The Development of Satan in the Bible
in Light of Contemporaneous Shifts in Jewish Theology
Benjamin Glass
The concept of Satan in the Bible is not static, and changes in the biblical
conception of Satan can be traced throughout the Bible. Initially, the Bible uses the
root s.t.n. to refer to an accusation or a person whose role is to obstruct another;
however, later biblical references paint Satan as a specific and significant celestial
figure with the role of accusing and obstructing others. The development of Jewish
theology throughout the biblical period led to the conception of Satan as the great
challenger of God. This evolution can be traced throughout the Bible and understood
in light of ancient Near Eastern history and religion.
THE APPEARANCE OF THE ROOT S.T.N. IN THE BIBLE
The root for the word Satan in Hebrew is s.t.n., corresponding to the Hebrew
letters sin, tet, and nun. This root first appears in the Bible in Genesis 26: 21, in which
Isaac is seen re-digging the wells his father had dug. After an outbreak of a conflict
between the local herdsmen of Gerar and Isaac’s own herdsmen, Isaac names one
well Sitnah. The name of the well indicates that the herdsmen of Gerar accused Isaac
in some manner; what the accusation was is not clear from the text. Despite the
ambiguity, the scene provides the first definition of the root s.t.n. in the Bible, with
sitnah referring to an accusation. In its earliest appearance, the root of the word Satan
is a biblical noun meaning “accusation.” This initial appearance of the root s.t.n.
referring to an accusation serves as a foundation for the later development of the root
into the embodied satan—the accuser.
1
After Genesis, the root s.t.n. next appears in Numbers in the narrative
concerning Balaam. God becomes angry with Balaam after Balaam decides to curse
the Israelites at the bidding of the leaders of Moab, and while Balaam is on the road to
meet the leaders, an angel of God stands in his way “to act as an adversary to him”—
l’satan lo.1 In this case, the root s.t.n. appears neither as a noun nor as a distinct
figure, but as a verb describing the activities of an adversarial figure. The angel
articulates his role in the text, explaining to Balaam that he was sent by God to stifle
Balaam’s ability to curse the Israelites.2 A satan, according to biblical account, can be
a messenger of God sent to obstruct someone’s progress. This is the first appearance
of the root s.t.n. as referring to a person’s activities.
David is described in a similar manner to the angel who obstructs Balaam’s
path. Among the Philistine military camp, David is seen by Philistine leaders as a
threat, as one who “acts as an adversary” during the heat of the battle and turns
against the Philistines.3 In this scene, the term l’satan appears again, as in Numbers,
but it is not used as a verb. L’satan in this case is not the infinitive “to act as an
adversary towards,” but the descriptive “as an adversary.” The Philistine captains
suspect David will rise up as an adversary. The same phraseology appears in David’s
rebuke of the sons of Tzeruiah for recommending the murder of Shimei son of Gera
who had humiliated David before David’s anointment.4 In the rebuke, David
questions why the sons of Tzeruiah are acting as adversaries toward him.5 Again, this
is an instance in which l’satan appears as a descriptive term, and not the infinitive of a
verb.
1
Num. 22: 22.
Ibid., 23: 32.
3
1 Sam. 29: 4.
4
2 Sam. 16: 5-7.
5
Ibid., 19: 23.
2
2
The word satan appears in 1 Kings, not as a verb, description, or accusation,
but as a noun referring to an adversary. It is clearly a general term, describing any
given adversary and not necessarily a specific figure. In the scene in which the term
appears, Solomon sends word to Hiram of Tyre saying that God has given him rest
from any satan, adversary, that may challenge him.6 This is the first instance of the
word satan on its own without a definite article preceding it. In the same manner,
Hadad the Edomite and Rezon son of Eliada, enemies of Solomon, are both described
in the Bible using the term satan, referring to an adversary raised up by God to
challenge Solomon.7
The next instance of the root s.t.n. is in the fourth vision of Zechariah in which
he sees the high priest Joshua standing in dirty clothes before God and “the
adversary,” hasatan.8 The satan, as the figure is called, stands beside Joshua l’sitno,
to accuse him.9 In this reference, the root s.t.n. is used both on its own, referring to an
“adversary” and as a verb, as seen in early portions of the Bible. In the next verse, the
satan is referenced twice more.10 Even though the term satan appears on its own in
Kings, in this scene, satan is used in a radically different fashion than in the earlier
scenes in the Bible in which the term appears. In Zechariah, satan refers to a celestial
being with the designated role of accusing someone. The satan, as the figure is called,
is clearly subject to God’s will, as he is quiet after God’s rebuke. In Zechariah, Satan
as a divine figure is clearly defined. No longer does satan refer to any given
adversary, but to the adversary—Satan. The role of the dynamic Satan of Zechariah is
to test the faith of God’s subjects. This is evident from God’s response to Satan’s
accusation. God counters Satan’s accusation proclaiming Joshua to be “a brand
6
1 Kings 5: 18.
1 Kings 11: 14, 23, 25.
8
Zech. 3: 1.
