A few months ago, I published a
blog post with arguments for the Christadelphian view that demons, the satan, and the devil are merely personifications of evil without any personal existence. However, while I find their arguments stronger than I expected, I still think they’re very mistaken. In this post, I’ll respond to the arguments set forth in that earlier post, with the hope of showing that the Scriptures really do teach the personal existence of the satan and demons.
The Hebrew Bible
In the Hebrew Bible, the word translated as “demon” (Heb: sheyd) refers to gods other than YHWH to whom the Israelites made sacrifices (Deut. 32:17; Ps. 106:37). Therefore, the ‘demonology’ of the Hebrew Bible is tied to what it says about other gods. Christadelphians (and many other Christians) typically assume that its teaching about other gods must be unified and univocal. Because of this, they subsume the many passages that assume the existence of other gods beneath the relatively fewer passages which say that idols have no “breath” and are merely human creations. [1]
However, as I showed in my recent study of ancient Israelite religion, the Hebrew Bible’s view of other gods is not unified or univocal. Furthermore, even the most clearly monotheistic sections (e.g., Isaiah 40-55) assumed the existence of lesser divine beings, including beings opposed to YHWH — what we might call “demons” (Isa. 40:25-26; 45:12; 51:9-10). [2] YHWH’s statements that “there is no god beside me,” and the rhetoric about idols having no “breath” and being “nothing,” both find their closest parallel in the polemics of other ancient Near Eastern, polytheistic cultures about how their national god is the best. [3] The real innovation of monotheism wasn’t the total denial of other deities, but their relegation from being “gods” (second-tier deities) to mere “angels” (fourth-tier deities). [4]
The belief that lesser deities can be disobedient is found throughout the Hebrew Bible. For example, in J, the “sons of God” (second-tier deities) are said to “err” (Heb: bə-šaggam) by intermarrying with human woman (Gen. 6:1-4). [5] The book of Job (which retains the archaic belief in second-tier “sons of God”; see [6]) assumes that it’s possible for angels to err and be charged with error (4:18; 15:15). Zechariah has a vision of the high priest Joshua in the heavenly courtroom, with one angel (called “the angel of YHWH”) defending him and another (called “the adversary”) prosecuting him; the latter is rebuked, which suggests that he’s erring by accusing Joshua (Zech. 3:1-2). The book of Daniel describes an angel fighting together with “Michael, a chief prince,” against “the prince of Persia” and “the prince of Greece” (10:13, 20-21). [7] That being said, none of these texts make a clear distinction between ‘angels’ and ‘demons,’ they simply emphasize that lesser divinities (like angels) can err and be opposed.
Christadelphians are right about one thing, however: the developed arch-enemy figure called “the satan” is nowhere to be seen in the Hebrew Bible. Instead, it uses satan as a generic noun meaning “adversary,” which can be applied to humans or (rarely) angels (Num. 22:22, 32; 1 Sam. 29:4; 2 Sam. 19:22; 1 Kgs. 5:4; 11:14, 23, 25; Ps. 109:6). “The anger of YHWH” may even be hypostatized as a satan in 1 Chronicles 21:1 (cf. 2 Sam. 24:1), although it’s also possible that this refers to a human adversary, or that it’s the first instance of “Satan” as the proper name of an angelic opponent. [8] Finally, in Job 1-2 and Zechariah 3, we see an angelic being called “the satan,” but this satan isn’t necessarily opposed to YHWH; rather, he acts as the heavenly prosecutor and/or executioner, though it’s possible for him to err (Zech. 3:2). [9]
Second-Temple Judaism
The distinction between “Hebrew Bible” and “second-Temple Judaism” is mostly artificial, since much of the Hebrew Bible was also composed during the second-Temple period. That being said, we can look at the non-canonical texts from this period to get an idea about the wider literary context of both the New Testament and the latest parts of the Hebrew Bible. Christadelphians, such as Jonathan Burke, emphasize the distinction between ‘forensic dualism’ (with its humanistic explanation of evil) and ‘cosmological dualism’ (with its mythological explanation of evil). [10] But this is a false dichotomy. James Davies has shown, using 1 Enoch, 2 Baruch, and 4 Ezra as test cases, that many second-Temple Jews held to both humanistic and mythological explanations of evil. [11] The same is true about the Community Rule of the Jewish sect at Qumran. [12]
In Hellenistic-period Judaism, belief in “evil spirits” as a source of temptation became common. This is first exemplified in the Book of the Watchers, a 3rd-century BC text, which explains (based on Genesis 6:1-4) that the giants, offspring of angels and humans, became “evil spirits” after they were killed, and began to lead people astray and cause illnesses (1 En. 15:7-12). The 2nd-century BC book of Jubilees equated the “evil spirits” of the giants with “demons,” and gave them a leader called “Mastema,” meaning “hatred” (Jub. 5:7-10; 7:21-25; 10:1-9). In various second-Temple texts, these “evil spirits” and “demons” are able to inhabit people’s bodies, and can be exorcised (e.g., Tobit 8:1-3; 1QapGen 20:28-29; 1QS IV 18-22; 11Q11 V 4-12; 4Q560). Josephus assumes the Enochic explanation for the origin of possessing demons, saying that they “are none other than the spirits of wicked men” (Wars 7.6.3).
