Satan’s God-ordained purpose and God-given authority
In an article on the Concordant Publishing Concern website, D.G. Hayter expresses what I believe to be a scripturally-informed understanding of Satan and his purpose. Here is an excerpt from Hayter’s article:
It is vital to realize that the purpose of Satan’s existence is to oppose God. Every conceivable method of opposition is available to him. To this, he is devoted, and for this, he was created. God required him for this express purpose. He needed a foil by which to exhibit the superiority of His attributes. He needed an opponent, and it was necessary that, in power and dignity and craftiness, he should be a match for all others of God’s creatures. He must rank very high in the hierarchy of the universe, so that through his masterful opposition God will be enabled to make a public display of the supremacy of the divine power and wisdom and love. Satan is not at all similar to the popular conception that caricatures his disposition and character. He is a dignitary, probably next only to Christ in power and authority. Many of the sovereignties and authorities among the celestials have evidently heeded his lies and are subject to his baleful influence. Michael, the chief messenger, assented to his superior station and declared that only the Lord Himself had sufficient authority to rebuke him.
It seems that Satan has won over to his authority the leaders among the celestials, and that these mighty ones who rule and administer the heavenly society are subject to him.
Satan’s authority extends now to almost all humanity. He it is who now operates in the sons of stubbornness, and as all, except those to whom God has been merciful, are locked up in stubbornness, it is evident that the spirit of the Adversary now dominates the spirits of humanity.
I doubt that many Christians would agree with Hayter’s claim that Satan is a “dignitary.” However, this truth is presupposed by both Peter and Jude. In 2 Peter 2:10-11 we read the following:
“Audacious, given to self-gratification, they are not trembling when calumniating glories, where messengers, being greater in strength and power, are not bringing against them a calumniating judging before the Lord.”
According to Peter, not even messengers (or “angels”) – who are “greater in strength and power” than humans – are “bringing against [glories] a calumniating judging before the Lord.” And yet, the “audacious” people to whom Peter was referring were, apparently, doing just this (i.e., they were “calumniating glories”). The implication here is that the beings referred to as “glories” (or “dignitaries”) are higher in rank than “messengers.”
In verses 8-10 of his letter, Jude provides us with more information concerning the beings referred to as “messengers” and “glories”:
“Howbeit, these dreamers also, likewise are indeed defiling the flesh, yet are repudiating lordship and calumniating glories. Now when Michael, the chief messenger, doubting the Adversary, argued concerning the body of Moses, he dares not bring on a calumniating judging, but said, "May the Lord rebuke you!"
Since Michael is an example a messenger, we can conclude that “the Adversary” (against whom not even Michael would bring a “calumniating judging before the Lord”) is an example of the higher-ranking celestial beings referred to as “glories” (or “dignitaries”). In other words, Satan is a “glory” (or “dignitary”).
Now, while most (if not all) Christians would agree that Satan opposes God (and is thus God’s adversary), few would agree that Satan’s God-ordained purpose is to oppose God. However, that this is the case is indicated by the very titles “Satan” and “the Adversary.” It’s by these titles (and not by his name, which is not revealed to us) that Satan is identified throughout Scripture, and even referred to (and addressed by) God, Christ and other holy celestial beings (Zech. 3:1-2; Matt. 4:10; Luke 22:31; Acts 26:18; Rev. 2:10; 12:12).
We can therefore conclude that, at this present time, it’s God’s purpose that Satan – i.e., “the Adversary” – be his adversary, or antagonist (and, by implication, that Satan be the adversary/antagonist of mankind). This means that, by opposing God and mankind, Satan is acting in accord with what God intends for him to do. This is in accord with the fact that God “is operating all in accord with the counsel of his will” (Eph. 1:11). God's operation is all-inclusive, and thus must include all of Satan’s actions. It must, therefore, be God’s intention – and must have always been God’s intention – that Satan be what he is (and do what he does) at this time. While it may be puzzling to many why God would create a being to be his own adversary (and thus intend that this being oppose him to the best of his God-given ability), the truth of God’s sovereignty simply does not allow us to draw any other conclusion.
It should be emphasized that Satan’s opposition to God does not involve thwarting God’s intention, and acting contrary to “the counsel of [God’s] will.” That would be impossible. As is implied by Paul in Romans 9:19, no one can withstand God’s intention. When Satan does what he was created to do, he’s acting in accord with (and not contrary to) the counsel of God’s will (for Satan’s actions are just as much a part of the “all” that God is operating as are the actions of anyone else). Rather than opposing God’s sovereign intention/predetermined plan (which is being carried out every moment, and through every event), Satan’s opposition to God involves doing everything within his power to prevent God from being believed, obeyed, worshipped and praised by his image-bearing creatures. That is, Satan is keeping the majority of people estranged from, and enemies of, God, and thereby doing everything he can to deprive God of that which pleases and glorifies him. Hence, the present eon is referred to by Paul as “wicked” (Ga. 1:4), and as the eon of which Satan is the “god” (2 Cor. 4:4). In contrast, it’s the future eons of Christ’s reign (i.e., “the eons of the eons”) that are emphasized as being the time when God will receive glory (Gal. 1:5; Phil. 4:20; 1 Tim. 1:17; 1 Pet. 4:11).
With these considerations in mind, let’s now consider Hayter’s astute observation that Satan is “probably next only to Christ in power and authority.” Based on what we find revealed in Scripture, I think we have good reason to believe that this isn’t just probably the case. Instead, I think we have good reason to believe that Satan is, in fact, “next only to Christ in power and authority.” And not only this, but I believe we have good reason to believe that, prior to Christ’s death and resurrection (prior to when Christ was made Lord of all, and given all authority in heaven and on earth), Satan was the highest-ranking being under God, and possessed more power and authority than any other created being. According to this view, Christ’s death and resurrection resulted in Satan being demoted to third place (and a very distant third place at that!) in the cosmic hierarchy.
