Reading through 1 Enoch 65.6, I found a notable quote:
"An order has been issued from the court of the Lord against those who dwell upon the earth, that their doom has arrived because they have acquired the knowledge of all the secrets of the angels, all the oppressive deeds of the Satans, as well as all their most occult powers ..." I find the plural very interesting. Does this suggest that "Satan" is the sum of demonic forces responsible for pouring out evil into the world and teaching sorcery to people?
I find it interesting that in the NT, Satanas usually has the definite article which makes me wonder if we should opt for a translation of "the Satan". I also wonder what that would mean for one's interpretation of angels and demons in biblical perspective?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
This is a good question about the definite article, Mike. I've also sometimes wondered whether "the Satan" would be a more precise and more useful expression. Among other things, it might help Christians not to talk in such absurdly personal terms about "Satan" -- as though this character were a close acquaintance or an old family friend.
In any event, it seems to me that the notion of a "personal devil" is at best very metaphorical and imprecise. To be "personal" is to exist within a structure of relationships to others; and whatever "the Satan" might be, it is the very antithesis of any kind of relatedness, and thus the antithesis of what it means to be "personal".
If we were looking for a suitable metaphor, perhaps we should say that Satan is more like "chaos" than like a "person".
Ben, was it Chaos that Jesus rebuked or Satan?
Mt 4:10
Just wondering?
"the satan" is the way Wright translates it in his writings. Graham Twelftree has a monograph on this Christ Triumphant, where I think he deals with this.
My prof always opined that Jesus was calling Peter 'a deceiver', not Satan as a personal embodiment of God's opposition. It seems that the NT is witness to the period of transformation, from 'a deciever' in general who accuses men before God (i.e. Job) to a personal embodiment of the opposer of God. Job has a categorical title, the NT uses it as a personal name. Very interesting.
It seems that Enoch then is a witness to the fact that Satan had not become a singular person- it s still a categorical title. Interesting stuff. Danny Zacharias
I think you fellows are missing the Semitic background to this argument. The writer of said text must have been familiar with the Semitic background of satan. It meas "adversary" or "accuser" - though in this context it seems to be better translated as "adversary."
This is a good point, Joe. And in my comment on the "personal Satan" I partly had in mind the OT background -- e.g. in the book of Job there is "the Satan", whose name is clearly meant to be a straightforward description of his role in the drama, not a theological indication that he is some sort of "personal" spiritual being.
The definite article is always used with proper names. That doesn't mean you should translate it as "the Socrates" and such.
Well done Justin. I'm glad somebody picked that up.
:)
I am doing a thesis which touches on this topic. Regarding this topic I tend to see "The Satan" in personal terms. Despite Michael's evidence from 1 En., the term is used, I think most naturally, to descibe a personal being in 2nd T Judaism and the NT. Is there any reason why the use of the definite article implies lack of personhood? After all, the use of " The Christ"( which is title, a status, and an office) does not imply lack of personhood.
As for the theological question of "The Satan's" lack of relatedness, this is true in the sense of his/its lack of true relateness to God, but perhaps one can see him as related to God in his orginal creation, and now after his fall, to his minions ( demons etc), and to rebellious human beings.
In addition, " the Satan" does have particularity, he seems to be a centre of consciousness distinct from others.
This question does have hermeutical implications. Those shaped by a non-Western culture seem more linclined to see " The Satan" in personal terms, those of Western culture seem more inclined to see " The Satan" in non-personal terms.
Good points raised here. No doubt the use of the definite article does not indicate a non-personal entity since the NT frequently refers to "the Jesus". However, I do wonder if a person of evil and a personification of evil are mutually exclusive or is the line between them quite so thick and fast.
It seems we always need 'a satan' within society, was this the same in ancient cultures.
For medieval europe a personalised satan was critical to exert power over the unlearned. In our own day we have our 'satans' - mussolini, hitler,stalin, Osama - or if you live in the Middle east it may be Bush or Blair, or western capitalism, the great satan.
In the church we use satan for our own ends, you've heard the one I'm sure 'We must be doing something right - satan is attacking us'.
I think the majority of western church people have a strange view of satan, as you all know he is not omnipresent, so cannot attack each one of us simultaneously each morning, and yet we dare not treat him with contempt.
I remember Noel Due always referred to him as 'the satan' which caused me to think more deeply about this, so if using it in those terms raises discussion then all well and good.
For me he is the architect of deception, and he is good at it, Jesus knew this, hence the wheat and tares story. The Satan is very real and moves within human history (Luke 4:13) and yet metaphorically he is also the representation of chaos.
Post a Comment