Satan:
Context in Biblical Interpretation and Ministry
Dennis Bratcher
The topic of Satan or the Devil has generated more than a little
acrimony (to use a mild word) in the Church. Several years ago I got
into trouble (of the kind that can only happen in the Church world)
with several high profile pastors and two General Church leaders by
making the simple, and demonstrably factual, statement that there is
no devil in the Old Testament, since there is no word "devil" in
Hebrew.
I have never made any public statement on the existence of the devil
as a personal being. My experience has been that in most venues of
the Church, no matter what opinion is expressed such a statement
would immediately create opposing sides in a debate. In most cases
that is not helpful for mutual understanding or profitable
communication. On the other hand, I have suggested that we carefully
consider some aspects of the topic beyond the accretion of many
centuries of dogma and pop theology (Satan is Alive and Well on
Planet Earth is not a good theology text). At stake is an
important aspect of how we understand Scripture and how we deal with
our own cultural and intellectual assumptions.
Below is a very limited selection of those aspects. There are other
factors to consider as well involving detailed exegesis of specific
Old Testament texts, the Old testament cultural and historical
milieu and its relationship to understanding biblical Hebrew, inter-testamental
history, the development of Rabbinic biblical commentary in the
Mishnah and Gemara (the Talmud), first century Jewish history, the
culture of first century Rome, New Testament Greek and its cultural
context, and careful exegesis of individual New Testament passages
apart from a larger dogma, as well as the developing history of the
early Church, medieval theology, the influence of medieval art and
literature on theological ideas, and the influence of the
Enlightenment, expressed in both rationalism and empiricism, on
theological thinking. In other words, this is not a simple topic in
which biblical verses from specific translations can be quoted to
settle all questions (it's absolutely amazing to me how many people
argue this topic without ever considering the original biblical
languages and what the texts actually say).
Satan in the Old Testament
So, just some things to think about, limited to observations from Old
Testament texts:
1. There is no devil in the Old Testament. There is no word in
Hebrew that corresponds even remotely to what the idea of the devil
means in modern religious culture. That is a fact of the Hebrew
language, as well as valid statement concerning ancient Israelite
culture.
2. There are no demons in the Old Testament. There is no word or
group of words that correspond to the idea of demons in modern
religious culture. (See
Demons in the
Old Testament)
3. The Hebrew word satan (pronounced sah-TAHN) cannot be directly equated to what
the idea of the devil or Satan mean in the modern world, or even in
first century Judaism.
a. The Hebrew term satan occurs in the Old Testament 26
times, in only eight contexts:
Num 22:22, 32;
1 Sam 29:4
and its parallel 1 King 5:18;
2 Sam 19:23;
1 Kings 11:14,
23, 25;
Zech 3:2
(2);
Psa 109:6;
14 times in
Job 1-2;
and
1 Chron 21:1.
b. The term is normally translated [NRSV] "adversary" (Num
22, 32;
1 Sam 29:4/1
King 5:18;
2 Sam 19:23;
1 Kings 11:14,
23, 25) or "accuser" (Psa
109:6). In most of these cases it is clear that it is a
human being that is referenced, as in
1 Kings 11:14.
The verbal form of the word, which only occurs a handful of times,
means "to be an adversary to" or "to oppose" (note
Zech 3:1).
c. The term is customarily translated as "satan" 18 times but in only
three of those contexts:
Job 1-2, 1
Chronicles 21:1,
and
Zechariah 3:1-2.
It is a translation decision based on a range of factors that
determines to translate "satan" rather than "adversary" or
"accuser."
d.
1 Chronicles
21:1 has a parallel passage in
2 Samuel 24:1.
In 2 Samuel it is God who incites David to take the census, while in
1 Chronicles it is the satan who does so. Since 1 Chronicles is a
later editing of the Samuel-Kings tradition, it seems obvious that
Chronicles changed the referent from God to the satan, which
suggests on some level that the two were interchangeable. At the
very least it challenges the notion that the satan was seen in
anything close to modern popular notions of the Devil or Satan.
e. In the Job passages, it seems evident that the satan is one of
the sons of God (usually translated "heavenly beings,"
Job 1:6).
That is, in the context of the narrative in which God is portrayed
as a high king with attendant servants (sons of God), the satan is
part of the royal entourage in the service of the king (God). For
discussion of the meaning of "sons of God" see
Sons of God and
Giants.
f. In the Balaam story of
Numbers 22,
the word satan is translated "adversary." Here, the adversary
is a messenger of God who opposes a prophet, reflecting much the
same idea as
Job 1-2.
