Satan and the Return of the Repressed

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

The return of the repressed is a Freudian idea, and it basically says that the things we’ve suppressed to the unconscious of our minds will come back to haunt us.

Now, I don’t want to get into psychological details, but rather I want to escape the domain of the pscyhological altogether, and consider this idea on a more cosmic level. My assumption is simply that history itself is marked by something like the return of the repressed, and what I want to suggest is that this historical equivalent can be linked to the Satan, whose appearance in the Bible constitutes this undesirable event.

But before I get carried away, let me say that there is a precedent for what I want to do in Agamben’s The Time That Remains (a commentary on Paul’s letter to the Romans), where he suggests that if we are unfaithful to the unforgettable (but forgotten) nucleus of our history and tradition, i.e., all that we’ve suppressed and continue to suppress, then it’s going to return in perverse and destructive ways, and come back to haunt us, just like Freud’s return of the repressed.

Now, what Agamben means by “being faithful to the unforgettable” is by no means an easy question, and while it is of the utmost importance it isn’t exactly what I’m after here. What interests me here is simply that he sees history (just like Benjamin) as a series of ruins, or as a wreckage heap that keeps on piling up; and that this ontological squandering, if we don’t respond to it, is something we need to fear.

It is this that interests me because I believe that this mechanism, if I can call it that, describes the origin of the Satan, whose appearance (in the book of Job) marks the return of the repressed on the Biblical scene. In Agambean terms, our faithlessness to the ash heap of history comes back to haunt us in the form of the Satan, whose groaning, accusations and rebellion are directed against our oppressive rule in history.

Toward stopping this? The answer surprisingly isn’t to bring a halt to the historical wreckage, for as Agamben says that which is lost is infinitely greater than that which can possibly be saved. But conversely it isn’t to let this disaster go on unabated either, for as Agamben says if we don’t remain attentive to it, and try to stem it, it is precisely this that is going to cause the Satan to come (with a vengeance?).

The answer is instead to somehow be faithful to this unforgettable and repressed nucleus of our tradition, and while Agamben doesn’t go so far in saying what this means, I think we see the answer in the book of Job, where the Satan appears but where it is also appeased.

I’d say in gross terms that the answer is wisdom, which can subdue even the Satan when it shows up, but such a formulation doesn’t get us very far. Nevertheless, this does tell us something interesting about the Satan, if what I’m saying is true:

The Satan isn’t evil as we’re so quick to assume; nor is it a fallen angel of God (at least not in the sense that this popularly conveys). But rather, at least in its first Biblical appearance (in the book of Job), it is an oppressed creature that returns, and calls out for justice.

Now, there are other reasons for saying this of the Satan that are rooted iin the Bible itself, but this Freudian idea raises it, perhaps, in a more relatable way. But no matter which way we go about it, the point is that the Satan is probably not what you’ve been led to think.

2

Found this perfect passage in Freud’s Moses and Monotheism regarding psychopathology (if only it was regarding the Satan’s appearance in the book of Job!), which Freud says is a perfect analogy for Israel’s uptake of Moses’ religion (after murdering him and discarding his religion):

“Here again we find the phenomenon of latency, the appearance of inexplicable manifestations which call for an explanation, and the strict condition of an early, and subsequently forgotten, experience.”

Instead of a religion returning and being adopted, just like a person first rejects and later adopts their parent’s attitudes, in my case it is the repressed (viz., the Satan) who must “adopt” its repressor.

I wonder from this, is God, too, susceptible to the return of the repressed? … If we tried to “psycho-analyze” the Satan’s “inexplicable appearance”, what “early, and subsequently forgotten, experience” would we uncover? …

3

A more developed version. Since this is a course paper proposal I make references to certain philosophers/readings, which you can accustom yourself to if you scroll to the bottom, and the proposed bibliography.

SATAN AND THE RETURN OF THE REPRESSED

“The God of peace will shortly crush Satan under your feet.” (Romans 16:20)

INTRODUCTION

Taubes quite rightly says that Paul’s letter to the Romans is a declaration of war, for as the above passage suggests, by the end of it we seem to be at war with Satan, inasmuch as Paul promises its imminent defeat through our conscription in God’s holy plan. But the problem is, although we may unhesitatingly accept this premise (for what could be more certain than that Satan is the enemy?), just the slightest attention will reveal that it’s not entirely clear why Satan is doomed, for prior to the New Testament (of which Paul’s letters are perhaps the earliest authorized texts) Satan doesn’t have any scriptural presence, or at least Satan as a character goes without mention (there are, of course, references to the Satan in the Bible, most notably in the book of Job, but not to Satan). Paul’s letters, therefore, could very well mark Satan’s first appearance on the Biblical scene, and as such they present us with an event that demands a back-story and/or genealogy, especially since it is our military engagement with Satan that Paul declares.

Given all this, what I propose to undertake is a study of Satan, most especially in Paul, so as to determine where it comes from and, having done this, why its future is so bleak. In regards to such a project, I can’t imagine that Paul would deny his readers what they need to complete it (especially if his letter is a declaration of war), so whether he provides the information explicitly or not, it is my intention to search out what he has to say in this regard. However, I can’t just draw upon Paul and hope to accomplish my goal, for even though Satan doesn’t show up in previous Biblical sources, there are, as already mentioned, important Satanic antecedents in the Bible, most especially the Satan in Job (and the serpent in Genesis), which Paul undoubtedly draws upon in his work. I will also find help in the efforts of the philosophers we’ve been studying, who I believe offer key insights into the problem as a result of their own studies of Paul, even if understanding Satan was far from their intention.

SATAN AND THE PHILOSOPHERS

Although Satan goes without mention in the various texts we’ve been considering (except for in Paul’s), whether the authors realize it or not Satan has been a pervasive concern, and could quite possibly be the driving concern of their work. This is true at the very least because they are studying Paul, and Paul reveals this quality of his own letter inasmuch as it declares Satan to be his enemy. Quite simply then, in studying Paul the philosophers we’re studying inherit his conflict, and the defeat of Paul’s enemy should be their driving concern of their work, so that if their commentaries are worth anything, as I believe they are, then they should shed some light, not only on what Satan has done to warrant its fate, but also on what our victory over Satan entails.

So given this, I should be justified in involving these philosophers in my study. But even so, to see more clearly how they may assist, take Taubes for instance, who not only sees Paul declaring war, and offers a description of the enemy, but who in his transformations of the messianic simultaneously attempts an outworking of guilt, which, although a distinct concept, is clearly not unrelated to Satan (for who could deny that our guiltiness, should we be guilty, is somehow tied to a character that is “the father of lies” and “a murderer from the beginning”?). Or, in an even more pointed example, consider Agamben, who tells us that if we are not faithful to the unforgettable (but forgotten) nucleus of our history and tradition, i.e., to all that we’ve suppressed and continue to suppress, then it’s going to come back in “perverse and destructive ways, just like Freud’s return of the repressed.” (And to our modern sensibility, what could be more Satanic than this “perverse and destructive” possibility that Agamben hopes to avoid through faith?..)

