There’s No Devil in the Hebrew Bible

Serpent, Satan, Nahash, Hasatan are not the Dantean devil

Is the Serpent in Genesis 3:1 Satan? Is Hasatan in Job 2:3 Satan? Are these two characters the same character, what Catholics would call The Devil? Let’s take a look.

In Genesis 3:1 the word used is transliterated wa-ha-nachash, a form of the word nachash, listed in Strong’s Hebrew 5175.¹ In Biblical Hebrew grammar the prefix Vav means and or and the. In line 14 G-d condemns the serpent to slither on its belly and eat dust. This supports the theory of the creature which tricked Eve into eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge as serpent and not Satan aka Morningstar² or any other magical villainous associate of the Divine.

Christian scholars commonly interpret the reference found in Ezekiel 28:13 to mean Satan in the Garden of Eden. Popular culture in the gentile world believes the serpent in the Garden of Eden and the Adversary in Job to be the same — the Christian Devil.

However the primary source Hebrew text does not support this belief. In fact the text itself does indicate Ezekiel speaking about the Prince of Tyre, who exalted himself above the level of a god. Ezekiel levelled some very prophetic condemnations against Tyre in this book of the Tanakh, described in the Steinsaltz commentary as follows:

The king of Tyre believed that everything was revealed before him and was clear to him. It can be assumed that he was better educated than other kings and that he apparently considered himself the wisest of men who knows all, a delusion often entertained even in contemporary times by some wealthy individuals. (Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz)

No evidence exists to suggest that we can consider as interchangeable or the same the fallen angel Morningstar, who became Lucifer according to the Christian myth, and the serpent creature in Genesis 3 which lured Eve into eating fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. You can visit the Sefaria library and see the passage and commentary for yourself: [here]. No Torah commentary describes a figure like the Christian devil, such meaning Christian and gentile scholars read into the text. Confirmation bias is not your friend.

Christians frequently misinterpret a passage from Isaiah as referencing their mythological figure Satan. The primary source Hebrew text does not support this belief—it is an imposition of Roman imperial meaning onto a Hebrew text. The text itself (line 4) indicates Isaiah speaking about the king of Babylon. You can consult the Sefaria sources yourself [here]. The Prince of Tyre and the King of Babylon are not Satan. A serpent is not Satan. These are not the same evil supernal adversary to G-d, which does not exist in Judaism. The prophets Ezekial and Isaiah crafted some brilliant satirical Hebrew political poetry, comparing the Prince of Tyre to Adam and the fall of man from the Garden of Eden and comparing the King of Babylon to Venus, (the brightest light in the sky at dawn), falling from the heavens.

In Zechariah 3:1, we see the word la-satan, a variation of satan. In Zechariah 3:2 we see ha-satan twice. In Biblical Hebrew grammar, the Lamed prefix functions as the preposition to or for and the Hey prefix means the, as in the adversary (who works for G-d). So, here we have an angelic agent in an adversarial or cross examination role, not the creature who lives in the mythical Dantean Nineth Circle of Hell. In Numbers 22:22-23, we meet Prophet for Hire, Balaam and his donkey, who sees the angel G-d sent to block Balaam from cursing the Jews. The text uses the word la-satan to describe the angelic adversary — this is not “the devil”.

In the Book of Samuel, a book about the succession of kings, (including the stories of Saul to David), the word la-satan appears, a variation of satan. The context does not in any way support the Christian figure known as Satan in this passage, I Samuel 29:4, which clearly has the Philistines referencing David as their adversary. In Biblical Hebrew grammar, the prefix Lamed serves as a preposition— directing or pointing toward. In II Samuel 19:23, David speaks to some adversarial political interlocutors. Again, the context describes political adversaries not a supernal evil deity-like figure.

Okay, but what about the Book of Job?

Wasn’t that the Dantean devil asking G-d if he could test Job and inflict all those trials and hardships? Surely hardship and suffering is not for good? Surely hardship and suffering is not from G-d? Surely the Prince of Hell is always responsible for bad things that happen to us? Right—suffering cannot be from G-d, right?

No. Wrong.

It ain’t that simple. And, no that’s not what happened in this Book of Job—this Catholic interpretation I was taught as a child, the one that the gentile world widely believes, simply does not hold when I examine the primary source text.

In lines 2, 3, and 6 the prefix Aleph-Lamed (as in el-hasatan) means unto. In lines 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7 the prefix Ha (as in ha-satan) means the. Satan means adversary, as in a cross examiner, as in a District or Crown Attorney — a Divinely appointed one, one whose cross examinations come in the form of trials and tribulations rather than questions from a suited bloke in a rustic looking chamber. Satan also means chaos agent or a temptation or similar disruptor, as in Kiddushin 81a, in which the Gemara relates the story of Rabbis who each reported satan appeared to me as a woman, meaning temptation appeared in the form of a woman. It poetically anthropomorphises yetzer hara the evil inclination into a clever ego defense mechanism, in which the individual employs various intellectual machinations in order to distance himself from his sinful inclination. In this context the devil made me do it seems like a clever cop out, doesn’t it?

