Did God create the devil? · Seek

Read with these questions

Are you asking who created Satan, how he became evil, or why God permitted that choice?^{7 11}

What the texts say

Colossians 1:16 — Colossians says all things, visible and invisible, including thrones and powers, were created by and for Christ. It lists ranks of powers without naming the devil. Traditional teaching reads this to mean that every spiritual power, including the devil, was created.⁷
John 1:3 — John says creation came through the Word but does not name angels or the devil. Christians read this with Colossians to conclude that Satan was also created.^{4 sources}4 sources12. John 1:3 7. Colossians 1:16 1. Church 1997 2. Church 1997
Psalms 148:2–5 — The psalm calls angels and other heavenly beings to praise God because he created them. It includes angels in creation but describes no angelic rebellion.^{13 14}

Show 9 more key verses

Ezekiel 28:12–19 — Ezekiel's lament addresses the king of Tyre. It uses imagery from Eden to describe someone created blameless who later becomes wicked. The preceding oracle calls the ruler human. Tertullian reads the lament as referring to the devil, though it addresses the king.^{6 sources}6 sources15. Ezekiel 28:12 16. Ezekiel 28:13 17. Ezekiel 28:15 18. this site's data 19. Ezekiel 28:2 20. Tertullian c. 207
Isaiah 14:12–15 — Isaiah's taunt addresses Babylon's king. A shining figure falls after seeking the highest place in heaven. The Hebrew describes a shining one linked with dawn; the name Lucifer comes from the Latin translation. Origen reads this as Satan's fall; CalvinJohn CalvinA Protestant reformer (1509–1564) who settled in Geneva in 1536, with an interval away, according to the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica. Alongside the Institutes of the Christian Religion, he wrote commentaries on Scripture.From: Alexander; Alexander; Alexander; Alexander; AlexanderAll terms → rejects that reading.^{8 sources}8 sources21. Isaiah 14:4 22. Isaiah 14:12 23. this site's data 24. Isaiah 14:13 25. Isaiah 14:14 26. Isaiah 14:15 27. Origen c. 220-230 28. Calvin 1551 (Latin); 1850 (tr.)
John 8:44 — Jesus calls the devil a murderer and a liar. The verse does not explicitly say whether he was once good. Augustine takes his failure to remain in truth to mean he was once good, provided Augustine's reading of Isaiah and Ezekiel is right.^{29 30}
1 John 3:8 — The letter says the devil has sinned from the beginning and the Son appeared to undo his works. Augustine reads this as the beginning of the devil's sin, rather than his existence.^{31 30}
Jude 1:6 — Jude describes angels who left their assigned place and are kept confined until judgment. He does not name the devil. Charles identifies them as the WatchersWatchersAngels in ancient Jewish and Christian texts who descended, married human women and fathered giants. McKenna Boling says they almost certainly connect to the “sons of God” in Genesis 6.From: Genesis 6:2; Boling; BolingAll terms → of 1 Enoch1 EnochAn anthology of at least five booklets, surviving complete only in Classical Ethiopic, according to Kelley Coblentz Bautch. It belongs to the Ethiopian Orthodox biblical canon; Jude quotes material corresponding to 1 Enoch 1:9.From: Bautch; Jude 1:14; Bautch; EncyclopediaAll terms →, whose sin concerns women.^{32 33 34}
2 Peter 2:4 — God punishes angels who sinned and keeps them confined until judgment. The passage does not name the devil among them or explain when or why they sinned.^{35 36}
Luke 10:17–18 — Jesus says he saw Satan fall as the disciples report that demons submitted to them on their mission. Kent reports two readings: Satan's original fall, or a fall linked to those exorcisms.^{37 38 39}
Revelation 12:7–9 — Michael and his angels defeat the dragon and his angels. The dragon is identified as the devil and Satan. The passage describes expulsion but not creation. It tells of the child's birth and ascent before the war, but that order alone does not establish when the expulsion happens.^{4 sources}4 sources8. Revelation 12:7 9. Revelation 12:8 10. Revelation 12:9 40. Revelation 12:5
Job 1:6–12 — The satan joins the heavenly beings as they present themselves to God. God lets him act against Job's possessions but forbids harm to Job himself. The Hebrew uses a title with the definite article, which Porter translates as the accuser.^{41 42 43}

Background

Why the answer combines passages Tradition

William H. Kent, writing in the Catholic Encyclopedia, says Scripture supplies no complete account of the devil in one place. His approach combines scattered notices with patristic tradition. Guy Richard, a ReformedReformedA Protestant church tradition whose historic expressions of faith, according to the Christian Reformed Church in North America, include the Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism and Canons of Dort.From: Britannica; AmericaAll terms → evangelical, also treats the origin of evil as a probable answer suggested by biblical passages. Their accounts explicitly involve interpretation across texts.^{6 44 45}

Human kings and later spiritual readings Scholarship

Patmore's study of late-antique interpretations finds political, cherubic, Adamic and Hiram readings of Ezekiel among Jewish sources, and Satan readings among Church Fathers. Gray reads Isaiah's tyrant as reenacting a mythic figure's attempted ascent. These readings concern how royal and heavenly imagery relate; the passages themselves address human kings.^{4 sources}4 sources46. Patmore 2008 47. Gray 1912 15. Ezekiel 28:12 21. Isaiah 14:4

More than one account of angelic sin Scholarship

In 1 Enoch, Semjaza leads angels who descend to take human wives. Charles connects Jude and 2 Peter with these Watchers. Bordjadze describes a later shift toward the proud-angel account, with Tertullian using Ezekiel for Satan's downfall. The Watchers' leader and transgression differ from the account of Satan falling through pride.^{8 sources}8 sources48. (ed.) 1913 49. (ed.) 1913 33. (ed.) 1913 34. (ed.) 1913 50. Bordjadze 2017 51. Bordjadze 2017 52. Bordjadze 2017 53. Aquinas c. 1268

Show 4 more background topics (David's census and the identity of the adversary; Two different proposals for Persian influence; Refusing to bow to Adam…)

David's census and the identity of the adversary Scholarship

Samuel attributes the prompting of David's census to God; Chronicles attributes it to satan. The Jewish Encyclopedia reads the change as Satan becoming an independent agent. Jonker reports alternatives, including a worldly enemy; he also quotes Stokes favoring an anonymous heavenly emissary. This parallel is important to the development question, but the figure's identity is disputed.^{5 sources}5 sources54. 2 Samuel 24:1 55. 1 Chronicles 21:1 56. Blau 1905 57. Jonker 2017 58. Jonker 2017

Two different proposals for Persian influence Scholarship

Jonker argues for a major role for a developing Persian-era dualistic worldview, a picture of opposing powers. Silverman describes disagreement over deriving Satan from Angra Mainyu. His own working hypothesis instead connects Zechariah's heavenly court with Persian administrative practice. Religious borrowing and a court model are different proposed mechanisms.^{4 sources}4 sources59. Jonker 2017 60. Silverman 2014 61. Silverman 2014 56. Blau 1905

Refusing to bow to Adam Scholarship

In the Latin Life of Adam and Eve 12–16, the devil says he refused Michael's command to worship Adam as God's image because he was created first.

In the Latin Life of Adam and Eve 12–16, the devil says he refused Michael's command to worship Adam as God's image because he was created first. Echoing Isaiah 14:13, he threatened to set his seat above the stars. God banished him and his angels. Wells (1913) says it “seems certain” the Adam books' material dates from the first to fourth centuries AD, with the first far more probable for most of it. He considers it Jewish in origin. Wells notes the fall account is absent from the Slavonic version and suggests it may be separate. Gary Anderson (2000) leaves its “exceedingly difficult” Jewish or Christian origin open. He notes its “surprising prominence in Islam”: Iblis refuses to bow to Adam some seven times in the Qur'an. Kremser (2021) cautions that the Life survives in translations from Christian times.^{11 sources}11 sources62. (tr.) 1913 63. (tr.) 1913 64. (tr.) 1913 65. Wells 1913 66. Wells 1913 67. Wells 1913 68. Anderson 2000 69. Anderson 2000 70. Anderson 2000 71. (tr.) 1930 72. Kremser 2021

Isaiah's imagery in 2 Enoch Scholarship

In 2 Enoch 29:4–5's longer recension, an angel conceives an “impossible thought”: setting his throne above the clouds and equaling God's power.

