Post by Dave on Dec 11, 2023 10:17:43 GMT -5
"The Intimate and Ultimate Adversary: Satanology in Early Second-Century Christian Literature (Journal of Early Christian Studies)"
Satan in early Gentile Christian communities:
An exegetical study in Mark and 2 Corinthians
Thomas J. Farrar, 5 January 2014
Satan in early Gentile Christian communities:
An exegetical study in Mark and 2 Corinthians
Thomas J. Farrar
www.dianoigo.com
1. Introduction
2. The Christadelphian doctrine of Satan
3. Old Testament background to the word satanas
3.1. Satan in the Hebrew Old Testament
3.2. Satan in the Greek Old Testament
3.3. Satan in the Apocrypha
4. Satan as a proper name in the New Testament
4.1. Satan as a proper name in Mark
1. Introduction
This is part of a series of exegetical articles on the subject of the devil and Satan, and more
specifically on evaluating the soundness of the Christadelphian view of the matter by a detailed
analysis of biblical passages. … The focus of this article is more specifically on the significance of the word Satan (Greek: satanas) in the New Testament. …
2. The Christadelphian doctrine of Satan
In the book with which he effectively launched the Christadelphian movement c. 1848, Elpis
Israel, Dr. John Thomas … The first Christadelphian to write a major treatise on the subject of the devil and Satan was Robert Roberts, …
(Robert Roberts? The parallel is amazing)
In summary, one observes that there is a spectrum of Christadelphian views on the ‘definiteness’
of Satan within the New Testament (see figure below). On the far left is the view that there is no
definitive or quintessential New Testament Satan; rather, this is just a common noun meaning ‘adversary’ which can take on any number of meanings as the context dictates. This extreme is
represented by Thomas Williams. On the far right is the view that there is a definitive or
quintessential New Testament Satan: the great adversary, the carnal mind. ‘He’ is the referent of
all references to Satan in the New Testament. This extreme is represented by Peter Watkins. The
other Christadelphian writers lie somewhere between these two extremes, emphasizing to some
extent the definitiveness of the great adversary but allowing for references to other satans in
some passages.
--------------------------------------------------
20 Heaster 2012: 158.
21 Buzzard 2000.
22 Burke 2007: 22.
23 Burke 2007: 29.
24 Burke 2007: 93.
---------------------------------------------------
3. Old Testament background to the word satanas
The New Testament was originally composed in Greek.25 However, satanas, as it occurs 38
times in 36 verses of the New Testament, is not a Greek word. How then did it find its way into
the New Testament? Some background is needed here.
3.1. Satan in the Hebrew Old Testament
In Hebrew, satan is a common noun meaning ‘adversary’ and, less frequently, a verb meaning to
oppose or to accuse. It often carries a forensic connotation. Its most widespread use is of human
adversaries (usually individuals but can also be a collective noun): 1 Sam. 29:4; 2 Sam. 19:22; 1
Kings 5:4; 1 Kings 11:14, 23, 25; Ps. 109:6. In Num. 22:22, 32 it refers to the angel of the Lord. In
Job 1-2 and Zechariah 3, the word satan occurs with the article – it is now ‘the adversary’ rather
than ‘an adversary.’ The consensus among biblical scholars is that ‘the adversary’ here refers to a
heavenly being (though not necessarily the same individual in both cases):
“In the Hebrew Bible, anyone or any creature can be a satan, an adversary. But at some
point, the concept illustrated by the word satan in the Bible began to be personified into
the being we have come to know as Satan. This being is mentioned eighteen times in
three books in the Hebrew Bible: once in 1 Chronicles (21:1), three times across two
verses in Zechariah (3:1-2), and fourteen times within the first two chapters of the book of Job. In reality, both in Zechariah and Job, the definite article is used, literally ‘the
satan.’ Still, these two books personify ‘the satan,’ introducing us to a being with agency,
and so the NRSV translates these occurrences with the proper name, Satan. (The definite
article in Hebrew can sometimes introduce proper names.) Even if it is not referring to
the proper name Satan, they are referring to an office or role occupied by a heavenly being.”26
The word satan carries a legal connotation, particularly in Psalm 109 and Zechariah 3 where in
each case the or a satan “functions as prosecuting attorney.”27 Fokkelman likewise translates the
------------------------------------------
25 A few have argued that Matthew was originally composed in Hebrew or Aramaic, but this view is
rejected by the majority of textual scholars. Even if it were true, there are no extant copies of Matthew in the ‘original’ Semitic language.
26 De La Torre & Hernandez 2011: 57. For similar summaries see Boyd 1975: 16; Hooks 2006: 63-64;
Laato 2013: 4-5.
27 Petersen 1984: 189.
---------------------------------------
satan in Job as “the Prosecutor” (of God’s heavenly council).28 In Job and Zechariah the satan(s)
are not in open rebellion against God like the Satan of the New Testament, but there are hints of
antagonism. In Zechariah 3, the satan “opposes God in a malicious way, as v. 2 clearly
indicates.”29 In Job, too, there are hints of antagonism between God and the satan: “you incited
me against him to destroy him without reason” (Job 2:3). It has further suggested that the
preposition ‘before’ (al) in Job 2:2 means “in defiance of God.”30
A similar kind of adversarial heavenly being is found in 1 Kings 22:19-23/2 Chr. 18:18-22,
although the word satan does not occur there.
The most disputed satan text in the Old Testament is 1 Chr. 21:1. Here, satan occurs without the
definite article, which some say indicates that it is the proper name of a specific being appointed
to the office of adversary. Kelly says that “Almost all modern translators and interpreters of this passage say ‘yes’ to this interpretation.”31 Nevertheless it has been challenged by scholars such as
Day,32 Japhet33 and Stokes.34 Japhet understands this ‘satan’ to be an anonymous human
adversary while Day and Stokes maintains that it is an indefinite celestial being.
In summary, then, it would be anachronistic to read a later concept of Satan back into the Old Testament, and indeed, from a historical perspective there may be “no single Satan figure of the Old Testament.”35 Nevertheless, it is not difficult to see how the concept of a specific angelic being called The Adversary could be inferred – as it was by the Jews – by putting together the key satan texts of Job 1-2, Zech. 3:1-2 and 1 Chr. 21:1.36 And, as Branden observes, these passages “do not strictly rule out the possibility of identifying the adversary as the personal Satan of the intertestamental literature and the New Testament.”37
3.2. Satan in the Greek Old Testament
In the 3rd and 2nd centuries B.C., the Jews of Alexandria produced a Greek translation of the Old
Testament known as the Septuagint (LXX). This version of the Old Testament was effectively the
Bible of the earliest Christians, especially those who did not understand Hebrew (whether
diaspora Jews or Gentiles). This is evident in the New Testament writings themselves:
“Because Christianity originated mainly within Greek-speaking Judaism, Christians
naturally used the Greek versions of Scripture. At first, as the NT shows, this was done without comment or apology.”38
-----------------------------------------------
28 Fokkelman 2012: 18.
29 Klein 2008: 136.
30 Hooks 2006: 72.
31 Kelly 2006: 29.
32 Day 1988.
33 Japhet 1993: 374-375.
34 Stokes 2009.
35 Brown 2011: 203-204.
36 See, for example, Russell 1977: 203-204.
37 Branden 2006: 17.
38 Dines 2004: 75.
--------------------------------------------------
In light of the importance of the Septuagint to the New Testament writers and early church, it is
worth considering how this version of the Old Testament handled the Hebrew word satan.
Because the work of translation was carried out by many different people over a period of
decades, there was some diversity in the approach.
In some instances (1 Sam. 29:4; 2 Sam. 19:22; 1 Kings 5:4) the Septuagint translators rendered
satan with the Greek word epiboulos, an adjective (functioning as a noun) which means “plotting against; treacherous.”39
In other cases, the word satan was translated with the Greek noun diabolos (enemy,
adversary40, slanderer41): 1 Chr. 21:1; Ps. 108(109):6; Job 1-2; Zech. 3:1-2. In the latter two cases
the article was carried over from the Hebrew to the Greek: ho diabolos, ‘the enemy’. It has a
more negative connotation than the word satan. In Num. 22:22, 32 satan was translated with
the Greek verb diabolē, which refers to false accusation, slander, quarrel or enmity, and in this
case specifically to the act of withstanding.42 This shows that the word need not imply
wickedness, since it is used here of the angel of the Lord. Kelly suggests that the translators consciously “avoided calling the Angel of Yahweh a diabolos” here.43
It is worth that the Septuagint translators tended to render satan with a form of diabolos when
the word refers to an angelic being, and with epiboulos when it refers to a human. This may not
be a conscious decision but it still results in differentiation for the reader of the Septuagint.
The translator(s) took an altogether different approach in 1 Kings 11. In the Hebrew the word
satan appears thrice, in vv. 14, 23 and 25. In v. 14 (a reference to a man, Hadad the Edomite, as
an adversary of Solomon) the Septuagint transliterates the word satan into Greek rather than
translating it. The same is true in v. 23 (which in the LXX forms part of v. 14). In v. 25, however,
the Septuagint translated satan with the Greek verb baruthemeo, meaning “to be indignant.”44
Why did the translator transliterate instead of translating in this case? It is a difficult question.
