NB 430 Transcript

Naked Bible Podcast Episode 430: John Walton on Demons and Spirits

Naked Bible Podcast Transcript

Episode 430

John Walton on Demons and Spirits

June 18, 2022

Teacher: Dr. Michael S. Heiser (MH)

Host: Trey Stricklin (TS)

Episode Summary

Over the past two years Dr. Heiser has been asked a number of times to respond

to the book Demons and Spirits in Biblical Theology: Reading the Biblical Text in

its Cultural and Literary Context, by John H. Walton and J. Harvey Walton

(2019). The book runs quite contrary to Dr. Heiser’s own work. In this episode Dr.

Heiser responds to the book’s content and how he fears it might be used by

opponents of the faith.

Transcript

TS: Welcome to the Naked Bible Podcast, Episode 430: John Walton on

Demons and Spirits. I’m the layman, Trey Stricklin, and he’s the scholar, Dr.

Michael Heiser. Hey, Mike! How are you doing?

MH: Oh, not too bad this week. It’s been a decent week. Stranger Things week.

TS: Yeah, yeah, we were talking about you’re almost finished with it. You’ve got

one or two to go and I’ve got like three episodes to go so what’s your take on it

so far?

MH: I think it’s good. Not up to the level of the first 3 seasons, but it’s good. A

little too much [audio breaks up]. I don’t know why they amp that up, but other

than that, those are my thoughts.

TS: Yeah.

MH: I don’t want to give anything away.

TS: Yeah, yeah, it’s hard not to give it away, but my son, Jax, he manned up. So

we watched all the seasons. We got to season 4, and I was nervous with all the

feedback people were saying about how scary it is, but I think it was okay. Of

course, I grew up in the 80s during the slasher movies, so I guess I’m more

hardened, battle-tested.

MH: Yeah, I never watched any of those.

Naked Bible Podcast Episode 430: John Walton on Demons and Spirits

TS: Yeah.

MH: Like Nightmare on Elm Street…

TS: Oh yeah.

MH: … or Friday the 13

. I never cared to watch any of them.

TS: Oh my gosh, I was like…

MH: So I can’t pick out the references.

TS: I had a full-size Freddy Krueger poster on my door as a little kid. So I loved

it. So I don’t know what that says, but that’s the way it was.

MH: Gosh. It doesn’t say anything good.

TS: Mike, we want to remind people Lexham Press is doing that Stranger Things

discount so you can get your book for $5. You go to nakedbiblepodcast.com

website and get that discount code or link to buy your book.

MH: Yeah.

TS: Because that’s still going on through the whole month of June so…

MH: Yeah.

TS: Well, Mike, we’re switching gears here. We are finally… You’re going to

tackle John Walton’s book on demons.

MH: Yeah.

TS: I know that we’ve talked about it for a while, but one of my gripes… I don’t

know, I’m really frustrated out there with scholars. I know John Walton is not the

only one, but I guess the criticism of the supernatural view, like the divine council

aren’t elohim or whatever, they are humans, and just the whole supernatural

element—that the humans are the lower “g” gods…

MH: Yeah.

TS: They’re not really real gods; they’re just made-up stuff.

MH: The text doesn’t say what it says.

TS: Yeah.

Naked Bible Podcast Episode 430: John Walton on Demons and Spirits

MH: It doesn’t really say what you’re reading.

TS: The people at the time just made up those gods and they’re not really real

and things like that, but yet they’ll turn around and believe supernatural elements

like a virgin birth, the resurrection, things like that. So I find it frustrating for me

personally that scholars (and people in general) will pick and choose what

supernatural element they’re going to believe in.

MH: Yeah, I would say don’t… Definitely you don’t want to read Walton’s book. I

mean, this is sort of a depressing enterprise because on the one hand, I consider

John a friend and I will continue to recommend a lot of his work, but this book I

cannot recommend at all. So we’ll devote an episode to it and explain why.

TS: Well, I’m all ears, Mike.

MH: Alright, well, as you and I have talked about this, over the past couple

years, I’ve been asked a number of times to respond to the book Demons and

Spirits in Biblical Theology: Reading the Biblical Text in Its Cultural and Literary

Context. And this is by John Walton and his son, J. Harvey Walton. It’s a 2019

title. And the reason that people have asked me to respond to it is pretty

straightforward: I’ve written five bestselling books on the subject matter. One of

them is sort of to a popular audience (that would be the Supernatural book), but

the other four are The Unseen Realm, Reversing Hermon, my book on Angels,

and my book on Demons. Those are academic in flavor. So I’ve spent a lot of

time on this and so it’s very normal for people to ask me to respond to this

particular book. The people who have done so (who have asked for my response

to the Waltons) have done so because of the overt skepticism that runs through

the book in regard to supernatural entities. It’s very palpable. The Waltons are

basically evangelical skeptics when it comes to the Bible teaching anything

meaningful about the spiritual world. And what I’m going to do here is not so

much respond to the Waltons as dialog with their audience. That said, the

questions I will raise here are just as much for the Waltons as anyone else

inclined toward accepting their positions in this book. And I’ll be raising questions

that are avoided by the authors (studiously avoided), but which must be

answered for the sake of clarity and congruence and, honestly, just plain old

honesty.

The short version is that, like I’ve already said, I can’t recommend the book. And

for those of you who are used to me recommending Walton, that would be a

surprise, but you’ll find out quickly why I would never recommend this book. I

think it’s actually a dangerous work because it arms unbelieving skeptics. It really

does equip them to undermine the faith of believers. And I don’t think for a

minute that the Waltons have that as an aim, but it is a very transparent

consequence of the book, as we will see.

5:00

Naked Bible Podcast Episode 430: John Walton on Demons and Spirits

As I thought about this, I thought, how do I want to do this? And I think it’s a good

idea, just so that you know it isn’t just me, to start this episode by reading from a

review of somebody else—somebody else’s review of the Walton’s book. And

this somebody else is Thomas Farrar. Farrar’s review of the book appeared in

the Journal of Theological Studies published by Oxford University Press. I’ll be

reading from the author’s original version which is accessible online. So you can

just google the last name “Farrar” and then “Walton” and then “demons and

spirits” and you’ll find that review.

Farrar’s review is one of two reviews of the book that I can find. So the book has

not received much attention at all. I was surprised by that. No evangelical journal

has reviewed it (at least that I can find), and I’ve searched the mainstream

evangelical journals by virtue of the databases that we all use and come up

empty. Farrar’s review (as well as one other one in Religious Studies Review) is

generally positive, but it contains important pushback, and that’s why I want to

start with him, again, so you know it’s not just me.

So we’ll start with his review and then pick our way back through that review to

camp on specific problems for the Waltons’ work. And it has fundamental flaws, I

have to be honest with you. It’s one of the strangest books I’ve ever read, just

because of what it claims and overclaims. It’s very strange to read something like

this. And I’ve wondered if the reason that evangelical journals have not reviewed

it is because it’s so nonevangelical. But that usually doesn’t stop evangelical

reviewers from reviewing a book. But again, the book has garnered almost no

attention, which on the other side of it, I think is good because I do think It’s

harmful.

But anyway, let’s just start with Farrar and I’m going to read through most of this

review (it’s not a long review) and then just jump back into it with my own

interactions. So this is, again, a review of Walton’s Demons and Spirits in Biblical

Theology, which is by John Walton and his son, J. Harvey Walton, and it’s

published by Wipf and Stock. Wipf and Stock is not an evangelical publisher,

although it’s friendly to evangelical authors. They more or less publish anything.

They have a huge, huge selection of books. And you’ll find a lot of good stuff

there and you’ll find stuff that’s just on the periphery as well, but that’s the nature

of their business and that’s fine. So Farrar starts his review this way. He says:

John H. and J. Harvey Walton address the subject of biblical demonology by

dialoguing with two widespread interpretive approaches: Demythologizing and

conflict theology. Their primary aim is to critique the latter.

That is, conflict theology. That’s what they really have in their crosshairs. Farrar

says:

Naked Bible Podcast Episode 430: John Walton on Demons and Spirits

Their primary aim is to critique the latter, a position associated with conservative

evangelical theology that affirms the real, personal existence of demons and

Satan and interprets biblical references to these entities as a system of

propositional truths and instructions for spiritual warfare.

Let me just stop there. I mean, that much would be me. Okay? I accept the

personal existence of demons and Satan and I do think the Bible teaches us

propositional truths about what demons and Satan do and what they are by

nature, their activities, and so on and so forth. The Waltons are going to object to

that, like right out of the gate. Again, it’s a very strange thing for an evangelical

scholar to be writing. The book is not about me. It’s not a response to me. I’m

barely mentioned in the book. It’s more or less that they spend their time

critiquing conflict theology which is, again, a theology that accepts Satan and

demons as real and the Bible actually teaches us stuff about them. That’s what

they’re shooting at. And most of the time they’re shooting at Pentecostalism or

Greg Boyd. They’re not shooting at me. So I think we need to make that clear. So

back to Farrar. Farrar writes:

Their secondary aim is to propose a methodology for Biblical theology that

“prioritizes the importance of the text in context.”

And again, I would say I’m doing the same thing. Farrar says:

In their view, the Bible refers to demons, not to affirm anything about their

nature or existence, but because they are part of the “cognitive environment”

(cultural setting) shared by author and audience and thus a useful vehicle for

conveying meaning.

The study is divided into four parts (though the Part 4 heading is absent from the

table of contents). Part 1 lays out the authors’ hermeneutic. Observing that the

cosmic geography presupposed by biblical writers (featuring a solid sky, for

instance) is untenable today, they infer that biblical statements on cosmic

geography should not be interpreted as factual truths. The interpreter’s task is

therefore not to reconstruct the biblical authors’ assumptions in order to adopt

them, but to examine the text-in-context and so arrive at “the information that

the text was written to convey” (p. 14). This, they argue, is as true for

demonology as for cosmic geography.