In 2 Enoch 29:4–5's longer recension, an angel conceives an “impossible thought”: setting his throne above the clouds and equaling God's power. God throws him down. Charles identifies him as Satan, called Satanail elsewhere in the book, but notes conflicting elements. Kaufmann Kohler's Jewish Encyclopedia article “Lucifer” argues that Isaiah's myth passed to Satan in the pre-Christian century, citing this passage and the Life of Adam and Eve. Dating is disputed. Charles (1913) says the book's present form was probably written between 30 BC and AD 70, reasonably assigning it to AD 1–50. Orlov (2012) argues its priestly traditions allow a date before 70 CE. He reports Maunder's attack on early dating, Fotheringham's date no earlier than the mid-seventh century, and Milik's proposed ninth- or tenth-century Byzantine monk. Kremser (2021) cautions that 2 Enoch survives in translations from Christian times; Christian expansion of its Satan passages must be considered.^{15 sources}15 sources73. Forbes 1913 74. Forbes 1913 75. (ed.) 1913 76. Kohler 1904 77. (ed.) 1913 78. Orlov 2012 79. Orlov 2012 80. Orlov 2012 81. Orlov 2012 82. Orlov 2012 83. Orlov 2012 72. Kremser 2021 62. (tr.) 1913 63. (tr.) 1913 64. (tr.) 1913

Where else Scripture speaks of it

Text

Zechariah 3:1–2 Joshua faces an accuser beside the divine messenger, and God rebukes the accuser. As in Job, the Hebrew noun has the definite article.
^3:1Then the angel showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, with Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him. ²And the LORD said to Satan: “The LORD rebukes you, Satan! Indeed, the LORD, who has chosen Jerusalem, rebukes you! Is not this man a firebrand snatched from the fire?”
Read in context →
2 Samuel 24:1 Samuel attributes the census prompting to God; compare the adversary in Chronicles.
¹Again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and He stirred up David against them, saying, “Go and take a census of Israel and Judah.”
Read in context →
1 Chronicles 21:1 Chronicles attributes the census prompting to satan. Jonker reports disagreement over whether this is a name, a heavenly figure or a worldly enemy.
¹Then Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel.
Read in context →

How the traditions read it

Tradition

How different traditions read these texts, in their own terms.

Catholic · Lateran IV and the Catechism

The Fourth Lateran Council teaches that God created the devil and demons good by nature, and that they made themselves bad. The Catholic Catechism repeats that Satan began as a good angel and describes the fall as a free choice. It also calls him a creature whose activity God permits, while acknowledging mystery about that permission.^{4 sources}4 sources84. Council 1215 1. Church 1997 2. Church 1997 85. Church 1997

Early church: Greek · Athenagoras, Irenaeus and Gregory of Nyssa

Athenagoras (c. 177) explicitly says God created the spirit hostile to God, like the other angels, and gave him rule over matter.

Athenagoras (c. 177) explicitly says God created the spirit hostile to God, like the other angels, and gave him rule over matter. Angels are free agents; this one neglected his charge and became wicked. Irenaeus (c. 180) says the devil, an angel over the air, fell away through envy of humans. Endorsing Justin Martyr's remark, he says Satan fell by his own free will but blames his Maker. Gregory of Nyssa (c. 385) says all created things can change, unlike the uncreated God. The angel over the earth, created for no evil purpose, envied humans when they were made in God's image.^{4 sources}4 sources86. Athenagoras c. 177 87. Lyons c. 180 88. Lyons c. 180 89. Nyssa c. 385

Early church: Latin · Lactantius: envy of the Son

Lactantius's Divine Institutes (c. 304–311), in ANF's shorter text, says God first produced a Spirit like himself, then a being who envied his predecessor.

Lactantius's Divine Institutes (c. 304–311), in ANF's shorter text, says God first produced a Spirit like himself, then a being who envied his predecessor. The translator's note identifies the predecessor as the Son. The second being turned from good to evil by the unfettered will God gave him. Only some manuscripts add a longer passage: God made two opposing spirits, upright and depraved. Because evil should not proceed from God, he appointed the depraved spirit inventor of evils. Jackson Bryce (2007) judges these additions “with little doubt authentic”, no more dualistic than many shorter-text passages. James O'Donnell (1995) calls them “undoubtedly authentic”: a late revision developing Lactantius's ideas, though not necessarily as every orthodox Christian would approve.^{11 sources}11 sources90. Lactantius c. 304-311 91. (tr.) 1886 92. Lactantius c. 304-311 93. Brandt 1890 94. Brandt 1890 95. Brandt 1890 96. Brandt 1890 97. Bryce 2007 98. Bryce 2007 99. Bryce 2007 100. O'Donnell 1995

Show 12 more interpretations (Early church: Latin, Catholic, Orthodox…)

Early church: Latin · Augustine on nature, will and foreknowledge

Augustine locates goodness in God's creation and wickedness in the devil's will. He reads the biblical language about sin's beginning as the beginning of the devil's sin. God knew the future fall, Augustine says, and knew the good he could bring from it. For the first evil choice, Augustine describes a failure of the will rather than an efficient cause producing evil.^{4 sources}4 sources11. Augustine c. 417 30. Augustine c. 417 101. Augustine c. 417 102. Augustine c. 417

Catholic · Aquinas on the first sin

AquinasThomas AquinasA philosopher, theologian and Doctor of the Church, born in 1225 or 1227 and deceased in 1274, according to the 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia. He wrote the Summa theologica.From: Kennedy; KennedyAll terms → argues that the devil was not wicked at the first instant of creation, because God cannot cause sin. He identifies the first angelic sin as pride: refusing due subjection to a superior. Envy can follow. This account reasons about spiritual desire and agency, as well as interpreting the biblical passages.^{103 53}

Orthodox · Hopko's Orthodox catechesis

Thomas Hopko's catechism for the Orthodox Church in America places invisible powers within God's creation and describes evil spirits as rebels against him. He applies Isaiah and Luke to Satan's fall. His brief account does not give the detail about original goodness supplied by John of Damascus.^{3 5}

Early church: Greek · John of Damascus on a good creature's choice

John of Damascus explicitly says the devil was created good and turned against his creator by choice. Demonic power remains limited to what God allows, as in Job. His account supplies a Greek patristic formulation of created goodness and chosen rebellion.⁵

Protestant: Reformed · Belgic and Westminster confessions

The Belgic Confession teaches that angels were created good and some fell; it rejects devils existing independently as evil beings by nature. Westminster says angels fell willfully within divine providence. Its Confession describes more than bare permission, while locating the sinfulness in the creature. Calvin nevertheless rejects reading Isaiah's Babylonian king as Satan.^{4 sources}4 sources4. (tr.) 1561 104. Assembly 1648 105. Assembly 1647 28. Calvin 1551 (Latin); 1850 (tr.)

Protestant: Lutheran · Augsburg on the cause of sin

The Augsburg Confession distinguishes God's creation and preservation of nature from the cause of sin. It assigns that cause to the wicked will of the devil and ungodly people, citing John. Its answer identifies the willing creature as the source of sin.¹⁰⁶

Jewish: rabbinic · Permission and service in Bava Batra

Bava Batra describes Satan tempting, accusing and taking life with permission. Rabbi Levi explains his accusation against Job as motivated by concern for God's regard for Abraham. The Jewish Encyclopedia also reports a midrashic tradition placing Satan's arrival with Eve and draws the conclusion that he is created, not eternal. These accounts do not supply one uniform rabbinicRabbinicRelating to the rabbis, the Jewish movement of teachers that Sara Ronis describes as emerging after the Romans destroyed Jerusalem’s temple in 70 CE, with teachings and discussions collected in the Talmud.From: RonisAll terms → biography.^{107 108}

Jewish: medieval commentator · Maimonides reads Job philosophically

MaimonidesMaimonidesA Talmudist, philosopher and physician (1135–1204), according to the Jewish Encyclopedia. His works include a Mishnah commentary, the law code Mishneh Torah and the philosophical Guide for the Perplexed.From: Jacobs; Jacobs; JacobsAll terms → treats Job's heavenly introduction as a fiction carrying profound ideas about providence. He endorses the identification of the adversary with the evil inclination and the angel of death. In this reading, the adversary is largely an inward tendency that turns people from truth, rather than a fallen rebel angel.¹⁰⁹

Jewish: rabbinic · Sammael in a medieval midrash; Genesis 6 reread

Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer 13–14 calls Sammael heaven's great prince.

Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer 13–14 calls Sammael heaven's great prince. Rivaling Adam, he descends with his band and uses the serpent to lead Eve into sin. After judging Adam, Eve and the serpent, God casts Sammael and his troop from heaven. The Jewish Encyclopedia dates it just after 833, rejecting attribution to Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus (80–118 CE). In “Fall of Angels”, Emil Hirsch reports that later Jewish tradition, “shocked at the notion of the angels' fall”, read Genesis 6's sons of God as men: Genesis Rabbah calls them “sons of judges”.^{6 sources}6 sources110. Eliezer c. 9th c.111. Eliezer c. 9th c.112. Ochser 1905 113. Ochser 1905 114. Hirsch 1903 115. Martyr c. 160

Islamic · Iblis in the Qur'an and Ibn Kathir

The Qur'an describes Iblis as created from fire, refusing to bow before Adam, and belonging to the jinn. Ibn KathirIbn KathirAn Arab historian and scholar who taught at Damascus (1301–1373), according to the first Encyclopaedia of Islam. He wrote a universal history and a commentary on the Qur’an.From: Islam; Islam; IslamAll terms → cites al-Hasan al-Basri denying that Iblis was ever an angel. He also reports Ibn 'Abbas describing Iblis as a devoted worshipper among the angels before pride and sin, while still identifying his genus as jinn.^{4 sources}4 sources71. (tr.) 1930 116. (tr.) 1930 117. Kathir 14th c.118. Kathir 14th c.

Latter-day Saints · A spirit son and the premortal council

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that the devil “is literally a spirit son of God”, once an angel in authority before God, who rebelled in premortal life.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that the devil “is literally a spirit son of God”, once an angel in authority before God, who rebelled in premortal life. In its scripture Moses 4, Satan offers to redeem all mankind, asks for God's honor, and is cast down for seeking to destroy human agency. Its Guide to the Scriptures reads Isaiah 14:12 as Lucifer's premortal fall. Its scripture says intelligence “was not created or made”. Its essay “Becoming Like God”, discussing each human soul's core, says Joseph Smith fully repudiated creation out of nothing.^{9 sources}9 sources119. Saints 120. Saints 121. Saints 122. Saints 2011 22. Isaiah 14:12 123. Saints 124. Saints 125. Saints 126. Saints

Jehovah's Witnesses · The person who became the Devil

Jehovah's Witnesses say God created the person who became the Devil, not the Devil: a once perfect, righteous angelic son of God. Free to choose, he opposed God and incited the first human couple. They say “he made himself Satan”, meaning “Resister”. They reject Lucifer as his name, reading Isaiah 14:12 as a taunt against Babylon's line of kings after its overthrow.^{9 sources}9 sources127. Deuteronomy 32:4 29. John 8:44 128. (jw.org)129. Genesis 3:1 10. Revelation 12:9 130. (jw.org)21. Isaiah 14:4 22. Isaiah 14:12 131. (jw.org)

Common misunderstandings

Text

Things people commonly believe the text says, checked against it.

A common belief among believers
Myth Isaiah gives Lucifer as the devil's original Hebrew name.
Actually Isaiah addresses Babylon's king. Lucifer comes through Latin as a rendering of Hebrew shining-one language; the Hebrew expression is not a personal name for Satan.^{21 22 23}
A common belief among believers
Myth Ezekiel explicitly identifies its created, blameless figure as Satan.
Actually The lament names Tyre's king as its addressee. Tertullian and Origen apply it to a spiritual fall; that identification belongs to their interpretation.^{6 sources}6 sources15. Ezekiel 28:12 16. Ezekiel 28:13 17. Ezekiel 28:15 18. this site's data 20. Tertullian c. 207 132. Origen c. 220-230
A common belief among skeptics
Myth Christians who believe Satan was created good must all read Isaiah as his biography.
Actually Calvin rejects the application to Satan while remaining a traditional Christian interpreter. The Belgic Confession teaches created goodness and angelic fall. Agreement on that teaching does not require agreement over this passage. Explanations of the fall also differ: Athenagoras describes neglect of an entrusted charge, Irenaeus and Gregory of Nyssa envy of humans, Lactantius envy of the Son, and Aquinas pride.^{8 sources}8 sources28. Calvin 1551 (Latin); 1850 (tr.)4. (tr.) 1561 86. Athenagoras c. 177 87. Lyons c. 180 89. Nyssa c. 385 90. Lactantius c. 304-311 91. (tr.) 1886 53. Aquinas c. 1268

Show 2 more misconceptions

A common belief among skeptics
Myth Satan's origin in a borrowed Zoroastrian evil power is established.
Actually The cited literature contains competing proposals. Jonker assigns a major Persian role; Silverman describes objections to deriving Satan from Angra Mainyu and proposes an administrative model instead.^{59 133 61}
A common belief among believers
Myth Jewish accounts give the same fallen-angel biography as the Catholic Catechism.
Actually Rabbi Levi describes Satan's accusation as serving Heaven. Maimonides reads Job's introduction philosophically and identifies the adversary with the evil inclination. These examples differ from the CatechismCatechism of the Catholic ChurchAn official summary of Catholic teaching that John Paul II ordered published in 1992, declaring it a sure norm for teaching the faith. He approved and promulgated its Latin typical edition in 1997.From: II; II; II; II; IIAll terms →'s account without establishing a uniform Jewish alternative.^{4 sources}4 sources107. Talmud c. 6th c.109. Maimonides c. 1190 1. Church 1997 2. Church 1997

Words worth a closer look

Text

Where the wording in different Bibles diverges, and why.

Job 1:6 · Zechariah 3:1 · 1 Chronicles 21:1 · “satan / the satan” śāṭān

The Hebrew noun can describe human adversaries. It carries the definite article in Job and Zechariah, supporting the reading of a role or title there. Chronicles lacks the article, but Jonker reports disagreement over whether it names Satan, a heavenly adversary or a worldly enemy. The missing article does not settle that choice.^{6 sources}6 sources134. this site's data 135. 1 Samuel 29:4 136. 1 Kings 11:14 43. this site's data 41. Job 1:6 57. Jonker 2017

Open in compare →

Isaiah 14:12 · “shining one / Lucifer” hêlēl ben shachar

The Hebrew term hêlēl occurs only here. BDB explains it as a shining one, an epithet for Babylon's king. The KJV and Douay-Rheims use Lucifer; the SeptuagintSeptuagintAn ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, also including books Christians call Apocrypha or deuterocanonical books, according to Jannes Smith.From: Smith; SmithAll terms → uses Heōsphoros, meaning dawn-bringer. Lucifer comes through Latin morning-star language rather than a Hebrew personal name for the devil. Jehovah's Witnesses reject Lucifer as the devil's name and read the figure as Babylon's dynasty. Latter-day Saints read the verse as Lucifer's premortal fall.^{8 sources}8 sources22. Isaiah 14:12 23. this site's data 137. this site's data 138. this site's data 21. Isaiah 14:4 131. (jw.org)123. Saints 124. Saints

Open in compare →

Ezekiel 28:14 · “a cherub / with the cherub”

The Hebrew calls the addressee a guardian cherubCherubA composite biblical being (plural cherubim), typically winged and always connected with God, appearing as a guardian or as God’s mount, according to the HarperCollins Bible Dictionary.From: Genesis 3:24; Powell; PowellAll terms →, while the Greek Septuagint places him with the cherub. Davidson allows a reading beside the cherub and favors first-man imagery behind the lament. These alternatives affect the figure's relationship to the cherub; neither wording names Satan.^{5 sources}5 sources139. Ezekiel 28:14 140. Davidson 1892 (1896 reprint)141. this site's data 142. Davidson 1892 (1896 reprint)143. Davidson 1892 (1896 reprint)

Open in compare →

History and evidence

Evidence

Each claim judged on its own, with the limits of the evidence stated.

Outside what evidence can settle
God created the devil good, and the devil became evil by his own will.
Lateran IV explicitly teaches this doctrine.
Why this verdict
Theological claims
Confidence: high
Lateran IV explicitly teaches this doctrine. The historical existence of that teaching can be studied; the supernatural creation and fall are outside what evidence can settle. The texts and their reception do not independently establish those events.^{144 145}
Supported
Christian readings of Ezekiel and Isaiah as the devil's fall are attested by the early third century.
Tertullian applies Ezekiel to the devil around 207; Origen applies Ezekiel and Isaiah in the early third century.
Why this verdict
Claims others made
Confidence: high
Tertullian applies Ezekiel to the devil around 207; Origen applies Ezekiel and Isaiah in the early third century. Patmore's reception study includes Satan readings among the Church Fathers. This supports a claim about attested interpretation, without settling the prophets' intended meaning.^{4 sources}4 sources146. Tertullian c. 207 147. Origen c. 220-230 27. Origen c. 220-230 46. Patmore 2008
Cross-community agreement · The cited patristic texts and Patmore's reception study (as of 2026-11-07)
Open
Zoroastrian dualism shaped the Jewish and Christian figure of Satan.
Jonker assigns a major role to the late Persian setting.
Why this verdict
Claims about the text
Confidence: high
Jonker assigns a major role to the late Persian setting. Silverman notes objections to deriving Satan from Angra Mainyu and proposes an administrative model instead. Knoppers, reported by Jonker, disputes a dualistic reading of Chronicles. Establishing influence requires a mechanism as well as chronology; the cited literature leaves the religious-borrowing claim open.^{4 sources}4 sources59. Jonker 2017 133. Silverman 2014 61. Silverman 2014 148. Jonker 2017
Contested · The cited arguments of Jonker, Silverman and Knoppers, not a field survey (as of 2026-11-07)
What would change this verdict: Evidence establishing the proposed mechanism of religious transmission would change this assessment.