From these few examples alone there is, I think, a nexus of ideas forming around a shared concern with Satan. But even so, I’m playing a dangerous game thinking that Taubes and Agamben (and the other philosophers I’ll consider) are relevant, or that the links I’ve established aren’t dead-end or wayward pursuits. As a methodological precaution then, Paul’s letters and the rest of the Bible will ultimately have to sustain whatever insights I draw from these philosophers, and the success of my project will depend upon showing just this. So in the end then, my plan is to use the work of these philosophers to help uncover the clues or implicit descriptions that Paul has left us in his own work, most especially in regards to where Satan comes from and why (and how) it “will soon be crushed”.

THE GENEALOGY OF SATAN

To give a sense of what this genealogy will look like, it is important to recall the connection that I made to Agamben (or better yet Freud), which if we accept as being sustained by Biblical testimony (as I will show) quickly leads to an unexpected result. Quite simply, if Satan is the “perverse and destructive” upshot of our unfaithfulness to what Agamben calls the unforgettable, then the appearance of Satan marks what Freud calls the return of the repressed. And this, if we leave behind the psychological domain and consider the event on a more cosmic level, means that Satan’s appearance marks the return of an oppressed character that has come back (with a vengeance) calling out for justice, just as any victim of oppression would. The genealogy of Satan, therefore, is one marked by hardship, not just in the sense that Satan has done the oppressing, but in the sense that Satan has been oppressed, and is somehow a victim. No matter what else Satan is besides, Satan is the return of the repressed, and this important piece of its history is necessary for understanding our enmity with it (and Satan’s enmity with us).

But before getting carried away with this idea, it is important to stress that even though Satan is a victim, there is clearly something about Satan that calls us to arms. To get at what this might be, then, part of what I will show is that Satan is a second order return of the repressed, by which I mean that Satan marks the “perverse and destructive way” that the Satan (who appears in Job) returns, after its call for justice has been suppressed. In other words, the Satan is an innocent and oppressed creature (or a first order return of the repressed); but Satan, on the other hand, is what emerges when the Satan’s accusations are confirmed, and it undergoes a repression on top of the repression that made it appear in Job (seeking justice in God’s holy court). With the application of Agamben’s idea and some exegesis, then, the genealogy of Satan can be expressed in a three generational structure (which is not unsupported) , where there is first of all the good serpent of Genesis 1-3, who is oppressed by humankind and returns as the Satan of Job, who is in turn oppressed by humankind and returns as Satan, a character whose future, according to Paul, involves being “crushed under our feet”.

What this genealogy so far makes clear, at least in broad terms, is where Satan comes from; what remains to be more fully determined, however, is why Paul declares Satan our enemy, which is hard to embrace if we understand Satan, at its genealogical core, as an originally good victim of oppression. Some questions I am left with are: Doesn’t Paul’s imminent solution sound like just another order of repression, such that we could expect, in the future, a third order and even nastier return of the repressed? Shouldn’t breaking the cycle of oppression and compounded oppression involve something other than oppression? To this end, can Paul’s statement regarding Satan’s future be understood in a non-violent way, so that our crushing of Satan marks, perhaps, not its suppression but its restoration to a holier form?.. More work needs to be done on Satan’s genealogy and nature before we can understand Paul’s declaration of war, and what is in store for Satan; but what is clear, I think, is that there is more to Satan than is commonly believed, and its enmity is no simple matter, nor is it something that we are entirely innocent of.

PROPOSED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adorno, Minima Moralia
Agamben, The Time That Remains
Badiou, The Foundation of Universalism
Benjamin, Theses on the Philosophy of History
Freud, Moses and Monotheism, Civilization and Its Discontents
Marx, The Communist Manifesto
Schmitt, Political Theology
Taubes, The Political Theology of Paul
Zizek, The Puppet and the Dwarf

4

Aly,
I began with your intro and went no further. I suggest that you check out “The Devil”, by Jeffrey Burton Russell. There you’ll read that the Devil came to prominence before Paul declare war on him. The Book of Enoch is an invaluable source. Remember that there is an inter testament period- before the NT and after the canonized books of the OT. The Book of Enoch is one of the most influential books of the time prior to Jesus. There you’ll see the apocalyptic vision that informed the Baptist, Jesus and John of Patmos. Russell speculates, convincingly, about the sources of the separation between yahweh and His evil aspect.

5

Thanks Omar.

I understand that Satan was part of the cultural milieu prior and present to Paul and that my not considering this is a shortcoming. However, while Enoch may have been an important text, it is not canonical. Neither was it part of the Septuagint which, I believe, is what Paul worked from. (So while Enoch may have been influential at the time of Paul, it was not influential enough to be considered sacred!)

From a canonical point of view, Satan, as the proper name of a character, is something new in Paul and the NT. It is from this perspective that I work, and yes, this means turning a blind eye to non-canonical sources.

But even so, it would certainly be helpful to understand what the attitude at the time of Jesus and Paul was toward Satan, as Paul seems to assume in his letters that his readers have knowledge of this character. In this regard, someone like Russell would probably be of great help.

6

That it isn’t canonical is just an accident, just as what became canonical. But the point is that what became canonized was influenced by the visions of Enoch. Enoch, so to speak, is a symptom of it’s age. In paul there are many influenzes that are not sacred, including philosophy. Paul was a good rhetoretician and fashioned his arguments to the understandings of his audiences. So, for example, he appeals to gentile poets when addressing the athenians, and likewise he uses what is seen unquestionably as sacred texts, to exert a greater effect on his audience. But ask yourself about what sacred text are there in judaism for him to draw out any teaching that Satan is as he describes? Where it comes to Satan, Paul is adlibing, going on it by ear and highly influenced by the popular religion of the time. But leave Paul out of the equation for a moment and ask yourself about Jesus. Again, nowhere in scripture is satan an open foe of man, for that role fell on God Himself, in the sacred scriptures. But Jesus is here alluding to what was popularly known, and this means Enoch.

I understand what you’re trying to do, but, if I was going to read your work, I would probably enjoy it more if the question was answered or at least addressed as to how we go from Job’s Satan to Luke’s Satan. How is this tied to Temple worship and rabbinical practice. To be more precise, how did the different outlooks, as between Sadducees and Pharisees, influenced the visions of Satan. Consider also that at some point the Temple became a political tool. Judaism, being a historical religion, meaning that circumstances were interpreted as part of Sacred history, a history of the world designed by God, must have affected the community and this in turn is what produced the non-canonic texts. Even as they were not Temple-approved they remained influential, just as the Gospel of Thomas and others were to a Gnostic community under the shadow of the Church/Temple/Political establishment.

One other book is Elaine Pagels’ “The Origin of Satan”. There is so much to cover on this topic, such as the compatibility of Satan with strict monotheism, the influenze of Babylon, the forced conversion of many to judaism under Hamonean rule, the practical advantages of Satan vs God instead of God alone…just hope you at least touch on these as well.

7

This is exactly what I’m trying to do, but I don’t see the answer in social/cultural/historical or other contextual considerations, but rather in the texts themselves. The answer I’m proposing is that we go from the Satan to Satan by imposing yet another order of oppression on the Satan, so that Satan is understood as a second order return of the repressed (just as the Satan is to be understood as a first order return). Satan is a result of compounded oppression. And this, I believe, is what the texts bear out.

