Defenders 3: Doctrine of Creation (Part 22): The Origin of Satan

Summary

Defenders Podcast with Dr. William Lane Craig

Doctrine of Creation (Part 22): The Origin of Satan

Date: November 14, 2018
Host: Dr. William Lane Craig

---

Episode Overview

In this episode, Dr. Craig continues his exploration of Christian doctrine with a focus on the origin of Satan. The discussion examines Biblical evidence for Satan’s beginnings, addresses the rejection of dualism in Christian theology, analyzes commonly cited Old Testament passages, and considers the theological implications of angelic rebellion and its consequences. The episode features audience interaction and careful scriptural analysis, keeping an academic yet accessible tone.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Biblical Monotheism and the Rejection of Dualism

• [00:15–05:45]
  • Dr. Craig establishes that Christianity does not teach dualism (the idea of two equal and opposite forces, God vs. anti-God).
    • Quote: “Scripture does not teach some sort of dualism...this dualistic view is completely foreign to both Judaism and Christianity.” (Dr. Craig, 01:00)
  • All things, including the demonic, are created by God, as outlined in Colossians 1:15–16.
    • Emphasis that, if Satan and demons exist, they're part of the created order.

2. The Difficulty of Explaining Satan’s Origin

• [05:45–07:10]
  • The Bible does not provide an explicit explanation for the origin of Satan, neither in Genesis nor elsewhere.
  • The best we can do is piece together scriptural clues and draw tentative conclusions.

3. Analysis of Commonly Cited Old Testament Passages

Isaiah 14:12–17 and Ezekiel 28:12–19

• [07:10–14:17]
  • These passages are often cited as references to Satan’s fall, but Dr. Craig critiques this interpretation:
    • Both passages, when read in context, address human kings (Babylon and Tyre) and use hyperbolic, metaphorical language.
    • Quote: “It sounds like it only if you read it out of context...I think it’s eisegesis to read it into these passages.” (Dr. Craig, 11:57)
  • The theory that these are demythologized pagan myths is untestable due to a lack of ancient evidence.
    • Memorable Moment: Introduction of the term nephilococcygia (seeing shapes in clouds) to describe reading baseless myths into the text.
      • Quote: “It’s literary nephilococcygia.” (Dr. Craig, 10:42)

4. Audience Discussion: Milton’s Influence and Parody Theory

• [12:40–14:17]
  • Audience members suggest the passages might still allude to Satan or that John Milton’s Paradise Lost influences modern thinking.
    • Quote: “Our views of Satan and the fall of man are shaped more by John Milton’s Paradise Lost than by the actual biblical narratives.” (Dr. Craig, 14:16)

5. Clearer Scriptural References to Angelic Fall

Job 1, Luke 10:17–18, 2 Peter 2:4, Jude 6

• [14:17–22:50]
  • Job 1: Depicts Satan among the “sons of God” presenting themselves before the Lord.
    • Quote: “He does seem to be some sort of angelic being who has now set himself against God and in opposition to God.” (Dr. Craig, 15:22)
  • Luke 10:17–18: Jesus says, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven”; it’s unclear if this refers to a primordial event or a metaphorical statement about the disciples’ successes.
  • 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6: Speak of angels who sinned and are punished—taken to indicate the plausibility of an angelic fall.

1 John 3:8 and 1 Timothy 3:6/5:21

• [22:50–24:35]
  • 1 John 3:8: “The devil has sinned from the beginning.”
  • 1 Timothy 3:6: Implies that pride led to “the condemnation of the devil.”
    • Quote: “If we interpret the phrase in that latter way, then this would suggest that the devil’s sin was indeed some sort of pride or arrogance whereby he raised his heel against his creator...and so fell away.” (Dr. Craig, 23:50)
  • 1 Timothy 5:21: Differentiates between “elect” and fallen angels.

6. Tentative Account of Satan’s Origin

• [24:35–27:49]
  • God created a realm of angelic beings, originally good, who could freely choose; some rebelled through pride.
  • The earth now lies under the influence of these fallen angels, or demons.

7. Further Theological Reflections

Why Only One Angelic Fall? Possibility of Restoration?