Hard questions

The strongest case, the strongest responses, then a plain assessment of where the logic holds.

Does the Bible say God created the devil?

Christian teaching explicitly affirms a created, originally good devil; its biblical case combines passages whose application to him requires interpretation.

See the argument

The strongest case

The question is whether the traditional answer is directly stated or assembled from passages. Colossians includes invisible powers within creation but does not name the devil. Ezekiel describes created goodness followed by wickedness, yet addresses Tyre's king. Kent acknowledges that a full account requires scattered notices read with tradition.^{12 sources}12 sources7. Colossians 1:16 15. Ezekiel 28:12 16. Ezekiel 28:13 17. Ezekiel 28:15 18. this site's data 6. Kent 1908 39. Kent 1908 84. Council 1215 44. Richard 2018 45. Richard 2018 28. Calvin 1551 (Latin); 1850 (tr.)4. (tr.) 1561

P1. Colossians includes invisible powers in creation without naming Satan; Ezekiel's lament about created goodness addresses Tyre's king.^{5 sources}5 sources7. Colossians 1:16 15. Ezekiel 28:12 16. Ezekiel 28:13 17. Ezekiel 28:15 18. this site's dataNo listed response challenges this premise
P2. The proposed inference is that these passages do not establish a good angel's creation and later corruption unless their application to the devil can also be justified.

→ Conclusion. The traditional answer depends on interpreting the passages together and identifying their subjects.

Strongest responses

Catholic challenges P2

Read the texts with patristic tradition. Kent combines the texts with tradition and takes Tyre's king as likened to a ruined angel. Lateran IV states the conclusion explicitly: God created the devil good, and he became bad through himself.^{4 sources}4 sources6. Kent 1908 39. Kent 1908 84. Council 1215 15. Ezekiel 28:12

Protestant: Reformed challenges the framing

Reject one application without rejecting Satan. Calvin rejects applying Isaiah's poem to Satan because it concerns Babylon's king. The Belgic Confession nonetheless teaches created angels who fell. A Reformed answer therefore need not accept that particular application of Isaiah.^{28 4}

Protestant: evangelical challenges P2

A probable biblical answer. Richard argues that Satan belonged to God's good creation, using Revelation and Jude for an angelic origin. He calls the origin-of-evil account a probable answer suggested by Scripture, rather than an explicit explanation of where evil came from.^{44 45}

Plain assessment

The creation inference and the good-then-fallen account are distinct steps. Colossians supplies the scope of creation; Ezekiel supplies imagery that traditional interpreters apply to Satan. Lateran IV states the doctrine explicitly. Kent and Richard acknowledge the need for synthesis; Calvin shows that accepting a created Satan does not require applying Isaiah's king to him.

What would change this assessment: A passage explicitly identifying the devil as a good created being before his first sin would change the textual comparison.

Assessment uses: Col.1.16 · Ezek.28.12-Ezek.28.19 · Why the answer combines passages · Catholic · Protestant: Reformed

If God created him good, how could he fall?

The cited accounts place the fall in the creature's own choice but give different reasons for it; Wood finds problems in the pride, Augustinian and Anselmian answers and offers his own model as a framework, not a settled result.

See the argument

The strongest case

Kent finds that ordinary explanations of sin, such as ignorance, weakness or overmastering passion, seem mostly precluded for angels. Piper says appeals to free will do not explain why a holy angel first sinned. William Wood, a Christian philosopher, argues that calling it pride only redescribes the difficulty: unless his faculties were defective, how could Satan think a creature more worthy of love than its creator? Wood's “hard problem” is a dilemma: if God-given desires caused the choice, God seems responsible; if nothing caused it, the choice seems inexplicable, more like bad moral luck than a deliberate act. His “harder problem”: even if the choice was free, why would a completely good, properly functioning agent find disobeying God rational?^{18 sources}18 sources11. Augustine c. 417 101. Augustine c. 417 102. Augustine c. 417 53. Aquinas c. 1268 149. Kent 1908 150. Piper 2020 86. Athenagoras c. 177 87. Lyons c. 180 89. Nyssa c. 385 90. Lactantius c. 304-311 91. (tr.) 1886 62. (tr.) 1913 63. (tr.) 1913 64. (tr.) 1913 151. Wood 2016 152. Wood 2016 153. Wood 2016 154. Wood 2016

P1. Augustine teaches created goodness and corruption by the devil's own will; Kent acknowledges a difficulty in explaining angelic sin through ordinary human limitations.^{11 149}No listed response challenges this premise
P2. The proposed objection is that a good will's first evil choice needs a further explanation; assigning the choice to that will does not yet supply one.

→ Conclusion. Saying the devil chose evil leaves a further question about the first evil choice.

Strongest responses

Early church: Greek challenges P2

Created means changeable. Gregory of Nyssa answers from the difference between creator and creature: only the uncreated God cannot change, and everything created is bound up with change. The angel over the earth, created for no evil purpose, could choose as he liked and fell into envy by closing his eyes to the good. Gregory treats vice as an absence of good, like blindness or shadow, so the fall needs no created evil.⁸⁹

Early church: Latin challenges P2

A failure rather than a producing cause. Augustine identifies pride as a turning from God toward oneself. He denies an efficient cause producing the evil will, describing a deficient cause instead: the explanation concerns a failure in willing, which he calls deficient rather than efficient.^{101 102}

Catholic challenges P2

Pride as refusal of due subjection. Aquinas identifies pride, refusing due subjection to a superior, as the first angelic sin. Kent reports Anselm's answer that the devil need not have sought equality with God: to will anything against the divine will is to seek an independence belonging to God alone.^{53 149}

Protestant: evangelical challenges the framing

Divine planning with an admitted mystery. Piper rejects ultimate self-determination as an explanation of the first sin. He holds that the fall belonged to God's wise plan, while admitting he does not know how God brought it about without sinning or making Satan a machine.¹⁵⁰

Academic (critical) challenges the framing

Wood's objection to Augustine. Wood reads Augustine as tracing the devil's fall to God not giving him the gift of perseverance. He sides with critics who argue this makes the sin intelligible only by making God responsible, while noting that Augustine denied this and has his defenders.¹⁵³

Catholic challenges P2

Anselm through Wood: two good inclinations. As Wood presents him, Anselm says God offered the gift of perseverance to all the angels, so God did not even indirectly cause the fall; Satan turned it down for another good. God gives rational creatures two inclinations, toward justice and toward their own benefit; both are good and neither determines the will. Satan freely preferred his own advantage to justice. Asked why, Anselm answers “simply because he willed it”: the will was its own cause. Wood credits this with avoiding even indirect divine causation but thinks it leaves the harder problem unsolved.^{153 155}

Academic (critical) challenges P2

Wood's model of a rational but sinful choice. Wood proposes a formal model, drawn from consumer-preference theory, on which Satan's first sin is rational from his own point of view yet objectively sinful, and not even indirectly caused by God. He offers it as a framework others can use for rival readings, not a settled result.¹⁵⁴

Plain assessment

The accounts name different failures: pride in Augustine and Aquinas, neglect in Athenagoras, envy of humans in Irenaeus and Gregory, envy of the Son in Lactantius, and refusal to honor Adam in the Life of Adam and Eve. Augustine (a deficient will) and Gregory (created changeability) offer accounts of how a good creature could turn; Wood separates who is responsible from why the choice could seem rational. He sides with critics of Augustine, credits Anselm with avoiding divine causation, and offers his own model for the harder one. Piper leaves the first sin a mystery.

What would change this assessment: A sourced account explaining the first evil choice without presupposing an already evil will would change this comparison.

Assessment uses: Early church: Latin · Catholic · Pride as refusal of due subjection · Divine planning with an admitted mystery · question first sin p1 · Early church: Greek · Early church: Latin · Refusing to bow to Adam · Wood's objection to Augustine · Anselm through Wood: two good inclinations · Wood's model of a rational but sinful choice · Created means changeable · A failure rather than a producing cause

Why would a good, all-knowing God create a being he knew would fall?

A created devil leaves the problem of evil in place; proposed good purposes and a logical defense do not establish God's actual reason for permitting his fall.