Let me just stop there. So what the Waltons are doing is they’re saying since we

can’t accept what the Bible says about cosmology (solid sky, the dome over the

earth and all that stuff—three-tiered universe)… Since we can’t accept that as

being real, we don’t have to accept what the Bible says about demons or Satan

as real either. And you think, well, that’s quite a jump. Yeah, it is, and that will be

something we’re going to park on. Back to Farrar. Farrar writes:

10:00

Naked Bible Podcast Episode 430: John Walton on Demons and Spirits

A central methodological claim is that the Bible does not affirm the content of

references to its cognitive environment. Thus, since “all of the Bible’s statements

about demons or similar creatures” are such references (p. 18), the Bible affirms

nothing about the existence or nature of Satan or demons. The rest of Part 1

discusses the various genres of Scripture and their implications for extracting

contextualised meaning.

Part 2 opens with a discussion of whether knowledge about demons and spirits

can be gained from outside the Bible. The authors accuse conflict theologians of a

double standard by arguing that demonology is outside the jurisdiction of science

and yet adducing empirical evidence of demonological phenomena. They further

argue that, even if demons exist, biblical references to them are no more an

authority on demonology than biblical references to ostriches are on zoology.

I’m going to read that sentence again.

Ferrar writes:

[The Waltons] further argue that even is demons exist, biblical references to them

are no more an authority on demonology than biblical references to ostriches are

on zoology. They then offer detailed background on spirit beings in the Bible’s

cognitive environment(s), focusing especially on “class II” spirits that are neither

gods (class I) nor deceased humans (class III).

Let me just interject here again. That’s a scheme that the Waltons have made

up—this typology. Okay?

In Part 3—the longest section—the authors attend to the biblical data about

demons and spirits. The material is broken down by chapters into divine combat,

the serpent, demons and idolatry, evil gods and angels, the fall of Satan, and

demons and spirits in the church age. The argument throughout is that the

biblical text references ideas from the cognitive environment, not to affirm them

but to convey some other meaning.

So again, interjecting, the Bible mentions demons and Satan and gods (and so

on and so forth) not to affirm that they’re real or that the Bible is teaching

anything about them, but it mentions them to teach something else. Okay?

Farrar continues:

In Part 4, the authors briefly critique conflict theology on philosophical grounds.

They argue that conflict theology hinders rather than helps Christians to defend

theism against the argument of the problem of evil as raised by atheists. They also

15:00

Naked Bible Podcast Episode 430: John Walton on Demons and Spirits

maintain that conflict theology undermines the inversive Christian love-of-enemy

ethic by allowing hostility to be redirected toward the devil.

So again, apparently we’re not supposed to dislike the devil.

Despite finding no biblical warrant for affirming that demons exist, the authors do

not conclude by denying their existence, but instead offer suggestions on how

Christians should regard demons.

So that’s the summary of the content from Farrar. Farrar continues and says:

The book is stylistically fluid and readable, and footnotes are used effectively.

Blah, blah, blah, so on and so forth.

The bibliography is adequate; the authors should perhaps have consulted more

article-length treatments of specific texts in addition to commentaries and topical

works.

Farrar does comment that the authors sometimes appear unaware of exegetical

possibilities proposed in recent literature on certain passages.

Again, that’s fair. Farrar writes:

The book’s central claim—that the Bible’s statements about demons and spirits

are referential…

They’re just references. Like Satan and demons are just sort of window dressing.

They’re actors. If you’ve ever seen a play, they’re the actors that never get

names. They’re just sort of there, but we never learn anything about them.

The book’s central claim—that the Bible’s statements about demons and spirits

are referential and do not affirm any information about them—is reasonable as

far as the Hebrew Bible is concerned.

I would disagree with Farrar there. But Farrar says he is in agreement there.

Here, such entities appear very sparsely and are usually incidental to the writers’

contextual purposes. Less convincing are the authors’ efforts to extend this claim

to the New Testament.

Believe it or not, the Waltons deny that the New Testament (not just the Old

Testament, but the New Testament)… They deny the New Testament teaches us

anything about Satan and demons. Again, this is why I say this is one of the

Naked Bible Podcast Episode 430: John Walton on Demons and Spirits

more bizarre things I’ve ever read. In scholarship, whether it’s evangelical

scholarship or especially non-evangelical scholarship… Because there are so

many scholars that have spent so much time not only on the New Testament, but

on Second Temple intertestamental literature on Satan and demons, that it’s like

all the work doesn’t exist to the Waltons. It’s just… I mean, I’m going to use a

word like “bizarre.” It’s just truly bizarre, but this is where they’re at. Now Farrar

says:

Three criticisms are briefly offered in this respect.

So he’s going to push back on this point that he just made about the New

Testament. He disagrees with the Waltons there.

First, while the New Testament writers’ statements about Satan and demons are

referential, the suggestion that they merely allude to established ideas without

adding anything new (e.g., p. 233) is unfounded. The authors acknowledge that

ideas about the devil in the Second Temple Jewish cognitive environment are

“non-systematic” (p. 232), but still refer to “the profile of the devil” and “the devil

character” from this cognitive environment (pp. 232, 260), and “the Second

Temple understanding of what Satan is and does” (p. 265)…

…Given this context, together with the rich variety of terminology and imagery

used of the devil by the New Testament writers, it seems that they [MH: the New

Testament writers] are not merely alluding to some well-known devil character

but contributing or bearing witness to new developments [MH: in the idea of

Satan and demons].

Basically (if I can interject here again), what Farrar is saying here is “Look,

there’s so much in the New Testament about Satan and demons that builds upon

what’s written in the Second Temple literature. The New Testament writers are

very obviously taking Second Temple literature seriously and they’re adding to it.

They’re building upon it. They’re contributing something to a doctrine of Satan

and demons.” But the Waltons would say, “No, there is no such thing.” The New

Testament teaches us there’s no truth content in the New Testament about

Satan and demons. Farrar continues:

Second, texts do not necessarily affirm their references, but they can. For

example, scholars have observed that the references to Satan in the Corinthian

letters imply that Paul had included ideas about Satan in his elementary

instruction when founding this Greek church. He is not referencing an idea from

an external cognitive environment but an idea that he himself has taught them.

Similarly, both Luke (10:18) and Revelation (12:1-17; 20:1-10) depict Satan within

the content of visions. The authors thus establish a revelatory basis for their

20:00

Naked Bible Podcast Episode 430: John Walton on Demons and Spirits

references to this figure. In such cases, references do seem to carry the force of

affirmation.

In other words, Farrar is saying, “These passages sure look like they’re teaching

us something about Satan and demons.” I would agree, obviously.

Third, the authors are unjustifiably minimalistic about the theological significance

that New Testament writers assign to Satan and demons when referencing these

ideas. For instance, they repeatedly insist that passages describing Christ’s conflict

with Satan and demons are Christological affirmations and affirm nothing about

the diabolical and demonic opponents (e.g., pp. 226, 247, 241)…

Let me just stop there. So in a passage like Jesus’ confrontation with Satan in the

wilderness, the Waltons are saying, “Well, the New Testament there teaches us

lots of about Jesus, but it doesn’t teach us anything about Satan.” It’s such clear

picking and choosing of the content that, again, it’s so strange. Farrar’s comment

is:

…this seems to posit a false dilemma.

And again I would agree.

Similarly, the authors rightly state that the gospels are theological works as

opposed to impartial records of events. They infer that exorcism accounts are

“not written to report what Jesus did or can do to demons” (p. 240).

The Waltons would say that exorcism accounts don’t tell us what Jesus can or

did do to demons. They don’t tell us anything. It’s just window dressing. Farrar

continues:

However, when an evangelist has Jesus stake the authority of his mission on his

exorcisms (Matt. 12:28; Luke 11:20), the reality of the exorcisms matters.

Amen. I would agree.

Besides, the evangelists do assign theological significance to Satan and demons.

That’s a Walton claim.

Several parables (strong man, sower, tares) have characters that represent the

devil allegorically, and narrative-critical studies of the gospels have identified the

devil as a character in their plots.

Again, Farrar is just pointing out the obvious here.

Naked Bible Podcast Episode 430: John Walton on Demons and Spirits

Furthermore, the gospels and Acts intend to provide liturgical and behavioural

norms for the early Christian communities to which they are addressed. The

accounts of exorcisms—especially those performed by Jesus’ disciples—should be

read in this light.

Then he wraps up his review with a final paragraph.

There are, therefore, some shortcomings in the authors’ treatment of the New

Testament. Nonetheless, they have offered a strong biblical-theological critique of

a fundamentalist hermeneutic that sees every such reference as a source of

propositional truths about the unseen realm and recipes for spiritual warfare.

Their book challenges all would-be biblical theologians to be consistent and

contextual in their hermeneutics. More than that, it does much to illuminate the

contextual background of biblical passages about demons and related ideas.

So, again, I wanted to start there so that listeners know this isn’t just Mike

pushing back and Mike’s not making up the content of the Waltons’ book.

Because it’s going to sound really bizarre to your ear. They actually say this stuff

in the book. So let us just jump back in here again to this portion of Farrar’s quote

where the Waltons address the subject of biblical demonology by dialoging with

de-mythologization. We’ll just call it the “liberal” view, where basically none of this

is real. And conflict theology. That would be the evangelical side where the Bible

actually does teach us something about Satan and demons, and its important

content—that the Bible can base propositional truths about Satan and demons in

its pages. So you would think they would be hammering away at the liberal stuff,

but they’re not. They’re shooting at the evangelical side. Again, Farrar writes:

Their primary aim is to critique the latter [MH: the conflict theology], a position

associated with conservative evangelical theology that affirms the real, personal

existence of demons and Satan and interprets biblical references to these entities

as a system of propositional truths and instructions for spiritual warfare.

