Satan The Devil

BELIEF IN SATAN AS EVIL HUMAN NATURE

From the time the age of enlightenment began much scepticism developed concerning the existence of Satan and the demons. Nowadays the subject is sometimes treated as simply medieval superstition and therefore the Bible’s reference to such creatures must supposedly be imagery that refers to evil or to illness, particularly mental illness, rather than to actual personal entities.

Many ancient statements from rabbis demonstrate that many in Judaism, from the 2nd century C.E. onward, rejected the idea of a real Satan and the demons. According to Jewish Rabbi R.S. Brookes:

Judaism has no place for the belief in the power of a Devil or Satan...Satan is rather the personification of evil—the evil inclination.

Naturally such 2^nd century and onward beliefs of Judaism do nor carry much weight when examining what is taught in the Scriptures, especially in view of the fact that Judaism went through a number of radical shifts in its beliefs after the A.D. 70 destruction of the temple and the dispersion of the Jews throughout many lands during the late 1^st and early 2^nd centuries C.E.

In regard to Christianity it was the liberal theologians of the 18^th and 19^th centuries who rejected the idea of a personal devil. At the same time they rejected anything in the Scriptures that smacked of the supernatural and they looked for entirely natural explanations of biblical miracles. Since the mid-1800s the main proponents of the concept that satan the devil means the evil inclination of humans or internal human nature or more recently human pride.

BELIEF IN SATAN AS AN EVIL PERSON

However, in the Jewish apocalyptic writings of the centuries prior to Jesus the words Satan and Mastema were taken as the names of an evil supernatural person who was the Prince of Demons. Other names or titles with OT connections were Sammael, The Angel of Death, Azazel and Beliar (Belial 2 Cor. 6:15).

By the time of Jesus the highly educated Pharisees believed in both a personal Satan and demon possession (Matt. 12:26, 27). Furthermore, in all the writings of Justin Martyr and of Irenaeus there is no thought that Satan was not a real person.

So it is the purpose of this Study to show that the Scriptures do, in fact, demonstrate that Satan is a real personality (with the ability to do great harm), rather than as having the meaning of the evil inclination of humans or internal human nature.

DUALISM—GOOD AND EVIL

The ancient Persian religion of Zoroastrianism taught that there are equally matching forces of good and evil—the good god being Ahura-Mazda and the evil god being Angra Mainyu. Some think that Israel was influenced in the formation of their concept of Satan by this Persian dualism during the time of their being under Persian control. Certainly the Scriptures teach a form of dualism in the following contrasts:

· “...to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God… ” (Acts 26:18).

· “What fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? What communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial”(2 Cor. 6:14-16).

However, the Scriptures do not teach a dualism of equally matched forces, but that Satan always was and continues to be limited in power. Furthermore, Von Rad has pointed out that the Angra Mainyu of Zoroastrianism never plays the role of an accuser as Satan does in the OT, intertestamental literature and NT (TDNT.II, 75).

IS GOD’S SUPREMACY COMPROMISED BY THE EXISTENCE OF A PERSONAL DEVIL?

Because God is almighty, Satan and all his forces pose no threat to God as is the case with the gods of Persian dualism. Often the evil works of Satan are turned by God into good for his people even as the evil that Joseph’s brothers did to him was turned to good by God (Gen. 50:20). So it is God who is fully in control. The concept that if Satan were real then the monotheism of the Bible would be contradicted carries no weight because men in the Scriptures are sometimes called ‘god’ (John 10:34, 35) but they are not the almighty God, So too with Satan (2 Cor. 4:4).

THE ANCIENTS WERE UNAWARE OF THE TRUE SOURCE OF ADVERSITY THAT COMES UPON THE RIGHTEOUS

· “For the arrows of the Almighty are within me…the terrors of God are arrayed against me” (Job 6:4).

· “Shall we accept good from God, and shall we not accept adversity” (Job 2:10).

· “...they...comforted him for all the evils Yahweh inflicted on him” (Job 42:11 KJV)

Modern translations show this as not being evil perpetrated upon Job by God but: adversity NKJV, misfortunes REB, or trials NLT. Nevertheless, the record shows that Job and his relatives were unaware of the true source of all this adversity. The early chapters of Job show that Satan is the real, behind the scenes, perpetrator of this adversity (Job 1:12; 2:6). So after the writing of the book of Job it became evident that Satan was a powerful accusing spirit who acts according to his own purposes and agenda; but more was yet to be revealed concerning Satan as being the prime cause of evil. Nevertheless, Elihu stated to Job and his comforters that it is never God who perpetrates wickedness (Job 34:10).

In the cases revealed in Judges 9:23; 1 Samuel 16:14-16, 18:10, 19:9, 10; and 1 Kings 22:23 it was God who is described as sending “an evil or lying spirit.” This is because God has the right to manoeuvre situations and to punish the wicked.

GOD IS NOT THE CAUSE OF EVIL NOR THE ONE TEMPTING OTHERS TO DO EVIL

Elihu stated:

· “Therefore listen to me, you men of understanding: Far be it from God to do wickedness, And from the Almighty to commit iniquity.” (Job 34:10).

Jesus stated:

· “If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask” (Matt. 7:11).

James stated:

· “...nor does He [God] tempt anyone...every good gift...is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights” (Jas. 1:13, 17).

MISAPPLIED TEXT

“Who has made man’s mouth? Or who makes the mute, the deaf, the seeing, or the blind? Have not I the Lord?” (Ex. 4:11).

This is in the context of Moses’ protest that he has a speech impediment and cannot represent Yahweh to the Egyptians:

Yahweh’s answer to Moses’ protest shows the protest to be not only invalid, but irrelevant. …Yahweh has made the mouth of man, and Yahweh withholds or gives the ability to communicate.” Word Biblical Commentary.

So this verse is not saying that God wickedly creates people with these impediments (Job 34:10), but rather He is reassuring Moses that He will enable him to communicate with the Egyptians.

CHRIST REVEALS SATAN AS THE PRIME ENEMY OF MANKIND

· “The enemy who sowed them is the devil” (Luke 13:39).

· “deliver us from the evil one” (Matt. 6:13).

· “...your father the devil...He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth...for heis a liar and the father of it” (John 8:44).

These texts clearly speak of a person and there is no biblical reason to imagine that this is personification.

In The Gospel and Epistles of John p. 201 F.F. Bruce says:

What is meant by the statement that he was ‘a murderer, a man-slayer, from the beginning’? Probably that by his deceiving our first parents he ‘brought death into the world’ and all our woe.

SATAN IS THE SERPENT OF EDEN

“...the great dragon was cast out,that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world...” (Rev. 12:9).

So the dragon of 12:3 is a symbol of the one titled “that serpent” who was in Eden (Gen. 3) and who is defined as “the Devil and Satan.” Paul states that—“the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness” (2 Co. 11:3) and so showing that a particular crafty external person deceived Eve and not either sin within her or a literal talking snake.

