Love your meek spirit @Samuel_23
Shalom to you and family.
Johann.
1 Like
Gentlemen
The banter here has been entertaining, and honestly quite enlightening. As I am usually unaware of what entities of darkness do in the darkness, so I was unaware of how this “Hapax legomena” (or as I usually say, this single occurrence of this word in scripture) has become coopted by the world as fuel for unholy fire. My ignorance has been educated. Thank you.
I do have two requests, for those of you gifted in vernacular vivisection and endowed with exegetical expertise. With specific regard for the topic at hand “Lilith” (to keep @Fritz happy): How do we integrate this fascinating deep-dive into the origins, and various contemporary expressions, of ancient mythological characters, specifically those mentioned in scripture as representatives of evil (like Lilith), with the teacing from the following passage:
And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them. For it is shameful even to speak of those things which are done by them in secret. But all things that are exposed are made manifest by the light, for whatever makes manifest is light. Ephesians 5:11-13
My question is not any sort of innuendo nor is am I even suggesting anyone here has strained at gnats while swallowing camels. I sincerely appreciate the depth of your experience, your skillful erudite exegesis, and your diligent willingness to share your gift with the rest of us who have come into the fold from less sophisticated backgrounds. I very much enjoy reading your propositions. I am focusing on the spirit of this admonition (above); the apostles dire warning to these Ephesian believers to beware. There is a line of demarcation that should not be crossed, and advisedly should not even be approached. He speaks of being “imitators of God” and to not be “deceived by empty words”. The unsophisticated reader probably understands well enough what the apostle intends when he says: “have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness”, but the line gets a little hazy when he says: “For it is shameful even to speak of those things which are done by them in secret”. There is a way in which we “imitate God” while “not even speaking of things that dwell in the darkness”. Before one of you say it, I am not suggesting we all, like the proverbial ostrich, “stick our heads in the sand” so we stay unaware of “the wiles of evil”, but we are to "walk circumspectly, not as fools but as wise”. Circumspectly means eyes open, and head on a swivel, so I am not suggesting otherwise. But is it enough to ingest the poetic imagery, do we absorb the full intent of Isaiah 34:13-16 without a biologic understanding of nettles and brambles; do we get Isaiah’s (God’s) point when this “Lilith” is sandwiched within a dark and desolate zoo of carnivorous creatures and malevolent monsters? What Isaiah is penning is sanctified poetry, and poetry has a legal license for invoking imagery, evoking emotions, and mustering moods:
And thorns shall come up in its palaces,
Nettles and brambles in its fortresses;It shall be a habitation of jackals,
A courtyard for ostriches.The wild beasts of the desert shall also meet with the jackals,
And the wild goat shall bleat to its companion;Also, the night creature shall rest there,
and find for herself a place of rest.There the arrow snake shall make her nest and lay eggs
and hatch, and gather them under her shadow;There also shall the hawks be gathered,
Everyone with her mate."Search from the book of the LORD, and read:
Not one of these shall fail;Not one shall lack her mate.
For My mouth has commanded it, and His Spirit has gathered them.”
If you understand my question, I pose it for your specialized consideration and am eager to sit at your feet while I read your response.
The second question, (if I remain a welcome student, and have not been kicked out of class by now) is regarding an oft-quoted paraphrase of Proverbs 27:17; bandied about as some sort of Godly recipe for spiritual edification.
“As iron sharpens iron, so a man sharpens the countenance of his friend.” Proverbs 27:17
The proverb does not read, to me, as an admonishment to practice, but as a warning. Show me the light, if I am missing something. I appreciate the metaphor of “iron sharpening iron” as a clever way of saying two equals make each other better. I regularly read your usage of the phrase in this way; no problem. However, the way this Holy proverb is used (possibly abused), especially in Christian men’s circles, seems to completely ignore what the proverbial writer was saying. The proverbial warning comes in a list of other warnings and cautions against life’s irritations; “egotistic blessings”, “continual dripping”, “grasping oil”, “waiting to serve”, etc. Here, a sharp face is a severe, austere, or stern face; squinted eye, downturned brow, hardened cheeks, clenched teeth. Having one’s face sharpened does not sound like a blessing, but an irritation. Iron sharpening iron sounds harsh, fierce, as each tears away at the other, so a stern face rasps at and hardens the face of his friend.
“A sword, a sword is sharpened and also polished! Sharpened to make a dreadful slaughter, Polished to flash like lightning! Should we then make mirth? It despises the scepter of My Son, As it does all wood. Ezekiel 21:9-10
I sure love the image of a friend strengthening and edifying another in Jesus, but does good exegesis allow us to use this proverb to say that? I am open to your correction.
Love and Peace in The One who embodies both
KP
I’m new here and only have a limited number of replies before I have to wait seven hours to post again.
