CrowCross
Well Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2023
- Messages
- 3,895
- Reaction score
- 1,067
- Points
- 113
THE ANGELS THAT SINNED
- Thread starter jeremiah1five
- Start date
jeremiah1five
BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2023
- Messages
- 2,254
- Reaction score
- 232
- Points
- 63
- Country
- USA
God says so.
But your demons get in the way.
CrowCross
Well Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2023
- Messages
- 3,895
- Reaction score
- 1,067
- Points
- 113
...if you say so.
Why don't we just stick to the facts of scripture and leave the judgement of me and my motives to God.
But you must interpret that passage in light of other passages on the same topic.
Jude 6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
This obviously is the same angels in chains as 2 Peter but in Jude verse 7 we are give information not given in 2 Peter.
7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
Verse 7 refers to verse 6 by comparing the angels that kept not their first estate and left their own habitation the the sin of Sodom and Gomorrha, fornication and going after strange flesh. Verse 7 ties to the sins of verse 6 by the words "Even as" and "In like manner" . Those are facts of scripture you either ignore or interpret out of existence.
Again, I am not trying to get past any scriptures ! I am comparing scripture with scripture to learn what they are saying to us. If you want keep beating your chest and screaming 2 Peter is the final word while offering no explanation for Jude 6 &7 my advice to everyone reading this thread to just ignore you until you come to grips with Jude 6 &7 !
Good for you. Just keep ignoring other relevant passages and believe what you wish, but until you deal with all relevant facts you can convince yourself you are the authority on this but not anyone else who really wants to look at the whole council of God on this matter and not just consider the Gospel according to "Jeremiah1five".
You don't need to get past anything you need to read 2 Peter in the light of Jude 6 & 7 which gives more information to consider on the 2 Peter passage.
Oh well stop in 2 Peter if you wish but Jude 6 & 7 is still in my Bible and I will consider both.
You are right there, I want to look at the whole council of God to form my beliefs. I am sorry you are hung up on 2 Peter. If you ever decide to look at Jude seriously we can a more fruitful conversation, but until then you are just stuck.
Do you realize that much of Christendom believes the same theory I do ? Do you realize I didn't just get up one morning and make this stuff up? Do you realize I have put a lot of study into forming my beliefs on ALL Bible doctrine? Do you realize this interpretation has probably been around longer than yours? Sorry to have to tell you this but your idea that 2 Peter is the only and final word on this topic is just plain old ERROR!
I do not ! But I don't put much stock in teachers that do!
Your judgmental attitude is what is bothersome here. This if you don't agree with me attitude of yours is truly bothersome.
If you want to actually talk about other passages of scripture that deal with this we can continue . I got it you are stuck in 2 Peter I don't need to read that any more I got it. 2 Peter ends the discussion for you. Stopped cold! Have a nice day my friend.
None of this proves demons are attitudes. This is convenient for you since now you don't have to explain where demons came from. I've been told by some that demons are fallen angels but that doesn't jive with Scripture and neither does this false "attitude" theory.
Who is teaching you this stuff ? Can you referent me to ANY mainstream teachers or denominations , just anyone other than you who teaches demons are attitudes. I am open to teaching but it has to come from scripture.
CrowCross
Well Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2023
- Messages
- 3,895
- Reaction score
- 1,067
- Points
- 113
I never knew an "attitude" could jump out of you and enter into a pig.
As to the formation of demons there are some that say they are the "spirits" of the dead Nephilim from before the flood then later on after the flood.
The thought is that the angels in chains are the fallen angels that produced the Nephillim when they left their first estate and procreated with the women of earth.
Not all fallen angels procreated so not all fallen angels are in chains.
I’ve been trying to get this across but when someone is stuck cold in 2 Peter and can’t past that it’s hard to make much progress.
CrowCross
Well Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2023
- Messages
- 3,895
- Reaction score
- 1,067
- Points
- 113
I've noticed a lot of self proclaimed biblical scholars attach their own context to a single piece of scripture...failing to realize the bible is more than one verse in which they take out of context.
As to angels, fallen or not can we be 100% sure on a lot of it? The answer is no. Of course not as the bible doesn't go into great detail on the subject...but then again jerimiah1five has the inside baseball on the topic....stuck on his interpretation of a single verse.
jeremiah1five
BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2023
- Messages
- 2,254
- Reaction score
- 232
- Points
- 63
- Country
- USA
So is there a passage of Scripture that says the opposite or contradicts 2 Pete 2:4?
Please post it.
jeremiah1five
BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2023
- Messages
- 2,254
- Reaction score
- 232
- Points
- 63
- Country
- USA
The topic of Satan or the Devil has generated more than a little acrimony (to use a mild word) in the Church. Several years ago I got into trouble (of the kind that can only happen in the Church world) with several high profile pastors and two General Church leaders by making the simple, and demonstrably factual, statement that there is no devil in the Old Testament, since there is no word "devil" in Hebrew.
Below is a very limited selection of those aspects. There are other factors to consider as well involving detailed exegesis of specific Old Testament texts, the Old testament cultural and historical milieu and its relationship to understanding biblical Hebrew, inter-testamental history, the development of Rabbinic biblical commentary in the Mishnah and Gemara (the Talmud), first century Jewish history, the culture of first century Rome, New Testament Greek and its cultural context, and careful exegesis of individual New Testament passages apart from a larger dogma, as well as the developing history of the early Church, medieval theology, the influence of medieval art and literature on theological ideas, and the influence of the Enlightenment, expressed in both rationalism and empiricism, on theological thinking. In other words, this is not a simple topic in which biblical verses from specific translations can be quoted to settle all questions (it's absolutely amazing to me how many people argue this topic without ever considering the original biblical languages and what the texts actually say).
1. There is no devil in the Old Testament. There is no word in Hebrew that corresponds even remotely to what the idea of the devil means in modern religious culture. That is a fact of the Hebrew language, as well as valid statement concerning ancient Israelite culture.
2. There are no demons in the Old Testament. There is no word or group of words that correspond to the idea of demons in modern religious culture.
3. The Hebrew word satan (pronounced sah-TAHN) cannot be directly equated to what the idea of the devil or Satan mean in the modern world, or even in first century Judaism.
4. The word satan normally appears without a definite article in Hebrew. This does not imply a proper name or a title, only that the term is not specific, "an adversary." In other places, consistently in Job, the word has the definite article, the satan, which does implies a title or function, the adversary, rather than a proper name. Since there are no capital letters in Hebrew, it is a translation decision to make a word a proper name (including words like God and Spirit; note that the word "god" is usually a plural form in Hebrew).
5. In all places in the Old Testament where the Hebrew word satan is left in English translations as Satan, which implies a proper name and is generally capitalized in English, the word can be translated "adversary" or "the adversary" without any loss of meaning of the text.
6. All three texts in which satan is translated as Satan are generally recognized to be late (post-exilic) Old Testament writings. This suggests that the satan is a developed concept within Israelite religious culture, arising during the exile.
7. A further development of the concept of the satan can be tracked within inter-testamental literature, as well as the Talmud.
Within the Old Testament, God was the only source of life and the arena in which humans existed. While the Israelites went through a process from polytheism through henotheism to monotheism, they maintained the belief that God was central. Many of the prophets argued that other gods are worthless and have no power to influence human existence. As such, God alone was responsible for human testing (Gen 22, Exod 16:4, Deut 8:2), an idea needing further clarification later (James 1:13).
Using the imagery of Ancient Near Eastern Kingship, I would suggest that the idea of the satan as a servant of God made its way into Israelite thinking as a way to distance God from the testing, yet without introducing a second deity. That is the function of the Heavenly Council and Sons of God that appear in many places in the Old Testament.