9
Ibid.
10
Ibid., 3: 2.
7
3
plucked from the fire.”11 The image of passing through fire and being “plucked” out
of it unscathed is the biblical image for a test of faith, as seen elsewhere in Jewish
thought. 12 God’s defense of Joshua overturns Satan’s implicit accusation that Joshua
was not of sound faith.
After the Book of Zechariah, s.t.n. appears in two psalms. In Psalm 71, the
speaker, while praising God as the ultimate protector, asks God to target the sitnei
nafshi, “the adversaries of [his] soul.”13 In Psalm 109, the root s.t.n. is used in a
similar manner. In all four appearances of the root in Psalm 109, s.t.n. refers to the
speaker’s general adversaries, rather than any particular figure.14 Compared to the
uses of s.t.n. in Zechariah, these are more traditional applications of s.t.n., in the field
of the uses in Samuel and Kings, referring to adversaries in general and not to a
specific divine accuser.
Job is noted for its references to hasatan, the adversary. As in Zechariah, the
satan in Job is the divine adversary, who appears alongside the “sons of God.”15 The
text of the scene is somewhat ambiguous in its treatment of whether hasatan is one of
the “sons of God” or simply walking with the “sons of God.” It is evident that the
adversary was “one of the members of the divine court,” and that he was “coming
with other attendants.”16 The adversary in Job is no longer grouped with the general
class of the angels of God, but is not as of yet a clearly defined entity that is separated
from the angels. The simplest way to describe this distinction is that hasatan in Job is
11
Ibid.
Dan. 3: 13-25; BT Sanhedrin 93a. In Dan. 3: 13-25, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah are thrown into
a fiery pit by Nebuchadnezzar for not indulging in idolatrous practices and survive the flames as a
result of their faith; building on this, it is implied in BT Sanhedrin 93a that Joshua in Zecharia 3 is
called a “brand plucked from the fire” due to the strength of his faith, alluding to the image of the
faithful surviving flames of idolaters.
13
Ps. 71: 13.
14
Ibid., 109: 4, 6, 20, 29.
15
Job 1: 6.
16
Marvin H. Pope, “The Testing of Job,” in Job: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, ed. David Noel
Freedman, et al. (New York: The Anchor Bible, Doubleday, 1973), 9-10.
12
4
an angel amongst the heavenly court that has a status elevated above the statuses of
the mass of angels in the court.
At various points in the first two chapters of Job, God converses with
hasatan.17 In the conversations, God declares Job to be of unprecedented faith, and
Satan accepts these claims as challenges to test Job’s faith.18 God and hasatan settle
on a test of faith for Job in both of the first two chapters of Job.19 In the bargain,
hasatan is given the job of acting as adversary to Job, setting obstacles in his way in
order to test Job’s faith and potentially cause Job to curse God.20 God places limits on
Satan’s jurisdiction, telling him first to not touch Job’s person, and later telling Satan
to spare Job’s life.21 In Job, hasatan is one among the divine assembly that accuses
and tests the faith of those on earth, as does hasatan in Zechariah.
The root s.t.n. appears in Ezra as it appears in Genesis. As Israel returned to
Jerusalem after the fall of Babylon and began to pick up where life left off in 586
B.C.E., local agitators send an accusation, a sitnah, against the Jews to Artaxerxes.22
This is the same word Isaac used to name the well he dug after the conflict with the
herdsmen of Gerar.
The final appearance of s.t.n. in the Bible is in Chronicles. In Chronicles satan
refers to an angel that tempts David to order Joab, his military captain, to carry out a
census of the population for what appears to have been military purposes.23 Carrying
out a census, based on Joab’s and then God’s reactions to the act, was a sin, though
the text is highly ambiguous regarding the nature of the sin.24 For the purpose of
17
Job 1: 6-9, 12; 2: 1-4, 6-7.
