How did the idea of Satan emerge in the Jewish tradition?

 

Growing up in the Seventh Day Adventist church, I was told of a celestial battle between good and evil for the souls of every person on earth.  The main characters in this spiritual war were the trinitarian God (i.e., God the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit) on the 'good' side and the Devil / Satan / Lucifer on the 'evil' side.  I understood that Satan was, at one time, an important angel in Heaven (leader of the Heavenly choir, no less) who rebelled against God and was then cast out of God's presence and bound to the earth.  I was taught that, ever since his fall from grace, Satan spends all his time tempting people to reject God.  Adventists don't believe in the eternal conscious torment of hell, but they do preach that God will cast those who reject Him into a lake of fire where they will die a painful death and cease to exist.  Those who are 'saved' will be rewarded with eternal life in Heaven.  On this view, Satan, the great deceiver, is responsible for leading many people away from God and the promise of eternal life in Heaven.

Many years have passed since I believed this story, but I remain deeply fascinated by it.  I wanted to understand where the idea of Satan originated in the Jewish tradition.  I had heard several people say that there was no real concept of Satan in the Old Testament, the Hebrew Bible, but I didn't believe them.  After all, I was pretty sure that Satan had made life really difficult for poor Job.  I just had to investigate for myself.

Here is what I found.

The word "satan" in the Hebrew Bible

The Hebrew word śā-ṭān appears 27 times in the Hebrew Bible.  The word mostly means "accuser", "adversary" or "prosecutor" and is used to describe an angel of God, King David, King David's enemies, King Solomon's enemies, a legal prosecutor, God's heavenly servant and even God himself.

Did Satan Tempt Eve in the Garden of Eden?

My first stop is in the second creation story found in Genesis 2 and 3.  Chapter 3 begins with a serpent tempting Eve to eat some fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.  Throughout my life in the SDA church, I understood this 'serpent' to be Satan.  But, and here is the important question, did the original Hebrew writer intend for the serpent to be identified with Satan?

The writer of the story uses the Hebrew word nā-ḥāš, meaning 'serpent' or 'snake', and describes it as a ḥay-yaṯ, meaning 'beast' or 'animal' with a connotation of a wild animal rather than a domesticated animal. It occurs one more time in verse 14 when God tells the snake that it will be cursed more than any other wild animal.  ḥay-yaṯ occurs another 31 times in the Old Testament. 29 of these occurrences are translated as wild animals. There are 2 occurrences in the Psalms, obviously being used in a poetic sense: 1) Psalm 68:30 refers to a company of spearmen as beasts; and 2) Psalm 74:19 refers to a congregation of poor and afflicted people as beasts.  ḥay-yaṯ is not used in any way that would lead me to believe that it is describing a supernatural fallen angel skylarking in Eden as a snake.  

The idea that the snake was a fallen angel seems to have arisen in Apocryphal writings several hundred years after the last Old Testament book was written; however, these Apocryphal texts do not associate Satan with the snake. The Apocryphal Book of Enoch 69:6 (dated to ~100 BCE) says that a fallen angel by the name of Gadreel led Eve astray.  On the other hand, the Apocryphal Greek Apocalypse of Baruch (a.k.a. 3 Baruch and dated to ~70 CE) states that the fallen angel Sammael (who is also mentioned in the Book of Enoch) planted the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and was cursed by God for leading Eve astray.

The snake isn't any normal animal.  After all, it talks to Eve.  The writers of the Hebrew Bible are comfortable with talking animals as seen in Numbers when Balaam's donkey talks to him.  The donkey's speech is made possible by an act of God (see Numbers 22:28), so it is plausible that the writer of Genesis 3 intended that the snake was enabled to speak by some kind of divine being (either God himself or an angel).  Interestingly, the Apocryphal Book of Jubilees (dated ~150 BCE) makes it very clear that the snake was just an ordinary animal that lost its legs and its ability to speak when God cursed it.

