Comments on: When did Satan enter into Judas? http://www.errancy.com/when-did-satan-enter-into-judas/ Does the Bible contain contradictions or errors? Biblical inerrancy examined. Wed, 07 Sep 2011 04:23:00 +0200 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: dr_mouse http://www.errancy.com/when-did-satan-enter-into-judas/comment-page-1/#comment-221 dr_mouse Wed, 08 Apr 2009 00:05:50 +0000 http://www.errancy.com/?p=473#comment-221 I agree. This one is a bit weak. There are so many other absurdities/inconsistencies to choose from. Why strain to produce an easily defensible one? I agree. This one is a bit weak. There are so many other absurdities/inconsistencies to choose from. Why strain to produce an easily defensible one?

]]> By: WisdomLover http://www.errancy.com/when-did-satan-enter-into-judas/comment-page-1/#comment-212 WisdomLover Mon, 06 Apr 2009 20:31:22 +0000 http://www.errancy.com/?p=473#comment-212 Let us assume that once Satan enters in to someone, he doesn't leave. The text, of course, doesn't say that, but it is a reasonable assumption to make. I'm still not sure that we have a problem. The tense of "Satan entered into him" from the John passage is the notorious aorist. The mood is indicative. That means that it refers to an event that occurred in the past. It can be viewed like a Latin pluperfect in this context. (I'm no Greek Scholar...this is from an old freely available online version of the <strong><a href="http://ia341041.us.archive.org/3/items/greekaorist00belluoft/greekaorist00belluoft_bw.pdf" rel="nofollow">Encyclopedia Britannica</a></strong> -- page 2 in the linked resource.) If this is right, we have: "Satan had already then into him." Read the text with that substitution (I'll follow Errancy here and substitute into the NRSV): After he[Judas] received the piece of bread, Satan had then entered into him. Jesus said to him, ‘Do quickly what you are going to do. While this reading is not used by any translation I know of, it certainly squares better with the perfect participle in John 13:2 (I'm giving the NASB here instead of the NRSV because the NASB renders the Greek participle as an English participle. The NRSV renders it as an independent clause): "During supper, the devil <em>having <strong>already</strong> put into the heart of Judas Iscariot</em>, the son of Simon, to betray Him,..." So the devil was already in Judas heart. this is because he entered in back when Judas was plotting with the priests. Let us assume that once Satan enters in to someone, he doesn’t leave. The text, of course, doesn’t say that, but it is a reasonable assumption to make.

I’m still not sure that we have a problem.

The tense of “Satan entered into him” from the John passage is the notorious aorist. The mood is indicative. That means that it refers to an event that occurred in the past. It can be viewed like a Latin pluperfect in this context. (I’m no Greek Scholar…this is from an old freely available online version of the Encyclopedia Britannica — page 2 in the linked resource.)

If this is right, we have: “Satan had already then into him.” Read the text with that substitution (I’ll follow Errancy here and substitute into the NRSV):

After he[Judas] received the piece of bread, Satan had then entered into him. Jesus said to him, ‘Do quickly what you are going to do.

While this reading is not used by any translation I know of, it certainly squares better with the perfect participle in John 13:2 (I’m giving the NASB here instead of the NRSV because the NASB renders the Greek participle as an English participle. The NRSV renders it as an independent clause):

“During supper, the devil having already put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, to betray Him,…”

So the devil was already in Judas heart. this is because he entered in back when Judas was plotting with the priests.

]]> By: Errancy http://www.errancy.com/when-did-satan-enter-into-judas/comment-page-1/#comment-209 Errancy Mon, 06 Apr 2009 13:10:00 +0000 http://www.errancy.com/?p=473#comment-209 To generate a contradiction here, we would need to assume that Satanic possession is permanent (or something similar), but I see nothing to support that assumption. If anything, the fact that demons are elsewhere cast out of people suggests the opposite. This therefore doesn't strike me as a strong claim of error at all. To generate a contradiction here, we would need to assume that Satanic possession is permanent (or something similar), but I see nothing to support that assumption. If anything, the fact that demons are elsewhere cast out of people suggests the opposite. This therefore doesn’t strike me as a strong claim of error at all.

]]>