SATAN/DEVIL/SERPENT IN THE OLD TESTAMENT IS ALWAYS AN EXTERNAL PERSON

“Satan,” in the Hebrew Scriptures, is always an external person—never internal human nature. The instances are:

1. The serpent in Eden because he is later identified as “the Devil and Satan” (Rev. 12:9).

2. The person who brought trouble on Job (Job 1: 1-12; 2:1-7).

3. The person who tempted David to take a census of Israel (1 Chron. 121:1).

4. The person who accused High priest Joshua (Zech. 3:1, 2).

5. The angel of Yahweh stood as an adversary (satan) against Balaam (Num. 22:22).

6. The sons of Zeruiah acting as an adversary (satan) to David (2 Sam. 19:22).

7. God raised Rezon as an adversary (satan) of Israel (1 King 11:23).

8. Haman is called “diabolos” in the Greek LXX (Esther 7:4). The NAB and NJB simply use the terms “enemy” and “persecutor.”

So to say that “Satan” in the NT simply means internal human nature is to ignore the testimony of the Hebrew Scriptures. Jesus’ Bible was the Hebrew Scriptures which teach that Satan was an external person and not a personification of sin.

THE “TEMPTER” OF JESUS WAS EXTERNAL

Because Eve was tempted by “the serpent” i.e. an outside source, “the serpent” could not be a personification of sin. Christedelphians generally would agree with this. Furthermore, because Satan is also called “the tempter” and “the devil” in Matthew 4:1-3 then this tempter must also have been external to Jesus. This means that “the tempter” could not be any so-called sin within him. The serpent is in fact identified with the devil (Rev. 12:9) and so the “tempter” of Eve was also “the devil.” This means that “the devil” is also external. Additionally temptation and sin are two different things.

SIN SHOULD NOT BE CONFUSED WITH TEMPTATION

Those who believe that Satan is simply a personification of sin may be confusing sin with temptation. Sin is internal but temptation is primarily external through the senses, which then may trigger wrong desire. Even if temptation is through one’s imagination it is because of things originally sensed and is therefore originally external. Temptation involves alluring, enticing, provoking or seducing someone else into acting in a wrong or damaging way. Biblically temptation means “enticement to sin” and there may be numerous possible sources of temptation.

SATAN WORKS PRIMARILY THROUGH OTHERS TO ENTICE A PERSON TO SIN

“Woe to the world for temptations to sin! For it is necessary that temptations come, but woe to the one by whom the temptation comes!” (Matt. 18:7ESV).

WRONG DESIRE AS THE TEMPTATION THAT MAY LEAD TO SIN

However, once temptation has been internalized so as to become a “wrong desire” then the “wrong desire” may or may not lead one to sin depending on whether or not one entertains the temptation. It only becomes sin once one acts upon the wrong desire. James describes the process:

“Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted by evil, and he himself tempts no one. But each one is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desires. Then when desire conceives, it gives birth to sin, and when sin is full grown, it gives birth to death.” (James 1:14-15NET).

Here, wrong desire, rather than Satan, has been personified and is shown to be a later stage in the process; yet the Scriptures show the individual called Satan to be the ultimate source of temptation. This is seen in the wilderness situation when Jesus was tempted but did not succumb to the temptation and therefore did not sin. Christians also may resist many temptations. Referring to James 1:13-15 the Word Biblical Commentary states:

“In time of trial no one should remark, God is tempting me. For God cannot be tempted by evil—indeed he tempts no one.” They could not avoid being caught in the midst of evil days; they are reminded that how they handle their problems ought not deny God’s providence, since he did not engineer their misery nor does he abandon them in it...not moral evil or “evil” as a metaphysical idea, but the evil conditions that arose from 1:2 and were threatening to induce the readers to react negatively to what had overtaken them. At the heart of the solicitation to evil (which we may connect with a God denying stance when the person is set in the midst of trying circumstances) lies the personal (ijdiva") desire (ejpiqumiva") that is bent on self-interest and self-pleasing and so is the catalyst that turns outward trials (1:2) into occasions for moral disaster as “desire” is allowed to have its sway and produce its nemesis…The point of emphasis here is to fasten moral responsibility on the individual…James’ main purpose is to trace the genealogy of sin no further than to the person tempted by ejpiqumiva…it is the trial (peirasmov")referred to in 1:2–4, 12 and alluded to four times in the verb peiravzein in vv 13–14 which is really the intended subject…The nub of the problem James addresses is that when his readers are caught in the throes of evil conditions it will not do to blame either God or others or to resign all hope in a fatalistic way. Individual accountability is at the root of the matter (vv 13–16); and God’s goodness and providence in both creation and the new creation (vv 17–18) are the two emphases our author insists on.

Evidently, this passage concerns only a time of great difficulty for the Christian and does not refer to all temptations. So it cannot be used to posit the idea that there can never be an outside source of temptation. The likely reason that Satan is not mentioned in James 1:13-15 as a source of temptation, as he is in 4:7, could be because that would only have detracted from the sinner’s responsibility.

DESIRE AND SIN, RATHER THAN TEMPTATION, COME FROM WITHIN

“...For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within and defile a man” (Mark 7:20-23).

ROMANS SEVEN AND SIN

Romans chapter 7 discusses sin in great detail and yet the terms Satan, devil, the tempter or any metaphor for him are never mentioned. This is because, not only is the term not a personification of sin, but it is not even the devil who causes us to sin (James 1:13-15) even though he is a tempter.

SIN ONLY ENTERED THE WORLD THROUGH ADAM

“Just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men” (Rom. 5:12-19).

This does not mean that sin’s entry into the world was caused only by Adam. This is quite a small section of Scripture where Paul compares Adam’s disobedience with the obedience of Christ. This is not speaking of the direct originator of sin, namely Satan, but the one whom sin came through, namely, Adam. However Paul does, in other places, show that Satan is the prime tempter toward sin e.g. “as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness...” (2 Cor. 11:3). Revelation 12:9 identifies the serpent as Satan.

SATAN IS THE ULTIMATE TEMPTER

“Do not deprive one another [of the marital due] except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control” (1 Cor. 7:5).

Here Satan cannot be a personification of sin, but is the prime source of temptation triggering sexually immoral desire (verse 2) because one or both parties lack self-control. So the sin could eventually be that of sexual immorality.

NEITHER CHRIST NOT CHRISTIANS HAVE A PREDISPOSITION TO SIN

Although the world in general may have a predisposition to sin because it has no desire to please God, this is not the case with Christians. This does not, however, mean that they never sin, but rather that they are working against sinning as Jesus fully and successfully did. God has promised a way of escape in every situation:

“No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it.” (1 Cor. 10:3).

BECAUSE SIN IS PERSONIFIED IS IT SYNONYMOUS WITH “THE DEVIL”?

It is argued that because “sin when it is full grown brings forth death” (James 1:15) and that the one who “had (Lit. having) the power of death...is, the devil...” (Heb. 2:14) that therefore “the devil” must refer to sin. Also, it is reasoned that only God has the power of death and that one thing holds it, namely, sin.The corollary to this reasoning is that because “...sin reigned in death...” (Rom. 5:21) and “...the wages of sin is death...” (Rom. 6:23) and “...sin that dwells in me” (Rom. 7:17, 18) as personifications of sin then that must mean that “sin” is a term for the devil. However, in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary on Hebrews 2:14 Leon Morris comments that:

This raises a problem because it is God alone who controls the issues of life and death (Job 2:6; Luke 12:5). But it was through Adam’s sin, brought about by the temptation of the devil, that death entered the world (Gen 2:27; 3:19; Rom 5:12). From this it is logical to assume that the devil exercises his power in the realm of death. But the death of Christ is the means of destroying the power of the devil. Vol. 12, pp. 28, 29.

