Embedded Files
The Ancient Serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan (Part 1)
The Historical-Biblical Dismantling of the Legalistic System
Writer: Evangelos Dim. Kepenes (August 6, 2026, 12:50)
In Revelation 12:9, one of the most striking scenes in biblical literature is recorded: “And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.”
Traditional dogmatic interpretation almost exclusively favors a cosmological or metaphysical battle, resulting in the fall of an organized rebellion of spiritual angelic beings vying for celestial dominance. This interpretation lacks biblical support and closely resembles theogonic myths regarding conflicts of metaphysical entities over the conquest of the heavenly throne.
However, a closer, “mathematical” examination of biblical symbols and Pauline theology reveals a radical historical-biblical reality: the fall of the Dragon is not an abstract heavenly conflict, but the definitive abolition of the Jewish ritualistic system of "condemnation" and the "ministry of death" of the Law.
The Mathematical Equation of the Fall
If we analyze the terms based on the internal logic of the Scriptures, a clear sequence emerges based on the singular "was cast out":
Dragon = Serpent = Devil = Satan = Accuser = Law
The text of Revelation in chapter 12 explicitly gives the primary equivalences.
Dragon = Serpent = Devil = Satan
The Hebrew Word ‘Satan’ (שָׂטָן)
In Hebrew, the word is a common noun meaning "opponent," "accuser," or "adversary," often in a judicial context. When the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Greek (the Septuagint), the term satan was rendered most of the time by the Greek word diabolos (from the verb diaballō), denoting the slanderer, the one who accuses or divides.
In the oldest books of the Old Testament, the word appears without the definite article. It functions as a common noun or verb and describes a role that anyone (human or angel) can assume.
A terrestrial political or military opponent: “And the Lord stirred up an adversary [satan] unto Solomon, Hadad the Edomite” (1 Kings 11:14, LXX). Here, the Septuagint transcribes the Hebrew word satan to describe a human, historical enemy of King Solomon.
A bad advisor or opponent: “What have I to do with you, ye sons of Zeruiah, that ye should this day be adversaries [eis epivoulon] unto me?” (2 Samuel 19:22, LXX). In the Hebrew text, David uses the word satan (le-satan) to characterize his advisors as adversaries, a word the Septuagint rendered as "adversary" (epivoulon).
The Angel of the Lord: In Numbers 22:22, the Angel of God himself stands before Balaam “לְשָׂטָן לוֹ” (le-satan lo), that is, "as his adversary," to block his way “endiavallein auton” according to the Septuagint. Here, the "satan" executes the will of God and is the good actor in the story.
In later Hebrew literature (the post-exilic period), the word diabolos appears to describe an action or condition not pleasing to God: “And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel” (1 Chronicles 21:1). In the Hebrew text, the corresponding word satan lacks a definite article, implying not a metaphysical entity, but an adversarial condition or an evil impulse that functioned as an adversary in the king's judgment. This usage becomes entirely clear in correspondence with the parallel, older verse of 2 Samuel 24:1, where the exact same impulse for the census is not attributed to an external factor, but to the pedagogical anger of the Lord.
For the purpose of this study, it is also necessary to refer to Esther 7:4, where the Hebrew text uses the word tsar (הַצָּר - ha-tzar), which means "enemy"/"adversary" and refers strictly to a human, earthly enemy (Haman) who plotted against her people. The Septuagint chose to render the term with the word diabolos: “for the adversary [ho diabolos] is not worthy of the king's court,” preferring an interpretive approach (in the sense of the great slanderer) rather than a literal translation of "enemy" from the Hebrew text.
Other Uses of the Term Satan in the Old Testament: Job 1:6
In stark contrast to the use of the word without an article, the book of Job (ch. 1–2) introduces the term with the consistent addition of the definite article. In Job 1:6, the Hebrew phrase “הַשָּׂטָן” (Ha-Satan) is rendered in Greek by the Septuagint as “ὁ διάβολος” (the devil), while the Hebrew “sons of God” (Bene Ha-Elohim) are translated interpretively as “ἄγγελοι τοῦ Θεοῦ” (angels of God).
To understand this development, one must examine how the Hebrews originally understood the term Bene Ha-Elohim in their authentic thought, as well as how it underwent historical mutation:
The Judicial and Political Version (The Sons of the Rulers/Judges): In the Hebrew language, the word Elohim was often used to denote earthly rulers, powerful sovereigns, or judges, as explicitly seen in Psalm 82:6 (“I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the Most High”). Under this lens, the earliest rabbinic tradition understood the term as "sons of the rulers," describing the ruling religious and political establishment of the era.
The National Version (Fleshly Israel / The Generation of Seth): The Hebrews understood sonship in a collective, national character, as children of Abraham belonging to the elect, religious generation of Seth (in contrast to the materialistic generation of Cain).
