Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Satan exists as the symbol of the evil within man. It is perfectly acceptable to describe this in poetic terms and call it Satan.
Ah, all of us are like Job. God and Satan are still betting. What kind of God could be so cruel to allow an evil entity to cause harm on us?
Satan has a cosmic system??
It must be sad to live with the concept that Satan is lurking and trying to deceive you. And that God is behind this attack on you. You just said that Satan only goes as far as God will let him. This does not make sense at all! Just accept that Satan is the symbol of evil and that some are attracted to evil to achieve personal gain. This is much more civilized and does not change anything regarding how we deal with evil. It is clean and elegant manner of dealing with the subject.
And we would avoid the OP's confusion who thinks Satan is a prophet. Symbols cannot be prophets.
Wasn't a satan, back in the OT times, considered anything that got in your way? Like if i'm on my donkey, moseying on down the road and a rock is in the middle of the road, I might say, "hey, satan! get out of my way!"? I could be wrong, but I thought I read that somewhere, sometime.
Yes, that was one use of the word - such as when the Angel of Yahweh stood in the path of Balaam as his "satan" to prevent him from doing evil. "Stumbling block" might be another connotation. The word was a common noun before becoming a title (as in Job); later it became the Personal Name "Satan" without the definite article "the".
Yes, that was one use of the word - such as when the Angel of Yahweh stood in the path of Balaam as his "satan" to prevent him from doing evil. "Stumbling block" might be another connotation. The word was a common noun before becoming a title (as in Job); later it became the Personal Name "Satan" without the definite article "the".
I agree. I want to say ‘God’ was called ‘Satan’ or adversary too.
The books of Samuel and Chronicles are records of the same events but uses different language.
2 Sa. 24:1 records: “The Lord...moved David against Israel” in order to make him take a census of Israel. The parallel account in 1 Ch. 21:1 says that “Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David” to take the census.
The only conclusion, in my opinion, which can be drawn from the two parallel accounts, which in one passage ‘God’ does the ‘moving’, in the other 'Satan' does it, is that ‘God’ acted as a ‘Satan’ to David. Whoppers what is your take on it?
I agree. I want to say ‘God’ was called ‘Satan’ or adversary too.
The books of Samuel and Chronicles are records of the same events but uses different language.
2 Sa. 24:1 records: “The Lord...moved David against Israel†in order to make him take a census of Israel. The parallel account in 1 Ch. 21:1 says that “Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David†to take the census.
The only conclusion, in my opinion, which can be drawn from the two parallel accounts, which in one passage ‘God’ does the ‘moving’, in the other 'Satan' does it, is that ‘God’ acted as a ‘Satan’ to David. Whoppers what is your take on it?
Pardon the long post - it is considerably shorter than it could be heh heh!
It was typical in the Hebrew Bible to attribute certain emotions and states of mind to God - for instance, see the hardening of Pharoah's heart in the matter of the Exodus.
One thing to bear in mind is that Chronicles is a much later re-telling of the history of Israel, a very concrete example of a biblical writer using previous biblical books and interpreting them in the light of his own ideology. This is called inner-biblical interpretation. Samuel is part of the Deuteronmistic History and is included in the Prophetic Section (Nevi'im) of the Hebrew Bible (which includes the historical books). The late books and miscellaneous writings were included in the section called Writings (Ketuvim). It was well-known how late the Chronicler was, which is why he ended up in the Ketuvim - and not as part of the main history. He had a decidedly pro-Davidic bent in his retelling of Israel's history, and I think this accounts for the change in the story you're talking about. David's character is mostly white-washed in Chronicles, for political reasons.
The Book of Samuel
A theological issue is raised when one sees that God incites David to sin in order to use it as a pretext to punish Israel. The Chronicler will resolve that in his account by using Satan. The sin is the census, which was never a good thing (though Deuteronomy allows census for military purposes) - the reasons for it's "badness" were: it was difficult, it was seen as an excuse for government taxation, it spread plague and epidemics, involved the "evil eye" in some cases, and was generally seen as bad in the ancient Near East, and not just in Israel.
The anger of Yahweh again flared up against Isarel;
and He incited David against them, saying,
"Go and number Israel and Judah."