• [27:49–30:00]
  • Angels were created “at arm’s length” to permit freedom; once their choice was made, elect angels’ wills are “sealed” by full vision of God.
  • Origen’s doctrine of universal restoration (apokatastasis)—the idea even Satan could be saved—was condemned as heresy.
  • Quote: “Christ’s atoning death was offered on behalf of mankind, not on behalf of angels...the doctrine of the limited atonement is true. It is limited to the human race and does not include angels.” (Dr. Craig, 29:18)

8. Revelation 12:4 and Fallen Angels

• [30:00–33:03]
  • Audience question if the “third of the stars” thrown down represents one-third of angels falling with Satan.
    • Dr. Craig is cautious—prefers to see Revelation as symbolic and concerned with future events, not as a literal history of a primordial fall.
    • Quote: “I just don’t see any reason to think that this is talking about some pre-creation fall...this is in the context of an end-times vision.” (Dr. Craig, 30:44)

9. The Nature of the Beast and False Prophet

• [33:03–34:33]
  • Dr. Craig believes these are likely human beings described in apocalyptic language, not necessarily demonic or angelic beings, but allows for interpretive flexibility due to the symbolic complexity of Revelation.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “Scripture does not teach some sort of dualism...God as the sole ultimate reality. So dualism is simply out of the question.” (Dr. Craig, 01:00)
• “It sounds like it only if you read it out of context...But there's nothing in the context to suggest that this is in fact what the passages are about.” (Dr. Craig, 11:57)
• “It is literary nephilococcygia.” (Dr. Craig, 10:42)
• “Our views of Satan and the fall of man are shaped more by John Milton’s Paradise Lost than by the actual biblical narratives.” (Dr. Craig, 14:16)
• “If we interpret the phrase in that latter way, then this would suggest that the devil’s sin was indeed some sort of pride or arrogance whereby he raised his heel against his creator...and so fell away.” (Dr. Craig, 23:50)
• “Christ’s atoning death was offered on behalf of mankind, not on behalf of angels...the doctrine of the limited atonement is true. It is limited to the human race and does not include angels.” (Dr. Craig, 29:18)
• “I just don’t see any reason to think that this is talking about some pre-creation fall...this is in the context of an end-times vision.” (Dr. Craig, 30:44)
• “Revelation is just notoriously difficult to interpret...any interpreter of that book needs to be very tentative in the interpretations that he proposes.” (Dr. Craig, 33:35)

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• [00:15–05:45] — Rejection of dualism and all things created by God
• [07:10–14:17] — Analysis of Isaiah 14, Ezekiel 28, and discussion of reading Satan’s fall into the text
• [14:17–22:50] — Scriptural hints at an angelic fall (Job, Luke, Peter, Jude)
• [22:50–24:35] — The sin of Satan: pride and arrogance
• [24:35–27:49] — Summing up evidence for angelic rebellion; theological conclusions
• [27:49–30:00] — Restoration of fallen angels? Origen’s doctrine and its rejection
• [30:00–33:03] — Audience Q&A: Revelation 12 and interpretation challenges
• [33:03–34:33] — Nature of the beast and false prophet

---

Summary

Dr. Craig’s careful, scholarly analysis finds no explicit biblical explanation for Satan's origin but supports the traditional Christian view through piecing together New and Old Testament clues. He strongly rejects dualist cosmology, critiques interpretations of Satan’s origin drawn from Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28, and argues that the doctrine of an angelic rebellion—driven by pride and free will—is consistent with a holistic reading of the Bible. The episode also highlights how later literature (Paradise Lost) shapes cultural perceptions of Satan, and how symbolic texts like Revelation must be interpreted with scholarly humility and caution.

Transcript

[A]

Welcome to Defenders, the teaching class of Dr. William Lane Craig today the Doctrine of Creation, Part 22. For more information and resources from Dr. Craig, go to reasonablefaith.org we finished our

