The Great Dragon, the Ancient Serpent, the one Called Devil and Satan (Part II) 

The Great Dragon, the Ancient Serpent, the one Called Devil and Satan (Part II)

Writer: Evangelos Dim. Kepenes (August 26, 2026, 14:53)

The Historico-Biblical Dismantling of the Legalistic System

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.”

In the First Part of this study, we analyzed how the term 'satan' in the Old Testament did not describe a metaphysical being, but rather a functional role of a human or an angel: the accuser or the adversary within a legal framework. In this Second Part, we shift our focus to the New Testament. Here, the Greek rendering 'diabolos' and the imagery of the 'ancient serpent' definitively break away from cosmological ditheistic myths and acquire a concrete, institutional form: that of the condemnatory Jewish legalistic system, which was abolished by the vindicating grace through Jesus Christ.

"The use of the terms 'diabolos' or 'satan' in the sense of the 'accuser' or the 'adversary' is preserved intact in the New Testament as well:

First: Application to Humans

1. To someone who subverts the divine will:

'But he turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man"' (Matt. 16:23). Jesus uses the term 'satan' for the Apostle Peter because his human reasoning, his mindset, functioned as an obstacle and an adversary to the divine plan.

2. To an schemer or a traitor:

'and yet one of you is a devil?' (John 6:70). Jesus refers to Judas Iscariot as a 'devil', in the literal sense of a schemer and a future traitor within the circle of the disciples. Luke’s reference moves within this exact same context of evil reasoning: 'Then Satan entered into Judas called Iscariot' (Luke 22:3).

In the language and literature of that era, this phrase did not denote a metaphysical possession by an invisible being, but rather the dominance of an evil reasoning. Biblical literature itself provides us with the key to this terminology slightly earlier, when describing the internal ambition and jealousy of the disciples: 'An internal reasoning entered within them, as to which of them might be the greatest' (Luke 9:46).[1] The 'entry of satan', therefore, is nothing other than the 'entry of an evil reasoning' of man's deceitful heart (Luke 9:47, Gen. 6:5, and Jer. 17:9), which ultimately turns against his own self: 'Is it me they provoke? says the Lord. Is it not themselves, to the confusion of their own faces?' (Jer. 7:19).

This very same linguistic pattern persists into modernity. Even today, in our everyday language, we use the exact same figure of speech: when referring to someone with a cunning mind, we characteristically say that 'he has the devil inside him' or that he is a 'diavolou kaltsa' (literally 'the devil’s sock'—a medieval superstition according to which putting newborns' feet into black socks would make them smart and lucky), without anyone implying a literal, metaphysical possession.

[1] Note on Luke 9:46: Standard English versions (e.g., ESV, NIV) typically render this verse as 'an argument arose among them,' translating the phrase 'en autois' as 'among them.' However, this obscures the precise psychological and linguistic reality of the Greek text: «Εἰσῆλθεν δὲ διαλογισμὸς ἐν αὐτοῖς, τὸ τίς ἂν εἴη μείζων αὐτῶν». According to Strong's Concordance, the verse employs the following terms: eiselthen (G1525), meaning 'entered into'; dialogismos (G1261), meaning 'inward reasoning' or 'thought'; en (G1722), which fundamentally denotes a position inside or within; and autois (G846), meaning 'themselves'. Therefore, the phrase literally means 'an inward reasoning entered within them' (in their hearts/minds). This creates an undeniable linguistic parallel with Luke 22:3, where the same verb is used: 'Satan entered (eiselthen, G1525) into Judas.' The text does not describe an external social dispute, but an internal cognitive intrusion.

3. To slanderers and detractors:

‘Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers (Grtx: μὴ διαβόλους, Strong's G1228) ...' (Titus 2:3; see also 2 Tim. 3:3). Here, the term is used in the plural to describe human beings who engage in slanderous behavior (diaboloi).

4. To instigators of stumbling blocks and law-breakers:

'The field is the world, and the good seed is the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, and the enemy who sowed them is the devil ...' (Matt. 13:38-39).

