According to Scripture, there exist numerous non-human, intelligent beings whose capabilities far exceed those belonging to mortal humans, and whose created nature is such that they are able to exist in (yet without being confined to) the super-terrestrial realm that is commonly referred to in Scripture as “the heavens” or simply “heaven.” Examples of these superhuman, celestial beings are those who belong to what is referred to in Scripture as the “host of heaven” (see, for example, 1 Kings 22:19; Neh. 9:6; Isaiah 24:21-22; Dan. 4:35; Luke 2:13). Not only are these beings generally unseen by mortals, but we have reason to believe that they are normally invisible to humans. On the rare occasions when such beings are seen by humans, it is apparently because they have either chosen to make themselves temporarily visible, or because God has enabled humans to see them (see, for example, Numbers 22:21-39 and 2 Kings 6:15-17).
We also know that the Hebrew and Greek words translated “spirit” (ruach and pneuma, respectively) were sometimes used to refer to these superhuman beings. For example, in 2 Chronicles 18:20, a member of the heavenly council is referred to as “a spirit.” 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” (cf. Luke 1:19, where the celestial messenger, Gabriel, identifies himself to Zechariah as “Gabriel, who stands before God”). In accord with this fact, all of the non-human messengers with whom Christ is contrasted throughout the first chapter of the letter to the Hebrews are referred to as “spirits” (Heb. 1:14).
Concerning the nature of spirits, we read the following in Luke 24:36-40:
Now at their speaking these things, Jesus Himself stood in their midst and is saying to them, “Peace to you!” Yet, being dismayed and becoming affrighted, they supposed they are beholding a spirit. And He said to them, “Why are you disturbed? And wherefore are reasonings coming up in your hearts? Perceive My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and perceive, for a spirit has not flesh and bones according as you behold Me having.” And saying this, He exhibits to them His hands and feet.
According to what we’re told Christ said to his disciples in this passage, the kind of being that the disciples mistakenly believed Christ was when he appeared to them on this occasion (i.e., “a spirit”) does not have “flesh and bones.”
Now, in a five-part series of articles that I posted on my blog last year (http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2020/05/the-nature-purpose-and-destiny-of.html), I argued that the being commonly referred to in Scripture as “(the) Satan” and “the Adversary” – i.e., the being whom we’re told tried Christ after he was led into the wilderness (Matt. 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13) – is an intelligent, superhuman being who belongs to the same general category of spiritual beings as those referred to in the above verses. As a follow-up and supplement to this earlier series of articles, the remainder of this article will consist of a more summarized defense of this position, followed by a response to some objections that have been raised against it (and which I’ve encountered since the original series of articles was posted).
Satan in the Hebrew Scriptures
In part three of my original series on the subject of Satan (http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2020/05/the-nature-purpose-and-destiny-of_73.html), I noted that the Hebrew noun שָׂטָן (śāṭān) means “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 (haś·śā·ṭān) 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. However, in these verses, the noun can be understood as the title of a particular being (i.e., “the satan” or “Satan”). It should also be noted that, in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (i.e., the Septuagint, or LXX), the title ho diabolos (“the Adversary” or “the Devil”) is used to translate the title haś·śā·ṭān in Job 1-2 and Zech. 3:1-2. Thus, these verses are the only verses in the entire Hebrew Scriptures and LXX in which a certain being is identified as “(the) Satan” and “the Adversary.”
I further argued in my earlier study that we have good reason to believe that, like the “sons of God” referred to in Job 1-2 and 38:7 (and “the messenger of Yahweh” referred to in Zech. 3), the being referred to as “Satan” in Job and Zechariah is a superhuman, spiritual being. I also believe we have good reason to believe that this being is malevolent. For example, in Zech. 3:1, Satan is seen in a vision standing at the right hand of Joshua the high priest, to accuse him. And then in v. 2, we read that the following was declared to Satan by Yahweh (or by the messenger of Yahweh speaking on Yahweh’s behalf): “Yahweh rebuke you, O Satan! Yahweh who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is not this a brand plucked from the fire?” The fact that Yahweh/the messenger of Yahweh considered Satan to be deserving of a rebuke from Yahweh (and note that the rebuke is repeated for emphasis) indicates, at the very least, that Satan was in the wrong here.
The malevolent nature of Satan is even clearer in the first two chapters of Job; there, it’s implied that Satan is an adversary to not only God’s servants (in this case, Job) but to God himself. Despite Yahweh’s own commendation of Job and his positive assessment of Job’s character (Job 1:8), Satan believes that Job has a selfish, benefit-based motivation for serving God. In Job 1:9-11 we read the following:
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.”
Thus, not only does Satan not agree with God’s own assessment of Job’s character, but he implicitly accuses God of “buying” men’s devotion to him with his blessings and protection. And with God’s permission, Satan then does everything in his power – aside from directly harming Job – to get Job to “curse” (or “scorn”) God, and thus expose what he believes to be a fundamental defect in Job’s character. In Job 1:12 we read:
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.