(2nd Samuel 24:1, NJPS with DN inserted)
Even Joab, the ruthless general of David, is against the idea - but David persists and the census is carried out.
But afterward David reproached himself for having numbered the people. And David said to Yahweh,
"I have sinned grievously in what I have done. Please, O Yahweh, remit the guilt of Your servant, for I have acted foolishly."
(2nd Samuel 24:10)
Afterwards, the price of sin must be paid, and the "messenger of Yahweh" (typically, "angel" - though this is not a Hebrew term) brings a pestilence upon the people, which is finally stopped by Yahweh when he is about to destroy Jerusalem. Through a prophet, David is told to set up a high place on the threshing floor of Araunash the Jebusite - and this story becomes an etiological tale on why the Temple is later located in Jerusalem at that particular spot.
What many think, is that the "angel of Yahweh" is actually Yahweh himself (see Daniel McKellan's excellent thread here and my unfinished thread on the "Messenger of Yahweh" as Balaam's "satan" here, in which I am eventually driving at the identity of the Angel as Yahweh - if you take the Angle as Yahweh, then your idea that Yahweh can act as a "satan" is indeed tenable!) in the older texts of the Hebrew Bible and that over time, this idea became uncomfortable to later writers. Daniel provides compelling evidence that the earlier anthropomorphisms of Yahweh were soon sub-contracted out to God's "Messengers" - or Angels. One must always ask whether a later editor, writer has interpreted an earlier theophany of God as an Angel, instead.
The Book of Chronicles
In Samuel, David is not always portrayed in the best light. The Chronicler makes his best attempt at changing this state of affairs. The affair with Bathsheba is never even mentioned. In this account of the census, we no longer have "the satan", but we finally have "Satan" as an individual with evil intentions. Previously, his role had been one of the members of the Divine Council (again, see Job, or his appearance in Zecharaiah) - his job being to accuse the guilty to God. At this time of composition, the Chronicler would not have wanted to attribute any evil actions to God, and thus Satan is used.
Satan rose up against Israel by enticing David to count Israel.
(1st Chronicles 21:1, AB)
Noticeable differences in the account are present, with the identity of the "inciter" being the most obvious one. Again, Joab protests, David is insistent, the census is carried out, and
This thing was displeasing in the sight of God, so that he punished Israel.
Then David said to God, "I sinned greatly when I did this thing;
forgive me, now, I pray, the transgression of your servant, for I have acted foolishly."
(1st Chronicles 21:7-8)
Again, via the seer David is given a choice of what punishment to receive, the pestilence is brought, and David chooses to place himself at Yahweh's mercy, rather that at the mercy of his human enemies (one of the choices).
So Yahweh let loose a pestilence in Israel during which seventy thousand Israelites succumbed.
God also sent the angel to Jerusalem to destroy it but when [he was about] to destroy (it), Yahweh looked upon it and changed his mind about the disaster [which he had threatened].
So he said to the destroying angel, "Enough now; stop."
The angel of Yahweh was standing just at the threshing floor of Ornan, the Jebusite. When David lifted up his eyes he saw the angel of Yahweh was standing between the earth and the heavens with the drawn sword in his hand stretched out over Jerusalem. Then David and the elders covered themselves with sackcloth and fell down upon their faces.
(2nd Chronicles 21:14-16)
Again, with differing details, the plague is avertere by the construction of an altar to Yahweh:
The tabernacle which Moses had made in the desert together with the altar of burnt offering were at the high place at Gibeon at that time. But David could not go before it to consult God because he was terrified by the angel's sword.
David said, "This is the house of Yahweh God and this is the altar of burnt offering for Israel."
(2nd Chronicles 21:29-22:1)
Conclusion
The phrase used of Satan in "rose up against" can also be translated as "to stand against", "bring to trial", "tempt", or "seek an occasion against" - hearkening back to the satan's previous role. The entire incident has a three-structured form: Census, Plague, Altar. For some reason, God was angry with the Israelites so he brings this series of calamaties upon them, but not in the Chronicles account, which refuse to picture God as being responsible for any evil (despite Isaiah's insistence that both good and evil came from God). There, Satan takes the rap. Thus the theological problem of Samuel is re-interpreted. Even within the Bible, we can see how tradition interprets past traditum (the written sources). Genesis was written well before Chronicles and the idea of a personal Satan - which is why the idea that the serpent in Genesis was the devil does not hold up to close scrutiny.
