Welcome to Gaia! ::

II. Satan in the Old Testament

It seems to take the Torah some time to get to using the Hebrew word, שָׂטָן (satan). The origin of the word comes from the Northwest Semitic root, śṭn, which, according to the Online Etymology Dictionary, means, "one who opposes, obstructs, or acts as an adversary." The Hebrew means "accuser," "opponent," or "adversary." So it may be seen in a negative light. The word itself is not applicable to only one person. In the small passage of Numbers 22:21-35, a prophet named Balaam is riding on his donkey. He is with the dignitaries of Moab, who are accompanying him. As he is riding along, God becomes angry with him, and the angel of the Lord opposes him. Here satan is used for the first time. The donkey sees the angel of the Lord, and she runs off into the field. Balaam beats her to get back onto the road. So, the angel of the Lord decides to stand in a narrow path between two vineyards with walls on both sides.

Once Balaam is back on the road, the donkey sees the angel of the Lord, and because Balaam and his donkey are between two vineyards with walls on each side, the donkey presses against the wall, crushing Balaam's foot against it. Balaam then beats his donkey a second time. This time, the angel of the Lord moves further away to a narrow place where it would not be possible to turn left or right. So, because it's so narrow that it is not possible to turn left or right, the donkey lies down. Balaam beats his donkey a third time, and the angel of the Lord gives the donkey the power to speak. The donkey asks why Balaam beat her these three times, and he tells his donkey, without even being surprised that his donkey is talking, "You made a fool of me! If I had a sword in my hand, I would kill you!"

Indeed, Balaam has been made a fool, since the dignitaries of Moab were with him during this time. Could you imagine being one of those dignitaries and wondering what on earth is going on? Could you imagine being Balaam in this humorous part of the Bible? It would be a bit embarrassing. The donkey then asks Balaam if she has ever been in the habit of doing what she had done, and he replies, "No." So, after much struggle with his donkey, the angel of the Lord reveals himself to Balaam, and Balaam confesses his sin, and says that he was not aware that the angel of the Lord was being a satan unto him (v. 34). Balaam asks if he should go back, since the angel of the Lord was angry with him, but He tells him not to, but to speak the words He puts in Balaam's mouth.

During the reign of King Saul, David is also seen as a satan (1 Sam. 29:4), for the commanders of the Philistines believe that he could turn on them, or from what it also may be seen, he'll become an obstacle, as though he will be one to hinder them. It may also be applied to anyone who is any opponent, such as the sons of Zeruiah, who wanted Shimei, the son of Gera to be put to death for cursing David (2 Sam. 22:19). When Solomon became king, it was said that God had given King Solomon rest on every side, so there was neither satan, nor evil (1 Kings 5:4). Yet, later on in time, God raises up satans against King Solomon. These were Hadad the Edomite (11:14) and Rezon son of Eliadah (v. 23). Therefore, satan is used again, not referring to a supernatural being, but to human kings.

Of course, just because we have seen humans as satans, does not mean that there cannot be satans that are supernatural beings. Remember, the angel of God, a supernatural being, was seen as a satan to the prophet Balaam. In the Book of Job, which many Christians point to, to prove that Satan does in fact show his appearance in the Old Testament, the Hebrew is הַשָּׂטָן (ha-satan). It is thus translated accurately as "the Adversary," in the Tanakh and Young's Literal Translation, as opposed to several other translations like the King James Version, New King James Version, and New International Version, which translate it erroneously as "Satan." Here, the Adversary is a supernatural being.

The Tanakh Translation notes regarding Job 1:6 that the Adversary "is one of the divine beings," and that "he functions as a kind of prosecuting attorney" who "should not be confused with the character of Satan as it developed in the late biblical (see 1 Chron. 21:1) and especially the postbiblical period, that is, the source of evil and rebellion against God" (p. 1506).

In the Hebrew, ha- is the definite article, which cannot come before a proper noun, and thus, throughout the entire Book of Job should it be translated as "the Adversary." Without a Jewish mindset, Satan is perceived as an independent being, but in the Book of Job, this is not the case. He is ordered by God to accuse man for his sins. We also find ha-satan in Zechariah 3:1, 2, where he stands to accuse Joshua. Yet, he is rebuked by the angel of the Lord, and is thus shown to be obedient and subservient to God's express command. In these two verses, Satan is not an independent agent who opposes God. The character of the Adversary in Zechariah 3:1, 2 seems to be different from that of the Adversary in Job.