So although it certainly is God who ultimately has the power of death he is not the one who introduced death into the world. The problem with the ‘sin is synonymous with devil’ reasoning is that it does not take into account the fact that there can be a combined action of an external tempter and one who responds to that temptation, in this case, Adam. In fact because Satan led Adam to bring death to all mankind Satan can rightly be called “a murderer” (John 8:44).

Furthermore, the fact that “through death [Jesus] might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil” and that “He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself” (Heb. 9:26) does not mean that Jesus cannot do these two separate but related things. They do not have to mean that “sin” = “devil.” E.g. goodness comes from God, yet we cannot say that the term God is simply metaphorical for goodness.

THE TERMS SATAN AND DEVIL DO NOT REFER TO A PERSONIFICATION OF SIN

The claim is made that satan the devil, as a personification of sin, is manifested through various systems such as the Roman Empire or the Jewish religious system. However, just because a system acts in opposition to Christianity, it does not mean that it is a personification of sin, but rather it is simply in opposition to Christianity because of acting as Satan’s agent and viewing Christianity as dangerous to its own agenda.

SATAN- THE PERSONIFICATION OF HUMAN NATURE?

“…we wanted to come to you...but Satan hindered us” (1 Thess. 2:18).

If Paul is saying that his human nature (satan-adversary) hindered him from coming to them, then he was sounding very weak in character as though he could not really be bothered. However, we know from the NT record that Paul was a strongly motivated person and had God’s spirit. There are, of course, metaphors (dragon, serpent) and similes (roaring lion) for Satan, but these are not personifications of sin or of human nature.

HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY

People don’t usually attribute the good that they do to God, as if to say ‘God made me do this good deed’. So, too, the fact that there is a real external tempter should not be taken to mean that humans can blame Satan each time they sin. Humans must take responsibility for their own actions (James 1:14-15).

“THE SATAN” DOES NOT MEAN JUST ANY ‘ADVERSARY’

Christadelphians make much of the meaning of Satan as adversary. This word is then mentally substituted wherever the original is Satan. However, many proper names in the Scriptures have descriptive meanings e.g. “Hannah” means favour. But it would be incorrect to substitute the name for the meaning. Nevertheless there are a few cases where the Hebrew word satan is simply descriptive of an individual as an adversary and so is not a proper noun.

“A SATAN” REFERS TO EXTERNAL PERSONS

· “Then God’s anger was aroused because he went, and the Angel of the LORD took His stand in the way as an adversary (Heb. satan) against him. And he was riding on his donkey, and his two servants were with him” (Num. 22:22).

This is the first occurrence of the word satan without the definite article (Heb. ha). There are 8 more occurrences before the first occurrence of the Satan in Job 1:6.

For example:

· “Now the LORD raised up an adversary (Heb. satan) against Solomon, Hadad the Edomite; he was a descendant of the king in Edom” (1 Kings 11:14).

WHO MADE DAVID TAKE THE CENSUS?

· “Now Satan [an adversary] stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel” (1 Chron. 21:1).

· “Again the anger of the LORD was aroused against Israel, and He moved David against them to say, “Go, number Israel and Judah” (2 Sam. 24:1).

Although 1 Chronicles 21:1 is translated as “a satan” in the NAB with also a footnote saying an accuser or adversary, and Rotherham renders it as “an accuser” with a footnote saying adversary, yet Hebrew scholars state this word to be a proper name, namely Satan. So in combining the thoughts of the two verses we can understand that the LORD used Satan to incite David to take this census. The Word Biblical Commentary states:

(1) Satan (÷fc) “Adversary,” without the article, rather than God, is the instigator of David’s census. Such a figure does not appear elsewhere in Chronicles (or Ezra-Nehemiah); indeed, only in Job 1–2 and Zech 3:1 does a somewhat similar figure appear. In both of these cases, however, the definite article is attached (÷fch “the adversary”) so that the text of Chronicles probably represents the final stage in the OT’s development of a figure of Yahweh’s heavenly council who not only brings charges against his people but actually incites them to evil. Since such a figure does not appear elsewhere in Chronicles, it probably reflects the commonly held piety of the day, which hesitated to speak of God as the direct cause of evil. The part which Persian dualism had in influencing this development in Israel is widely disputed. (See T. H. Gaster, “Satan.” IDB 4:224–28.)

Such using of individuals as adversaries by God can be seen when He raised the man Rezon also as an adversary (satan) of Israel (1 King 11:23). So to use the issue over 1 Chronicles 21:1 and 2 Samuel 24:1 in an attempt to ignore “Satan” as a person is an unjustifiable treatment of Scripture.

“THE SATAN” REFERS TO ONE PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL

“Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and [the] Satan (Heb. has satan) also came among them. And the LORD said to Satan “From where do you come?” So Satan answered the LORD and said, “From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking back and forth on it.” Then the LORD said to Satan, “Have you considered My servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, one who fears God and shuns evil?” So Satan answered the LORD and said, “Does Job fear God for nothing...” (Job 1:6-9).

Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar states:

The article is generally speaking, employed to determine a substantive wherever it is required by Greek or English; thus: ...d) When terms applying to whole classes are restricted (simply by usage) to particular individuals...or things, e.g. adversary, the adversary, Satan...

Leading Greek scholar, Dr. A. T. Robertson informs us that: “The definite article is never meaningless in Greek.”

The term The Satan occurs in the whole OT 17 times; in Job (14 times) and Zechariah (3 times) and refers to one particular person. Evidently in all these OT cases this term refers to an external person.

“THE DEVIL” DOES NOT MEAN JUST ANY ‘ACCUSER’

It is recognized that the term devil does not occur in the Hebrew Scriptures. This is because it is a Greek rather than a Hebrew term. It does, however, occur once in the Greek Septuagint translation of the book of Esther with reference to Haman. Nevertheless, the 2^nd century Christians had no notion of the devil being other than a particular supernatural person.

IN THE N.T. “A DEVIL” REFERS TO EXTERNAL PERSONS

· “Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you [JUDAS] is a devil (Gk. diabolos)?” (John 6:70).

· “Likewise, their wives must be reverent, not slanderers (Gk. diabolous), temperate, faithful in all things” (1 Tim. 3:11, Titus 2:3).

· “...men will be ... unloving, unforgiving, slanderers (Gk. diabolous), without self-control, brutal, despisers of good” (2 Tim. 3:1, 3).

These texts do not have an article with the Greek word diabolos and so do not refer to “the devil” but to other individuals who are or should not be accusers/slanderers.

THE DEVIL, THE SATAN, THE SERPENT, THE TEMPTER

These terms occur more than 60 times in the NT. Examples are:

· “Now when the temptercame to him he said...” (Matt. 4:3).

· “Then the devil left him (Matt. 4:11).

· “...as the serpent deceivedEve by his craftiness” (2 Cor. 11:3).

· “the devil and the Satan, who deceives the whole world” (Rev. 12:9).

· “...your father the devil”(John 8:44).

· “...stand against the wiles of the devil” (Eph. 6:11).

· “…lest the Satan should take advantage of us...” (2 Cor. 2:11).

