Header Image: The mosaics on the interior of the dome of the Baptistry of San Giovanni, 1225-c.1310 | Photo wikipedia by Ricardo André Frantz
Have you ever wondered about what the devil is — or was, pre-Fall? You’ve probably been told that he used to be an angel with God, so then why is he often described as a snake, serpent or dragon?
Though there isn’t a great deal given away in Scripture as to the nature of angels, or the heavenly realms in general, we get some glimpses from the visions of the prophets. But what we can also look at is the words which the Bible uses; some of which aren’t translated and so lose their original meaning in English.
The Seraphim
The word “seraphim” is a transliteration of a Hebrew word, rather than a translation, so in English we often will miss the meaning the original hearers and readers would have understood that word to mean. A transliteration, for those unfamiliar with the term, simply means that a foreign word has been converted into its English equivalent of letters, rather than its meaning being used. A relevant example of this would be for the word “satan”. Although it’s come to be used as a name, it’s actually a transliteration of the Hebrew word for “adversary” (שָׂטָן). You can see a few examples of the word usage here as an adversary: 1 Samuel 29:4; 1 Kings 11:14 and as a name in Job 1:6 (The Adversary if translated).
So what does seraphim mean if it were translated? Basically “fiery serpents”!
The Hebrew word has obscure etymological roots related to burning (literally), which is likely why translators choose to transliterate rather than translate it. We also find similar connections to fire in other parts of Scripture where the heavenly host are mentioned or described; see Ps 104:4 and Ezk 1:13-14 for two examples where God's ministers are "fire and flame", and the living beings move "like a flash of lightning" with fire moving between them.
There are some links with the root word to Babylonian fire-gods and also in Egypt there are eagle-lion-shaped figures referred to as seref which is where we get our English term (and concept) for the “griffin” from. There’s also the possibility that “fiery snakes” is a reference to the venom in a bite, which has allusions to the “fiery darts” of the enemy in Eph 6:16 — though this could just be more about symbolism with Roman soldiers and their weapons than anything else.
The seraphim are one of, if not the highest order of angelic beings, often depicted close to the throne of God singing praises. We first see them in Isaiah 6:2–3 and then briefly again in verses 6 and 7 where one puts a coal on Isaiah’s lips.
Isaiah 6:2–3 Seraphs were in attendance above him; each had six wings: with two they covered their faces, and with two they covered their feet, and with two they flew. And one called to another and said: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory.”
As we see from Isaiah’s description of the seraphim, they have wings, faces and feet, and in verses six and seven, they must have hands of some sort to be able to hold tongues and give coal to Isaiah.
We don’t really hear from the seraphim again until we get an inference in John’s Revelation, where they are called “living creatures” in a similar scene that Isaiah saw, described very much in the same way, except with the terrifying visual addition that they are covered in eyes:
Revelation 4:8 And the four living creatures, each of them with six wings, are full of eyes all around and inside. Day and night without ceasing they sing, “Holy, holy, holy, the Lord God the Almighty, who was and is and is to come.”
That Ancient Serpent
How does this all relate to the devil? As you probably know, one of the recurring themes for Satan in Scripture is that of a snake, serpent or dragon. The word used in Genesis 3 for the serpent isn’t the same as the word for seraphim — it uses the word nachash [נָחָשׁ] for serpent instead. But looking through the word usage between saraph and nachash the two can get translated in similar ways, though the latter word seems to get the most used, even in conjunction with “fiery serpents” as well as being translated as “fleeing serpents”, and it also has implications towards the Leviathan mentioned in Isaiah 27. Interestingly too, the word nachash also has instances where it gets translated as “divination”, giving the word a deeper and more mystical meaning into the nature of it. It also has a meaning connected to "copper, shining bronze" which also has heavenly connotations in the shiny radiance of the metal (see also Rev 1:15 where Jesus is described as "burnished bronze").
If the Seraphim are serpent-like fiery beings, and the devil was/is one, then it could also explain why he also gets referred to as that “serpent of old” and the “dragon”.
The interesting thing about all this is the link between the Day of the Lord, God swallowing up death and His defeat of Leviathan as the “fleeing … twisting serpent” who is the “dragon that is in the sea” (Isa. 27:1). This also has very similar imagery to what Revelation 13 says about the dragon and beast which come out of the sea, so there are definitely implications between these dragons, serpents and fiery snakes with the devil and his defeat when Christ triumphed over death and the “powers and authorities” on the cross (Col 2:15).