Chronicles must be read with a grain of salt, and it's political and ideological motivations taken into consideration, as well as it's theological views of God. The birth of blaming evil on a Satan figure was beginning. The issue of Theodicy was getting a new answer. An even newer answer to the theodicy problem would be the introduction of the idea of rewards or punishment in an afterlife, as hinted at in the book of Daniel (written around 150 BCm after Greek influence had sufficiently fertilized the idea into Jewish consciousness).
Chronicles must be read with a grain of salt, and it's political and ideological motivations taken into consideration, as well as it's theological views of God. The birth of blaming evil on a Satan figure was beginning. The issue of Theodicy was getting a new answer. An even newer answer to the theodicy problem would be the introduction of the idea of rewards or punishment in an afterlife, as hinted at in the book of Daniel (written around 150 BCm after Greek influence had sufficiently fertilized the idea into Jewish consciousness).
I hope that helps, and wasn't too long!
Wonderful post, whoppers. I cant give you more reputation yet, but you deserve more, for sure. Interesting, that the evolution of "Satan" as a being of evil begins where you say it does. I'll have to do more reading on this. More evidence for "my" side that the Christians misunderstand what the Jews actually believed.
Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. There is absolutely nothing allegorical about Satan. In both the Old and New Testament his existence is clearly stated. I am not going to take the time to go through the various passages concerning Satan. It would be lost on you anyway.
Satan can only go as far as God permits him to go. And yes, man can and is influenced by the deceptions and strategies of Satan and his cosmic system. That has no bearing on the fact that man has volition.
But none of this has anything to do with the topic of this thread and I'll spend no more time on it.
Ah...... so there is no free will. We are mere underlings in some greater schemes of the good god and the evil god.
No wonder that Manichean Augustine went down that road and introduced dualism into Christian doctrine.
I realize in Genesis God said Satan shall bruise Jesus' "heel" by having him suffer and die.
"And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed. He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel." (Genesis 3:15)
In Matthew it says Jesus would be in the grave exactly three days and three nights
Matthew 12:39-40
And that Jesus would be resurrected from the dead.
Psalm 16:10-11; Psalm 49:15
My first question is:
Did Satan know Jesus was going to die and rise up in exactly 3 days?
Satan is not omnicient.
That means when God spoke what he did in Gen 3:15, that's all he (Satan) knew of the end result..... that he (Satan) was going to be defeated.
Satan did not know of Psalm 16 till it (Psalm 16) was spoken by God.
The point is that until God reveals his intentions or his word, it remains a hidden mystery.
1. Satan used the serpent to deceive the woman in order to get to Adam. 04-01-2012, 02:05 PM
2. Satan can only go as far as God permits him to go. And yes, man can and is influenced by the deceptions and strategies of Satan and his cosmic system. 04-01-2012, 10:09 PM
3. The divine decrees make certain everything that happens in the universe. God in His sovereignty decided to give both angels and man free will, and He decreed that angelic and human decisions would certainly take place. That includes the decisions that are contrary to His will. In deciding to give man and angels free will, God necessarily had to allow decisions that are contrary to His perfect will, to occur.
God didn't want robots that had no choice. He wanted free will creatures that would respond to Him of their own volition.06-25-2010, 08:04 PM
4. God knew in eternity past that you would make a certain decision, that you would take a certain action, and therefore He included it in His plan. In His decree. 06-25-2010, 08:04 PM
You want to have your cake and eat it too. You claim Satan deceives humans into sin (Satan used the serpent to deceive the woman in order to get to Adam), but at the same time you proclaim MAN has free will despite the deception and influence of Satan.
This flies contrary to the basic definition of free will: Free will is the ability of to make choices free of constraints. WIKI
You state that God knows the outcomes, but still grants free will. That in itself is OK since God knows everything. However, determinism gets in the way of absolute free will.
So you have two strikes against you:
1. There cannot be free will when there is an outside influence deceiving you.
2. If the outcome is determined then free will is moot.
OTOH, the free will theory would work much better without the influence of Satan.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
