In Baptist Bible study we were pondering 2 Cor 12:1-10, where Paul claimed he was given [by God] a thorn in the flesh, an angel of Satan to harass him so that he would not be puffed up by the abundance of visions and revelations he had experienced in his trip to the “third heaven” (2 Cor 12:7). We will all no doubt agree that this strange passage tends to perplex the modern Christian mind. But there is an even more serious difficulty in the passage. It rather obviously implies that God colludes with satanic powers by using an angel (aggelos) of Satan to harass Paul. Is there other evidence suggesting that it could actually be the case that God colludes with Satan?
There is a similar statement in 1 Cor 5:1-7 where Paul directs the gathering at Corinth “to deliver” an immoral member of the gathering “to Satan for the destruction of his flesh” so that “his spirit may be saved” (1 Cor 5:5). To be sure this is also a difficult passage, but it is nevertheless clear that Paul encouraged the Christian gathering to collude with Satan for the salvation of the man’s spirit. Compare a similar statement in a text from the Pauline school: the author refers to two persons who “have made shipwreck of their faith”…“whom I have delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme” (1 Tim 1:20).
I checked at random a few commentaries in my last blog (see them here) to see how 2 Cor 12:7 was regarded in the academic community. They all agreed that the passive voice in 2 Cor 12:7 referenced God as the one initiating the action that brought Paul harassment by an angel of Satan to teach him humility. There is a similar incident in Job where God is described as allowing Satan to afflict Job’s body at the request of Satan (Job 2:10). That does not appear to be the case with 2 Cor 12:7, where God directed the harassment of Paul by using an angel of Satan.
In the Jewish Scriptures, dubbed by Christians the Old Testament, God has no evil opponent to challenge his authority. Satan does not make an appearance in Israelite history until after the fall of Judah to the Babylonians (read about it here). In the early years of Israelite history God was the source of divine justice, as well as “evil” acts. For example, God sends an evil spirit to torment King Saul (1 Sam 16:14-23; 18:10; 19:9); he also sends lying spirits into the mouths of prophets to deceive Ahab (1 Kgs 22:1-40) and prompted King David to sin (2 Sam 24). When Job’s wife counseled him to “curse God and die,” his reply indicated that it was common knowledge that both good and evil came from God (Job 2:10, see also 42:11; compare also 2 Sam 12:11; Ps 78:43-51; Jdg 9:23).
There must be some mistake here! How can it be that God would have anything to do with facilitating evil deeds? A standard definition of God is “perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness, whom people worship as creator and ruler of the universe.” So what is good about colluding with the powers of darkness to bring harm to anyone? The very definition of a Christian concept of God precludes the idea that God would do evil against anyone or incite anyone to evil or that God would work in concert with the forces of evil either to the detriment or betterment of anyone. Is not this statement attributed to Jesus: God “makes his sun rise on the evil and the good and sends rain on the just and the unjust” (Matt 5:45)? The thrust of the statement is that God provides the blessings of the considerable bounty of the earth to the Good, as well as the evil and unjust alike without discrimination.
So how should we explain the not inconsiderable clash between God as reflected in the Jewish Scriptures and New Testament? My own view is that through history and within the various world cultures and religions that have existed through time people have basically fashioned their own understandings of God in harmony with the culture in which they were raised and according to the ethical understandings they had at the time. In short, our Gods are, at least in part, a projection of how we understand (hopefully) what is best in ourselves, an idea in modern philosophy attributed to Ludwig Feuerbach.1 How else do we explain the diverse religions of the world?
Charles W. Hedrick
Professor Emeritus
Missouri State University
1 https://phenomenologyftw.wordpress.com/2010/05/12/feuerbach-on-religion-anthropomorphic-projectionism-and-his-influence-on-atheism/: Here is a quote from the article: According to Ludwig Feuerbach “God is an anthropomorphic projection of the human mind, and as such embodies man’s conception of his own nature. This [view] was originally conceived by Xenophanes and Lucretius, and by Spinoza.” Here are three brief quotes from Feuerbach’s writings (translated by Zwar Hanfi), The Fiery Brook: Selected Writings of Ludwig Feuerbach (Anchor Books; 1972): “Man’s notion of himself is his notion of God, just as his notion of God is his notion of himself—the two are identical” (page 109); “There is nothing more, and nothing less, in God than what religion puts in him” (page 112); “To every religion, the gods of other religions are only conceptions of God; but its own conception of God is itself its God—God as it conceived him to be, God genuinely and truly so, God as he is in himself” (page 114).
