Demons Are Not Evil by Nature: A Study of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite

demons are not evil by nature

Dionysius the Areopagite or pseudo dionysius

But, neither are the demons evil by nature; for, if they are evil by nature, neither are they from the Good, nor amongst things existing; nor, in fact, did they change from good, being by nature, and always, evil. Then, are they evil to themselves or to others? If to themselves, they also destroy themselves; but if to others, how destroying, or what destroying?—Essence, or power, or energy? If indeed Essence, in the first place, it is not contrary to nature; for they do not destroy things indestructible by nature, but things receptive of destruction. Then, neither is this an evil for every one, and in every case; but, not even any existing thing is destroyed, in so far as it is essence and  nature, but by the defect of nature’s order, the principle of harmony and proportion lacks the power to remain as it was. But the lack of strength is not complete, for the complete lack of power takes away even the disease and the subject; and such a disease will be even a destruction of itself; so that, such a thing is not an evil, but a defective good, for that which has no part of the Good will not be amongst things which exist. And with regard to the destruction of power and energy the principle is the same. Then, how are the demons, seeing they come into being from God, evil? For the Good brings forth and sustains good things. Yet they are called evil, some one may say. But not as they are (for they are from the Good, and obtained a good being), but, as they are not, by not having had strength, as the Oracles affirm, “to keep their first estate.” For in what, tell me, do we affirm that the demons become evil, except in the ceasing in the habit and energy for good things Divine? Otherwise, if the demons are evil by nature, they are always evil; yet evil is unstable. Therefore, if they are always in the same condition, they are not evil; for to be ever the same is a characteristic of the Good. But, if they are not always evil, they are not evil by nature, but by wavering from the angelic good qualities. And they are not altogether without part in the good, in so far as they both are, and live and think, and in one word—as there is a sort of movement of aspiration in them. But they are said to be evil, by reason of their weakness as regards their action according to nature. The evil then, in them, is a turning aside and a stepping out of things befitting themselves, and a missing of aim, and imperfection and impotence, and a weakness and departure, and falling away from the power which preserves their integrity in them. Otherwise, what is evil in demons? An irrational anger—a senseless desire—a headlong fancy.—But these, even if they are in demons, are not altogether, nor in every respect, nor in themselves alone, evils. For even with regard to other living creatures, not the possession of these, but the loss, is both destruction to the creature, and an evil. But the possession saves, and makes to be, the nature of the living creature which possesses them. The tribe of demons then is not evil, so far as it is according to nature, but so far as it is not; and the whole good which was given to them was not changed, but themselves fell from the whole good given. And the angelic gifts which were given to them, we by no means affirm that they were changed, but they exist, and are complete, and all luminous, although the demons themselves do not see, through having blunted their powers of seeing good. So far as they are, they are both from the Good, and are good, and aspire to the Beautiful and the Good, by aspiring to the realities, Being, and Life, and Thought; and by the privation and departure and declension from the good things befitting them, they are called evil, and are evil as regards what they are not: and by aspiring to the non-existent, they aspire to the Evil

But does some one say that souls are evil? If it be that they meet with evil things providentially, and with a view to their preservation, this is not an evil, but a good, and from the Good, Who makes even the evil good. But, if we say that souls become evil, in what respect do they become evil, except in the failure of their good habits and energies; and, by reason of their own lack of strength, missing their aim and tripping? For we also say, that the air around us becomes dark by failure and absence of light, and yet the light itself is always light, that which enlightens even the darkness. The Evil, then, is neither in demons nor in us, as an existent evil, but as a failure and dearth of the perfection of our own proper goods.

Demons Are Not Evil by Nature: A Study of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite

The Biblical medical interpretation of demons, as understood by certain Christian perspectives, notably rejects the idea that demons are supernatural beings or entities with inherent evil. Instead, it views demons as symbolic representations of human wickedness, illness, or false gods in the Bible. The Biblical medical perspective, for example, considers demons not as malevolent spirits but as manifestations of internal struggles and external influences that are detrimental to human nature. This perspective contrasts significantly with that of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, a Christian mystic and philosopher who interpreted demons as real spiritual beings—fallen from a state of original goodness but still retaining some aspect of their created nature.

One of the key distinctions in the views of Pseudo-Dionysius and the Biblical medical interpretation is their respective conceptions of the nature of demons. According to Dionysius, demons are not inherently evil by nature, but rather have turned away from the original goodness with which they were created. He writes:

“But, neither are the demons evil by nature; for, if they are evil by nature, neither are they from the Good, nor amongst things existing; nor, in fact, did they change from good, being by nature, and always, evil. Then, are they evil to themselves or to others? If to themselves, they also destroy themselves; but if to others, how destroying, or what destroying?” (Pseudo-Dionysius, The Divine Names).

This passage clearly establishes Dionysius' view that demons are not intrinsically evil. Instead, they were created as good beings, as all things are by nature derived from the Good, and their fall into what is perceived as evil is a result of a deviation from the intended path of goodness. Dionysius does not view the demons as permanent embodiments of evil, as evil is considered unstable and changeable. In his view, demons became evil only by failing to uphold the harmony and perfection of their created nature, thus drifting from their original state.

He continues:

“How are the demons, seeing they come into being from God, evil? For the Good brings forth and sustains good things. Yet they are called evil, some one may say. But not as they are (for they are from the Good, and obtained a good being), but, as they are not, by not having had strength, as the Oracles affirm, ‘to keep their first estate.’” (Pseudo-Dionysius, The Divine Names).

Dionysius emphasizes that the demons' deviation from their original state of goodness stems not from their inherent nature but from their failure to maintain their position of goodness. The notion of "keeping their first estate" reflects the idea that demons, like all creatures, were meant to remain in a state of alignment with divine goodness. However, their fall occurred when they lost the strength to adhere to that state.

In Dionysian thought, the evil that demons embody is not a static or essential characteristic but a failure—a lack of strength and aspiration toward the Good. Dionysius elaborates further:

“The evil then, in them, is a turning aside and a stepping out of things befitting themselves, and a missing of aim, and imperfection and impotence, and a weakness and departure, and falling away from the power which preserves their integrity in them.” (Pseudo-Dionysius, The Divine Names).

Here, Dionysius underscores that demons' actions are not inherently evil; instead, their moral failing is a result of straying from their original purpose. This deviation, according to Dionysius, leads to a weakening of their powers and an inability to act in accordance with their created nature, which was originally aligned with goodness. Thus, the "evil" attributed to demons is not a creation of intrinsic malevolence but a product of their failed potential.

Interestingly, Dionysius extends this idea of imperfection to human beings as well. Just as demons are not evil by nature but by their departure from goodness, so too, humans fall into sin and evil through their failure to maintain their intended harmony with the Good:

“But does some one say that souls are evil? If it be that they meet with evil things providentially, and with a view to their preservation, this is not an evil, but a good, and from the Good, Who makes even the evil good.” (Pseudo-Dionysius, The Divine Names).

