The Doctrine of Satan I in the Old Testament
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
THE DOCTRINE OF SATAN I IN THE OLD TESTAMENT WILLIAM CALDWELL, PH.D. Fort Worth, Texas The early Christian writers devotedpages to their discussion of the work of Satan and devils. They saw theirpresence both in idols and in philosophers. Whencedid this belief originate? Howfar is it an essential elementof Christianity? Is it an insepa- rable part of biblical belief? These questionsare not academic. Among the rank and file of Christians to believein a personal devil is often made a test of orthodoxy. This article of Dr. Caldwell'sis thefirst of threein which he tracesthe history of the doctrine of Satan in the Old Testament,in the inter-biblicalliterature, and in the New Testament. When we begin the study of the Old other evil. For the God of Israel is Testament we are likely to be surprised supreme and beside him there is no other. to find that Old Testament piety arose But there is a dualism in experience. and flourished without some elements There is an evil side to Nature and to of doctrine which to modern Christians human life. And so we are not surprised often seem indispensable. For example, to find recognition of this dualism in it has been a source of wonder that early times. Israelites believed in evil Judaism could furnish so many martyrs spirits dwelling in wild wastes away from to the ideals of a supra-mundane life the habitation of man, although the without the hope of a blessed personal references are often obscure and the immortality. In like manner, it must translation of the Authorized Version strike the general reader of the Bible as misleading. (For example, Deut. 32: 7; being strange, if true, that no such person Lev. 17:i7; Isa. 13:21; 34:14, etc.) as the devil of traditional theology But it may be worth while to examine appears in the Old Testament. In the one case of obscure reference, viz., to theology of many Christians the doc- Azazel, which seems to be a demon of trine of the devil is only second to the the desert. doctrine of God, and the devil is an Azazel indispensable part of the machinery of In Lev., chap. 16, we have the men- faith and piety. tion of Azazel in connection with the It may be admitted, however, with great Day of Atonement, but there is no reference to Old Testament faith, that explanation. "And Aaron shall cast some form of dualism was probably lots upon the two goats: one for the always present. There was of course Lord and the other for Azazel. And no place for any sort of Persian dualism, Aaron shall bring the goat upon which positing an eternal struggle between two the Lord's lot fell, and offer him for a self-existent deities, the one good, the sin-offering. But the goat on which 29 This content downloaded from 129.219.247.033 on August 31, 2016 08:19:20 AM All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c). 80 THE BIBLICAL WORLD the lot for Azazel fell, shall be presented conception of Azazel lies on the way alive before the Lord, to make atone- which led later to the devil." ment with him and let him go to Azazel in the desert." The Serpent It must be admitted at the outset that Next it will be necessary to speak of one of the latest and best authorities the Serpent in the account of the Fall, (Brown-Driver-Briggs, Hebrew Lexicon, which traditional theology has identified 190o6) explains the word Azazel not as a with the devil. We do not have here a proper name, but as a reduplicated, personal Satan, but we have a subtle intensive, abstract formation, meaning animal performing functions later as- "entire removal"-in this case, "entire signed to the devil, as tempter, calum- removal of sin and guilt from sacred niator, and hinderer. For the serpent places into the desert on the back of a is represented as tempting man, calum- goat, the symbol of entire forgiveness." niating God, and hindering the progress But this view has some very strong of innocence by introducing sin into opponents who take the word as a proper the new creation. He mars man's name of a spirit haunting the desert. relation with his fellow-man: the guilty Nestle says, "If one reads Lev., chap. i6, pair must hide from each other by means with an open mind, the impression is of fig leaves. He mars man's relation that Azazel must be related to Yahweh to God: the transgressors seek to hide in something of the same way as from God among the trees. Ahriman to Ormuzd, or Satan (Beelze- With minds formed by the tradi- bub) to God" (Encyc. Religion and tional theology, the interpretation given Ethics). Cheyne supposes the ritual by the New Testament, and the popular of Azazel on the Day of Atonement conceptions of Milton, Bunyan, and was partly to provide the ignorant Luther, and mediaevalism in general, people with a visible token of the it is difficult, indeed it requires a kind of removal of sins of the year, partly to act of self-denial, not to see the devil in abolish the cultus of the Seirim by the serpent and to hear his voice as substituting a single personal angel, the serpent speaks in the well-known Azazel (evil no doubt by nature, but devilish, questioning, denying, false- rendered harmless by being bound), promising way (Gen. 3:4, 5). But the for the crowd of impersonal and danger- story is pre-exilic, and moves in a time ous Seirim. Azazel seems to have when the full conception of a personal been one of the spirits haunting the Satan had not arisen on Hebrew soil. wilderness which had received a name The sacred writer knows God as good and a place and been clothed with and man as innocent, but he finds sin attributes sufficiently well known to knocking at the door in the subtlety those for whom the ritual was intended, of one of the animals that had passed however vague to us. Origen identifies before man. Azazel with Satan, as he does also the And yet this animal does not appear serpent of Gen., chap. 3. Benzinger to be an ordinary animal. It is en- accepts Reuss's statement that "the dowed with the faculty of speech and This content downloaded from 129.219.247.033 on August 31, 2016 08:19:20 AM All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c). THE DOCTRINE OF SATAN 31 inspired with occult wisdom, able to Perhaps the sacred writer has availed prophesy the effect of eating from the himself of an earlier story in which the forbidden tree. The serpent appears as demonic character of the serpent was a medium of the power of temptation. as clear as it is here obscure. The Its function is to present the outward serpent elsewhere is worshiped as a object with suggestions calculated to good demon. Such worship may form stir the sinful desire within the soul. the background of this story. If then It makes the appeal of apparently the monotheistic principle has not com- superior wisdom to the natural inclina- pletely eliminated all the mythological tions of innocence-an appeal to the features of the story which was to be senses. When curiosity and suspicion used for ethical and religious purposes, have been aroused and assurance given we can better understand the difficulty of the harmlessness of the inhibited act of interpreting it on Old Testament soil and promises given of its magic effect, where animals do not elsewhere exhibit the excited desire does the rest. Under any analogous powers. The difficulty the skilful stimulation of the serpent could not be met by exegesis; it had to the act comes to have a value for life be met in later Judaism, not by a literal which overcomes the center of con- interpretation of the story, but by a sciousness and sends all scruples to the higher deliverance which was essentially periphery. The act is the free choice of a new construction of the facts of human the soul, conditioned by its endowment life and experience. and environment. The surprising thing is that the later The wisdom of the serpent is pro- Jewish and New Testament conception verbial (Matt. io:i6). This ascription seems to be more in accord with Persian of wisdom to the serpent rests not on mythology, of an incarnation of an observation but on inference. Its move- evil spirit, than with the narrative ments, its powers of fascination, suggest before us, which gives no hint of an a demonic character which has been at- external evil person speaking through tributed to it. Still it is a beast of the the serpent, but represents the serpent field and a creature of Jehovah, although simply as one of Jehovah's creatures, it has superhumanknowledge, the power only more subtle than the rest. The of speech, and hostility to God. The sacred writer gives us no clue to the beast is not simply a sharp suggester of origin of evil, but he has given us a thoughts which become evil in human masterly psychological analysis of the consciousness and act, but it is itself process of temptation through suggestion regarded as evil. of doubt, assumption of superior wis- This is the sober, literal statement of dom that knows how to deny the evil the serpentas one of Jehovah's creatures.