After Satan’s first attempt at getting Job to curse God is unsuccessful, God repeats his previously-stated positive assessment of Job’s character: “There is no one like [Job] on the earth, a man flawless and upright, fearing Elohim and withdrawing from evil.” God then adds, “And he still is holding fast to his integrity, though you would incite Me against him to swallow him up gratuitously.” God told Satan, in other words, that if he had done what Satan originally asked him to do (as recorded in Job 1:11), it would’ve been gratuitous, or without good reason. And yet Satan is still not satisfied, and insists that severe physical affliction would expose the character defect that he was convinced Job had: “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” (Job 2:4-5). God then replies to Satan’s proposal as follows: “Behold, he is in your hand; only spare his life.”
Thus, the words and actions of Satan in Job 1-2 reveal him to be someone who is not only antagonistic toward God’s servants (indeed, toward the man whom God himself considered to be the most righteous man on earth at the time), but who considered God (1) mistaken concerning Job’s true character, and (2) guilty of “buying” love from humans. The reader should also note the fact that what happens to Job after God gives Satan permission to act (and for which God is, therefore, ultimately responsible) is directly brought about by Satan’s own power (hence God’s repeated references to Satan’s “hand” in his responses to Satan’s proposals).
Satan in the Greek Scriptures
With these considerations in mind, let’s now consider the first and last occurrences of the titles “the Adversary” (ho diabolos) and “Satan” (Satanas) in the Greek Scriptures:
Matthew 4:1, 10
Then Jesus was led up into the wilderness by the spirit to be tried by the Adversary.
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.”
Mark 1:13
And He was in the wilderness forty days, undergoing trial by Satan, and was with the wild beasts. And messengers waited on Him.
Luke 4:1-2
Now Jesus, full of holy spirit, returns from the Jordan, and was led in the spirit in the wilderness forty days, undergoing trial by the Adversary.
The last occurrences of these two titles are found in Revelation 20. In Revelation 20:1-3 we read the following:
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.
A few verses later (vv. 7-9), we read the following:
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. And they went up over the breadth of the earth, and surround the citadel of the saints and the beloved city. And fire descended from God out of heaven and devoured them. And the Adversary who is deceiving them was cast into the lake of fire and sulphur, where the wild beast and where the false prophet are also. And they shall be tormented day and night for the eons of the eons.
The Greek term translated “Satan” in the above verses (Σατανᾶς, or Satanas) is actually a transliteration of the Hebrew term that, as noted earlier, means “adversary” or “one who opposes/resists,” and which was used to identify the being who sought to find fault with Job and accuse Joshua the chief priest. In light of this fact, let’s now consider the following question: What would the original Jewish readers of the Greek Scriptures have most likely believed concerning the nature and identity of the being referred to in the verses quoted above?
We know that the LXX was familiar to many of the earliest readers of the Greek Scriptures, and was more widely read outside of the land of Israel than the Hebrew Scriptures. And as I noted earlier, the title ho diabolos (“the Adversary”) was used to translate the Hebrew title haś·śā·ṭān in the LXX translation of Job 1-2 and Zech. 3:1-2. Since these verses are the only verses of Scripture in which a certain being is referred to as both “Satan” (in the Hebrew) and “the Adversary” (in the LXX), it’s therefore reasonable to conclude that, when the earliest Jewish readers of the Greek Scriptures encountered an individual who is identified as both “Satan” and “the Adversary,” these titles would’ve brought to mind the individual who is referred to by the use of these exact same titles in Job 1-2 and Zechariah 3:1-3.
In any case, I don’t think it would be at all unreasonable or unwarranted to make this connection, and to identify “the Adversary” and “Satan” referred to in the Greek Scriptures (e.g., Matt. 4:1, 10) with the being referred to by the use of these same titles in Job 1-2 and Zech. 3:1-3. It would also not be unreasonable to require those who believe that no such connection should be made to provide a compelling, scripture-based reason for why they think such a connection shouldn’t be made, and why we shouldn’t identity a certain being referred to as both “the Adversary” and “Satan” in the Greek Scriptures with the being referred to by the use of these same titles in Job 1-2 and Zech. 3:1-3.
It may be objected that, by identifying the being referred to as “the Adversary” and “Satan” in the Greek Scriptures with the being referred to by the use of these same titles in Job 1-2 and Zech. 3:1-3, we’re led to the inescapable conclusion that this being is, in fact, superhuman in nature. But so what? It would be begging the question to assert that this conclusion is somehow unacceptable or problematic because no such being exists. If we have no good reason not to believe that the being referred to as “the Adversary” and “Satan” in the Greek Scriptures is identical with the being referred to by the use of these same titles in Job 1-2 and Zech. 3:1-3, then we have reason to believe that this being is superhuman in nature (although, as argued elsewhere, one would be justified in arriving at this conclusion just based on what is revealed concerning Satan in the book of Job alone).
Further support for the position that the individual referred to by the use of the titles “Satan” and “the Adversary” in Scripture is superhuman in nature can be found in Revelation 12:7-12. In this passage, we read the following:
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.[1] According to this understanding, the dragon represents both a particular group of high-ranking, adversarial spiritual beings (i.e., those referred to by Paul in Eph. 6:12) as well as the leader of this group of beings (i.e., the Adversary/Satan).
