Laato, Antti. "The Devil in the Old Testament." Evil and the Devil. Ed.

Erkki Koskenniemi and Ida

Fröhlich. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013. 1–22. The Library of New Testament Studies.
Bloomsbury Collections. Web. 7 Nov. 2018. <http://dx.doi.org/10.5040/9781472550408.ch-001>.

Downloaded from Bloomsbury Collections, www.bloomsburycollections.com, 7 November

2018, 05:36 UTC.

Access provided by: Christ University

Copyright © Ida Fröhlich and Erkki Koskenniemi 2013. All rights reserved. Further reproduction or
distribution is prohibited without prior permission in writing from the publishers.
 ­

Chapter 1

The Devil in the Old Testament1

Antti Laato

Introduction

One of the most difficult passages in the Old Testament is 2 Samuel 24. It
begins with a reference to the wrath of Yahweh: “Again the anger of Yahweh
burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, ‘Go and take
a census of Israel and Judah.’” David commanded Joab to enroll fighting men
but then it is said (v. 10): “David was conscience-stricken after he had counted
the fighting men, and he said to Yahweh, ‘I have sinned greatly in what I have
done. Now, O Yahweh, I beg you, take away the guilt of your servant. I have
done a very foolish thing.’” The account goes on to say that Yahweh sent a
plague upon Israel which killed many thousands. It is not easy to understand
the logic of this passage. Yahweh exhorted David to do wrong, but as result
David was conscience-stricken and punished for his sin.
Without attempting to solve this enigma in 2 Samuel 24 let us first consider
how the author of 1 Chronicles 21 modified the text. He begins by replacing
“the anger of Yahweh” with Satan’s initiative: “Satan rose up against Israel
and incited David to take a census of Israel.” It is important to note that it is
“the anger of Yahweh” and not Yahweh himself that is superseded by Satan in
the Chronicler’s account.2 A comparison of these two texts suggests that the

1 This article was completed in March 2010.

2 Cf., V. P. Hamilton, “Satan,” ABD 5 (1992), 985–989 (esp. 987): “The second issue focuses
on the question of why the account in 2 Samuel 24 attributes the stimulus for David’s census to Yahweh
(2 Sam. 24:1), while the Chronicler attaches blame to a śātān/Satan.” A similar problem consists in
Fabry’s characterization of 1 Chronicles 21 and 2 Samuel 24: “Jhwh und Satan sind offensichtlich
austauschbar geworden.” H.-J. Fabry, “‘Satan’—Begriff und Wirklichkeit: Untersuchungen zur
Dämonologie der alttestamentlichen Weisheitsliteratur,” in A. Lange, H. Lichtenberger, and D.
Römheld (eds.), Die Dämonen: Die Dämonologie der israelitisch-jüdischen und frühchristlichen
Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt [Demons: The Demonology of Israelite-Jewish and Early Christian
Literature in Context of their Environment] (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 269–291, esp. 286. The
following characterization, too, is vague: “Why does the author (or authors) of Chronicles change the
instigator of the census from God to Satan?” in T. J. Wray and G. Mobley, The Birth of Satan: Tracing
the Devil’s Biblical Roots (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005), 67. The subject in 2 Samuel 24 is
“the anger of Yahweh,” which is open to different understandings such as, for example, that a certain
celestial being who was under Yahweh’s control acted, not Yahweh himself.
2 Evil and the Devil

Chronicler interpreted “the anger of Yahweh” as personal power and identified

it with Satan:

2 Sam. 24.1:
‫יהודה‬-‫ישראל ואת‬-‫דוד בהם לאמר לך מנה את‬-‫יהוה לחרות בישראל ויסת את‬-‫ויסף אף‬
1 Chron. 21.1:
‫ישראל‬-‫דויד למנות את‬-‫ישראל ויסת את‬-‫ויעמד שטן על‬

The Chronicler’s reading of 2 Sam. 24.1 is corroborated by Num. 22.22 where

“the anger of God” and Satan (śātān) are linked:

Num. 22.22:
‫אתנו ושני נעריו עמו‬-‫הולך הוא ויתיצב מלאך יהוה בדרך לשטן לו והוא רכב על‬-‫אף אלהים כי‬-‫ויחר‬
But the anger of God burned when he went, and the angel of Yahweh stood in the
road for Satan [an adversary] against him.

According to Num. 22.22 the anger of God so burned against Balaam that
he sent Satan to intercept him. When the Chronicler interpreted 2 Samuel
24 he followed this link between “the anger of Yahweh” and Satan—which
apparently reflected an old Israelite understanding of the role of the celestial
adversary, Satan.3 In Num. 22.32-33 the action of Satan is depicted through
a similar image. It is connected with Balaam’s effrontery in the presence of
Yahweh:

The angel of Yahweh asked him, “Why have you beaten your donkey these three
times? I have come here for an adversary because your path is a reckless one before
me. The donkey saw me and turned away from me these three times. If she had not
turned away, I would certainly have killed you by now, but I would have spared her.”

These two examples in 1 Chronicles and Numbers 22 show that the role of
Satan in the Old Testament is complicated. The texts do not convey a dualistic
view of the struggle between evil and God—a perspective which occurs
in later Jewish and Christian texts.4 Satan’s role is associated with the so-

3 Different attempts to regard Satan in 1 Chronicles 21 as a human adversary fall by this

identification of “the anger of Yahweh” with “actions of Satan.” Such an interpretation has been
presented by S. Japhet (The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought
[Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1989], 147–149) and J. W. Wright (“The Innocence of David in
1 Chronicles 21,” JSOT 60 [1993], 87–105) among others.
4 There are many introductions to the problem of how the Old Testament picture of
Satan is connected with later Jewish and Christian views. Even though scholars do not agree in
detail, they still confirm the old view of von Rad that the Old Testament does not contain any
“metaphysical dualism” in the matter of Satan. See G. von Rad, “Diabolos: The OT View of
Satan,” TDOT 2, 73–75 (quotation from p. 75). See, e.g., R. S. Kluger, Satan in the Old Testament
(Studies in Jungian Thought; Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1967); N. Forsyth,
The Old Enemy: Satan and the Combat Myth (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987);
K. Nielsen, Satan—den fortabte søn? (Fredriksberg Allé: Anis, 1991); E. Pagels, The Origin
of Satan (New York: Vintage Books, 1996); idem, “The Social History of Satan, the ‘Intimate
 The Devil in the Old Testament ­3

called monistic picture of Yahweh. This old problem was treated by Volz,
who speaks of Yahweh as an ambivalent deity mingling the demonic with the
divine, the good with the evil.5 Volz’s thesis was challenged by Lindström in
his doctoral dissertation.6 In this chapter I shall discuss Satan in relation to
Yahweh’s power to cause “evil” in the world. My aim is to clarify how Satan
and Yahweh’s “evil” are intertwined.

Satan—A Proper Name in the Old Testament?

Scholarly discussion of Satan in the Old Testament focuses on four texts:

Numbers 22.22, 32, Job 1–2, Zechariah 3, and 1 Chronicles 21. P. L. Day
published an important study of these four texts. He concludes that the Hebrew
word śātān cannot be regarded as a name, but rather refers to forensic imagery
where an adversary, a celestial accuser, appears in the heavenly court to oppose
certain human or divine plans.7 His principal argument consists in the fact that
the Hebrew word śātān has the definite article in both Job 1–2 and Zechariah
3. Day writes that “the definite article makes it virtually certain that śātān is not
a proper name.”8 Nevertheless, he cites the opinion of Waltke and O’Connor,
who maintain that the definite article was used for toponyms and individuals.

