Satan, Y hwh ’s Executioner

Ryan E. Stokes

Journal of Biblical Literature, Volume 133, Number 2, 2014, pp. 251-270 (Article)

Published by Society of Biblical Literature

DOI: [Link]

For additional information about this article

[Link]

Access provided at 10 Jan 2020 11:12 GMT from University of Nebraska - Lincoln
JBL 133, no. 2 (2014): 251–270

Satan, Yhwh’s Executioner

ryan e. stokes
rstokes@[Link]
Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, TX 76122

In recent decades, scholars have taken great care not to assume that “the śāṭān”
of Job 1–2 and of Zechariah 3 is supposed to be the archenemy of God and the
opponent of good, as is Satan in later Jewish and Christian literature. Neverthe-
less, scholars have yet to eliminate anachronistic assumptions from their discus-
sions of this figure as he is presented in the Hebrew Scriptures, maintaining that
the śāṭān in Job and Zechariah holds the office of heavenly “prosecuting attorney”
or “accuser.” After surveying the uses of the noun ‫ ָׂש ָטן‬and the verb ‫ ָׂש ַטן‬in the
Hebrew Scriptures, this article argues that these words never denote “accusation”
in this literature but refer exclusively to physical “attack.” This article further
contends that in legal contexts the noun ‫ ָׂש ָטן‬can refer specifically to an “execu-
tioner” and that “the Executioner” is the proper understanding of ‫ ַה ָשּׂ ָטן‬in Zech-
ariah and Job.

Then I heard a loud voice in heaven, proclaiming, “Now have come the salvation
and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Messiah, for
the accuser of our comrades has been thrown down, who accuses them day and
night before our God. (Rev 12:10)1

Who is Satan? What does Satan do? According to popular imagination and
centuries of Christian theology, Satan is the archenemy of God, the opponent of all
that is good; Satan does evil. Bible scholars, to their credit, now recognize that the
biblical authors conceived of the nature and activity of this figure somewhat differ-
ently from later theologians. According to the present scholarly consensus, the
early literature portrays Satan (or the śāṭān, ‫ ַה ָשּׂ ָטן‬, as he is referred to in the Hebrew
Scriptures) as “the Adversary,” or, more specifically, “the Accuser.”2 He serves God

1 English translations of the Bible in this article will follow the NRSV, except that the noun
‫ ָׂש ָטן‬will occasionally be transliterated as śāṭān rather than translated, and ‫ ַה ָשּׂ ָטן‬will be rendered
“the śāṭān.” Any other deviations from the NRSV will be noted as they occur.
2 See, e.g., Gerhard von Rad and Werner Foerster, “διαβάλλω, διάβολος,” TDNT 2:73–75 (von

Rad); T. H. Gaster, “Satan,” IDB 4:224–25; Peggy L. Day, An Adversary in Heaven: śāṭān in the
Hebrew Bible (HSM 43; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), 25–43; Victor P. Hamilton, “Satan,” ABD
5:985–86; Bruce Baloian, “‫ ָׂש ָטן‬,” NIDOTTE 3:1231; C. Breytenbach and P. L. Day, “Satan ‫ׂשטן‬

251
252 Journal of Biblical Literature 133, no. 2 (2014)

as a sort of prosecuting attorney in the heavenly court. This conception of the early
śāṭān tradition is based on an understanding of the Hebrew root ‫ׂשטן‬, which appears
both in the nominal form ‫ ָׂש ָטן‬and as the verb ‫ ָׂש ַטן‬.3 The noun ‫ ָׂש ָטן‬is typically taken
to mean “adversary” or “accuser.” The verb ‫ ָׂש ַטן‬likewise is understood to refer to
acts of “opposition” or “accusation.”4 If the standard translations of these words are
correct, then so is the scholarly consensus that the śāṭān of the Hebrew Scriptures
is the Adversary or the Accuser.
In this article, however, I contend that scholars have misunderstood the words
‫ ָׂש ָטן‬and ‫ ָׂש ַטן‬. Although near the end of the first century c.e. John would speak of
Satan as “the Accuser [ὁ κατήγωρ] of our comrades” (Rev 12:10), there is virtually
no evidence that either ‫ ָׂש ָטן‬or ‫ ָׂש ַטן‬ever refers to accusation in the Bible. Instead,
these words denote physical attack. The noun ‫ ָׂש ָטן‬should be translated “attacker,”
and in some legal contexts “executioner.” The title ‫ ַה ָשּׂ ָטן‬in the Hebrew Scriptures,
there­fore, should be understood as “the Attacker” or, more likely, “the Execu­tioner.”
This study consists of four main parts. (1) I will begin by establishing the
semantic range of the noun ‫ ָׂש ָטן‬as it is used in narrative texts, since the literary
contexts provided by these narratives leave little room for doubt as to what the word
denotes. (2) Next, I will look at both the noun ‫ ָׂש ָטן‬and the verb ‫ ָׂש ַטן‬in the book of
Psalms, where their meaning, though not entirely unclear, is slightly more elusive
than in the narratives. Psalm 109, which contains four occurrences of the root ‫ׂשטן‬
and is often cited in conjunction with Zechariah 3, will require special attention.
(3) In light of the preceding semantic analysis, I will examine the nature and activ-
ity of “the śāṭān” in Zechariah 3. (4) Finally, “the śāṭān” of Job 1–2 will be consid-
ered. Some brief concluding remarks and a short excursus dealing with the noun
‫ ִׂש ְטנָ ה‬will bring the article to a close.5

Σατάν, Σατανᾶς,” DDD (2nd ed.), 726–32; J. H. Walton, “Satan,” Dictionary of the Old Testament:
Wisdom, Poetry and Writings (ed. Tremper Longman III and Peter Enns; Downers Grove, IL: IVP
Academic, 2008), 714–15; Chad T. Pierce, “Satan and Related Figures,” The Eerdmans Dictionary
of Early Judaism (ed. John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010),
1196–97. Exceptional is the viewpoint articulated by Friedrich Horst, that the idea of Satan as “the
Accuser” does not appear in the Hebrew Scriptures but arises in the postbiblical period (Hiob
[BKAT 16; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1968], 1:13–14). See also G. Wanke, who
says that ‫ ָׂש ָטן‬does not refer to “accusers” but merely to “opponents in legal matters” (“‫ ָׂש ָטן‬śāṭān
adversary,” TLOT 3:1268–69). Similarly, although Nielsen acknowledges that ‫ ָׂש ָטן‬can denote a
specifically legal kind of opposition, she stops short of saying that the word can mean “accuser”
(“‫ ָׂש ָטן‬śāṭān; ‫ ַׂש ַטן‬śaṭan; ‫ ָׂש ַטם‬śāṭam,” TDOT 14:73–77).
3 In this article, I employ the Hebrew script ‫ׂש ָטן‬ ָ when speaking of the word itself but make
use of the transliteration śāṭān to designate the figure to whom the word refers.
4 In addition to the works cited in n. 2, see, e.g., HALOT, 1316–17, [Link]. ‫ׂשטן‬, ‫ׂש ָטן‬
ָ.
5 The root ‫ׂשטם‬, although it will not be dealt with in this article, is also sometimes discussed

in conjunction with ‫ׂשטן‬. The root ‫ ׂשטם‬can be seen in the verb ‫( ָׂש ַטם‬Gen 27:41; 49:23; 50:15; Job
16:9; 30:21; Ps 55:4 [3]) and in the noun ‫( ַמשְׂ ֵט ָמה‬Hos 9:7, 8), which HALOT defines in terms of
“enmity,” “hostility,” or “persecution” (pp. 640–41, 1316).
 Stokes: Satan, Yhwh’s Executioner 253

I. ‫ ָׂש ָטן‬in Narrative Texts

‫ ָׂש ָטן‬in Biblical Hebrew can be used with reference either to a human or to a
superhuman being, and its particular nuance can vary depending on the context
in which it occurs. Generally speaking, the translation of ‫ ָׂש ָטן‬as “adversary” or
“opponent” is not altogether incorrect. This translation does, however, lack preci-
sion. ‫ ָׂש ָטן‬in the Hebrew Scriptures denotes not opposition or adversity generically,
but specifically violent, physical attack. This attack is at times of a military kind and
is often, if not exclusively, supposed to be lethal. This meaning can be observed in
1 Sam 29:4.
But the commanders of the Philistines were angry with him; and the command-
ers of the Philistines said to him, “Send the man back, so that he may return to
the place that you have assigned to him; he shall not go down with us to battle,
or else he may become a śāṭān to us in the battle. For how could this fellow rec-
oncile himself to his lord? Would it not be with the heads of the men here?