Jesus himself interprets this metaphor slightly further down: the 'sons of the evil one' and the works of the 'devil' are nothing other than 'all causes of sin and all law-breakers' (Matt. 13:41). Concurrently, Matthew (13:28) explicitly identifies the concept of the devil with that of a wicked human being: 'A human enemy has done this' ('echthros anthropos touto epoiēsen').[2] This stands in absolute harmony with Psalm 36:1 (LXX): 'Fret not yourself because of evildoers; be not envious of wrongdoers.'

The description of the 'sons of the evil one' culminates in the well-known verse: 'You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires ...' (John 8:44). Here, logic and biblical anthropology are unyielding: a purely spiritual, immaterial being does not possess a biological nature capable of producing fleshly desires. The desires attributed to the 'father devil' stem exclusively from the darkened mind of earthly man, the ignorance that encompasses him, and the hardness of his heart (Eph. 4:18, Mark 4:19, 1 Pet. 4:3). Thus, the true source of wickedness is man's own 'evil heart' (Heb. 3:12, Mark 7:23).

For this reason, Jesus, coming into direct conflict with his adversaries who originated from the legalistic Jewish system, characterizes his contemporary Judean generation as 'evil and adulterous' due to its fallen, worldly mindset (Matt. 12:39)."

[2] Note on Matthew 13:28: Standard English versions (e.g., KJV, ESV, NIV, NASB) consistently obscure a foundational anthropological detail in this verse by translating the phrase 'echthros anthropos' simply as 'an enemy.' This omission completely hides the explicit human identity of the adversary. According to Strong's Concordance, the text employs two distinct nouns: echthros (G2190), meaning 'enemy' or 'adversary', and anthropos (G444), which literally means 'a human being' or 'man'. By utilizing 'anthropos' as a direct modifier, the original Greek text explicitly emphasizes that the perpetrator is a human adversary, not a metaphysical entity. The literal rendering is 'a human enemy has done this' or 'an enemy who is a man has done this,' which perfectly aligns with the non-metaphysical, institutional interpretation of the devil explored in this study.

Second: Application to Institutional Executive Bodies in the Historical Reality of the Early Church

The term 'diabolos' or 'adversary' is used to characterize the collective Jewish system of the Law of condemnation and death, which manifested through organized persecutions against those holding the confession of Christ.

The Apostle Peter warns: 'Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour' (1 Pet. 5:8). The metaphor of the roaring lion does not refer to metaphysical beings; rather, it constitutes a classic Old Testament description of unjust and bloodthirsty rulers, false prophets, and judges who devour the people (cf. Ezek. 22:25-27, Zeph. 3:3, Prov. 28:15-16).

The practical and institutional application of this persecutory system is clearly reflected in the background of the Apostle Paul. He himself confesses that, acting as an executive organ of this religious jurisdiction, he received official letters from the chief priests to pursue, arrest, and 'bring them bound to Jerusalem' whoever belonged to 'the Way' (Acts 9:1-2).

This hostility of the representatives of the legalistic system is vividly described by Paul, who emphasizes that the believers suffered 'the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out' (1 Thess. 2:14-15). The 'devil/accuser', therefore, has flesh and bones: it is the religious authority that opposes Grace, as the Apostle John explicitly recorded: 'Yet for fear of the Jews no one spoke openly of him' (John 7:13)."

However, because the Jewish priesthood lacked the Roman legal right of imprisonment or execution outside of Judea, they resorted to the method of slander and influencing local authorities, as historically recorded: 'But the Jews incited [...] the leading men of the city, and stirred up persecution against Paul' (Acts 13:50).

This historical context fully unlocks the famous passage of Revelation 2:10: 'Behold, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison.' In Smyrna, the term 'devil' is used in its strict institutional capacity as the accuser. It describes the collusion of the local Jews of the 'synagogue of Satan' (who slandered and defamed the Christians, see Rev. 2:9) with the Roman political authority, which was the only competent body authorized to impose imprisonment.