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” (and not just an “it”) in the above passage. Specifically, the particular individual represented by the “dragon” is (according to John’s inspired interpretation) the being “called Adversary and Satan, who is deceiving the whole inhabited earth.” But what kind of being did John have in mind here? Well, we know that the individual with whom the being represented by the dragon will be battling (i.e., Michael) is not a symbol, but a real, superhuman, celestial being (Daniel 10-12; Jude 9). And Michael’s messengers are not symbols, either; they’re real, superhuman, celestial beings. Since the individual represented by the dragon will be battling Michael and his messengers, the implication is that he is also a superhuman, celestial being.
But do we have any reason to believe that John would’ve understood the being “called Adversary and Satan” to be the same being referred to as “Satan” (Hebrew) and “the Adversary” (LXX) in Job 1-2 and Zech. 3:1-2? I think so. Notice how, after Satan is cast out of heaven, a “loud voice out of heaven” identifies him as “the accuser of our brethren” who “was accusing them before our God day and night.” Who does this sound like? Who, in the Hebrew Scriptures, is first revealed as an individual who seems determined to find fault in God’s servants, and accuses them before God? Answer: the being referred to as “Satan” (Hebrew Scriptures) and “the Adversary” (LXX) in Job 1-2 and Zech. 3:1-2.
In addition to this key point, I believe we can further conclude the following concerning the nature of this adversarial “accuser of our brethren,” based on what we read in Rev. 12:7-12:
1. He is just as much a person – i.e., an intelligent, self-aware individual – as the other persons referred to in this passage (e.g., Michael, his messengers, God, Christ, the brethren, etc.).
2. He is a being who, like Michael (who is elsewhere referred to as a “chief messenger”), has messengers who are subordinate to him.
3. His nature is such that he can exist in both heaven and on the earth (and, prior to being forcibly removed from heaven by Michael and his messengers, has access to this super-terrestrial realm).
4. His nature and power is such that he will be able to engage in a future heavenly battle with Michael and his messengers (and this battle will, apparently, be necessary in order for him to be removed from his place in heaven).
5. He has an inherently adversarial, deceptive and malevolent nature (for example, he is deserving of being cast out of heaven, but attempts to prevent this from happening by battling Michael and his messengers; he “is deceiving the whole inhabited earth”; he is “accusing [the brethren] before our God day and night,” etc.).
Scripture interprets Scripture, and is its own best interpreter. In light of this key interpretational principle, I believe it is reasonable to conclude that the individual who is identified as both “Satan” and “the Adversary” in Job 1-2, Zech. 3:1-2, Matt. 4:1, Mark 1:13 and Rev. 12 is the same adversarial being (and is thus a superhuman, spiritual being). Moreover, I strongly suspect that those who resist this conclusion do not do so because the scriptural data itself suggests a more plausible view; rather, they resist this conclusion because they have a prior commitment to a doctrinal position that does not allow them to accept this conclusion.
A Response to Objections
Objection: We’re not told in Genesis 3 that the serpent by which Eve was deluded was under the control of something (or someone) else, or that any other being was involved. We should therefore conclude that the serpent was acting on its own accord. And just because serpents that exist today don’t talk doesn’t mean that they didn’t do so at first.
Response: What we refer to as “serpents” (or “snakes”) today are essentially the same kind of creatures that existed when the book of Genesis was originally written. Thus, when the inspired author of Genesis first referred to a “serpent” in the narrative (and stated that this creature ”became more crafty than any other animal of the field that Yahweh Elohim had made”), he had in mind a creature that, in his day, lacked both a natural ability to speak as well as the intelligence/reasoning ability that was displayed by the serpent by which Eve was deluded. Serpents don’t even have the ability to unintelligently mimic human words (like parrots do); thus, even if serpents today were intelligent enough to reason, they wouldn’t be able to use human language to verbally communicate with us. Thus, it’s not just the case that “serpents that exist today don’t talk.” They lack the natural capacity to either speak or reason. So how do we account for the extraordinary abilities displayed by the serpent by which Eve was deluded?
The view of the objector is 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 also necessarily imply that serpents lost these abilities at some point subsequent to the time at which the event described in Genesis 3:1-6 occurred). But this particular explanation for the serpent’s ability to speak and reason is just as “theoretical” in nature – and requires just as much inference – as the view that the serpent received its ability to speak and reason from an unseen being who (unlike the serpent) naturally possessed the ability to both speak and reason.
Thus, the view expressed in the above objection has no textual advantage over the view to which I hold; both my view and that of the objector affirms what is explicitly revealed in the text itself (i.e., that a serpent spoke to Eve, and that it influenced her to transgress God’s command). The difference between my view and that of the objector concerns how the serpent was able to speak and reason. Thus, although the objector sees his explanation for the serpent’s ability to speak and reason as being more in accord with a literal, straightforward reading of the text, the fact is that his view necessarily involves no less inference or assumption than my own (for we’re not told that the serpent was created with the abilities to speak and reason, or that such abilities were taken away from the serpent when it was judged).