The majority of scholars understand the Septuagint to have been written primarily to meet the needs of
“Greek-speaking Jewish communities of Egypt, especially Alexandria.”45 It is likely that
by the time of translation in the 3rd or 2nd century B.C., the Hebrew word satan had already
taken on a special significance due either to its theological (see above) or legal46 importance.
Perhaps because of this, the translator felt Greek-speaking Jews would understand the term and
there was no need to translate it. This is not the Old Testament satan text where we would most
expect to see this occur, but the different translators had their own idiosyncrasies. Indeed, the
translator(s) of 1 Kings deal with the Hebrew word satan in three different ways, two of which
are unique compared with the rest of the Septuagint.
-------------------------------------------------------
39 Lust, Eynikel & Hauspie 1992: 168.
40 Lust, Eynikel & Hauspie 1992: 101.
41 Arndt, Danker & Bauer 2000: 226.
42 Lust, Eynikel & Hauspie 1992: 101.
43 Kelly 2006: 31.
44 Lust, Eynikel & Hauspie 1992: 77.
45 Dines 2004: 44.
46 von Rad states, “So far as we can see, the word has a special place in the judicial life of Israel. The
satan is the enemy in a specific sense, i.e., the accuser at law.” (von Rad 1964: 73.)
------------------------------------------------------
We can summarise our brief survey of the Old Testament testimony by stating that the word
satan does function as a common noun meaning adversary (often with a legal connotation). It is
used of various parties, both human and angelic. However, there are two passages in which the word occurs with the definite article (‘the satan’) to refer to a specific office (or even individual)
within the heavenly court (Job 1-2; Zechariah 3). There is one further passage where the word
may be used as a proper name, Satan (1 Chronicles 21). Furthermore, satan in all three cases was
translated in the Septuagint as diabolos, and in the case of Job and Zechariah, with ho diabolos
(the accuser; the slanderer). In all three of these passages there is general agreement among Old
Testament scholars that the referent of the word satan is an angelic being. Thus we have a clear precedent for taking ‘the satan’ and ‘the slanderer’ (devil) in the New Testament to refer to an
angelic being.
3.3. Satan in the Apocrypha
The transliterated Greek term ton satanan also occurs once in the deutero-canonical portion of
the Septuagint (often referred to as the Apocrypha) in The Wisdom of Jesus ben Sirach
(sometimes called Ecclesiasticus). Brenton translated Sirach 21:27, “When the ungodly curseth
Satan, he curseth his own soul,” and the New English Translation of the Septuagint rendered, “When an impious person curses the satan, he curses his own soul.” By contrast, the NRSV renders, “When an ungodly person curses an adversary, he curses himself.” As the translations show, some have taken ‘satan’ here to mean adversary in the ordinary sense,47 while others, in view of the definite article, take it to refer to ‘the satan’ or Satan in a specialized sense.
For Hart, the meaning was that “not Satan, but the man himself is responsible
for his sin.”48 If this reading is correct, Sirach implicitly confirms the existence of a personal
Satan but warns against using him as an excuse for sin. More recently, however, numerous
scholars have argued that Sirach was denying Satan’s existence and identifying him with innate
human wickedness: “The satan of Sir. 21:27 is primarily the personal adversary, but the skillful
ambiguity of the saying is aimed also to stigmatize the ‘impious’ belief in the existence of the
heavenly enemy.”49 And again, “For Sirach, therefore, the devil does not exist: Satan is only a
metaphor to indicate our worst instincts.”50 51
However, while Ben Sira was “reluctant to enlarge upon the subject of angels” in light of his
conservative worldview,52 he does not explicitly oppose belief in a personal Satan. His main concern is to combat “deterministic approaches, according to which divine determinism extends
to human sin.”53
----------------------------------------------------
47 Skehan & Di Lella 1987: 311-312. See also Brunton 1927: 109-110; Quinn & Wacker 2000: 146.
48 Hart 1909: 154.
49 Boccaccini 2008: 36.
50 Sacchi 1996: 223. See also Capelli 2005: 142; Tennant 2012: 116; Kelly 2006: 75.
51 Harrington is more guarded in his analysis, stating, “Ben Sira proposes a modified dualism in which
everything (good and evil) remains under God’s sovereignty (see Isa. 45:7) and appeals somewhat
vaguely to the divine plan working itself out in the ‘nature of things.’ He does not present a strong Satan
figure who leads the children of darkness to do the deeds of darkness.” (Harrington 2005: 52)
52 cf. Bamberger 2010: 55.
53 Brand 2013: 95.
----------------------------------------------------
In summary, in the Hebrew Bible satan is a common noun meaning adversary with a judicial connotation. In Job and Zechariah, and possibly in 1 Chronicles, we have the makings of ‘the
adversary’ as a specific office or even individual within the heavenly court. In these texts the
Septuagint translated the word satan with diabolos, thereby laying the foundation for the use of
the latter term in the New Testament.
The Septuagint also transliterated the Hebrew word satan into Greek on one occasion where it
refers to a human adversary (without the article). The apocryphal book of Sirach transliterated
satan with the article into Greek. Here, it may be a reference to one’s human adversary but is
more likely a polemic against blaming a personal being called ‘the satan’ for one’s sins, possibly
denying the existence of such a being and identifying him metaphorically with the evil impulse
(yetzer hara) in man.
4. Satan as a proper name in the New Testament
The Greek word satanas in the New Testament (which occurs 38 times in 36 verses) is
transliterated from Aramaic,54 but ultimately derives from Hebrew.55 It usually occurs with the
article and would thus be translated literally into English as ‘the satan’ or, if taken as a proper
name, Satan (proper names in ancient Greek are often preceded by the article, so if one were to
translate the New Testament woodenly one would have references to ‘the Jesus’).
This raises an important question: is ho satanas a proper name? There is widespread agreement
amongst scholars that indeed, Satan always functions as a proper name in the New Testament.56
Indeed, Christadelphian writer Peter Watkins all but conceded this point when he said that “Satan in the New Testament is always a special adversary – the great adversary.” However, as
we saw earlier, Christadelphian writer Duncan Heaster claimed that satanas in the New
Testament is simply a transliterated Hebrew word (Aramaic, technically) with the same generic
meaning that it takes in the Old Testament.
Is this feasible? Well, there are quite a number of transliterated Hebrew and Aramaic words in
the New Testament. Some of them are proper names, including people’s names (such as Thomas
and Bartimaeus), angels’ names (such as Michael and Abaddon) and place names (such as
Sodom and Golgotha). Others are not proper names but common nouns (such as mamonas,
raka and rabbi) or other expressions (such as Amen, talitha cumi and Maran atha). Thus,
prima facie we have a basis for arguing that satanas in the New Testament is either a proper
name, Satan, or a transliterated Hebrew-Aramaic word meaning ‘adversary.’ Which is it?
First of all, it is known that Satan was being used as a proper name in Jewish writings prior to or
contemporary with the New Testament, such as the Book of Jubilees 10:11; 23:29; 50:5,57 the
Testament of Job,58 and The Assumption of Moses.59 As we noted earlier, this may even be the
-----------------------------------------------
54 Strong 2009: 1668; Partridge 1970: 157; Millard 2005: 144.
55 A textual variant in 2 Cor. 12:7 reads satan rather than satanas, which would be a transliteration
directly from Hebrew. However, textual scholars have regarded satanas as the original reading.
56 Bell 2007: 10; Guiley 2009: 222; Arndt, Danker & Bauer 2000: 916.
57 Schaferdiek 1971: 154.
58 Garrett 1998: 41.
59 Branden 2006: 17.
------------------------------------------------
case in the Old Testament in 1 Chronicles 21, as well as in the Apocrypha in Sirach 21:27
(although in the latter case it may be a polemic against the existence of the being so named).
Thus we have a precedent for taking Satan as a proper name in the New Testament.
Secondly, let us compare satanas with other transliterated Hebrew-Aramaic expressions in the
New Testament which are not proper names. In this study we are focusing especially on the
Gospel of Mark and the epistles to the Corinthians because of their audiences.
4.1. Satan as a proper name in Mark
A strong case can be made that Mark’s Gospel was written primarily to “a Greek-speaking
audience that did not know Aramaic…gentile Christians, familiar with both the gospel traditions
and the Judaism of the first century.”60 A well-supported tradition holds that Mark wrote his
Gospel for the church at Rome.61 That his readers did not know Aramaic is evident from the fact
that he provides translations of several Aramaic expressions into Greek (Mark 5:41; 7:34; 14:36;
15:34). That their familiarity with Jewish customs was limited can be seen from the explanation
provided in Mark 7:3-4.
Mark uses other Hebrew-Aramaic terms in his Gospel which he does not explain: Amen (Mark
3:28; 6:11; etc.), Gehenna (Mark 9:43, 45, 47), Hosanna (11:9-10), pascha (14:1), rabbi (Mark
9:5; 11:21; 14:45), rabboni (Mark 10:51); sabbaton (Mk 1:2 etc.), and satana (Mark 1:13, 3:23,
26; 4:15; 8:33).
In the case of pascha, this term was probably well known to Gentile Christians as 1 Cor. 5:7-8
implies that they observed the Passover festival in some form.62 Anyone with a slight knowledge
of Judaism would have known about the Sabbath, and indeed the term is transliterated nearly
100 times in the Septuagint.
Hosanna is an Aramaic term from synagogue liturgy meaning “Save us!”63 that was taken over
by the early church64 (and continues to be used in songs of praise to this day!)
