Tag: dante

The following was adapted from a now-several-years-old answer elsewhere on the web to a user asking about the truth of the claim that Dante, rather than the Bible, is the origin of much of modern beliefs about Satan.

Introduction & Disclaimers

While I’ve never read either Dante or Milton (and therefore can’t speak to that aspect) and can’t speak to what “many Christians believe” beyond saying that that does match my personal experience, I can shed some light on what the (Protestant) Bible says regarding Satan. And while those who know more are welcome to chime in, I doubt that on this issue Catholic/Orthodox/Jewish scriptures have much different content, except perhaps in Satan’s “origin story” and fall from Heaven.

I will be using the English Standard Version here for reasons of familiarity. Other translations may be more accurate or better suited to addressing this subject.

Overview

It might be surprising to the Biblical newcomer to learn that Satan just doesn’t show up in the Bible very much at all, but let’s go through the most salient verses about him.

First, note that the Old Testament mentions Satan, but never mentions “devil” or “devils”, though there are a few mentions of “demons” in Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Psalms. But all three mentions of demons seem to treat “demon” as meaning “idol” or “false god” – they’re all mentioned in the context of condemning those who sacrifice to them. Note that Leviticus does say “goat demons”, which might have something to do with the modern image of the devil, which otherwise is very lacking in biblical basis (the Bible all but completely lacks physical descriptions of Satan / the Devil).

The Serpent

Most people are familiar with the serpent in the Garden of Eden who convinces Eve to break God’s rule and eat from the tree of forbidden fruit. But while people tend to equate this serpent with Satan, nothing in the Old Testament really indicates this, beyond some similarities between the Eden serpent and, say, Satan the accuser’s role in Job or references to serpents being crushed. In fact, Genesis 3 seems rather focused on the serpent being a serpent, as his temptation of Eve is stated to be the reason why serpents have no legs – God removed them as punishment for his actions.

Job

Job is the main book where Satan proper shows up, which is really quite interesting. Job is very much an outlier book. Most of the Old Testament is concerned with the history and fortunes of Israel and its people, and even most of the remainder (really, just a big part of Genesis) could be considered simply prelude to that. Job stands apart. None of the characters seem to be Israelites or directly related to Israelites. The best I can do to connect Job to Israel is to say that Abram’s (Abraham’s) original home is generally considered to be somewhere to the east of Israel, and so is Uz, Job’s land of residence.

However, the Septuagint does claim Job lives in Edom (a nation/region near Israel to the east) as a grandson of Esau, who was brother to Jacob (aka “Israel”). This would make him roughly a contemporary of some of the first Israelites born in Egypt (prior to the institution of the Levitical law) and is consistent with Lamentations, which seems to equate Uz and Edom:

Rejoice and be glad, O daughter of Edom, you who dwell in the land of Uz […]

Lamentations 4:21 ESV

It’s hard to even say what “religion” Job practices per se. He, his wife, and his friends clearly worship the same God as Israel and Jacob, and appear culturally similar to Israel, but there’s no mention of Israel or of priests, though Job is explicitly stated to make sacrifices that are certainly at least reminiscent of those prescribed by Levitical law. One might conclude he engages in a form of proto-Judaism (like Noah or Abraham himself), or that he is a YHWH worshiper outside of Judaism (perhaps akin to Naaman of Syria), or that he does indeed participate in “The Law” of Israel, his sacrifices outside the prescribed procedures notwithstanding (since Israel itself did much the same thing throughout much of its Biblical history). This, among other things, has led some to argue that Job is not intended to be read literally, which poses a minor problem for using it as a basis on which to build an image of Satan.

In any case, Satan in the book of Job is at odds with God and wishes to prove to God that those humans who are faithful to Him are only faithful because God blesses them. But he is also, so to speak, on speaking terms with God. He comes and goes before God (presumably in Heaven) and God gives him permission to test Job’s faith – at first by material privation and deaths in his family, and eventually with disease and illness.

Satan the Accuser/Tempter

This “Satan the accuser” is elsewhere in the Old Testament. He is credited in 1 Chronicles 21 with inciting King David to conduct a census (considered a sin because the motivation was to assess Israel’s military strength, which betrayed a lack of trust in God to win their battles for them). He is present in the vision in Zechariah 3, where an angel rebukes him and reassures Joshua “the high priest” that God will bless him if he is righteous (clearly intended as a general message to the Israelites, with Joshua as a stand-in for or representative of Israel as a group). (Joshua son of Nun presided over the initial conquests of Israel/Canaan following the exodus from Egypt. “Joshua” here may be a reference to Jesus – “Jesus” and “Joshua” translate from the same Hebrew name through different linguistic paths.) Satan is present “to accuse him”.