In this context, Dionysius explains that evil is not an ontological force that exists independently but is instead the result of a failure to achieve the full potential of goodness. The fall of demons, as well as the fall of human souls, is characterized by an absence or lack of the good, not the active presence of evil. Evil, then, is not a thing in itself but the absence or deprivation of the good that was meant to be.

Dionysius' view of demons challenges the idea that they are inherently evil beings bent on destruction or chaos. Instead, demons are seen as beings that were created good but became corrupted due to their inability to maintain their original state. The evil they embody is not an intrinsic nature but the result of their failure to remain aligned with the divine Good. The key takeaway from Dionysian thought is that evil is not an independent force but a failure—a turning away from the intended order and perfection.

Thus, the Biblical medical interpretation, which views demons as symbols of human weakness, illness, and spiritual fallenness, shares some similarities with Dionysius’ view in its understanding that demons represent a departure from the intended good. However, the essential difference lies in the Biblical medical perspective’s view of demons as not personal entities at all but as representations of moral and physical corruption. In contrast, Dionysius’ philosophy maintains that demons are fallen spiritual entities, who, though corrupted, retain some trace of their original goodness.

sir isaac newton and the "serpent" in the garden of eden

Title: Symbolism of the Serpent in Isaac Newton's Interpretation of Biblical Texts

Introduction:

Sir Isaac Newton, renowned for his contributions to physics and mathematics, also delved into biblical interpretations. One intriguing aspect of his theological reflections is his scrutiny of the symbolic meaning behind the term "serpent" in the biblical narrative, particularly in the Garden of Eden. This analysis will explore Newton's insights, emphasizing his view that the serpent is not to be understood literally but rather as a symbol representing the spirit of delusion.

Newton's Perception of the Serpent:

Newton's examination of the biblical narrative led him to a profound understanding of the serpent's symbolism. He connected the serpent with the devil, suggesting that the reference to the serpent in the Book of Revelation, where the devil is cast into the bottomless pit, signifies the spirit of delusion reigning in the hearts of humanity. By identifying this deceptive spirit with the old serpent that deceived Eve, Newton established a continuity in biblical themes.

Continuity in Biblical Themes:

Newton, in his exploration of Genesis 3:15, drew a connection between the serpent's deception of Eve and the promise of the seed of the woman bruising the serpent's head. He saw this as a continuous theme throughout the Bible, emphasizing that the old serpent would persist until Christ's triumph over it. This interpretation aligns with the proto-evangelium, or the first mention of the Gospel, in Genesis.

Symbolism and Allegory:

In asserting the symbolic nature of the serpent, Newton drew parallels with other biblical symbols. He argued that just as the Dragon in the Apocalypse is not a literal dragon and the Beasts in the books of John and Daniel are not actual beasts, the serpent should be viewed as a symbol. According to Newton, the serpent symbolizes the spirit of delusion rather than being a physical entity.

Serpent as Symbol of Adam's Sinful Nature:

Newton's interpretation extended beyond the immediate context of the Garden of Eden. He proposed that the serpent is symbolic of Adam's sinful nature. This perspective aligns with the broader theological concept that the serpent represents the fall of humanity into sin and disobedience. Understanding the serpent as a symbol allows for a more nuanced interpretation of the consequences of Adam and Eve's actions.

Conclusion:

Sir Isaac Newton's exploration of the symbolism of the serpent in the biblical narrative provides a unique perspective on the nature of evil and deception. By interpreting the serpent as a symbol rather than a literal creature, Newton establishes a continuity in biblical themes and highlights the overarching narrative of redemption through Christ. His insights contribute to a deeper understanding of the allegorical elements present in biblical texts and invite readers to consider the layers of meaning embedded in religious stories.

STOP TEACHING A LITERAL SERPENT!

sir isaac newton could see the truth behind the use of the word "serpent" in the garden.

The devils being cast into the bottomless pit & shut up that he should deceive the nations no more for a thousand years you may know that he is the spirit of delusion reigning in the hearts of men & by his being there called the old Serpent you may know that he is that same Serpent which deceived Eve.

And then, alluding to the proto- (Good News) Evangelium of Genesis 3:15 and thus emphasizing the continuity of this theme in the Bible, he writes: “For that old serpent was to continue till the seed of the woman should bruise his head, that is till Christ should vanquish & slay him”. 

A few lines later he confidently concludes that: the old Serpent was no more a real serpent then the Dragon in the Apocalyps is a real Dragon or then the Beasts in John & Daniel are real Beasts. It's only a
symbol of the spirit of delusion & therefore must be the sentence of this serpent for deceiving Eve must be interpreted accordingly.

Who is Beelzebub? 2nd Kings 1:2-16

Who is Beelzebub?

Beelzebub means lord of flies; place infested with flies; possessed of flies.

Beelzebub is the god of Ekron, one of the five principal cities of the Philistines. Ahaziah, king of Israel, sent to inquire of this god whether he would recover from his sickness (II Kings 1:2-16). Beelzebub was supposed to be prince of all moral impurities, or of evil spirits.

This context establishes Beelzebub as a false god, a point Jesus Christ's critics use to challenge his authority.
The scribes' accusation against Jesus, as recorded in Mark 3:22 and paralleled in other Gospel accounts, claims that Jesus casts out demons by the power of Beelzebul, the prince of demons. This accusation attempts to undermine Jesus' miraculous works by attributing them to a malevolent force, and by extension, challenging his divine authority. Jesus responds by employing a logical argument, asserting that a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand, and if he casts out demons by Beelzebub's power, then Beelzebub's kingdom would be divided against itself.

You are crying "Beelzebub" whenever you say "fake" or false of the one who has caught sight of the spiritual mountain tops now glowing in the sun of the new timeless rebirth, just as they called Jesus Beelzebub because He presented and demonstrated Truth ahead of the time in which He lived.

Beelzebub, prince of demons, is not an adversary with outer form (not a supernatural being); sin is not originated by a personal devil, nor are sins thrust upon us from without, as so many people seem to think;

The idea of the devil being a specific person outside of us rather than the principle of sin within us is an attempt to move the responsibility for our sins away from ourselves. This is yet another example of men refusing to come to terms with what the Bible teaches about man's nature: that it is fundamentally sinful.

"There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him...For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders...pride, foolishness: all these evil things come from within and defile the man" (Mk.7:15-23).

The idea that there is something sinful outside of us which enters us and causes us to sin is incompatible with the plain teaching of Jesus here. From within, out of the heart of man, come all these evil things.

Beelzebub signifies the Lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and the Pride of Life-the desires that gives rise to multitudes of thoughts in opposition to Truth. These rebellious, opposing thoughts are the demons or the evil spirits over which Beelzebub is prince, or the central, controlling thought.