See the argument

The strongest case

Crenshaw argues that invoking the devil does not resolve the problem of evil because an all-powerful God could stop his work. Mackie, quoted by Beebe, asks why God could not create beings who always freely choose good. Applied to Satan, the question is why create this being while knowing his future wickedness, rather than prevent that outcome.^{9 sources}9 sources156. Crenshaw 2016 157. Crenshaw 2016 158. Beebe 11. Augustine c. 417 159. Augustine c. 417 85. Church 1997 160. Beebe 161. Beebe 162. Beebe

P1. Augustine says God knew the devil's future wickedness when creating him and foresaw good uses for it; the Catechism says Satan's activity is permitted by providence.^{11 85}No listed response challenges this premise
P2. The contested inference is that perfect goodness and power should prevent the foreknown evil, including by creating a being who freely remains good.

→ Conclusion. Creating a foreknown future devil requires an answer about God's permission of evil, beyond the devil's responsibility.

Strongest responses

Academic (critical) challenges the framing

The devil does not remove the question about God. Crenshaw argues that an all-powerful God could negate the devil's activity. He finds no convincing rational explanation of evil in theodicy, while retaining its value in recalling covenant commitments and keeping theologians honest.^{156 157}

Early church: Latin challenges P2

Foreknown good brought from evil. Augustine says God would not create a being whose wickedness he foresaw without knowing the good uses he could make of it. He compares the resulting whole to a poem whose opposing elements contribute to its beauty.^{11 159}

Catholic challenges P2

Providence and mystery. The Catechism calls Satan “only a creature” whose activity divine providence permits, and says it is “a great mystery” that providence should permit it.⁸⁵

Protestant: Reformed challenges P2

A possible reason involving significant freedom. Beebe presents Plantinga's defense as a possible morally sufficient reason for permitting evil involving morally significant freedom. It addresses logical consistency, without establishing God's actual reason or requiring evil in every world with freedom.^{160 161}

Skeptic/secular challenges the framing

Logical possibility leaves a further problem. Beebe reports that Mackie later conceded that the free will defense shows theism is not logically inconsistent, but still questioned whether it provides a real solution.¹⁶²

Protestant: evangelical challenges P2

A good reason may exceed our knowledge. Welty questions the biblical grounding of the free will explanation. His own answer combines proposed good purposes with the possibility that God has a good reason we cannot discern. Failure to identify it, he argues, does not establish that none exists.^{163 164}

Islamic challenges P2

Testing and reliance on God. Sakat and colleagues report Ibn al-Qayyim's view that facing the devil can help humans reach a higher position with God and grow in reliance on him.¹⁶⁵

Plain assessment

Crenshaw's objection remains a question about God's permission even when the devil is blamed. Augustine offers good uses of foreknown evil; the Catechism acknowledges mystery. Plantinga's defense, as Beebe presents it, concerns possible logical consistency. Mackie's later concession preserves his further doubt about a real solution. These are different answers to the problem of evil, rather than an established account of God's actual reason for creating Satan.

What would change this assessment: Grounds establishing an actual morally sufficient reason for permitting this fall would change the assessment.

Assessment uses: The devil does not remove the question about God · Foreknown good brought from evil · Providence and mystery · A possible reason involving significant freedom · Logical possibility leaves a further problem

Is Satan a developed idea, from Job's accuser to a cosmic adversary?

The cited scholars disagree over the satan's earlier role, New Testament coherence and the mechanisms of development; textual differences do not establish a single historical path.

See the argument

The strongest case

Job's accuser operates within God's limits, while Revelation names a dragon expelled after heavenly war. Porter describes a shift from an obedient servant to an evil opponent. The historical question is how those portrayals relate; a further question is whether Persian religious influence explains the change.^{21 sources}21 sources41. Job 1:6 42. Job 1:12 8. Revelation 12:7 9. Revelation 12:8 10. Revelation 12:9 145. Porter 2022 56. Blau 1905 166. Ulloa 2025 59. Jonker 2017 57. Jonker 2017 60. Silverman 2014 61. Silverman 2014 148. Jonker 2017 133. Silverman 2014 167. Glover 168. Glover 169. Burns 2007 170. Farrar 2016 171. Bruin 2021 22. Isaiah 14:12 172. Kremser 2021

P1. Job uses the title the satanSatan (Hebrew term)Hebrew for “adversary”, used for enemies, accusers or opponents, according to the Jewish Encyclopedia. Adam Porter reads “the satan” in Job 1–2 as the title “the accuser”, rather than a personal name.From: Numbers 22:32; Jacobs; 1 Chronicles 21:1; Job 1:6; PorterAll terms → and limits his action by God's permission; Revelation identifies its defeated dragon as the devil and Satan.^{5 sources}5 sources41. Job 1:6 42. Job 1:12 8. Revelation 12:7 9. Revelation 12:8 10. Revelation 12:9No listed response challenges this premise
P2. The proposed inference is that the contrast reflects development from a heavenly functionary into God's cosmic enemy, with Persian religious influence explaining that development.

→ Conclusion. The portrayals invite a developmental explanation, but a specific account of Persian borrowing needs its own support.

Strongest responses

Academic (critical) challenges the framing

A changing portrayal. Porter describes the change from an obedient, troublesome servant to an opponent of God. The Jewish Encyclopedia likewise reads Job's accuser as dependent on divine permission, rather than an independent opponent of the deity.^{145 56}

Protestant: evangelical challenges P2

Hostility already present in Job. Boskamp, an Adventist scholar, argues that Job's satan is fundamentally adversarial to God and humanity despite acting within divine limits. He reads that hostility in continuity with later portrayals.¹⁶⁶

Academic (critical) challenges the framing

A Persian-era setting for personalizing evil. Jonker assigns a major role to a developing dualistic worldview in the late Persian era. His account also records disagreement about whether Chronicles names Satan or describes another adversary.^{59 57}

Academic (critical) challenges P2

A court model rather than a borrowed evil deity. Silverman reports that deriving Satan from the Zoroastrian Angra Mainyu is a popular proposal but typically rejected. As a working hypothesis he argues for a different Persian influence: the administration of the Achaemenid Empire, with YHWHYHWHGod’s personal name in the Hebrew Bible, written with four consonants called the Tetragrammaton. Sarah Cook describes Jewish avoidance of pronouncing it out of reverence; the HarperCollins Bible Dictionary notes LORD as its rendering in many English Bibles.From: Cook; Cook; Maas; PowellAll terms →'s heavenly court, where Zechariah's satan appears, modelled on the Persian court. Jonker reports Knoppers's view that the Chronicler's use of satan cannot be convincingly attributed to a shift in metaphysics, since Chronicles nowhere else shows a dualistic view.^{60 61 148}

Academic (critical) challenges the framing

Stokes through Glover: attacker, not accuser. Daniel Glover's review reports that Ryan Stokes, whom Glover calls a Christian biblical scholar, argues that a satan in the Hebrew BibleHebrew BibleA name academics offered as a neutral alternative to “Old Testament”. Amy-Jill Levine argues the label blurs real differences between the Christian Old Testament and the Jewish Tanakh.From: LevineAll terms → is an attacker or executioner rather than an accuser; Glover finds him persuasive on this point. This differs from Henry Ansgar Kelly's “Chief Tester and Accuser”, as reported by Charlene Burns. According to Glover, Stokes finds no Hebrew Bible passage about Satan as God's adversary, places the first moves toward that role in JubileesJubileesA retelling of Genesis and part of Exodus as a revelation. The Jewish Encyclopedia (1904) dated its writing to 135–105 BCE; the Israel Antiquities Authority reports Hebrew copies found at Qumran.From: Toy; Toy; AuthorityAll terms → and the Book of the Watchers, and sees the process as “more complex and less linear” than the usual three-stage account.^{167 168 169}

Academic (critical) challenges the framing

A coherent New Testament departure. Thomas Farrar and Guy Williams (2016) argue that the New Testament's portrait of Satan is coherent and stands out from the “inconstant and loosely connected” Satan language of Second Temple Judaism, suggesting a new departure in early Christianity.¹⁷⁰

Academic (critical) challenges the framing

Several New Testament Satanologies. Replying to Farrar and Williams, Tom de Bruin (2021) argues that different, sometimes almost contradictory portraits occur even within one author's works. He sees New Testament authors continuing the diversity of Second Temple traditions rather than presenting one uniform account.¹⁷¹

Academic (critical) challenges the framing

Mythological language without an identified source myth. Konrad Kremser (2021) concludes that a mythological background to Isaiah 14:12–15 is hardly questioned, yet no specific myth behind it has so far been identified. He calls one proposed explanation, by Korpel and de Moor, plausible but little taken up.^{22 172}

Plain assessment

Porter describes change; Boskamp argues for continuity in Job. Stokes, through Glover, disputes the accuser reading itself and places the turn toward God's enemy in Jubilees and the Book of the Watchers. Farrar and Williams argue for a coherent New Testament departure; de Bruin argues for continued diversity. Kremser finds Isaiah's particular source myth still unidentified. Jonker and Silverman propose different Persian mechanisms, and Chronicles' adversary is itself disputed. Neither the sequence of development nor its causes follow from the textual contrasts alone.

