A few days ago, I began a series of studies about a figure called Satan, who or what figure is as is understood in the Bible, while pointing out that this is not the same as how we have come to know that figure today. Thus far, we have discovered that Satan is not an archangel, as is supposed, nor is he even an angelic figure. Christian tradition supposes he is the serpent that tempted the woman in Genesis 3, but we’ve found that there simply is not enough information there to point to a sentient, evil, angelic being. Instead, the metaphorical figure seems to point to Adam, vis-à-vis it was he who adopted a plan to seduce his wife into testing the word of God at Genesis 2:17 by eating of the tree (Genesis 3:6), which the Lord warned Adam not to eat. At this point in our study of this figure, since the Bible doesn’t describe an evil spiritual being called Satan or the serpent of Eden, does it describe a spirit being, whom we have come to believe to be Satan, but is really called the Devil?[1]
The Apocalypse mentions there coming to be war in heaven (Revelation 12:7), whereby the Dragon and his messengers fought Michael and his messengers. The Dragon lost the battle and was cast out of heaven (verse-8), and at that time he is identified as “that old serpent,” who is called the Devil and Satan, very same who deceives the world (verse-9). At this point the text announces the coming of “salvation, strength, and the Kingdom of God… for the Accuser of our brethren is cast down…” (Revelation 12:10).
Many would consider this scripture to be proof of the existence of an evil sentient spiritual being very much like the traditional figure we’ve come to know as Satan, the Devil. However, we should keep in mind that it is probably unwise to derive a literal interpretation from the most symbolic book in our Bible. If this is logical and true, what may we say of Revelation 12:7-10?
In chapter 10 of Luke’s Gospel narrative, Jesus sends out the Seventy disciples to preach to those places and cities he would visit on his way to Jerusalem from Galilee (Luke 10:1). Upon their return to him, they rejoice in finding that even the demons were subject to them through Jesus’s name (Luke 10:17). How Jesus replied is significant. He said: “I beheld Satan, as lightening, fall from heaven!” (Luke 10:18). Scholars conclude that this points to an original rebellion in heaven prior to the creation of mankind, but such an interpretation is pure supposition. Not an ounce of proof is submitted by anyone to show this is a valid understanding. If, however, we allow the sending out of the Seventy to be what is symbolized in the Apocalypse (Revelation 12:7-10), we are able to conclude what Jesus and his disciples were doing in the spirit. The preaching was physical, but the effect is spiritual. If this is so, then the terms, satan, serpent and devil point to physical figures, not spiritual entities. But, is this logical and true?
Scripture often connects certain men with the devil or the ‘accuser’ of God’s people. Paul called Elymas the sorcerer, a child of the devil (Acts 13:3-10). Jesus said that the one who would betray him is a devil, someone who slanders or falsely accused him, turning him over to those who desired his life (John 6:70-71; cp. John 13:2). He also claimed that the religious leaders of his day, who refused to receive him were children of the devil (John 8:44). Moreover, Jesus said that all those who claim to be his followers are not necessarily so. Though they dwell among his people claiming to be his, they are really the children of the devil. They bring slander and accusation upon Christ and his Body, the Church (Matthew 13:24-25, 37-39; cp. Revelation 2:9; 3:9; 2Peter 2:1-2).
In John 8:44; Jesus says that his accusers were children of the devil. Notice that Jesus says that the devil lusts! What does he lust after? The text says he desire to murder, but why do folks want to murder others? Isn’t murder committed over jealousy, hatred, envy, fear, greed, anger and the like, vis-à-vis works of the flesh (Galatians 5:19-21)? Moreover, Jesus says that the devil is also a liar from the beginning (John 8:44)! Didn’t Adam lie to his wife, saying touching the tree would result in death (Genesis 3:3; cp. 2:17), if not, why didn’t he correct his wife’s error, because he was there with her (Genesis 3:6)? Paul claims that the works of the flesh (Galatians 5:19-21) war against (Galatians 5:17) the works of the spirit (Galatians 5:22-23). Doesn’t such a statement reflect the symbolism of Revelation 12:7-10 and the reality of Luke 10:1, 17-18)? Without any proof that the devil, satan or the serpent represent evil spiritual identities, how can they be anything other than evil, wicked men just as we find them referred to as such in the four Gospel narratives?
All of creation was affected by Adam’s sin. Death entered our race because of Adam’s sin of rebellion (Romans 5:12). Adam, the original satan, is responsible for it all, but he hid his crime (Job 31:33; cp. Genesis 3:12), suggesting in his reply that God was ultimately to blame for giving him the woman, whom he also blamed for his predicament. The slanderer, vis-à-vis the devil, veils his sin by accusing everyone else and excusing himself! But isn’t it wonderful that God never passes the buck. He accepted the blame for man’s rebellion, when Adam accused him, and in the fullness of time Jesus came and died—taking the blame for all the things done by the slanderer, vis-à-vis the Serpent, the Devil, called Satan.