That Satan does, in fact, have authority from God (and not just power, as most Christians would agree is the case) – and that his authority is greater than that which belongs to any other created being (besides Christ himself) – can be easily demonstrated. In Acts 26:16-18 we read that Christ declared the following to Paul when he first appeared to him and gave him his apostolic commission:
“But rise and stand on your feet, for I was seen by you for this, to fix upon you before for a deputy and a witness both of what you have perceived and that in which I will be seen by you, extricating you from the people and from the nations, to whom I am commissioning you, to open their eyes, to turn them about from darkness to light and from the authority of Satan to God, for them to get a pardon of sins and an allotment among those who have been hallowed by faith that is in Me.”
The noun translated “authority” in v. 18 (exousia) is the same word that’s used when Christ referred to his own authority (Matt. 21:24; 28:18). And the specific form of the noun used in Acts 26:18 is the same form that Paul used when referring to his apostolic authority (2 Cor. 10:8).
Moreover, the implication of what Christ declared is that “the nations” to whom Paul was commissioned were under Satan’s authority (and that they could only be “turned about from” Satan’s authority by hearing and believing the evangel that Paul heralded). And since the nations are a worldwide category of people, it follows that Satan’s authority is worldwide in scope.
In addition to this point, we have other good reasons for believing that Satan’s jurisdiction is, in fact, worldwide in scope. For example, in Revelation 12:9 we read that Satan is “deceiving the whole inhabited earth.” And in 1 John 5:19 we’re told that “the whole world is lying in the wicked one.” Further support for this understanding of the worldwide scope of Satan’s jurisdiction can be found in Luke 4:5-7:
And, leading [Jesus] 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.”
Here’s how Matthew’s account of this event reads:
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” (Matt. 4:8-9).
It’s significant that Christ didn’t dispute the Adversary’s claim to have been given all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. He simply rejected Satan’s offer, and responded that only the Lord God – i.e., Jesus’ God and Father (Yahweh) – should be worshipped (v. 8). And the very fact that this was one of the ways in which Christ was “tried” (i.e., tempted to sin) by Satan presupposes that Christ believed the offer Satan was making was valid. Christ couldn’t have been tempted to take Satan up on his offer unless he actually believed that Satan did, in fact, possess that which he was offering to give Christ in exchange for his worship/allegiance.
Some have objected that Satan couldn’t have been in possession of “all the kingdoms of the world and their glory,” since Scripture is clear elsewhere that God has authority over, and possession of, the earth and its kingdoms (e.g., Psalm 22:28; 24:1). However, the truth of God’s sovereignty over the earth and its kingdoms is perfectly consistent with the fact that, under God, there are created persons with greater or lesser degrees of authority over the earth and its peoples. For example, in Daniel 2:37-39 we read that Daniel declared the following to Nebuchadnezzar:
“You, O king, the king of kings, to whom the God of heaven has given the kingdom, the power, and the might, and the glory, and into whose hand he has given, wherever they dwell, the children of man, the beasts of the field, and the birds of the heavens, making you rule over them all—you are the head of gold. Another kingdom inferior to you shall arise after you, and yet a third kingdom of bronze, which shall rule over all the earth.”
Obviously, while God gave Nebuchadnezzar more authority and greater dominion than any other human had been given up to that point (making him “the king of kings” at that time), God still had ultimate and absolute authority. And since there’s nothing problematic about believing that Nebuchadnezzar had the great dominion of which we read in the above verses, so there’s nothing problematic about believing that non-human, spiritual beings can (and do) have even greater authority. In fact, it’s clear from what we read elsewhere in Daniel that there are, in fact, non-human beings who are in positions of authority over human kingdoms (and who thus have even greater authority than the human kings of earth’s kingdoms). Two such beings are referred to in Daniel 10 as “the chief of the kingdom of Persia” and “the chief of Greece,” while the chief messenger Michael is referred to as “one of the first chiefs” and “the great chief who is standing over the sons of [Daniel’s] people” (Daniel 10:12-14, 20-21; 12:1).
What we find prophesied in Revelation 13:2-8 confirms that Satan did, in fact, possess the authority and glory of “all the kingdoms of the inhabited earth” when he was tempting Christ to worship him. In these verses we read the following:
And the wild beast which I perceived was like a leopardess, and its feet were as a bear's, and its mouth as the mouth of a lion. And the dragon gives it its power and its throne and great authority. And I perceived one of its heads as if it had been slain to death, and its death blow was cured, and the whole earth marvels after the wild beast. And they worship the dragon, seeing that it gives authority to the wild beast. And they worship the wild beast, saying, “Who is like the wild beast?” and “Who is able to battle with it?” And to it was given a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies. And to it was given authority to do what it wills forty-two months. And it opens its mouth in blasphemies toward God, to blaspheme His name and His tabernacle, and those tabernacling in heaven. And to it was given to do battle with the saints and to conquer them. And authority was given to it over every tribe and people and language and nation. And all who are dwelling on the earth will be worshiping it, everyone whose name is not written in the scroll of life of the Lambkin slain from the disruption of the world.
In this passage, “the dragon” represents Satan, while the “wild beast” represents the ruler of the final world kingdom that will be present on the earth prior to Christ’s return at the end of the eon (i.e., the “man of lawlessness” or “antichrist”). Thus, what we find being prophesied in Rev. 13:1-8 is that Satan is going to give his “power and throne and great authority” to the ruler of the final world kingdom. This “great authority” will not only allow the man of lawlessness to do what he wills for “forty-two months” (i.e., the final 42 months prior to Christ’s return), but it will give him worldwide dominion (for his authority will be “over every tribe and people and language and nation,” such that “all who are dwelling on the earth” will be worshipping him). The fact that Satan will be able to give such world-dominating authority to the man of lawlessness means that he possesses this “great authority” himself. This, again, is in accord with the fact that Satan is presently in possession of “all the kingdoms of the world and their glory” (Matt. 4:8-9).