Returning to canonical scripture, God's own actions in Genesis 3 seem to make it very clear that the snake cannot be interpreted as harbouring any kind of divine spirit or even of 'being' Satan.  In verse 14 it says, "Yahweh God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, you will be cursed more than any domesticated animal and more than any wild animal." ..."  The word used for 'domesticated animal' is hab-bə-hê-māh and the word used for 'wild animal' is ḥay-yaṯ.  The writer then has God describing how the snake will forever be cursed to slither on its belly .  Quite clearly, this curse is not directed at Satan (he does not wriggle on his belly!) and the writer gives no hint that the snake is actually Satan, so it is a real stretch to interpret the Genesis 3 snake as Satan.  

So, why do Christians interpret this snake as Satan?  It could have something to do with the influence of the Apocryphal texts (particularly the Book of Enoch which was very influential in the early Christian church - see Jude 14-15 for a direct word-for-word quote from the Book of Enoch) or fact that the gospels describe Satan tempting Jesus in the wilderness and also a passage in Revelation 12:9 (emphasis added) "the great dragon was thrown down, the ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world."  Many Christians view this passage in Revelation as referring to the snake in the Garden of Eden; however, I think a more appropriate fit, especially in light of the 'dragon' reference, is leviathan in Isaiah 27:1, "Yahweh will punish with his cruel, great and strong sword Leviathan, the fleeing [bā-ri-aḥ] serpent [nā-ḥāš], and Leviathan, the twisting [qal-lā-ṯō-wn] serpent [nā-ḥāš]."

As an aside, the Hebrew word for leviathan, liw-yā-ṯān, has its origins in an ancient Canaanite myth where the god Baal defeats a sea monster called Lotan, which is a servant of the sea god Yammu.  In the Ugaritic Baal cycle myths, Lotan is described as the fleeing serpent and the twisting serpent.  The Canaanite words that are used for fleeing (brḥ) and twisting (ʿqltn) are the same words that are used in the Hebrew Bible (shown here without vowels because vowels did not emerge in the written Hebrew language until much later).

[śā-ṭān count = 0]

Was Satan the angel who stood in Balaam's path?

Balaam is something of a nefarious character in the Pentateuch.  He is not an Israelite and yet Israel's god, Yahweh, entrusts him with prophecy.  There is an interesting passage in the book of Numbers where Balaam is intercepted by an angel while on his way to meet with the enemy of the Israelites.

Numbers 22:22  "But God became angry because he [Balaam] was going, and mal-’aḵ Yah-weh stood in the road as lə-śā-ṭān to him; he was riding on his donkey, and two servants were with him."

Numbers 22:32  "mal-’aḵ Yah-weh said to him, "Why have you struck this donkey three times? Look, I have come out as lə-śā-ṭān because your conduct is perverse before me.""

The word mal-’aḵ means 'angel' and Yah-weh is the personal name of God, commonly translated as 'the LORD'.  Hence, the term mal-’aḵ Yah-weh is referring to an angel of the LORD.  So, in this story, we see an angel of the LORD blocking the road in front of Balaam. The term lə-śā-ṭān is translated as 'an adversary'. This passage in Numbers is not describing the angel of God as Satan. It is merely describing the angel as being in opposition to Balaam.

When you read verse 32 this interpretation of the term lə-śā-ṭān is even clearer.  It would not make any sense if the angel of the LORD was Satan, but it makes a lot of sense if the angel of the LORD is in opposition to Balaam.  So, the verse would read, "The angel of the LORD said to him, "Why have you struck this donkey three times?  Look, I have come out as an adversary because your conduct is perverse before me.""

[śā-ṭān count = 0 + 2 = 2]

Was King David Satan?

The term lə-śā-ṭān is used once in 1 Samuel after David had fled king Saul’s wrath and joins the armies of the Philistines.  The Philistine kings argue amongst themselves about whether to allow David to fight alongside them.

1 Samuel 29:4  "But the commanders of the Philistines were angry with [Achish] and they said to him, "Send the man back so that he might return to his place where you have assigned him!  But he will not go down with us into the battle, so that he does not become lə-śā-ṭān to us in the battle.  By what could this fellow make himself favorable to his lord?  Is it not with the heads of these men?  5 Is this not David about whom they sing in the dances, saying, 'Saul has killed his thousands, but David his ten thousands'?""