Consequently, the 'fall' of this devil, celebrated in the Book of Revelation, is not cosmological but institutional: 'the accuser of our brothers has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God' (Rev. 12:10). It signifies the definitive cessation of the Law's right to condemn and sentence man (Rom. 8:33), through Jesus—the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29)

The Evolution of the Concept of the Accuser (Satan): From Monotheism to Later Dualism

During the intertestamental period (3rd – 1st century BCE), Jewish apocalyptic literature (pseudepigraphal books such as Enoch and Jubilees) gradually began to be influenced by Platonic dualism and Persian ditheism—that is, the cosmological struggle between absolute good and absolute evil. Through this process, the word 'satan' was transformed from a common noun (describing a functional role) into a proper noun, in order to personify an autonomous power of evil.

This evolution, clearly influenced by exogenous philosophical and religious currents of the era, was entirely foreign to authentic Hebrew thought. Prophetic literature maintained a strict and radical monotheism. In this traditional biblical perspective, even calamities were under the absolute sovereignty of the one God, as categorically stated in Isaiah (45:7): 'I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity' [Gr. LXX: κακά, Strong's G2556; Heb: רַע (ra'), Strong's H7451].

At this point, it must be emphasized that this specific prophetic reference is addressed by name to Cyrus, the King of Persia (Isa. 45:1). The text's objective was to directly refute the Zoroastrian doctrine of ditheism (the struggle between the god of light, Ormuzd, and the god of darkness, Ahriman) that dominated the Persian Empire. In this authentic biblical theology, there was no room for an autonomous 'ruler of evil' opposing God, as the Lord is presented as the sole, exclusive, and absolute sovereign of history.

This perspective is further illuminated by the terminology of the two Testaments. In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word for evil (ra – רַע), within the context of divine sovereignty, does not denote moral or metaphysical evil, but rather earthly calamity, affliction, and pedagogical trial. This is vividly confirmed in the prophet Amos: 'Is a calamity [Gr. kakia] in a city, which the Lord has not done?' (Amos 3:6), where the word 'calamity' signifies the result of divine pedagogy and not the action of a diabolical entity.

Temptation as a Divinely Controlled Trial rather than a Metaphysical Operation of an Evil Entity

In perfect alignment with the Old Testament monotheistic perspective, the New Testament employs the word 'temptation' [Gr. peirasmos] in its original etymological sense: the testing of faith according to human endurance (derived from peira, meaning experience or trial).

As vividly demonstrated in the case of Jesus' temptations, where He is led into the wilderness 'by the Spirit' (Matt. 4:1), the trial does not constitute an autonomous action of a cosmic ruler of darkness. On the contrary, it represents a completely controlled process under the divine plan, so that He might become a 'merciful and faithful high priest' (Heb. 2:17).

Through the experience of human temptations—which stem from the 'love of the world' and its core components: the desire of the flesh, the desire of the eyes, and the pride of life (cf. 1 John 2:15-16)—the heavenly man, Jesus Christ, proves capable of sympathizing with the weaknesses of earthly humans, having been tested 'in every respect as we are, yet without sin' (Heb. 4:15).

(For a detailed and in-depth approach to this seminal biblical narrative, you may read our article: 'The Human Temptation of the Mortal Man and its Experience by the Heavenly Man Jesus').

This absolute divine sovereignty over trials is categorically reaffirmed by the Apostle Paul, who assures believers that 'no temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man' and that God 'will not let you be tempted beyond your ability' (1 Cor. 10:13).

This absolute divine sovereignty over trials is categorically reaffirmed by the Apostle Paul, who assures believers that 'no temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man' and that God 'will not let you be tempted beyond your ability' (1 Cor. 10:13).

Paul strips temptation of any metaphysical operation by an evil entity, strictly characterizing it as 'human' [common to man / earthly] and establishing God as the sole regulator of its limits and outcome. Within this exact same context, the Apostle James definitively shifts the source of temptation from the metaphysical to the internal realm, emphasizing that 'each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire' (James 1:14).

Consequently, both the 'devil'/accuser and 'temptation' in biblical literature are stripped of the subsequent mythological and ditheistic additions of the intertestamental period. They thus return to their realistic, historical dimensions:

• The earthly enemy: Like the 'human enemy' (echthros anthropos) in Matt. 13:28, who is explicitly identified with the concept of the 'devil' in the interpretation of Matt. 13:39.