Christ's conformity to popular language did not commit him to popular delusions. In one case, he apparently recognizes the god of the Philistines: "If I by Beelzebub cast out demons, by whom do your children cast them out?" (Matt. 12:27). Now, Beelzebub signifies the god of flies, a god worshipped by the Philistines of Ekron (2 Kings 1:6), and Christ, in using the name, takes no pains to dwell upon the fact that Beelzebub was a pagan fiction; it was a mere accommodation to popular speech on the subject of demons

Sin is a Female Principle Psalm 7:14

Sin is a Female Principle

The first and most frequent Hebrew word to be translated as 'sin' is the feminine noun chaṭṭâ'âh (H2403). It is rendered: sin(284), punishment(3) & purification(3). As a noun rather than a verb it focuses upon the offense itself or sometimes upon the habitual sinfulness of the individual

The Greek word hamartia is a Feminine Noun meaning missing the mark; hence: (a) guilt, sin, (b) a fault, failure (in an ethical sense), sinful deed.

sin as a principle and power is personified as a king Romans 5:21; a power which reigns in the body Romans 6:12, 14; Romans 7:17, 20; Romans 6:6;

With this understanding of the word sin as a Feminine Noun it will help us to understand why sinful actions are described in terms of childbearing

Psalms: 7:14 Look! There is one that is pregnant with what is hurtful, And he has conceived trouble and is bound to give birth to falsehood.. The psalmist metaphorically pictures the typical sinner as a pregnant woman, who is ready to give birth to wicked, destructive schemes and actions.

James: 1:13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. 14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. 15 Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.

SIN... GIVES BIRTH TO DEATH: 1Co 5:54-56; Rom 5:12; 1Jo 2:16,17.

WOMAN a female adult. However, the word woman is sometimes used in the Bible to refer to a weak and helpless man (Is.:3:12; 19:16).

The language of child-bearing in connection with lust and sin is echoed by James (Jam 1:13-15). So wicked men bring forth "children" (that is sin) after their own "likeness" (Gal 5:19-21; Rom 1:29-31; 1Co 6:9,10), and are thus known by their "fruits" (Mat 7:16,20). The melancholy litany of birth, procreation, and death in Gen 5 ("and then he died") is the result of Adam's "likeness" being distorted, in his descendants, into the likeness of the serpent.

Mic 7:5  Trust ye not in a friend, put ye not confidence in a guide: keep the doors of thy mouth from her that lieth in thy bosom. Here the woman in thy bosom represents the soul the desire of the heart cp. Pr 13:2 23:1-3  Isa 56:11,12 Hab 2:5 Gen 34:3 Ps 27:12 35:25 41:2

Job 15:35 They conceive mischief and bring forth vanity, and their belly prepareth deceit. The wicked's iniquity is as his children: he nourishes them, and at last they turn on him.

Isa 59:4 None calleth for justice nor any pleadeth for truth : they trust in vanity , and speak lies; they conceive mischief , and bring forth iniquity.

Isa 59:5 They hatch cockatrice eggs , and weave the spider’s web : he that eateth of their eggs dieth , and that which is crushed breaketh out into a viper.
Here is all the quiet evil of the serpent, as in Eden. It is even possible that the worship of the brazen serpent, stamped out by Hezekiah, had secretly come into being again.

Now, the first clue to the "serpent's" identity is in this first line. God MADE the serpent more intelligent than any other animal on the earth. This is the mind of the natural man- very crafty indeed! This "serpent" began to coax Eve away from God and the Tree of Life. Eve represents the SOUL of man and Adam represents the spirit (mind) of man. God had made everything PERFECT, but the mind of man did not believe this and more importantly did not KNOW this. The mind of man turned away from God, His Life and PERFECTION. Eve (the mind, or soul of man) turned to knowledge for the answers. So instead of accepting that ALL is PERFECT, man chose to KNOW. This was purposed by God. Man must go through darkness and death to KNOW Light and Life! So, the "serpent" is that crafty mind of man that led our spirit into a spiritual death. The carnal mind is concerned with things of THIS world, not of heaven.

Note: The Garden,  represents the dominant power of the soul, and the Serpent represents Pleasure, and is eminently fitted to do so. His use of a human voice is considered. The praise of the "snake-fighter" in Lev. xi. 22 is referred to. Stress is laid on the fact that Pleasure assails the man through the woman. The effects of the Fall on the woman and on the man are traced.

The Soul

The word sin is related to the soul

The soul is a feminine name in Hebrew, Greek, Coptic.

James 3:15: this wisdom is not one from above coming down, but is earthly born of the soul demoniacal” (Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible) 

therefore it is within our souls that we give birth to desire, sin, and death.

Philo: Now the female offspring of the soul are wickedness and passion, by which we are made effeminate in every one of our pursuits; but a healthy state of the passions and virtue is male, by which we are excited and invigorated.

Ezekiel: 18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it itself shall die. Therefore, it is within our souls (bodies, or our whole being) we have a female principle within us that give birth to desire, sin, and death

Compare this with the Secret book of James:
For he knows the desire, and also what it is that the flesh needs! - (Or do you think) that it is not this (flesh) that desires the soul? For without the soul, the body does not sin, just as the soul is not saved without the spirit. But if the soul is saved (when it is) without evil, and the spirit is also saved, then the body becomes free from sin. For it is the spirit that raises the soul, but the body that kills it; that is, it is it (the soul) which kills itself.

Male and Female

 Male and female must be regarded, first of all, as principles, and secondly as the genders of certain human beings.

The male and female principles are opposed to each other.

the male principle provides ‘spirit’ and ‘form’ (which are imperishable and incorruptible) while the female principle provides ‘body’ and ‘matter’ (which are perishable and corruptible).


In many Gnostic text, the mind (nous) is regarded as male: “he is a disciple of his mind, which is male.” (Testimony of Truth)
- Meanwhile, the soul (psyche) is regarded as female.
- When the soul was in the Upper Aeons, it was ‘virgin and androgynous’: “As long as she was alone with the father, she was virgin and in form androgynous” (Exegesis on the Soul)

The ‘female’ principle includes desire: - “After I parted from the somatic darkness in me and the psychic chaos in mind and the feminine desire [...] in the darkness, I did not use it again.” (Zostrianos)

- The ‘female’ principle includes the passions, which bring division instead of unity: “And do not become female, lest you give birth to evil and (its) brothers: jealousy and division, anger and wrath, fear and a divided heart, and empty, non-existent desire.” (Second Treatise of the Great Seth)

- Hence, salvaltion requires that we reject the female principle, and ‘choose maleness’: “Flee from the madness and the bondage of femaleness, and choose for yourselves the salvation of maleness.” (Zostrianos 131:5 )

The Teachings of Silvanus: Live according to the Mind. Do not think about things pertaining to the flesh. Acquire strength, for the mind is strong. If you fall from this other, you have become male-female. And if you cast out of yourself the substance of the mind, which is thought, you have cut off the male part, and turned yourself to the female part alone. You have become psychic, since you have received the substance of the formed. If you cast out the smallest part of this, so that you do not acquire again a human part - but you have accepted for yourself the animal thought and likeness - you have become fleshly, since you have taken on animal nature. For (if) it is difficult to find a psychical man, how much more so to find the Lord?

