Double Metaphor? (Satan / Dragon)

[Charisma]

I've been studying Revelation 12:2 where John sees a Red Dragon with seven heads with crowns and a tail. To which John relates to his readers that the image is of the Devil, Satan.

When I look at the Dragon with seven heads I see John employing a metaphor for the seven worldly kings / kingdoms that dominate over the children of Israel. What I also see is that John relates the dragon to Satan. If I understand this right then John would be employing a 'double metaphor'. One for the Dragon as the seven kings / kingdoms and another for Satan as the sinful flesh of men.

These two are interwoven together that is why Satan is described as the dragon with seven heads and John describes the Beast of the sea (humanity) having seven heads. The seven gentile nations that dominate over Israel is given their power by sinful flesh of men.

But however you tend to interpert those passages, what I really want to hear from you is if my 'double metaphor' is possible and a good way to interpert?

Revelation 12:1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: and she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.

3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. 4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and [to] his throne. 6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred [and] threescore days.

7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, and prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. 9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. 11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.


Hi Beck,

I don't see the double metaphor at all. These things are real (not metaphorical), although the language is condensed in what I am coming to understand as an Hebraic way - meaning: the terms are much more than symbols. They are truths.

Regarding 'sinful flesh', Richard asks a valid question.

Mankind, in taking his eyes off God, and looking down (at created things) instead of up towards the Creator whom he should worship in spirit and truth, lays himself open to God's chastenings, sometimes brought about by 'spiritual' pressures, designed by God to make man call out to God, afresh, with repentance (turning back to Him). How often did this happen to Israel? (I haven't counted, but perhaps someone has.)

God is in charge of everything, even the power given to Satan / Devil / Dragon, which He limits according to His purposes. Contrary to popular opinion, Satan is not equal to God by any measure.

John 19:11 Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power [at all] against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.

John 3:27 John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven.

[Beck]

Hi Beck,
I was just thinking of starting a thread from a similar perspective.
I believe the use of allegory in scripture is used in many ways and some that we don't readily see.

I have been reading a book called "What is Self" by Bernadette Roberts. In it she says that the death of Ego is the beginning of the Journey. And the death of Self is the goal. This would fit with Jesus' saying follow me. He had no Ego and yet at the end of his ministry he was crucified.

Very interesting, In how the bible have conveyed it's meaning in metaphors and allegories and even to the point of using double metaphors.

Also consider the use of Idioms. In scripture the use of relating that a city was considered a woman and that same city was a daughter. Thus the terms "sons," "daughters," "children," "harlot," as well as other descriptive terms like "seed," "adulterers," and "liars" are used collectively without regard to specific gender in relationship to that city.

So I can see the use of double metaphors in that kind of description of a city (woman, daugther, son, etc)

[Beck]

So according to you all, the flesh is also "the god of this world, Serpent, Dragon, devil, Satan, Beelzebub, Prince of the Power of the Air, Evil One, Apollyon, Destroyer, etc, etc.

I can only speak for myself and I would say yes.

Seems to me quite evident that Satan is a spirit-being.

And he is a personal being not an impersonal force or the flesh.

Flesh is related to in the sence of the spirit of disobedience. The flesh wars againts the Spirit. As elsewhere in the bible the writers used terms and metaphors to relate their meaning through known physical ideas. Paul used his 'body' as a metaphor to relate to the bondage of the law. That 'body' of death isn't about his physical body, but the flesh the law of sin. Those that walk after the flesh to keep the law are held in bondage to keep or be condemned. (Rom.7:7-25)

In John 8; 39-44 Jesus address the Pharisees that becasue they could only understand through their 'flesh' worldly desires 'lust' that they are of their father the devil. What Jesus is saying it that they could only see through their worldy understand which was driven by their flesh "their father" the devil. Which is interperted as a evil spirit that same spirit of disobedience.

He speaks - Lk. 4:3, knows - Rev. 12:12, works - Eph. 2:2, disputes - Jude 9, desires - Jn. 8:44, requests - Lk. 22:31, schemes - II Cor. 2:11, has conceit - I Tim. 3:6, wills - II Tim. 2:2, has wrath - Rev. 12:12, and deceives - Rev. 20:2.

Literary writings to describe the nature of flesh. So remember when I say flesh it is in the notion of the carnal mindiness.

[Beck]

Hi Beck,

I don't see the double metaphor at all. These things are real (not metaphorical), although the language is condensed in what I am coming to understand as an Hebraic way - meaning: the terms are much more than symbols. They are truths.