Satan's independence is not seen anywhere in the Old Testament, except maybe 1 Chronicles 21:1. In this verse, it is not הַשָּׂטָן, but שָׂטָן. It is translated in the English as "Satan." Translations like the Young's Literal Translation write it as "an adversary." This is different than what is mentioned in 2 Samuel 24:1, because it is God, not an entity named Satan, nor a nation opposing the nation of Israel. An acceptable understanding here would be that it is not Satan as Christians understand it, but a human adversary. The Chronicler may then be taking this from a human perspective, which is an acceptable interpretation for a Jewish mindset.

Nevertheless, this does not mean that the adversary could not be Satan. If we take note of what is stated in both 2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1, that God's "anger burned against Israel," and that an adversary "rose up against Israel," it may very well just be Satan opposing Israel under God's command. So far, nothing in the Old Testament offers us where the origin of Satan comes from, nor is Satan seen rebelling against God. At least not yet. Those who do accept that Satan is mentioned in the Old Testament may look to the two passages, Isaiah 14:12-14 and Ezekiel 28:12-15. They are seen as accounts of Satan's fall, at a time when he once was called Lucifer.



This chapter, specifically 12-14, is one of the foundations for the fall of Satan, who was previously called Lucifer. He is considered the most beautiful and perfect angel created by God. This might stem from the description in Ezekiel 28:13, but I won't get to that passage just yet. I believe I know there is a reason why this is seen as the fall of Lucifer, but I will not discuss that yet, either. It is mistaken that Isaiah 14:12-14 is about Satan, because what is said prior to it is ignored, sometimes willfully. The idea of Satan's fall in this passage is entirely foreign to Judaism and to the Jews. So, the understanding of Satan being Lucifer is entirely a Christian concept. It is my hope to dispel this myth that the two are one and the same. We will be looking over a few similar stories with this passage.

One of the factors for thinking that this chapter has anything to do with the fall of Satan comes from the ignorance of what we find in verse 4. Isaiah takes up a "taunt against the king of Babylon," so it's a human figure, not a spiritual one. Still, some aren't willing to accept what the scriptures clearly say, and so they try to make the king of Babylon some kind of spiritual entity, or an use the king of Babylon as a metaphor for Satan. That, of course, is nothing but pure fiction. There is nothing to support this, and should thus be tossed out. So Verses 5-11, as well as 15-21 do not speak of anything fitting for an entity cast from heaven named Lucifer. Let us then start with verses 9 and 10, which says,

The grave below is all astir to meet you at your coming; it rouses the spirits of the departed to greet you—all those who were leaders in the world; it makes them rise from their thrones—all those who were kings over the nations. They will all respond to you, they will say to you, "You also have become weak, as we are; you have become like us."

The word "grave" in Hebrew is שְׁאוֹל (sheol). It is the place of the dead, both righteous and wicked. The king of Babylon arrives in Sheol, and upon entering, he awakens the dead who were sleeping, as it were. They greet him and mock him, for though while he was powerful, he was not greater than the others to escape death. He has "become weak" like the other kings. The sovereignty that the king of Babylon once possessed is now mocked by other kings. He who once ruled over other kings is now with them and is no longer different than them. Not only do the the living rejoice at his fall (v. 8 ), but also the dead. The maggots now serve as a bed for him, and the worms a covering (v. 11).

In the Geneva Bible, the King James Version, New King James Version, as well as the Young's Literal Translation, the word used is "Lucifer." It is of Latin origin, and it can be found a few times in the Latin Vulgate. In Isaiah 14:12, the Latin reads,

Quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes.

Other verses that use lucifer are as follows:

Et quasi meridianus fulgor consurget tibi ad vesperam et c** te consumptum putaveris orieris ut lucifer (Job 11:17).

Numquid producis luciferum in tempore suo et vesperum super filios terrae consurgere facis (Job 38:32).

Et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris (2 Pet. 1:19).

Other translations do not use "Lucifer," but instead use "morning star" (NIV), "star of the morning" (NASB), "Day Star" (ESV), or even "Shining One" (JPS). Since lucifer is Latin, not Hebrew, we might do well to look at the Hebrew equivalent, הֵילֵל (heylel), which means "shining one." There's nothing wrong with using lucifer here, but the idea of an entity named Lucifer, who was cast from heaven, gives us the wrong impression of this passage, ascribing it to an angel, rather than a human figure. It has been understood that lucifer in this verse refers metaphorically to the planet Venus, and the names, "morning star," "star of the morning," "day star," and even "shining one," give the idea of the planet's brilliance. The Targum says,

"How art thou fallen from on high, who was shining among the sons of men, as the star Venus among the stars."

