Sermon  •  Submitted
0 ratings
Notes & Transcripts

Study of Satan

The Origin Of Sin

We begin with a question to which there is no complete answer, it seems to me, in Scripture. How did sin invade God’s good creation? We have the Genesis account detailing the enticement of the serpent and the rebellion of Adam and Eve which we will look at momentarily, but nowhere are we told by God why . Why did God allow such an intruder? And when we consider that God created as He did, allowing the possibility of sin, we are astounded to realize that He knew such a creation would cost the life of His own Son. Slain “before the foundation of the world” ( Rev. 13:8 ), the Son of God would provide the only possible remedy for the infectious disease known as sin.

As we will notice in our discussion of the origin of Satan (in our future section on Angelology), scholars are divided on the question as to whether Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 refer to Satan’s “fall” from heaven. Assuming for the moment that they do, it would appear that pride led this mighty archangel to rebel against God and to be cast out of heaven. And it seems reasonable that his demotion took place before the creation (or at least the fall) of the First Family.

Texts such as Romans 5 indicate that Adam and Eve did not begin their existence with a sin nature, that is, a proclivity to evil. When the Creator said that they could not eat of that one tree, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the stage was set for the serpent (who is identified in Revelation 12:9 and 20:2 as the devil) to tempt them to disobey God. Note the steps in his enticement in Genesis 3 :

(1) he causes them to doubt the word of god (verse 1 : “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?” ). His preliminary challenge calls into question the goodness of God, a theme he comes back to later.

(2) he attempts to make god look restrictive and miserly (verse 1 : “You must not eat from any tree in the garden?” ). Isn’t it just like the Evil One to make one prohibition from God look like a complete curtailment of all freedom?

(3) he directly contradicts the clear word of god (verse 4 : “You will not surely die” ). The Hebrew expression is “Dying you will not die!” In fact, Satan later promises that it would be in such “dying” (i.e. disobeying God) that they would really live!

EmJ 10:1 (Summer 2001) p. 94

(4) he causes them to question the goodness of god (verse 5 : “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil” ). His message is clear: “God is holding out on you! He knows something that He does not want you to know! He is jealously guarding his ‘turf.’ Don’t you want to be like God?” [There is also the enticement to dissatisfaction with their being what God intended them to be: human individuals, made not to be rival deities, but to be in God’s image.]

The Consequences Of Sin

When God “discovers” what Adam and Eve had done, He seeks them out (they were hiding from God, apparently forgetting that He was omnipresent). He then questions each party to the rebellion. Beginning with the man, God asks, “Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?” (verse 11 ). Demonstrating his godliness, Adam declares: “Yes, I sinned! But let Eve go! It’s not her fault!” Wrong. Adam whines, “The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it” (verse 12 ). Note that the first consequence of sin in Adam’s life is UNGRATEFULNESS! God had noticed Adam’s loneliness back in Genesis 2:18 , and He had done something about it. He created Eve to be his counterpart—his completion. And remember that when God presented Eve to Adam, Adam did not say, “No thanks, Lord. I’d really rather be alone.” He said, “ wow !” [That’s in the original Hebrew]. Now Adam says, “It’s your fault, God. The problem is the woman you put here with me.

There are some (like myself) who believe that Adam was to be the loving leader of Eve even before the entrance of sin. Others suggest that Adam’s “headship” is a result of the fall. If the former view is correct, then somehow Adam had abandoned his leadership role. And rather than protecting Eve from the serpent’s attack, he blames her in order to excuse himself.

I understand that Barry Beck of the New York Rangers hockey team gave the following explanation for a brawl during the NHL’s 1997 Stanley Cup playoffs: “We have only one person to blame, and that’s each other.” Adam also did not accept responsibility for his disobedience of God. Sin causes us to become ungrateful to the creator . 4

EmJ 10:1 (Summer 2001) p. 95

When God turns to question Eve (isn’t it amazing that God plays this “pass the buck” game with His creatures?), her excuse for disobeying God is: “The serpent deceived me, and I ate” (verse 13 ). How would she know she was deceived? Perhaps her answer suggests that sin causes us to refuse responsibility for our choices. The biblical text had already informed us that after her dialogue with the devil ( Genesis 3:1–5 ), “the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it.” (verse 6 ). Each of those phrases sounds like conscious choices on Eve’s part.

The great writer George Macdonald once said, “Man finds it hard to get what he wants, because he does not want the best; God finds it hard to give, because He would give the best, and man will not take it.” The same could be said of woman.

Please note that God does not question the serpent. God simply pronounces judgment on it, predicting its eventual defeat: “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel” (verse 15 ). Some call this verse the proto-evangelium , the first indication in Scripture that God would provide a means of salvation for the human race.

Other results or consequences of the fall include: psychological effects (the man and woman become ashamed of their nakedness), sociological effects (Adam blaming Eve), spiritual effects (Adam and Eve hiding from God; the enmity between Adam and Eve and the devil; the entrance of death into God’s creation), ecological effects (the ground would now produce thorns and thistles), moral effects (man now “knows” good and evil in a way that God did not intend), etc. It seems most reasonable to say that Adam and Eve’s rebellion against God plunged the entire universe into a fallen state. Therefore, many argue that diseases, “natural” disasters, catastrophes, birth defects, etc. all trace their origin to that pivotal event in the garden.

Biblical Descriptions Of Sin

Before we look at the biblical terms for sin, I must share with you some of my favorite “stupid criminal” stories. Each illustrates the fact that, in its essence, sin is stupid !

Kentucky: Two men tried to pull the front off a cash machine by running a chain from the machine to the bumper of their pickup truck. Instead of pulling the front panel off the machine, though, they pulled

EmJ 10:1 (Summer 2001) p. 96

the bumper off their truck. Scared, they left the scene and drove home. With the chain still attached to the machine. With their bumper still attached to the chain. With their vehicle’s license plate still attached to the bumper.

South Carolina: A man walked into a local police station, dropped a bag of cocaine on the counter, informed the desk sergeant that it was substandard cut, and asked that the person who sold it to him be arrested immediately.

Indiana: A man walked up to a cashier at a grocery store and demanded all the money in the register. When the cashier handed him the loot, he fled—leaving his wallet on the counter.

England: A German “tourist,” supposedly on a golf holiday, shows up at customs with his golf bag. While making idle chatter about golf, the customs official realizes that the tourist does not know what a “handicap” is. The customs official asks the tourist to demonstrate his swing, which he does—backward! A substantial amount of narcotics was found in the golf bag.

Arizona: A company called “Guns For Hire” stages gunfights for Western movies, etc. One day, they received a call from a forty-seven-year-old woman, who wanted to have her husband killed. She got 4 1/2 years in jail.

Texas: A man convicted of robbery worked out a deal to pay $9600 in damages rather than serve a prison sentence. For payment, he provided the court a check—a forged check. He got 10 years.

(Location Unknown): A man went into a drug store, pulled a gun, announced a robbery, and pulled a Hefty-bag face mask over his head—and realized that he’d forgotten to cut eyeholes in the mask.

(Location Unknown): A man successfully broke into a bank after hours and stole—are you ready for this?—the bank’s video camera. While it was recording. Remotely. (That is, the videotape recorder was located elsewhere in the bank, so he didn’t get the videotape of himself stealing the camera.)

EmJ 10:1 (Summer 2001) p. 97

(Location Unknown): A man successfully broke into a bank’s basement through a street-level window, cutting himself up pretty badly in the process. He then realized that (1) he could not get to the money from where he was, (2) he could not climb back out the window through which he had entered, and (3) he was bleeding pretty badly. So he located a phone and dialed “911” for help….

Virginia: Two men in a pickup truck went to a new home-site to steal a refrigerator. Banging up walls, floors, etc., they snatched a refrigerator from one of the houses, and loaded it onto the pickup. The truck promptly got stuck in the mud, so these brain surgeons decided that the refrigerator was too heavy. Banging up more walls, floors, etc., they put the refrigerator BACK into the house, and returned to the pickup truck, only to realize that they locked the keys in the truck—so they abandoned it.

(Location Unknown): A man walked into a Circle-K (a convenience store similar to a 711), put a $20 bill on the counter and asked for change. When the clerk opened the cash drawer, the man pulled a gun and asked for all the cash in the register, which the clerk promptly provided. The man took the cash from the clerk and fled—leaving the $20 bill on the counter. The total amount of cash he got from the drawer? Fifteen dollars.

All of these stories demonstrate the foolishness of sin. Such a short word: sin. What biblical terms stand behind that three-letter noun?

The most common Old Testament term is ḥāṭṭāt ( חַכָּאת ) and its cognate term ḥēṭ˒ ( חֵטְא ). 5 These terms are translated “sin” ( Ex. 32:30 ) or “iniquity” ( Psalm 51:9 says, “Hide your face from my sins and blot out all my iniquity.” ). Several hundred uses of these terms are found in the Old Testament, emphasizing the idea of missing the mark .

The term peša‘ ( פֶּשַַׁע ) is used of active rebellion or a transgression of god’s will in Proverbs 28:13 , “He who conceals his sins does not prosper, but whoever confesses and renounces them finds mercy.”

The term šāḡāh ( שָׁגָה ) indicates going astray, and is used in Leviticus 4:13 in a context which deals with unintentional sins. ‘āwōn ( עָרֹן ) comes from a verb

EmJ 10:1 (Summer 2001) p. 98

meaning to twist and speaks of the guilt which sin produces. In 1 Kings 17:18 a widow whose son dies says to Elijah, “What do you have against me, man of God? Did you come to remind me of my sin and kill my son?”

In the New Testament the primary term used for sin is hamartia ( ἁμαρτία ), a word which emphasizes, like the Hebrew term ḥāṭṭāt , missing the mark . Matthew 1:21 speaks of the Christ-child as one who would “save his people from their sins.” The Greek term adikia ( ἀδικία ) carries the idea of unrighteousness or injustice and is used in 1 Corinthians 6:8 of doing wrong . The idea of lawlessness is communicated by the term anomia ( ἀνομία ), used by John in his statement that “sin is lawlessness.” ( 1 John 3:4 ). We need to be reminded, as someone has said, that sin is not judged by the way we see it, but by the way God sees it. The term parabasis ( παράβασις ) refers to a breach of the law ( Rom. 4:15 ). godlessness is expressed by the word asebeia ( ἀσεβεία ) in Titus 2:12 which tells us to “ just say no!” to ungodliness. St. Augustine said that “Sin is believing the lie that you are self-created, self-dependent, and self-sustained.” Ptaiō ( πταίω ) is our final New Testament term and refers to a moral stumbling. It is used in James 2:10 which says, “For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.” Someone has put the following couplets together to illustrate how sin is—or should be—viewed.

Man calls it an accident; God calls it an abomination.

Man calls it a blunder; God calls it blindness.

Man calls it a defect; God calls it a disease.

Man calls it a chance; God calls it a choice.

Man calls it an error; God calls it an enmity.

Man calls it a fascination; God calls it a fatality.

Man calls it an infirmity; God calls it an iniquity.

Man calls it a luxury; God calls it leprosy.

Man calls it liberty; God calls it lawlessness.

Man calls it a trifle; God calls it tragedy.

Man calls it a mistake; God calls it madness.

Man calls it weakness; God calls it willfulness.


God the Son Died for Us ( 1 John 3:4–8 )

John turns here from the future appearing of Jesus ( 1 John 3:2 ) to His past appearing ( 1 John 3:5 , where the word “manifest,” kjv , means “appear”). John gives two reasons why Jesus came and died: 1. to take away our sins ( 1 John 3:4–6 ), and 2. to destroy the works of the devil ( 1 John 3:7–8 ). For a child of God to sin indicates that he does not understand or appreciate what Jesus did for him on the cross.

Christ appeared to take away our sins (vv. 4–6 ). There are several definitions of sin in the Bible: “Whatsoever is not of faith is sin” ( Rom. 14:23 ). “The thought of foolishness is sin” ( Prov. 24:9 ). “Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin” ( James 4:17 ). “All unrighteousness is sin” ( 1 John 5:17 ). But John’s epistle defines sin as lawlessness ( 1 John 3:4 ). It views sin as defilement ( 1 John 1:9–2:2 ), but here it views it as defiance.