Thus, the truth of God’s sovereignty over the kingdoms of the earth is perfectly consistent with the view that Satan does, in fact, have the degree of authority and worldwide jurisdiction that he claimed to have when he was trying Christ (and that he is going to give it to someone who will accept it from him at some future time).
That Satan has authority – and not just power – is further confirmed from other scripture-informed considerations as well. For example, there would’ve been no good reason for Paul to have singled out “the sovereignties and authorities” in Eph. 1:20-21, Eph. 3:10 and Col. 2:10 unless he believed that these beings are the highest-ranking created beings in the universe under Christ (and, by implication, that they were the highest-ranking created beings in the universe prior to Christ’s resurrection and exaltation to God’s right hand). But according to what Paul wrote elsewhere, the “sovereignties and authorities among the celestials” over whom Christ has been exalted by God (and of whom Christ is now “the Head”) are wicked beings:
Col. 2:14-15
“…erasing the handwriting of the decrees against us, which was hostile to us, and has taken it away out of the midst, nailing it to the cross, stripping off the sovereignties and authorities, with boldness He makes a show of them, triumphing over them in it.”[i]
Ephesians 6:11-12
“Put on the panoply of God, to enable you to stand up to the stratagems of the Adversary, for it is not ours to wrestle with blood and flesh, but with the sovereignties, with the authorities, with the world-mights of this darkness, with the spiritual forces of wickedness among the celestials.”
We’ve already seen that Satan belongs to the high-ranking category of celestial beings that Peter and Jude referred to as “glories” (or “dignitaries”). And the implication of what we read in these verses is that Satan belongs to the category of celestial beings that Paul referred to as “the sovereignties and authorities” (and is, in fact, the highest-ranking member of this category of celestial beings). Moreover, the very fact that Satan belongs to, and is the highest-ranking member of, a group of beings who are referred to by Paul as “sovereignties and authorities” is further evidence of the fact that Satan himself has authority.
The chief of the jurisdiction of the air
For the remainder of this study I’m going to demonstrate that the “chief of the jurisdiction of the air” to whom Paul referred in Eph. 2:2 is Satan, and then argue that he is the same “chief” of whom Christ spoke during his earthly ministry (as recorded in John 12:31, 14:30 and 16:11). I’ll further argue that Satan is also the being referred to by Paul as “the god of this eon” in 2 Corinthians 4:4.
In Ephesians 2:1-3 we read the following:
“And you, being dead to your offenses and sins, in which once you walked, in accord with the eon of this world, in accord with the chief of the jurisdiction of the air, the spirit now operating in the sons of stubbornness (among whom we also all behaved ourselves once in the lusts of our flesh, doing the will of the flesh and of the comprehension, and were, in our nature, children of indignation, even as the rest)…”
In these verses we find Paul referring to a certain “spirit” as “the chief of the jurisdiction of the air.” Some believe that this “spirit” should be understood as a mental disposition, attitude or mindset that certain people have. While it’s true that the Hebrew and Greek words translated “spirit” (ruach and pneuma, respectively) can, in certain contexts, be understood to denote a certain mental disposition, feeling or attitude (e.g., a “spirit of fear” or a “spirit of jealousy”), it’s also true that the terms can denote intelligent, superhuman beings (such as the kind of beings that Michael and Gabriel are). For example, in 2 Chron. 18:20, a member of the heavenly council is referred to as a “spirit.” And in Hebrews 1:14 all of the non-human messengers with whom Christ is contrasted throughout this chapter are referred to as “spirits.” We also read in Rev. 5:5 that the “seven torches of fire” which John saw “burning before the throne” represent “the seven spirits of God.” These “seven spirits of God” are later referred as “the seven messengers who stand before God” (concerning the possible identity of one of these seven spirits, see Luke 1:19).
In accord with these considerations, we read in 1 Pet. 3:19-20 of certain beings who are referred to as “the spirits in jail” who were “once stubborn, when the patience of God awaited in the days of Noah…” We’re provided with more information concerning these “spirits in jail” in 2 Pet. 2:4-5 and Jude 6. In these verses, these spirits are referred to as “sinning messengers” who “kept not their own sovereignty” but left “their own habitation.” As a result of their sin, we’re told that these messengers were thrust into “the gloomy caverns of Tartarus” and given up “to be kept for chastening judging” (or, as Jude says, these messengers are being “kept in imperceptible bonds under gloom for the judging of the great day”). For more on the subject of non-human beings who are referred to in Scripture as “spirits,” see my article on the nature and existence of demons: https://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2024/10/a-study-on-existence-and-nature-of.html
Even apart from the fact that the word “spirit” is used elsewhere in Scripture to refer to intelligent, personal beings, it should be evident that the spirit referred to in Ephesians 2 is a personal being (and not a mental disposition) from the fact that he has a title (i.e., “the chief of the jurisdiction of the air”). According to HELPS Word-studies, the word translated “chief” in v. 2 (archón) denotes “a preeminent ruler” or “a commander with authority (influence) over people in a particular jurisdiction” (Strong's Greek: 758. ἄρχων (archón) -- Ruler, leader, prince, magistrate). The term translated “jurisdiction” in this verse (exousia) can refer to either authority or the sphere/region in which authority is exercised (i.e., jurisdiction). Here, it refers to the sphere of this particular “chief’s” authority (i.e., the realm in which he exercises his authority).