Ibid., 1: 8-12; 2: 3-5.
19
Ibid., 1: 8, 12; 2: 4, 6-7.
20
Ibid., 1: 12; 2: 7.
21
Ibid., 1: 12; 2: 6.
22
Ezra 4: 6.
23
1 Chron. 21: 1-2, 5.
24
Ibid.,21: 3, 7.
18
5
discussing Satan, however, the essential fact to note is that David committed a sin
with the census, whatever the sin was, with Satan’s prompting.25 There is no definite
article preceding the term satan. The term satan, rather than hasatan, stands alone
referring to an autonomous being, a divine body acting of its own accord. Thus, the
satan in Chronicles is in the vein of the satan of Zechariah and Job.
THE APPARENT PROGRESSION
A chronological progression is apparent in the use of the root s.t.n. in the
Bible. In the pre-monarchic period, dating back to the earliest events recorded in the
Torah, s.t.n. is used as a noun, as in Genesis, and to refer to the role of obstructing
someone’s progress, as in Numbers. The monarchic period follows on the heels of the
pre-monarchic period not only chronologically, but in the use of the root s.t.n.
Throughout the monarchic period, covered in Samuel and Kings, the use of the term
satan as referring to the role of an adversary continues.
After the monarchic period there is a lull in the appearance of s.t.n. in the
Bible. This corresponds to the Babylonian Exile. From 586 B.C.E. to 539 B.C.E., the
Jews were settled in Babylon, and in the biblical material from this era, s.t.n. is not
referenced. The reason for this may simply be a factor of the paucity of biblical
literature of the time. While s.t.n. only appears a limited number of times in the large
volume of pre-exilic biblical literature, it is not surprising that in the three biblical
books from the Babylonian Exile--Lamentations, Ezekiel, and Daniel--the root does
not appear. In the biblical material from the period of return to Judea, however, the
term satan appears repeatedly and is quite different in its implication than the
implications of the uses of related terms in the pre-exilic biblical works.
25
Ibid., 21: 1.
6
Zechariah, prophesying at the start of the period of return, references hasatan
in his prophecies. In stark contrast to the term used to denote adversaries and
accusations in the pre-exilic periods, satan refers to a specific angel in the heavenly
rank—to Satan. After returning to Judea, the Jews seem to have suddenly developed
the concept of Satan as an accusing angel in the heavenly court in place of a general
descriptive term.
Job is a difficult book to date, though it also appears to fall into the category of
post-exilic biblical literature. The Talmud debates the origins of the book of Job in
Baba Batra 14b and 15b, discussing at length the possible dates of the composition of
Job. There is no clear-cut final decision. However, the textual similarity of Satan as
portrayed in Job to Satan as portrayed in Zechariah is such that the book can be placed
in the same context as Zechariah in the post-exilic years. This corresponds to the
opinions of Rabbi Johanan and Rabbi Eleazar.26 With the date of the composition of
Job established as being of the same period of Zechariah, it can be noted again, with
Job chapters one and two as examples, that by the post-exilic years, Satan had
developed into a semi-autonomous divine accuser.
By Ezra’s time, toward the later end of the period of return, the original usage
of s.t.n. as referring to accusation was retained, as in Ezra 4:6, but the idea of Satan as
a figure had developed further. No longer was Satan a divine accuser subordinate to
God, as in Zechariah and Job, but a fully autonomous tempting angel, as seen in
Chronicles, which dates to Ezra’s period.27
EVIDENT SHIFT IN CONCEPTION
26
27
BT Baba Batra 15a.
1 Chron. 1: 21.
7
Between the pre-exilic and post-exilic years a shift in the conception of Satan
is apparent. From the pre-monarchic period through the exile to Babylon, s.t.n. refers
to the role of a person or is used as a noun. In the post-exilic period, the use of s.t.n.
markedly shifts to refer to an active individual among the heavenly host, initially
bound under God’s law and later entirely autonomous. What caused this shift? The
key to answering this question is noting the period during which the shift occurred—
the period of Persian dominance over the Jews.