The emphasis here is not on sins (plural), but on sin (singular): “Whosoever practices sin.” Sins are the fruit, but sin is the root.

That God is love does not mean He has no rules and regulations for His family. “And hereby we do know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments” ( 1 John 2:3 ). “And whatsoever we ask, we receive of Him, because we keep His commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in His sight” ( 1 John 3:22 ). “By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments” ( 1 John 5:2 ).

God’s children are not in bondage to the Old Testament Law, for Christ has set us free and has given us liberty ( Gal. 5:1–6 ). But God’s children are not to be lawless, either! They are “not without law to God, but under the law to Christ” ( 1 Cor. 9:21 ).

Sin is basically a matter of the will. For us to assert our will against God’s will is rebellion, and rebellion is the root of sin. It is not simply that sin reveals itself in lawless behavior, but that the very essence of sin is lawlessness. No matter what his outward action may be, a sinner’s inward attitude is one of rebellion.

Little Judy was riding in the car with her father. She decided to stand up in the front seat. Her father commanded her to sit down and put on the seat belt, but she declined. He told her a second time, and again she refused.

“If you don’t sit down immediately, I’ll pull over to the side of the road and spank you!” Dad finally said, and at this the little girl obeyed. But in a few minutes she said quietly, “Daddy, I’m still standing up inside.”

Lawlessness! Rebellion! Even though there was constraint from the outside, there was still rebellion on the inside; and this attitude is the essence of sin.

But after a person has become a child of God, born again by faith in Jesus Christ, he cannot practice lawlessness! For one thing, Jesus Christ was without sin, and to abide in Him means to be identified with the One who is sinless. And even more than that, Jesus Christ died to take away our sins! If we know the person of Christ, and if we have shared in the blessing of His death, we cannot deliberately disobey God. The whole work of the Cross is denied when a professed Christian practices deliberate sin. This is one reason why Paul calls such people “enemies of the Cross of Christ” ( Phil. 3:18–19 ).

“Whosoever abideth in Him does not practice sin” ( 1 John 3:6 ). “Abide” is one of John’s favorite words. To abide in Christ means to be in fellowship with Him, to allow nothing to come between ourselves and Christ. Sonship (being born of God) brings about our union with Christ; but fellowship makes possible our communion with Christ. It is this communion (abiding) with Christ that keeps us from deliberately disobeying His Word.

A person who deliberately and habitually sins is proving that he does not know Christ and therefore cannot be abiding in Him.

There is more in the death of Christ on the cross than simply our salvation from judgment, as wonderful as that is. Through His death, Christ broke the power of the sin principle in our lives. The theme of Romans 6–8 is this identification with Christ in His death and resurrection. Christ not only died for me, but I died with Christ! Now I can yield myself to Him and sin will not have dominion over me.

Christ appeared to destroy the works of the devil (vv. 7–8 ). The logic here is clear: if a man knows God, he will obey God; if he belongs to the devil, he will obey the devil.

John accepts the reality of a personal devil. This enemy has many different names in Scripture: Satan (adversary, enemy), the devil (accuser), Abaddon or Apollyon (destroyer), the prince of this world, the dragon, etc. Whatever name you call him, keep in mind that his chief activity is to oppose Christ and God’s people.

The contrast here is between Christ (who has no sin, 1 John 3:5 ) and the devil (who can do nothing but sin).

The origin of Satan is a mystery. Many scholars believe he was once one of the highest angels, placed by God over the earth and over the other angels, and that he sinned against God and was cast down ( Isa. 14:9–17 ; Ezek. 28:12–14 ).

Satan is not eternal, as is God, for he is a created being. He was not created sinful. His present nature is a result of his past rebellion. Satan is not like God: he is not all-powerful, all-knowing, or everywhere present. However, he is assisted by an army of spirit creatures known as demons, who make it possible for him to work in many places at one time ( Eph. 6:10–12 ).

Satan is a rebel, but Christ is the obedient Son of God. Christ was “obedient unto death, even the death of the cross” ( Phil. 2:8 ). Christ is God but was willing to become a servant. Satan was a servant and wanted to become God. From the beginning of his career, Satan has been a sinner, and Christ came to destroy the works of the devil.

Destroy ( 1 John 3:8 ) does not mean “annihilate.” Satan is certainly still at work today! Destroy, here, means “to render inoperative, to rob of power.” Satan has not been annihilated, but his power has been reduced and his weapons have been impaired. He is still a mighty foe, but he is no match for the power of God.

Jesus compares this world to a palace that contains many valuable goods. A strong man is guarding this palace ( Luke 11:14–23 ). Satan is the strong man, and his “goods” are lost men and women. The only way to release the “goods” is to bind the strong man, and that is just what Jesus did on the cross. Jesus, in coming to earth, invaded Satan’s “palace.” When He died, He broke Satan’s power and captured his goods! Each time a lost sinner is won to Christ, more of Satan’s “spoils” are taken from him.

For many months after the close of World War II, Japanese troops were discovered hidden in the caves and jungles of the Pacific islands. Some of these stragglers were living like frightened savages; they didn’t know the war was over. Once they understood that it was no longer necessary for them to fight, they surrendered.

Christians may rest in the truth that Satan is a defeated enemy. He may still win a few battles here and there, but he has already lost the war! Sentence has been pronounced on him, but it will be awhile before the punishment is meted out. A person who knows Christ, and who has been delivered from the bondage of sin through Christ’s death on the cross, has no desire to obey Satan and live like a rebel.

“Little children, let no man deceive you!” Counterfeit Christians were trying to convince true believers that a person could be “saved” and still practice sin. John does not deny that Christians sin, but he does deny that Christians can live in sin. A person who can enjoy deliberate sin and who does not feel convicted or experience God’s chastening had better examine himself to see whether or not he is really born of God.

God the Holy Spirit Lives in Us ( 1 John 3:9–10 )

“Whosoever is born of God does not practice sin!”

Why? Because he has a new nature within him, and that new nature cannot sin. John calls this new nature God’s “seed.”

When a person receives Christ as his Saviour, tremendous spiritual changes take place in him. He is given a new standing before God, being accepted as righteous in God’s sight. This new standing is called “justification.” It never changes and is never lost.

The new Christian is also given a new position: he is set apart for God’s own purposes to live for His glory. This new position is called “sanctification,” and it has a way of changing from day to day. On some days we are much closer to Christ and obey Him much more readily.

But perhaps the most dramatic change in a new believer is what we call “regeneration.” He is “born again” into the family of God. ( Re- means “again,” and generation means “birth.”)

Justification means a new standing before God, sanctification means being set apart to God, and regeneration means a new nature —God’s nature (cf. 2 Peter 1:4 ).

The only way to enter God’s family is by trusting Christ and experiencing this new birth. “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God” ( 1 John 5:1 ).

Physical life produces only physical life; spiritual life produces spiritual life. “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” ( John 3:6 ). Christians have been born again, “not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the Word of God, which liveth and abideth forever” ( 1 Peter 1:23 ). A Christian’s “spiritual parents,” so to speak, are the Word of God and the Spirit of God. The Spirit of God uses the Word of God to convict of sin and to reveal the Saviour.

We are saved by faith ( Eph. 2:8–9 ), and “faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God” ( Rom. 10:17 ). In the miracle of the new birth, the Holy Spirit imparts new life—God’s life—to a believing sinner, and as a result the individual is born into the family of God.

Just as physical children bear the nature of their parents, so God’s spiritual children bear His nature. The divine “seed” is in them. A Christian has an old nature from his physical birth and a new nature from his spiritual birth. The New Testament contrasts these two natures and gives them various names:

Old Nature New Nature
“our old man” ( Rom. 6:6 ) “the new man” ( Col. 3:10 )
“the flesh” ( Gal. 5:24 ) “the Spirit” ( Gal. 5:17 )
“corruptible seed” ( 1 Peter 1:23 ) “God’s seed” ( 1 John 3:9 )

The old nature produces sin, but the new nature leads one into a holy life. A Christian’s responsibility is to live according to his new nature, not the old nature.

One way to illustrate this is by contrasting the “outer man” with the “inner man” ( 2 Cor. 4:16 ). The physical man needs food, and so does the inner, or spiritual man. “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” ( Matt. 4:4 ). Unless a Christian spends time daily in meditating on the Word of God, his inner man will lack power.

A converted Indian explained, “I have two dogs living in me—a mean dog and a good dog. They are always fighting. The mean dog wants me to do bad things, and the good dog wants me to do good things. Do you want to know which dog wins? The one I feed the most!”

A Christian who feeds the new nature from the Word of God will have power to live a godly life. We are to “make not provision for the flesh, to fulfill the lusts thereof” ( Rom. 13:14 ).

The physical man needs cleansing, and so does the inner man. We wash our hands and face frequently. A believer should look into the mirror of God’s Word daily ( James 1:22–25 ) and examine himself. He must confess his sins and claim God’s forgiveness ( 1 John 1:9 ). Otherwise the inner man will become unclean and this uncleanness will breed infection and “spiritual sickness.”

Unconfessed sin is the first step in what the Bible calls “backsliding”—gradually moving away from a close walk with Christ into a life filled with the alien world in which we live.

God’s promise, “I will heal your backslidings” ( Jer. 3:22 ), implies that backsliding resembles physical sickness. First is the secret invasion of the body by a disease germ. Then infection follows and there is a gradual decline: no pep, no appetite, no interest in normal activities. Then comes the collapse!

Spiritual decline works in a similar way. First sin invades us. Instead of fighting it, we yield to it (cf. James 1:14 ) and infection sets in. A gradual decline follows. We lose our appetite for spiritual things, we become listless and even irritable, and finally we collapse.

The only remedy is to confess and forsake our sin and turn to Christ for cleansing and healing.

The inner man not only needs food and cleansing, but he also needs exercise. “Exercise thyself... unto godliness” ( 1 Tim. 4:7 ). A person who eats but does not exercise will become overweight; a person who exercises without eating will kill himself. There must be proper balance.

“Spiritual exercise” for a believer, includes sharing Christ with others, doing good works in Christ’s name, and helping to build up other believers. Each Christian has at least one spiritual gift which he is to use for the good of the church ( 1 Cor. 12:1–11 ). “As each one has received a special gift, employ it in serving one another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God” ( 1 Peter 4:10 , nasb ).

Here is a vivid commentary on this whole process of temptation and sin:

“Let no one say when he is tempted, ‘I am being tempted by God!’ for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. And when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death” ( James 1:13–15 , nasb ).

Temptation appeals to our basic natural desires. There is nothing sinful about our desires, but temptation gives us an opportunity to satisfy these desires in an evil way. It is not sin to be hungry, but it is a sin to satisfy hunger out of the will of God. This was the first temptation Satan hurled at Jesus ( Matt. 4:1–4 ).

The two terms, “carried away” and “enticed” ( James 1:14 ), both relate to hunting or fishing: the putting of bait in a trap or on a hook. The animal (or fish) comes along and his natural desires attract him to the bait. But in taking the bait, he gets caught in the trap, or hooked. And the end is death.

Satan baits his traps with pleasures that appeal to the old nature, the flesh. But none of his bait appeals to the new divine nature within a Christian. If a believer yields to his old nature, he will hanker for the bait, take it, and sin. But if he follows the leanings of his new nature, he will refuse the bait and obey God. “This I say then, walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh” ( Gal. 5:16 ).

Yielding to sin is the distinguishing mark of “the children of the devil” ( 1 John 3:10 ). They profess, or claim, one thing, but they practice another. Satan is a liar and the father of lies ( John 8:44 ), and his children are like their father. “He that saith, ‘I know [God],’ and keepeth not His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him” ( 1 John 2:4 ). The children of the devil try to deceive God’s children into thinking that a person can be a Christian and still practice sin. “Little children, let no man deceive you; he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as He [God] is righteous” ( 1 John 3:7 ).

False teachers in John’s day taught that a Christian did not have to worry about sin because only the body sinned and what the body did in no way affected the spirit. Some of them went so far as to teach that sin is natural to the body, because the body is sinful.