Now, in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (i.e., the Septuagint or “LXX”), the term archón was used to translate the Hebrew term translated “chief” (or “prince”) in the following passages from Daniel:
Daniel 10:12-14
“Fear not, Daniel, for from the first day that you set your heart to understand and humbled yourself before your God, your words have been heard, and I have come because of your words. The chief of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty-one days, but Michael, one of the first chiefs, came to help me, for I was left there with the chief of the kings of Persia, and came to make you understand what is to happen to your people in the latter days. For the vision is for days yet to come.”
Daniel 10:20-21
“Then he said, “Do you know why I have come to you? But now I will return to fight against the chief of the kingdom of Persia; and when I go out, behold, the chief of Greece will come. But I will tell you what is inscribed in the book of truth: there is none who contends by my side against these except Michael, your chief.”
The celestial messenger who spoke the words we find recorded in these passages was most likely Gabriel (see Daniel 8:16; 9:21). And based on what this messenger declared to Daniel, we can conclude that there are several “chiefs” among the celestial beings who preside over the nations of the earth (which is in accord with what we read in Psalm 82 concerning the unjust “gods”/“sons of God”). Among these celestial “chiefs” is Michael (who, in Dan. 10:21, is referred to as “[Daniel’s] chief,” and later in Dan. 12:1 as “the great chief who is standing over the sons of [Daniel’s] people”).
While Michael (who is the “chief” of Daniel’s people, Israel) is clearly on the side of God and the saints among God’s covenant people, there are others (e.g., the “chief of the kingdom of Persia”) who are, evidently, antagonistic toward them. And the fact that Gabriel needed help from Michael after being “withstood” by the “chief of the kingdom of Persia” for three weeks indicates that this “chief” was at least as powerful as Gabriel himself (a fact which undermines any possible objection that these “chiefs” might have been merely human rulers).
Paul was likely very familiar with these passages (and with the Greek translation of Daniel in which the word archon was used to refer to these celestial beings). It’s thus likely that Paul had these verses from Daniel in mind when he used the expression “the chief of the jurisdiction of the air” in Eph. 2:2. In any case, we have good reason to believe that, unlike the other “chiefs” referred to in Daniel 10 (who each have jurisdiction over a particular nation or kingdom of the earth), the jurisdiction of the “chief” referred in Eph. 2:2 is not limited to any one nation or kingdom on the earth. For his jurisdiction is said to be “the air.” Since the entire earth is surrounded by the air, the implication is that the jurisdiction of the chief referred to in Eph. 2:2 encompasses the entire earth. In other words, his jurisdiction is worldwide in scope.
But who is this “chief of the jurisdiction of the air”? Well, insofar as he is a high-ranking spirit, we can conclude that he belongs to the same category of spiritual/celestial beings referred to as “chiefs” in the passages from Daniel quoted earlier. And this consideration alone should, I think, make it clear to the student of Scripture that Paul was referring to the spiritual being who he later referred to in this letter as “the Adversary” (i.e., Satan). In Ephesians 6:11-12 we read the following:
Put on the panoply of God, to enable you to stand up to the stratagems of the Adversary, for it is not ours to wrestle with blood and flesh, but with the sovereignties, with the authorities, with the world-mights of this darkness, with the spiritual forces of wickedness among the celestials.
As with the other references to “sovereignties” and “authorities” that we find in Scripture (Rom. 8:38; Eph. 1:21; 3:10; Col. 1:16; 2:15; 1 Pet. 3:22), the “sovereignties,” “authorities” and “world-mights” referred to in Eph. 6:12 should be understood as titles belonging to living, personal beings with varying degrees of power and influence over others. Just as Paul had in mind living, personal entities when he referred to “the superior authorities” in Rom. 13:1-7, so he had in mind living, personal entities in Eph. 6:12. However, while it’s evident that Paul had human beings in mind when he used the terms “sovereignties” and “authorities” elsewhere in his letters (Romans 13:1; Titus 3:1; cf. Luke 12:11), such is not the case in Eph. 6:12. For in this verse, Paul contrasted the entities to which he was referring with those who are “blood and flesh.”
Elsewhere in Scripture, the expressions “blood and flesh” and “flesh and blood” refer to the mortal and corruptible nature of human beings (1 Cor. 15:50; Heb. 2:14), or mortal humans themselves (Matt. 16:13-17; Gal. 1:16). Whether we understand the expression “blood and flesh” in Eph. 6:12 to mean “mortal human nature” or “mortal humans,” the implication of what Paul was saying in this verse is clear: neither “the Adversary” nor the entities referred to in v. 12 are beings with a mortal, human nature. Rather, they belong to a different class, or order, of beings entirely. This understanding is confirmed by the fact that these entities are further described as “spiritual forces of wickedness among the celestials.” No human “sovereignties” or “authorities” could legitimately be described in this way. The only valid sense in which personal beings who are “wicked” could be referred to as “spiritual” is if they belong to that order of non-human beings who are referred to elsewhere as “spirits” (e.g., in 2 Chronicles 18:20, Hebrews 1:14 and 1 Pet. 3:19-20).[ii]
Moreover (and as I’ve argued in more depth elsewhere), the location that Paul had in mind when he used the expression “among the celestials” (en tois epouraniois) is that which is elsewhere referred to in this letter as “the heavens” (Eph. 4:10), and which the author of the letter to the Hebrews referred to as both “the heavens” (Heb. 4:14; 7:26; 8:1-2) and “heaven itself” (Heb. 9:23-24). This is evident from the fact that the term epouraniois (“celestials” or “heavenlies”) is in the dative case, and thus denotes locality (as opposed to the genitive case, which denotes source or character).[iii] We can thus conclude that the “spiritual forces of wickedness among the celestials” are examples of the kind of heaven-dwelling beings that we find referred to elsewhere as “spirits.”
