I just finished reading Jonah.  One of the themes that we observe in this prophetic book is that God sovereignly superintends creation.  We see His rule over a stormy wind, a great fish, a plant, a worm, an east wind, and finally Jonah.   

Wind

But the LORD hurled a great wind upon the sea, and there was a mighty tempest upon the sea, so that the ship threatened to break up (Jonah 1:4)

A Great Fish

God commanded the fish to swallow Jonah and then later vomit him out.

And the LORD appointed a great fish to swallow up Jonah.  And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights (Jonah 1:17)

And the LORD spoke to the fish, and it vomited Jonah out upon the dry land (Jonah 2:10)

A Plant

Now the LORD God appointed a plant and made it come up over Jonah, that it might be a shade over his head, to save him from his discomfort (Jonah 4:6)

A Worm

But when the dawn came up the next day, God appointed a worm that attacked the plant, so that it withered (Jonah 4:7)

An East Wind

When the sun rose, God appointed a scorching east wind,and the sun beat down on the head of Jonah so that he was faint.  And he asked that he might die and said, ‘It is better for me to die that to live’ (Jonah 4:8)

Four observations on this theme of God’s sovereignty over creation:

• God used nature to preserve the life of Jonah so that he would perform the thing God called him to do (“a great fish swallowed Jonah”).  Undoubtedly, he would have died out on the stormy sea.
• God used nature mercifully for the benefit of his servant, albeit an ungrateful one (the plant was “a shade over his head, to save him from his discomfort”).
• Underlying all this is the reality that humans are the only creatures who willingly disobeys his Creator.  The wind, the great fish, the plant, the worm, and the east wind all obeyed the command of their Creator.  Not so in Jonah’s case.  When God told him to go to Nineveh he disobeyed,  ”But Jonah rose to flee” (Jonah 1:3).      
• Eventually, God accomplished His purposes through Jonah.  Finally, Jonah got to a point of obedience, “So Jonah arose and went to Nineveh, according to the word of the LORD” (Jonah 3:3).  Jonah’s experience was unusual to be sure, but there are a number of things that God uses in our lives to bring us to a point of obedience: illness, finances, unemployment, etc.  It would have saved Jonah a lot of difficulty and heartache if he would have simply been obedient.

Creation’s obedience to its Creator is what brings Him glory.  Let us glorify our Creator by obeying His word.

I’ll say ‘yes,’ Lord, ‘yes,’
to your will and to your way
I’ll say ‘yes,’ Lord, ‘yes,’
I will trust you and obey
When your Spirit speaks to me
With my whole heart I’ll agree
And my answer will be ’yes,’ Lord, ‘yes,’

You shall walk after the Lord your God and fear him and keep his commandments and obey his voice, and you shall serve him and hold fast to him (emphasis added, Deuteronomy 13:4)

By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments (emphasis added, 1 John 5:2) 

Well, here’s a rundown of this year’s hunting season . . .

Wednesday, November 4
Scouting. I sat on my stand late in the day.  Two does came out just before dark. One was pretty close to the stand.  It’s always exciting to see deer.

Friday, November 6
Scouting. I sat on my stand on the eve of opening day. A fork buck walked through the pond area at 4:45pm.

Saturday, November 7
Opener. I kicked up a deer on the way out to my stand in the morning. I think it was a buck but not sure. I only saw the flag! Later that morning, the neighbor shot the fork buck I saw the evening before. I wondered if I kicked up that buck in the morning and he ended up running to the neighbor’s. Who knows?

At noon a buck came out from the swamp headed toward the pond area. He stopped to smell some scent I had put down. I took a shot while he was still outside of the pond area. He jumped up, hunched, and kicked his back legs out. I thought for sure I hit him. I saw him run off and lost sight of him. I got off the stand to look for sign but no blood, no hair—nothing. I walked a few steps in the direction he ran and still no sign. After an hour and a half of looking, no deer. I was clinically depressed on Saturday!

