Doctrine of Satan in the New Testament

7/29/2019 Doctrine of Satan in the New Testament

1/7

The Doctrine of Satan: III. In the New TestamentAuthor(s): William CaldwellSource: The Biblical World, Vol. 41, No. 3 (Mar., 1913), pp. 167-172Published by: The University of Chicago PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3142755

Accessed: 16/02/2010 17:52

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The

Biblical World.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3142755?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpresshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpresshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3142755?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/7

THE DOCTRINE OF SATANIIIIN THE NEW TESTAMENTWILLIAM CALDWELL, PH.D.Fort Worth, Texas

In the Old Testament we have seenthat the figureof Satan is vague. In theapocalyptic literature it is manifold andconfused. In reaching the New Testa-ment we are struck by the unitariness,clearness,and definitenessof the outlineof Satan. A bold, brazen personalityconfronts us almost on the first page.Indeed, he appears immediately on theinaugurationof Jesus into the messianicoffice, and the New Testament writersgive a unanimous testimony as to hischaracter,yet their testimony is not with-out variety as to his functions. Thoughhis office is one, his names are many. Asthe manifold benevolence of Jesus findsexpressionin many names, so the mani-fold malevolenceof Satan. He is called"the prince of demons" (Mark 3:22);"the prince of this world" (John I2: 3);"the prince of the powers of the air"(Eph. 2:2); "the god of this world" (IICor.4:4); "the tempter" (Matt. 4:3; IThess. 3:5); "devil" (diabolos,the "ac-cuser," n many passages); " satan"("ad-versary," in many passages); "Beelze-bub" (Luke II:I8; cf. Matt. 12:26);"the enemy" (Matt. 13:39); "the evilone" (Matt. I3: 9; Eph. 6: 6); "Belial"(II Cor. 6:15); "the serpent" (II Cor.II:3); "the old serpent" (Rev. 12:9);"the dragon" (Rev. I2:9). We shall inthe following pages consider the origin,function, and fate of Satan, discussingalso questions of objectivity and value.

I. The Origin of SatanWe cannot say offhand that he is ofPersianorigin, The nameis not Persianbut pure Hebrew. The character is notthe same as Ahriman who is an inde-

pendent being with creative power. Inthe Old Testament Satan is dependenton Jehovah. Indeed, he appears as adistinct personality only in three latepassages (Zech., chap. 3; Job, chaps. i,2; I Chron., chap. 21).It is not denied that Persianinfluencemay have been felt in the developmentof the idea, but the roots of the idea arein the Hebrewsoil, and the developmentis under the dominance of Hebrewthought. The "sons of God," after-ward calledangels, are not importedintothe Semiticreligions. And Satanappearsfirst among the angels. The angels areknown by their functions. In the storyof Balaam (Num. 22:22 f.) the angel ofJehovah stands in the way for a Satan(adversary) to him. The function ofSatanin the Book of Job is that of prose-cuting attorney with addedpowersof the"third degree" methods of the police.The task is invidious. If Satan had afall, it must have been through fondnessfor his vocation. The desire to convictmay make the criminal lawyer criminal.Indeed, here in Job the distinctness ofSatan differs widely from that of theangel of the Lord in the Balaam passage.His distinctness is more than functional;I67