In the Gospel of Thomas and Revelation 14 salvation is spoken of a masculinity

Rev 14:1-4
1 ¶  And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father’s name written in their foreheads.
2  And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps:
3  And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.
4 These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.

In Rev 14:4, it speaks of the salvation of males that is man and women who have become males in Christ Jesus 

“Not defiled with women." Not associated with "the mother of harlots" (17:5) and her daughters - the apostate churches of Christendom from Rome downwards. Many of the redeemed are themselves women, which necessitates the symbolic interpretation.

VERSE 4

"These are they which were not defiled with women"—They were not guilty of spiritual adultery with the false women of the Apostasy (see James 4:4; Rev. 2:20; 17:5). 

"For they are virgins"—They are faithful to Christ. See 2 Cor. 11:2. "These are they which follow the Lamb"—Christ as the Lamb offered in complete dedication to God. is their example, inspiration and shepherd. They see him as the Lamb: quiet, submissive, offering himself in sacrifice to God; but also powerful to conquer the world. Cp. 1 Pet. 2:21-25.

"Withersoever he goeth"—Even unto the crucifixion of self. See Gal. 5:24.

"These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb"—See James 1:18. The privileges of the firstborn become theirs — a double portion of inheritance, the priesthood, and authority. These are obtained in Christ. "Firstfruits" imply a further harvest, for which see Rev. 20:16. 12-15.

Gospel of Thomas

The Gospel of Thomas ends with an admonition by Jesus that women must “become male” in order to find salvation! Needless to say: this would not fit in with Brown’s tale of seekers after a feminine divine!

114) Simon Peter said to Him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of Life." Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven."

Jesus is not suggesting a sex-change operation, but is using 'male' and 'female' metaphorically to refer to the higher and lower aspects of human nature. Mary is thus to undergo a spiritual transformation from her earthly, material, passionate nature (which the Gnostics corresponds with the female) to a heavenly, spiritual, intellectual nature (which the Gnostics corresponds with the male).

Azazel the scapegoat Leviticus 16

Azazel the scapegoat Leviticus 16

Leviticus 16:7 “And he must take the two goats and make them stand before Jehovah at the entrance of the tent of meeting. 8 And Aaron must draw lots over the two goats, the one lot for Jehovah and the other lot for Azazel. 

The word “Azazel” occurs four times in the Bible, in regulations pertaining to Atonement Day.—Lev 16:8, 10, 26.

"And the other lot for the scapegoat"

— The word "scapegoat" is altogether wrong. The Hebrew word is azazel it is derived from 2 hebrew words « "goat" from a root denoting strength, and the other hebrew word meaning "to go away, to disappear". The word therefore signifies The Goat of Departure, or The Goat of Removal. It represented one that has the strength to bear away the "sins" to be figuratively placed upon it.

Shall be presented alive before Yahweh"

— The two goats are prophetic of Christ's work. Both in life and in death he glorified the Father (John 17:4-5). This goat was preserved alive, and presented to Yahweh to foreshadow the resurrection of the Lord after he had successfully completed his function as a sin offering. Hence Paul wrote: "Jesus our Lord . . . was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification" (Rorn. 4:25). The type foreshadowed the provision of a living advocate on behalf of Yahweh's people, as is provided in (he Lord Jesus Christ. The resurrection of the Lord witnessed to the effectiveness of the atonement accomplished by his sacrifice (Rom. 1:1-4).

As Paul explained, by Jesus’ offering of his own life as a sacrifice for the sins of mankind, he accomplished far more than had been achieved by “the blood of bulls and of goats.” (Heb 10:4, 11, 12) He thus served as “the scapegoat,” being the ‘carrier of our sicknesses,’ the one “pierced for our transgression.” (Isa 53:4, 5; Mt 8:17; 1Pe 2:24) He ‘carried away’ the sins of all who exercise faith in the value of his sacrifice. He demonstrated the provision of God to take sinfulness into complete oblivion. In these ways the goat “for Azazel” pictures the sacrifice of Jesus Christ

Sending The Goat of Departure (Azazel--removed, separated, sent away) out into the wilderness demonstrates the Renouncing of error, the putting away sin, or releasing from the consciousness all belief in and thought of sin and evil.

The two goats of Leviticus 16 signify the twofold operation in consciousness that attends the putting away of sin. Sacrificing one goat as a sin offering to Jehovah signifies the process of uplifting and refining the energies that lie back of all action and have been used to do evil. These energies are good and must be refined and elevated to spiritual expression in the consciousness and organism of man, that he may become perfect even as the Father is perfect. (See Matt. 5: 48.)

Sending The Goat of Departure (Azazel--removed, separated, sent away) out into the wilderness indicates denial of error, putting away sin, or releasing from the consciousness all belief in and thought of sin and evil, and all condemnation for sin.

"As far as the east is from the west,So far hath he removed our transgressions from us" (Psa. 103:12).

"For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin will I remember no more" (Jer. 31:34).

The two goats symbolizes resistance and opposition. It is a phase of personality. We resist Spirit on one hand, and we resist our fellows on the other. These two instances of resistance symbolize the two goats of Leviticus 16:5-22. They are both to be denied. Resistance to the Lord is to be killed out entirely and resistance to our fellows is to be sent into the wilderness--denied a place in consciousness.

This also illustrates the difference between sins toward God and sins toward man. There must be a complete and full union of the Father and child; every thought of obstruction and resistance must be done away with. It is very important that we make complete at-one-ment with the Father.

Resistance toward evil is not to be wholly destroyed, but consciousness of the nothingness of the thoughts of evil is to be dumped into the wilderness of sense. This is the scapegoat that carries away all the iniquities of the Children of Israel and loses them in the outer void.

Our relations to our fellow men are so complex that we are excused in a measure if we fall short in observing the law of nonresistance in its entirety. Yet in superconsciousness we can rise with Jesus Christ and "resist not him that is evil"; we must do it before we can become like Him and see Him even a He is (I John 3:2).

God as Satan 1 Chronicles 21:1

God as Satan 1 Chronicles 21:1

" Satan " is a Hebrew word, and transferred to the English Bible untranslated from the original tongue. Cruden (himself a believer in the popular devil) defines it as follows:— "Satan, Sathan, Sathanas: this is a mere Hebrew word, and signifies AN ADVERSARY, AN ENEMY, AN ACCUSER." If Satan is " a mere Hebrew word, signifying adversary," etc., obviously it does not in itself import the evil being which it represents to the common run of English ears.