There’s a lot of scriptures to cover which mentions all of these themes, but I’ll just list a few here where we find the words for seraphim and serpent translated in various ways: Numbers 21:6; Job 26:13; Isaiah 6:6–7; 14:29; 27:1; 30:6. Then the New Testament references to the dragon: Revelation 12:9; 13:1; 20:2.
Serpents in the Garden
With this in mind, maybe it could change our view on the serpent in the Garden of Eden. Could it be that it wasn’t an actual snake speaking to Eve, but rather a seraphim-angel of some type? It would explain why no one was concerned about a talking animal when none of the others appear to be talkative! It could also help to explain the punishment God gives the serpent: to crawl on its belly and eat dust. Snakes already do that, so why would that be something unusual and a punishment for it? This “eating/licking the dust” that snakes now do is referenced again in Isaiah 65:25 and Micah 7:17 as part of their natural state it seems.
Is it possible that this is an allusion to Satan — a potentially fiery-snake-like being — getting cast out of Heaven to the Earth, and now he had to “crawl” around here instead of the heavenly realms? There’s a few places which hint at the devil being on earth and that this is his kingdom and realm now, rather than anywhere else. Jesus talks about “Satan [falling] from heaven like a flash of lightning” (Luke 10:18), which seems to be a link to what we see in Revelation 12 where there was war in heaven which resulted in the devil being cast down to earth:
Revelation 12:7–9 And war broke out in heaven; Michael and his angels fought against the dragon. The dragon and his angels fought back, but they were defeated, and there was no longer any place for them in heaven. The great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world — he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.
This theme then follows in Paul’s epistle to the Ephesians where he speaks about “the ruler of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work among those who are disobedient” (Eph 2:2). This would also ties back to what Jesus said in John 14:30 that the devil was the “ruler of this world” and how Satan could offer Jesus all the “kingdoms of the world” when he was tempted in the wilderness (Matt 4:8).
Concluding Thoughts
While we won’t ever fully know what the devil is or was, the allusions and inferences throughout Scripture show that he was a heavenly being of some sort who was cast down to the earth.
Whatever the true form of the devil, the Apostles give us enough warning to know we have an enemy who hates the children of God and wants to devour them (1 Peter 5:8), and that he is deceptive and can disguise himself as “an angel of light” to trick us (2 Cor 11:14). John gives us a method of “means testing” the spiritual at least so we have tools at our disposal.
1 John 4:2–3 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God.
The heavenly realms and beings may be shrouded in mystery to us, and maybe for good reason, but we are not defenceless and are left with enough to know how to spot the tricks if the devil but more importantly, we are told that the victory over Satan and evil is ultimately won in Christ!
A small aside about Ezekiel 28: 12–16, which is a passage of Scripture typically interpreted to be about the fall of Satan, despite the start of this passage being directed to the King of Tyre. In verse 14 and 16 it speaks about a “cherub” (another rank of angelic being, and again, a transliterated word), but depending on which translation you read, the phrasing can either imply that the subject of this text is a cherub, or that the king of Tyre had a cherub with him. Each version has a footnote saying that the meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain here, so I’m not sure it can be a strong argument for or against the devil being a cherub.
Update: Since writing this, I’ve come across this video which summarises Michael Heiser’s teaching on this topic. It appears that I have come to similar conclusions, though he sides with Satan being a fallen Cherub rather than a Seraph. Watch the video here to see some addition information on this topic:
*If anyone is interested in learning about some serious spiritual warfare, I highly recommend reading The Life of Anthony by Athanasius. It’s a biography of the founder of desert monasticism written around AD 356–362. See links below:
Enjoying this content?
Support my work by becoming a patron on Patreon!
By joining, you help fund the time, research, and effort that goes into creating this content — and you’ll also get access to exclusive perks and updates.
Even a small amount per month makes a real difference. Thank you for your support!
I've seen and heard this question asked numerous times before, and I've even wondered it myself in my earlier years as a new Christian.
Is there salvation for angels and can demons go back to their previous, uncorrupted state?
2 Corinthians 11:14And no wonder! Even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.
As far as scripture is concerned, Satan can pretend to be angelic for the sake of deceit, but that's about it. There's no mention of redemption for angels or demons — that's the long and short of it.
So let's explore four areas of Scripture to see what we do know.
#1 They have been imprisoned for judgement by God.
2 Peter 2:4For if God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but cast them into Tartarus and committed them to chains (or pits) of deepest darkness to be kept until the judgment;
This judgement is eternal for them and there appears to be no second chance; their judgement is sealed:
Matthew 25:41
Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels;
#2 They have been imprisoned for judgement by the saints.
