Access

[Cleante]

The fact that "the idea of Satan" has changed over the years, I think, would be more likely due to mankind changing over the years, or possibly mankind gaining a better understanding.

Maybe Ha-Satan isn't described as a fallen angel, but logically he has to be. You're surely not suggesting one of God's angels is running around pointing out how flawed and easily tempted we are, are you? They protect us and rejoice in an unimaginable way with each soul that is saved. I don't think they're working against us.

I would be very interested in looking into Ha-Satan more deeply, but since the number of exegeses is "numerous", I would like you to point me to some particular ones. And thank you for sharing your knowledge of the languages the Bible was written in and how it was translated to English. Very interesting.

Here is the best Critical and Exegetical commentary of Job that I can think of. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Job [DOWNLOAD] It is rather expensive, so I would start looking in your local library. My local library has the entire Anchor Bible Commentary.

In the book of Job, it isn't entirely clear whether or not Ha-Satan is apart of the "Heavenly Court" or some kind of interloper who is sometimes there and isn't there. "Now on a certain day when the sons of God came to stand before the Lord, Satan also was present among them."

When the book of Job mentions the name as "The Satan" or the "Adversary, we should realize that the primary adversary of this creature is Job and not the God-head. In the New Testament, the primary adversary of "Satan" is God himself. When God converses with "Ha-Satan" it is usually in cordial and amiable terms. This Satan is not out to get Job. In the Book of Job, it is God, not Satan, who is seemingly unsure of Job's loyalty. As a result, Ha-Satan proposes tests to determine the extent of Job's faith. We see Ha-Satan going against Job and not God. In fact, Ha-Satan is helping the God-head figure out whether or not Job's piety is a result of his blessings.

 

[ExplodingBryan]

@Cleante:

That's the first I've ever heard that in the story of Job, God was unsure of Job's faith. I was taught by several individuals that it was Satan who was considering Job's faith.

So, I just read the first part of Job. I know, I should have looked into it myself long ago. God is the one to bring up Job, and though it may be in light of our conversation, I can't help but think God's praise of Job was a taunt. I also saw in the notes of my NIV study Bible that this use of "Satan" refers to "the accuser". It also points to Revelation 10:12 (below, emphasis added).

10Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say:
"Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God,
and the authority of his Christ.
For the accuser of our brothers,
who accuses them before our God day and night,
has been hurled down.
11They overcame him
by the blood of the Lamb
and by the word of their testimony;
they did not love their lives so much
as to shrink from death.
12Therefore rejoice, you heavens
and you who dwell in them!
But woe to the earth and the sea,
because the devil has gone down to you!
He is filled with fury,
because he knows that his time is short."

These verses are clearly indicating a singular being. This being the NT, it would fall under your previous allocation of the "Satan" character being established, but I do find the large number of uses of the singular interesting.

I would say that the Satan character is not a part of the Heavenly Court, at least not as far as NIV is concerned.

Job 1:6 - One day the angels came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came with them.

The way it is translated here, the Satan character is distinguished as separate from the angels of the Heavenly Court.

 

[Cleante]

@Cleante:

That's the first I've ever heard that in the story of Job, God was unsure of Job's faith. I was taught by several individuals that it was Satan who was considering Job's faith.

So, I just read the first part of Job. I know, I should have looked into it myself long ago. God is the one to bring up Job, and though it may be in light of our conversation, I can't help but think God's praise of Job was a taunt. I also saw in the notes of my NIV study Bible that this use of "Satan" refers to "the accuser". It also points to Revelation 10:12 (below, emphasis added).



These verses are clearly indicating a singular being. This being the NT, it would fall under your previous allocation of the "Satan" character being established, but I do find the large number of uses of the singular interesting.

I would say that the Satan character is not a part of the Heavenly Court, at least not as far as NIV is concerned.



The way it is translated here, the Satan character is distinguished as separate from the angels of the Heavenly Court.