The term “demon” (Gk: daimōn) wasn’t entirely negative. In Greek philosophy, a “demon” was a lesser divinity that administered fate and affected human personality. This concept was similar to angels in second-Temple Judaism. Thus, for example, Philo of Alexandria says, “philosophers in general tend to call them ‘demons,’ but the sacred writing calls them ‘angels’” (Somn. 1.141).
As for the existence of a leading superhuman opponent (LSO), second-Temple sources are divided. The earliest example of this is, once again, in the Book of the Watchers, where the leaders of the sinning angels are Shemihazah and his lieutenant Asael, both of whom will be punished at the last judgment (1 En. 6:1-7; 9:6-8; 10:4-15; cf. 86:1-3). The Book of Parables, written in the 1st century BC, calls the LSO Azazel and gives him the title of “the satan”; he and his followers will be punished (1 En. 53:3; 54:5-6; 55:4). In this book, “satan” is also a class of angelic beings (1 En. 40:7; 65:6). The book of Jubilees refers to the LSO as Mastema, and he’s also called “satan” (10:8-11). [13] Finally, one passing reference to “the devil” in the Moses Fragment (10:1) and to “the adversary” in pseudo-Philo (LAB 45:6) suggests, but does not require, that the authors of these texts believed in an LSO.
An LSO, called “Belial,” plays a much bigger role in the texts of the Qumran sect. Belial is also called the “angel of darkness” (1QS 3:20-22) and “angel of hatred” (CD 16:1-6; 1QM 13:11), and is said to be the leader of “angels of destruction” and spirits that lead people astray (CD 12:1-2; 1QM 13:1-6). The “angel of darkness” leads astray the “sons of deception,” and also tests the “sons of righteousness” in order to try to lead them astray (1QS 3:20-22). Two liturgical texts from Qumran, 4QBerakhot and 4QCurses, provide formulas for cursing the LSO, whom they also call “the evil one” and “Melkiresha” (4Q280 2:2; 4Q286 7 ii 5). However, the LSO isn’t necessarily opposed to God, as he was created by God for the purpose of leading people astray (1QM 13:11-12; 1QS 3:15-19, 25), and will serve as the agent of God’s judgment on the unfaithful (CD 8:1-3).
Christadelphians point to a few second-Temple Jewish texts which appear to ‘demythologize’ the idea of an LSO. The first is Sirach 21:27, which says, “When an impious person curses the satan, he curses himself.” This might repudiate a belief in a heavenly “satan,” but more likely repudiates the practice of cursing the heavenly satan, because the author (like Job and Zechariah) saw the satan as an important functionary of the heavenly court. [14] Wisdom 2:24 says, “through the envy of the devil death entered into the world,” which was interpreted by Clement of Rome and some modern scholars as a reference to Cain as a “devil” (1 Clem. 3:4ff). However, most scholars interpret it as an LSO, not a human slanderer. [15] The clearest example of ‘demythologization’ is found in 4Q Barkhi Nafshi, which refers to the satan of Zechariah 3 as the “evil inclination” (yetzer ha’ra).