3/7

THE BIBLICAL WORLDit is organicand moral. But there is inthe OldTestament no account of the fallof Satan. This doctrine appearsfirst inthe Book of Enoch. It is there con-nected with the improperconduct of theangels mentioned in Gen. 6:2-4. But,again, in the Old Testament angels ofevil do not attend Satan. The angelswho bring evil or plnishment are directmessengers of God, and, on the otherhand, Satan is not a leader but thor-oughly subordinate. In Zech., chap. 3,he is rebuked and disregarded. In Job,Satan is dearly subordinateand can donothingwithout divinepermission. Andyet he has a bad eminence among theangels: "the Satan came also in themidst of them." Angelsare sent, he hasthe freedom of a scout (Job I:7; Zech.I: Io), but as yet no such freedom as isaffirmedof himin I Pet. 5:8. In II Sam.24:I God moves David to do the actthat bringspunishment. In Job, Sataninstigates God againstJob. In I Chron.2I:1 Satan moves David to do the sameact as in I Sam. 24: I. In this passageSatan's independenceof God is as com-plete as it ever becomes in the Old Tes-tament. In the apocryphal Book ofWisdom (2:24) God and the devil are incomplete opposition. This is the pedi-gree of Satan with which we open theNew Testament, a pedigreethat lay opento the writers of the New Testament.As to a fall of Satan before the crea-tion of man the Scriptures are silent.Popular views are an inference fromGen., chap. 3, underthe guidanceof laterinterpretationwhich identifiedSatanandthe serpent. A primeval fall of Satanwith angels has its foundation in theBook of Enoch, which builds in turnupon the passage in Gen. 6:2-4, or upon

the sources of that fragment. Miltonhas popularized this element of theEnoch literature, so that many of ourtraditional notions rest on no surerfoundation than Milton's poetizing onpseudonymousmythology. Luke Io:i8,"I saw Satan fall as lightning fromheaven," is a poetic expressionlike thatof Isa. 14: 2, "How art thou fallen fromheaven, 0 day-star, son of the morning!"and concernsitself with the coming fallof Satan, seen by faith as already com-pleted. Rev. I2:7 f. also furnishesMil-ton with material which he misuses. Thefall of Satan and angelshereis somethingachieved throughthe incarnation. Thispassage is probably founded on Lukeo1: I8 and bears a similarmeaning. Thefall is a fall from power, the war inheaven is a war in the heavenlies onearth, something happening in settingup the kingdom of heaven on the earth.Our conclusion is that the originof Satanis left unexplained.

II. The Function of SatanIn early times Satan is not opposedtoGod, nor is he a tempter of men. InNum. 22:22, 32 the angel of the Lord be-comes a Satan or adversary to obstructBalaam's evil intentions-a good Satan.In primitive thought God tempted

Abraham; it was not so later. We haveshown the gradualchange of theology inthe passages II Sam. 24:I; Job, chaps.I,2; and I Chron. 2I: . There remainsthe passage in Jas. I: I3 where alltemptation on the part of God is denied.Satan's function in the Old Testament ischiefly as an accuser. Hence in Gen.,chap. 3, the sacredwriter does not intro-duce Satan but the Serpent who playsthe part of tempter,a r61eassignedSatan

168


4/7

THE DOCTRINE OF SATANin Wisd. 2:24 andin the New Testament.In the temptation of Jesus, Satan doesnot bringa surpriseinto the divine plan.Matthew tells us Jesus was led by theSpirit to be tempted. The temptationwas part of the divine plan. If Jesuswas tempted as we, Satan must havebeen a spiritual presence, not a bodilyform. The case can be stated best inSanday's words:

In this our Lordgoesto whatmay seemgreat engths n the usethathemakesof thetraditional machineryof Judaism.....The Power of Evil is representedn a per-sonal bodily form and the machineryorsettingof the storyis full of the marvelous..... Realismcouldhardlygo further,andyet the meaningand essenceof the tempta-tion is wholly spiritual; it is the problemwhat s to be donewithsupernaturalowers:shall the possessor se themforhisownsus-tenanre,or for his ownaggrandisement

Satan is used also by God for inflict-ing sufferingor punishment, less often inthe New Testament, in a mannerremind-ing us of Job. In I Cor. 5:5 Paul givesorders to turn over an outrageously sin-ful man "unto Satan for the destructionof the flesh, that the spirit may be savedin the day of the Lord Jesus."Satan is also a hinderer. Paul writesthe Thessalonian brethren of his greatdesire to return to them and assuresthemthat his failure to come was no fault ofhis. The blame rested on another:"Satan hindered us" (I Thess. 2:18).Again, Satan is an accuser. "Now iscome .... the kingdomof God and theauthority of his Christ: for the accuserofour brethren is cast down, who accuseththem before God day and night"(Rev. I2: I). Satan is already hin-derer, accuser, and tempter in the Old