The Jewish Study Bible Tanakh Translation notes that "Rabbinic commentators identify the term Shining One with the morning star (the planet Venus, which is sometimes visible on the horizon at dawn)" (p. 813).

So, what is being said here is that the king of Babylon is like the planet Venus, and his reign, like the brilliance of Venus, is short-lived, because when the sun rises, Venus fades away. Thus, the reign of the king of Babylon will be for a short time, and the light of Israel will outshine it and endure like the sun.

Another way we might translate verses 12-14 is:

"How are you fallen from heaven, Heylel, son of Shachar! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! You said in your heart, 'I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of El; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of Zaphon. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.'"

No longer do we see a character named Lucifer, but Heylel, a Canaanite god, who was born of Shachar the god of dawn. His twin brother was Shalim, the god of dusk. According to NETBible,

"Apparently these verses allude to a mythological story about a minor god (Helel son of Shachar) who tried to take over Zaphon, the mountain of the gods. His attempted coup failed and he was hurled down to the underworld. The king of Babylon is taunted for having similar unrealized delusions of grandeur."

This is seen in verses 13 and 14, where the king of Babylon says that he will raise his throne "above the stars of El," that is, "astral deities under the authority of the high god El" (ibid.).

The Jewish Study Bible Tanakh Translation, pp. 812, 813 notes,

"Isaiah refers ironically to the king as Shining One, son of Dawn, applying to him the name of a character from ancient Canaanite myth. (The term Shining One is not known from Canaanite texts, but his father, Dawn, is described in Canaanite myth as a son of the high god El. The name closely recalls Phaethon son of Eos [or "radiant one" son of "Dawn"] in Greek mythology. Phaethon, a presumptuous young god, was thrown down to earth by Zeus. This character seems to have attempted to join the head of the pantheon, whether this was El (who was known in Canaanite texts as Most High) or Baal (whose palace was located on the summit of Mount Zaphon)."

Zaphon, being "the mount of assembly," seems to be the Canaanite variant of Olympus, where the gods met. In verse 16 and 17, the king of Babylon is called, "the man," suggesting that this was a human king, not an angelic being who was thrown out from heaven for commiting the sin of pride. He is cast out of his tomb, and like "a corpse trampled underfoot" (v. 19ff). He is condemned to the most miserable part of the underworld, because he was not given a proper burial. With all of this in mind, it doesn't appear that Satan is the figure in Isaiah 14:12-14, especially since what is said before and after does not fit Satan. Let us now turn to Ezekiel 28.



This passage, like Isaiah 14:12-14 was used by Origen of Alexandria to prove that Satan fell from heaven. Ironically, for a man of allegory, Origen seems to have taken this passage literally. Beautiful allegory, such as, "You were in Eden, the garden of God" (v. 13), "You were anointed as a guardian angel," "You were on the holy mount of God" (v. 14), "You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created" (v. 15) all seem to draw us with some idea of an angel that God loved very much. All of this works at first appearance. However, it is nothing but eisegesis. Like in Isaiah 14, which was directed to the king of Babylon, this chapter is directed to Ethbaal, "the ruler of Tyre," who is called "Son of man" (v. 2). So he is neither a god, nor an angelic being.

What we need to know here is that the denunciation of Tyre begins in chapter 26, not in chapter 28. The ruler of Tyre says "I am a god; I sit on the throne of a god in the heart of the seas" (v. 2). The metonymy, "heart of the sea" is used often in Ezekiel (27:25-27; 28:8 ), and other places in the Old Testament (Exod. 15:8; Psa. 46:2; Jonah 2:3). We might understand "heart of the seas" to mean that Tyre is in the sea, especially with the metaphors of it being a ship (27:3-9). Tyre is portrayed, not as an ordinary ship, but a prominent center of trade. Tyre was, after all, an island city and a "Phoenician port, south of Sidon and north of Carmel" (New International Bible Dictionary, Tyre, p. 104).