Now, when Paul wrote that Satan is “now operating in the sons of stubbornness,” the implication is that his operation is in some way causing the “stubbornness” of those in whom he is operating (or, at least, keeping them in this state). But what is “stubbornness”?
Answer: According to Strong’s Lexicon, the word translated “stubbornness” in this verse (apeitheia) “primarily refers to a state of disobedience or unbelief, particularly in relation to God’s commands or the gospel message. It denotes a willful refusal to be persuaded by divine truth, often resulting in a hardened heart and rebellion against God” (https://biblehub.com/greek/543.htm). This word is derived from the adjective apeithḗs. HELPS Word-studies provides us with the following definition of this word: “literally, unwilling to be persuaded (by God) which shows itself in outward disobedience (outward spiritual rebellion); disobedient because unpersuaded.”
Elsewhere in his letters, Paul used the word “stubbornness” to refer to a mental state that is inseparably connected with unbelief (Romans 2:8; 10:21; 11:30-33; 15:31). We find the same use of this word outside of Paul’s letters as well (John 3:36, Acts 14:2, 19:9; Heb. 4:6-11; 1 Pet. 2:8, 3:1, 4:17). Thus, the implication of what we read in Eph. 2:2 is that the majority of mankind are being kept “stubborn” toward the truth of the evangel (and thus prevented from believing it) because of Satan’s influence on them. This is in accord with the previously-noted facts that Satan is “deceiving the whole inhabited earth,” and that “the whole world is lying in the wicked one.”
In Acts 26:16-18, it’s also implied that Satan’s authority involves the ability to deceive the majority of mankind, so as to prevent them from turning to God in faith and having their sins forgiven. Here is how the recorded words of Christ to Paul read in the CLNT:
“But rise and stand on your feet, for I was seen by you for this, to fix upon you before for a deputy and a witness both of what you have perceived and that in which I will be seen by you, extricating you from the people and from the nations, to whom I am commissioning you, to open their eyes, to turn them about from darkness to light and from the authority of Satan to God, for them to get a pardon of sins and an allotment among those who have been hallowed by faith that is in Me.”
Notice how it’s by having their eyes opened and turned about “from darkness to light” that the nations are turned “from the authority of Satan to God.” And the result of escaping from Satan’s authority is the receiving of “a pardon of sins and an allotment among those who have been hallowed by faith that is in [Christ].” Since this change in status takes place when people believe the evangel that Paul heralded among the nations – and, in doing so, come to realize “the grace of God in truth” (Col. 1:6) – we can conclude that the primary way in which Satan exercises his authority is keeping the nations deceived and in unbelief.
In accord with Satan’s role in keeping mankind deceived and in unbelief, Paul wrote the following in 1 Timothy 4:1-2 concerning the activity of demons:
“Now the spirit is saying explicitly, that in subsequent eras some will be withdrawing from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and the teachings of demons, in the hypocrisy of false expressions, their own conscience having been cauterized…”
As I’ve argued in more depth elsewhere (https://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2024/10/a-study-on-existence-and-nature-of.html), demons are intelligent, spiritual beings who are subordinate to (and who carry out the work of) Satan. And in these verses we find that demons are “deceiving spirits” whose work during the “eras” to which Paul was referring (and in which we’re presently living) involves deceiving believers, and causing them to “be withdrawing from the faith.” This deceptive activity of demons is in accord with the fact that, as is implied in 1 Cor. 10:19-21, demons are the ones promoting idolatry and the worship of false gods (for another example of how Satan uses demons to accomplish his will, see Revelation 16:13-16).
That Satan has been authorized (and thus empowered) by God to deceive the majority of people in the world is further evident from what we read in Rev. 20:1-3 and 7-8:
And I perceived a messenger descending out of heaven, having the key of the submerged chaos and a large chain in his hand.And he lays hold of the dragon, the ancient serpent, who is the Adversary and Satan, and binds him a thousand years. And he casts him into the submerged chaos and locks it, and seals it over him (lest he should still be deceiving the nations) until the thousand years should be finished. After these things he must be loosed a little time.
We go on to read in verses 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, Gog and Magog, to be mobilizing them for battle, their number being as the sand of the sea.
Notice that the purpose of the future binding of Satan is explicitly said to be to prevent him from “still…deceiving the nations.” These words imply that Satan is, at this present time (i.e., while he’s still free to do so) “deceiving the nations.” Notice also that, when Satan is released from his jail, he immediately resumes his work of deceiving the nations (with the number of those among the nations who will be deceived by him at this future time being likened to “the sand of the sea”).
“The chief of this world”
Having identified Satan as “the chief of the jurisdiction of the air” (and demonstrated that his jurisdiction is worldwide), let’s now consider the identity of the individual whom Christ referred to as “the ruler of this world” (or “the chief of this world”) on three separate occasions (John 12:31, 14:30 and 16:11). Here’s how John 12:31-32 and 14:30 read in the CLNT:
“Now is the judging of this world. Now shall the Chief of this world be cast out. And I, if I should be exalted out of the earth, shall be drawing all to Myself.”
“No longer shall I be speaking much with you, for the Chief of the world is coming, and in Me it has not anything.”
Here’s how these verses read in Young’s Literal Translation:
“Now is a judgment of this world; now shall the ruler of this world be cast forth; and I, if I may be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto myself.”
“I will no more talk much with you, for the ruler of this world doth come, and in me he hath nothing.”
The word translated “chief” in these verses is the same word translated “chief” in Eph. 2:2 (i.e., archón). As noted earlier, this word denotes “a preeminent ruler” or “a commander with authority (influence) over people in a particular jurisdiction.” It’s my understanding that, in these verses, Christ was referring to the same high-ranking, spiritual being to whom Paul was referring – i.e., Satan/the Adversary. However, a very different understanding of the identity of the “chief of this world” was advanced by A.E. Knoch. According to Knoch’s view, Christ was referring to himself in the third person by his use of this appellation (this view is reflected in the fact that, in the CLNT, the title “chief” is capitalized in these verses). However, I believe there are several considerations that show this view to be mistaken.