And that’s basically it for Old Testament mentions of Satan. Based on this source material, many argue that Old Testament Satan isn’t even evil; that he is more analogous to a state prosecutor than an agent or architect of evil. But note that if Satan were a modern prosecutor, his cases might get thrown out as entrapment.

The New Testament

What about the New Testament? Well, Satan/the devil is certainly more prevalent.

Jesus and other figures make frequent mention of “the evil one”, the devil, Satan, or Beelzebub (who is associated with the Old Testament idol/false god Baal, but which is considered a pseudonym for Satan).

After Jesus’ baptism, he is tested by a devil known as Satan, who bears strong resemblance to the Accuser of the Old Testament:

Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. And after fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. And the tempter came and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread.” But he answered, “It is written, “‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’” Then the devil took him to the holy city and set him on the pinnacle of the temple and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down, for it is written, “‘He will command his angels concerning you,’ and “‘On their hands they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone.’” Jesus said to him, “Again it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’” Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. And he said to him, “All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me.” Then Jesus said to him, “Be gone, Satan! For it is written, “‘You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.’” Then the devil left him, and behold, angels came and were ministering to him.

Matthew 4:1‭-‬11 ESV

Mark also makes this resemblance explicit:

And he was in the wilderness forty days, being tempted by Satan. And he was with the wild animals, and the angels were ministering to him.

Mark 1:13

Satan is frequently mentioned elsewhere as a clear reference to an evil tempter.

The bleeding woman of Luke 13 is described by Jesus as having been “bound by Satan”.

Satan is described as “entering” Judas Iscariot just before he betrays Jesus in John 13.

Jesus calls Peter “Satan” when Peter asserts that Jesus will not be killed in Matthew 16, as Jesus had just stated he would be.

In Acts 5, Peter credits Satan with Ananias and Saphira’s lies, for which they are struck down by God.

1 Corinthians 5 talks about “delivering” a man to Satan “for the destruction of his flesh”. More on that topic later. Chapter 7 refers to Satan as a tempter.

2 Corinthians 2 talks about “we” Christians not being outwitted by Satan.

Ephesians 4 warns to “give no opportunity to the devil”.

James 4 tells the faithful to “resist the devil”.

1 Peter 5 refers to the devil as the enemy and likens him to a rampaging lion.

Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.

1 John 3:8 ESV

The letters in the early chapters of Revelation generally describe those who sin or who persecute the church as being of Satan or his “synagogue”.

One gets the idea. The New Testament generally equates Satan and the devil, and considers him evil, the source of temptation, dangerous, and destructive.

The Devil’s Eternal, Infernal Job

Notice what was absent from the various passages mentioned (and from the many, many passages omitted for brevity and time). There’s no mention of him ruling Hell. Indeed, a close reading of the New Testament will show that if Hell “currently” exists, it’s empty. Hell is only a place people go to after the day of Judgment. Some even argue that Hell isn’t even a long-lived place of torment, but rather that the “lake of fire” is destructive and those cast into Hell receive not torture, but oblivion. (Though I should mention this is inconsistent with a literal reading of the verse below.)

As for the devil’s role in Hell when it “opens for business” so to speak…

To humorously understate matters, Revelation’s predictions don’t bode well for him:

[F]ire came down from heaven and consumed [those who serve Satan], and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

Revelation 20:7‭-‬10 ESV

Now, as in my previous post concerning angels, I’ll caution that most of Revelation – including the verse above – is apocalyptic literature and is to be treated with caution and not taken too literally. But that said, it’s pretty clear that whatever the Biblical devil/Satan does or doesn’t do, he isn’t reigning in Hell, tormenting those who fell for his deceits. Nor is he likely to engage in contests where golden stringed instruments are wagered against souls, regardless of whether the fiddle in question is played or merely wagered. And he definitely isn’t asking for rematches after the fact.

Physical, Angellic

I’ve skipped over a few verses that touch on another aspect of Satan: that of a fallen angel. Jesus says in Luke 10 that he saw “Satan fall like lightning from heaven”, though it’s unclear if he’s saying he witnessed this while his 72 disciples were out preaching and miracle-working for a time, or at some earlier point, perhaps as far back as pre-Genesis.

Revelation 12 talks about Michael and the other angels fighting the dragon and his angels. So the idea of Satan being a fallen angel is – at minimum – consistent with the Protestant Bible. This is a topic on which other books not included in the Protestant Bible (such as Enoch) certainly have more to say.

There’s also the subject of “Lucifer” (and also NT demons), which I’m just not going to get into now, but on which there is much to be said.

“But, wait!” you might say. “That verse about the dragon doesn’t mention Satan!”

It doesn’t mention Lews Therin Telamon or Rand al’Thor either, but that’s not important right now.