The New Testament exposes the foolishness of such excuses for sin.

To begin with, “the old nature” is not the body. The body itself is neutral: it can be used either by the old sinful nature or by the new divine nature. “Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey its lusts, and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those [who are] alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God” ( Rom. 6:12–13 , nasb ).

How does a child of God go about overcoming the desires of the old nature? He must begin each day by yielding his body to God as a living sacrifice ( Rom. 12:1 ). He must spend time reading and studying the Word of God, “feeding” his new nature. He must take time to pray, asking God to fill him with the Holy Spirit and give him power to serve Christ and glorify Him.

As he goes through the day, a believer must depend on the power of the Spirit in the inner man. When temptations come, he must immediately turn to Christ for victory.

The Word of God in his heart will help to keep him from sin if only he will turn to Christ. “Thy Word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against Thee” ( Ps. 119:11 ). If he does sin, he must instantly confess to God and claim forgiveness. But it is not necessary for him to sin. By yielding his body to the Holy Spirit within him, he will receive the power he needs to overcome the tempter.

A good practice is to claim God’s promise: “No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able; but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, that you may be able to endure it” ( 1 Cor. 10:13 , nasb ).

A Sunday School teacher was explaining the Christian’s two natures—the old and the new—to a class of teenagers.

“Our old nature came from Adam,” he explained, “and our new nature comes from Christ, who is called ‘the Last Adam.’ ” He had the class read 1 Corinthians 15:45 : “So also it is written, ‘The first man, Adam, became a living soul.’ The Last Adam became a life-giving spirit” ( nasb ).

“This means there are two ‘Adams’ living in me,” said one of the teenagers.

“That’s right,” the teacher replied. “And what is the practical value of this truth?”

The class was silent for a moment, and then a student spoke up.

“This idea of the ‘two Adams’ really helps me in fighting temptation,” he said. “When temptation comes knocking at my door, if I send the first Adam to answer, I’ll sin. But if I send the Last Adam, I’ll get victory.”

A true believer does not practice sin; a counterfeit believer cannot help but practice sin, because he does not have God’s new nature within him. The true believer also loves other Christians, which is discussed in detail in 1 John 3:11–24 .

But these words were not written so that you and I might check on other people. They were inspired so that we may examine ourselves. Each of us must answer honestly before God:

1. Do I have the divine nature within me or am I merely pretending to be a Christian?

2. Do I cultivate this divine nature by daily Bible reading and prayer?

3. Has any unconfessed sin defiled my inner man? Am I willing to confess and forsake it?

4. Do I allow my old nature to control my thoughts and desires, or does the divine nature rule me?

5. When temptation comes, do I “play with it” or do I flee from it? Do I immediately yield to the divine nature within me?

The life that is real is honest with God about these vital issues.


Lucifer — brilliant star, a title given to the king of Babylon (Isa. 14:12) to denote his glory. [2]

1966 הֵילֵל [ heylel / hay· lale /] n m . From 1984 (in the sense of brightness); TWOT 499a ; GK 2122 ; AV translates as “Lucifer” once. 1 shining one, morning star, Lucifer. 1a of the king of Babylon and Satan (fig.). 2 (TWOT) ‘Helel’ describing the king of Babylon. Additional Information: Lucifer = “light-bearer”.

2  How art thou fallen 5307 8804 from heaven, 8064 O Lucifer 1966  d  , son 1121 of the morning 7837 8676 3213 8685 ! 1438 8738 how art thou cut down 1438 8738 to the ground, 776 which didst weaken 2522 8802 the nations 1471 ![3]

 σατανς  * δαίμων , II, 1, 1 ff. ; → διάβολος , II, 72, 23 ff. ; → ἐχθρός II, 814, 37 ff. ; → κατήγορος , III, 636, 1 ff. ; → ὄψις , V, 566, 8 ff. ; → πεῖρα , VI, 24, 16 ff. ; → πονήρος VI, 558, 27 ff.

Contents: A.: Qumran and Later Jewish Satanology: 1. Qumran; 2. Later Judaism. B.: Satan in the New Testament: 1. The Accuser and His Fall; 2. Satan Sayings in the Synoptists; 3. Satan Sayings in the Epistles; 4. The Prince of This World in John’s Gospel and the Johannine Epistles. C.: Satan in the Post-Apostolic Fathers: a. Linguistic Data; b. General Material; c. Satan and the Church; d. Satan and the Martyr; e. Satan and the Individual Christian.

Since the art. on → διάβολος , II, 72, 1 ff. was published, the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls has enlarged our knowledge of later Jewish Satanology and at many points brought the NT data into sharper focus. This art. discusses passages which contain διάβολος and related terms as well as σατανᾶς .

A.      Qumran and Later Jewish Satanology.

1.      Qumran.

The Dead Sea Scrolls have many special sayings about the figure of Satan, mostly called Belial, which differ from those in the pseudepigr, and Rabb. Judaism Acc. to 1 QS 3:13–4:26 God has set for man “two spirits to walk therein” ( → VI, 389, 35 ff. ), the רוח האמת and the רוח העול ; “in the dwelling 1  of light are the origins of truth and from the source of darkness are the origins of wickedness. In the hand of the prince of lights is dominion over all the sons of righteousness …; in the hand of the angel of darkness is all dominion over the sons of wickedness,” 1 QS 3:18–21. It is later said of the two spirits that “up to now they strive in the heart of a man,” 4:23. This passage is in many respects isolated in the Scrolls. for the two spirits are not mentioned in them elsewhere 2  nor do we find the antithesis of the prince of lights and the angel of darkness at any other pt. The ref. to the source of darkness also raises the question whether there is not a kingdom which precedes and embraces the angel of darkness, so that the angel also has an origin. Again it is nowhere said expressly that God created this angel. These open questions are connected with the fact that here Iranian ideas are adopted 3  which linguistically do not harmonise with other sayings in the Scrolls and materially have not been integrated into a dogmatically consistent system. But from the section 1 QS 3:13–4:26, esp. when taken with 1 QH, 1 QM and Damasc. , one may see with tolerable certainty what is in view here. After a kind of preface the exposition proper begins in 1 QS 3:15 with the statement that everything comes from the “God of knowledge,” that He fixed the whole purpose of things before they came into being, so that there is no alteration. This absolute sovereignty of God over all creatures, including man and his way, is emphasised in the strongest terms in the concluding psalm of 1 QS and again and again in 1 QH. There is no place here for an autonomous angel of darkness; one may thus conclude that God created him too and as such. Nor is the source of darkness a sphere independent of God. The men of Qumran might learn from Is. 45:7 that it was created by God. Since the same things are said of the angel of darkness and of Belial, one must equate the two. Since again both spirits are referred to in personal categories, the spirit of wickedness is personal as in the view of Zoroaster, which has left its mark here, and it is the same as the angel of darkness and Belial. 4 

The ref. to the conflict of the spirits in the heart of a man reminds us of the Rabb. doctrine of the two impulses with which God created man from the very first, 5  → VI, 552, 12 ff. In fact, however, there is only one ref. to this. Acc. to 1 QS 3:21–25 the angel of darkness causes the children of light to go astray, and “the spirits of his lot are there to cause the children of light to stumble, but the God of Israel and the angel of his truth help all the children of light.” There is nowhere any ref. to a par. work of the angel of light on the children of light. Hence the doctrine of the two spirits has a different sense here from the Rabb. doctrine of the two impulses between which man can and must decide. The thinking of the Dead Sea Scrolls is predestinartan; in them the prevenient and absolute sovereignty of God extends over men too.

God has created Belial, the angel of darkness, the spirit of evil, and both the just and the unjust. The world and men are under the sway of Belial, whom God and the righteous hate and who hates God and the righteous. God calls forth the righteous out of the mass of the children of Belial and so prepares them by His leading that they gives themselves up freely to His will. Belial tries to overthrow the children of light; he oppresses and persecutes them, 1 QS 3:24; 1 QH passim . The spirits of punishment are also under Belial’s command, 1 QS 4:12; Damasc. 2:6 (2:4), cf. Eth. En. 56:1–4: Jub. 49:2. Belial has put forth his power against God’s electing, which is seen in the whole history of Israel, Damasc. 2:11f. (2:9), Damasc. 5:17–19 (7:19). But the prince of lights protects the children of light. What strengthens both the whole community and also individuals within it in the fight against Belial is not the Law, which is for the Rabb. the remedy against the evil impulse (S. Dt. § 45 on 11:18), but God and the angel of light, 6  hence the reminder of God’s pity and Hts tokens of grace in 1 QH 1:31f.; 2:25, 28; 4:31–40; 6:9 f.; 7:18; 9:12 f.; 10:17; cf. 1 QS 1:21f. As God created the spirit of wickedness, so He has appointed an end for the being of wickedness, 1 QS 4:18; then Belial, his angels, and the hosts of men who belong to his “lot” will fall under Judgment. In a last violent battle Belial’s end will come and then truth will reign on the earth. God will create something new, the return of Paradise and a life of men with the angels, 1QS 4:20–25; 1QH 3:21f.; 6:13; 7:14 f.; 11:12 f., 25–27; 15:16.

Naturally there are some open questions. If God is to create something new (1 QS 4:25), has the old become imperfect or corrupt? In the texts there is no trace of a union of Belial with the evils of the world or the dominion of death. If God created the wicked and appointed them for the day of battle, this was because he knew their works, 1 QH 15:17–19; Damasc. 2:7f. (2:6f.). Does not this reduce predestination to foreknowledge? But these questions only make it the plainer that the men of Qumran were concerned to solve the problem of evil by tracing back to God even that which He hates and rejects. In the role played by the concept of mystery in Qumran one may detect a feeling that this solution cannot answer all questions.

That this Qumran conception held a place of its own within the development of the later Jewish world of thought may be seen from the fact that the most common name for the devil here is בליעל , but this does not occur in the Rabb. writings. 7  משטמה seems to be used in the Scrolls only as an abstr.; 1 QS 3:23; 1 QM 13:4, 11; Damasc. 16:5 (20:2); it is a proper name in Jub. 10:8; 11:5, 11; 17:16; 18:9, 12; 19:28; 48:2; 49:2; it does not occur in Pharisaic writings. שטן is found only 3 times in the Scrolls in obscure connections, so that one cannot be sure whether it is a proper name or an appellative (“the enemy”). 8  Sammael, the Rabb. name for the devil, is not used. 9 

2.      Later Judaism. 10 

The OT work of the devil, accusation before God, 11  is found in Jub., the symbolical addresses of Eth. En. ( plur. ), Apc. Eliae 4:4, 9; 10:19f. etc., 12  and the Rabb. →  II, 76 f., n. 31 ,  37 ,  39 ,  41 . Angels who report all sins in heaven and earth to God also figure in Jub. 4:6. 13  Ref. to the accusations of the wicked one raises the acute question how they can be met. In Jub. 48:15, 18 Satan is bound so that he cannot accuse; in Eth. En. 40:7 the archangel Phanuel, who is set over repentance, resists the satans. In the Rabb. . Michael or good works are our advocates, →  II, 77, n. 37–39 . Demons are never said to accuse. 14 

If in the OT Satan is one of the sons of God and as such has access to God, the Qumran doctrine of the two spirits created by God might have been linked with this ( → 152, 5 ) in such a way that one of them, Belial, could bring accusations. But this idea does not occur in the Scrolls, a sign that the whole concept of the two spirits was not developed on the basis of OT statements concerning Satan. It is also quite patent that the view of the devil as a fallen angel has no place in the basic Qumran teaching. Hence we do not find this in the pseudepigr, discovered in the caves of Qumran: it occurs for the first time in the Rabb. ( →  II, 78, n. 44 ), Slav. En. 29:4f.; 31:4f., also Vit. Ad. 12–16, though it is presupposed in Wis. 2:24 . Nor is there any place for the idea that Belial brought sin into the world by seducing Adam or that sin first came into the world through the fall of Adam. Nor do we find this view in Jub., Test. XII , or Eth. En.  15  The decisive significance of Adam’s fall is stated in Sir. 25:24 , presupposed in Wis. 2:24 , and expressed in 4 Esr., S. Bar. , Vit. Ad. and the Rabb.  16  Here the biblical story, which does not teach the doctrine of the two spirits, is adopted and developed.

