I have never given this idea much critical evaluation, but recently came across the proposition that ‘The Devil’ is not a personal being, but rather a description or a concept—perhaps of sin.
I was wondering what others thought about this. Do you think Satan is a personal being—a real individual entity, or more of a concept? If a concept, a concept of what?
Post Thanks / Like - 3 Thanks, 0 Laughing
I don't deny the existence of the demonic, but I think we've rolled several different conceptual entities together to form our idea of "the Devil." Satan, Azazel, Lucifer, Beelzebub... each of these names have been used to refer to "the Devil," yet there are other examples of demonology which list them as separate entities. I think we have created a single entity which we generally use to represent all things demonic and labeled that entity "the Devil."
Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
He appeared before God to accuse Job. Can a concept appear before God? I don't know what else but a personal being could do that.
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 LaughingBryan Williams - "thanks" for this post
Coupla things about that...Originally Posted by Keith Mullins
-Job has been historically included with the Kethubim (writings) among the Sifrei Emet (three poetic books), the other two being Psalms and Proverbs, suggesting that the Jews did not view the Book of Job as a historical account, but rather as a poetic book intended to impart wisdom, in this case an attempt to explain Theodicy
-"The Devil" in Job is Ha-Shatan, or "the Accuser." Ha-Shatan is not necessarily the same person as Lucifer, Beelzebub, or even the Satan to which Jesus refers when he says "I saw Satan himself fall..." in fact, it can't be the same entity to which Jesus is referring, because that entity was banished from heaven, and the one in the book of Job clearly still had access...
Post Thanks / Like - 4 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Keith,
I think that Shea is right in what he is alluding to. The term Satan means "accuser" and thus I believe the reference in Job has more to do with the role that the being in question was fulfilling than it does a proper name. So I do not think we can equate the being in Job (even if we were to take it as a historical book, which Shea rightly points out that the Hebrew's do not) with the figure that Jesus and the New Testament refers to when the term Satan is used.
John
Post Thanks / Like - 4 Thanks, 0 Laughing
I said in an earlier thread that for me, believing in Satan, the Devil, Demons, etc. as "being" or "beings" necessarily leads to a kind of faux paganism where we have a good god (God) and a lesser evil god (Satan) or gods (Demons). I also believe that using "Satan" or "Devil" as a metaphor for my selfish, self-destructive sin nature and "Demons" as a metaphor for my temptations, depression, and traumas does not in any way lessen the necessity to fight them tooth and nail, nor does it diminish the reality of the danger they pose to me and my relationships with God and other people.
Post Thanks / Like - 8 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Something that is usually overlooked in connecting the satan in Job with the devil:
1) the satan appears in heaven before God along with the "sons of God." At the very least that ought to raise some questions.
Other references are too often ignored as well.
2) In Numbers 22:22, 32 the "messenger of God" calls himself a satan.
3) In 2 Chronicles 21:1 a satan is credited with inciting David to take a census, while the parallel passage in 2 Samuel 24:1 says that it was God.
These (and other passages) suggest that the satan in the Old Testament is far more related to God than to a devil.
As I have often said, the plain and easily demonstrable fact is that there is no devil anywhere in the Old Testament. It is there only if we insert it by interpretation. Again, at the very least that ought to raise some questions for us.
Grace and Peace,
Dennis B.
Post Thanks / Like - 12 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Agreed.
Given that a "satan" is just an accuser, I don't think the term itself is necessarily demonic, which was my point in that particular instance. The only evidence I find for a single demonic entity which is somehow "greater than" other demons is in the New Testament, and even there I would challenge the assumption. Jesus' encounter with the Tempter and Peter's statement about "your enemy, the devil" are the most cited passages, yet there's no evidence that these demons were somehow rulers of the rest of the demons, or that they themselves were the same entity. In fact, I've seen several examples of demonology where there were no fewer than four (and sometimes quite a few more) demon rulers- one of the more noteworthy being Anton LaVey's which, although far from authoritative, is a mainstay among satanists.
Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Just to "lower" the level of the discussion a bit, isn't the devil a bloke who wears a red suit, has horns on his head, cloven hoofs and a pointy tail... and oh, he carries a trident?
Seriously though, where do we get such an image of "the devil"? I don't easily find it in scripture.... although with a bit of imagination I could conjure up an image similar to that from the book of Revelation.... perhaps?
I wonder if such imagery attribute to "the devil" or Satan or to evil in general, more power than what he, it or they actually have? With Shea, I agree that Satan's greatest power comes from his accusations against the elect. Temptations too are a problem although I suspect that most of our temptations stem from our own willfulness.
Cheers,
Dave
Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
If you would like to find any place that explicitly mentions the notion of Lucifer starting a revolution in heaven with a third of the angels, then you'll have to look at the book of 2 Enoch. I found it once on microfiche and sat down to read it. Interesting read... but given that it's in a class of writing called the pseudopigraphal writings (that is to say, no one ever thought it was the inspired word of God), it makes one wonder why this is the dominant Christian mythology.
Like Dennis says about reading Satan into the Old Testament, it takes quite a lot to read Lucifer's revolt into the New Testament. There are a few passages that seem to refer to it, but on further inspection it raises more questions than it gives answers.
Post Thanks / Like - 4 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Wow .................
The LORD said to Satan, "Where have you come from?"
Satan answered the LORD, "From roaming through the earth and going back and forth in it."
It seems to me those (angels or man) that sincerely follow God don't delight in "steering/leading" others into sin. I can't see any angel who takes delight in doing so being allowed to remain in heaven. That doesn't necessary (to me) mean a lack of communication with God since we no little of the other side and the makeup of angels.
Some satan asked to sift Peter according to Jesus. Maybe thats the same satan that also tempted Jesus despite the access reasoning. (not that it matters)
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Keith,
Would you care to elaborate?
John
Another interesting note is that "lucifer" is Latin for "morning star." Peter writes in 2 Peter 1:19 about the time when the day dawns and "lucifer" rises in our hearts (see Latin Vulgate). In the English translation of Revelation 22:16, Jesus says that HE is the "bright morning star" (stella splendida et matutina)
Post Thanks / Like - 4 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Shea, thanks for your thoughts. I would suggest that maybe Matthew 12:22-29 or so gives us evidence of a demonic ruler named Satan or Beelzebub. The name Beelzebub is on the lips of the Pharisees, but Jesus doesn’t correct them, and actually then equates this name with Satan in his reply. I have not looked into this critically, but would appreciate thoughts from whoever would care to contribute.
Thanks you for your thoughts, Dr. Bratcher. Doesn't this leave a bit of discontinuity between the OT and the NT? The idea of Satan or Beelzebub as a personal entity seems much more prevalent in the NT.
I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that this view of satan originated with the celebration of All Saints Day / Halloween as a way to make fun of Satan... that could be just by addled brain, however.
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Thanks isn't enough here, Andy. I have followed this same route.
When I was younger and regarded the devil as a separate entity, I was a little annoyed that Jesus got to hold a conversation with the horned little man in red tights in the wilderness whereas the temptation conversation for me is with a voice inside my head. It certainly would be easier to resist temptation if I could more clearly identify its source as an evil outside myself. I found it helpful to change my view to put the voice inside Jesus' head and add validity to the statement that he was "tempted in every way just as we are" (Heb 4:15). I know many would have a problem with placing a desire within Jesus to serve himself (turn stones into bread when on the verge of death by starvation) and find a path to being the Messiah that followed worldly ambitions and values and brought him personal glory, but I think it's necessary to see him as human with human weaknesses, including an inner drive for significance which he had to overcome in order to submit to the Father's will.