Because the word 'satan' just means an adversary, a good person, even God Himself, can be termed a 'satan'. In essence there is nothing necessarily sinful about the word itself. The sinful implications which the word 'satan' has are partly due to the fact that our own sinful nature is our biggest 'satan' or adversary, and also due to the fact that the word satan is a personification of human nature the use of the word in the language of the world refers to something associated with sin.

God Himself can be a satan to us by means of bringing trials into our lives, or by standing in the way of a wrong course of action we may be embarking on. But the fact that God can be called a 'satan' does not mean that He Himself is sinful.


The books of Samuel and Chronicles are parallel accounts of the same incidents, as the four gospels are records of the same events but using different language. 2 Sam.24:1 records: "Yahweh...moved David against Israel" in order to make him take a number of Israel.

The parallel account in 1 Chron.21:1 says that "Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David" to take the number. In one passage God does the provoking, in the other Satan does it.  The only conclusion is that God acted as a ‘Satan’ or adversary to David. He did the same to Job by bringing trials into his life, so that Job said about God: “With the strength of Your hand You oppose me” (Job 30:21); ‘You are acting as a Satan against me’, was what Job was basically saying. Or again, speaking of God: “I must appeal for mercy to my accuser (Satan)” (Job 9:15 NRSV). The Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament uses the Greek word diabolos to translate the Hebrew 'Satan'. Hence Devil and Satan are effectively parallel in meaning. Thus we read in the Septuagint of David being an adversary [Heb. Satan, Gk. diabolos] in 1 Sam. 29:4; the sons of Zeruiah (2 Sam. 19:22), Hadad, Rezon and other opponents to Solomon (1 Kings 5:4; 11:14,23,25). We face a simple choice- if we believe that every reference to 'Satan' or 'Devil' refers to an evil cosmic being, then we have to assume that these people weren't people at all, and that even good men like David were evil. The far more natural reading of these passages is surely that 'Satan' is simply a word meaning 'adversary', and can be applied to people [good and bad], and even God Himself- it carries no pejorative, sinister meaning as a word. The idea is sometimes used to describe our greatest adversary, i.e. our own sin, and at times for whole systems or empires which stand opposed to the people of God and personify sinfulness and evil. But it seems obvious that it is a bizarre approach to Bible reading to insist that whenever we meet these words 'Satan' and 'Devil', we are to understand them as references to a personal, supernatural being.

At the end of the book, Job's friends comforted him over "all the evil that Yahweh had brought upon him" (Job 42:11 cp. 19:21; 8:4). Thus God is the source of "evil" in the sense of being the ultimate permitter of the problems that we have in our lives.

Who is Lucifer Isaiah 14:12-14

Isaiah 14:12-14 How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer,son of the morning!
How you are cut down to the ground,You who weakened the nations!
For you have said in your heart:
‘I will ascend into heaven,
I will exalt my throne above the stars of God;
I will also sit on the mount of the congregation
On the farthest sides of the north;
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds,
I will be like the Most High.’.


These verse is used to prove that Satan is a fallen angel.

The words “devil” , “satan” and “angel” never occur in this chapter. This is the only place in Scripture where the word “Lucifer” occurs.

There is no evidence that Isaiah 14 is describing anything that happened in the garden of Eden; if it is, then why are we left 3,000 years from the time of Genesis before being told what really happened there?

Lucifer is identified in the chapter, but not with a rebel angel. It is clearly stated: "Take up this proverb2 against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased!" (vs. 4). (The preceding chapter is a prophecy against Babylon itself, but now the prophecy is directed against the king of Babylon). This is fullfilled in daniel chapter 4 with Nabuzzar going mad and daniel 5 with the writing on the wall A secondary fulfillment would be the overthrow of Gog or the Antichrist at Armageddon

Why is Lucifer punished for saying, “I will ascend into heaven” (v. 13), if he was already there?

5. Lucifer is to rot in the grave: “your splendour is brought down to the grave...and the worms cover you” (v. 11). Seeing angels cannot die (Lk. 20:35-36), Lucifer therefore cannot be an angel; the language is more suited to a man.

"Ascending to heaven" is symbol for increase in pride or exaltation, and "falling from heaven", symbolic complete humiliation. See Jer. 51:53 (refers to Babylon); Lam. 2:1; Matt. 11:23 (refers to Capernaum).

The meaning of Lucifer: day-star (mbd) "light-bearer" 1) shining one, morning star,

The passage in Isaiah regarding the day-star, or Lucifer (A.V.), is believed by many to refer to the fall from heaven of angels who had sinned against God; Lucifer, their leader, is supposed to be Satan. In so far as the literal understanding is concerned, this is a mistake; the text has no such implications. It refers to the fall of the king of Babylon, who had ruled in such brilliance and greatness, in such pomp and splendor, that Isaiah likened him to the morning star (Isa. 14:12; II Pet. 1:19).

The text in Isaiah, "O Lucifer, son of the morning!" signifies man's uplifting of the ruling ego (represented here by the king of Babylon), and attributing to the outward senses those qualities of light, understanding, and greatness that belong only to God. This is unfavourable and comes from the carnal mind in the individual; it must be overthrown, cast down and out of consciousness

Lucifer the thinking of the flesh or carnal mind in man that has fixed ideas in opposition to Truth. Lucifer assumes various forms in man's consciousness, among which may be mentioned egotism, a puffing up of the personality; self deception. This "self deception" makes man believe that he is genetically good.

The Seed Gospel of Thomas Saying 57

Gospel of Thomas Saying 57

(57) Jesus said: The kingdom of the Father is like a man who had [good] seed. His enemy came by night and sowed weeds among the good seed. The man did not allow them to pull up the weeds. He said to them: Lest you go and pull up the weeds, (and) pull up the wheat with it. For on the day of the harvest the weeds will be manifest; they will be pulled up and burned.

"The Kingdom of the Father is like a man who had [good] seed.”

Seed cp. Saying 9 and signifies the word “The word,” it is perhaps needless to say, is a synonym for the class of ideas comprehended in the gospel, called “the word” because it has been divinely spoken (1Thess. 2:13), and “the truth,” because it is pre-eminently that form of truth without which men cannot live in the ultimate sense (Jn. 8:32). Also The Lord Jesus Christ identifies "the good seed" in verse 38 as "the children of the kingdom." "The good seed" must be the true seed of Abraham which is referred to in such passages as Luke 1:55; Acts 3:25; 7:5; Romans 4:13, 16, 18; 9:7, 8; Galatians 3:16, 19, 29; Hebrews 11:18; and the seed of the woman (Gen. 3:15), Rev. 12:17-in all of these passages the word for seed is identical to that for seed in Matthew 13. It was "the word of the kingdom" which was taught by the Lord Jesus Christ that produced this class of "good seed."

“His enemy came by night and sowed weeds among the good seed.” 

