B. The OT View of Satan.
Whether שָׂטָן belongs to the nouns in וֹן, 13 or whether it represents a simple construction קָטָל, is a debated issue, though even in the latter case it is based on the verb שָׂטַן. In the first instance the term denotes a quality rather than a function, and the basic meaning is “enemy” or “adversary.”
1. For the most part OT usage does not follow this general line of meaning, though it may be seen, e.g., in 1 S. 29:4 and Ps. 71:13 (cf. also Gn. 26:21). So far as we can see, the word has a special place in the judicial life of Israel. The sa�*an is the enemy in a specific sense, i.e., the accuser at law. His place is on the right hand of the accused (Zech. 3:1), and his intervention is described in the terms עָמַד עַל (Zech. 3:1; 1 Ch. 21:1). In the request of one who is prosecuted that the situation might be reversed and that “an adversary should stand at his right hand” (עָמַד עַל, Ps. 109:6; cf. v. 20, 29), all these elements may be discerned. שִׂטְ�*ָה denotes accusation in Ezr. 4:6. Another judicial term for this legal functionary seems to have been מַזְכִּיר עָוֹן, which is used figuratively in Ez. 21:28f.; 29:16. Similarly the woman of Zarephath sees in Elijah an accuser who has come to call her sin to remembrance (1 K. 17:18). The cup-bearer in the story of Joseph appears before Pharaoh as his own accuser in Gn. 41:9. When Ezekiel calls Nebuchadnezzar or the Egyptians מַזְכִּיר עָוֹן, he does so on the basis of an interesting theology of history. Yahweh has a special function for the enemies of Israel. They are the accusers of Israel and are thus related to the guilt of God’s people. This important conception entitles us to see in the satans raised up against Solomon14—the Edomite Hadad and the Aramean Rezon—not merely enemies according to the general sense of the term, but adversaries in the specific legal sense. According to the Deuteronomic view of the writer, Solomon has sinned, and it is in relation to his sin that these satans are raised up during his reign. A concrete illustration is thus given of the proposition which underlies the Deuteronomic theology of history, namely, that the history of the people of God is its judgment.

1. The subst. διαβολή and διάβολος are most commonly used in the sense of complaint (Thuc., I, 131, 2: ὁ δὲ βουλόμενος ὡς ἥκιστα ὕποπτος εἶναι καὶ πιστεύων χρήμασι διαλύσειν τὴν διαβολήν …) and esp. calumniation: Thuc., VIII, 91, 3: ἦν δ�* τι καὶ τοιοῦτον ἀπὸ τῶν τὴν κατηγορίαν ἐχόντων, καὶ οὐ πάνυ διαβολὴ μόνον τοῦ λόγου, cf. expressions like ἐπὶ διαβολῇ εἰπεῖν in Hdt., III, 66 or διαβολᾶς ἐνδ�*κεσθαι in Hdt., III, 80. But there are also instances of the various meanings which derive from διαβάλλειν “to separate,” e.g., Plut. Cons. ad Apoll., 15 (II, 110a): ἡ πρὸς θάνατον διαβολή; “to see oneself in a mirror as one is,” οὐ μικρόν ἐστιν εἰς διαβολὴν τοῦ πάθους Plut. De Cohibenda Ira, 6 (II, 456b). For διάβολος “calumniator,” cf. Aristoph. Eq., 44 f.: ἐπρίατο δοῦλον, βυρσοδ�*ψην �*αφλαγόνα, πανουργότατον καὶ διαβολώτατόν τινα. In Aristot. Topica, IV, 5, p. 126a, 31 f. we have σοφιστὴν ἢ διάβολον ἢ κλ�*πτην, and in Plut. Quaest. Conv., VIII, 7, 2 (II, 727d), διάβολος is used as a par. of ψίθυρος. Yet διάβολος is not restricted to this sense. This is shown by its connexion with τυραννικός (Athen., 11, 118) and Athen., 11, 119: Εὐφραῖος … παρὰ �*ερδίκκᾳ … διατρίβων … οὐχ ἧττον αὐτοῦ ἐβασίλευε, φαῦλος ὢν καὶ διάβολος, ὃς ὅτω ψυχρῶς συν�*ταξε τὴν ἑταιρίαν τοῦ βασιλ�*ως, ὥστε οὐκ ἐξῆν τοῦ συσσιτίου μετασχεῖν, εἰ μή τις ἐπίσταιτο τὸ γεωμετρεῖν ἢ τὸ φιλοσοφεῖν (almost in the sense of “unfriendly”). διάβολος means “talebearer” in Corp. Herm., XIII, 13b: (οὐχ) ὑπεμνηματισάμην, ἵνα μὴ ὦμεν διάβολοι τοῦ παντὸς εἰς τοὺς πολλούς, and cf. XIII, 22b.

2. Joseph. does not use either διάβολος or other names for Satan.4 He uses διαβάλλειν and διαβολή in the sense of “calumniation,”5 though also “accusation.”6

3. The LXX used διαβολή mostly in the sense of “calumniation,”7 though it could denote “enmity” in Sir. 28:9.8 In Nu. 22:32 (the angel to Balaam): ἐξῆλθον εἰς διαβολήν σου, “in order to resist thee.” Διαβάλλειν is once used for “to calumniate,”9 and once for “to accuse.”10 The compos. ἐνδιαβάλλειν means “to attack.”11 In י 108:6 διάβολος is the “accuser”: διάβολος στήτω ἐκ δεξιῶν αὐτοῦ. In Est. 7:4; 8:1, Haman is called διάβολος in the sense of “opponent” or “enemy” (Mas. צֹרֵר צָר). In 1 Macc. 1:36 the acra is called a διάβολος (par. παγίς and ἔνεδρον) in the sense of “obstacle.”

The LXX also used διάβολος for שָׂטָן “devil,” in the sense of “the one who separates,” “the enemy,” “the calumniator,” “the seducer.”12 Since this is an innovation in the LXX, we can only deduce the meaning from the rendering and from the context. The latter seldom suggests “calumniator,” but rather “accuser” or “adversary.” This is so in 1 Ch. 21:1 and Job 1 and 2, unless we prefer “seducer.” Even in Zech. 3:1 ff., where he is in fact the accuser, the verb שׂטן is rendered ἀντικεῖσθαι: καὶ ὁ διάβολος ἱστήκει ἐκ δεξιῶν αὐτοῦ τοῦ ἀντικεῖσθαι αὐτῷ == וְהַשָּׂטָן עֹמֵד עַל־יְמִי�*וֹ לְשִׂטְ�*וֹ. This seems to force us to the conclusion that “accuser” is not the primary meaning. Since the rendering “seducer” does not fit all the contexts, “adversary” is the required translation. The work of the adversary implies always an attempt on the part of the διάβολος to separate God and man. It is an open question whether the verb διαβάλλειν influenced the usage.