So you understand the red dragon with seven heads are real and not metaphors? I understand that metaphors relate to something that is real, but the symbol of the metaphor is only a symbol and isn't real. Is that how you see it?

[Charisma]

I believe the use of allegory in scripture is used in many ways and some that we don't readily see.

Hi Bob,

Yes and no.

Rick quoted a verse which ties your thought up with God's, precisely:

1 Corinthians 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God;
that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

I believe the word 'know' (eido) is most important to reading the verse with full comprehension.

Here's part of what Vine's Expository Dictionary explains on this page: http://www2.mf.no/bibelprog/vines?word=¯t0001579

'Topic: Know, Known, Knowledge, Unknown

<A-1,Verb,1097,ginosko>
signifies "to be taking in knowledge, to come to know, recognize, understand," or "to understand completely," e.g., Mark 13:28,29; John 13:12; 15:18; 21:17; 2 Cor. 8:9; Heb. 10:34; 1 John 2:5; 4:2,6 (twice),7,13; 5:2,20; in its past tenses it frequently means "to know in the sense of realizing," the aorist or point tense usually indicating definiteness, Matt. 13:11; Mark 7:24; John 7:26; in John 10:38 "that ye may know (aorist tense) and understand, (present tense);" John 19:4; Acts 1:7; 17:19; Rom. 1:21; 1 Cor. 2:11 (2nd part),14; 2 Cor. 2:4; Eph. 3:19; 6:22; Phil. 2:19; 3:10; 1 Thess. 3:5; 2 Tim. 2:19; Jas. 2:20; 1 John 2:13 (twice),14; 3:6; 4:8; 2 John 1:1; Rev. 2:24; 3:3,9. In the Passive Voice, it often signifies "to become known," e.g., Matt. 10:26; Phil. 4:5. In the sense of complete and absolute understanding on God's part, it is used e.g., in Luke 16:15; John 10:15 (of the Son as well as the Father); 1 Cor. 3:20. In Luke 12:46, AV, it is rendered "he is ... aware."

In the NT ginosko frequently indicates a relation between the person "knowing" and the object known; in this respect, what is "known" is of value or importance to the one who knows, and hence the establishment of the relationship, e.g., especially of God's "knowledge," 1 Cor. 8:3, "if any man love God, the same is known of Him;" Gal. 4:9, "to be known of God;" here the "knowing" suggests approval and bears the meaning "to be approved;" so in 2 Tim. 2:19; cp. John 10:14,27; Gen. 18:19; Nah. 1:7; the relationship implied may involve remedial chastisement, Amos 3:2.

The same idea of appreciation as well as "knowledge" underlies several statements concerning the "knowledge" of God and His truth on the part of believers, e.g., John 8:32; 14:20,31; 17:3; Gal. 4:9 (1st part); 1 John 2:3,13,14; 4:6,8,16; 5:20; such "knowledge" is obtained, not by mere intellectual activity, but by operation of the Holy Spirit consequent upon acceptance of Christ. Nor is such "knowledge" marked by finality; see e.g., 2 Pet. 3:18; Hos. 6:3, RV.

The verb is also used to convey the thought of connection or union, as between man and woman, Matt. 1:25; Luke 1:34.

<A-2,Verb,1492,oida>
from the same root as eidon, "to see," is a perfect tense with a present meaning, signifying, primarily, "to have seen or perceived;" hence, "to know, to have knowledge of," whether absolutely, as in Divine knowledge, e.g., Matt. 6:8,32; John 6:6,64; 8:14; 11:42; 13:11; 18:4; 2 Cor. 11:31; 2 Pet. 2:9; Rev. 2:2,9,13,19; 3:1,8,15; or in the case of human "knowledge," to know from observation, e.g, 1 Thess. 1:4,5; 2:1; 2 Thess. 3:7.

The differences between ginosko (No. 1) and oida demand consideration: (a) ginosko, frequently suggests inception or progress in "knowledge," while oida suggests fullness of "knowledge," e.g., John 8:55, "ye have not known Him" (ginosko), i.e., begun to "know," "but I know Him" (oida), i.e., "know Him perfectly;" John 13:7, "What I do thou knowest not now," i.e. Peter did not yet perceive (oida) its significance, "but thou shalt understand," i.e., "get to know (ginosko), hereafter;" John 14:7, "If ye had known Me" (ginosko), i.e., "had definitely come to know Me," "ye would have known My Father also" (oida), i.e., "would have had perception of:" "from henceforth ye know Him" (ginosko), i.e., having unconsciously been coming to the Father, as the One who was in Him, they would now consciously be in the constant and progressive experience of "knowing" Him; in Mark 4:13, "Know ye not (oida) this parable? and how shall ye know (ginosko) all the parables?" (RV), i.e., "Do ye not understand this parable? How shall ye come to perceive all ..." the intimation being that the first parable is a leading and testing one; (b) while ginosko frequently implies an active relation between the one who "knows" and the person or thing "known" (see No. 1, above), oida expresses the fact that the object has simply come within the scope of the "knower's" perception; thus in Matt. 7:23 "I never knew you" (ginosko) suggests "I have never been in approving connection with you," whereas in Matt. 25:12, "I know you not" (oida) suggests "you stand in no relation to Me."