On the other hand the story of the fall of the angels in Gn. 6:1–4 was already playing a big part in the older pseudepigr. 17  The doctrine of the two spirits left no room for this either. It is worth noting that Damasc. 2:18–21 (3:4–7) mentions the fall of the watchers, but does not ascribe to this the fundamental significance of having brought sin into the story of mankind; it is simply compared to the sin of the sons of Noah, the sons of Jacob in Egypt, the Exodus generation in the wilderness, and the children of Israel in Palestine, 3:1–12 (4:1–10). In the vision of the 70 shepherds in Eth. En. the fall of the angels is again an episode of no more than passing importance for the history of man. 18  The situation is already somewhat different in Jub., where the fallen angels of Gn. 6 are bound, their children are destroyed and God creates a new and righteous nature for all His creatures, 5:1–12, but where unclean demons seduce the grandchildren of Noah after the flood. Inconsistently these are called the “children of the watchers” in Jub, 10:5 and the “spirits of Mastema” in 19:28, When they are destroyed on the petition of Noah, Mastema, the prince of spirits, secures the survival of a tenth of them, since otherwise he could not exercise the dominion of his will over the children of men, 10:8. Very obviously different strands of thought have been artificially interwoven here. The same applies to the pertinent statements in Eth. En. , where paganism, war, luxury and betrayal of the secrets of God are connected with the fall of the angels—things which since then have been the vogue amongst men. 19  Adam’s fall is not mentioned in Test. XII , and in Test. R. 5:6 f.: N. 3:5, as in Jub., the fall of the ἐγρήγοροι is used only in exhortation. Rabb. writings contain only weak and late reminiscences of these apoc. speculations; 20  there is here deliberate rejection. 21 

Acc. to Test. XII man is confronted by choice: “Know that two spirits strive for man, that of truth and that of error,” Test. Jud. 20:1. Man must choose between light and darkness, the Law of the Lord and the work of Belial, L. 19:1. Quite unmythologically Sir. 15:17 says that “before men lies life and death, and what he wills will be given him.” Acc. to 4 Esr. each man must fight and receive the fruits of his victory or defeat, 7:127f. etc. Aqiba compares the situation of man to a buyer who purchases from a merchant on credit but who will necessarily have to pay one day, Ab. , 3. 16. To resist evil, whether it be Sammael or the evil impulse, the weapon of the Law has been given to man, S. Dt. § 45 on 11:18 (the Law is God’s requirement here). This was not the view of Qumran. Here man has no free choice. The relation between God’s election and the founding of the Qumran community, between the membership of the individual in it and the attacks and hostilities of Belial, is less prominent in the pseudepigr, found in Qumran, as also in Rabb. Judaism (along with predestinarian ideas). Here election is again referred to all Israel and is weakened, since in the long run it is overshadowed by the idea that Israel is elected because it freely accepts the Law. The individual struggle to keep the Law now comes to the forefront. Often interwoven are the concepts of the fall and of human sinfulness. Satan’s activity, broadly depicted along the lines of Gn. 3, is either explained and thereby weakened or it fades into the background altogether, as in 4 Esr. → II, 76, 11 ff. ; 78, 6 ff. Thus the influence of a transcendental factor is more or less eliminated and man is left with a free choice either for or against the Law of God.

In the history of later Judaism the only more or less consistent view of Satan is that developed in the Dead Sea Scrolls. In the divinely created dualism between light and darkness, the angel of darkness, Belial, is the one sovereign prince in the kingdom of darkness, beside whom there can be no other autonomous powers of evil. The battle between light and darkness is the theme of world history. There is no “middle group” between the sons of light and the sons of darkness. 22  Though men are not unwilling instruments in the hands of the two spirits, the view of Qumran is that God gives to men their “lot” in good or evil. Thus a whole series of statements from the OT and other sources is set aside. Nothing is said about Satan as the accuser before God, about the fall of Adam or his seduction by the serpent or Satan, about the fall of the angels as an invasion by evil and by demonic powers, or about Lucifer. These ideas made their way into the pseudepigrapha found at Qumran and even more so into other pseudepigraphical writings and into Pharisaism, but in such a way that we find little but scattered remnants of such concepts in the works of the Rabbis. 23  In place of election comes free decision on the basis of the Law, and this crowds out the figure of Satan. Only at one point is later Judaism united, namely, that in the last time the power of evil, no matter how it is envisaged, will be destroyed. 24  The gaze of Qumran is primarily fixed on the end of iniquity, but the last time, as a life with the angels (1 QH 3:21f.; 6:12 f.; 11:11f.), will also bring with it the end of “trouble and sighing” (1 QH 11:26). The latter point is also made in the pseudepigrapha: tum zabulus finem habebit et tristitia cum eo abdacetur , Ass. Mos. 10:1, cf. Jub. 23:29; 4 Esr. 7:11–13 ; 8:54a . It is always found when there is reference to a new heaven and a new earth. 25 

B.      Satan in the New Testament.

1.      The Accuser and His Fall.

The distinctiveness of the Satan sayings of the NT is to be found in the special use of the motif of Satan’s fall from heaven. This works out the familiar OT idea that as accuser Satan has access to God, but it does so in a new way. The situation in Lk. 22:31 is similar to that in the prologue to Job, → I, 194, 14 ff. ; Satan requests that he may have the disciples to sift them like wheat. The goal of the sifting is that the unwillingness of each disciple may be brought to light and Satan may thus be able to accuse them; but the accusation is opposed by the intercession of Jesus. 26  Jesus thus assigns Himself the role which angels, and esp. Michael, play in Judaism → 154, 14 ff. Related is Rev. 12:7–12 , where Michael fights with Satan, the great serpent. The reference here is to a definitive fall of Satan from heaven, so that he no longer has any access to God as accuser, 12:10 . This fall of Satan from heaven and its point in time ( v. 12 ), i.e., its conjunction with the coming of Jesus ( v. 5 ), separate the NT from Judaism → 154, 22 . Both are to be found in Lk. 10:18 (peculiar to Lk.): ἐθεώρουν τὸν σατανᾶν ὡς ἀστραπὴν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ πεσόντα →  VI, 163, n. 11 . ἐθεώρουν here is certainly not to be referred to pre-existent vision, →  IV, 130, n. 220 . Nor is it the proleptic seeing of an event at the Last Judgment. Once again, then, the fall from heaven denotes primarily the end of the possibility of accusing before God. 27  The context shows, however, that though Satan’s activity in general is not ended, with the total cessation of the ability to accuse he has also lost his power to harm wherever the power of Jesus is at work. We are not told to what specific point in time ἐθεώρουν refers. 28  If it is presupposed in Lk. 22:31 f. that Satan still has access to God, this is not an argument against the present understanding of Lk. 10:18 , since the life of Jesus is a unity. It is worth noting that in none of the epistles ascribed to Paul, including those which some do not regard as authentic, is any use made of the image of the fall of the accuser.

Ref. might he made, however, to Jn. 12:31 , though the reading βληθήσεται κάτω is undoubtedly secondary. The place from which the prince of this world is cast out ( →  I, 489, n. 5 ) can only be the place of judgment, i.e., heaven. 29  In Jn. 16:11 : ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου τούτου κέκριται , the judgment on him is not so manifest that the world does not have to be persuaded of it. In all these passages which speak of the fall of the devil or of judgment on him an Already is combined with a Not yet. This is the characteristic feature of NT sayings about Satan. The mythological concept of a pre-cosmic fall of Lucifer cannot be united with the idea of a fall of Satan in time, 30  and the basic principle of Qumran, the doctrine of two divinely created spirits ( → 152, 5 ff. ), is also abandoned, Jd. makes use of a legend about the devil whose literary source is unknown. 31  The more surprising it is, then, that the NT does not refer to a primal fall of Satan and related motifs. 32  Quite apart from Pl., the Johannine writings also say nothing about this. We read there, not ἐν ἀρχῇ διάβολος ἥμαρτεν , but ἀπ̓ ἀρχῆς ἁμαρτάνει , 1 Jn. 3:8 . The same ἀπ̓ ἀρχῆς occurs in Jn. 8:44 too. 33  The equation of Satan with the serpent of Paradise is made in Rev. 12:9 ( → V, 580, 40 ff. ), as previously in Paul ( → V, 581, 18 ff. ). But Paul did not make use of Jewish speculations about a sexual seduction of Eve by the serpent/Satan ( → V, 581, 1 ff. ). When Jn. 8:44 calls the devil a murderer from the beginning, this presupposes the same equation with the serpent. 34  On the other hand, we do not find in the NT the later Rabb. equation of Satan with the angel of death or the evil impulse ( → II, 77, 17 ff. ;  78, n. 43 ). Hb. 2:14 is closest to the first equation but does not make it. Both Paul and Rev. plainly differentiate between death and Satan, 1 C. 15:26 ; Rev. 20:10 , 14 .

2.      Satan Sayings in the Synoptists.

Linguistic Data. Mk. ( 1:13 ; 3:23 , 26 ; 4:15 ; 8:33 ) and the material peculiar to Lk. ( 10:18 ; 13:16 ; 22:3 , 31 ) apart from Lk. 10:19 ( → ἐχθρός ) use only σατανᾶς (no art. only Mk. 3:23 ; Lk. 22:3 , as vocative Mt. 4:10 ; Mk. 8:33 == Mt. 16:23 ), which is derived from the Aram. סָטָנָא . In Mt. apart from 4:10 and elsewhere in Lk. σατανᾶς occurs only in the Beelzebul pericope ( par. to Mk.) and Mt. 16:23 == Mk. 8:33 . In the story of the temptation (Q) Mt. (apart from 4:3 πειράζων and 4:10 σατανᾶ ) and Lk. use διάβολος , found elsewhere only in Mt. 13:39 ; 25:41 . Mt. also uses → ἐχθρός and → πονηρός quite commonly. Mt. 13:19 has πονηρός and Lk. 8:12 διάβολος for the σατανᾶς of Mk. 4:15 .

In the primitive Christian tradition transmitted in the Synoptists there are few references to Satan, but these are enough to enable us to trace the basic outlines of the NT view of Satan. 35  The overcoming of the temptation by Jesus ( → VI, 34, 13 ff. ) is more than a negative act. It is a victory which proves who is the stronger. 36  The one who handed down the temptation story regarded the devil as a conscious will which sought to prevent the coming of the kingdom of God through Jesus’ way of life and suffering and which also had the power of this world at its command. In the saying to Peter ( Mk. 8:33 par. Mt. 16:23 ) it might at first seem most natural to take σατανᾶ as an appellative in the sense “opponent.” 37  Yet the tradition would hardly have retained the Aram. word except as a term for the one opponent. But then all kinds of other difficulties arise. Peter is called Satan because he thinks in human terms; Satan, however, thinks in satanic rather than human terms. Thus what is human is so much opposed to God that it can be called satanic, and this because it is set against the way of God for the salvation of men. The situation at the temptation is seen again for a moment here. 38  Only at this point and in the εἰσῆλθεν δὲ σατανᾶς εἰς Ἰούδαν of Lk. 22:3 (peculiar to Lk.) do the Synoptists mention Satan in the passion story; in particular there is no reference in the Gethsemane pericope. 39  In the main it is astonishing how little the Synoptists depict the life and passion of Jesus as a battle against Satan, or how seldom Satan is mentioned at all in them. At any rate it is not stated that the evil one stands behind the questions which were put to Jesus to tempt Him, 40  → VI, 28, 17 ff. ; 35, 16 ff. Nevertheless, one should not overlook the light which the temptation story casts on the life of Jesus. The whole life and suffering of Jesus are a Yes to God and consequently a No to the tempter.