Apocalyptic literature is very complex. Most, if not all apocalyptic literature written during this time was a commentary on current political events. Simply put, it is most likely that the accuser of our brethren that St. John of Patmos is referring to is the Roman Emperor. During this time it was not uncommon for Christians to be martyred in Rome. The word for the Accuser in Revelations 12:10 is Κατηγορος. Interestingly, in John 8:10, the plural of the word is used to describe the mob who was about to stone the woman accused of adultery. This is the story where "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

 

[charisenexcelcis]

Apocalyptic literature is very complex. Most, if not all apocalyptic literature written during this time was a commentary on current political events. Simply put, it is most likely that the accuser of our brethren that St. John of Patmos is referring to is the Roman Emperor. During this time it was not uncommon for Christians to be martyred in Rome. The word for the Accuser in Revelations 12:10 is Κατηγορος. Interestingly, in John 8:10, the plural of the word is used to describe the mob who was about to stone the woman accused of adultery. This is the story where "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Sometimes I think that those without training are better at study apocalyptic literature than those who are well trained. If the book of Revelation is included in our canon of scripture, and it is, and if all scripture is inspired and is useful, then Revelation has a modern day usefulness and application.
More specific, the word accuser is used once in Revelation. this is the context:"And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. And I heard a loud voice in heaven saying, "Now the salvation, and the power, and the kingdom of our God and the authority of His Christ have come, for the accuser of the brethren has been thrown down, who accuses them before our God day and night.
I think that any interpretation that denies that this "accuser" is Satan is doing violence to the immediate context.

 

[Cleante]

Sometimes I think that those without training are better at study apocalyptic literature than those who are well trained. If the book of Revelation is included in our canon of scripture, and it is, and if all scripture is inspired and is useful, then Revelation has a modern day usefulness and application.
More specific, the word accuser is used once in Revelation. this is the context:"And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. And I heard a loud voice in heaven saying, "Now the salvation, and the power, and the kingdom of our God and the authority of His Christ have come, for the accuser of the brethren has been thrown down, who accuses them before our God day and night.
I think that any interpretation that denies that this "accuser" is Satan is doing violence to the immediate context.

I'll agree to disagree. By the way, that quote "all scripture is inspired is good, only refers to the Old Testament. At the time that was written, there was no New Testament. It was a few letters and Gospels floating around. Historical point there. I'll hold to the Orthodox view, in that the Book of Revelations described contemporary events that pertained to the time of St. John of Patmos and things that are to come, such as the coming of the Lord. For example, the number of the Beast is 666. Emperor Nero's Hebrew name in numerical value is equal to 666. However, other manuscripts describe the number of the beast as 616. The Latin version of Emperor Nero's name corresponds with this as its numerical value is 616.

That is the beauty of opinions and interpretations. Every one has their own different view.

 

[charisenexcelcis]

I'll agree to disagree. By the way, that quote "all scripture is inspired is good, only refers to the Old Testament. At the time that was written, there was no New Testament. It was a few letters and Gospels floating around. Historical point there. I'll hold to the Orthodox view, in that the Book of Revelations described contemporary events that pertained to the time of St. John of Patmos and things that are to come, such as the coming of the Lord. For example, the number of the Beast is 666. Emperor Nero's Hebrew name in numerical value is equal to 666. However, other manuscripts describe the number of the beast as 616. The Latin version of Emperor Nero's name corresponds with this as its numerical value is 616.

That is the beauty of opinions and interpretations. Every one has their own different view.

If we apply it only to the Old Testament then the New Testament loses all credibility. Peter felt that Paul's writings were inspired. The early church accepted the inspiration of the New Testament. Regarding the historical view of Revelation, The chapter in question is still timeless. Also, you have not dealt with how the scripture would first identify the fallen one as Satan, but immediately refer to the same fallen one, only now it it Nero. Regarding the 666, that is in the next chapter and is several "characters" away. Even the historist view of this cannot make the accuser to be Nero without doing violence to the text.
As for everyone's "interpretations", as long as you do not deny the core belief of the gospel or do violence to the word of God.