The conceptual framework of Dualism, which understood the world in terms of opposing forces of good and evil, often in other contexts in terms of dueling deities, were a later development in Israelite thinking. This dualism was likely introduced as a conceptual model from Babylon during the exile, and reinforced by contact with Greek Platonism. By New Testament times Judaism tended to use dualistic constructs to express how they viewed the world. Yet, this manner of expression does not and should not be taken as some sort of ontology, how things really are.
From such a dualistic framework, there is little question that New Testament Jews talked about a Satan or Devil that was responsible for all sorts of evil in the world. That does not necessitate projecting ontology onto those means of expression, nor does it require us to think that first century Jews "believed in" the devil or Satan like many moderns insist on doing.
Is the Devil real? Absolutely! But that needs a lot more consideration and nuance than assuming that such a statement is pure ontology and therefore can be used as a filter through which to read every biblical text.
One major question emerges in this brief look at the satan in the Old Testament: to what degree do we consider, or do we project, our own context onto what we consider reality or Truth? How does our location within a specific time and place influence what we assume to be true, how we process received traditions and new experiences, and how we talk to others about those things?
An axiom in scientific research is that the presence and location of an observer influences what is observed. That is, the observer is always a part of what is being observed. The same principle is considered in areas like psychology, sociology, and even linguistics, that context influences how we view the world as well as how we express experiences, ideas, and what we understand to be true. If that is valid for us, would it not also be valid for ancient Israelites and first century Christians? This leads us to consider the degree to which we allow for such context when we read Scripture, or how we respond to those with very specific assumptions about the nature of reality, or how we talk to others about God in a diverse milieu.
One of my more interesting, and highly valued, interactions with students was in a biblical seminar at a university in Nairobi, Kenya. The seminar was composed of students, most of whom were pastors, from diverse regions of Africa, from South Africa and Namibia to Kenya to Côte d’Ivoire. In the course of that seminar, they almost unanimously agreed that people in the West do not have a proper understanding of the spiritual forces of evil in the world. The students were very sincerely concerned that because of Western Christians' history of the Enlightenment they are at risk spiritually by neglecting attention to demonic power and the Devil. I have heard similar although less impassioned comments by students from Botswana and Swaziland.
In a different yet similar vein, I have worshipped with an almost 100% African American Gospel congregation in Washington, DC (my wife was a military chaplain). The language of power there is a dominant one, especially, given the American experience, power for deliverance and freedom. It is most often expressed as freedom from spiritual powers and the Devil. Historically, "devil" was often a term applied to white slave owners. I understood such language in that context and realized that it came from a particular cultural background and a particular historical experience.
To prompt theological and pastoral thinking I have often asked students what they would do if they were ministering in, for example, Haiti and were presented with a person possessed by demons. They usually concluded that it is not what one believes about the issue that is important, but rather that God can being healing through his presence and power no matter what label we give it.
Below is a very limited selection of those aspects. There are other factors to consider as well involving detailed exegesis of specific Old Testament texts, the Old testament cultural and historical milieu and its relationship to understanding biblical Hebrew, inter-testamental history, the development of Rabbinic biblical commentary in the Mishnah and Gemara (the Talmud), first century Jewish history, the culture of first century Rome, New Testament Greek and its cultural context, and careful exegesis of individual New Testament passages apart from a larger dogma, as well as the developing history of the early Church, medieval theology, the influence of medieval art and literature on theological ideas, and the influence of the Enlightenment, expressed in both rationalism and empiricism, on theological thinking. In other words, this is not a simple topic in which biblical verses from specific translations can be quoted to settle all questions (it's absolutely amazing to me how many people argue this topic without ever considering the original biblical languages and what the texts actually say).
Satan in the Old Testament
So, just some things to think about, limited to observations from Old Testament texts:1. There is no devil in the Old Testament. There is no word in Hebrew that corresponds even remotely to what the idea of the devil means in modern religious culture. That is a fact of the Hebrew language, as well as valid statement concerning ancient Israelite culture.
2. There are no demons in the Old Testament. There is no word or group of words that correspond to the idea of demons in modern religious culture.
3. The Hebrew word satan (pronounced sah-TAHN) cannot be directly equated to what the idea of the devil or Satan mean in the modern world, or even in first century Judaism.
4. The word satan normally appears without a definite article in Hebrew. This does not imply a proper name or a title, only that the term is not specific, "an adversary." In other places, consistently in Job, the word has the definite article, the satan, which does implies a title or function, the adversary, rather than a proper name. Since there are no capital letters in Hebrew, it is a translation decision to make a word a proper name (including words like God and Spirit; note that the word "god" is usually a plural form in Hebrew).
5. In all places in the Old Testament where the Hebrew word satan is left in English translations as Satan, which implies a proper name and is generally capitalized in English, the word can be translated "adversary" or "the adversary" without any loss of meaning of the text.
6. All three texts in which satan is translated as Satan are generally recognized to be late (post-exilic) Old Testament writings. This suggests that the satan is a developed concept within Israelite religious culture, arising during the exile.
7. A further development of the concept of the satan can be tracked within inter-testamental literature, as well as the Talmud.
Reflections on Scripture
There is a lot more to consider. However, here are some reflections that arise from these limited aspects.Within the Old Testament, God was the only source of life and the arena in which humans existed. While the Israelites went through a process from polytheism through henotheism to monotheism, they maintained the belief that God was central. Many of the prophets argued that other gods are worthless and have no power to influence human existence. As such, God alone was responsible for human testing (Gen 22, Exod 16:4, Deut 8:2), an idea needing further clarification later (James 1:13).
Using the imagery of Ancient Near Eastern Kingship, I would suggest that the idea of the satan as a servant of God made its way into Israelite thinking as a way to distance God from the testing, yet without introducing a second deity. That is the function of the Heavenly Council and Sons of God that appear in many places in the Old Testament.
The conceptual framework of Dualism, which understood the world in terms of opposing forces of good and evil, often in other contexts in terms of dueling deities, were a later development in Israelite thinking. This dualism was likely introduced as a conceptual model from Babylon during the exile, and reinforced by contact with Greek Platonism. By New Testament times Judaism tended to use dualistic constructs to express how they viewed the world. Yet, this manner of expression does not and should not be taken as some sort of ontology, how things really are.
From such a dualistic framework, there is little question that New Testament Jews talked about a Satan or Devil that was responsible for all sorts of evil in the world. That does not necessitate projecting ontology onto those means of expression, nor does it require us to think that first century Jews "believed in" the devil or Satan like many moderns insist on doing.
Is the Devil real? Absolutely! But that needs a lot more consideration and nuance than assuming that such a statement is pure ontology and therefore can be used as a filter through which to read every biblical text.
Reflections on Cultural Viewpoint in Ministry
All of this leads to further reflection, especially as related to ministry in an increasingly global Church. These are really more questions for consideration, with a final observation.One major question emerges in this brief look at the satan in the Old Testament: to what degree do we consider, or do we project, our own context onto what we consider reality or Truth? How does our location within a specific time and place influence what we assume to be true, how we process received traditions and new experiences, and how we talk to others about those things?
An axiom in scientific research is that the presence and location of an observer influences what is observed. That is, the observer is always a part of what is being observed. The same principle is considered in areas like psychology, sociology, and even linguistics, that context influences how we view the world as well as how we express experiences, ideas, and what we understand to be true. If that is valid for us, would it not also be valid for ancient Israelites and first century Christians? This leads us to consider the degree to which we allow for such context when we read Scripture, or how we respond to those with very specific assumptions about the nature of reality, or how we talk to others about God in a diverse milieu.
One of my more interesting, and highly valued, interactions with students was in a biblical seminar at a university in Nairobi, Kenya. The seminar was composed of students, most of whom were pastors, from diverse regions of Africa, from South Africa and Namibia to Kenya to Côte d’Ivoire. In the course of that seminar, they almost unanimously agreed that people in the West do not have a proper understanding of the spiritual forces of evil in the world. The students were very sincerely concerned that because of Western Christians' history of the Enlightenment they are at risk spiritually by neglecting attention to demonic power and the Devil. I have heard similar although less impassioned comments by students from Botswana and Swaziland.