Matthew never speaks of a tempter or an accuser.

SATAN IS A PERSON—AN ACCUSER, AN ADVERSARY THE DEVIL IS A PERSON—A SLANDERER

We must bear in mind that the term “the Satan” is not a proper name because proper names are never prefixed with the definite article. Rather it is a descriptive title i.e. “the adversary.” Just as ho theos—‘the God’ describes the one true God so, too, ‘the adversary’ describes the one primary adversary of God who would have to be an intelligent person to be an accuser, an adversary and a slanderer.

SATAN HAS INTELLIGENCE

· “Now the serpentwas more crafty than anybeast of the field” (Gen. 3:1) as in NASB, NKJ, Rotherham, NE, NIV andNew Simplified(not ‘the most crafty of all thebeasts’).

· “Now when The tempter came to him he said...” (Matt. 4:3).

· “...the father of lies” (John 8:44).

· “...as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness” (2 Cor. 11:3).

· “...the great dragon was thrown down,the serpentof old who is called the devil and the Satan, who deceives the whole world” (Rev. 12:9).

· “...your father the devil...He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth” (John 8:44). Murder takes the planning of an intelligent mind.

· “...stand against the wiles of the devil” (Eph. 6:11). or “schemes” NASB, ESV; “tactics” NAB, NJB.

· “…lest the Satan take advantage of us; for we are not ignorant of his devices” (2 Cor. 2:11).

The ability to scheme such crafty and deceptive devices could only come from an intelligent mind.

SATAN CAN COMMUNICATE

· “He then showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of Yahweh, and the Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him” (Zech. 3:1NJB)

· “Now when The tempter came to him he said” (Matt. 4:3).

· “Yet Michael the archangel, in contending with the devil when he disputed about the body of Moses...” (Jude 9).

SATAN HAS PHYSICAL SUPERNATURAL ABILITIES

· “The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing...” (2 Thess. 2:9, 10).

This “lawless one” is evidently an agent of Satan’s and gets his supernatural power from him. Furthermore, Job’s situation describes “the Satan” as one who has supernatural abilities that are used against Job after:

· “...a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before Yahweh, and the Satan also came among them...from roaming about on the earth and walking about on it” (Job 1:6-12).

If the sons of God were real persons, then so was Satan.

· “And the LORD said to Satan, ‘all that he has is in your power…he is in your hand”(Job 1:12, 2:6).

· Satan sent“the fire of God and burned up the sheep and servants” (Job 1:16).

· Satan sent“a great wind and struck...the house...and the young people died”(Job 1:19).

· “Then the Satan went out...and smote Job with boils” (Job 2:7).

These miraculous evils detailed in Job were purposely sent at specific times. So they were not naturally occurring disasters.

Neither sin nor human pride nor any human could produce such events unaided by a supernatural power.

WHO IS “THE SATAN” IN JOB?

· It is pure conjecture to say that the term Satan refers to a brother of Job. Such a person would not have the power to bring these specifically timed evils on Job.

· The reasons why “the Satan” cannot refer to an obedient angel willingly doing God’s work are that:

1. The dialogues between God and Satan in Job 1:9-11 and 2:3-6 show that this individual is God’s adversary i.e. one who is acting in opposition to God.

2. He is one who slanders God’s “blameless and upright” servant (1:8, 11). He is therefore an ungodly entity who lies. One must bear in mind that God has His holy angels and Satan has his angels who sinned. So not all angels belong to God.

· The reasons why “the Satan” cannot refer to human pride (as proposed by John A. Pople) are that:

1. No part of the account informs us that “the Satan” should be interpreted as a reference to human pride embodied in the 3 comforters.

1. God does not dialogue with abstract qualities—human or otherwise. The idea that these conversations are a literary device is pure conjecture which. If true, would affect the meaning of all other conversations recorded in the Scriptures.

1. Job’s three comforters (displaying human pride) were completely unaware of the early dialogues between God and “the Satan” in Job 1:9-11 and 2:3-6.

1. Human pride is not the pre-eminent one of all sins. Covetousness, in its various forms, takes pre-eminence in the 10 commandments and in Paul’s argument in Romans 7:7, 8.

1. This proposal fails to take into account the principle of agency whereby God uses individuals as His agents (including Christ). This principle equally applies to Satan:

“And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness” (2 Cor. 11:14).

So during the circumstances of Job’s trial Satan used the three comforters as agents in an attempt to bring Job down and so in an attempt to win a moral victory over God.

1. It is misleading to say that “the Satan” originated on earth because he was “going to and fro on the earth,” and so is always on the earth in the form of the human pride within the 3 comforters. This simply means that “the Satan” had access to the earth and was not confined to it. God asks Satan “where have you come from?” and so showing that “the Satan” has changed location.

1. Humans are not the only ones subject to prideful behaviour. Although denied by some, the king of Tyre described in Ezekiel 28:13-19 has the ‘blameless guardian cherub who was in the Garden of Eden and who became prideful (vs 17)’ metaphorically laying behind him i.e. an angelic being who rebelled against God.

We can summarize from John A. Pople’s book To Speak Well of God:

Understandably these expositors either conclude, or simply by default imply, that Satan is a supernaturally powerful creature—the fairest conclusion given Satan’s apparently superhuman conduct. As long as the text stands alone, this is perhaps the most reasonable interpretation. p. 59 (emphasis ours).

WHO ARE “THE SONS OF GOD” IN JOB

It is also misleading to say that “the sons of God” are simply ‘covenanted believers’. The term “sons of God” first came into use as referring to humans when it was applied to the Israelites and therefore, long after the events of Job which were set in Patriarchal times. Prior to this the term referred only to angels or divine beings, this also meaning that Satan is an angelic being. (Please see Anchor Bible Dictionary: Job; Sons of God).

Satan’s supernatural abilities were also very evident in the first century:

· “The devil took him up on an exceedingly high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory” (Matt. 4:8).

· “...the coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs (miracles), and lying wonders” (2 Thess. 2:9).

Could miracles be caused by sin?

· “...the devil prowls around like a roaring lion seeking to devour someone” (1 Pet. 5:8).

· “Satan disguises himself as an angel of light” (2 Cor. 11:14). Therefore he is an angel of darkness.

SATAN HAS POWER AND CONTROL AND A KINGDOM

· “the prince of the power of the air” (Eph. 2:2).

· “him who had the power of death, that is, the devil” (Heb. 2:14).

· “Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons” (Luke 11:15, Matt. 9:34).

This displays a hierarchy which is not applicable to sin.

· “If Satan casts out Satan...how then will his (Satan’s) kingdom stand?” (Matt. 12:26 and Luke 11:18-22).

This is a literal kingdom and therefore controlled by a literal person. This is also known as “the dominion of darkness” in Colossians 1:13 ESV. This kingdom domain evidently is inhabited by Satan’s own angels.

SATAN HAS HIS OWN ANGELS

“And war broke out in heaven ... the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old called the Devil, and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him” (Rev. 12:7-9).

The argument that this cannot be literal because it would be impossible for such a war to take place in God’s presence because He cannot look upon evil, does not take into account the fact that “heaven” has several meanings as regards location. Hence such a war does not have to take place directly in God’s presence.