Only once is there reference in the Synoptists to a conflict with Satan, namely, in the Beelzebul pericope in Mk. 3:22 ff. and par. With this account the primitive community has handed down a whole set of important sayings. In place of the current ambivalence of Judaism concerning demons ( → 155, 4 ff. ; I, 605, 23 ff. ; II, 13, 35 ff. ; 15, 28 ff. ) one notes first the unequivocal unity of the kingdom of evil under the single head, Satan. Furthermore the possessed are not men who are summoned to decision by the message of Jesus; they are men whom Jesus’ word of power liberates from a force which enslaves them in their personal life. These are sick people of a particular kind, and their sickness is a work of the power of the evil one, → II, 822, 7 ff. A sickness which does not have the features of possession ( → II, 18, 38 ff. ) can also be attributed to Satan, Lk. 13:16 . 41  It is worth noting, however, that not every sickness is hereby regarded as due to satanic influence. But no balance or clear-cut distinction is attempted between natural and Satanic ailments; the “murderer from the very beginning” is secretly behind the phenomenon of sickness. Hence Ac. 10:38 : (Ἰησοῦσ) ὃς διῆλθεν εὐεργετῶν καὶ ἰώμενος πάντας τοὺς καταδυναστευομένους ὑπὸ τοῦ διαβόλου , can represent all the cures of Jesus as exorcisms of the devil. 42  A third basic statement in the Beelzebul story is the parable about the strong man and the stronger, Mk. 3:27 and par. This is a justification of the work of Jesus and alludes to an episode in His own life. It is usually assumed that the binding of the strong man took place in the temptation, → III, 401, 19 ff. This is correct so long as one perceives that the cross and the resurrection were germinally present in the temptation. Only in this indissoluble interrelationship can one see clearly what it was all about. The disarming of Satan is not just a matter of power; it is a matter of right. The binding of the strong man and the fall of the accuser from heaven refer to the same thing. Mk. 3:27 and Lk. 10:17 f. elucidate one another.

Two further important statements are passed down in interpretations of parables. In the parable of the sower the fact that some seed falls on the path ( Mk. 4:4 ) decides its fate. In the interpretation, which does not make the parable an allegory, 43  there corresponds to this failing on the path only the μὴ συνιέντος which is found in Mt. alone at 13:19 . The plur. “birds” is against a reference to the work of the devil, and so, too, is the fact that one might just as well think of the activity of the evil one in relation to persecutions or the deceitfulness of riches. The work of Satan, which is mentioned only in Mk. 4:15 and Lk. 8:12 , is the supernatural factor which is beyond man’s comprehension. It is not in keeping with the parable to find in the μὴ συνιέντος of Mt. the prior guilt of man and in the work of Satan the consequences, nor to see in the work of Satan 44  the view of the Evangelists and in Mt. 23:37 the meaning of Jesus Himself. 45  The juxtaposition of what sound like predestinarian statements with the “he that hath ears to hear, let him hear” must not be evaded in any way. 46  If in the parable of the wheat and the tares the mixed state of the community is ascribed to the devil ( Mt. 13:28 , 39 ), this is not an explanation; basically it is an even greater enigma, for how is it possible for the enemy to sow his tares in the community? In sowing, he does not sow semi-christians, but sons of iniquity in the community. Rejection of the ideal of a pure community is accompanied in Mt. by the demand for Church discipline, Mt. 18:15–17 . Obviously the two belong togather and protect one another against misunderstanding.

The traditions preserved in the Synoptic Gospels do not offer any fully devel oped Satanology but they do show what the primitive community regarded as important and worth keeping and passing on with respect to the work of the evil one. No attempt whatever is made to depict the devil’s being, origin, or work, and the solution of 1 QS 3:13–4:26 is not adopted. Here is a mystery which no effort is made to solve. 47  The power of evil is regarded as a single power working towards a specific objective. This objective is the destruction of man in every respect. In particular, there is war against Jesus of Nazareth as the bringer of the redeeming lordship of God. Through His way of obedience even unto death, which the devil sought in vain to disrupt, Jesus has broken the power of the evil one, though He has not completely destroyed it or made it irrelevant. In virtue of this work He differs from the prophetic Teacher of Righteousness of the Qumran community. The Jewish world of thought is plain to see in the Synoptists; it is also radically transcended.

3.      Satan Sayings in the Epistles. 48 

Linguistic Data. Paul never uses διάβολος in the older epistles including 2 Th. but mostly σατανᾶς , R. 16:20 ; 1 C. 5:5 ; 7:5 ; 2 C. 2:11 ; 11:14 ; 12:7 ; 1 Th. 2:18 ; 2 Th. 2:9 (without art. only 2C. 12:7 ): πειράζων I Th. 3:5 ( → VI, 32, 1 ff. ); πονηρός 2 Th. 3:3 ( → VI, 561, 19 ff. ); Βελιάρ 2 C. 6:15 ( → I, 607, 1 ff. ). σατανᾶς also occurs in 1 Tm. 1:20 ; 5:15 ; διάβολος in Eph. 4:27 ; 6:11 ; 1 Tm. 3:6 , 7 ; 2 Tm. 2:26 ; πονηρός in Eph. 6:16 . Other terms are used in 2 C. 4:4 ; Eph. 2:2 . Ac. has σατανᾶς in 5:3 and 26:18 and () διάβολος in 10:38 and 13:10 . The Catholic Epistles use only διάβολος , Jm. 4:7 ; Hb. 2:14 ; 1 Pt. 5:8 ; Jd. 9 . Rev. has σατανᾶς in 2:9 , 13 , 24 ; 3:9 ; 20:7 ; διάβολος in 2:10 ; 12:12 ; 20:10 ; both together in the emphatic 12:9 ; 20:2 . κατήγωρ occurs in 12:10 ( → III, 636, 7 ff. ), and we also find the fig. ὄφις ( → V, 580, 40 ff. ) and δράκων ( → II, 281, 2 ff. ). On Johannine usage → 162, 27 ff.

In the NT Epistles the devil is mentioned predominantly in connection with his attack on the community. This takes place first in persecutions, Rev. 2:10 ; 12:17 ; 13:7 ; 1 Pt. 5:8 . 49  Active hostility to the Christian community is also the reason why Rev. 2:9 ; 3:9 call the Jewish communities synagogues of Satan. 50  Specifically, however, the devil works against the community in temptations. 1 Th. 1–3 is written out of a concern μή πως ἐπείρασεν ὑμᾶς πειράζων ( 3:5 ), i.e., lest the community might be put off by the fate of the apostle, who was hounded from city to city ( → VI, 32, 1 ff. ). In 1 C. 7:5 it is ἀκρασία which can offer Satan the chance to tempt. Paul refers in 2 C. 2:11 to the νοήματα of Satan, who seeks to outwit him, and in Eph. 6:11 he speaks of the μεθοδεῖαι ( → V, 103, 11 ff. ) of the devil. 1 Tm. 3:7 also refers to a snare of the devil ( → II, 81, 10 ff. ) and so, too, does 2 Tm. 2:26 ( → III, 61, 18 ff. ). Paul finds a particularly dangerous and misleading work of Satan in libertinistic ideas, whose champions pretend to be apostles of Christ and whose appearance shows how dangerous Satan is when he transforms himself into an angel of light, 2 C. 11:14 . The same danger, which is present throughout the primitive congregations, is also brought into connection with Satan in R. 16:20 . This seducing activity of Satan finds its climax in the work of antichrist, 2 Th. 2:3–12 ; Rev. 13 , 17 ; cf. 3:10 .

Temptations are warded off by the blood of the Lamb ( Rev. 12:11 ), by putting on the armour of God ( Eph. 6:11 ), i.e., by faith ( Eph. 6:16 ), or often by avoiding situations in which temptation comes ( 1 C. 7:5 ; 1 Tm. 3:6 f. ; 5:14 f. ; cf. Eph. 4:27 ; R. 16:17 ). δὲ θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης συντρίψει τὸν σατανᾶν ὑπὸ τοὺς πόδας ὑμῶν ἐν τάχει ( R. 16:20 ) is Paul’s call to the Roman church. God will do it, but He does it through the community.

Satan tries to work against the community in other ways too. He prevents Paul from making the very necessary journey to Thessalonica ( 1 Th. 2:18 ) and his angel buffets Paul ( 2 C. 12:7 ; → 159, 25 ff. ). 51  Paul does not connect every illness of Christians or fellow-workers with the devil ( Phil. 2:25–30 ), nor does he attribute every blocked journey to Satan ( R. 1:13 ἐκωλύθην ). One can only say that in his ministry the apostle thought he could detect the hampering of Satan as well as the guidance of God, though he never tried to interrelate the two in any logical manner. Most striking is Satan’s work in 1 C. 5:5 and 1 Tm. 1:20 . Later Judaism, apart from its equation of Satan with the angel of death, occasionally stated that Satan and his hosts can harm and even kill men ( → n.  25 , cf. also Lk. 13:16 ). Nor is it unheard of in later Judaism for the angel of destruction to execute the judgment of God. In 1 C. 5:5 , however, the sentence which Satan himself carries out is for a purpose of salvation. Later Judaism did not dare venture this bold thought. Can Paul write thus because the hour of darkness was for the salvation of the world? The angel of Satan ( → II, 17, 1 ff. ; III, 819, 12 ff. ), the thorn in the flesh, is “given” to Paul lest he should exalt himself ( 2 C. 12:7 ).

There are far fewer references to Satan’s work outside the community than to his battle against it. In the world outside he holds undisputed sway except in so far as the witness of the community contests it. The task which the Risen Lord gives to Paul on the Damascus road is to open the eyes of the Gentiles τοῦ ἐπιστρέψαι ἀπὸτῆς ἐξουσίας τοῦ σατανᾶ ἐπὶ τὸν θεόν , Ac. 26:18 . In paganism magic is thought to be particularly associated with the evil one, cf. Ac. 13:10 : υἱὲ διαβόλου .

The only direct references to the final destruction of the devil are in Mt. 25:41 and Rev. 20:10 . Naturally it may be presupposed in Paul, but it is worth noting that in 1 C. 15:24–26 Paul speaks of the end of every ἀρχή and ἐξουσία , and also of the end of death, but not of the end of Satan—or of sin.

4.      The Prince of This World in John’s Gospel and the Johannine Epistles.

In the Johannine writings four terms are used for the devil. a. διάβολος is not a proper name but is the true designation (7 times); the children of God and the children of the devil stand opposed to one another, 1 Jn. 3:10 . b. σατανᾶς occurs only once in the decisive saying about Judas Iscariot in Jn. 13:27 : τότε εἰσῆλθεν εἰς ἐκεῖνον σατανᾶς . 52  c. πονηρός , which cannot always be distinguished for certain from the neuter τὸ πονηρόν , occurs in Jn. only at 17:15 but then 6 times in 1 Jn. ( → VI, 559, 6 ff. ). d. ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου τούτου is a final name for Satan in Jn. 12:31 ; 14:30 ; 16:11 .

The crucial point about the devil is made in Jn. 8:44 . The relation of the devil to man is that of father to child (cf. 1 Jn. 3:10 ), i.e., he determines man’s whole being. For this we also find ἔκ τινος εἶναι (without the image of the father) in 1 Jn. 3:12 . Essentially the Rabbis did not think in this way; 53  for them the will of man fixes his religious relation. There is a special form of this determination of man’s nature by Satan in Jn. 6:70 : ἐξ ὑμῶν εἷς διάβολός ἐστιν , which reminds us of the Satan saying to Peter in Mk. 8:33 ( → 158, 28 ff. ), and also in Jn. 13:27 , where Satan entered into Judas, Lk. 22:3 being a parallel here. For neither statement is there any analogy in later Judaism, where neither the devil nor Belial, but only one of their spirits, enters into man. 54  Three things are said about Satan in Jn. 8:44 . The saying that he was a murderer ἀπ̓ ἀρχῆς reminds us of the fall → n.  34 . The statement which follows ( ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ οὐκ ἔστηκεν ) is none too certain textually. What it means is that at no time can one speak of truth in connection with the devil. This is made plain by the third assertion that when he speaks lies he speaks from what is his own. The meaning is not that by creation the devil stood in the truth and that the fall and lying are of himself, not created by God. Only the second point is made. In fact the saying forbids us to ask what the devil was before he became the devil. What it says is that the devil is determined by the fact that he is the devil. Whether wittingly or unwittingly the ideas expressed by later Judaism, including Qumran, about the being, nature and origin of the devil, are here rejected.