• The Jewish institutional system of condemnation: The hierarchical and legalistic authority that persecutes Grace.

• The internal moral trial: The evil reasoning and the desire of man's own heart.

The Accuser and Pauline Theology: The Law as an Instrument of Condemnation and Accusation

The Apostle Paul calls the ministry of the Law the 'ministry of condemnation' and the 'ministry of death, carved in letters' (2 Cor. 3:7-9), since the Law exposes sin and renders humanity accountable before God: 'so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God' (Rom. 3:19).

In the Epistle to the Colossians (2:14-15), it is stated that Christ erased 'the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.' The 'record of debt'—that is, the legal requirement, the decrees, and the indictment of the Law—was that which stood as the permanent 'adversary,' the accuser of man.

Paul encapsulates this total abolition of the legal indictment uniquely in the Epistle to the Ephesians, emphasizing the manner in which Christ brought peace: 'by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances' (Eph. 2:15).

The Testimony of Jesus regarding the Law as an Accuser

In the Gospel of John (5:45), Christ himself reveals to the legalists of his time: 'Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope.' Here, the Law (personified by Moses) is functionally identified with absolute clarity with the very concept of the Accuser.

(Within this exact same interpretive framework regarding the institutional dispute over the 'body' of Moses, you may read our detailed study: 'The Dispute over the Body of Moses: From the Law of Condemnation to the Liberation of Christ')."

The Power of Death and Institutional 'Abolition'

This functional identification sheds a staggering light upon the passage in the Epistle to the Hebrews (2:14): ‘Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself in a nearly similar manner (Gr: παραπλησίως, Strong's G3898 - 'in a manner near by, similarly') partook of the same things, that through death he might deprive of power (Gr: καταργήσῃ, Strong's G2673; Anderson) the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil’.

The 'power' (the force and authority) that death held was not an autonomous metaphysical power, but rather the Law itself as the 'ministry of death.'

As Paul very aptly notes: 'The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law' (1 Cor. 15:56). Therefore, by abolishing the legal indictment, Christ practically abolishes the 'devil' (the accuser), removing the legal basis which condemned the transgressor of the ordinances.

This victory leaves no remnant of guilt, as it is sealed by the complete eradication of Death (estrangement from God) and corruption: 'and which now has been manifested [the purpose and grace of God] through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel' (2 Tim. 1:10).

In the Book of Revelation (12:10), the final outcome of this institutional subversion is added: 'the accuser of our brothers has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God.'

Who Was 'Thrown Down'?

The answer to the question of who was 'thrown down' is now indisputable: The Law as an indictment fell, and along with it, its institutional functionaries fell as well. The entire old, unprofitable religious and ritualistic establishment that held humanity captive to guilt was abolished.

In its place, a better (kreitton) hope is introduced—Christ—through whom we truly draw near to God:

'For on the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness (for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God' (Heb. 7:18-19).

Consequently, the side of the equation supported by the letter of Scripture (Rev. 12:9) is radically extended and completed through Pauline theology:

The Great Dragon = The Ancient Serpent = The One Called Devil and Satan = The Accuser = The Law of Condemnation"

To be continued…

In the Third and Final Part of our study, we transition from institutional abolition to the internal and psychological dissection of the Law. We examine how the 'serpent' of Genesis embodies the archetypal mechanism of the first commandment (Gen. 3:1), how the wicked human heart became trapped in the bondage of corruption, and how the total alienation of the system of the Law led to its ultimate idolatrous degradation, which was sealed by the very silver pieces of Christ's betrayal.

The 'fall of the Dragon' is prophetically symbolized by the bronze serpent in the wilderness raised by Moses (Num. 21:9) and is realized through the sacrificial crucifixion of Christ, who nailed the 'Serpent/Law' itself to the cross—that is, 'the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands' (Col. 2:14), leaving the Jewish legalistic system of condemnation definitively void of power.

                                                                                                     ----------------------------------------------------------

 << Back to Homepage