The Nature, Purpose and Destiny of the Adversary (Part Three)

“The Satan”

Although Matthew referred to the being by whom Christ was tried in the wilderness as “the Adversary” (as well as “the trier”), Christ himself addressed this individual as “Satan” (Matt. 4:10). This is also how he’s referred to in Mark’s summarized account of Jesus’ trial in the wilderness: “And He was in the wilderness forty days, undergoing trial by Satan, and was with the wild beasts. And messengers waited on Him” (Mark 1:13). And as was noted in the introduction of this study, “Satan” is one of the titles by which the being symbolically represented by “the great dragon” is called (Rev. 12:.9; 20:2)

The Greek expression translated “Satan” in these verses is τοῦ Σατανᾶς. Transliterated into English, this expression would read “tou Satanas” (literally, “the Satan”; the Greek article “tou” corresponds to the English definite article “the”). Of the 33 occurrences of the term “Satanas” in the Greek Scriptures, 28 include the use of the definite article.  Significantly (and in contrast with the above examples), when Christ used the term “Satan” in his rebuke of Peter (Matt. 16:23; Mark 8:33), the definite article was not used.

Here are a few more examples of verses in which the term “Satan” occurs with the use of the definite article:

Matthew 12:25-26

“Every kingdom parted against itself is being desolated, and every city or house parted against itself shall not stand. And if the Satan is casting out the Satan, he is parted against himself. How, then, shall his kingdom stand?”

Luke 13:16

“Now this woman – being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan binds, lo! eighteen years – must she not be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath day?”

Luke 22:31-32

“Now the Lord said, ‘Simon, Simon, lo! Satan claims you men, to sift you as grain. Yet I besought concerning you, that your faith may not be defaulting.’”

2 Corinthians 11:13-15

“For such are false apostles, fraudulent workers, being transfigured into apostles of Christ. And no marvel, for Satan himself is being transfigured into a messenger of light. It is no great thing, then, if his servants also are being transfigured as dispensers of righteousness -- whose consummation shall be according to their acts.”

2 Thessalonians 2:8-10

“…then will be unveiled the lawless one (whom the Lord Jesus will dispatch with the spirit of His mouth and will discard by the advent of His presence), whose presence is in accord with the operation of Satan, with all power and signs and false miracles and with every seduction of injustice among those who are perishing…”

Rev. 20:7-8

“And whenever the thousand years should be finished, Satan will be loosed out of his jail. And he will be coming out to deceive all the nations which are in the four corners of the earth...”

The Greek term translated “Satan” is actually a transliteration of the Hebrew noun שָׂטָן (śāṭān), meaning “adversary” or “one who opposes/resists” (https://biblehub.com/greek/4567.htm). Although there are a number of verses in the Hebrew Scriptures in which the term “satan” occurs, the only verses in which it occurs with the use of the definite article are in Job 1-2 and Zechariah 3:1-2. In every other occurrence of this term in the Hebrew Scriptures, the definite article is not used.

Significantly, in the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (i.e., the Septuagint, or “LXX”), every occurrence of the Hebrew expression “haś·śā·ṭān” (“the Satan”) in Job 1-2 and Zech. 3:1-2 is translated as τοῦ διαβόλου (or “tou diabolou”). In fact, the term “diabolos” (or some word derived from the verb “diaballó”) was almost exclusively used to translate the Hebrew term “satan” with or without the definite article (the only exceptions to this are, as far as I can tell, found in 1 Kings 11:14 and 11:25, where the Greek transliteration “satanas” is used). The translators’ preference for using “diabolou” in the place of the Hebrew “satan” indicates that they understood these expressions to be basically equivalent in meaning. And since the Hebrew expression translated “Satan” (or “the Satan”) can be understood to mean “the Adversary,” it follows that the expression “tou diabolou” communicates the same basic idea.

To better appreciate the significance of the use of the definite article in Job 1-2 and Zech. 3:1-2, let’s now consider a verse in which the Hebrew term “satan” appears without the definite article. Here is how 1 Chronicles 21:1 reads in the NET (New English Translation): “An adversary opposed Israel, inciting David to count how many warriors Israel had.” Concerning the expression, “an adversary,” the NET provides us with the following note:

“The Hebrew word שָׂטָן (satan) can refer to an adversary in general or Satan in particular. There is no article accompanying the term here, which suggests it should be understood generally (cf. NAB “a satan”).

The NET’s third footnote for this verse provides us with a more detailed explanation for the translation, “an adversary opposed Israel”:

“The parallel text in 2 Sam 24:1 says, “The Lord’s anger again raged against Israel and he incited David against them, saying: ‘Go, count Israel and Judah!’“ The version of the incident in the Book of 2 Samuel gives an underlying theological perspective, while the Chronicler simply describes what happened from a human perspective. Many interpreters and translations render the Hebrew שָׂטָן as a proper name here, “Satan” (NEB, NASB, NIV, NRSV). However, the Hebrew term שָׂטָן, which means “adversary,” is used here without the article. Elsewhere when it appears without the article, it refers to a personal or national adversary in the human sphere, the lone exception being Num 22:22, 32, where the angel of the Lord assumes the role of an adversary to Balaam. When referring elsewhere to the spiritual entity known in the NT as Satan, the noun has the article and is used as a title, “the Adversary” (see Job 1:6-9, 12; 2:1-4, 6-7; Zech 3:1-2). In light of usage elsewhere the adversary in 1 Chr 21:1 is likely a human enemy, probably a nearby nation whose hostility against Israel pressured David into numbering the people so he could assess his military strength. For compelling linguistic and literary arguments against taking the noun as a proper name here, see S. Japhet, I & II Chronicles (OTL), 374-75.”

