Satan

Interesting reply Jo - a few people have said Wink is really good. Philosophically, not sure 'biblically' (see other thread for thoughts on that!!!!) how stacks up with things like Jesus saying he saw Satan fall like lightening. But in terms of the reality of 'evil' that does make much more sense to me than an external, personal being. Funny how I can cope with thinking of God in that way but not the devil.

Your comments on the OT - how do you interpret the serpent in genesis, is that not satan?

God gives good and evil - um that is a poser ethically, theologically and philisophically. Almost a whole thread for itself.

In terms of what Tom said - yes absolutely if we reject an external God then there is no need to think about an external devil. That both are humanities way of making sense of the world in a pre scientific era - that I can believe!!

Tim

Yes, one of the frustrations with Wink's work is his focus on the Powers language, which is mainly in the Pauline writings, so his analysis of the Gospels and the OT is underdeveloped in the Powers trilogy (though he may have extended it in later work - I've not read any of his stuff more recently). There are certainly several places where words ascribed to Jesus make things difficult in Wink's model:

• 'How can Satan drive out Satan?' - Mark 3:23/Matt. 12:26/Luke 11:18

• 'I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven' - Luke 10:18
• Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan!' - Matt.16:23
• 'Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat.' - Luke 22:31

And in the OT, there's the serpent in the Garden, and Satan asking God to torture Job. One of the difficulties with Wink's hermeneutics is his tendency to frame interpretation within his overall model, so some of his interpretations come across as rather 'squeezed to fit', if you know what I mean. I do like his overall scheme: it's thorough, it builds intelligently from the social-scientific background of the texts and it resonates well with me. But I'd really like him do some better hermeneutics. Personally, I don't know much about the first-Century conception of Satan and the use of the term in second-Temple Judaism, so I don't know that I can say much more about those awkward passages in the Gospels, except that there's not much in Mark and that what is there isn't too troubling within Wink's scheme.

With regard to the serpent in the Garden in Genesis, several points come to mind. The first is that I personally can't ascribe much literalism to the passage for many reasons, most especially my science background.

Another comes out of the Advanced Workshop weekend that I've just had, where we had a whole day with a feminist Jewish scholar of Christian theology. She said that the Fall narrative has a very low significance in the Jewish tradition mainly because sin in Judaism is conceived very differently from the evangelical Christian understanding, and is dealt with on a collective and ongoing application of the traditions and practices of Judaism, rather than in the individual, personal and purgatory evangelical manner.

And thirdly, I just don't know enough about the conception of Satan contemporary with the writing of that passage, what the signifier 'Satan' signified for the people who first wrote/read that passage, and so I don't know enough about how to handle that scripture now. As a modern reader I can apporach it several ways. My first naivet?©, face-value reading would say that the passage is trying to tell me something about the nature of the serpetn/Satan; my more informed suspicious reading of the passage questions the literalist reading and would highlight the blame issues (man blames woman, woman blames some external force) and embedding of patriarchy, gender roles and human-divine conflict. But I think it's also important to take the wisdom of those suspicions and try to retrieve something from the passage, and that would probably take me along the lines of seeing that the identity of the serpent is assumed, so there must have been a preconception of the Satan signified, and the passage is trying to tell a different story, embedded in the wider story of Israel, to do with humanity's relationship with God and the positive possibilities and the negative consequences of contamination of that Edenic purity.

Yes, you're probably right to an extent that Wink's Powers model is harder for humanity to swallow in some respects. Rather than blaming evil on some external extra-human personality, we'd have to confront the evil within us and between us. But Wink does also say that the Powers are more than just the sum of the parts of the material reality - that in being the inner essence of an institiution, state or system there is some extra group personality element, like when 'normal', middle class, loving fathers become football hooligans under certain circumstances.

I think you're right that the language of Satan in the Bible could be seen as a literary device, although the communities of the era of the Bible weren't literary communities per se, so more of a philosophical/narratological device - what I've said in my other comment about the 'object' signified by the signifier 'Satan' having preexistent meaning. But what was being signified by the authors/readers of the time?

I'm glad you've done this thread.. (it gives me no pleasure to say so!)

(sorry I haven't read the books refered to here... so, sorry if ad libbing off the top of one's head is annoying to some folks!)..

it's an issue and topic that is of importance... some churches are liberal in the use of language others seem to confine it to various hymns..

I worry about how as language /occasions these words are used...

the I refer to them as the 'd s and e' words to avoid their actual mention.. others are confident and comfortable to use them .. but I sometimes wonder: but to say what exactly... apart from usually make me cringe.. very occasionally GOD's WORD occasions and I specifically mean the distinction of GOD's Ministry rather than when we think we can and have or think we have a point to make... it all sounds very different... ok so what is my point here exactly ... me giving too much importance and emphjasis by not mentioning those words? it's about the learning of discipline of Faith that we look to the short fall and falling short (temptation and the resonance of some pretty far from anywhere but darkness stuff) places of fear and reactions far from peace though there might be a sense of quiet (but not exactly peace) that gives a sense of disquiet to others..

I am fascinated by the theology of the Book of Job that puts GOD wholeheartedly in the middle of control of everything and all happenings and events.. certainly it was a mystery to and a surprise to hear words use along with concepts that seemed to take away the emphasis of GOD'S ABUNDANCE and DOMINION.. and yet we get all uptight and dramatic about the car breaking down or whatever.. on our way to church? Does not GOD want us to call on GOD first? and is there not a different purpose other than we are expecting to .. cos that's how we in our minds eye see it?

Job engages with GOD whilst others have their pre-planned solutions and analyses (am ad libbing I haven't read the whole of Job in detail recently) even at the end when all is said and done... it's not about engaging with anything but GOD... GOD asks for nothing else nothing less

Jesus temptation in the wilderness is fascinating.. it's all about pride status power arrogance and showing off and dominion... in other words using gifts for purposes for which GOD intends else... it is furthermore challenging the angel that's gone wrong (also described as the false light) so Jesus first deals with the Spiritual Realm within the raw bones of Creation and then with men .. but Jesus whilst addressing the situation and apparently? the personified .. Jesus does not engage with the 'subplot' in anyway other than a sense of peace and a sense of quiet statement understanding and Authority as ... the sense of tone here is fascinating ... it's about recognition and response re-iteration of the Law from Deutoronomy.. it's not the origins of GOD's Gifting that's in question but the furtherance or use.. it's very much about the intention of GOD's Gifting and Jesus spends a whole lot of time trying to reiterate the usage and purpose against injustice and hoarding and teaching without GOD's Authority things in GOD'S NAME in the Faith context setting of GOD'S PEOPLE... who live the trappings but not the burden of guilt of GOD'S RELATIONSHIP The Liberation message..but it's a settling of dispute .. the what should have done happened before there was a book to refer to?

GOD BLESS!

Peace and Love,