Gehenna refers to a place, the Valley of Hinnom, but thereby refers metaphorically to the place
of final punishment. This term could not have been translated into Greek without retaining at least the
‘Hinnom’ or ‘Henna’ as a transliterated name (as the Septuagint did, e.g. pharanx
huiou Ennom, Jer. 7:32). It is thus effectively a proper name, and the transliteration rather than translation of the ‘Ge’ prefix probably means that it had become a technical theological term in
the early church (as it did in rabbinic Judaism as well).
Since John provides translations for the terms rabbi and rabboni in his Gospel (1:38; 20:16), it
stands to reason that Gentile readers could not necessarily be assumed to know these Aramaic
terms. Mark may have assumed his readers would recognize that these terms were equivalent to
------------------------------------------------
60 Stein 2008: 9-10.
61 Stein 2008: 10.
62 See Marshall 1980: 117.
63 Millard 2005: 140.
64 Dormeyer 1998: 147.
-------------------------------------------------
the Greek didaskalos, which he used more frequently and in an almost identical way (as a form
of respectful address).
Thus, in the case of all the other transliterated Semitic terms in Mark, we have either a
translation into Greek, or a plausible explanation for how the term would have been known to
the early church. However, for the term satanas there is no obvious explanation. As we saw
above, the similar transliteration satan occurs in just one obscure text in the Septuagint, and
without the article at that. This is hardly grounds for Mark to assume that his readers would
know what he was talking about when he referred to ho satanas with the article.
Simply put, if we look for other transliterated Semitic terms in Mark which occur with the article
and are not translated for the reader, all we will find are proper names: ho iesous (Jesus) and
ton ioannen (John) in Mark 1:14, ho herodes (Herod) in Mark 6:17, to pilato (Pilate) in Mark
15:1, etc.
It must therefore be concluded that in Mark, ho satanas is the proper name or title of a specific
entity or at very least the technical term for a specific theological idea which had become wellknown
in the church. It cannot be allowed to vary in meaning from one passage to another. As
Gibson explains,
“The figure whom Mark designates as the perpetrator of Jesus’ Wilderness temptation,
whether called Satan or one of a host of other names, was not an ‘unknown quantity’. On
the contrary, in Mark’s time and in the thought world which Mark and his audience
shared, Satan’s identity and the activities characteristic of him were both well-defined and widely known.”65
“ho Satanas is here at Mk 1.13a a proper name, not a common noun, and denotes a
particular being, a distinct personality”66
Hence, “Satanology is an important theme for Mark”67 as opposed to a scattering of references to
various adversaries.
Christadelphians might claim that ho satanas is the ‘proper name’ of a personification of evil
desires, which became established in the early church as a technical theological term. As we saw
earlier, numerous scholars interpret Sirach 21:27 as identifying ho satanas with evil desires and
rejecting the idea of a personal being called ho satanas. From this premise one could argue that
the early church followed this wisdom tradition and rejected the apocalyptic tradition which
viewed Satan as the proper name of a personal being.
One problem with this view is that, if it were the case, we would expect the New Testament to be
explicit about it and clearly differentiate between the true, figurative doctrine of Satan and the
false, literal doctrine of Satan. The need to be explicit about this would have been especially
----------------------------------------------
65 Gibson 2004: 58.
66 Gibson 2004: 58 n. 54.
67 Dochhorn 2013: 104.
-------------------------------------------
great in books with a great deal of apocalyptic imagery, such as Matthew and Revelation, since
the doctrine of a real, personal Satan was firmly entrenched in apocalyptic Judaism.68
Instead, the New Testament writers consistently assume that their readers know what they
mean by ho satanas. Even more remarkably, they consistently refer to ho satanas as though
he were a person, as Christadelphians acknowledge. This is the last kind of figurative
language that would be expected from a church seeking to distance itself from the view that ho
satanas was a personal being!
This problem comes to the fore in Mark’s Gospel. In Mark 3:23, 26 ho satanas clearly refers to a
personal being, equivalent to Beelzebul, the prince of demons (Mark 3:22). This person is the
referent of ho satanas here even if it is claimed that Jesus did not believe in his existence but
only assumed it for the sake of argument (itself a dubious claim in view of the parable in Mark
3:27).69
Since we have already seen that satanas in Mark functions as a proper name or title and not a
generic term for adversary, we are required to infer that satanas has the same meaning in Mark
1:13 and 4:15 as it has in 3:23-26, especially since satanas occurs with the article in all three
texts.70 It can be said with near certainty that Mark would not use the transliterated Aramaic
term ho satanas with the article to refer to two or three71 different ‘satans’ without defining ‘the
satan’ clearly in each case.
Given that ho satanas functions as a proper name in Mark, in order to avoid the conclusion that
it is the proper name of a personal being we must either interpret ho satanas in Mark 1:13 and 4:15 as ‘the alleged personal Satan believed in by the Jews,’ or else interpret ho satanas in Mark
3:23-26 as the personification of the evil desires. Neither option is plausible. In this case, the
implication of taking Satan as a proper name is that Satan refers to a real personal being.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary
In the Hebrew Bible, anyone or any creature can be a satan, an adversary
in the Hebrew Bible satan is a common noun meaning adversary with a judicial connotation
In Job and Zechariah, and possibly in 1 Chronicles, we have the makings of ‘the adversary’ as a specific office or even individual within the heavenly court.
(yester ra) - denying the existence of such a being and identifying him metaphorically with the evil impulse (yetzer hara) in man.
1- anyone can be a satan – because the word just means accuser / oppose
2-Hebrew satan is an angel of the Lord working for the Lord (heavenly court)
3- (yester ra) - Jas 1:14 But each one is tempted when he is dragged away and enticed by his own desire / lust.
4- This is NOT Jewish demonology
5- Jewish demonology revolves around the shedim / other gods / and demons
The Greek word satanas in the New Testament (which occurs 38 times in 36 verses) is transliterated from Aramaic,
there are quite a number of transliterated Hebrew and Aramaic words in the New Testament.
the conclusion that
… we must either interpret ho satanas in Mark 1:13 and 4:15 as ‘the alleged personal Satan believed in by the Jews,’ (Hebrew satan)
or else interpret ho satanas in Mark 3:23-26 as the personification of the evil desires. (yester ra)
Neither option is plausible. In this case, the implication of taking Satan as a proper name is that Satanas refers to a real personal being.
Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was thrown down—the ancient serpent, called the devil and satanas, who deceives the whole world. He was thrown down to the earth, and his angels (messengers) were thrown down with him.
Dave Conclusion
OT Hebrew satan (G4566 of Hebrew origin) = Heaven’s Prosecutor
is NOT the same person / entity / angel (messenger) as
NT satanas (G4567 of Chaldean origin) = the BEAST of Revelation – the old dragon – the ancient serpent – that we call devils and satanas
James Tabor calls it the BIGGEST PARADYGM SHIFT IN THE HISTORY OF THOUGHT
The Archon (G746) = Our real struggle – Principalities – messengers of the BEAST that deceive the whole world
The Archon (G746) = Our real struggle – Principalities – messengers of the serpent
The Archon (G746) = Our real struggle – Principalities – messengers of the serpent and the serpent’s seed
The only question that remains between Robert and I
The Catholic interpretation of Ezk 28 and Isa 14 that The BEAST of Revelation was once a good-guy angel of the Lord that Rebelled out of pride – proclaimed himself the god of evil – took 1/3rd of all God’s angels away from God for the purpose of opposing God’s right to rule the universe, because Robert’s SDA satan hates God and opposes God.
Robert – cannot deny this false tradition – because he entire theology is built upon it
Ellen White’s SDA tradition revolves around two gods in heaven locked in a cosmic struggle – a god of tov only that creates –and- a god of ra a second creator that created himself is responsible for the fall of God’s creation
Dave –
Jewish belief #1 – God is absolute – Anything that has come into being was made by God for God. God is absolute – His creation is exactly as He Willed it to be.
Jewish belief #2 – God tests His people. - Why does God test His people? Deu 8:2 … in order to humble you, to test you, to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep His mitzvot or not.
Jewish belief #3 - Why does God do it? - To reveal Himself, to reveal His power and glory
(to prove that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is the one true God)
Isa 45:5 I am Adonai—there is no other. Besides Me there is no God. I will strengthen you, though you have not known Me,
Isa 45:6 so they may know, from the rising to the setting of the sun, that there is no one besides Me. I am Adonai—there is no other.
Isa 45:7 I form light and create darkness (choshek). I make shalom (tov) and create calamity (ra). I, Adonai, do all these things.
Joh 1:3 All things were made through Him, and apart from Him nothing was made that has come into being.
Eph 6:12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, (G746 - Archon / Principalities)
Col 1:16 For by Him all things were created—in heaven and on earth, the seen and the unseen, whether thrones or angelic powers or rulers (G746 - Archon / Principalities) or authorities. All was created through Him and for Him.
Rev 4:11 “Worthy are You, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, For You created all things, and because of Your will they existed and were created!”
Authoritative Teaching
And before anything came into being, it was the Father alone who existed, before the worlds that are in the heavens appeared, or the world that is on the earth, or principality, or authority, or the powers. [...] appear [...] and [...] And nothing came into being without his wish.
He, then, the Father, wishing to reveal his wealth and his glory, brought about this great contest in this world, wishing to make the contestants appear, and make all those who contend leave behind the things that had come into being, and despise them with a lofty, incomprehensible knowledge, and flee to the one who exists.