______________________________________________________
[1] This study represents a major redo of my original study: The Devil, Called Satan, Unveiled! I use some of what I said in the original, but my argument comes from a different direction to prove my conclusion, date: December, 2024.
Smoodock's Blog 
30 responses to “Is Satan the Devil?”
You do not understand, Satan falling from heaven could have happened after the literal 6-day creation.
When would you suggest that he fell?
As I said before, Jesus said Satan fell from heaven.
I agree Jesus saw Satan fall. When did he fall?
I do not understand what you mean. Satan is Satan, and Adam is the first man. Satan and Adam were in the Garden of Eden together, as separate entities. You go beyond the written word when you say they are the same.
Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. (Genesis 3:1-6 KJV)
Notice that the Serpent is mentioned in verse-1 without any further introduction. After verse-1 he is referred to by the pronoun “he” and that is all. Unless you presume someone other than Adam is in Eden, no one is able to speak to the woman other than Adam who is right there beside her in verse-6. We all know serpents cannot speak, so this word must be used allegorically for someone other than the literal creature. If you say it refers to a spiritual entity then who is it? When did this entity rebel against God? Why aren’t we given more information about him? The only rebellion we are privy to is that of Adam in the garden. Only the sins of humanity are recorded here. If a spiritual entity needs to be added to this scene, then who is he and from where does he come, and what Scriptures will you use to identify him?
With that kind of logic, it makes me want to discontinue discussion with you.
You have stayed with me longer than most. I admire your willingness to continue, but even more than this I admire the fact that you have thus far refrained from name calling and personal character judgments etc.
You are in error. I know the scripture about Jesus slain from the foundation of the world, but that is NOT what I am saying. God made the plan for salvation BEFORE the creation of the world. I was listening to Joyce Meyers not too long ago, and she made that same mistake as you. Here are scriptures that tell us God made the plan for creation before the creation of the world: 1 Peter 1:20; Matthew 25:34; and, Ephesians 1:4.
Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: (Matthew 25:34 KJV)
According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: (Ephesians 1:4 KJV)
Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, (1 Peter 1:20 KJV)
First, let me point out that the term “foundation of the world” should not be so translated. The noun is katabole (G2602). It occurs in Matthew 13:35; 25:34; Luke 11:50; John 17:24; Ephesians 1:4; Hebrews 4:3; 9:26; 11:11; 1Peter 1:20; Revelation 13:8 and 17:8. According to the Companion Bible Appendix 146 it should be changed to “casting down” or “overthrow” of the world. It points to the rebellion rather than creation. The reason it takes this position is that the verb form of the Greek word is kataballo (G2598) and means to cast or throw down. It is used in 2Corinthians 4:9; Hebrews 6:1 and Revelation 12:10. The 2Corinthians and Revelation Scriptures especially show this “casting down” or “overthrow”, but Hebrew 6:1 says “not laying again”, but it too should be translated “casting down” because the foundation of repentance must not be destroyed; it must remain. So, the translators here are in error. Now, I don’t presume to say this on my own authority, but I do see the logic behind the argument of the Companion Bible, Appendix 146.
Returning to your Scriptures above, right away we can eliminate Matthew 25:34 from the argument because of the preposition “from”. The Kingdom was prepared for them “from” or since the time of the rebellion, so the plan of salvation was in place at least from that time and Genesis 3:15 agrees.
Ephesians 1:4 and 1Peter 1:20 show that they speak of something “before” the rebellion or casting down of the world (God’s judgment in Genesis 3). So, what do they tell us? Do they speak of a plan of salvation “before” the rebellion? No they do not. We, the called or elect, have been chosen in Christ for a particular responsibility “before” the rebellion (Ephesians 1:4). Peter tells us the same thing in 1Peter 1:20 where the context shows it is **we** the redeemed (1Peter 1:18) were foreknown (G4267) [KJV says ‘foreordained’] before the rebellion (1Peter 1:20). This says nothing about ‘salvation’ being in place, only that we who have been called at this time (the elect) or those foreknown before the rebellion are in view.
You need to understand this argument. Had God foreknown the rebellion, then Adam would have had no choice but to act exactly as God had foreknown. He would have been guiltless. If the plan of salvation had been in place **before** the rebellion, then the rebellion would have been foreknown and Adam (and we) would have had no choice in the matter. Our rebellion would have fulfilled what God had foreknown. God, not we, would be guilty of our rebellion, for we would be as automatons merely acting out a scene that God had foreseen would occur.
I hope you can see this.
Lord bless,
Eddie
You said, “When would you suggest that he fell?”
Satan could have fallen sometime after the 6-day creation.
You said, “If a spiritual entity needs to be added to this scene, then who is he and from where does he come, and what Scriptures will you use to identify him?”
I do not agree with you that Satan is Adam. The bible tells us who and what Adam is, and the bible tells us who and what Satan is, enough so that we should not confuse the two for each other.
You said, “You have stayed with me longer than most. I admire your willingness to continue, but even more than this I admire the fact that you have thus far refrained from name calling and personal character judgments etc.”