But let’s suppose that the objector’s understanding of the serpent’s ability to speak and reason is correct, and that the serpent was in fact “acting on its own accord.” That is, let’s suppose that serpents were either created by God with the natural ability to talk and reason or that the serpent by which Eve was deluded had been directly (and temporarily) endowed by God with a supernatural ability to speak and reason. Would this view undermine my understanding of the nature of the being referred to elsewhere in Scripture as “Satan” and “the Adversary” (and for which I argued in parts two through five of my original study on the nature and identity of the Adversary)? Not at all. The overall position defended in the last four articles of my study in no way depends on what I wrote concerning how the serpent referred to in Genesis 3 was able to speak and reason. One need not agree with what I wrote concerning the serpent in order to agree with the overall position defended in my study. And if I am in error concerning my understanding of how/why the serpent was able to speak and reason, this error would not logically entail or necessitate that everything else I wrote concerning the nature and identity of Satan is also mistaken.
Having said that, I do think we can determine which explanation for the serpent’s ability to speak and reason is more likely correct. For, as I noted in the first installment of my study, there are two verses in Revelation that identify the serpent by which Eve was deluded with a malevolent, superhuman being who was in existence in John’s day (and who, it’s reasonable to conclude, was controlling and acting through the serpent, and thus responsible for the serpent’s extraordinary abilities). In Rev. 12:9 and 20:2 we read the following:
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 he lays hold of the dragon, the ancient serpent, who is the Adversary and Satan, and binds him a thousand years.
In both of these verses, the being who was symbolically represented as a “great dragon” in John’s visions is identified with “the ancient serpent” who is “called Adversary and Satan.”[2] The term translated “ancient” means “original,” or “that which existed in the beginning.” Thus, there can be no doubt that John had the serpent of Genesis 3 in mind here. And this means that the being symbolically represented in John’s visions as a “great dragon” is being identified with the serpent by which Eve was deluded. And if – as I believe is likely – the “ancient serpent” was in fact indwelled and controlled by the being whom John saw represented as a dragon (“the Adversary and Satan”), then the terminology John used (“…the ancient serpent, who is the Adversary and Satan”) would be natural and appropriate. For as long as the serpent was indwelled and controlled by this being, it would’ve been the temporary guise of the being (and could thus be identified with this being).
Objection: Satan is only an allegory that appears in the OT only in poetic/dramatic context in two non-history books after the exile. It's not real.
Response: The fact that Job is written mostly in poetic form does not mean the events of which it gives an account never happened, or that the persons referred to in it should be understood as non-historical or allegorical. Historical events can be described in poetic form and with poetic elements while still being just as non-fictional in nature as historical narratives written in a more straight-forward way. In accord with this point, I believe that Job existed in history, and that the being who was permitted to afflict Job (i.e. Satan/the Adversary) is a superhuman, celestial being who existed in Job’s day (and who still exists in our day).
Some considerations that make it reasonable to believe that Job was not merely a literary figure are the inclusion of certain details and particulars about Job, his life and his family (e.g., Job is introduced as a man from a specific location – the country of Uz). The inclusion of such details does not seem consistent with the view that the story is an allegory. However, such details are exactly what we would expect if the book of Job provides us with an historical account that was written in largely poetic form. Moreover, Job is referred to elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures as though he were a real, historical person. In Ezekiel 14:14, 20, God mentions Noah, Daniel, and Job as examples of righteous men (with the implication being that Job was just as real as Noah and Daniel). Similarly, Job is named in James 5:11 as an example of endurance. Since the other persons mentioned by James existed in history (i.e., Abraham, Rahab and Elijah), it’s reasonable to believe that Job did as well.
As far as the reference to “the Satan” in Zechariah 3, the fact that he is seen in a vision does not make him a fictional, allegorical being any more than it makes the other persons mentioned (i.e., Joshua the high priest, the angel of Yahweh and Yahweh himself) fictional, allegorical beings. Joshua is mentioned again in Zech. 6:9-14 as if he was an actual person, and I think even the objector would agree that both “the messenger of Yahweh” and Yahweh himself are real, non-allegorical beings. Thus, I don't think it’s at all unreasonable to believe that the being identified as “Satan” in Zech. 3:1-2 is just as objectively real as both the messenger of Yahweh and Yahweh himself are.
Objection: The whole book of Job is about God testing Job. Satan’s role in Job’s test is, at most, instrumental, and can be considered largely (if not entirely) irrelevant to the story.
Response: I agree with the objector that Satan only had an instrumental role in what happened to Job. God is operating all in accord with the counsel of his will (Eph. 1:11), and this includes the actions of Satan in relation to Job. God was, therefore, ultimately and absolutely responsible for the tragic and devastating events of which we read in Job 1-2, and I believe it was God’s plan all along that Satan do precisely what he did. Satan was simply the direct, most proximate cause of Job’s affliction.
However, the fact that God was ultimately responsible for what happened to Job does not warrant the belief that Satan is a superfluous element in, or somehow irrelevant to, the narrative. As is evident to anyone who has read the first two chapters of Job, the narrative is just as clear about the involvement of Satan in Job’s test as it is about the involvement of God himself. We can no more understand and appreciate the book of Job by omitting Satan from the narrative than we can understand the account of Jesus’ trial in the wilderness by omitting Satan from it.
Objection: During Jesus’ trial in the wilderness, he was tempted with the lust of the flesh (Matt. 4:3-4), with the pride of life (Matt. 4:5-7) and with the lust of the eyes (Matt. 4:8-10). He was tried in all ways (as we are) yet without sin (Hebrews 4:15). But we are not tried by a superhuman being (if that were the case, then this being would have to be omnipresent). Our trials, as with Jesus, come from within (James 1:13-15, 1 John 2:16, Mark 7:20-23).