In light of the above remarks, let’s now consider those verses in the Hebrew Scriptures in which the word “satan” occurs with the use of the definite article (i.e., Job 1:6-12, 2:1-7 and Zech. 3:1-2). We’ll start with Zech. 3:1-2 (I’ll include verses 3-5 as well):

Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of Yahweh, and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him. And Yahweh said to Satan, “Yahweh rebuke you, O Satan! Yahweh who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is not this a brand plucked from the fire?” Now Joshua was standing before the angel, clothed with filthy garments. And the angel said to those who were standing before him, “Remove the filthy garments from him.” And to him he said, “Behold, I have taken your iniquity away from you, and I will clothe you with pure vestments.” And I said, “Let them put a clean turban on his head.” So they put a clean turban on his head and clothed him with garments. And the angel of Yahweh was standing by.

In these verses, the individual who we’re told was standing at Joshua’s right hand to accuse him is referred to as הַשָּׂטָ֖ן or “haś·śā·ṭān” (which, again, is literally “the Satan” or “the Adversary”). Since Joshua, the angel of Yahweh and Yahweh himself should all be understood as conscious, intelligent beings (or “persons”), it’s reasonable to understand the individual referred to as “(the) Satan” in verses 1-2 as a conscious, intelligent being as well. But what else can be said concerning the nature of this adversarial being? Was he simply another human being like Joshua, the high priest? Or, is he to be understood as belonging to the same order of superhuman, celestial beings to which the angel of Yahweh belongs? If – as I think is reasonable – the “Satan” referred to in Zech. 3:1-2 is the same adversarial being referred to in Rev. 12:10 as ”the accuser of our brethren…who was accusing them before our God day and night,” then we can conclude that “the Satan” of Zech. 3:1-2 is, in fact, a superhuman being.

That this understanding of the nature of “the Satan” referred to in Zech. 3:1-2 is correct is, I think, confirmed from the only other occurrences of the expression “the Satan” in the Hebrew Scriptures. In Job 1:6-12 and 2:1-7 we read the following:

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before Yahweh, and Satan also came among them. Yahweh said to Satan, “From where have you come?” Satan answered Yahweh and said, “From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it.” And Yahweh said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil?” Then Satan answered Yahweh and said, “Does Job fear God for no reason? Have you not put a hedge around him and his house and all that he has, on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land. But stretch out your hand and touch all that he has, and he will curse you to your face.” And Yahweh said to Satan, “Behold, all that he has is in your hand. Only against him do not stretch out your hand.” So Satan went out from the presence of Yahweh.

Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before Yahweh, and Satan also came among them to present himself before Yahweh. And Yahweh said to Satan, “From where have you come?” Satan answered Yahweh and said, “From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it.” And Yahweh said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil? He still holds fast his integrity, although you incited me against him to destroy him without reason.” Then Satan answered Yahweh and said, “Skin for skin! All that a man has he will give for his life. But stretch out your hand and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will curse you to your face.” And Yahweh said to Satan, “Behold, he is in your hand; only spare his life.”

So Satan went out from the presence of Yahweh and struck Job with loathsome sores from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head.

We have no good reason to believe that the man referred to as Job in these passages wasn’t a real, historical figure. In both James 5:11 and Ezekiel 14:, 20, Job is referred to as if he actually existed (in Ezekiel 14, God himself referred to Job as if he was just as much a real and historical figure as Daniel and Noah). But what about the individual who is repeatedly referred to in the above passages as הַשָּׂטָ֖ן or “haś·śā·ṭān” (which, again, is literally “the Satan” or “the Adversary”), and with whom we’re told Yahweh had an exchange (unbeknownst to Job)? As is the case with the existence of Job, there is no good reason to deny that this individual really existed in Job’s day. But what conclusions can we draw concerning the nature of this adversarial being (besides the obvious fact that he has an adversarial role and/or nature)? 

The fact that “the Satan” referred to in these chapters is said to have been present among “the sons of God” while they were presenting themselves before Yahweh can, I believe, tell us a great deal about the nature of this particular individual. For, in the broader context of Job, the expression “sons of God” undoubtedly refers to superhuman, heaven-dwelling beings. In Job 38:4-7, we read that Yahweh asked Job the following rhetorical questions:

“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements—surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone, when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?”

From these verses it’s evident that the beings referred to by Yahweh as “the sons of God” were present when God “laid the foundation of the earth.” When we let these verses inform our understanding of the nature of the “sons of God” referred to in Job 1-2, we can conclude that these beings weren’t (and aren’t) human. Rather, they’re members of that order of superhuman, celestial beings to which Michael and Gabriel belong. This means that the event referred to in Job 1:6 and 2:1 (which involved the sons of God presenting themselves before Yahweh) should be understood as the same sort of heavenly assembly as that described in 2 Chron. 18:19-21 (where the “host of heaven” appear before Yahweh to discuss the case of Ahab). And this would, of course, mean that “the Satan” referred to in Job 1-2 belongs to this same general class of non-human, heavenly beings. It’s also worth noting that what Satan said he was doing prior to presenting himself before Yahweh (i.e., “going to and fro in the land, and from walking up and down on it”) is strikingly similar to what, in Zech. 1:7-11, we’re told certain heavenly beings were commissioned by Yahweh to do (i.e., “walk up and down in the land”).