New Testament
Apart from the Dead Sea Scrolls, in the second-Temple Jewish literature, an LSO is mentioned in as many as seven texts; in only three of these is he mentioned more than once. [16] In contrast, the New Testament refers to its LSO between 103 and 147 times, using various titles like “the satan,” “the devil,” and “the evil one.” [17] If, as Christadelphians claim, the New Testament authors were embarking on a campaign of ‘demythologization’ to dissuade belief in a personal satan, this data is extremely surprising. To the contrary, the New Testament emphasizes the idea of the LSO to an extent not seen elsewhere except in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
In the synoptic gospels, the topic of demon possession and exorcism is extremely prominent. By my count, there are five accounts of specific exorcisms during Jesus’ ministry, and many other nonspecific statements about exorcisms that he performed. [18] Furthermore, the synoptic gospels report that this was a point of contention between Jesus and the Pharisees, who claimed that he cast out demons “by the ruler of the demons” (Matt. 9:34; Mk. 3:22-30/Matt. 12:24-32, 43-45/Lk. 11:15-26). Jesus’ three tests by “the devil” and “the satan” are what prepares him for his ministry in Matthew and Luke (Mk. 1:12-13/Matt. 4:1-11/Lk. 4:1-13), which parallels the “three nets of Belial” that prepare Israel for the end of the age (CD 4:15-18). Once again, these facts are very difficult to explain if the gospel writers were embarking on a deliberate campaign of ‘demythologization.’ Instead, demons and the satan most likely formed a major part of the historical Jesus’ message and worldview. [19]
Some Christadelphians try to avoid this conclusion by appealing to the dichotomy between humanistic and mythological explanations of evil in second-Temple Judaism. Since the New Testament teaches that the main source of sin is our internal desires, and the way to avoid it is self-discipline and relying on God’s spirit, this puts it squarely within a humanistic explanation of evil. However, as noted earlier, this has been shown to be a false dichotomy. [11,12] The falseness of this dichotomy can be seen in the NT itself: the same text which says, “one is tempted by one’s own desire” (Jas. 1:13), also says that false wisdom is “demonic” (3:15) and exhorts its readers to “resist the devil and he will flee from you” (4:7). [20]
In order to claim that the New Testament uniformly shares a humanistic explanation of evil, one must seriously cherry-pick the data. Three of the books in the NT explicitly reference the “Watchers” narrative (1 Pet. 3:18-22; 2 Pet. 2:4-5; Jude 6), which suggests they held a similar mythological etiology of demons (the spirits of fallen angels and giants) found elsewhere in second-Temple Judaism. As noted already, the satan and demons feature much more prominently in the NT than in other second-Temple texts. Moreover, none of the alleged ‘demythologization’ in the NT comes even close to the only clear example of such in the second-Temple literature, where the satan of Zech. 3 is explicitly referred to as “the evil inclination” (4Q436 1 i 10).
Within the NT, the concept of the LSO isn’t totally uniform. Some texts present the satan as a tester, who should be resisted but whose role isn’t necessarily opposed to God (e.g., Lk. 22:31; 1 Cor. 5:5; 1 Tim. 1:20; James; see [20]). Other texts clearly present him as opposed to God, and say that his destiny is to be punished (e.g., Acts 26:18; Rom. 16:20; Rev. 20:10). This tension even appears within a single corpus, Luke-Acts, which shows that the NT authors weren’t concerned by this inconsistency. [21] As shown above, the same tension appears in the second-Temple Jewish depictions of Belial (in the DSS) and Mastema (in Jubilees; see [13]). However, what’s indisputable is that the NT does have a concept of an LSO, even if not a uniform one.
As a test case, let’s look at the Christadelphian interpretation of James 2:19: “Even the demons believe [that God is one], and shudder!” This is related by Christadelphians to a few passages in the Hebrew Bible where inanimate idols are depicted as trembling and tottering before YHWH (1 Sam. 5:3-4; Isa. 19:1; Jer. 50:2?). However, the Greek word phrissō refers to shuddering with fear, not merely tottering. [22] Furthermore, in Greco-Roman and second-Temple Jewish texts, there is an association between demons — i.e., lesser divinities — and “shuddering,” but not with inanimate idols. [23] Finally, the wider context of James’ argument requires that the demons are conscious beings, since their belief in God is compared to human belief (Jas. 2:18-19).
A passage sometimes appealed to by Christadelphians is 1 Cor. 8:4ff, where Paul says that “no idol in the world really exists,” but not all believers know this. Since he also says that demons are behind idols (1 Cor. 10:19-21), it follows, they claim, that demons don’t exist. But in the same passage, he acknowledges the existence of “so-called gods in heaven and on earth... many gods and many lords,” but clarifies that “for us there is one god... and one lord” (8:5-6).