This kind of an understanding threatens to be lost when we immerse ourselves in the contextual circumstances. So as for your hope that I touch on such things as:

Well, it’s probably not going to happen. I leave such things to Pagels and Russell who share your conviction that the answer is to be found more in the contexts than it is in the texts. (As I’ve already suggested, I think contextual studies are important; but not at the cost of losing sight of what the book of Job, or Paul’s letter to the Romans, for instance, are telling us. These texts, while they are undoubtedly influenced by their contexts, also rise above them, or go beyond them, or challenge the various contextual assumptions, and therefore undermine any attempt to understand them through contextual considerations alone.)

There is absolutely something to what you’re saying here, but perhaps you go too far in reducing the importance of canon. Can we agree that some texts are more sacred than others? Perhaps not if you’re an atheist, but surely you can agree that a text like Genesis is more spiritually charged than, say, Maccabees. I want to consider Satan only in the context set by other uber-sacred texts, i.e., Job, and Genesis. Not a text such as Enoch, no matter how influential it was.

8

— Taubes quite rightly says that Paul’s letter to the Romans is a declaration of war, for as the above passage suggests, by the end of it we seem to be at war with Satan, inasmuch as Paul promises its imminent defeat through our conscription in God’s holy plan. But the problem is, although we may unhesitatingly accept this premise (for what could be more certain than that Satan is the enemy?), just the slightest attention will reveal that it’s not entirely clear why Satan is doomed, for prior to the New Testament (of which Paul’s letters are perhaps the earliest authorized texts) Satan doesn’t have any scriptural presence, or at least Satan as a character goes without mention (there are, of course, references to the Satan in the Bible, most notably in the book of Job, but not to Satan). Paul’s letters, therefore, could very well mark Satan’s first appearance on the Biblical scene, and as such they present us with an event that demands a back-story and/or genealogy, especially since it is our military engagement with Satan that Paul declares.

O- So, prior to Paul no jew thought that they were at war with Satan? Why then did the jews believe that Satan or his demons, could “possess” them? Like Nietzsche’s declaration, maybe Paul simply voiced what everyone already understood to be the case. If not scriptually explicit, it was implicit if the letters were coherent. Paul did not have to explain to the recepients Satan’s genealogy- it is a given.

— Given all this, what I propose to undertake is a study of Satan, most especially in Paul, so as to determine where it comes from and, having done this, why its future is so bleak. In regards to such a project, I can’t imagine that Paul would deny his readers what they need to complete it (especially if his letter is a declaration of war), so whether he provides the information explicitly or not, it is my intention to search out what he has to say in this regard. However, I can’t just draw upon Paul and hope to accomplish my goal, for even though Satan doesn’t show up in previous Biblical sources, there are, as already mentioned, important Satanic antecedents in the Bible, most especially the Satan in Job (and the serpent in Genesis), which Paul undoubtedly draws upon in his work. I will also find help in the efforts of the philosophers we’ve been studying, who I believe offer key insights into the problem as a result of their own studies of Paul, even if understanding Satan was far from their intention.

O- Where it is not explicit, you run the risk of presenting a personal bias rather that what Paul meant. Of course you can “deconstruct” the text, but know that deconstruction is a political tool, so disclose your goal right away.

— Although Satan goes without mention in the various texts we’ve been considering (except for in Paul’s), whether the authors realize it or not Satan has been a pervasive concern, and could quite possibly be the driving concern of their work. This is true at the very least because they are studying Paul, and Paul reveals this quality of his own letter inasmuch as it declares Satan to be his enemy. Quite simply then, in studying Paul the philosophers we’re studying inherit his conflict, and the defeat of Paul’s enemy should be their driving concern of their work, so that if their commentaries are worth anything, as I believe they are, then they should shed some light, not only on what Satan has done to warrant its fate, but also on what our victory over Satan entails.
O- I don’t think that Satan was a running concern. For the OT writers he was an accuser and just a deputy of God. As for Paul, Satan is inconsequential in the final analysis, for man is “predestined” whether for noble or ignoble purposes, according to the will of the Potter, as we also find in Romans. An enemy is someone that opposes you in reaching your goals. But in Paul’s theology, only Grace is of consequence, and Satan has no control over Grace anymore than our good deeds would. It is God’s will that ultimately sends some into the hands of the Devil, just as Paul gives unruly members to Satan.

— So given this, I should be justified in involving these philosophers in my study. But even so, to see more clearly how they may assist, take Taubes for instance, who not only sees Paul declaring war, and offers a description of the enemy, but who in his transformations of the messianic simultaneously attempts an outworking of guilt, which, although a distinct concept, is clearly not unrelated to Satan (for who could deny that our guiltiness, should we be guilty, is somehow tied to a character that is “the father of lies” and “a murderer from the beginning”?). Or, in an even more pointed example, consider Agamben, who tells us that if we are not faithful to the unforgettable (but forgotten) nucleus of our history and tradition, i.e., to all that we’ve suppressed and continue to suppress, then it’s going to come back in “perverse and destructive ways, just like Freud’s return of the repressed.” (And to our modern sensibility, what could be more Satanic than this “perverse and destructive” possibility that Agamben hopes to avoid through faith?..)
O- It is a danger that people do theology with psychoanalysis of God. Satan is not God’s repressed anger. Freud was an atheist.

— From these few examples alone there is, I think, a nexus of ideas forming around a shared concern with Satan. But even so, I’m playing a dangerous game thinking that Taubes and Agamben (and the other philosophers I’ll consider) are relevant, or that the links I’ve established aren’t dead-end or wayward pursuits. As a methodological precaution then, Paul’s letters and the rest of the Bible will ultimately have to sustain whatever insights I draw from these philosophers, and the success of my project will depend upon showing just this. So in the end then, my plan is to use the work of these philosophers to help uncover the clues or implicit descriptions that Paul has left us in his own work, most especially in regards to where Satan comes from and why (and how) it “will soon be crushed”.
O- Why do you play this dangerous game? What is in it for you?

— To give a sense of what this genealogy will look like, it is important to recall the connection that I made to Agamben (or better yet Freud), which if we accept as being sustained by Biblical testimony (as I will show) quickly leads to an unexpected result. Quite simply, if Satan is the “perverse and destructive” upshot of our unfaithfulness to what Agamben calls the unforgettable, then the appearance of Satan marks what Freud calls the return of the repressed. And this, if we leave behind the psychological domain and consider the event on a more cosmic level, means that Satan’s appearance marks the return of an oppressed character that has come back (with a vengeance) calling out for justice, just as any victim of oppression would. The genealogy of Satan, therefore, is one marked by hardship, not just in the sense that Satan has done the oppressing, but in the sense that Satan has been oppressed, and is somehow a victim. No matter what else Satan is besides, Satan is the return of the repressed, and this important piece of its history is necessary for understanding our enmity with it (and Satan’s enmity with us).
O- Actually, if you go with Freud, Satan is a symptom of a repressed, yet unforgettable memory, not the destructive upshot of himself. Satan is a symbol of what cannot be forgotten, cannot be burried away or can’t stay away. Satan is often the “accuser”, the “tempter”, so what is it that accusses us or temps us? We are accussed by sceptics. In Job, satan is first and foremost someone who doubts the existence of human excellence and of Job’s excellence in particular. He is a debasing force for those that believe in the higher rank of being “Chosen” by God. He asks, pretty much, why, since we are all equal, equally conditioned by what our circumstances afford us. He is also the tempter, as in the Garden of Eden, but this is really tied to his other role as well, for his desire is to debase man to show how man is determined by circumstance rather than by his own and unconditional excellence. He temps in order to show how our obedience is conditional to the information presented. Like Job’s obedience was conditioned by what he knew of God and what God had delivered.
Satan comes to the fore everytime there is a declaration of excellence to doubt or to increase the chance of doubt in either ourselves or in God. So what is repressed in a believer is doubt. Faith, as Paul defined it, tries to ignore doubt, and yet doubt is never forgotten. Satan is a symbol of doubt.