Again, it is a translation decision not to translate the word as
"satan" here.
g.
Zechariah 3:1-2
demonstrates a similar context as
Job 1-2,
in which a servant of God is challenged by an adversary. The main
difference in Zechariah is that rather than a test as in Job, God
immediately defends the accused, reflecting a common theme of
post-exilic literature.
4. The word satan normally appears without a definite article in
Hebrew. This does not imply a proper name or a title, only that the
term is not specific, "an adversary." In other places, consistently
in Job, the word has the definite article, the satan, which does
implies a title or function, the adversary, rather than a proper
name. Since there are no capital letters in Hebrew, it is a
translation decision to make a word a proper name (including words
like God and Spirit; note that the word "god" is usually a plural
form in Hebrew).
5. In all places in the Old Testament where the Hebrew word satan is
left in English translations as Satan, which implies a proper name
and is generally capitalized in English, the word can be translated
"adversary" or "the adversary" without any loss of meaning of the
text.
6. All three texts in which satan is translated as Satan are
generally recognized to be late (post-exilic) Old
Testament writings. This suggests that the satan is a developed
concept within Israelite religious culture, arising during the
exile.
7. A further development of the concept of the satan can be tracked
within inter-testamental literature, as well as the Talmud.
Reflections on Scripture
There is a lot more to consider. However, here are some reflections
that arise from these limited aspects.
Within the Old Testament, God was the only source of life and the
arena in which humans existed. While the Israelites went through a
process from polytheism through henotheism to monotheism, they
maintained the belief that God was central. Many of the prophets
argued that other gods are worthless and have no power to influence
human existence. As such, God alone was responsible for human
testing (Gen
22, Exod 16:4,
Deut 8:2),
an idea needing further clarification later (James 1:13).
Using the imagery of Ancient Near Eastern Kingship, I would suggest
that the idea of the satan as a servant of God made its way into
Israelite thinking as a way to distance God from the testing, yet
without introducing a second deity. That is the function of the
Heavenly Council and Sons of God that appear in many places in the
Old Testament.
The conceptual framework of Dualism, which understood the world
in terms of opposing forces of good and evil, often in other
contexts in terms of dueling deities, were a later development in
Israelite thinking. This dualism was likely introduced as a conceptual model
from Babylon during the exile, and reinforced by contact with Greek
Platonism. By New Testament times Judaism tended to use dualistic
constructs to express how they viewed the world. Yet, this manner of
expression does not and should not be taken as some sort of
ontology, how things really are.
From such a dualistic framework, there is little question that New
Testament Jews talked about a Satan or Devil that was responsible
for all sorts of evil in the world. That does not necessitate
projecting ontology onto those means of expression, nor does it
require us to think that first century Jews "believed in" the devil
or Satan like many moderns insist on doing.
Is the Devil real? Absolutely! But that needs a lot more
consideration and nuance than assuming that such a statement is pure
ontology and therefore can be used as a filter through which to read
every biblical text.
Reflections on Cultural Viewpoint in Ministry
All of this leads to further reflection, especially as related to
ministry in an increasingly global Church. These are really more
questions for consideration, with a final observation.
One major question emerges in this brief look at the satan in the
Old Testament: to what degree do we consider, or do we project, our
own context onto what we consider reality or Truth? How does our
location within a specific time and place influence what we assume
to be true, how we process received traditions and new experiences,
and how we talk to others about those things?
An axiom in scientific research is that the presence and location of
an observer influences what is observed. That is, the observer is
always a part of what is being observed. The same principle is
considered in areas like psychology, sociology, and even
linguistics, that context influences how we view the world as well
as how we express experiences, ideas, and what we understand to be
true. If that is valid for us, would it not also be valid for
ancient Israelites and first century Christians? This leads us to
consider the degree to which we allow for such context when we read
Scripture, or how we respond to those with very specific assumptions
about the nature of reality, or how we talk to others about God in a
diverse milieu.
One of my more interesting, and highly valued, interactions with
students was in a biblical seminar at a university in Nairobi,
Kenya. The seminar was composed of students, most of whom were
pastors, from diverse regions of Africa, from South Africa and
Namibia to Kenya to Côte d’Ivoire. In the course of that seminar,
they almost unanimously agreed that people in the West do not have a
proper understanding of the spiritual forces of evil in the world.
The students were very sincerely concerned that because of Western
Christians' history of the Enlightenment they are at risk
spiritually by neglecting attention to demonic power and the Devil.