POINT – Catholic – Fallen Angels that fell from pride – rebelling, hating, and opposing God’s right to rule the universe – IS A CATHOLIC MYTH – and never existed before the Roman Catholic Church used it as a Machiavellian enemy that only a Priest – the Church and the Pope could save you from
The Gnostic Alternative
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Gen 1:2 Now the earth was chaos and waste, darkness was on the surface of the deep, and the Ruach Elohim was hovering upon the surface of the water.
Gen 1:3 Then God said, “Let there be light!” and there was light.
Gen 1:4 God saw that the light was good. So God distinguished the light from the darkness.
Gen 1:5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness He called “night.” So there was evening and there was morning—one day.
Gen 1:31 So God saw everything that He made, and behold it was very good. (tov)
Isa 45:7 I form light and create darkness (choshek). I make shalom (tov) and create calamity (ra). I, Adonai, do all these things.
H2822 – חֹשֶׁךְ - chôshek
the dark; hence (literally) darkness; figuratively misery, destruction, death, ignorance, sorrow, wickedness: - dark (-ness), night, obscurity.
POINT – the order = Creation – Darkness / Ignorance – LIGHT – separation – Day 1 – all tov
Gnostic -
Step 1 - God created the heavens (plural)
These are spiritual realms – filled with spiritual beings – messengers (angels) + others (Host)
Judaism + Gnostic – this includes man – spiritual man
Step 2 - God created earth
God’s Laws of Nature – God’s Laws of Thermodynamics - matter comes with ENTROPY
Without entropy there is no movement – no translation or transmutation of energy
Each creation = a step down in E (entropy)
Jewish – God is in the Highest Heaven – the 7th Heaven
Jewish – man is in the lower world
Gnostic – heavens (plural) = 10 D = 7 D (heavens) above) and we are 3D matter at the bottom
Gnostic – each D (heaven) = a step down in E (entropy
Matter comes with ENTROPY
Rev 12:3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. - to devour
POINT – the order = Creation – Darkness / Ignorance
The Hypostasis of the Archons
Opening his eyes, he saw a vast quantity of matter without limit; and he became arrogant, saying, "It is I who am God, and there is none other apart from me". When he said this, he sinned against the entirety. And a voice came forth from above the realm of absolute power, saying, "You are mistaken, Samael" – which is, 'god of the blind'.
The BEAST (First Archon) was the first sentient creature of matter
Opening his eyes – his only thought was of SELF – I am alone – there is no one but me
Saying this he sinned against the entirety
Robert cannot understand why this is not the original sin the changed all of creation
1- all of creation has not happed yet – still Day 1
2- a voice came from heaven and said – sorry you’re wrong
What was said = IGNORANCE of God
IGNORANCE is not a sin – as later defined as transgression of God’s Commandments
Step 3 - “Let there be light!”
“The Light” = Christ – the image of God in the matter –
The Light that illuminates and expels the Darkness
Rev 12:5 - a son, a man child, who is to rule - unto God, and unto his throne.
John 8:12 - Jesus - said, “I am the light of the world”
Psalm 18:28 - For it is you who light my lamp; the LORD my God lightens my darkness.
Psalm 27:1 The LORD is my light and my salvation
Step 4 - God distinguished the light from the darkness.
God divided the light from the darkness.
God divided the light from the darkness.
John 8:12 – Jesus - said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”
The Hypostasis of the Archons
Now when Yaldabaoth saw him (Sabaoth) in this great splendor and at this height, he envied him; and the envy became an androgynous product, and this was the origin of envy. And envy engendered death; and death engendered his offspring and gave each of them charge of its heaven; and all the heavens of chaos became full of their multitudes. But it was by the will of the father of the entirety that they all came into being – after the pattern of all the things above – so that the sum of chaos might be attained.
POINT - Jewish belief #1 – God is absolute – Anything that has come into being was made by God for God. God is absolute – His creation is exactly as He Willed it to be.
Dave – all God’s Plan – all God’s Will
Step 5 – Day 1 – the Gnostic First Age – the first link in Dispensation
-----------------------------------------------------
Gnostic – Day1 – the Gnostic First Age - represents God’s entire message to man
1- a creation – order - a beginning
2- an opportunity to do right – but choose wrong = a chaos
3- the introduction of salvation – via the LIGHT – Jesus Christ – the image of God with creation
Gnostic Second Age
1- God creates planet Earth and a location called Eden
order - a beginning
2- an opportunity to do right – but choose wrong = a chaos
Gen 2:17 – the first Commandment give to man
Gen 3:6 – Eve transgressed the Commandment of God
The definition of sin
3- the introduction of salvation – via the LIGHT – Jesus Christ – the image of God with creation
Scripture says – NOAH
Gnostic / Jewish Midrash / Kabbalah –
The First Book of Adam and Eve
14:3 Again said God unto Adam, "All this misery that thou hast been made to take upon thee because of thy transgression, will not free thee from the hand of Satan, and will not save thee.
4 "But I will. When I shall come down from heaven, and shall become flesh of thy seed, and take upon Me the infirmity from which thou sufferest, then the darkness that came upon thee in this cave shall come upon Me in the grave, when I am in the flesh of thy seed.
5 "And I, who am without years, shall be subject to the reckoning of years, of times, of months, and of days, and I shall be reckoned as one of the sons of men, in order to save thee."
6 And God ceased to commune with Adam.
22: 6 Then God said again unto Adam, "Because thou hast borne fear and trembling in this land, languor and suffering treading and walking about, going upon this mountain, and dying from it, I will take all this upon Myself in order to save thee."
24: 4 Then came the Word of God to Adam, and said unto him, "O Adam, as thou hast shed thy blood, so will I shed My own blood when I become flesh of thy seed; and as thou didst die, O Adam, so also will I die. And as thou didst build an altar, so also will I make for thee an altar on the earth; and as thou didst offer thy blood upon it, so also will I offer My blood upon an altar on the earth.
5 "And as thou didst sue for forgiveness through that blood, so also will I make My blood forgiveness of sins, and blot out transgressions in it.
Gnostic Third Age
1- Noah and sons star over
2- Nimrod – Tammuz – Ishtar – Babble – chaos
3- Abraham and Israel – the Light unto the world
Gnostic Forth Age
1- Israel
2- Religion become a tool for the rich and powerful
Weakened it become occupied and oppressed
3- The First Coming of Jesus Christ
Gnostic Fifth Age
1- Age of the gentile
2- Today
3- The Second Coming of Jesus Christ
Ecc 3:1 For everything there is a season, and a time for every purpose under heaven:
Ecc 1:9 That which hath been is that which shall be; and that which hath been done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
Ecc 1:10 Is there a thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been long ago, in the ages which were before us.
Ecc 1:11 There is no remembrance of the former generations; neither shall there be any remembrance of the latter generations that are to come, among those that shall come after.
Dave - all God's Plan - all God's Will
Gnostic Christianity 101
Satan in early Gentile Christian communities:
An exegetical study in Mark and 2 Corinthians
Thomas J. Farrar, 5 January 2014
God is amazing – I absolutely feel God in my life and ministry!
Robert – has chosen to be the forum antagonist
First he attacked the word “Gnostic” because the Roman Edit has convinced him the word is bad
Next he attacked the “Archon” because it is not a Hebrew word
Next he attacked the NT Greek word G4567 Σατανᾶς – Satanas - of Chaldean origin
His personal attack upon me:
My work is error and I stand alone in my research / study there is no one that agrees with me.
I have directed Robert to many articles / postings / and even books all discussing the difference between OT Hebrew satan (G4566) the heavens prosecutor, and angel of the Lord working for the Lord
– and –
NT satanas (G4567) who is represented at the evil / malevolent villain of Dante and Milton
Robert ignores all academic evidence of the truth claiming no one else teaches about NT satanas
God is amazing – I absolutely feel God in my life and ministry!
"PDF By Thomas Farrar <updates@academia-mail.com> Unsubscribe
Sun, Dec 10, 4:59 AM (23 hours ago) to me"
Background – this author is NOT a preacher, or an admitted representative of any specific denomination. He is a Faculty Member at the Cape Peninsula University of Technology, Bellville, where he teaches mathematical statistics.
His comments are directed toward a “Bible-based, Unitarian, Restorationist denomination
Also founded in 1848 along with the Millerites / Ellen White’s SDA – who broke away for the Baptist
Also founded around a man named Dr. John Thomas (1805-1871), who broke from the Disciples of Christ.
Also based upon a BOOK - Elpis Israel (1848)
(google) What do the Christadelphians believe?
Members of the faith believe that Jesus was human, not divine, although he was the son of God. They do not believe in Hell or Satan. Everyone who dies, according to Christadelphian theology, goes into an unconscious state from which only believers will be resurrected during the Second Coming of Jesus.
(wiki) Since Christadelphians teach a bodily resurrection and judgment at the return of Jesus Christ to earth, the controversy was over who would be resurrected and called to judgment.
