#STRask - Is “Satan” Merely the Propensity of Humankind to Commit Evil Acts?

Episode Date: July 16, 2026

Questions about the idea that “Satan” is merely the propensity of humankind to commit evil acts, why Satan and the demons would want to keep storing up wrath for themselves if they know they’ll be defeated, and whether a “spirit of divorce” can be carried from generation to generation.   What would you say to someone who believes that Satan is not a being but rather the propensity of humankind to commit evil acts? If Satan and the demons know they’ll ultimately be defeated and tormented, why would they want to keep storing up wrath for themselves? I’ve heard Christians talk about a “spirit of divorce," but is that biblical, could it be carried from generation to generation, and does Exodus 20:5 support that view?

This is Stan Terreasons. Hashtag STR-Ask Podcast. Thank you for listening. And, Greg, we're going to switch gears from what we've been doing for the last couple episodes now. Okay. And this first question comes from Aaron. What would you say to someone who believes that Satan is not a being or beings,

but rather the propensity of humankind to commit evil acts? Well, I guess one of my questions. would be at this point, maybe the second Colomal question, why would anybody think that that's the case? The information that we're getting about, and by the way, I know that there are people have held this, and I think the Jewish community holds that. They don't characteristically believe in a personal being called Satan. But the difficulty is that when you read the text, keep in mind that Satan is a character from the Bible, okay? And if you didn't have the Bible, people wouldn't be thinking about that very much. Maybe some other religions have some nasty person or nasty being in a, which in my view suggests that maybe there really is somebody nasty.

And if you have another religion, you're going to try to incorporate that individual into your religious belief system. But in any event, he's a biblical character. Okay, so when you go to Scripture and you read these passages and where he's, is featured, why would anybody read those passages and conclude that this is a personification of fallen human nature? Because there's not even the slightest bit of evidence in those texts that that's the case. And even in the book of Revelation, it identifies the snake in the garden as Satan. And we see Job and Satan going before God and having a conversation. And having a conversation with God, and then Satan afflicting Job. Now, are we to understand, see, Job really got all these

boils and, you know, and his kids died, and he lost all his cattle. That's because of his own evil nature. That's what is trying to teach it. That makes no sense of the book at all. It doesn't, it's not even marginally consistent with the characterization of those events and Satan's role in them. And when you come to the New Testament, there is Satan who is tempting Jesus, right? But that's just Jesus' evil-fallen nature that's manifest there. I mean, that's goofy, right? So I don't know why people would say that. It would be like me saying, you know, you talk all the time about your wife and your children,

and you love them so much, it's so great. But I really think that's just a manifestation. you're just talking about your ideal notion of happiness. You're not really married and you have no kids. And every time you talk about you, you're just kind of personifying your ideal notion of happiness. If you said that to somebody, you think you're nuts. What the heck? Where'd you come up with that?

How is that different, though, than this? I don't understand. It isn't like in the scripture you have these vague references to Satan, and somehow connected with evil. Look at it. In Ephesians 6, you've got a whole segment there about powers and principalities that are doing all of these things, and you have to put on your spiritual armor to protect yourself from them.

You have the sword of the spirit, right? You've got the shield of faith that is meant to quench all the fiery darts of the evil one. You have Jesus telling us to pray that the Father protects us. from the evil. Now, that could be the evil one or evil. It's hard to tell there, but it does seem to be, at least at some level of personification. The evil one, who would that be? Well, Jesus calls him the liar, who's a liar by nature. And the things that Jesus says about the devil, none of these things can be made to fit this kind of characterization. I don't know why somebody would come up with that. Well, the only thing I can think is they probably have a different view of the Bible itself. And this is what makes it really hard to respond to someone like this because if you have nothing to argue no standard to argue against, it's hard to come to a conclusion, an agreement with somebody. So let's say they say that the Bible is merely what people were writing about kind of metaphors and allegories and things like that.

but they're not really, it's not really saying anything that's true about reality. See, if you're going to claim that a piece of writing consists of metaphors and allegories, you have to defend that, it seems to me. You have to go to the text and say, well, it's obvious he's speaking metaphorically here. So if I say my wife is like a ray of sunshine, well, she's not a bit of light, literally, but there's a metaphoric reference there, and we can defend it from the text. But in order to make this kind of characterization, and by the way, my response has at this point has nothing to do with the Bible being the inspired word of God.