I was thinking the same thing about you. I have discussed, debated, and argued with many and most attack me personally. I am always careful how I speak to others.
Here you bring up KJV to go against my beliefs. It is a blessing the bible is in understandable English. It is a mistake on the KJV only group to not study from other translations.
Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: (Matthew 25:34 KJV)
According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: (Ephesians 1:4 KJV)
Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, (1 Peter 1:20 KJV
You said, “First, let me point out that the term “foundation of the world” should not be so translated. The noun is katabole (G2602).”
As I said before, your Greek has gotten you into a swirl. For you to deny the scriptures telling us that God made the plan of salvation before the creation of the world is to your detriment. God knows all. For you to think that God made the plan for salvation after something humans did is almost laughable.
You said, “You need to understand this argument. Had God foreknown the rebellion, then Adam would have had no choice but to act exactly as God had foreknown.”
That argument of yours, does not make sense, it has no merit. God foreknowing something does not make someone do something.
You said, “He would have been guiltless. If the plan of salvation had been in place **before** the rebellion, then the rebellion would have been foreknown and Adam (and we) would have had no choice in the matter. Our rebellion would have fulfilled what God had foreknown. God, not we, would be guilty of our rebellion, for we would be as automatons merely acting out a scene that God had foreseen would occur.”
That reasoning is false as false can be. It makes no sense whatsoever. If I can see what you will do before you do it, how does that make me the guilty one? Before I had my children, I pretty much new all the mistakes that they were going to do in life. How does that make me guilty? God has given us a choice.
Satan could have fallen sometime after the 6-day creation.
According to all the myths I’ve read about a presumed satanic fall there were great ages substituted for literal days in Genesis 1. What Scriptures would you present to support your understanding?
I do not agree with you that Satan is Adam. The bible tells us who and what Adam is, and the bible tells us who and what Satan is, enough so that we should not confuse the two for each other.
Who and what is Satan, and can you support a reasonable reply with appropriate Scriptures?
Here you bring up KJV to go against my beliefs. It is a blessing the bible is in understandable English. It is a mistake on the KJV only group to not study from other translations.
The KJV is my favorite translation. I am not a KJV only person. I have numerous other translations—something like 60 or 70.
As I said before, your Greek has gotten you into a swirl. For you to deny the scriptures telling us that God made the plan of salvation before the creation of the world is to your detriment. God knows all. For you to think that God made the plan for salvation after something humans did is almost laughable.
What is the alternative, my friend? Trust the Bible translator? Which one?
How have I denied the Scriptures? Is it because my understanding does not agree with your favorite English translation? Let me remind you that my understanding is based upon the scholars who gave us the Companion Bible. We all need to trust scholarly works at some time or another. The difference is that I have studied what these men have done and found their work on this phrase very reasonable. I find it unreasonable that a verb in the Greek would be so different from its sister noun. Things simply don’t work that way in languages, but the translators have erred. The question is, was it deliberate in order to support a favorite doctrine of their own devising or that of the denomination they represent?
You may find their work on this subject HERE and decide for yourself concerning its reasonability.
That argument of yours, does not make sense, it has no merit. God foreknowing something does not make someone do something.
Are you saying that if God foreknew something that it is possible for that ‘something’ not to occur?
That reasoning is false as false can be. It makes no sense whatsoever. If I can see what you will do before you do it, how does that make me the guilty one? Before I had my children, I pretty much new all the mistakes that they were going to do in life. How does that make me guilty? God has given us a choice.
You could never be guilty of anything you are able to foresee. What makes you different is that you have no power to change what you foresee. God does. If salvation is everything the “partial salvation” advocates claim, why would God create anyone he foreknew would reject Christ and rebel in such a manner that God would be unable to save him? What does this have to do with an Almighty God who is able to do anything? How powerful is God—really? Is his will that the wicked don’t perish more powerful that the wicked’s will to continue to rebel? Who gets the final say—the wicked or God? Is it possible for the wicked to stay the hand of a merciful, loving God?
Lord bless,
Eddie
I think that both of you should familiarize yourselves with scientific evidences for literal six days creation, the flood, etc… Whole organization (actually more then one) exists that uses evidences to scientifically back up all Biblical statements. You don’t need to rely on some weird and inconclusive ideas, like string theory, to justify Bible, we have facts. It is just a matter of how interpret them, – in light of evolution (which some people confuse for science) or the creation (which is also a believe system).
Answers in Genesis (www.answersingenesis.org)
Institute fro Creation Research (www.icr.org)
Hi Vlad. It is good to speak with you again. I don’t believe in evolution, so I don’t know where you got that idea. I no longer believe in a literal six days for creation, but I’m willing to believe if it could be shown without making God look like a magician. I believe he created the laws of the universe and operated within those laws. How could he say the heavens declare his glory, if we couldn’t understand **how** they glorified him. I think in order for us to really appreciate truth of or from God, we must do so in a manner that does not take away reason. Reason is a gift from God to be used for his honor and glory. But how can this be done if we cannot understand what God has done for us.
Lord bless you.