Response: The objector is presenting us with only two options with regard to how we understand who/what was involved in Jesus' trial: either (1) Jesus was tried by (and personally interacted with) an intelligent, superhuman being, OR (2) Jesus’ trial involved an “internal” struggle/conflict with his own “flesh,” or desires. However, this is a false dilemma. Although it’s certainly true that there can be no sin-related “trials” apart from the presence of certain desires within us, this in no way means that Jesus’ trial did not involve a personal being whose existence was external to Christ (and with whom Christ interacted and conversed). Consider the following: It is usually – if not always – the case that something external to us is what awakens (or in some cases creates) the desires within us which, if yielded to, result in sin. And these external things can be both impersonal things (such as something that may stimulate the desire to possess or take something that doesn't belong to oneself) or other persons (such as an attractive person who just happens to be married to someone else). In some cases, a person whose words or actions lead to the "awakening" of a sinful desire may be aware of the fact that he or she is doing it. In the case of Jesus’ trial, the Adversary simply served as the external means through which certain desires within Jesus were either awakened or strengthened, and through which Jesus was led to focus more on these desires than he would have otherwise.
Although everyone’s trials necessarily involve certain desires/wants (just as Jesus’ did), there are many different circumstances in which these desires will arise and become strong enough to create a particular “trial” for someone. Hebrews 4:15 is simply emphasizing what Jesus, during his time on earth, had in common with all humans. However, this verse in no way suggests that everyone is "tried" in the exact same way, or by means of the exact same circumstances. In fact, one could argue that, even aside from how we understand the nature of “the Adversary” who was involved in Jesus’ trial, Jesus’ trial was of an exceptional nature (for each part of Jesus’ trial by the Adversary was in some way based on, and derived its force from, Jesus’ unique Messianic status and God-given power/authority). I doubt, for example, that any other human being has ever been tempted to turn stones into bread in order to satisfy his or her hunger (for no other human has been given such power from God). And yet, Hebrews 4:15 remains true. And in light of these considerations, the objection that the adversary involved in Jesus' trial couldn’t have been a superhuman adversary (since we are not all tried by a superhuman adversary) fails to undermine the position defended in this article and my previous articles.
Objection: If Jesus was taken to the pinnacle of the temple, would not someone have seen this (remember He was in the wilderness)?
Response: There are at least two different views regarding the circumstances that were involved in this particular trial (and – contrary to the assumption implied in the objection – both views are perfectly consistent with the position that the Adversary involved in Jesus’ trial was a superhuman, spiritual being). One view is that these events occurred in a supernaturally-induced vision, trance or dream-like state that the Adversary was permitted to cause Jesus to experience at that time. The second view is that, when we’re told that the Adversary led Jesus to Jerusalem and stood him on the wing of the sanctuary, this event actually happened. This would, of course, imply that Jesus was no longer in the wilderness during this part of his trial. But there’s nothing problematic about this view; Luke’s account indicates that the first trial involving the Adversary occurred after the 40 days of fasting had concluded (4:2-3), and there’s no reason why the trial that involved being in Jerusalem did not also occur after this forty-day period in the wilderness had concluded.
As far as whether someone would’ve seen Jesus standing on the wing of the sanctuary at this time, such a question is irrelevant with regard to the identity and nature of the Adversary. If someone did see Jesus at this time, it obviously didn’t prevent any subsequent, God-ordained event that had to happen from happening. On the other hand, if (for whatever reason) it was necessary that no one see Jesus standing on the wing of the sanctuary at this time, then I’m sure God could’ve very easily arranged the circumstances that would’ve ensured this (even if it meant supernaturally preventing people from seeing Jesus). Either way, this objection is simply a “red herring,” and does not undermine either a literal understanding of this particular trial or a literal understanding of the personal nature of the Adversary.
Objection: The Adversary by whom Jesus was tried couldn’t have been in possession of “the authority and glory of all the kingdoms of the inhabited earth,” since that would contradict dozens of verses that say otherwise (e.g., Psalm 22:28, Psalms 24:1, Psalm 88:11, Isaiah 41:21-31,1 Cor. 10:26, etc.).
Response: In the verses to which the objector is appealing, God is said to have authority over, and possession of, the earth and its kingdoms. However, these verses are perfectly consistent with the fact that, under God’s absolute sovereignty, there are other created persons with greater or lesser degrees of delegated 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 Nebuchadnezzar had been given more authority and greater dominion than any other human had ever enjoyed up to that point (making him the “king of kings”), God still had ultimate and absolute authority and dominion. But since that’s the case, it follows that the objector’s appeal to verses in which God’s authority and dominion is affirmed in no way proves that a superhuman, spiritual being could not be in a position of authority that, while necessarily inferior to God’s, was superior to (and longer-lasting than) that which was possessed by Nebuchadnezzar (or any other human king besides Jesus Christ himself).
In fact, elsewhere in Daniel it’s clear 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). For a more in-depth defense of this understanding of the “chiefs” referred to in Daniel 10, see part four of my study on the Adversary (http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2020/05/the-nature-purpose-and-destiny-of_6.html).