In a different yet similar vein, I have worshipped with an almost 100% African American Gospel congregation in Washington, DC (my wife was a military chaplain). The language of power there is a dominant one, especially, given the American experience, power for deliverance and freedom. It is most often expressed as freedom from spiritual powers and the Devil. Historically, "devil" was often a term applied to white slave owners. I understood such language in that context and realized that it came from a particular cultural background and a particular historical experience.
To prompt theological and pastoral thinking I have often asked students what they would do if they were ministering in, for example, Haiti and were presented with a person possessed by demons. They usually concluded that it is not what one believes about the issue that is important, but rather that God can being healing through his presence and power no matter what label we give it.
jeremiah1five
BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2023
- Messages
- 2,254
- Reaction score
- 232
- Points
- 63
- Country
- USA
a. The Hebrew term satan occurs in the Old Testament 26 times, in only eight contexts: Num 22:22, 32; 1 Sam 29:4 and its parallel 1 King 5:18; 2 Sam 19:23; 1 Kings 11:14, 23, 25; Zech 3:2 (2); Psa 109:6; 14 times in Job 1-2; and 1 Chron 21:1.
b. The term is normally translated [NRSV] "adversary" (Num 22, 32; 1 Sam 29:4/1 King 5:18; 2 Sam 19:23; 1 Kings 11:14, 23, 25) or "accuser" (Psa 109:6). In most of these cases it is clear that it is a human being that is referenced, as in 1 Kings 11:14. The verbal form of the word, which only occurs a handful of times, means "to be an adversary to" or "to oppose" (note Zech 3:1).
c. The term is customarily translated as "satan" 18 times but in only three of those contexts: Job 1-2, 1 Chronicles 21:1, and Zechariah 3:1-2. It is a translation decision based on a range of factors that determines to translate "satan" rather than "adversary" or "accuser."
d. 1 Chronicles 21:1 has a parallel passage in 2 Samuel 24:1. In 2 Samuel it is God who incites David to take the census, while in 1 Chronicles it is the satan who does so. Since 1 Chronicles is a later editing of the Samuel-Kings tradition, it seems obvious that Chronicles changed the referent from God to the satan, which suggests on some level that the two were interchangeable. At the very least it challenges the notion that the satan was seen in anything close to modern popular notions of the Devil or Satan.
e. In the Job passages, it seems evident that the satan is one of the sons of God (usually translated "heavenly beings," Job 1:6). That is, in the context of the narrative in which God is portrayed as a high king with attendant servants (sons of God), the satan is part of the royal entourage in the service of the king (God).
f. In the Balaam story of Numbers 22, the word satan is translated "adversary." Here, the adversary is a messenger of God who opposes a prophet, reflecting much the same idea as Job 1-2. Again, it is a translation decision not to translate the word as "satan" here.
g. Zechariah 3:1-2 demonstrates a similar context as Job 1-2, in which a servant of God is challenged by an adversary. The main difference in Zechariah is that rather than a test as in Job, God immediately defends the accused, reflecting a common theme of post-exilic literature.
b. The term is normally translated [NRSV] "adversary" (Num 22, 32; 1 Sam 29:4/1 King 5:18; 2 Sam 19:23; 1 Kings 11:14, 23, 25) or "accuser" (Psa 109:6). In most of these cases it is clear that it is a human being that is referenced, as in 1 Kings 11:14. The verbal form of the word, which only occurs a handful of times, means "to be an adversary to" or "to oppose" (note Zech 3:1).
c. The term is customarily translated as "satan" 18 times but in only three of those contexts: Job 1-2, 1 Chronicles 21:1, and Zechariah 3:1-2. It is a translation decision based on a range of factors that determines to translate "satan" rather than "adversary" or "accuser."
d. 1 Chronicles 21:1 has a parallel passage in 2 Samuel 24:1. In 2 Samuel it is God who incites David to take the census, while in 1 Chronicles it is the satan who does so. Since 1 Chronicles is a later editing of the Samuel-Kings tradition, it seems obvious that Chronicles changed the referent from God to the satan, which suggests on some level that the two were interchangeable. At the very least it challenges the notion that the satan was seen in anything close to modern popular notions of the Devil or Satan.
e. In the Job passages, it seems evident that the satan is one of the sons of God (usually translated "heavenly beings," Job 1:6). That is, in the context of the narrative in which God is portrayed as a high king with attendant servants (sons of God), the satan is part of the royal entourage in the service of the king (God).
f. In the Balaam story of Numbers 22, the word satan is translated "adversary." Here, the adversary is a messenger of God who opposes a prophet, reflecting much the same idea as Job 1-2. Again, it is a translation decision not to translate the word as "satan" here.
g. Zechariah 3:1-2 demonstrates a similar context as Job 1-2, in which a servant of God is challenged by an adversary. The main difference in Zechariah is that rather than a test as in Job, God immediately defends the accused, reflecting a common theme of post-exilic literature.
jeremiah1five
BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2023
- Messages
- 2,254
- Reaction score
- 232
- Points
- 63
- Country
- USA
There are places in the Old Testament where some English translations use the word "demon" or "devils" (for example, "demons": Deut 32:17, Psa 106:37; "goat-demons": Lev 17:7, Isa 13:21, NRSV; "devils": 2 Chron 11:15, AV). In other places, it is easy for people in the modern world who are accustomed to reading the New Testament to think "demons" when they read things like "an evil spirit," even though the text clearly says that the evil spirit is from God (for example, Jud 9:23, 1 Sam 16:14-23).
In spite of the translations, there is no word in Hebrew equivalent to the English word "demon," nor any word that communicates the same meaning that the term communicates in English as an malevolent being in the service of the devil out to destroy humans. That idea today has been shaped by the imagination of medieval writers and popularized in the modern church in terms of evil beings against which Christians need to wage "spiritual warfare." Yet, the ancient Israelites lived in a world in which that view of "demons" was not part of their culture or way of thinking.
This disparity between our own modern notions and what lies behind the Hebrew terms and concepts often leads to misunderstanding the point of the biblical text and what it communicates. It is always a good idea to read what the biblical text actually says about a topic, and understand the passage against the social and cultural background of ancient Israel and the early church before we impose too many of our modern assumptions and preconceptions about meaning onto Scripture.
In spite of the translations, there is no word in Hebrew equivalent to the English word "demon," nor any word that communicates the same meaning that the term communicates in English as an malevolent being in the service of the devil out to destroy humans. That idea today has been shaped by the imagination of medieval writers and popularized in the modern church in terms of evil beings against which Christians need to wage "spiritual warfare." Yet, the ancient Israelites lived in a world in which that view of "demons" was not part of their culture or way of thinking.
This disparity between our own modern notions and what lies behind the Hebrew terms and concepts often leads to misunderstanding the point of the biblical text and what it communicates. It is always a good idea to read what the biblical text actually says about a topic, and understand the passage against the social and cultural background of ancient Israel and the early church before we impose too many of our modern assumptions and preconceptions about meaning onto Scripture.
CrowCross
Well Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2023
- Messages
- 3,895
- Reaction score
- 1,067
- Points
- 113
Satan is a fallen angel...and was not cast to hell as he walks around like a roaring lion seeking to devour people.
Is that in itself a complete contradiction? No, but it does add to the narrative in which the verse is understood. Something you don't even consider.
There is also the metion of demons in the Bible....are they fallen angels or are the demons the off spring of the fallen angels that procrated with human women?
But for some reason you present fallen angers/demons as some sort of "attitude"...mind set...which isn't biblical...or do you have a verse that justifies your stance?
jeremiah1five
BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2023
- Messages
- 2,254
- Reaction score
- 232
- Points
- 63
- Country
- USA
ALL the angels that sinned were cast down to hell delivered in chains of darkness awaiting judgment.
2 Pete 2:4
There are no angels that sinned that are free from their chains.
