced by objects, spells, historic associations of obscure symbols, etc., the Bible certainly does not emphasize these in the array of threats we face.
Nothing there denies that demon possession really happened, which I fully believe. I’m also pretty sure it still happens, though that’s harder to prove. But the question is what does Scripture reveal about Satan’s nature and main goals and methods in the world—and what does that imply for our response to themes and practices and ideas in the world around us?
He is mainly intent on diverting worship away from God, and deceiving people is his main strategy.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
And, no, saying “it was not some whim” is not evidence either way. We all agree it was not some whim. We all also agree that “a demon from a man who was genuinely demon-possessed—there was no fakery, trickery, etc. involved in his state of being demon-possessed.” It’s simply not relevant. We’re also all agreed that, in Acts 19:17 “they became fearful of the power and dangers of having authentic encounters with demons.” Also not relevant.
Not relevant because you make a pronouncement that it is not? Who says that it is not relevant and why is it not relevant?
The direct context of what led to the book burning was what the preceding verses say. Claiming that all of that is not relevant to what the former occultists did in the burning of the books is a denial of what the Spirit has inspired in the passage.
[RG]Obviously, I believe that the text clearly
shows nonetheless what is the right course of action for all believers.
[AB]So it clearly shows that without saying it.
Yes, a passage can clearly show something without having to state it directly.
[RG]No, I do not see any of those possibilities as being legitimate.
[AB]You do not see them, therefore they do not exist?
What I said is that I regard them as not legitimate possibilities.
Not relevant because you make a pronouncement that it is not? Who says that it is not relevant and why is it not relevant?
Well, nobody disagrees with it and it doesn’t argue for or against any claim anyone is making so… if you want to still call it relevant, you can, but how is it relevant?
What I said is that I regard them as not legitimate possibilities.
Yes, I quoted that. These possibilities are therefore not legitimate… because you said so?
OK, well, I don’t think I really have anything more to say to that. I think I’ll just recap and then move on. To recap, then, I’ll quote myself:
On Acts 19…
And here are some facts:
- It says “a number of” not “all of.”
- It says “their books”—they were burning their own books.
- It does not say the books had any power. (I already hear the protest, but no, this is a fact. It is not said in the text.)
- We are not told what their thought process was.
- v.20 says “So,” linking the whole sequence of events to the advance and triumph of the “word of the Lord.”
- 1 Cor 10:19 and 8:4-6 still exist.
- Acts 2:44-45 exists.
Here’s my view, based on the biblical facts above (and others):
What:
The book burners had rejected their former religion and burned the books that religion was based on. Their behavior was evidence of the power of the word of the Lord.
Why:
Because (a) they no longer had any use for these books, or (b) openly burning them was a vivid expression of their rejection of the teaching in the books, or (c) their still weak conscience made them vulnerable to stumbling (1 Cor 8:12; see also Rom 14:14) (d) they wanted to openly demonstrate that the books had no power over them, or (e) all of the above or some other combination of them.
Problem for the view that the books had power:
1 Cor 10:19 and 1 Cor 8:4-6.
Problems for the view that what the book burners did is required of all of us just because it is reported:
The events of Acts 2:44-45 are also reported. Of course we all agree that the Spirit inspired Acts 19:19 and it is not there for no reason. The Spirit also inspired Acts 2:44-45, and it is not there for no reason. But in both cases, the report isn’t automatically a prescription for everybody everywhere forever after. It could be prescriptive, but a case has to be made for that, since it is simply reported and we are not told it has the weight of a command from God.
We have no evidence that…
- the Acts 19 folks’ books carried any supernatural power
- the book burners destroyed the books specifically out of fear of their power. (There is some fear in the context, but it has to do with what happened to the ‘Sons of Sceva.’ We are not told the book burners were afraid of their books.)
- the other possible motivations (other than fear of the power of the books) for the book burning should be dismissed.