SATAN IS CONTRASTED WITH THE SUPERNATURAL CHRIST

“And what accord has Christ with Belial (meaning ‘good-for-nothing)? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever?” (2 Cor.6:15).

Although this term “Belial” can be used for anything that is useless it is most commonly applied, in the Hebrew Scriptures, to men guilty of serious crimes. However, prior to and within NT times it was entirely applied to the person Satan. The Syriac Peshitta reading of 2 Corinthians 6:15 replaced “Belial” with “Satan.”

So, if Christ is here a supernatural person then so must Belial (Satan) also be a supernatural person.

JESUS WAS TEMPTED BY THE PERSONAL SUPERNATURAL DEVIL

“The tempter came to (lit. “came towards” or “approached”) him and said ... The devil took him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. And he said to Him, ‘All these things I will give you if you will fall down and worship me’” (Matt. 4:3, 5, 8).

Jesus was not tempted by an imagined predisposition to sin. The taking of Jesus to the mountain, even by vision, could not be by the act of his own supposed human nature. Communication and action come only from a personality. The Devil’s showing Jesus all the kingdoms of the world in an instant does not make this into a metaphor or personification of sin. This event was possibly by Satan’s use of his supernatural abilities to place Jesus on the literal temple pinnacle. Certainly it was a real person that departed from Jesus afterward:

· “…then the devil left him; and angels came and began to minister to him” (Matt. 4:11).

This too cannot be sinful human nature that left Jesus but a real person just as the angels that came to him were real persons. If “the devil [which] left him” was his human nature how could it leave him? Human nature cannot come and go at will separate from the body!

To state that this is an example of metonomy is an abuse of that figure of speech because sin was not an attribute of Jesus. This must be read naturally, as a real person called Satan along with real beasts and angels:

· “And he was there in the wilderness forty days’ tempted by Satan, and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered to him” (Mark 1:13).

One cannot mix the interpretation as partly literal and partly figurative. These were quite literal wild beasts (not animal feelings inside Jesus) and literal angels in this description and soindicating that Satan too is quite literal. Just as the angels and later the Pharisees came to him so did the personal devil. Why should the “coming to him” change to a figurative action? The language of personification is mainly found in poems, parables and allegory but not in historical narrative. This tempter is, therefore, not any sin nature within Jesus “who committed no sin” (1Peter 2:22). Although Jesus was capable of sinning he was not tempted by something within himself. His mind was godly not sinful and did not have a natural inclination to sin although it was possible for him to succumb.

Furthermore, did Jesus’ human nature really quote the Scriptures to him? If so then why would he make such twisted applications of them?

THE ARGUMENT THAT “DEVIL” REFERS TO THE HIGH PRIEST CAIAPHAS

This argument is based on the fact that the NT term diabolos occasionally (e.g. 1 Timothy 3:11) refers to human accusers/slanderers. However, to arbitrarily apply this to Caiaphas is a totally conjectural approach. It is explained as a necessary method used because early Christians wanted to avoid “speaking evil of a ruler of your people” (Acts 23:5) so that unnecessary persecution would be avoided. Yet why should Matthew, Mark or Luke, who all wrote after the 50s A.D, be concerned about upsetting Caiaphas who was in office only up to 36 AD. Also why would the Gospel writers leave their readers to guess at who was meant? Just as the Greek text of Matthew speaks of the Jesus so it also speaks of the tempter and the devil – one who was well-known in intertestamental times. This is in contradistinction to each of the satans (without the definite article) in the OT. Also the claim that High Priest Caiaphas was the tempter cannot be upheld because he could not offer anyone “all the kingdoms of the world,” neither could he do it “in an instant.”

Luke 4:5, 6 informs us that Jesus was shown:

“...all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time...‘For this has been delivered to me [Satan], and I give it to whomever I wish.’”

This indicates that Satan possibly showed Jesus a vision—something that no ordinary human could do. Nevertheless, this historical narrative account is quite literal.

Furthermore, Caiaphas had not had the Roman Empire delivered to him, and certainly not “all the kingdoms of the world.” Further, at this point in Jesus’ life it is virtually impossible that Caiaphas would have known who Jesus was, not to mention the fact that Jesus was the foretold Messiah. So this passage concerns, not a tempter, but the tempterwho was the devil who was bargaining for worship. So any supposed involvement of high priest Caiaphas, is totally conjectural and untenable.

GOD DID NOT CREATE AN EVIL PERSON

“For You are not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness, nor shall evil dwell with You” (Ps.5:4) and“His work is perfect” (Deut. 32:4).

SATAN WAS NOT ORIGINALLY PRIDEFUL

“He [a Christian] must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil.” (1 Tim. 3:6).

Because Satan is given as an example of how a person may become prideful, the implication is that Satan was not created as a creature with extreme pride but by exercise of his free-will he became such. This explains how he could be judged (John 16:11).

A PERFECT CREATURE BECOMES SATAN: THE PROCESS TOWARD INIQUITY

“But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full grown, brings forth death” (Jas. 1:14).

THE COVERING CHERUB LIKELY REFERS TO SATAN

“You were the seal of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty, you were in Eden the garden of God…you were the anointed cherub who covers … you were perfect in your ways from the day you were created, till iniquity was found in you” (Ezek. 28:12 ff).

Although Ezekiel 31 describes the Kings of Egypt and Assyria as being figuratively trees in “the garden of God” along with “all the trees of Eden” yet Ezekiel 28:12ff includes numerous references to Satan. This is because the King of Tyre is being used as a front figure for the actual “anointed cherub who covers” showing that Satan is the real power that lies behind all these kings. Hence, Satan is a fallen cherub - a fallen angel.

Hard Sayings of the Bible’ comments that: “The description shifts back and forth from the king of Tyre to Satan himself.”

We cannot follow those views which inject into this chapter without support a foreign and false mythology, a legendary atmosphere, or hypothetical ideal personality. The importation into this chapter of mythology or some pagan legend must be resisted. The grand lesson of the chapter is that, ‘If Satan, who was far greater than Ithbaal of Tyre received just punishment for the arrogation unto himself of divine prerogatives, then

the proud ruler of Tyre cannot expect to escape the consequences of his own declaration that, “I am a god.”C.L Feinberg

As F. F. Bruce noted: “This passage in Ezekiel has contributed some details to the picture of the fall of Satan.”

NOTE: The passage from verses 2-10 does not concern Satan but purely the“man”(verse 2) the Prince of Tyre. So the Prince of Tyre is a type of the individual ‘man of lawlessness’ (2 Thess. 2:4).

OBJECTION BECAUSE ANGELS CANNOT DIE

Because Luke 20:36 shows that angels cannot die, it is objected that if Satan is an angel he, too, cannot die and therefore an evil supernatural person will trouble mankind forever. However, not all statements concerning angels refer to both good and bad angels simultaneously. There is a clear differentiated between bad angels“who sinned,” (2 Pet. 2:4) and good angels—“the elect angels” (1 Tim. 5:21). So the “all ministering spirits” of Hebrews 1:14 is only within the range of “the elect angels.” It may be to these only that Jesus’ words in Luke 20:36 apply so that only “the elect angels” cannot die. This means that Satan was not necessarily granted immortality.

Apart from the statement that there were angels “who sinned,” (2 Pet. 2:4) some angels must have fallen into error:

“If He charges his angels with error, how much more those who dwell in houses of clay…” (Job 4:18, 19).