The enemy signifies the devil, some misunderstand this as a supernatural devil but in Matthew 13:28 see Rvm and Young‘s LT), the Lord was careful to phrase it: “A man, an enemy hath done this”, the rather awkward pleonasm emphasizing the need to identify with some evil human influence at work in the early days of the church.

consisting of the authorities of the nation, who everywhere stealthily neutralised the teaching of Christ, disseminating evil doctrines, and scattering wide their sypathisers and disciples, who drew away the people, and multiplied their own number greatly by the energy of their operations and the popularity of their influence.

The “night” signifies: the times of the Gentiles At John 9:4 Jesus spoke of “the night . . . coming when no man can work. Paul also uses the figure in reference to the Parousia (#Ro 13:12), where "night" seems to refer to the present aeon and "day" to the aeon to come. He also uses it in #1Th 5:5,7 where the status of the redeemed is depicted by "day," that of the unregenerate by "night," again, as the context shows, in reference to the Parousia. In #Re 21:25 and 22:5, the passing of the "night" indicates the realization of that to which the Parousia looked forward, the establishment of the kingdom of God forever. Type of Ignorance and Sin {#Ro 13:12 1Th 5:5 Re 21:25 22:5}

The “Weeds” or TARES tarz (zizania (#Mt 13:25 ), margin "darnel"): signifies contrasting “the wheat” or “the sons of the kingdom” with “the weeds,” “the sons of the wicked one.” It should be noted that the “weeds” are not, as some Jewish Talmudists and others once believed, a degenerate form of wheat. Wheat seed never transforms itself into weeds. This would be contrary to God’s immutable law: “Let the earth cause grass to shoot forth, vegetation bearing seed, fruit trees yielding fruit according to their kinds.” (Gen. 1:11, 12) This scientific fact exonerates the “Son of man,” Christ Jesus, the “sower of the fine seed,” from any responsibility for what happened in “his field.” The “fine seed” he sowed would never have become a crop of weeds. It could only produce “wheat,” or true “sons of the kingdom.” What later developed in his “field” was the direct result of his enemy’s deliberate and malicious oversowing of “weeds,” or “sons of the wicked one.”

16 Thus, Jesus’ illustration of the “wheat” and the “weeds” does much to explain the history of Christianity throughout the centuries. Historical facts show that after the death of the apostles Satan introduced among the congregations of true Christians many “weeds,” “oppressive wolves” and “antichrists,” just as Jesus, Paul, Peter, John and Jude had foretold. (Acts 20:29; 2 Pet. 2:1-3; 1 John 2:18; Jude 4) It has been just as Jesus stated: “When the blade sprouted and produced fruit, then the weeds appeared also.”—Matt. 13:26.
These “weeds” became particularly apparent during the second and third centuries, at which time such unscriptural doctrines as the inherent immortality of the soul, hellfire and the Trinity began to be taught by so-called church fathers. Many of these men were more philosophers than true Christian overseers faithful to the teachings of the Bible. The climax came early in the fourth century, when pagan Emperor Constantine fused this apostate Christianity with the pagan religion of Rome. Such counterfeit Christianity, in its Roman Catholic, Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox and Protestant varieties, has produced a bumper crop of “weeds” not only throughout the centuries but also right up until the present time.

“The man did not allow them to pull up the weeds; he said to them, 'I am afraid that you will go intending to pull up the weeds and pull up the wheat along with them.'“
“For on the day of the harvest the weeds will be plainly visible, and they will be pulled up and burned." Harvest signifies “the end of the world” (aeon) the Lord Jesus did not mean the end of the nation-world. He used the word aeon instead of kosmos. The harvest was to be at the end of the aeon, sunteleia tou aeonos: and not at the end of the kosmos. And this has two meanings the 1st the aeon in which he flourished Then he would send his reapers; namely, the Romans, his angels, or messenger (aggeloi) of destruction, to "gather out of his kingdom" of Judea, all the tare-like children of Israel, and cast them into the place of the Lord, "whose fire is in Zion, and his furnace in Jerusalem" (Isaiah 31:9), where there should be wailing, and gnashing of teeth. When this should be accomplished the aeon would be finished, and the commonwealth of Israel should "be no more until He should come whose right it is to reign." (Ezekiel 21:25-27). "Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.

57)# Jesus said, "The Kingdom of the Father is like a man [Jesus] who had [good] seed [the true Word of God]. His enemy [the devil - those with the spirit of anti-Christ] came by night [the two thousand year age of darkness in the world] and sowed weeds [institutions of false teachings/doctrine] among the good seed [the Truth]. The man did not allow them [the reapers] to pull up the weeds [remove these institutions]; he said to them, 'I am afraid that you will go intending [without the helper even our best intentions may lead to error] to pull up the weeds and pull up the wheat [the faithful who are still in those institutions and darkened by its falsehoods and have not yet "come out from her.."] along with them [leaving them void and empty].' For on the day of the harvest [the third day - when His "body" is raised up (which is also the seventh day) in the millennial Kingdom] the weeds [these institutions and their false teachings] will be plainly visible [to the Elect], and they will be pulled up [forsaken] and burned [destroyed]."

The Book of Tobit

The book of Tobit has all the outer trappings of a historical account however the book is best understood as an allegorical story. The story is intended to edify and to inspire faith in God

the author of Tobit uses Job as a model for Tobit  the two persons are both men of outstandingly good deeds and rightousness who thought they suffered and were tested job 1:6-2:10 Tobit 12:14 did not loss their faith job 31:37 Tobit 3:2-6  and ultimately were rewarded with even greater blessings job 42:10-16 Tobit 14:1-2

the moral sense of the book of tobit is that God answers our prayers

Tobit is a symbol of Israel's blindness 1enoch 93:8
Tobias is a symbol of redeemed Israel
Raphael is a symbol of God redeeming Israel
Sarah is a symbol of the nation of Israel in exile
Asmodeus – ruler of lust,the demon is an aspect of the misfortunes of Israel in exile in a gentile land
the demon is also a symbol of the fallen priesthood

Tobiah's marriage to Sarah can be taken as an allegory of Christ's mystical marriage to His Bride the Church. 

Just as Tobiah's marriage was made possible by the exorcism of a demon, Christ's marriage to the Church was made possible through the defeat of the Devil.

 Just as Christ's resurrection from the dead took place at the conclusion of the seventh day of the week-i.e., the ``eighth'' day-so Tobiah was the eighth husband of Sarah.

Christians who were used to symbolising Jesus as a fish would naturally see the fish of the Book of Tobit as a type of Christ. Just as Christ healed the sick and cast out demons, so it was the miraculous medicinal powers of the fish's organs that made possible the exorcism of Asmodeus and the healing of Tobit's blindness. 

The blindness and poverty of Tobit would represent Adam's bondage to sin and death, so Tobiah's healing of his father is like Christ's spiritual healing of Adam's sin. 

Hannah's grief at the departure of her only son Tobiah also reminds us of Mary's grief at the suffering and death of her son Jesus (Luke 2:34-35).

