Satan is a well known biblical character in Western culture. Lucifer, once the highest of all angels, conspiring to overthrow God and attain the kingdom of heaven for himself was exiled from heaven for eternity. Known afterwards as Satan, Lucifer becomes the enemy of God, of man, and of all creation. This motif has become pervasive in literature throughout history: the greatest of champions transcending into the greatest of enemies. But is this charming and romantic idea of Satan the same as what can be found in the Judeo-Christian scriptures? Starting with the earliest texts of the Bible we find that the Satan character evolves from a simple term used to describe misfortune, to a servant of God, to the incarnation of evil we know today. This transition is not by a transgression against God, but the nature of man.
The name Satan is mentioned forty-nine times in the King James Version of the Bible (referenced hereafter as KJV). To understand the development of this character, we must understand his name, and much can be revealed by understanding the original use and literal meaning of the name “Satan”. The Semitic root of satan is śţn, meaning “one who opposes, obstructs, or acts as adversary” and has no suggestion of supernatural power (Oxford). Interestingly, the Greek term diabolos, meaning “devil”, literally translates to “one who throws something across one’s path” (Pagels 39). It is important to note that the term satan is an ordinary Hebrew word, used to describe the source of unseen or unexpected obstructions. Hebrew storytellers usually attributed misfortunes, often caused by a satan, to human sin (Pagels 40), and this can be seen abundantly in the Bible.
While satan is often associated today with supernatural influences, in many places of the Hebrew texts the word can be found describing men, such as in the story of David. In Second Samuel 19:22 (KJV): “And David said, What have I to do with you, ye sons of Zeruiah, that ye should this day be adversaries unto me?” The word “adversaries” can be found as satans in the original Hebrew texts (Strong H7853). The sons of Zeruiah wanted to kill Shimei for his transgressions against God, but King David did not wish it so. For their opposition against him, he called them satans. They were not his enemies, but instead they were followers that opposed him. By this example we can deduce that satan is not necessarily a name but a term used to describe opposition.
In Numbers 22:22 (KJV), we find the story of Balaam, one of God’s prophets, as he is traveling to a place God has told him not to go: “And God’s anger was kindled because he went: and the angel of the LORD stood in the way for an adversary against him.” Again, the original Hebrew term used for “adversary” was in fact satan (Strong H7853). God was angered because Balaam was going to disobey Him, and sent a satan, or adversary, to stop him. This satan, however, is acting on God’s behalf, and contradicts the modern understanding of the name “Satan”, which carries the assumption of evil intent despite God’s wishes. Yet, in this story, we see that a satan was sent by God to protect Balaam from sinning against Him, not to cause harm.
In the previous two examples, the lack of a definite article only supports the idea that the uses of satan we’ve seen have no particular character reference beyond what we can literally discern from the immediate text. The term satan was used as an ordinary word to describe opposition, whether it be opposition by man, or angelic opposition by God’s command. There is not always a lack of this definite article, though, as can be seen in the Book of Job. The Book of Job (written around 1491 B.C.), believed to be one of oldest books of the canonical Bible (Young), is often considered a troubling book by modern Christians. In this story it would appear that God willingly suggests that Satan, a perceived evil, bring hardship upon his most faithful servant, Job:
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it. And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? (Job 1:6-8 KJV)
From the text, it is obvious that the sons of God, often understood to be angels (Pagels 41), are meeting with Him, and Satan is present as well. After a brief ice-breaking conversation, God asks if Satan has considered His servant Job. But how is Satan, exiled from heaven, allowed to be in God’s presence? This may be explained by the original text’s peculiar use of satan (Strong H7853) with a definite article: the satan, or “the adversary” (Strong H7854). This definite article (the) can be seen in Young’s literal translation:
And the day is, that sons of God come in to station themselves by Jehovah, and there doth come also the Adversary in their midst. And Jehovah saith unto the Adversary, `Whence comest thou?’ And the Adversary answereth Jehovah and saith, `From going to and fro in the land, and from walking up and down on it.’ And Jehovah saith unto the Adversary, `Hast thou set thy heart against My servant Job because there is none like him in the land, a man perfect and upright, fearing God, and turning aside from evil?’ (Job 1:6-8 Young)
In this case, we do have the satan, an “adversary” that is somehow special among others. Additionally, this special adversary is in the presence of God among angels. Different from Balaam’s satan, the Adversary is sent to harm Job at God’s command, not to protect him. This might open the argument that the Adversary is indeed the Satan of modern understanding, but we can clearly see that the Adversary has no authority or power beyond what God gives him:
And the Adversary answereth Jehovah and saith, `A skin for a skin, and all that a man hath he doth give for his life. Yet, put forth, I pray Thee, Thy hand, and strike unto his bone and unto his flesh — if not: unto Thy face he doth bless Thee!’ And Jehovah saith unto the Adversary, `Lo, he [is] in thy hand; only his life take care of.’ (Job 2:4-6 Young)
So, much like God’s “angel of death”, the Adversary is a servant of God, empowered only to carry out His will (Pagels 42). Though the actions of this satan are certainly against the good fortune of man, they are performed at God’s command, meaning the Adversary is not evil at all, much less God’s enemy. In the end, God reveals that Job’s suffering was a test of his faith. Having passed God’s test, Job is rewarded with more than he had ever lost. This perspective of the satan in the book of Job sheds a new light on what is considered a challenging and confusing story.
The Adversary appears elsewhere in the Old Testament as God’s servant. In Zechariah, written at around 520 B.C. (Young), we find the story of Joshua as he receives clean garments:
And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him. And the LORD said unto Satan, The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan; even the LORD that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: [is] not this a brand plucked out of the fire? (Zechariah 3:1-2 KJV)
Again, we see the inclusion of the Satan character, and by the statement “to resist him”, we are compelled to believe he is an enemy of God. The later statement, “The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan”, serves to reinforce this idea of a negative relationship between God and Satan. Unfortunately, a look at the literal translation of this passage reveals a different sentiment:
And he sheweth me Joshua the high priest standing before the messenger of Jehovah, and the Adversary standing at his right hand, to be an adversary to him.
And Jehovah saith unto the Adversary: `Jehovah doth push against thee, O Adversary, Yea, push against thee doth Jehovah, Who is fixing on Jerusalem, Is not this a brand delivered from fire?’ (Zechariah 3:1-2 Young)
Young’s literal translation shows us that the Adversary, just as in Job, is not present to “resist” God, but to be an “adversary”, much like a counselor to a king. Similarly, God does not “rebuke” the Adversary, but states instead “Jehovah doth push against thee”, suggesting a rejection of the Adversary’s advice and not a reprimand. There is a striking difference between the tones of the two texts, almost to the point of utter confusion.
But how could this confusion have come about? The translators’ capitalization of the S in satan is a misrepresentation of the original text. Additionally, most translations choose to use negative phrasing in regard to the Adversary based on the learned assumptions of this character as evil. These actions have helped to personify harmful intent into a specific character, whose perceived existence relies on selective translations of satan into either “adversary” or “Satan”, with complete disregard to the presence of the definite article. With the spread of Judeo-Christianity throughout Western culture, a dichotomy was created in which all “good” comes from God, and all “evil”, or anything “undesirable”, comes from a personified adversary of man, “Satan”.