Although Eliphaz may have presented incorrect theological arguments to Job this does not mean that he presented Job with incorrect facts. Job did not correct Eliphaz concerning this statement. So these angels must have been ones who had fallen into sin. Holy angels do not have a pre-disposition to sin. Yet to say that it was impossible for them to sin would be a denial of their God-given free-will.

NOTE: There is no biblical basis to interpret the angels “who sinned” and were “condemned...to the chains of Tartarus,” (2 Pet. 2:4) or the “angels who...abandoned their proper abode...kept in eternal bonds” (Jude 6, 7)as being humans, either as the 10 spies (Num. 13) or the 250 princes led into rebellion by Korah (Num. 16). Such use of the allegorical method is a reversal of the usual interpretive methods of Christadelphians. Furthermore, Tartarus is not to be a location for the punishment of humans, but rather for the detention of very long-living beings who are awaiting their judgement on the great day.

THE SERPENT IN EDEN WAS A PERSON NOT A TALKING SNAKE

However, unlike all other snakes this one was intelligent and, for its time in Eden, was given the power of speech by God.This interpretation was based on the description concerning the speaking by Balaam’s donkey (Num. 22:22-30).

1. The words satan and devil do not appear in Genesis; and only God, Adam, Eve and the serpent are involved. However, the serpent did not blame a separate Satan the devil.

1. The serpent is not described as an angel.

Comment:

Point 1 is incorrect. In the Scriptures there are numerous animal metaphors applied to the characteristics of particular humans or demons e.g. That Fox, The Beast, wolves, sheep, goats, frogs, dogs, and eagles and Jesus called the Pharisees serpents (Matt. 23:33). All of these give a basis to believe that the name “serpent” describes the characteristics of an intelligent person who deceived Eve:

“Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field” (Gen. 3:1). AS, NASB, KJ, NKJ, Roth, NIV, Young’s, Darby, WEB.

Notice that it does not say that he was a beast of the field: “...to the serpent...Cursed are you more than all cattle” (Gen. 3:14).

Regarding Balaam’s donkey as being used to illustrate the Eden situation, one cannot simply use an aspect of one event to explain an aspect of another event. The Genesis account gives no indication of such a situation. Furthermore, it was “the angel of the LORD” (vs.22) who caused the donkey to speak (vs. 28). Yet there is no statement anywhere in the Scriptures to the effect that God gave the serpent the ability to speak. It is hard to imagine that any creature had intelligence and powers of speech comparable to those of humans. Angels and humans are the only creatures described in Scripture as having such abilities. Therefore, the descriptive term the Serpent being given to a corrupt angel and that there was no literal snake involved makes most sense.

Point 2 is correct. But the understanding is incorrect because Revelation 12:9 confirms that the serpent = the devil = the Satan. Itconnects the serpent to Satan: “the serpent of old who is called the devil and the Satan, who deceives the whole world.” So evidently the Serpent is Satan the devil, the same one who was revealed at a similar time in the book of Job. So Satan, devil and serpent are just different descriptive titles of the same evil person.

Point 3 is incorrect. The term serpent is nachash in Hebrew, and is similar in meaning to seraph which is translated “fiery serpent” (Num. 21:8) as a reference to these angelic winged beings. This is very different from the concept of a literal snake. Seraphim appear as heavenly beings in Isaiah 6:2, 6. Therefore it is likely that Ezekiel 28:12ff refers to Satan. This describes the king of Tyre figuratively in Eden as “the anointed cherub who covers and who corrupted his wisdom.”

THE SERPENT HAS A LONG HISTORY

If the serpent were a literal snake then the first Messianic promise would not make sense:

· “I will put enmity between you (a person) and the woman, and between your seed (persons) and her seed (Christ). He shall bruise (‘crush’ in Rotherham and NIV) you on the head” (Gen. 3:15).

So Christ is not going to simply crush a snake’s head. If a literal personal Christ is “the seed” of a personal “woman,” then intelligent personal agents must be “the seed” of an intelligent personal serpent. Yet snakes do not have human-like intelligence but the future bruising or crushing of the head of the evil person is foretold as:

· “And the God of peace will crush Satan under your feet shortly.” (Rom. 16:20).

The fact that Genesis 3:15 predicted that the “seed of the woman” would bruise or crush the serpent’s head indicates that this speaks, not of a short-lived literal snake, but of a very long-living individual whose head will be crushed by the Messiah and under the feet of Christians.

WERE THE LEGS OF SNAKES REMOVED?

“On your belly you shall go. And you shall eat dust all the days of your life” (Gen. 3:14).

This is part of the poetic description of Genesis 3:14-16 and is couched in figurative terms, so that no legs were lost by snakes, but rather it refers to the abasement of the person entitled the Serpent who “deceived Eve by his craftiness” (2 Cor. 11:3). The figuratively great dragon “was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and the Satan, who deceives the whole world” (Rev. 12:9).

THE SERPENT WAS MORALLY RESPONSIBLE

Contrary to the teaching of John Thomas, just as Adam and Eve were morally responsible for their actions and therefore judged by God (Gen.3:16-19), so too with the serpent (Gen. 3:14, 15) who was cursed by God. Evidently the serpent was no innocent snake: “…as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness” (2 Cor. 11:3).

It was clearly a morally depraved person called “the serpent” who deceived Eve. There is no hint that Satan is simply a parable to represent sin.

EXPLAINING AWAY BIBLICAL FACTS CONCERNING A PERSONAL SATAN THE DEVIL

Jude 9:

“Yet Michael the archangel, in contending with the devil when he disputed about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a reviling accusation, but said, ‘the Lord rebuke you!’”

Different CD ways of explaining this away:

1. The 1842 book The Devil, an exposition of the Truth concerning that old serpent, the devil and Satan interprets:

Michael (a human messenger) =Joshua the high priest (Zech. 3:1-5).

The devil =Satan meaning:

Tattenai- leader of disgruntled Samaritans of Ezra 4.

The body of Moses =The Congregation of Israel

The dispute is interpreted as being over the building of the temple and so under the Mosaic system.

2. E.A. Stallworthy interprets:

Michael = Moses

The devil = Korah, Dathan and Abiram

The body of Moses = The congregation of Israel.

3. Michael Watkins interprets:

Michael (a human messenger)= Michael

The devil = Tattenai

The body of Moses = Joshua (the high priest)

Comment:

· If one believes that Michael the archangel was just a human messenger then one must believe this also about the archangel Gabriel. However, Gabriel was in existence in Daniel’s time and also in Mary’s time, and so living well beyond any human longevity and so cannot have been human.

· Michael is a supernatural being (1Thess. 4:16) with his own angels (Rev. 12:7). It is fantasy to imagine that an archangel is human. Jude 8,9 implies that Michael and the devil are “supernatural beings” (NLT), “celestial beings” (REB, Barclay, NIV), “angelic glories” (Moffatt), “angelic orders” (Weymouth) or “glorious ones” and who are defined as angels in the commentaries.

· One would have to question whether CDs really do believe in supernatural angels if they should turn angels into human messengers whenever it is inconvenient to have them as being supernatural persons.