In this case, the text is referring to David as becoming lə-śā-ṭān. Obviously, David is human and does not become an immortal fallen angel named Satan.  Again, it is clear in the context of the story that lə-śā-ṭān translates as 'an adversary' or 'an enemy' or similar.

lə-śā-ṭān is used again in 2 Samuel after David’s son, Absalom the usurper, is killed in the battle of Ephraim’s Wood.  David weeps for Absalom and then David speaks eloquently enough to the people of Judah that they accept him back as their king. David’s advisors urge him to execute certain traitors.

2 Samuel 19:22  "Then David said, "What is it to me or to you, sons of Zeruiah, that you should be lə-śā-ṭān today?  Should anyone be put to death in Israel?  Do I not know today that I am king over Israel?""

Yet again, the term lə-śā-ṭān clearly does not refer to Satan, but is more appropriately understood to mean 'an adversary'.

[śā-ṭān count = 2 + 2 = 4]

Did Satan Torment Job?

The book of Job is a poetic work that addresses the question of the suffering of the righteous.  I don’t see how the story can be treated as factually based because it has many scenes in it that could not possibly have been witnessed by any human person (e.g., the various meetings in Heaven between God and the sons of God as well as the dialogues between God and the adversary).

The term haś-śā-ṭān occurs 14 times in the first two chapters of Job.  Many of the translations of this book translate the term as Satan (proper noun).  The correct translation, however, is 'the adversary'. The Hebrew definite article הַ, phonetically haś and translated as 'the' is used in every instance in Job.  If the writer had intended for the word śā-ṭān to be interpreted as a proper noun, he would not have used the definite article.

Within the context of this poetic work, the adversary is subservient to God. He never does anything to Job without first gaining direct permission from God.  God brags to the adversary about how good and righteous Job is.  The adversary proposes a wager of sorts to demonstrate that Job’s attitude would change if God wasn’t so good to him.  God decides to accept the wager. 

Initially, God tells the adversary that he can touch anything that belongs to Job, but that he cannot touch Job.  Then, with God’s express permission, the adversary destroys all Job’s livestock, kills all his servants (except 4 eye witnesses) and kills all Job’s children.  Think about that for a minute.  If this story were actually true, it would mean that God allowed innocent people to be killed just to prove a point.  God even says to the adversary in Job 3:2 "And still [Job] persists in his blamelessness even though you incited me against him to destroy him for nothing."  This section makes it clear what the relationship is between God and the adversary.  The adversary is God’s servant.  God uses the adversary to administer tribulations on Job.

The adversary suggests that God has gone too easy on Job and that Job would curse God if his health was taken from him.  God, rises to the challenge and tells the adversary to do whatever he wants to Job, but that he must spare Job’s life.  So, the adversary gives Job a loathsome disease and that is the last we hear of the adversary.

Interestingly, at the end of Job, we see an acknowledgement of the fact that all these calamities were actually God’s fault.  Job 42:11 "So all his brothers and all his sisters and all those who had known him before came to him, and they ate bread with him in his house and showed sympathy to him and comforted him for all the disaster that Yah-weh had brought upon him." There is, of course, a happy ending because Job gets everything back twice over.  Sadly though, Job’s servants and his children remain dead; a witness to God’s mischievousness.

So, to summarise the use of the term haś-śā-ṭān in the book of Job, we see that: 1) the use of the definite article (in English, 'the', in Hebrew, הַ or haś) indicates that the term śā-ṭān is not a proper noun; 2) the character described as the adversary or the śā-ṭān is a servant of God who carries out God’s instructions, nothing like the character of Satan / the Devil that is found in the New Testament; 3) the calamities caused by the śā-ṭān are actually attributed to God (Job 42:11); and 4) God owns up to these actions himself (Job 2:3).