They're ALL locked up, thanks to God.
Otherwise, they'd kill us all.
Unless you believe in the Sovereignty of God and that the angels that sinned have to ask permission to kill us. But first they have to be released from their chains to do it.
But they're ALL locked up.
No parole. No probation.
JUDGMENT!
jeremiah1five
BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2023
- Messages
- 2,254
- Reaction score
- 232
- Points
- 63
- Country
- USA
PART ONE
There are places in the Old Testament where some English translations use the word "demon" or "devils" (for example, "demons": Deut 32:17, Psa 106:37; "goat-demons": Lev 17:7, Isa 13:21, NRSV; "devils": 2 Chron 11:15, AV). In other places, it is easy for people in the modern world who are accustomed to reading the New Testament to think "demons" when they read things like "an evil spirit," even though the text clearly says that the evil spirit is from God (for example, Jud 9:23, 1 Sam 16:14-23).
In spite of the translations, there is no word in Hebrew equivalent to the English word "demon," nor any word that communicates the same meaning that the term communicates in English as an malevolent being in the service of the devil out to destroy humans. That idea today has been shaped by the imagination of medieval writers and popularized in the modern church in terms of evil beings against which Christians need to wage "spiritual warfare." Yet, the ancient Israelites lived in a world in which that view of "demons" was not part of their culture or way of thinking.
This disparity between our own modern notions and what lies behind the Hebrew terms and concepts often leads to misunderstanding the point of the biblical text and what it communicates. It is always a good idea to read what the biblical text actually says about a topic, and understand the passage against the social and cultural background of ancient Israel and the early church before we impose too many of our modern assumptions and preconceptions about meaning onto Scripture.
Idols and Demons
A good place to begin is Deuteronomy 32:16-17:
16 They made him jealous with strange gods, with abhorrent things they provoked him. 17 They sacrificed to demons, not God, to deities they had never known, to new ones recently arrived, whom your ancestors had not feared. (NRSV)
The Hebrew word translated "demons" in verse 17 (שׁד, seed) occurs here in the plural with the preposition "to" and vocalized with the definite article "the" (לשּׁדים, lassedim), which gives us "to the demons."
It is important to be aware that translation is not a matter of finding a single word in one language that translates another word in another language. Translation is more often the translation of ideas and concepts rather than merely words, and there is rarely a one-to-one correspondence of single words between languages. This is especially true of languages that are separated by 3,000 years of history and culture.
Also, there are other features of language besides just the words that affect translation. Words do not have fixed or inherent meaning in any language. The historical and cultural context in which they are used, the literary features that accompany them, the topics they are used to address, even who is speaking or writing the words can all affect "meaning," what a term communicates and how it is to be understood. There are many words in English that can take on different meanings in different circumstances, or that can be used as technical terms in one context and yet take on a more common meaning in another context.
Take for example the simple English verb "run." It has a fairly simple meaning in most contexts, referring to a human action, "to go faster than a walk." However, in different contexts it can refer to what a candidate does in a political campaign, to play a musical passage quickly, to go back and forth or spread out between two points, to melt, to remain constant, to penetrate or slip through, etc. It is usually a context or contexts, as well as other terms in that context, that give us clues to which meaning is meant.
Rather than complicating the meaning, in many places in Hebrew Scriptures some of these features actually help us better understand the meaning of a term no matter what English word we use to translate it. There is one unique and prominent feature of Hebrew writing that is especially helpful in providing a context for the meaning of words. It is known as parallelism, in which ideas are related and emphasized by the grouping of synonyms or antonyms (see Parallelism in Hebrew Writing).
Along with the term translated "demons," in the Hebrew of Deuteronomy 32:16-17 there are a whole series of terms with similar meaning ("synonymous parallelism") that will help us understand how the writer is using the term שׁד (seed). In these two verses, there are four other parallel terms and phrases that are used with the word translated as "demons":
strange or foreign gods (זרים, zariym)
abhorrent things (תועבת, to‘eybot)
demons (לשּׁדים, lashshediym)
gods [they did not know] (אלהים, elohiym)
new ones [recently come {of whom} your fathers were not afraid] (חדשים, chadashim,)
The first of these parallel terms is simply the word "strange" (or "stranger") or "foreign" ("foreigner"). It is most often used of things that present a threat to the community, such as foreign people who are enemies (Hos 7:9, Isa 1:7, Jer 5:19, etc.), prostitutes ("strange women," Prov 2:16), or things that violate custom or law ("strange fire," Lev 10:1, Num 3:4; "strange incense," Ex 30:9). In this sense it is also used to refer to the gods of foreign peoples that present a threat to the proper worship of God (Psa 44:21, Isa 43:12, Jer 2:25, etc.).
The same is true of the second term, "abhorrent things." This term is often used to refer generally to the whole practice of Baal worship that included cult objects like household idols, images, sacred poles, trees, and high places, as well as sexual practices of the fertility religion, which were all "abhorrent" or "offensive" to Israelites (Lev. 18:22, Deut 7:25, 1 King 14:24, etc).
The final two terms also refer to the gods of Canaan with which the Israelites had come into contact only after their entry into the land (for the time frame
There are places in the Old Testament where some English translations use the word "demon" or "devils" (for example, "demons": Deut 32:17, Psa 106:37; "goat-demons": Lev 17:7, Isa 13:21, NRSV; "devils": 2 Chron 11:15, AV). In other places, it is easy for people in the modern world who are accustomed to reading the New Testament to think "demons" when they read things like "an evil spirit," even though the text clearly says that the evil spirit is from God (for example, Jud 9:23, 1 Sam 16:14-23).
In spite of the translations, there is no word in Hebrew equivalent to the English word "demon," nor any word that communicates the same meaning that the term communicates in English as an malevolent being in the service of the devil out to destroy humans. That idea today has been shaped by the imagination of medieval writers and popularized in the modern church in terms of evil beings against which Christians need to wage "spiritual warfare." Yet, the ancient Israelites lived in a world in which that view of "demons" was not part of their culture or way of thinking.
This disparity between our own modern notions and what lies behind the Hebrew terms and concepts often leads to misunderstanding the point of the biblical text and what it communicates. It is always a good idea to read what the biblical text actually says about a topic, and understand the passage against the social and cultural background of ancient Israel and the early church before we impose too many of our modern assumptions and preconceptions about meaning onto Scripture.
Idols and Demons
A good place to begin is Deuteronomy 32:16-17:
16 They made him jealous with strange gods, with abhorrent things they provoked him. 17 They sacrificed to demons, not God, to deities they had never known, to new ones recently arrived, whom your ancestors had not feared. (NRSV)
The Hebrew word translated "demons" in verse 17 (שׁד, seed) occurs here in the plural with the preposition "to" and vocalized with the definite article "the" (לשּׁדים, lassedim), which gives us "to the demons."
It is important to be aware that translation is not a matter of finding a single word in one language that translates another word in another language. Translation is more often the translation of ideas and concepts rather than merely words, and there is rarely a one-to-one correspondence of single words between languages. This is especially true of languages that are separated by 3,000 years of history and culture.
Also, there are other features of language besides just the words that affect translation. Words do not have fixed or inherent meaning in any language. The historical and cultural context in which they are used, the literary features that accompany them, the topics they are used to address, even who is speaking or writing the words can all affect "meaning," what a term communicates and how it is to be understood. There are many words in English that can take on different meanings in different circumstances, or that can be used as technical terms in one context and yet take on a more common meaning in another context.
Take for example the simple English verb "run." It has a fairly simple meaning in most contexts, referring to a human action, "to go faster than a walk." However, in different contexts it can refer to what a candidate does in a political campaign, to play a musical passage quickly, to go back and forth or spread out between two points, to melt, to remain constant, to penetrate or slip through, etc. It is usually a context or contexts, as well as other terms in that context, that give us clues to which meaning is meant.
Rather than complicating the meaning, in many places in Hebrew Scriptures some of these features actually help us better understand the meaning of a term no matter what English word we use to translate it. There is one unique and prominent feature of Hebrew writing that is especially helpful in providing a context for the meaning of words. It is known as parallelism, in which ideas are related and emphasized by the grouping of synonyms or antonyms (see Parallelism in Hebrew Writing).
Along with the term translated "demons," in the Hebrew of Deuteronomy 32:16-17 there are a whole series of terms with similar meaning ("synonymous parallelism") that will help us understand how the writer is using the term שׁד (seed). In these two verses, there are four other parallel terms and phrases that are used with the word translated as "demons":
strange or foreign gods (זרים, zariym)
abhorrent things (תועבת, to‘eybot)
demons (לשּׁדים, lashshediym)
gods [they did not know] (אלהים, elohiym)
new ones [recently come {of whom} your fathers were not afraid] (חדשים, chadashim,)
The first of these parallel terms is simply the word "strange" (or "stranger") or "foreign" ("foreigner"). It is most often used of things that present a threat to the community, such as foreign people who are enemies (Hos 7:9, Isa 1:7, Jer 5:19, etc.), prostitutes ("strange women," Prov 2:16), or things that violate custom or law ("strange fire," Lev 10:1, Num 3:4; "strange incense," Ex 30:9). In this sense it is also used to refer to the gods of foreign peoples that present a threat to the proper worship of God (Psa 44:21, Isa 43:12, Jer 2:25, etc.).
The same is true of the second term, "abhorrent things." This term is often used to refer generally to the whole practice of Baal worship that included cult objects like household idols, images, sacred poles, trees, and high places, as well as sexual practices of the fertility religion, which were all "abhorrent" or "offensive" to Israelites (Lev. 18:22, Deut 7:25, 1 King 14:24, etc).
The final two terms also refer to the gods of Canaan with which the Israelites had come into contact only after their entry into the land (for the time frame
jeremiah1five
BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2023
- Messages
- 2,254
- Reaction score
- 232
- Points
- 63
- Country
- USA
PART TWO
of Deuteronomy see The Book of Deuteronomy; the "golden calf" or bull in Exodus 32 may have reflected Egyptian religious beliefs). In this sense they were "new" gods that the people "did not know" before.
It seems obvious in this context from these parallel terms that the term translated "demons" also refers to the gods of the surrounding peoples that posed a threat to Israel’s worship of Yahweh. In this passage in Deuteronomy, the wider context is an appeal, in the form of recounting Israel’s failure to worship God and their practice of worshipping the idols of Canaan, to worship God properly as the only God.
The immediate context of the use of שׁד(seed) here is also important. Just a few verses later in this passage, there is a clear statement that these "demons" or "strange gods" or "abhorrent things" that the people are so tempted to elevate to deity and use to replace Yahweh are really no gods at all (Deut 32:21):
32:21 They made me jealous with what is no god, provoked me with their idols.
This leads to the conclusion that the word translated as "demons" does not refer to anything close to what we moderns think of as demons, but is a pejorative term to refer to the idols of Baal worship that are declared to be nothing at all (compare Isa 44:6-20, where the writer pokes fun at the gods of Canaan as nothing but wood and stone). What is emphasized is that they are "no god."
In light of this verse, we might note that verse 17a can be translated in two ways. In NRSV, it is translated: "they sacrificed to demons, not God." This would imply that the verse should be understood to say that they sacrificed "to the demons" instead of sacrificing to God. However the construction in 17a is identical to verse 21, which means it could as easily be translated "they sacrificed to demons that are not god," which would further emphasize the pejorative use of the term שׁד (seed) here (the LXX supports the NRSV translation).
In any case, a closer look at the word שׁד (seed) in Hebrew emphasizes that it refers in a negative way to Canaanite idols and deities. Actually, the term שׁד (seed, "demons") does not even originate in Hebrew. It is a loanword from Assyria, from the Assyrian word šêdu. This word in Assyrian refers to the mythological creatures that were supposed to guard the sphinx-colossus of Asshur, the primary deity of the Assyrians (in Western mythology they are called griffons). The word in Hebrew, then, originally referred to mythological creatures associated with Assyrian deities. The very purpose of using the term, and paralleling them with other terms for pagan idols and deities, seems to be to emphasize that the pagan deities are not something to fear because they are not really gods at all. In Hebrew thought, that is equivalent to saying that they do not exist, or have no power or importance of which to fear.
It is instructive, then, to note that LXX translates שׁד (seed) in Deuteronomy 32:17 with δαιμονίοις (daimoniois, "demons"), not in the context of "demonic powers" or minions of the devil as we want to hear the term, or even in the context of the NT usage, but in the context of mythological creatures that are specifically stated to be "no-god" (ου θεω, ou theo). In other words, even though the Greek translation uses a term that sounds much closer to our word "demons," the meaning is not what that word means to us in English, but rather what the Hebrew term communicates.
Further, the word שׁד (seed) only occurs twice in the MT, here in Deuteronomy 32:17 and in Psalm 106:36-37. It is no accident that the context in the Psalm is precisely the same as the Deuteronomy passage; that is, the condemnation of the Israelites for worshipping the idols of foreign deities.
Psalm 106:36 They served their idols and they became a hindrance to them; 37 they sacrificed their sons and their daughters to the demons. 38 they poured out innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan; and the land was polluted with blood.
Once again, parallelism gives us some indication of the meaning of the word. The Hebrew word שׁד (seed) in verse 36 is parallel to the word עצבים (‘atsabim), "idols" or "graven images, and in verse 38 to עצבי כנען (‘atsabey kená‘an), "idols of Canaan." Clearly, שׁד (seed) is related to the gods of the Canaanites. And again the Septuagint translates שּׁדים (sedim) by τοις δαιμονιοις (tois daimoniois) to describe these false gods of the Canaanites, as is clear from the latter part of the verse.
So, it can be concluded that the Hebrew term שׁד (seed) is a loanword from the mythology of the surrounding peoples. Originally, it referred to the mythological creatures of Canaanite and Assyrian religion that were representations of various gods. In biblical usage, it becomes synonymous with "idol," a pejorative way to refer to Canaanite deities.
Goats and Satyrs
In other places, other Hebrew terms are sometimes also translated as "demons." However, in every case, the context of the term is an attack upon the idolatrous practices of Baal worship, or a negative reference to Canaanite mythology. For example, in 2 Chronicles 11:15, an account of the pagan practices introduced by Jeroboam in the Northern Kingdom, the KJV translates "devils" for a different Hebrew term.
11:15 And he ordained him priests for the high places, and for the devils, and for the calves which he had made. (KJV)
11:15 and had appointed his own priests for the high places, and for the goat-demons, and for the calves that he had made. (NRSV)
Here the Hebrew word translated "devils" in the KJV or "goat-demons" in the NRSV is שׂעיר (sa‘iyr). The most common meaning of the word שׂעיר (sa‘iyr) is "goat," specifically "he-goat" or buck (for example, Gen 37:1; Lev 4:24, etc.; 53 times in the MT). A feminine form of the word occurs twice to refer to "she-goat" (Lev 4:28, 5:6). The root of this word in Hebrew is the word שׂער (se‘ar), which means "hair," either of animals (Gen 25:25) or of persons (Ju 16:22). Another derived cognate of this word is the word שׂערה (se‘orah), which is usually translated "barley," that is, a hairy or bearded grain. The connotation of שׂעיר (sa‘iyr) is that of a "hairy" animal, which is appropriate since many goats in the Middle East are longhaired or Angora goats.
of Deuteronomy see The Book of Deuteronomy; the "golden calf" or bull in Exodus 32 may have reflected Egyptian religious beliefs). In this sense they were "new" gods that the people "did not know" before.
It seems obvious in this context from these parallel terms that the term translated "demons" also refers to the gods of the surrounding peoples that posed a threat to Israel’s worship of Yahweh. In this passage in Deuteronomy, the wider context is an appeal, in the form of recounting Israel’s failure to worship God and their practice of worshipping the idols of Canaan, to worship God properly as the only God.
The immediate context of the use of שׁד(seed) here is also important. Just a few verses later in this passage, there is a clear statement that these "demons" or "strange gods" or "abhorrent things" that the people are so tempted to elevate to deity and use to replace Yahweh are really no gods at all (Deut 32:21):
32:21 They made me jealous with what is no god, provoked me with their idols.
This leads to the conclusion that the word translated as "demons" does not refer to anything close to what we moderns think of as demons, but is a pejorative term to refer to the idols of Baal worship that are declared to be nothing at all (compare Isa 44:6-20, where the writer pokes fun at the gods of Canaan as nothing but wood and stone). What is emphasized is that they are "no god."
In light of this verse, we might note that verse 17a can be translated in two ways. In NRSV, it is translated: "they sacrificed to demons, not God." This would imply that the verse should be understood to say that they sacrificed "to the demons" instead of sacrificing to God. However the construction in 17a is identical to verse 21, which means it could as easily be translated "they sacrificed to demons that are not god," which would further emphasize the pejorative use of the term שׁד (seed) here (the LXX supports the NRSV translation).
In any case, a closer look at the word שׁד (seed) in Hebrew emphasizes that it refers in a negative way to Canaanite idols and deities. Actually, the term שׁד (seed, "demons") does not even originate in Hebrew. It is a loanword from Assyria, from the Assyrian word šêdu. This word in Assyrian refers to the mythological creatures that were supposed to guard the sphinx-colossus of Asshur, the primary deity of the Assyrians (in Western mythology they are called griffons). The word in Hebrew, then, originally referred to mythological creatures associated with Assyrian deities. The very purpose of using the term, and paralleling them with other terms for pagan idols and deities, seems to be to emphasize that the pagan deities are not something to fear because they are not really gods at all. In Hebrew thought, that is equivalent to saying that they do not exist, or have no power or importance of which to fear.
It is instructive, then, to note that LXX translates שׁד (seed) in Deuteronomy 32:17 with δαιμονίοις (daimoniois, "demons"), not in the context of "demonic powers" or minions of the devil as we want to hear the term, or even in the context of the NT usage, but in the context of mythological creatures that are specifically stated to be "no-god" (ου θεω, ou theo). In other words, even though the Greek translation uses a term that sounds much closer to our word "demons," the meaning is not what that word means to us in English, but rather what the Hebrew term communicates.
Further, the word שׁד (seed) only occurs twice in the MT, here in Deuteronomy 32:17 and in Psalm 106:36-37. It is no accident that the context in the Psalm is precisely the same as the Deuteronomy passage; that is, the condemnation of the Israelites for worshipping the idols of foreign deities.
Psalm 106:36 They served their idols and they became a hindrance to them; 37 they sacrificed their sons and their daughters to the demons. 38 they poured out innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan; and the land was polluted with blood.
Once again, parallelism gives us some indication of the meaning of the word. The Hebrew word שׁד (seed) in verse 36 is parallel to the word עצבים (‘atsabim), "idols" or "graven images, and in verse 38 to עצבי כנען (‘atsabey kená‘an), "idols of Canaan." Clearly, שׁד (seed) is related to the gods of the Canaanites. And again the Septuagint translates שּׁדים (sedim) by τοις δαιμονιοις (tois daimoniois) to describe these false gods of the Canaanites, as is clear from the latter part of the verse.
So, it can be concluded that the Hebrew term שׁד (seed) is a loanword from the mythology of the surrounding peoples. Originally, it referred to the mythological creatures of Canaanite and Assyrian religion that were representations of various gods. In biblical usage, it becomes synonymous with "idol," a pejorative way to refer to Canaanite deities.
Goats and Satyrs
In other places, other Hebrew terms are sometimes also translated as "demons." However, in every case, the context of the term is an attack upon the idolatrous practices of Baal worship, or a negative reference to Canaanite mythology. For example, in 2 Chronicles 11:15, an account of the pagan practices introduced by Jeroboam in the Northern Kingdom, the KJV translates "devils" for a different Hebrew term.
11:15 And he ordained him priests for the high places, and for the devils, and for the calves which he had made. (KJV)
11:15 and had appointed his own priests for the high places, and for the goat-demons, and for the calves that he had made. (NRSV)
Here the Hebrew word translated "devils" in the KJV or "goat-demons" in the NRSV is שׂעיר (sa‘iyr). The most common meaning of the word שׂעיר (sa‘iyr) is "goat," specifically "he-goat" or buck (for example, Gen 37:1; Lev 4:24, etc.; 53 times in the MT). A feminine form of the word occurs twice to refer to "she-goat" (Lev 4:28, 5:6). The root of this word in Hebrew is the word שׂער (se‘ar), which means "hair," either of animals (Gen 25:25) or of persons (Ju 16:22). Another derived cognate of this word is the word שׂערה (se‘orah), which is usually translated "barley," that is, a hairy or bearded grain. The connotation of שׂעיר (sa‘iyr) is that of a "hairy" animal, which is appropriate since many goats in the Middle East are longhaired or Angora goats.
jeremiah1five
BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2023
- Messages
- 2,254
- Reaction score
- 232
- Points
- 63
- Country
- USA
PART THREE
However, there are four occurrences in the Hebrew text where the term שׂעיר (sa‘iyr) takes on a slightly different shade of meaning (2 Chron 11:15, Lev 17:7, Isa 13:21, and 34:14) while at the same time retaining the basic meaning of "he-goat." Leviticus 17:7 reads:
Lev 17:7 . . . they may no longer offer their sacrifices for goat-demons, to whom they prostitute themselves . . ..
The context here is the regulation of the killing and eating of meat, specifically prohibiting the killing of animals in the open fields or even within the camp without subsuming the taking of life under the covenantal worship of God. Directly forbidden in verse seven is the offering of sacrifices to the "he-goats" instead of to Yahweh. It becomes clear, then, that the "he-goat" is not just an ordinary goat, but refers to something that is a false object of worship, especially with the term "prostitute" that is commonly used in the Old Testament to describe graphically the unfaithfulness of the people in worshipping pagan gods.
In 2 Chronicles 11:15,שׂעיר (sa‘iyr) is connected with "calves" and "high places" that are both associated with pagan Canaanite religious practices. Likewise, in Leviticus 17:7, "he-goat" refers to idolatrous images, either physically represented or part of Canaanite mythology.
The two other occurrences of שׂעיר (sa‘iyr) are both in Isaiah (13:21; 34:14). Although in a different context with a different emphasis, the meaning is similar in both passages.
13:21 But wild animals will lie down there, and its houses will be full of howling creatures; there ostriches will live, and there goat-demons will dance. 13:22 Hyenas will cry in its towers, and jackals in the pleasant palaces; its time is close at hand, and its days will not be prolonged.
34:13 Thorns shall grow over its strongholds, nettles and thistles in its fortresses. It shall be the haunt of jackals, an abode for ostriches. 34:14 Wildcats shall meet with hyenas, goat-demons shall call to each other; there too Lilith shall repose, and find a place to rest. 34:15 There shall the owl nest and lay and hatch and brood in its shadow; there too the buzzards shall gather, each one with its mate.
In both passages the emphasis is on wild animals that inhabit the desolate places of the desert. These verses are highly poetic descriptions of the desolation of the land under God’s judgment, specifically Babylon (ch. 13) and Edom (ch. 34). The imagery is that of cities being so thoroughly destroyed and overgrown with thorns that only wild animals live there. Among the wild animals, the Hebrew text refers to שׂעיר (sa‘iyr). While it could be argued that the term refers to the ordinary goat, this was a domesticated animal in biblical times. Even though it wandered the hillsides, it was not really a "wild" animal. In other words, "goat" does not fit the imagery here to symbolize devastated and uninhabitable land.
Some versions (for example, KJV) translate שׂעיר (sa‘iyr) in these verses not as "devils" or "evil spirits" or even "he-goat" but as "satyr". The satyr is a legendary creature that shows up in the mythologies of various cultures of the ancient world as the guardian of holy places or deities, or as the personification of debauchery and revelry. It was portrayed as half-human and half-animal, usually with the feet, tail and ears of a longhaired goat or horse and the torso, head and arms of a man. In Greek mythology, the satyrs were the escorts, guardians, and companions of the god Dionysus, the god of mirth, wine, and revelry. They were thought to inhabit the countryside, especially waste areas and ruins. The Greek god Pan was often portrayed in paintings as a satyr.
Much of what we know about satyrs in ancient mythology comes from Greek and Roman sources. Yet, there seems to be some connection between the idea of שׂעיר (sa‘iyr) in the ancient Middle East and the satyr in western mythology. Some have even suggested a linguistic connection between the terms. In any case, the Hebrew term שׂעיר (sa‘iyr) in these four verses seems to refer to mythological creatures from Canaanite religion, false idols that the people worshipped instead of Yahweh.
There are overtones in the Isaiah passages of the mythological creatures associated with these particular animals, for example the idea of the satyr behind the use of שׂעיר (sa‘iyr). However, the real point is that Isaiah is using the creatures as metaphorical symbols of desolation, of destruction, of total devastation that results in a place fit only for wild creatures, real or mythological, who inhabit the humanly uninhabitable places of the earth. This picks up the overtones of "emptiness" that is associated with the idols elsewhere (see below). To read more into this by trying to connect the term with the modern idea of demons is drastically to misunderstand the function of poetic language (sometimes called "mythopoetic" language) in prophetic oracles.
An interesting passage in 2 Kings 23:8 can be further instructive at this point.
23:8 He brought all the priests out of the towns of Judah, and defiled the high places where the priests had made offerings, from Geba to Beer-sheba; he broke down the high places of the gates that were at the entrance of the gate of Joshua the governor of the city, which were on the left at the gate of the city.
The context of this passage is the religious reforms of Josiah in which he tore down the pagan altars and idols in response to the discovery of the law book in the temple. The Hebrew text here reads "high places of the gates" (השּׁערים, hashshe‘ariym, "the gates"). However, "gates" does not fit with the meaning of this verse here. Most textual scholars suggest that the letter שׁ(sh) in the Massoretic text should be corrected to the letter שׂ (s). They suggest that the reading of the initial letter שׂ (s) as שׁ (sh) was influenced by the repeated occurrence of the word שׁער (sha‘ar) "gate" in the verse ("gate of Joshua," "gates of the city"). With this correction, the word would read השּׂערים (hasse‘iriym), "satyrs." So, a better translation of this passage is " . . .he broke down the high places of the satyrs that were at the entrance of the gate of Joshua the governor of the city . . .
So again the usage of שׂעיר (sa‘iyr) indicates reference to a pagan idol that was being improperly worshipped as a symbol of Canaanite deity. This understanding makes 2 Chronicles 11:15 even more clear. The context there is the sin of Jeroboam I in banishing the Levitical priesthood from the Northern Kingdom and setting up idols of bulls and goats for the people to worship. In fact, this idolatry of Jeroboam I in setting up images of animals to represent the gods of the Canaanites became a paradigm in Israelite theology of the sinful ruler who rejected Yahweh to follow the false gods of the land (compare 1 Kings 12:25-33; 16:25-26).
It is again instructive to note the Septuagint rendering of these verses. In 2 Chronicles 11:15, rather than simply translating the Hebrew word שׂעיר (sa‘iyr) with another word, the translators attempt to translate the "concept" or the meaning. The Greek reading for שׂעיר (sa‘iyr) is "the idols and the worthless" (και τοις ειδωλοις και τοις ματαιοις, kai tois eidolois kai tois mataiois). This clearly indicates that the understanding of the term was pagan idols. Especially interesting here is the use of the nominal adjective ματαιοις (mataiois, "vanities," "emptiness," "worthless things") to describe these idols: they are empty, worthless, powerless things! (Note the use of the nominal form of this word in Ephesians 4:17.) It is with this understanding that we note that the word שׂעיר (sa‘iyr) in Leviticus 17:7 is translated in the Septuagint solely by the word τοις ματαιοις (tois mataiois): "And they shall no longer offer sacrifices to emptiness."
All of this clearly indicates that this word שׂעיר (sa‘iyr) is not used in Hebrew Scriptures to mean anything close to our idea of "demonic powers" but exclusively to refer to the idols of the pagan deities who were recognized to be nothing or empty, devoid of any power. This negative connotation of the imagery of "he-goat" may well be related to the use of a goat in the Israelite sacrificial system as the bearer of the sins of the people (for example, Lev 16:21-22), although it is impossible to know which way the influence ran.
However, there are four occurrences in the Hebrew text where the term שׂעיר (sa‘iyr) takes on a slightly different shade of meaning (2 Chron 11:15, Lev 17:7, Isa 13:21, and 34:14) while at the same time retaining the basic meaning of "he-goat." Leviticus 17:7 reads:
Lev 17:7 . . . they may no longer offer their sacrifices for goat-demons, to whom they prostitute themselves . . ..
The context here is the regulation of the killing and eating of meat, specifically prohibiting the killing of animals in the open fields or even within the camp without subsuming the taking of life under the covenantal worship of God. Directly forbidden in verse seven is the offering of sacrifices to the "he-goats" instead of to Yahweh. It becomes clear, then, that the "he-goat" is not just an ordinary goat, but refers to something that is a false object of worship, especially with the term "prostitute" that is commonly used in the Old Testament to describe graphically the unfaithfulness of the people in worshipping pagan gods.
In 2 Chronicles 11:15,שׂעיר (sa‘iyr) is connected with "calves" and "high places" that are both associated with pagan Canaanite religious practices. Likewise, in Leviticus 17:7, "he-goat" refers to idolatrous images, either physically represented or part of Canaanite mythology.
The two other occurrences of שׂעיר (sa‘iyr) are both in Isaiah (13:21; 34:14). Although in a different context with a different emphasis, the meaning is similar in both passages.
13:21 But wild animals will lie down there, and its houses will be full of howling creatures; there ostriches will live, and there goat-demons will dance. 13:22 Hyenas will cry in its towers, and jackals in the pleasant palaces; its time is close at hand, and its days will not be prolonged.
34:13 Thorns shall grow over its strongholds, nettles and thistles in its fortresses. It shall be the haunt of jackals, an abode for ostriches. 34:14 Wildcats shall meet with hyenas, goat-demons shall call to each other; there too Lilith shall repose, and find a place to rest. 34:15 There shall the owl nest and lay and hatch and brood in its shadow; there too the buzzards shall gather, each one with its mate.
In both passages the emphasis is on wild animals that inhabit the desolate places of the desert. These verses are highly poetic descriptions of the desolation of the land under God’s judgment, specifically Babylon (ch. 13) and Edom (ch. 34). The imagery is that of cities being so thoroughly destroyed and overgrown with thorns that only wild animals live there. Among the wild animals, the Hebrew text refers to שׂעיר (sa‘iyr). While it could be argued that the term refers to the ordinary goat, this was a domesticated animal in biblical times. Even though it wandered the hillsides, it was not really a "wild" animal. In other words, "goat" does not fit the imagery here to symbolize devastated and uninhabitable land.
Some versions (for example, KJV) translate שׂעיר (sa‘iyr) in these verses not as "devils" or "evil spirits" or even "he-goat" but as "satyr". The satyr is a legendary creature that shows up in the mythologies of various cultures of the ancient world as the guardian of holy places or deities, or as the personification of debauchery and revelry. It was portrayed as half-human and half-animal, usually with the feet, tail and ears of a longhaired goat or horse and the torso, head and arms of a man. In Greek mythology, the satyrs were the escorts, guardians, and companions of the god Dionysus, the god of mirth, wine, and revelry. They were thought to inhabit the countryside, especially waste areas and ruins. The Greek god Pan was often portrayed in paintings as a satyr.