In further support of this understanding of Satan’s relatively great degree of authority over the earth, we read in Rev. 13:1-8 that, after “the dragon” (whom John previously identified as Satan/the Adversary) gives its power, throne and great authority to “the wild beast,” the wild beast will then have authority “over every tribe and people and language and nation,” and that “all who are dwelling on the earth will be worshipping it…” We have good reason to believe that the “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. And as John makes clear in Revelation 12 and 20, the dragon symbolically represents Satan/the Adversary (and thus represents the same being by whom Christ was tried following his forty days in the wilderness).
Thus, what we find being prophesied in Rev. 13:1-8 is that Satan is going to give worldwide authority to the ruler of the final world kingdom. And since this state of affairs will be perfectly consistent with the fact that God has (and always will have) absolute authority and sovereignty, so all of the verses in which God’s sovereignty over the kingdoms of the earth is affirmed are perfectly consistent with the view that Satan does, in fact, have the degree of authority that he claimed to have had 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).
Objection: According to what Christ told the Sadducees, those who will be resurrected to enjoy eonian life in the kingdom of God will be “equal to messengers” (see, for example, Luke 20:34-36). But if the titles “Satan” and “the Adversary” refer primarily to a being who belongs to the same general category of spiritual, superhuman beings as Michael and Gabriel (both of whom are celestial messengers), then wouldn’t this mean that we’ll be able to sin in the kingdom of God after we’re made immortal?
Response: Let’s first consider what Christ said in his response to the Sadducees. In Luke 20:34-36 (CLNT), we read that Christ declared the following:
“The sons of this eon are marrying and are taking out in marriage. Yet those deemed worthy to happen upon that eon and the resurrection from among the dead are neither marrying nor taking out in marriage. For neither can they still be dying, for they are equal to messengers, and are the sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.”
Any time we read of “messengers” (or “angels”) in Scripture, the question that every student of Scripture should ask themselves is, “whose messengers?” For any messengers referred to in Scripture are always the messengers of someone else (or, to put it another way, there are no messengers referred to in Scripture who are not the messengers of someone else).
For example, in Psalm 91:11, 103:20 and 148:2 we read the following:
"For [Yahweh] will command his messengers concerning you to guard you in all your ways."
"Bless Yahweh, O you his messengers, you mighty ones who do his word, obeying the voice of his word!"
"Praise him, all his messengers; praise him, all his hosts!"
And in Hebrews 1:6-7 we read the following:
Now, whenever He may again be leading the Firstborn into the inhabited earth, He is saying: And worship Him, all the messengers of God! And, indeed, to the messengers He is saying, “Who is making His messengers blasts, And His ministers a flame of fire.”
Notice the expressions, “all the messengers of God,” “[God’s] messengers,” and “[God’s] ministers.” It is crystal clear whose messengers the inspired writers had in mind when they referred to “the messengers” in these verses. And, it should be noted, God’s messengers are also Christ’s messengers (Matt. 13:41; 16:27; 24:31), of whom Michael is the chief messenger or “archangel” (Jude 1:9; Rev. 12:7). And I submit that the same messengers referred to in the above verses as “the messengers of God” are the messengers whom Christ had in mind when he declared what he did to the Sadducees concerning those in the resurrection being “equal to messengers.”
That Christ had in mind God’s messengers is confirmed from Matthew’s account of his response to the Sadducees. There, we read that those who will be taking part in the resurrection of the righteous will be neither “marrying nor taking in marriage, but are as messengers of God in heaven” (Matt. 22:30). It should be noted that, even in those manuscripts in which the words “of God” are omitted (and which instead read “messengers in heaven”), it’s still implied that the “messengers in heaven” whom Christ had in mind are God’s messengers (a point which even the objector would most likely concede).
But are the messengers of God – i.e., the messengers who we’re told are “obeying the voice of [God’s] word” (and who are said to be “ministering spirits sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation”) – the only messengers of whom we read in Scripture? No. In fact, Paul’s reference to “the chosen messengers” (or “the elect angels”) in 1 Tim. 5:21 implies that there are some messengers who are not “chosen” or “elect.” And elsewhere in Scripture, we read of certain messengers who are most assuredly not members of the messengers of God in heaven who are “obeying the voice of God’s word” and serving for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation. For example, in Matthew 25:41 Christ referred to another category of messengers:
Then shall He be declaring to those also at His left, “Go from Me, you cursed, into the fire eonian, made ready for the Adversary and his messengers.”
These messengers of the Adversary are referred to again in Revelation 12:7-9, as follows:
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.
Besides the messengers of Satan/the Adversary who are referred to in the above verses, we also read of certain “sinning messengers” who, unlike those who will be involved in the future battle referred to in Rev. 12:7, are presently imprisoned and awaiting future judgment. These imprisoned messengers are referred to in 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 1:6 as follows:
For if God spares not sinning messengers, but thrusting them into the gloomy caverns of Tartarus, gives them up to be kept for chastening judging…
Besides, messengers who keep not their own sovereignty, but leave their own habitation, He has kept in imperceptible bonds under gloom for the judging of the great day.