Monday, November 9
Evening hunt. No sightings.

Tuesday, November 10
Quiet morning, until 7:45am. A doe and a buck were headed my way, but behind me. I looked and saw her and then I saw him! The biggest buck I’ve ever seen with my own eyes. They were not far away. The doe seemed to want to come into the pond but I heard her stomping, not sure why (I couldn’t see her because she was just about under my stand). She worked her away around to the other side of my stand behind me. The buck was watching her. I grabbed my gun and tried to turn around to get a shot on him. He started to work his way away from me, evidently sensing something is not right. No shot. Major bummer.

Friday, November 13
Evening hunt. Mild temperatures but cloudy and drizzly. At 4:45pm heard movement to my left. I saw a doe coming and heard a deer behind her, figured it was a buck. Both were headed toward the pond. As soon as she gave me a shot coming into the pond I took it. I was sure I hit her and she ran off like she was hit. The buck behind her stopped but didn’t run off. He was in the woods so I didn’t have a clean shot. I got off my stand and checked for blood where I hit the doe—no sign again! I was thinking unpleasant thoughts at this point—“how could I have missed, now way!” I walked just outside the pond and there she was! It was a beautiful sight to behold. Turned out to be a double lung shot. I praised God for allowing me to harvest this deer.

Saturday, November 14
Hoping to harvest a buck. Quiet morning, quiet afternoon. Evening hunt not so. At 5:00pm a nice buck comes out working his way from my left to right, but behind me. I tried again to get a shot behind me but he never gave me one and instead of coming toward the pond, moved away from the pond. He wasn’t that big one, but he was a nice one, but it wouldn’t happen. The sun had set on my deer hunting season.

There you have it, deer hunting 2009. We’ll see what happens in 2010.

In my ordination doctrinal statement I included this statement, “If Isa 14 and Ezek 28 allude to Satan, we learn of his pride and pride of place in creation.”  Well, the moderator was quick to point out that “if” statements do not belong in doctrinal statements.  Lesson learned.  But more importantly, the “if” statement revealed my ambivalence about applying these passages to Satan’s fall and Satan’s activity prior to the fall, respectively. 

A member of our church recently asked me about these passages.  The material in a discipleship book she is working through uses Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 as proof texts for the splendor and activity of the Devil prior to the fall (Ezekiel 28) and the nature of Satan’s fall through pride (Isaiah 14).  Consequently, it provided me an opportunity to take a look at the texts and attempt to finally come to a conclusion on the meaning of these passages.  This post offers you the results of my brief study. 

What you will find below is a brief interaction with Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28, a survey of theologies, an overview of commentaries, and my conclusion.  I’ve also included some practical helps if/when you use Bible study material that differs with your view.  Here’s the fine print on the post: the investigation is limited by the resources available in my personal library.  The commentaries with an asterisk are those I do not own but referenced.  So I certainly invite you to pass along any resource(s) that contributes to the discussion.      

The Passages

Isaiah 14:12-14, “How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low! [13] You said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God; I will set my throne on high; I will sit on the mount of assembly in the far reaches of the north; [14] I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High’” (ESV).

Textual Considerations on Isaiah 14:12-14

In our Greek exegesis class, our professor taught us the “exegete’s cheer”: “Context! Context! Yeah Context!”  The point of the cheer is to keep a very important interpretive principle before us: the context is critical to determining the meaning of a passage.  The context in which Isaiah 14:12-14 is found is a lengthy section of oracles, or pronouncements of doom against nations and kings.  In Isaiah 14, we find an announcement of judgment against the king of Babylon, “you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon” (Isaiah 14:4, ESV).  As interpreters, we are faced with an important question now.  What clue in the text mandates that we move from a literal-historical approach to a figurative understanding of verses 12-14?  I do not see any such interpretative license make this shift.  Do we do this with any other nation or king mentioned in these oracles?  We do not. 