Anyways, this possibly brings us back full circle to the Eden serpent, because:

And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years,

Revelation 20:2

So, one can easily conclude that as far as Revelation and the rest of the New Testament are concerned, the dragon is the devil is Satan is the serpent.

This makes ascribing him a physical form rather tricky, but we can say with some confidence that it isn’t a red humanoid with horns and a pointy tail wielding a pitchfork.

Appendix A – Delivering a man to Satan

Earlier, I wrote:

1 Corinthians 5 talks about “delivering” a man to Satan “for the destruction of his flesh”. More on that topic later.

This could conceivably be used as the basis for asserting that Satan torments people in Hell, but context shows that this is fallacious:

It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father’s wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you.

For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing. When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.

Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”

1 Corinthians 5 ESV

This, er, loving son seems to also be the subject of Paul’s later letter to the same church:

Now if anyone has caused pain, he has caused it not to me, but in some measure—not to put it too severely—to all of you. For such a one, this punishment by the majority is enough, so you should rather turn to forgive and comfort him, or he may be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. So I beg you to reaffirm your love for him. For this is why I wrote, that I might test you and know whether you are obedient in everything. Anyone whom you forgive, I also forgive. Indeed, what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the presence of Christ, so that we would not be outwitted by Satan; for we are not ignorant of his designs.

2 Corinthians 2:5‭-‬11 ESV

So one can pretty clearly see that handing someone over to Satan in this context (a) means metaphorically handing him over to temptation and expelling him from the church fellowship and (b) has nothing to do with supernatural locations like Hell.

Appendix B – Feedback

I’ve received some responses to this post in one form or another that bear acknowledging.

Validity of using the Protestant Bible to answer the question

One respondent claimed that the Protestant Bible is not a valid source to answer the original question about deviations between the Biblical Satan and the modern popular perception of Satan. They also contend that it would be historically significant to be more comprehensive in answering that question (which of course it would be).

Citing the Protestant Bible does not avoid the question of the original Biblical work. There are many points of uncertainty and minor deviations concerning which manuscripts are used as the basis for a translation, not to mention the translation itself, but nothing to my knowledge that’s going to meaningfully affect a response to the question at hand, or at least the verses I used to respond and the points I made.

The references to Satan and the devil in modern Bibles are not simply retcons included in later centuries. I deliberately avoided the specific verses that I see as possibly misleading due to potentially fallacious interpretations or “retcons” (most notably, Isaiah 14 specifically and the subject of “Lucifer” in general).

Also, the original question was an inquiry about the disconnect between the typical beliefs of a typical modern self-identifying Christian and the text said Christian purports to use as the basis for their belief. In that light, any differences between modern translations and the original manuscripts are going to pale in comparison to the differences between any version of the Bible and the modern popular conception of Satan.

It would be useful to give a more comprehensive answer drawing on deuterocanon and other ancient sources, but I limited my response to the areas in which I have sufficient knowledge to respond.

Satanic Puppeteering

A couple of people took several of the New Testament verses about Satan to mean that the people in question were puppeteered by Satan and therefore were condemned or punished despite not being guilty.

Certainly, there’s no reason to presume that the woman of Luke 13 is guilty of anything (at least concerning the bleeding issue specifically).

But nothing in 1 Corinthians 5 could remotely be read as absolving the adulterous son of any wrongdoing. He was to be “delivered” to Satan as a consequence of the adultery already committed.

Satanic mind control is one (improbable) way to interpret Matthew 16. But another is that Jesus is using the word “Satan” as a common noun to mean something like “enemy” or “adversary”. It would take someone with actual Greek knowledge to say. A third way to read it is that Jesus is referring to “Satan” (as in, the devil), but is merely doing so to impress upon Peter the magnitude of his mistake. But even assuming that Jesus is, as some inferred, addressing Satan through Peter, that does not absolve Peter of wrongdoing. With one or two debatable exceptions (such as the Pharaoh of Exodus), Biblical temptation to evil is not mind control. The implication is consistently that the wrongdoer gave into temptation, not that they were puppeteered against their will.

To use Ananias and Saphira as an example, the verse in question reads:

But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, and with his wife’s knowledge he kept back for himself some of the proceeds and brought only a part of it and laid it at the apostles’ feet. But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to man but to God.” When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and breathed his last. And great fear came upon all who heard of it.

Acts 5:1-11 ESV

If the author of Acts (or Peter) were implying that Ananias and Saphira did not do wrong, why spend so many words questioning their actions? And why should they die?