<A-3,Verb,1921,epiginosko>
denotes (a) "to observe, fully perceive, notice attentively, discern, recognize" (epi, "upon," and No. 1); it suggests generally a directive, a more special, recognition of the object "known" than does No. 1; it also may suggest advanced "knowledge" or special appreciation; thus, in Rom. 1:32, "knowing the ordinance of God" (epiginosko) means "knowing full well," whereas in verse Rom. 1:21 "knowing God" (ginosko) simply suggests that they could not avoid the perception. Sometimes epiginosko implies a special participation in the object "known," and gives greater weight to what is stated; thus in John 8:32, "ye shall know the truth," ginosko is used, whereas in 1 Tim. 4:3, "them that believe and know the truth," epiginosko lays stress on participation in the truth. Cp. the stronger statement in Col. 1:6 (epiginosko) with that in 2 Cor. 8:9 (ginosko), and the two verbs in 1 Cor. 13:12, "now I know in part (ginosko); but then shall I know (piginosko) even as also I have been known (epiginosko)," "a knowledge which perfectly unites the subject with the object; (b) "to discover, ascertain, determine," e.g., Luke 7:37; 23:7; Acts 9:30; 19:34; 22:29; 28:1; in Acts 24:11 the best mss. have this verb instead of No. 1; hence the RV, "take knowledge." J. Armitage Robinson (on Ephesians) points out that epignosis is "knowledge directed towards a particular object, perceiving, discerning," whereas gnosis is knowledge in the abstract. See ACKNOWLEDGE.'


There can be no mistaking that without 'the spirit which is of God', we cannot even perceive what God has for us, let alone 'see' it so as to recognise it, or become as intimately acquainted with it (enter/receive) as appears to be implicit in the fuller sense of 'knowing'; and yet this fuller sense of knowing is what God desires for us; and unless we desire it with all our heart and mind and soul and strength will we obtain it?

(I realise that the particular verse is not used as an example in the extract above, but the meaning still pertains.)

[Bob May]

Hi Bob,

Yes and no.

Rick quoted a verse which ties your thought up with God's, precisely:

1 Corinthians 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God;
that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

I believe the word 'know' (eido) is most important to reading the verse with full comprehension.

Here's part of what Vine's Expository Dictionary explains on this page: http://www2.mf.no/bibelprog/vines?word=¯t0001579

'Topic: Know, Known, Knowledge, Unknown

<A-1,Verb,1097,ginosko>
signifies "to be taking in knowledge, to come to know, recognize, understand," or "to understand completely," e.g., Mark 13:28,29; John 13:12; 15:18; 21:17; 2 Cor. 8:9; Heb. 10:34; 1 John 2:5; 4:2,6 (twice),7,13; 5:2,20; in its past tenses it frequently means "to know in the sense of realizing," the aorist or point tense usually indicating definiteness, Matt. 13:11; Mark 7:24; John 7:26; in John 10:38 "that ye may know (aorist tense) and understand, (present tense);" John 19:4; Acts 1:7; 17:19; Rom. 1:21; 1 Cor. 2:11 (2nd part),14; 2 Cor. 2:4; Eph. 3:19; 6:22; Phil. 2:19; 3:10; 1 Thess. 3:5; 2 Tim. 2:19; Jas. 2:20; 1 John 2:13 (twice),14; 3:6; 4:8; 2 John 1:1; Rev. 2:24; 3:3,9. In the Passive Voice, it often signifies "to become known," e.g., Matt. 10:26; Phil. 4:5. In the sense of complete and absolute understanding on God's part, it is used e.g., in Luke 16:15; John 10:15 (of the Son as well as the Father); 1 Cor. 3:20. In Luke 12:46, AV, it is rendered "he is ... aware."

In the NT ginosko frequently indicates a relation between the person "knowing" and the object known; in this respect, what is "known" is of value or importance to the one who knows, and hence the establishment of the relationship, e.g., especially of God's "knowledge," 1 Cor. 8:3, "if any man love God, the same is known of Him;" Gal. 4:9, "to be known of God;" here the "knowing" suggests approval and bears the meaning "to be approved;" so in 2 Tim. 2:19; cp. John 10:14,27; Gen. 18:19; Nah. 1:7; the relationship implied may involve remedial chastisement, Amos 3:2.