The adversary śā-ṭān is a good literary device that allows the reader to be a part of the celestial happenings.  The writer can use the conversation between God, on the one hand, and the śā-ṭān, on the other, to advance his explanation of Job’s suffering.  We, therefore, are privy to secret knowledge that, not only is there a higher purpose to suffering, but that our response to suffering will bring us reward (if we do not curse God) or further ruin (if we do curse God).

The adversary in the book of Job is essentially a scapegoat for the badness that happens so that the God character doesn’t get all the blame.  Importantly, the adversary in Job is nothing like the Devil described in the New Testament.  He is a servant in God's divine council.

[śā-ṭān count = 4 + 14 = 18]

Did Zechariah see Satan in His Vision?

Zechariah has a vision in chapter 3 of a trial in which the high priest, Joshua, is standing before Yahweh.  Zechariah doesn’t see the whole court proceedings, but he does get to witness the moment when Joshua is acquitted of the charges brought against him.  I wonder whether the real high priest at the time had, perhaps, been accused publicly of something?

Anyhow, there are two other characters in attendance in this courtroom: 1) mal-’aḵ Yah-weh or 'the angel of the LORD', and 2) haś-śā-ṭān or 'the adversary'.  As we saw in the book of Job, the definite article is used to describe the adversary.  As such, the word śā-ṭān is not a proper noun in this passage.

Zechariah 3:1  "And he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before mal-’aḵ Yah-weh; and haś-śā-ṭān was standing on his right to accuse him. 2 But Yahweh said to haś-śā-ṭān, "Yahweh rebukes you, haś-śā-ṭān. Yahweh who has chosen Jerusalem rebukes you! Is this [Joshua] not a stick snatched from the fire?""

First of all, the focus of this section is on Joshua, not the śā-ṭān.  In this scene, the adversary, haś-śā-ṭān, plays the part of the prosecutor (or accuser) who brings charges against the criminal.  He is rebuked by God because God has chosen Jerusalem and, in finding the high priest of Jerusalem not guilty, has saved Joshua from the fire ('a stick snatched from the fire' is a saying used elsewhere in the Old Testament).  In the following verses, God replaces Joshua’s filthy rags (i.e., sins) with the vestiges of priesthood.

Secondly, and most curiously, the accuser, the śā-ṭān, stands at the right hand of the Judge, mal-’aḵ Yah-weh.  If this were truly Satan / Lucifer, there is no way that he would be standing at the right hand of God or God’s representative.  No, the śā-ṭān here, like that in Job, is a literary device employed as a means of separating God from the role of accuser / adversary.

[śā-ṭān count = 18 + 3 = 21]

Is Satan in the Psalms?

Another śā-ṭān appears in the courtroom setting of Psalm 109.  In this scene, David is venting his displeasure at people who have 'wicked and deceitful mouths', 'a lying tongue', and who have 'inflicted evil against [him] in return for good'.  David asks God, in verse 6-7, "Appoint over him a wicked man, and let a śā-ṭān stand at his right hand.  7 When he is judged, let him come out guilty".

In this song, the 'wicked man' would be the judge and the śā-ṭān would stand at the Judge’s right hand as the prosecutor / accuser.  Again, this is not referring to Satan / Lucifer.  It is referring to the role of a prosecutor; a legal adversary.  It is a very offhand remark that is intended to make it clear to the listener that the scene is a courtroom.

When you think about it, the focus of David’s request is rather bizarre.  Would David really ask God to appoint Satan / Lucifer as the prosecutor? "Please God, could you find some corrupt judge to officiate over the trial of the person who has been spreading lies about me, and, by the way, could you drag Satan out of that hole you buried him in and get him to prosecute my enemy?"  No, this śā-ṭān is not Satan / Lucifer.

Yet again, the term śā-ṭān is used as a description of the role of a character, not as a proper noun.

[śā-ṭān count = 21 + 1 = 22]

Did Solomon Mention Satan?

King Solomon enjoys a peaceful reign compared to that of his father, David.  He writes to King Hiram of Tyre asking for cedar wood to build a temple in Jerusalem.  He says in 1 Kings 5:4, "But now Yahweh my God has given me rest all around me. There is no śā-ṭān, and there is no bad occurrence."  Notice that this time, there is no definite article, so we could perhaps interpret this as a proper noun if it was appropriate to the context.