We do have biblical evidence that objects are not to be feared. In addition to 1 Cor 8 and 10 quoted above…
See also Isaiah 44:9-20, Isaiah 46:6-7, Jeremiah 10:1-16 (especially Jer 10:5, 15)
In these contexts, objects people thought of as powerful are mocked as powerless and ridiculous.
Also to recap: three points of agreement
- We are agreed that the book burners didn’t do that on a mere whim.
- We are agreed that demon possession really happened and was at least sometimes pretty frightening.
And finally…
- We’re probably also all agreed that religion, idolatry, and occult are not fully overlapping categories. That is, some religion is not idolatry, some religion is not occult, and some idolatry is not occult.
- I’m persuaded that all real occult is both idolatry and religion, but that doesn’t really argue one way or the other as to these points (from the article)…
When we consider the increasing interest in “the supernatural” we’re seeing in Western culture, we do need to consider factors like meaning, influence, deception, devotion, and self indulgence. If we can be influenced by objects, spells, historic associations of obscure symbols, etc., the Bible certainly does not emphasize these in the array of threats we face.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Sins that are distinct, such as idolatry and the occult, can also have similarities, so when I pointed out a principle that applied to the similarity, then the discussion should have focused on the validity of that principle rather than on superfluous differences.
Scripture never teaches that the differences between idolatry and the occult are superfluous.
I did a bit of a search on what Greek and Hebrew words are translated "occult", and the interesting thing that shows up is that unlike other concepts, there really aren't just a few words that are translated that way. In fact, in Acts 19:19, the word "periergos" (Strong's 4021) is actually translated in 1 Timothy 5:13 as "busybody"--which is probably a better literalistic translation of the Greek, IMO, "working all around".
We might infer that the Greek is actually saying that those who destroyed the books are spoken of by Luke as "messing around" with magic books (much like kids today playing "Quiddich" in honor of Harry Potter ), and hence the "busybodies" realized that they were actually (whether through power of books, power of incantations, bad luck, whatever) playing with fire. Luke does not describe them as authentic magicians, but rather dilettantes, in my view.
- side note; Quiddich, or "running around with a broom between your legs", sounds like a great way for a guy to hurt himself. Just sayin'.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Kevin]Sins that are distinct, such as idolatry and the occult, can also have similarities, so when I pointed out a principle that applied to the similarity, then the discussion should have focused on the validity of that principle rather than on superfluous differences.
[Rajesh]Scripture never teaches that the differences between idolatry and the occult are superfluous.
Please notice the words that I highlighted in my comment to which you responded. I previously pointed out a principle that related to a similarity between idolatry and the occult. I wished to have a discussion with you about that particular principle. In regards to that discussion, and only that discussion, the differences between the two are superfluous, in my opinion. I'm open to examining why the differences are not superfluous, but that takes an actual discussion about the principle I presented. Instead of discussing that principle, you ignored the principle and declared that conflating idolatry and the occult is a grave error. Based on the principle I was presenting from Scripture, ignoring the similarities between idolatry and the occult is a grave error.
So here's the similarity - Both idolatry and the occult use items crafted from wood and stone. That's the similarity I wish to discuss, since the Bible specifically talks about items made of wood and stone. Can other materials also be used in the creation of items used in idolatry and the occult? Yes, but I believe the principle that applies to wood and stone would also apply to any other natural material that gets crafted to make an item. Look at Habakkuk 2:19, "Woe unto him that saith to the wood, Awake; to the dumb stone, Arise, it shall teach! Behold, it is laid over with gold and silver, and there is no breath at all in the midst of it."
Clearly, things that are crafted have no breath, no life, no ability to act. You can try commanding them to do things, but a crafted item cannot respond. There is no inherent quality within them that would allow them to respond. I can sense your objection to my similarity already, since verse 18 states that these crafted objects are idols rather than occult objects, but that brings me to another similarity. A person using an idol can make a request of the idol, and the idol itself is unable to respond, but the request could actually be granted. How? By a supernatural being other than God. I Cor 10:20 tells us ". . . I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons."