The Late Metaphysical Version (Intertestamental Period): During the Second Temple period (3rd–1st century BCE), when Jewish apocalyptic literature began to be influenced by exogenous Persian and Hellenistic dualism, the term began to break free from its earthly roots. In the apocryphal and pseudepigraphal books of the period (such as the Book of Enoch and Jubilees), the Septuagint and their contemporaries began to re-interpret the Bene Ha-Elohim as supernatural angelic beings, the so-called "Watchers" (Εγρήγοροι), who supposedly rebelled against God.
Therefore, when the Septuagint translated the term in Job as “ἄγγελοι τοῦ Θεοῦ” (angels of God), they did so to adapt the text to the terminology of their time and to avoid any idolatrous connotations among Greek readers regarding "natural sons of God." This trend of homogenization and interpretive shift on the part of the Septuagint is vividly confirmed a little further down, in Job 5:1. There, the Greek translation states: “Call now, if there be any that will answer thee; and to which of the holy angels wilt thou turn?” However, the use of the word “ἀγγέλων” (angels) lacks word-for-word support from the Hebrew text, which uses the term “קְדֹשִׁים” (kedoshim), meaning "holy ones" (or "set apart / dedicated ones"). This continuous translational practice, although aimed at safeguarding monotheism, functioned as the foundation upon which later human tradition built an abstract, metaphysical apostasy of angels.
In reality, the Hebrew syntactic structure with the definite article (הַשָּׂטָן / Ha-Satan) proves that the term does not function as a proper name of an autonomous metaphysical entity, but as a title of a specific capacity: that of the "Accuser" or "Adversary." This term does not describe an independent ruler of evil at war with God, but a reasoning of questioning Job's self-determination and integrity, which moves exclusively within the judicial framework of divine sovereignty, executing the duties of an inspector-prosecutor. It acts strictly and solely within the boundaries and permissions granted by God Himself, with the text thus revealing the primal root of the accusatory mindset—a mindset that was later appropriated and institutionalized by the human legalistic establishment.
A deeper analysis of the thought in Job 1:6 reveals that this heavenly scene constitutes a projection of earthly religious reality, stripped of all dualistic mythology. In the prophetic conception, the earthly worship, prayer, and mourning of the people were not understood as isolated human events, but were accounted as actions performed in direct, organic connection with the heavenly sanctuary.
After all, the earthly worship structure was later revealed to be the exact image and shadow of the heavenly pattern, as confirmed by the Epistle to the Hebrews 8:5 (“who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things”), based on God's command to Moses on Mount Sinai (Exodus 25:40). Flavius Josephus also historically underlines this cosmological dimension of the Temple (Jewish Antiquities, 3.7.7), explaining that its architectural structure constituted a miniature of the universe, where the Holy of Holies represented the inaccessible heaven and the outer courtyard represented earthly reality.
This complete mutual indwelling of the earthly and heavenly realms, where every spiritual event on earth is directly reflected in the heavenly sphere, is clearly formulated by Christ Himself. He proclaims that “joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth” (Luke 15:7), while at the same time, decrying the hypocritical distinctions of retributive legalism, He highlights the organic unity of the two worlds, emphasizing: “and he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon” (Matthew 23:22). Under this light, the "heavenly court" in Job does not introduce a metaphysical mythology, but vividly depicts the earthly worship assembly of the people through specific elements:
Day of Worship Assembly: The phrase “and there was a day” (καὶ ὡς ἐγένετο ἡ ἡμέρα αὕτη, LXX) refers to a specific, appointed day of assembly of the people for worship and the offering of sacrifices.
Voluntary Attendance: The "sons of God" present themselves voluntarily (“ἦλθον”), without any divine command or coercion, for the sole purpose of prayer, doxology, spiritual communion, and “to present themselves before the Lord.”
Old Testament Adoption: In prophetic literature, the term "sons of God" describes fleshly Israel as a nation (cf. Isaiah 1:2: “I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against me”). This concerns the national election of the children of Abraham—the spiritual "stars" who, when they fell from selfless faith, slipped into an external, sterile legalism, which Christ later decried in the person of the hypocrites of His time (Matthew 23:15).
Job's Accuser as the Forerunner of Retributive Legalism
Within this assembly, Satan (the Accuser) represents the ritualistic spirit of the retributive Law of condemnation. According to this retributive understanding, divine blessing and wealth constitute the automatic product of strict adherence to a system of reward and punishment. Job, however, fundamentally overthrows this dogma: he possesses vast wealth while maintaining an integrity based on authentic knowledge of God (theognosia), selfless love, and respect toward God, being entirely independent of any legalistic establishment or religious system.
The Accuser is unable to accept that Job can be righteous without being trapped in a transactional system of "law and reward." According to this primal retributive legalism—which would later form the core of the Pharisaic mindset—wealth and blessing are regarded as the automatic result of a formal, transactional piety.
Based on this logic, anyone outside this retributive system is automatically considered "cursed" or a "sinner," while poverty and illness are taken, in the absence of other proof, as divine punishment—a conception that later permeated the religious establishment, reaching down to the days of the New Testament (as expressed in the disciples' question regarding the blind man: “Who sinned, this man or his parents?” [John 9:2]).