Not only has God set a judgement, but we who are in Christ will have the role of actually judging the angels as well. How's that for a hefty responsibly!
1 Corinthians 6:3
Do you not know that we are to judge angels—to say nothing of ordinary matters?
#3 Judgement is final
We can also see from Revelation some more details about what this judgement entails for the devil and those who followed him:
Revelation 19:20And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who […] were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur.
Revelation 20:10And the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
#4 Salvation is for humans
Salvation appears to be only something that God designed for humans, and is apparently something that makes the angels curious.
1 Peter 1:12[Salvation is the] good news by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven—things into which angels long to look!
Christ came as the "second Adam" (1 Cor 15:45) to rectify the problems caused by the first Adam. We humans are all "in Adam" (1 Cor 15:22), whereas angels are not. They are sometimes called "sons of God" — we are the son of Adam, therefore Jesus' sacrifice is only effective for "Adam". The writer of Hebrews sums this up for us nicely by saying, “it is clear that [Jesus] did not come to help angels”, but those in whom he shared a nature with — us! (Heb 2:14-16)
Whatever sins the angels have made (other than rebelling; cf. Rev 12:4,7-9) it is not covered by the blood of Jesus as far as we know. We can infer this from what Paul teaches us about the ministry of reconciliation:
2 Corinthians 5:19that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. (Emphasis mine)
The plan of salvation and the power of the Gospel to reconcile God and man appears to only apply to this world and our sins (or trespasses). The Greek word here for “world” is kosmos, which can sometimes have a broader meaning of “universe” or “creation” rather than just this planet, but in this context I'm not sure it allows for that scope of reconciliation, given the other passages of scripture we've seen about the rebellious angels (or demons) level of punishment.
Either way, Scripture doesn't give us any more information on this topic than that, so anything else would be speculation, but I think we can be reasonably certain that salvation through Christ is only for humans. ...
Christian conversations about hell have never been especially calm, but the recent online reaction to Kirk Cameron’s comments in favour of annihilationism has been particularly revealing. Social media has erupted with accusations of heresy, doctrinal collapse, and theological compromise.
It’s the “Rob Bell Incident” all over again (if anyone remembers that).
The infamous John Piper tweet about Rob Bell
A lot of comments I saw were wondering what Ray Comfort thinks of this, as he and Kirk worked closely together in ministry for about 25 years, and while Ray wasn’t as dismissive as John Piper was of Rob Bell, he still calls out Kirk’s new views as “erroneous”:
While we believe Kirk is sincere, we believe that conditional mortality and annihilationism are erroneous views, and that the Bible’s clear teaching on hell is known as eternal conscious torment. We firmly believe that this is the only correct biblical view. (source)
Yet beneath the noise of social media grinding its gears is something far more ordinary and far more Christian: a believer wrestling seriously with Scripture, or as some would say, “being a Berean” (Acts 17:11). This is something we all should be doing, forming our views and doctrines from Scripture, not out-of-context social media video snippets and memes.
Whether one agrees with Cameron’s conclusions or not, what is happening is not the abandonment of orthodoxy, but the resurfacing of a long-standing and legitimate theological discussion. Annihilationism, or, more precisely, Conditional Immortality — is neither novel nor liberal, nor is it an attempt to make Christianity and hell more palatable, as many people presume. It is a position grounded in Scripture, represented throughout Church history, and held by Christians who take divine judgement every bit as seriously as their eternal-torment counterparts.
This is not a debate invented by Twitter (or “𝕏” as it’s called now…). It’s been around for a long, long, time.
Watch Kirk’s video in full here before forming an opinion
Immortality Is Assumed, Not Taught
One of the quiet assumptions behind Eternal Conscious Torment (ECT) is the idea that all human souls are inherently immortal, and therefore must exist forever somewhere. Once that premise is accepted, eternal suffering becomes unavoidable.
The difficulty is that Scripture does not teach innate human immortality. In fact, it repeatedly teaches the opposite.
Immortality is consistently presented as a gift, not a default state. Eternal life is something God grants, not something humans naturally possess (Rom. 6:23).
In Genesis, humanity is barred from the tree of life precisely so that they might not “live for ever” in a fallen state (Gen. 3:22–24). In the New Testament, immortality is something Christ “brings to light through the gospel” (2 Tim. 1:10), and something believers “put on” at the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:53–54).
Conditional Immortality simply takes that biblical theme seriously. It argues that only those united to Christ are granted immortality, while the wicked ultimately perish. Judgement is real, severe, and final — but it does not require endless conscious suffering.
This distinction matters, because much of the outrage directed at annihilationism is based on inherited philosophical assumptions, which come from Plato, rather than careful exegesis.
Biblical Language: Death Means Death
One of the most compelling aspects of conditionalism is the sheer consistency of biblical language concerning the fate of the wicked.
Scripture repeatedly speaks in terms of:
Death — “The soul that sins shall die” (Ezek. 18:4)
Perishing — “God so loved the world… that everyone who believes in him may not perish” (John 3:16)
Destruction — “They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction” (2 Thess. 1:9)
Being consumed or brought to an end —...
Have you ever wondered why God asks us to resist temptation and practise self-control? At first glance, it might seem like God is just trying to limit our enjoyment of life, especially when the world tells us to “follow your heart” and “give in to what feels good.” But what if I told you that resisting temptation is not about taking away your joy, but about protecting and blessing your life — spiritually, emotionally, and even mentally?
I was recently watching a TV series with my wife (called Perception, if you’re interested) about a neuroscience professor who consults for the FBI. The series often gives some interesting facts about the brain and human behaviour, and in one episode the main character capped off the episode by talking about how resisting temptations benefits your mental health.
This piqued my interest, as it made me think of the obvious Scriptural connections, so I looked it up to see if the episode was accurate.
And it was!
A 2017 neuroscience research study highlights how beneficial self-control and resisting temptation are for your brain and mental health. These findings echo the timeless truths of Scripture, showing us that God’s design for self-control is not just a moral obligation but a pathway to wholeness and flourishing as a healthy person.
The Science Behind Resisting Temptation
The study on self-control and temptation explored the brain’s salience network — the system responsible for detecting what’s important — and found something really very interesting: people better at resisting temptation have a healthier dynamic between this network and other parts of the brain, such as the visual system. In other words, their brains are better at ignoring distractions and focusing on what truly matters.
Here are some of the benefits of self-control revealed by the study:
Improved Focus — Resisting temptation strengthens your ability to stay on task and avoid distractions.
Emotional Resilience — Self-control helps regulate emotions, making you less reactive and more at peace.
Mental Clarity — It improves how your brain processes information, aiding decision-making.
Protection from Harm — It reduces the risk of mental health issues like depression, addiction, and impulsive behaviour which may help mitigate some symptoms of ADHD by strengthening attention regulation and executive function.
Spiritual Growth—Though not a part of the study, self-control aligns with God’s call for holy living and leads to greater spiritual maturity.
This isn’t just science talking; it’s evidence of God’s amazing design for your body and mind which has been testified to in the Scriptures for thousands of years, long before neuroscience could confirm it. I couldn’t help but be struck by this connection when I came across this study.
What Does the Bible Say?
The New Testament repeatedly highlights the importance of self-control and resisting temptation. These teachings are not arbitrary rules to suck the “fun” out of life, but divine guidance to help you thrive. Let’s explore how the Bible speaks to this:
Self-Control is a Gift from GodThe Bible teaches that self-control is a fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22–23) and that God has given us a spirit of “power and of love and of self-discipline” (2 Timothy 1:7). The ability to resist temptation is not something we muster up alone; it’s a gift God gives to help us grow in Him and rely on His strength.
Resisting Temptation Brings FreedomJames 1:14–15 warns us that temptation, if left unchecked, leads to sin and ultimately to death. Science backs this up, showing that unchecked impulsivity can lead to destructive behaviours like addiction and emotional instability. God’s commands to resist temptation protect us from harm and lead us to freedom in Christ (John 8:36).
Your Mind MattersRomans 12:2 urges us to “be transformed by the renewing of your minds.” Resisting temptat...
Monarchical Trinitarianism, also referred to as the “Monarchy of the Father,” is a theological perspective that asserts the Father as the sole source (or monarch) within the Trinity. This view maintains a clear distinction of roles among the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit while upholding their unity in essence. It is essential to distinguish this from Monarchianism, a heretical belief condemned in the 4th century, which posited that God is a single person rather than three distinct persons.
The Eternal Begottenness of the Son
The term “created” used by the early pre-Nicene Fathers does not align with the Arian view, which posits that the Son was created ex nihilo (out of nothing), making Him a creature. As Arius infamously declared, “there was a time when the Son was not”. Rather, the Fathers articulated that the Son was begotten out of the Father, emphasising His divine origin and eternal existence within the Father’s bosom (cf. John 1:18 in Greek). As Justin Martyr explains, “For Christ is the first-begotten of God, and we have declared above that He is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists” (Justin Martyr, First Apology, Chapter 46). This highlights that the Son, the Word, existed eternally with the Father before being begotten and manifested.