The same idea of appreciation as well as "knowledge" underlies several statements concerning the "knowledge" of God and His truth on the part of believers, e.g., John 8:32; 14:20,31; 17:3; Gal. 4:9 (1st part); 1 John 2:3,13,14; 4:6,8,16; 5:20; such "knowledge" is obtained, not by mere intellectual activity, but by operation of the Holy Spirit consequent upon acceptance of Christ. Nor is such "knowledge" marked by finality; see e.g., 2 Pet. 3:18; Hos. 6:3, RV.

The verb is also used to convey the thought of connection or union, as between man and woman, Matt. 1:25; Luke 1:34.

<A-2,Verb,1492,oida>
from the same root as eidon, "to see," is a perfect tense with a present meaning, signifying, primarily, "to have seen or perceived;" hence, "to know, to have knowledge of," whether absolutely, as in Divine knowledge, e.g., Matt. 6:8,32; John 6:6,64; 8:14; 11:42; 13:11; 18:4; 2 Cor. 11:31; 2 Pet. 2:9; Rev. 2:2,9,13,19; 3:1,8,15; or in the case of human "knowledge," to know from observation, e.g, 1 Thess. 1:4,5; 2:1; 2 Thess. 3:7.

The differences between ginosko (No. 1) and oida demand consideration: (a) ginosko, frequently suggests inception or progress in "knowledge," while oida suggests fullness of "knowledge," e.g., John 8:55, "ye have not known Him" (ginosko), i.e., begun to "know," "but I know Him" (oida), i.e., "know Him perfectly;" John 13:7, "What I do thou knowest not now," i.e. Peter did not yet perceive (oida) its significance, "but thou shalt understand," i.e., "get to know (ginosko), hereafter;" John 14:7, "If ye had known Me" (ginosko), i.e., "had definitely come to know Me," "ye would have known My Father also" (oida), i.e., "would have had perception of:" "from henceforth ye know Him" (ginosko), i.e., having unconsciously been coming to the Father, as the One who was in Him, they would now consciously be in the constant and progressive experience of "knowing" Him; in Mark 4:13, "Know ye not (oida) this parable? and how shall ye know (ginosko) all the parables?" (RV), i.e., "Do ye not understand this parable? How shall ye come to perceive all ..." the intimation being that the first parable is a leading and testing one; (b) while ginosko frequently implies an active relation between the one who "knows" and the person or thing "known" (see No. 1, above), oida expresses the fact that the object has simply come within the scope of the "knower's" perception; thus in Matt. 7:23 "I never knew you" (ginosko) suggests "I have never been in approving connection with you," whereas in Matt. 25:12, "I know you not" (oida) suggests "you stand in no relation to Me."

<A-3,Verb,1921,epiginosko>
denotes (a) "to observe, fully perceive, notice attentively, discern, recognize" (epi, "upon," and No. 1); it suggests generally a directive, a more special, recognition of the object "known" than does No. 1; it also may suggest advanced "knowledge" or special appreciation; thus, in Rom. 1:32, "knowing the ordinance of God" (epiginosko) means "knowing full well," whereas in verse Rom. 1:21 "knowing God" (ginosko) simply suggests that they could not avoid the perception. Sometimes epiginosko implies a special participation in the object "known," and gives greater weight to what is stated; thus in John 8:32, "ye shall know the truth," ginosko is used, whereas in 1 Tim. 4:3, "them that believe and know the truth," epiginosko lays stress on participation in the truth. Cp. the stronger statement in Col. 1:6 (epiginosko) with that in 2 Cor. 8:9 (ginosko), and the two verbs in 1 Cor. 13:12, "now I know in part (ginosko); but then shall I know (piginosko) even as also I have been known (epiginosko)," "a knowledge which perfectly unites the subject with the object; (b) "to discover, ascertain, determine," e.g., Luke 7:37; 23:7; Acts 9:30; 19:34; 22:29; 28:1; in Acts 24:11 the best mss. have this verb instead of No. 1; hence the RV, "take knowledge." J. Armitage Robinson (on Ephesians) points out that epignosis is "knowledge directed towards a particular object, perceiving, discerning," whereas gnosis is knowledge in the abstract. See ACKNOWLEDGE.'