In fact, Paul accepted the existence of lesser divinities opposed to God. He spoke of “angels... princes... [and] energies” that could in principle be opposed to God’s love (Rom. 8:38-39). He spoke of “the god of this age” who prevents the spread of the Messiah’s gospel (2 Cor. 4:4). There are beings in the heavens who must be reconciled and submit to the Messiah (Phil. 2:10; Col. 1:20). Such beings, however, are “not gods by nature” (Gal. 4:8); instead, they are “demons,” lesser divinities, and shouldn’t be worshipped or served (1 Cor. 10:19-21). Paul’s rhetoric about idols having no life is drawn from Second Isaiah, who also believed in lesser divinities who could be opposed to YHWH. [24] Thus, like other second-Temple Jewish monotheists, Paul believed in a universe full of divinities, who were ultimately subject to Israel’s god but could nevertheless be opposed to him. [25]
Post-Apostolic Christianity
Jonathan Burke, a Christadelphian amateur scholar, has argued that several early Christian texts display an “unusual” lack of belief in demons and satan, and thus such beings must play a limited (or nonexistent) role in early Christian belief. [26] However, his argument is flawed because it presupposes the false dichotomy between humanistic and mythological etiologies of evil (see above); thus, he assumes that any text which depicts an ‘internal’ source of evil must not (or only inconsistently) share a belief in demons. Furthermore, he cherry-picks the data by discounting possible references to satan in early Christian texts (e.g., Did. 8:2; 16:4; 1 Clem. 51:1). When these errors are accounted for, the “unusual” lack of data disappears. [27]
Conclusion
Both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament consistently assume the existence of lesser divinities, subject to the one god (YHWH/the Father), who could in principle be opposed to God and his son, some of whom are opposed. Some of us might be uncomfortable with this conclusion for various reasons — I know that I would prefer if it weren’t true — but it’s the only responsible conclusion. It’s up to the reader to accept the Scriptures’ teaching as true, or to embark on their own campaign of ‘demythologization.’ But what can’t be done, at least not with intellectual responsibility, is to claim that the Scriptures themselves are ‘demythologizing.’
______________________________
[1] For example, Ps. 115:4; 135:15; Isa. 2:8, 20; 40:18-20; 41:21-24; 44:9-20; 57:12f; Jer. 10:2-15; 51:17f; Hos. 8:4-6; 13:2f; Hab. 2:18f.
[2] Saul M. Olyan, “Is Isaiah 40-55 Really Monotheistic,” JANER 12, no. 2 (2012), 190-201.
[3] Nathaniel B. Levtow, Images of Others: Iconic Politics in Ancient Israel (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2008), 108, 124, 168-169; Saul M. Olyan, “Is Isaiah 40-55 Really Monotheistic,” 197; Stephen O. Smoot, “An Egyptian View of the Monotheism of Second Isaiah,” CBQ 86, no. 1 (2024).
[4] On the four-tier structure of the early Canaanite and Israelite pantheons, see Mark S. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts (New York: Oxford, 2001), 45-58. After the development of Israelite monotheism, the pantheon was collapsed into a distinction between YHWH, the only true god, totally sovereign over the cosmos, and the messengers (“angels”), who could be opposed to YHWH but were still utterly subject to him.
[5] Aren Wilson-Wright, “Yahweh’s Kin: A Comparative Linguistic and Mythological Analysis of ‘The Children of God’ in the Hebrew Bible,” in Where Is the Way to the Dwelling of Light? (Leiden: Brill, 2022), 51-53.
[6] Aren Wilson-Wright, “Yahweh’s Kin,” 54-55. The poem in Job 38:7-11, after mentioning “sons of God,” describes the birth of the god Sea in surprisingly naturalistic terms, which suggests a belief in literal children of God. Furthermore, “sons of God” in Job 1:6; 2:1 was translated as “angels of God” (Gk: hoi angeloi tou theou) in the LXX, showing that this category of deity was later considered problematic for Jewish monotheism.
[7] This reflects the earlier belief, found in Ugaritic and Israelite literature, about second-tier gods being given authority over each nation by the most high god (e.g., Deut. 4:19-20; 32:8-9). When the other gods were downgraded to angels, this belief was retained (Jub. 15:31-32; 1 En. 89:59-60).
[8] For a range of views on this passage, see John W. Wright, “The Innocence of David in 1 Chronicles 21,” JSOT 18 (1993), 87-105; Noel Bailey, “David’s Innocence: a Response to J. Wright,” JSOT 19 (1994): 83-90; Paul Evans, “Divine Intermediaries in 1 Chronicles 21,” Biblica 85, no. 4 (2004), 545-558; Pancratius C. Beentjes, “Satan, God, and the Angel(s) in 1 Chronicles 21,” in Angels: The Concept of Celestial Beings (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008), 139-154; Ryan E. Stokes, “The Devil Made David Do It... or Did He?”, Journal of Biblical Literature 128, no. 1 (2009), 91-106; see also NET Bible commentary on 1 Chronicles 21:1.