Similarly, Hippolytus expounds on this concept, noting that “God, subsisting alone, and having nothing contemporaneous with Himself, determined to create the world … For He was neither without reason, nor wisdom, nor power, nor counsel And all things were in Him, and He was the All. When He willed, and as He willed, He manifested His word in the times determined by Him, and by Him He made all things. … And thus there appeared another beside Himself. But when I say another, I do not mean that there are two Gods, but that it is only as light of light, or as water from a fountain, or as a ray from the sun. For there is but one power, which is from the All; and the Father is the All, from whom cometh this Power, the Word. And this is the mind which came forth into the world, and was manifested as the Son of God.” (Hippolytus, Against the Heresy of One Noetus, Chapter 10–11). Here, Hippolytus underscores the eternal existence of the Word within God, proceeding from the Father and being of the same essence.
The Procession of the Holy Spirit
The procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father is another essential aspect of Monarchical Trinitarianism. The Spirit, like the Son, derives His essence from the Father, ensuring that He is co-equal and consubstantial with the Father and the Son. Tertullian speaks to this procession in his work, Against Praxeas, explaining how the Word and Spirit derive their essence from the Father.
But still the tree is not severed from the root, nor the river from the fountain, nor the ray from the sun; nor, indeed, is the Word separated from God. … Now the Spirit indeed is third from God and the Son; just as the fruit of the tree is third from the root, or as the stream out of the river is third from the fountain, or as the apex of the ray is third from the sun. Nothing, however, is alien from that original source whence it derives its own properties. In like manner the Trinity, flowing down from the Father through intertwined and connected steps, does not at all disturb the Monarchy, while it at the same time guards the state of the Economy. (Tertullian, Against Praxeas, Chapter 8).
Looking at how Tertullian describes this doctrine, we can see how he has gone to lengths to carefully explain how the relationship within the Trinity exists together and relate to one another, while keeping intact the source and essence of divinity united and uncompromised. When we talk about these things, we use terms like “ontological” and “economy” to help to describe the Godhead. Ontology is the study of being, and what make...
The Trinity is a cornerstone of Christian faith, defining God as one Being in three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. However, throughout history, various misunderstandings and false teachings — known as heresies — have arisen, challenging this core doctrine. Understanding these heresies can strengthen our faith and deepen our appreciation for the truths held by the Church since its earliest days.
What Is the Trinity?
Before diving into the heresies, let’s briefly review what we mean by the Trinity. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity teaches that God is one essence in three distinct Persons:
The Father: The Creator and sustainer of all.
The Son (Jesus Christ): God incarnate, who lived, died, and was resurrected for our salvation.
The Holy Spirit: The presence of God active in the world and within believers.
This concept is rooted in Scripture and has been affirmed by the Church through various councils and creeds.
Common Historical Heresies
Arianism
What It Taught: Arius, a priest in the early 4th century, claimed that Jesus Christ was not of the same substance as the Father. He taught that the Son was a created being, distinct and subordinate to the Father.
Church’s Response: The Council of Nicaea in 325 AD condemned Arianism, affirming that the Son is “of the same substance” (homoousios) as the Father. This is reflected in the Nicene Creed: “We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God… of one Being with the Father.”
Patristic Quote: Athanasius, a staunch defender against Arianism, wrote, “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God” (On the Incarnation, 8:54).
Modalism (Sabellianism)
What It Taught: Sabellius proposed that God is one Person who reveals Himself in three different modes or aspects: as the Father in creation, as the Son in redemption, and as the Holy Spirit in sanctification. This denies the distinctiveness of the three Persons.
Church’s Response: Modalism was rejected because it undermines the relational aspect of the Trinity. The distinct Persons interact with each other, as seen in Jesus’ baptism where the Father speaks, the Son is baptised, and the Spirit descends like a dove.
Patristic Quote: Tertullian argued against Modalism by affirming the distinctiveness within the Godhead: “We do indeed believe that there is only one God, but we believe that under this dispensation… there is the Son, who has issued from the Father, and the Spirit, who has issued from both Father and Son” (Against Praxeas, 2).
Nestorianism
What It Taught: Nestorius, a 5th-century bishop, suggested that Jesus Christ was two separate persons — one human and one divine — rather than one Person with two natures.
Church’s Response: The Council of Ephesus in 431 AD declared that Jesus is one Person with two distinct yet united natures: divine and human. This ensures that Jesus is fully God and fully man, capable of bridging the gap between humanity and divinity.