You can just take the Bible as a literary source and given the characterization that we see there about different kinds of events and individuals, we have to ask, what is the writer intending to communicate here? Is all of these writers that were different authors where Satan shows up, are all of these writers really meaning to anthropomorphize some kind of, evil force within us. We certainly have an evil force within us, but the text calls that the flesh. It makes a distinction between the flesh and the devil, the world, the flesh and the devil, first John, right? There's a distinction between those three. So even as a literary device, I think somebody's going to have to justify reducing these references to some kind of personification of evil. And I don't think it can be done. So I think what you would have to,

again, it's unclear to me if this is someone who's claiming to be a Christian or not claiming to be a Christian. If they're claiming to be a Christian, I think what you could do is say, all right, well, let's, before you come to any sort of interpretation, why don't we look at what the Bible says? And then all you do is you look up, what's the, what's the one I use here, Bible gateway. Bible gateway.com. All you have to do is go there. You put in Satan, you put in devil, and you look at every single reference. You can just go through, copy and paste into one document and then go through all of them and say, now, how do you get from these references to the idea that Satan is just the propensity of humankind to commit evil acts? According to the Bible. Now, since that's the source they're talking about. the source. Now, otherwise, why even bring the name Satan into it? I'm not sure. So if they're claiming to be Christian and basing their view on the Bible, then that's what you need to do. If they're not basing it on the Bible, if they're just saying, oh, this idea of Satan in the Bible is really just, it's not, there's no actual Satan. That's a completely different question.

But they're still making a judgment about what the text means when it gives, when it talks about Satan. So even if you're not talking about it's the inspired word of God, but just as a literary source, how are we to understand how all of these different people at different periods of time are making reference to Satan? And is there, and I think what you said is great to isolate all these passages and look, is that a fair treatment of the text to simply say, this is what they're talking about? I don't think it is. And I think it's obviously not a fair treatment of the text. A lot of people just don't know what the text says. They've heard this before and they just go with that without actually looking. They might be their Christianity might be more liberal and by liberal. I mean the theological sense. I'm not talking about politics. But they might reject supernatural things and just say, well, there is no supernatural. It's just they didn't have a way to understand it. I don't know how they're going to say it. But you just start with what the text. says and then see what happens from there. Let's go to a question from Bethany. If Satan and the

demons know that they will ultimately be defeated and tormented, why would they want to keep storing up wrath for themselves? Well, this falls in the category of the why question. Usually it's asked about God, and if you don't know the mind of God, he hasn't revealed it regarding the issue. It's very difficult to answer the question. In this case, it's about the mind of a demon. Okay. It's easier to know the mind of God than it is to know the mind of a demon, except for it's a pretty good judgment in general, say whatever's in the mind of God is good, whatever's in the mind of demon is a bad. It seems, it's clear from certain things that demons say that they know that their time is limited. Have you come to torment us before our time? All right. And that's a demon speaking to Jesus. Jesus. So they know this. One would think that they would have known better at the outset not to oppose God and not to oppose God by going with Lucifer who fell and became Satan,

the devil. But they still disobeyed. And now they're fallen. And they have, there's no plan of redemption for them. They are acting out of their fallen natures now, and our natures in many ways I want to be careful of saying the word dictate, because I don't mean machine-like behavior, but certainly our neighbors, our natures are going to inform our behaviors. They flow from our natures, and human natures are fallen, and therefore we have behaviors that flow from a fallen nature, you know, and demons have natures that are fallen, and they have behaviors that flow naturally from their fallen nature. I mean, I think of the, I always think of Tolkien's Hirochai, you know, in the two towers.

And there is Saruman who's digging down in the earth and got all this down in the caverns that they made there. And they're in the mud. It's giving birth to these Yurikai, right? These, these unbelievable warrior types that are cross-speed between seeing orcs and goblins. And that guy comes out of the mud. and he strangles the midwife that's delivering him.

This guy's bad, and all of them are bad. Why are they bad? They're bad by nature. Everything about them is bad, and all they want to do is do evil, and that's what they were created for by Saruman to do battle against the men on Middle Earth. I just think there is a parallel there in thinking. These demons are bad by nature.