A distinctive aspect of the Johannine writings is the role played in them by ontic statements: to be born of God or the devil, or to be the children of God or the devil. He who commits sin is for this reason ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου , 1 Jn 3:8 . Conversely, because Cain was ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ he slew his brother, 1 Jn. 3:12 . He who is born of God does not sin, the evil one does not touch him, 1 Jn. 5:18 . This is in different terms exactly the same thing as Jesus said about the tree and its fruits 55  and Paul makes the same point with his interrelation and juxtaposition of indicatives and imperatives. When John cries to the νεανίσκοι : You are victors over the wicked one ( 1 Jn. 2:13 f. ), this is not meant either in the sense of what is self-evident by nature or in that of a rigid predestinarianism; otherwise the petition of Jesus in the high-priestly prayer: ἐρωτῶἵνα τηρήσῃς αὐτοὺς ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ ( Jn. 17:15 ), would have no point. The imperative is enclosed in the ontic sayings of John.


C.      Satan in the Post-Apostolic Fathers.

a. Linguistic Data.

The term σατανᾶς (appellative as in the NT ) occurs in the post-apost. fathers only 4 times: Barn. , 18, 1; Ign.Eph. , 13, 1; Pol. , 7, 1; Mart.Pol. Ep. , 3. διάβολος is the most common word (32 times, 25 in Herm. , who uses only this): 2 Cl., 18, 2; Ign.Eph. , 10, 3; Ign.Tr. , 8, 1; Ign.R. , 5, 3; Ign.Sm. , 9, 1; Pol. , 7, 1; Mart.Pol. , 3, 1; Herm.m. , 4, 3, 4. 6; m. , 5, 1, 3; 9, 9. 11; 11, 3. 17; 12, 2, 2; 4, 7; 5, 1. 4; 6, 1. 4; s. , 8, 3, 6; 9, 31, 2 (== diabolus ), and twice each in m. , 7, 2. 3; 12, 4, 6; 5, 2; 6, 2. ἄρχων is also used with various qualifying terms: πονηρὸς ἄρχων , Barn. , 4, 13; ἄδικος ἄρχων , Mart.Pol. , 19, 2, ἄρχων καιροῦ τοῦ νῦν τῆς ἀνομίας , Barn. , 18, 2 and ἄρχων τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου , Ign.Eph. , 17, 1; 19, 1; Mg. , 1, 2; Tr. , 4, 2; R. , 7, 1; Phld. , 6, 2. ἀντικείμενος is used in the abs. in 1 Cl., 51, 1 and with the addition τῷ γένει τῶν δικαίων in Mart.Pol. , 17, 1. The obscure ἐνεργῶν of Barn. , 2, 1 also seems to be relevant here; the Lat. has contrarius . 56  Other terms are πονηρός in Barn. , 2, 10, 21, 3, with ἀντίζηλος and βάσκανος , Mart.Pol. , 17, 1, μέλας , Barn. , 4, 10; 20, 1, and ἄνομος in Barn. , 15, 5. The relation between Satan and the antichrist called κοσμοπλανής in Did. , 16, 4 is not clear.

b. General Material.

In the post-apost. fathers as in the NT the existence and activity of Satan are presupposed and there is no independent reflection or speculation about this. The centre of concern is salvation, and Satan calls for consideration only in relation hereto. He is the one who has been deprived of his power by Christ. Ign. speaks of this in terms which betray Gnostic influence. The rule of the ἄρχων τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου , which is characterised by μαγεία, δεσμὸς κακίας, ἄγνοια  57  and death, has to be regarded as παλαιὰ βασιλεία , Ign.Eph. , 19, 3. For it has been shattered by the event of salvation, by the birth and death of the Redeemer, which were concealed from the ἄρχων τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου (19, 1) and were revealed to the αἰῶνες only by the ascension which accompanied His death (19, 2). In an apocalyptic statement Barn. , 15, 5 speaks of the ending of the καιρὸς τοῦ ἀνόμου , cf. 21, 3. Yet in the main Satan is viewed in antithesis to the way of salvation rather than to the Bringer of salvation. In accordance with differing views of the actualising of salvation, whether in the Church, martyrdom, or the keeping of the new Law, he is seen primarily from the standpt. of his opposition to the Church, the martyr, or the individual Christian.

c. Satan and the Church.

For Ign. salvation is by sacramental union with the Church, which as such is union with Christ and the Father, ἐν ὑπομένοντες τὴν πᾶσαν ἐπήρειαν τοῦ ἄρχοντος τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου καὶ διαφυγόντες θεοῦ τευξόμεθα , Mg. , 1, 2. Where this union is achieved in the assembling of the Church εἰς εὐχαριστίαν θεοῦ καὶ εἰς δόξαν , the δυνάμεις τοῦ σατανᾶ are destroyed and his corruption is ended, Ign.Eph. , 13, 1. On the other hand, where the unity of the Church is threatened, the κακοτεχνίαι and ἐνέδραι of the ἄρχων τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου are at work, Ign.Tr. , 8, 1; Phld. , 6, 2, and the man who leaves the unity of the Church in schism, or in heresy, or by evading the moral control of life by the new being mediated through the Church, falls back into the sphere of Satan’s dominion, Sm. , 9, 1; Eph. , 17, 1; 10, 3 cf. Pol. , 7, 1; Mart.Pol. Epil., 3. The hostility of Satan to the Church is presented more externally when Mart.Pol. , 17, 1 blames him for the refusal to hand over the body of Polycarp to the local church.

d. Satan and the Martyr.

The martyr’s passion is a wrestling with Satan which achieves victory in martyrdom, Mart.Pol. , 3, 1; 19, 2. So long as the battle has not been fought out Ign. sees himself still ὑπὸ κίνδυνον ( Eph. , 12, 1; Tr. , 13, 3) and hence he must exercise πραότης because the ἄρχων τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου who is at work in the ζῆλος which oppresses him is defeated thereby, Tr. , 4, 2. As the martyr’s passion, i.e., the sign of this conflict with the ἄρχων τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου who seeks to break the divinely orientated will of Ign. and thus to win him over ( R. , 7, 1), the torments are then called κολάσεις τοῦ διαβόλου , R. , 5, 3. The martyr’s passion is also a battle with the devil in Herm.s. , 8, 3, 6, though a pt. worth noting is that here it is not imitatio Christi , as in Ign. and Mart.Pol. , but suffering for the Law.

e. Satan and the Individual Christian.

For Barn. Christians are τῇ πίστει ἐπαγγελίας καὶ τῷ λόγῳ ζωοποιούμενοι (6, 17), but they live in the present age over which Satan has ἐξουσία (2, 1) as ἄρχων καιροῦ τοῦ νῦν τῆς ἀνομίας (18, 2 cf. 15, 5). The means of exercising this dominion is the possibility of the way of darkness over which the ἄγγελοι τοῦ σατανᾶ are set, 18, 1 cf. 20, 1. Not to perceive the resultant situation is to incur the danger of falling under the rule of the “black one” or the “wicked one” (4, 10. 13 cf. 2, 1. 10) and thus forfeiting salvation.

Satan is the tempter in 1 Cl., 51, 1; 2 Cl., 18, 2 (the only ref. to the devil in these two works), and esp. in Herm.m. , 4, 3, 6; s. , 9, 31, 2, which finds in the weakness of man and the πολυπλοκία of the devil the reason why God gives a chance of new repentance, m. , 4, 3, 4. 6. If we set aside m. , 11, 3, which says that when a false prophet occasionally speaks the truth the devil has filled him with his spirit in order to deceive the righteous, this πολυπλοκία τοῦ διαβόλου or ἐκπειρασθῆναι ὑπὸ τοῦ διαβόλου represents the possibility of sin entailed by man’s freedom of choice. Herm. uses various motifs and ideas to depict this possibility of choice between good and evil. These are only imperfectly harmonised and developed, if at all. In the main they rest on demonological dualism, but only partially and unsystematically are they linked to the figure of the devil. Thus the two-angel teaching of m. , 6, 2, 1–9 stands in no relation whatever to the devil. For Herm. himself, however, it is in each case the διάβολος who posits, and leaves open, and seeks to actualise the possibility of the choice of evil. This is plain in the expressions ἐντολαὶ τοῦ διαβόλου in m. , 12, 4, 6 and ἔργα τοῦ διαβόλου ( obj. gen. ) in m. , 7, 3. In this function the devil acquires a power which he can exercise only in relation to those who do not have the moral resolution of the servants of God, whereas this power is broken by those who make use of the opportunity given by the angel of repentance, m. , 7, 1–3; 12, 4, 6–6, 5. Like martyrdom, this struggle can be called a conflict with the devil, cf. m. , 12, 5, 2 with s. , 8, 3, 6.



4 4. The Apostle Paul makes this point in Romans 1 when he writes about man’s turning away from his Creator: “For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him , but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened” (verse 21 ).

5 5. Bruce Milne’s Know the Truth (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1982), 103ff is helpful in this discussion.

[1]Emmaus Bible College. (2001;2002). Emmaus Journal Volume 10 (Vol. 10, Page 93-94). Emmaus Bible College.

[2]Easton, M. (1996, c1897). Easton's Bible dictionary. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

n n : noun

m m : masculine

TWOT Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament

GK Goodrick-Kohlenberger

AV Authorized Version

d O Lucifer: or, O day star

[3]The Holy Bible: King James Version. 1995 (Is 14:12). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

before the heading of an article indicates that all the New Testament passages are mentioned in it.

* σατανᾶςδιάβολος , II, 69 f. ; J. Turmel, Histoire du diable (1931); Satan, Études carmelitaines , 27 (1948), esp. A. Frank-Duquesne, “ En marge de la tradition judéo-chr. ,” 181–311; E. Langton, Essentials of Demonology (1949); K. L. Schmidt, “ Lucifer als gefallene Engelmacht ,” ThZ, 7 (1951), 161–179; S. V. MacCasland, By the Finger of God (1951), 72–75; K. G. Kuhn, “ πειρασμός, ἁμαρτία, σάρξ im NT u. die damit zusammenhängenden Vorstellungen ,” ZThK , 49 (1952), 200–222; G. Piccoli, “ Etimologie e significati di voci bibliche indicanti Satana ,” Rivista di filologia classica . NS, 30 (1952), 69–73; A. Roets, “ De duivel en de stichting van het godsrijk ,” Collationes Brugenses et Gandavenses , 2 (1956), 145–162; also “ De duivel en de kristenen ,” ibid. , 300–321; J. Duchesne-Guillemin, Art. “Dualismus B II. III. C I” in RAC , III, 342–347. On A.: A. Lods, “ La chute des anges ,” RevHPhR, 7 (1927), 295–315; J. Wochenmark, “ Die Schicksalsidee im Judt. ,” Veröffentlichungen d. oriental. Seminars d. Universität Tübingen , 6 (1933), 71–77; M. Burrows, The Dead Sea, Scrolls (1955), 257 ff. (== Burrows I); More Light on the Dead Sea, Scrolls (1958), 277–289 (== Burrows II); H.W. Huppenbauer, “Belial in d. Qumrantexten,” ThZ, 15 (1959), 81–89 (== Huppenbauer I); also “ Der Mensch zwischen zwei Welten ,” AbhThANT, 34 (1959) (== Huppenbauer II). On B.: Bultmann theol. 3 , 258f., 368f., 376 f., 500 f.; Stauffer Theol. § 13–15, 28, 36, 53; L. Bouyer, ‘ Le problème du real dans le christianisme antique ,” Dieu vivant , 6 (1947), 17–42; B. Noack, Satanás u. Sotería (1948); E. Fascher, “Jesus u. d. Satan,” Hallische Monographien , 11 (1949); R. Leivestad, Christ the Conqueror (1954), 40–61, 85–92, 224–228; G. B. Caird, Principalities and Powers. A Study of Pauline Theology (1956); J. M. Robinson, “ Das Geschichtsverständnls d. Mk.-Ev. ,” AbhThANT, 30 (1956); S. Lyonnet, “ De natura peccati quid doeeat Novum Testamentum .” Verbum Domini , 35 (1957), 204–221, 271–278, 332–343; G. Baumbach, “Qumran u. d. Joh.-Ev.,” Aufsätze u. Vortäge zur Theol. u. Religionswissenschaft . 6 (1958).

art. Articles.