Awesome post.
ReplyDeleteThank you and thanks for engaging the ideas.
DeleteCharlie
That is an appropriate time for a post with a “thorn” in it, since it is blackberry picking time here. I can rarely pick the tastiest, the wild ones, without a thorn in my flesh. But the bland flavor of the thornless cultivar doesn’t measure up, misses the mark, so I persist. Life.
ReplyDeleteI suppose in a monotheistic framework Satan (or an agent Satan outsourced it to) would work with its creator to provide pain to temper pleasure (or humility). That particular argument (of humility) the author made was found outside of that context, too, in the Stoic world. In a letter attributed to Theano (called Pseudo-Theano), the author wrote about the importance to raise a child austerely. “Hardships, my friend, are a kind of preparatory astringent to the children with a view to the virtue that will come to full maturity.”
Sincerely,
Dennis Dean Carpenter
Dahlonega, Ga.
Good Morning Dennis,
DeleteGood luck with blackberry picking! Be safe!
Let me see if I understand your first sentence of your second paragraph: God has the upper hand always, but from time to time Satan "cooperates" with God by providing the yen (evil) to God's yang (goodness), and in this way God does not have to get his hands dirty (so to speak)?
Cordially,
Charlie
If it was a strict monotheism, it seems to me that Satan would be an "employee" of God, unless one wanted to elevate Satan to an equal partner in the business, or to a competitor. Then, it seems to me it wouldn't be monotheistic, but more of a monolatrous relationship, with people worshipping "God," but not denying the existence of "Satan," who becomes another god in its ability to initiate action.
DeleteDennis
Good Evening Charlie,
ReplyDeleteIt certainly sounds like your Bible study had an interesting discussion- I wish I could have been a fly on the wall. Here are some questions I would have asked:
1) Perhaps instead of collusion, do you see the relationship between Satan and God being portrayed in 2 Cor. 12 as warfare against each another? (with Paul in the middle) And that Paul is to engage in this spiritual warfare against Satan? Do you think God pitted Satan against Paul to make him stronger in his faith so he wouldn't depend on the "flesh?"
2) Have you ever considered that Paul was influenced by Platonism? Here's an interesting passage about that theory: "Moreover, it is claimed, Paul manifests the typical Platonic aversion to the body as being evil, a prison house of the soul, from which the Christian longs to be delivered. Until this deliverance actually comes by means of death, the Pauline Christian is supposed to denigrate his body through various ascetic practices. The obvious first step for the Christian to take in all this is to ask the person making the claims to produce the New Testament passages in which Paul’s supposed Platonism appears. Romans 7:24 is the verse usually cited in support of the claim that Paul taught that the human body is a prison house of the soul: 'What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?' "
Do you think 2 Cor. 12:1-10 illustrates Paul's aversion to the physical body as well?
3) Have you ever heard of a church teaching on spiritual warfare? (Eph. 6:12) Don't you think there's more of an emphasis on fighting Satan and fighting the flesh in the NT than there is in the OT? If so, why do you think that is? And do you think 2 Cor. 12:1-10 is an example of spiritual warfare being waged on humans? And that God is in favor of it to make us "stronger?" What are your thoughts?
Many thanks as always! Elizabeth
Hi Elizabeth,
Delete(1) The relationship between God and Satan in 2 Cor 12 does not appear to be combative but rather cooperative, as odd as that may sound. God used one of Satan's minions to keep Paul humble (or so Paul said).
(2) I do not think that Paul regarded the body as evil, but I agree that Paul is clearly ascetic. The Platonic idea of a soul inhabiting a body and is separated from that body at death is pervasive in the ancient world. Whether Paul had this idea is debated in NT circles, with some arguing that Paul's view was Hebraic--Man became a living soul. Hence Paul's view of the resurrection of the body in 1 Cor 15. There is, however, good reason to think of Plato's views as a background for the non Pauline book of Hebrews.
(3)Satan as the arch-enemy of God is not part of the Old Testament tradition, where God is the source of both good and evil. I do not see 2 Cor 12 as an instance of combat between God and Satan but rather one of cooperation, at least that seems to be what Paul is indicating.
Cordially,
Charlie
Good Evening Charlie,
ReplyDeleteDo you have any thoughts regarding the Jewish teaching that God created evil?