 

[Cleante]

If we apply it only to the Old Testament then the New Testament loses all credibility. Peter felt that Paul's writings were inspired. The early church accepted the inspiration of the New Testament. Regarding the historical view of Revelation, The chapter in question is still timeless. Also, you have not dealt with how the scripture would first identify the fallen one as Satan, but immediately refer to the same fallen one, only now it it Nero. Regarding the 666, that is in the next chapter and is several "characters" away. Even the historist view of this cannot make the accuser to be Nero without doing violence to the text.
As for everyone's "interpretations", as long as you do not deny the core belief of the gospel or do violence to the word of God.

What early church are you referring to? Until St. Athanasius of Alexandria published a letter that listed the New Testament as we know it today, there was no agreement on what the New Testament was. For example, In 300 A.D Eusebius wrote "Ecclesiastical History" in which he describes some of the early church. Interestingly, many of the early church Fathers disputed and some even rejected its canonicity. Be careful when you talk about the early church and their acceptance of the New Testament as we know it. The New Testament doesn't need to be said that it is inspired and true. What was in question was the Old Testament and its relevance in Christianity. It was therefore necessary to reconfirm the importance and relevance of the Old Testament scriptures to the Christians.

One of the earliest attempts at solidifying a canon was made by Marcion, c. A.D. 140, who accepted only a modified version of Luke (Gospel of Marcion) and ten of Paul's letters, while rejecting the Old Testament entirely.

If we want to get technical we could look at Emperor Domitian's reign before Nero, who could be referred to the Accuser.

I do not take kindly to the accusation that I am doing violence to the Word of God, especially since I am not in exact agreement with you.

 

[charisenexcelcis]

What early church are you referring to? Until St. Athanasius of Alexandria published a letter that listed the New Testament as we know it today, there was no agreement on what the New Testament was. For example, In 300 A.D Eusebius wrote "Ecclesiastical History" in which he describes some of the early church. Interestingly, many of the early church Fathers disputed and some even rejected its canonicity. Be careful when you talk about the early church and their acceptance of the New Testament as we know it. The New Testament doesn't need to be said that it is inspired and true. What was in question was the Old Testament and its relevance in Christianity. It was therefore necessary to reconfirm the importance and relevance of the Old Testament scriptures to the Christians.
So, we agree that the book of Revelation does is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness.



If we want to get technical we could look at Emperor Domitian's reign before Nero, who could be referred to the Accuser.


I do not take kindly to the accusation that I am doing violence to the Word of God, especially since I am not in exact agreement with you.

If you don't believe in the inspiration of the New Testament, why would you care if you were doing violence to it? I am not concerned about your escatology, I was only pointing out that denying that the "accuser" of Revelation 12 is Satan is a bit of poor hermenuetics. I have shown the immediate context of the reference to the "accuser". By the rules of common and Biblical hermenuetics, regardless of it being apocalyptic literature, there is no basis to interpret it as Nero or Domitian. The 666 (or 606) question is separate.

 

[Cleante]

If you don't believe in the inspiration of the New Testament, why would you care if you were doing violence to it? I am not concerned about your escatology, I was only pointing out that denying that the "accuser" of Revelation 12 is Satan is a bit of poor hermenuetics. I have shown the immediate context of the reference to the "accuser". By the rules of common and Biblical hermenuetics, regardless of it being apocalyptic literature, there is no basis to interpret it as Nero or Domitian. The 666 (or 606) question is separate.

My, my, if the other person doesn't agree with you then result to Ad Hominem attacks. This must be your strategy. I never denied the inspiratoin of the New Testament. I pointed out the historical context surrounding the "All scripture is Good and true" quote from the New Testament. How can a quote refer to something that does not even exist? Are you denying the debate in the early church about the relevance of the Old Testament? If so, then you need to study the early church a lot more.

Second, I guess the Orthodox Christians and many Theologians are guilty of poor hermeneutics because they don't agree with you. Oh yeah, forget about the American Bible Society. They don't know what they're talking about.