In this passage, the Philistines with whom David has aligned himself express fear
that the famed Israelite warrior might turn on them in the midst of battle and
become a śāṭān to them, slaying the Philistine soldiers in order to ingratiate himself
with Saul. A similar use of ‫ ָׂש ָטן‬is found in 1 Kgs 5:18 [Eng. 5:4], which describes
the early part of Solomon’s reign as a period of peace in which there was “neither
śāṭān nor misfortune.” David was unable to build the temple because his reign was
occupied with securing the land. Solomon, on the other hand, unthreatened mili-
tarily by any śāṭān, is in a position to build the temple. Later on in Solomon’s reign,
on account of the king’s involvement with the worship of foreign gods, Yhwh raises
up Hadad the Edomite and a marauder by the name of Rezon as “śāṭāns,” foreign-
ers who attack Solomon and Israel.6
A technical, legal usage of the noun ‫ ָׂש ָטן‬can be observed in 2 Sam 19:22–24
[Eng. 21–23]. As David is returning to Jerusalem following Absalom’s failed coup,
he encounters the Benjaminite Shimei. At their previous meeting, as David was
fleeing Jerusalem on account of Absalom’s revolt, Shimei cursed David and hurled
stones at him. Fearful for his life now that David is being restored to the throne,
Shimei hurries to meet the soon-to-be-reinstated king and to beg him for mercy.
But Abishai, one of David’s commanders, is not swayed by Shimei’s plea for pardon.
Abishai calls for the Benjaminite’s life: “Shall not Shimei be put to death for this,
because he cursed the Lord’s anointed” (19:22)? David responds to Abishai’s
demand for Shimei’s execution as follows: “What have I to do with you, you sons
of Zeruiah, that you should today become my śāṭān? Shall anyone be put to death
in Israel this day” (2 Sam 19:23)?7 This passage is consistent with the others we have

6 See 1 Kgs 11:14, 23, 25. Gerhard von Rad’s argument that Hadad and Rezon are “accusers”

of Israel is not persuasive (“διαβάλλω, διάβολος: The OT View of Satan,” TDNT 2:73).
7 The words “that you should today become my śāṭān” in this verse translate the Hebrew
254 Journal of Biblical Literature 133, no. 2 (2014)

considered up to this point, in that ‫ ָׂש ָטן‬seems to refer to physical attack. Given the
context, in which Shimei’s crime would justify his being put to death, “executioner”
would be an appropriate translation of ‫ ָׂש ָטן‬in this verse.8
Conversely, Peggy Day contends that ‫ ָׂש ָטן‬in 2 Sam 19:23 is used in a forensic
sense, meaning “accuser.”9 “Accuser,” however, is far less compelling as a translation
of ‫ ָׂש ָטן‬in 2 Samuel 19 than is “attacker” or “executioner” for several reasons:
1. Abishai is not, correctly speaking, an “accuser” in this passage, but is one
who would execute Shimei for his treason. Shimei’s guilt is not in question, so no
prosecution is necessary for establishing his guilt. What is in question, given
­Shimei’s guilt, is whether he will die for his crime. Abishai calls for Shimei to be put
to death. David responds to Abishai’s suggestion with two related rhetorical ques-
tions: “What have I to do with you, you sons of Zeruiah, that you should today
become my śāṭān?” and “Shall anyone be put to death in Israel this day?” David
then assures Shimei of the answer to these questions; Shimei will not die. Abishai’s
speech in this passage should be understood in light of his speech at an earllier
point in the narrative, when David first encountered Shimei, who cursed and threw
stones at the deposed king. At that time, Abishai offered David his services as
executioner, “Why should this dead dog curse my lord the king? Let me go over
and take off his head” (2 Sam 16:9). As in the earlier meeting of David and Shimei,
Abishai is not so much an accuser as a willing executioner.
2. This understanding of Abishai’s role in this passage and of the label śāṭān
is further supported by the fact that David rebukes not Abishai alone but the “sons
of Zeruiah.” Abishai’s brother Joab does not “accuse” Shimei in this passage. In fact,
Joab is not said to be involved in the discussion of Shimei’s fate at all. David’s rebuke
of the “sons of Zeruiah” is comprehensible, however, when read within the larger
narrative context of Samuel–Kings. Joab distinguishes himself repeatedly as one
whose zeal for protecting David’s interests leads him to eliminate political rebels
capitally, even though such action is clearly against the king’s more magnanimous
wishes (2 Sam 3:17–39; 18:5–33; 20:4–10; 1 Kgs 2:5–6). Abishai, too, on multiple
occasions demonstrates his eagerness to execute David’s enemies. In addition to
the two encounters between David and Shimei when Abishai offers his services as

‫כי תהיו־לי היום לשטן‬. The NRSV renders this phrase, “that you should today become an adversary
to me.” Day, whose work will be considered more fully below, correctly argues that ‫ לי‬in this verse
does not indicate that Abishai would be acting “against” David, but “on behalf of ” David (“Abishai
the śāṭān in 2 Sam 19:17–24,” CBQ 49 [1987]: 545). (See Judg 6:31 for another example of ‫ ל‬in the
sense of “on behalf of.”) Abishai is suggesting not that he attack David but that he attack Shimei
for David.
8 The adjective “legal,” as employed in the paragraph above and throughout the article,

does not necessarily imply that a formal trial or courtroom procedure is involved, but simply
that the attack on a person’s life is justified by that person’s guilt, as is the case Numbers 22 and
2 Samuel 19.
9 Day, “Abishai the śāṭān in 2 Sam 19:17–24,” 543–47.
 Stokes: Satan, Yhwh’s Executioner 255

an executioner, Abishai also volunteers to take the life of Saul on David’s behalf
(1 Sam 26:7-11). On each of these occasions, David, true to form, denied Abishai
permission to take the life of his enemy. David’s words to the sons of Zeruiah in
this pericope are situated within a larger narrative in which Abishai’s and Joab’s zeal
for execution time and time again earns David’s ire. It is this violent activity on the
part of the sons of Zeruiah that merits David’s rebuke and the label śāṭān.
3. That ‫ ָׂש ָטן‬refers to Abishai in his proposed role of attacker or executioner
on David’s behalf is consistent with the other uses of this noun that we have con-
sidered up to this point, all of which refer to physical acts of violence. The transla-
tion “accuser” requires that one posit a usage of ‫ ָׂש ָטן‬that we have not hitherto
observed.
Furthermore, “executioner” seems to be the meaning of ‫ ָׂש ָטן‬in other passages.
This meaning is attested in Numbers 22, which contains the comical account of
Balaam’s journey by donkey to assist Balak king of Moab against the Israelites. It
displeases Yhwh that Balaam has set out on this mission against God’s people, so
the angel of Yhwh, sword in hand, stands in Balaam’s path as his śāṭān (Num
22:22). Fortunately for Balaam, his donkey perceives the danger and three times
takes steps to evade the angel and avert Balaam’s swift demise. Each time the don-
key does this, however, Balaam, who is oblivious to the threat to his life, beats his
donkey for what the seer mistakes for insubordination. Once Balaam becomes
aware of the armed messenger, the angel of Yhwh says to him, “Why have you
struck your donkey these three times? I have come out as a śāṭān, because your way
is perverse before me. The donkey saw me, and turned away from me these three
times. If it had not turned away from me, surely just now I would have killed you
and let it live” (Num 22:32b–33). Had the donkey not protected Balaam, the angel
of Yhwh would have fulfilled his role as a śāṭān by executing Balaam.10
Having surveyed the narrative passages in which the noun ‫ ָׂש ָטן‬occurs, one
observes that this noun does not refer to an adversary generically but to an “attacker”
who intends to harm physically or kill another person. In some passages, this
attacker is of a military kind (1 Sam 29:4; 1 Kgs 5:18). ‫ ָׂש ָטן‬can also carry a more
specific nuance in certain legal contexts, but this meaning is not “accuser” as is
widely held. Rather, the attacker in this legal sense is an “executioner” of the guilty
(Num 22:22, 32; 2 Sam 19:23). There is no evidence whatsoever in these narrative
passages that ‫ ָׂש ָטן‬ever means “accuser.”

