Range of beliefs on Satan within Christianity

[cloudyday2]

Christian theologians defined what is acceptable to believe about Christ, but what is acceptable to believe about Satan? Many of the common ideas about Satan, the devil, and demons come from apocryphal books.

 

[Dansiph]

Christian theologians defined what is acceptable to believe about Christ, but what is acceptable to believe about Satan? Many of the common ideas about Satan, the devil, and demons come from apocryphal books.

The book of Job gives some insight into satan's character.

 

[cloudyday2]

The book of Job gives some insight into satan's character.

According to Job, "the satan" is one of the "sons of God".
According to Zechariah, "the satan" is a prosecutor against the nation of Judah.

The New Testament speaks more often of "the devil". Revelation has "the dragon".

Rabbinic Judaism sometimes considers "the satan" to be a part of God to maintain a strict monotheism.

It seems there is room for many different beliefs.

 

[Dansiph]

According to Job, "the satan" is one of the "sons of God".
According to Zechariah, "the satan" is a prosecutor against the nation of Judah.

The New Testament speaks more often of "the devil". Revelation has "the dragon".

Rabbinic Judaism sometimes considers "the satan" to be a part of God to maintain a strict monotheism.

It seems there is room for many different beliefs.

Satan is not one of the sons of God. My belief as a Baptist was that the sons of God were humans in heaven. Not angels.

Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

This doesn't mean Satan was one of the sons of God.

 

[Dansiph]

Satan is not one of the sons of God. My belief as a Baptist was that the sons of God were humans in heaven. Not angels.

Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

This doesn't mean Satan was one of the sons of God.

Something that put satan into perspective for me was I randomly read about a serial killer in the US. I can't remember his name but his crimes were disgusting. He was evil and had no compassion or remorse. Then I thought, how much more evil must satan be?

 

[cloudyday2]

Satan is not one of the sons of God. My belief as a Baptist was that the sons of God were humans in heaven. Not angels.

Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

This doesn't mean Satan was one of the sons of God.

In Genesis "sons of God" are heavenly beings which mate with human women and anger God.

 

[Dansiph]

In Genesis "sons of God" are heavenly beings which mate with human women and anger God.

This is not what I was taught. I have heard of this belief but I never considered it a valid belief.

 

[cloudyday2]

Something that put satan into perspective for me was I randomly read about a serial killer in the US. I can't remember his name but his crimes were disgusting. He was evil and had no compassion or remorse. Then I thought, how much more evil must satan be?

My theory is that Satan is more like justice and righteousness divorced from mercy. This matches well with his role as the prosecutor in Job and Zechariah.

 

[cloudyday2]

This is not what I was taught. I have heard of this belief but I never considered it a valid belief.

So who were the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 in your church's teachings?

Here is a link to an article that presents three different views:

1) they were fallen angels, 2) they were powerful human rulers, or 3) they were godly descendants of Seth intermarrying with wicked descendants of Cain

Who were the sons of God and daughters of men in Genesis 6:1-4? | GotQuestions.org

 

[hedrick]

So who were the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 in your church's teachings?

Here is a link to an article that presents three different views:

Who were the sons of God and daughters of men in Genesis 6:1-4? | GotQuestions.org

No church I’ve ever been to has a teaching on this subject.

 

[muichimotsu]

Some would interpret Satan more as a metaphor for human's sinful nature, but as to Satan specifically versus demons in general, that'd be a specific branch of demonology, I imagine, though it also gets into a major debate about the Sons of God as a term, which is used infrequently in the specific manner that appears in Job and Genesis, iirc.

Settling that would certainly change some things, but if the idea is that Satan has to be fundamentally different, even though Job doesn't seem to suggest that in the narrative, he's as much a part of that council as the Sons of God were, God recognizing Ha Satan's function like a judge to a prosecuting attorney, which is partly how the narrative is meant to be framed, supposedly, Job held "guilty" or "not guilty"

The 2 major perspectives that are literal in nature would characterize Satan more in the Jewish idea of Accuser, not someone antithetical to God but assisting by doing a role that can be seen as somehow "evil", even though it really isn't with an objective look; or God as Diabolos, which is the Greek translation (not making much sense given the likely more common usage with Satan, but also supposedly influenced by historical exposure of Jews to Zoroastrian dualistic ideas) functioning as an enemy to God, Angra Mainyu more like what Satan is viewed as, God being Ahura Mazda, even though that has to be weaseled around so Satan isn't equal to God, but nonetheless is somehow still any kind of "threat" (which is rendered moot in Revelation anyway)

 

[cloudyday2]

No church I’ve ever been to has a teaching on this subject.

It seems strange that churches would teach nothing on it.

 

[muichimotsu]

It seems strange that churches would teach nothing on it.

If the goal is more to convey avoiding Satan, then the details would probably be fundamentally irrelevant versus just telling people how and what to believe, cynical as that might sound

 

[hedrick]

It seems strange that churches would teach nothing on it.

Churches have positions on major theological and moral issues. My tradition is confessional, so we have official confessions of faith. But we don’t have an official explanation of every odd statement in the Bible. As far as I know other churches don’t either.

To see what scholars think it meant in the original context I’d check a commentary. I have several series of commentaries. While commentaries tend to be associated with particular general understandings of the Bible, no church that I’m aware of has an official commentary.

Of course position papers on theological and ethical issues often deal with relevant Scriptures, but it’s hard to imagine what issue would cause my church to cite this passage. I could imagine a more conservative church that might use it in a discussion of Satan and evil supernatural creatures.

I agree that “sons of God” in Gen 6 are heavenly beings of some sort. The Anchor Bible commentary notes parallels to other ancient Near East accounts. It’s worth noting that in Hebrew, “sons of God” probably means "godlike beings", or more idiomatically, supernatural beings. “son of” is an idiomatic construct that doesn’t imply any biological link.