I mean, that sentence sums up my own approach, my own work. So, I mean, I

would be directly in the crosshairs of the Waltons even though, again, their book

doesn’t cite my work. They’re not after me. They’re after Greg Boyd and, again,

Pentecostalism and evangelical theology in general. So I get caught up in this.

So again, this is what they do. Farrar wrote:

In their view, the Bible refers to demons, not to affirm anything about their

nature or existence, but because they are part of the “cognitive environment”…

And so these characters (these not-worth-much-of-anything characters) that the

authors call Satan and demons… We can’t learn anything about Satan and

demons from the biblical authors. But the biblical authors… When they refer to

25:00

Naked Bible Podcast Episode 430: John Walton on Demons and Spirits

them, we can at least learn something else about somebody else, okay? So in

other words, any mention of Satan or demons is not intended to teach us

anything about Satan and demons, but to teach us some other meaning,

something else. In their book, “something else” is truth about God and God’s

works, something real broad like that. That’s what the mention of Satan and

demons is supposed to teach us, but not anything specific to Satan and demons.

So let us think about this a little bit. What we have here in this book is that we

have a situation where we have two authors, again, who would (I presume) lump

themselves into evangelicalism. I mean, I have no reason to think that John has

abandoned that. I don’t know his son J. Harvey. But what we have is we have a

book written by these two guys that asserts that the Bible conveys no truth

content about Satan and demons. They are literally a means to some other ends.

So the first thing I wonder about is the very incoherence of the title of the book

(Demons and Spirits in Biblical Theology). A biblical theology of Satan and

demons? How can you write a biblical theology of Satan and demons if the Bible

teaches nothing about Satan and demons? It doesn’t make any sense. The

whole title doesn’t make sense. It doesn’t seem a whole lot of thought went into

how incongruent the title is.

Second, I certainly wonder how the Waltons (and even the reviewer, Farrar) can

conclude there is no element of supernatural conflict in the Old Testament. Well,

what about Genesis 3? I mean, Paul and John both get to be wrong then. We’ll

get to them in a moment. But again, the Waltons apparently deny any

relationship between the serpent and Satan—any relationship at all. I mean, I

refer to the villain of Genesis 3 as a comic enemy. I think that the serpent was

actually a supernatural being who was real and who opposed God’s

programming. Those of you who have read my work, you know this, and that’s

not abnormal for evangelical theology.

Now I’m sure that the Waltons say what they say in part because of the ha-satan

issue—that that’s not really a reference to the devil in Job. But I would say let’s

not throw the baby out with the bath water. The “adversary” terminology just

came into use later for a figure who opposed God—a supernatural character who

opposed God. It’s not rocket science. It’s just an issue of what terms came into

use when, not whether there was a supernatural enemy or not. I mean, think

about it. If the serpent is only a serpent, what does Genesis 3:15 mean—the

bruising of the heel and the crushing of the head and all that stuff? If the villain of

Genesis 3 is just a snake, what does Genesis 3:15 mean? And you’re telling me

there’s no conflict in Genesis 3:15? It’s ridiculous. Is Genesis 3:15 really only

about women and snakes? If there’s a supernatural force involved, why can’t the

Waltons just admit that? But instead, they don’t answer that kind of question and

they simply proceed to deny any spiritual world conflict theology in the Old

Testament and the entire Bible by the time they’re done.

Naked Bible Podcast Episode 430: John Walton on Demons and Spirits

How about Daniel 10? No conflict in Daniel 10? Daniel’s theology of supernatural

princes over nations comes from somewhere (it comes from Deuteronomy 32:8-

9, Deuteronomy 32:17). And there’s a conflict in Daniel 10 between Michael and

these other entities. So Daniel (naughty Daniel) is thus caught learning about

demonology from his Hebrew Bible and from Deuteronomy 32, which is a sin

against what the Waltons are advocating. And even if the Waltons would deny

the princes of these nations were supernatural beings (which again puts them at

odds with Paul because Paul gets his theology from somewhere—his

principalities and powers), it puts them at odds with Deuteronomy 32:8-9. Even if

they deny that the princes of these nations were supernatural beings [audio

breaks up]… would still affirm Michael as an archangel. But maybe not, because

we can’t learn anything about Michael from the New Testament and that’s where

he is called an archangel. But again, you’d still have Michael wrangling with

human empires. There’s still conflict there. How in the world is there no conflict

there? They just dismiss it. They don’t raise these questions. These are

questions I’m raising. They don’t raise these questions in their book and address

them. They just dismiss it and move on.

How about Deuteronomy 32:17? This is where the shedim are called elohim and

they seduce the Israelites into worshiping them. So there’s no conflict between

these gods seducing Israelites to worship them and the true God? There’s really

no sense of conflict there? Now the default response from the Waltons would

have to be, “You know, Mike, you’re being silly. You’re assuming that the verse

has truth content in it.” Yeah, I am. Yeah, I am!

How about Deuteronomy 32:43 when the gods are punished? Or Isaiah 34:1-4…

No conflict in Isaiah 34:1-4? This is when the heavens are judged and

punished—the beings in the heavens, the rulers in the heavens and on earth. For

crying out loud, it’s the Day of the Lord! How can you have no conflict in the Day

of the Lord? Again, I read through this book, and it is one of the strangest things

I’ve ever read.

How about some big picture questions here? If there’s no spiritual warfare

content in the Old Testament… If that’s true, where do Second Temple writers

get the idea? Where do Second Temple Jewish writers get the ideas—get the

stuff that they are writing about? As Farrar points out, Second Temple literature

is filled with conflict material involving Satan and demons, and so is the New

Testament. The New Testament is part of Second Temple Jewish literature. The

New Testament is in the Second Temple period up to 70 A.D. (or just call it 100 if

you want). There’s so much conflict material. Where do the Second Temple

writers get their ideas from? From nowhere? No, that’s obviously not true.

They’re getting it from their Old Testament. They’re interacting with the Hebrew

Bible. They are trying to determine what the Hebrew Bible is teaching or saying.

So in other words, Second Temple writers would flunk a hermeneutics class if it

30:00

Naked Bible Podcast Episode 430: John Walton on Demons and Spirits

was taught by the Waltons because they assume there’s actually truth content

there. And the New Testament writers are part of that.

Again (and this is where Farrar pushed back for transparently obvious reasons),

the Waltons even deny New Testament spiritual conflict, and they do this

because they have to. They’ve said that all that talk about Satan and demons is

completely peripheral in the Old Testament; it provides no truth content. They

want this to be true in the Old Testament so badly that they’ve extended the

thinking to the whole Bible. Why? Why?

And this is where I say they’re operating from a fear-based hermeneutic because

having supernatural conflict in the Old Testament means affirming supernatural

beings in passages like Genesis 3, in Genesis 6:1-4, in Deuteronomy 32, in

Psalm 82, in Psalm 29, in Psalm 89. It’s just on and on and on and on. They’re

so scared by the thought of doing that because for them it means teaching the

Bible is like mythology.

See, I understand this fear impulse that governs what the Waltons are doing here

because I was once them. I mean, not to this extent. I wouldn’t have denied that

the New Testament gives us truth content about Satan and demons. I think that’s

absurd. I mean, I would never have said that, but I would have been with them at

one point in my life because it feels too much like mythology. So they’re

desperate to deny this in the Old Testament. But to be consistent, they realize

that they have to deny it in the New Testament as well. This is where they’re at.

So if you’re a follower of their views, I want answers. On what basis, on what

authority are you doing this? Again, their solution is just to deny Old Testament

spiritual conflict, but since the New Testament is so full of that kind of thing, they

have to either affirm the New Testament against the Old or deny it in the New

Testament. They have no answer as to what source the New Testament writers

are using for their theology. Where does Paul get his theology about principalities

and powers? If not the Old Testament, where does he get it? Where does John

get it? Where do the gospel writers get it? Again, if the Old Testament has no

truth content, where do the New Testament writers get their ideas? Answer that

for me. They either get it from the Old Testament (which would mean the

Waltons are wrong), they get it from nowhere (they’re just making it up), or they

get it from a nonbiblical source. Those are your options. So come on Waltons,

where are you at? Where do they get their ideas? You have three choices, one of

which cancels out your book and the other two are just patently dangerous, to

say they’re just making it up. I mean, how do you have a high view of scripture

and say something like that? How do you have any sense of the history of

doctrine from the Old Testament to the Second Temple period through the New

Testament if you say that the New Testament writers are just getting this stuff

from external sources—external to the Old Testament, some pagan literature?

Those are your three choices, folks, and I want an answer because I know you’re

35:00

Naked Bible Podcast Episode 430: John Walton on Demons and Spirits

cornered at this point. Where do the Second Temple Jewish writers get their

theology? Where do the New Testament writers get their theology, if not from the

Old Testament? Where? I want to know.

Remember the ostrich quote—that when the biblical writers mention Satan and

demons, that carries no more authority than if they mention ostriches? The

biblical writers aren’t contributing anything to zoology when they mention

ostriches and so the biblical writers aren’t contributing anything to theology when

they mention Satan and demons. Remember that quote? Sorry, but there’s no

New Testament doctrine of ostriches built on Old Testament ostrich content, but

there’s plenty of New Testament doctrine built on (or which presumes) Old

Testament conflict with a cosmic enemy that becomes known as Satan. There’s

plenty of that. And demonic forces that oppose God’s people, there’s plenty of

that. Sorry, but Satan and demons material is not like Old Testament mentions of

ostriches because the New Testament builds on that Old Testament content. But

again, back to my question. If they don’t get it from the Old Testament, where do

they get it? Tell me.