10 The notion of śāṭān as executioner may also lie behind what is the most debated passage

referring to a śāṭān in the Hebrew Scriptures, 1 Chr 21:1. I have argued elsewhere that the śāṭān
of 1 Chr 21:1 is a punishing emissary of God and is probably to be identified with the sword-
wielding angel of Yhwh who appears in vv. 12–30 of the same chapter (“The Devil Made David
Do It … Or Did He? The Nature, Identity, and Literary Origins of the Satan in 1 Chronicles 21,”
JBL 128 [2009]: 91–106). According to the Chronicler’s narrative, this śāṭān is responsible for the
deaths of seventy thousand Israelites.
256 Journal of Biblical Literature 133, no. 2 (2014)

II. ‫ ָׂש ַטן‬and ‫ ָׂש ָטן‬in the Book of Psalms

When it comes to ascertaining the meaning of a word, the book of Psalms

poses a different sort of challenge from that posed by the narrative books of the
Hebrew Scriptures. The poetry of the Psalms seldom offers the kinds of explicit and
concrete details afforded by historical narrative. One must often make do with
historically unspecific language and imprecise poetic parallelism in an effort to
triangulate the meaning of an unknown lexeme. The very characteristics that give
the Psalms their universal appeal can frustrate the lexicographer. The case of ‫ׂשטן‬
is no exception to this rule. Limited though one’s data may be, the evidence of the
Psalms suggests a meaning for this root that is consistent with what one observes
in the narrative books. In the three Psalms in which it occurs, the root ‫ ׂשטן‬refers
not to “accusation” but to physical attack.
The first instance of ‫ ָׂש ַטן‬in the book of Psalms is found in Ps 38:21 [Eng. 20].
“Those who render me evil for good are my adversaries [‫ ]יִ ְׂש ְטנוּנִ י‬because I follow
after good.” The verb ‫ ָׂש ַטן‬in this verse is treated variously by commentators and
translators. It has been translated as “to be an adversary” (Craigie, RSV, NRSV,
NKJV), “to oppose” (NASB), and “to harass” (NJPS).11 It has also been rendered
more specifically as “to accuse” (Kraus, ESV, NAB rev. ed.), “to lodge accusations”
(NIV), and “to slander” (Dahood).12 Although ‫ ָׂש ַטן‬in this verse clearly refers to an
action that would bring someone harm (‫) ָר ָעה‬, it is difficult to be more specific
about the nature of the action. The meaning “attack” (Goldingay, HCSB [Holman
Christian Standard Bible]), however, would certainly fit the historical context of
Psalm 38.13 Psalm 38 begins with the suppliant seeking divine healing from illness,
but he also asks God for protection from enemies who seek his life: “Those who
seek my life lay their snares; those who seek to hurt me speak of ruin, and medi­
tate treachery all day long” (38:13 [Eng. 12]). While certainty about the specific

11 Peter C. Craigie, Psalms 1–50 (WBC 19; Waco: Word, 1983), 301.
12 Mitchell Dahood, Psalms: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (3 vols.;

AB 16, 17, 17A; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966–70), 1:234, 237; Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalms
1–59: A Continental Commentary (trans. Hilton C. Oswald; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 410.
Kraus translates ‫ ָׂש ַטן‬as “sein gram” (Psalmen I [BKAT; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag,
1961], 294). Dahood bases his translation “to slander” in part on his translation of ‫ גדל‬in 38:17 as
“to calumniate” and in part on the uses of ‫ ָׂש ַטן‬in Psalms 71 and 109. As for the meaning of ‫גדל‬,
Dahood’s translation is dubious and has not been accepted by any other commentators, to my
knowledge. The hiphil of ‫גדל‬, as one finds in Ps 38:17, is typically translated as “to magnify
[oneself]” or “to boast.” Further, while Dahood is correct to compare the use of ‫ ָׂש ַטן‬in this psalm
with its uses in Psalms 71 and 109, he is incorrect, as will be shown below, to understand ‫ ָׂש ַטן‬in
these passages as “to slander.”
13 John Goldingay, Psalms (3 vols.; Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and

Psalms; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006–8), 1:537.

 Stokes: Satan, Yhwh’s Executioner 257

meaning of ‫ ָׂש ַטן‬in this psalm is impossible, it is reasonable to suppose that the root
‫ ׂשטן‬refers to physical “attack.” Not only is it the case that the root ‫ ׂשטן‬elsewhere
denotes a physical act of attacking and killing a person, but this is also precisely the
situation about which the suppliant requests divine assistance. Nothing in this pas-
sage suggests that the word means “to accuse” or “to slander.” The translation
“attack,” then, is more likely the intended meaning of ‫ ָׂש ַטן‬in Psalm 38.
One finds a very similar state of affairs in Ps 71:13, which the NRSV renders,
“Let my accusers [‫ׂשטנֵ י נַ ְפ ִׁשי‬
ְ ] be put to shame and consumed; let those who seek to
hurt me be covered with scorn and disgrace.” As with 38:21, translations proffered
for the participial form of ‫ ָׂש ַטן‬in this verse include “adversaries” (Tate, Hossfeld
and Zenger [“Widersacher”], NASB, NKJV, HCSB) as well as “accusers” (RSV,
NRSV, NIV, ESV, NJPS) and “slanderers” (Dahood).14 Further, as in Psalm 38, it is
the translation “to attack” (Goldingay, NAB rev. ed.) that most probably conveys
the sense of ‫ ָׂש ַטן‬in this verse.15 The suppliant in Psalm 71 asks God to deliver him
from the hand of the wicked (71:4), his enemies who conspire against him and
watch for his life (71:10–11).16 Those who “attack [his] life” (]‫ׂשטנֵ י נַ ְפׁש[ֹו‬
ְ ) intend to
bring him “harm” (‫) ָר ָעה‬. Once again, physical attack with intent to kill seems to be
the meaning of ‫ ָׂש ַטן‬, and once again there is no basis for the translation “accusers.”
Psalm 71 also offers some guidance in the interpretation of the final psalm to be
considered, Psalm 109.
Psalm 109 has the potential to contribute much to the present investigation.
The verb ‫ ָׂש ַטן‬occurs three times in this psalm (vv. 4, 20, and 29). Additionally, the
noun ‫ ָׂש ָטן‬occurs once (v. 6). Psalm 109 also contains an intriguing terminological
parallel with Zechariah 3. Both passages speak of a śāṭān standing to the right (‫עמד‬
‫ )על־ימין‬of a person (Ps 109:6; Zech 3:1).17 For this reason, commentators find
Psalm 109 to be determinative for their interpretation of Zechariah 3. Although
recent translations and commentaries are virtually unanimous in their rendering
of ‫ ָׂש ָטן‬and ‫ ָׂש ַטן‬in Psalm 109 in terms of “accusation,” there is little in this psalm
that actually suggests this meaning.18 As with the other passages that have been
considered up to this point, a much stronger case can be made that “attack with
lethal intent” is what these words denote.

14 Marvin E. Tate, Psalms 51–100 (WBC 20; Dallas: Word, 1990), 208; Frank-Lothar Hossfeld

and Erich Zenger, Psalmen 51–100 (HTKAT; Freiburg: Herder, 2000), 290; Dahood, Psalms, 2:170.
Kraus translates ‫ ָׂש ַטן‬as “die nachstellen” (Psalmen I, 488).
15 Goldingay allows that ‫ׂש ַטן‬ ָ in this verse may refer to accusation: “The adversaries are
people who are attacking (śāṭan), perhaps by accusing” (Psalms, 2:372).
16 Cf. also Ps 35:4; 40:15 [14]; 70:3 [2], which resemble 71:13 very closely, except that ‫ש ְֹטנֵ י‬

‫ נַ ְפ ִׁשי‬is replaced by ‫“( ְמ ַב ְק ֵׁשי נַ ְפ ִׁשי‬those who seek my life”).

17 The parallel between Psalm 109 and Zechariah 3 will be discussed in the next section.
18 For an example of an interpreter who understands this psalm primarily in terms of accu­

sation, in addition to the commentaries cited below, see Hans Schmidt, Das Gebet der Angeklagten
im Alten Testament (Giessen: A. Töpelmann, 1928), 40–46.
258 Journal of Biblical Literature 133, no. 2 (2014)

The opening verses of Psalm 109 describe the harassment that the psalmist
receives from his enemies. These verses also contain the psalm’s first occurrence of
‫ ָׂש ַטן‬.
Do not be silent, O God of my praise.
For wicked and deceitful mouths are opened against me,
speaking against me with lying tongues.
They beset me with words of hate,
and attack me [‫ ]ילחמוני‬without cause.
In return for my love they accuse me [‫]ישטנוני‬,
even while I make prayer for them.
So they reward me evil [‫ ]רעה‬for good,
and hatred [‫ ]שנאה‬for my love. (Ps 109:1–5)

The psalmist claims that his enemies are attacking him without justification. He is
receiving hatred for his love and is subjected to harm (‫ )רעה‬in return for doing
good.19 The psalmist also claims that his enemies are speaking hateful and false
words against him (vv. 2–3). The psalmist decries malicious speech in v. 20, as well.
With reference to the imprecatory prayer of vv. 6–19, the psalmist says, “May that
be the reward of my accusers [‫ ]שטני‬from the Lord, of those who speak evil against
my life.” While it is not impossible that the words spoken by the psalmist’s enemies
against his life include accusations, this is by no means the only possible interpre-
tation of these lines. False and malicious speech can take a variety of forms, and
nothing in Psalm 109 indicates that this hateful speech takes the form of accusation.
More likely, the psalmist attributes words to his opponents such as those attributed
to the psalmist’s opponents in Psalm 71, which was considered above: “For my
enemies speak concerning me, and those who watch for my life consult together.
They say, ‘Pursue and seize that person whom God has forsaken, for there is no one
to deliver’” (71:10–11). That the words ‫ ָׂש ָטן‬and ‫ ָׂש ַטן‬in Psalm 109 pertain to an
attack on the psalmist’s life is supported also by the psalmist’s use of the word ‫לחם‬
(“to fight,” “to make war”) in v. 3. Though much about the suppliant’s situation is
ambiguous, the language he uses to describe his distress is clearly that of physical
assault.20 The third instance of ‫ ָׂש ַטן‬in Psalm 109 is in v. 29: “May my accusers [‫]שטני‬
be clothed with dishonor; may they be wrapped in their own shame as in a mantle.”