There can be no mistaking that without 'the spirit which is of God', we cannot even perceive what God has for us, let alone 'see' it so as to recognise it, or become as intimately acquainted with it (enter/receive) as appears to be implicit in the fuller sense of 'knowing'; and yet this fuller sense of knowing is what God desires for us; and unless we desire it with all our heart and mind and soul and strength will we obtain it?

(I realise that the particular verse is not used as an example in the extract above, but the meaning still pertains.)

Hi Rick and Charisma, and Beck and Richard also,
(But especially Rick and Charisma)

I did not say that the Dragon, Satan, the serpent was not a real entity.

I was merely commenting on beck's question of whether or not it was possible that there were double metaphors used in scripture.
Allegory is used throughout scripture and Jesus' ministry actually happened, yet he was also acting out an allegory.

You need the Spirit to undestand scripture.
It was written allegorically. So you need to understand at least some allegory in order to understand it.
But if all you are doing is reading it allegorically or literally without the Spirit you will never understand it.

Are there double metaphors? Of course there are.

As far as man's idea of satan goes there are different ways that man understand, explains, explains away, etc. satan.

He/it is a really entity and has power over us.
It is just a force that we can succumb to.
He/it is a force that has no power over us.
He/it is merely a condition of error.
He/it was defeated at the cross.

All of these can and are real to us as certain stages of our growth and relationship with God and Jesus and the Spirit.

We can argue all day long concerning our own particular idea of this condition or entity, but we will never sway another's opinion concerning this entity because it is attached so deeply to fear.
Spirtual discernment is one of the gifts of the Spirit. To see spirits is to see both good and evil spirits. Or to see people in bondage to spirits.

I would rather be looking to the solution to the problem than at the problem.
I have been frequenting a Carlos Castaneda forum for over ten years now. The conversation always gets back to the subject of "Inorganic Beings" and the "Foriegn Installation."

It is good to know of the existance of something, but not to dwell on that knowledge.

Php 4:8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

Bob

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi All,

What do you make of this?

Heb. 2:14 - "the one having the power of death, that is, the devil"
How does our flesh have the power of death?

Jn. 12:31 - "the ruler of this world shall be cast out"
How do you cast out the flesh? I thought you denied it for it is always with you.

So according to you all, the flesh is also "the god of this world, Serpent, Dragon, devil, Satan, Beelzebub, Prince of the Power of the Air, Evil One, Apollyon, Destroyer, etc, etc.

1Co 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
Why is the Spirit of God being contrasted with the spirit of the world? The Spirit of God is a supernatural, spiritual being/personality. Is He being contrasted with a supernatural, spiritual being/personality?

Eph 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
Even, Christians have to continue to fight their flesh, but they are supposed to have been delivered from this spirit.

1Jn 4:6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.
Here is a third instance of the spirit of truth (which is the Spirit of God) being contrasted with a spirit.

Seems to me quite evident that Satan is a spirit-being.

And he is a personal being not an impersonal force or the flesh.

He speaks - Lk. 4:3, knows - Rev. 12:12, works - Eph. 2:2, disputes - Jude 9, desires - Jn. 8:44, requests - Lk. 22:31, schemes - II Cor. 2:11, has conceit - I Tim. 3:6, wills - II Tim. 2:2, has wrath - Rev. 12:12, and deceives - Rev. 20:2.

When the Bible wants to talk about the flesh, it speaks plainly about it and there is no confusion. Flesh is flesh and spirit is spirit.

More later...

All the best,
Rick

Hey there Rick!

That's a very thorough review of the topic. I agree that the Bible presents Satan as a personal being. Of course, that's one of the many points where the Bible and I part ways.

Richard

[heb13-13]

Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

We know from this scriptures that principalities, powers and rulers of darkness are not flesh and blood.

Who then, are they?

Rick

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

We know from this scriptures that principalities, powers and rulers of darkness are not flesh and blood.

Who then, are they?

Rick

I think Paul beleived there were heirarchies of spiritual powers, and some of them went bad, like fallen angels, and we were trapped in a battle between the good and evil spiritual forces.

Personally, I don't see things that way ...

[Charisma]

Hi Beck,

I understand that metaphors relate to something that is real, but the symbol of the metaphor is only a symbol and isn't real. Is that how you see it?

I'm not sure if you're understanding what a metaphor is - merely a figure of speech. There is no 'symbol' involved.

I grant you that common English usage may have warped the term 'metaphor', so that your question is colloquially valid, but you might be better to stick with 'symbol', if you believe the red dragon is not 'real'.

So you understand the red dragon with seven heads are real and not metaphors?

It's not a metaphor. It may be a symbol.

It may not be a symbol.


Spiritually speaking, I see it as 'real', yes.