This tells us that using idolatrous objects provides a type of contact with demons. Using occult objects also provides a type of contact with demons. The types of contact can obviously differ, but those differences do not affect the truth of the principle that crafted items do not have power in themselves to act. This doesn't mean that God wants us to have these crafted items in our possession. Any command, or even implication, to get rid of them is not due to an inherent quality in them, since the clear principle in Scripture is that crafted items have no power in themselves to act.
Scripture never teaches that the differences between idolatry and the occult are superfluous.
Where does the Bible even tell us occult exists? The word is not there. There are words for activities and people who engage in them. Where are we told that these activities and people go into a special category called occult? Or a special category at all?
Scripture simply presents these alleged “occult” ideas and practices as wrong. It reveals them to be associated with false beliefs. It associates them with false worship, sometimes involving actual idols and idolatrous rituals.
It does not say “these 6 bad things are occult and these other half dozen bad things are not.” Creating a special category that aligns with what we call occult today is just not something Scripture shows any indication of caring about. It’s a human category. It is often a useful category for talking about beliefs and practices that share some characteristics, but we shouldn’t give this term of convenience biblical authority or biblical significance.
In Scripture we see categories like true and false teaching, true and false belief, true and false worship, good and bad conduct. As a subcategory of all the false and bad, we find the overtly Satanic. But we also learn that Satan is not limited to “overt” things. Overt is not even his main modus operandi. 2 Cor 11.14. John 8.44. 2 Cor 4.4
But to return to the “occult” category question, where is the verse that says it is even a distinct category of false belief and wrongdoing?
If we want to think biblically, we have to use biblical categories. It’s legitimate to say sin is a category of behavior. It’s legit to say false doctrine is a biblical category. Idolatry is a biblical category. Satanic and demonic activities and influence are a biblical category. But let’s remember that Scripture depicts Satan’s activity as consisting mostly of things we modern Westerners don’t use the term ‘occult’ for. The category of “Satanic activity” in the Bible includes false doctrine 1 Tim. 4.1, 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12. Given what we are clearly told about his nature, we should believe he is mainly engaged in the spread of bad ideas and lies. (Genesis 3, John 8.44, Revelation 12:9; Revelation 20:3, 8, 10; 2 Corinthians 11:3; Ephesians 6:11).
The things we moderns call occult are like an appendix to his main playbook, and in Scripture, they are not are given any special ranking in the list of evils we all need to avoid. (Yes, they are sometimes called ‘abominations’ but so are lots of things nobody calls ‘occult.’ … in fact, I think the case can be made that ‘abomination’ in the OT is usually a term for things associated with idolatry.)
So, where are the verses that tell what things are occult and what are not and what the characteristics of occult are and how this category is special vs. other flavors of false beliefs, false worship, and bad behavior?
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Some Claude (Sonnet 4.5) assisted research:
The Term “Occult”
How its meaning has evolved from medieval times to today
The word “occult” has shifted dramatically in meaning over the centuries. What began as a neutral scientific term for hidden natural properties evolved into a label for specific esoteric practices, then became an identity marker for 19th-century movements, and finally turned into a catch-all category for anything mysterious or supernatural.
Summary: Three Major Shifts
1. Medieval: “Occult qualities” = hidden natural properties (neutral, scientific)
2. Renaissance: “Occult sciences/philosophy” = specific esoteric practices (alchemy, astrology, natural magic)
3. 19th Century–Present: “Occultism” / “the occult” = broad category of alternative spiritualities and mysterious phenomena
Sources
- Occult (Britannica) — Etymology and historical development
- Occult (Wikipedia) — Medieval usage through modern definitions
- Occultism (Britannica) — 19th century emergence of the term
- Occultism (Encyclopedia.com) — Scholarly definitions and categories
So, as a distinct category of practices, the term is pretty recent, especially as a term for magic and the like. But what I think we tend to forget is that until the Enlightenment, people didn’t usually think in terms of natural and supernatural. When empiricism and naturalism and its cousins took over Western thought, there was then space for the concept of “realities that don’t fit the paradigm” — that is, ‘supernatural’ and ‘paranormal’ and yes, ‘occult.’