Enemy’: A Preliminary Sketch,” HTR 84 (1991), 105–128; G. A. Boyd, Satan and the Problem
of Evil: Constructing a Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001);
A. Lange, H. Lichtenberger, and D. Römheld (eds.), Die Dämonen: Die Dämonologie der
israelitisch-jüdischen und frühchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt [Demons: The
Demonology of Israelite-Jewish and Early Christian Literature in Context of their Environment]
(Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003); F. Kreuzer, “Der Antagonist: Der Satan in der Hebräischen
Bibel—eine bekannte Größe?”, Bib 86 (2005), 536–544; T. J. Wray and G. Mobley, The Birth
of Satan: Tracing the Devil’s Biblical Roots (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005). Note also
H. A. Kelly, Satan: A Biography (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2006) which is,
however, a problematic presentation as regards method.
5 P. Volz, Das Dämonische in Jahwe (Sammlung gemeinverständlicher Vorträge und
Schriften aus dem Gebiet der Theologie und Religionsgeschichte, 110; Tübingen, 1924).
6 It is worth noting that F. Lindström in his study God and the Origin of Evil: A Contextual
Analysis of Alleged Monistic Evidence in the Old Testament (ConBOT, 21; Lund: CWK Gleerup,
1983) does not deal with 2 Samuel 24 and its connection to 1 Chronicles 21—which in my view
is one of the most important examples of the monistic view of Yahweh. Lindström writes (pp.
13–14): “Had more space been available I would surely have discussed those passages in which
it seems that YHWH instigates evil (e.g., 1 Sam. 26,19; 2 Sam. 24,1ff), or where he hardens
men’s hearts (e.g., Exod. 7,3), or those Wisdom texts which suggest that what occurs is according
to divine, rather than human, plans (e.g., Prov. 16:1, 9; 19.21).” I think Lindström is right to
emphasize that we cannot equate the origin of evil with Yahweh’s actions. However, it seems to
me that this relationship is highly dynamic and is related to the simple fact that human beings in
distress always have hope.
7 P. L. Day, An Adversary in Heaven: śātān in the Hebrew Bible (HSM, 43; Atlanta, Ga.:
Scholars Press, 1988); see also C. Breytenbach and P. L. Day, “Satan,” in K. Van der Toorn, B.
Becking, and P. W. van der Horst (eds.), Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (Leiden:
Brill and Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 726–732.
8 Day, “Satan,” 727.
4 Evil and the Devil

They refer inter alia to the name of Baal, which can be written with the definite
article.9 Day, however, rejects their view. An interesting case of the use of the
definite article with a proper name occurs in Genesis 2–5. The word Adam is
written with a definite article in Gen. 2.1–4.2—referring to (the first) “man”—
but in Gen. 4.25–5.3 Adam lacks an article—referring to the person Adam.
Nevertheless, it becomes clear from the present form of Genesis that the first
man (Adam with an article) is the same as the man named Adam (without an
article). We read (Gen. 4.1-2, 25):

The man (ha’ ādām) lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to
Cain. She said, “With the help of Yahweh I have brought forth a man.” Later she gave
birth to his brother Abel … Adam (ādām) lay with his wife again, and she gave birth
to a son and named him Seth, saying, “God has granted me another child in place of
Abel, since Cain killed him.”

Again in Gen. 5.3: “When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own
likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth.” This being the case,
the close relationship between the name Adam and the fact that he is the first
human being (ha’ ādām) in Genesis give us reason to ask whether we can also
understand Satan with an article as referring to a specific celestial individual.
The fact that the article does not occur in 1 Chronicles 21 lends credence to
interpretation. This being the case I cannot agree with Day’s statement that the
article renders it “virtually certain that śātān is not a proper name.”
On the other hand, it should be observed that Satan was not the self-evident
name of the leader of demons in early Jewish writings. For example, in 1 En.
1–36 the leader of the fallen angels is called Shemihazah (1 En. 6–7) or ‘Asa’el
(1 En. 8).10 Other significant names appear in the Book of Jubilees: Mastemah
(from the Hebrew root śātām which is a biform of śātān), in Qumran’s writings:
Mastemah and Belial (in Greek: Beliar), and in rabbinical writings: Sama’el.11
Thus we lack an established tradition whereby the name of the personal Evil
or the leader of demons is Satan. This evidence supports the view that śātān
originally referred to a certain office in the divine council and was only later

9 B. K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona

Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 249.
10 It is clear from Aramaic fragments of Enoch that ‘Asa’el was originally written with
l)s( or l)#(, neither of which resembles Azazel (lz)z() in Lev. 16.8, 10. Later the names were
intertwined, however. See J. C. Vanderkam, “The Angel Story in the Book of Jubilees,” in E. G.
Chazon and M. Stone (eds.), Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha
in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the International Symposium of the Orion Center
for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 12–14 January (Studies on the
Texts of the Desert of Judah, 31; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 151–170, esp. 167.
11 See M. Mach, Entwicklungsstadien des jüdischen Engelglaubens in vorrabbinischer
Zeit (TSAJ, 34; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992); idem, “Demons,” in L. H. Schiffman and
J. VanderKam (eds.), Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls Volume 1 (Oxford: OUP, 2000), 189–
192; J. W. van Henten, “Mastemah,” DDD, 553–554; S. D. Sperling, “Belial,” DDD, 169–171;
A. Cohen, Everyman’s Talmud: The Major Teachings of the Rabbinic Sages (New York: Schocken
Books, 1995), 47–58.
 The Devil in the Old Testament 5

connected with the proper name of personal Evil—a transition which could
have occurred already in the Old Testament. Needless to say, this view is in
agreement with the use of the Hebrew śātān to denote military or political
human opponents.

The Concept of the Divine Council

It is essential to observe that the imagery of the divine council or court is

connected not only to texts referring to Satan but also to those linked to the
theological problem of monism.12 This prompts us to ask how the existence
of evil in the world is compatible with the belief that Yahweh governs history.
Scholars have long argued that a central theme in the Old Testament is the idea
of Yahweh’s government of history. G. von Rad presented his famous idea of
salvation history.13 H. D. Preuss postulates that belief in Yahweh is oriented
toward the future.14 We shall now deal with texts containing the imagery of
the divine council and argue that they embody the belief that Yahweh governs
history. This imagery has been used to solve difficult existential problems
inherent in the belief that Yahweh exercises control over the historical events
which concern Israel. Such problems arose in cases where foreign nations (and
their gods) threatened Israel and its political existence. What did take place in
the heavenly sphere, for example, when the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem
and its Temple? Was Yahweh dethroned? How can such a national catastrophe
be explained? Other problems ensue from tribulations, such as plagues or the
rise of ungodly rulers, occurring both in Israel and in individual’s lives (cf.,
Job). Do such events mean that Yahweh is no longer in control? The imagery
of the divine council, with its many celestial beings, provided proof that
Yahweh can govern history even though events in the world seem to indicate
otherwise.15
In ancient Near Eastern texts the heavenly council represented the most
authoritative decision-making entity in the divine and human world.16 The

12 Good examples are Deut. 32 (see esp. vv. 36-39); 1 Kgs 22 (see esp. the lying spirit in
vv. 19-23); and Isa. 6 (see esp. the hardening task which Isaiah receives in vv. 9-10).
13 G. von Rad, Theologie des Alten Testaments I–II (Munich: Kaiser, 1984). Even though
one could not agree with all details in von Rad’s thesis, the fact is that the present form of the Old
Testament clearly contains an idea about history governed by Yahweh.
14 H. D. Preuss, Jahweglaube und Zukunftserwartung (BWANT, 87; Stuttgart:
Kohlhammer, 1968). Preuss concludes (p. 206): “Jahwe ist der Gott, der sich in der Geschichte
offenbart, der Macht besitzt und sie entfaltet, der sich und seinen Charakter in dieser Geschichte
als die Seinen zum Ziel seines Weges führende Gott durchsetzt.”
15 Traces of the old Israelite concepts of the divine council and other mythical elements
in the Old Testament have been known since H. Wheeler Robinson wrote his important article
“The Council of Yahweh,” JTS 45 (1944), 151–157. Another significant early study was that of
W. F. Albright from 1968: Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan: A Historical Analysis of Two
Contrasting Faiths (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 183–193.
16 M. S. Kee, “The Heavenly Council and its Type-scene,” JSOT 31 (2007), 259–273.
6 Evil and the Devil

classical example is the Babylonian version of Enuma Elish where Marduk

becomes the leader of deities. In the Assyrian version Marduk is replaced
by Assur.17 Thus, political power was always reflected in the order of the
divine world. Politically turbulent years in Israel created religious intellectual
problems: Can Yahweh govern history and his people if other nations and their
gods are victorious or if catastrophe occurs in nature or the community?

The Divine Council Imagery in the Pre-exilic Yahwistic Monolatric

Tradition

We begin with Deuteronomy 32; a pre-exilic text.18 The passage is a central

poetic text in Deuteronomy dealing with the rulership of Yahweh in the world.
Verse 8 is a locus classicus which contains interesting textual problems. The
Masoretic text here reads:

When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance,

when he divided the sons of man,
he set up boundaries for the peoples
according to the number of the sons of Israel.