The exact identity of John, the writer of this book, is still debated today. John was a common name among Jews and Christians, and he never claims to be one of Jesus' twelve key disciples. If we take Revelation 1:9 at face value, which most biblical scholars do, then the fact that the author had been exiled rather than put to death indicates that he may have been a person of some social standing, because exile was a punishment reserved for those who held a certain degree of status. Therefore, there would have been a great deal at stake for the author in taking the sort of world-rejecting action that he advocates throughout the book. He would have appreciated deeply the consequences of such a strong religious and political position.
The issue of authorship is inextricably tied to the more complex (and perhaps more relevant) issue of determining when the book was written. Domitian, who ruled the Roman Empire from A.D. 81 to 91, was the first Roman emperor who tried to make Christians worship the emperor as a god. The emperor Trajan later made a policy that also required everyone to worship the Roman emperors who had died. Since Revelation seems to speak to Christians who were being persecuted for not worshiping the emperor, many scholars think the book was likely written sometime late in Domitian's reign, or even later, when Trajan ruled. Other scholars, however, believe the book was written much earlier, just before the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
Revelation uses many numbers as symbols, such as the number seven, which stands for completeness or perfection. Other kinds of symbols are also used. For example, the main symbol for the powers opposed to God is the city "Babylon." Christian readers knew that this really meant Rome, and they also knew that when the book says "the Lamb," the writer means Jesus Christ.


Essential Bible Study Guide: Revelation :: American Bible Society

Oh yeah, forget about the Christian Classics Ethereal Library. They are horrible and interpretation and critical analysis.

How mankind behaved and ruled in Roman times is no different from any other period in human history in any other part of the world, right through to the end of time - whether the empire or way of life is Ancient Indian, Chinese, Persian, Islamic, Holy Roman, Incan, Napoleonic, British, modern American, European, Pacific, world government, or some other form of future empire. Certainly the parallels between Rome and the present are striking;

This is relevant to both of us,

More likely, they could find themselves "engaging in stupid arguments, genealogies, controversies and quarrels (over the Law)" that Paul warned Titus to avoid.
As Paul continued "They settle nothing and lead nowhere" (Titus 3:9-10).

The Pope, even though he has studied scripture more than any of us, is a whack job. He cannot possibly understand the importance of history in Revelations, right?

During a discussion about Revelation on 23 August 2006, Pope Benedict XVI remarked: "The seer of Patmos, identified with the apostle, is granted a series of visions meant to reassure the Christians of Asia amid the persecutions and trials of the end of the first century."

More craziness on Apocalyptic literature,

Apocalyptic writing took a wider view of the world's history than prophecy. Thus, whereas prophecy had to deal with governments of other nations, apocalyptic writings arose at a time when Israel had been subject for generations to the sway of one or other of the great world-powers. Hence to harmonize such difficulties with belief in God's righteousness, it had to take account of the role of such empires in the counsels of God, the rise, duration and downfall of each in turn, till finally the lordship of the world passed into the hands of Israel, or the final judgment arrived. These events belonged in the main to the past, but the writer represented them as still in the future, arranged under certain artificial categories of time definitely determined from the beginning in the counsels of God and revealed by Him to His servants the prophets.

And this too, you would be wise to read this as well.