Concerning the pride manifested in the five “I wills,” is this arrogance ever manifested by oriental kings or only ascribed to Satan?  Ancient kings, by virtue of their exalted position, were quite susceptible and all too often manifested this shameless conceit.  For instance, you find this in Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 4:30 when he arrogantly boasted, “Is not this great Babylon, which I have built by my mighty power as a royal residence and for the glory of my majesty?”  There is nothing alien to a king expressing this kind of egotism, viewing themselves as the supreme figure.  There is nothing in Isaiah 14 that mandates assigning the “I wills” to Satan.     

Ezekiel 28:11-15, “Moreover, the word of the Lord came to me: [12] “Son of man, raise a lamentation over the king of Tyre, and say to him, Thus says the Lord God: “You were the signet of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. [13] You were in Eden, the garden of God every precious stone was your covering, sardius, topaz, and diamond, beryl, onyx, and jasper, sapphire, emerald, and carbuncle; and crafted in gold were your settings and your engravings.  On the day that you were created they were prepared. [14] You were an anointed guardian cherub. I placed you; you were on the holy mountain of God; in the midst of the stones of fire you walked. [15] You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created, till unrighteousness was found in you” (ESV).

Textual Considerations on Ezekiel 28:11-15

There are some tough phrases to interpret with absolute certainty.  For example,

• “You were a signet of perfection, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty” (v. 12)
• “You were in Eden” (v. 13)
• “Every precious stone was your covering” (v. 13)
• “You were on the holy mountain of God” (v. 14)
• “You were blameless in your ways” (v. 15)

Some see a double reference in these verses.  It is a reference to the King of Tyre and Satan at the same time.  Is this a legitimate solution to the admitted difficulty of these texts?  Ryrie thinks so as does Charles Feinberg.  To apply some of these phrases to the king of Tyre seem difficult, especially “you were blameless in all your ways.” It almost seems like it takes more interpretive work to make them apply to an earthly king than to Satan himself.  But there are plausible explanations such as the label “blameless” applied to Noah (Genesis 6:9) and Job (Job 1:1) and Zechariah and Elizabeth (Luke 1:6).  Thus it is possible to have these phrases applied to a human king.  Nevertheless, while these phrases are admittedly difficult to interpret with absolute certainty, we must use the overarching guide of an oracle grounded in a historical setting with some poetic language interspersed.  Would Ezekiel’s readers have clearly discerned Satan in these verses?  I’m not convinced that they would have.

Survey of Theologies

Isaiah 14 and/or Ezekiel 28 refer to Satan:

• Lewis Sperry Chafer (Chafer, Systematic Theology, 7:284-5). 
• Charles Ryrie (Ryrie, Basic Theology, 141-5).  Ryrie is one of the few theologians that interacts with the interpretative options for concluding that the passages apply to Satan.  A very worthwhile read. 
• Henry Thiessen (Lectures in Systematic Theology, 194-5).
• Millard Erickson does not address Satan’s fall in his section on angels (Christian Theology, 472).  He does, however, point out that Isaiah 14 contains a picture of the fall of Satan (Christian Theology, 604). 
• James Boice applies Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 to Satan (Foundations of the Christian Faith, 173). 

 Isaiah 14 and/or Ezekiel 28 do not refer to Satan:

• Berkhof, Systematic Theology and Dabney, Systematic Theology simply do not reference the fall of Satan or deal with Isaiah or Ezekiel.  However, I take their silence to mean that they do not apply to Satan (though admittedly it is an inference from silence).  
• As best as I was able to discern, Augustus Strong in his Systematic Theology does not apply Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 to Satan.  He only provides passing comments on these passages and does not address the fall of Satan.  He seems to take the approach in the brief remarks on each passage that it is referring to a historical, human figure (Systematic Theology, 450 and 518). 
• Charles Hodge speaks little about the fall of Satan.  Concerning evil angels in general he says, “When they fell or what was the nature of their sin is not revealed” (Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:643).  As far as Satan in particular, he only makes reference to the fact that he is fallen without reference to when he fell or the nature of his fall.  Hodge makes a great point about the pride of Satan, which is alluded to in 1 Timothy 3:6, “He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil.”  The connection is “the condemnation which the devil incurred for the same sin [i.e. pride].”  Hodge then goes on to say, “Some have conjectured that Satan was moved to rebel against God and to seduce our race from its allegiance, by the desire to rule over our globe and the race of man.  Of this, however, there is no intimation in Scripture.  His first appearance in the sacred history is in the character of an apostate angel” (Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:643).  So what Hodge seems to be saying is that there are no passages that refer to Satan’s fall.  When he comes onto the Biblical scene (in the garden) he is already a fallen angel.

Survey of Commentaries

Isaiah 14 and/or Ezekiel 28 refer to Satan:

• I have a scant collection of commentaries on Isaiah and Ezekiel.  But of those that I do have, not one concluded that these passages refer to Satan.  However, I was able to track down a few which hold this view.
• *W.A. Criswell, Ezekiel, 149. 
• * Lamar Cooper suggests that “the difficulty of the text makes it unwise to insist upon a particular interpretation, but the latter traditional view [that ‘the lament is an account of the fall of Satan not given in Scripture but alluded to elsewhere, especially in Isa 14:12-17’] appears to the present writer to account best for the language and logic of the passage” (Cooper, Ezekiel, NAC, 265).
• *Charles Feinberg states, “But as [Ezekiel] viewed the thoughts and ways of [the King of Tyre], he clearly discerned behind him the motivating force and personality who was impelling him in his opposition to God.  In short, he saw the work and activity of Satan, whom the king of Tyre was emulating in so many ways” (Feinberg, The Prophecy of Ezekiel, 161).  This approach parallels Ryrie who views both the King of Tyre and Satan in view in the passage. 

 Isaiah 14 and/or Ezekiel 28 do not refer to Satan:

• John Calvin (not surprisingly) is unequivocal in denying that Isaiah has anything whatsoever to do with Satan, “The exposition of this passage, which some have given, as if it referred to Satan, has arisen from ignorance; for the context plainly shows that these statements must be understood in reference to the king of the Babylonians” (Calvin, Commentaries, 7:442). 
• Edward J. Young, says that Isaiah 14 has the king of Babylon in view, no more (Young, The Book of Isaiah, 1:441).  He contends that the phrase, “how are you fallen from heaven” “is to fall from great political height” (Young, The Book of Isaiah, 1:440).
• Keil and Delitzsch say that applying the name Lucifer to Satan based on Isaiah 14:12 is “without any warrant whatever” (Keil and Delitzsch, Isaiah, 312).  They contend that Ezekiel 28 is referring to the King of Tyre and no one else (Keil and Delitzsch, Ezekiel, 411). 
• Matthew Henry also sees Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 as applying to the historical kings mentioned in each passage (Matthew Henry, Commentary, 4:67 and 4:721).   
• *John D.W. Watts sees this as a poem as “a simile to picture the fall and disgrace of the tyrant” (Watts, Isaiah 1-33, WBC, 212).  It is general in its scope and references neither the king of Babylon or Satan.
• *John N. Oswalt concludes that this passage deals with human pride manifested by the king of Babylon (Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah 1-39, NICOT, 320).
• *Jan Ridderbos straddles the fence saying, “there is an element of truth in the idea [that Lucifer is Satan]: by his self-deification Babylon’s king is the imitator of the devil and the type of the Antichrist (Daniel 11:36; 2 Thess 2:4); therefore his humiliation is also an example of Satan’s fall from the position of power that he has usurped (cf. Luke 10:18; Rev. 12:9) (Ridderbos, Isaiah, 142).
• *Gray takes this portion to be based on a Babylonian genre of a mythical hero.  Strange as the interpretation is he does not find Satan in Isaiah 14:12-14 (Gray, Isaiah, ICC, 1:256-7).
• *Block contends that “Ezekiel’s prophecy is indeed couched in extravagant terms, but the primary referent within the context is clearly the human king of Tyre” (Daniel Block, The Book of Ezekiel, NICOT, 119).
• *Leslie Allen says that the interpreter who applies “vv 11-19 to Satan” is “guilty of detaching the passage from its literary setting” (Allen, Ezekiel 20-48, WBC, 95).