As I read the various New Testament references to Satan and the devil, I find that they fit well with a metaphorical interpretation seeing them as representative of the basic desire lurking within us to steal some of God's glory for ourselves.
Example: Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour (1 Pet 5:8). I.e., the selfishness within us seeks to devour everything that is valuable in ourselves and others.
Marsha
Post Thanks / Like - 6 Thanks, 0 Laughing
In "The Last Word and the Word After That" Brian McClaren seems to chalk this up to the influence of pagan (Greek, I think) cultures around the Jews. He also talks about the idea that we see the Pharisees as the "conservatives" because of their onerous legalism, but it was in fact the Sadducees who were conservatives because they weren't influenced by such pagan ideas.
Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Every translation that I've looked at for this doesn't use the word SATAN.
NIV
But God was very angry when he went, and the angel of the LORD stood in the road to oppose him. Balaam was riding on his donkey, and his two servants were with him
NLT
But God was angry that Balaam was going, so he sent the angel of the LORD to stand in the road to block his way. As Balaam and two servants were riding along,
NASB
But God was angry because he was going, and the angel of the LORD took his stand in the way as an adversary against him. Now he was riding on his donkey and his two servants were with him.
etc.....so what I'm wondering is do you mean that the word adversary or one who opposes is the exact word in Hebrew as when we see the word Satan used elsewhere in the Bible?
I think you mean FIRST Chronicles 21:1 here.3) In 2 Chronicles 21:1 a satan is credited with inciting David to take a census, while the parallel passage in 2 Samuel 24:1 says that it was God.
Yup, same Hebrew word (Shatan). Translators basically choose to not translate it, but rather transliterate it, when they feel it applies specifically to "the Devil," while they translate it as "adversary" or "opponent" when it does not. There are more than a few words where translators take such interpretive liberties.
Post Thanks / Like - 5 Thanks, 0 Laughing
If there is such a discontinuity, then it raises a different set of questions than we are used to asking:
1) If there is no devil in the Old Testament as there is in the New Testament, what is the historical development of the concept? Where did it come from within Judaism?I think it also forces us to ask far deeper exegetical questions of the biblical text.
2) As soon as we concede "development," we are dealing with contextual issues. What cultural and historical issues are related to that development, and how does that affect how we understand the concept?
3) What implications would that historical development have on our understanding of the concept and its related ideas (demonology, spiritual warfare, etc.), not only within Scripture but in present application?
4) How do we go about distinguishing between ontological and metaphorical description in the biblical text?There are even a broader range of questions raised.
5) How do we decide that Scripture is primarily ontological in the first place?
6) How do literary or narrative methodologies affect how we understand New Testament references?
7) How do we determine meaning in Scripture in light of 2,000 years of accrued theological and popular interpretations, many of which approach fantasy (Dante's Inferno) or are outright fiction (Peretti's Darkness series, as well as cinematic portrayals of the devil and the demonic)?
8) How exactly do we go about understanding application of the concept in present contexts that, apart from certain religious ideas and doctrines, do not accept the notion that human ills are the result of the devil or the demonic?Well, you get the idea.
9) How does the difference between a first century world view and a 21st century world view (including what we know about the physical world) affect how we approach the topic? (It has not been that long ago in the USA that some illnesses, for example epilepsy, were considered demonic manifestations; and recall that we did not discover germs until the 1860s.)
10) . . .
Grace and Peace,
Dennis B.
Post Thanks / Like - 7 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Yes, it is the identical word in Hebrew. As Shea pointed out, it is a translation issue. In Job, it is usually translated "Satan" as a proper name even though in the Hebrew text it has a definite article, "the satan." In other words, it is more a title rather than a name: "the adversary." Yet in Numbers 22 it has no article and yet is translated as "adversary" rather than Satan.
Also, it might be important to note that there are no capital letters in Hebrew, so capitalizing Satan as a proper name (a convention of English) is an interpretative move. There is nothing in the Hebrew text that mandates this.