Views of the Time Frame of the Book of Revelation

Dennis Bratcher
The different approaches that various people or groups use to understand the Book of Revelation (called "interpretive horizons") are generally grouped under four major categories, with some subgroups (see The Kingdom of God: Various Interpretations).
1. Futurist: A Blueprint of the End Times
The book predicts events which will accompany the end of the world. Chapters 1-3 generally are seen to refer to the events of the interpreters’ own time, and the rest of the book is future. Present history is analyzed to find in it clues that the end is imminent, or already beginning to take place. Usually this is done by combining references from various parts of the Bible to construct an interpretation of the present. This was the position held during the first centuries of the church, and was revived with the Adventist and Dispensationalist movements of the 19th century.
2. Historicist: The Road Map of World History
The book basically deals with all of human history. The meaning of the symbols are to be found in the events of history. Some hold that the book deals more with the period prior to the present, some see it as unfolding in the present, and some emphasize the future more. All of the book is a symbolic account of the whole scope of world history, with the "beast" identified with various historical figures or peoples, from the Saracens, to Mohammed, to the Pope, to Adolph Hitler. This view arose in the Middle Ages, and was adopted by most of the Reformers in the 16th century, including Martin Luther who popularized the idea that the "beast" was the Roman Catholic Pope. In turn, Catholic theologians were convinced that Luther was the "beast."
2a. Church Historical: The History of the Church
This is a modification of the previous position, and sees the book as only dealing with events associated with the church; it is an account of the church through history. This was the view adopted by many Protestants following the Reformation.
3. Preterist: The First Century Church
The book is a symbolic account of the first century church’s struggle with Roman persecution. The symbols are drawn from ancient texts as well as contemporary culture to dramatize the plight of the church and to encourage its members in the face of troubled times. The "beast" is usually identified with the Empire of Rome, or a particular Roman emperor. While the book does deal with the future, in this view it is focused largely in the first century, and extrapolates and projects the first century experience of the church into the future. This view gained prominence in the 17th and 18th century as more knowledge of the history of the early church, as well as other apocalyptic writings from the period, came to light.
4. Idealist: Eternal Principles
The book, while rooted in the social and historical setting of the first century church, contains a message that transcends that setting. It illustrates, in the struggles of the early church, abiding spiritual principles that are applicable to all of human experience throughout history. The symbols can refer to specific people or events in that time, for example, the emperor Nero, but they also become symbols for a larger reality tied to common human experience. The "beast" symbolizes Nero, while Nero symbolizes the lack of control we experience in our lives, as well as those who exercise power over us in destructive ways.
4a. Theological: An Incarnated Message
This is a modified combination of the last two above. The book is basically a symbolic account of the early church, but rather than simply containing eternal principles, it is a confession from the first century church about God and how he enables His people to deal with hard times. The emphasis is on a holistic reading of the book to see the dual message of promise and hope for an oppressed people, as well as the final failure of any human institution that takes the place of God in the world.

Thank you for the discussion.

 

[charisenexcelcis]

What are the problems? It is generally accepted among scholars that the idea of Satan has changed throughout the ages. In any case, Ha-Satan is never described as a fallen angel. He is merely an angel that tries to point out the faults and shortcomings in humans. I'm not saying that Satan in the New Testament does not exist. I'm merely pointing out that in the Book of Job, the "evil" figure is not the New Testament Devil. I'd suggest reading some of the numerous exegeses that have been done on the Book of Job and the role of Ha-Satan. Also, I'd recommend looking into the Jewish tradition of Ha-Satan.

The New Testament was indeed largely written in Greek while the Old Testament was written in Hebrew. the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek before the birth of our Lord and it is called the Septuagint. Some English Bibles are translated from Greek manuscripts and others are translated from the Latin manuscripts.

The New Testament was wholely written in Koine Greek and the Old Testament was Largely written in Hebrew, some parts being in Aramaic.

 

[Cleante]

The New Testament was wholely written in Koine Greek and the Old Testament was Largely written in Hebrew, some parts being in Aramaic.

Ever heard of Aramaic Primacy? Look it up. http://www.nccg.org/mlt/pdf/NTGreek.pdf This doesn't mean I agree with it, but it is apart of the scholarly world and I will not discount it just because I don't agree with it. That is why I said largely written in Greek.

 

[charisenexcelcis]

My, my, if the other person doesn't agree with you then result to Ad Hominem attacks. This must be your strategy. I never denied the inspiratoin of the New Testament. I pointed out the historical context surrounding the "All scripture is Good and true" quote from the New Testament. How can a quote refer to something that does not even exist? Are you denying the debate in the early church about the relevance of the Old Testament? If so, then you need to study the early church a lot more.
No, my strategy was to point out that you were ignoring the context of the particular scripture that you were interpreting. God is the divine author, He is the one who inspired Paul to write I Timothy in which he describes what the benefits and uses of scripture are, and upon that basis I stated that even if you view Revelation as a document about the history of the times, it has revelence and benefit for today. You attacked that statement by saying that the verse only refered to the Old Testament. Yes, it was written before hand because, God has perfect foreknowledge.

Second, I guess the Orthodox Christians and many Theologians are guilty of poor hermeneutics because they don't agree with you. Oh yeah, forget about the American Bible Society. They don't know what they're talking about.
About the fact that the reference to the "accuser" is clearly refering to Satan and only hermenuetical gymnastics can be used to connect it to something a chapter later, while ignoring the verse before.