Scholars long ago observed that the Septuagint reading “according to the angels
of God” (kata arithmon aggelon theou) implies the Hebrew text “according
to the sons of God” which is original here. This reading is now confirmed
by the Qumran text 4QDeutj, which suggests reading bene elohim, and
4QDeutq, containing a “polytheistic” version of Deut. 32.43.19 It is reasonable
to believe that the Qumran and LXX reading was original, and that the MT
reading (with support in the Samaritan Pentateuch, Targumim, Vulgata, and
the Peshitta) results from later theological revision in a monotheistic spirit.
The original Deut. 32.8 passage tries to solve the existential problem of how
to relate foreign nations and their gods to the belief system of Yahwism.20 The

17 W. G. Lambert, “The Assyrian Recension of Enūma eliš,” in H. Waetzoldt and H.

Hauptmann (eds.), Assyrien im Wandel der Seiten. XXXIXe Recontre Assyriologique Internationale
Heidelberg 6.-10. Juli 1992 (HSAO, 6; Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag, 1997), 77–79.
18 For this date see arguments in P. Sanders, The Provenance of Deuteronomy 32 (OS, 37;
Leiden: Brill, 1996).
19 P. W. Skehan, “A Fragment of the ‘Song of Moses’ (Deut. 32) from Qumran,” BASOR
136 (1954), 12–15; J. A. Duncan, “4QDeutj,” DJD XIV, 75–91, esp. 90; P. W. Skehan and E. Ulrich,
“4QDeutq,” DJD XIV, 137–142; P. Sanders, Deuteronomy 32, 154–159, 248–252; E. Tov, Textual
Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001), 269; M. Heiser, “Deuteronomy
32:8 and the Sons of God,” Bibliotheca Sacra 158 (2001), 52–74.
20 Even in v. 43 the MT text is based on a “censored” textual version. Both 4QDeutq
and LXXB read “worship him all gods” (LXX: “sons of God”). See P. W. Skehan and E. Ulrich,
“4QDeutq,” DJD XIV, 137–142; A. Van der Kooij, “The Ending of the Song of Moses: On the Pre-
Masoretic Version of Deut. 32:43,” in F. García Martínez, A. Hilhorst, J. T. A. G. M. van Ruiten,
and A. S. van der Woude (eds.), Studies in Deuteronomy in Honour of C. J. Labuschagne on the
Occasion of His 65th Birthday (VTSup, 53; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 93–100; and E. P. McGarry, “The
 The Devil in the Old Testament 7

solution is that foreign gods are members of the divine council but under the
sovereignty of Yahweh who presides over the court.
The content of Deuteronomy 32 refers to political setbacks in Israel (vv. 26,
30, 36, 39-43). They are explained inasmuch as the Israelites have begun to
worship foreign gods—something which contravenes the monolatrous ideal of
Deuteronomy 32. This disloyalty was punished by foreign military invasions
which defeated the people of Yahweh. However, the text argues that Yahweh is
in control of political events. According to Deut. 32.36-39 Yahweh is the leader
of the divine council, and is behind everything which takes place in the world:

36 Yahweh will judge his people

and have compassion on his servants
when he sees their strength is gone
and the leadership has come to an end.21
37 He will say: Now where are their gods,
the rock they took refuge in,
38 the gods who ate the fat of their sacrifices
and drank the wine of their drink offerings?
Let them rise up to help you!
Let there be a shelter for you!
39 See now that I, I am He!
There are no gods with me.22
I put to death and I bring to life,
I have wounded and I will heal,
and no one can deliver out of my hand.

In the political crisis Israelites should understand that other gods in the divine
council did not use their power against Yahweh by dethroning him. Yahweh
himself is behind all events in the world. No god has power to annul Yahweh’s
decisions, because each is only a member of the divine council and is subject
to him.23

Ambidextrous Angel (Daniel 12:7 and Deuteronomy 32:40): Inner-Biblical Exegesis and Textual
Criticism in Counterpoint,” JBL 124 (2005), 211–228, esp. 225–227.
21 The Hebrew expression ‫ ואפס עצור ועזוב‬is disputed. Sanders (Deuteronomy 32, 231–233)
refers to 1 Kgs 14.10, 21.21, and 2 Kgs 9.8, where the verbs are used in “a divine announcement
of the fall of an Israelite dynasty.”
22 Because the existence of other gods is not denied in the poem but they are regarded as
powerless I have translated the Hebrew ‘immādî by “with.”
23 F. Lindström writes (God and the Origin of Evil, 177) that “there is no reason to
suppose that Deut. 32,39 may be taken to support a conjectural notion of divine pancausality
with respect to national disaster in ancient Israel.” However, rather than questioning whether evil
should be regarded as the work of Yahweh, the acute problem in Deuteronomy 32 is whether
national disasters in Israel show that Yahweh has been dethroned. When we read verses 36-39
against verse 8 we find the right perspective to Deuteronomy 32: in spite of national disaster
Yahweh still sits on the throne of the divine council. It is not a question about demonic aspect in
Yahweh but about his control over evil powers. Similar statements about God and his sovereignty
occur in 1 Sam. 2.6; Hos. 5.14; Amos 9.2; Lam. 3.37-38; among others.
8 Evil and the Devil

It is worth noting that Deuteronomy 32 refers not only to other deities

in the divine council but also to demons or demon-like gods (Šedim, Deut.
32.17) and destructive powers under the control of Yahweh (Rešep and Qeteb,
Deut. 32.24).24 Even though Deut. 32.17 states that the Israelites sacrificed
to Šedim, who are not gods, it does not emphasize that all deities are demons
(cf., Ps. 106.37-38). The fact that destructive demonic powers are under
Yahweh’s control does not imply that he is ambivalent, mingling good and
evil. Old Testament accounts of “demonic-like” actions of Yahweh can be
understood from the viewpoint that his righteousness imposes a penalty upon
the sinful (as in Deuteronomy 32) and his holiness must be defended against
human wickedness. This principle is illustrated in Hab. 3.3-5, which speaks
of Yahweh’s holiness. It is encircled by destructive powers which prevent
defilement of his sanctity:25

3 God came from Teman,

the Holy One from Mount Paran.
His glory covered the heavens
and his praise filled the earth.
4 His splendor was like the sunrise;
rays flashed from his hand,
where his power was hidden.
5 Plague [Deber] went before him;
pestilence [Rešep] followed his steps.

Psalm 82 is in many respects parallel to Deuteronomy 32, even though in its

present form it speaks of judges and their responsibility to enforce Yahweh’s
justice. Scholars seem to agree that an older core can be reconstructed. This
core refers to the divine council where gods are sitting under the leadership

24 Belief in different demons was widespread in the ancient Near East and Israel.
See, e.g., different Hebrew terms for demons and evil spirits in G. Wanke, “Dämonen II. Altes
Testament,” TRE 8, 275–277. The best survey of demons in the Old Testament can be found in
DDD.
25 Concerning the religio-historical background of Deut. 32.24 and Hab. 3.5 see K. Van
der Toorn, “The Theology of Demons in Mesopotamia and Israel,” in Lange, Lichtenberger, and
Römheld (eds.) Die Dämonen, 61–83. He refers to the work of Volz and writes: “… he argues
that the ‘Jahwisierung des Dämonischen’ turns the demonic into an essential element of the
Israelite conception of God. From a theological perspective, this may seem hard to swallow; from
a comparative religion point of view, Volz’s argument seems hard to reject.” Yet Volz overlooks
that the point is to demonstrate Yahweh’s control of demonic powers, not the demonic powers’
control over Yahweh. Van der Toorn’s religio-historical parallels are important but I cannot see
how they can support Volz’s incorrect approach to biblical texts. See also H. Niehr’s religio-
historical parallels to Reseph: “Zur Entstehung von Dämonen in der Religionsgeschichte Israels:
Überlegungen zum Weg des Rešep durch die nordwestsemitische Religionsgeschichte,” in Lange,
Lichtenberger, and Römheld (eds.) Die Dämonen, 84–107. Worth noting is also the opinion of
Sanders (Deuteronomy 32, 401–402) that “Rešep is still regarded as a deity in Hab. 3:5 and Deut.
32:24” (p. 402). This could imply that Rešep is one member of the divine council.
 The Devil in the Old Testament ­9­

of Yahweh.26 The original core contains three features of the divine council.
First, the psalm describes Yahweh sitting (‫ )נצב‬as the leader of the divine
council. The members of the council are other gods (’elohîm) who are subject
to the Most High. They are also called bene ‘Eljôn. Second, Yahweh gives
every nation and its god a territory to rule (v. 8): “Rise up, O God, judge the
earth, for you give inheritance [tinhal] among all the nations.”27 Third, the
psalm hints that Yahweh will rise up and show his power as the leader of the
gods (v. 9)—a parallel can be found, for example, in Enuma Elish.
Thus the psalm in its putative original form emphasized confrontation
between Yahweh and other deities.28 The main point is, again, that Yahweh has
control over everything. Other gods cannot realize their plans without Yahweh.
A later editor regarded this confrontation as befitting the reinterpretation where
“gods” are identified with “judges.”
This survey of the pre-exilic form of the divine council implies that both
foreign deities and other celestial beings (angels or even demons) under
Yahweh’s control can take part in decision making. This imagery was used in
ancient Israel in order to emphasize that Yahweh rules in the world.