Is Solomon saying here that there is no such thing as Satan / Lucifer?  Or is he merely pointing out that the Kingdom of Israel has no one to oppose them; no adversaries?

I think it is clear that the text here is indicating that there are no adversaries and all is peaceful.  Yet again, we have a śā-ṭān that has nothing to do with Satan / Lucifer as he is depicted in the New Testament.

[śā-ṭān count = 22 + 1 = 23]

Was Satan also known as Hadad or Rezon?

As you know, Solomon had many wives from other lands.  As he got older, he allowed them to guide him away from worshiping Yahweh.  Solomon started offering incense and sacrifices to the gods of his wives and this infuriated Yahweh.  Instead of chatting with Solomon about his apostasy, God decides to send a couple of satans to sort Solomon out.

1 Kings 11:14  "Then Yahweh raised a śā-ṭān against Solomon, Hadad the Edomite, from the descendants of that king in Edom."

1 Kings 11:23  "God had also raised Rezon the son of Eliada as a śā-ṭān against him, who had fled from Hadadezer the king of Zobah, his master."

1 Kings 11:25  "[Rezon] was a śā-ṭān for Israel all the days of Solomon."

Even though all three of these references do not make use of the definite article, I think it is clear that Hadad the Edomite and Rezon the son of Eliada are human beings, not supernatural devils.  Obviously, the term śā-ṭān here describes adversaries of Solomon.

[śā-ṭān count = 23 + 3 = 26]

Is God Satan?

Last, but certainly not least is the śā-ṭān of 1 Chronicles 21.  This śā-ṭān is introduced without a definite article, so we could be allowed to consider this śā-ṭān as a proper noun Satan / Lucifer.

So, David had just defeated some Philistine giants, including Goliath’s little brother Lahmi and an unnamed giant who had 6 fingers on each hand and 6 toes on each foot.  The very next verse is 1 Chronicles 21:1 "Then śā-ṭān stood against Israel and urged David to count Israel."  David tells Joab to conduct a census (a census in ancient times was conducted to identify all the men of fighting age).  Whatever the true story is, the Chronicler tells us that David’s decision to conduct a census was prompted by śā-ṭān.

This character could very well be Satan / Lucifer talking into David’s ear and getting him to conduct a census.  There is a big problem with this interpretation, however.  You see, the Chronicler is rewriting a story from 2 Samuel where God is identified as the one who incited David to conduct the census.  More on this later.  For now, let's get back to the Chronicler's story.

So, what does David do?  He tells Joab to conduct a census.  Joab objects very strongly to this task, but eventually he goes ahead and does the count, excluding the tribes of Levi and Benjamin.  I find it most interesting that, when the King does something the priests (Levites) disagree with, we find the scribes writing down things like 1 Chronicles 21:7 "But this word was displeasing in the eyes of God, and he struck Israel."

And calamity ensues. 1 Chronicles 21 "14 So Yahweh sent a pestilence through Israel, and seventy thousand men from Israel fell.  15 And God sent a mal-’āḵ to Jerusalem to destroy it, and as he was about to destroy it, Yahweh saw and was grieved on account of the calamity. Then he said lam-mal-’āḵ ham-maš-ḥîṯ, "It is enough; slacken your hand.""

mal-’āḵ means 'angel'.

lam-mal-’āḵ ham-maš-ḥîṯ means 'to the angel that destroyed'.

Now, the question I am asking myself at this point is whether or not the angel of destruction described here is the śā-ṭān from verse 1?  If it is, then this śā-ṭān is actually one of God’s angels under his control.  To be fair, I don’t think it is correct to link this angel with the śā-ṭān of verse 1.  The only thing that śā-ṭān does is to urge David to do something that the priests did not like.  All the death and destruction that ensues is because God throws a tantrum and decides to kill 70,000 men and almost destroy Jerusalem.