The Babylonian Empire fell to the Persians soon after conquering Judea. By
539 B.C.E., the Persians were in control of Babylon, including Judea. Two decades
after this, Zechariah appeared, in 520 B.C.E., proclaiming his visions to the people of
Jerusalem, and suddenly the “new” conception of Satan appears. As Persian influence
continued, the concept of Satan grew in Judean literature, leading to the description of
Satan in Chronicles. Persian influence can be detected in the shift in the Jewish
conception of Satan, or rather development of the conception of Satan from what was
once a simple adjective. To approach the discussion of the development of the
conception of Satan, it must be noted that the Jewish conception of God was similarly
impacted by the Persian influences. The changing conception of God gave birth to the
autonomous and diabolic conception of Satan.
CONCEPTION OF GOD IN PRE-EXILIC HEBREW THOUGHT
In pre-exilic Hebrew thought, God was responsible for both the good and the
evil in the world. God did not shy away from carrying out evil activities, as, for
example, seen in Genesis 19 and Amos 3:6. In Genesis 19, God destroys the cities of
Sodom and Gomorrah due to the cities’ sins, and in Amos 3:6 God asks rhetorically
whether evil could befall a city without God’s decision. As much as God would carry
8
out evil if necessary, He was also characteristically good.28 For good or for bad, God
would intervene in the Hebrews’ lives.
With God involved in good and evil, the Hebrews saw God as infinitely aware
and involved in the lives of His people.29 This led to a theological paradox, with the
infinite God relating Himself on a regular basis with the finite human population.
According to biblical scholar Robert Dentan, this created a logical struggle: “how the
infinite can have a relationship with the finite” was a matter beyond comprehension.30
To solve this theological paradox, the Hebrews deduced that God must have
messengers, and indeed He does as the pre-exilic works in the Bible note.
God communicates with people by way of angels throughout the pre-exilic
portions of the Bible. To inform Abraham of the approaching birth of Isaac and the
impending destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, God sent three angels; to inform
Manoah and his wife of the birth of Samson, God sent an angel.31 With regard to the
root s.t.n., the satan sent to intercept Balaam, is described as an angel of God.32 As all
of these examples make clear, God often interacted with people in the pre-exilic eras
by sending messengers, or angels, to speak to those He singled out. In the examples
listed above, the angels are obedient servants of God, as was typical in pre-exilic
literature.33
To the Hebrews of the pre-exilic eras, God was not only infinitely aware of all
that occurred in the lives of His people, but was also infinitely powerful. In the Song
of the Sea, the Hebrews put into words this tenet of their philosophy: “who is like
28
Ps. 100: 5.
Ibid., 139.
30
Robert C. Dentan, The Knowledge of God in Ancient Israel. (New York: The Seabury Press, 1968),
116.
31
Gen. 18: 9-10, 17-33; Judg. 13: 3-5, 9-21.
32
Num. 22: 22.
33
William Caldwell, “The Doctrine of Satan: I. In the Old Testament,” The Biblical World, vol. 14,
No. 1 (1913): 32-33; Johnny Award, “Satan in Biblical Imagination,” Theological Review, vol. 36, No.
1 (2005): 113-114; Elaine Pagels, The Origin of Satan. (New York: Vintage Books, 1996), 40.
29
9
unto thee, O Lord, among the mighty.”34 The Hebrews saw God as omnipotent, and of
infinite might. God was similarly omniscient and omnipresent, as expressed in
Proverbs 15 in which it is stated that “God’s eyes are everywhere.”35
At this time, any conception of a satan corresponded with Hebrew theology.
Thus, the adversaries, the satans, that God commissioned for some task were all
simply heavenly messengers of God extending His infinite jurisdiction to the finite
human population. These messengers were all subject entirely to God’s will as preexilic Hebrew doctrine perceived as the role of angels. This assertion is seen most
clearly in Numbers in which the messenger of God is sent to halt Balaam.36 God is
angry with Balaam and in order to interact with Balaam he sends an angel, who
admits to Balaam his role as a messenger of God who can only carry out God’s
orders.37
The pre-exilic Hebrew conception of God can be simply summed up with the
following points: (a) God was seen as an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent;
(b) God was seen as involved in both good and evil affairs; (c) God had a divine
assembly that he occasionally relied upon to relate to human affairs.
THE PERSIAN PERIOD, PERSIAN THEOLOGY, AND JEWISH THEOLOGY
The view of God changed during this period in response to Persian influence.
Elaine Pagels notes that the language describing Satan’s activities in Job of “going up
and down in the earth” corresponds to the role of satraps in Persia, who would travel
throughout the empire and report back to the emperor on the affairs of the populace.38
The influence of the Persians extended into the very language of the Bible. This
34
Exod. 15: 11.
