Satan according to Messianic Judaism

[Wolfborne]

I am curious as to the MJ position on Satan. I know that in Orthodox Judaism, he is simply Ha-SaTan (his title, not name...the accuser/adversary) and works for God, not against God. He has a specific job to do, and follows God's orders in doing it.

How does MJ relate the OT account and the view from Orthodox Judaism to the NT account and Christian belief about Satan? It's a big contradiction to say that he is following God's orders in the OT, and then in the NT make him public enemy #1.

Trying to be open minded and learn what I can.

 

[Zardoz]

Good question, this often comes up in the Judaism DIR.

The thing to keep in mind is the wide scope and spectrum of belief that falls under the MJ label. Everything from 'Hebrew Christians' who basically are Gentile Christians who augment their traditions with Jewish ones, to Jews like me who identify themselves as from Orthodox background, but now 'diversified'.

All such views would be proper to respond here.

The key to opinion of Ha Satan would be if the MJ comes from a Christian, Gentile background or a Jewish background.

Someone from a Jewish background like me would reject the concept of a 'rebel angel' definition of satan and reject the tradition of a 'revolt of angels' as completely unfounded in "OT". (excuse my use of "OT" that's another rejected concept, that it's 'old' as in 'obsolete')

The 'revolt' is from pagan influence on 1st century Roman-controlled Hellenized Judea.
To Jews, there can be no such revolt, as angels have no free will. They can never act independent from G-d, that's why we exist; we who are imperfect physical beings have this ability exclusively.

Hope this sheds some light, but JMHO

Zardoz

 

[Shermana]

I don't think the "revolt" is necessarily Pagan.

I personally think the rebellion of the Angels was the standard Jewish opinion of who the "Sons of god" were who interbred with human women since the tradition began and this understanding only changed much later as Rabbinical thought developed.

The idea of Angels not having Free will I think is an unfounded, Rabbinical concept which disregards and ignores passages that say that God will punish even the host of heaven. Why would he punish them if they had no Free will?

With that said, I think Ha-Satan may have indeed "fallen like lightning" from an original post of being the chief archangel or something like that as the Gospels describe, but is still nonetheless the official "Tempter" and "Accuser" who is responsible for the condemnation of people for their sins, and even though I disagree with Paul and his epistles, I agree that he is "The god of this age" (2 Cor 4:4) and the "Prince of the air".

I also believe that he is the "Ancient Serpent" of Revelation which correlates to some ideas in the so-called "Gnostic literature" of the Chief punisher and adversary of Man. But Ha-Satan is not really the "enemy of God" in that he cannot do anything that God does not allow. Even the rebellion of the Angels I believe God allowed, as a test as well to the human women who shacked up with them, even if it brought mankind to such evil and wretchedness by teaching them of the forbidden arcane arts, because it was all part of the testing part for the individual souls of man.

*My view is also as a born-Jew who became "Messianic" (I prefer the term Nazarene though its still not the best fit as its a bit presumptious to assume myself as one), and I held very similar views regarding Ha-Satan, fallen angels, and Demons before I became such. I believe the Book of Enoch was in fact inspired, perhaps not written by Enoch himself but dictated by Enoch's spirit as outlined in the book "Pistis Sophia".

 

[Shiranui117]

I don't think the "revolt" is necessarily Pagan.

I personally think the rebellion of the Angels was the standard Jewish opinion of who the "Sons of god" were who interbred with human women since the tradition began and this understanding only changed much later as Rabbinical thought developed.

The idea of Angels not having Free will I think is an unfounded, Rabbinical concept which disregards and ignores passages that say that God will punish even the host of heaven. Why would he punish them if they had no Free will?

With that said, I think Ha-Satan may have indeed "fallen like lightning" from an original post of being the chief archangel or something like that as the Gospels describe, but is still nonetheless the official "Tempter" and "Accuser" who is responsible for the condemnation of people for their sins, and even though I disagree with Paul and his epistles, I agree that he is "The god of this age" (2 Cor 4:4) and the "Prince of the air".

I also believe that he is the "Ancient Serpent" of Revelation which correlates to some ideas in the so-called "Gnostic literature" of the Chief punisher and adversary of Man. But Ha-Satan is not really the "enemy of God" in that he cannot do anything that God does not allow. Even the rebellion of the Angels I believe God allowed, as a test as well to the human women who shacked up with them, even if it brought mankind to such evil and wretchedness by teaching them of the forbidden arcane arts, because it was all part of the testing part for the individual souls of man.

*My view is also as a born-Jew who became "Messianic" (I prefer the term Nazarene though its still not the best fit as its a bit presumptious to assume myself as one), and I held very similar views regarding Ha-Satan, fallen angels, and Demons before I became such. I believe the Book of Enoch was in fact inspired, perhaps not written by Enoch himself but dictated by Enoch's spirit as outlined in the book "Pistis Sophia".

Would you say that Ha-Satan is also the serpent from the Garden of Eden, or is this what you were getting at with the Ancient Serpent in Revelation?

 

[Zardoz]

I don't think the "revolt" is necessarily Pagan.