I have heard similar although less impassioned comments by students
from Botswana and Swaziland.
In a different yet similar vein, I have worshipped with an almost 100%
African American Gospel congregation in Washington, DC (my wife was a
military chaplain). The language of power there is a dominant one,
especially, given the American experience, power for deliverance and
freedom. It is most often expressed as freedom from spiritual powers
and the Devil. Historically, "devil" was often a term applied to
white slave owners. I understood such language in that context and realized that it
came from a particular cultural background and a particular
historical experience.
To prompt theological and pastoral thinking I have often asked
students what they would do if they were ministering in, for
example, Haiti and were presented with a person possessed by demons.
They usually concluded that it is not what one believes about the
issue that is important, but rather that God can being healing
through his presence and power no matter what label we give it.
All of this raises a series of important questions for the Church,
even relating to how we understand the biblical texts. They are
especially acute questions for ministry.
What is the relationship between culturally, socially, and
historically conditioned beliefs and truths about God, us, and
relationship with God that transcend such beliefs? This is a
question equally valid in biblical studies or in ministry. Of
course, we can never experience God or minister to others apart from the constraints of time,
place, and circumstance, any more than we can read Scripture as
disembodied Truth apart from a context. Ministry is always
incarnated, as is both Scripture and theology. But it is a more
pressing issue when we are dealing with "cross-cultural"
interaction, especially when the cultures operate with such
fundamentally different premises about reality.
Should we, or to what degree should we, consider experiences that
fall outside our own experience a basis for providing insight into
the "reality" of things like demons, the devil, spiritual forces,
powers of darkness, etc.? I often hear or read of experiences by
those in world mission that are presented as proof of some specific
idea about such things. Yet, for the vast majority of Christians in
the United States, for example, such experiences are far removed
from either beliefs or their own experiences. A careful examination
of John Wesley's understanding of the role of experience in
theological method might be helpful here, especially noting his own
intellectual journey dealing with "enthusiasm." Even consideration
of the later Methodist response to Pentecostal influences might be
helpful.
Can (or should) a person minister in a cross-cultural context yet
not personally accept the basic cultural premises of those to whom
s/he is ministering? To what extent do those fundamental cultural
factors define theological beliefs? Is it possible (and if so to
what extent) to deal with larger truths about God, us, and our
relationship with God without adopting the conceptual framework
within which they are experienced, received and expressed?
I have talked with those involved in world mission over the years
who have made statements like, "I never believed in demon
possession until I went to XX." On the other hand I have talked to
Africans, Haitians, people from South America, as well as those from
Asian countries like Korea who have a cultural history of spiritism,
who testify to the opposite journey, that they no longer believe in
a spirit world often with comments indicating a deliverance from
pagan beliefs or superstition. This underlines the question of experience as proof
or evidence of truth or "reality."
Can (or should) a person maintain one's own culturally conditioned
beliefs and express theological truths within that framework while
still allowing another framework of expression to have equal
validity? Do rationalistic Westerners have to convert to believing
in spiritual powers, demon possession, and a personal devil because
Africans or the Bible report such experiences? Do Africans, Asians,
and First Peoples need to jettison beliefs in spirits and a spirit
world to accept Christianity? Pentecostal and Charismatic movements
are making rapid and significant advances within such world areas
precisely because their views fit within the fundamental conceptual
framework of how the people see the world. Is there a larger truth
about God that can encompass both conceptual frameworks without
conflating either?
Personally, I think the answer to that last question is yes. While I
have never made a public statement concerning belief in a personal
devil, I have often made this statement: "For those who live in the
power of Christ (2
Cor 12:9), they can live as if the devil does not exist."
Of course that is a very Western ontological phrasing. Yet I think
the truth of that statement can be applied in other contexts as,
"For those who live in the power of Christ, they can live as if the
spirits have no power." That was my response to my Christian
brothers in the Bible seminar in Kenya. Finally, the issue is not
getting the beliefs right. The real issue is letting God work in
our lives and encouraging others to let God work in their lives as
well. That is really the heart of ministry anyway.
A final thought. If it is true that those who live in the power of
Christ can live as if the spirits have no power, and I think it is,
then we in the Western world do not have to give much thought or
consideration to the devil or spiritual forces. That is the genuine
implication of "Christus Victor."
-Dennis Bratcher, Copyright
©
2018, Dennis
Bratcher, All Rights Reserved
See Copyright and User Information Notice
|