19 Cf. the similar statement in Ps 38:21.

20 Regarding the pair of terms ‫ לחם‬and ‫ ָׂש ַטן‬in Ps 109:3–4, Goldingay states, “Initially the
suppliant’s language uses the language of battle, but then it speaks more literally in indicating that
the attacks take the form of accusations” (Psalms, 3:278). Ironically, so confident is Goldingay that
‫ ָׂש ַטן‬means “to accuse” that he interprets ‫ לחם‬figuratively so as to accommodate this understanding
of ‫ ָׂש ַטן‬. If one simply recognizes that the root ‫ ׂשטן‬is used in Psalm 109 as it is used elsewhere in
the Hebrew Scriptures, to refer to physical attack, then it makes perfect sense that ‫ ָׂש ַטן‬would be
used alongside of ‫לחם‬. (Pertinently, one should observe, the nouns ‫ ָׂש ָטן‬and ‫ ִמ ְל ָח ָמה‬appear
together in 1 Sam 29:4.) One need not interpret one of the words in a way that is contrary to its
literal sense in order to reconcile them. This is not to deny that the psalmist may employ ‫ לחם‬and
 Stokes: Satan, Yhwh’s Executioner 259

The close resemblance between this verse and Ps 71:13, which also expresses the
wish that those who “attack” the psalmist would be ashamed and clothed with
dishonor, increases the likelihood that ‫ ָׂש ַטן‬carries the same meaning in both pas-
sages, “to attack.”
The final occurrence of the root ‫ ׂשטן‬to be considered in this section is in Ps
109:6. For many commentators, this verse uses the noun ‫ ָׂש ָטן‬unambiguously to
refer to an “accuser” or a “prosecuting attorney.”21 In her discussion of the meaning
of ‫ ָׂש ָטן‬, Day states, “There seems to me to be little doubt that śāṭān has a forensic
connotation in Ps 109:6.”22 Although a forensic understanding of ‫ ָׂש ָטן‬in this verse
appears reasonable at first glance, more careful analysis reveals that “attacker” is a
better translation.
Appoint a wicked man [‫ ]רשע‬against him;
let an accuser [‫ ]שטן‬stand on his right.
When he is tried [‫]בהשפטו‬, let him be found guilty [‫;]יצא רשע‬
let his prayer [‫ ]תפלתו‬be counted as sin [‫]תהיה לחטאה‬.
May his days be few;
may another seize his position.
May his children be orphans,
and his wife a widow. (Ps 109:6–9)23

In order to make her case for a forensic understanding of ‫ ָׂש ָטן‬in 109:6, Day first
argues that one must interpret vv. 6–19 as a discrete unit, apart from its context in
Psalm 109.24 This separation of vv. 6–19 from the rest of the psalm is more condu-
cive to Day’s forensic interpretation than reading the psalm as a unity would be,

‫ ָׂש ַטן‬figuratively, but simply to observe that, in the case of both words, he uses the language of
physical assault/combat to describe his situation.
21 Dahood interprets Ps 109:6–7 as referring to a postmortem judgment and the śāṭān of

this passage as Satan, whom he regards as a superhuman prosecutor (Psalms, 3:101–2). Though
most commentators understand the śāṭān of Ps 109:6 to be a prosecutor, Dahood’s interpretation
of the figure in this passage as superhuman has won few followers.
22 Day, Adversary in Heaven, 31. More recent interpreters who understand the language of

v. 6 forensically include Stephen Egwim, “Determining the Place of vv. 6–19 in Ps 109: A Case
Presentation Analysis,” ETL 80 (2004): 116–18; Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger, Psalmen
101–150 (HTKAT; Freiburg: Herder, 2008), 183.
23 The NRSV supplements v. 6 by adding the words “They say” at the beginning, identifying

vv. 6–19 as a quotation of the psalmist’s enemies: “They say, ‘Appoint a wicked man …”
24 Day (Adversary in Heaven, 30–31) points to the difference in the number of enemies

between vv. 1–5, 20–31 (plural) and 6–19 (singular) as evidence for distinct compositional units.
As examples of commentators who make this distinction, she cites Moses Buttenwieser, The
Psalms, Chronologically Treated, with a New Translation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1939), 742; and Oswald Loretz, Die Psalmen: Beitr. d. Ugarit-Texte zum Verständnis von Kolometrie
u. Textologie d. Psalmen (AOAT 207; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1979), 2:158–59.
She also notes other commentators who regard Psalm 109 as a compositional unity, whose
arguments she finds unconvincing.
260 Journal of Biblical Literature 133, no. 2 (2014)

since, as we have seen, the verb ‫ ָׂש ַטן‬occurs elsewhere in Psalm 109 with the likely
meaning of “to attack.” Day then supports her inference that the śāṭān of 109:6 is
an accuser with the observation that ‫“ בהשפטו‬clearly indicates” that the goal of the
śāṭān is to bring someone to justice. Day further asserts that the expression “to
stand on the right hand” in v. 6 is also “clearly forensic.”25
The evidence that Ps 109:6–7 speaks of an accusing śāṭān, however, is not
nearly as clear as Day would have one think. One weakness of Day’s interpretation
of the passage is that it requires her to divorce vv. 6–7 from the rest of Psalm 109.
Although it is possible that vv. 6–19 constitute a distinct compositional unit within
the psalm, an interpretation of ‫ ָׂש ָטן‬that is consistent with its context is still prefer-
able to one that is at odds with its context. Furthermore, there are no grounds for
Day’s claim that “stand on the right hand” is forensic, let alone “clearly forensic.” In
support of this claim, Day cites Roland de Vaux’s discussion of judicial procedure
in ancient Israel. Regarding the location of the accuser during a trial, de Vaux says
only, “The accuser was the ‘adversary,’ the śāṭān; he stood on the right of the accused
(Ps 109:6; Za 3:1).”26 Since de Vaux’s only evidences for the supposition that an
accuser would stand on the right of someone are two passages whose meaning is
presently in question, they constitute an insufficient basis for a forensic reading of
“stand on the right hand.” That an accuser would stand on the right side of the
defendant is entirely without support apart from the alleged evidence of Psalm 109
and Zechariah 3.27 Further, ‫נשפט‬, which, according to Day, shows that the psalm-
ist wanted his enemy to be brought to justice, rarely, if ever, means “to be judged”
or “to be tried,” as it is translated in v. 7 by the NRSV.28 More typically, it means “to
enter into dispute” and can even mean simply “to quarrel.”29
The speaker in Ps 109:6–7, rather than expressing his desire that a criminal
trial will result in a verdict of guilty for his enemy, may be voicing his wish simply
that an attacker will kill his enemy. Though his opponent may seek justice, the
speaker hopes that it will be wickedness that transpires (‫ )בהשפטו יצא רשע‬and that
his enemy’s appeal for arbitration, whether to God or to a human authority, will fail
to prevent sin from occurring (‫)תפלתו תהיה לחטאה‬. This understanding of these
lines makes better sense of the expression ‫ יצא רשע‬in v. 7, which the NRSV

25 Day, Adversary in Heaven, 31.

26 De Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions (trans. John McHugh; New York: McGraw-

Hill, 1961), 156.

27 On the significance of the śāṭān standing to a person’s right in Psalm 109, see the discussion

below in relation to Zechariah 3.