The ruler of Tyre thought that he was "as wise as God," (Ezek. 28:2), but Ezekiel, who was the mouth-piece of God, then asks, "Are you wiser than Daniel?" Even though it should be "Danel," whoever Danel may be, the prophet Daniel would also make sense here. The prophet Daniel was the opposite of the ruler of Tyre, for he acknowledged that "wisdom and power" was given to him from God (Dan. 2:23). "[As for] Daniel, Nebuchadnezzar came to make him a god (Dan. 2:46): 'King Nebuchadnezzar fell prostrate before Daniel and paid him honor and ordered that an offering and incense be presented to him,' but he did not accept it upon himself, yet you make yourself a god?" (Rashi)

In 28:4, 5, the ruler of Tyre is said to have become very wealthy by his "great skill in trading," but his "heart has grown proud." It is pride that leads to the ruler of Tyre's destruction (Prov. 6:17; 16:18; 18:12). God is, therefore, "going to bring foreigners," that is, the Chaldeans, against him. God is displaying His judgment on a nation by using a heathen nation, for He directs the hearts of kings "wherever he pleases" (21:1). The Chaldean foreigners were not found to be traders with Tyre (Ezek. 27:7-23), for otherwise they would have been hesitant to attack. Yet, because of their unfamiliarity with Tyre, they were ready to bring the ruler of Tyre "down to the pit."

The Hebrew here is not sheol, but שַׁחַת (shachath). It is properly translated as "pit." It appears to suggest corruption or destruction (cf. Psa. 55:23; 103:4; 2 Chron. 26:16). The imagery of dying "a violent death in the heart of the seas" is seen as being defeated in a sea fight (Gill; Fausset). "Will you then say, 'I am a god,' in the presence of those who kill you?" that is, "When thou art in enemies' hands, and just going to be put to death, wilt thou confidently assert thy deity, and to his face tell him that thou art God?" (ibid.) Yet, both he and the king of the Babylonians, the king being Nebuchadnezzar, will know that he is but a frail man, a mere mortal and not a god. In his fear, all his boasting will be driven away.

In verse 10, the word "death" here is plural, thus, "You will die the deaths of the uncircumcised." A few commentators make note that this refers to both a physical death and a spiritual death, the second death. According to the Tanakh Translation, the Phoenicians, that is, the Tyrians, practiced circumcision, but the ruler of Tyre, as is all of Tyre, is "threatened with the death of the uncircumcised, thought to be worse than the death of the circumcised" (p. 1096; cf. 1 Sam. 31:4). There is now a change of words in verse 11. Instead of "ruler," the word "king" is used. Take note, also, that this lament is directed to the "king of Tyre." So we still have a human figure, not Satan before his fall. We now finally come to our main focus of this chapter.

There are several different translations for verse 12, yet interestingly, the ArtScroll translation translates it, "Are you [Adam] the culmination of perfection, full of wisdom, perfect in beauty?" While this is not what the Hebrew actually says, it is interesting to note that verses 13 and 15 seem to suggest Adam, the primeval man. So it has nothing to do with Satan, but with Adam, and so it becomes apparent that Adam was a priest, if not a royal figure, and that the king of Tyre is being represented as such. It should not be thought that the king of Tyre is in the Garden of Eden, but "thou delightest thyself with plenty of all good things and delectable ones, as if thou dwellest in the garden of God" (Targum; cf. Rashi).

The Tyrian king is adorn with "every precious stone" (v. 13). These precious stones correspond to the stones placed on the breastplate for the high priest (cf. Exod. 28:17-20). Other stones are omitted, but have been supplied in the Septuagint. In verse 14, the king of Tyre is called a guardian cherub. Other translations write, "cherub that coverth" (KJV), "cherub who covers" (NKJV), "cherub who is covering" (YLT). This likely alludes to Exodus 25:20, where the cherub are covering the mercy seat with their wings. The same word for "cover[ing]" in verse 14 of Ezekiel 28 is also used here in Exodus 25:20.

Also in verse 14, the king of Tyre is said to have been on the holy mountain of God. Some have taken this literally, thinking that the cherub who covers was in God's heavenly abode. However, this is the wrong idea. There are places in the Old Testament where "the mountain of God" is mentioned (Gen. 22:14; Exod. 3:1; 4:27; 18:5, et al.), and they're not in heaven. It is like saying that "the house of God" is literally in heaven, but today, we do not mean that, nor was it understood that way before us (Psa. 122:1). In verse 15, this is referring to Adam, the first man, not an angel in heaven named Lucifer. Like Adam, whose pride was his fall, so too is the king of Tyre's (v. 16).