The first point that can be made in response to Knoch’s understanding of the identity of “the chief of this world” concerns the meaning of the term “world” in John’s account. Throughout John’s account, the term “world” refers most often (if not exclusively) to human society as it exists during this present wicked eon. As such, it refers to a realm characterized by sin, unbelief and deception/falsehood (John 3:19; 7:7; 14:17; 15:18, 19; 16:20; 17:25). The same negative view of the world is presented in John’s first letter as well (see, for example, 1 John 2:15-17; 3:1, 13; 4:4-5; 5:4, 19). Several times in John’s account, Christ declared that he and his disciples were “not of this world” (John 8:23; 15:19 17:14-16; notice also how, in 17:15, Christ associated Satan – i.e., “the wicked one” – with this world, but not he and his disciples).
Moreover, in John 18:36 we read that Jesus declared the following to Pilate:
“My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My deputies, also, would have contended, lest I should be given up to the Jews. Yet now is My kingdom not hence.”
The word translated “now” in the last statement is the Greek adverb “nun” (https://biblehub.com/greek/3568.htm). Christ’s use of it here implies that the kingdom over which he shall be reigning is a future kingdom that belongs to a future time. The words “not hence” express the idea that Christ’s kingdom is not, at this time, on the earth (which is where “this world” is located). This is in accord with both the prophecies from the Hebrew Scriptures concerning the kingdom of God as well as what Christ himself taught elsewhere concerning the futurity of the kingdom of God (e.g., in Luke 22:14-18 and 28-30; for more on the subject of Christ’s future earthly kingdom, see the following article: https://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2021/09/why-john-316-is-not-about-your-eternal.html).
Why are Christ, his disciples and his kingdom “not of this world”? Answer: Because “this world” is at odds with Christ and his future kingdom. In accord with this fact, Paul referred to this present eon (i.e., the eon which, in Gal. 1:4, is referred to as “the present wicked eon”) as “the eon of this world” (Eph. 2:2). In accord with the negative view of the world that we find throughout his Gospel Account, John wrote in his first letter that “the world is passing by, and its desire, yet he who is doing the will of God is remaining for the eon.” Not only this, but John went on to declare that “the whole world is lying in the wicked one” (1 John 5:19). That is, the whole world is under the power and influence of Satan.
Since Christ and his kingdom are “not of this world,” – and since “the whole world is lying in the wicked one” – it makes no sense to believe that Christ would refer to himself as “the chief of this world.” Since this world (and its desire) “is passing by” (and thus will not be “remaining for the eon”) – and since “the whole world is lying in the wicked one” – it makes far more sense to understand “the chief of this world” as a reference to “the wicked one” himself (i.e., Satan). That is, it makes far more sense to believe that, when Christ referred to “the chief of this world,” he was referring to the same wicked, high-ranking spiritual being that Paul referred to as “the chief of the jurisdiction of the air.”
The view that Satan (and not Christ) is “the chief of this world” becomes even more evident when we consider the reason that Christ provided as to why he would “no longer…be speaking much with” his disciples (in fact, I consider this last point to be decisive in settling the question of the identity of “the chief of this world”). According to what we read in John 14:30, it was because “the chief of this world is coming” that Christ would no longer “be speaking much” with them. The word translated “is coming” in this verse is a form of the verb erchomai. According to the Greek-English Keyword Concordance (see p. 53), this word means “to pass to a nearer position.” The same form of this verb is found just a few verses later (where, in John 14:6, we read, “No one is coming to the Father except through Me”). See also John 13:6 (where we read, “He is coming, then, to Simon Peter.”).
It would make no sense for Christ to refer to himself as “coming” (i.e., passing to a nearer position) at the time when he spoke the words recorded in John 14:30 (for he hadn’t yet gone anywhere). And had Christ wanted to refer to himself as “going” somewhere (or departing from where he was at that time), he likely would’ve expressed this idea by using the word that we find used in the very next verse. In John 14:31 we read that Christ told his disciples, “We may be going hence.” Similarly, we read in John 16:28 that Christ said he was “going to the Father.” In the first of these verses, the word translated “going” is agó; in the second verse the word used is poreuomai. Instead of using either of these two words, the word used in John 14:30 is – as noted earlier – the standard word that’s used to express the idea of passing to a nearer position.
It may be objected that Christ was referring to his future coming (i.e., his return to earth at the end of the eon) when he referred to the “coming” of “the chief of this world.” However, this view is untenable. When Christ earlier referred to his future return to earth as his “coming” (John 14:3), it’s clear from the immediate context that he was referring to a “coming” that would occur only after he had gone somewhere (i.e., heaven, to which Christ later ascended). In John 14:1-4 we read the following:
“In My Father’s house are many abodes; yet if not I would have told you, for I am going to make ready a place for you. And if I should be going and making ready a place for you, I am coming again and I will be taking you along to Myself, that where I am, you also may be. And where I am going you are aware, and of the way you are aware.”
Here it’s clear that the “coming” to which Christ referred is his own future coming at the end of this eon (an event that can only take place because Christ later went somewhere). Not only does Christ’s use of the first-person pronoun “I” make this clear (“I am coming again”), but it’s further evident that the “coming” of which Christ spoke is a future event that would take place only after he left the earth (“for I am going…if I should be going…”).