Testament; he is tempter, accuser, andpunisher in the apocalyptic literature.But in the New Testament there is adifferentemphasis and atmosphere.We may sum up by saying thatSatan's chief function in general is theoriginationand perpetuationof sin. Heis no fighter; resist him and he flees(Jas. 4:7). He may assume the form ofan angel of light to the cultivated Greeks(II Cor. 1I:I4), or the form of a wiseserpent to the inexperienced woman(Gen., chap. 3; cf. II Cor. II:3). Theseforms are very far from reality, but thisis not surprising,since he was a liar andmurderer romthe beginning,that is, thebeginning of human history, when hebrought death to the race (John 8:44;I John 3:8). He is the enemy ofrighteousness; sows tares and snatchesaway good seed. He goes about like aroaring lion (I Pet. 5:8); he hurls fierydarts like the most uncivilized warriors(Eph. 6: 6); he sifts men like wheat,with the purposeof mangling them andpressing them through the sieve (Luke22:31); his wrath is great because histime is limited (Rev. I2:12).

III. The Fate of SatanSatan's relation to God is similarto that of man. His independence

is relative. If he is opposed to God,the end is certain. His power is super-human, but limited. He is strong, butJesus is stronger (Matt. 12:29) andcan spoil Satan's goods (Mark 3:27).Jesus came to destroy the works of thedevil (I John 3:8). He will bring tonaught the devil himself (Heb. 2:14),and liberate those "who through fear ofdeath were all their lifetime subject tobondage" of Satan (Heb. 2:15). Ideally

169


5/7

THE BIBLICAL WORLDand to the eye of faith Satan has long agobeen overthrown (Luke Io:I8), and in-dividualsarealreadydeliveredout of thepower of darkness (Col. I:I3). Jesussays with perfect confidence,"the princeof this world hath been judged" (JohnI6: II), and "now is the judgmentof thisworld: now shall the princeof this worldbe cast out" (John I2:3I).But really in the present evil timeSatan still reigns. He will not be com-pletely overthrown till the consumma-tion of the kingdom. Eventually Satanand his angels go into everlasting pun-ishment prepared for them (Matt. 25:4I), to be tormented day and night for-ever, along with the "beast" and the"false prophet" (Rev. 20: 0). Paulpromises: "The God of peace shallbruise [Gen., chap. 3 Satan under yourfeet shortly" (Rom. i6:20), and in theglorious consummation, "God will putall enemiesunderhis feet" (I Cor.15: 26).

IV. The Objective Reality of theKingdom of SatanWe must distinguish between a formof reality and reality itself-betweenform and fact. The fact of man's

struggle cannot be gainsaid, the form ofthis struggle may not be known. Butfaith cannot tolerate the thought thatthis struggleis wholly subjective. Suchan insult and injury to faith becomesblasphemy when applied to the holyJesus. Whatever else was intended bythe sacred writer of Gen., chap. 3, thisat least is clear: God is not the authorof sin, and sin is not native to man. Sinindeed is man's sin but the occasion of itlies without. But granted the impact ofthe evil worldupon the spirit of man, thequestion still remains: Is the kingdomof

Satan as it appears in the New Testa-ment to be taken as ultimate and literalreality or is it a temporal and figurativestatement of reality ? It is worth whileto note that there is certainly no suchfully developed kingdomof Satan in theOld Testament. There Satan rarelyappears, perhaps only once as a prosaicpersonality, and he is never attendedwith angels. Elsewherethanin I Chron.,chap. 2I, there is a suggestion of poetryand dramatic personification. Thismachinery of the evil world came intoexistence after the close of the canon.It is the machinery of the apocalypticliterature. It was carried over into theNew Testament. The New Testamentwriters are not held responsible for theGreek idioms they use; shall they beheld responsible or the forms of thoughtwhichthey likewiseadopt from the socialorder that nourished them? But thecrucialquestion is: Did Jesus accept thepopular demonology and satanologyreflectedin the New Testament ? Somehave been willing to stake his authorityupon an affirmativeanswer to this ques-tion. They wouldput the matter in theform of the deadly dilemma: If Satanand the demons are not real existencesas they appear to the simple reader ofthe New Testament, then Jesus waswanting in either knowledge or candor.This is the old dilemma of Simon thePharisee (Luke 7:36 f.): either Jesus didnot know or he was not good. ButJesus' discipleswho knew him and lovedhim cared nothing for Simon's dilemma.And strangely enough, the dilemma as aform of argumentationdoes not frightenus as it used to do. Christ is more thanan argument, he is a moral personality.It was not inferioritybut superioritythat