In I Chronicles 21:1 the reference to satan might seem to support the Christian narrative of Satan as a supernal evil opposition to G-d, ie an associate of G-d. However a closer study of the text and commentary tells a different story.

Did you catch it? I’ll quote the Radak commentary for you to see: it seems that it is the Lord who did the inciting. This is true: He incited him—through the Satan—because of Israel’s sinful behavior; for they deserved to be punished. Satan is also called “the angel of the Lord”: it was he whom David saw in the form of the angel of the Lord. Again, satan simply refers to a kind of spymaster of the Divine, someone who trots through humankind as a kind of independent magistrate, like fast food restaurants have people whose job it is to visit restaurants and test their service levels, G-d has Her own spymasters to keep us spiritually limber and sharp.

How does this tie into Yetzer Hara? Yetzer Hara is not original sin. Yetzer Hara is the imagination of the human heart to stray from G-d and toward idolatry and selfishness and egotism. It exists in opposition to Yetzer HaTov. Toldat Yaakov Yosef, Bo : 212 provides a cogent description of the worlds of good and bad contained within the world of a human being. When G-d gives the command to love with all your heart, he means love with both the good and evil inclination of your heart. Yetzer, Strong’s Hebrew 3336 — frame, thing framed, imagination, mind, work, from yatsar; a form; figuratively, conception (i.e. purpose) -- frame, thing framed, imagination, mind, work. Ha-ra, Strong’s Hebrew 7451 — adversity, affliction, bad, calamity, displeasure, distress, from ra'a'; bad or (as noun) evil (natural or moral).

Judaism has a complex conception of good versus evil that Christianity and Islam both do not share. Remember, Biblical Hebrew has many layered complexities and nuances built into the text itself that take it beyond what Christians and Muslims can grasp through their respective lenses. Just as the Silmarillion or any Shakespearean text takes time and patience and rigour to study and understand, so to does the Tanakh. Rabbinical commentary references Satan. Again, researchers or scholars governed by the Christian confirmation bias would take these passages as evidence for the Christian myth of the devil.

Not so fast … back it up. There’s no Dantean devil figure in the Hebrew Bible or any Rabbinical literature, Jews don’t believe in the Christian villain-god of the underworld—this is a Roman imperial invention. This is a Manichaean throwback to Augustine’s previous life. It’s Gregorian. It’s not Judaic and it’s not Rabbinical. The Hebrew text does not support the claim that a devil figure exists, this is an anthropomorphic literary technique, not anything about the nature of G-d. Judaism isn’t a Marvel Universe of heroes versus villains and ongoing wars to slay villains to protect good—that’s a Christian vision of humanity I described, not a Jewish one.

Satan means adversary. The Satan means The Adversary. A satan can be an angel sent by G-d, working as a spymaster for G-d, an human representation of someone’s evil inclination. A satan in the Hebrew Bible or Rabbinical commentary is never the Christian devil.

TL;DR — the Catholic figure of Satan Fallen Angel and Lord of the Underworld represents a very clever and convincing ego defence mechanism that incorporates Roman and Greek mythologies about the god of the Hades, and various gentile mythologies about Baphomet, and several other ancient myths about villainous deities or monsters which only heroes can slay. The Jesus myth of the trinity needs Satan in order to fly as a theory of G-d. The story hangs together nicely for those who would rather not engage deep and intense and painful self examination that looking at one’s own soul demands. The thing is, this Christian theory of good and evil proves G-d is not all powerful and all knowing. How could any Divine figure be omniscient and omni-powerful and omni-compassionate and then create something that disobeys and becomes the indefatigable and undefeated cosmic adversary and hijacks the rule of the cosmos with his own created will?

Unless Divine power means potential not exacted for the purposes of free will, like a kind of world a Universal Programmer would design? Still, this seems like an unnecessary, like a bit of programming the design never needed to be improved. Why would a coder insert useless and cumbersome and troublesome code into her design? She would not.

G-d needs to make sense or it all becomes a cult to control people.

If you are curious about these concepts or anything Judaism, please check out Jihadi Jew’s Youtube Channel below, everything is free and his classes and his teaching have become my muse and inspiration, and a kind of map to being a better hooman and to finding G-d in the living world.

1. Strong’s is a massive database of every word in the Christian Bible and the word in the Hebrew and/Greek manuscripts. It’s a widely known language and concordance reference for all biblical scholars.

2. Research indicates that Pope Gregory created the myth of Morningstar and injected it into the Catholic Canon.