Recently, Christadelphian apologist Jonathan Burke has tried to support his Satanology/Demonology from Guy William’s study, The Spirit World in the Letters of Paul the Apostle as Williams stated (p. 88) that there was no standard Jewish "satan" figure or belief at the time of Christ. This is true. However, if one reads the book, it refutes, not supports, Christadelphian beliefs that they rejection of external supernatural evil figures like Satan and Demons. Note the following where Williams argues that Paul assumes the ontological existence of an external, supernatural evil being called “Satan”:
Further evidence also
emerges in 2Cor 11.14, where Paul addresses a conflict of views between himself
and those who have brought a different message to Corinth:
Such (teachers) are
false apostles, doers of evil, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ.
And no wonder! For Satan transforms himself into an angel of light.
That angels in
general or Satan in particular might transform themselves was well known to
Judaism (E.g. Raphael [Tob 6-8], the spirits of the Watchers [1 En. 19.1],
Satan [T. Job 6.4; 17.1-2, 23.1]). Here, though, the notion specifically
arises in the context of an argument about false persuasion and infidelity.
Such rhetoric connects with the narrative of the temptation of Eve, as does the
specific detail of Satan becoming an angel of light. In the Greek L[ife of].A[dam
and].E[ve]. 17.1; 29:15 Satan disguises himself as an angel. . . . if we
look back 11 verses then things become clearer:
For I promised you
one husband as a pure virgin, to present you to Christ, but I am afraid that in
some way, as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be
corrupted from a simple devotion to Christ. (11.2-3).
At first sight, this
disconfirms our argument: the serpent deceived Eve, not Satan. Yet, one
should bear in mind that in others texts it is also the serpent which deceives
Eve, at Satan’s instigation. So, looking a little closer, we find that
Eve is supposed to have committed some sort of sexual infidelity; she is the
counter-example to the “pure virgin.” In various forms, this idea occurs in the
Talmud, Genesis Rabbah, and Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer (b. Sotah
9a; b. Sabb. 146a; b. ‘Abod. Zar. 22b; b. Yebam. 103b; Pirque
R. El. 25A i. The guilty is divided a little more evenly in Gen. Rab.
19.3, where Eve is unsupervised in the garden because dam, having had sexual
relations, was then sleeping it off). It is also found in parts of early
Christianity (In Irenaeus [Haer. 1.30.7], the teaching of the Ophites
[Epiphanius: Pan. 40.5] and most charmingly in Prot. Jas. 13.1:
Joseph finds Mary pregnant and fears that the history of Adam is repeating
itself!) and is alluded to in the Greek L.A.E. 25.3, where Eve appeals
to God: “Lord, Lord, save me and I will never again turn to the sin of the
flesh.” The sexual nature of Eve’s sin thus specifically links 2Cor 11 to the
midrashic development of Genesis, a development which understands Satan as the
source of temptation. Paul describes fidelity and infidelity, deceptive images
and false persuasion.
Notably, therefore,
Paul assumes that his readers know what he is talking about when he
suggests that Eve was no chaste virgin or that Satan can transform himself. The fact that this
is an unspoken subtext should not diminish its significance. On the contrary,
the narratives which Paul can unquestionably rely on, in which he expects his
readers to fill in the blanks, are likely to be firmly established among his
followers. Here, he presupposes a distinctive misanthropic Satan, lurking in
Eden, with a special propensity for causing sin. (Guy Williams, The
Spirit World in the Letters of Paul the Apostle: A Critical Examination of the
Role of Spiritual Beings in the Authentic Pauline Epistles [Forschungen zur
Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 231; Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2009], 94-95, emphasis in bold added)
Continuing, Williams writes:
Paul’s Enemy
At times, Satan seems
to hold personal hostility against the apostle. In 1Thess 2.18, Paul’s desire
to visit Thessalonica is deliberately thwarted by Satan (ενοκοψεν ημας ο σατανας). It is unlikely
that this is intended purely as poetic shorthand for illness; Satan is a
spiritual being of malicious intent. Paul’s mission is the focus of
opposition. Similarly, in 2Cor 11.13-14 the ministers of Satan interfere with
his apostolic duty. It is an interesting question whether there is anything
equivalent to this personal hostility in Judaism. One may think of Satan’s
affliction of Job, though that ancient ‘adversary’ does not match the kind of
malign figure which Paul has in mind. Later interpretive traditions, however,
perceive Job as a man dogged by enmity cruelty. In the Testament of Job,
Satan’s animosity forms part of the construction of Job as a righteous man
(This works contains a very interesting account of Satan taking on a number of
disguises in some attempt to trick Job for evil [6-7]. When the affliction
begins it is with an extra twist of cruelty: Satan attacks Job’s possessions
“unmercifully” [16.2]. The personal enmity develops, with Satan said to be
plotting against Job [17.1], and taking on further disguises [17.2]. There is
also a bizarre episode in which Satan tricks Job’s wife into selling her hair
to him so that he “leads her heart astray” [23.11]. Job’s eventual triumph is
very much understood as Satan’s defeat [27.1-7]). One could say something
similar of Paul’s self-understanding in 2Cor 11. The attention of a hostile
spirit helps the apostle as a holy figure. In the same way, the afflictions of
the angel of Satan in 12.7 define Paul as a better servant of Christ.
(Ibid., 96-97, emphasis in bold added)
Further Reading
Listing of Articles on Christadelphian
Issues
For further refutations of Jonathan Burke’s
abuse of the Bible and the Apostolic Fathers, see the articles from Thomas Farrar,
such as:
