Help me make sense of these scriptures please!

  • Thread starter Thread starter StrawberryJam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

StrawberryJam

Guest
I was looking at a forum I used to poke my head into a few months back and this whopper came up.

Jehovah is Satan based on 2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1

I’m having a hard time with this one. It really looks bad right now.
 
It seems most likely and most reasonable to me that God, in being angry with Israel, would ‘permit’ Satan to incite David.

Remember the passages in Exodus where it speaks of God ‘hardening Pharaoh’s heart?’ It’s the same kind of thing. God ‘allows’ Pharaoh to keep on trying to get what Pharaoh wants, and this is rendered as ‘hardening his heart’. Similarly, God permits Satan to incite David against Israel, and this is rendered as "the Lord inciting’.

Also think of the passage where it says, “I the Lord create goodness and woe”. . .well, the Lord does not do evil Himself (He can’t) but He can permit it. In the grand scheme of things everything done is done because God has ‘permitted’ it (free will) but He certainly does not ordain anything evil!
 
That’s fine in theory but does not work with these passages at all. When you compare them side by side you will see what I mean.
 
I do not see that God is Satan.

Killing Israel is the common thread, I guess, but that does not make Satan God or God Satan.

I would think that the wickedness of Judah and Israel is what David should put to death.

Satan tempts us all of the time!
 
The theological outlook changed and they didn’t want to attribute evil directly to God.
 
StrawberryJam said:
I was looking at a forum I used to poke my head into a few months back and this whopper came up.

Jehovah is Satan based on 2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1

I’m having a hard time with this one. It really looks bad right now.
Click to expand...
1 Chr 21.1
And Satan stood up against Israel
and provoked David
to number Israel

2 Sam 24.1
And again the anger of the LORD
was kindled against Israel
and he moved David against them
to say go number
Israel and Judah

Although you can’t tell by reading either verse alone,
if you look at both together you can see that the LORD moved David by using an agent, ie Satan.
David was moved by God when Satan was allowed by Him to provoke David.

Reminds me of the LORD, Satan and Job.
The LORD tested Job by allowing Satan to accost Job.
Without the permission of the LORD Job wouldn’t have been plagued by Satan.

Its not that the LORD** is** Satan but that the LORD uses Satan.

Anyway, that’s my opinion.
 
You know, Jesus calls Peter Satan in Matthew’s gospel, but we don’t really think that St. Peter is Satan, right?

You are taking Scripture out of context, Strawberry, and that’s the problem. Putting up two texts ‘side by side’ and looking at them out of context is the problem. They are from two different authors, two different books, and the ‘mindset’ of the authors differs. For the one author, he is going to be very particular in noting that “SATAN” incited David (because, of course, the Lord does not cause evil). This author is making it clear that God is only good, and that He does nothing evil. That is his main focus. For the other author, he is going to be very particular in noting that, even though the Lord does not cause evil, all actions, good or bad, exist because the Lord permits them. This is an author who is making sure that people do not see God and Satan as being two sides of a coin or yin/yang or with equal ‘powers’, one for good, one for evil’ --this is an author who is making it clear that God is the ultimate authority.

The two points of view do not contradict each other. It is perfectly possible to accept that God is totally good and does nothing evil, and also to accept that whatever evil exists/occurs in the world can do so only because God, being omnipotent, has permitted it. Because we know he is also totally good we trust that somehow there is a plan He has whereby somehow, evil will ultimately turn to good.
 
Tim Staples once told us that “A text without a context is a pretext for an argument.”😉
 
ryanoneil said:
The theological outlook changed and they didn’t want to attribute evil directly to God.
Click to expand...
That’s what the USCCB’s site says on their page for this. Apparently they forgot this is not found anywhere else where God rages against the people and he is never referred to as Satan in those cases. But he is here.

Please don’t just read the commentary they give you. Actually think about the probability and possiblity what they say is remotely likely!
 
Joe_Kelley said:
Tim Staples once told us that “A text without a context is a pretext for an argument.”😉
Click to expand...
Did you even read the passages? The context is clear as clear can be! One being was responsible for this. Only one.