Summary

Both Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 are best interpreted in a grammatical-historical context.  Moreover, the larger context in which the passages are found, namely oracles against other nations and kings, provides the reader an interpretive guide to view them in a historical light.  Moreover, there is little problem ascribing the attitudes in each of the passages to ancient kings.  Other biblical data corroborates this, e.g., Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 4:30

The theologies seem to be divided: Chafer, Ryrie, Thiessen, Boice, and possibly Erickson affirm the position that Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 refer to Satan.  Strong and Hodge deny that Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 refer to Satan.  I gather that those who do not address the texts in their theologies don’t view these passages as allusions to Satan (Berkhof and Dabney), but I may be wrong. 

As far as commentators, it seems that there is greater unanimity that Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 do not apply to Satan (e.g., Calvin, Young, Keil and Delitzsch, and Henry).  I discovered in my reading that church fathers and conservative Christians apply Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 to Satan, while the reformers generally did not.  They interpreted these passages in their historical context.  This is significant because commentators are immersed in the text, while theologians are not in the text per se.

Conclusion

These passages are best interpreted in their historical contexts.  Therefore, Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 do not apply to Satan.  They are oracles directed at the king of Babylon and the king of Tyre respectively.

Has the doctrine of Satan, or any other Biblical doctrine, been radically altered by not applying Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 to his fall, splendor, and activity before the fall?

My short answer is no.  What we do lose is any knowledge of his activity prior to the fall.  But this is not really “lost” if Ezekiel 28 does not refer to Satan, which I am arguing it does not.  Is there really any question that Satan is a fallen angel without Isaiah 14?  No.  Consider Luke 10:18, 2 Corinthians 4:4, and Ephesians 2:2.  Satan is very clearly a fallen angel.  Is the understanding of Satan’s nature or activity impacted if Lucifer is not among his other appellations?  No.  Ryrie states that Ezekiel 28:15 is the only place that specifically identifies the origin of sin (Ryrie, Basic Theology, 143).  However, that sin originated and is sourced in Satan is easily discerned in Genesis 3:1-7; John 8:44; and 1 John 3:10. 

Practical Helps

So what do you do when you encounter a differing position in the curriculum of an evangelistic Bible study or in discipleship material?

• Don’t embroil them in the controversy.  It is of little value to make them aware of the debate and will probably lead to more confusion than help.
• Cover the doctrine of Satan using texts that clearly refer to him. 
• Finally, it is a terrific reminder that while we should be disciple-makers, we are always disciples ourselves.  These questions require us to “search the Scriptures” ourselves to ensure we are rightly handling God’s word. 

I would commend B.B. Warfield’s booklet, “The Religious Life of Theological Students” to every man in seminary.  Warfield assumes the necessity of intellectual growth for competent ministry but he emphasizes the indispensible characteristic of a godly life.  This booklet was originally the content of an address by Dr. Warfield at the Autumn Conference at Princeton Theological Seminary, on October 4, 1911.  Here’s one of his many outstanding exhortations,

A minister must be learned, on pain of being utterly incompetent for his work.  But before and above being learned, a minister must be godly.

Nothing could be more fatal, however, than to set these two things over against one another.  Recruiting officers do not dispute  whether it is better for soldiers to have a right leg or a left leg: soldiers should have both legs . . . In your case there can be no ’either–or’ here–either a student or a man of God.  You must be both. 