170


6/7

THE DOCTRINE OF SATANmade him unintelligible to Simon. Itwas not omniscienceor complete revela-tion that made him indispensableto thedisciples, but the words of eternal life(John 6:68). Three things may be saidas to Jesus' knowledge and candor.First, it is very difficult to determinehis range of knowledge, to reconstructhis thought-world. He did not dis-course on philosophy, science,or literarycriticism. He liked flowers, but saidnothing of botany; he spoke of the stars,but said nothing of astronomy. Didhe know the laws of plant variation?Would he have said the laws of evolu-tion are God's way of working? Doesit not seem irrelevant, if not irreverent,to ask such questions? He had a bettermission than that of the scientist whoconcerns himself with the details ofcausation. It was Jesus' mission toreveal the inner meaning of the worldasa whole, and to lay bare the heart of theOld Testament revelation, that menmight know the Father. Seeking thekingdom was better than psychologizingexperience. So we may not have suffi-cient data for determining just whatJesus thought of Satan.Second, it seems very extreme to saythere is just as much evidence that Jesusbelieved in the real existence of Satan asthat he believed in the real existence ofGod. In the temptation, presumablynarrated by Je5us himself, there is asuggestion of dramatic description interms of religious imagination; and thesubstance of the temptation is the de-mand of popularJewish expectation. IfSatan were replaced by the subtle sug-gestions of the spiritof messianism of thetime, the effect would be the same.When Jesus calls Peter Satan he refers

to the same old contest between God'sway and the way outlined by Jewishmessianism,or the worldly spirit.

Third, Jesus is not bound to know allthings, and he is not morally bound totell all that he knew. The mission ofJesus does not requirethat he should beomniscient, and the Scripturesdo not sorepresent him. We cannot define thelimits of his knowledge, but our faith inhim is not conditioned on what he knewof the ultimate explanationof the powersof darkness. He certainly experiencedthe onslaught of evil as it broke againstthe kingdom he came to set up, and hecertainly broke the reigning power ofevil for every man who is willing to walkwith him in white. To quote "if it hadnot been so I would have told you," outof its context, is to juggle with words.He also said that he had many things tosay that could not be borne. Jesus isunder no obligation to reveal mattersonly incidental, touching simply the out-ward form of his message. To havedrawn on his vast resourcesin order toanticipate science,and thus establish thedivinity of his mission, would have beento yield to Satan's temptation; and itwould have been contraryto his method.He said if a man wished to know thetruth of his mission he could do so bybeing willing to do the Father's will.V. The Value of the Doctrine ofSatan for Evangelical Piety

It is worthy of note that the doctrineof Satan came to its greatest definitenessof statement in the greatest revival ofreligionknown to us in our history, viz.,the great uprising of the human spiritat the coming of our Lord. Never didthe kingdom of God become so real on

171


7/7

THE BIBLICAL WORLDHE BIBLICAL WORLDearth, and never did the kingdom ofSatan become so real.