Prov. 15: 3.
36
Num. 22: 22.
37
Ibid., 22: 22, 32.
38
Elaine Pagels, The Origin of Satan. (New York: Vintage Books, 1996), 41.
35
10
linguistic point underscores the great degree to which the Persians influenced the
Jews. On a theological level, the Jews’ view of God was affected by the tenets of
Zoroastrianism. The precepts of Zoroaster, particularly divine duality and angelology,
permeated Jewish theology and affected the Jewish conception of God’s carrying out
of both good and evil, and the significance of angels in Jewish theology.
In similar fashion to the pre-exilic Hebrews, Zoroaster, the father of
Zoroastrianism, understood the universe as being governed by a supreme, eternal
being. Zoroaster recognized this being as Ahura Mazda.39 Ahura Mazda was
omniscient, and all-good.40 Evil was in the hands of Ahura Mazda’s rival, Angra
Mainya, who was without beginning in the same fashion as Ahura Mazda, but who
would in due time see his end in the days of Ahura Mazda’s ultimate victory with the
forces of good over the forces of evil.41
With regard to the relation of the divine entities to the human population,
Zoroaster emphasized angelology. Greater divine spirits would send lesser spirits to
go amongst the human population and interact with them; greater spirits “emanated”
lesser spirits in this fashion.42 The relationship between the “infinite and finite” as
described by Dentan was solved by this emphasis on angelology.
The effect of the Zoroastrian division between good and evil on Jewish
theology can be illustrated by the changing conception of Satan. In 2 Samuel 24:1,
God becomes angry with Israel and moves David to commit the sinful act of
commissioning a census. In the scene God is clearly involved in carrying out evil
activities. The scene is recounted in 1 Chronicles 1:21, where Satan moves David to
carry out the census. In the monarchic period, before the Persian influence, God had
Mary Boyce, “Zoroaster, Zoroastrianism,” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary: Volume 6, ed. David
Noel Freedman, et al. (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 1170.
40
Ibid.
41
Ibid.
42
Ibid.
39
11
full dominion over good and evil in the doctrines of Jewish theology. After decades
under Persian influence, at the time of Ezra’s compilation of Chronicles, it is clear
that Jewish theology held God as all-good and separated from evil. Persian influence
led the Jews to shift their conception of God from carrying out both good and evil to
being strictly omni-benevolent.43 Due to the theological removal of God from the
dominion of evil, one among God’s heavenly host, the angel that acted as adversary,
the satan, evolved into the autonomous entity responsible for evil.
The elevation of an angel into the place of Satan was similarly the result of
Persian influence. Jewish theology held a place for angels long before the Persian
Period as illustrated above, but the place of angels in Jewish theology was not as
much on the forefront as in Zoroastrian theology. According to Jewish theology,
angels carried out the will of God, and that was simply a given tenet, and not a
primary focus of Jewish theology. The Persian emphasis on angelology, however,
gave rise to a growing Jewish emphasis on the issue.44 As a result, angels appear as
more significant figures in Persian Period biblical writings, such as in Zechariah and
Job, in which Satan appears along with other angels.
CONCLUSION
From the pre-monarchic period to the Babylonian Exile, the Hebrews saw God
as all-encompassing in his treatment of the world. Good or evil, God was behind all
events. At this time, the concept of a diabolical Satan was foreign to Hebrew
theology. With God behind good and evil, there was no theological “room” for such a
figure as Satan. The period of Persian control following the fall of the Babylonian
William Caldwell, “The Doctrine of Satan: I. In the Old Testament,” The Biblical World, vol. 14,
No. 1 (1913): 33.
44
Solomon Grayzel, A History of the Jews: From the Babylonian Exile to the Present. (New York: The
Jewish Publication Society of America, 1968), 127.
43
12
Empire facilitated a shift in Jewish theology as a result of the prevalence of
Zoroastrian belief throughout the Persian Empire. The influence of Zoroastrianism led
the Jews, while under Persian control, to alter their theology, distinguishing evil from
the work of God, and placing greater emphasis on angelology. Evil activities were
removed from the realm of God’s work, and God became viewed as solely focused on
carrying out good deeds. This left evil without a theological cause. Into this Jewish
theological gap was elevated an angel who would be the governor of evil. This angel
was Satan.
13