The Prophet and His Day: Isaiah 1-39 - Free Bible Commentary

2. The concept of a personal archenemy of God developed in the interbiblical (non-canonical)literature under the influence of Persian dualistic religions (Zoroastrianism). This, in turn,greatly influenced rabbinical Judaism and the Essene community (i.e., Dead Sea Scrolls).3. The NT develops the OT themes in surprisingly stark, but selective, categories.If one approaches the study of evil from the perspective of biblical theology (eachbook or author or genre studied and outlined separately), then very different views of evilare revealed. If, however, one approaches the study of evil from a non-biblical or extrabiblicalapproach of world religions or eastern religions, then much of the NT developmentis foreshadowed in Persian dualism and Greco-Roman spiritism.If one is presuppositionally committed to the divine authority of Scripture, then the NTdevelopment must be seen as progressive revelation. Christians must guard againstallowing Jewish folklore or western literature (Dante, Milton) to further influence theconcept. There is certainly mystery and ambiguity in this area of revelation. God haschosen not to reveal all aspects of evil, its origin, its development, its purpose, but He hasrevealed its defeat!In the OT the term “satan” or “accuser” (BDB 966) can relate to three separate groups.1. human accusers (cf. I Sam. 29:4; II Sam. 19:22; I Kgs. 11:14,20,29; Ps. 109:6)2. angelic accusers (cf. Num. 22:22-23; Job 1-2; Zech. 3:1)3. demonic accusers (cf. I Chr. 21:1; I Kgs. 22:21; Zech. 13:2)Only later in the intertestamental period is the serpent of Genesis 3 identified with Satan (cf.Book of Wisdom 2:23-24; II Enoch 31:3), and even later does this become a rabbinical option (cf.Sot 9b and Sanh. 29a). The “sons of God” of Genesis 6 become angels in I Enoch 54:6. Imention this, not to assert its theological accuracy, but to show its development. In the NT theseOT activities are attributed to angelic, personified evil (cf. II Cor. 11:3; Rev. 12:9).The origin of personified evil is difficult or impossible (depending on your point of view) todetermine from the OT. One reason for this is Israel’s strong monotheism (cf. I Kgs. 22:20-22;Eccl. 7:14; Isa. 45:7; Amos 3:6). All causality was attributed to YHWH to demonstrate Hisuniqueness and primacy (cf. Isa. 43:11; 44:6,8,24; 45:5-6,14,18,21,22).Sources of possible information are (1) Job 1-2, where Satan is one of the “sons of God”(i.e., angels) or (2) Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28, where prideful near-eastern kings (Babylon andTyre) are possibly used to illustrate the pride of Satan (cf. I Tim. 3:6). I have mixed emotionsabout this approach. Ezekiel uses Garden of Eden metaphors, not only for the king of Tyre asSatan (cf. Ezek. 28:12-16), but also for the king of Egypt as the Tree of the Knowledge of Goodand Evil (Ezek. 31). However, Isaiah 14, particularly vv. 12-14, seems to describe an angelicrevolt through pride. If God wanted to reveal to us the specific nature and origin of Satan, this isa very oblique way and place to do it. We must guard against the trend of systematic theology oftaking small, ambiguous parts of different testaments, authors, books, and genres and combiningthem as pieces of one divine puzzle.I agree with Alfred Edersheim (The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, vol. 2, appendicesXIII [pp. 748-763] and XVI [pp.770-776]) that rabbinical Judaism has been overly influenced byPersian dualism and demonic speculation. The rabbis are not a good source for truth in this area.Jesus radically diverges from the teachings of the Synagogue in this area. I think that the conceptof an archangelic enemy of YHWH developed from the two high gods of Iranian dualism,Ahkiman and Ormaza, and were then developed by the rabbis into a biblical dualism of YHWHand Satan.161