This śā-ṭān is the most convincing Old Testament example of the Christian (i.e., New Testament) understanding of Satan.  But, the Chronicler seems to have been uncomfortable with the version of the story in 2 Samuel 24:1, which says, "Again Yahweh was angry with Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, "Go count Israel and Judah.""  This passage clearly identifies Yahweh as the spirit that incited David to conduct the census.

What does the Chronicler do?  He changes the story to make it appear that Satan tempted David to conduct the census!  

I find it intriguing that the only plausible instance of a malevolent, tempting Satan (who is not controlled by God) in the Old Testament is found in one of the latest writings of the OT.  The books of Chronicles cannot have been written before the reign of Cyrus the Great, because the last verses in 2 Chronicles detail the decree of Cyrus.  

The discomfort of the Chronicler in ascribing evil behaviour to Yahweh is an innovation in Jewish theology.  It marks a point in time where Jews began attributing evil to a malevolent being rather than to their God, Yahweh.  Certainly, by the time of Jesus, Jewish thought had fully incorporated Satan / the Devil into their theology.  

The influence of the Zoroastrian religion of the Persians could explain why the Jews introduced a malevolent spirit into their theology.  After all, the Zoroastrians believed in a good God, Ahura Mazda, and an evil spirit, Ahriman (also known as Angra Mainyu).

So, we have reached the last mention of śā-ṭān in the Hebrew Bible and not a single instance of the word in the entire Old Testament can be properly attributed to a tempting, malevolent, fallen angel who is completely independent from God.  The closest example turned out to be the work of an editor trying to create a scapegoat for God's own evil actions.

[śā-ṭān count = 26 + 1 = 27]

Is Lucifer Satan?

There is a section in the book of Isaiah which mentions 'Lucifer'.  Isaiah 14:12 (KJV) "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!"  Christians have been interpreting this passage as referring to the Devil / Satan ever since Milton wrote "Paradise Lost" in the 17th century.  Prior to Milton, nobody attributed the Latin word 'lucifer' to Satan.

Let me be clear.  There is absolutely nothing in the entire 14th chapter of Isaiah to suggest that the writer had any intention to mention Satan or the Devil.  The whole section from verse 3 to verse 23 is an oracle by the prophet Isaiah against the King of Babylon, who remains unnamed.  Properly translated, the verse actually reads, "How you have fallen from heaven, morning star [hê-lêl], son of dawn [ben-šā-ḥar]!  You are cut down to the ground, conqueror of nations!"

The Hebrew word hê-lêl only occurs once in the entire Hebrew Bible.  It is generally understood to be an epithet for the King of Babylon with the meaning of 'bright' or 'shiny'.  The word hê-lêl was translated into the Latin word lucifer which was used in Roman times as their word for the planet Venus.  The translators knew that the Hebrew Bible was referring to the planet Venus because the Hebrew phrase ben-šā-ḥar, 'son of the dawn', was used to describe the 'morning star' Venus.

Why did Christians start interpreting this passage as referring to Satan / the Devil?  Well, in Luke 10:18 Jesus says, "I saw Satan falling like lightning from heaven."  Also, the book of Revelation describes a battle in Heaven between Michael and Satan.  Revelation 12:9 "And the great dragon was thrown down, the ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world. He was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him."  Christians have used these texts to apply their own bizarre interpretation on Isaiah's oracle against the King of Babylon (see above where the serpent in Revelation is more appropriately linked with Leviathan).  It doesn't make any sense to insert Satan into Isaiah's oracle because it simply doesn't fit with the rest of the oracle.

No, Lucifer is not Satan and never was.  Equating Satan and Lucifer is something that happened much later in Christian theology and has nothing to do with what Isaiah actually wrote.

Is Azazel Satan?

The book of Leviticus is primarily focused on priestly traditions.  In chapter 16, there is a description of how to conduct sacrifices to atone for the sins of the Israelites.  The ceremony calls for the sacrifice of a bull and a goat.  Following this, the priest must lay hands on the head of a living goat to transfer the sins of people into the living goat.  The living goat is then cast into the wilderness to carry away all the sins of the Israelites.