[B]

lesson last time by raising the question of the origin of Satan. Satan, as we've seen, is presented as a tremendous adversary of the work and kingdom of God with whom we have to contend. And this raises the obvious question of the origin of this being. Since God is not evil and cannot create evil, then how could there be such a being as Satan when God created? In Genesis chapter one, it says that he looked at creation and he saw that it was all very good. So how do you explain the origin of someone like Satan and the demons? One thing that is very clear that we need to insist upon is that Scripture does not teach some sort of dualism. It does not teach that there is God and anti God who is equal and opposed to God, that there is light and there is darkness, and that these are equally opposed to each other. This dualistic view is completely foreign to both Judaism and Christianity, which think of God as the sole source of all reality outside himself. Anything that is not God, anything that exists other than God is created by by God. There isn't any reality apart from God that is uncreated. This is the burden of my book, God Overall, which defends God as the sole ultimate reality. So dualism is simply out of the question. To give just one scripture on this, consider Colossians, chapter 1, verses 15 and 16. Colossians 1, 15 and 16. Speaking of Christ. It says he is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For in him all things were created. Things in heaven and things on earth. And then Paul begins to mention specifically these spiritual realms, visible, invisible. Whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities, all things were created through him and for him. Now Paul will talk elsewhere about these principalities and powers in reference to the demonic realms that exist, as well as the angelic realms, realms. He is quite clear in Colossians that these things do not exist independently of Christ. Rather they are all created through Him. So dualism is simply out of the question. If there is such a being as Satan and beings like his demons, then these are part of the created order. They were made by God. That's the clear implication here. But that leaves us then with this very difficult question. How could God create something which seems to be so intrinsically evil and opposed to God? Unfortunately, this is not a question that is explicitly addressed in the Bible, even in the story of the Fall. In Genesis, chapter three, there's no attempt to explain where the serpent or evil came from. Man is simply confronted with the serpent in the garden. So the best that we can do is to try to piece together various clues and intimations in Scripture and and try to draw some tentative conclusions about this. Some people have said that Isaiah, chapter 14, verses 12 to 17, are a reference to the origin of Satan. Isaiah 14, verses 12 to 17. We'll read that together. Isaiah says, how you are fallen from heaven, O day star, son of dawn, how you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low. You said in your heart, I will ascend to heaven above the stars of God. I will set my throne on high. I will sit on the mount of assembly in the far north. I will ascend above the heights of the clouds. I will make myself like the most High. But you are brought down to Sheol, to the depths of the pit. Those who see you will stare at you and ponder over you. Is this the man who made the earth tremble? Who shook kingdoms, who made the world like a desert and overthrew its cities? Who did not let his prisoners go home? Some have said that this language could not be used to describe any human person. This is rather a description of Satan when he was an angelic being who, through pride and vaulting ambition, opposed himself to God and so fell away. Now, while I think that that view of the origin of Satan is probably close to the truth, and I don't think that that is what Isaiah is talking about, as you can see from the beginning of chapter 14, this is a taunt that is directed against the king of Babylon. And that's why in verses 16 and thereafter, it says, is this the man who shook kingdoms, who overthrew cities, who did not let his prisoners go home? It's clearly talking about an earthly king whom Isaiah identifies as the king of Babylon. It is using hyperbolic language to describe the vaunting ambition and pride whereby the king of Babylon sets himself against God. So while I think that the view expressed about the origin of Satan might well be correct, I'm very skeptical that this is what this passage is about. Similarly, Ezekiel chapter 28 has been interpreted to describe Satan's fall. Ezekiel 28, verses 12 to 19 says, you were the signet of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. You were in Eden, the garden of God. Every precious stone was your covering. Carnelian, topaz and Jasper, chrysolite, beryl and onyx, sapphire, carbuncle and emerald, and wrought in Gold were your settings and your engravings on the day that you were created. They were prepared with an anointed guardian Cherub. I placed you. You were on the holy mountain of God, in the midst of the stones of fire where you walked. You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created till iniquity was found in you. Here again the suggestion is that this is a description of Satan prior to the fall, how he was originally created good and then he fell away and became evil. But once again, the context of the passage doesn't support this. It sounds like it only if you read it out of context. If you look at verse 11, it says, and I quote, moreover, the word of the Lord came to me, Son of man, raise a lamentation over the king of Tyre and say to him, thus says the Lord. And then the passage follows. So this is a lamentation over the city of Tyre, an earthly city. So similarly, in verse 16, it goes on to say, in the abundance of your trade, you were filled with violence and you sinned. So I cast you as a profane thing from the mountain of God, and the guardian cherub drove you out from the midst of of the stones of fire. So here it's condemning him for his unfair trade practices in the commerce that was conducted by the king of Tyre. And this wouldn't obviously be applicable to Satan. And it goes on to condemn the other things that this king did which were wrong. So once again, I think when read in context, this is not a passage about Satan or his origin. Now, what some critics have claimed is that originally these passages were myths about some sort of angelic fall which the biblical prophets borrowed and demythologized in order to apply them to human kings. They took these pagan myths, which were about angels or humans falling away, and then they demythologized them and applied them to the King of Tyre and the king of Babylon. The problem with such a hypothesis is that it is ultimately untestable. Since we know of no such pagan myths in the ancient near east. This theory is no better than conjecture. It is what might be called nephilococcygia about these texts. Now, in case you do not know the word nephilococcygia, this is a word which I encountered for the first time this week in reading an Old Testament scholar. It is finding shapes in the clouds. Neveloky is finding shapes in the clouds. And I think that is a good description for those who would attempt to discover these pre biblical pagan myths that are not attested anywhere and therefore cannot Be confirmed, it's literary nephilokakygia. In any case, the passage as we now have it is clearly not about an angelic fall. It's about earthly kings. So again, the suggestion of an angelic fall may be theologically correct, but I think it's eisegesis to read it into these passages. That is to say, the interpretation is not being read out of the text, it's being read into the text. It takes these passages in Isaiah and. And Ezekiel and in effect says that when read out of context, they give us a really nice theory of Satan's origin if we interpret them as describing the devil's fall. But there's nothing in the context to suggest that this is in fact what the passages are about. Any discussion of that point before we move along? Okay, Bruce.