I hope you’re finding what you’re looking for.
Grace and peace,
Johann.
The fruit of The Spirit is (among others) patience. As a man who has been given eternal life, seven hours of waiting is like a single breath. I can wait. No prob.
Blessing
KP
1 Like
Samuel, I see you brought the whole theological toolbox again—and I’m not mad at it. You’ve laid out the Genesis passages, unpacked the Hebrew, Greek, and even dropped a little patristic firepower. Respect.
Now let’s zero in on what you called “the million-dollar question,” the one fueling YouTube theories and midnight Reddit threads: Was Lilith Adam’s first wife?
Let’s not tiptoe—let’s take it head on.
First off, the whole “two creation accounts = two wives” thing? That’s not interpretation. That’s imagination dressed up in a Hebrew word study. Genesis 1 and 2 aren’t giving us different timelines—they’re giving us a wide-angle shot followed by a close-up. Genesis 1 shows the overview: male and female created in God’s image. Genesis 2 zooms in and gives the how—Eve, formed from Adam’s rib, presented as his counterpart.
Not a contradiction. Not a replacement wife. Just one creation, viewed from two angles. The text isn’t confused. The YouTube theologians are.
The term adam in Genesis 1:26–27 means humanity. Genesis 2 introduces ha’adam as the individual man. No contradiction, no missing woman, and certainly no “mud-made feminist icon” who got kicked out of Eden for not submitting.
As for Lilith? She shows up nowhere in Genesis. Not in the Hebrew. Not in the Greek. Not in the inspired Word. Her alleged backstory comes from the Alphabet of Ben Sira, a medieval parody text that has all the spiritual authority of a Babylonian bedtime story. The only reason Lilith is still kicking around is because modern culture—fueled by Kabbalah, Tumblr, and tarot decks—dragged her out of folklore and tried to hand her a microphone.
But let’s be clear: Genesis 2:18 says Adam was alone. That’s the Spirit’s mic drop against the Lilith theory. If he had a wife before Eve, Scripture forgot to mention it—and that silence is deafening.
So what do we do with the demonology, Samael, Blind Dragons, and the Kabbalistic entourage of chaos? Acknowledge it for what it is: mystical mythology, not divine revelation. The Church fathers rejected these myths. The Reformers stood on sola scriptura for a reason. And Paul already warned us in 2 Timothy 4:3–4—people will turn aside to myths when they get bored of sound doctrine.
Bottom line? Lilith isn’t Adam’s first wife. She isn’t anyone’s wife. She’s a literary ghost, dragged out of the shadows and wrapped in modern rebellion. The Bible gives us Eve—one woman, made from one rib, for one man. Everything else is smoke and mirrors from outside the canon.
Appreciate the depth, Samuel. Let’s keep the conversation in the text, keep the myths on the shelf, and keep the Word rightly divided.
Sincere Seeker
Hey @sincereseeker, should we discuss more about the The alphabet of Ben sira, Talmudic and post Talmudic traditions to understand the origin of Lilith, more about archangel Samael, blind dragon, and more on the treatise of left emancipation, some Jewish mysticism, Greco-Roman mythology and Akkadian traditions, this will help to get a better grasp on the Lilith, but as said these are not inspired by God, neither are they Word of God, but just a jump into another world to get a deeper grasp on the term Lilith and its usage in folklore. We can discuss more about the Mesopotamian mythology like the Gilgamesh cycle, bird footed woman in burney relief, relation with lamashtu and what are the interpretation of Jewish mysticism, midrash rabbah, Kabbalah mysticism, midrash and Zohar then comes mandaeism etc should we discuss about it @sincereseeker to get the root of Lilith. But I feel its better we keep it to scriptures and the inspired Word of God, and not go into it, but if u want @SincereSeeker , we can discuss in depth, but it would be useless as its just culture and traditions (I like to call it folklore) but if u want, we can, maybe tomorrow.
KP, you glorious wordsmith of wonder and watchfulness—
If ever there were a post that deserved to be read aloud in a candlelit library with leather-bound Bibles and coffee strong enough to raise the dead, this was it. You’ve wrapped two questions in velvet, dipped them in Scripture, and delivered them with both gravity and grace. So let me take off my sandals—because we’re standing on theological holy ground—and respond with the reverence and candor your questions deserve.
First: Lilith, darkness, and Ephesians 5.
You asked where the line is between “exposing the works of darkness” and “having fellowship with them,” and brother, that’s a sword-edge question if ever there was one.
You’re absolutely right—Isaiah isn’t giving us a field guide to desert demons. He’s composing apocalyptic poetry drenched in divine judgment. Jackals, satyrs, serpents, and yes, lilith—they’re not there for taxonomy. They’re there to terrify. The point isn’t to dissect the creatures but to declare the curse. The image is desolation so total that even the imaginary monsters have moved in.