Now I want to reinforce this point because it’s so dramatic. Here’s a list, and it’s

not exhaustive. I mean, I just took a few minutes and pulled these out of my New

Testament. Here’s a list of places in the New Testament where I would say there

is conflict theology. But for the Waltons, these passages contain no truth content

about Satan or demons. Let’s just go through. Again, this is not an exhaustive

list, but you might be exhausted by the time we get through it.

• Matthew 4 and Luke 4: Satan and Jesus in the wilderness. No, there’s no

conflict there. Nothing to learn, either. Jesus is tested 40 days, or maybe

we’re just reading that into the text. Maybe we’re reading the whole testing

or temptation into the text, because if we affirm that this really happened

to Jesus, then we’re actually affirming that the character called Satan did

something. We actually learned something about Satan and the devil. And

we can’t do that because the New Testament has no truth content about

Satan and demons, right? Where is this idea of Satan being in the

wilderness and having the ability to tempt? Where does it come from if not

the Old Testament? Again, the Waltons habitually don’t even raise

questions like this. They avoid them.

• How about Matthew 12:22-28? I’ll read it.

Then a demon-oppressed man who was blind and mute was brought

to him, and he healed him, so that the man spoke and saw.

And all

the people were amazed, and said, “Can this be the Son of

David?”

But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, “It is only by

Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this man casts out

Naked Bible Podcast Episode 430: John Walton on Demons and Spirits

demons.”

Knowing their thoughts, he said to them, “Every kingdom

divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against

itself will stand.

And if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against

himself. How then will his kingdom stand?

And if I cast out demons by

Beelzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they will be

your judges.

But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons,

then the kingdom of God has come upon you.

See, this is the passage Farrar pointed to. Jesus bases his ministry on the

reality of this scene! And there the Waltons are saying, “Oh, we can’t learn

anything about Satan and demons here. No conflict.”

• How about Matthew 25:41?

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed,

into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

Hey, Waltons, I’m asking, “Where does Matthew get that theology? Where

does he get it?” I can tell you where he got it. I can look into Second

Temple literature and even some Old Testament allusions to demonic

spirits being in Sheol. I can tell you where he got it, but you can’t because

you’ve denied any truth content being there. If there’s no conflict theology

prior to the New Testament, why was the Lake of Fire created for the devil

and his angels? Or maybe we just deny that there is one. Is this only New

Testament? Sorry, I forgot, there’s no conflict theology in the New

Testament, either. It’s kind of weird to punish the devil and his angels in

any way if there’s no conflict! Why punish the devil and his angels in any

way if there’s no conflict theology?

• How about Mark 4:15, the Parable of the Sower? Who takes the seed

away? The devil. No conflict there. When he takes the seed away, there’s

no conflict with God’s program there. It’s perfectly in concert with God’s

program. And the Waltons would say, “Well, no, you’re reading into it.

What we’re supposed to learn there is something about God—that God

has a program.” Well, that’s nice. So it just stops there. So you two are

going to tell us what we can learn from a passage and what we can’t learn

on the basis of whether it’s a cosmic good guy or a cosmic bad guy. If it’s

a cosmic bad guy, we can’t learn anything. It’s picking and choosing.

• Luke 10:18. Satan falls from heaven in response to the preaching of the

kingdom—in response to the beginning, the inauguration, of the kingdom.

And he said to them, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.

40:00

Naked Bible Podcast Episode 430: John Walton on Demons and Spirits

There’s no conflict there? Sure looks like conflict to me!

• John 8:44

You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's

desires. He was a murderer from the beginning…

Well, how can John say that if we can’t learn anything about the devil from

the Old Testament? John, where are you getting that silly idea?

He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth,

because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own

character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

You realize that the Waltons are saying those statements are not true.

Those statements are not true. Because if they are true, there is conflict in

the Old Testament. You have a Satan figure who is a liar, who is opposing

the plan of God from the Old Testament, and they don’t want to admit that.

So what we read right there in John 8:44 is not true.

• John 13:27

Then after he had taken the morsel, Satan entered into [Judas]. Jesus

said to him, “What you are going to do, do quickly.”

So Satan enters into Judas to betray Jesus, but there’s no conflict there.

• How about Acts 5:3?

But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the

Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the

land?

You realize that if the Waltons are right, what we just read there is wrong.

We can’t learn that Satan filled the heart of Ananias because that would

be learning truth content about Satan. And there’s no conflict there?

Hello? How is this not in opposition to God’s will and program? How is this

not conflict? It reminds me of 1 Corinthians 7:5. This is advice on marriage

sexuality:

Do not deprive one another [sexually], except perhaps by agreement

for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then

Naked Bible Podcast Episode 430: John Walton on Demons and Spirits

come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your

lack of self-control.

Well there we just learned that Satan can tempt us, didn’t we? Not

according to the Waltons. Again, there’s no truth content. There’s no

propositional truth about Satan and demons in the Bible.

• Acts 10:38.

…God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and

with power. He went about doing good and healing all who were

oppressed by the devil, for God was with him.

Now this passage, I guess, doesn’t really teach us that people were

oppressed by the devil. The devil is just mentioned to teach us other

things (something about God), but we don’t actually learn that the devil

can oppress people there. In other words, the passage is wrong because

the passage claims that the devil was oppressing people. So it’s either

wrong or it’s just not there. And the Waltons don’t go through their book

saying, “We deny this, we deny that, we deny this…,” but this is the effect.

They don’t even ask these interpretive questions.

• Acts 26:18. Here we don’t learn Satan has power over unbelievers. I’ll

read the verse. Let me back up one verse here. This is Paul’s conversion

story when Jesus confronts him:

And the Lord said, ‘I am Jesus whom you are persecuting.

But rise

and stand upon your feet, for I have appeared to you for this

purpose, to appoint you as a servant and witness to the things in which

you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to

you,

delivering you from your people and from the Gentiles—to

whom I am sending you

to open their eyes, so that they may turn

from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they

may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are

sanctified by faith in me.’

So in other words, this passage does not teach that there is an opposition

between Satan and God and that the gospel is part of how this is broken.

There’s no conflict theology here, according to the Waltons. How can you

not have conflict when Paul is testifying, “Look, the gospel turns people

from darkness to light and it delivers people from the power of Satan to

God.” How can there be no conflict there?

45:00

Naked Bible Podcast Episode 430: John Walton on Demons and Spirits

• How about Romans 16:20? Here’s where Paul gets to be… Well, Paul’s

gotten to be wrong before as we’ve been going through these, but here

he’s really wrong. Let’s see here. Paul says in Romans 16:19, speaking to

the Romans:

For your obedience is known to all, so that I rejoice over you, but I

want you to be wise as to what is good and innocent as to what is

evil.

The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.

That’s an allusion, folks, to Genesis 3:15. Paul uses spiritual warfare talk

in an allusion to Genesis 3:15, but the Waltons say there’s no conflict

theology—not only in Genesis 3, but nowhere. Was Paul wrong? It sure

looks like he’s wrong if the Waltons are right! What Paul says in Romans

16:20 takes us back to Eden, and the Waltons need to explain why. Why

does Paul do this if there’s no conflict to be seen in Genesis 3?

• 2 Corinthians 4:4

In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the

unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the

glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

You can read 2 Corinthians 4 and get the wider context that Satan is the

god of this world, but according to the Waltons, here we don’t learn that

Satan is the god of this world blinding unbelievers. Okay, if they’re right,

where would Paul get this theology? Where would he get it if it’s not

derived from something in the Old Testament? The Waltons would say,

“Paul has no theology here. So, Mike, your questions is pointless. There’s

no conflict here.” I’m just going to leave it to listeners to decide which

option makes more sense on all of these.

• 2 Corinthians 2:11

so that we would not be outwitted by Satan; for we are not ignorant

of his designs.

Silly, Paul. He thinks Satan has plans to thwart his ministry, but that would

suggest that there’s a conflict, wouldn’t it? The Waltons would simply say

Paul has nothing to teach us here.

I hope you’re getting the obvious already. With all this New Testament spiritual

warfare talk in the New Testament, I ask again, “Where do New Testament

writers get their theology, if not the Old Testament?” And if you’re new to me and

Naked Bible Podcast Episode 430: John Walton on Demons and Spirits

my material, my answer to you is “read my stuff.” It’s the quickest way to get the

answer to that question. I’ll show you where they get it. The Waltons just say

there is no theological truth here. They simply assert that. They assert it whether

it makes any sense or not and they don’t even bring up questions about all of this

like I’m doing right now.

• 2 Corinthians 11:14. Here we don’t learn that Satan can present himself

as an angel of light.

And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.

• Ephesians 4:27, Paul writes:

and give no opportunity to the devil.

Well, why should we care what Paul says here? There’s no conflict theology

in the Bible. Satan’s not after us.

• How about Ephesians 6:11 and following?

Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand

against the schemes of the devil.

For we do not wrestle against flesh

and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the

cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of

evil in the heavenly places.

Therefore take up the whole armor of

God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done

all, to stand firm.

Then Paul goes through the components of the believer’s armor. Well,

Paul, you’re downright goofy here. You would certainly fail a Walton’s

Hermeneutics class, big time.

Folks, do you get the point? Why would we need spiritual armor if there’s no

conflict? Why? What Paul writes here makes no sense at all if there’s no conflict.

Again, in the Walton’s thinking, this passage doesn’t actually teach us anything

about the powers of darkness. So we need to look for other things that the

passage teaches. It certainly doesn’t teach spiritual warfare, according to them.