Biographies are written about a man typically because he influenced people around him.  There was a quality or qualities that distinguished him from others.  This is true of Christian men as well.  Yet noteworthy Christian men and women are great when they are mirrors not sponges–they reflect the glory of Christ rather than absorb the glory Christ deserves. 

When a person spends time in biographies, it’s easy to feel inspired and discouraged at the same time.  I’m reading the Memoir of Robert Murray M’Cheyne by Andrew Bonar.  M’Cheyne expressed a similar sentiment of unworthiness after reading a portion of the Life of Jonathan Edwards.  Yet M’Cheyne reminds me that the light of great Christians is borrowed and we have access to the same source.  His words were a great encouragement to me.

Read part of the Life of Jonathan Edwards.  How feeble does my spark of Christianity appear beside such a sun!  But even his was a borrowed light, and the same source is still open to enlighten me (March 20, 1832 journal entry in Bonar, Memoir of the Rev. R. M. M’Cheyne, 26).  

This idea is also found in John 1:6 about John the Baptist,

He was not that light, but came to bear witness about the light.

We are all called to be mirrors reflecting the light of Christ to a sin-darkened world.  Let us been encouraged that the same source of this light is still open to enlighten us.

I revisited a citation from Machen’s classic, Christianity and Liberalism.  You may be aware that J. Gresham Machen was a professor at Princeton during the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy. Though he was hesitant to identify himself with much of fundamentalism, he had a robust mind with a vigorous desire for truth. He writes in his book Christianity and Liberalism, originally published in 1923, that a Christianity that denies miracles is not authentic Christianity. Regarding the liberal dogma that miracles should be rejected, among them the Virgin birth of Christ and His resurrection, Machen responds,

The issue does not concern individual miracles, even so important a miracle as the Virgin birth. It really concerns all miracles. And the question concerning all miracles is simply the question of the acceptance or rejection of the Saviour that the New Testament presents. Reject the miracles and you have in Jesus the fairest flower of humanity who made such an impression upon His followers that after His death they could not believe that He had perished but experienced hallucinations in which they thought they saw Him risen from the dead; accept the miracles, and you have a Saviour who came voluntarily into this world for our salvation, suffered for our sins upon the Cross, rose again from the dead by the power of God, and ever lives to make intercession for us. The difference between those two views is the difference between two totally diverse religions. It is high time that this issue should be faced; it is high time that the misleading use of traditional phrases should be abandoned and men should speak their full mind. Shall we accept the Jesus of the New Testament as our Saviour, or shall we reject Him with the liberal church” (J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism, 109, emphasis added).

Though his work is nearly 90 years old, it remains as true today as when he wrote it.

Joel Olsteen had a short interview with Chris Cuomo from Good Morning America.  You can watch the video here  Cuomo asks some decent questions.  Olsteen’s new book, It’s Your Time, was the subject of the interview.  Among the statements Olsteen makes is that we need to love ourselves before we can love our neighbor.  Sad.

You’ve heard of the “Jonathan Edwards is my homeboy” tee.

Some have probably also heard of the “Kevin Bauder is my homeboy” t-shirt

Very soon I will be proudly wearing a “C.H. Spurgeon is my homeboy” shirt (see below).  I know that I’m way behind on this, but who can resist?

The homeboy t-shirt line has endless possibilities.  I’m considering an Edward Hiscox one next . . .

Just watch and listen.  While people are giving their lives to translate Bibles, we have men like this . . .

To those who view this and are not Christians . . . this is not representative of the whole. 

To those who view this and are Christians . . . distance yourself as far as possible from men and ministries like this.

A brief article in Discover(September 2009) caught my attention.  “Seven Deadly Sins” is a piece written by Kathleen McGowan.* In the article she takes seven sins (lust, gluttony, sloth, pride, greed, envy, and wrath) and provides neuroimaging of brain activity when people engage in these iniquities.  Her findings are compiled from multiple studies.  Here is a summary of what she provides under each morally morose activity.    