My point is that the issues over the "devil" or Satan" in Job are not nearly as clear as many have claimed or assumed them to be.
Yes, thanks for the correction.
Grace and Peace,
Dennis B.
Last edited by Dennis Bratcher; May 6th, 2010 at 10:55 PM.
Post Thanks / Like - 4 Thanks, 0 Laughing
The devil, as they say, is in the details.
Zoroastrianism?
Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
This is what I've been told.
I wonder how much Jesus and the disciples were speaking into the combined culture of Greek mythology, Zoroastrianism, Gnosticism, etc. which brought rich wordplay, but which, not being planned for folks 2k years later, didn't include footnotes on how they were being clever.
And Jesus knew we'd screw it up no matter what he'd say anyway.
Post Thanks / Like - 3 Thanks, 0 Laughing
That is not really what the satan in Job (or Numbers 22) is doing.
In any case, there are other passages to consider.
Jud 9:23 But God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the lords of Shechem; and the lords of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech.Grace and Peace,
1 Sam 16:14 Now the spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD tormented him. 16:15 And Saul's servants said to him, "See now, an evil spirit from God is tormenting you. 16:16 Let our lord now command the servants who attend you to look for someone who is skillful in playing the lyre; and when the evil spirit from God is upon you, he will play it, and you will feel better."
1 Sam18:10 The next day an evil spirit from God rushed upon Saul, and he raved within his house,
1 Sam 19:9 Then an evil spirit from the LORD came upon Saul, as he sat in his house with his spear in his hand, while David was playing music.
Dennis B.
Post Thanks / Like - 3 Thanks, 0 Laughing
FWIW: "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12-17: Translation and Ideology
Grace and Peace,
Dennis B.
Post Thanks / Like - 4 Thanks, 0 Laughing
So, is the evil spirit actually from God, or is this just an assumed condition?
Was it actually an evil spirit, or just a bad mood? Depression?
Nothing in the OT was written by people who thought in terms of historical accuracy. How much literal truth do we really want to ascribe to these passages?
Post Thanks / Like - 3 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Also -- For whom is the spirit "evil" and could it be considered "good" for anyone else?
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
I would ask David this while he's looking down the business end of a spear.
Seriously, though, when you're dealing with Hebrew concepts of evil, you're looking at a very broad description. Evil was often something that one experienced, rather than there being a distinct spiritual taint as many conceive of today. Evil was broadly enough understood to be a negative experience regardless of cause. Today we would see an earthquake and call it a terrible calamity due to the loss of property and life. Within the context of the Old Testament they were likely to describe the act as an evil.
Please correct me, Dennis, if I am at all mistaken in any of these notions.
Also, you have to understand the idea of mysterious causality in the Old Testament. They did not understand things like fault lines, brain chemistry, or even agriculture. Why did the crops grow or not grow? God caused it to be so. Why did the earthquake happen? God must have caused it to happen.
This idea of comparing experiences of Saul and then weighing the potential benefit vs. the potential harm is a 19th century concept. Such an idea would have been quite alien to the writers of the Old or New Testaments.
Post Thanks / Like - 8 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Jude 1:9 (Contemporary English Version)
9 Even Michael, the chief angel, didn't dare to insult the devil, when the two of them were arguing about the body of Moses. [a] All Michael said was, "The Lord will punish you!"
I would say that if Jesus is the truth, the way and the life, which means that concepts can still be a person, the same goes for the devil. The Bible speaks about angels, good and bad. The good ones appear every now and then, I guess they are more than concepts too. So why wouldn't the bad ones exist? Angels have a freedom of choice as well. So they too can choose against God.
In either case, I'll be very happy to see one day both the person and the concept thrown into the lake of fire.
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Is there an Answer Key or Teacher's Edition available for this?
No.Is there an Answer Key or Teacher's Edition available for this?
As Francis Bacon said, "A prudent question is one half of wisdom."