What further supports this understanding of the nature of “the Satan” of Job 1-2 is the remarkable degree of power manifested in the events he brought about in his attempt to get Job to curse God. Notice that, in Job 1:11, the Satan first tells Yahweh that if he (Yahweh) were to use his “hand” (or power) to “touch” all that Job had, Job would curse God to his face. But then, we’re told that Yahweh permits Satan to use his (Satan’s) “hand,” or power, to do this instead (“Behold, all that he has is in your hand. Only against him do not stretch out your hand”). After the Satan departs from God’s presence, we then read in verses 13-19 that the following tragic events occur: the Sabeans steal Job’s oxen and donkeys and strike down the servants, the “fire of God” falls from heaven and burns up the sheep and the servants and consumes them, the Chaldeans raid Job’s camels and strike down the servants, and all of Job’s children are killed when “a great wind” destroys the house of Job’s oldest son (in which all of his sons and daughters were present).

The clear implication of what we read in these verses is that, just as Satan used his power to strike Job “with loathsome sores” (2:7), so Satan used his power to bring about the devastating events described in Job 1:13-19. It’s also implied that the only reason Satan wasn’t able to afflict Job before being given permission by God to do so was because Job was, at that time, under God’s special protection (as indicated by the words, ”Have you not put a hedge around him and his house and all that he has, on every side?”).

Based on all of the above considerations, I think we have good reason to believe (and no good reason to deny) that “the Satan” referred to in the first two chapters of Job is an intelligent, self-aware entity who belongs to the same general order of created, superhuman beings referred to elsewhere as the “host of heaven.” The Satan of Job 1-2 (and Zechariah 3:1-2) is, in other words, the same kind of celestial, superhuman being as Michael or Gabriel (or the unnamed being referred to in Zech. 3:1-5 as “the angel of Yahweh”).

So what are the implications of this? Well, insofar as it’s reasonable to believe that “the Satan” (haś·śā·ṭān) of Job 1-2 and Zech. 3:1-2 is the same being as “the Satan” of the Greek Scriptures (i.e., the being referred to as “Satanas,” with the definite article), then it’s reasonable to believe that “the Satan” of the Greek Scriptures is a superhuman celestial being who belongs to the same order of beings constituting the “host of heaven” (it’s also worth keeping in mind that, in the LXX, the title “haś·śā·ṭān” is always translated as “tou diabolou” – i.e., “the devil” or “the Adversary”). And in light of the conclusion at which we arrived in the last installment of this study, it’s reasonable to believe that “the Adversary” referred to throughout the Greek Scriptures is the same superhuman being referred to as “the Satan” in Job 1-2 and Zech. 3:1-2. That is, “the Satan” referred to in the verses quoted at the beginning of this installment of our study is the same being whom God allowed to afflict Job, and who Zechariah saw standing at Joshua’s right hand to accuse him.

To test this view, let’s consider two verses from Luke’s Gospel Account in which we find references to “the Satan” (tou Satanas). In Luke 13:16 we read that Christ declared the following:

“Now this woman – being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan binds, lo! eighteen years – must she not be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath day?”

In this verse, the “Satan” referred to by Christ was clearly understood by Christ to be in some sense responsible for the chronic infirmity of the woman whom he healed on the Sabbath. Similarly, we read in Acts 10:38 that Peter also believed that this being (whom he referred to as “the Adversary”) was in some way responsible for the afflictions and physical disorders of those whom Christ healed during his earthly ministry: 

“Jesus from Nazareth, as God anoints Him with holy spirit and power, Who passed through as a benefactor and healer of all those who are tyrannized over by the Adversary, for God was with Him.”

Could the individual referred to in these verses as “(the) Satan” and “the Adversary” have been a human being (or a group of human beings)? No. There is no evidence that any humans were in any way responsible for all of the various afflictions and diseases of those who were healed by Christ during his earthly ministry. However, we do know that the “Satan” referred to in Job 1-2 had the power to afflict humans with disease (and, as noted earlier, the implication of what we read in Job 1:9-10 is that the only reason Satan wasn’t able to afflict Job without God’s permission is because Job was, at that time, under God’s special protection). Thus, apart from any compelling evidence to the contrary, it’s reasonable to conclude that the “Satan” whom Christ believed was responsible for the chronic disease of the woman he healed on the Sabbath (and whom Peter believed was responsible for the afflictions and physical disorders of those whom Christ healed throughout his earthly ministry) was the same “Satan” who was permitted by God to afflict Job.

In further support of this understanding of the “Satan” referred to by Christ in Luke 13:16 are Christ’s words in Luke 22:31-32. There, we read that Christ declared the following to Peter:

“Simon, Simon, lo! Satan claims you men, to sift you as grain. Yet I besought concerning you, that your faith may not be defaulting.”

The implication of these words of Christ to Peter is that Satan wanted to expose the weakness of Peter’s faith with a trial that would “sift [him] as grain” (and which would result in the “defaulting” of his faith in Christ). This is strikingly similar to what took place in the life of Job (when “the Satan” similarly sought to expose what he believed to be the superficiality of Job’s loyalty to, and love for, God). Thus, apart from any compelling evidence to the contrary, it’s reasonable to conclude that the Satan who we’re told “claimed” the disciples and desired to “sift” Peter “as grain” (and thereby cause his faith to “be defaulting”) is the same Satan who, in an attempt to expose Job’s faith in God as something that depended entirely on the blessings he was receiving from God’s hand, was permitted to bring adversity into Job’s life.

