It is said that “Satan” means an adversary—which could be good or bad; that “Diabolos” as used by the sacred writers is always sinister and evil. Parkhurst, long ago, pointed out that the New Testament was not written in classic Greek, but that its writers used Greek words in the same sense as did the translators of the Septuagint 280 years before the time of Christ. Let us, therefore, compare the Hebrew O.T. with the Greek LXX.
Firstly, we should not say that “satan” means adversary; this is an obsolete word.
Let us speak plain English, not an unknown tongue. In English we have the verb to oppose, from which we get the corresponding nouns opponent and opposition. Instead of saying “to be an adversary” or “to be an opponent” we simply say “to oppose”. In Hebrew, the verb “satan” is the same as the noun. The noun “Sitnah” means opposition.
“Diabolos” similarly has its corresponding verb “diabollo”: to be a diabolos.
Sitnah first appears in Gen. 26. 21, where the A.V. treats is as a noun, with the margin “i.e. hatred”. The R.S.V. footnote has “enmity”. The Greek word in the LXX means enmity, and is not related to “diabolos”. Sitnah appears once more in Ezra 4. 6, where the A.V. and R.S.V. both translate it accusation, but the LXX merely calls it a “letter”. The sense of the word is given in verse 5–“to frustrate their purpose”, and this, of course, is in harmony with the text of Gen. 26. 21.
In Numbers 22. 22 and 32 an angel is a satan”, in the Greek he is a “diabolos”.
In 2 Sam. 24. 1 we read that Yahweh moved David to r!umber Israel: in the corresponding narrative in 1 Chron. 21. 1 we find Yahweh is replaced by Satan—but in the Greek it is Diabolos. So God can be a diabolos!
In Job, chapters 1 and 2, Satan occurs 13 times; in every case the Greek translates it diabolos.
In Psalm 109. 6, Satan is diabolos, and the verb to be adversaries in vs. 4, 20, 29 —satans in the Hebrew—are compounds of diabolos.
We could quote other examples which leave us in no doubt that Jews in 280 B.C. considered Satan and Diabolos to be identical.
Turning to the New Testament, the unjust steward of Luke 16. 1 was accused of wasting his master’s goods. The Greek word is derived from diabolos; there is nothing to suggest that this was a false accusation.
It is sometimes stated that in Matthew 16. 23 Jesus called Peter “satan”, but he called Judas a “diabolos” in John 6. 70. Now let us remember that Jesus did not speak to his disciples in Greek, but in Aramaic, and we can have not the slightest doubt that he used “Satan”, which is the same in Aramaic and Greek, in each case. The basic idea is the same, that of Ezra 4. 5, namely a “frustrator”. Judas did not falsely accuse Jesus; he was certainly an opponent.
Bro. Thomas, in Eureka, discussing the devil of Rev. 2. 10, gives the primary meaning of diabolos as being that which crosses or causes to cross over—or falls over, which is closer to frustration or opposition rather than falsely accusing. He develops the idea further and arrives at false accuser or slanderer as the tertiary meaning.
In 2 Tim. 3. 3 and Titus 2. 3 the A.V. translates diabolos as false accuser, and in 1 Tim. 3. 11 as slanderer.
In view of the fact (which we think we have established) that diabolos does not necessarily mean a false accuser, but in classic Greek does tend that way, we feel that the N.E.B. rendering of “scandal mongers” is very satisfactory.
Our natural tendencies to do what is wrong are certainly our opponents, but how can they be accurately described as false accusers?
The Sabbath and Israel and Jesus’ work on the Sabbath