28 H. Niehr cites Ps 9:20 [Eng. 19]; Ps 37:33; and Ps 109:7 as passages in which this form can

be translated “to be judged” (“‫ ָׁש ַפט‬šāpaṭ,” TDOT 15:421). The meaning “to be judged,” however,
is far from certain in these passages. In Ps 37:32–33, as in Psalm 109, the word refers unambiguously
to a wicked person’s (‫ )רשע‬attempt to kill a righteous person.
29 Ibid. See 1 Sam 12:7; 2 Chr 22:8; Prov 29:9; Isa 43:26; 59:4; 66:16; Jer 2:35; 25:31; Ezek

17:20; 20:35, 36; 38:22; Joel 4:2.

 Stokes: Satan, Yhwh’s Executioner 261

translates “let him be found guilty.” A wish for a verdict of guilty does not seem to
be the plain meaning of this expression. In 1 Samuel 24, after refusing to take
advantage of an opportunity to kill Saul, David assures the king that he does not
intend to kill him: ”As the ancient proverb says, ‘Out of the wicked [‫ ]מרשעים‬comes
forth wickedness’ [‫ ;]יצא רשע‬but my hand shall not be against you” (1 Sam 24:14
[Eng. 13]). David uses the expression ‫ יצא רשע‬to speak of the murderous activity
that one would expect to come from wicked persons (‫)מרשעים‬. The speaker in
109:6–7 uses these words to articulate his hope that a wicked person (‫)רשע‬, a śāṭān
(‫) ָׂש ָטן‬, will kill his enemy.
Even were one to maintain, on the basis of the presence of ‫ נשפט‬or of other
supposedly legal terminology, that Psalm 109 depicts a judicial proceeding, there
is nothing in this passage that suggests that the śāṭān in such a proceeding would
function as an “accuser.”30 Based on the analysis up to this point, one would expect
this śāṭān to be an attacker of some sort. In a judicial context, this śāṭān would
probably be an executioner, such as Abishai in 2 Samuel 19. Whether it is hoped
that the attack will take place in a legal setting or otherwise, the intended outcome
of this encounter with a śāṭān is stated unequivocally in vv. 8–9. Regarding his
enemy, the speaker says, “May his days be few…. May his children be orphans and
his wife a widow” (109:8–9). As elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures, ‫ ׂשטן‬in Psalm
109 seems to denote lethal, physical attack.
It would be impossible to prove beyond a doubt that ‫ ׂשטן‬never refers to accu-
sation, particularly in the book of Psalms, where the specifics of the various pas-
sages’ historical settings are difficult to determine with absolute certainty. If one is
willing to assume that ‫ ׂשטן‬refers to accusation, it would be possible to read the
psalms in which it occurs with this meaning. Apart from this sort of a priori under-
standing of the root, however, evidence that these psalms speak of accusation is
meager. There is little support in the psalms and in the narratives considered above
that ‫ ָׂש ָטן‬or ‫ ָׂש ַטן‬ever refers to accusation. In contrast, physical and lethal attack is
very clearly the idea behind the use of the noun ‫ ָׂש ָטן‬in the narrative portions of the
Hebrew Scriptures. In addition, this meaning is supported contextually and makes
excellent sense in all of the psalms in which the root ‫ ׂשטן‬occurs. That the words
refer to lethal, physical attack is especially well supported in Psalm 109.
Having considered all of the occurrences of ‫ ָׂש ָטן‬and ‫ ָׂש ַטן‬outside of Zecha-
riah 3 and Job 1–2, one is now in a position to consider their meaning in these two
important passages. Zechariah is a natural place to begin, since interpreters often
link this passage with Psalm 109.

30 Hossfeld and Zenger offer an insightful analysis of Psalm 109 as a “Gerechtigkeitspsalm,”

citing as evidence for their interpretation an impressive amount of potentially legal language in
the psalm (Psalmen 101–150, 181–95). Some of the supposed legal terminology they cite, however,
is that which we have called into question above. They assume, for instance, that an accuser would
“stand on the right” of a defendant and that ‫ יצא רשע‬refers to a guilty verdict.
262 Journal of Biblical Literature 133, no. 2 (2014)

III. The Śāṭ ān in Zechariah 3

3:1Then he showed me the high priest Joshua standing before the angel of the

Lord, and Satan [‫]ה ָשּׂ ָטן‬ ְ 2And

ַ standing at his right hand to accuse him [‫]ל ִׂש ְטנֹו‬.
the Lord said to Satan [‫]ה ָשּׂ ָטן‬,
ַ “The Lord rebuke you, O Satan [‫!]ה ָשּׂ ָטן‬
ַ The Lord
who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is not this man a brand plucked from the
fire?” 3Now Joshua was dressed with filthy clothes as he stood before the angel.
4The angel said to those who were standing before him, “Take off his filthy

clothes.” And to him he said, “See, I have taken your guilt [‫]עֹונֶ ָך‬
ֲ away from you,
and I will clothe you with festal apparel.” 5And I said, “Let them put a clean turban
on his head.” So they put a clean turban on his head and clothed him with the
apparel; and the angel of the Lord was standing by. 6Then the angel of the Lord
assured Joshua, saying 7“Thus says the Lord of hosts: If you will walk in my ways
and keep my requirements, then you shall rule my house and have charge of my
courts, and I will give you the right of access among those who are standing here.”
(Zech 3:1–7 NRSV)

This translation of Zech 3:1–7 represents the scholarly consensus as to how these
verses are to be understood with regard to the identity and activity of the śāṭān.
Two aspects of this rendering of the passage merit comment. First, the NRSV trans-
lates ‫ ְל ִׂש ְטנֹו‬in 3:1 as “to accuse him.” Second, it renders ‫ ַה ָשּׂ ָטן‬in 3:1–2 as “Satan.”
Since this is a semantic study of the root ‫ׂשטן‬, I will not here discuss the gram-
matical distinction between “Satan” and “the Satan,” as one would usually translate
a noun with the definite article.31 One should note, however, that the transliteration
of ‫ ַה ָשּׂ ָטן‬as Satan is not as interpretively neutral as it might at first appear, since the
NRSV and several other translations provide readers with an explanatory note
defining this term as “the Accuser.”32 Commentators and translators alike are virtu-
ally unanimous that what the śāṭān is doing in this scene is accusing Joshua and
that the śāṭān is in fact “the Accuser.”33

31 Day (Adversary in Heaven, 43) suggests that the definite article in ‫שּׂ ָטן‬ ָ ‫ ַה‬does not point to
a particular śāṭān, as in “the” śāṭān, but indicates that the figure is “a certain unspecified” śāṭān
(emphasis mine). The precise nuance of the definite article in these instances is beyond the scope
of this study, as is the question of how the definite article relates to the tradition history of “Satan”
in the Hebrew Scriptures.
32 See also, e.g., NIV, ESV, NASB. The NJPS departs from the convention of translating ‫שּׂ ָטן‬ ָ ‫ַה‬
as Satan, and has “the Accuser” in the body of the translation itself, not relegated to an explanatory
note. The NAB rev. ed. translates ‫ ְל ִׂש ְטנֹו‬as “to accuse him,” but has the more generic “the adversary”
for ‫ ַה ָשּׂ ָטן‬.
33 E.g., Carol L. Meyers and Eric M. Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8: A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary (AB 25B; New York: Doubleday, 1987), 183–86; Hinckley G.
Mitchell, John Merlin Powis Smith, and Julius A. Bewer, A Criticial and Exegetical Commentary
on Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi and Jonah (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1912), 147–49 (Mitchell);
David L. Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster,
1984), 189–90; Dominic Rudman, “Zechariah and the Satan Tradition in the Hebrew Bible,” in
 Stokes: Satan, Yhwh’s Executioner 263

What is somewhat surprising, given this scholarly unanimity, is that there is

absolutely no evidence in the context of Zechariah 3 itself that accusation is indeed
what is happening or that the śāṭān should be understood as the Accuser. Zechariah
3:1 itself says only that the śāṭān stood at Joshua’s right to śāṭan him. Granted, the
contents of ch. 3 are not obviously incompatible with the supposition that the śāṭān
is functioning as an accuser. For example, the śāṭān’s activity appears to be con-
nected in some way with the fact that Joshua is wearing filthy clothing (which is
associated with the high priest’s iniquity). In addition, the śāṭān’s activity is assessed
negatively, eliciting Yhwh’s rebuke (3:2). For these reasons, scholars who have
assumed that “accuser” and “to accuse” are possible meanings of ‫ ָׂש ָטן‬and ‫ ָׂש ַטן‬have
been able to translate and interpret this passage accordingly.
Having surveyed the evidence for such uses of ‫ ׂשטן‬outside of Zechariah 3,
however, the assumption that this root denotes “accusation” can no longer be sus-
tained. And the contextual clues provided by the passage, though they are not
obviously incompatible with this understanding of the śāṭān and his activity, are
not enough in and of themselves to warrant the translations “the Accuser” and
“accuse” in 3:1–2. Since the evidence supplied by ch. 3 alone is insufficient for deter­
mining the meaning of ‫ ָׂש ָטן‬and ‫ ָׂש ַטן‬, one’s primary guide as to their meaning must
be their use elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures.34 One must also look to other