"The Gospels claim that Satan was the ruler of demons (Matt. 12:34) who was cast out of heaven (Luke 10:18). Yet this sensational teaching is nowhere to be found in the Jewish scriptures. On the contrary, the Tanach teaches that God originally created evil so that virtue and free will could flourish. Moreover, the book of Isaiah testified that it was God Himself who created 'evil' as an integral feature of the world. (Is. 45:7) The translators of several Christian Bibles however sought to conceal Isaiah's message by mistranslating the Hebrew word rah as 'a calamity' or 'natural disaster' rather than 'evil.' Many conservative Christian Bibles (NASB, KJV) resisted the temptation to tamper with this unambiguous passage in the Book of Isaiah. God created both good and evil and presented these two powerful forces to mankind so that man could then freely choose his spiritual path. (Deut. 30:14-19)." Rabbi Tovia Singer "Let's Get Biblical"
1) Do you agree with Rabbi Singer's view of evil... Or do you come down on the side of Christian commentators such as Zondervan who wrote: "Although Scripture is clear that God does not cause anyone to sin, it is also clear that man's and Satan's evil acts are under God's sovereign control." Is this what you mean by "collusion?"
2) Do you see Paul going back and forth between "Collusion with God" and "Arch Enemy of God" when it comes to Satan? Who do you think Paul is referring to in Eph. 6:12... Who are the spiritual forces of evil in heavenly realms?? If God used those forces to keep Paul humble- why would Paul in turn do battle against them? (if that makes any sense)
3) Do you think humankind's virtue and free will "flourish" by being able to choose "evil" as a valid option? (alongside the "good")
Thank you as always, Elizabeth
Hi Charlie,
ReplyDeleteThe difficult subject matter which you've covered has always been a "thorn in my flesh." As I see it, the self lives in a non-self reality where the rain seems to fall and the sun shine on the just and unjust. The complicated nature (what in part is being called good and evil) of that reality requires decision making. One must decide where the best experience and guidance for the development of humanity abides. For me, the best guidance and greatest hope is found in the attitudes of Jesus, as revealed in his teachings and actions, particularly those identified by the Jesus Seminar.
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.
Hi Gene,
DeleteIn order for me to understand your comment, you will have to explain what is the "non-self reality" where the self lives.
Cordially,
Charlie
Hi Charlie,
DeleteNothing exoteric intended, simply the-world-in-which-we-live.
I wonder if Deity collusion was foreign to great minds like Plato and Marcion whose Perfect Form of the Good and High God would probably not rub elbows with the creator/demiurge of this world. Perhaps Paul's view was a type of populism based in tribal culture.
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.
I suspect that Paul's view of God was shaped by the Jewish tradition, which included the idea that Good and Evil are in some way to be tracked to the One God.
DeleteCordially,
Charlie
Good Morning Elizabeth,
ReplyDeleteI do not know much about rabbinic teaching (either ancient or modern) on the origins of evil. With respect to your first paragraph see my blog "What should be done about evil in the world" March 13, 2013. There is a hyperlink in the fourth paragraph of my current blog that will take you there.
1. I agree with Rabbi Singer that the Jewish Scriptures (Protestant Old Testament) attributes the source of evil in the world to God. Collusion is a secret agreement for deceitful purposes (compare Job chapter 1 where God and Satan "collude" to mistreat Job).
2. I don't know who or what the spiritual forces in heavenly realms in Ephesians 6:12 are (Ephesians was not written by Paul).
3. Evil is never a "valid" option in my view.
Cordially,
Charlie
With regard to question 3, do you think having to choose between both good and evil allows virtue and free will to flourish? In other words, how can we be virtuous without being able to choose between good and evil? If there were no evil in the world, there couldn't be virtue either. (I'm not saying I agree with that statement, I just find it an interesting explanation for the existence of evil.)
DeleteRegarding the book of Ephesians:
a) Who do you think wrote it if it wasn't Paul?
b) Which epistles do you feel fairly certain were authored by Paul?
I will look up your blog that you mentioned from March 2013, thank you for everything! Elizabeth
Good Morning Elizabeth,
DeleteI think that from our perspective in the Western world, which is dominated be Greek ways of thinking rather than by Eastern mysticism, Divinity/the Gods need to be explained logically. Hence we need to explain the presence of evil in the world because we have the idea of a Good God. But Gods are an unknown second estate and cannot be explained logically.
No one knows who wrote Ephesians except that s/he was of the Pauline school. In critical scholarship Ephesians is a deutero-Pauline Epistle.