— But before getting carried away with this idea, it is important to stress that even though Satan is a victim, there is clearly something about Satan that calls us to arms. To get at what this might be, then, part of what I will show is that Satan is a second order return of the repressed, by which I mean that Satan marks the “perverse and destructive way” that the Satan (who appears in Job) returns, after its call for justice has been suppressed. In other words, the Satan is an innocent and oppressed creature (or a first order return of the repressed); but Satan, on the other hand, is what emerges when the Satan’s accusations are confirmed, and it undergoes a repression on top of the repression that made it appear in Job (seeking justice in God’s holy court). With the application of Agamben’s idea and some exegesis, then, the genealogy of Satan can be expressed in a three generational structure (which is not unsupported) , where there is first of all the good serpent of Genesis 1-3, who is oppressed by humankind and returns as the Satan of Job, who is in turn oppressed by humankind and returns as Satan, a character whose future, according to Paul, involves being “crushed under our feet”.
O- Right away I don’t agree that Satan is a victim. He is an aggressor. He initiates the Fall, he possesses human beings, enters them, enslaves them…how is he then a victim?
As far as Job, Satan does not call “for justice”. He does not, in Job, contradict that everyone should be given in accordance to their merits- rather he question what passes for merit. He question not justiced but what has passed for justice. I think that overall you’re trying to overplay the role of “The Devil’s Advocate”. It seems that the Serpent was unjustly punished for saying the truth, and it seems that he was speaking the truth only about Job. But it is the motivation behind such acts that is questionable and indeed punishable. If salvation rest on obedience, then getting someone to disobey, even by saying a truth, is criminal behaviour. It is not knowledge that saves, nor truth that saves, but obedience to God including believing unquestionably what God reveals as Truth. Jesus may have said that He was Truth, but not because he was in accordance with reality, but that the truth that saves comes from Him even if that is called by Satan a lie.

— What this genealogy so far makes clear, at least in broad terms, is where Satan comes from; what remains to be more fully determined, however, is why Paul declares Satan our enemy, which is hard to embrace if we understand Satan, at its genealogical core, as an originally good victim of oppression.
O- You take as given something that ought to be fully demonstrated, and I don’t think that you’ve done that.

— Some questions I am left with are: Doesn’t Paul’s imminent solution sound like just another order of repression, such that we could expect, in the future, a third order and even nastier return of the repressed? Shouldn’t breaking the cycle of oppression and compounded oppression involve something other than oppression? To this end, can Paul’s statement regarding Satan’s future be understood in a non-violent way, so that our crushing of Satan marks, perhaps, not its suppression but its restoration to a holier form?..
O- Satan is a symbol in the Freudian analogy of a repression. If that is the analogy you want to use then Satan is a symbol of doubt and his violent statement takes on a different sense, as in the sense that what is to be destroyed is doubt. Why is that problematic?

9

There was undoubtedly a cultural perception of Satan in Paul’s day just as there is in ours. But let’s be fair, Paul is not just drawing upon this perception and the genealogy it implies (which in our day might be that Satan is a fallen angel or an evil aspect of God), but rather he’s drawing upon the genealogy presented by the texts considered by him to be sacred, viz., the books of the septuagint. The cultural perception does not necessarily coincide with the scriptural presentation, and if the cultural perception of today tells us anything, we can probably conclude that the two are far apart. Just consider the Jews and the law, and how they completely messed up that concept according to Paul.

But you’re right, Paul did not have to explain to his readers Satan’s genealogy, for it is given, in books such as Genesis and Job.

Yes, risk, fortunately I’m relying mostly on 2 Thessalonians 2, where Satan is explicitly mentioned (keep in mind what I’ve posted so far is just a proposal, and is by no means complete).

I don’t know what you mean by deconstruction though. I’m not trying to deconstruct anything here, unless by that you mean come closer to what the texts are saying.

What makes you think that for the OT writers Satan “was an accuser and just a deputy of God”? Where does this come from?

What does this have to do with me? I don’t want to psychoanalyze God. Nevertheless, I do see some sort of psychotherapy at play in Paul, for example, in 2 Thessalonians 2, where the breath of Jesus Christ destroys the lawless one. Actually, it is not a psychotherapy per se, but rather a pneumatherapy… The breath of Jesus Christ is what heals us. (Here I would join you in emphasizing Pauline grace, for it is ultimately by the grace of Jesus Christ that we are saved.)

Anyways, psychoanalysis isn’t that far off, but it’s Satan that I want to psychoanalyze, in order to uncover layers of repression so that they can be undone. (In 2 Thessalonians 2 I believe the passing away of the katechon involves an uncovering and undoing of these layers of repression, these ‘restraints’, preparing the way for the coming of the messiah and pneumatherapy.)

An understanding of a significant dynamic in the Bible, and as such a deeper appreciation of that tradition and, assuming it has wisdom, an attunement to truth.

Your Freudian understanding of Satan is rather one-dimensional. Tell me this: why is the Satan so full of doubt? What has caused the Satan to be this way? … Describe how this spirit of scepticism came into being. Give me its genealogy! Could it possibly be because humankind has let the Satan down that the Satan doesn’t think humankind is capable of unconditional excellence? That’s all I’m really saying. I’m giving a reason for an ideology that you just assume in Satan.

Its victimization is what brings the Satan to God’s court in Job, where, yes, he is somewhat of an aggressor in the sense that he harbours accusations and has aggressive potential. Again, for your understanding, where does Satan’s aggression come from? Why is Satan so angry? I have a solution: Satan is a victim! You have no solution for why Satan is the way Satan is, and I think this means that you’re missing something.

If the Satan does not call for justice, then what is it doing at God’s court? What is it hoping for in going there? Also, why does God ask the Satan if it has considered Job unless it is the case that God senses a disturbance (an injury and an accusation) in the Satan’s heart? It seems to me God recommends Job to soothe the Satan, and that this means the Satan is a victim, and needs soothing. (This is something God senses without the Satan needing to say anything.)

You’re absolutely right. Again, this is just a proposal. A “demonstration”, such as is possible, will be part of the final paper.

10

Hello aly,

— …but rather he’s drawing upon the genealogy presented by the texts considered by him to be sacred, viz., the books of the septuagint.
O- If that is so, then why doesn’t he flesh out his teachings with scriptural references as he does for example, when affirming Jesus status as the true Messiah?

— The cultural perception does not necessarily coincide with the scriptural presentation, and if the cultural perception of today tells us anything, we can probably conclude that the two are far apart. Just consider the Jews and the law, and how they completely messed up that concept according to Paul.
O- Paul insist that they messed up, but not the other Christians, like James, in Jerusalem. In Galatians, when he rails against those that still insists in holding the Law as a requirement of righteousness, he does so from his understanding on the reason for Jesus death. So, no, the Law was not completely messed up, but it was if you accepted his explanation on the reason for Jesus death.