Tradition in Transition: Haggai and Zechariah 1–8 in the Trajectory of Hebrew Theology (ed.
Mark J. Boda and Michael H. Floyd; Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 475; New
York: T&T Clark, 2008), 191; Ralph L. Smith, Micah–Malachi (WBC 32; Waco: Word, 1984), 199.
Interestingly, the LXX translator did not understand the activity of the śāṭān in this way, but
rendered the verb ‫ ָׂש ַטן‬with ἀντίκειμαι. The verb ἀντίκειμαι can denote adversarial activity of
various sorts, often of a military kind (e.g., Exod 23:22; 2 Sam 8:10; Esth 8:11). It does not mean
“to accuse.”
34 Attempts to explain ‫ׂש ָטן‬
ָ etymologically have been unsuccessful. Knut Tallqvist claims that
the root ‫ ׁשטן‬occurs in Akkadian with the meaning “to feud” (Akkadische Götterepitheta: Mit
einem Götterverzeichnis und einer Liste der prädikativen Elemente der sumerischen Götternamen
[StudOr 7; Helsinki: Societas orientalis fennica, 1938], 240). KBL also relates the Hebrew ‫ ׂשטן‬to
this supposed Akkadian root (p. 918). AHw, however, identifies the Akkadian root not as śṭn but
as the Št stem of etēm/nu(m) (1:260). So also Day, Adversary in Heaven, 23; Wanke, “‫ ָׂש ָטן‬śāṭān
adversary,” 1268. N. H. Tur-Sinai argues that ‫ ָׂש ָטן‬was derived from the root ‫“( ׁשוט‬to roam to and
fro”) and that a śāṭān was one who would roam around the earth and report any disloyalty to the
king that he observed (The Book of Job: A New Commentary [rev ed.; Jerusalem: Kiryath Sepher,
1967], 38–45). This etymology, however, has been rightly rejected by Adolphe Lods, “Les origines
de la figure de Satan: Ses fonctions à la cour céleste,” in Mélanges Syriens: Offerts à monsieur René
Dussaud (2 vols.; Paris: P. Geuthner, 1939), 2:658–59; Rivkah Schärf Kluger, Satan in the Old
Testament (trans. Hildegard Nagel; Studies in Jungian Thought; Evanston, IL: Northwestern Uni­
ver­sity Press, 1967), 30–31; Day, Adversary in Heaven, 20–22; Nielsen, “‫ ָׂש ָטן‬śāṭān; ‫ ַׂש ַטן‬śaṭan; ‫ָׂש ַטם‬
śāṭam,” 73; Breytenbach and Day, “Satan ‫ ׂשטן‬Σατάν, Σατανᾶς,” 726. More recently, Manfred Görg
has posited a connection between the figure of “the śāṭān” in the Hebrew Scriptures and the
Egyptian verb śdnj (from dnj), arguing that the śāṭān of the Hebrew Scriptures is a superhuman
“enforcer” (Vollstrecker) (“Der ‘Satan’ – der ‘Vollstrecker’ Gottes?” BN 82 [1996]: 9–12). It seems
unlikely, however, from both a semantic and a phonetic standpoint that there is any etymological
264 Journal of Biblical Literature 133, no. 2 (2014)

passages that resemble Zechariah 3 formally and conceptually in order to compre-

hend more completely the context of these words.
In view of the fact that “lethal, physical attack” is the meaning of ‫ ָׂש ָטן‬and ‫ָׂש ַטן‬
attested elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures, this is also almost certainly the mean-
ing of these words in Zechariah 3. More specifically, it was shown that ‫ ָׂש ָטן‬is in
some instances used with reference to capital punishment (Num 22:22, 32; 2 Sam
19:23). In these passages, the attacker functions as an “executioner.” This seems to
be the sense of the root ‫ ׂשטן‬in Zechariah 3, the first verse of which should be trans-
lated as follows:
Then he showed me the high priest Joshua standing before the angel of Yhwh,
and the Executioner standing on his right to execute him. (Zech 3:1)

That the śāṭān’s attack should be understood more precisely as “execution” is

strongly suggested by the contents of ch. 3.
Zechariah does not in this passage portray the high priest as an innocent
victim of undeserved assault by evildoers, as the suppliant portrays himself in the
psalms considered above. Joshua is guilty of some unspecified iniquity, which
Zechariah associates with the priest’s filthy garments (3:3–4), so the śāṭān’s attack
on Joshua’s life is not without justification.35 The śāṭān in this scene resembles the
śāṭān whom Balaam encountered on his way to Moab, a superhuman executioner
of the guilty. In Zechariah’s vision, the angel of Yhwh intervenes on behalf of
Joshua, protecting him from the śāṭān’s attack. When compared with the other
passages that speak of a śāṭān, the scene in Zechariah 3, in some respects, has its
closest parallel in 2 Samuel 19. In the 2 Samuel pericope, Abishai stands ready to
serve as David’s śāṭān and to execute Shimei for his crime, but David rebukes the
would-be executioner and shows mercy to Shimei. So also in Zechariah 3 the śāṭān
is poised to put Joshua to death for his iniquity, but the angel of Yhwh rebukes the
śāṭān and extends pardon to Joshua.

relationship between the Egyptian śdnj and the Hebrew root ‫ׂשטן‬. Given the tenuous nature of the
proposed etymologies for ‫ ָׂש ָטן‬to date, the Hebrew Scriptures’ usage of this word and of its cognate
‫ ָׂש ַטן‬remains one’s primary guide to the meaning of these words.
35 There may be more at stake in Zechariah 3 than simply the fate of the high priest. Scholars

disagree as to whether the Satan’s opposition in this passage is directed at Joshua alone or at the
community represented by this high priest. Day, for example, finds in this passage a controversy
over whether Joshua was fit to be invested as high priest (Adversary in Heaven, 118–21). Meyers
and Meyers argue that the purpose of this scene is to legitimate an expanded role for the priesthood
(Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, 180–82). Petersen, on the other hand, contends that the śāṭān’s accusations
concerned not only the position of the priest but also that of the entire community before God
(Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 194–96). He cites Exod 28:36–38 and Num 18:1, which speak of the
high priest bearing the guilt of those he represents. Relevant to this discussion is the fact that the
śāṭān is rebuked in the name of “Yahweh who has chosen Jerusalem” (3:2). However, it is not the
social and religious realities to which this vision points but the nature of the śāṭān within the scene
described that is the concern of the present discussion.
 Stokes: Satan, Yhwh’s Executioner 265

The identification of the śāṭān as a superhuman executioner garners addi-

tional support from a comparison of Zechariah 3 with two other passages from the
Hebrew Scriptures, although these two passages do not mention a śāṭān figure.
Exodus 28 contains instructions concerning the clothing that Aaron and his
descend­ants are to wear when they enter Yhwh’s presence. At the conclusion of
these instructions, the following warning pertaining to the priestly vestments is
given: “Aaron and his sons shall wear them when they go into the tent of meeting,
or when they come near the altar to minister in the holy place; or they will bring
guilt [‫ ]עון‬on themselves and die” (Exod 28:43). According to Exodus 28, were a
priest to approach Yhwh clothed inappropriately, he would incur guilt and invite
death. Zechariah seems to envision a scenario similar to the one warned against in
Exodus, as he describes the priest Joshua standing guilty (‫ )עון‬before the angel of
Yhwh and wearing filthy garments (3:3–4). Joshua’s very life is at stake, and the
śāṭān in this passage is the one who would take Joshua’s life were it not for the angel
of Yhwh’s intervention.
A second passage that sheds light on Zechariah 3 is the familiar account of
Isaiah’s vision of God and prophetic commission in Isaiah 6. In this passage, when
Isaiah beholds God, he immediately recognizes that his life is in danger because of
his iniquity. The prophet exclaims, “Woe is me! I am lost, for I am a man of unclean
lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips; yet my eyes have seen the King, the
Lord of hosts!” (6:5). At that point, one of Yhwh’s divine attendants takes action
to spare Isaiah’s life, taking a burning coal from the altar and touching Isaiah’s
mouth with it. The seraph then explains to Isaiah, “Behold, this has touched your
lips; your guilt [‫ ]עון‬is taken away, and your sin forgiven” (6:7). Once Isaiah’s guilt
has been removed, Isaiah receives his commission to prophesy to the people.
Zechariah’s vision of Joshua follows the same sequence. Like Isaiah, Joshua
stands in the presence of the (angel of) Yhwh. And, like Isaiah, Joshua is in peril
for his life on account of his guilt (Zech 3:1–3). Then, as the seraph touches a coal
to the prophet Isaiah’s unclean lips and declares that his guilt has been removed, so
also the divine attendants in Zechariah 3 remove the priest Joshua’s filthy clothes
and the angel of Yhwh declares that he has taken away Joshua’s guilt (3:4). Once
his guilt has been removed and the danger eliminated, Joshua receives his commis-
sion to serve as high priest (3:7), just as Isaiah received his commission to prophesy.
These formal and conceptual parallels between Zechariah 3 and other passages
reinforce the conclusion of the semantic analysis above, that a śāṭān is one who
would take another’s life by physical attack. Zechariah 3 describes not just any
śāṭān, however, but “the śāṭān,” God’s superhuman executioner.
What is to be made of the terminological similarity between Zechariah 3 and
Psalm 109 (“stand on the right side”) is not as apparent. That Zechariah offers the
reader information about the location of the characters in his vision in ch. 3 should
likely be understood in light of the fact that such locative descriptors appear, as
well, in Zechariah’s other visions. In ch. 1, the prophet sees a man “on” (‫ )על‬a horse
266 Journal of Biblical Literature 133, no. 2 (2014)