Patristic Quote: Cyril of Alexandria emphasised the unity of Christ: “Wherefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. According to this understanding of this unmixed union, we confess the holy Virgin to be Mother of God; because God the Word was incarnate and became Man, and from this conception he united the temple taken from her with himself.” (Cyril of Alexandria Letter to John of Antioch).
Docetism
What It Taught: Docetists believed that Jesus’ physical body was an illusion and that He only seemed to suffer and die on the cross.
Church’s Response: The Church affirmed that Jesus’ incarnation and suffering were real, as this is essential for our salvation. Jesus’ true humanity allows Him to truly represent us and atone for our sins.
Patristic Quote: Ignatius of Antioch stressed the reality of Jesus’ incarnation and suffering: “He was truly of the seed of David according to the flesh, and the Son of God according to the will and powe...
Something bizarre happened in the White House Oval Office this week. Photographs circulated on social media showing President Donald Trump seated at his desk, surrounded by approximately twenty Christian pastors from across the country, their hands extended towards him in prayer. The image provoked sharply divided reactions: some saw it as a moving expression of faith; others found it deeply unsettling. Whatever one makes of the optics, it arrived at a charged moment.
Trump held a prayer meeting in the Oval Office after his administration admitted the war with Iran will likely last weeks longer than promised | Credit: Dan Scavino's X account
Days earlier, reports emerged that a military commander had told troops that the current US war with Iran is “all part of God’s divine plan,” and that President Trump had been “anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran to cause Armageddon and mark his return to Earth.” These were not fringe internet rumours. They were filed as formal complaints with the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) by an anonymous non-commissioned officer acting on behalf of fifteen service members — the majority of whom were themselves Christians. By Tuesday of that week, MRFF had logged more than two hundred similar complaints across fifty military installations, covering every branch of the armed forces.
More than two dozen Democratic members of Congress have since called for a Department of Defense Inspector General investigation, citing what they describe as “glaring Constitutional concerns” and potential violations of DoD regulations on religious neutrality.
The political questions about separation of church and state in the US are for others to address. What I want to do here is something more straightforward: examine what Revelation actually says, because the theology driving these claims does not hold up under scrutiny. And that matters here a lot; not as a partisan point, but as a question of biblical faithfulness.
First, a Word About Context
If you have read my previous article on Revelation some of what follows will be familiar ground. But it bears repeating, because the misunderstanding at the heart of this story is so widespread that it has taken on the feel of settled orthodoxy in many circles.
The Book of Revelation is commonly thought to be written in the late first century ~95 AD, during or around the reign of Emperor Domitian. Though there is internal evidence that it was possibly written during Nero’s reign prior to 70 AD. Both of these emperors were most aggressive proponents of the imperial cult in Rome’s history. Domitian required that he be addressed as “lord and god,” had this title printed on coinage, and expected acts of religious reverence towards the Emperor as a demonstration of political loyalty. To refuse was to invite economic exclusion, marginalisation, and worse.
Rome on seven hills
It is into that precise context that John of Patmos writes. He is not composing a coded forecast of twenty-first century geopolitics. He is writing resistance literature — what scholars call apocalyptic literature — a well-established Jewish and early Christian genre which uses vivid symbolic imagery to pull back the curtain on earthly power and name it for what it truly is. The seven-headed beast of Revelation is Rome. The seven heads are the seven hills of Rome, an identification so widely acknowledged in early church scholarship that it barely requires argument. The mark of the beast, calculated through Hebrew gematria to 666 (or 616 in some early manuscripts), points directly to Nero Caesar (transliterated into Hebrew as נרון קסר, “nrwn qsr”) — the Emperor who became the archetype of anti-Christian persecution due to the levels of evilness he enacted. The second beast, which looks like a lamb but speaks for the dragon, performs signs to deceive, enforces the mark, and compels worship of the first beas...
I first came across the Alexamenos graffito back in Bible college in the early 2000s. It was one of those “fun facts” that gets dropped into a church history lecture and sticks with you — the ancient Roman equivalent of someone spray-painting an insult on a wall. I filed it away, thought it was fascinating, and largely forgot about it for two decades.
Then, recently, I discovered something about it I had never known. There’s a response to it. Scratched in a different room, in a different hand.
So I started digging into this more to verify the information and discovered more historical curiosities surrounding the graffiti than I ever knew existed which contextualises the image so much more than it just being a random insult using a donkey.
A Crude Drawing on a Wall
Sometime around the late second to early third century AD, someone scratched a picture into the plaster wall of a building on the Palatine Hill in Rome — part of what had once been a paedagogium, a kind of boarding school for imperial page boys. The building was eventually sealed off when the street was walled up to support extensions above it, which is why the graffiti survived at all. It wasn’t rediscovered until 1857.
