Thank you Pastor Brito, I appreciate this response. I saw on twitter videos of you preaching and referring to the serpent as a female which piqued my interest. I figured it was a typological thing and not that you believed the Talmudic interpretation of the serpent being Lilith. That is explicitly what the Stone Choir dudes were accusing you of peddling from the pulpit.
However, I am appalled that you didn't address this at the end of your article in the section affirming and denying certain things. Why did you not have an explicit denial of the Talmudic understanding of Genesis? Do you or do you not believe that the serpent was Lilith?
I am not a Stone Choir guy nor do I have an issue with the biblical theology laid out in this article, I just thought you would respond to their main accusation by the end of the article.
Thanks so much for reading. Much of the crowd's response stems from a lack of knowledge of my typological readings and work in biblical theology. My entire assessment merely reflects on the typology of the serpent as a crafty and cunning prostitute in Proverbs, the cannibal woman of II Kings, the Jezebel of Revelation, and many other such biblical images.
To answer your question directly and sincerely, most of my academic work since 2004 has focused on biblical theology. I have honestly never heard of the idea of Lilith ( I am sure my ignorance of ancient literature shows) until a few weeks ago when the accusation was made nor have I ever read a page of the Talmud, though I have seen some quotes. So, the accusation made no sense to me whatsoever.
Again, the serpent is a material figure that typologizes other evil and deceitful figures in the Scriptures. I am a Vantilian, so we do not need outside sources to shape our biblical theology.
I hope that is helpful.
Many thanks for reading.
P.S. I am happy to add a denial to the list to clarify this, though those who know me understood precisely what I was affirming and denying.
Thank you Pastor Brito for this well thought out response. I figured all of this implicitly I was just trying to draw out the main criticism for the sake of clarity and you have done that with this response. Thank you for fighting for the faith once delivered to the saints. Merry Christmas!
PS I am a member of the CREC church plant in Indianapolis!
Two side thoughts came to me as I was digesting these thoughts you present.
First, Curious about the use of “redeemed angels” … The fallen angels are not redeemable because they have dwelt in the very presence of God and yet rejected HIM, those who are not fallen… are “not fallen” so there is no need of Redemption.
Next, completely different topic … but one that I have mulled before. Mark 12:25 25 “For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven” Does this indicate that gender will not be a necessary component of eternal existence, or simply that Human relatedness will vanish? I try to reason with friends who have lost a spouse that they are not “watching over” you nor are they waiting to be “reunited” with you as a spouse… So, cherish your memories and live on for the LORD. HE watches over you.
On the first, "redeemed angels" is equivalent to the older usage of "elect angels." These are the ones who remained submissive to Yahweh's authority. They are in contrast to the "fallen angels." You are correct: the redeemed angels cannot fall and the fallen cannot be redeemed. I simply wanted to distinguish between the two types of angelic beings.
On the second, there is no given in marriage, so the best way to phrase it is to say, "You will see your loved ones again, but your relationship will no longer be marital in nature, but far superior. The heavenly communion will far exceed any earthly relationship.
Do you have a paid subscription? If not, I can give you six free months and may use your questions for my next Q&A.
We were back at Providence last Sunday, sorry we missed you! We look forward to seeing your next week.
I just wanted to add that in the rhetorical tradition, Rhetoric is usually depicted as a woman. Persuasion works through the force of the mouth rather than the force of the fist.
True. But think of “force” in my comment as one type of power; a means to effecting an outcome. Aristotle chided those who refused to become skilled in speech because speech was the rational “power” that separated men from beasts, whose physical “power” often exceeds man’s. In the tradition the power of speech is often portrayed as superior to physical power. The ability for words to amass anon armies bears that out in one respect.
Thank you Pastor Brito, I appreciate this response. I saw on twitter videos of you preaching and referring to the serpent as a female which piqued my interest. I figured it was a typological thing and not that you believed the Talmudic interpretation of the serpent being Lilith. That is explicitly what the Stone Choir dudes were accusing you of peddling from the pulpit.