Oh yeah, forget about the Christian Classics Ethereal Library. They are horrible and interpretation and critical analysis.
If all of these deny the principle of context in interpreting scripture, then yes, they are practicing poor hermenuetics.



This is relevant to both of us,
The Pope, even though he has studied scripture more than any of us, is a whack job. He cannot possibly understand the importance of history in Revelations, right?

More craziness on Apocalyptic literature,



And this too, you would be wise to read this as well.



Thank you for the discussion.

I have not at all entered into a discussion of escatology, only hermenuetics.

 

[charisenexcelcis]

Ever heard of Aramaic Primacy? Look it up. http://www.nccg.org/mlt/pdf/NTGreek.pdf This doesn't mean I agree with it, but it is apart of the scholarly world and I will not discount it just because I don't agree with it. That is why I said largely written in Greek.

If you disagree with it, why did you say largely. That Jesus spoke Aramaic is not the issue, the issue was that you did not realize that the New Testament was wholely written in Koine Greek and the Old Testament was only largely written in Hebrew.

 

[Cleante]

If you disagree with it, why did you say largely. That Jesus spoke Aramaic is not the issue, the issue was that you did not realize that the New Testament was wholely written in Koine Greek and the Old Testament was only largely written in Hebrew.

I'll agree to disagree. It would appear that you are one of those people who knows everything. Aramaic Primacy is not about Jesus speaking Aramaic. You have just shown your own ignorance. I will agree to disagree as this discussion is not getting anywhere.

 

[charisenexcelcis]

I'll agree to disagree. It would appear that you are one of those people who knows everything. Aramaic Primacy is not about Jesus speaking Aramaic. You have just shown your own ignorance. I will agree to disagree as this discussion is not getting anywhere.

How interesting. I have heard of those who claim the Aramaic translation is older, without any real manuscript or internal evidence. I have never heard it called that before, and I have heard a similar title for the argument regarding whether Jesus spoke exclusively in Aramaic and Hebrew or whether He also said certain things in Greek.
Our original discussion had to do with Revelation 12:9-10. Do you still contend that verse nine (which says that Satan was thrown down) is the context from which we understand verse ten (which says that the accuser was thrown down)?

 

[ExplodingBryan]

@Charisen,

I don't think I know what you're trying to ask in your last post, you should consider rephrasing. If it's what I think it is, well, don't be surprised if no one responds because my initial response is something I will not be posting.


@Cleante,

I'm hoping you don't mind fielding some of my questions. I was thinking about our discussion at work today and I had a thought. How do Satan's other names (Lucifer, Beelzebub) fit into this concept?

 

[charisenexcelcis]

@Charisen,

I don't think I know what you're trying to ask in your last post, you should consider rephrasing. If it's what I think it is, well, don't be surprised if no one responds because my initial response is something I will not be posting.


@Cleante,

I'm hoping you don't mind fielding some of my questions. I was thinking about our discussion at work today and I had a thought. How do Satan's other names (Lucifer, Beelzebub) fit into this concept?

Based upon the context, the reference to the "accuser" in Revelation is certainly Satan. All you need to so is look at the verse before it to see that. The reference is Rev. 12:9-10.

 

[ExplodingBryan]

Based upon the context, the reference to the "accuser" in Revelation is certainly Satan. All you need to so is look at the verse before it to see that. The reference is Rev. 12:9-10.

I disagree. I don't find any certainty. First, as I understand it, Revelation is a writing of what came to the author in an inspired dream. Since the dragon he saw was clearly one opposed to God, of course he would label him as "Satan", a character that had developed because of society. Secondly, the verse says right in it "the one who is called Satan" (emphasis added). This supports Cleante's point of view more.

So, while I don't disagree that verses 9 and 10 are talking about the same being, I'm saying that it doesn't shed any light on Satan vs. Ha-Satan.

 

[Shwagga]

I'm saying that it doesn't shed any light on Satan vs. Ha-Satan.

Can you explain what you mean here?

 

[ExplodingBryan]

Can you explain what you mean here?

Have you read all the posts of this topic?