As already noted, Christ considered the coming of “the chief of the world” as the reason why he would “no longer…be speaking much with” his disciples following his meal with them. But it would make no sense for Christ to have referred to his future return to earth at the end of this eon as the reason why he would “no longer be speaking much” with his disciples at that time. There is no reason why Christ’s future return to earth would prevent him from continuing to speak with his disciples during their meal together (on the other hand, if Christ was referring to Satan here, then there is a good reason why Satan’s coming would prevent Christ from continuing to speak with his disciples that night).
Based on the above considerations, we have good reason to conclude that, in John 14:30, Christ was referring to someone else (i.e., someone other than himself) as “coming” (or “passing to a nearer position”). That is, Christ was referring to someone who was not, at that moment, in their presence (but who was approaching, and would soon be present). But do we have any evidence that Satan was “coming” (and would soon be in the presence of Christ and his disciples) at the time that Christ spoke these words? Yes, we do.
In the previous chapter we read that, at the end of their dinner, Satan entered into Judas (John 13:27; cf. Luke 22:3). Judas – having been indwelled by Satan – then departed from Jesus’ presence (John 13:30). And later, in John 18:3, we read that “Judas, then, getting a squad and deputies of the chief priests and Pharisees, is coming there with lanterns and torches and weapons.” The word translated “is coming” in this verse is the same form of the verb “erchomai” that we find used in John 14:30. Since it’s reasonable to believe that Judas was still indwelled by Satan at this time – note Christ’s reference to “the jurisdiction of darkness” at the time of his arrest (Luke 22:53; cf. Col. 1:13) – it would make sense for Christ to have been referring to Satan (and not himself) as “coming” in John 14:30. And it was Satan’s coming at that time that led to Christ being unable to “be speaking much” with his disciples (for Satan’s arrival resulted in Christ being arrested).[iv]
It makes perfect sense that Christ would refer to the coming of Satan (whose actions through Judas would directly result in his betrayal and arrest) as being the reason why he would no longer be speaking much with his disciples at that time.
“The god of this eon”
In accord with the position for which I’ve been arguing so far in this study is what Paul wrote in 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 concerning “the god of this eon.” In these verses we read the following:
“Now, if our evangel is covered, also, it is covered in those who are perishing, in whom the god of this eon blinds the apprehensions of the unbelieving so that the illumination of the evangel of the glory of Christ, Who is the Image of the invisible God, does not irradiate them.”
Just as Satan is said to be “operating in” unbelievers in Eph. 2:2 (and keeping them “stubborn” toward the truth of the evangel), so the implication of what Paul wrote in 2 Cor. 4:3-4 is that “the god of this eon” is operating in “those who are perishing” (which is evident from the fact that he’s “[blinding] the apprehensions of the unbelieving” so as to prevent them from being enlightened by the truth of the evangel that Paul heralded). It’s thus reasonable to conclude that Paul had the same being in mind when he referred to “the god of this eon” as he did when he referred to “the chief of the jurisdiction of the air.” That is, it’s reasonable to believe that “the god of this eon” is Satan.
There are some who believe that, when Paul referred to “the god of this eon,” he had in mind God, the Father (i.e., Yahweh), rather than Satan. For we know that it’s God’s purpose and intention that those who are presently “stubborn” are the way that they are. In Romans 11:8, for example, we read that “God gives [Israel] a spirit of stupor, eyes not to be observing, and ears not t be hearing, till this very day” (here Paul was loosely quoting from, or combining and paraphrasing, Deut. 29:4 and Isa. 29:10 here). And in Romans 11:32 we read that “God locks up all together in stubbornness, that He should be merciful to all.”
However, Paul doesn't explain how God had given Israel “a spirit of stupor, eyes not to be observing, and ears not to be hearing...” or how God “locks up all together in stubbornness…” While these states of affairs were/are in accord with God’s sovereign plan/intention, the means by which they’re brought about by God are not specified by Paul. And we need not believe that God performs these activities directly (i.e., apart from some intermediate agent who is carrying out his intention).
We know that God often works through other beings to carry out his sovereign purpose, and that God’s purpose includes the deception (and subsequent judgment) of certain people (see, for example, 2 Kings 22:19-23 and 2 Thess. 2:9-12). We also know that God can be said to do that which, although in accord with his intention/purpose, is actually directly carried out by others (Job 1-2; 42:10-11; Ex. 12:23; 1 Chron. 10:4, 13-14). Therefore, rather than understanding “the god of this eon” as the Father, what we read in 2 Cor. 4:3-4 can be understood as revealing how the Father locks up people in stubbornness and gives them “a spirit of stupor.” He does it by means of “the god of this eon” (i.e., Satan, who is “deceiving the whole inhabited earth”).
Instead of being the one who directly blinds people and makes them “stubborn” with regard to the truth (which we know is within Satan’s “sphere of activity”), the Father is directly involved in removing blindness, and making people receptive/sensitive to the truth. In accord with this point, we read the following in Deut 29:4: “Yet until this day Yahweh has not given to you a heart to realize and eyes to see and ears to hear.” In other words, Yahweh is the one who gives people “a heart to realize and eyes to see and ears to hear.” Thus, when people don’t have this, it’s because God has chosen not to give it to them (yet).
That “the god of this eon” who is “blinding the apprehensions of the unbelieving” is Satan (and not the Father) – and that God is directly involved in freeing people from the state of blindness that Satan is bringing about – is also in accord with what we read in 2 Tim. 2:25-26:
“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.”
It’s evident that God is the one who frees unbelievers from their unbelief (by “giving them repentance to come into a realization of the truth”), and that Satan – “the Adversary” – is the one who has “caught” and “trapped” unbelievers for his “will” (with the implication being that he accomplished this by means of deception). Moreover, the implication of what Paul wrote in these verses is that all who are in unbelief with regard to the evangel (and who are thus in need of being given “repentance to come into a realization of the truth”) have been “caught alive by [the Adversary], for that one’s will.” Thus, when we read that it’s God’s will “that all mankind be saved and come into a realization of the truth,” (1 Tim. 2:4), we can conclude that God wills that all who are in “the trap of the Adversary” will be freed from their deception. While only a few are being freed at this time (i.e., those to whom God is giving the faith to believe the gospel), eventually all mankind will be delivered from their “blindness” and will “come into a realization of the truth.”
