SPECIAL TOPIC: PERSONAL EVIL

SPECIAL TOPIC: PERSONAL EVIL

I. SATAN IS A VERY DIFFICULT SUBJECT

A. The OT does not reveal an arch enemy to good (God), but a
servant of YHWH who offers mankind an alternative and accuses mankind of
unrighteousness (A. B. Davidson, A Theology of the OT, pp. 300-306).

B. The concept of a personal arch enemy of God developed in
inter-biblical (non-canonical) literature under the influence of Persian
religion (Zoroastrianism). This, in turn, greatly influenced rabbinical Judaism
(i.e., Israel’s exile in Babylon, Persia).

C. The NT develops the OT themes in surprisingly stark, but
selective, categories.

If one approaches the study of evil from the
perspective of biblical theology (each book or author or genre studied and
outlined separately) then very different views of evil are revealed.

If, however, one approaches the study of evil from a
non-biblical or extra-biblical approach of world religions or eastern religions
then much of the NT development is foreshadowed in Persian dualism and
Greco-Roman spiritism.

If one is presuppositionally committed to the divine
authority of Scripture (as I am!), then the NT development must be seen as progressive
revelation. Christians must guard against allowing Jewish folklore or English
literature (i.e., Dante, Milton) to further clarify the concept. There is
certainly mystery and ambiguity in this area of revelation. God has chosen not
to reveal all aspects of evil, its origin (see Special Topic: Lucifer), its purpose, but He has revealed its
defeat!

II. SATAN IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

In the OT the term “Satan” (BDB 966, KB 1317) or “accuser” seems to
relate to three separate groups.

A. human accusers (1 Sam. 29:4; 2 Sam. 19:22; 1 Kgs. 5:4,
11:14,23,25; Ps. 109:6,20,29)

B. angelic accusers (Num. 22:22-23; Zech. 3:1)

1. the Angel of the Lord – Num. 22:22-23

2. Satan – 1 Chr. 21:1; Job 1-2; Zech. 3:1

C. demonic(possibly Satan) accusers (1 Kgs. 22:21; Zech.
13:2)

Only later in the intertestamental period is the
serpent of Genesis 3 identified with Satan (cf. Book of Wisdom 2:23-24; II Enoch
31:3), and even later does this become a rabbinical option (cf. Sot 9b and Sanh.
29a). The “sons of God” of Genesis 6 become the evil angels in I Enoch 54:6. They become the origin of evil in rabbinical theology. I mention this, not to
assert its theological accuracy, but to show its development. In the NT these OT
activities are attributed to angelic, personified evil (i.e., Satan) in 2 Cor.
11:3; Rev. 12:9.

The origin of personified evil is difficult or
impossible (depending on your point of view) to determine from the OT. One
reason for this is Israel’s strong monotheism (cf. Deut. 6:4-6; 1 Kgs. 22:20-22; Eccl. 7:14;
Isa. 45:7; Amos 3:6). All causality was attributed to YHWH to demonstrate His
uniqueness and primacy (cf. Isa. 43:11; 44:6,8,24; 45:5-6,14,18,21,22).

Sources of possible information are (1) Job 1-2, where
Satan is one of the “sons of God” (i.e., angels) or (2) Isaiah 14; Ezekiel 28,
where prideful near eastern kings (Babylon and Tyre) are used to illustrate the
pride of Satan (cf. 1 Tim. 3:6). I have mixed emotions about this approach.
Ezekiel uses Garden of Eden metaphors not only of the king of Tyre as Satan (cf.
Ezek. 28:12-16), but also for the king of Egypt as the Tree of the Knowledge of
Good and Evil (Ezekiel 31). However, Isaiah 14, particularly vv. 12-14, seems to
describe an angelic revolt through pride. If God wanted to reveal to us the
specific nature and origin of Satan this is a very oblique way and place to do
it (see Special Topic: Lucifer). We must guard against the trend of systematic theology of taking small,
ambiguous parts of different testaments, authors, books, and genres and
combining them as pieces of one divine puzzle.

III. SATAN IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

Alfred Edersheim (The Life and Times of Jesus the
Messiah, vol. 2, appendices XIII [pp. 748-763] and XVI [pp. 770-776]) says that
rabbinical Judaism has been overly influenced by Persian dualism and demonic
speculation. The rabbis are not a good source for truth in this area. Jesus
radically diverges from the teachings of the Synagogue. I think that the
rabbinical concept of angelic mediation (cf. Acts 7:53) and opposition in the giving of the law
to Moses on Mt. Sinai opened the door to the concept of an arch-angelic enemy of
YHWH as well as mankind. There were two high gods of Iranian dualism (Zoroastrianism).

1. Ahura Mazda, later called
Ohrmazd,
who was the creator god, the good god

2. Angra Mainyu, later called
Ahriman, the destroying spirit, the evil god

They battle for supremacy with the earth as the
battleground. This dualism developed into a Judaic limited dualism of YHWH
and Satan.

There is surely progressive revelation in the NT as to
the development of evil, but not as elaborate as the rabbis claim. A good
example of this difference is the “war in heaven.” The fall of Satan (Devil) is a
logical necessity, but the specifics are not given (see Special Topic: The Fall
of Satan and His Angels). Even what is given is veiled
in apocalyptic genre (cf. Rev. 12:4,7,12-13). Although Satan (Devil) is defeated
and exiled to earth, he still functions as a servant of YHWH (cf. Matt. 4:1;
Luke 22:31-32; 1 Cor. 5:5; 1 Tim. 1:20).

We must curb our curiosity in this area. There is a personal force of temptation
and evil, but there is still only one God and mankind is still responsible for
his/her choices. There is a spiritual battle, both before and after salvation. Victory can only come and remain in and through the Triune God. Evil has been
defeated and will be removed (cf. Rev. 20:10)!