Tuesday, September 14, 2021

Guy Williams on Paul Assuming and Teaching that Satan is an External, Supernatural Evil Being

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:


‘When an unclean spirit goes out of a person’: An Assessment of the Accommodation Theory of Demon Possession and


Exorcism in the Synoptic Gospels and Satanology and Demonology in the Apostolic Fathers: A Response to Jonathan Burke