• 2 Thessalonians 2:9

The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power

and false signs and wonders,

50:00

Naked Bible Podcast Episode 430: John Walton on Demons and Spirits

Yep. Well, if the coming of the lawless one is not by the activity of Satan,

by whose activity is it? And if we do have an antichrist figure (again, a

great opposer to the Messiah), where does Paul get this theology? It’s

amazing that Paul associates false signs and wonders with Satan, isn’t it?

Where does he get this idea? I forgot. The text has no truth content to give

us here, per the Waltons.

• Hebrews 2:14-15. Here’s where the writer of Hebrews gets to be wrong.

Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself

[Jesus] likewise partook of the same things [MH: the incarnation],

that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of

death, that is, the devil,

and deliver all those who through fear of

death were subject to lifelong slavery.

Again, here’s where the writer of Hebrews gets to be wrong. The writer is

obviously getting his theology from Genesis 3. Where else would he get

it—that the devil has the power of death? This is where death enters the

world—Genesis 3, the Garden of Eden! But per the Waltons, there’s no

cosmic enemy in Genesis 3; it’s just a serpent or serpent imagery for

some other purpose. But I have a question. If it’s just a snake, how does

the snake talk? How does what a snake says or does have cosmic

implications? How does that work? How does New Testament theology

about Satan work at all without Old Testament conflict in the first place?

Of course, the Waltons answer is simple: the New Testament doesn’t

have conflict theology; we’re just imagining it, just like the Old Testament

lacks it as well.

• How about James 4:7?

Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee

from you.

Here we learn that we don’t need to resist the devil, because if we had to

resist him, that would suggest spiritual conflict with Satan and demonic

powers, which isn’t in the Bible (again, according to the Waltons).

• 1 Peter 5:8.

Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls

around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.

Naked Bible Podcast Episode 430: John Walton on Demons and Spirits

No, he doesn’t. The devil’s not on the prowl for believers because that

would be spiritual conflict theology.

• 1 John 3:8.

Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has

been sinning from the beginning.

Oh, that’s a choice line. I wonder where John got that. It sounds suspiciously

like Genesis 3 again. But John gets to be wrong like the other New

Testament writers. Again, if there’s no conflict, where do they get their

theology?

• Revelation 12:9, John bungles again:

And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is

called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world…

That certainly sounds like conflict to me.

…he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down

with him.

John bungles again. He actually thought the devil (or Satan) was the

serpent. Poor John. He writes about it in the context of the war in heaven

at the birth of the Son of God. Doesn’t he know there’s no conflict theology

in scripture? Doesn’t John know that? Again, the Waltons need to tell us

whether they really believe John is wrong or not. And if they don’t believe

he’s wrong, then they need to explain why they refuse to say the things

about the serpent that John does. You can’t have it both ways.

• Revelation 20:2. The last one.

And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and

Satan, and bound him for a thousand years,

Why would Satan’s powers need to be restrained in this passage? If

there’s no conflict theology, why does he need to be restrained? The

Waltons would say, “Well, he doesn’t. That’s just what the text says, but

it’s not really teaching us anything. We can’t really see truth content there.

The Bible doesn’t teach us that Satan has any powers,” again, according

to the Waltons. This is what’s in this book. Again, it’s one of the most

perplexing, strange, astonishing, and bizarre things I’ve ever read.

55:00

Naked Bible Podcast Episode 430: John Walton on Demons and Spirits

Now, again, I wanted to go through that survey so you understand why I say

what I’m saying. It’s just so strange. The New Testament is filled with this, and so

is Second Temple literature. Where do these writers get their theology, if not from

the Old Testament? And even if you don’t want it to come from the Old

Testament, to deny that there’s spiritual conflict in the face of all these (and I

could give you more) references is just unbelievable, but that’s what they do.

How about some other questions? What about other supernatural actors in the

biblical stories? How about angels? Did we think about that? How about angels?

Why is there truth content for the good guys, but not the bad guys? Or maybe the

Waltons would say there is no truth content about the good guys as well. Maybe

the Waltons would deny the Bible has any truth content about angels. They aren’t

clear. They don’t raise this question. Do you see the obvious problem? If they

say there is truth content for angels, then the question is, “Why not the bad

guys?” It’s not like angels aren’t involved in spiritual warfare either (the Day of the

Lord passages, again, the heavenly host coming, Zechariah 14, and passages

like that). Angels are involved in spiritual warfare, at least in the Bible I have. But

since the Waltons want to deny spiritual conflict theology totally, it would make

more sense for them to just land in the same place on angels and say, “The Bible

doesn’t teach us anything about angels either.” So either they’re inconsistent or

else they have to conclude the Bible gives us no truth content, not only about

Satan and demons, but about angels as well—all the supernatural characters.

The Bible has nothing to teach us here. These are not truth propositions.

How about another thought? Why would we affirm the Bible gives us truth

content about the triune God, if not about all the other members of the spiritual

world? It’s the same world. It’s the spiritual world. God is an inhabitant of the

spiritual world, just like Satan, demons, angels. If we can’t get any truth

propositions about Satan and demons and possibly even angels, on what basis

do we get truth content about the other characters in the spiritual realm, like God

himself? Why is this dichotomy sensible? This is what I want to know from a

Walton defender (and all the other questions I’ve been asking). On what basis do

we affirm the Bible gives us truth about one character in the spiritual world (God)

but not the other ones? Tell me. What is the basis? What insight allows us to say,

“The words in this part of the Bible don’t give us truth content, but in other parts

we get truth content.” Again, if I were an atheist apologist, I would see this as a

hole I could drive a large truck through because it means you’re utterly

inconsistent with the way you’re handling the main source of your belief system—

the Bible. It’s either a reliable source or it isn’t, and for you to affirm parts of it and

not affirm other parts of it as truth-telling—truth propositions—that gives me as

an atheist apologist plenty of ammunition against you because I’m going to press

you for an answer to the question. I’m not going to avoid the question like the

Waltons do. I’m going to press you for it. I’m going to press you until I make you

cry.

Naked Bible Podcast Episode 430: John Walton on Demons and Spirits

Third thought. Aside from supernatural categories, we could ask, “How is it we

know we get truth content in the Bible about things that are inherently

supernatural in nature just generally, but not about supernatural beings like

Satan, demons, and potentially angels?” In other words, I’m talking here about

doctrinal items like demonic possession. Again, if we can’t get truth content about

demonic possession, especially when Jesus uses that to defend the whole

concept of the inauguration of his kingdom, then how do we use the New

Testament? How do we know that the New Testament gives us truth about

anything else doctrinally? How about an afterlife? I mean, what the Old

Testament has to say about the afterlife… there isn’t that much content. There’s

some. I mean, I personally think there’s more than a lot of Old Testament

scholars think (and we’ve done episodes on that before, like the psalms of Korah

with David Mitchell)... There isn’t much of it, but the New Testament authors build

on this. They build on it. How about the incarnation? There’s nothing in the Old

Testament about the incarnation. This is a theological category. It is a

supernatural truth, right? A supernatural truth comes from the New Testament

about the incarnation. And again, granted you can see allusions in one or two

Old Testament passages. I’m going to grant that, but let’s just talk about the New

Testament here. How is it that we can be sure we’re getting truth content about

things like the incarnation and afterlife, the concept of salvation itself, and the

person of God if we can’t trust it to give us truth content about Satan, demons,

and potentially even angels? How does this work? Again, we need revelation for

these things. There’s this concept in theology called “revelation.” We need

revelation. We need to be told these things, and this is what we believe the Bible

does. It gives us information. We’re not depending on science or our cognitive

environment of ancient peoples. The incarnation isn’t part of their cognitive

environment. The hypostatic union, okay, with Jesus, two natures in one

person... That’s not part of their cognitive environment. Okay? That’s revelation.

So why can’t this other stuff about Satan and demons be revelation as well?

Why? I mean, the Waltons deny the Bible gives us revelation about demons,

Satan, and potentially angels—spiritual adversaries. Why do they allow the Bible

to have truth content on some of these things and not others? It’s the same book.

It’s the same source. It’s talking about the same spiritual world. It’s talking about

the same sorts of supernatural acts and supernatural ideas and concepts. On

what basis do we say, “Well, this is truth content here, but not there.” That’s what

I want to know.

Fourth thought, in regard to topics not being “systematized” in the Old Testament

(and here I’d throw a little bit at the reviewer)—in other words, thoughts that

aren’t developed, ideas that aren’t developed in the Old Testament. The Waltons

and the reviewer would say, “Because we don’t have much information that’s

developed or systematized, then we really can’t look at that as truth content.”

Well, pardon, but some truth content isn’t the same as no truth content. That’s

pretty simple logic. What other Old Testament topics would be disqualified from

giving us truth content? How about anthropology—biblical anthropology? What

1:00:00

Naked Bible Podcast Episode 430: John Walton on Demons and Spirits

makes up a human being, “body and soul,” “spirit,” or “body, soul, and spirit”—

dichotomy versus trichotomy? We shouldn’t even be talking about that because

it’s not a systematized thing in the Old Testament. We shouldn’t even be getting

doctrine like that. How about the image of God? Is that developed in the Old

Testament? Again, I would say there is a good bit of development there, but a lot

of theologians and a lot of biblical scholars would say, “No, it’s just like one verse

(or a couple of verses). It’s not systematized. It’s not developed so we can’t really

assign too much truth content to it.” Really? Again, how about the afterlife? How

about the Kingdom of God? You’re telling me that doesn’t get a lot of

development in the New Testament? Meaning there’s not much development in

the Old in certain aspects of the kingdom.

I mean, this whole notion that because a doctrine isn’t systematized means it's

not really a doctrine is nonsense. It just means that we have partial information

instead of more complete information. We’re not throwing the baby out with the

bath water! Ideas develop from the Old Testament through the Second Temple

period through the New Testament, but the Waltons don’t want to see that for

Satan and demons. They want to say there’s no truth content in the Old

Testament or Second Temple period or the New Testament about Satan and

demons. You can’t even use a word like “develop” because there’s no content at

all. Hence, I go back to the title of their book. How can you do a biblical theology

of something that the Bible doesn’t teach us about? It’s absurd. It’s an absurdity.

It’s a logical absurdity. How about salvation? How about the concept of salvation

prior to the cross? Is that fully developed? Is that a developed soteriology? Well,

if it’s not, then we can’t learn anything about salvation from the Old Testament,

can we? “Well, Mike, the New Testament quotes the Old Testament. A

circumcised heart and things like…” Yeah, it does, doesn’t it? Just like it alludes

to certain things about a cosmic enemy and conflict. So why is it that you’re

willing to accept the allusions and the quotations when it comes to salvation, but

you’re not when it comes to Satan and demons? It’s “capital I” inconsistent.

Again, I’m hoping that… We’re beating a dead horse by this point, but I’m hoping

you’re seeing how inconsistent this whole approach is. It’s very strange,

especially given the New Testament dependence on the Old. In the entire period

of the Second Temple era, they’re doing theology from the Old Testament, folks.

They’re interacting with the Old Testament. They’re expanding upon it. They’re

debating it. They’re thinking about it. This is what happens in the New

Testament—interaction, expansion, debate, thinking about it, this going back and

forth. This is what these writers in both the Second Temple period and the New

Testament itself are doing, but the reference point is the Old Testament. So if we

can accept this for certain doctrines, why are we rejecting it when it comes to

Satan and demons? That’s what I want to know. Where’s the coherence here?

Now if I asked, “How do the Waltons justify this?” Their answer would be. “By

appeal to genre.” And honestly this is misleading. I have a question. What genre

1:05:00

Naked Bible Podcast Episode 430: John Walton on Demons and Spirits

disallows the writer in expressing belief in supernatural beings? What genre

could I use as a biblical writer that would disallow me to express a belief in

supernatural beings? The answer is “none of them.” To use myself as a writer for

illustration, genre doesn’t dictate what a writer believes. It wouldn’t dictate what I

believe. I could write narrative. I could write poetry. I could write a letter. I could

write a legal document. I could write an apocalyptic warning. Okay? I could relate

a vision. I could use all these genres. I can write using any genre and can

express my belief in supernatural beings in all of them with no trouble at all. And

so can biblical writers, and so they did. In narrative, biblical writers in the Old

Testament have a character called the Angel of Yahweh—the Angel of the Lord.

So what rules out the truth content about that character, the fact that it’s narrative

genre? How does the use of a genre disallow the writer telling you that he

believes that there’s an Angel of the Lord? Well, it doesn’t, but the Waltons have

already said that the goal of hermeneutics is not to think the biblical writer’s

thoughts after him, which is completely opposite of what I and a boatload of other

hermeneutics teachers would say to you. Again, this is why the book is so

strange. If the goal of hermeneutics is not to understand what the biblical writers

had in their heads, what is the goal? What’s the point? You end up imposing your

own thought system on it is where you end up.

Let’s just back up a little bit. If the Waltons allow truth content about the Angel of

the Lord, then why not the bad guys? Why the good guys? The good guys were

allowed to have truth content, but the bad guys were not. See genres are just

different modes of expression. They’re different modes of communication. No

genre forbids expression of supernatural belief—zero. Just because a writer

might use narrative and background to figure, like, the angel in a story doesn’t

mean the material can’t express truth about the angel. I mean, not every

character is there for the same reason. The gods of the nations causing Israel to

sin are not just background nonsense—background noise. That’s an important

theme in the Old Testament. They’re an important part of the story! The princes

of Daniel 10 aren’t just peripheral characters. The revealing angels in Daniel are

an important part of the story. Maybe the Waltons accept the revealing angels

like Gabriel, but then why not the bad guys? Are the gods of Egypt that Yahweh

says he defeated really background material to the point where there is no

conflict theology in the Old Testament? If so (if there’s no conflict theology), why

is Yahweh extoling his victory in Exodus 15? What’s the Song of Moses doing in

Exodus 15 if there’s no conflict theology? I mean, again and again and again this

has shown to be inconsistent. How about the Messiah? Do we realize that

information about the Messiah comes to us through various genres that are

supposedly not about truth assertions—things like poetry (Psalm 2? Psalm 16?

Psalm 45? Psalm 110?). Hello? Just because it’s poetry doesn’t mean it’s not

teaching us propositional truth. Okay? This is a misleading thing to talk about

how genre forbids or excludes or minimizes truth content. Genres are just a

means of communication and they do not forbid the writer from communicating

beliefs about the supernatural world. They just don’t. And the point is, it can apply

1:10:00

Naked Bible Podcast Episode 430: John Walton on Demons and Spirits

to the New Testament as well. They use all sorts of genres to do doctrinal talk, to

teach us doctrine. It’s not just one genre that does that. I think the Waltons are

out of bounds in forbidding that we do the same with Satan and demons. Again, if

you want to try a test, give me the genre untouched by any New Testament

writer. I mean, they use all the genres and they teach theology throughout the

New Testament. We get theology from every genre is the point. Genre is not a

place to hide to avoid truth content.

Now ultimately, what the Waltons are doing is… Let’s go back to the cosmology

point. We have to go back to this before we wrap up here. They’re associating…

In the Old Testament, you have cosmology that we don’t accept because of our

science, right? Round, solid, dome. (You’ve heard me talk about this before. This

is nothing new, okay?) And there are demons in the Old Testament associated

with weather and plague, like Qeteb and Deber in Habakkuk 3. So what the

Waltons are doing is, “Well, we don’t accept this cosmology and therefore we

don’t have to accept what the Bible says about Satan and demons.” Again, the

Bible teaches about the structure of the universe and the earth, weather, [audio

breaks up] and we can also reject what it says about supernatural conflict and

the beings involved in that (again, I would ask, is that both good and bad guys?).

But again, I don’t want to stray too far because this is where they’re at. This is

their test case. This is what they think is their linchpin argument.

I actually think it’s a great weakness because it’s methodologically inconsistent

and it’s going to fail. The reason we reject Old Testament cosmology is not

genre. It’s science. We can justify rejecting this kind of cosmology and

associating demons with plagues and diseases and things like that. We can

justify that because we have science and we have science because of what? A

biblical idea called the dominion mandate. This is the “be fruitful and multiply, go

subdue the earth”—this whole mandate given to us in Genesis 1—the dominion

mandate. And this is traditional theology. I’m not coming up with anything new

here. Especially in reform circles, they’re big on this. The dominion mandate

requires that humans learn what makes the earth and even the cosmos tick so

that it can be mastered—so that it can be controlled, so it can be stewarded. The

dominion mandate presumes the scientific enterprise and it also presumes

growth and scientific knowledge. The same God who gave us the mandate would

have known that this growth would happen. God would’ve known that humans,

as they learn about the creation, they’re going to learn stuff, they’re going to

accumulate knowledge. It’s going to grow, it’s going to develop what they

understand about the world. God knows this about people, and he gives them the

mandate, knowing that they’re going to outgrow their present knowledge as

biblical people. God knows that and he wants it. God wants science. God wants

the growth in the knowledge of the natural world because God wants the world

subdued and stewarded. That is the dominion mandate. God is fully aware that

the people writing scripture were going to be left in the dust in their knowledge of

the natural world by succeeding generations. And God is not only good with it, he

Naked Bible Podcast Episode 430: John Walton on Demons and Spirits

commands it. He requires it. He demands it. God himself knows more than the

writers knew, but he lets the writers express truths about creation in the ways

that they’re capable. The Waltons and I would agree on this point, but then the

Waltons make a fatal methodological flaw: they apply scientific thinking. This

whole reason for, again, rejecting Old Testament cosmology is actually science.

It’s not genre. They apply the scientific thinking to things on which science can’t

comment—i.e., the spiritual world. Then they cover up that flaw by pretending

genre dictates what we should believe.

The honest truth is that we discard biblical cosmology as reality because of

science, not because of genre. That’s why. That’s the honest truth, and it’s

absolutely obvious in the history of Christian theology. Again, the dominion

mandate idea is a very, very, very old one in Christian theology. Mike didn’t come

up with this, okay? I’m just standing on the shoulders of tens of thousands of

other theologians. We can judge what the Bible says about earthly and off-planet

cosmology because the tools of science can test those things. The tools of

science cannot test claims about the spiritual world and its inhabitants. One

cannot use the tools of testing nature on a realm and beings that are not part of

nature. It’s so obvious. Instead of a solid argument in their favor, the Waltons

provide a classic case of apples and oranges logic. Right there it is. The spiritual

world and its inhabitants cannot be tested and validated or invalidated by the

tools of science. They are mutually exclusive things. The Waltons act and write

as though they are not. So their test case is an out-of-the-gate failure! It’s apples

and oranges logic, a classic example of it. They are forcing a modern cognitive

environment (one that is scientific) on items that cannot be tested by science.

An illustration… If you’re a defender of the Waltons’ view, tell me how it is that we

can use the tools of science to judge cosmology, but then not use the tools of

science to judge the existence of God? How about using the tools of science to

judge the incarnation, the virgin birth, the hypostatic union, the concept of

salvation, the invisible kingdom of God? I could go on and on and on. You know

that you can’t use the tools of science to judge those things and you’re glad,

okay? You’re glad because those things stand apart from science; they can only

be judged by logical coherence. But then you turn around and you’re freely

willing to use the tools of science to deny the truth content in scripture about

Satan and demons and maybe angels. “Capital I” inconsistent. Again, if I were an

atheist apologist, you have just filled my gas tank to drive my truck through

Christian theology.