[C]

I kind of like these passages referring to Satan because these are parodies of Babylon and Tyre. And I see these as inserts in this parody of what happened with Satan, because you also see in Daniel where you had watchers over certain areas of the world and conflicts with. With Michael the Archangel and so forth. So these leaders are playing out Satan's plans and devices. And so it doesn't seem like. It doesn't seem a stretch that God would parody.

[B]

Well, I guess my difficulty, Bruce, is that I just don't see anything in the context that would suggest that these are parodies of Satan's fall being applied to human beings. Why not instead just take it to be hyperbolic language that is applied to these kings rather than think that this is something that is about Satan when there's nothing in the context to suggest that.

[C]

Well, you could. Except there's statements that can't apply to human beings.

[B]

Not literally. No. That's clear. Right. Dennis?

[C]

I think part of what drives this tradition is that John Milton read these

[B]

verses

[C]

and that's how he got the idea for Paradise Lost. And the fall of Satan is very vivid in Paradise Lost.

[B]

I've been reading Old Testament commentaries on the book of Genesis lately, and some of the commentators have mentioned that our views of Satan and the fall of man are shaped more by John Milton's Paradise Lost than by the actual biblical narratives. It is a tremendous work that Milton wrote and one of the greatest pieces of English literature and has had a profound effect that we may not even be conscious of. Thank you, Dennis, for making that point. Yes. Anyone else? Well, what other indications in Scripture are there about the origin of Satan from which we might make some intelligent inferences? Well, consider again the book of Job 1. Job 1. 6 says now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord and Satan also came among them. And then it goes on to tell the rest of the story. Now here it seems to be talking about angelic beings who are presenting themselves before God and Satan is there. This takes place in heaven because Satan responds to God's question about where you have come from by saying, I've come from going to and fro upon the earth. So this scene is not something that takes place on earth. This is the heavenly throne room, so to speak. And here Satan appears to be included among the sons of God who are there. So he does seem to be some sort of an angelic being who has now set himself against God and in opposition to God. Now with that in mind, go to the New Testament to Luke, chapter 10, verses 17 to 18. Luke chapter 10, verses 17 to 18. This is the story of the disciples going out on their mission, preaching the gospel that Jesus has sent them on. And when they return from their mission in verse 17 it says the 70 returned with joy, saying, lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name. And he said to them, I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. Now is Jesus talking here about an angelic fall that he saw, perhaps in a pre creation state, that he saw the Satan fall from heaven? Or is he merely talking here about the way in which the demons were cast out by the disciples and Jesus is reflecting on the triumph of their mission by saying, I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven in what you did? Well, it's unclear, we don't know for sure the correct interpretation, but, but at least we do have in this passage the idea clearly expressed of a satanic fall from heaven which Jesus mentions. Now turn to second Peter 2, 4. Here we have something a little bit more specific. Second Peter 2, 4. The author says, for if God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of nether gloom to be kept until the judgment, et cetera, et cetera. Now what is indicated clearly here is that there are angels who have sinned. This could well be a reference to the sons of God mating with human women in Genesis chapter 6, verses 1 to 4. But minimally, I think at least it shows us that there are angels who have sinned. And it says that these sons of God have been incarcerated in the underworld in some sort of nether darkness. So here we have some indication of the idea of an angelic fall that could be relevant to, to the origin of Demons. Also In Jude verse 6, this same event is mentioned. Jude 6, that passage says, and the angels that did not keep their own position, but left their proper dwelling have been kept by him in eternal chains in the nether gloom until the judgment of the great day. Day. Here again is an indication that there are angels who have sinned and fallen away, and whom God has now imprisoned in the underworld until the judgment on the great day. Now these fallen angels seem to be incarcerated. They're not let out. But the speculation is that perhaps there are others who are free to roam upon the earth, and that Satan and his minions are some of these. Satan also appears to be one of the company of angels. We saw that, for example, in the book of Jude in his contest with the Archangel Michael. And Jesus talks about Satan falling from heaven like lightning. So it could be that the origin of Satan and the demons the lies in an angelic fall, and that some of them are still free within limits to work their wrath upon the earth, even though there are others who are kept in this underworld. First John 3:8 is also relevant. First John 3:8 says, he who commits sin is of the devil, who for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. So here again we have indication of sins that have been committed by Satan, by the devil, which would obviously result in a sort of fall. So we have evidence in Scripture, I think, of an angelic fall and specifically