standing “among” (‫ )בין‬myrtle trees with other horses “behind” (‫ )אחר‬him. In ch. 4,
Zechariah sees two olive trees “on the right” (‫ )על־ימין‬and “on the left” (‫)על־שמאול‬
of a bowl. These olive trees are said to be the two anointed ones who stand “by”
(‫ )על‬the Lord of the whole earth. In ch. 5, Zechariah describes a woman “inside”
(‫ )בתוך‬a basket and mentions two angels who lift up the bowl “between” (‫)בין‬
heaven and earth. In 6:1, the prophet sees four chariots coming out “from between”
(‫ )מבין‬two mountains. In 3:1, the prophet, as he does elsewhere, describes the loca-
tion of the various elements of his vision. He may be saying no more than that the
Satan was standing next to the high priest.36
This would differ from the situation in Ps 109:6, where “on the right” (‫)על־ימין‬
seems to be used more idiomatically. The psalms frequently speak figuratively of a
person’s “right side” as a position from which one person would support another
(e.g., Pss 16:8; 73:23; 109:31; 110:5; 121:5; 142:5).37 According to Job 30:12, the right
side might also be a position, figuratively, from which one would oppose another.
In Ps 109:6, the expression ‫ על־ימין‬parallels the ‫ על‬of the preceding line.
Appoint a wicked man against him [‫;]עליו‬
let a śāṭān stand on his right [‫]על־ימינו‬.

The idea of a śāṭān standing “on a person’s right” in Ps 109:6 should also be under-
stood in contrast with the statement later in the psalm that it is God who stands “at
the right hand” (‫ )לימין‬of the needy (109:31).
Although Psalm 109 and Zechariah 3 both employ the language of a śāṭān
“standing to the right” of someone, it is not evident that the situations depicted in
these passages are analogous. As argued above, it is possible that Psalm 109 describes
a judicial scene in which a śāṭān would serve as an executioner. In that case, both
Zech 3:1 and Ps 109:6 would refer to an executioner standing to the right of a guilty
individual. Although it is possible that Psalm 109 depicts a legal scene along the
lines of Zechariah 3, the ambiguities of the psalm make it difficult to determine
with confidence whether it actually does so. Even if Zechariah 3 and Psalm 109 are
related, there is no evidence either in Zechariah or in the psalm that a person’s right
side was a position from which one would issue accusations in a forensic setting.
Of the other passages that mention a śāṭān in the Hebrew Scriptures, Numbers
22 and 2 Samuel 19 are more recognizably analogous to Zechariah 3 than is Psalm
109. These passages, which speak of executioners, assist the interpreter in compre-
hending the role of the śāṭān in Zechariah 3. The theological and formal correspon-
dence of Exodus 28 and Isaiah 6 to Zechariah 3, though these two texts do not
mention a śāṭān, points in the same direction, strengthening the argument that
Zechariah’s śāṭān is not an accuser but an executioner.

36 So also Mitchell, Smith, and Bewer, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi and Jonah, 149.
37 See also Isa 41:13; 45:1; and 63:12 for this use of “the right side.”
 Stokes: Satan, Yhwh’s Executioner 267

IV. The Śāṭ ān in Job 1–2

The title ‫ ַה ָשּׂ ָטן‬appears twelve times in the first two chapters of Job. When it
comes to discerning the meaning of the title, however, Job 1–2, like Zechariah 3,
leaves open more than one interpretive possibility. Despite the more elaborate nar-
rative context provided by Job and the frequency of ‫ ַה ָשּׂ ָטן‬, the book of Job offers no
unambiguous indication of the meaning of the noun ‫ ָׂש ָטן‬. As a result of this ambi-
guity, scholars have proffered various readings of Job 1–2 and various translations
for ‫ ַה ָשּׂ ָטן‬. Some commentators regard the śāṭān in Job as “the Adversary” or “the
Opponent.”38 Others understand this figure more specifically as “the Accuser” or
“the Prosecutor.”39
Complicating matters somewhat is the nature of Job’s circumstances, which
are supposed to be at the same time both exceptional and typical. Job’s exemplary
virtue, his great wealth, and his extreme suffering are extraordinary. His un­deserved
suffering and righteousness in the midst of it, on the other hand, are supposed to
be meaningful to ordinary readers who find themselves suffering unjustly. Simi-
larly, the portrait of the śāṭān in Job is probably to be regarded as typical in some
respects and atypical in others. One must engage in a bit of careful reading between
the lines in order to determine what was supposed to have been the śāṭān’s business
as usual.
Based on the present study’s analysis of ‫ ָׂש ָטן‬up to this point, one would expect
“the śāṭān” in Job to be an attacker. Since the word is used exclusively in this way
elsewhere, unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary, this is likely to be
the way it is used in Job as well. Given that the designation ‫ ַה ָשּׂ ָטן‬is identical to that
found in Zechariah 3, and given that this figure reports to Yhwh among the “sons
of God” in Job (1:6; 2:1), one would expect, more specifically, for this attacker to
be, as in Zechariah, a superhuman “executioner.” What remains is to determine

38 See, e.g., David J. A. Clines, Job 1–20 (WBC 17; Dallas: Word, 1989), 19–20; Samuel Rolles

Driver and George Buchanan Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Job (ICC;
New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1921), 11.
39 Scholars who regard the śāṭān as “the Accuser/Prosecutor” include Robert Gordis, The

Book of God and Man: A Study of Job (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965), 70; Marvin H.
Pope, Job: Introduction, Translation, and Notes (AB 15; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965; 3rd
ed., 1973), 9–11; Tremper Longman III, Job (Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom
and Psalms; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012), 82–83. According to William D. Reyburn,
translators have two valid options when it comes to translating ‫ ַה ָשּׂ ָטן‬in Job 1–2: (1) transliteration
with translation, e.g., “Satan the accuser” or (2) translation only, e.g., “the accuser, the tester” (A
Handbook on the Book of Job [UBS Handbook Series; New York: United Bible Societies, 1992],
39). Norman C. Habel defines ‫ ַה ָשּׂ ָטן‬as “the accuser/adversary/doubter” (The Book of Job [OTL;
Philadelphia: Westminster, 1985], 89). John E. Hartley defines ‫ ָׂש ָטן‬as an “opponent at law” (The
Book of Job [NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988], 71).
268 Journal of Biblical Literature 133, no. 2 (2014)