They have no interest in doing, doing good. They're not looking, they're not repentant. They're not looking to, you know, say they're sorry. They are part of the opposing army that opposes God and everything good. That's where their loyalty lies, and that's what their nature informs them to do. And there's no other, there's no other alternative. That's why, I mean, I've never asked this question because the demons are doing what demons do. I think sometimes people think that sin is just a matter of logic and reason, and it really isn't. As you said, if something has a fallen nature, they desire to do what is evil. And in fact, even if they wanted to do what was good, and this is what Paul goes through in Romans 7 when he talks about the desire, the willing is present.

in me to do what's good, but the ability is not when all you have is a law. So let's say the demons know, if I do this, I will have less of a punishment. Even if they wanted to then do what God wanted them to do, they would not be able to. It's not a matter of... Capability. Yeah, it's not a matter of reason. They're not reasoning, this behavior will give me something better and this behavior will, you know, they do what they want to do and what they want to do is evil. That's just the bottom line. That's what we do too. We want to do what is evil. Even when we acknowledge that what the law says is better, without the Holy Spirit's help, we cannot put that sin to death. Now, the demons are out to bring down as many people as they can with them. That's just,

what they want to do. Now, what's going through their minds? I don't know what's exactly going through their minds. I just know that they're going to do what it is in their nature to do, because that is the nature of being an agent who makes meaningful choices. If your choices did not come from your nature, they would be random. And I don't know how anyone could think you could be responsible for those. We're responsible for the choices we make out of our own nature because they reflect what we want to do. Okay, let's go to a question from James. I have heard Christians talk about a, quote, spirit of divorce, but I don't believe that is biblical. If I am wrong, could that be carried from generation to generation?

Does Exodus 25 support their view? Thank you for your powerful ministry. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. There is no justification for this kind of thing. Sometimes it comes from the genesis. of viewing of certain qualities or certain behaviors or certain vices as being attached to a spirit comes from, I think, Second Timothy. God has not given us a spirit of fear, Timothy, but of love and power and a sound mind.

Okay. So, oh, see, there's spirit of fear. Well, the word spirit doesn't always mean a person. It means an attitude. Okay. So there's a spirit of chaos, man. Well, that doesn't mean demons are running around creating chaos. We're just talking about the chaotic sense of things.

So there's an equivocation on the word spirit here. And then people have picked up on that wrongly out of Second Timothy, and then they start applying it different ways. Our sins are not driven by spirits. They are driven by our. are flesh. And you can read about this in Romans chapter one, the last few verses, 1st Corinthians 6, verse 9, and following. Second Timothy chapter 3, the first four or five, three or four verses. And these are all catalog, and then Galatians 5. These are all catalogs of nasty stuff that Galatians 5 makes it clear are fruits of the flesh, as opposed to fruits of the spirit,

the spirit, not a spirit in the general sense, God's spirit that we see, that follow those. So there is no biblical justification for thinking those things, okay? It isn't that, I'm not denying that the devil as the tempter can fan the flames of our own flesh, as it were, and make things more difficult. And we could give him a stronghold or a foothold, so to speak, in our life, and give him an opportunity to encourage us to do more bad. But we can't say the devil made me do it, all right, because that is not the biblical perspective.

And there aren't spirits going around, like the spirit of lust and the spirit of fear and the spirit of divorce and all that other stuff. It annoys me. You probably tell it my voice when people do this, because when you mischaracterize a problem, then you're not going to get the right solution. And so we've got to cast out the demon of divorce.

No, you don't. There's people, if they can't, if divorce is not justified in this circumstance, then don't get it. You know, it's wrong for them to do it. They're the ones that are doing it. Now, I think that there can be regional influences of demons, and I haven't developed this idea a lot, but I think there's some evidence for this in Scripture. But it isn't like you can say, okay, I'm under attack by this demon, and it's causing me to do X, Y, Z. So now notice it's the demon that's the problem. And these people are always casting these demons out, and the demon isn't the problem.