The parallels between this argument and the argument between Robert and I are staggering
Robert also teaches Jesus was a man – NOT God
To Robert the divinity of Jesus is biology and existed before biology was created
To Robert if Jesus is God – then He is a different god – because Jesus prayed to God
Robert also does not believe in hell
It is just sleep until you are resurrected in the body to be cast into the Lake of Fire
And very few being saved
Millerites / Ellen White’s SDA is known as an Advent group because they preach the coming of the Bahai Islamic Madih
Christadelphians are what I have always known as the Unitarians known for preaching Jesus was just a man – virgin birth not possible – no hell no afterlife
Robert – has chosen to be the forum antagonist
First he attacked the word “Gnostic” because the Roman Edit has convinced him the word is bad
Next he attacked the “Archon” because it is not a Hebrew word
Next he attacked the NT Greek word G4567 Σατανᾶς – Satanas - of Chaldean origin
His personal attack upon me:
My work is error and I stand alone in my research / study there is no one that agrees with me.
I have directed Robert to many articles / postings / and even books all discussing the difference between OT Hebrew satan (G4566) the heavens prosecutor, and angel of the Lord working for the Lord
– and –
NT satanas (G4567) who is represented at the evil / malevolent villain of Dante and Milton
Robert ignores all academic evidence of the truth claiming no one else teaches about NT satanas
God is amazing – I absolutely feel God in my life and ministry!
"PDF By Thomas Farrar <updates@academia-mail.com> Unsubscribe
Sun, Dec 10, 4:59 AM (23 hours ago) to me"
Background – this author is NOT a preacher, or an admitted representative of any specific denomination. He is a Faculty Member at the Cape Peninsula University of Technology, Bellville, where he teaches mathematical statistics.
His comments are directed toward a “Bible-based, Unitarian, Restorationist denomination
Also founded in 1848 along with the Millerites / Ellen White’s SDA – who broke away for the Baptist
Also founded around a man named Dr. John Thomas (1805-1871), who broke from the Disciples of Christ.
Also based upon a BOOK - Elpis Israel (1848)
(google) What do the Christadelphians believe?
Members of the faith believe that Jesus was human, not divine, although he was the son of God. They do not believe in Hell or Satan. Everyone who dies, according to Christadelphian theology, goes into an unconscious state from which only believers will be resurrected during the Second Coming of Jesus.
(wiki) Since Christadelphians teach a bodily resurrection and judgment at the return of Jesus Christ to earth, the controversy was over who would be resurrected and called to judgment.
The parallels between this argument and the argument between Robert and I are staggering
Robert also teaches Jesus was a man – NOT God
To Robert the divinity of Jesus is biology and existed before biology was created
To Robert if Jesus is God – then He is a different god – because Jesus prayed to God
Robert also does not believe in hell
It is just sleep until you are resurrected in the body to be cast into the Lake of Fire
And very few being saved
Millerites / Ellen White’s SDA is known as an Advent group because they preach the coming of the Bahai Islamic Madih
Christadelphians are what I have always known as the Unitarians known for preaching Jesus was just a man – virgin birth not possible – no hell no afterlife
An exegetical study in Mark and 2 Corinthians
Thomas J. Farrar
www.dianoigo.com
1. Introduction
2. The Christadelphian doctrine of Satan
3. Old Testament background to the word satanas
3.1. Satan in the Hebrew Old Testament
3.2. Satan in the Greek Old Testament
3.3. Satan in the Apocrypha
4. Satan as a proper name in the New Testament
4.1. Satan as a proper name in Mark
1. Introduction
This is part of a series of exegetical articles on the subject of the devil and Satan, and more
specifically on evaluating the soundness of the Christadelphian view of the matter by a detailed
analysis of biblical passages. … The focus of this article is more specifically on the significance of the word Satan (Greek: satanas) in the New Testament. …
2. The Christadelphian doctrine of Satan
In the book with which he effectively launched the Christadelphian movement c. 1848, Elpis
Israel, Dr. John Thomas … The first Christadelphian to write a major treatise on the subject of the devil and Satan was Robert Roberts, …
(Robert Roberts? The parallel is amazing)
In summary, one observes that there is a spectrum of Christadelphian views on the ‘definiteness’
of Satan within the New Testament (see figure below). On the far left is the view that there is no
definitive or quintessential New Testament Satan; rather, this is just a common noun meaning ‘adversary’ which can take on any number of meanings as the context dictates. This extreme is
represented by Thomas Williams. On the far right is the view that there is a definitive or
quintessential New Testament Satan: the great adversary, the carnal mind. ‘He’ is the referent of
all references to Satan in the New Testament. This extreme is represented by Peter Watkins. The
other Christadelphian writers lie somewhere between these two extremes, emphasizing to some
extent the definitiveness of the great adversary but allowing for references to other satans in
some passages.
--------------------------------------------------
20 Heaster 2012: 158.
21 Buzzard 2000.
22 Burke 2007: 22.
23 Burke 2007: 29.
24 Burke 2007: 93.
---------------------------------------------------
3. Old Testament background to the word satanas
The New Testament was originally composed in Greek.25 However, satanas, as it occurs 38
times in 36 verses of the New Testament, is not a Greek word. How then did it find its way into
the New Testament? Some background is needed here.
3.1. Satan in the Hebrew Old Testament
In Hebrew, satan is a common noun meaning ‘adversary’ and, less frequently, a verb meaning to
oppose or to accuse. It often carries a forensic connotation. Its most widespread use is of human
adversaries (usually individuals but can also be a collective noun): 1 Sam. 29:4; 2 Sam. 19:22; 1
Kings 5:4; 1 Kings 11:14, 23, 25; Ps. 109:6. In Num. 22:22, 32 it refers to the angel of the Lord. In
Job 1-2 and Zechariah 3, the word satan occurs with the article – it is now ‘the adversary’ rather
than ‘an adversary.’ The consensus among biblical scholars is that ‘the adversary’ here refers to a
heavenly being (though not necessarily the same individual in both cases):
“In the Hebrew Bible, anyone or any creature can be a satan, an adversary. But at some
point, the concept illustrated by the word satan in the Bible began to be personified into
the being we have come to know as Satan. This being is mentioned eighteen times in
three books in the Hebrew Bible: once in 1 Chronicles (21:1), three times across two
verses in Zechariah (3:1-2), and fourteen times within the first two chapters of the book of Job. In reality, both in Zechariah and Job, the definite article is used, literally ‘the
satan.’ Still, these two books personify ‘the satan,’ introducing us to a being with agency,
and so the NRSV translates these occurrences with the proper name, Satan. (The definite
article in Hebrew can sometimes introduce proper names.) Even if it is not referring to
the proper name Satan, they are referring to an office or role occupied by a heavenly being.”26
The word satan carries a legal connotation, particularly in Psalm 109 and Zechariah 3 where in
each case the or a satan “functions as prosecuting attorney.”27 Fokkelman likewise translates the
------------------------------------------
25 A few have argued that Matthew was originally composed in Hebrew or Aramaic, but this view is
rejected by the majority of textual scholars. Even if it were true, there are no extant copies of Matthew in the ‘original’ Semitic language.
26 De La Torre & Hernandez 2011: 57. For similar summaries see Boyd 1975: 16; Hooks 2006: 63-64;
Laato 2013: 4-5.
27 Petersen 1984: 189.
---------------------------------------
satan in Job as “the Prosecutor” (of God’s heavenly council).28 In Job and Zechariah the satan(s)
are not in open rebellion against God like the Satan of the New Testament, but there are hints of
antagonism. In Zechariah 3, the satan “opposes God in a malicious way, as v. 2 clearly
indicates.”29 In Job, too, there are hints of antagonism between God and the satan: “you incited
me against him to destroy him without reason” (Job 2:3). It has further suggested that the
preposition ‘before’ (al) in Job 2:2 means “in defiance of God.”30
A similar kind of adversarial heavenly being is found in 1 Kings 22:19-23/2 Chr. 18:18-22,
although the word satan does not occur there.
The most disputed satan text in the Old Testament is 1 Chr. 21:1. Here, satan occurs without the
definite article, which some say indicates that it is the proper name of a specific being appointed
to the office of adversary. Kelly says that “Almost all modern translators and interpreters of this passage say ‘yes’ to this interpretation.”31 Nevertheless it has been challenged by scholars such as
Day,32 Japhet33 and Stokes.34 Japhet understands this ‘satan’ to be an anonymous human
adversary while Day and Stokes maintains that it is an indefinite celestial being.
In summary, then, it would be anachronistic to read a later concept of Satan back into the Old Testament, and indeed, from a historical perspective there may be “no single Satan figure of the Old Testament.”35 Nevertheless, it is not difficult to see how the concept of a specific angelic being called The Adversary could be inferred – as it was by the Jews – by putting together the key satan texts of Job 1-2, Zech. 3:1-2 and 1 Chr. 21:1.36 And, as Branden observes, these passages “do not strictly rule out the possibility of identifying the adversary as the personal Satan of the intertestamental literature and the New Testament.”37
3.2. Satan in the Greek Old Testament
In the 3rd and 2nd centuries B.C., the Jews of Alexandria produced a Greek translation of the Old
Testament known as the Septuagint (LXX). This version of the Old Testament was effectively the
Bible of the earliest Christians, especially those who did not understand Hebrew (whether
diaspora Jews or Gentiles). This is evident in the New Testament writings themselves:
“Because Christianity originated mainly within Greek-speaking Judaism, Christians
naturally used the Greek versions of Scripture. At first, as the NT shows, this was done without comment or apology.”38
-----------------------------------------------
28 Fokkelman 2012: 18.
29 Klein 2008: 136.
30 Hooks 2006: 72.
31 Kelly 2006: 29.
32 Day 1988.
33 Japhet 1993: 374-375.
34 Stokes 2009.
35 Brown 2011: 203-204.
36 See, for example, Russell 1977: 203-204.
37 Branden 2006: 17.
38 Dines 2004: 75.
--------------------------------------------------
In light of the importance of the Septuagint to the New Testament writers and early church, it is
worth considering how this version of the Old Testament handled the Hebrew word satan.