Again, the Sadducees' rhetorical example of a woman with seven husbands (Matt. 22:23-28) might be an oblique reference to Sarah,

the demon was "bound up by the angel" (ch.8:3)
neither the liver nor the heart or the bile of the fish per se were the objects that cured and drove out the demon, but were merely SYMBOLIC means, through which God performed the miraculous cure of Tobit, and the expulsion of the demon.  

What is the Serpent

What is the Serpent?

 the word “serpent” immediately suggests an animal, so it Is NATURALLY taken LITERALLY. Understood SPIRITUALLY it is a FIGURE OF SPEECH.

XV. (53) "And they were both naked, both Adam and his wife, and they were not ashamed; but the serpent was the most subtle of all the beasts that were upon the earth, which the Lord God had Made:"{11}{#ge 2:25; 3:1.}--the mind is naked, which is clothed neither with vice nor with virtue, but which is really stripped of both: just as the soul of an infant child, which has no share in either virtue or vice, is stripped of all coverings, and is completely naked: for these things are the coverings of the soul, by which it is enveloped and concealed, good being the garment of the virtuous soul, and evil the robe of the wicked soul. (54) And the soul is made naked in these ways. Once, when it is in an unchangeable state, and is entirely free from all vices, and has discarded and laid aside the covering of all the passions. Philo of Alexandria

XVIII. (71) "Now the serpent was the most subtle of all the beasts which are upon the earth, which the Lord God Made."{21}{#ge 3:1.} Two things having been previously created, that is, mind and outward sense, and these also having been stripped naked in the manner which has already been shown, it follows of necessity that pleasure, which brings these two together, must be the third, for the purpose of facilitating the comprehension of the objects of intellect and of outward sense: for neither could the mind, without the outward sense, be able to comprehend the nature of any animal or of any plant, or of a stone or of a piece of wood, or, in short, of any substance whatever; nor could the outward sense exercise its proper faculties without the mind. Philo of Alexandria

the aforesaid serpent is the symbol of pleasure, because in the first place he is destitute of feet, and crawls on his belly with his face downwards. In the second place, because he uses lumps of clay for food. Thirdly, because he bears poison in his teeth, by which it is his nature to kill those who are bitten by him.

The serpent In whose mouth Is the poison of death, signifies a sinful person according to God's definition (given in Psalm 140:1-3; Romans 3:12-13; Matthew 12:34).

 The name “serpent” was attributed to those MEN who Jesus and John the Baptist had encountered (Matthew 3:7; 12:34; Luke 3:7).  Hence when the word serpent is used to indicate an intelligent  reasoning creature having guile (deceit) in his mouth, It SIGNIFIES a man exhibiting such characteristics.

The serpent a symbol of the Sense consciousness or the desire of unspiritualized man for sensation. He seeks satisfaction through the appetite. By listening to the serpent of sense, man falls to his lowest estate.

The "serpent" of the garden of Eden is the outward senses of consciousness or the carnal mind. The serpent is the symbol of pleasure. It may also be called desire, and sensation, or the activity of life in an external expression, apart from the Source of life.

Satan also came among the sons of God Job 1:6

Satan also came among the sons of God Job 1:6

Job 1:6"Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before Yahweh, and Satan came also among them."

Problem: Satan in Job is an angel who came among the angels in heaven and criticized Job, whom he had been watching whilst walking around in the earth seeing what trouble he could make. He then brings lots of problems upon Job to try and turn him away from God.

Solution:

Nowhere in the book of Job is Satan clearly stated to be a fallen angel. The argument that Satan is a fallen angel is an assumed one, and involves the following assumptions:


That the "sons of God" refers to angels. The expression is possibly identified with angels in Job 38:7, but is used of humans elsewhere in Scripture: Deut. 14:1 R.S.V.; Psa. 82:6, R.S.V.; Hosea 1:10, Luke 3:38; John 1:12; 1 John 3:1. that the phrase “sons of God” can refer to those who have the true understanding of God (Rom. 8:14; 2 Cor. 6:17-18; 1 Jn. 3:7). Angels do not bring false accusations against believers “before the Lord” (2 Pet. 2:11)

That Satan was a "son of God". The passage only states that he "came among them", but not that he was himself a "son of God" It cannot be conclusively proved that Satan was a son of God - he “came among them”.

It is assumed that "a conference" took place in heaven from the following two references: "To present themselves before Yahweh" (Job 1:6); "so Satan went forth from the presence of Yahweh" (Job 2:7).

But note the following:

The "conference" need not to have taken place in heaven. When men came before Yahweh's accredited representatives on earth (e.g., the judges), they were said to be standing "before Yahweh".

The following are two examples:

"Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before Yahweh, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days." (Deut. 19:17).

". . . Take heed what ye do: for ye judge not for man, but for Yahweh who is with you in the judgment." (2 Chron. 19:6).

To leave the presence of Yahweh (Job 1:12) does not require Satan ("adversary", A.V. mg., Job 1:6) to have had access to the dwelling place of God in heaven. Cain "went out from the presence of Yahweh" (Gen. 4:16) and he certainly was not in heaven. The adversary was well travelled on the earth: "going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it." (Job 1:7 R.S.V.). (Is walking the usual mode of locomotion for a mighty angel?)

It is impossible that a rebel angel could have had access to the dwelling place of God in heaven for the following reasons:


God does not tolerate evil: "Evil may not sojourn with thee." (Psa. 5:4, 5, R.S.V.); "Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity . . ." (Hab. 1:13).


How then could a rebel angel have access to heaven from before the creation of Adam and Eve until 1914? Or if, as it is sometimes asserted that Satan was cast out of heaven before the creation of Adam and Eve, how did he manage to regain access to heaven?


If Satan were a rebel angel with access to heaven until 1914 (as J.W.'s assert), this would invalidate the Lord's prayer. Jesus prayed: "Thy Kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven." (Matt. 6:10). Did Jesus believe that heaven was the seat of revolution, intrigue, and disorder, and later to be the scene of a great war?

Job never attributed his afflictions to a rebel angel. His declaration was simply: "The hand of God hath touched me". (Job 19:21 cf. 2:10). Even Job's brethren, sisters and acquaintances acknowledged that the evil was brought upon Job by Yahweh: "they bemoaned him, and comforted him over all the evil that Yahweh had brought upon him." (Job 42:11).

Satan in the Book of Job

Prologue (chapters 1-2, prose): God invites a character termed "the Satan" to consider the piety of his servant Job. The Satan counters that God fails to realize Job is only pious because he is well blessed in riches and, were he deprived, he would curse Him. God meets the Satan's demands by Himself destroying Job's fortunes, children and ultimately health. Yet Job does not curse God; the Satan loses the barter.