— But you’re right, Paul did not have to explain to his readers Satan’s genealogy, for it is given, in books such as Genesis and Job.
O- Actually look again. It isn’t.

— What makes you think that for the OT writers Satan “was an accuser and just a deputy of God”? Where does this come from?
O- Take Job for example. Deputy because he does not act unless sent by God. He does roam, but he is not afflicting Job without first receiving the approval of God, obeying the conditions set by God.

— Your Freudian understanding of Satan is rather one-dimensional. Tell me this: why is the Satan so full of doubt?
O- You did not grasp my meaning. “The Satan”, as you call it, is a symbol, I say. Not a thing or person that suffers from repression, but a symbol of repression coming back to the fore in a disquieting way.

— Describe how this spirit of scepticism came into being. Give me its genealogy!
O- The Spirit of doubt you mean. Skepticism is just one of it’s symptoms. How does it come into being? It is attached to every assertion, every affirmation. So, in the case of God, in His heart he holds the declaration that Job is righteous, but God could also doubt this and this doubt is materialized in the being of Satan. Anyone that questions the unconditional assumes the role of Satan, which is why Jesus rebukes Peter by calling him “Satan”. In The Temptation of Jesus, satan is again busy at externalizing doubts that Jesus himself may have had. He is the mouth piece of those that rejected Jesus. He asks much the same demonstrations as the Sanhedrin that condemn him. “If you are”, that is the voice of doubt, that “if” that again surfaces in Job. ALL of this ONLY if we interpret Satan as a symbol for the repressed, or what is repressed which is doubt in the case of a faithful person.

— Could it possibly be because humankind has let the Satan down that the Satan doesn’t think humankind is capable of unconditional excellence?
O- Humans have left God down. Satan knows man better than God.

— Its victimization is what brings the Satan to God’s court in Job, where, yes, he is somewhat of an aggressor in the sense that he harbours accusations and has aggressive potential. Again, for your understanding, where does Satan’s aggression come from? Why is Satan so angry? I have a solution: Satan is a victim! You have no solution for why Satan is the way Satan is, and I think this means that you’re missing something.
O- Not at all. Satan as a biographical character:
Satan is a cynic. Satan is the first free spirit. It is the first creature to question God, and to disobey God. His disobedience stems from the fact that faith is an intrinsic quality in God’s higher creations, and reason. This makes Satan, and man for that matter, suceptible to doubt, out of very reasonable considerations, even that which comes from God.
Satan represents a challenge to God’s measure of what is good. Why challenge God? Out of rational integrity. Is Satan angry? Not really. His possessions of men might be overstated, later additions for a latter audience. He simply states his case, he issues his accusations. It is as if we imputed the executioner of the Courts veredict as being an angry man. It is nothing personal. He carries out his role without prejudice, at least in the OT, and God was more savage and more infamous for His anger, His wrath, even unjustified wrath, that Satan ever was in the NT.

— If the Satan does not call for justice, then what is it doing at God’s court?
O- Making arguments as to why Job is NOT really worthy of God’s praise is not really calling for justice, and if he is calling for justice then it is for justice against Job.

— What is it hoping for in going there? Also, why does God ask the Satan if it has considered Job unless it is the case that God senses a disturbance (an injury and an accusation) in the Satan’s heart?
O- If God senses anything it is Satan’s skepticism that man is worthy of praise. The case is whether man is worthy of praise, whether man can be righteous and for God’s defense of man he presents Job. Job is put on the stand and cross-examined by Satan, who does nothing thatn to break down Job and show how his righteousness behaviour is nothing more than naked self-interest.

— You’re absolutely right. Again, this is just a proposal. A “demonstration”, such as is possible, will be part of the final paper.
O- I’d like to see how that turns out.

11

Paul is a brilliant – economical – writer and gives only what is necessary. The name Satan should be enough to invoke scriptural antecedents.

Ha! Here is where I would tell you to look again, for it is given. Don’t expect to be hand-fed though. Biblical writers (as much as a Nietzsche or a Plato) write in order to make you think. They don’t make it easy. Look at the initial conversation of the book of Job for instance, which is ripe with riddle: “Where did you come from?” God asks, not without genealogical significance. “From going up and down upon the earth” the Satan answers, pointing both God and us to the creatures made on the sixth day…

All this goes to show is that the Satan is still faithful to God, which is hugely significant but which does not make the Satan God’s “deputy”. This is a strange word to use though. Most commentators on Job would call the Satan a divine functionary, which “deputy” brings to mind for me. I think this understanding is wrong, which is why I challenge you here. The Satan is faithful, as your examples indeed point out, but the Satan is not a functionary in God’s holy court (i.e., a prosecutor or deputy). The Satan is a pissed off creature; pissed off at humankind; but not pissed off enough to have rebelled against God (this level of rebellion is reserved for Satan).

If Satan is “the first creature to question God, and to disobey God”, then what do you do with Adam and Eve? Are they Satan then, or gripped by Satan?

Also, how can something that is the first to “question” and even “disobey” God also be God’s deputy, and not do anything without God’s permit? How do you reconcile Satan’s disobedience with the Satan’s obedience?

What you’re missing is that the Satan only makes this argument (that Job is not worthy) AFTER God has recommended Job, which means you still need to explain why God would recommend Job to the Satan in the first place. Do you take the traditional approach and say that God is simply proud of Job, and that this divine pride is what motivates the conversation between God and the Satan in the book of Job?

I agree with this 100%. Where we diverge is on the source of the Satan’s skepticism regarding humankind. I say it is rooted in humankind’s history of oppressive behaviour, which has caused the Satan’s loss of faith (and search for justice). You say it is just the way that the Satan is, i.e., that doubt “is attached to every assertion, every affirmation”, and that the Satan is the de facto mouthpiece of this doubt.

Anyways, maybe you’re right. I certainly can’t deny you (even though, as I said, I think your approach reduces the Satan to one-dimensionality). Nevertheless, before I could give more credibility to your view, you must reconcile the conflict I perceive between Satan as first disobeyer of God and the Satan as deputy of God.

12

— Paul is a brilliant – economical – writer and gives only what is necessary. The name Satan should be enough to invoke scriptural antecedents.
O- Not if his aim was to present God’s enemy- for that he provides no scriptural support because there weren’t any.

— Ha! Here is where I would tell you to look again, for it is given. Don’t expect to be hand-fed though. Biblical writers (as much as a Nietzsche or a Plato) write in order to make you think. They don’t make it easy. Look at the initial conversation of the book of Job for instance, which is ripe with riddle: “Where did you come from?” God asks, not without genealogical significance. “From going up and down upon the earth” the Satan answers, pointing both God and us to the creatures made on the sixth day…
O- I don’t know what you are saying here. Explain?

— All this goes to show is that the Satan is still faithful to God, which is hugely significant but which does not make the Satan God’s “deputy”.
O- Call it what you like. “Faithful” is fine with me because it retains the significance that is absent in Paul- That Satan is not God’s enemy or Job’s in particular.