The Bible categories predate all of that. (Superstitions and folklore predate all that also, but people didn’t think a story about a demon was ‘supernatural,’ or ‘occult;’ it would just be a fascinating, maybe frightening story about something mysterious.)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
So here's the similarity - Both idolatry and the occult use items crafted from wood and stone.
Where does the Bible speak of occult use of items crafted from wood and stone?
So, where are the verses that tell what things are occult and what are not and what the characteristics of occult are and how this category is special vs. other flavors of false beliefs, false worship, and bad behavior?
I have already presented much biblical data that shows that the occult is distinct from other kinds of sins, such as idolatry, immorality, murderers, etc. Here they are again.
2 Chronicles 33:3 For he built again the high places which Hezekiah his father had broken down, and he reared up altars for Baalim, and made groves, and worshipped all the host of heaven, and served them. 4 Also he built altars in the house of the LORD, whereof the LORD had said, In Jerusalem shall my name be for ever. 5 And he built altars for all the host of heaven in the two courts of the house of the LORD. 6 And he caused his children to pass through the fire in the valley of the son of Hinnom: also he observed times, and used enchantments, and used witchcraft, and dealt with a familiar spirit, and with wizards: he wrought much evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger. 7 And he set a carved image, the idol which he had made, in the house of God, of which God had said to David and to Solomon his son, In this house, and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen before all the tribes of Israel, will I put my name for ever:
Galatians 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
Revelation 9:20 And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk: 21 Neither repented they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts.
Revelation 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
Revelation 22:15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
The things we moderns call occult are like an appendix to his main playbook, . . .
in fact, I think the case can be made that ‘abomination’ in the OT is usually a term for things associated with idolatry.)
You have to support these claims with an actual treatment of the data pertaining to each one.
You have to support these claims with an actual treatment of the data pertaining to each one.
But you don’t have to have support the claim that “occult” is an actual category in the Bible? You have listed examples of people doing various things. Once again, your energy is focused on points that are not in dispute. That information is not probative. I agree that people did all those things. Where are they grouped together and identified as occult? Where are we told what, if anything, is special about them?
Of course each sin is distinct from each other sin. Murder is not adultery, and neither of them are theft or lying (also astrology is not necromancy and necromancy is not sorcery). We could could list sins all day and point out that they are distinct from one another and we would not have established that some are in a special category with special features. The reasoning can’t function that way.
Not that it matters much relative to my main claim…
When we consider the increasing interest in “the supernatural” we’re seeing in Western culture, we do need to consider factors like meaning, influence, deception, devotion, and self indulgence. If we can be influenced by objects, spells, historic associations of obscure symbols, etc., the Bible certainly does not emphasize these in the array of threats we face.
As for “abomination,” it’s also a peripheral question, but…
Looking at KJV, the English term is actually really broad and occurs 146 times in 136 verses. It can mean a lot of different things, “a thing that is abhorrent” in some way being the most common. So for any connection to idolatry, there might be a Hebrew correlation there, since we have eight or nine Hebrew words translated ‘abomination,’ apparently. Linking “abomination” to “occult” would be even harder, since “occult” is a modern concept.
Logos analysis…
It remains clear to me that the problem with sorcery, witchcraft, necromancy, etc., in the Bible is that these are elements of religious systems that are ultimately idolatrous.
I know that’s in dispute in this discussion, but I have to ask: if they are not parts of rival, anti-God belief systems, what’s supposed to be wrong with them, then?
As for this…
The things we moderns call occult are like an appendix to his main playbook,
I already supported that. That statement is a summary of most of that post.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Featured Resource
Discussion