What would change this assessment: Evidence establishing a transmission mechanism, alongside clearer identification of the disputed adversaries, would change this assessment.

Assessment uses: Job.1.6-Job.1.12 · Rev.12.7-Rev.12.9 · David's census and the identity of the adversary · Two different proposals for Persian influence · A changing portrayal · Hostility already present in Job · Zoroastrian dualism shaped the Jewish and Christian figure of Satan. · Stokes through Glover: attacker, not accuser · A coherent New Testament departure · Several New Testament Satanologies · Mythological language without an identified source myth · A Persian-era setting for personalizing evil · A court model rather than a borrowed evil deity

Check yourself

Whom do Ezekiel's lament and Isaiah's taunt address?

Ezekiel addresses Tyre's king; Isaiah addresses Babylon's king.^{15 21}

Ezekiel 28:12 Isaiah 14:4

What different contributions do Colossians and Revelation make to the traditional answer?

Colossians places invisible powers within creation without naming the devil. Revelation identifies the expelled dragon as the devil without narrating his creation.^{4 sources}4 sources7. Colossians 1:16 8. Revelation 12:7 9. Revelation 12:8 10. Revelation 12:9

Colossians 1:16 Revelation 12:7–9

Does the Qur'anic passage identifying Iblis call him an angel?

It identifies him as belonging to the jinn; Ibn Kathir reports differing accounts of his relationship to the angels.^{116 117 118}

For reflection

What would count as explaining a first evil choice, beyond identifying who made it?^{101 102 150}

What difference would a possible reason for permitting evil make, compared with knowing the actual reason?^{160 161 162}

Plain citation

Did God create the devil? Know the Text. Seek lens, version 2, revised 2026-11-08, Fact-checked. https://knowthetext.com/seek/questions/did-god-create-the-devil/

Chicago-style note

Know the Text, “Did God create the devil?” Seek lens, version 2, revised 2026-11-08, Fact-checked, https://knowthetext.com/seek/questions/did-god-create-the-devil/.

BibTeX

@misc{knowthetext-did-god-create-the-devil,
  author = {{Know the Text}},
  title = {Did God create the devil?},
  howpublished = {Know the Text, Seek lens},
  url = {https://knowthetext.com/seek/questions/did-god-create-the-devil/},
  year = {2026},
  note = {Version 2; revised 2026-11-08; Fact-checked}
}