NT New Testament.

Rabb. Rabbis,

1 Or from the source, מָעוֹן or מַעְיַן , 1 QS 3:19; A. Dupont-Sommer, “ L’instruction sur les deux Esprits dans le ‘manuel de Discipline ’ ” RHR , 142 (1952), 17 f.; P. Wernberg-Møller, The Manual of Discipline (1957), 70, n. 58.

2 They are to be supplied only in 1 QS 1:17; H. Bardtke, “ Die Loblieder v. Qumran ,” ThLZ , 81 (1956), 151; cf. A. Dupont-Sommer. “ Le Livre des Hymnes ,” Semitica , 7 (1957), 27.

3 K. G. Kuhn, “ Die Sektenschrift u. d. iranische Religion ,” ZThK , 49 (1952), 296–316: A. Dupont-Sommer, The Jewish Sect of Qumran and the Essenes (1954), 118–130; K. Schubert, “ Der Sektenkanon u. d. Anfänge d. jäd, Gnosis ,” ThLZ , 78 (1953), 495–506; H. Wildberger, “ Der Dualismus in d. Qumranschriften ,” Asiatische Stud. , 8 (1954), 163–177; A. Dupont-Sommer, “ Le problème des influences átrangères sur la secte juive de Qumran ,” RevHPhR, 35 (1955), 75–92: F. Nötscher. “ Zur theol. Terminologie d. Qumrantexte .” Bonner bibl. Beiträge , 10 (1956), 79–92; E. Schweizer, “ Gegenwart d. Geistes u. eschatologische Hoffnung bei Zarathustra, spätjüd. Gruppen, Gnostikern u. Zeugen d. NT ” in The Background of the NT and Its Eschatology, Studies in Honour of C. H. Dodd (1956), 482–508; Burrows I, 260–262; G. Widengren, “ Quelques rapports entre Juifs et Iraniens à l’époque des Parthes ,” Suppl. VT, 4 (1957), 197–241; Duchesne-Guillemin, 342–347; also “ Le Zervanisme et les manuscrits de la mer morte ,” Indo-Iranian Journal , 1 (1957), 96–99; S. Wibbing, “ Die Tugend- u. Lasterkataloge im NT ,” Beih. ZNW , 25 (1959), 64 f.; O. J. F. Seitz, “Two Spirits in Man,” NT St, 6 (1959/60), 82–95.

esp. especially.

Damasc. Damascus Document , a Hebrew work discovered in 1910, partly admonitory and partly legal (Halacha) in content, possibly originating in Hasmonean or Roman times, ed. S. Schechter, 1910.

4 This is the common view, cf. J. T. Milik, Dix ans de découvertes dans le désert de Juda (1956), 77 f.; Burrows II, 287 f.; F. M. Cross, The Ancient Library of Qumran (1958), 157; K. Schubert, Die Gemeinde vom Toten Meer (1958), 58 f.; with qualifications Huppenbauer I, 85; II, 35 f., 53. It should be noted that the spirit of wickedness derives from darkness, whereas the angel of darkness, Belial, is its lord, cf. Wernberg-Mo¿ller, op. cit. ( →  n. 1 ), 70, n. 56.

5 Str.-B. , IV, 466–483; Moore , I, 479–493.

par. parallel.

6 1 QS 3:24f.; 1 QH 7:6; 9:28f. “I flee to thee before the ranks of Belial” (H. Bardtke, Die Handschriftenfunde am Toten Meer , II [ 1958], 17, 21–23; 18, 9. 24 f.).

7 Str.-B. , III, 521 f. בליעל is not always a proper name but often an appellative as in the OT , “wickedness,” “corruption,” Huppenbauer I, 81–84; II, 35 f., 53. Βελιαρ is a proper name in prophecy, cf. C. C. Torrey, The Lives of the Prophets , JBL Monograph, I (1946).

8 1 QH Fr. 4:6: בכל שטן משחית ; ibid. , 45:3: כל שטן ומשחית ; 1 QSb 1:8: שטן ; cf. Huppenbauer I, 83, n. 21. Satan is a proper name in Jub. 10:11; 23:29; 50:5. 40:9 and 46:2 are uncertain. Σατανᾶς occurs 5 times in Test. XII and is common in Test. Job., ed. M. R. James, TSt, V, 1 (1897).

9 Sammael occurs 8 times in Asc. Is. (Beliar 13 times, Satanas 6) and also in Gr. Bar. 4:9.

10 If there is any Satanology at all in the Dead Sea Scrolls it is in 1 QS, 1 QM, 1QH, cf. also Damasc. . At some distance from these are Jub.; Eth. En. ; Test. XII , of which some fr. have been found in Qumran. Close in time to these are Ass. Mos. and Ps. Sol Most of the little pseudepigr, apocalypses are later. On this cf. W. Foerster, Nt.liche Zeitgeschichte , I 3 (1959), 78–80.

OT Old Testament.

11 A. Lods, “ Les origines de la figure de Satan, ses fonctions à la cour céleste ,” Mélanges syriens offerts à R. Dussaud , II, Bibliothèque archéologique et historique , 30, 2 (1939), 649–660, points out that there were no state police in the Orient and conjectures that the model for the OT Satan was the mobile inspector known as the “eye” or “ear of the king.”

plur. plural.

12 Cf. also Sophonias Apc. 1:13, ed. G. Steindorff, TU , 17, 3 (1899), 111, 170.

II, 76 f., n. 31 Eth. En. 40:7 (several satans as accusers); Jub. 1:20; 48:15, 18; Apc. Zeph. 4:2 ; 10:5 ; b. Ber., 60a: The saying of R. Jose ( c. 150 a.d. ): “Never should man open his mouth before Satan,” is taken to mean that he should not give Satan an opening by mentioning his sins. Ex. r. , 43 on 32:11: “When the Israelites had made the calf, Satan rose up and accused them. Moses, however, stood without. What did he do? He came and expelled Satan and took his place.” Later passages are Ex. r. , 21 on 14:15, Str.-B. , I, 142; ibid. , 31 on 22:24, Str.-B. , IV, 554. The oldest example of Satan accusing only in the hour of danger is Gn. r. , 91 on 42:38: “R. Eliezer ben Jacob spoke: It thus follows that Satan raises his complaint only in the hour of danger.” Cf. also Str.-B. , I, 142d. Satan accuses those who are secure acc. to Str.-B. , I, 143e. He does not do so on the Day of Atonement, ibid. , 143 f.

37 b.Shab. , 32a, Str.-B. , I, 143: “The advocates ( פרקליטין ) of man are penitence and good works”; Ex. r. , 31 on 22:24: “When a man fulfils the commandments, and is a son of the Torah, and gives alms, Satan comes and accuses him, but his advocates intercede for him and justify him.”

39 For Moses as defender, Ex. r. , 43 on 32:11, Str.-B. , I, 141 f. → n.  31 ; for Phanuel, Eth. En. 40:7; for Michael, Ex. r. , 18, 5 on 12:29, Str.-B. , I, 142b: “R. Jose has said: To whom may we liken Michael and Sammael? To the defending and prosecuting counsel at law … And Satan comes to speak, but Michael bids him be silent”; for angels, Jub. 48:15ff.: “They bound Satan on the day when the Israelites took the vessels and clothing of the Egyptians, that he should not accuse them”; for God Himself, Pesikt. r. , 45, Str.-B. , III, 203: On the Day of Atonement the merits and demerits of Israel are equal. While Satan goes to look for more demerits, God takes some of them from the scales.

41 b.Shab. , 32a, Bar. , Str.-B. , I, 143: “Even though 999 (sc. angels, as suggested by the quotation from Job 33:23 f. which follows) assert his guilt against him, One will maintain his merit.”

13 Cf. also →  II, 77, n.41  for a Rabb. par. , similarly j Qid. , 1, 10 (61d, 32–51) cf. Str.-B. , II, 560.

14 But cf. the angel princes of the nations in Cant. r. , 2, 1, Str.-B. , III, 49.

II, 78, n. 44 Pirqe R. Eliezer, 13, 14 and 27, Str.-B. , I, 137 f., 139; II, 167.

Vit. Ad. Vita Adae et Evae , Latin work from the Jewish-Christian group of writings on Adam (Schürer, III, 396 ff.), ed. W. Meyer, 1878.

Test. XII Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Jewish work, slightly revised in a Christian sense, dating from the 2nd or 1st century a.d. and consisting of addresses of the twelve sons of Jacob to their descendants, ed. R. H. Charles, 1908.

Eth. En. Ethiopian Enoch, ed. A. Dillmann, 1851; R. Charles, 1906.

15 Eth. En. 98:4 (men created sin themselves) is not thinking of the fall, as the plur. shows. Nor is there ref. to the fall in the vision of the 70 shepherds or the 10 week apoc. of Eth. En. 85–90; 93; 91:12–17.. Acc. to Huppenbauer II, 90–93 the fallen angels are perhaps the authors of corruption in Fr. 27, Col. I. 5 (DJD, I, 103). But the Gn. apocryphon of Qumran I seems to allude not at all or only briefly to the fall of the angels in Gn. 6:1 ff. , Huppenbauer II, 94.

S. Bar. Syrian Apocalypse of Baruch, originally Hebrew and strongly dependent on 4 Esdras (c. 100 a.d. ), ed. R. Charles, 1896.

16 Str.-B. , III, 227 f.; Moore , I, 474–479.

17 Lods, 295–315.

18 In Eth. En. 86:1–88:3 the fallen angels are chained. After the flood the earth is not Invaded again by demonic powers, 89:9.

19 The different names of the leaders of the fallen angels, esp. Shemyaza and Aza(z)el, are already a pointer to the presence of different speculations. This is also apparent in the fact that in Jub. 69:6 the temptation of Eve is attributed to Gadreel but a few vv. later it is said that death would not have touched men, who are made like angels, if they had not learned writing through Penemue, 69:11. In 54:6 the hosts of Azazel are subject to Satan and seduce the dwellers on earth.

Test. R. Testament of Reuben .

N. Testament of Napthali .

20 Str.-B. , III, 780–783.

21 Earlier than the few Rabb. echoes of the Enoch tradition is the view in the Tg. and the Tannaitic period that the sons of God of Gn. 6 are the sons of great men on the earth, Str.-B. , III, 783. Worth noting is the fact that in S. Bar. 56:54–11 Adam’s fall was a danger to the angels (not vice versa ), an allusion to Gn. 6 . Cf. Bousset-Gressm. , 253.

Test. Jud. Testament of Judah .

Ab. Pirge Abot , Mishnah-, Tosefta-, Talmudtractate Sayings of the Fathers (Strack, Einl. , 54).

S. Dt. Sifre Deuteronomium , Tannaitic Midrash on Deuteronomy (Strack, Einl. , 200 f.).

22 On the “middle group” cf. Moore , I, 495 f.; II, 318; j Qid. , 1, 10 (61d, 32–51) cf. Str.-B. , II, 560a (Aqiba); b.RH , 16b and T.Sanh. , 13, 3 cf. Str.-B. , IV, 1043f., 1178 (school of Shammai and Hillel); Test. Abr. A. 12 (p. 90,23–25).

23 Satan as angel of death, world ruler, → II, 77, 17 ff. ; Str.-B. , I, 144–149; identified with the evil impulse, b.BB , 16a (Resh Laqish).

24 1 QS 4:18–23; Jub. 23:29; 50:5; Eth. En. 69:29; 91:8; 4 Esr. 6:27 ; 7:113f .; 8:53 ; Str.-B. , IV, 482 f.; →  II, 78, n. 43 ; Volz Esch., 309–320, 332–340.