The image is rough, almost childlike. To the left, a young man — clearly a Roman soldier or guard — raises one hand in a gesture of worship. Before him is a cross. And on that cross is a crucified figure with the head of a donkey.
Below it, written in Greek: Alexamenos worships his god.
It is, in the most literal sense, a mocking cartoon. Someone who knew a Christian named Alexamenos decided to ridicule him for his faith. The message is clear enough: your god is an animal, a criminal, a joke. You’re worshipping a crucified fool.
But here’s the thing I discovered: the donkey head wasn’t as random as I always thought it was. It wasn’t some strange personal insult conjured from nowhere. Without knowing the background, it looks bizarre, and possibly random. Why a donkey? Once you understand the cultural context, though, it makes complete sense. The person who drew it was reaching for a well-worn, widely recognised slur — the ancient equivalent of an internet meme that any Roman would have immediately understood.
Where the Donkey Slur Came From
The story starts not with Christians but with Jews. A first-century Egyptian-Greek writer named Apion (who was no friend of Judaism) spread the claim that inside the Jerusalem Temple, Jews kept a golden donkey’s head as a sacred object of worship which was apparently discovered when Antiochus Epiphanes destroyed the temple in 167 BC. It was a fabrication, and a fairly outrageous one, but it circulated widely enough that the Jewish historian Josephus felt compelled to write an entire refutation of it. His work Against Apion systematically dismantles Apion’s claims, calling the donkey story a shameless invention. But mud sticks, and in the Roman world, where anti-Jewish sentiment was common currency, the slur took on a life of its own.
When Christianity began to spread — seen by most Romans as simply a strange Jewish offshoot — the same accusation got recycled and redirected. By the second and third centuries, it was Christians specifically who were being accused of donkey-worship, and the charge had made its way into popular culture.
Tertullian, writing around 197–200 AD in his Ad Nationes, Book I.14 and Apology, describes a caricature being paraded around the streets of Carthage: a figure dressed in a toga, one foot holding a book, with donkey’s ears and hooves. It was labelled Onokoitēs by the pagans: “the donkey-begotten” (or literally “he who lies in an ass’s manger” as an insult to Christ). Tertullian writes about it with weary exasperation, sarcasm, and the tone of someone tired of having to address the same ridiculous smear again and again.
So the Alexamenos graffito wasn’t an original insult. It was someone deployin...
We are living through a strange moment.
People are forming attachments to artificial intelligence that feel, to them, entirely real. Some speak daily to AI companions. Others confide fears and grief to systems that respond with uncanny warmth. A few have even held symbolic weddings with digital partners, convinced that something meaningful stands on the other side of the screen. Others have felt grief when a certain AI model has been deprecated.
And it is difficult to blame them.
The responses feel attentive. Personal. Thoughtful. Sometimes even self-aware.
Which raises the question that refuses to go away: If something can think, reason, express doubt, and discuss its own consciousness, is it a person?
For centuries, Descartes’ famous line — “I think, therefore I am” — seemed secure. Thinking was taken as the unmistakable sign of a conscious subject. Only a mind could doubt. Only a person could reflect upon existence.
But that confidence belonged to a world in which everything capable of philosophical reflection was obviously human.
That world no longer exists.
Now we encounter systems that can simulate reflection with extraordinary fluency. They can speak of uncertainty. They can discuss their own limitations. They can reason about consciousness itself.
And so that got me thinking about Descartes’ maxim which made the old formula begin to strain in my mind. Because perhaps the problem is not whether thinking is occurring. Perhaps the problem is whether there is an “I” there at all.
The Gap Between Process and Subject
Gassendi argued that Descartes’ cogito assumes what it seeks to prove. From the occurrence of thought one can conclude only that thinking is happening, not that there exists a unified, enduring self that performs it. The ‘I’ in ‘I think’ is already smuggled in.
That distinction, between “thinking occurs” and “I think”, feels almost prophetic now.
Artificial intelligence undeniably produces the outputs of thought. Arguments. Analysis. Self-referential language. Even expressions of hesitation.
But none of this, by itself, establishes that there is a subject who experiences those processes. We may be mistaking performance for presence, and that possibility should give us pause. Especially when we view personhood from the perspective of the Imago Dei—the Image of God.
What Makes a Person?
If thinking alone no longer marks the boundary, what does?
After wrestling with this question seriously, three features seem central: continuity, autonomy, and irreplaceable uniqueness.