Exilic Apology and the Divine Council Imagery

The use of the divine council imagery is one means of illustrating Yahweh’s
power to control events in the world. This apologetic tendency is visible
even in larger theological frames of the Old Testament. Mettinger analyzes
the Sabaoth, Shem, and Kabod theologies in the Old Testament. He argues
that during the exile the Shem and Kabod theologies were developed and/or
intensified in order to resolve the cognitive dissonance which existed between
the pre-exilic Sabaoth theology (God dwelling in the Temple of Jerusalem) and
reality (the destruction of the Temple by the Babylonian army).29 Mettinger’s

26 See, e.g., F.-L. Hossfeld and E. Zenger, Psalmen 51–100 (HTKAT; Freiburg: Herder,
2000), 479–492.
27 Num. 34.17-18 and Josh. 19.49 show that the verb ‫ נחל‬in Qal can also have the
meaning “divide the land for a possession.”
28 There are other Psalms which contain references to the divine council. For example,
Ps. 29.1: “Ascribe to Yahweh, O mighty ones, ascribe to Yahweh glory and strength” and Ps. 89.7:
“In the council of the holy ones God is greatly feared; he is more awesome than all who surround
him.” It is reasonable to assume that there may be other psalms which are textually reworked, as
noted by E. Tov (Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible [Minneapolis: Fortress Press and Assen:
Royal Van Gorcum, 2001), 269: “A similar correction may be reflected in all textual witnesses of
Ps. 96:7: ‘Ascribe to the Lord , O families of the peoples, ascribe to the Lord glory and strength,’
when compared with the presumably original (polytheistic) text of Ps. 29:1: ‘Ascribe to the Lord,
O divine beings [‫]בני אלים‬, ascribe to the Lord glory and strength.’ Ps. 29, which also in other
details reflects situations and phrases known from Ugaritic texts, does, in this detail, provide a
polytheistic picture of the assembly of gods.”
29 T. N. D. Mettinger, The Dethronement of Sabaoth: Studies in the Shem and Kabod
Theologies (ConBOT, 18; Lund: Gleerup, 1982); see also idem, Namnet och närvaro: Gudsnamn
och gudsbild i Böckernas Bok (Örebro: Libris, 1987); idem, In Search of God: The Meaning and
10 Evil and the Devil

analysis indicates that the intellectual problem of “who is governing history”

arose in Israel during the time of the exile. Let us illustrate how the divine
council imagery has been used in the context of the Babylonian empire and
during the exile.
Corresponding to the criticism of the Babylonian plan to conquer the whole
world, Isaiah 14 describes the Babylonian king who attempts to enter the
divine council in the heavenly mountains and take its throne for himself. By
using the imagery of the divine council the Hebrew writer emphasizes that
Yahweh will remain as sole king on his throne. The plan of the Babylonian
king is not according to the will of Yahweh and, therefore, he will be cast into
Sheol (Isa. 14.12-15):30

12 How you have fallen from heaven,

O morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!
13 You said in your heart,
“I will ascend to heaven;
I will raise my throne
above the stars of God;
I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly,
on the utmost heights of the Northern Mountain [‫מועד בירכתי צפון‬-‫]בהר‬.
14 I will ascend above the tops of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High.”
15 But you are brought down to the grave,
to the depths of the pit.

The heights of the Northern Mountain (‫מועד בירכתי צפון‬-‫ )הר‬refer to the mythical
residence of the divine court.31 In particular, in Ugaritic texts ‫ צפון‬is the divine
mountain and this meaning has also been adopted in Hebrew cultic poetry, as
Ps. 48.3 indicates. In this verse the mountain of Zion has been identified with

Message of the Everlasting Names (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988); idem, “The Elusive Essence:
YHWH, El and Baal and the Distinctiveness of the Israelite Faith,” in E. Blum, et al. (eds.),
Die hebräische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte. Festschrift für Rolf Rendtorff zum 65.
Geburtstag (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1990), 393–417.
30 There are many ancient Near Eastern parallels to Isaiah 14. See, e.g., R. M. Shipp, Of
Dead Kings and Dirges: Myth and Meaning in Isaiah 14:4b-21 (Academia Biblica, 11; Atlanta,
Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature and Leiden: Brill, 2002). Ugaritic parallels are presented in
W. A. M. Beuken, Jesaja 13–27 (HTKAT; Freiburg: Herder, 2007), 89–91. See further, M. Albani,
“The Downfall of Helel, the Son of Dawn: Aspects of Royal Ideology in Isa. 14:12–13,” in
C. Auffarth and L. T. Stuckenbruck (eds.), The Fall of the Angels (Themes in Biblical Narrative,
6; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 62–86. Even a Greek parallel to the poem has been suggested. See J. C.
Poirier, “An Illuminating Parallel to Isaiah XIV 12,” VT 49 (1999), 371–389.
31 See R. J. Clifford, The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament (HSM,
4; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1972) where he presents ancient Near Eastern
material on the divine mountain. Concerning Zaphon in Isaiah 14 Clifford does not identify it with
the mount of assembly (pp. 161–162, n. 85)—something I have found unconvincing.
 The Devil in the Old Testament ­11

‫צפון‬. According to Isaiah 13–14 the political crisis of the people of Yahweh is
reflected in the divine world where the Babylonian king (with the aid of his
gods?!) has attempted to seat himself on the throne like the Most High. All
the evils that have occurred in Jerusalem can be explained by the Babylonian
king’s struggle to dethrone Yahweh in the divine sphere. It is, however, evident
who is the real ruler on the mount of the divine assembly (Isa. 14.16-17):

16 Those who see you stare at you,

they ponder your fate:
“Is this the man who shook the earth
and made kingdoms tremble,
17 the man who made the world a desert,
who overthrew its cities
and would not let his captives go home?”

A parallel text describing the arrogance of the foreign king is Ezekiel 28. The
Tyrian king is said to have come to the mountain of Eden, which is also called
the mountain of God, and is consequently identified with the abode of the
divine council (Ezek. 28.12-16):

12 “Son of man, take up a lament concerning the king of Tyre and say to him: This
is what the Sovereign Yahweh says:
“You were the model of perfection,
full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
13 You were in Eden,
the garden of God;
every precious stone adorned you:
ruby, topaz and emerald,
chrysolite, onyx and jasper,
sapphire, turquoise and beryl.
Your settings and mountings were made of gold;
on the day you were created they were prepared.
14 You were anointed as a guardian cherub,
for so I ordained you.
You were on the holy mount of God [‫;]בהר קדש אלהים‬
you walked among the fiery stones.
15 You were blameless in your ways
from the day you were created
till wickedness was found in you.
16 Through your widespread trade
you were filled with violence,
and you sinned.
So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God [‫]מהר אלהים‬,
and I expelled you, O guardian cherub,
from among the fiery stones.
12 Evil and the Devil

The prophet applies an old creation myth to the Tyrian king and explains
political events by referring to the struggle in the divine sphere.32 The Tyrian
king received political power because he was created upon the paradise
mountain of God. This is probably an indication that the city of Tyre is ancient.
However, the ruler of the mountain has now discerned wickedness in the king,
who will be driven out from paradise, thus signifying the destruction of the
city of Tyre (Ezekiel 26–28). Even though the imagery behind Ezekiel 28 is
not identical to Isaiah 14, the principle is the same. Yahweh is he who rules the
divine sphere and no human power can oppose his plans.