In the Hebrew Bible, as in mainstream Judaism to this day,
Satan never appears as Western Christendom has come to know
him, as the leader of an “evil empire,” an army of hostile spirits
who make war on God and humankind alike.7 As he first appears
in the Hebrew Bible, Satan is not necessarily evil, much less
opposed to God. On the contrary, he appears in the book of
Numbers and in Job as one of God's obedient servants—a
messenger, or angel, a word that translates the Hebrew term for
messenger (ma’lak) into Greek (angelos). In Hebrew, the angels
were often called “sons of God” (bene ‘elohim), and were
envisioned as the hierarchical ranks of a great army, or the staff
of a royal court

Heracleon on the Devil

John 8:44 Revised Standard Version (RSV)

44 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 has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

Heracleon: Fragments from his
Commentary on the Gospel of John

http://gnosis.org/library/fragh.htm

Fragment 20, on John 4:21 (In John it says, “Jesus said to her, ‘Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father.’”) The mountain represents the Devil, or his world, since the Devil was one part of the whole of matter, but the world is the total mountain of evil, a deserted dwelling place of beasts, to which all who lived before the law and all Gentiles render worship. But Jerusalem represents the creation or the Creator whom the Jews worship. . . The mountain is the creation which the Gentiles worship, but Jerusalem is the creator whom the Jews serve. You then who are spiritual should worship neither the creation nor the Craftsman, but the Father of Truth. And he (Jesus) accepts her (the Samaritan woman) as one of the already faithful, and to be counted with those who worship in truth. 

In the Bible mountains represent kingdoms or empires

For Heracleon the mountain represents the totality of the material order of things (the devil and the world) worshipped by those who existed before the introduction of the Law of Moses in particular the gentiles

Fragment 44, on John 8:43-44a (In John 8:43-44a, “Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and your wish is to do your father's desires.”) The reason why they were unable to hear Jesus’ words and understand what he said is provided in the words, “You are of your father the Devil.” He says, ‘Why are you unable to hear my word? Because you are of your father the Devil’ meaning you are of the substance of the Devil. Thus he makes clear their nature, after convincing them in advance that they are neither the children of Abraham otherwise they would not have hated him, nor children of God because they did not love him.



For Heracleon the inability of the pharisees to hear the divine word of Christ john 8:43 is rooted in their possession of the diabolic nature children of the devil neither the children of Abraham nor the children of God but rather the children of the devil possess a nature that is utterly different than the "psychics" and "pneumatics"

the Hylics hylics, also called somatics (from Gk σώμα (sōma) "body"), this refers to the thinking of the flesh or the carnal mind "it represents that physical principle of the animal nature, which is the cause of all its diseases, death, and resolution into dust. It is that in the flesh "which has the power of death" and it is called sin, because the development, or fixation, of this evil in the flesh, was the result of transgression. Inasmuch as this evil principle pervades every part of the flesh, the animal nature is styled "sinful flesh," that is, "flesh full of sin"; so that sin, in the sacred style, came to stand for the substance called man. In human flesh "dwells no good thing" (Rom. 7:17,18); and all the evil a man does is the result of this principle dwelling in him. Operating upon the brain, it excites the "propensities", and these set the "intellect" and "sentiments" to work. The propensities are blind, and so are the intellect and sentiments in a purely natural state; when therefore, the latter operate under the sole impulse of the propensities, "the understanding is darkened through ignorance, because of the blindness of the heart" (Eph. 4:18). The nature of the lower animals is as full of this physical evil principle as the nature of man; though it cannot be styled sin with the same expressiveness; because it does not possess them as the result of their own transgression; the name, however, does not alter the nature of the thing. Elpis Israel



Fragment 45, on John 8:44a Those to whom the word came were of the substance of the Devil. 

Heracleon makes an important distinction between those who are children of the devil by nature and substance and those who make themselves the devil's servants by choice. 

Origen As if the substance of the devil were different than the substance of other rational beings 

So what is the devil's nature or substance?

The diabolical nature is flesh:

Man in his physical constitution is imperfect; and this imperfection is traceable to the physical organization of his flesh, being based on the principle of decay and reproduction from the blood; which, acted upon by the air, becomes the life of his flesh. All the phenomena which pertain to this arrangement of things are summed up in the simple word sin; which is, therefore, not an individual abstraction, but a concretion of relations in all animal bodies; and the source of all their physical infirmities. Now, the apostle says, that the flesh thinks, that is, the brain, as all who think are well assured from their own consciousness. If, then, this thinking organ be commanded not to do what is natural for it to do under blind impulse, will it not naturally disobey? Now this disobedience is wrong, because what God commands to be done is right, and only right; so that "by his law is the knowledge of sin"; and this law requiring an obedience which is not natural, flesh is sure to think in opposition to it. The philosophy of superstition is -- religion in harmony with the thinking of the flesh; while true religion is religion in accordance with the thoughts of God as expressed in His law. Hence, it need excite no astonishment that religion and superstition are so hostile and that all the world should uphold the latter; while so few are to be found who are identified with the religion of God. They are as opposite as flesh and spirit.
Sin in the flesh is hereditary; and entailed upon mankind as the consequence of Adam's violation of the Eden law. The "original sin" was such as I have shown in previous pages. Adam and Eve committed it; and their posterity are suffering the consequence of it.

Fragment 46, on John 8:44a The verse “You are of your father the Devil” is to be understood as meaning ‘of the same substance as the Devil.’ On “and your wish is to do your father’s desires”: The Devil has no will, but only desires. . . This was said not to those who are by nature children of the Devil, but to the animate people who have become children of the Devil by intent. Some who are of this nature may also be called children of God by intent. Because they have loved the desires of the Devil and performed them, they become children of the Devil, though they were not such by nature. The word “children” may be understood in three ways: first, by nature; secondly, by inclination; thirdly, by merit. (A child) by nature means (the child) is begotten by someone who is himself begotten, and is properly called “child.” (A child) by inclination is when one who does the will of another person by his own inclination is called the child of the one whose will he does. (A child) by merit is when some are known as children of hell, or of darkness and lawlessness, and the offspring of snakes and vipers. For these do no produce anything by their own nature; they are destructive and consume those that are cast into them; but, since they did their works, they are called their children. . . He now calls them children of the Devil, not because the Devil produces any of them, but because by doing the works of the Devil they became like him.

Heraccleon suggests that individuals can become children of the devil and possess the diabolical nature in three ways by natural birth (we are all hylics by nature) 
by will that is after being enlightened those who choose to follow the desires of the devil 

by worth that is the enemies of God those described in the bible as children of gehenna or offspring of serpents 

The 2nd and 3rd are sons of the devil by adoption

the error and ignorance of the devil is rooted in his inherent nature which is the opposite of the truth

Hilgenfeld, Volkmar, and DeConick consider that the Evangelist shows that he embraced the opinion of the Valentinians and some earlier Gnostic sects that the father of the devil was the Demiurge or God of the Jews. But this idea was unknown to Heracleon, who here interprets the father of the devil as his essentially evil nature; to which Origen objects that if the devil be evil by the necessity of his nature, he ought rather to be pitied than blamed