Lust.  “The most notable thing about lust is that it sets nearly the whole brain buzzing.”  Many men will say, I look but don’t touch.  Well, “watching erotic stimuli” “stimulates the reward processing ventral striatum.”  In other words, “just” looking at someone with lust provides a physical “reward.” 

Biblical analysis: Matthew 5:28 “But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (ESV).

Gluttony.  Scientists observed that “obesity and drug addiction alter the same brain circuits.”  “In their studies, Wang and Volkow found that both drug addicts and obese people are usually less sensitive to dopamine’s rewarding effects.  Being relatively numb to the pleasure and motivation signal may make them more likely to chase after a stronger thrill: more food or a bump of cocaine.”

Biblical analysis: Philippians 3:19, “Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things” (ESV).

Sloth.  Sloth is viewed as a symptom of a disorder.  “Today, paralyzing lassitude is often seen as a symptom of a disease rather than of turpitude.  Apathy is a classic sign of fronto-temporal dementia.”  She adds, “Sadness and listlessness are also marks of major depression.”

Biblical analysis: Proverbs 26:14, “As a door turns on its hinges, so does a sluggard on his bed” (ESV).

Pride.  “Righteous humility has traditionally been depicted as the virtue that opposes pride, but the work of Keenan and others calls that into question.  He is using TMS [transcranial magnetic stimulation~] to disrupt deliberate self-deprecating—the type of unctuous, ingratiating behavior that seems humble but is actually arrogance in disguise.”  In other words, pride and false humility are equally wretched.  The difference is that pride is overt while false humility is covert. 

Biblical analysis: James 4:6, “But he gives more grace. Therefore it says, ‘God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble’” (ESV).

Greed.  The research on this vice was based more on those who feel cheated.  “In the lab, researchers frequently use the ‘ultimatum game’ to test our responses to injustice.  One of two partners is given a sum of money and told that he must offer some amount of his own choosing to his partner.  If the partner rejects the offer, neither gets to keep any of the money.  On a rational basis, the receiving partner should accept any nonzero offer, since getting some money is better than getting none.  But people’s sense of violation at unfairness is so strong that they reject offers of 20 percent or less about half the time.”  What they’ve discovered is the “brain weighing an emotional response (the urge to punish the guy who cheated you) against the logical response (the appeal of the cash).” 

Biblical analysis: Proverbs 15:27, “Whoever is greedy for unjust gain troubles his own household, but he who hates bribes will live” (ESV).

Envy.  The findings on this iniquity were conducted by comparing three students: a superior student, an average student, and a loser student.  When the study volunteers read about the tremendous achievement of the superior student the brain reacts by setting off the “conflict-detecting” part of the brain.  “This same region is enlisted when feeling pain.”  This suggests that it’s a blow to our ego, emotionally painful as it were to hear of another’s success.  Conversely, the defeat of a rival brings pleasure (think of when your football team of choice defeats its archrival, especially when it’s a last second or come-from-behind win).

Biblical analysis: Exodus 20:17, “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor’s” (ESV) and Proverbs 14:30, “A tranquil heart gives life to the flesh, but envy makes the bones rot” (ESV).

Wrath.  They found that “much of the brain circuitry active during anger is very basic and very fast.”  In another study, they allowed people who had been provoked during an experiment to punish their antagonist with a blast of extremely annoying noise.  “While the subjects pondered how loud to set the volume, the doral striatum, part of the brain’s reward circuitry, lit up at the prospect of retaliation.  One of the scientists summarized this finding by observing, ‘We have this primitive brain that says “Do it! Do it!”  I’m sure this cost a lot of time and money to discover what we all know to be true—getting even feels good. 

Biblical analysis: Romans 12:19, “Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord’” (ESV).

I would like to offer three observations after reading this article, as well as some resources for further reading from a Biblical perspective. 