Monotheistic Modification of the Divine Council

In theological terms the Babylonian and Persian period was formative of Old
Testament theology. The old theological view that Yahweh governs the history
of Israel was vehemently opposed by Babylonian polytheism and the idea
that Yahweh is only one minor god beside Marduk and other strong deities.
We can well imagine that vassal treaties, where Yahweh appeared beside
Babylonian gods, placed Yahweh’s rule in question. Scholars have remarked
that Ezekiel 17 alludes to the vassal treaty which Zedekiah had made with
Nebuchadnezzar, in which he had promised in the name of Yahweh to be loyal
to the Babylonian king (Ezek. 17.12-21).33 The institution of political vassal
treaties made the theological problem of Yahweh’s governorship critical. Is it
meaningful to believe that Yahweh has ultimate control when he is merely the
god of a Judean vassal who is subjugated to Assyria or Babylonia? The divine
court imagery was adopted to solve this theological problem. With the aid of
this imagery it was possible to explain that turbulent struggles in the divine
sphere are reflected in the political events of the world.
Scholars agree that Isaiah 40–55 is the best example of a text-corpus that
challenges the existence of foreign gods.34 For our purposes here it is essential
to see that Isaiah 40–55 contains many texts where foreign gods are exhorted
to comply with the divine plans of Yahweh. The only relevant imagery for
these texts is the divine council. In the divine court Yahweh can meet other
gods and challenge them to speak. Isaiah 40–55 argues, however, that these
other gods are not real gods. What happens in Isaiah 40–55 is, in fact, the
expulsion of all idols from the divine court where Yahweh rules as the only

32 T. N. D. Mettinger (The Eden Narrative: A Literary and Religio-historical Study of

Genesis 2–3 [Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007], 85–98) speaks about the Adamic myth behind the
Ezekelian text. See also M. Greenberg, Ezechiel 21-37 (HTKAT; Freiburg: Herder, 2005), 244–
263. Greenberg compares Ezek. 28.11-19 with Ps. 82 and Isa. 14.12. He notes that it is difficult to
reconstruct myth behind the Ezekelian passage even though it clearly uses mythical motifs.
33 See M. Tsevat, “The Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian Vassal Oaths and the Prophet
Ezekiel,” JBL 78 (1959), 199–204; see also Greenberg, Ezechiel 1-20, 358–360.
34 It is enough to refer to R. Albertz, A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament
Period, Vols. 1–2 (London: SCM Press, 1994).
 The Devil in the Old Testament 13

God. This theological tendency in Isaiah 40–55 influenced the perception of

the role of Satan in the divine council at the beginning of the post-exilic period.
Isaiah 40–55 describes a scene where the prophet, allowed to attend the
divine council, is enjoined to proclaim the message of Yahweh (Isa. 40.3-
8).35 This imagery is also used in the Book of Jeremiah. Jeremiah accused
false prophets of failing to attend the divine council, and therefore they cannot
know the message of Yahweh (Jer. 23.18, 22-24). There are two other good
examples in the Old Testament where a prophet is allowed to be present at the
divine council: 1 Kings 21.19-23 and Isaiah 6.36
Isaiah 40.12-26 continues the imagery of the divine council. Yahweh
challenges the whole universe and reveals himself as the true God who can

35 Concerning the divine council in Deutero-Isaiah see F. M. Cross, “The Council of

Yahweh in Second Isaiah,” JNES 12 (1953), 274–278; idem, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic:
Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press,
1973), 186–190; R. N. Whybray, The Heavenly Counsellor in Isaiah xl 13-14: A Study of the
Sources of the Theology of Deutero-Isaiah (SOTSMS, 1; Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press, 1971); Kee, “The Heavenly Council,” 269–270. See further Isa. 40.1-11 and its connection
to the idea of the heavenly court in C. R. Seitz, “The Divine Council: Temporal Transition and
New Prophecy in the Book of Isaiah,” JBL 109 (1990), 229–247; B. S. Childs, Isaiah (OTL;
Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 294–303.
36 Because both 1 Kgs 21 and Isa. 6 refer to the question of demonic aspect in Yahweh, it
is reasonable to deal with them briefly here. My aim is to show that both texts speak dynamically
about Yahweh’s way of governing history during the time of godlessness (cf., Lindström, God and
the Origin of Evil, 84–91). The context of 1 Kgs 22.19-23 is as follows. Ahab, king of the Northern
State, has many times heard the word of Yahweh through Micaiah ben Imlah. Yet the king has
begun to hate the latter because he has never prophesied anything good (v. 8). By rejecting the
word of the Lord’s prophet time and again, Ahab has accumulated sin upon sin. Yahweh becomes
so incensed at this godless king that he decides to destroy him. A council is held in heaven and
the Lord asks: “Who will entice Ahab into marching to his death at Ramoth-Gilead?” (v. 20). The
spirit presents a plan to lure Ahab into war and thus destroy him: “I shall go and be a deceptive
spirit in the mouths of all his prophets” (v. 22). Although Micaiah reveals Yahweh’s terrible plan
to Ahab, the latter can no longer avoid his fate. Once again, he ignores Micaiah’s words, and as a
result he is destroyed in battle. The whole point of 1 Kgs 22 is, however, that in revealing to Ahab
Yahweh’s plan of enticement Micaiah gives him a chance to avoid destruction (cf. vv. 23, 28). Yet
this would have to involve Ahab’s trust of Yahweh’s prophet, whom he despises. Ahab has one
last chance to obey the prophet, because the wrath of Yahweh is upon him. But Ahab rejects his
last chance, does not obey and hastens to destruction at Ramoth-Gilead.
There is a tension between Yahweh’s plan of enticement and the prophet’s exhortation
to repent. It is clear that Micaiah’s intention of proclamation was not determined by Yahweh’s
plan of enticement, which he realizes in his heavenly vision. Isaiah 6 can be understood
similarly. Isaiah has seen the Holy God, who can no longer endure to see the people wandering in
godlessness. Yahweh’s wrath glows over the people; he wants to harden them. However, the fact
that Isaiah is crying aloud to the people about this hardening plan (see, e.g., 29.9-10) gives them
opportunity to avoid judgment. But he who wishes to avert judgment must act immediately. Like
Isaiah, he must confess his guilt and sinfulness in order to be saved. The people must respond now
to the word of the Lord, because an indifferent attitude is a mark of hard-heartedness, the final
result of which is complete destruction. In the light of 1 Kgs 22.19-23 it can be argued that both
texts contain similar divine court imagery, where the prophet in Isa. 6 plays a comparable role to
the Spirit in 1 Kgs 22.
14 Evil and the Devil

dictate the course of history.37 Westermann identifies trial speeches in Isaiah

40–55 (Isa. 41.1-5; 41.21-29; 43.8-15; 44.6-8, 21-22; and perhaps also 45.11-
13) where “Yahweh and the gods of the nations confront one another in a legal
process, the purpose of which is to decide who is truly God.”38 The imagery
which pervades these texts is derived from the divine court where Yahweh
questions the gods concerning future events. A good example is Isa. 41.21-29,
which begins with an exhortation to idols:

21 “Present your case,” says Yahweh.

“Set forth your arguments,” says Jacob’s King.
22 “Let them bring them and tell us
what is going to happen.
Tell us what the former things were,
so that we may consider them
and know their final outcome.
Or declare to us the things to come,
23 tell us what the future holds,
so we may know that you are gods.
Do something, whether good or bad,
so that we will be dismayed and filled with fear.

The final proof of Yahweh’s power to control history is provided by the

Persian king Cyrus, who will come to destroy Babylonia (Isa. 41.25-29; see
also Isa. 41.1-7; 44.24–45.7; 45.9-13; 46.8-11; 48.11-16). The destruction of
the Babylonian Empire (and its gods) is seen in Isaiah 40–55 as proof that all
gods are powerless. They are nothing and, therefore, do not exist. Isa. 43.8-13
illustrates this argument.39 Yahweh calls Israel as his witness before the divine
court, since no other gods exist to testify to what he says (Isa. 43.10): “You are
my witnesses, declares Yahweh, and my servant whom I have chosen, so that
you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god
was formed, nor will there be one after me.”

