An attempt to clarify the theological implications of Satan’s development June 28, 2009
Posted by Damian in Ancient Near Eastern Thought, Church and Christian History, Early Christian Belief and Patristics.Tags: history, christianity, judaism, old testament, evil, satan, Matthew, bible, gospel, Adam, Mark, good and evil, good, New Testament, canon, gospels, eve, cosmic struggle, lucifer, fallen angel, the devil, diablos, zoroastrianism
add a comment
The other week, I posted on Robert Oester’s article ‘the Curious Career of Satan’. Since then, he’s commented on what I wrote, specifically this:
How do we reconcile the Old Testament picture of evil being God’s responsibility (and all that entails), and modern concepts of the struggle between good and evil? Does the New Testament paint that picture, or is it something later Christianity projected onto the text? Was this projection something that started before or after solidification of the canon?
His response was this:
I don’t know Damian, so I’m probably not being fair to him here, but he seems to be asking, “Is the development of the character of Satan something that is in the NT [and therefore something important], or something that happened after the NT was written [and therefore something to be ignored].” That seems to me to be a chicken-and-egg question: one that probably doesn’t have an answer. Rather, there must have been an interplay between canon development – as certain texts that mention Satan became more widespread in the Christian communities – and the development of ideas about Satan. Neither one came first: both developments happened at more or less the same time.
My understanding of canon development is that the canon – which records a specific understanding of Satan’s role – was chosen because it was a record of the developing ideas that became regarded as Orthodox. Hence, of course, there was an interplay between development of canon and development of ideas: They reflected each other.
My questions were slightly different:
- Did the New Testament record a specific understanding of Satan that is seemingly different from the Old Testament understanding of Satan?
- Did post-first-century Christianity develop these ideas and project it onto the text?
- Did this projection occur before or after solidification of the canon?
Now I’m not sure Robert understood my reasons for answering these questions. I want to attempt to reconcile two seemingly contradictory understandings of evil. The first regards God as the ultimate arbiter of Good and Evil; the second regards Satan as one part of a weak dualism, where whilst he will inevitably fall, he is very similar to a god himself. To me, this second understanding causes (understandably) some theological issues. This is why I’m curious about what opinions people have on the New Testament Satan and its relationship to his Old Testament counterpart. Now I don’t have access to many early Christian texts, and I’m not well read in them, but I’m confident that some record of early Christianity’s thoughts regarding this issue must exist; this is why I ask about if Christianity post-dating the writing of the New Testament developed these ideas and projected them onto the New Testament. It’s been known to happen. Finally, I asked about the location of this projection: That is, if the canon might have solidified around a weak-dualist understanding of Satan, or if the weak-dualist understanding was developed around the canon we’re familiar with.
Now, there are no true answers to these questions, but I’m open to any opinions, ideas, or texts that people are willing to give.
Bibleworks Giveaway! June 28, 2009
Posted by Damian in Biblical Exegesis and Interpretation.add a comment
Nathan and the boys at Cal.vini.st are giving away two copies of Bibleworks 8 for their first anniversary. It’s an invaluable tool that I will never be able to afford, so I’m writing this post solely to boost my chance of getting one. I’m shameless, I know. But it’s a fantastic blog that I’ve been reading for most of the past year it’s been around. It’s given me plenty of food for thought – congratulations on making the one year mark!
Quote of the Day June 25, 2009
Posted by Damian in Eastern Orthodoxy, Living Christianity.Tags: humanity, liturgy, theophany
add a comment
“The world is a theophany; Humanity a liturgy.”
A loose translation of the words of Justin Popovic (Thanks Father Katanic). It’s a sentiment that I agree with strongly. Both that the world is a true revelation of God – a theophany – and that humanity is a service of worship to Him. I’m not sure what the original language was, but I really like it.
Two theologies of Wisdom and Word June 23, 2009
Posted by Damian in Biblical Exegesis and Interpretation.Tags: christ, creation, davar, flesh, hokmah, interpretation, lightning, Logos, meaning, Power, reality, Sophia, tao, theophany, thunder, translation, wisdom, wisdom and word, word, world
1 comment so far
Suzanne and Polycarp (Joel, I believe) both replied to my post asking for a theology of Wisdom and Word. Both had some very insightful thoughts on the subject.