Much of what we know about satyrs in ancient mythology comes from Greek and Roman sources. Yet, there seems to be some connection between the idea of שׂעיר (sa‘iyr) in the ancient Middle East and the satyr in western mythology. Some have even suggested a linguistic connection between the terms. In any case, the Hebrew term שׂעיר (sa‘iyr) in these four verses seems to refer to mythological creatures from Canaanite religion, false idols that the people worshipped instead of Yahweh.
There are overtones in the Isaiah passages of the mythological creatures associated with these particular animals, for example the idea of the satyr behind the use of שׂעיר (sa‘iyr). However, the real point is that Isaiah is using the creatures as metaphorical symbols of desolation, of destruction, of total devastation that results in a place fit only for wild creatures, real or mythological, who inhabit the humanly uninhabitable places of the earth. This picks up the overtones of "emptiness" that is associated with the idols elsewhere (see below). To read more into this by trying to connect the term with the modern idea of demons is drastically to misunderstand the function of poetic language (sometimes called "mythopoetic" language) in prophetic oracles.
An interesting passage in 2 Kings 23:8 can be further instructive at this point.
23:8 He brought all the priests out of the towns of Judah, and defiled the high places where the priests had made offerings, from Geba to Beer-sheba; he broke down the high places of the gates that were at the entrance of the gate of Joshua the governor of the city, which were on the left at the gate of the city.
The context of this passage is the religious reforms of Josiah in which he tore down the pagan altars and idols in response to the discovery of the law book in the temple. The Hebrew text here reads "high places of the gates" (השּׁערים, hashshe‘ariym, "the gates"). However, "gates" does not fit with the meaning of this verse here. Most textual scholars suggest that the letter שׁ(sh) in the Massoretic text should be corrected to the letter שׂ (s). They suggest that the reading of the initial letter שׂ (s) as שׁ (sh) was influenced by the repeated occurrence of the word שׁער (sha‘ar) "gate" in the verse ("gate of Joshua," "gates of the city"). With this correction, the word would read השּׂערים (hasse‘iriym), "satyrs." So, a better translation of this passage is " . . .he broke down the high places of the satyrs that were at the entrance of the gate of Joshua the governor of the city . . .
So again the usage of שׂעיר (sa‘iyr) indicates reference to a pagan idol that was being improperly worshipped as a symbol of Canaanite deity. This understanding makes 2 Chronicles 11:15 even more clear. The context there is the sin of Jeroboam I in banishing the Levitical priesthood from the Northern Kingdom and setting up idols of bulls and goats for the people to worship. In fact, this idolatry of Jeroboam I in setting up images of animals to represent the gods of the Canaanites became a paradigm in Israelite theology of the sinful ruler who rejected Yahweh to follow the false gods of the land (compare 1 Kings 12:25-33; 16:25-26).
It is again instructive to note the Septuagint rendering of these verses. In 2 Chronicles 11:15, rather than simply translating the Hebrew word שׂעיר (sa‘iyr) with another word, the translators attempt to translate the "concept" or the meaning. The Greek reading for שׂעיר (sa‘iyr) is "the idols and the worthless" (και τοις ειδωλοις και τοις ματαιοις, kai tois eidolois kai tois mataiois). This clearly indicates that the understanding of the term was pagan idols. Especially interesting here is the use of the nominal adjective ματαιοις (mataiois, "vanities," "emptiness," "worthless things") to describe these idols: they are empty, worthless, powerless things! (Note the use of the nominal form of this word in Ephesians 4:17.) It is with this understanding that we note that the word שׂעיר (sa‘iyr) in Leviticus 17:7 is translated in the Septuagint solely by the word τοις ματαιοις (tois mataiois): "And they shall no longer offer sacrifices to emptiness."
All of this clearly indicates that this word שׂעיר (sa‘iyr) is not used in Hebrew Scriptures to mean anything close to our idea of "demonic powers" but exclusively to refer to the idols of the pagan deities who were recognized to be nothing or empty, devoid of any power. This negative connotation of the imagery of "he-goat" may well be related to the use of a goat in the Israelite sacrificial system as the bearer of the sins of the people (for example, Lev 16:21-22), although it is impossible to know which way the influence ran.
jeremiah1five
BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2023
- Messages
- 2,254
- Reaction score
- 232
- Points
- 63
- Country
- USA
PART FOUR
It can be debated whether Israelites viewed these idols in ontological terms, whether they would ever have asked if the gods they represented "really" existed or not. They would most likely not have asked such a question, since those categories of ultimate reality are alien to the ancient world. They tended to express things in functional terms (what they can do) rather than ontological terms (whether they exist). However, it is clear that the biblical traditions did not view the שׁד (seed) or the שׂעיר (sa‘iyr) as anything to be feared. They simply represented the idols of the Canaanites, which were powerless and could be treated as "emptiness" or "nothing." In Hebrew thought, that comes close to what moderns mean when they say, "does not exist."
Conclusion
In summary, there is no Hebrew word that can be translated as "demons" to communicate what that word implies in English. There does lie behind the Old Testament conception a basic animistic and mythological world view with which the Israelites are in dialog. But they are using the terms and in dialog with such conceptions, not because they accept them or are dominated by them, but precisely to deny the validity of such mythological world views. The biblical writers use the terms, not to accept what they represent, but precisely to reject it. It is clear that there was a popular belief among Israelites in such things as ghosts and the mythological creatures of Canaanite religion. But the biblical tradition as it stands moves beyond such popular mythological conceptions to a vision of a Creator, a sovereign God who is in sole control of the world, and does not share that with anything or anyone. So again, there are no "demons" in the Old Testament, with what that word implies in modern popular English, only idols that are rejected as "no-gods."
It can be debated whether Israelites viewed these idols in ontological terms, whether they would ever have asked if the gods they represented "really" existed or not. They would most likely not have asked such a question, since those categories of ultimate reality are alien to the ancient world. They tended to express things in functional terms (what they can do) rather than ontological terms (whether they exist). However, it is clear that the biblical traditions did not view the שׁד (seed) or the שׂעיר (sa‘iyr) as anything to be feared. They simply represented the idols of the Canaanites, which were powerless and could be treated as "emptiness" or "nothing." In Hebrew thought, that comes close to what moderns mean when they say, "does not exist."
Conclusion
In summary, there is no Hebrew word that can be translated as "demons" to communicate what that word implies in English. There does lie behind the Old Testament conception a basic animistic and mythological world view with which the Israelites are in dialog. But they are using the terms and in dialog with such conceptions, not because they accept them or are dominated by them, but precisely to deny the validity of such mythological world views. The biblical writers use the terms, not to accept what they represent, but precisely to reject it. It is clear that there was a popular belief among Israelites in such things as ghosts and the mythological creatures of Canaanite religion. But the biblical tradition as it stands moves beyond such popular mythological conceptions to a vision of a Creator, a sovereign God who is in sole control of the world, and does not share that with anything or anyone. So again, there are no "demons" in the Old Testament, with what that word implies in modern popular English, only idols that are rejected as "no-gods."
What is the source for the last few lengthy articles that you posted?
jeremiah1five
BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2023
- Messages
- 2,254
- Reaction score
- 232
- Points
- 63
- Country
- USA
www.crivoice.org
This was only a submission for consideration. There are some biblical historians that have a deeper grasp of things than us peasants.
I don't hold to everything at this site, but on demons it filled in a lot of gaps.
This was only a submission for consideration. There are some biblical historians that have a deeper grasp of things than us peasants.
I don't hold to everything at this site, but on demons it filled in a lot of gaps.
Similar threads