Because the work of translation was carried out by many different people over a period of
decades, there was some diversity in the approach.
In some instances (1 Sam. 29:4; 2 Sam. 19:22; 1 Kings 5:4) the Septuagint translators rendered
satan with the Greek word epiboulos, an adjective (functioning as a noun) which means “plotting against; treacherous.”39
In other cases, the word satan was translated with the Greek noun diabolos (enemy,
adversary40, slanderer41): 1 Chr. 21:1; Ps. 108(109):6; Job 1-2; Zech. 3:1-2. In the latter two cases
the article was carried over from the Hebrew to the Greek: ho diabolos, ‘the enemy’. It has a
more negative connotation than the word satan. In Num. 22:22, 32 satan was translated with
the Greek verb diabolē, which refers to false accusation, slander, quarrel or enmity, and in this
case specifically to the act of withstanding.42 This shows that the word need not imply
wickedness, since it is used here of the angel of the Lord. Kelly suggests that the translators consciously “avoided calling the Angel of Yahweh a diabolos” here.43
It is worth that the Septuagint translators tended to render satan with a form of diabolos when
the word refers to an angelic being, and with epiboulos when it refers to a human. This may not
be a conscious decision but it still results in differentiation for the reader of the Septuagint.
The translator(s) took an altogether different approach in 1 Kings 11. In the Hebrew the word
satan appears thrice, in vv. 14, 23 and 25. In v. 14 (a reference to a man, Hadad the Edomite, as
an adversary of Solomon) the Septuagint transliterates the word satan into Greek rather than
translating it. The same is true in v. 23 (which in the LXX forms part of v. 14). In v. 25, however,
the Septuagint translated satan with the Greek verb baruthemeo, meaning “to be indignant.”44
Why did the translator transliterate instead of translating in this case? It is a difficult question.
The majority of scholars understand the Septuagint to have been written primarily to meet the needs of
“Greek-speaking Jewish communities of Egypt, especially Alexandria.”45 It is likely that
by the time of translation in the 3rd or 2nd century B.C., the Hebrew word satan had already
taken on a special significance due either to its theological (see above) or legal46 importance.
Perhaps because of this, the translator felt Greek-speaking Jews would understand the term and
there was no need to translate it. This is not the Old Testament satan text where we would most
expect to see this occur, but the different translators had their own idiosyncrasies. Indeed, the
translator(s) of 1 Kings deal with the Hebrew word satan in three different ways, two of which
are unique compared with the rest of the Septuagint.
-------------------------------------------------------
39 Lust, Eynikel & Hauspie 1992: 168.
40 Lust, Eynikel & Hauspie 1992: 101.
41 Arndt, Danker & Bauer 2000: 226.
42 Lust, Eynikel & Hauspie 1992: 101.
43 Kelly 2006: 31.
44 Lust, Eynikel & Hauspie 1992: 77.
45 Dines 2004: 44.
46 von Rad states, “So far as we can see, the word has a special place in the judicial life of Israel. The
satan is the enemy in a specific sense, i.e., the accuser at law.” (von Rad 1964: 73.)
------------------------------------------------------
We can summarise our brief survey of the Old Testament testimony by stating that the word
satan does function as a common noun meaning adversary (often with a legal connotation). It is
used of various parties, both human and angelic. However, there are two passages in which the word occurs with the definite article (‘the satan’) to refer to a specific office (or even individual)
within the heavenly court (Job 1-2; Zechariah 3). There is one further passage where the word
may be used as a proper name, Satan (1 Chronicles 21). Furthermore, satan in all three cases was
translated in the Septuagint as diabolos, and in the case of Job and Zechariah, with ho diabolos
(the accuser; the slanderer). In all three of these passages there is general agreement among Old
Testament scholars that the referent of the word satan is an angelic being. Thus we have a clear precedent for taking ‘the satan’ and ‘the slanderer’ (devil) in the New Testament to refer to an
angelic being.
3.3. Satan in the Apocrypha
The transliterated Greek term ton satanan also occurs once in the deutero-canonical portion of
the Septuagint (often referred to as the Apocrypha) in The Wisdom of Jesus ben Sirach
(sometimes called Ecclesiasticus). Brenton translated Sirach 21:27, “When the ungodly curseth
Satan, he curseth his own soul,” and the New English Translation of the Septuagint rendered, “When an impious person curses the satan, he curses his own soul.” By contrast, the NRSV renders, “When an ungodly person curses an adversary, he curses himself.” As the translations show, some have taken ‘satan’ here to mean adversary in the ordinary sense,47 while others, in view of the definite article, take it to refer to ‘the satan’ or Satan in a specialized sense.
For Hart, the meaning was that “not Satan, but the man himself is responsible
for his sin.”48 If this reading is correct, Sirach implicitly confirms the existence of a personal
Satan but warns against using him as an excuse for sin. More recently, however, numerous
scholars have argued that Sirach was denying Satan’s existence and identifying him with innate
human wickedness: “The satan of Sir. 21:27 is primarily the personal adversary, but the skillful
ambiguity of the saying is aimed also to stigmatize the ‘impious’ belief in the existence of the
heavenly enemy.”49 And again, “For Sirach, therefore, the devil does not exist: Satan is only a
metaphor to indicate our worst instincts.”50 51
However, while Ben Sira was “reluctant to enlarge upon the subject of angels” in light of his
conservative worldview,52 he does not explicitly oppose belief in a personal Satan. His main concern is to combat “deterministic approaches, according to which divine determinism extends
to human sin.”53
----------------------------------------------------
47 Skehan & Di Lella 1987: 311-312. See also Brunton 1927: 109-110; Quinn & Wacker 2000: 146.
48 Hart 1909: 154.
49 Boccaccini 2008: 36.
50 Sacchi 1996: 223. See also Capelli 2005: 142; Tennant 2012: 116; Kelly 2006: 75.
51 Harrington is more guarded in his analysis, stating, “Ben Sira proposes a modified dualism in which
everything (good and evil) remains under God’s sovereignty (see Isa. 45:7) and appeals somewhat
vaguely to the divine plan working itself out in the ‘nature of things.’ He does not present a strong Satan
figure who leads the children of darkness to do the deeds of darkness.” (Harrington 2005: 52)
52 cf. Bamberger 2010: 55.
53 Brand 2013: 95.
----------------------------------------------------
In summary, in the Hebrew Bible satan is a common noun meaning adversary with a judicial connotation. In Job and Zechariah, and possibly in 1 Chronicles, we have the makings of ‘the
adversary’ as a specific office or even individual within the heavenly court. In these texts the
Septuagint translated the word satan with diabolos, thereby laying the foundation for the use of
the latter term in the New Testament.
The Septuagint also transliterated the Hebrew word satan into Greek on one occasion where it
refers to a human adversary (without the article). The apocryphal book of Sirach transliterated
satan with the article into Greek. Here, it may be a reference to one’s human adversary but is
more likely a polemic against blaming a personal being called ‘the satan’ for one’s sins, possibly
denying the existence of such a being and identifying him metaphorically with the evil impulse
(yetzer hara) in man.
4. Satan as a proper name in the New Testament
The Greek word satanas in the New Testament (which occurs 38 times in 36 verses) is
transliterated from Aramaic,54 but ultimately derives from Hebrew.55 It usually occurs with the
article and would thus be translated literally into English as ‘the satan’ or, if taken as a proper
name, Satan (proper names in ancient Greek are often preceded by the article, so if one were to
translate the New Testament woodenly one would have references to ‘the Jesus’).
This raises an important question: is ho satanas a proper name? There is widespread agreement
amongst scholars that indeed, Satan always functions as a proper name in the New Testament.56
Indeed, Christadelphian writer Peter Watkins all but conceded this point when he said that “Satan in the New Testament is always a special adversary – the great adversary.” However, as
we saw earlier, Christadelphian writer Duncan Heaster claimed that satanas in the New
Testament is simply a transliterated Hebrew word (Aramaic, technically) with the same generic
meaning that it takes in the Old Testament.
Is this feasible? Well, there are quite a number of transliterated Hebrew and Aramaic words in
the New Testament. Some of them are proper names, including people’s names (such as Thomas
and Bartimaeus), angels’ names (such as Michael and Abaddon) and place names (such as
Sodom and Golgotha). Others are not proper names but common nouns (such as mamonas,
raka and rabbi) or other expressions (such as Amen, talitha cumi and Maran atha). Thus,
prima facie we have a basis for arguing that satanas in the New Testament is either a proper
name, Satan, or a transliterated Hebrew-Aramaic word meaning ‘adversary.’ Which is it?
First of all, it is known that Satan was being used as a proper name in Jewish writings prior to or
contemporary with the New Testament, such as the Book of Jubilees 10:11; 23:29; 50:5,57 the
Testament of Job,58 and The Assumption of Moses.59 As we noted earlier, this may even be the
-----------------------------------------------
54 Strong 2009: 1668; Partridge 1970: 157; Millard 2005: 144.
55 A textual variant in 2 Cor. 12:7 reads satan rather than satanas, which would be a transliteration
directly from Hebrew. However, textual scholars have regarded satanas as the original reading.