· The real dispute is recorded in the Targum of Jonathan on Deuteronomy 34:6 and so is a long past event. Lange’s commentary explains from Jewish tradition:

that God had charged Michael the archangel with the burial of Moses; that Satan opposed him bringing an accusation against him relative to the murder of the Egyptian; in consequence of which he was unworthy of such an honourable burial.

· There is no biblical or logical reason to believe that the Zechariah 3and Judepassages are even remotely connected.

· There is no biblical text or any indicator that “the body of Moses” = The congregation of Israelor Joshua the high priest.

· There is no biblical text or any indicator that the devil = Tattenai or the trio of Korah, Dathan and Abiram.

· Zechariah 3:2 uses the term “the Satan” and in being singular and definite cannot refer to the group of persons—Korah, Dathan and Abiram.

2 Corinthians 11:14:

“…and no wonder! For The Satan (Gk. ho Satanas) himself transforms himself into an angel of light.”

Explained away as:

Satan (adversary) was the chief leader of rebel Jewish adversaries of Paul i.e. false apostles. So it is not strange if his servants are misguided supporters.

Comment:

Paul’s letters do not mention a single ring leader of the false apostles who he ever calls The Adversary. So the above explanation cannot possibly be proven.

1 Peter 5:8:

“Be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.”

Explained away as:

The Roman magistry that persecuted Christians under Nero and Diocletian.

Comment:

There is again a failure to see that this means that the devil is the one behind the persecutors of Christians. Yet if the devil were the Roman magistry Christians would have to resist it because James 4:7 says “resist the devil and he will flee from you.” Yet Paul tells Christians to “be in subjection to the governing authorities” (Rom. 13) and Peter says “submit yourselves...to every human institution” (1 Pet. 2:13).

Revelation 2:10: “...the devil is about to throw some of you into prison.”

Explained away as:

The actions of the wicked Roman government and so there is no real personal Satan.

Comment:

Just as God is credited with the actions of His agents that do His will, the devil is also credited with the actions of his agents doing his will. Therefore, the Roman government acted as the devil’s agent but was not actually the devil.

Revelation 12:7-9:

“And war broke out in heaven...the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old called the Devil, and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.” (Also see Rev. 20:2).

Explained away as:

• That there can never be war in heaven and so this verse is viewed as entirely figurative and not involving a literal Devil.

• It is also claimed that because this is in the book of Revelation that it must be entirely symbolic and therefore symbolic of sin or of the Roman government.

Comments:

1. This does not have to take place at God’s location; but in the lower heavens—the ‘air’—where Satan is “the prince of the power of the air.” (Eph. 2:2).

2. a. It is misunderstood from Revelation 1:1 that the word “signified” means that the book

is entirely symbolic. However, the Greek word means communicated and is used else-

where in the Scriptures with no thought of symbols e.g. John 12:32, 33; 18:32 and 21:19.

1. Certainly, the great red dragon is a symbol (12:3). But in 12:9 we are told what the symbol represents, namely: “the serpent of old called the Devil and Satan.” This is because all symbols represent something literal. One cannot have a symbol of a symbol.Yetif “Satan” were interpreted as a symbolic term for ‘sin’ then a symbol would have been used incorrectly.In any case, who would his angels (messengers) be if he were interpreted to represent “sin?”

1. Furthermore, there is no basis for interpreting this verse as referring to the Roman government because Satan/devil/tempter is shown elsewhere to refer to a single external personality.

John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11:

“Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out.”

Explained away as:

“Sin” being “the prince of the power of the air” (Eph. 2:2).

Comment:

However, Ephesians 6:12 shows such rulers to be not of “flesh and blood” but “rulers, authorities...spiritual forces of evil.” Grammatically it cannot be sustained that “the prince of the power of the air” is identified with “sin.” The being “dead in sins” is because of following “the course of the world and of the prince of the power of the air.” This text and John 12:31 etc. are clearly references to Satan.

The Word Biblical Commentary on Ephesians 2:2:

“And you were dead through your trespasses and sins in which you once lived in accordance with this world-age, in accordance with the ruler of the realm of the air, of the spirit that is now at work in those who are disobedient.”

“in accordance with the ruler of the realm of the air.” Only now is the solidarity of evil, of which the recipients of the letter were once a part, given a personal connotation. Their lives were under the control of a ruler. Supernatural powers hostile to human welfare and to God’s redemptive purposes have already figured in 1:21 and will do so again in 3:10 and 6:11, 12. In Ephesians, however, not only do such principalities and powers appear, but equally prominent is an ultimate personal power of evil behind them, designated here as the ruler of the realm of the air, but in 4:27 and 6:11 as the devil, and in 6:16 as the evil one. For Paul too this age had its god (cf. 2 Cor 4:4), and there was a personal center to the power of evil. But in the undisputed Pauline letters the designations found in Ephesians do not appear, and the name Satan is preferred instead. ejxousia is used in this verse for the realm or the sphere of the ruler’s authority rather than for that authority itself...What is the relationship of “the air” to “the heavenly realms”? It may be that the writer is using terminology from different cosmological schemes, but it is fairly certain. that he intends the two terms to indicate the same realm inhabited by malevolent agencies, who by asserting that the “power of the air” is not the locale of demons but the world atmosphere…

TEXTS WRONGLY USED TO DISPROVE THE IDEA OF A PERSONAL SATAN

1Timothy 1:20:

“Hymaeneus and Alexander whom I delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.”

· Also “deliver such one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh” (1 Cor. 5:5).

Explanation:

That it would be a total cruelty to hand someone over to a wicked powerful person so as to be physically destroyed.

Comment:

Deliver to Satan = disfellowshipped—transferred out of the kingdom of the Son (Col. 1:13) and back into Satan’s kingdom i.e. the world.

Flesh=(sinful nature NIV, NLT).It is fleshly lusts that must be destroyed, according to most commentaries. These two NT disfellowshippings were to act as a rebuke and not for the sinners annihilation by Satan.

Acts 5:3, 4:

“Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie? ... Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart.”

Explanation:

The term satan represents the sin that filled Ananias’ heart.

Comment:

The Satan and the “You” do not refer to the same thing. Satan prepared Ananias’ heart for lying (“filled your heart to lie”), but Ananias himself conceived the specific lie.

Luke 8: 5, 12:

“A sower went out to sow his seed. And as he sowed, some fell by the wayside; and it was trampled down, and the birds of the air devoured it ...¹² Those by the wayside are the ones who hear; then the devil comes and takes away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved”

Explanation:

The “birds” represent internal human nature as does “the devil.”

Comment:

The WBC notes: “That the birds should signify the Devil is not arbitrary allegory.” In other words “the birds” as such are not to be interpreted as “the devil” but in the illustration it is literal birds which sweep down to steal the seed. So there is no reason to read the parable as referring to anything other than literal birds and no reason to read the explanation as referring to anything other than the person entitled “the devil.”

WHY IS PETER CALLED ‘SATAN’?

Matthew 16:23:

“Get behind me Satan! You are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.”

Explained away as:

No personal Satan is spoken of here because Jesus does not say: the things of a fallen angel. HenceSatan is not a fallen angel.

Comment:

It is exactly “the things of men” that Satan tempts people with. It was the self-seeking glorious things of men that Satan had tried to tempt Jesus with in the wilderness rather than “the things of God.” Jesus evidently means that Peter’s thinking had become like that of Satan on this one particular issue.