Part four: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2020/05/the-nature-purpose-and-destiny-of_6.html

The Nature, Purpose and Destiny of the Adversary (Part Two)

“The Adversary”

One of the most commonly-used titles for the being with whom this study is concerned is τοῦ διάβολος. Transliterated into English, this expression reads, “tou diabolos” (with the article “tou” being the Greek equivalent of the English definite article “the”). In most English Bibles, this expression is translated “the devil.” In the Concordant Literal New Testament, however, this expression is translated as “the Adversary.” Because the more common English translation (i.e., “the devil”) has, in my view, a number of misconceptions and dubious theological ideas associated with it which tend to obscure the truth rather than promote a more accurate understanding, I prefer the CLNT’s translation (one could, of course, argue that the CLNT’s translation has its own shortcomings; however, I’m inclined to think that it does a better job at more accurately communicating the meaning of the term “diabolos” than the more common translation).

The term diabolos (which is an adjective that functions as a noun) is derived from the verb διαβάλλω (diaballó). Strong’s Concordance defines diaballó as follows: “to bring charges (usually with hostile intent).” According to Thayer’s Greek Lexicon, the verb has the following two meanings: (1) “properly, to throw over or across, to send over”; (2) “very often, from Herodotus down, to traduce, calumniate, slander, accuse, defame” (https://biblehub.com/greek/1225.htm). Given the meaning of the verb from which it’s derived, the adjective diabolos can be understood as referring to someone who slanders, falsely accuses or brings charges against others (https://biblehub.com/greek/1228.htm), and is thus, by implication, an “adversary” to them. In light of this meaning of the term “diabolos,” it’s significant that, in Rev. 12:7-12, the Adversary is referred to as ”the accuser of our brethren…who was accusing them before our God day and night.”

As is the case in Rev. 12:12, the term “diabolos” most often occurs in Scripture with the use of the definite article (a total of 31 times). The only exceptions to this are found in John 6:70, Acts 13:10, 1 Tim. 3:11, 2 Tim. 3:3, Titus 2:3 and Rev. 20:2. In the three occurrences from Paul’s letters, the plural form of diabolos is used, and is translated “adversaries” in the CLNT (most other English versions translate the plural form of diabolos as “slanderers,” while – inconsistently – translating the singular form as “devil”). However, when the term diabolos occurs in Scripture with the definite article, it means that a certain “diabolos” is in view, and can be understood as a title for the being to whom the term is being applied. Here are a few examples in which we find references to “the Adversary” (tou diabolou) in the CLNT:

Acts 10:38

“Jesus from Nazareth, as God anoints Him with holy spirit and power, Who passed through as a benefactor and healer of all those who are tyrannized over by the Adversary, for God was with Him.”

John 8:44

“You are of your father, the Adversary, and the desires of your father you are wanting to do. He was a man-killer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, for truth is not in him. Whenever he may be speaking a lie, he is speaking of his own, for he is a liar, and the father of it.”

2 Timothy 2:24-26

“Now a slave of the Lord must not be fighting, but be gentle toward all, apt to teach, bearing with evil, with meekness training those who are antagonizing, seeing whether God may be giving them repentance to come into a realization of the truth, and they will be sobering up out of the trap of the Adversary, having been caught alive by him, for that one’s will.”

Hebrews 2:14

“Since, then, the little children have participated in blood and flesh, He also was very nigh by partaking of the same, that, through death, He should be discarding him who has the might of death, that is, the Adversary…”

1 Peter 5:8-9

“Be sober! Watch! For your plaintiff, the Adversary, is walking about as a roaring lion, seeking someone to swallow up; whom withstand, solid in the faith, having perceived the same sufferings being completed in your brotherhood in the world.”

1 John 3:8

”Yet he who is doing sin is of the Adversary, for from the beginning is the Adversary sinning. For this was the Son of God manifested, that He should be annulling the acts of the Adversary.”

In addition to the fact that the Adversary referred to in the above verses is referred to by the use of personal pronouns (e.g., “he” and “him”), this being is described as having the ability to speak, a will, desires, emotions and awareness. In light of these considerations, I believe it’s reasonable to conclude that the Adversary is an intelligent, self-aware being who has a capacity for volitional action (and that, unless it can be shown that there are other passages of Scripture that clearly present a different view of the nature of the Adversary referred to in these and other verses – and which make a literal interpretation of what’s said concerning him in these verses untenable – it would be unreasonable not to arrive at the conclusion that the Adversary is a personal being possessing self-awareness, volition, intelligence, etc.).

The first reference in the Greek Scriptures to “the Adversary” is found in Matthew’s account of Jesus’ trial in the wilderness (Matthew 4:1-11), and provides further confirmation of the view that the Adversary is, in fact, a personal being possessing self-awareness, volition, intelligence, etc. Here is how these verses read in the Concordant Literal New Testament:

Then Jesus was led up into the wilderness by the spirit to be tried by the Adversary. And, fasting forty days and forty nights, subsequently He hungers. And, approaching, the trier said to Him, “If you are God’s Son, say that these stones may be becoming cakes of bread.” Yet He, answering, said, “It is written, ‘Not on bread alone shall man be living, but on every declaration going out through the mouth of God.’”

Then the Adversary is taking Him along into the holy city, and stands Him on the wing of the sanctuary. And he is saying to Him, “If you are God’s Son, cast yourself down, for it is written that ‘His messengers shall be directed concerning Thee’ and ‘On their hands shall they be lifting Thee, Lest at some time Thou shouldst be dashing Thy foot against a stone.’”