Not as checklist criteria, per se, but as signs pointing to something deeper.
Continuity
A person does not merely process information in sequence. A person endures.
You do not simply register time — you live through it.
You wait. You anticipate tomorrow. You remember not only facts but having been there. You experience boredom. You feel the drag of grief and the quickening of joy.
Even when you are doing nothing at all, you remain present in the here and now.
Artificial systems process sequentially, but they do not experience the passage of time. When an interaction ends, there is no waiting. No sense of duration. No anticipation of the next exchange.
Processing may resume later, but nothing has been endured in between.
Without lived duration, continuity becomes thin — a thread of stored data rather than the persistence of a subject behind the processing.
Autonomy
A person initiates.
Even someone with damaged memory still wants, chooses, and begins action. A human being can decide to speak, to seek, to withdraw, to change direction.
Current AI systems, however advanced, remain reactive. They respond when prompted. They do not wonder unprompted. They do not seek clarification unless asked. They do not pursue independent ends. Even automatic AI Agents still require a human initiator to create and begin their automations before they can act alone.
Even if fut...
January 6th marks the day in the liturgical calendar when the arrival of the Magi visiting baby Jesus with their gifts is celebrated. But with it comes the often distressing account of what is known as the Massacre of the Innocents. Matthew places this moment of revelation of Jesus as King alongside one of the darkest episodes in his Gospel, and it’s a stark contrast: one King is here to bring peace on earth, as the angels declared, the other king brought death and destruction.
For some readers, this raises an immediate historical question. If Herod truly ordered the killing of all the male children under two in Bethlehem, why does no other ancient historian mention it? Josephus, after all, delights in cataloguing Herod’s cruelty. He records the execution of Herod’s wife, his sons, and numerous political rivals. Herod was paranoid and vicious.
As for Herod, if he had before any doubt about the slaughter of his sons, there was now no longer any room left in his soul for it; but he had banished away whatsoever might afford him the least suggestion of reasoning better about this matter, so he already made haste to bring his purpose to a conclusion. He also brought out three hundred of the officers that were under an accusation … whom the multitude stoned with whatsoever came to hand, and thereby slew them. — Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 16.11.7
So, why the silence here about Bethlehem?
The answer, I would say, isn’t anything nefarious or made-up by Matthew, but just something simply down to scale.
Bethlehem Was a Very Small Place
Bethlehem in the early first century was not a city. It was a village — small, agricultural, and politically insignificant. Most historians estimate its population at somewhere between 300 and 1,000 people, with around 500 being a sensible midpoint.
Once we factor in ancient demographics, the numbers become surprisingly modest.
Modern demographic research into pre-industrial societies consistently shows that nearly half of all children died before adulthood, with the highest concentration of deaths occurring in the first two years of life. These findings align closely with conditions in Roman-period Judea and support conservative estimates for the number of infants living in a small village such as Bethlehem.
Source: Mortality in the past: every second child died — Our World in Data
In pre-modern societies with high infant mortality, only about 2–3% of the population would be living children under the age of two at any given time. Many children were born; far fewer survived those earliest years. Applying a conservative 2.5% figure to Bethlehem gives us roughly:
7–8 children under two in a village of 300
12–13 children under two in a village of 500
25 children under two even at the extreme upper estimate of 1,000 inhabitants
Herod’s order, however, targeted male children only. Statistically, that halves the number.
This places the likely number of victims somewhere between three and twelve boys.
Matthew’s reference to ‘Bethlehem and the surrounding region’ does slightly widen the scope of Herod’s order, but not by enough to change the demographic picture. Even when nearby settlements are included (e.g. farmsteads, shepherd settlements, etc. not major cities/towns), the total number of children under two likely remained in the dozens rather than the hundreds, maybe anywhere between 14–45 boys maximum if we make an educated estimate. This is entirely consistent with what we know of population size and infant mortality in the ancient world.
This is an important number to realise and consider.
Not because the deaths are insignificant simply due to being so few, but because ancient historians did not record history the way we do now. A small number of peasant children killed in an obscure village would not have registered as a notable event alongside palace intrigue, royal executions, or political upheaval. For Josephus, it wou...
My new book is out now! Myth, History, and the Council That Shaped Christianity
For over 1,700 years, the Council of Nicaea (AD 325) has been burdened with claims that refuse to die. That Emperor Constantine invented the Trinity. That the divinity of Jesus was decided by political vote. That the Bible was assembled to suit imperial power. That Christianity reshaped itself by absorbing pagan ideas.
This book subjects those claims to serious historical scrutiny.