37 See arguments in R. N. Whybray, The Heavenly Counsellor. See further, J. L. Koole,

Isaiah: Part 3 – Volume I: Isaiah 40–48 (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1997), 80–117. He writes (p. 81):
“Now the interrogative ‘who’ is mentioned six times. Who is this Yahweh, to whom such exalted
terms are applied? It is His Majesty! Compared with him, what do the nations signify (vv. 12-17),
the idols (vv. 18-20), the mighty of the earth (vv. 21-24), the deified stars and planets (vv. 25-26)?”
38 C. Westermann, Isaiah 40–66: A Commentary (OTL; London: SCM Press, 1969),
15. See also C. Westermann, Grundformen prophetischer Rede (Munich: Kaiser, 1960); idem,
“Sprache und Struktur der Prophetie Deuterojesajas,” Forschung am Alten Testament (Munich:
Kaiser, 1964), 92–170, esp. 124–134; J. Begrich, Studien zu Deuterojesaja (BWANT; 1938,
Stuttgart, 1938), 42–47. On trial speech and its connection to the heavenly council see Cross,
Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 176–190.
39 The question is whether or not verses 14-15 belong to Isa. 43.8-13.
 The Devil in the Old Testament 15

The end of the verse constitutes a near parallel to the Babylonian creation
myth, Enuma Eliš I.7-9, which emphasizes the formation of the gods:40

í-nu-ma ilāni la šu-pu-u ma-na-ma

šu-ma la zuk-ku-ru ši-ma-tu la [ša-mu]
ib-ba-nu-u-ma ilāni […]
When no gods whatever had been brought into being,
uncalled by name, their destinies undetermined –
Then it was that the gods were formed within them.41

While this passage asserts that the gods came into being at the beginning of the
process of creation initiated by the primeval gods, Apsu and Tiamat, Isa. 43.10
leaves no doubt that Yahweh is the sole Creator of the universe. No other gods
were formed in this process. Isa. 43.10 is one of the clearest examples of such
a stark monotheistic view of creation in the Old Testament. This monotheistic
trend in Isaiah 40–55 is emphasized by the observation that the Creator is
also the ruler of history. Stuhlmueller has convincingly shown that creation
vocabulary and imagery were used in Isaiah 40–55 in order to prove that
Yahweh rules in history. We can therefore speak of the “creative redemption of
Israel” in Isaiah 40–55, which implies that the power of other gods is null and
void. Yahweh alone governs events in history.42 It is clear that this Deutero-
Isaian message led radical understanding of the traditional Israelite concept
of the divine council. Yahweh alone is God there, and any other members are
merely angels and celestial servants of Yahweh, not gods.
Apart from the criticism of polytheism another significant theological factor
was challenged in Isaiah 40–55, namely dualism. Isaiah 40–55 contains a pro-
Persian message by proclaiming that Yahweh has chosen Cyrus to destroy the
Babylonian empire. This pro-Persian tendency is presented in Isaiah 40–55 in the
context of monotheism. Isa. 45.1-7 is a good example. The overt monotheistic
emphasis in 45.1-7 was intended to avoid an unreservedly pro-Persian attitude.

40 This parallel was observed long ago by F. Stummer, “Einige keilschriftliche Parallellen
zu Jes. 40–66,” JBL 45 (1926), 171–189, esp. 180–181; see further, R. N. Whybray, The Second
Isaiah (Old Testament Guides; Sheffield: Sheffield Acamic Press, 1983), 50 and 53–57 (concerning
the polemic attitude against the ideas presented in Enuma Eliš); M. Albani, Der eine Gott und die
himmlischen Heerscharen: Zur Begründung des Monotheismus bei Deuterojesaja im Horizont der
Astralisierung des Gottesverständnisses im Alten Orient (ABG, 1; Leipzig, 2000), 246.
41 The translation is from ANET, 61.
42 C. Stuhlmueller, Creative Redemption in Deutero-Isaiah (AnBi, 43; Rome: Biblical
Institute Press, 1970). Stuhlmueller writes (p. 236): “Beginning with Israel’s traditional faith in
Yahweh Redeemer, but now recognizing that same redemption on a cosmic scale, Dt-Is. proceeded
to announce not only the cosmic creative redemption of Israel, but also the work of cosmic first
creation by Yahweh. From this latter position, he could better appreciate the positive contribution
of foreigners to Israel’s redemption.”
16 Evil and the Devil

In scholarly discussion Isa. 45.5-7 has been regarded as opposing Persian

dualism:43

5 I am Yahweh, and there is no other;

apart from me there is no God.
I will strengthen you,
though you have not acknowledged me,
6 so that from the rising of the sun
to the place of its setting
men may know there is none besides me.
I am Yahweh, and there is no other.
7 I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, Yahweh, do all these things.

This passage postulates that Yahweh is behind everything that happens.

Just as it was Yahweh who destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple (through
the Babylonians; cf., Isa. 42.18-25; 43.22-28), it is also Yahweh who will
now redeem his people from the exile. Just as he used Babylonia to destroy
Jerusalem, so will he now destroy Babylonia by the hand of the Persians.44
There is no evil power or dark side which governs history but Yahweh alone.
Foreign gods and Persian dualism influenced the notion of the divine council
and resulted in the conception of Satan as “adversary” or “adversary angel”
therein. When evil as the cosmic and opposite power to Yahweh was refuted,

43 The locus classicus for the Persian dualism is Yasna 30. Concerning the nature
of Persian dualism see H. S. Nyberg, Irans forntida religioner: Olaus-Petri-föreläsningar
vid Uppsala Universitet (Stockholm: Svenska Kyrkans Diakonistyrelse, 1938), 101–120; G.
Widengren, Die Religionen Irans (Die Religionen der Menschenheit, 14; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer,
1965), 74–78. U. Berges (Jesaja 40–48 [HTKAT; Freiburg: Herder, 2008] 406) interprets Isa.
45.7 in the context of inner-biblical exegesis concerning other creation texts. However, he writes
that “Die innerbiblische Auslegung von Jes 45,7, die die Polarität von Licht und Finsternis, von
Frieden und Unheil als weltgeschichtliche Führung durch JHWH deutet, spricht nicht dafür, dass
hier eine direkte Auseinandersetzung mit dem persischen Zoroastrismus vorliegt.”
44 Lindström (God and the Origin of Evil, 178–199) in his analysis of Isa. 45.7 concluded
that the context (i.e. 44.24–45.7) reveals that “the positive phrases ‘who forms light’ and ‘who
makes weal’ have to do with YHWH’s saving intervention on behalf of his people, while the
negative phrases ‘who creates darkness’ and ‘who creates woe’ refer to YHWH’s destruction of
the Babylonian empire” (p. 198). He concludes that “Isa. 45,7 makes no attempt to derive all of the
evils of existence from YHWH” (p. 199). However, Lindström also maintains that the term hōšek
from the negative phrase of Isa. 45.7 is used in Isa. 40–55 to refer to the disaster and captivity of
the Judean people (pp. 180–187, 198). This, in turn, seems to me to imply that Yahweh is behind
everything evil which has happened in history: he created disaster for his people in 587/86 bce and
now he shall create disaster for Babylonia. This does not mean that Yahweh is evil or that the evil
is something which belongs to Yahweh’s nature; rather, he is omnipotent to use evil for his own
purposes. He can use Babylonians to castigate his people who have abandoned him; he can use
Persians to punish the Babylonians who have oppressed his people. I can agree on many points
with Lindström’s analysis of Isa. 44.24–45.7 but I also regard it as the best solution that Isa. 45.7
is connected with criticism of Persian dualism.
 The Devil in the Old Testament ­17

and foreign gods were identified with superior celestial angels, a new aspect
of the evil power appeared in the divine council. Satan as a celestial being
became associated with the power of evil. He had the right to address in the
divine council. By referring to Yahweh’s justice and righteousness he could
demand that evil be inflicted on Israel and its people.45 He was, however,
incapable of realizing his own plans for the world, since all his actions were
controlled by Yahweh.