Jesus averred to him, “Again it is written, ‘You shall not be putting on trial the Lord your God.’”

Again the Adversary takes Him along into a very high mountain, and is showing Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. And he said to Him, “All these to you will I be giving, if ever, falling down, you should be worshiping me.”

Then Jesus is saying to him, “Go away, Satan, for it is written, ‘The Lord your God shall you be worshiping, And to Him only shall you be offering divine service.’”

Then the Adversary is leaving Him. And lo! messengers approached and waited on Him.

I believe that a natural, straight-forward reading of Matt. 4:1-11 will lead the unbiased student of Scripture to the conclusion that the entity referred to as “the Adversary” in this passage was a living, conscious and intelligent being who had just as much of a capacity for thought and volitional activity as Christ himself. The Adversary by whom Christ was tried in the wilderness is clearly depicted as a self-aware being who could speak and refer to himself with the use of first-person singular pronouns (thus manifesting the possession of a unique “first-person perspective”).

Some, however, understand the Adversary being referred to in these verses as the personification of a certain selfish inclination or impulse within Christ (i.e., a “fleshly desire” for self-gratification, self-glorification, etc.). In support of this interpretation, James 1:14 is sometimes appealed to: “Now each one is undergoing trial when he is drawn away and lured by his own desire.” In response to this argument, it must first be noted that James wasn’t saying that one’s own desire is the only thing that’s involved when someone undergoes the sort of “trial” (or “temptation”) to which he was referring. James’ words here do not preclude the possibility of an external agent (or external source of temptation) being involved in one’s “trial” as well. He was simply pointing out that, apart from the presence of a certain desire within oneself, no one could undergo the sort of “trial” to which he was referring (and that it’s one’s own desire – and not God – that directly results in sin being “brought forth” whenever a person yields to their desire and transgresses).[1]

Contrary to the view that the Adversary should be understood as simply a personification of Christ’s own desire or inclination to do that which he knew he ought not do (and which would’ve resulted in him sinning), the Adversary by whom Christ was tried is depicted as a being whose existence was just as external to Christ as the existence of the “messengers” referred to in Matt. 4:11 and Mark 1:13. As is the case with the “messengers,” we’re told that the Adversary had to approach Christ to be in his presence (v. 11). And after the trial was completed, we read that the Adversary left him (v. 11). We thus have no more reason to believe that the Adversary had a merely “internal” existence (i.e., existing only in Christ’s mind, feelings, or “flesh”) than we have reason to believe this concerning the messengers referred to in these verses.

The individuality (and externality) of the Adversary is further confirmed from the nature of the last trial referred to in the above passage:

Again the Adversary takes Him along into a very high mountain, and is showing Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. And he said to Him, “All these to you will I be giving, if ever, falling down, you should be worshiping me.”

Here is how this trial is described in Luke’s account:

And, leading Him up into a high mountain, the Adversary shows Him all the kingdoms of the inhabited earth in a second of time. And the Adversary said to Him, “To you shall I be giving all this authority and the glory of them, for it has been given up to me, and to whomsoever I may will, I am giving it. If you, then, should ever be worshiping before me, it will all be yours.”

Notice that Christ didn’t dispute the claim of the Adversary to have been given “all the authority and the glory” that pertained to “all the kingdoms of the inhabited earth.” He simply rejected the Adversary’s offer. Notice also that the Adversary wanted (and thought it was possible for) Christ to be “falling down” and “worshiping” him. If “the Adversary” responsible for this trial was simply the personification of a certain “fleshly desire” within Christ’s heart, then it would mean that Christ was being tempted by his own desire to fall down and worship before himself and then receive from himself something that he already possessed.

Although such an interpretation as this may make sense to some, I’m convinced that it’s far more reasonable to believe that Christ was being offered something that he didn’t, at that time, possess, and that it was being offered to him by a being who did, at that time, possess it (and who would’ve given it to Christ had Christ met the specified condition). It’s also reasonable to believe that the nature of the being who offered Christ “all the kingdoms of the world and their glory” was such that Christ could’ve fallen down and worshiped before him (cf. Rev. 22:8-9, where we read that the apostle John fell down “to worship in front of the feet of the messenger” who was speaking to him). In light of these considerations, I believe it’s reasonable to conclude that the Adversary by whom Christ was tried in the wilderness belongs to the same order of created, superhuman beings as Michael and Gabriel.

I’ll close part two of this study with some remarks on Hebrews 2:14 (since what we read in this verse is closely connected with the subject considered in the previous installment). In this verse we read the following:

“Since, then, the little children have participated in blood and flesh, He also was very nigh by partaking of the same, that, through death, He should be discarding him who has the might of death, that is, the Adversary…”

Thus far I’ve argued that “the Adversary” referred to in Scripture is the being who indwelled and controlled the serpent referred to in Genesis 3:1-6 (and who, for this reason, was referred to by John as “the ancient serpent”). If the view for which I’ve argued is correct, then our understanding of the Adversary’s actions in the garden of Eden can, I believe, shed some light on why the author of the letter to the Hebrews was able to refer to him as the one “who has the might of death.” We know that, absolutely speaking, God has the ultimate authority over who lives and who dies (and that, according to Rev. 1:18, this authority has been given to Christ). But we also know that, because of Adam’s transgression, death entered into the world of humanity (Rev. 5:12-14). In Genesis 2:16-17, God declared the following to Adam: “From every tree of the garden you may eat, yea eat. But from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you must not eat from it; for on the day you eat from it, to die, you shall be dying.” In accordance with this stated consequence for Adam’s disobedience, we read that, on the very day that Adam sinned, the death sentence was passed upon him (Gen. 3:19). And as a result of this sentence, both Adam and his wife Eve – and well as all of their future posterity – were banished from the garden of Eden and denied access to the tree of life (vv. 22-24). Humanity was, in other word, excluded from the only means by which we could’ve lived indefinitely on the earth without the inevitability of death. 