These sinning messengers were, I believe, previously referred to in 1 Pet. 3:19-20. In these verses we read that, after Christ was “vivified in spirit” (i.e., after he was resurrected), he went to “the spirits in jail also,” and heralded “to those once stubborn, when the patience of God awaited in the days of Noah while the ark was being constructed…” We know that these “spirits in jail” to whom Christ heralded are not humans, because (1) the humans who were alive on the earth in the days of Noah are dead, (2) dead humans are not “spirits,” and (3) the dead are unconscious.
Some have attempted to identify the “sinning messengers” referred to in 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 1:6 with certain deceased human beings. According to one theory, Peter and Jude had in mind the people who perished in the judgment associated with the rebellion led by Korah, Dathan and Abiram (as recorded in Numbers 16; cf. Jude 11). Another theory is that the “sinning messengers” in view are the men who were sent by Moses to spy out the land of Canaan, and who brought up a bad report of the land (Numbers 13-14). However, neither those who took part in Korah’s rebellion nor the men who gave a bad report of the land are referred to as “angels” or “messengers” in either the Hebrew Scriptures or the Septuagint translation. Nor are the people who were involved in either event said to have “left their own habitation.” On the other hand, if Peter and Jude had wanted to refer to certain sinful beings who belong to the same general category of non-human, spiritual beings referred to in (for example) Rev. 12:7-9 as “messengers,” we have good reason to believe that they would’ve used the exact terminology that they did, in fact, use.
In any case, we can be sure that the “messengers” referred to in all of the above verses are not members of the same category of messengers referred to by Christ in his response to the Sadducees, and that Christ didn’t, therefore, have these particular messengers in mind when he said what he did concerning the condition of the saints in the resurrection.
Objection: According to what Christ taught his disciples to pray, when the kingdom of God comes, God’s will is going to be done “on earth as it is in heaven” (Matt. 6:10). Doesn’t this imply that heaven is a sinless realm in which God’s will is always obeyed (and thus contradicts the idea that there could be wicked, superhuman beings presently active there)?
Response: When the kingdom of God comes and Christ and his saints begin to reign, the wicked will no longer be able to afflict the righteous, or prevent the righteous from enjoying the blessings that God has planned for them during this future time. In contrast with how things generally are today, the righteous will prosper and live in peace and security during the eon to come. But this doesn’t mean that the earth will be a sinless place during this time.
Although much of the outward evidences and expressions of sin during the eon to come will be greatly restrained because of the “iron-club rule” of Christ and the saints, there will still be enemies among the nations (Psalm 72:9; 149:7-9; Micah 5:8-10), and people who must be threatened with punishment in order to secure their outward obedience (Zech. 14:16-19). We also know that, after Satan is released from his thousand-year-long imprisonment, he will incite an insurrection among the nations that will result in multitudes coming against ”the citadel of the saints and the beloved city” (Rev. 20:7-9).
Since the earth is not going to be a sinless place after the kingdom of God has been established, there’s no reason to believe that heaven is, at present, a realm from which wicked beings are wholly absent. However, it’s worth noting that heaven will become a sinless place after the battle referred to in Rev. 12:7-8 occurs (for this battle will result in Satan and his messengers being banished from heaven). And this event – which will involve the kingdom of God being established in heaven (v. 10) – is going to occur at least 3 ½ years before the kingdom of God is established on the earth.
Objection: Since the sun-clothed woman and seven-headed dragon of Revelation 12 are symbolic representations, the “heaven” in which they were seen by John (and in which the battle referred to in Rev. 12:7-8 takes place) should be understood as figurative as well.
Response: Although the signs that John saw (i.e., the woman clothed with the sun and the seven-headed dragon) are symbolic representations, there’s no reason to believe that the location in which these signs were seen by John (i.e., heaven) is also symbolic. A few considerations indicate that the heaven in which the signs were seen (and in which the battle referred to in Rev. 12:7-8 will occur) is just as literal as the heaven referred to in, for example, Matt. 6:10. For example, in Revelation 11:15 and 19, the heaven of which we read is undoubtedly a real location that is above the earth and inhabited by real, heavenly beings. Similarly, the heaven of which we read in chapter twelve refers to the realm in which God and Christ sit enthroned, and in which the holy messengers reside (Rev. 12:5, 10, 12; cf. 13:6). It is in this heaven that John saw the signs that we find described in this chapter, and it is here that the battle referred to in Rev. 12:7-8 will take place.
Moreover, even though the signs seen by John are symbolic representations, they are nonetheless symbolic representations of real, living individuals who will be involved in real events that will be occurring in real locations. And a clear distinction is made in chapter twelve between prophesied events that will be occurring on the earth and events that will be occurring in heaven. For example, it’s clear that the events involving the people represented by “the sun-clothed woman” (i.e., Israel) will be occurring on the earth. After the woman brings forth the male son (and the child is subsequently “snatched away to God and to his throne”), we read that “the woman fled into the wilderness, there where she has a place made ready by God, that there they may be nourishing her a thousand two hundred sixty days” (Rev. 12:5-6).
In contrast with the future events involving those represented by “the woman,” the being represented by “the dragon” is going to be involved in events that will be occurring both on the earth and in heaven. For it is immediately after we’re told of the woman fleeing into the wilderness to be nourished for 3 ½ years that we read of a future event occurring in heaven that will involve “Michael and his messengers” (who we know to be heavenly beings) battling “the dragon and its messengers.” This heavenly battle will, of course, result in Satan and his messengers losing their place in heaven, and being cast out of heaven and into the earth (v. 8-9). Thus we read in v. 12 that the “loud voice in heaven” declares the following: “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.” And in v. 13 we read, “And when the dragon perceived that it was cast into the earth, it persecutes the woman who brought forth the male.”