Did Tim Staples give us any insight on this particular problem?
 
Tantum_ergo said:
You know, Jesus calls Peter Satan in Matthew’s gospel, but we don’t really think that St. Peter is Satan, right?

You are taking Scripture out of context, Strawberry, and that’s the problem. Putting up two texts ‘side by side’ and looking at them out of context is the problem. They are from two different authors, two different books, and the ‘mindset’ of the authors differs. For the one author, he is going to be very particular in noting that “SATAN” incited David (because, of course, the Lord does not cause evil). This author is making it clear that God is only good, and that He does nothing evil. That is his main focus. For the other author, he is going to be very particular in noting that, even though the Lord does not cause evil, all actions, good or bad, exist because the Lord permits them. This is an author who is making sure that people do not see God and Satan as being two sides of a coin or yin/yang or with equal ‘powers’, one for good, one for evil’ --this is an author who is making it clear that God is the ultimate authority.

The two points of view do not contradict each other. It is perfectly possible to accept that God is totally good and does nothing evil, and also to accept that whatever evil exists/occurs in the world can do so only because God, being omnipotent, has permitted it. Because we know he is also totally good we trust that somehow there is a plan He has whereby somehow, evil will ultimately turn to good.
Click to expand...
Calling Peter Satan (Peter in denial of what Jesus had to do) is so very not comparative with God being called Satan!

Peter- man
God- God
Satan- Not a man
 
StrawberryJam said:
I was looking at a forum I used to poke my head into a few months back and this whopper came up.

Jehovah is Satan based on 2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1
Click to expand...
Just my two cents:

The instance of the Hebrew word satan in 1 Chronicles 21 is used without the article; i.e. it is not ha-satan, ‘the satan’ or rather ‘the adversary’. Elsewhere when it appears without the article, it refers to a personal or national adversary in the human sphere, the lone exception being Number 22:22, 32, where the angel assumes the role of an ‘adversary’, a satan, to Balaam. When it refers to the being we call Satan, the word has a definite article (cf. Job 1:6-9, 12; 2:1-4, 6-7; Zechariah 3:1-2). Based on the immediate context (David making a census to assess his military strength), some propose that the satan of 1 Chronicles, at least on a superficial level, refers to a human “adversary”, probably a nearby nation hostile to David.

But as mentioned, rather than God causing the evil Himself, it could be explained more as God permitting the evil - whether by natural or supernatural means. It just shows how much authority God holds; that He can even use - or rather permit - evil at times in order to bring a greater good. This applies whether you hold to the ‘uppercase Satan’ or the ‘lowercase satan’ theory.
 
patrick457 said:
Just my two cents:

The instance of the Hebrew word satan in 1 Chronicles 21 is used without the article; i.e. it is not ha-satan, ‘the satan’ or rather ‘the adversary’. Elsewhere when it appears without the article, it refers to a personal or national adversary in the human sphere, the lone exception being Number 22:22, 32, where the angel assumes the role of an ‘adversary’, a satan, to Balaam. When it refers to the being we call Satan, the word has a definite article (cf. Job 1:6-9, 12; 2:1-4, 6-7; Zechariah 3:1-2). Based on the immediate context (David making a census to assess his military strength), some propose that the satan of 1 Chronicles, at least on a superficial level, refers to a human “adversary”, probably a nearby nation hostile to David.

But as mentioned, rather than God causing the evil Himself, it could be explained more as God permitting the evil - whether by natural or supernatural means. It just shows how much authority God holds; that He can even use - or rather permit - evil at times in order to bring a greater good. This applies whether you hold to the ‘uppercase Satan’ or the ‘lowercase satan’ theory.
Click to expand...
At least that is a bit more helpful Patrick. I’ll try to be more clear about what specifically is jarring about this. I just can’t focus too much on it right at the moment. I’m trying to get my mind into a place where I can go to Mass tomorrow. Maybe it will be clearer to me after 9:00 Mass. I’ll ask God to help me with this, who knows he may. It will be the first time asking him for help about the bible. He knows I don’t believe, so it could be a wasted effort. But, you never know.
 