56 Bell 2007: 10; Guiley 2009: 222; Arndt, Danker & Bauer 2000: 916.
57 Schaferdiek 1971: 154.
58 Garrett 1998: 41.
59 Branden 2006: 17.
------------------------------------------------
case in the Old Testament in 1 Chronicles 21, as well as in the Apocrypha in Sirach 21:27
(although in the latter case it may be a polemic against the existence of the being so named).
Thus we have a precedent for taking Satan as a proper name in the New Testament.
Secondly, let us compare satanas with other transliterated Hebrew-Aramaic expressions in the
New Testament which are not proper names. In this study we are focusing especially on the
Gospel of Mark and the epistles to the Corinthians because of their audiences.
4.1. Satan as a proper name in Mark
A strong case can be made that Mark’s Gospel was written primarily to “a Greek-speaking
audience that did not know Aramaic…gentile Christians, familiar with both the gospel traditions
and the Judaism of the first century.”60 A well-supported tradition holds that Mark wrote his
Gospel for the church at Rome.61 That his readers did not know Aramaic is evident from the fact
that he provides translations of several Aramaic expressions into Greek (Mark 5:41; 7:34; 14:36;
15:34). That their familiarity with Jewish customs was limited can be seen from the explanation
provided in Mark 7:3-4.
Mark uses other Hebrew-Aramaic terms in his Gospel which he does not explain: Amen (Mark
3:28; 6:11; etc.), Gehenna (Mark 9:43, 45, 47), Hosanna (11:9-10), pascha (14:1), rabbi (Mark
9:5; 11:21; 14:45), rabboni (Mark 10:51); sabbaton (Mk 1:2 etc.), and satana (Mark 1:13, 3:23,
26; 4:15; 8:33).
In the case of pascha, this term was probably well known to Gentile Christians as 1 Cor. 5:7-8
implies that they observed the Passover festival in some form.62 Anyone with a slight knowledge
of Judaism would have known about the Sabbath, and indeed the term is transliterated nearly
100 times in the Septuagint.
Hosanna is an Aramaic term from synagogue liturgy meaning “Save us!”63 that was taken over
by the early church64 (and continues to be used in songs of praise to this day!)
Gehenna refers to a place, the Valley of Hinnom, but thereby refers metaphorically to the place
of final punishment. This term could not have been translated into Greek without retaining at least the
‘Hinnom’ or ‘Henna’ as a transliterated name (as the Septuagint did, e.g. pharanx
huiou Ennom, Jer. 7:32). It is thus effectively a proper name, and the transliteration rather than translation of the ‘Ge’ prefix probably means that it had become a technical theological term in
the early church (as it did in rabbinic Judaism as well).
Since John provides translations for the terms rabbi and rabboni in his Gospel (1:38; 20:16), it
stands to reason that Gentile readers could not necessarily be assumed to know these Aramaic
terms. Mark may have assumed his readers would recognize that these terms were equivalent to
------------------------------------------------
60 Stein 2008: 9-10.
61 Stein 2008: 10.
62 See Marshall 1980: 117.
63 Millard 2005: 140.
64 Dormeyer 1998: 147.
-------------------------------------------------
the Greek didaskalos, which he used more frequently and in an almost identical way (as a form
of respectful address).
Thus, in the case of all the other transliterated Semitic terms in Mark, we have either a
translation into Greek, or a plausible explanation for how the term would have been known to
the early church. However, for the term satanas there is no obvious explanation. As we saw
above, the similar transliteration satan occurs in just one obscure text in the Septuagint, and
without the article at that. This is hardly grounds for Mark to assume that his readers would
know what he was talking about when he referred to ho satanas with the article.
Simply put, if we look for other transliterated Semitic terms in Mark which occur with the article
and are not translated for the reader, all we will find are proper names: ho iesous (Jesus) and
ton ioannen (John) in Mark 1:14, ho herodes (Herod) in Mark 6:17, to pilato (Pilate) in Mark
15:1, etc.
It must therefore be concluded that in Mark, ho satanas is the proper name or title of a specific
entity or at very least the technical term for a specific theological idea which had become wellknown
in the church. It cannot be allowed to vary in meaning from one passage to another. As
Gibson explains,
“The figure whom Mark designates as the perpetrator of Jesus’ Wilderness temptation,
whether called Satan or one of a host of other names, was not an ‘unknown quantity’. On
the contrary, in Mark’s time and in the thought world which Mark and his audience
shared, Satan’s identity and the activities characteristic of him were both well-defined and widely known.”65
“ho Satanas is here at Mk 1.13a a proper name, not a common noun, and denotes a
particular being, a distinct personality”66
Hence, “Satanology is an important theme for Mark”67 as opposed to a scattering of references to
various adversaries.
Christadelphians might claim that ho satanas is the ‘proper name’ of a personification of evil
desires, which became established in the early church as a technical theological term. As we saw
earlier, numerous scholars interpret Sirach 21:27 as identifying ho satanas with evil desires and
rejecting the idea of a personal being called ho satanas. From this premise one could argue that
the early church followed this wisdom tradition and rejected the apocalyptic tradition which
viewed Satan as the proper name of a personal being.
One problem with this view is that, if it were the case, we would expect the New Testament to be
explicit about it and clearly differentiate between the true, figurative doctrine of Satan and the
false, literal doctrine of Satan. The need to be explicit about this would have been especially
----------------------------------------------
65 Gibson 2004: 58.
66 Gibson 2004: 58 n. 54.
67 Dochhorn 2013: 104.
-------------------------------------------
great in books with a great deal of apocalyptic imagery, such as Matthew and Revelation, since
the doctrine of a real, personal Satan was firmly entrenched in apocalyptic Judaism.68
Instead, the New Testament writers consistently assume that their readers know what they
mean by ho satanas. Even more remarkably, they consistently refer to ho satanas as though
he were a person, as Christadelphians acknowledge. This is the last kind of figurative
language that would be expected from a church seeking to distance itself from the view that ho
satanas was a personal being!
This problem comes to the fore in Mark’s Gospel. In Mark 3:23, 26 ho satanas clearly refers to a
personal being, equivalent to Beelzebul, the prince of demons (Mark 3:22). This person is the
referent of ho satanas here even if it is claimed that Jesus did not believe in his existence but
only assumed it for the sake of argument (itself a dubious claim in view of the parable in Mark
3:27).69
Since we have already seen that satanas in Mark functions as a proper name or title and not a
generic term for adversary, we are required to infer that satanas has the same meaning in Mark
1:13 and 4:15 as it has in 3:23-26, especially since satanas occurs with the article in all three
texts.70 It can be said with near certainty that Mark would not use the transliterated Aramaic
term ho satanas with the article to refer to two or three71 different ‘satans’ without defining ‘the
satan’ clearly in each case.
Given that ho satanas functions as a proper name in Mark, in order to avoid the conclusion that
it is the proper name of a personal being we must either interpret ho satanas in Mark 1:13 and 4:15 as ‘the alleged personal Satan believed in by the Jews,’ or else interpret ho satanas in Mark
3:23-26 as the personification of the evil desires. Neither option is plausible. In this case, the
implication of taking Satan as a proper name is that Satan refers to a real personal being.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary
In the Hebrew Bible, anyone or any creature can be a satan, an adversary
in the Hebrew Bible satan is a common noun meaning adversary with a judicial connotation
In Job and Zechariah, and possibly in 1 Chronicles, we have the makings of ‘the adversary’ as a specific office or even individual within the heavenly court.
(yester ra) - denying the existence of such a being and identifying him metaphorically with the evil impulse (yetzer hara) in man.
1- anyone can be a satan – because the word just means accuser / oppose
2-Hebrew satan is an angel of the Lord working for the Lord (heavenly court)
3- (yester ra) - Jas 1:14 But each one is tempted when he is dragged away and enticed by his own desire / lust.
4- This is NOT Jewish demonology
5- Jewish demonology revolves around the shedim / other gods / and demons
The Greek word satanas in the New Testament (which occurs 38 times in 36 verses) is transliterated from Aramaic,
there are quite a number of transliterated Hebrew and Aramaic words in the New Testament.
the conclusion that
… we must either interpret ho satanas in Mark 1:13 and 4:15 as ‘the alleged personal Satan believed in by the Jews,’ (Hebrew satan)
or else interpret ho satanas in Mark 3:23-26 as the personification of the evil desires. (yester ra)
Neither option is plausible. In this case, the implication of taking Satan as a proper name is that Satanas refers to a real personal being.
Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was thrown down—the ancient serpent, called the devil and satanas, who deceives the whole world. He was thrown down to the earth, and his angels (messengers) were thrown down with him.