[9] In support of the ‘satan as prosecutor’ view, see Christopher A. Rollston, “An Ur-History of the New Testament Devil: The Celestial śāṭān in Zechariah and Job,” in Evil in Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 1-16. In support of the ‘satan as executioner’ view, see Ryan E. Stokes, “Satan, Yhwh’s Executioner,” JBL 133 no. 2 (2014), 251-270.
[10] For example, see Jonathan Burke, “Rethinking satan & demons in the New Testament #2 | dualism & hamartiology,” 22:53.
[11] James P. Davies, “Evil’s Aetiology and False Dichotomies in Jewish Apocalyptic and Paul,” in Evil in Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity, 169-189.
[12] Julia Leonhardt-Balzer, “Evil at Qumran,” in Evil in Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity, 18-22.
[13] Cf. Jub. 23:39; 40:9; 46:2; 50:5 where “satan” is used as a generic noun. Mastema is portrayed similarly to the satan in Job and Zechariah; his authority is given by God (10:8-11), he accuses people for God to test them (17:15-16), and he acts as the ‘destroying angel’ of the exodus (49:2). He’s also portrayed more negatively than Job’s and Zechariah’s satan, as he is “shamed” when Abraham passes his test (18:12) and temporarily bound at one point to prevent him from accusing the people of Israel (48:15).
[14] Thomas J. Farrar, “New Testament Satanology and Leading Suprahuman Opponents in Second Temple Jewish Literature: A Religio-Historical Analysis,” JTS 70, no. 1 (2019), 35-38.
[15] Thomas J. Farrar, “New Testament Satanology and Leading Suprahuman Opponents,” 38-39 and fnn.
[16] The seven texts are the Book of the Watchers, the book of Jubilees, the Book of Parables, the Moses Fragment (one possible mention), pseudo-Philo (one possible mention), the book of Sirach (one possible mention), and the Wisdom of Solomon (one possible mention).
[17] Thomas J. Farrar and Guy J. Williams, “Diabolical Data: A Critical Inventory of New Testament Satanology,” JSNT 39, no. 1 (2016), 40-71.
[18] Specific exorcisms: Mk. 1:23-27/Lk. 4:33-36; Mk. 5:2-20/Matt. 8:28-33/Lk. 8:27-39; Matt. 9:32-33; Matt. 12:22/Lk. 11:14; Mk. 7:24-30/Matt. 15:22-28; Mk. 9:17-29/Matt. 17:14-20/Lk. 9:38-43. Nonspecific exorcisms: Matt. 4:24; 8:16; 10:1, 8; Mk. 1:32-34, 39; 3:11; 6:7; [16:17;] Lk. 4:41; 6:18; 7:21; 9:1; 10:17; 13:32.
[19] N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (London: SPCK, 1997), 446-466.
[20] Nicholas J. Ellis, “A Theology of Evil in the Epistle of James: Cosmic Trials and the Dramatis Personae of Evil,” in Evil in Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity, 262-281. Ellis concludes that “the devil” of James 4:7 is a prosecutorial figure, similar to “the satan” of Job and Zechariah, whose role is to test humans in order to determine if they can overcome their own sinful desires.
[21] Tom de Bruin, “In Defence of New Testament Satanologies,” JSNT 44, no. 3 (2021), 435-451.
[23] Thomas J. Farrar, “Even the Demons Believe and Shudder: Demonology in the Epistle of James,” dianoigo (blog), 12 February 2018.
[24] Emma Wasserman, “‘An Idol is Nothing in the World’ (1 Cor 8:4): The Metaphysical Contradictions of 1 Corinthians 8:1-11:1 in the Context of Jewish Idolatry Polemics,” Portraits of Jesus (2012), 201-227; see also [2].
[25] Paula Fredriksen, “Philo, Herod, Paul, and the Many Gods of Ancient Jewish ‘Monotheism’,” Harvard Theological Review 115, no. 1 (2022), 23-45; see also William Horbury, "Jewish and Christian Monotheism in the Herodian Age," in Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 16-44.
[26] Jonathan Burke, “Satan and Demons in the Apostolic Fathers: A Minority Report,” Swedish Exegetical Annual 81 (2016): 127-168.
[27] Thomas Farrar, “Satanology and Demonology in the Apostolic Fathers: A Response to Jonathan Burke,” Swedish Exegetical Annual 83 (2018): 156-191.