of sin on the part of Satan, which would bring him into condemnation before God. Another verse that might be relevant is 1st Timothy 3:6, 1 Timothy 3:6, which might tell us something about the sin of Satan. Paul is giving the qualifications here for someone who wants to be a bishop in the church, and he is warning against pride. He says that the candidate, and I quote, must not be a recent convert, or he may be puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Now the question is, how do you interpret that phrase, the condemnation of the Devil? Does it mean that the recent convert who gets puffed up with pride would then be condemned by the devil, that it is the devil who would condemn him? Or does it mean rather that he would fall into the same condemnation that that the devil fell into, namely from being puffed up with pride and arrogance, setting himself against God, he finds himself also condemned before God, just like Satan? If we interpret the phrase in that latter way, then this would suggest that the devil's sin was indeed some sort of pride or arrogance whereby he raised his heel against his Creator, against God, against, and so fell away. Finally, 1 Timothy 5:21, 1 Timothy 5:21 says, in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels, I charge you to keep these rules without favor, doing nothing from partiality. And the phrase I want to draw your attention to here is, is the phrase the elect angels. There are certain angels who are elect to glorification, just as we are. We are among the elect, the chosen ones on this planet, among human beings. But there are also elect angels, which implies that there are other angels which. Which are not elect. They would be fallen angels and would be under God's condemnation. So all in all, I think there are scriptural hints or indications that the traditional understanding of Satan and the demons is very plausible, namely that originally God created a realm of angelic beings who, who were created good, they're not created evil, but who, through an exercise of free will, rebelled against God and so fell away and are condemned. And the earth now lies under the power and sway of these demonic angels. Great news, isn't it? These fallen angels, or some of them at least, become what we would call demons. Now this raises a deeper question. How could angels who are in the presence of God fall away? And is it possible that more angels might fall away in the future? What prevents the elect angels from sinning? On this matter we can only offer plausible speculations. It seems that God would have to create the angels originally at a sort of epistemic distance, at arm's length, so to speak, so as to allow them the freedom to rebel against God and to sin. Having made their choice, the wills of the elect angels are then sealed in that choice by being given a fuller vision of God's greatness and glory, so irresistible that further sin is impossible. And so there is no danger of a further angelic fall. Their free choice having been made, their will is now sealed. But then what about the fallen angels? Could they now freely turn to God in repentance and be saved? The Church, Father Oregon, actually believed such a thing. Oregon believed in the doctrine called apokatastasis, Or the restoration of of all things. He believed that in the end, even Satan himself will be saved and that everything will be restored to its original good condition. But Origen's view was condemned as heretical by the church. In Matthew 25:41, Jesus refers to the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. Notice the eternality of the punishment of the devil and the demons. The eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. Christ's Atoning death was offered on behalf of mankind, not on behalf of angels. And so in that very peculiar sense, the doctrine of the limited atonement is true. It is limited to the human race and does not include angels. In fact, medieval theologians like Saint Anselm believed that the number of elect human beings was chosen by God to precisely replace the number of the angels who had fallen away, so that the complete number of the elect will be saved. Human beings will be substituted in the place of those angels that fell away. So there is no availability of atonement or salvation for the demonic beings. Now, lest anyone think it unloving on God's part not to offer an atonement for the fallen angels, consider that God may know that Satan and the demons, having become evil, would never freely choose to repent and believe, even if provision were made for them. So why make it? Any comments or discussion about the origin of Satan and the demons? Okay, Ben. Many theologians believe that in the Context of Revelation 12:4, when it says his tail, talking about the dragon, which is Satan or the devil, swept a third of the stars of heaven and cast them down to earth, that this is a reference that one third of the angels in heaven fell. I was wondering if you put much stock in that. Yeah, let's just turn to that passage, Revelation 12:4. I think that my reservation about that, Ben, to read the verse, a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman with child, and another portent appeared in heaven, a great red dragon with seven heads and ten horns, seven diadems upon his heads, his tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven and cast them to the earth and and then threatens the child. I just don't see any reason to think that this is talking about some pre creation fall. This is in the context of an end times vision of what's going to happen in the future. And so I'm very reluctant to take this symbolic narrative of what's going to happen and, and projected into the past rather than into the future. Yes,