Thus, despite the mortal condition in which Adam and Eve were created (and which made them able to die), they were not condemned to die until after they transgressed. But what does this have to do with the Adversary referred to in Hebrews 2:14? Well, we know that Adam’s transgression was a result of Eve’s prior transgression (for, after Eve ate of the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, she then ”gave some to her husband with her, and he ate.”). And we know that Eve came “to be in the transgression” as a result of her having been “deluded” by the serpent (2 Cor. 11:3; 1 Tim. 2:13-14). Thus, it was the Adversary (indwelling and speaking through the serpent) who, by deluding Eve, set off the chain reaction that ultimately led to the death sentence being passed upon Adam (and, by extension, all of his descendants). It is, I believe, because of his key role in causing sin to enter the world of humanity (which, in turn, caused death to pass through into all mankind) that the author of the letter to the Hebrews could refer to the Adversary as “him who has the might of death.”

Part three: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2020/05/the-nature-purpose-and-destiny-of_73.html

---

[1] It would seem that some of the Jewish believers to whom James wrote were attempting to justify their sinful conduct on the basis of the mistaken assumption that, when they were “tried” (tempted to sin), it must’ve meant that it was God’s intention that they not endure the trial. For if God is indeed sovereign over whether we are led into trials or not (Matt 6:13), then – they erroneously reasoned – it could only mean that it was God who was “trying” them (tempting them to sin), and that it must therefore be God’s intention that they yield to the temptation and sin (for, in the words of Paul, “who can resist his intention?”). It is against this mistaken view that I believe James was arguing.

The fact that one is being tried does not necessarily mean it is God’s intention that one fail to endure their trial. Thus, those being “tried” have no reason to think that, when they’re being tried, it is inevitable that they sin (as if it were necessarily God’s sovereign will for them). Since God doesn’t directly try anyone in this way, one’s being tempted to sin is not evidence that it’s in accord with God’s intention that one yield to the temptation. Thus, when tempted, those to whom James wrote could keep their eyes on the prize which he mentioned in the previous verse (the “wreath of life,” which we’re told God has promised those who endure such trials), instead of thinking that failure to endure the trial was inevitable.

The Nature, Purpose and Destiny of the Adversary (Part One)

The ancient serpent

In Genesis 3:1-6 (Concordant Version of the Old Testament) we read the following:

Now the serpent, it became more crafty than any other animal of the field that Yahweh Elohim had made. The serpent said to the woman: Indeed did Elohim say, You shall not eat from every tree of the garden?  The woman replied to the serpent: We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; yet of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden Elohim said, You shall not eat from it, and you shall not touch it lest you should die. But the serpent said to the woman: Not to die shall you be dying; for Elohim knows that on the day you eat of it your eyes will be unclosed, and you will become like Elohim, knowing good and evil. Then the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it brought a yearning to the eyes and that the tree was desirable for gaining insight. So she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave some to her husband with her, and he ate.

In 2 Cor. 11:3 and 1 Tim. 2:13-14, the Apostle Paul referred to the historical event recorded in the above passage as follows:

“Yet I fear lest somehow, as the serpent deludes Eve by its craftiness, your apprehensions should be corrupted from the singleness and pureness which is in Christ.”

“…for Adam was first molded, thereafter Eve, and Adam was not seduced, yet the woman, being deluded, has come to be in the transgression.” (cf. 1 Cor. 11:8-12)

Just as Paul believed that Adam was created before Eve (1 Cor. 11:8-12; 1 Tim. 2:13) – and that it was through Adam that sin (and, through sin, death) came into the world (Rom. 5:12-19; 1 Cor. 15:21-22) – so Paul believed that it was by the craftiness of the serpent referred to in Genesis 3:1-6 that Eve was “deluded.” There is simply no good reason to believe that, for Paul, the account of Eve’s being deluded by the serpent is any less literally true or historically factual than the account of Eve’s creation (it also wouldn’t make sense for Paul to appeal to the creation and subsequent seduction of Eve in order to support the point he was making in 1 Tim. 2:13-14 unless he believed in the historicity of the events to which he was referring).

There are some who, despite affirming the historicity of the account of Adam and Eve’s creation, believe that what we read in Gen. 3:1-6 should be understood as something other than a historical record of events that actually occurred in the way that they’re said to have occurred. However, we have no more reason to interpret Genesis 3:1-6 as a mythological fable or allegory than we have reason to interpret the account of Adam and Eve’s creation in this way. Thus, if one holds to straightforward understanding of the account Adam and Eve’s creation (as I do, and believe Paul did), consistency demands that Genesis 3:1-6 be similarly understood as a historically factual record of how Eve was deluded, and how sin subsequently entered the world of humanity/human society.