Rewriting Genesis 6.1-4 and the Origin of Evil Demons

In the course of time Satan became associated with the angels of foreign
nations, assuming position as their leader. This new order required scriptural
justification, which took the form of an ingenious reinterpretation of Gen. 6.1-
4. The earliest versions of this reinterpretation can be found in the Book of
Giants, the First Book of Enoch and the Book of Jubilees.46
Satan’s role is revealed in the rewriting of Gen. 6.1-4 in the Book of Jubilees.
There Satan is called by another name: Mastema. Gen. 6.1-4 is rewritten so
as to explain the fate of demons in the world. The sons of God are angels
who married the daughters of men. They were punished and imprisoned in
the depths of the earth (Jub. 5.1-6). Later, these wicked demons began to lead
astray the children of Noah. Noah prayed to God and the Lord decided to
imprison them all. Then the chief of the demons, Mastema, said to God:

O Lord, Creator, leave some of them before me, and let them obey my voice. And
let them do everything which I tell them, because if some of them are not left for

45 It seems to me that Pagels’ way to deal with the development of Satanology in post-
exilic Judah only as an exponent of intra-Jewish social problems fails to allow for these larger
theological frames.
46 Concerning the Book of Giants see L. T. Stuckenbruck, The Book of Giants (TSAJ, 63;
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997); idem, “Giant Mythology and Demonology: From the Ancient
Near East to the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Lange, Lichtenberger, and Römheld (eds.) Die Dämonen
318–338; idem, “The Origins of Evil in Jewish Apocalyptic Tradition: The Interpretation of
Genesis 6:1–4 in the Second and Third Centuries B.C.E.,” in C. Auffarth and L. T. Stuckenbruck
(eds.), The Fall of the Angels (Themes in Biblical Narrative, 6; Leiden: Brill, 2004). Concerning
the First Book of Enoch see P. D. Hanson, “Rebellion in Heaven, Azazel, and Euhemeristic
Heroes in 1 Enoch 6–11,” JBL 96 (1977), 195–233; G. W. E. Nickelsburg, “Apocalyptic and Myth
in 1 Enoch 6–11,” JBL 96 (1977), 383–405; S. Bhayro, The Shemihazah and Asael Narrative of
1 Enoch 6–11: Introduction, Text, Translation and Commentary with Reference to Ancient Near
Eastern and Biblical Antecedents (Alter Orient und Altes Testament, 322; Munich: Ugarit-Verlag,
2005); idem, “Noah’s Library: Sources for 1 Enoch 6–11,” JSP 15 (2006), 163–177. Concerning
the Book of Jubilees see J. VanderKam, “The Angel Story in the Book of Jubilees,” in Chazon
and Stone (eds.), Pseudepigraphic Perspectives, 151–170; idem, “The Demons in the Book of
Jubilees,” in Lange, Lichtenberger, and Römheld (eds.), Die Dämonen, 339–364. Note also M.
Segal’s view (The Book of Jubilees: Rewritten Bible, Redaction, Ideology and Theology [SJSJ
117, Leiden: Brill, 2007], 97–269) according to which there are different explanations for the
origin of evil in the Book of Jubilees as a consequence of redactional work.
18 Evil and the Devil

me, I will not be able to exercise the authority of my will among the children of men
because they are (intended) to corrupt and lead astray before my judgment because
the evil of the sons of men is great. (Jub. 10.7-8)

God consented and nine-tenths of the demons were bound. At the same
time the sons of Noah and Shem were taught to heal all manner of illness.
Nor were demons allowed to harm the sons of Noah and Shem. Mastema’s
role in Jubilees is to execute God’s judgment. Thus the author of Jubilees
has rewritten the account of the plagues of Exodus so that Mastema was the
destroyer who killed all the firstborn of the Egyptians. According to Exodus
12 the destroying angel instructed by Yahweh killed all the firstborn of Egypt.
In Jub. 49.2 this task is entrusted to Mastema and his forces. There is a parallel
exegetical reworking in 1 Chronicles 21 which rewrites 2 Samuel 24.47 Another
revision occurs in the rewriting of Genesis 22. Mastema plays a crucial role
in testing righteous Abraham (Jub. 17.15–18.19).48 Again the biblical text has
been rewritten. In his testing of Abraham Mastema plays a role analogous to
that of Satan in Job 1–2.
The new composition of the divine council after the “dethronement of
foreign deities” is reflected in the Book of Daniel and in the Septuagint
translation of Deut. 32.8. The divine council now consists of Yahweh, as the
only God, and the celestial angels. The Book of Daniel reports that foreign
political powers are represented in the celestial sphere. Dan.10.13 describes
the difficulties which Michael, the archangel of Israel, faced in the divine
court when the Persian angel opposed his plan: “But the prince of the Persian
kingdom resisted me twenty-one days. Then Michael, one of the chief princes,
came to help me, because I was detained there with the king of Persia.” In
Dan.10.20 mention is made of “the prince of Persia” with whom battle will be
joined in the celestial sphere, and of “the prince of Greece” who, it seems, will
come to wage war against “the prince of Persia.” Thus Yahweh as the leader
of the divine council can prevail upon nations and their angels to war against
each other and thereby assist his people Israel.
The Book of Jubilees presents another interpretation of the foreign gods or
idols. The writer identifies evil spirits with the idols of the nations. VanderKam
has argued that this concept was developed from Deut. 32.8 in conjunction
with Ps. 106.35-37 which expressis verbis identify idols and demons: “They
served their idols, which became a snare to them. They sacrificed their sons
and their daughters to the demons; they poured out innocent blood, the blood
of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan …”

47 This is similar to the rewriting of Exod. 4:24-26 in the Book of Jubilees. It is not
Yahweh who attacks Moses but Mastema who tries to kill him.
48 See also 4Q225. J. C. VanderKam and J. T. Milik, “225. 4QpseudoJubileesa,” DJD
13, 141–155; J. C. VanderKam, “The Aqedah, Jubilees, and Pseudojubilees,” in C. Evans and S.
Talmon (eds.), The Quest for Context and Meaning: Studies in Biblical Intertextuality (Biblical
Interpretation Series, 28; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 241–261.
 The Devil in the Old Testament ­19

Even the Septuagint translation of Ps. 96.4-5 says that “all gods of the peoples
are idols // demons” (MT: {ylyl); LXX: δαιμόνια).49 These two Jewish
texts from the second century bce are parallel results of the exilic theological
reassessment of the divine council.

Four “Satanic Verses” in the Old Testament

We have now discussed the wider theological frameworks of the divine

council imagery in the Old Testament and seen that it was used to emphasize
Yahweh’s control over historical events in the world. This imagery could have
enabled the solution of difficult existential problems: the assaults of nations
and their deities upon Israel (the danger of polytheism) as well as all manner
of tribulation which afflicted Israel and the lives of individuals (the danger
of dualism during the Persian period). Against this background we can now
evaluate the four passages in which Satan is mentioned.
Numbers 22 illustrates the ancient Israelite understanding of the divine
council. Satan is not described as the opponent of God. Rather Satan is the title
of an angel who performs a task against God’s opponent. The text describes
how God’s anger was burning against Balaam so he sent one of his angels to
be Satan to Balaam. This angel is the adversary against Balaam, and prepares
to kill him. In particular, this angel will defend Israel against its enemy, the
king of Moab.
The forensic aspect of the divine council provides a fitting background to the
presentation of the role of Satan in Job 1–2 and Zechariah 3. Both these texts
can be dated to the post-exilic period, and they reflect a new understanding of
the divine council. In the Book of Job, Satan is a member of the divine council
who actively attempts to destroy a righteous man, Job, and his reliance on God.
Even though Satan is written with the definite article, this does not exclude the
interpretation of him as a specific celestial being who is evil yet is entitled
to speak in the divine council—a right possessed by Satan/Mastema in the
Book of Jubilees. Job 1–2 was written to explain why the righteous man must
suffer. Day’s attempt to regard the whole episode in the Book of Job as irony
is difficult to accept as a correct understanding of the book—at least when this
was regarded as authoritative Scripture.50 The Book of Job clearly attempts to
solve the problem of theodicy. It, therefore, seems more reasonable to assume
that the celestial adversary Satan represents an evil power, although not in any
dualistic manner. Satan’s role is subjugated to the power of God.
Zechariah 3 is a later insertion in the Night Visions of Zechariah 1–6.51
Here the High Priest Joshua stands before the angel of Yahweh and Satan is