[D]

I also had a question about Revelation 12 because in so many of the passages of Revelation 12, John goes back and forth between the past and the present or the future. It seems he seems to shift. So. So along with his question, what do you think about, especially with respect to time, verse seven and verse eight of that passage? Because it does sometimes there's some people that you read feel that some things could happen in the past and some can come to the forward, meaning that the great woman in Israel is going to be saved in the future and there's one particular passage that seems to go back and forth in 1212 quite a bit. So could that also relate to Satan originally?

[B]

Well, here we have this struggle between Michael and the dragon, casting him down to earth and so forth. And I guess again the question is going to be. I have always taken this as what John says at the beginning of the book, that the book is about where he says that, Where he says that he's going to show him what is going to happen and that therefore these are all describing future events. But if you projected into the past. Yes. You could interpret that as being an anti.

[D]

I just wondered if it could be a panoramic in order, in some areas, in order to explain later on in the book what will be in the future. To understand, I mean, you have to understand where Satan got where he was because he's the power of the Prince of the Air.

[B]

So, yeah, I don't know. I guess I would have to be convinced that there's some good reason to take it that way. Because the way he presents it is that this is a vision that God has given him of everything that is going to take place. And it would include things like this warfare and defeat of Satan. So that these are things that haven't happened yet. But if you could convince me, I'm perfectly open to the idea. I've just not taken it that way. Okay, Any other discussion or question? Okay, over here.

[C]

Good discussion. Dr. Craig, just a quick question somewhat to Ben's point, but the false prophet and the beast, are those demonic creatures

[B]

or is that fallen man? I don't know for sure. I have always taken these to be human beings who again, are described in this kind of hyperbolic, apocalyptic, symbolic language. Rather than thinking that these are demonic creatures or angelic creatures, I've taken them to be human persons. But that's sure not a hill I'm going to die on. Revelation is just notoriously difficult to interpret. I mean, it's so symbolic and filled with imagery. I think any interpreter of that book needs to be very tentative in the interpretations that he proposes. All right, well, that brings us to the end of our time. So let's close with a word of prayer, shall we? Father, we thank you again for the chance to be together to study your word. And we pray that as we go now into this week that your Holy Spirit would fill us, guide us, convict us, and help us to do all that is pleasing in your sight. In Jesus name, Amen.

[A]

The copyright for the preceding material is held by Dr. William Lane Craig. For more, go to read reasonablefaith. Org.