Thus, the Accuser asks ironically: “Doth Job fear God for nought?” (Job 1:9). This "for nought" (dōrean / gratuitous) piety triggers the Accuser's immediate reaction, who seeks Job's trial in order to defend the system of retributive condemnation. If Satan proves that Job remains faithful only because of his wealth, then the system of Condemnation triumphs on two levels:
Man is condemned: Human nature is proven to be entirely self-serving and incapable of selfless love.
God is (indirectly) condemned: The Creator is proven unable to inspire true love in His creatures, except when He "buys them off" with material goods.
The Absence of Autonomous Metaphysical Power
This total dependence of the Accuser upon absolute divine sovereignty is vividly demonstrated by the manner in which the plagues manifest in the story. In the first trial, the loss of Job's children and possessions is not caused by some supernatural demonic action, but by earthly historical events and extreme weather phenomena: the raid of the Sabeans and Chaldeans, the fire, and the severe wind of the desert—all of which the Lord permitted (Job 1:15–19).
Moreover, when the trial extends to his personal health, the Accuser himself acknowledges his complete lack of innate power, saying to God: “but put forth thine hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh” (Job 2:5). Even when the Lord grants judicial permission for the trial, saying: “behold, he is in thine hand” (Job 2:6), and the devil goes out from His presence so that Job's affliction manifests with sores (“so went Satan forth from the presence of the Lord, and smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his foot unto his crown,” Job 2:7, LXX), the interpretation of the text remains clear: the temporal sequence of the two verbs (“went forth... and smote”) determines exclusively the time of the event's manifestation in the earthly realm, not the devil as the primary or autonomous cause of the plague. The verb smote (epaisen) describes the very event of the calamity, which comes to pass as a direct consequence of divine authorization, with the Accuser lacking executive power of his own and functioning strictly as a proposer and mediator of a bounded divine concession.
This absolute sovereignty of God as the sole primary cause is explicitly confirmed by the Lord Himself in Job 2:3, where, addressing the Accuser, He proclaims: “although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause” (LXX: “thou saidst to destroy his possessions without cause”). This stance is decisively sealed by Job's own reaction in Job 2:10. Refusing to attribute authorship to the Accuser, he proclaims: “shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?” For authentic biblical knowledge of God, both blessing and calamity fall under the unified sovereignty of the one God, who remains the sole controller and authorizer of human trial, permanently overturning every dualistic concept.
The Earthly Accuser: The Family Context and Job's Wife
The dismantling of metaphysical dualism in the book of Job is completed through the realistic portrayal of his family environment. According to the narrative, his family does not appear to have shared his godly life, but followed a purely worldly line, far removed from their father's true knowledge of God.
This spiritual distance of his children is vividly documented in Job 1:4–5, which describes their continuous cyclical (from house to house) engagement in "feasts," at the conclusion of which Job was forced to purify them: “and it was so, when the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job sent and sanctified them.” The reference to the "days of feasting" (drinking parties) and Job's need to "send" himself to purify them proves that his children possessed no autonomous impulse for worship, but were immersed in an egocentric, worldly way of life. Job was anxious and, rising up early in the morning, offered sacrifices to cover their spiritual apathy, lest “in their minds they have thought evil against God.”
This worldly mindset is reflected with even greater intensity in the person of his wife. After the loss of their children and possessions, Job's wife appears desperate, laboring alone, with no mention anywhere of her calling upon the Lord for help or for her husband's healing. On the contrary, her infamous advice in Job 2:9, “say a word against the Lord, and die” (LXX), aligns perfectly with the intention and goal of the "Accuser," who in verse 1:11 had claimed that Job would curse God to His face.
Under the lens of the mutual indwelling of the earthly and heavenly realms, the dialogue between God and "Ha-Satan" (the Adversary) can be seen as the inner, spiritual depiction of Job's own wife (or his dissenting environment). While Job prays and worships, his wife—as the immediate, earthly adversary—muses with unbelief, regarding her husband's piety as self-serving, stemming solely from his wealth. Being the only one spared from the disasters, she functions as the living temptation, seeking to push Job into blasphemy in order to satisfy her own unbelief and justify her rejection of her husband's God. Consequently, the "devil/accuser" in the book of Job does not constitute an unearthly entity, but is embodied in man's immediate, fleshly, and dissenting environment, which "lusteth against the Spirit" and is unable to comprehend selfless knowledge of God and godliness.
This biblical reality finds its correspondence in modern daily family life as well. In cases of spiritual discord—such as when one spouse walks guided by faith and the other leads a worldly life or holds a different mindset—the non-believing partner often tends, consciously or unconsciously, to assume the role of the "adversary." Through continuous criticism, mockery, or questioning of the believer's motives, this environment practically functions as an "accuser," often supported by external factors as well. It seeks to present faith as self-serving or hypocritical, trapping the relationship in a soul-wearing state of daily adversity, with severe consequences for individual spiritual freedom and integrity, as well as family peace.
This concludes the first part of the study.
---------------------------------
Google Sites
Report abuse