Suzanne presented a plethora of texts for discussion – Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, the Tao Te Ching, 1 Corinthians 2, and the Sefer Yetzirah, Main Works by Paul Tilich, and a post by Wade G. Her conclusion:
The human need for meaning may be met in the Christ (word), but it cannot be the Christ of someone else’s mediation, created in the image of someone else’s humanity. The notion that the logos/tao/davar are first, along with sophia/hokmah, means that meaning is before and has priority over every interpretation that is known to man or woman.
We can listen to the interpretation of others, but, going back to the allegory of the cave, we must not mistake the human interpretation for the actual meaning of reality. The lesson is that intepretation does not create meaning. Meaning precedes intepretation and not the other way around.
My understanding, then, of Suzanne’s post, is that wisdom and word are in some way representative of the primacy of meaning over interpretation. We must strive for the original meanings of the texts, understand that our interpretation is secondary to where wisdom is to be found. We can also take from this that through the Word, Wisdom is part of creation; we hence must have theophany through Christ in Creation; just as we have access to Wisdom through the Word.
Polycarp presented briefer thought, but one I think has merit:
Of course, we also know that Christ is both the Word and the Wisdom of God and His Power. So maybe, just like the storm that approaches, when Christ was Incarnated in the Flesh, we saw the lightning flash and heard the thunder roar at the same time, because we were in the center.
I think this analogy is a sound tool for grasping the reality of Wisdom, Word, and Christ. And it plays into Suzanne’s concepts; we can see the lightning, and hear the thunder, but we must seek for the source of the phenomena: That is, Christ.
That said, the question is whether I would subscribe to one of these two theologies. I possibly wouldn’t. But they both certainly contribute to my developing understanding of Wisdom and Word. My understanding at the moment, goes something like this: Logos is the action of Wisdom in creation. As such, through the Word – through Christ, thought the experience of God’s action – we can come to know God’s wisdom, and hence, know God. And yet, through Wisdom – God’s law and goodness in the world – we might also come to know of Christ – and hence, know God. Thus, Polycarp’s analogy is sound: Wisdom and Word are signs that emanate from a source. They provide us with directions that point towards a source: That source is God. That’s a working understanding, and I can see flaws in it even as I write, but it is a stronger understanding than I had only a week ago.
Thanks very much to the both of you, for thinking on my questions. You’ve given me much to think about.
Theological implications of Satan’s role in the Old Testament June 21, 2009
Posted by Damian in Biblical Exegesis and Interpretation, Early Christian Belief and Patristics.Tags: Adam, bible, canon, christianity, cosmic struggle, diablos, eve, evil, fallen angel, good, good and evil, gospel, gospels, history, judaism, lucifer, Mark, Matthew, New Testament, old testament, satan, the devil, zoroastrianism
2 comments
Robert Oerter recently began a site focused on early Christian religion. A few of his articles are interesting, but one that I really enjoyed (along with the one detailing the development of trinitarianism) was the development of Satan into his modern form.
I’ve often struggled with the modern Satan, for reasons Robert captures perfectly:
The Old Testament presents a starkly contrasting picture. Here we find no cosmic struggle between good and evil; God is in charge, and if bad things happen it is for his own mysterious reasons. Satan appears only as a minor character. He has no angels under his command, nor does he fall from heaven. His name is never even mentioned in the tale of Adam, Eve, and the apple.
There’s a lot of interesting stuff going on in the article; it’s worth reading. I think it’s clear before looking even outside the biblical texts, that concepts of Satan had changed drastically between the earliest and most recent writings. Even within the Gospels, there is evidence of a change in understanding of Satan’s role (between Mark 8:33 and Matthew 16:23, for example); and possibly evidence of changes between Jesus’ understanding and some of the apostles writing later.
However, being a solely textual/historical look at the issue, the article doesn’t address any theological implications of these changes. That is, how do we reconcile the Old Testament picture of evil being God’s responsibility (and all that entails), and modern concepts of the struggle between good and evil? Does the New Testament paint that picture, or is it something later Christianity projected onto the text? Was this projection something that started before or after solidification of the canon?
These are all questions I don’t have answers to; if anyone has any ideas, please comment. I do have my own biases, however, and they suggest to me that the battle between good and evil is a post-testamental innovation. That is, that Satan is less of a player in the cosmic game than many Christians tend to treat.