25 Jub. 1:29; 4:26; Eth. En. 10:7. 17, 22; 45:4 f.; 91:16; 4 Esr. 13:26 ; S. Bar. 51:8; Sl. En. 65:6–9; Gn. r. , 12, 5 on 2:4 ( Str.-B. , I, 19) cf. Volz Esch., 338–340. Satan and his angels harm men outwardly →  II, 76 f., n. 32 ,  33 ; Ex. r. , 20, 8 on 13:17.

26 So Schl. Lk. , ad loc. ; W. Foerster, “Lukas 22:31 f.,” ZNW , 46 (1955), 129–133; most comm. take a different view; cf. Bultmann Trad. , 287 f., Suppl., 39; Noack, 101 f.

v. verse.

VI, 163, n. 11 As referred to Satan, πεσόντα might be understood as βληθέντα (cf. ἐκβληθήσεται in Jn. 12:31 ). This does not have to be a Semitism, so K. G. Kuhn, “ πειρασμόςἁμαρτίασάρξ im NT ,” ZThK , 49 (1952), 220, n. 2 with a ref. to Rev. 12:9 , 12 . The meaning can hardly be that Satan left heaven of his own accord, →  I, 505, n. 3 ; Test. Sol. D 4:14 → V, 533, 13 f., 20 ff. Perhaps ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ is to be related to ῶς ἀστραπήν ( Jn. 12:31 refers to the removal of Satan from the κόσμος , not heaven); if so, πίπτω might have the fig. sense “to be overthrown” == “to lose power,” and the comparison with lightning simply illustrates the swiftness with which it happened.

IV, 130, n. 220 Cf. esp. on Lk. 10:18 : Orig.Princ. , I, 5, 5; Orat. , 26, 5; Cels. , IV, 92. Cf. also J. C. K. v. Hofmann, Die Hl. Schrift NT s 5 , VIII, 1 (1878), 269 f. The very general modern rejection of reference to a pre-historical event (cf. esp. Zn. Lk. , ad loc. ) demands serious investigation.

27 Zn. Lk. ; Schl. Lk. ; K. H. Rengstorf, Das Ev. nach Lk., NT Deutsch , 3 8 (1958), ad loc. ; cf. also M. Zerwick, “ Vidi satanam sicut fulgur de caelo cadentem ,” Verbum Domini , 26 (1948), 110–114.

28 We are certainly not to think merely of the temptation, Zn. Lk. , ad loc.

I, 489, n. 5 ἐκβληθήσεται : in the present moment ? from the lowest heaven to hell (cf. Rev. 20 )? Zn. J. relates the saying to the judgment which is executed in the death of Jesus.

29 Schl. J. , ad loc. , but not Bultmann J., ad loc.

30 We do find in the NT speculations about the fall of the angels; Jd. 6 and 2 Pt. 2:4 adopt the pseudepigr, doctrine of the provisional punishment of the fallen angels of Gn. 6 , and there is perhaps an echo of this in Lk. 8:31 though not 1 Pt. 3:19 ( → III, 707, 15 ff. ; VI, 447, 25ff. ). cf. the comm. and B. Reicke, “The Disobedient Spirits and Christian Baptism,” Seminarii Neotest. Upsaliensis, 13 (1946). Cf. also Rev. 9:1–11 ; 12:4a .

31 V. the comm. , ad loc.

32 The only possible NT allusion to this is in Phil. 2:6 : οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ . Perhaps Pl. has in view here the antithesis of a devilish striving to be equal with God and hence a pre-cosmic fall of the devil. But since the section as a whole considers only Christ’s work and does not even mention men as those who are to be redeemed, it is unlikely that the Lucifer motif forms the background. Stauffer, 47 thinks the vv. mentioned above ( Lk. 10:18 ; Rev. 12:9 ; Jn. 12:31 ) prove that Jewish traditions about a pre-human disaster in the volitional life of creation were known and accepted in the primitive Church, esp. in Paul; but the passages hardly support this, nor does Rev. 9:1–11 . In 2 C. 11:14 Pl. does not write: σατανᾶς μετεσχηματίσατο εἰς ἄγγελον φωτός , but chooses the pres. This leads Wnd. 2 K. , ad loc. to the precarious theory that Paul was acquainted with many such Satanic transformations. Ltzm. K. , ad loc. and Langton, 138 and 191 also see a ref. to Jewish myths about the fall.

33 Jn. 8:44a seems to refer to a father of the devil. In good Gnostic terms this could only mean that the Jews derive from the demiurge as the father of the devil. But for the Gnostics the demiurge is characterised more by ignorance and pride than by lusts. The resultant tripartite division of the world would also contradict the total view of Jn.

34 Another possibility is a ref. to the story of Cain, Hirsch J. , 218 f.; Hirsch Studien , 78–80, but rightly this is for the most part rejected, cf. the comm. and Noack, 86–90; J. H. Bernard, Comm. on the Gospel acc. to St. John , ICC (1928), ad loc. leaves it an open question.

Rabb. Rabbinic.

78, n. 43 From Rabbinic literature, we can mention only Pesikt. r. , 36, and there, too, Sammael is used for the angel of death ( Str.-B. , II, 2). Cf. also b. Sukka, 52a (Moore, 1, 493): God will one day publicly smite the evil impulse. From the Pseudepigrapha we may mention Apc. Mos. 12 (Seth to the beast): ἀπόστηθι ἀπὸ τῆς εἰκόνος τοῦ θεοῦ ἕως ἡμέρας τῆς κρίσεως ; ibid. , 39 (God to Adam): καθίσω σεἐπὶ τὸν θρόνον τοῦ ἀπατήσαντός σε· ἐκεῖνος δὲ βληθήσεται εἰς τὸν τόπον τοῦτον ; Apoc. Esr. 4:43: “Then said God: The adversary has heard my fearful warning, and is thus hiding; for I will burn up the earth, and with it the adversary of the human race” ( acc. to Riessler); Vit. Ad. , 39. Cf. also the following passages from Test. XII : Jud. 25:3 acc. to αβ S 1 : καὶ οὐκ ἔσται ἐκεῖ πνεῦμα πλάνης τοῦ Βελίαρ, ὅτι ἐμβληθήσεται ἐν πυρὶ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα (Beliar or the spirits ?); L. 18:2: καὶ αὐτὸς ( sc. the new priest) ποιήσει κρίσιν ἀληθείας ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἐν πλήθει ἡμερῶν ; D. 5:10: αὐτὸς γὰρ ποιήσει πρὸς τὸν Βελίαρ πόλεμον . Yet there is the possibility of a good deal of revision in the Test. XII . We certainly cannot adduce Asc. Is. Jub. 23:29; 50:5; Ass. Mos. 10:1 ( tunc zabnlus finem habebit ) simply states that there will be no more evil. Jub. 23:26 shows the specifically legal attitude in this question: Satan disappears with the “reversal.”

Aram. Aramaic.

35 Even if the formulation of the Synoptic pericopes discussed is to be traced back more or less to the primitive Palestinian or Hell. community, the basic spiritual attitude goes back to Jesus Himself. How else could it have arisen in distinction from Judaism?

36 As against Leivestad, 50–53.

37 Noack, 86 also considers this possibility, but rightly rejects it.

38 The same is true of Lk. 22:53 : αὕτη ἐστὶν ὑμῶν ὥρα καὶ ἐξουσία τοῦ σκότους , where d “hour of men” is also the “power of darkness” and the ἄχρι καιροῦ of Lk. 4:13 is taken up again.

39 Hb. , which is closely akin to the primitive tradition, probably offers the key when in 4:15 it stress the πεπειρασμένον κατὰ πάντα καθ̓ ὁμοιότητα .

40 But cf. Fascher, 35–38; Robinson, 37 f., 58.

41 Langton, 169 thinks the πνεῦμα ἀσθενείας ( v. 11 ) pts. to a case of possession, but neither the word of healing ( v. 12 ) nor the laying on of hands ( v. 13 ) is in keeping with this, cf. also Str.-B. , IV, 524–526.

42 So Noack, 75 f.; Bau. Ag. , ad loc. ; Zn. Ag. , ad loc. , but not Langton, 182. Robinson, 30 calls Ac. 10:38 a commentary on Mk. 3:27 .

43 Jülicher Gl. J. , II, 537.

44 A. M. Brouwer, De gelijkenissen (1946), 140.

45 Noack, 111.

46 The position is the same in Paul, who in 2 C. 4:4 speaks of the ἄπιστοι whose thoughts have been blinded by the “god of this aeon.”

47 Cf. → II, 75 ff. with n. 26, 30, 32, 45 ; also Vit. Ad. , 9:12–16; Apc. Mos. 7:17–19.

48 Apart from the Johannine Epistles but including Ac. and Rev.

49 In view of the following v. the work of Satan is to be related to persecutions in v. 8 .

50 That the Jews were for a long time the main force behind persecution may be seen from 1 Th. 2:15 , also from Ac. and cf. Mart.Pol. , 12, 2; 13, 1; 17, 2; Just.Dial. , 16, 11; cf. also H. J. Cadbury, The Book of Acts in History (1955), 91 f. In detail the reason why Pergamon is called Satan’s seat in Rev. 2:13 is either because of the emperor cult ( Bss. Apk. , ad loc. ; R. H. Charles, The Revelation of St. John , ICC [1950], ad loc. ) and the great altar to Zeus (I. Birt, “ Der Thron des Satans ,” Philol. Wochensehr. , 52 [1932], 1203–1210), or because of the cult and temple of Aesculapius (Bss. and Had. Apk. , ad loc. ; K. H. Rengstorf, “ Die Anfänge der Auseinandersetzung zwischen Christusglaube u. Asklepiusfrömmigkeit ,” Schriften d. Gesellschaft zur Förderung d. Westfälischen Wilhelms-Universität , 30 [1953], 26–28), or because of the local synagogue. Or did Pergamon with its castle hill have for the seer the appearance of a giant’s throne on which Satan sat, ruling over all the busy religious life of the town?

51 Whatever the thorn in the flesh may be ( → σκόλοψ , also Langton, 191 and G. Thils, “ De ‘stimulo carnis’ in 2 K. 12:7,” Collectanea Mechliensia , 31 [1946], 160–163), it is at any rate a hindrance to missionary work.

52 The other ref. to the betrayal by Judas use only διάβολος . In the solemn designation of the devil in Rev. 12:9 ; 20:2 σατανᾶς is used.

53 Schl. J. on 8:44 . “The children of darkness” and “the men of the lot of Belial” in the Dead Sea Scrolls are similar, cf. also Wis. 2:24b .

54 The closest par. is Test. A. 1:9 : θησαυρὸς τοῦ διαβουλίου πονηροῦ πνεύματος πεπλήρωται , for acc. to the context the evil spirit is not one of many possible spirits but it denotes being radically filled by evil.

55 In the expression used by Jesus the image of the tree and its fruits finds no par. in later Judaism.

Foerster Werner Foerster , Münster (Vol. 1–3, 5–7).

Barn. Epistle of Barnabas .

Ign. Ignatius.

Eph. Epistula ad Ephesios .

Pol. Politicus .

Mart. Martyrium .

Pol. Polycarpi .

Ep. Epistulae .

Herm. Pastor Hermae .

Tr. Troades .

R. ad Romanos .

Sm. ad Smyrnaeos .

m. mandata .

s. similitudines .

Mg. ad Magnesios .

Phld. ad Philadelphenses .

Lat. Latin, latin.

56 A. Hilgenfeld, NT extra canonem receptum 2 (1876 ff.), ad loc. thus suggests ἀντενεργῶν .

Did. Didache .

57 H. Schlier, Religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu den Ignatiusbriefen , Beih. ZNW , 8 (1929), 18, n. 1 links κακίας with ἄγνοια rather than δεσμός .

obj. gen. objective genitive.

[4]Theological dictionary of the New Testament. 1964-c1976. Vols. 5-9 edited by Gerhard Friedrich. Vol. 10 compiled by Ronald Pitkin. (G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley & G. Friedrich, Ed.) (Vol. 7, Page 151-152). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

See the rest →
See the rest →