Hon, read the rest. The viewpoint of the two writers is the context. One is emphasizing that God is all good, and has no part in evil. The other is emphasizing that God is the ultimate authority. The first, in imputing the stirring up of trouble to Satan, is not calling GOD “Satan”. He’s simply emphasizing that although it is ultimately God who has authority over both good and evil, God never Himself DOES evil. And the second is simply emphasizing that even though evil was done, God is the ultimate authority and that even if Satan incited the evil, Satan could not have had power ‘on his own’.

I think a lot of people have the mistaken idea that God is Lord of “good” and Satan is “lord of bad’ and tend to think of God and Satan as equal, opposite powers. Nothing could be farther from the truth. While all ‘evil’ is ultimately going to be associated with Satan (by Satan’s choice”, evil itself cannot exist ‘on its own’. All evil started originally as a ‘good’ but was freely corrupted by an individual==angel or human–and made evil.

Think about it. Try to think of something which is evil and could exist ‘on its own’. You can’t. Murder? it is the spoiling/denial of life–and life is good. Sex? it isn’t evil in itself–it is meant to be good and pleasurable. Rape, fornication, adultery are all ‘spoilings’ of the original good of sex. Theft? The spoiling of someone’s ownership of property (which is good). Gluttony? The overuse of food or drink. . .both of which in themselves are good.

The use of the poetic IMAGERY of “Satan” bringing about the evil is just that. . .a poetic image that emphasizes that God only does good.

The use of the poetic imagery of God’s wrath causing Him to permit a freely chosen evil by David, which emphasized that God has authority over all things, not ‘just good stuff’, is another poetic writing device. That’s all.
 
If it is just “another poetic writing device” then it must be in the hebrew bible more than once. Is it?
 
I would agree with John7’s comments and believe they satisfactorily explain the verses.

I’m certainly no expert, but I also think it is significant that one verse talks about “the anger of the Lord burned against Israel”, and one simply says “Satan rose up”. I believe in the Lord’s anger, he allowed Satan to rise up and provoke David. God indeed uses Satan several times in the Bible for His purposes.
 
I hoped Mass helped, Strawberry. As to your question about poetic writing devices, no, it is not necessary that a particular style appear again and again. There is only one e.e. cummings (who used the ‘uncapitalized letters’) style; that particular poetic device is particularly his. Just because no other poet of his stature has used that device doesn’t make the device wrong or make the poet wrong in using it. And remember, the authors of the books of the Old Testament are not all the same person.

Would you expect that if scribe A, who writes from a ‘historical’ point of view, comments particularly on army size, and battles, that scribe B, who also writes from a historical point of view, must comment on the same things and in the same way? Of course not. Scribe B might have a whole different (but equally valued and valuable) perspective.

And if scribe B is writing from his own particular human gift (say, a ‘historical’ point of view) and scribe C is writing from his (which may be weak in history but high in poetry), neither one nor the other is necessarily writing ‘better’, right?

Do you trust God? Do you trust Jesus? Is the evidence of what Catholicism has taught for 2000 years enough to counter balance two little words, one each in two particular books of the Old Testament, themselves English translations and meant to reflect not just ‘21st century English absolute literalism’ but a whole 'nother culture and style, which you are taking completely out of context and insisting on applying them so that they can ONLY mean that “the Lord” is “the Satan”. . .and there is absolutely no other possible meaning whatsoever?

Please don’t let the haters and the nay-sayers cherry pick Scripture for you, insist on applying their personal interpretations as being the only POSSIBLE interpretations, and confuse you this way. It is NOT the only interpretation to say that “God = Satan”. It is in fact a totally anachronistic, artificial construct. Don’t let yourself become a victim of those who are trying to destroy your faith.
 
I’m just trying to get to the “bottom” of this one.

I did feel better after going to Mass this morning. I did have several intentions, and finally was able to do something, I never did before.

And just to comfort those who may worry over it, No, I am not talking about the Eucharist which I would never recieve unless I was a catholic, and following all the rules.

Something much more basic. 🙂
 
Why in the book of Kings does it say David never sinned? He did here. None of this is adding up for me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top