The letters that everyone can agree on as Pauline letters are: 1 Thessalonians, Romans, 1, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, Philemon.
Cordially,
Charlie
Hi Charlie!
DeleteSo are you saying that in Eastern mysticism, there isn't as much of a need to explain the existence of evil as there is in the West? Do you know why Eastern mysticism doesn't need an explanation for the existence of evil? I guess they just accept its existence and go on about their business. I have heard spiritual teachers say that in India, it is no big deal to see a dead body like it is here. Here in the west, we hide them from public view.
Many thanks, Elizabeth
Hi Elizabeth,
DeleteMy knowledge of Eastern religions is very limited, but here is how one writer (Ernest Valea) described the origins of evil in Eastern religions. He broke them down into three types: pantheistic in which evil is seen as ultimately unreal; dualistic in which good and evil are eternal and rival principles; and monotheistic in which evil is a fallen figure that was originally good. See
https://www.comparativereligion.com/evil.html
Cordially,
Charlie
Hi Charlie,
ReplyDeleteThought there might be some interest in Walter Wink's response to Feuerbach (The Human Being, 2002, p. 46).
"The final answer to Feuerbach, therefore, is prayer. That which we can only imagine, that beyond all imagining, wants to hear from us, so to speak: it wants us to meet its gaze with words, with feeling, with love. Prayer is thus, in Henry Corbin's view (James Hillman, "The Thought of the Heart," Eranos Lectures 2 [Dallas: Spring Publications, 1981], 3, 9, 19), 'the supreme act of the Creative Imagination.' Only the theologians are highly fastidious about the One to whom they pray, most people are a bit confused...Peoples of all religions pray to their representations of deity...It appears that people all over the globe pray and find it helpful to do so."
The insight in the above paragraph is actually Feuerbach's gift the church and humanity.
"His profound reflections on religious projection could not bear theological fruit for a century and a half. Now his insights can be seen for what they were: a prescient intuition into the dynamics of the God-human relationship...Let us then embrace our brother Ludwig Feuerbach, who suffered much at the hands of Christian censors, and whose atheism was the tragic personal cost of a knowledge too far in advance of wisdom: not just his wisdom, but that of a species."
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.
Is this theodicy, Charlie? The attempt to rationalize the co-existence of evil with an omniscient, omnipotent, and supposedly, loving God? The Bible gives Satan a lot of power, whether he's gambling with God for the allegiance of Job, or tempting Jesus in the desert, yet Christians insist he will be defeated in the end times. So, if that's the case, what's the purpose of it all? I've heard the free will argument, that humankind must be free to choose to love God, and frankly, it sickens me. Is God so narcissistic that He has to be loved and worshipped by his creatures, and those who do not are consigned to eternal damnation?
ReplyDeleteI think I come down on this as you do, Charlie, that our religions are social constructs made by human beings, not God given. But I am not anti-religion; our institutions civilize us and we destroy them at our own peril unless we have well-thought out alternatives to replace them. And I still believe in "something," even if I don't know what that something is.
Marcia
Hi Marcia,
DeleteYes we are talking Theodicy, which the dictionary defines as "a defense of God's goodness and omnipotence in view of the existence of evil," or how do you explain evil is God is good and omnipotent?
Actually we have only a limited amount of free will in any case. See Wry Guy blog "Is Freedom an allusion?" Friday May 31, 2013.
Cordially,
Charlie
Charlie, I just read your May 31,2013, post. Wonderful! So wonderful, I think it bears reposting. Seems especially appropriate for the 4th of July.
DeleteMarcia
Good Morning Marcia,
DeleteI agree. Thank you for the suggestion. I had another ready but "Freedom" for the fourth of July does seem especially appropriate!
Cordially,
Charlie
Hi Marcia,
ReplyDeleteHow about the reverse of "God's narcissism," namely that humans need God, in some form, to complete themselves, to reach beyond themselves "for the larger narrative." Once in awhile I'll get in a discussion about the purpose of the church; my answer usually is something like "to help the individual see beyond him/herself, to accept the liberation from self-centeredness that Jesus offered."
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.
Hello Gene,
ReplyDeleteInteresting comment. I've often thought, rather than supplication, the real value of prayer is that when we pray for others, we're not thinking of ourselves. Otherwise, it seems to me, God becomes a combination of Santa Claus and the Bogeyman; we're either praying for something to happen or praying that it won't.j
And I think we're hardwired for religion. I know many would disagree with me, and as far as I know,there's no evidence for that belief.
Marcia