But does a straightforward reading of Genesis 3:1-6 necessarily lead to the view that a serpent was involved in the events described in these verses? One biblical scholar who didn’t think so was E.W. Bullinger. In Appendix 19 of his Companion Bible, Bullinger (who, it must be emphasized, firmly believed Genesis 3:1-6 to be an account consisting of historical facts, as opposed to an allegory, myth or fable) argued that the Hebrew word translated “serpent” in Genesis 3 (נָחָשׁ or “nachash”) shouldn’t be understood to mean “serpent” here. Instead, he claimed that the term “nachash” simply means “shining one.” And on the basis of what he believed to be the more literal meaning of the word, Bullinger argued that the “nachash” referred to in Genesis 3 was “a celestial or spirit-being,” and that this entity appeared to Eve as “a glorious shining being.” According to Bullinger’s position, then, the “nachash” who spoke to Eve did not indwell and speak through (or assume the appearance of) a serpent. Rather, the “nachash” who spoke to Eve was a glorious, celestial being who appeared to Eve as “an angel of light.”

Although I’m sympathetic toward Bullinger’s theory (and believe it to be much closer to the truth than the view of those who see the serpent as merely an imaginary being within a fictional tale or allegory), I also think his theory has some major problems. The first problem involves the meaning of the term “nachash.” Although some scholars would dispute Bullinger’s claim that the Hebrew term “nachash” literally means “shining one,” I don’t think it’s necessary to evaluate the validity of this particular claim in order to demonstrate the problematic nature of Bullinger’s position. For, regardless of what the most literal or primitive meaning of the word “nachash” may or may not be, the fact remains that this word is, in the Hebrew Scriptures, the primary Hebrew word for “serpent” (https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=kjv&strongs=h5175). Thus, if the inspired writer of Genesis had wanted to communicate the fact that Eve was deluded by a serpent, then there was no better and more suitable word he could’ve used than “nachash.” In no other passage of Scripture where the term “nachash” occurs is there any ambiguity as to what kind of creature is in view, or any reason to think that the term means something other than “serpent.” On the other hand, had Moses wanted to communicate the idea that the being who appeared to Eve and seduced her into transgressing God’s command was a celestial spirit-being, there were, arguably, far better ways of more clearly expressing and communicating this fact.

Even more problematic for Bullinger’s theory is the fact that, when the “nachash” is first introduced in Genesis 3 :1, it’s said to be (or to have become) ”more crafty than any other animal of the field that Yahweh Elohim had made.” And later, in Gen. 3:14, we read that God declared the following to this creature: “Cursed shall you be away from [or “over”] every domestic beast and from every animal of the field!” What would be the point of informing the reader that a celestial spirit-being or angel was (or had “become”) craftier than “any other animal of the field” that God had made? What would be the point of God’s cursing a celestial spirit-being “away from” (or “above”) “every domestic beast and from every animal of the field?” These statements imply that the kind of creature being referred to in these verses belonged to, or was in some way closely associated with, the category of earthly, field-dwelling creatures with which it was being compared (and “away from” which it was cursed).

Significantly, when quoting from Gen. 3:1 in his article, Bullinger left out the phrase “of the field.” I suspect that this omission on Bullinger’s part was not unintentional, for the phrase not only undermines the very point he was trying to make when quoting from Gen. 3:1, but it exposes the weakness of his entire position concerning the nature of the “nachash” of Genesis 3. In any event, the fact remains that what we read in Gen. 3:1 and 3:14 implies that the “nachash” being referred to belonged to the same earthly realm as the “domestic beasts” and “animals of the field.” What’s being said in these verses would simply make no sense if the “nachash” in view was a creature that belonged to a completely different realm than that which is inhabited by “every animal of the field,” or to an order of beings that, in accord with what we read in Psalm 8:5 and Heb. 2:7, is higher than that to which humans belong. However, when we understand the term “nachash” to simply mean “serpent,” no such difficulty arises.

But if the “nachash” of Genesis 3 was, in fact, a serpent, how do we account for its extra-ordinary intelligence and speaking ability? It’s reasonable to believe that no other serpent in earth’s history has ever possessed the ability to do what we’re told the serpent in Eden did. Does this mean that, when serpents were first created by God, they naturally possessed both the intelligence and the speaking ability manifested by the serpent by which Eve was deluded? This view would imply that serpents lost these abilities at some point subsequent to the time at which the event described in Genesis 3:1-6 occurred. In support of this position, some have appealed to the unusual incident involving Balaam’s donkey that we find recorded in Numbers 22:21-39. Based on what we read in this passage, it’s suggested that God simply restored to Balaam’s donkey an ability that all animals once naturally possessed (but eventually lost, after creation was cursed).

Although this is an interesting theory, I think it’s more likely (and more in keeping with what Scripture reveals elsewhere) that the serpent by which Eve was deluded had, at some point prior to the exchange recorded in Gen. 3:1-5, come to be indwelled and controlled by another, more intelligent being. According to this view, the serpent’s “craftiness” (and ability to speak) was not inherent in the serpent itself, but rather was derived from an unseen source which inherently possessed the “craftiness” manifested by the serpent’s words. It was by means of this unseen intelligence that the serpent, on this particular occasion, “became more crafty than any other animal of the field that Yahweh Elohim had made,” and was enabled to speak the seductive words that it spoke to Eve.