Sources

172 sources from 129 works

Catholic Church, Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed. (via catholicculture.org) (1997)
- 1
  para. 391↩^a ↩^b ↩^c ↩^d
- 2
  para. 392↩^a ↩^b ↩^c ↩^d
- 85
  para. 395↩^a ↩^b ↩^c ↩^d
3
Thomas Hopko, “Angels and Evil Spirits, in The Orthodox Faith, vol. 1: Doctrine and Scripture (Orthodox Church in America)”, section "Evil Spirits"↩^a ↩^b
4
Guido de Brès; Christian Reformed Church in North America (tr.), “The Belgic Confession, article 12” (1561), article 12↩^a ↩^b ↩^c ↩^d ↩^e
5
John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, book 2 (NPNF2 9, tr. S. D. F. Salmond; New Advent) (c. 743), book 2, ch. 4↩^a ↩^b ↩^c
William H. Kent, “Devil (Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 4)” (1908)
- 6
  paragraph 1↩^a ↩^b ↩^c ↩^d
- 39
  section on the fall of the angels↩^a ↩^b ↩^c
- 149
  section on the nature of the sin↩^a ↩^b ↩^c
7
Colossians 1:16↩^a ↩^b ↩^c ↩^d ↩^e ↩^f ↩^g ↩^h
8
Revelation 12:7↩^a ↩^b ↩^c ↩^d ↩^e ↩^f
9
Revelation 12:8↩^a ↩^b ↩^c ↩^d ↩^e ↩^f
10
Revelation 12:9↩^a ↩^b ↩^c ↩^d ↩^e ↩^f ↩^g
Augustine, The City of God, book 11 (NPNF1 2, tr. Marcus Dods; New Advent) (c. 417)
- 11
  City of God 11.17↩^a ↩^b ↩^c ↩^d ↩^e ↩^f ↩^g ↩^h
- 30
  City of God 11.15↩^a ↩^b ↩^c
- 159
  City of God 11.18↩^a ↩^b
12
John 1:3↩
13
Psalms 148:2↩
14
Psalms 148:5↩
15
Ezekiel 28:12↩^a ↩^b ↩^c ↩^d ↩^e ↩^f ↩^g
16
Ezekiel 28:13↩^a ↩^b ↩^c ↩^d
17
Ezekiel 28:15↩^a ↩^b ↩^c ↩^d
18
Checked in this site's verse database: STEPBible TAHOT, Ezekiel 28:15↩^a ↩^b ↩^c ↩^d
How this was derived
select root_strong from tokens where std_ref='Ezek.28.15' and gloss like '%created%'
19
Ezekiel 28:2↩
20
Tertullian, Against Marcion, book 2 (ANF 3, tr. Peter Holmes; New Advent) (c. 207), Against Marcion 2.10↩^a ↩^b
21
Isaiah 14:4↩^a ↩^b ↩^c ↩^d ↩^e ↩^f
22
Isaiah 14:12↩^a ↩^b ↩^c ↩^d ↩^e ↩^f ↩^g
23
Checked in this site's verse database: Septuagint (Brenton Greek), Isaiah 14:12↩^a ↩^b ↩^c
How this was derived
select text from verses where work_id='lxx-brenton-gr' and std_ref='Isa.14.12'
24
Isaiah 14:13↩
25
Isaiah 14:14↩
26
Isaiah 14:15↩
Origen, On First Principles, book 1 (ANF 4, tr. Frederick Crombie; New Advent) (c. 220-230)
- 27
  De Principiis 1.5.5↩^a ↩^b
- 132
  De Principiis 1.5.4↩
28
John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, vol. 1 (tr. William Pringle; CCEL) (1551 (Latin); 1850 (tr.)), on Isaiah 14:12↩^a ↩^b ↩^c ↩^d ↩^e
29
John 8:44↩^a ↩^b
31
1 John 3:8↩
32
Jude 1:6↩
R. H. Charles (ed.), The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, vol. 2 (Oxford) (1913)
- 33
  introduction to 1 Enoch, demonology↩^a ↩^b
- 34
  introduction to 1 Enoch↩^a ↩^b
- 48
  1 Enoch 6.2-3↩
- 49
  1 Enoch 6.3↩
35
2 Peter 2:4↩
36
Checked in this site's verse database: STEPBible TAGNT, 2 Peter 2:4↩
How this was derived
select transliteration from tokens where std_ref='2Pet.2.4' and root_strong='G5020'
37
Luke 10:17↩
38
Luke 10:18↩
40
Revelation 12:5↩
41
Job 1:6↩^a ↩^b ↩^c ↩^d
42
Job 1:12↩^a ↩^b ↩^c
43
Checked in this site's verse database: STEPBible TAHOT, H7854 with the article ha-↩^a ↩^b
How this was derived
select group_concat(distinct book) from tokens where root_strong='H7854' and surface like '%הַ/%'
Guy M. Richard, “Where Did Satan Come From? (The Gospel Coalition)” (2018)
- 44
  section "Where Did Satan Come From?"↩^a ↩^b ↩^c
- 45
  section "Where Did Evil Come From?"↩^a ↩^b ↩^c
46
Hector M. Patmore, Adam, Satan, and the King of Tyre (PhD thesis, Durham University) (2008), Abstract↩^a ↩^b
47
George Buchanan Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Isaiah I-XXVII (International Critical Commentary) (1912), p. 255, on Isa 14:13 f.↩
50
Karlo V. Bordjadze, Darkness Visible: A Study of Isaiah 14:3-23 as Christian Scripture (PhD thesis, Durham University) (2017), ch. 5, Origen's reading↩
51
Karlo V. Bordjadze, Darkness Visible (PhD thesis, Durham University) (2017), ch. 5↩
52
Karlo V. Bordjadze, Darkness Visible (PhD thesis, Durham University), quoting Neil Forsyth, The Old Enemy (2017), ch. 5, p. 158↩
53
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, First Part, question 63 (tr. Fathers of the English Dominican Province; New Advent) (c. 1268), I q.63 a.2↩^a ↩^b ↩^c ↩^d ↩^e
54
2 Samuel 24:1↩
55
1 Chronicles 21:1↩
Joseph Jacobs; Ludwig Blau, “Satan (Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 11)” (1905)
- 56
  In the Bible↩^a ↩^b ↩^c ↩^d
- 108
  In Talmud and Midrash↩
57
Louis C. Jonker, “"Satan Made Me Do It!" The Development of a Satan Figure as Social-Theological Diagnostic Strategy (Old Testament Essays 30.2)” (2017), p. 358↩^a ↩^b ↩^c ↩^d
58
Louis C. Jonker, “"Satan Made Me Do It!" (Old Testament Essays 30.2), quoting Ryan E. Stokes” (2017), p. 361↩
59
Louis C. Jonker, “"Satan Made Me Do It!" (Old Testament Essays 30.2)” (2017), p. 350↩^a ↩^b ↩^c ↩^d ↩^e
60
Jason M. Silverman, “Vetting the Priest in Zechariah 3: The Satan between Divine and Achaemenid Administrations (Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 14, art. 6)” (2014), pp. 1-2 and n. 3↩^a ↩^b ↩^c
Jason M. Silverman, “Vetting the Priest in Zechariah 3 (Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 14, art. 6)” (2014)
- 61
  p. 2↩^a ↩^b ↩^c ↩^d ↩^e
- 133
  n. 3↩^a ↩^b ↩^c
L. S. A. Wells (tr.), in R. H. Charles (ed.), The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, vol. 2 (Oxford) (1913)
- 62
  Vita Adae et Evae 14.3↩^a ↩^b ↩^c
- 63
  Vita Adae et Evae 15.3↩^a ↩^b ↩^c
- 64
  Vita Adae et Evae 16.1↩^a ↩^b ↩^c
L. S. A. Wells, in R. H. Charles (ed.), The Books of Adam and Eve, introduction (APOT vol. 2, Oxford) (1913)
- 65
  Introduction, § 5↩
- 66
  Introduction, § 1↩
- 67
  Introduction, § 6↩
68
Gary A. Anderson, “The Fall of Satan in the Thought of St. Ephrem and John Milton (Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies 3.1)” (2000), para. 3, pp. 5-6, quoting Life of Adam and Eve 13:2-14:3 (Latin)↩
Gary A. Anderson, “The Fall of Satan in the Thought of St. Ephrem and John Milton (Hugoye 3.1)” (2000)
- 69
  para. 9, pp. 8-9↩
- 70
  para. 1, p. 4 and n. 3↩
71
Marmaduke Pickthall (tr.), The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (1930), in Three Translations of the Koran, Project Gutenberg 16955 (1930), Qur'an 7:12↩^a ↩^b
72
Konrad Kremser, “Helel ben Schachar – Lucifer (Jes 14,12). Von der Entmythologisierung zur Apokalyptisierung? (Protokolle zur Bibel 30)” (2021), §5, p. 15↩^a ↩^b
N. Forbes and R. H. Charles (tr.), in R. H. Charles (ed.), 2 Enoch, or the Book of the Secrets of Enoch (APOT vol. 2, Oxford) (1913)
- 73
  2 Enoch 29.4-5 (recension A)↩
- 74
  2 Enoch 29.5 (recension A)↩
75
R. H. Charles (ed.), 2 Enoch, notes (APOT vol. 2, Oxford) (1913), note on 29.4↩
76
Kaufmann Kohler, “Lucifer (Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 8)” (1904), article body↩
77
R. H. Charles (ed.), 2 Enoch, introduction (APOT vol. 2, Oxford) (1913), Introduction, § 5↩
Andrei A. Orlov, “The Sacerdotal Traditions of 2 Enoch and the Date of the Text (author's PDF)” (2012)
- 78
  p. 106↩
- 79
  conclusion↩
- 81
  p. 104↩
- 82
  p. 105↩
- 83
  p. 103↩
80
Andrei A. Orlov, “The Sacerdotal Traditions of 2 Enoch and the Date of the Text, in New Perspectives on 2 Enoch (Brill; author's PDF)” (2012), pp. 103-105↩
84
Fourth Lateran Council, Canons of the Fourth Lateran Council, 1215 (tr. H. J. Schroeder, Disciplinary Decrees of the General Councils, 1937; Fordham Internet Medieval Sourcebook) (1215), canon 1↩^a ↩^b ↩^c
86
Athenagoras, A Plea for the Christians (ANF 2; New Advent) (c. 177), ch. 24↩^a ↩^b ↩^c
Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, book 5 (ANF 1; CCEL) (c. 180)
- 87
  5.24.4↩^a ↩^b ↩^c
- 88
  5.26.2↩
89
Gregory of Nyssa, The Great Catechism (NPNF2 vol. 5; CCEL) (c. 385), ch. 6↩^a ↩^b ↩^c ↩^d
Lactantius, The Divine Institutes, book 2 (ANF 7, tr. William Fletcher; CCEL) (c. 304-311)
- 90
  2.9 (ANF) = 2.8.3-5 (Brandt)↩^a ↩^b ↩^c
- 92
  2.9 (ANF) = 2.8.4-5 (Brandt)↩
91
William Fletcher (tr.), The Divine Institutes, ANF 7, footnote 205 (CCEL) (1886), 2.9, n. 205↩^a ↩^b ↩^c
Samuel Brandt and Georg Laubmann (eds.), L. Caeli Firmiani Lactanti Opera omnia, vol. 1 (CSEL 19), apparatus to Div. Inst. 2.8 (1890)
- 93
  p. 130, apparatus ("post deferat in BSg haec")↩
- 94
  p. 130, apparatus↩
- 95
  p. 131, apparatus (2.8.6 of the longer version)↩
- 96
  p. 131, apparatus↩
97
Jackson Bryce, “Review of E. Heck and A. Wlosok (eds.), Lactantius, Divinarum institutionum libri septem, fasc. 1 (Exemplaria Classica 11)” (2007), pp. 465-466↩
Jackson Bryce, “Review of Heck and Wlosok, Lactantius, Divinarum institutionum fasc. 1 (Exemplaria Classica 11)” (2007)
- 98
  p. 466↩
- 99
  p. 466, n. 6↩
100
James J. O'Donnell, “Review of Heck and Wlosok (eds.), Lactantius, Epitome divinarum institutionum (BMCR 1995.09.29)” (1995), para. 2↩
Augustine, The City of God, book 12 (NPNF1 2, tr. Marcus Dods; New Advent) (c. 417)
- 101
  City of God 12.7↩^a ↩^b ↩^c ↩^d
- 102
  City of God 12.6↩^a ↩^b ↩^c ↩^d
103
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, First Part, question 63 (New Advent) (c. 1268), I q.63 a.5↩
104
Westminster Assembly, “The Westminster Larger Catechism (Orthodox Presbyterian Church edition)” (1648), Q. 19↩
105
Westminster Assembly, “The Westminster Confession of Faith (Orthodox Presbyterian Church edition)” (1647), 5.4↩
106
Philip Melanchthon et al., “The Augsburg Confession, article 19 "Of the Cause of Sin" (BookOfConcord.org)” (1530), article XIX↩
107
Babylonian Talmud, Bava Batra 16a (William Davidson edition; Sefaria, CC-BY-NC) (c. 6th c.), Bava Batra 16a↩^a ↩^b
109
Moses Maimonides, The Guide for the Perplexed, part 3, ch. 22 (tr. M. Friedländer, 1903; Sefaria) (c. 1190), Guide 3.22↩^a ↩^b
Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer, Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer, tr. Gerald Friedlander (1916; Sefaria) (c. 9th c.)
- 110
  ch. 13↩
- 111
  ch. 14↩
Joseph Jacobs; Schulim Ochser, “Pirḳe de-Rabbi Eli'ezer (Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 10)” (1905)
- 112
  opening paragraph↩
- 113
  Composition↩
114
Emil G. Hirsch, “Fall of Angels (Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 5)” (1903), Later Jewish Tradition↩
115
Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho (ANF 1; CCEL) (c. 160), ch. 79↩
116
Marmaduke Pickthall (tr.), The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (1930), Project Gutenberg 16955 (1930), Qur'an 18:50↩^a ↩^b
117
Ibn Kathir, Tafsir Ibn Kathir (abridged English), on Qur'an 18:50 (quran.com API, resource 169) (14th c.), on 18:50↩^a ↩^b
118
Ibn Kathir, Tafsir Ibn Kathir (abridged English), on Qur'an 2:34 (quran.com API, resource 169) (14th c.), on 2:34↩^a ↩^b
119
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “Guide to the Scriptures, "Devil"”, entry Devil↩
120
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “Gospel Topics, "Premortality"”, paragraph 3↩
121
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “Pearl of Great Price, Moses 4”, Moses 4:1, 4:3↩
122
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “Gospel Principles, ch. 3, "Jesus Christ, Our Chosen Leader and Savior"” (2011), pp. 13-16↩
123
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “Guide to the Scriptures, "Lucifer"”, entry Lucifer↩^a ↩^b
124
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “Doctrine and Covenants 76”, D&C 76:25-26↩^a ↩^b
125
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “Doctrine and Covenants 93”, D&C 93:29↩
126
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “Gospel Topics Essays, "Becoming Like God"”, section on Joseph Smith's revelations↩
127
Deuteronomy 32:4↩
Jehovah's Witnesses (jw.org), “Did God Create the Devil? (Bible Questions Answered)”
- 128
  The Bible's answer, paragraph 1↩
- 130
  The Bible's answer, paragraph 3↩
129
Genesis 3:1↩
131
Jehovah's Witnesses (jw.org), “Is the Devil Real? (Bible Questions Answered)”, More misconceptions about the Devil↩^a ↩^b
134
Checked in this site's verse database: STEPBible TAHOT, verses with H7854↩
How this was derived
select count(distinct std_ref) from tokens where root_strong='H7854'
135
1 Samuel 29:4↩
136
1 Kings 11:14↩
137
Checked in this site's verse database: STEPBible TAHOT, occurrences of H1966↩
How this was derived
select count(distinct std_ref) from tokens where root_strong='H1966'
138
Checked in this site's verse database: BDB lexicon entry for H1966↩
How this was derived
select a.text from lexicon_links l join lexicon_articles a on a.lexicon=l.lexicon and a.id=l.article_id where l.strong='H1966' and a.text like '%king of Babylon%'
139
Ezekiel 28:14↩
A. B. Davidson, The Book of the Prophet Ezekiel (Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges) (1892 (1896 reprint))
- 140
  p. 204, on 28:12-19↩
- 142
  pp. 204-205, on 28:12-19↩
- 143
  p. 205↩
141
Checked in this site's verse database: Septuagint (Brenton Greek), Ezekiel 28:14↩
How this was derived
select text from verses where work_id='lxx-brenton-gr' and std_ref='Ezek.28.14'
144
Fourth Lateran Council, Canons of the Fourth Lateran Council (tr. Schroeder; Fordham Medieval Sourcebook) (1215), canon 1↩
145
Adam Porter, “Satan (Bible Odyssey, Society of Biblical Literature)” (2022), answer, paragraph 2↩^a ↩^b ↩^c
146
Tertullian, Against Marcion, book 2 (ANF 3; New Advent) (c. 207), Against Marcion 2.10↩
147
Origen, On First Principles, book 1 (ANF 4; New Advent) (c. 220-230), De Principiis 1.5.4↩
148
Louis C. Jonker, “"Satan Made Me Do It!" (Old Testament Essays 30.2), quoting Gary N. Knoppers” (2017), p. 359 n. 26↩^a ↩^b ↩^c
150
John Piper, “How Did Evil Begin? Pondering the Mystery of Satan's Fall (Desiring God)” (2020), final section↩^a ↩^b ↩^c
151
William Wood, “Anselm of Canterbury on the fall of the devil: the hard problem, the harder problem, and a new formal model of the first sin (Religious Studies 52.2), author PDF” (2016), introduction↩
William Wood, “Anselm of Canterbury on the fall of the devil (Religious Studies 52.2), author PDF” (2016)
- 152
  section "The hard problem"↩
- 153
  section "Anselm solves the hard problem"↩^a ↩^b ↩^c
- 154
  Conclusion↩^a ↩^b
- 155
  introduction↩
James Crenshaw, “Theodicy in the Hebrew Bible (Bible Odyssey)” (2016)
- 156
  paragraph 3↩^a ↩^b
- 157
  final paragraph↩^a ↩^b
James R. Beebe, “Logical Problem of Evil (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy)”
- 158
  section 4, quoting Mackie 1955, p. 209↩
- 160
  section 4, Plantinga's Free Will Defense↩^a ↩^b ↩^c
- 161
  section 4↩^a ↩^b ↩^c
- 162
  section 8, quoting Mackie 1982, p. 154↩^a ↩^b ↩^c
Greg Welty, “The Problem of Evil (The Gospel Coalition essay)” (2020)
- 163
  section "The Way of Theodicy"↩
- 164
  introduction↩
165
Ahamad Asmadi Sakat; Muhammad Masruri; Jawiah Dakir; Wan Nasyrudin Wan Abdullah, “The Jinn, Devil and Satan: A Review on Qur'anic Concept (Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences 6.5 S1)” (2015), p. 540 ff., section 3↩
166
Karl G. Boskamp Ulloa, “The Profile of Satan in the Prologue of Job: Traces in favor of Traditional Exegesis (Theologika 40.1)” (2025), Conclusion, pp. 33-34↩^a ↩^b
167
Daniel B. Glover, “Review of Ryan E. Stokes, The Satan: How God’s Executioner Became the Enemy (Reading Religion)”, paragraph 7↩^a ↩^b
168
Daniel B. Glover, “Review of Ryan E. Stokes, The Satan (Reading Religion)”, paragraph 8↩^a ↩^b
169
Charlene P. E. Burns, “Review of Henry Ansgar Kelly, Satan: A Biography (Catholic Books Review)” (2007), paragraph 1↩^a ↩^b
170
Thomas J. Farrar and Guy J. Williams, “Talk of the Devil: Unpacking the Language of New Testament Satanology (Journal for the Study of the New Testament 39.1), abstract via Crossref” (2016), abstract↩^a ↩^b
171
Tom de Bruin, “In Defence of New Testament Satanologies: A Response to Farrar and Williams (Journal for the Study of the New Testament), abstract via Crossref” (2021), abstract↩^a ↩^b
172
Konrad Kremser, “Helel ben Schachar – Lucifer (Jes 14,12) (Protokolle zur Bibel 30)” (2021), §7 Fazit↩^a ↩^b

