Greek (SBLGNT): καὶ ἐβλήθη ὁ δράκων ὁ μέγας, ὁ ὄφις ὁ ἀρχαῖος, ὁ καλούμενος Διάβολος καὶ ὁ Σατανᾶς, ὁ πλανῶν τὴν οἰκουμένην ὅλην— ἐβλήθη εἰς τὴν γῆν, καὶ οἱ ἄγγελοι αὐτοῦ μετ’ αὐτοῦ ἐβλήθησαν.
How should we understand the expression ὁ πλανῶν τὴν οἰκουμένην ὅλην in Revelation 12:9? (Compare Revelation 20:2-3, 10)
ὁ πλανῶν is the present active participle nominative singular masculine of πλανάω: the participle coupled with the article means the construction is functioning as a substantive, and Wallace classifies this particular instance as an attributive participle ("the deceiver" or "the one who deceives/is deceiving").
See GGBB, page 618.
"And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him" (ESV).
"So
that huge dragon—the ancient serpent, the one called the devil and
Satan, who deceives the whole world—was thrown down to the earth, and
his angels along with him" (NET).
Laurențiu Florentin Moț (Morphological and Syntactical Irregularities in the Book of Revelation: A Greek Hypothesis, pages 214-215): "Sometimes the writer does not give all the details at once, and when he complements the first idea, he repeats some words too. It is for oratorical effect and it occurs especially in pronouncements. Here belong καὶ ἐβλήθη ὁ δράκων ὁ μέγας, ὁ ὄφις ὁ ἀρχαῖος, ὁ καλούμενος Διάβολος καὶ ὁ Σατανᾶς, ὁ πλανῶν τὴν οἰκουμένην ὅλην, ἐβλήθη εἰς τὴν γῆν (12:9) and ἔπεσεν ἔπεσεν Βαβυλὼν (14:8; 18:2). In the first case, who has been thrown (the dragon) is more important than where it has been thrown. As to the fall of Babylon, in both references it is the content of a proclamation, and therefore, repetition is more than natural. The phrase ἀπέθανεν . . . τὰ ἔχοντα ψυχὰς (8:9) is also for oratorical effects, as everybody knows that only what has life can die."
Robert L. Thomas likewise catches the pleonastic occurrence of ἐβλήθη, ἐβλήθη and ἐβλήθησαν (Revelation 8-22, page 130).
Additionally, Revelation 12:9 is part of the war in heaven section, wherein Satan and his angels are cast down from heaven to the earth (12:7-9); Michael and his angels battle Satan (the dragon) and they prevail against him and his evil hordes. Stephen S. Smalley contends that the casting of Satan from heaven portends that "the reign of evil" will give way "to the sovereign rule of God and the Lamb (22.3–5)." See Smalley, The Revelation to John, 324.
But exactly what is the referent of τὴν οἰκουμένην ὅλην?
John writes: ἐβλήθη εἰς τὴν γῆν: Smalley explains that in first-century thinking, τὴν γῆν was thought to exist between "the sky and the nether regions" (Smalley, 325), so τὴν οἰκουμένην ὅλην apparently "refers to the inhabitants of that earth, or society in its completeness" (ibid.). Compare Revelation 3:10; 16:14. The bottom line is that John depicts Satan leading all people astray or I would say, all of those who belong to the Devil's world (1 John 2:15-17; 5:19): Satan's deceptive influence is pervasive (Ephesians 2:1-3).
Thomas calls Satan "the master of deception with an uncanny ability to mislead people." He makes this insightful point about τὴν οἰκουμένην ὅλην:
"The objects of his deception are 'the whole earth,' the term οἰκουμένη (oikoumene) rather than γῆ (ge, 'the earth') being chosen as more specifically depicting earth's inhabitants and the political structure which characterizes their society" (Revelation 8-22, page 132).
He references TDNT, 5:157-159 for οἰκουμένη.
Researching Revelation 12:9 has been enlightening for me although I would like to study οἰκουμένη a little more in its classical context and see what Buist Fanning and David Aune write about this verse.
Sporadic theological and historical musings by Edgar Foster (Ph.D. in Theology and Religious Studies and one of Jehovah's Witnesses).
This is one of the most powerful scriptures when it comes to both theodicy and what is sometimes called "political-theology." I find it fascinating so many theologians seem to forget the force of these verses (including 1 John 5:19, 2 Cor 4:4, and Eph 2:1-3), and revert to a "stoic" view of the world, i.e. the world, as it is, is fundamentally rational, and we just need to get in line with it, or what people call a "de-mythologized" viewpoint, which ends up just assuming the modern myths of human progress, human reason, and naturalism; or, more often, they insist on the Classical view of God in which everything must originate with God
ReplyDeleteAnyway, Richard Bell's "Deliver us from Evil" https://www.mohrsiebeck.com/en/book/deliver-us-from-evil-9783161573439
Is a brillian work of both hard New Testament scholarship, interpreting the passages of the power of Satan and Daemons, as well as an attempt of a philosophical account of how such power could exist and manifest (he uses the Kantian categories of Phenomena and Noumena, and the philosophy of Sophenhour).
I could understand how Socrates, Plato and Aristotle viewed the world as fundamentally rational, and there is some truth to that theory, depending on it's framed and terms are defined. However, I don't believe we can treat the infralapsarian world like we would treat the supralapsarian realm. If you ever get a chance to read Herman Dooyeweerd's A New Critique of Theoretical Thought, one thing you might appreciate is his schema of creation, fall, and redemption. That sums up history but also explains why the Christian must adjust his perspective of the created order, in view of the fall and Satan's demonic rule.
ReplyDeleteI concur with you that people often trade one set of myths for another set. Bultmann was one of the worst for "demythologizing" the Christian-Greek Scriptures (New Testament): I'm glad that some contemporary theologians have militated against his project.
The book by Bell looks good; I might try to read it soon. I notice you mention Kant and his account of evil is worth reading. To think about evil in the light of phenomena and noumena makes for interesting reflection.
Another really good work is the two volumes by Greg Boyd (God at War; Satan and the problem of Evil).
ReplyDeleteHis view of the difference between the pre-lapsarian world and the post-lapsarian world goes down to the very structure of the world, in his view the rebellion of Satan happened in heaven long before Genesis 2, and this actually corrupted creation which was to be restored through Adam and Eve, (spreading Eden), who joined the rebellion and created the need for Christ.
The main motivation for this is to account for what he considers to be violence in nature. It's an intersting take; one must be careful because it is often through nature that one can experience God's love as well.
I think, when it comes to "political theology" (understanding human systems of governance and the Christian approach to them), the idea that there is some "natural order" which can be gotten to if we just fit things correctly (this is the old hellenistic political philosophy, but it's also the contemporary on) has been assumed by many theologians. Of course, I think the JW approach is the best: there is no natural order of human society alienated from God, and any order that exists now is under the dominion of Satan and is thus un-reconciliable with the Kingdom; and one should expect it to reflect Satan. There are some theologians (Stanley Hauerwas, John Yoder, Greg Boyd), who point to that direction, but not many.
Bultmann's approach was not a good, one (replacing one set of "myths" for another set of myths, the a latter much less grounded in reality), I'm happy it's not as popular anymore.
I've benefited from Boyd's work, but I have not read him much on this subject. His thoughts about Satan and violence in the natural are interesting. Predation is sometimes hard to understand: but it's evidently a temporary situation.
ReplyDeleteOn the subject of political theology, Miroslav Volf is a major player and so is Jurgen Moltmann. I've only dabbled a little in this type of theologia.