— The Satan is a pissed off creature; pissed off at humankind; but not pissed off enough to have rebelled against God (this level of rebellion is reserved for Satan).
O- Alright: Satan is pissed at humanity? Back that up. But the thing that gets me is that you seem inconsistent. First he is a victim, then he is a pissed off vindictive spirit? Level of rebellion reserved for Satan? Why? Where do you get this from? And what about the demons that serve him in NT mythology?

— If Satan is “the first creature to question God, and to disobey God”, then what do you do with Adam and Eve? Are they Satan then, or gripped by Satan?
O- They were “tempted” by Satan…actually by a serpent that is later associated to Satan in the NT. An interesting question is whether Satan, or the Serpent, differed from the couple It tempted? Who was indeed the first to sin: the Serpent or Eve? Again there is something symbolic in the image of the serpent. It is a symbol of craft, of knowledge- not wisdom. Eve is tempted by what is the truth. In Job, Satan against causes man a lot of grief, but again from the position of truth, because in the end it is Satan, not God, that is proven right about man. The temptation of Jesus differs from that of Eve in that Jesus responds to the challenge with other truths. Sure, it is true that he can turn those rocks into bread, yet it is also true that man does not live by bread alone. So Jesus defeats his temptation, by facing what is materially true with what is spiritually true. This constrast is there in the NT elsewhere, between Law and Spirit.
I think that the difference between Eve’s rebellion to Satan’s is that Satan disobeys because of what it knows, while Eve disobeys from what she believes. Meaning that if the Serpent disobeyed the prohibition on the consumption of said fruit it was because it knew that it didn’t kill. Eve, on the other hand, consumed the fruit because she believed the serpent more than she did God. Was the serpent unfaithful? No, I say, because it is a symbol of what requires no faith.

— Also, how can something that is the first to “question” and even “disobey” God also be God’s deputy, and not do anything without God’s permit? How do you reconcile Satan’s disobedience with the Satan’s obedience?
O- In the OT this was possible. Pharaoh for examples opposes God and yet it is God that “hardens his heart”. This is an old issue between divine predestination and freewill. Obedience and disobedience are choices that require the existence of Freewill. Yet God’s omnipotence demands that all things are subject to His will. Sure, if the serpent was doing only what it was supposed to do then why was it punished as if it was it’s choice to disobey? I don’t know the answer to that. But it is the same thing that happened to Pharaoh. The best explanation I ever heard was put forth by Luther and basically it said that it obeyed in it’s disobedience. He is following Paul’s analogy in Romans, where God is characterized as a potter that creates some pots for noble purposes and others for ignoble purposes. Therefore, this Potter raised for Himself Pharaoh and the Serpent for it’s purposes, which might be interpreted in order to show It’s Power. I don’t think that Satan is ever justified by God in Job because he did as he was prone to do, which is to accuse and denigrate those that stand appart like Job. God simply avails Himself of the different pots he has created. Maybe so as not having to soil Himself, He sends ignoble pots to do ignoble tasks.

13

I’m simply saying that there are tonnes of genealogical clues that help us to understand Paul’s war with Satan. The first is Satan’s name, which clearly invokes the Satan of Job. In Job we have, for starters, the clues given above, namely God’s surprise at the Satan’s appearance and the Satan’s reference to earth-walking creatures.

You need to distinguish more clearly between the Satan and Satan. Satan is God’s enemy (if we accept the NT). The Satan is not, and never was. The Satan is faithful to God. Satan no longer is.

The Satan is a role, so that the character in the OT is called by its role (versus its proper name). Satan, on the other hand, is a proper name, so that the NT character is called by its name and not its role. An important question is what differentiates (and links) these characters aside from this. Clearly Satan, in being called Satan, invokes the Satan, but how is it different from the Satan? That they are (or could be) different is clear from the fact that the Satan’s name is not necessarily Satan (we don’t know what the Satan’s proper name is, and I think it is meant to be ambiguous, in the sense that anyone can fulfill the Satan role).

You yourself invoke the serpent of Genesis 3. What more do you need to be pissed off at humankind than humankind’s blaming you for the hardship that ensues from human disobedience? (Recall Eve’s “the serpent made me do it!”) It would certainly piss me off if I was blamed for everything that’s shitty in the world. In fact, it would be enough to piss me off that humankind caused the mess! (i.e., Humankind need not blame me for it to warrant my anger; my being blamed would just be the icing on the cake!)

And there is nothing inconsistent about being a victim and being pissed off. Come on man! What victim isn’t pissed off? If they aren’t, they’re simply repressing their anger. Or maybe they’ve forgiven, but that’s a rarity. The bottom line is that being a victim and being pissed off and/or vindictive are not inconsistent, but are deeply connected.

As for the level of rebellion reserved for Satan, well, hopefully that’s a little clearer once you start to consistently differentiate between the Satan, who is faithful to God, and Satan, which is something else (and which if we trust the NT is truly God’s enemy, i.e., a true rebel against God).

I appreciate your reading but I wonder if it’s so simple. Pharoah was indeed to be an image of God, and to show God’s power (just like David for instance). And God indeed hardened Pharoah’s heart. But this latter mystery takes place after Pharoah has already become a force of oppression, which is an event that takes place between Pharoah’s installment by God and God’s hardening of Pharoah’s heart. This middle event, I think, is Pharoah’s fall from grace, and regarding it scripture makes no mention of God’s involvement… Your analysis, in failing to mention this crucial middle step (where I believe evil is truly at work), falls short.

(With my undoubtedly controversial reading evil is not at work in God’s hardening of Pharoah’s heart, but rather I wonder if, strangely enough, this event could be construed as Pharoah’s repentance, and return to God’s grace. Sometimes love and wisdom require a hardened heart and a denial of freedom so that their power will be made known.)

Anyways, this doesn’t say much, but what it does say, I think, is that things aren’t so simple. It also opens the door for me to say that real disobedience is possible. Or that not all disobedience conceals obedience (as your reading suggests). It allows me to distance God from events such as the enslavement and genocide of a people, or to disassociate God from something like Hitler, who should never be conceived as being sent by God.

14

alyosh,

— I’m simply saying that there are tonnes of genealogical clues that help us to understand Paul’s war with Satan. The first is Satan’s name, which clearly invokes the Satan of Job. In Job we have, for starters, the clues given above, namely God’s surprise at the Satan’s appearance and the Satan’s reference to earth-walking creatures.
O- I think you see far more than what is there. How does God’s “surprise” and Satan’s apparent “reference to earth-walking creatures” help explain Paul’s “war” with Satan?

— You need to distinguish more clearly between the Satan and Satan. Satan is God’s enemy (if we accept the NT). The Satan is not, and never was. The Satan is faithful to God. Satan no longer is.
O- Since Satan is an enemy of God only clearly in the NT one cannot be sure that “satan” is one and the same and that the difference between one and the other is simply the doctrinal prejudice of early Christians. Judaism refers to “the Satan”, that is “the Challenger” but does not affirm the status of an enemy of God to It. That smacks too much as polytheism, which is a charge that Christians, specifically Catholics, have heard before. So the difference is dictated by religion. Choose from the perspective of which religion you wish to proceed ahead. In any case, the controversy disappears. The only problem though is that while we may make such distinctions, Paul did not, so if we put these distinctions in place we run the risk of failing to understand Paul at the basic level because we negate the very foundation of his perspective which is that he is refering to one and the same Satan.