It has been objected that, if this were the case, then there would’ve been no good reason for God to curse the serpent. Why would God have cursed the serpent if it was simply the unwitting instrument of another being? In response to this objection, it should first be noted that, although the serpent’s curse apparently involved a change in its physical condition, we have no reason to think that the curse involved the infliction of pain and suffering upon the serpent (let alone that the serpent felt any kind of resentment – or any other negative emotions – as a result of its being cursed). Second, if we understand God’s cursing of the serpent as illustrative (and as prophetically pointing to the future judgment of the unseen being who indwelled and spoke through the serpent), God’s curse makes more sense. The fact is, however, that we don’t have to know why, exactly, God cursed this creature in order to believe that he had a good reason for doing so. Since a straightforward reading of Genesis 3:14-15 indicates that God did, in fact, curse the serpent – and since God doesn’t do anything without a good reason – then it necessarily follows that God did have a good reason for doing so (even if we’re unsure as to what, exactly, that reason was).

That the serpent by which Eve was deluded was indwelled by, and under the control of, a more powerful and intelligent entity who had essentially made the serpent an extension of itself is, I believe, supported by what the apostle John wrote in Revelation 12:7-12. Here is how these verses read in the CLNT:

And a battle occurred in heaven. Michael and his messengers battle with the dragon, and the dragon battles, and its messengers. And they are not strong enough for him, neither was their place still found in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, the ancient serpent called Adversary and Satan, who is deceiving the whole inhabited earth. It was cast into the earth, and its messengers were cast with it. And I hear a loud voice in heaven saying, “Just now came the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of His Christ, for the accuser of our brethren was cast out, who was accusing them before our God day and night. And they conquer him through the blood of the Lambkin, and through the word of their testimony, and they love not their soul, until death. Therefore, make merry, ye heavens, and those tabernacling in them! Woe to the land and the sea, for the Adversary descended to you having great fury, being aware that brief is the season that he has.”

A few verses earlier, the “great dragon” referred to in this passage was described as ”a great fiery-red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and on its heads seven diadems” (Rev. 12:3). As is the case with the seven-horned, seven-eyed “Lambkin” (Rev. 5:6-7) and the seven-headed, ten-horned “wild beast” (Rev. 13:1-2), the fiery-red dragon is most likely a composite symbol or figure that represents both a single individual as well as a particular group of beings with whom the primary individual represented is closely associated. In the case of the seven-eyed, seven-horned “Lambkin,” for example, the immediate context makes it clear that the primary individual being represented is Jesus Christ. However, we’re also told that the seven horns and eyes of the Lambkin represent “the seven spirits of God, commissioned for the entire earth” (Rev. 5:6). These seven spirits were first represented by “seven torches of fire” which John saw “burning before the throne” (Rev. 4:5), and which are later referred to as “the seven messengers who stand before God” (Rev. 8:2; cf. Luke 1:19). Their inclusion in the “Lambkin” symbol is, evidently, due to the fact that these spirits/messengers will play a key role in executing the judgments associated with the opening of the seven-sealed scroll by Christ (who, by virtue of his sacrificial death, is revealed to be the only created being worthy of opening the scroll and breaking its seal; see Rev. 5).  

That a single individual was primarily being represented by the “great dragon” (as is the case with the “Lambkin” and the “wild beast”) is confirmed by the fact that John referred to the dragon as a “him” and a “he” in the above passage. Specifically, the particular individual represented by the “dragon” (and with whom we’re told Michael and his messengers will be battling) is the entity whom John referred to in v. 9 as “the ancient serpent called Adversary and Satan.” The expression ”the ancient serpent” is undoubtedly a reference to the serpent by which Eve was deluded, and is actually the first of two occurrences in Revelation in which this expression was used by John (the second occurrence being found in Rev. 20:1-3). In both occurrences, the expression is used to identify an entity referred to by John as “(the) Adversary and Satan.”

But if “the ancient serpent” by which Eve was “deluded” was simply the visible guise of another being who temporarily indwelled and controlled the serpent (and who inherently possessed the intelligence and “craftiness” manifested in the serpent’s words), then why is the being who indwelled the serpent – i.e., he who is “called Adversary and Satan” – referred to as if he were the serpent itself? Answer: John was likely using the figure of speech “metonymy” here. According to this figure of speech, something that’s closely associated with something else – e.g., something that serves as the instrument or means through which something else acts – is referred to as if it were the thing with which it’s associated (see the following entry for an expanded explanation of this figure of speech: https://www.studylight.org/lexicons/bullinger/metonymy-or-change-of-noun.html). In the case of Rev. 12:9 and 20:2, the serpent through which the being who is “called Adversary and Satan” acted and spoke is referred to by John as if it were this being.

But what is the true nature of the entity to whom John was referring in these verses? The position I am going to be defending in the next few installments of this study could be briefly summarized as follows: the being whom John said is “called Adversary and Satan” belongs to the general order of superhuman, heaven-dwelling beings referred to in Rev. 12:7-12 as “Michael and his messengers” (and who are included among those said to be ”tabernacling in the heavens”), and was created by God to be the chief antagonist/opponent of God and humanity during the eons.

Some have objected to this understanding of the nature of this being by arguing that we’re not provided with any clear and explicit account of his origin. According to this objection, if the being referred to in Rev. 12:7-12 as “Satan” and “the Adversary” should be understood as a created, superhuman being (as opposed to, say, a personification of something impersonal), then God would’ve provided us with an account of his creation. However, this argument is undermined by the fact that Scripture is just as silent concerning the origin of every other created, superhuman being referred to in Scripture. Whether they’re referred to by name or not, their creation is simply a fact that is taken for granted in Scripture. It would be absurd to argue that “Michael and his messengers” (or the “heavenly host” referred to in Luke 2:13) are personifications just because Scripture provides us with no account of their origin. And the same could be said of the being with whom this study is concerned.

Part two: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2020/05/the-nature-purpose-and-destiny-of_11.html