Sometimes, being able to ask questions honestly about things that most others think are already settled is the beginning of understanding. To be able to ask such honest questions means that we have stepped beyond accepted dogma and have begun to seek the truth that lies beyond the security of popular opinion and the consensus of easy answers. It is not an easy journey, and is often a path less traveled. Maybe that is part of what Jesus had in mind (Matt 7, especially 7-14).
Grace and Peace,
Dennis B.
Post Thanks / Like - 6 Thanks, 0 Laughing
I'm not sure what this intends but seems to be offered as an answer to Brian's question ("Do you think Satan is a personal being—a real individual entity, or more of a concept? If a concept, a concept of what?") I am assuming that the answer is intended to be the former.
However, this ignores the historical questions posed earlier in this thread, which must be asked here. They are a crucial set of questions since this passage clearly reflects an intertestamental development in how opposition to God is understood in Judaism.
There are stories in several apocryphal and non-canonical Second Temple Jewish texts of a contest between the Devil and God (note that in the Old Testament, for example in 1 Kings 18, the opposing parties are God and Ba'al and his followers). These texts tend to reinterpret and rewrite canonical stories in terms of Greek influenced dualism, expressed as the struggle between good and evil with evil personified in various forms of demons or the devil. That suggests we are dealing with historical development here, not ontology.
For example, in the 2nd century BC Book of Jubilees (17:15-18:16; see below), the Genesis 22 story of the Binding of Isaac is retold as a contest between God and Mastema (Heb: hatred, hostility), a Jewish intertestamental term for the prince of demons. Also in Jubilees 48:2-3, it is Mastema that seeks to kill Moses while in Exodus 4:24 it was God. Later (48:9), it is Mastema that confronts Moses rather than Pharaoh, and it is from Mastema that the Egyptian sorcerers derive their power. In other words, the biblical accounts are rewritten in terms of a dualistic conception of good and evil, with evil personified as demons or the devil.
Biblical and historical scholars conclude that Jude 9 was taken from the (now lost) ending of another non-canonical book, The Testament of Moses, since several early Church Fathers make that connection. If so, that means that Jude is not necessarily making any kind of ontological claim about the devil or demons, but is referring to a literary story with which his reader would have been familiar in order to make a point within the context of the book of Jude (rejection of false teachers and their spiritual pride). As such, it cannot be proof for an answer to Brian's question.
Grace and Peace,
Dennis B.
From The Book of Jubilees17:15. And it came to pass in the seventh week, in the first year thereof, in the first month in this jubilee, on the twelfth of this month, there were voices in heaven regarding Abraham, that he was faithful in all that He told him, and that he loved the Lord, and that in every affliction he was faithful.
16. And the prince Mastêmâ came and said before God, 'Behold, Abraham loves Isaac his son, and he delights in him above all things else; bid him offer him as a burnt-offering on the altar, and you will see if he will do this command, and you will know if he is faithful in everything in which you try him.
17. And the Lord knew that Abraham was faithful in all his afflictions; for He had tried him through his country and with famine, and had tried him with the wealth of kings, and had tried him again through his wife, when she was torn (from him), and with circumcision; and had tried him through Ishmael and Hagar, his maid-servant, when he sent them away.
18. And in everything in which He had tried him, he was found faithful, and his soul was not impatient, and he was not slow to act; for he was faithful and a lover of the Lord.
18:1 And God said to him, 'Abraham, Abraham'; and he said, Behold, (here) am I.'
2. And he said, Take your beloved son whom you love, (even) Isaac, and go unto the high country, and offer him on one of the mountains which I will point out unto you.'
3. And he rose early in the morning and saddled his ass, and took his two young men with him, and Isaac his son, and split the wood of the burnt offering, and he went to the place on the third day, and he saw the place afar off.
4. And he came to a well of water, and he said to his young men, Stay here here with the ass, and I and the lad shall go (yonder), and when we have worshipped we shall come again to you.'
