Silmarien
Existentialist
- Feb 24, 2017
- 4,337
- 5,254
- 39
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
God didn't create Satan, man did. Satan (ha'shaitan) first occurs by name in the Old Testament in the Book of Job, and here it's clear that the angel Satan is not the Devil! The Devil is supposedly banished from the presence of God, yet in Job, Satan is allowed to talk with and to come and go from God's presence and on a mission for God yet! What's going on? Satan here is not "the Devil" but sort of God's prosecuting attorney. By the way the Book of Job is not a literal history but rather a sort of extended parable and was likely transmitted orally long before it was recorded in print about 1000 BC. The next reference to Satan is some 500 years later in Zechariah writing during the Exile. Following that the next reference is another 500 years later in Matthew.
There is a very common perception that the 'Lucifer' in Isaiah 14:12ff refers to Satan, the supernatural personification of evil. This misconception comes from two sources. The first is wishful thinking in the sense that it is nice to think that 'the Enemy' will get his come-uppance eventually. The second has to do with the old caution that scripture is to be read only 'in context'. This requires going back and reading all of Isaiah 13 and the earlier verses in Isaiah 14. When this is done we suddenly realize that scripture is not speaking of a supernatural Satan at all but of a Babylonian king with an immense ego. Read Isaiah 14: "4 you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon:" What follows is a long rant against this oppressive king filled with numerous reference to his human nature like Isaiah 14: "16 Those who see you stare at you, they ponder your fate: Is this the man who shook the earth and made kingdoms tremble, 17 the man who made the world a desert, who overthrew its cities and would not let his captives go home?" This passage is in no way a reference to Satan or the devil.
The Jews did not originally believe in devils but they picked up this concept during the Babylonian Exile from the Persians who followed Zoroastrianism. The Zoroastrians believed in both a god of good (Ahura-Mazda) and a god of evil (Ahrulman) engaged in a cosmic struggle. The Jews picked up and ran with this idea. It was easy to cast YHWH in the role of the God of good. They took also the angel ha'shaitan (Satan) in the book of Job and recast that character as Satan the near divine force of evil. Up to that time, their concept of God was of a being responsible for everything, both good and evil. Isaiah 45:”7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.” is just one quote that demonstrates this. The Jews never connected Satan to the serpent in the Garden of Eden. It was the second-century Christian martyr, Justin of Samaria, who was first to argue that Satan appeared as a serpent to tempt Adam and Eve to disobey God.
So, in summary the Devil is a conflation of Satan from Job and Lucifer from Isaiah and the serpent from Genesis. A lot of the modern notions of the Devil and Hell finds its roots in lurid medieval fiction like "The Inferno" by the Italian poet Dante.
Speaking as a mature Christian, I do not take talk of the Devil and Hell in a literal way.
How is a secular account of the history of Christianity and its theology a sign of "mature" belief? I would think that adherence to a progressive revelation in which the Jews slowly became aware of the existence of Satan, influenced by the Zoroastrian experience of the divine, would be an equally mature take on the historical developments. I might prefer a more symbolic approach to angels and demons myself, but I don't see how this is more mature than some of the alternatives out there.
Upvote
0