The above image is a still from the History Channel’s The Bible of the Satan character. Comments aside about his resemblance to the current POTUS, I don’t like this Satan. I mean, I don’t like the actual Satan, but I don’t like this depiction of Satan in particular. It’s better than the red faced, horned devil of old, mind you. I don’t like it because there’s nothing attractive about it. Wait, what? Hold on, I’ll explain. Look at this next image.
This is an image of the Satan character from Mel Gibson’s Passion of the Christ (a movie I personally love). It is a woman, head and eyebrows shaved. She is intended to be a bit androgynous looking and partly angelic. In other words, confusing. She’s supposed to look beguiling, like someone you could find yourself attracted to but at the same time, know you can’t entirely trust her/him/it.
That sounds more like the Biblical Satan and certainly sin to me. Sin has an attractive quality to it, it must, or we wouldn’t do it! We must remember that Satan is a fallen angel and angels are well angelic or beautiful. Now, misnomers about angels aside, that’s another post, a beautiful Satan figure makes more sense to me than an ugly, old man, image.
Satan #1 might reflect and accurate portrait of the true nature of evil and sin, but I think Satan #2 reflects how we see sin in our fallen state.
What do you think? Which image makes more sense to you as an accurate depiction of evil?