So when Paul says in Ephesians 5:11, “Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them,” he isn’t telling us to give equal airtime to every name in the occult directory. He’s calling us to live in such a way that the light of Christ makes the darkness look repulsive. There’s a difference between exposing darkness and entertaining it. One empties the shadows. The other invites them in.
But here’s the tension: how do we expose without crossing into obsession?
Answer: by letting the Word be the spotlight, not the myths. We preach the curse of Edom, not the character of Lilith. We name her only in the context of her irrelevance. We don’t camp out with her—we name her as one of the beasts that show up only when the land is so judged, so desolate, that even the wild things say, “Looks cozy.”
So no, we don’t need a “biological understanding of nettles and brambles” to grasp Isaiah’s point. But a responsible teacher may glance at them long enough to say, “See? That’s how bad it gets when God removes His hand.” That’s not fellowship with darkness. That’s declaring the consequences of it.
Second: Iron sharpening iron. Blessing or bruising?
Oh, now this is where you poked a sacred cow, and I’m here for it.
You’re right—the way “iron sharpens iron” gets quoted today at men’s breakfasts makes it sound like a Hallmark card: “Hey bro, let’s grab coffee and improve each other.” But the Hebrew word for “sharpen” there doesn’t mean “polish” or “encourage.” It means to grind, strike, or make keen through friction. There’s nothing cozy about it.
Proverbs 27:17 is not a warm hug in steel—it’s a warning wrapped in wisdom. Just like you said. The image isn’t of two buddies getting along—it’s of two hard metals clashing, producing sparks, heat, resistance. It’s uncomfortable. It’s abrasive. But it’s necessary. Because dull blades don’t fight wolves.
So yes, the popular usage often misses the point. The verse isn’t primarily about “mutual uplift.” It’s about refinement through friction. The faces being “sharpened” aren’t softened—they’re steeled. The wounds of a friend? That’s Proverbs 27:6. The sharpening of a friend? That’s 27:17. And you better believe both leave a mark.
So no, your reading isn’t off—it’s deeply perceptive. We’ve taken a verse about the painful process of sanctifying confrontation and turned it into a t-shirt slogan for Christian networking. But thank God for friends who leave a holy scrape when they clash against our dull edges.
KP, your questions were gold. Your tone was pastoral. And your insight? Rare and needed.
Keep your head on that theological swivel. You’re not just walking circumspectly—you’re walking wisely, and making the rest of us stop and think.
In love and truth,
Sincere Seeker
P.S. The ostrich line? Brilliant. I’m stealing it. Consider this my official citation.
Samuel, you just offered me a ride through the back alleys of every mystical text and mythological side quest from Akkad to Alexandria—and I’ve got to say, it’s tempting. A theological tour of demon brides, blind dragons, and Babylonian bedtime stories? That’s the kind of rabbit hole that can turn a scholar into a conspiracy theorist with a whiteboard and red string.
But here’s where I stand, brother:
We could absolutely dig into the Alphabet of Ben Sira, the Talmudic cameos, Samael’s bizarre resume, the Treatise on the Left Emanation, and the Kabbalistic fever dream that gave Lilith her full-blown goth makeover. We could link her to Lamashtu, the Burney Relief, the lilu-demons of Mesopotamia, and toss in a dash of Mandaeism for spice. And it would be fascinating.
But fascination isn’t the same as edification.
None of it has the breath of God in it (2 Timothy 3:16). None of it bears the weight of divine authority. And none of it can stand against the lie-crushing sword of Scripture (Hebrews 4:12).
So while I’m not opposed to understanding folklore in order to dismantle its modern mutations, I’ve got zero interest in giving more oxygen to myths that have already done enough damage. I’d rather spend our time tightening the truth than touring the tombs of old lies.
You said it perfectly: it’s folklore. And folklore doesn’t deserve a pulpit. The only reason to mention Lilith at all is to strip her of the stolen robes she’s been wrapped in by neo-pagan rewrites and spiritual rebellion.
Let’s keep our feet planted in the Word of God. If we glance at the shadows, it’s only to remind folks that they’re not where the light is.
So tomorrow? Let’s crack open the canon, not the Kabbalah.
In truth, not tradition,
Sincere Seeker
1 Like
Thanks SS.
I’m glad I “communicated” what I was trying to say.
I especially like this affirmation:
"Letting The Word be the spotlight! Yes!
The True Light that dispels (dismisses) darkness, not one that emblazons evil on the marquee.
“Speaking of evil only as necessary to relegate its agents to irrelevance". That’s what I’m hearing too.
Rowing together
KP
1 Like