While I don’t think conservative churches have official exegeses of every passage in the Bible, many of them would officially or de facto insist that Satan is a literal supernatural creature. My church would accept both literal and non-literal understandings, though I’d guess most of our leaders and seminary faculty would have a non-literal understanding.

 

[Dansiph]

So who were the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 in your church's teachings?

The people who followed God. In fact I think the idea of angels mating with humans is almost unbelievable.

 

[awitch]

In fact I think the idea of angels mating with humans is almost unbelievable.

Almost?
I'd say it's entirely ridiculous.

 

[Dansiph]

Almost?
I'd say it's entirely ridiculous.

Well I don't say impossible or ridiculous for a few "reasons".

I know that in Genesis 19 the men of the city wanted to sexually force the angels. This could indicate they were very human-like in their current form and that the men couldn't tell the difference. However, how in Genesis 6 they would be capable or reproduction is weird and unlikely. Although in my opinion not impossible. I just believe the sons of God were men. Even in Job to me there's a divide between satan and the sons of God in the way the sentence is written.

 

[hedrick]

Here's what the Logos commentary says (abbreviating). They say there are currently three possibilities: supernatural beings ("angels"), leaders, and godly men, "the descendants of Seth as opposed to the godless descendants of Cain."

"The “angel” interpretation is at once the oldest view and that of most modern commentators. It is assumed in the earliest Jewish exegesis (e.g., the books of 1 Enoch 6:2ff; Jubilees 5:1), LXX, Philo De Gigant 2:358), Josephus (Ant. 1.31) and the Dead Sea Scrolls (1QapGen 2:1; CD 2:17–19). The NT (2 Pet 2:4, Jude 6, 7) and the earliest Christian writers (e.g., Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen) also take this line.

"Modern scholars who accept this view advance three main reasons for supporting it. First, elsewhere in the OT (e.g., Ps 29:1, Job 1:6) “sons of God” refers to heavenly, godlike creatures. Second, in 6:1–4 the contrast is between “the sons of the gods” on the one hand and “the daughters of man” on the other. The alternative interpretations presuppose that what Gen 6 really meant was that “the sons of some men” married “the daughters of other men.” The present phrase “sons of God” is, to say the least, an obscure way of expressing such an idea. It is made the more implausible by 6:1 where “man” refers to all mankind. It is natural to assume that in v 2 “daughters of man” has an equally broad reference, not a specific section of the human race. Finally, it is pointed out that in Ugaritic literature “sons of God” refers to members of the divine pantheon, and it is likely that Genesis is using the phrase in a similar sense."

While many of the modern scholars who accept this view probably don't think the account is historical, I think it's pretty clear that the ancient interpreters who took this position did assume that it was possible.

On Jude 6: "ἀλλέλους are the angels (known as the Watchers) who, according to Jewish tradition, descended from heaven to marry human wives and corrupt the human race in the period before the Flood. This was how the account of the “sons of God” in Gen 6:1–4 was universally understood (so far as our evidence goes) until the mid-second century A.D. (1 Enoch 6–19; 21; 86–88; 106:13–15, 17; Jub. 4:15, 22; 5:1; CD 2:17–19; 1QapGen 2:1; Tg. Ps.-J. Gen. 6:1–4; T. Reub. 5:6–7; T. Napht. 3:5; 2 Apoc. Bar. 56:10–14), though the tradition took several varying forms. ... In Christianity, however, the traditional exegesis had a longer life, questioned only in the third century and disappearing in the fifth century."
(Word commentary)

 

[Dansiph]

Here's what the Logos commentary says (abbreviating). They say there are currently three possibilities: supernatural beings ("angels"), leaders, and godly men, "the descendants of Seth as opposed to the godless descendants of Cain."

"The “angel” interpretation is at once the oldest view and that of most modern commentators. It is assumed in the earliest Jewish exegesis (e.g., the books of 1 Enoch 6:2ff; Jubilees 5:1), LXX, Philo De Gigant 2:358), Josephus (Ant. 1.31) and the Dead Sea Scrolls (1QapGen 2:1; CD 2:17–19). The NT (2 Pet 2:4, Jude 6, 7) and the earliest Christian writers (e.g., Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen) also take this line.

"Modern scholars who accept this view advance three main reasons for supporting it. First, elsewhere in the OT (e.g., Ps 29:1, Job 1:6) “sons of God” refers to heavenly, godlike creatures. Second, in 6:1–4 the contrast is between “the sons of the gods” on the one hand and “the daughters of man” on the other. The alternative interpretations presuppose that what Gen 6 really meant was that “the sons of some men” married “the daughters of other men.” The present phrase “sons of God” is, to say the least, an obscure way of expressing such an idea. It is made the more implausible by 6:1 where “man” refers to all mankind. It is natural to assume that in v 2 “daughters of man” has an equally broad reference, not a specific section of the human race. Finally, it is pointed out that in Ugaritic literature “sons of God” refers to members of the divine pantheon, and it is likely that Genesis is using the phrase in a similar sense."

Sorry if this is overly crude but do angels have sperm? That's where my problem with the idea comes in.

 

[hedrick]

Sorry if this is overly crude but do angels have sperm? That's where my problem with the idea comes in.

Probably not. But I doubt that the authors and ancient interpreters would have had this question. One of the problems with a lot of exegesis is that it demands that we understand ancient texts using our own views rather than those of the authors.

One of the most sobering books I've read is an old one, "The Peril of Modernizing Jesus." It points out the very great differences between the 1st Cent world view and our own, and just how much the ancient one is shown in the NT. (In Amazon it appears to have been written in 2007, but that's a reprint. It was actually written in 1937.)