Could it be...Satan?!
Satan is an interesting word for an interesting character.
Granted, there are times when the word is just an adjective (describing a thing) or a verb (describing an act). But there are other times where it is an object unto itself. This is especially true in later books, such as Samuel and Job, where he is obviously an agent of Yahweh, but seems to sometimes be like Puck in A Midsummer's Night Dream - servile, but with his own agenda.
In the Torah, the word שטן appears only 3 times - one time in the Book of Genesis, and two times in this week's Torah portion.
In Genesis 26:21, a well that people fought over is called Sitnah (the feminine form of "Satan") because two groups of people were accusing each other over it, claiming that the other had no right to it.
There is a tradition that the meaning of a word is often based on how it first appears in the Torah, and Satan, according to Jewish tradition, is known as the Enticer (or the etzer haRah, which literally means "evil inclination". Wanting to eat that pint of Ben & Jerry's, while dieting, is considered an expression of one's yetzer haRah). He is also known as the Accuser, based on the use of the name in Genesis and, as we will see, in Numbers. He is also called the "Angel of Death", meaning, that after one has been enticed, and accused and prosecuted before God, he sends you to Sheol, the land of the dead where the evil as well as the righteous reside after death. (Think of Sheol as akin to Hades.)
Oddly enough, the Book of Deuteronomy does not mention Satan at all, even though it is a later text, perhaps even later than Samuel and Job.
The two verses in Numbers
22:22 - And Yahweh's anger was kindled because [Balaam] went [with the princes of Moab]. And an angel (מלח) of Yahweh stood in [Balaam's] way l'satan lo (לשטן לו). And [Balaam] was riding upon his she-ass, and [Balaam's] two servants were with him.
22:32 - And an angel (מלח) of Yahweh said to [Balaam], why have you beaten your she-ass these three times? Behold I (אנכי) have come forth l'satan (לשטן), because your way is in opposition to me.
It appears that l'satan is in the piel (active verb) form in the same structure as "to speak" (l'dabair). And so we could read the first example as "An angel of Yahweh stood in [Balaam's] way to accuse him" or "...to contend with him". And the second expression is "...I have come forth to accuse/contend because...".
So it would appear that this is just a piel verb form and we can leave it at that. Right?
The Commentators
The Rambam (12th century), who is usually a rationalist, wrote that verses 21-35 were all part of a dream. After all, animals don't speak (and as for the talking serpent in the Garden of Eden, that entire episode was a metaphor and was not to be understood literally). From his point of view, nobody can see angels, and if there's a mention of them, then they were either symbolic, or part of a dream. As far as angels go, the Rambam was a monotheist and saw the term to refer to any expression, natural or supernatural, that God uses to get something done.
Ibn Ezra (11th century) who is also normally a rationalist and held many of the same views that the Rambam would form, commented on these verses, saying that the Angel of Yahweh was Satan, reading 22:32 as "Behold, I have come forth as Satan", meaning a supernatural adversary.
While it is not a bad way to read it, it is an oddity from someone such Ibn Ezra.
Joseph ben Eliezer, as 14th century Ibn Ezra commentator wrote about this anomaly, writing that while Ibn Ezra did comment that the angel was Satan, that Ibn Ezra also held the position that the Rambam would one day hold: that additional supernatural beings don't exist in reality and that the entire episode was a dream.
The verdict
One can read into this story a supernatural Adversary, and that the Accuser is also an Angel of Yahweh. The episode is about an adversarial relationship that formed between Balaam and Yahweh due to Balaam being willing to talk to the Moabite king.
And so, perhaps the episode was a dream, since that explanation makes the rationalists more comfortable.
And perhaps it wasn't.
The text isn't clear in either direction, and the use of "Angel of Yahweh" cannot easily be dismissed as a metaphor or a dream sequence every time that it is used.
Either way, it makes for a fun reading of the text.
No comments:
Post a Comment