A Hebrew phrase la-‘ă-zā-zêl is used four times in chapter 16 and is not used anywhere else in the Hebrew Bible.  The phrase is generally translated 'as the scapegoat'.  This translation is brought into question because the apocryphal book of Enoch mentions a fallen angel named Azazel.

Enoch 8:1 "And Azazel taught men to make swords, and knives, and shields, and breastplates, and made known to them the metals of the earth and the art of working them ..."

Enoch 10:4-6  "And again the Lord said to Raphael: "Bind Azazel hand and foot, and cast him into the darkness: and make an opening in the desert, which is in Dudael, and cast him therein. And place upon him rough and jagged rocks, and cover him with darkness, and let him abide there for ever, and cover his face that he may not see light. And on the day of the great judgement he shall be cast into the fire.""

The book of Enoch certainly describes Azazel in a way that reminds modern Christian readers of Satan; however, there are many other fallen angels in Enoch.  As such, it strains credulity to equate Azazel with Satan.  After all, the leader of the fallen angels in Enoch is called Samlazaz.

This part of the book of Enoch (a.k.a. the Book of the Watchers) is generally dated to the intertestamental period, circa 300 - 200 BCE.  The imagery in Enoch 10:4-6 is reminiscent of the atonement ritual in Leviticus 16.  It seems reasonable to conclude that the writer of Enoch was building a character from Leviticus 16.

Azazel is also featured in the apocryphal Apocalypse of Abraham where he is depicted as an evil spirit in the form of an unclean bird and as a winged snake in the Garden of Eden tempting Adam and Eve to eat the forbidden fruit.  The Apocalypse of Abraham is dated to the first century CE and, as such cannot be relied on to provide context for the Leviticus passage.

The stories of the fallen angels in the book of Enoch appear to have been derived from a short, enigmatic verse in Genesis.  Genesis 6:1-2  "And it happened that, when humankind began to multiply on the face of the ground, daughters were born to them.  Then the sons of God saw the daughters of humankind, that they were beautiful. And they took for themselves wives from all that they chose."  In her 1995 book titled, "The Origin of Satan," Prof Elaine Pagels argues that Enoch 1 - 36 (also known as the Book of the Watchers) was written as an allegory for the author's own time.  Pagels suggests that the author drew on the Hebrew Bible for inspiration and cast the Greek ruling class and the priesthood as these fallen angels (han-nə-p̄i-lîm or nephilim).

Azazel is not Satan.  It seems more appropriate to translate ă-zā-zêl as the scapegoat of the atonement ritual.

What about the Angels of Death and Destruction?

There are many references in the Hebrew Bible to angels of death and destruction.  For instance, the angel (mal-’āḵ) of destruction (ham-maš-ḥîṯ) who kills the firstborn in Egypt (Exodus 12:23) and who kills 70,000 Israelite men (2 Samuel 24:16 and 1 Chronicles 21:15).  The angel of destruction is always depicted as a servant of God and cannot, therefore, be Satan.

Death (mā·weṯ) is often personified in the Bible (see Habakkuk 2:5, Job 18:13, Hosea 13:14 and Jeremiah 9:21).  There is an obvious connection here with the Hebrew word for death being the same word that is used for Mot the Canaanite god of death.  Whenever death is personified in the Hebrew Bible it serves a literary purpose.  There is no reason to presume that the biblical authors intended to portray 'death' as a real divine spirit, let alone as Satan.

Is Belial Satan?

The Hebrew word ḇə-lî-ya-‘al has two roots: ḇə-lî which means 'without' and ya-‘al which means 'to be of value'.  It is commonly translated as 'worthless'.  The word ḇə-lî-ya-‘al occurs 27 times in the Hebrew Bible and is used to describe ungodly or worthless men.  The sons of Eli the priest are described in 1 Samuel 2:12 as "sons [bə-nê] of ḇə-lî-ya-‘al."  The translators of the King James Version chose to capitalise the word yielding "Now the sons of Eli were sons of Belial."  Clearly, Eli's sons were not fathered by a demonic spirit named Belial.  The writer was merely saying that Eli's sons were worthless men - scoundrels even.  