Now that both Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 are covered, there is no reason for us to believe that there was an angel named Lucifer who was cast from heaven within these two passages. Still, that doesn't mean that this is where it ends. Having covered some parts of the Old Testament already, we still need to cover Genesis 3. The reason why I did not start off with Genesis 3 in this article is because the two passages, Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28, are considered to speak of a time when Satan had not been cast out from heaven. I wanted to start off with this, and then with the post-Fall of Satan.


My reason for reserving Genesis 3 up until now is twofold. The first reason is because I wanted to first cover the two aforementioned passages, since it is a held belief by some Christians that these two passages speak of Satan before his fall and how his fall occurred. Genesis 3 would then be the post-Fall. My second reason is because there really isn't too much to discuss here, since at plain reading, you will not find Satan. The beginning of the chapter, we are told that the serpent was more crafty than any of the other animals that God had created (Gen. 3:1). Serpents were a common motif in ancient Near Eastern mythology. For example, you have the serpent who took away the plant of rejuvenation from Gilgamesh when Gilgamesh was bathing in a pond. The serpent eats the plant of rejuvenation and sheds its skin, while Gilgamesh remains mortal.

Apep, who battles Ra, the sun god of the Egyptians, takes the form of a serpent. In the story of Inanna and the Huluppu Tree, there is a tree that is uprooted by a violent storm, and Inanna plants it in her sacred grove. Once the tree had grown large enough, Inanna uses the tree to make a chair and a bed. Unaware, there are animals in that tree that have settled there. These are a serpent, a female spirit, that is, a lilitu, and a bird. Inanna seeks help to have these three killed, but no one is willing to help her, except Gilgamesh. Gilgamesh ends up killing the serpent, but the other two, the female spirit and the bird, flee. In the Etana myth, there is a serpent and an eagle, and the eagle befriends the serpent. They make an oath before Shamash, who is the god of the sun and of justice of the Babylons.

As the story progresses, the eagle plots evil in his heart and decides to eat the serpent's young. Upon discovering that his nest and young are gone, the serpent weeps to Shamash. The serpent is then instructed by Uta and is told to hide in the belly of an ox because the eagle "will search for the juiciest meat"; and then when the eagle works his way to the covering of the intestines, that's when the serpent shall ambush him and "seize him by his wings" and pluck his pinions. Everything goes according to plan, and the eagle is cast into a bottomless pit. However, someone named Etana rescues the eagle. As a favor, Etana asks the eagle to help him find the "plant of birth," and eventually is granted an heir named Balih.

In the beginning of Genesis 3, we have the serpent, and he is a crafty one. The Hebrew word for "serpent" or "snake," whichever you prefer, is נָּחָשׁ (nachash), and is from the Hebrew root, "to hiss," or "to whisper." In Genesis 44:15, Joseph says to Judah and his brothers, "What is this you have done? Don't you know that a man like me can find things out by divination?" or as the KJV translates it, "certainly divine." The same Hebrew letters for nachash, which make up "certainly divine" (כִּֽי־נַחֵשׁ יְנַחֵשׁ) are present here twice in a row. In Deuteronomy 18:10, it is also used here, as "enchanter" (KJV). From observing these two verses, one might come to understand that perhaps the serpent is not even a real serpent. Some have even thought that the serpent was erect and once once possessed legs, because he later loses his legs (Gen. 3:14).

We know that this serpent is not in any way supernatural, because he's simply a "beast of the field." I use "he," because the Hebrew is masculine. Satan, thus far, is not present. Still, this doesn't rule out that the serpent acted as a satan. In The Antiquities of the Jews, i. i. iv., Flavius Josephus writes that "all the living creatures had one language," and "at that time the serpent," who "lived together with Adam and his wife, shewed an envious disposition, at his supposal of their living happily." He also says that the serpent "persuaded the woman, out of malicious intent, to taste of the tree of knowledge," and "he overcame the woman and persuaded her to despise the command of God." For Pseudo-Jonathan, the serpent "spake accusations against his creator, and said to the woman, Dying you will not die; for every artificer hateth the son of his art." So, the serpent acted as an adversary.

As I said before, there really isn't much to cover in Genesis 3, since by simply reading it, you will not find Satan in this chapter. However, there is a history behind Genesis 3 that shows us where the idea of the serpent being used as a vessel for Satan. I will come back to this later, because I feel that it would do better as its own section. For now, we shall move onto the Septuagint and examine some of the verses that have already been mentioned previously, along with a few other verses that I did not bring up when looking for Satan in the Old Testament. Here, perhaps we will begin to see some kind of evolution in the development of Satan.