It may be objected that, since Satan isn’t uncreated and all-powerful, the title “god” cannot be validly applied to him. But that’s simply not the case. The Hebrew and Greek words most often translated “God” or “god” are used to refer to more than just the Father (Yahweh). In Psalm 82:1-6 (which was quoted by Christ in John 10:34-35), the celestial beings who comprise the “congregation of El” are referred to by Yahweh himself as both “sons of the Most High” and as “gods” (for a defense of the celestial, non-human nature of these beings, see the following article: Refuting an argument for the deity of Christ). If these beings – whose power and authority is, arguably, inferior to that of Satan’s – can be called “gods,” then it stands to reason that Paul could validly refer to Satan as “the god of this eon.”
In accord with these considerations, the very fact that Paul referred to the being who is blinding the apprehensions of the unbelieving as “the god of this eon” indicates that Paul had in mind a different being than the one who, in the immediate context, is referred to simply as “God” (in fact, with only three exceptions, Paul referred to the Father as just “God” more than 60 times in his second letter to the saints in Corinth). The qualifying expression “of this eon” (which is used nowhere else in Scripture) serves to distinguish this god from the God to whom Paul had been referring previously (i.e., the Father). When Paul singled out this eon as the eon of which the being referred to “the god of this eon” is “the god,” he had in mind the same eon that he elsewhere referred to negatively as “the present wicked eon” (Gal. 1:4) and “the eon of this world” (Eph. 2:2).
In v. 6, Paul went on to refer to the Father as “the God Who says that, out of darkness light shall be shining, is He Who shines in our hearts, with a view to the illumination of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” There would’ve been no good reason for Paul to have referred to the Father as “the God who says that...” if it wasn’t his intention to distinguish the Father from the being previously referred to as “the god of this eon.” Just as the qualifying words “of this eon” serve to distinguish the god referred to in v. 4 from the Father (to whom Paul had been referring simply as “God”), so the way in which Paul identifies the Father in v. 6 distinguishes him from the previously-mentioned “god of this eon.”
[i] The sovereignties and authorities kept unbelievers (including Paul, before Christ appeared to him) from being forgiven by keeping them deceived and unable to come to a realization of the truth. Christ, however, secured the forgiveness of sins for all who were (or are) deceived. And, having been freed from deception and forgiven because of Christ’s death on our behalf, the beings who once held us captive through deception have been put to shame.
[ii] According to Paul’s usage of the term “spiritual” elsewhere, the only humans who can be considered “spiritual” are those who are being “taught by the spirit,” who are “receiving those things which are of the spirit of God,” and who are “walking in spirit” (see 1 Cor. 2:13-15; 3:1; 14:37; Gal. 6:1 [cf. Gal. 5:16]). In these and other verses, Paul contrasted humans who are “spiritual” with those who are “soulish” and “fleshly.” Thus, “spiritual forces of wickedness among the celestials” with whom the saints in the body of Christ have to “wrestle” (and of whom “the Adversary” is the leader member) cannot be considered “spiritual” in the same sense in which Paul described certain humans as “spiritual.” It simply wouldn’t make any sense.
[iii] Of course, we need not infer that these “spiritual forces of wickedness among the celestials” are permanently “stationed” in heaven. In fact, we know that’s not the case. Even before he’s ultimately cast out of heaven (Rev. 12:7-12), the leader of these spiritual forces of wickedness among the celestials (i.e., Satan/the Adversary) evidently spends a great deal of time on (or in close proximity to) the earth (Job 1:6-7; 2:1-2; Mark 1:13; Luke 22:3; John 13:27; 2 Cor. 11:14; 1 Thess. 2:18; 1 Pet. 5:8; Rev. 2:13). So it shouldn’t be surprising that there are lower-ranking spirits under his command who are quite active on the earth as well.
[iv] The way in which the CLNT had to translate the last part of John 14:30 in order to make Christ’s words consistent with the view that Christ himself is “the chief of the world” is, to me, another “strike” against the view that Christ was referring to himself. In the CLNT, the final part of this verse is translated in such a way that the world is what had “not anything” in Christ (“…and in Me it has not anything”). However, according to Young’s translation (and every other translation of which I’m aware), it is the chief/ruler of the world – and not the world itself – that had “nothing” in Christ. This is in accord with the word order of the original Greek (for the antecedent of the words “has not anything” is actually “ruler” and not “world”; see John 14:30 Interlinear).
If, as is reflected in every other translation of which I’m aware, Christ was saying that the chief of the world had nothing in him, then Christ was likely expressing the following idea: Because he was sinless and fully obedient go God, there was nothing in him that Satan could use to his advantage, or that enabled Satan to influence him. On the other hand, if Christ was saying that the world had nothing in him, then the meaning of Christ’s words becomes much less obvious (and much more enigmatic).
In his commentary, Knoch tries to explain the words “and in Me [the world] has not anything” as meaning that “[the world] rejected [Christ’s] chieftainship just as Israel also rejected his messiahship…” (Concordant Commentary, p. 165). But to say that the world “rejected Christ’s chieftainship” is not the same as saying that the world had nothing in Christ (or that, “in Christ, the world had not anything”). If the world hadn’t “rejected Christ’s chieftainship,” the implication of Knoch’s interpretation would be that the world had Christ’s chieftainship (I'll leave it to the reader to make sense of that)!