First, McGowan assumes evolution rather than creation and thus a Creator.  This is a glaring “grid” deficiency as she processes the information, but some of her statements really (and unwittingly) point to the image of God in man.  One example, “There is no sin center in the brain, no single node of fiendishness that we might be able to shut down with drugs or electrodes.  With the advent of modern imagining techniques that peer into the brain as it functions, though, we at least gain some perspectives on our bad habits.”  Translation: sin is not a physical problem.  Another instance is when she says that certain parts of our brain form “a conscious self-regulatory system.  This network provides us with the evolutionary unprecedented ability to control our own neural processing—a feat achieved by no other creature.”  So I understand her statement to mean that science has discovered that man is a moral creature, distinct from all other living things.  Hmmmm, is there an explanation for such a phenomenon?  How about the image of God in man!

Second, McGowan says, “New research is explaining where these behaviors come from.”  I disagree.  As fascinating as these studies are, it is important to note that these studies do not provide the source of sin, rather they provide the physical effects of sinful behavior.  In other words, they are finding that certain parts of the brain “light up” when people engage in certain behavior, but the “power source” remains physiologically veiled.  This is the fundamental deficiency in scientific research that attempts to find the source of sinful behavior.  I disagree with the premise that sinful activity is sourced in the brain per se.  I do not nor could I reasonably deny that some behaviors are influenced by physical problems.    The Puritans often inquired of depressed people if they were sleeping well or eating right.  But this is not the same as conceding that immoral activity is physiologically sourced and should be treated as a medical issue rather than a spiritual issue.  Sinful actions grow out of a depraved heart.  For any radical change to occur, it must begin with a change of heart, not psychotherapy, not a pill, etc. 

Third, what about the “hairy shirt” reference?  Toward the end of the article McGowan states, “Historically moralists have not paid much heed to the findings of science, and it’s safe to say that all the brain-scans in the world will not persuade modern theologians to recalculate the wages of sin.^  But they might want to pay heed to one recent finding from modern neuroimaging: It turns out that acting virtuously does not really require a hairy shirt.  In fact, research suggests it feels pretty good.”  So if virtue is such a pleasant activity, then why are we not more virtuous?  The answer: depravity.  Moral corruption squelches virtue (Ephesians 2:1-3).  This is another unwitting allusion to the moral make up of people made in the image of a Holy God and the real, lingering effects of original and actual sin.   

Finally, here are some recommended resources to get a biblical perspective on the connection between physical and spiritual dimensions of a person.

Lloyd-Jones, Martin.  Spiritual Depression: Its Causes and Cure (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), 1965.  Lloyd-Jones is a renowned preacher.  Before beginning pastoral ministry, he was a successful physician which allowed him to speak intelligibly to this subject.

MacArthur, John.  “Counseling and the Sinfulness of Humanity,” 98-115 in Introduction to Biblical Counseling (Dallas: Word), 1994.

Menninger, Karl.  Whatever Became of Sin? (New York: Hawthorn Books), 1973.  Written by a medical doctor, it is a dated but worthy read.  He argues that the notion of sin has disappeared in the medical and psychological communities.  As a result, personal accountability has all but vanished. 

Welch, Edward.  Blame it on the Brain (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing), 1998.  A well-respected Christian counselor writes this well-researched book.  In it he challenges the primacy of and the move toward the premise that sin is primarily rooted in physiological phenomenon.

The Journal of Biblical Counseling Spring 2000 and Winter 2000 dedicated all of the articles to the subject of depression, including articles such as “Christian Doctors on Depression” and “Medical Treatments for Depressive Symptoms.”

*McGowan, Kathleen.  “Seven Deadly Sins,” Discover (September 2009), 48-52.

~ A process in which a magnetic field applied to the scalp temporarily scrambles the signal in small areas of the brain.

^ This is a subtle critique of theologians, and anyone else, who would disagree with the idea that these neuroimages explain the source, problem of, and imply a potential “cure” for sin.