What of the story of the fallen angel, Lucifer? Lucifer, in a modern understanding, is the original name of the Satan character before his fall from heaven and is mentioned but once in the entire Bible. This instance occurs in Isaiah, written around 698 B.C., which like most other Old Testament books is written in Hebrew. Of particular significance in this book is the alleged account of Lucifer’s fall from heaven:
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. (Isaiah 14:12-15 KJV)
In this short phrase, we have an account of Lucifer, who wished to ascend to heaven and place his throne above God’s. Instead, in failure, he “shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.” All seems well with modern understanding, except that Lucifer is a Latin word: a language with no real literary use until around 250 B.C. (Puliju), more than four hundred years after the writing of Isaiah. To gain the edge of perspective, one can reference the literal translation of this passage:
How hast thou fallen from the heavens, O shining one, son of the dawn! Thou hast been cut down to earth, O weakener of nations. And thou saidst in thy heart: the heavens I go up, Above stars of God I raise my throne, And I sit in the mount of meeting in the sides of the north.
I go up above the heights of a thick cloud, I am like to the Most High. Only — unto Sheol thou art brought down, Unto the sides of the pit. (Isaiah 14:12-15 Young)
Instead of Lucifer the literal translation gives us the phrase, “O shining one”. a great difference in how this passage is interpreted. Without the inclusion of “Lucifer”, no assumptions can be drawn as to the subject of this verse. As it turns out, if one were to look just eight lines earlier, it can be seen that Isaiah 14 is, for the most part, a song declaring victory over a Babylonian king’s oppression of the Hebrew people: “That thou hast taken up this simile Concerning the king of Babylon …” (Isaiah 14:4 Young). While this explains the true nature of this chapter, it begs the larger question: Who included the name Lucifer?
Around 400 A.D. Jerome was commissioned to translate the Old Latin versions of the Bible into a more recent and up to date dialect of the language. After much hard work, Jerome’s Latin Vulgate was completed. The Vulgate was the first translation of the bible to include the word lucifer, but Jerome is not to blame for the confusion with Satan. The literal translation of lucifer is “bringer of light”, and in Jerome’s time, was a proper word to represent Venus, the “morning star”. The phrase “shining one” from Young’s Literal Translation can easily be interpreted from Hebrew as “day star”, or “morning star”, and this is demonstrated in many more recent and scholarly translations of the Bible. Jerome correctly used lucifer as a simple word relevant to his language at the time, not a name to specify a particular individual. Relying heavily on the Latin Vulgate, the translators of the KJV saw fit to give lucifer a proper casing and thus began a cycle of confusion that has lead into what we know today as Satan’s mythology.
We can see now that much of what is believed of Satan is riddled with assumptions and misinterpretations. It is strange that the “word of God” could be twisted into such a different tale. Perhaps that is part of the inspiration behind a segment of Dr. Young’s preface to his literal translation of the Bible: (emphasis by author) “THE WORD OF GOD IS MADE VOID BY THE TRADITIONS OF MEN.”
Without an imaginary supernatural evil, the true adversary of God can be seen for the first time. For once, the cause of all God’s disappointment, anger, and fervor becomes clear. The primary source for all evil and sin, God’s satan, has always been man himself. We can now see that there was no Satan to influence Adam and Eve, Cain, Ramses, or countless other tragic characters of the Bible. The Bible has never been an account of Satan’s defiance of God, but rather man’s failure to Him.
Works Cited
American Heritage. Dictionary of the English Language Online. 4th ed. 2000. <http://www.bartleby.com/am/>
De Angelis, Frank T. The Polytheism of the Bible and the Mystery of Lucifer. San Diego: Spartacus-Tribune Publications, 1997.
Lawall, Sarah, et al. The Norton Anthology of Western Literature. 8th ed. New York: Norton, 2006.
Oxford University Press. Oxford Reference Online Premium. 4 November 2007. <Alabama Virtual Library>
Pagels, Elaine. The Origin of Satan. New York: Random, 1995.
Puliju, Timothy. History of Latin. 5 November 2007. <http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~kemmer/Words04/structure/latin.html>
Strong, James. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible with Greek and Hebrew Dictionary. Mt. Juliet, TN: Crusade Bible Publishers, 1980.
Young, Robert. Young’s Literal Translation of the Holy Bible. 3rd ed. January 1898. 4 November 2007. <http://www.ccel.org/bible/ylt/ylt.htm>
