The topic of Satan or the Devil has generated more than a little acrimony (to use a mild word) in the Church. Several years ago I got into trouble (of the kind that can only happen in the Church world) with several high profile pastors and two General Church leaders by making the simple, and demonstrably factual, statement that there is no devil in the Old Testament, since there is no word "devil" in Hebrew.
Below is a very limited selection of those aspects. There are other factors to consider as well involving detailed exegesis of specific Old Testament texts, the Old testament cultural and historical milieu and its relationship to understanding biblical Hebrew, inter-testamental history, the development of Rabbinic biblical commentary in the Mishnah and Gemara (the Talmud), first century Jewish history, the culture of first century Rome, New Testament Greek and its cultural context, and careful exegesis of individual New Testament passages apart from a larger dogma, as well as the developing history of the early Church, medieval theology, the influence of medieval art and literature on theological ideas, and the influence of the Enlightenment, expressed in both rationalism and empiricism, on theological thinking. In other words, this is not a simple topic in which biblical verses from specific translations can be quoted to settle all questions (it's absolutely amazing to me how many people argue this topic without ever considering the original biblical languages and what the texts actually say).
Satan in the Old Testament
So, just some things to think about, limited to observations from Old Testament texts:
1. There is no devil in the Old Testament. There is no word in Hebrew that corresponds even remotely to what the idea of the devil means in modern religious culture. That is a fact of the Hebrew language, as well as valid statement concerning ancient Israelite culture.
2. There are no demons in the Old Testament. There is no word or group of words that correspond to the idea of demons in modern religious culture.
3. The Hebrew word
satan (pronounced sah-TAHN) cannot be directly equated to what the idea of the devil or Satan mean in the modern world, or even in first century Judaism.
4. The word
satan normally appears without a definite article in Hebrew. This does not imply a proper name or a title, only that the term is not specific, "an adversary." In other places, consistently in Job, the word has the definite article, the satan, which does implies a title or function,
the adversary, rather than a proper name. Since there are no capital letters in Hebrew, it is a translation decision to make a word a proper name (including words like God and Spirit; note that the word "god" is usually a plural form in Hebrew).
5. In all places in the Old Testament where the Hebrew word
satan is left in English translations as Satan, which implies a proper name and is generally capitalized in English, the word can be translated "adversary" or "the adversary" without any loss of meaning of the text.
6. All three texts in which
satan is translated as Satan are generally recognized to be late (post-exilic) Old Testament writings. This suggests that the
satan is a developed concept within Israelite religious culture, arising during the exile.
7. A further development of the concept of the
satan can be tracked within inter-testamental literature, as well as the Talmud.
Reflections on Scripture
There is a lot more to consider. However, here are some reflections that arise from these limited aspects.
Within the Old Testament, God was the only source of life and the arena in which humans existed. While the Israelites went through a process from polytheism through henotheism to monotheism, they maintained the belief that God was central. Many of the prophets argued that other gods are worthless and have no power to influence human existence. As such, God alone was responsible for human testing (Gen 22, Exod 16:4, Deut 8:2), an idea needing further clarification later (James 1:13).
Using the imagery of Ancient Near Eastern Kingship, I would suggest that the idea of the
satan as a servant of God made its way into Israelite thinking as a way to distance God from the testing, yet without introducing a second deity. That is the function of the Heavenly Council and Sons of God that appear in many places in the Old Testament.
The conceptual framework of Dualism, which understood the world in terms of opposing forces of good and evil, often in other contexts in terms of dueling deities, were a later development in Israelite thinking. This dualism was likely introduced as a conceptual model from Babylon during the exile, and reinforced by contact with Greek Platonism. By New Testament times Judaism tended to use dualistic constructs to express how they viewed the world. Yet, this manner of expression does not and should not be taken as some sort of ontology, how things really are.
From such a dualistic framework, there is little question that New Testament Jews talked about a Satan or Devil that was responsible for all sorts of evil in the world. That does not necessitate projecting ontology onto those means of expression, nor does it require us to think that first century Jews "believed in" the devil or Satan like many moderns insist on doing.
Is the Devil real? Absolutely! But that needs a lot more consideration and nuance than assuming that such a statement is pure ontology and therefore can be used as a filter through which to read every biblical text.
Reflections on Cultural Viewpoint in Ministry
All of this leads to further reflection, especially as related to ministry in an increasingly global Church. These are really more questions for consideration, with a final observation.
One major question emerges in this brief look at the
satan in the Old Testament: to what degree do we consider, or do we project, our own context onto what we consider reality or Truth? How does our location within a specific time and place influence what we assume to be true, how we process received traditions and new experiences, and how we talk to others about those things?
An axiom in scientific research is that the presence and location of an observer influences what is observed. That is, the observer is always a part of what is being observed. The same principle is considered in areas like psychology, sociology, and even linguistics, that context influences how we view the world as well as how we express experiences, ideas, and what we understand to be true. If that is valid for us, would it not also be valid for ancient Israelites and first century Christians? This leads us to consider the degree to which we allow for such context when we read Scripture, or how we respond to those with very specific assumptions about the nature of reality, or how we talk to others about God in a diverse milieu.
One of my more interesting, and highly valued, interactions with students was in a biblical seminar at a university in Nairobi, Kenya. The seminar was composed of students, most of whom were pastors, from diverse regions of Africa, from South Africa and Namibia to Kenya to Côte d’Ivoire. In the course of that seminar, they almost unanimously agreed that people in the West do not have a proper understanding of the spiritual forces of evil in the world. The students were very sincerely concerned that because of Western Christians' history of the Enlightenment they are at risk spiritually by neglecting attention to demonic power and the Devil. I have heard similar although less impassioned comments by students from Botswana and Swaziland.
In a different yet similar vein, I have worshipped with an almost 100% African American Gospel congregation in Washington, DC (my wife was a military chaplain). The language of power there is a dominant one, especially, given the American experience, power for deliverance and freedom. It is most often expressed as freedom from spiritual powers and the Devil. Historically, "devil" was often a term applied to white slave owners. I understood such language in that context and realized that it came from a particular cultural background and a particular historical experience.
To prompt theological and pastoral thinking I have often asked students what they would do if they were ministering in, for example, Haiti and were presented with a person possessed by demons. They usually concluded that it is not what one believes about the issue that is important, but rather that God can being healing through his presence and power no matter what label we give it.