However, I am appalled that you didn't address this at the end of your article in the section affirming and denying certain things. Why did you not have an explicit denial of the Talmudic understanding of Genesis? Do you or do you not believe that the serpent was Lilith?
I am not a Stone Choir guy nor do I have an issue with the biblical theology laid out in this article, I just thought you would respond to their main accusation by the end of the article.
Greetings,
Thanks so much for reading. Much of the crowd's response stems from a lack of knowledge of my typological readings and work in biblical theology. My entire assessment merely reflects on the typology of the serpent as a crafty and cunning prostitute in Proverbs, the cannibal woman of II Kings, the Jezebel of Revelation, and many other such biblical images.
To answer your question directly and sincerely, most of my academic work since 2004 has focused on biblical theology. I have honestly never heard of the idea of Lilith ( I am sure my ignorance of ancient literature shows) until a few weeks ago when the accusation was made nor have I ever read a page of the Talmud, though I have seen some quotes. So, the accusation made no sense to me whatsoever.
Again, the serpent is a material figure that typologizes other evil and deceitful figures in the Scriptures. I am a Vantilian, so we do not need outside sources to shape our biblical theology.
I hope that is helpful.
Many thanks for reading.
P.S. I am happy to add a denial to the list to clarify this, though those who know me understood precisely what I was affirming and denying.
Thank you Pastor Brito for this well thought out response. I figured all of this implicitly I was just trying to draw out the main criticism for the sake of clarity and you have done that with this response. Thank you for fighting for the faith once delivered to the saints. Merry Christmas!
PS I am a member of the CREC church plant in Indianapolis!
Two side thoughts came to me as I was digesting these thoughts you present.
First, Curious about the use of “redeemed angels” … The fallen angels are not redeemable because they have dwelt in the very presence of God and yet rejected HIM, those who are not fallen… are “not fallen” so there is no need of Redemption.
Next, completely different topic … but one that I have mulled before. Mark 12:25 25 “For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven” Does this indicate that gender will not be a necessary component of eternal existence, or simply that Human relatedness will vanish? I try to reason with friends who have lost a spouse that they are not “watching over” you nor are they waiting to be “reunited” with you as a spouse… So, cherish your memories and live on for the LORD. HE watches over you.
Great observations.
On the first, "redeemed angels" is equivalent to the older usage of "elect angels." These are the ones who remained submissive to Yahweh's authority. They are in contrast to the "fallen angels." You are correct: the redeemed angels cannot fall and the fallen cannot be redeemed. I simply wanted to distinguish between the two types of angelic beings.
On the second, there is no given in marriage, so the best way to phrase it is to say, "You will see your loved ones again, but your relationship will no longer be marital in nature, but far superior. The heavenly communion will far exceed any earthly relationship.
Do you have a paid subscription? If not, I can give you six free months and may use your questions for my next Q&A.
Feel free to use a question of mine…
I do have the paid subscription👍 Yes, indeed our new knowledge of others will certainly be far superior to anything here on Earth.
We were back at Providence last Sunday, sorry we missed you! We look forward to seeing your next week.
I just wanted to add that in the rhetorical tradition, Rhetoric is usually depicted as a woman. Persuasion works through the force of the mouth rather than the force of the fist.
Fascinating, Josh, since the rhetoric of the fall was not via force but wisdom disguised as deception.
True. But think of “force” in my comment as one type of power; a means to effecting an outcome. Aristotle chided those who refused to become skilled in speech because speech was the rational “power” that separated men from beasts, whose physical “power” often exceeds man’s. In the tradition the power of speech is often portrayed as superior to physical power. The ability for words to amass anon armies bears that out in one respect.
This is an excellent response. I doubt the Stone Choir crowd will even read it, unfortunately.
Thanks, Stonewall! I appreciate your encouragement!