whether this meaning is further supported by, or at least is compatible with, its
context in Job.
The evidence of Job itself, allusive though it may be, also suggests that the
śāṭān is thought to be a superhuman executioner of the wicked. Several aspects of
the narrative indicate that an understanding of the śāṭān as God’s “attacker” or
“executioner,” rather than “accuser,” lies in the story’s background. First, while the
śāṭān certainly questions the motivation for Job’s unwavering fear of God, Job has
committed no crime, nor does the śāṭān accuse Job of having committed a crime.40
The śāṭān does, however, launch a vicious physical assault on Job, destroying Job’s
property, killing Job’s children, and afflicting Job’s body. The meaning “attacker” is
quite appropriate for the activity of the śāṭān in Job. Second, although Job suffers
despite his innocence, the śāṭān’s conversation with God assumes that God’s nor-
mal policy is to protect the righteous but to stretch out the divine hand to strike
the wicked. Behind the idea of the śāṭān who attacks the upright and blameless Job,
presumably, is the notion of a śāṭān who has God’s tacit authorization to bring this
sort of trouble on the wicked. In the case of Job, the śāṭān must obtain special per-
mission from Yhwh to attack an innocent individual.
Third, one can perhaps detect an underlying understanding of the śāṭān as
“the Executioner” in Yhwh’s instructions to him regarding his attack on Job. When
the śāṭān challenges God to strike Job, God assents, telling the śāṭān that all that
Job has is in the śāṭān’s hand. But each time that God hands Job over to the śāṭān,
God curtails the śāṭān’s authority, instructing him in the first instance not to strike
Job’s flesh and bones (1:12). In the second instance, God permits the śāṭān to attack
Job’s body but forbids him to take Job’s life (2:4–6). These instructions limiting the
śāṭān’s freedom would have been necessary, given that the use of such physical and
lethal force would have normally been within the purview of “the Executioner’s”
authority.
To be sure, the book of Job, in an effort to address the complex problem of
human suffering, describes the śāṭān’s activity in a way that moves well beyond the
simple meaning of this figure’s title. The śāṭān certainly does more in this narrative
than attack and kill, and Job has much more to say about the nature and activity of
the śāṭān than can be addressed in the present article. Nevertheless, despite the
complexity of the book of Job, it is not difficult to see how the notion of “the Execu-
tioner” lies in the background of the story’s description of the śāṭān. The translation
of ‫ ַה ָשּׂ ָטן‬as “the Executioner” in Job 1–2, as in Zechariah 3, is supported by the
word’s usage outside the passage as well as by a contextual analysis of the passage.

40 Although it is not impossible construe the śāṭān’s claim in Job 1–2 as an “accusation” in

an abstract sense, this is not a straightforward reading of the text. F. Rachel Magdalene, for
example, argues that the śāṭān accuses Job of “blasphemous intent” (On the Scales of Righteousness:
Neo-Babylonian Trial Law and the Book of Job [BJS 348; Providence: Brown Judaic Studies, 2007],
106–17). The śāṭān does not imply that Job has the “intent” to do evil, but that the motivation for
Job’s loyalty to God is suspect. This legal interpretation of Job 1–2 also presupposes that the title
“the śāṭān” means “the Accuser.”
 Stokes: Satan, Yhwh’s Executioner 269

V. Conclusion

The tradition of a superhuman śāṭān, whether a śāṭān as in Numbers 22 and

1 Chronicles 21 or the śāṭān as in Zechariah 3 and Job 1–2, is among those tradi-
tions in the Hebrew Scriptures that pertain to superhuman agents of death, who
visit God’s enemies with capital judgment. One example of this sort of figure is the
“destroyer” (‫ )המשחית‬who kills the firstborn children of Egypt on the eve of the
exodus (Exod 12:23). The angel of Yhwh also serves as a messenger of death in
several passages. We have already noted Numbers 22, where the angel of Yhwh
comes out as a śāṭān to kill Balaam. It is also the angel of Yhwh who, in response
to the prayer of Hezekiah, strikes down 185,000 Assyrians who have marched on
Judah (2 Kgs 19:35//Isa 37:36).41 It is the angel of Yhwh, as well, who kills seventy
thousand Israelites as a result of David’s unwise census in 2 Samuel 24. It should be
no surprise that the Chronicler’s retelling of this story attributes this census and the
death that ensues to the activity of a śāṭān, an executioner from Yhwh (1 Chr 21:1).
There is much more to be said about the śāṭān tradition and its varied mani-
festations in Zechariah and Job and in later literature. My forthcoming book on
Satan in biblical and early Jewish literature (Eerdmans) addresses the history of the
tradition more fully.42 My arguments in this article are simply the following:
(1) There is insufficient basis for the scholarly consensus that ‫ ָׂש ָטן‬means “accuser”
and that ‫ ָׂש ַטן‬means “to accuse”; (2) a better case can be made that these words refer
to lethal, physical “attack” and that ‫ ָׂש ָטן‬can in some instances be translated as
“executioner”; (3) “executioner” and “execute” are very likely the proper under-
standings of ‫ ָׂש ָטן‬and ‫ ָׂש ַטן‬in Zechariah 3 and Job 1–2.

41 Cf. the parallel account in 2 Chronicles 32, where the figure who kills the Assyrians is not

the “angel of Yhwh,” but simply an angel sent by Yhwh.

42 One question that is raised but not answered by this study is the following: If ‫ׂש ָטן‬
ָ does
not mean “accuser” in the Hebrew Scriptures, then how and when did the śāṭān become “the
Accuser [ὁ κατήγωρ] of our comrades” (Rev 12:10)? To deal with this question fully would take
one further into exegesis and tradition history than is within the scope of this semantic study. A
very brief answer to the question, however, is that this development probably took place among
Greek-speaking theologians. The LXX most often renders ‫ ָׂש ָטן‬and ‫ ָׂש ַטן‬with *διαβαλλ: διαβολή
(Num 22:32); διάβολος (1 Chr 21:1; Job 1:6, 7, 9, 12; 2:1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7; Ps 108:6 [MT 109:6]; Zech
3:1, 2); ἐνδιαβάλλω (Num 22:22; Ps 37:21 [MT 38:21; Eng 38:20]; 70:13 [MT 71:13]; 108:4, 20, 29
[MT 109:4, 20, 29]). It also uses ἐπίβουλος (1 Sam 29:4; 2 Sam 19:23 [Eng. 22]; 1 Kgs 5:18 [Eng.
5:4]), αντίκειμαι (Zech 3:1) and the transliteration σαταν (1 Kgs 11:14, 23, 25]). The noun διάβολος
and its cognates can refer to adversaries and various kinds of opposition. Although διάβολος can
at times mean “accuser,” according to W. Foerster, “accuser” is not the word’s primary meaning
(“διαβάλλω, διάβολος,” TDNT 2:71–73). The same can be said of the root *διαβαλλ- in general. It
is very unlikely, for instance, that διαβολή and ἐνδιαβάλλω in Num 22:22, 32 are supposed to refer
to accusation. Given the semantic range of διάβολος, however, whatever the intent of the LXX
translators, their use of this word opened the door for later interpreters to view the śāṭān (LXX
ὁ διάβολος) as “the Accuser.”
270 Journal of Biblical Literature 133, no. 2 (2014)

Excursus: The Meaning of ‫ִׂש ְטנָ ה‬

The noun ‫ ִׂש ְטנָ ה‬occurs twice in the Hebrew Scriptures, though never together
with ‫ ָׂש ָטן‬or ‫ ָׂש ַטן‬. In Gen 26:21, ‫ ִׂש ְטנָ ה‬is the name given to a well, because the herds-
men of Isaac and the herdsmen of Gerar “quarrel” (‫ )ריב‬over it.43 The second pas-
sage in which ‫ ִׂש ְטנָ ה‬appears is Ezra 4:6, which says that during the reign of Xerxes
the people of the land write a ‫ ִׂש ְטנָ ה‬that is intended to hinder Judah’s reconstruction
efforts. Although ‫ ִׂש ְטנָ ה‬in this passage is often translated as “accusation” (e.g.,
NRSV, NAB rev. ed., NIV, NJPS, ESV), we know none of the specifics of this letter.
It was clearly a document of “opposition” of some sort.44 The way in which this
document was supposed to impede Judah’s reconstruction efforts, however, is not
specified.
Translators’ choice of “accusation” for the word can only be based on the
presumption that the root ‫ ׂשטן‬carries this connotation, not on information as to
the letter’s contents found in Ezra 4:6 itself. A mistaken conflation of the ‫ִׂש ְטנָ ה‬
­letter of 4:6 with a later letter described in Ezra 4:7–16 may also contribute to the
(mis)understanding of ‫ ִׂש ְטנָ ה‬as an “accusation.”45 The later letter, which was writ-
ten during the reign of Artaxerxes, suggests to Persian authorities that Jerusalem’s
rebuilding will lead to revolt. This letter, however, is not called a ‫ ִׂש ְטנָ ה‬. The contents
of the earlier document, which is called a ‫ ִׂש ְטנָ ה‬, are unknown. Even were the later
letter to be called a ‫ ִׂש ְטנָ ה‬, it would not be clear whether the word itself denoted
accusation or simply meant “opposition.” Judging from the two instances of this
word in the Hebrew Scriptures, ‫ ִׂש ְטנָ ה‬does not appear to be identical in meaning
to its cognates ‫ ָׂש ָטן‬and ‫ ָׂש ַטן‬. Nor, based on these two occurrences, can ‫ ִׂש ְטנָ ה‬be said
to denote accusation.

Gen 26:20, where another well is named ‫ ֵע ֶׂשק‬under similar circumstances. A verb
43 Cf.

based on the root ‫ עשק‬occurs in the same verse and is a hapax legomenon.
44 So Horst, Hiob, 1:14.
45 See, e.g., Nielsen, “‫ׂש ָטן‬
ָ śāṭān,” 75.