In every single instance in the Hebrew Bible, the word ḇə-lî-ya-‘al is used to describe people of poor moral character: worthless, ungodly, wicked, naughty, evil, etc.  None of the 27 instances in the Bible can be translated as the name of a divine being like Satan.

Christians have often equated Belial with Satan because of one mention in 2 Corinthians 6:15,  "And what agreement does Christ have with Beliar?"  If Paul intended to write "Belial", he made a spelling mistake!  Many translations (e.g., NAS and KJV) have chosen to correct the perceived spelling mistake.  But, what if he didn't make a mistake and intended to write 'Beliar'?  The Greek word Βελίαρ is said to mean 'lord of the forest' and could be a reference to the cult of Aphrodite; however, most Christians have interpreted it as being another name for the Devil.

The name Belial is actually found in the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) and in a handful of apocryphal texts (i.e., the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and the Ascension of Isaiah).  There is a fascinating mention of Belial that portrays him in a similar light to Satan in the so called 'War Scroll' of the DSS corpus: "You made Belial for the pit, angel of enmity; in darkness is his domain, his counsel is to bring about wickedness and guilt. All the spirits of his lot are angels of destruction, they walk in the laws of darkness; towards it goes their only desire."  The Essenes, who wrote the DSSs, seem to have understood Belial to be an important demonic figure as they mention him in several other texts.

So, it seems clear that Belial is not Satan.  The word has been mistranslated as a proper noun in some translations of the Hebrew Bible.  Belial might be mentioned once in the New Testament, if you accept that Paul made a spelling mistake.  Certainly, the Essenes and some other writers of apocryphal literature did think that Belial was a Satan-like creature; however, that interpretation is not found anywhere in either the Old or New Testament.

What Have we Learned So Far?

So far, we have learned that the Hebrew word śā-ṭān merely means 'accuser', 'adversary' or, when used in a legal setting, 'prosecutor'.  We have learned that the word was used of King David, King David's enemies, King Solomon's enemies, an angelic servant of God, and even of God himself.  In the Old Testament, the word is never used to describe the Satan that most Christians know and fear.  We have learned that the snake in the Garden of Eden was just a snake and cannot be interpreted as Satan / the Devil.  We have learned that Lucifer is just the Latin word for the planet Venus.  We have learned that ă-zā-zêl is the Hebrew word for a scapegoat.  We have learned that ḇə-lî-ya-‘al is the Hebrew word for 'worthless'.  And we have learned that even though God sometimes sends an angel of death and destruction to kill people, that angel cannot be Satan.

In short, we have learned that Old Testament writers evidently did not know about or believe in a malevolent fallen angel named Satan whose purpose was to tempt people away from right belief in God!

How then did the Idea of Satan Emerge in the Jewish Tradition?

Satan emerges in Jewish thought during the Second Temple Period; that is, well after the return of the Jewish exiles to Judah.  The 2nd Book of Enoch (dated to ~150 BCE) makes mention of multiple "Satans".  Many scholars have noted that Christian writers including Paul, the gospel writers and, most obviously, the author of Jude have relied heavily on the Enochian tradition.  The Qumran community (most likely the Essenes) kept several copies of the Enoch as evidenced in the Dead Sea Scrolls.  By the time of Jesus, the concept of Satan was well and truly entrenched within certain Jewish sects.  It is perhaps not surprising that Christian writers painted Satan as this malevolent being who tempted the faithful away from God.

One day, I will put in a bit of effort to examine the Christian use of Satan / the Devil.  I have a sneaking suspicion that modern Christians are reading their own interpretations back into the text.  Until then, I guess we can confidently claim that the modern Christian perspective of Satan simply does not exist in the Hebrew Bible.  It was a much later innovation in Jewish theology arising, in an incomplete form, during the 2nd temple period.  When I get some time, I will look into the depictions of Satan / the Devil in the New Testament and other early Christian literature.

Until then, take care.

Craig.