Peter’s mention of “Satan” here is useful in forming an image of how the Biblical authors thought of Satan (essentially what this post has attempted to do), but it is in my opinion a mistake to read revolutionary philosophy or metaphysical implications into such phrases. To me, the intent of this wording seems obvious: to emphasize the degree to which Peter considers Ananias to have transgressed. And not to indicate a philosophy counter to the individual responsibility for righteousness or sin that the rest of Acts and, more generally, the New Testament (with the adulterous Corinthian as a prime example), generally reinforces.

Indeed, Peter’s later address to Saphira reinforces their agency in the deception:

But Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord?

Acts 5:9 ESV (truncated excerpt)

As for Judas, well, one can easily conclude that “Satan entering” Judas caused his betrayal. But assuming that this isn’t intended simply as a poetic way of describing Judas’ moral state (which seems a reasonable assumption in context), what caused Satan to enter or to be able to enter Judas? The author of John seems to take a dim view of Judas’ willingness to resist temptation:

Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve? And yet one of you is a devil.”

John 6:70 ESV

But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (he who was about to betray him), said, “Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?” He said this, not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief, and having charge of the moneybag he used to help himself to what was put into it.

John 12:4‭-‬6 ESV

Concern with the sins of non-Christians

1 Corinthians 5, as referenced above, was taken by some to mean that Christians should not worry about the sins of non-Christians. This is true provided that by “should not worry” one means that one “should not be preoccupied with or overly focus on” the sins of non-Christians. It certainly means that Christians should be willing – even eager – to associate with “sinners”.

It does not mean that Christians should not criticize sin, point out the negative consequences thereof, or encourage people to abstain from sin. And of course, it absolutely does not mean that Christians shouldn’t be concerned with the sins of fellow Christians.

The hypocrisy of Paul on forgiveness

1 Corinthians 5, as referenced above, was understood by some to be hypocritical in saying that “Judgment is God’s business” while Paul “judges and condemns” others. This is not the case.

“Outsiders” in 1 Corinthians 5 refers to, essentially, people who aren’t Christians. Who is and isn’t a Christian is something people can and have argued for millennia about, and I’m not going to tackle the subject in this post. To interpret Corinthians, let’s use whatever criteria Paul uses.

The text makes this distinction between those “of this world” (i.e. non-Christians, more or less) and (s)he who “bears the name of brother [or sister]” or who is “inside the church” (“church” in the Bible refers to all Christians in existence or sometimes all Christians within a given area or city, but never to a building) quite explicit:

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”

1 Corinthians 5:9-13 ESV

This could perhaps be summarized and paraphrased as “Hold anyone who calls themself a Christian accountable to being like Christ. But don’t try to hold anyone who isn’t a Christian to our standard, nor try to avoid them.”

So Paul’s statements in 1 Corinthians 5 are no more hypocritical than, say, a Jewish rabbi who insists that Jewish infants be circumcized while asserting that it does not matter if a Gentile infant is circumcized (or even that Gentile infants should not be circumcised).

Paul’s Freudian slip

A couple of people took the content of 1 Corinthians 5 (as referenced above) as possibly being indicative of Paul projecting his own issues. This is not the case and seems to stem from an incomplete understanding of the chronology of the Corinthian epistles, and in particular, interpreting the text to mean that Paul wants the “loving son” to be simultaneously cast out and forgiven.

The exhortations to cast out the immoral brother and to welcome him back are not simultaneous. They are in separate letters and separated by time. The general idea is that expulsion/shunning/disfellowship/excommunication helps induce repentance and that, once repentant, the “guilty party” is to be welcomed back into the fold.

It is not at all odd that one who considers himself forgiven for the murders of his fellow Christians would want such an offense also forgiven. It is standard Christian doctrine across most sects that any sin can be forgiven, often (but not in all sects) contingent on repentance, with the debatable exception of “blasphemy”.

Baphomet

One respondent claimed that the modern image of a goat-like Satan is fairly recent and derives from Baphomet.

Ezekiel & Isaiah

One respondent pointed out that Ezekiel 28:12-18 and Isaiah 14:12-14 are considered Satanic references by many Old Testament scholars.

Old Testament Demons & Devils

One respondent, a native speaker of modern Hebrew, had this to say concerning the translation of Hebrew words into “devil” or “demons” in the Old Testament:

Your comment made me curious, so I went and checked out the Hebrew text (not a Biblical scholar, but I am a native Hebrew speaker). Deuteronomy and Psalms mention שדים “shedim,” a word currently used to translate “demons.” OTOH, Leviticus mentions שעירים “se’irim,” which may have a nuanced usage but is often used to simply refer to goats (as in “sa’ir la’azazel,” a sacrificial goat). In translations other than ESV, I’ve seen “idols” as a translation, which seems reasonable but I’d still be curious as to whether Biblical scholars agree on what exactly is being referenced.

/u/SeeShark