There’s only one way out of this (and it’s not what the Waltons are writing), and

that is the philosophical coherence of theism. That is what I describe on my FAQ

page. If you want to know what Mike thinks about this, go to drmsh.com > About

> FAQ page. It’s the last question, okay? This is what I’m describing on my FAQ

page as to why we can judge what the Bible says about supernatural beings and

topics. We cannot use the tools of science because these items are not part of

1:15:00

Naked Bible Podcast Episode 430: John Walton on Demons and Spirits

the natural world. That is self-evident, but it gets ignored by the Waltons. Only

logical coherence tests are useful to evaluating the truth quality of supernatural

claims. So while I would agree with the Waltons’ take on applying science (and

again, it’s not genre, it’s science) to biblical cosmology to make clear what the

Bible is asking us to believe versus what is simply the means of description (I

agree with that part), I disagree on applying scientific thinking to supernatural

claims made in the Bible. They are two different things. We use the rules of

logical coherence for that, and theism has been evaluated for centuries by those

means and held up quite well. That approach allows us to affirm what the Bible

says about spiritual beings, whether it offends our scientific worldview or not. Put

simply, there are things science cannot judge. Science is only operable in the

natural world. It is not operable outside the natural world.

So again, if you want to know what I think, go to drmsh.com > About > FAQ and

you can read my response to the last question. I’ll just read you the last question.

You have written about your belief that the Genesis creation accounts were not

intended to put forth science. If we are not to understand Genesis 1 and 2 literally

(i.e., as a scientific sequence of events), how is it that you advocate taking other

passages about supernatural beings as literal or more literally?

That’s the question. So that’s what I proceed to answer. I could just summarize

what I have there in this way, and then we’ll wrap up. I know this is getting long,

but this is kind of an important episode to me because I think the book is so

harmful—unintentionally, but I think their book is so harmful to Christian thinking.

I would put things this way. The Bible makes a number of claims about

supernatural beings that defy science, all the way from the virgin birth to the sons

of God of Genesis 6. Applying the rules of logic or philosophical coherence to

these claims equally produces a view that says yes, the Bible claims about

supernatural beings are logically defensible. We can’t claim they are scientifically

defensible because the claims are not part of the natural world. So I’m not a

concordist, and neither are the Waltons. I’m keeping the apples and oranges

separate. The Waltons are putting them together. That’s the basic difference

between our approaches.

So here’s how it would go. To illustrate how this works with a scriptural claim

involving supernatural beings, here are twelve propositions for logical coherence

testing—not scientific testing, but this is to test something’s logical coherence.

These are twelve items that need to be tested logically that build on one another.

If these things can be shown to be logically coherent, then anything the Bible

says about supernatural beings in its pages can be affirmed because they

survive the test of logical coherence.

1. There is a God.

1:20:00

Naked Bible Podcast Episode 430: John Walton on Demons and Spirits

2. This God who exists is a person.

3. This personal God is eternal and the first cause of all material (natural)

reality and has the necessary power to create that material reality.

4. As a person, this God has attributes of personality or personhood

(intelligence, sentience, freedom, rationality, emotions, volition,

communication ability, etc.).

5. This personal Creator God is unique and possesses these attributes

optimally and exhaustively.

6. This personal God can make decisions and act upon them wisely.

7. Among the decisions this personal God can make might be the decision to

create disembodied beings like himself, or embodied beings with whom he

shares certain of his own attributes.

8. These shared attributes would enable both the disembodied and

embodied beings that were created to have emotional, intellectual,

psychological lives (i.e., “inner lives” or thoughts of self).

9. In creating both embodied and disembodied beings, this personal God

could also give one set (i.e., the disembodied beings) abilities not shared

by the other set (or the embodied beings) he has made.

10. If these disembodied beings also shared attributes of their Creator, they

themselves could have the power to create, using the ingredients of

material reality. We as embodied beings can do that. Disembodied beings

can certainly do it.

11. If these disembodied beings also shared attributes of their Creator, they

themselves could interact with the embodied beings made by the Creator,

including both physical and spiritual or psychological interaction. Why not?

12. If these disembodied beings also shared attributes of their Creator, they

themselves could use their freedom (free will) to rebel against the desires

of their Creator.

Now these propositions are logically coherent and defensible, and they have

been for millennia. That is, denying any of them is logically incoherent. Their

affirmability can be demonstrated through logical testing and argument. Their

coherence has been defended by philosophers who are Christians, or are of

some other faith, or of no faith at all, over centuries—then again, even millennia.

Their coherence is all that is needed to affirm the logical (but not scientific)

Naked Bible Podcast Episode 430: John Walton on Demons and Spirits

reasonableness of any claim about and for a supernatural being made in the

Bible, including controversial passages like Genesis 6:1-4. There is no need to

invent explanations.

Let’s just use that passage as an example. There is no need to invent

explanations for such passages that are exegetically nonsensical (like the Sethite

view) to avoid what the Bible says about supernatural beings and their abilities.

There’s no need to do that. While there may be more than one supernatural way

to understand a passage like Genesis 6:1-4 (and I wrote about that in The

Unseen Realm, p. 185-187), it is unnecessary to strip the supernatural content

from the passage to make it palatable to a scientific worldview. What

supernatural beings are and what they might be capable of doing lies outside the

provenance of scientific inquiry because they are not part of the natural world.

Science can only test the natural world. This is an approach that the Waltons

have simply not considered or ignored.

So to wrap up, what is the fundamental difference between the Waltons’ work

and my own? Let’s just end this way. In a nutshell, the Waltons give Christians

permission to not believe what their Bible plainly says about Satan, demons, and

spiritual conflict theology. They’re evangelical skeptics. They give Christians

permission to not believe these parts of their Bible. My work gives Christians

permission to believe the Bible on these matters. And it isn’t just me. If you read

my work, look at the footnotes please. I bring along plenty of scholars that are

evangelical or not. I bring along plenty of scholars, and even what I have in the

footnotes is just a fraction of the material that I could martial. I mean, I’ve got

thousands of references, thousands of articles on these things. I bring along

plenty of other people who would be on my side (at least in the broad terms)

about the powers of darkness and the long war against the plan of God in the

spiritual realm. Even scholars with no commitment to Christ who are quite

familiar with Second Temple texts know that they have a clear spiritual warfare

theology in them, and there are a lot of those people. I depend on their work. A

lot of really, really good scholars are going to be on my side of this and on the

side of Farrar, the reviewer, when he pushes back against the Waltons’ idea

here. They avoid the questions that I’ve raised in this episode. They avoid the

obvious questions brought up by the reviewer that I started with about the overt

presence of conflict theology in Second Temple and New Testament texts, for

example.

And since the New Testament is part of Second Temple literature and builds on

it, the major question is, “Where do these writers get their theology?” The

Waltons avoid… They don’t raise that question. I am and I want to know. In other

words, they’re doing the opposite. These other writers (and, again, I quoted my

sources)... I’ll include myself here. We’re doing the opposite of what the Waltons

want you to do. The Waltons want you to think that there is no theology to be had

here. I am on the side of the ancient writers, especially the New Testament. And

1:25:00

Naked Bible Podcast Episode 430: John Walton on Demons and Spirits

you should be, too, if you’re serious about understanding scripture. And if the

New Testament is an inspired commentary on the Old Testament (and it is), that

ought to matter as well.

TS: Mike, do you have any idea on how their book has been received in

academia?

MH: No, it’s only been reviewed twice, so it hasn’t gotten much attention at all.

Both reviews are generally positive and polite, but again, the Farrar review that I

started with is the one that offers push back. The one in Religious Studies more

or less describes what the contents of the book are and does not really do

anything evaluative, whereas Farrar’s review does. And again, Farrar knows the

material (Second Temple and New Testament) and he is like, “Dudes, what

about all this stuff?” Especially how the New Testament builds on it and

constructs theology from these pieces you get in the Old Testament and in

Second Temple literature. It’s so obvious. So my judgment, because it's only

gotten two reviews and it’s only got about 60 or 70 reviews on Amazon (which

isn’t obviously a scholarly review place), but the book seems to have gotten very

little attention. That’s the only way I could judge that. I could be wrong, but that’s

all you have to go on. That’s all you have to go on.

TS: John Walton is a good scholar. He’s written several good books.

MH: I know.

TS: Why do you think he missed the mark on this?

MH: I think they’re afraid. I think they’re afraid. I think it’s a fear-based approach.

I think they’re afraid that if they affirm these things in the Old Testament, then the

Bible… To them it looks like mythology and I think they’re scared of that. And the

reason it looks like mythology is because they have failed to keep the apples

separate from the oranges. We can’t evaluate these claims (the Bible’s spiritual

claims) on the basis of science like we can other things. We have to evaluate

them on a different basis, but they don’t see how they can operate in both

realms. They combine these things, and they end up comparing apples with

oranges. And they feel compelled to do that because if they don’t, well then it’s

like, “We’re affirming mythology,” like Genesis 6 and stuff like this. And I’m

saying, “No, you don’t have to do that.” If you just go through those 12

propositions, they’re all defensible logically and God can create spiritual beings

that can have powers and can do things in their interactions with us that we can’t

or that would blow our minds or that are beyond our understanding—beyond our

science. Spiritual beings are beyond science, but the Waltons don’t seem, again,

to see that. They’ve gone this other direction. And like I said, it is a classic

example of apples and oranges logic, comparing two different things that really

aren’t comparable, but they think they are and that’s what guides them.

Naked Bible Podcast Episode 430: John Walton on Demons and Spirits

So I think they have a fear-based approach to the whole topic because they want

to avoid the mythological stuff and they know that if they deny it in the Old

Testament, then they have to deny it in the New or else they’re really, really

inconsistent between the testaments. But when you deny this stuff in the New

Testament (I mean, I must have gone through 20 passages, 20-25 passages),

you end up denying what these passages plainly say.

So if you were just a casual reader… Let’s say you’re not really familiar with the

Christian world of evangelicalism. Let’s say you’re just not familiar with the lay of

the land theologically at all and you read this book and then somebody asks you,

“Are the Waltons Bible believers?” It would be hard for you to say yes because

they deny so much of its content as being truth content. And I don’t think they do

that intentionally, it’s just where their tactic leads. And, again, if I were an atheist

apologist… man, I would make hay with this because I would want to pin the

evangelical skeptic (the fearful evangelical), I would want to pin them down with

this kind of thinking and then ask them, “Well, why do you accept what the Bible

says about Jesus if the Bible’s not a good source? I mean, you claim it’s inspired,

Christian. You’re saying it’s the word of God. You quoted 2 Timothy 3:16 that all

scripture is given by inspiration.” It would be an easy argument to pin a Christian

and say, “Look, you claim this is inspired truth and it’s the word of God and yet

you don’t… You’re saying that a lot of it doesn’t have truth content to it, and I

happen to notice that you’re being selective there. You’re targeting the bad guys

(Satan and demons) in scripture. Well, how do we know what it says about Jesus

is right?”

It’s such an easy thing for a militant atheist apologist to seize upon and hammer

away at, which is why I decided I would do this episode even though it’s

distasteful to me. I consider John Walton a friend. Maybe I’ve lost that friendship.

I am loathe to comment on the work of people that I really appreciate. Walton

does such good work in a number of other areas, and I will continue to try to

recommend those things, but now I have to qualify it. Now I have to say, “Hey,

use Walton except for this book over here.” And that’s just really sad. It’s

unfortunate. It really is and it pains me, again, to do an episode like this, but I

think the issue is so important because of how their content can be used against

people of faith, that it just had to be done.

So I felt like I was in a quandary when I would get these requests to do an

episode commenting on Walton because I know what it’s going to sound like. I

know what it’s going to sound like. It’s going to make their… It sounds like what it

just sounded like. The book is very strange in what it does, but it’s motivated by a

fear hermeneutic. They don’t want the Bible to sound like mythology. But to avoid

what I think is a false conclusion (because, again, these ideas that scripture can

be logically defended and have been for millennia), I have given you twelve

starting propositions. Test them all. Okay, they’re all going to be affirmatory, and

then any claim that the Bible makes about a spiritual being, you’re going to find

1:30:00

Naked Bible Podcast Episode 430: John Walton on Demons and Spirits

help somewhere in those twelve propositions. I’ve given you the tools to do that,

but instead of doing that, they go off and, again, they combine the apples and the

oranges and they wind up denying a whole slew of things that are transparently

obvious, not only to lay readers of scripture, but to other scholars.

It’s just a strange book. It’s a strange book. It’s an unfortunate book. I understand

the good they’re trying to do. Again, they don’t want the Bible to sound like

mythology. I get it. I mean, I lived there for a good portion of my life. But I would

have never gone this direction. I just sort of sat there and went with other

explanations that I know now just don’t work. I had to become honest with

myself. It became an issue of scriptural authority with me—to be honest with

what the text plainly said and then figure out a better way to think about it. I’m

thankful and unrepentant that my life took that turn, but here we have, again, two

scholars who are just… They don’t see it. They don’t see what the destructive

power toward the people of faith that they want to be part of can do. They don’t

see what the destructive power can yield out of their own writings, but I do. I see

it very clearly and we need to be on guard against it.

TS: Is there any positive takeaway from this book?

MH: Honestly, there’s not a whole lot. I mean, I could quibble at other things

about what they say about class II demons. I’m sorry, but the shedim are called

elohim, okay? That’s just the text. They are called elohim. The Waltons don’t

understand that elohim is just a term for a disembodied spiritual being. That’s all

it is. That’s why we get the wide variety of usage we get in the Old Testament.

I’m sorry, but the shedim are elohim, and so is the disembodied spirit of Samuel.

It’s an elohim. This class II, class III, type I, type… The Waltons construct that to

try to get out of this mess. They only use Mesopotamian material to do it. They

don’t do anything with the Ugaritic stuff, which mystifies me still, maybe because

that is where the parallels (from my view) are for the most part. I mean, I can

show you Mesopotamian stuff, too, about the shedim and what-not. It’s just so

strange. It just so strange. There’s really not a whole lot in this book that is really

any worthwhile content. It is like the anti-Walton book. Walton books usually have

lots of stuff that are really helpful—lots of things that are really helpful. This one

does not have much of anything that’s helpful. In fact, in the wrong hands, it

could be quite destructive.

TS: Did they interact with your book at all?

MH: It’s quoted in one place (or in a footnote) just by title. They don’t interact

with any of the content, but I’m going to be part…. I mean, I’m not where Greg

Boyd is on certain things. I’m not an open theist. I’m not going to take the conflict

theology in certain ways that he does. But I would be lumped in with conflict

theologians because I do believe in Satan and demons and what the Bible says

about them really does… These are propositional truths. They tell us true things

1:35:00

Naked Bible Podcast Episode 430: John Walton on Demons and Spirits

about Satan and about demons and what they do and can do and want to do. So

I would be in the group that they’re shooting at, but they don’t shoot at me

specifically. I think that the manuscript for this was probably certainly done before

my Demons book. And The Unseen Realm, they probably just… They knew what

the goal was. They wanted to address what Boyd was saying. Again, Boyd is a

very popular writer and his books have been out for years, long before mine was.

I’ve never actually read Boyd’s… Gosh, what’s the main title of his book, God at

War? I’ve never actually read that. I mean, I’m reading Second Temple texts. I’m

reading scholarly papers on exegesis in the Old Testament. That’s what I read to

produce The Unseen Realm. I wasn’t reading anybody else in the evangelical

world, but since then I’ve read parts of it, and I’m familiar with what the Waltons

are shooting at in their criticism of Boyd. Part of it is the open theist stuff and part

of it is just his take on supernatural beings, which I might agree with Greg on. I

mean, I’m going to agree with a number of things that Greg has in his books and

disagree with a few others, but that’s really what their shooting at (and sort of the

“demon under every rock” kind of theology that you get in Pentecostalism—lay

Pentecostalism). That’s really what the target is. It’s not me because honestly,

The Unseen Realm is just mainstream scholarship. I keep telling people all the

time, “Look at the footnotes. Look at the footnotes. Look at the footnotes. Look at

the bibliography.” Okay? In all my books—the Angels book, the Demons book,

The Unseen Realm… I don’t just put this stuff in there because these are other

books that exist. No, it’s because there’s really good content here and it’s from

mainstream publishers by mainstream scholars. And I even go outside the

evangelical world to give you the leading voices in subjects like Enochian

demonology and Dead Sea Scrolls demonology. I give readers the path, the

titles, the references to mainstream scholars regardless of what they are

(believer or unbeliever—wherever they are in the spectrum) because there’s so

much work done in these areas. I want people to know about it. Again, I’m just

using their work and then building upon it and synthesizing. What I do is I

connect dots. I synthesize material. That’s what I do and that’s my contribution—

bringing all these voices together and giving a coherent picture. I’m giving you a

worldview. I’m building the matrix for you, such as I can, as far as the framework

goes. That’s my role as a biblical scholar, and then I’m giving it to lay people. I’m

not just writing for the scholar. I decided a long time ago (and there’s a price to

pay for this, but I’m willing to pay it)… I decided a long time ago that my ministry

is going to be focused on the lay people, focused on the interested lay person—

the person who wants to learn scripture and not in the academic community. I

can do that. I’m published under peer review in articles and journals and stuff like

that. I can do that and then, hopefully, Lord willing, if my health permits, I’ll do

some more of that (some more of both really). But the thing is, that’s my role and

I want people to know that this material exists—that scholars have written this

stuff and you need to know about it.

I’m giving you permission to believe what your Bible says. And what the Waltons

are doing is they’re giving Christians permission to not believe it. They’re writing

1:40:00

Naked Bible Podcast Episode 430: John Walton on Demons and Spirits

to evangelical skeptics that are afraid of some of this stuff that is actually in their

Bible. I am not afraid of it. I understand the impulse. To the extent that I

understand it, I am sympathetic with it because I feel for them, but their solution

to it in this book is just awful, and in the wrong hands it can be very destructive.

TS: I’ll be interested in the blowback after this episode. Looking forward to

seeing what people say out there.

MH: I want to just teach content. I don’t want to spend time on the podcast

bickering with people. So this is my take on the Waltons. If it is not clear by this

episode, it’ll never be clear. If you want to know what I think, read my books. This

is why I write them, so I don’t have to keep repeating it. This is why we try to

produce content that people can go access so that they don’t have to keep

coming to Mike. They need to have something that they can read, they can keep

on their shelf, and they can reference. This is why we do what we do.

TS: Alright. Well, we need somebody to tell us where not to look sometimes.

MH: I know, but honestly in this case, if you read this book and you just read

your New Testament, I mean, how odd does it sound? There’s no conflict

theology in the New Testament when Jesus bases the authority of his kingdom

on an exorcism? How incongruent can you get? And again, Farrar, the reviewer,

points this out right away, but it’s just one of 20, 30, 40, 50 examples that I

could’ve given scattered through the New Testament.

TS: Alright, Mike. Well, that was a great episode. I know everybody out there

has been looking forward to it. Honestly, I don’t think we’ll be getting a Waltons

Christmas card this year, but that’s okay. We’ll do without it.

MH: It’s painful. That’s all I can say.

TS: Alright, well, we hope everybody receives this episode well and looking

forward to the feedback. And with that, I want to thank everybody for listening to

the Naked Bible Podcast! God Bless.