— The Satan is a role, so that the character in the OT is called by its role (versus its proper name). Satan, on the other hand, is a proper name, so that the NT character is called by its name and not its role.
O- Just the same way that “Smith”, a role, became a name for a person. Not for that do we have to assume two things being labelled. For Paul, I would say, Satan the name is the same as Satan the role.

— An important question is what differentiates (and links) these characters aside from this. Clearly Satan, in being called Satan, invokes the Satan, but how is it different from the Satan? That they are (or could be) different is clear from the fact that the Satan’s name is not necessarily Satan (we don’t know what the Satan’s proper name is, and I think it is meant to be ambiguous, in the sense that anyone can fulfill the Satan role).
O- Yes, I agree.

— You yourself invoke the serpent of Genesis 3. What more do you need to be pissed off at humankind than humankind’s blaming you for the hardship that ensues from human disobedience? (Recall Eve’s “the serpent made me do it!”) It would certainly piss me off if I was blamed for everything that’s shitty in the world. In fact, it would be enough to piss me off that humankind caused the mess! (i.e., Humankind need not blame me for it to warrant my anger; my being blamed would just be the icing on the cake!)
O- The “serpent” may or may not be Satan or “the Satan”. It certainly matches the role of the Satan as a challenger, but that role can be filled with other things, such as Peter in the Gospel. In Genesis the serpent does deserve some punishment, just as much as an accessory to murder would. You don’t have to pull the trigger. If you simply gave a gun to an unstable person, you become responsible for the use (in this case “information”) of that gun. God does not punish the serpent simply because he believed Eve, because if He had, then Eve would have been excused of the crime. She isn’t because God believes her testimony about the serpent’s involvement but does not believe her argument that she was blameless or not involved in the violation of the Law. Even after Satan had given her the gun/information, it was still her choice not to act on it out of obedience to God.

— Anyways, this doesn’t say much, but what it does say, I think, is that things aren’t so simple. It also opens the door for me to say that real disobedience is possible. Or that not all disobedience conceals obedience (as your reading suggests). It allows me to distance God from events such as the enslavement and genocide of a people, or to disassociate God from something like Hitler, who should never be conceived as being sent by God.
O- This fulfillment of a wish should make you question it even more. I am not saying that the truth about something is measured by the displeasure it brings us, but, for pleasure, how many lies haven’t we believed? You are pursuing the goal of Job’s friends, which was to distance God from any wrong doing, or as Job called it “showing partiality to God”. Yet to say what is not true is a sin. Even if that truth is inconvenient and shames God in some way, one needs to understand that the problem lies in us and not in God who is beyond “our ways”.

15

What I learn from these statements is:

  1. That the Satan is not part of God’s plan (hence God’s surprise), and that this divergence forms the basis of an even greater divergence to come. (We’ve already agreed that the Satan is still faithful to God; the greater schism is when this faith is broken. Clearly this doesn’t happen in Job, but let’s face it: Job is an exception rather than the rule, and we’d be foolish to think that the Satan is always soothed.)
  2. That the Satan is somehow derived from what was an originally good creation. Somewhere in its history the Satan was a good creature and was quite in line with God’s plan. (This clue, in fact, complicates Paul’s war, because it means we have to understand why Paul would declare war on what was an originally good creature. It also pushes us beyond Genesis 1 to Genesis 2 and 3 where we see a war forming between humankind and the earth-creatures, or most notably the serpent, their wisest representative. Genesis 3 is perhaps the most crucial chapter for understanding Job, for it sets up the Satan’s appearance.)

Paul distinguishes between the Satan and Satan insofar as he refers to Satan and not to the Satan. He’s dealing with something new here, something never seen before (in the OT at least).

I don’t see how you can say that Paul doesn’t make this distinction. To say this is to say that Paul didn’t grasp the significance of calling something by its role versus calling it by its name. And to say this is absolutely ridiculous since Paul clearly understands how important naming is, for he changes his own name to Paul!

Anyone who doesn’t distinguish between the Satan and Satan is a fool, and Paul is no fool.

Your banal example is reasonable, and could explain the shift. But there are other possibilities, most notably that we’re dealing with something new, and that this is why there is a shift from the Satan to Satan.

I would say that the serpent is absolutely not the Satan nor is it Satan. It is the serpent! It is a good creature in line with God’s plan.

Yeah, I definitely do want to get God off the hook for evil. I would differentiate myself from Job’s friends, though, in that Job’s friends blame Job, and in this way “show partiality to God”. I’m not blaming Job nor am I blaming God. To be clear, I’m not blaming the Satan either! The truth of the matter is that the blame goes too deep to pin it on anyone in particular. It goes all the way to Genesis 3 and the blame game we see forming there (where even there it is unclear who is to blame).

The point is not to blame anyone (God, Adam, Eve, the serpent, Job, etc), but to shut down the cycle of blame completely. To practice something else instead… (Taking responsibility? Forgiveness? These words come to mind for starters.)

16

I think the struggle to get God off the hook for evil is attributable to the mutually negating, completely inseparable, and equally powerful states of good and evil. There’s this existential dilemma, because the equality of their force as principles, for lack of a better way of saying it, makes it impossible to overcome evil with good. Christianity’s approach to this dilemma requires faith in a God (since “no one is good but God alone”) that redeems humans through their obedience to his laws, or “God’s will,” as a way to establish victory over evil, or salvation from a ‘sinful state’. Your OP hinted at this dilemma, by noting that Satan isn’t evil, but is instead oppressed and calling out for justice.

17

I’m not entirely sure I follow you. Are you saying something like good and evil are eternal partners? Something like yin and yang? If so, what makes you think this?

18

Aly,

— What I learn from these statements is:

  1. That the Satan is not part of God’s plan (hence God’s surprise), and that this divergence forms the basis of an even greater divergence to come. (We’ve already agreed that the Satan is still faithful to God; the greater schism is when this faith is broken. Clearly this doesn’t happen in Job, but let’s face it: Job is an exception rather than the rule, and we’d be foolish to think that the Satan is always soothed.)
    O- There is no evidence in Job of God even having a plan. For as in respect to the Job situation we see that God’s plan is actually the Satan’s plan, or, more accurate, the Satan’s hypothesis. God is surprised by the satan just as He was surprised by Adam and Eve, because in each case there is a freedom of will at work, which in order to exist at all, requires just this sort of reaction from God. But yes, freedom of will is the potential for rebellion be it in the Satan or in Man. Freedom of will is of course part of God’s plan, if there was a plan for Creation, so that even if God doesn’t know precisely where we or the Satan have been or will go or come from, He has called this “good”.

— 2) That the Satan is somehow derived from what was an originally good creation. Somewhere in its history the Satan was a good creature and was quite in line with God’s plan. (This clue, in fact, complicates Paul’s war, because it means we have to understand why Paul would declare war on what was an originally good creature. It also pushes us beyond Genesis 1 to Genesis 2 and 3 where we see a war forming between humankind and the earth-creatures, or most notably the serpent, their wisest representative. Genesis 3 is perhaps the most crucial chapter for understanding Job, for it sets up the Satan’s appearance.)
O- The first two sentences could well have applied to man. I only see that the Satan was not the embodiment, or incarnation of evil, or that he stood in a state of war with God, but I do not see where he is portrayed as “good”, or as a “good creature”.