THE OCCASSIONS OF THE DEFEATING OF SATAN

From the time Jesus was in the wilderness he engaged Satan in a series of battles, each of which resulted in a defeat for Satan until, at Jesus’ parousia, his angel will physically incarcerate Satan in the abyss.

DURING THE WILDERNESS TEMPTATIONS

“...no one that has got into the house of a strong man is able to plunder his movable goods unless first he [Jesus] binds the strong man [Satan], and then he will plunder his house” (Mark 3:27).

Jesus gave this illustration in answer to the accusation that “he expels the demons by means of the ruler of the demons” (verse 22).The plundering of Satan’s ill-gotten goods by Jesus occurs each time he expels a demon. So when was the ‘strong man’ bound? According to Beasley-Murray in Jesus and the Kingdom of God, p. 110 this “victory over Satan took place in the ministry of Jesus–apparently at its commencement.” And the key event for this ‘binding’ of the strong man was when Jesus was led into the wilderness to: “contest the field with him who holds it, that by the defeat of the devil the way to the new world might be opened.”

DURING JESUS’ MINISTRY

“And he said to them ‘I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven” (Luke 10:18).

AT JESUS’ DEATH AND RESURRECTION

· “…that through death he might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil” (Heb. 2:14b).

· “For this purpose the Son of God was made manifest, namely, to break up the works of the Devil” (1 John 3:8).

· “He rescued us from the domain of darkness” (Col. 1:13).

· “All authority has been given me in heaven...” (Matt. 28:18).

Although defeated it will be only a matter of time before all of Satan’s power is removed from him at the end of the age (Rev. 20:1-3).

AT JESUS’ PAROUSIA

“...an angel…with the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand. And he seized the dragon…who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. And he hurled him into the abyss and shut it and sealed it over him…” (Rev. 20:1-3).

If the word Satan were a metaphor for sinful human nature one would wonder why it would need to be put into an abyss for 1,000 years and then released after that for a short while. Yet from the time of Jesus’ parousia forward Satan is no longer “the ruler of this world” (John 12:31) neither is he “the god of this age” (2 Cor. 4:4).

SATAN’S DESTRUCTION AFTER THE THOUSAND YEARS HAVE ENDED

· “And the devil was hurled into the lake of fire and sulphur” (Rev. 20:10).

· “And the God of peace will crush Satan under your feet shortly.” (Rom. 16:20).

This is not a reference to the destruction of sin but of Satan i.e. the serpent of Eden (Gen. 3:1, 15; Rev.12:9; 20:2).

· The Serpent in Eden is a talking snake and is not connected with Satan the devil. Yet this is in contradiction of Revelation 12:9 and 20:2. A figurative understanding of these verses is incorrect.

· God is interpreted directly as Israel’s adversary (1 Chron. 21:1, 2 Sam. 24:1). However, this fails to take into account that God is able to use even the wicked as His agents. In this case God has manipulated Satan into doing His will.

· Because Satan means adversary, and Devil means slanderer, these definitions are applied by CDs to a variety of individuals and to internal human nature. The prime failure here is to distinguish between an adversary/a devil and the adversary/the devil. Arbitrary choices have been made.

· So the human Satan (adversary) interpretation is variously applied to:

1. The Brother of Job. Yet this fails to take into account the supernaturally caused disasters upon Job. Also it fails to note that it is not God who would bring disasters on a righteous person (Job 34:10). (The good angel interpretation fails because “the Satan” is God’s opponent and is a liar).

1. The High priest Caiaphas (Mark 1:13). Yet this fails to take into account the supernatural offer made to Jesus of all the kingdoms of the world.

1. The Roman government (Rev. 2:10). Yet this does not take into account the fact of Satan’s use of agents so that it is Satan who will throw Christians into prison by means of human governing authorities.

1. The Leader of Paul’s Jewish adversaries (2 Cor. 11:14 “angel of light”). Therefore this leader has to be a human “angel” in spite of the fact that the concept of “messenger” is missing. Why is it only the leader who is called Satan and not the other adversaries who are simply called his human “servants” (vss. 13, 15)?

1. Tattenai (Ezra 5). This means that the archangel Michael must become the human high priest, in spite of the fact that an archangel is clearly shown to be a supernatural being (1Thess. 4:16) with his own angels (Rev. 12:7).

In the last two cases the interpretation is accomplished by interpreting the terms angel and archangel as human messengers. Yet the Greek word aggelos always means supernatural being except possibly on one occasion.

· Alternative to the‘Caiaphas’ interpretation, the Satan becomes human nature (with a predisposition to sin) within Jesus and any Christian:

· Jesus (Mark 1:13). This is a completely arbitrary application made by the 19^th century unbelieving liberal theologians. But where in the Scriptures is Satan equated with sinful human nature? If Satan and the wild beasts are interpreted figuratively in this event so, too, the angels also must be turned into something figurative. Furthermore, a sinful nature must be attributed to Jesus contrary to the biblical statements that he never sinned even though temptation was put in his way.

· Christians. In Acts 5:3, 4 it can easily be seen that an external Satan prepared Ananias “to lie” but Ananias thought up the particular lie himself.

· Alternative to ‘theBrother of Job’ or ‘good angel’ interpretation, the Satan becomes human pride embodied in Job’s three comforters.

This proposal fails to take into account the principle of agency whereby Satan used the three comforters as agents in an attempt to bring Job down. “So it is no surprise if [Satan’s] servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness” (2 Cor. 11:14).

KEY EVIDENCE FOR A SUPERNATURAL PERSONAL ADVERSARY

1. ALWAYS AN EXTERNAL PERSON IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

· Jesus’ Bible was the Hebrew Scriptures which teach that Satan was an external person and not a personification of sin. Neither Jesus nor his apostles would contradict this fact.

· The temptation of Jesus was by an external adversary/accuser/slanderer— “the Satan” because these are activities of a personality, but it was impossible that it was Caiaphas.

2. A PARTICULAR PERSON

“The Satan”/“the Devil” is one particular adversary as contrasted with “a satan” /“a devil”

as any adversary.

3. AN INTELLIGENT AND SUPERNATURAL POWER

· “…the Satan ... for we are not ignorant of his devices (schemes, designs)” (2 Cor. 2:11).

· Satan sent“the fire of God, a great wind and he smote Job with boils” (Job 1:16, 19, 2:7).

4. A SYMBOL CANNOT INTERPRET A SYMBOL

Revelation 12:9 interprets the symbolic “red dragon” of 12:3 as the literalperson described as “that serpent of old called the Devil and Satan.” If “Satan” were a symbolic term for ‘sin’ then a symbol would have been used incorrectly.

CONCLUSION

To turn the term Satan into meaning sinful human nature is entirely theoretical and is based on a usage of language which, if applied to other persons in the Scriptures could turn them into anything one wishes. In this way one could even change God, for example, into simply ‘the good side of human nature.’ As Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible says of Satan:

Every quality, every action which can indicate personality, is attributed to him in language which cannot be explained away.

TEXT WRONGLY USED TO PROVE THE IDEA OF A PERSONAL SATAN

Isaiah 14:4 ff:

“How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!”

This refers to the King of Babylon and does not refer to Satan because verse 16 asks: “Is this the man who made the earth tremble?”