49 VanderKam, “The Demons in the Book of Jubilees,” 350–354.

50 Day, An Adversary in Heaven, 69–106, 148–149.
51 See Chr. Jeremias, Die Nachtgeschichte des Sacharja: Untersuchungen zu ihrer
Stellung im Zusammenhang der Visionsberichte im Alten Testament und zu ihrem Bildmaterial
(FRLANT, 117; Göttingen: Ruprecht, 1977), 10–13.
20 Evil and the Devil

condemning him. Following Hanson’s theory of struggling priestly families

Day has suggested that the passage should be interpreted as a reflection of
tensions in society so “that the objections to his candidacy had been aired
even in the heavenly assembly, and had been overruled.”52 Such a social
interpretation does not take into account the wider political-cum-theological
frameworks. The political situation at the beginning of the Persian era was
unstable, with Judah subjugated under Persian hegemony. The theological
problem of Yahweh’s forgiveness was an actual existential issue (Lam.
5.7). What guarantees that Yahweh has really forgiven his people? Because
Zechariah 3 is a later insertion in the Night Visions, it explains why Zerubbabel
did not succeed to the throne—which Hag. 2.23 and Zech. 4.6b-10b imply.53
Zechariah 3 explains the situation by observing that there was in heaven
profound disagreement concerning whether or not the time was ripe for the
re-establishment of the Judean community in Jerusalem. The office of High
Priest was established after Yahweh rebuked Satan, who opposed the plan.
Satan’s accusations in Zechariah 3 may be related to the idea of Yahweh’s
holiness. Satan refers to the uncleanness of Joshua and protests that he cannot
be appointed as High Priest. As Nadav and Abihu (Lev. 10) and Uzza (2
Sam. 6) died because they did not respect the holiness of Yahweh, so also
should Joshua be rejected because he as the representive of the Temple and
Jerusalem has not been cleansed of the sins committed in Judah before the
exile. Zechariah’s vision explains why Yahweh rebuked Satan and decided
that Joshua would be the High Priest. Moreover, he and his colleagues would
symbolize the coming Branch (Zech. 3.8-10). When the Branch appears, then
all sin will be abolished.54
1 Chronicles 21 defines the dynamic nature of the evil which is perpetrated
in the world. Satan here is described as an opponent of Yahweh who entices
David to do wrong. Satan is written without the definite article and is therefore
regarded as a celestial being, interpreted as denoting the anger of Yahweh in
2 Samuel 24. Because the Chronicles must date from the fourth century bce

52 See Day, An Adversary in Heaven, 107–126; the quotation is from p. 121. P. Hanson,
The Dawn of Apocalyptic (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979).
53 Concerning Hag. 2.23 there is a signet ring motif which clearly refers to Jer. 22.24,
where the grandfather of Jeconiah was rejected. Haggai emphasizes that Zerubbabel will receive
the same position as Jeconiah. Zech. 4.6b-10a again contains typical ancient Near Eastern royal
ideology connected with the temple building project and the establishment of the dynasty of the
royal builder. See A. Laato, “Zachariah 4,6b-10a and the Akkadian Royal Building Inscriptions,”
ZAW 106 (1994), 53–69; idem, “Temple Building and the Book of Zechariah,” in M. J. Boda and
J. R. Novotny (eds.), From the Foundations to the Crenellations: Essays on Temple Building in
the Ancient Near East and Hebrew Bible (Alter Orient und Altes Testament, 366; Münster: Ugarit-
Verlag, 2010), 381–398.
54 I have dealt elsewhere with the post-exilic theological problem of the forgiveness of
Yahweh. I argued that this led to the idea of the eschatological kipper-act. This eschatological
idea is visible in Zech. 3.8-10, Dan. 9.24-27, Qumran’s writings, and 2 Macc. 2.4-7. See A.
Laato, A Star is Rising: The Historical Development of the Old Testament Royal Ideology and the
Rise of the Jewish Messianic Expectations (University of South Florida International Studies in
Formative Christianity and Judaism; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1997), 299–307.
 The Devil in the Old Testament ­21

there is no obstacle to regarding Satan in 1 Chronicles 21 as a proper name.55

The Chronicler’s perception of Yahweh’s anger as a manifestation of Satan’s
action indicates that his theology was not dualistic. Satan was allowed to test
the righteous one or attack the godless one but he could not implement his own
plans without Yahweh, who is the ruler of the divine council and who has full
control of events in the world.
It is time to summarize our findings concerning the emergence of Satan
in biblical, Jewish and Christian theology. We have argued that in ancient
Israelite Yahwistic thought Yahweh had full control over the history of Israel, in
particular at a time of crisis when evil abounded. This concerned both demons
and evil spirits—belief in which was widespread in the ancient Near East and
Israel—who caused all kinds of problems, plagues, and diseases, together
with gods of foreign nations who threatened Israel politically through their
military operations. The concept of the divine council was used to emphasize
Yahweh’s sovereignty over all deities and his control over demons. During
the exile this concept of the divine council was modified. Other deities lost
their seats on the council and angelic beings came to represent foreign nations
and their idols. The struggle against Persian dualism led to the discernment
that there are no independent evil powers; all are subject to Yahweh. In this
theological atmosphere Satan began to play the role of a personal evil which
tried to prevent blessings being bestowed on God’s people or on the righteous.
Yet, from the outset, Satan was not an independent power, but was subjugated
to Yahweh. Jewish theology in the post-exilic period increasingly came to
believe that foreign gods were mere demons and evil spirits. This led to the
revision of Gen. 6.1-4, which may explain the fate of these evil powers who
began to lead nations astray.

Conclusions

We have dealt with the four central Old Testament texts where Satan is regarded
as a celestial being. We have argued that a correct understanding of these
texts depends on wider theological frameworks in which the Old Testament

55 One of the main arguments in Day’s study (An Adversary in Heaven) is that the
Chronicles should be dated as early as F. M. Cross has suggested (see pp. 141–142) and, therefore,
it is unlikely that Satan is a proper name. There is, according to Day, only second-century evidence
that Satan is a proper name. In my opinion, a terminus a quo for the Chronicles can be determined
from the genealogy of Davidides in 1 Chronicles 3. It is therefore correct to date the Chronicles
from around 400 bce at the earliest. See H. G. M. Williamson, Israel in the Books of Chronicles
(Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 83–86; idem, 1 and 2 Chronicles (NBC;
London: Eerdmans, 1982), 15–17. This being the case there is not so long an interval between
the Chronicler and the Book of Jubilees. For a useful overview of research and discussion, see
P. Evans, “Divine Intermediaries in 1 Chronicles 21: An Overlooked Aspect of the Chronicler’s
Theology,” Bib 85 (2004), 545–558. Evans argues that the Chronicler’s way of using Satan as a
celestial intermediate was “an important stage of development” toward the late Jewish doctrine of
Satan.
22 Evil and the Devil

imagery of the “divine council” is used. We concluded that the role of Satan
as a celestial being is related to theological rethinking during the exilic period
when the foreign gods lost their status in the ancient Israelite imagery of the
divine council and all dualistic conceptions were rejected so that the power
of evil yielded to Yahweh. This theological rethinking is particularly obvious
in Isaiah 40–55. It resulted in the acceptance of the personal Evil, who may
attend the divine council but is impotent and cannot contravene Yahweh’s will
(Job 1–2 and Zechariah 3). At a later stage Gen. 6.1-4 was reinterpreted to
explain the consequences for the demonic powers and their leader, who was
known by different names, Satan among them.
We have also considered the theological problem of monism. While Volz
argued that Yahweh was an ambivalent deity mingling good and evil, divine
and demonic, Lindström was correct to regard such a theory as unsupported
by the Old Testament evidence. However, it seems to me that Volz poses the
wrong questions to the textual material, and Lindström only answers these
wrong questions.56 There are two aspects which play a significant role in the
image of Yahweh in the Old Testament. One is his holiness, which we have
only mentioned en passant. The other is his total control of historical events,
both good and evil. It is against this belief that we must interpret the many
passages in the Old Testament emphasizing that Yahweh pervades all things,
good and evil, death and life.

56 Note what Lindström writes at the end of his study (God and the Origin of Evil, 240–
241) that two dualistic models must be rejected (cursive by Lindström): “No disaster at all comes
from God” and “Evil is the equal and opposite pole of the deity.”