— Paul distinguishes between the Satan and Satan insofar as he refers to Satan and not to the Satan. He’s dealing with something new here, something never seen before (in the OT at least).
O- But in refering to “Satan” he could very well have meant the only Satan he recognized. Perhaps, and this is my point, Paul saw no distinction, no separate beings the way you do. That Paul is silent does not indicate that he has made a distiction, but rather that he sees no division, does not recognize the existence of a “the Satan” aside or besides the existence of Satan. If he is dealing with something “new” then he never makes that case at all, so that is a hard sell for you to make. Everything in the text, his letters, indicate that Paul treated “Satan” as the only “Satan” in Creation and not as one of two.

— I don’t see how you can say that Paul doesn’t make this distinction. To say this is to say that Paul didn’t grasp the significance of calling something by its role versus calling it by its name. And to say this is absolutely ridiculous since Paul clearly understands how important naming is, for he changes his own name to Paul!
O- If he changed his name, it was not because “Saul” was a role or that Paul was a name. I don’t think that was the significance. “Paul” may have been one of his surnames that he adopted as his first name perhaps out of convenience to better relate to his audience. This ability to relate to his audience was a virtue that Paul alluded to in one of his letters.

— I would say that the serpent is absolutely not the Satan nor is it Satan. It is the serpent! It is a good creature in line with God’s plan.
O- So why the relevance of Genesis?

— Yeah, I definitely do want to get God off the hook for evil. I would differentiate myself from Job’s friends, though, in that Job’s friends blame Job, and in this way “show partiality to God”. I’m not blaming Job nor am I blaming God. To be clear, I’m not blaming the Satan either! The truth of the matter is that the blame goes too deep to pin it on anyone in particular. It goes all the way to Genesis 3 and the blame game we see forming there (where even there it is unclear who is to blame).

The point is not to blame anyone (God, Adam, Eve, the serpent, Job, etc), but to shut down the cycle of blame completely. To practice something else instead… (Taking responsibility? Forgiveness? These words come to mind for starters.)
O- I think that the sentiment is noble but immature. I am not saying that you’re being immature but that this thought, this hypothesis is immature, underdeveloped, unrefined, underresearch. You underestimate the consequences of your pursuit to liberate Creation of blame. Justice goes out the window for example, while the suffering of innocents remains. With others I would say: Do not say “Peace, Peace” where there is no Peace!

19

Not simply as partners, but completely interdependent in the duality and, because of this, having an equality of power within humans. To overcome evil by good, or to place good at a higher priority than evil, might be a moral imperative but it’s not the actuality of the duality of good and evil ‘forces’ that operate within us, and as they may wax and wane and play off one another in human behavior. When I mentioned that this creates a dilemma, I actually meant that this state of good & evil in human behavior is the dilemma. We don’t have it, we are it, so it’s not a ‘solvable’ problem in our earthly lives. This being the case, there are various philosphical and/or religious ways that humans explain it or address it. My view of how Christianity handles this is for its followers to have faith in a god who is deemed absolutely good. This god encompasses everything, including evil, either as potentiality or actuality. Of course, evil exists as an actuality in the earthly domain as created by the god, I guess you could say, but it’s not actualized in the eternal afterwards. (that is to say, Satan doesn’t hang out there) Because there’s no way to solve the dilemma in the present, Christianity instead offers, in return for that faith and submitting to the god’s will, a promise of future eternal life in which the dilemma of evil in the present (earthly) life will be overcome, since there’s no manifestation of evil in eternity.

That’s a pretty simplistic explanation but, it seems to me, it’s basically the way it works. Of course, as a non-Christian, I think some holes can be shot in it as an optimal means of addressing the dilemma. But other means have their lackings, too. That’s why we have so many options, I suppose.

20

Job is situated in a scriptural context, which you yourself draw upon here. So while the book is near impossible to place (canonically that is), it certainly follows after Genesis 3 (and probably comes before Christ, although I hesitate to place this restriction given the universality of the characters).

So just as you do here, I would draw evidence for a divine plan from Genesis 1-3, but unlike you I would put God’s plan in terms of “filling the earth” and “subduing” it, not in terms of having “free will”. There is no mention of free will in Genesis 1-3, is there? (I’m not saying free will isn’t there, but God certainly doesn’t say: “Go will freely,” as if it was God’s plan for us to do so.)

Yes, the first two sentences could just as well have applied to humankind.

Also, you keep making a similar reductionistic mistake (when you read me that is). My position is that the serpent undergoes oppression as a result of human idolatry/disobedience, and that this causes it to return as something new, namely the Satan, via a mechanism that is the cosmological equivalent of Freud’s return of the repressed. In returning, the serpent is changed, which means it is no longer the serpent, just as the repressed material in Freud’s theory is changed (as it breaks through the various psychological restraints that were put in place to keep it down).

So when you say something like you do here to challenge me, i.e., that “the Satan [is not] portrayed as good or a good creature”, you mistake what I’m saying. What I’m saying is that the serpent is portrayed as a good creature, not the Satan. The Satan is something else altogether, something new, something linked genealogically to the serpent but substantially changed as a result of its oppression. (My argument is something like: my great-grandfather was a good man, but as a result of subsequent generations of hardship I am now an angry, spiteful person. My great-grandfather and I are not the same; he is good and I am evil; nevertheless we are linked genealogically.)

If you are right, then the Satan is no different from Satan (at least according to Paul). How then do you think Paul reconciled his war against Satan and God’s effort to appease Satan in Job? If Satan is the enemy, why would God give it power over Job? Why would God be so friendly with it? Is it a case of “love your enemy”? … (I’m anticipating a similar answer as per the Satan’s disobedience and obedience problem I threw at you before, such that Satan isn’t really God’s enemy and that Paul doesn’t really want Satan to be crushed… Or that Satan’s God-ordained part is to play the enemy in some grand scheme for creation… (Which, if so, takes the war out of Paul’s war and makes it, well, a rather trivial matter… (Hell, it makes life itself a trivial matter!)))

You’re right, Paul’s name change has nothing to do with Satan, or at least not the “calling by role versus proper name” issue we’re discussing (I mentioned it simply to stress how seriously Paul, or the Bible in general, takes naming to be). As a side note then, while you’re absolutely right that Paul will step into whatever role necessary to relate to his audience, I think you’ll find a more fruitful approach to Paul’s name change if you recall that Saul is a kingly, powerful name (in Hebrew) and Paul is a lowly, servile name (in Latin). His name change is more a matter of the weak things confounding the strong… (In changing his name to Paul, Paul identifies himself with the weak things of the world…)

Because the serpent is the ancestor of the Satan (and Satan), and Genesis 1-3 shows the development of the war that Paul declares (or better yet, that he assumes!). (My deeper reason is to find in the development of the war a strategy for ending it…)

Are the demands of justice met more through finger-pointing, or through taking responsibility? Through holding a grudge, or through forgiveness?

My sentiment is certainly underdeveloped, unrefined, etc, but it is way more mature than persisting in the childish blame game that brings us nowhere but down.