What should we answer next?

Pick the question you'd most like us to research. One vote each; you can change it until the round closes.

We alternate: the page with the most reader votes, then the page with the most gifts.

Next pick: by reader votes

Votes choose what we research next; they never decide the answer.

Gifts are counted separately →

Suggest a question

Read with these questions

What the texts say

Background

Why the answer combines passages Tradition

Human kings and later spiritual readings Scholarship

More than one account of angelic sin Scholarship

David's census and the identity of the adversary Scholarship

Two different proposals for Persian influence Scholarship

Refusing to bow to Adam Scholarship

Isaiah's imagery in 2 Enoch Scholarship

Where else Scripture speaks of it

How the traditions read it

Catholic · Lateran IV and the Catechism

Early church: Greek · Athenagoras, Irenaeus and Gregory of Nyssa

Early church: Latin · Lactantius: envy of the Son

Early church: Latin · Augustine on nature, will and foreknowledge

Catholic · Aquinas on the first sin

Orthodox · Hopko's Orthodox catechesis

Early church: Greek · John of Damascus on a good creature's choice

Protestant: Reformed · Belgic and Westminster confessions

Protestant: Lutheran · Augsburg on the cause of sin

Jewish: rabbinic · Permission and service in Bava Batra

Jewish: medieval commentator · Maimonides reads Job philosophically

Jewish: rabbinic · Sammael in a medieval midrash; Genesis 6 reread

Islamic · Iblis in the Qur'an and Ibn Kathir

Latter-day Saints · A spirit son and the premortal council

Jehovah's Witnesses · The person who became the Devil

Common misunderstandings

Words worth a closer look

Job 1:6 · Zechariah 3:1 · 1 Chronicles 21:1 · “satan / the satan” śāṭān

Isaiah 14:12 · “shining one / Lucifer” hêlēl ben shachar

Ezekiel 28:14 · “a cherub / with the cherub”

History and evidence

God created the devil good, and the devil became evil by his own will.

Christian readings of Ezekiel and Isaiah as the devil's fall are attested by the early third century.

Zoroastrian dualism shaped the Jewish and Christian figure of Satan.

Hard questions

Does the Bible say God created the devil?

The strongest case

Strongest responses

Plain assessment

If God created him good, how could he fall?

The strongest case

Strongest responses

Plain assessment

Why would a good, all-knowing God create a being he knew would fall?

The strongest case

Strongest responses

Plain assessment

Is Satan a developed idea, from Job's accuser to a cosmic adversary?

The strongest case

Strongest responses

Plain assessment

Check yourself

Whom do Ezekiel's lament and Isaiah's taunt address?

What different contributions do Colossians and Revelation make to the traditional answer?

Does the Qur'anic passage identifying Iblis call him an angel?

For reflection

Keep going

Adam and Eve: the garden and the fall

The beasts and the mark: 666

Creation in six days

Plain citation

Chicago-style note

BibTeX

Sources

What should we answer next?

Report a problem