I personally think the rebellion of the Angels was the standard Jewish opinion of who the "Sons of god" were who interbred with human women since the tradition began and this understanding only changed much later as Rabbinical thought developed.

The idea of Angels not having Free will I think is an unfounded, Rabbinical concept which disregards and ignores passages that say that God will punish even the host of heaven. Why would he punish them if they had no Free will?

Not so, the 'Sons of G-d' were not angels, but giants, the last of which was Eliezer the servant of Avaraham.

When a human engages in bestiality, according to Law both the human and the animal are condemned to death. The animal had no choice in the matter, it was abused by it's master. Yet it's punished with death. Not all is fair, by our standards.

No. Angels have no free will, cannot rebel, but still can be punished for failure.

 

[Shermana]

Not so, the 'Sons of G-d' were not angels, but giants, the last of which was Eliezer the servant of Avaraham.

When a human engages in bestiality, according to Law both the human and the animal are condemned to death. The animal had no choice in the matter, it was abused by it's master. Yet it's punished with death. Not all is fair, by our standards.

No. Angels have no free will, cannot rebel, but still can be punished for failure.

Not the place to debate this I suppose, but I'm pretty sure the "Sons of God" were the ones who fathered the Giants, the Nephilim were not the same. I go by the Enoch approach on this one, even if Enoch was not accepted by the greater non-Qumran Jewish community. We see in Job that the term "Sons of god" does indeed refer to the "Divine beings".

Regarding the example of animals being punished for the sin of the human, it's not necessarily that the animal is being "punished" but simply killed due to its contamination. A major difference.

 

[Marco19]

No. Angels have no free will, cannot rebel, but still can be punished for failure.

Shalom Zardoz,

I wonder how to be punished without having free will? could you elaborate on this please?

 

[Zardoz]

How should I know? That's what I was taught.

I'm done here, I won't debate in a DIR.

I will only repeat that if purely spiritual beings like angels could have free will, there would be no need for us.
Only physical beings with the flaws and limitations of such have the ability to forget, and not sense the Divine Presence in all. Therefore have the possibility of true free will.

 

[Marco19]

Hello Zardoz,

I don't like debates in general, so i'm sorry for making you misunderstood me.
nevertheless thanks for your kind respond

 

[Freelance_Policeman]

Unlike Zardoz, I believe angels do have free will, but I doubt Satan is a rebel. See the book of Job.

 

[Awoon]

Is the story of Job, Jewish or Babylonian?

 

[Freelance_Policeman]

In all honesty, we don't know. The book is ancient, and the Israelites are never mentioned. Strangely though, the Tetragrammaton is used.

 

[Awoon]

In all honesty, we don't know. The book is ancient, and the Israelites are never mentioned. Strangely though, the Tetragrammaton is used.

So the story could be an adoption into the Torah from non Jewish sources?

 

[Freelance_Policeman]

The Tanach, not the Torah. There's a difference. But yes, it's entirely possible.

 

[Awoon]

The Tanach, not the Torah. There's a difference. But yes, it's entirely possible.

Thanks. Yep it's Tanach, I was one finger typing too fast...LOL

 

[Freelance_Policeman]

Actually, I just remembered that it's traditionally attributed to Moses. But MJ in general is lax about challenging the canonicity of books. As it is, I've never heard any arguments against Job, so I believe it's canonical.

I don't believe in Ezekiel myself, but that's a long discussion

 

[Awoon]

Actually, I just remembered that it's traditionally attributed to Moses. But MJ in general is lax about challenging the canonicity of books. As it is, I've never heard any arguments against Job, so I believe it's canonical.

I don't believe in Ezekiel myself, but that's a long discussion

Well the God in the story of Job is set up as an Eastern Potentate who is too busy for his children but must be running the Kingdom (like a judge) from it's throne. That gets boring, so God stirs up his prosecutor (Satan) to pick on his servant Job. Then in turn blames Satan for making him do that to his servant.

Is that what Messianic Judaism teaches from the Tanach?

 

[Freelance_Policeman]

Uh...no.

He only has four people "comfort" him, so he must not be royalty or anything, probably just a wealthy landowner. Think the Cartwright family. I doubt God experiences boredom, and Satan was the one who asked for permission. Satan is never blamed; God is. God responds to Job's outcry by...well, that's a long topic. But God or Job never blamed Satan; God authorized it completely.

 

[Shermana]

Actually, I just remembered that it's traditionally attributed to Moses. But MJ in general is lax about challenging the canonicity of books. As it is, I've never heard any arguments against Job, so I believe it's canonical.

I don't believe in Ezekiel myself, but that's a long discussion

And I don't accept Ruth.

 

[Zardoz]

The story of Job takes place during the giving of the Torah. It's the way G-d diverted HaSatan's attention away while that was happening.

Of course, both knew exactly what was going on, but it was a agreed-upon excuse.
Surely everyone's had a situation like this? Where everyone agrees to look the other way?

Now, why Job? Why is he the one to become the diversion?

I have a post here in MJ DIR, titled 'The Story Of Job' where I attempt to show the justice in this.