5. And he took the wood of the burnt-offering and laid it on Isaac his son, and he took in his hand the fire and the knife, and they went both of them together to that place.
6. And Isaac said to his father, 'Father;' and he said, 'Here am I, my son.' And he said unto him, 'Behold the fire, and the knife, and the wood; but where is the sheep for the burnt-offering, father?'
7. And he said, 'God will provide for himself a sheep for a burnt-offering, my son.' And he drew near to the place of the mount of God.
8. And he built an altar, and he placed the wood on the altar, and bound Isaac his son, and placed him on the wood which was upon the altar, and stretched forth his hand to take the knife to slay Isaac his son.
9. And I stood before him, and before the prince Mastêmâ, and the Lord said, 'Bid him not to lay his hand on the lad, nor to do anything to him, for I have shown that he fears the Lord.'
10. And I called to him from heaven, and said unto him: 'Abraham, Abraham;' and he was terrified and said: 'Behold, (here) am I.'
11. I said unto him: 'Lay not your hand upon the lad, neither do anything to him; for now I have shown that you fear the Lord, and have not withheld your son, your first-born son, from me.'
12. And the prince Mastêmâ was put to shame; and Abraham lifted up his eyes and looked, and, behold a ram caught . . . by his horns, and Abraham went and took the ram and offered it for a burnt-offering instead of his son.
13. And Abraham called that place 'The Lord has seen', so that it is said in the mount the Lord has seen: that is Mount Sion.
14. And the Lord called Abraham by his name a second time from heaven, as he caused us to appear to speak to him in the name of the Lord.
15. And he said: 'By Myself have I sworn, says the Lord, Because you have done this thing, And have not withheld your son, your beloved son, from Me, That in blessing I will bless thee, And in multiplying I will multiply your seed As the stars of heaven, And as the sand which is on the seashore. And your seed shall inherit the cities of its enemies,
16. And in your seed shall all nations of the earth be blessed; Because you have obeyed My voice, And I have shown to all that you are faithful unto Me in all that I have said unto you: Go in peace.'
Post Thanks / Like - 4 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Thank you Dr. Bratcher. Your previous post has given me quite a bit to think about! I appreciate it!No.
As Francis Bacon said, "A prudent question is one half of wisdom."
Sometimes, being able to ask questions honestly about things that most others think are already settled is the beginning of understanding. To be able to ask such honest questions means that we have stepped beyond accepted dogma and have begun to seek the truth that lies beyond the security of popular opinion and the consensus of easy answers. It is not an easy journey, and is often a path less traveled. Maybe that is part of what Jesus had in mind (Matt 7, especially 7-14).
Grace and Peace,
Dennis B.
Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
yeah, and Jesus' belief in resurrection probably placed him in league with the Pharisees, not just some unaffiliated gadfly.
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Just as a postscript to Dennis' ideas, you may want to take a close look at Jude with a commentary handy, Dan. It makes some very obvious reference to non-canonical myths and legends that I daresay we would not want to claim as definite truth on ontological matters.
Before jumping to conclusions about what I'm saying about the authority of scripture, consider this. If I'm preaching and I'm trying to illustrate a point to my listeners, I will make reference to ideas already familiar in the minds of the audience. In order to do so, I make references to books, movies, plays, or other stories known to my audience. Those outside stories serve as a touch-point to lead an audience to a greater point. Jude seems to do exactly this in its references to myths and legends that were never thought to be strictly true... for example, an argument with the devil over the body of Moses.
All that to say, one must be pay very close attention when interpreting Jude. It would be a shame to make the author say something beyond his intended claims.
Post Thanks / Like - 3 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Th;is brings up the issue of when each book was actually written. I'm no Bible scholar, but I heard a few weeks ago that Job is actually the oldest book of the Bible in relation to when it was actually written. I could be wrong, but the issue of chronology is also blurred by the idea that God might exist outside of time.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