Dave Conclusion
OT Hebrew satan (G4566 of Hebrew origin) = Heaven’s Prosecutor
is NOT the same person / entity / angel (messenger) as
NT satanas (G4567 of Chaldean origin) = the BEAST of Revelation – the old dragon – the ancient serpent – that we call devils and satanas
James Tabor calls it the BIGGEST PARADYGM SHIFT IN THE HISTORY OF THOUGHT
The Archon (G746) = Our real struggle – Principalities – messengers of the BEAST that deceive the whole world
The Archon (G746) = Our real struggle – Principalities – messengers of the serpent
The Archon (G746) = Our real struggle – Principalities – messengers of the serpent and the serpent’s seed
The only question that remains between Robert and I
The Catholic interpretation of Ezk 28 and Isa 14 that The BEAST of Revelation was once a good-guy angel of the Lord that Rebelled out of pride – proclaimed himself the god of evil – took 1/3rd of all God’s angels away from God for the purpose of opposing God’s right to rule the universe, because Robert’s SDA satan hates God and opposes God.
Robert – cannot deny this false tradition – because he entire theology is built upon it
Ellen White’s SDA tradition revolves around two gods in heaven locked in a cosmic struggle – a god of tov only that creates –and- a god of ra a second creator that created himself is responsible for the fall of God’s creation
Dave –
Jewish belief #1 – God is absolute – Anything that has come into being was made by God for God. God is absolute – His creation is exactly as He Willed it to be.
Jewish belief #2 – God tests His people. - Why does God test His people? Deu 8:2 … in order to humble you, to test you, to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep His mitzvot or not.
Jewish belief #3 - Why does God do it? - To reveal Himself, to reveal His power and glory
(to prove that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is the one true God)
Isa 45:5 I am Adonai—there is no other. Besides Me there is no God. I will strengthen you, though you have not known Me,
Isa 45:6 so they may know, from the rising to the setting of the sun, that there is no one besides Me. I am Adonai—there is no other.
Isa 45:7 I form light and create darkness (choshek). I make shalom (tov) and create calamity (ra). I, Adonai, do all these things.
Joh 1:3 All things were made through Him, and apart from Him nothing was made that has come into being.
Eph 6:12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, (G746 - Archon / Principalities)
Col 1:16 For by Him all things were created—in heaven and on earth, the seen and the unseen, whether thrones or angelic powers or rulers (G746 - Archon / Principalities) or authorities. All was created through Him and for Him.
Rev 4:11 “Worthy are You, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, For You created all things, and because of Your will they existed and were created!”
Authoritative Teaching
And before anything came into being, it was the Father alone who existed, before the worlds that are in the heavens appeared, or the world that is on the earth, or principality, or authority, or the powers. [...] appear [...] and [...] And nothing came into being without his wish.
He, then, the Father, wishing to reveal his wealth and his glory, brought about this great contest in this world, wishing to make the contestants appear, and make all those who contend leave behind the things that had come into being, and despise them with a lofty, incomprehensible knowledge, and flee to the one who exists.
POINT – Catholic – Fallen Angels that fell from pride – rebelling, hating, and opposing God’s right to rule the universe – IS A CATHOLIC MYTH – and never existed before the Roman Catholic Church used it as a Machiavellian enemy that only a Priest – the Church and the Pope could save you from
The Gnostic Alternative
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Gen 1:2 Now the earth was chaos and waste, darkness was on the surface of the deep, and the Ruach Elohim was hovering upon the surface of the water.
Gen 1:3 Then God said, “Let there be light!” and there was light.
Gen 1:4 God saw that the light was good. So God distinguished the light from the darkness.
Gen 1:5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness He called “night.” So there was evening and there was morning—one day.
Gen 1:31 So God saw everything that He made, and behold it was very good. (tov)
Isa 45:7 I form light and create darkness (choshek). I make shalom (tov) and create calamity (ra). I, Adonai, do all these things.
H2822 – חֹשֶׁךְ - chôshek
the dark; hence (literally) darkness; figuratively misery, destruction, death, ignorance, sorrow, wickedness: - dark (-ness), night, obscurity.
POINT – the order = Creation – Darkness / Ignorance – LIGHT – separation – Day 1 – all tov
Gnostic -
Step 1 - God created the heavens (plural)
These are spiritual realms – filled with spiritual beings – messengers (angels) + others (Host)
Judaism + Gnostic – this includes man – spiritual man
Step 2 - God created earth
God’s Laws of Nature – God’s Laws of Thermodynamics - matter comes with ENTROPY
Without entropy there is no movement – no translation or transmutation of energy
Each creation = a step down in E (entropy)
Jewish – God is in the Highest Heaven – the 7th Heaven
Jewish – man is in the lower world
Gnostic – heavens (plural) = 10 D = 7 D (heavens) above) and we are 3D matter at the bottom
Gnostic – each D (heaven) = a step down in E (entropy
Matter comes with ENTROPY
Rev 12:3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. - to devour
POINT – the order = Creation – Darkness / Ignorance
The Hypostasis of the Archons
Opening his eyes, he saw a vast quantity of matter without limit; and he became arrogant, saying, "It is I who am God, and there is none other apart from me". When he said this, he sinned against the entirety. And a voice came forth from above the realm of absolute power, saying, "You are mistaken, Samael" – which is, 'god of the blind'.
The BEAST (First Archon) was the first sentient creature of matter
Opening his eyes – his only thought was of SELF – I am alone – there is no one but me
Saying this he sinned against the entirety
Robert cannot understand why this is not the original sin the changed all of creation
1- all of creation has not happed yet – still Day 1
2- a voice came from heaven and said – sorry you’re wrong
What was said = IGNORANCE of God
IGNORANCE is not a sin – as later defined as transgression of God’s Commandments
Step 3 - “Let there be light!”
“The Light” = Christ – the image of God in the matter –
The Light that illuminates and expels the Darkness
Rev 12:5 - a son, a man child, who is to rule - unto God, and unto his throne.
John 8:12 - Jesus - said, “I am the light of the world”
Psalm 18:28 - For it is you who light my lamp; the LORD my God lightens my darkness.
Psalm 27:1 The LORD is my light and my salvation
Step 4 - God distinguished the light from the darkness.
God divided the light from the darkness.
God divided the light from the darkness.
John 8:12 – Jesus - said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”
The Hypostasis of the Archons
Now when Yaldabaoth saw him (Sabaoth) in this great splendor and at this height, he envied him; and the envy became an androgynous product, and this was the origin of envy. And envy engendered death; and death engendered his offspring and gave each of them charge of its heaven; and all the heavens of chaos became full of their multitudes. But it was by the will of the father of the entirety that they all came into being – after the pattern of all the things above – so that the sum of chaos might be attained.
POINT - Jewish belief #1 – God is absolute – Anything that has come into being was made by God for God. God is absolute – His creation is exactly as He Willed it to be.
Dave – all God’s Plan – all God’s Will
Step 5 – Day 1 – the Gnostic First Age – the first link in Dispensation
-----------------------------------------------------
Gnostic – Day1 – the Gnostic First Age - represents God’s entire message to man
1- a creation – order - a beginning
2- an opportunity to do right – but choose wrong = a chaos
3- the introduction of salvation – via the LIGHT – Jesus Christ – the image of God with creation
Gnostic Second Age
1- God creates planet Earth and a location called Eden
order - a beginning
2- an opportunity to do right – but choose wrong = a chaos
Gen 2:17 – the first Commandment give to man
Gen 3:6 – Eve transgressed the Commandment of God
The definition of sin
3- the introduction of salvation – via the LIGHT – Jesus Christ – the image of God with creation
Scripture says – NOAH
Gnostic / Jewish Midrash / Kabbalah –
The First Book of Adam and Eve
14:3 Again said God unto Adam, "All this misery that thou hast been made to take upon thee because of thy transgression, will not free thee from the hand of Satan, and will not save thee.
4 "But I will. When I shall come down from heaven, and shall become flesh of thy seed, and take upon Me the infirmity from which thou sufferest, then the darkness that came upon thee in this cave shall come upon Me in the grave, when I am in the flesh of thy seed.
5 "And I, who am without years, shall be subject to the reckoning of years, of times, of months, and of days, and I shall be reckoned as one of the sons of men, in order to save thee."
6 And God ceased to commune with Adam.
22: 6 Then God said again unto Adam, "Because thou hast borne fear and trembling in this land, languor and suffering treading and walking about, going upon this mountain, and dying from it, I will take all this upon Myself in order to save thee."
24: 4 Then came the Word of God to Adam, and said unto him, "O Adam, as thou hast shed thy blood, so will I shed My own blood when I become flesh of thy seed; and as thou didst die, O Adam, so also will I die. And as thou didst build an altar, so also will I make for thee an altar on the earth; and as thou didst offer thy blood upon it, so also will I offer My blood upon an altar on the earth.
5 "And as thou didst sue for forgiveness through that blood, so also will I make My blood forgiveness of sins, and blot out transgressions in it.
Gnostic Third Age
1- Noah and sons star over
2- Nimrod – Tammuz – Ishtar – Babble – chaos
3- Abraham and Israel – the Light unto the world
Gnostic Forth Age
1- Israel
2- Religion become a tool for the rich and powerful
Weakened it become occupied and oppressed
3- The First Coming of Jesus Christ
Gnostic Fifth Age
1- Age of the gentile
2- Today
3- The Second Coming of Jesus Christ
Ecc 3:1 For everything there is a season, and a time for every purpose under heaven:
Ecc 1:9 That which hath been is that which shall be; and that which hath been done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
Ecc 1:10 Is there a thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been long ago, in the ages which were before us.
Ecc 1:11 There is no remembrance of the former generations; neither shall there be any remembrance of the latter generations that are to come, among those that shall come after.
Dave - all God's Plan - all God's Will
Gnostic Christianity 101