Just as the earth is clearly the location where the events involving those represented by “the woman” (Israel) will be occurring, so heaven is clearly the location in which the events involving the “the dragon” (Satan) will first be occurring. Thus, we have just as much reason to believe that the being referred to as “Satan” and “the Adversary” in Rev. 12 (and Rev. 20) is a superhuman, spiritual being (like Michael, the chief messenger) as we have reason to believe that those represented by the sun-clothed woman are mortal, earth-dwelling humans.
Objection: That which is represented by the “dragon” in Revelation should be understood as a political (or religious) institution rather than a superhuman, spiritual being (or a group of such beings).
Response: Political and religious institutions do not exist apart from (and must therefore be understood as essentially including and comprised of) individual persons. And in accord with what we read in Dan. 7, “the wild beast” referred to in Revelation can be understood as representing the final Gentile kingdom – and, by extension, its representative ruler – that will have dominion over the earth before Christ returns at the end of this eon. It is, specifically, the final form of the “fourth kingdom” referred to in Daniel 7:23. Keeping this fact in mind, John makes it clear that the dragon is distinct from “the wild beast” of which we read in chapter thirteen of Revelation. Not only are they clearly distinguished, but their relationship is made clear in Rev. 13:2: “To [the wild beast] the dragon gave its own power and throne, along with great authority.”
Thus, the being who is represented by the dragon – i.e., the Adversary and Satan (Rev. 12:9; 20:2) – not only possesses his “own power and throne, along with great authority,” but will empower and give his authority to the kingdom and ruler represented by the “wild beast.” The dragon, therefore, does not represent the earthly kingdom itself; it must be understood as symbolic of the adversarial being(s) who will be behind the political opposition to and persecution of the saints prior to Christ’s return. And the fact that the being represented by the dragon is presently a heavenly being – and will not be banished from this realm until after losing a battle with other heavenly beings (i.e., Michael and his messengers) – is further evidence that, in contrast with the two “beasts” referred to in Revelation 13, the dragon does not represent an earthly political and/or religious institution (and its representative political/religious rulers).
Objection: Couldn’t “the chief of this world” to whom Christ referred in John 12:31, 14:30 and 16:11 be a reference to Jesus himself (with Jesus simply referring to himself in the third person)?
Response: Even if Jesus was referring to himself as “the chief of this world” in these verses, it wouldn’t undermine the position that Satan is as a superhuman spiritual being possessing a relatively great degree of authority over the world and its kingdoms. However, I believe that “the chief of this world” is most likely a reference to Satan (and that Christ was therefore not referring to himself in the third person in these verses).
Throughout much of John’s account, the term “world” refers to human society as it exists during this present wicked eon, and thus as a realm characterized by sin, unbelief and 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 “the wicked one” with this world, but not he and his disciples).
Moreover, in John 19:36 we read that Jesus declared 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." Why isn’t Christ’s kingdom “of this world?” Answer: Well, according to 1 John 5:19, “the whole world is lying in the wicked one.” In accord with this fact, we also read in 1 John 2:17 that “the world is passing by, and its desire, yet he who is doing the will of God is remaining for the eon.”
So I’m not sure it makes sense to believe that Jesus is “the chief of this world” when he himself declared that he is “not of this world, that his kingdom is “not 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 more sense to me to understand “the chief of this world” as a reference to the wicked one himself (i.e., Satan). That is, it makes more sense to me that “the chief of this world” is the same spiritual being to whom Paul referred to as “the chief of the jurisdiction of the air, the spirit now operating in the sons of stubbornness” (Eph. 2:2).
Moreover, notice how, in John 14:30, Christ declared that the chief of this world “is coming” (not “coming away” or “departing”). It wouldn’t make sense for Christ to refer to himself – even in the third person – as “coming” anywhere at that time, when he hadn’t yet gone anywhere (although Christ went on to say in 14:31, “We may be going hence,” and also stated in John 16:28 that he was “going to the Father”). It seems to me that 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 Christ’s presence)? Yes.
Earlier, we read that, at the end of their dinner, Satan entered Judas (John 13:27; Luke 22:3). Judas – now indwelled by Satan – then departed from Jesus’ presence. 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.” Since it’s reasonable to believe that Judas was still indwelled by Satan at this time, it would make sense for Christ to have referred to Satan (and not himself) as “coming” in John 14:30.
[1] 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 (who, when represented by the “Lambkin” symbol, is
consistently referred to as “it”). 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 of God were first
represented by “seven torches of fire” which John saw “burning before the
throne” (Rev. 4:5), and 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).
[2] It should be
noted that if John wasn’t identifying
the serpent with Satan in Rev. 12:9 and 20:2, then
John was using a metaphor. That is, John would’ve been saying that Satan (the
being who was symbolically represented as a “great dragon” in his visions) is,
in some sense, like – i.e., is
characteristically similar to – “the ancient serpent.”
No comments:
Post a Comment