It is worthy of note also that in greatemotional revivals in modem times thekingdom of Satan appears to men offaith to be set in battle array just overagainst the kingdom of God. BernardWeiss is quoted as saying: "The deeperthe senseof sin is the moreconfidentlyisthe supernaturalpower of sin, by whichman is deceivedand dominated,ascribedto a superhumanadversary of God, forsin cannot be traced back to God. TheScriptures and Jesus take this fact forgranted and give it the weight of theirauthority."The more recent theologies find smallplace for Satan. In the theologizing of

earth, and never did the kingdom ofSatan become so real.It is worthy of note also that in greatemotional revivals in modem times the

kingdom of Satan appears to men offaith to be set in battle array just overagainst the kingdom of God. BernardWeiss is quoted as saying: "The deeperthe senseof sin is the moreconfidentlyisthe supernaturalpower of sin, by whichman is deceivedand dominated,ascribedto a superhumanadversary of God, forsin cannot be traced back to God. TheScriptures and Jesus take this fact forgranted and give it the weight of theirauthority."The more recent theologies find smallplace for Satan. In the theologizing of

Clarke and Brown, for example, Satanseems for the most part to have fadedinto psychology. In Kaftan's Dogmatikmore generous space is accorded Satan.In his brilliant chapter on the origin ofevil, speaking of Satan, Kaftan says insubstance that dogmatics has nothing tosay on this subject, since Satan is not anobject of faith, but that the thought ofSatan will not disappearfrom the idea-tional world of the pious, on account ofthe Scriptures,and it would be presump-tion to wish to set it aside. But eachone should keep in mind that Satan isunderthe dominionof almighty God andthat no one shoulddare think that he canescape his own guilt by referringhis sinto a temptation proceeding from Satan.

Clarke and Brown, for example, Satanseems for the most part to have fadedinto psychology. In Kaftan's Dogmatikmore generous space is accorded Satan.In his brilliant chapter on the origin ofevil, speaking of Satan, Kaftan says insubstance that dogmatics has nothing tosay on this subject, since Satan is not anobject of faith, but that the thought ofSatan will not disappearfrom the idea-tional world of the pious, on account ofthe Scriptures,and it would be presump-tion to wish to set it aside. But eachone should keep in mind that Satan isunderthe dominionof almighty God andthat no one shoulddare think that he canescape his own guilt by referringhis sinto a temptation proceeding from Satan.

HOW PAUL'S EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANSGREW OUT OF LETTERSTOTHE GALATIANS

REV. A. J. DICKINSON, D.D.Birmingham, Alabama

To appreciate the argumentof Dr. Dickinson's highly original discussion, thereadershould particularlyobservets openingparagraphs. Thequestionraised is notoneof authorship or thatis unquestionably auline. It ratherconcerns hepossibilityof thegrowthof an Epistle from a lessformal correspondence.

HOW PAUL'S EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANSGREW OUT OF LETTERSTOTHE GALATIANS

REV. A. J. DICKINSON, D.D.Birmingham, Alabama

To appreciate the argumentof Dr. Dickinson's highly original discussion, thereadershould particularlyobservets openingparagraphs. Thequestionraised is notoneof authorship or thatis unquestionably auline. It ratherconcerns hepossibilityof thegrowthof an Epistle from a lessformal correspondence.

That the apostle Paul at some time,we do not know when, at some place,we do not where, wrote this epistle, wedo not know how, to some churches ofGalatia, we do not know which, hasbeen the most widely current theoryof the genesis of the Epistle to theGalatians. For some purposes thisthreadbare opinion may suffice; but

That the apostle Paul at some time,we do not know when, at some place,we do not where, wrote this epistle, wedo not know how, to some churches ofGalatia, we do not know which, hasbeen the most widely current theoryof the genesis of the Epistle to theGalatians. For some purposes thisthreadbare opinion may suffice; but

in this age of hunger for accurate andfull knowledge it can hardly satisfy aninquiring and scientific mind. So weare compelled to re-examine all thefacts pertinent to these matters, with aview to a more adequate understandingof all that is involved. Is this epistlea single writing, penned at one sittingand without further genetic history;

in this age of hunger for accurate andfull knowledge it can hardly satisfy aninquiring and scientific mind. So weare compelled to re-examine all thefacts pertinent to these matters, with aview to a more adequate understandingof all that is involved. Is this epistlea single writing, penned at one sittingand without further genetic history;

17272

Documents

Doctrine of Satan in the New Testament