It's them that's the problem. It's the flesh that's the problem. So Romans 8 talks about putting our sin to death by the power of the Spirit. That's what it's talking about in terms of sanctification. There's actually no mention in this very important passage about sanctification about exercising demons. That's right. It's almost non-existent in the scriptures, except. for in the historical portions, Book of Acts, and then their use and the Gospels. And you see Jesus

doing it. And you see Paul doing it in one case, but he's reluctant to even address the problem. And he finally, this girl is annoying him so much, and he casts it out. But these are not features of a normal Christian life and sanctification. Right. So those aren't, none of those that I can think of are in the category of sanctification or anything about this is how you become sanctified and put your sins to death. So he asked about Exodus 25. Yeah, I want to go to that because this is massively misunderstood. I just, oh, it's so painful because whole enterprises, ministries, books have been written on these notions.

Okay, so Exodus 25, what's the verse? Exodus 20. Oh, 20. Verse 5. Yeah. Oh, okay. 20, colon. five, got it.

But that's the Ten Commandment. Exodus 20 is the Ten Commandments. Now, I'm going to read this because it's often misread. These are the Ten Commandments. So, You Shall, You Shall Not, You Shall Not. Verse five, You shall not worship them. Okay, let me start in verse four. Verse three, You shall have no other gods before me.

You shall not make for yourself an idol or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth, you shall not worship them or serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God. Now here's the operative phase, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations. Okay, that's usually where it stops.

People cite this. Oh, they're visiting the iniquity. So when you have the spirit of divorce three generations ago, now that same spirit is falling upon the children, and we have to break that kind of pathway, so to speak, you know? And that's kind of the way the language goes. But first question here is, what is causing, whatever this is that God is referring to, the visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third or fourth generation, what is the act, what or who is the active agent in that thing?

I'm a jealous God visiting the iniquity. In other words, whatever this is, God is the one who's doing it. So how are you going to cast God out? How are you going to bind God? You're opposing God when you do this. I don't know why this hasn't occurred to anybody. But the thing is, there's more. They should keep reading.

It says that God is a jealous God. He visits the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate me. Oh, keep reading. What's that principle we have at standard reason? Never read a Bible verse. Oh, yeah, that's right. Keep reading of those who hate me. Next verse. But showing loving kindness to thousands, I suspect he's referring to thousands of generations, to those who love me and keep my commandments. This has nothing to do with generational sins the way people understand it. God is making a statement that is played out in the history of Israel. Here's the deal. I'm your God. No other gods. You guys start worshiping other gods. I'm coming down on you. And you're going to feel the effects of my judgment generate third, fourth generation out. Okay. But if you are faithful, you're going to feel the goodness of what I offer you to thousands of generations. Okay. So wait a minute. Is it third or fourth generation? Wait a minute. I'm the third generation. No, on the fourth.

No, it's a comparison. God's judgment is limited. His mercy is unlimited. That's the point of this, which, I mean, he says the same thing many times when he talks about the mercy being great, greater than the judgment. And this whole principle shows up in lots of places in the Old Testament. That's all that's going on here. God's going to visit the iniquity. For those who are idolatrous, that's what this passage is about, this particular commandment.

Look out. Look out. Because your whole country is going to suffer. Generation after generation after generation after generation after generation of those who hate me. But loving kindness, which is Hesed, which means covenant faithfulness, to thousands to those who love me and keep my commandment. So this is very kin, early on, excess 20, you find this in Deuteronomy 28 through 30, which the law is given a second time. Now, like a whole generation later, when Deuteronomy is written after the wanderings,

and they're about to take the land, and there, 28 through 30, you have the blessing and cursings. If you do good, I'm going to bless you. If you do bad, I'm going to curse you. And then it spells all out. There's like 15 verses of, if you do good, here's the blessing. and then there's like 40 verses of due to bad. Here's the cursing. And that's the same concept that's being repeated here.

And this is, of course, exactly what the Jews received most of their history. The cursing of God on the multiple generations because they continued to disobey. And then they would repent, and you see this in cycles and judges. They repent, and then God would send a judge, and he'd rescue them, and they'd have prosperity, and then they'd fall in the same nonsense again. So anyway, that's what's going on here. And there is no justification for deliverance ministries out of this verse, Exodus 20, verse 3, 4, and 5. None.

It's a total misread of the text. I think as a general principle, when somebody offers, when they say there's a certain practice that we ought to do as Christians, then it ought to show up the way they're saying it in the New Testament when Paul is giving instructions as to how we're supposed to. to accomplish whatever it is he's teaching. Overclumbing the flesh, for example, sanctification. Right. So if doing this, if casting out demons of sins is not taught in the New Testament, then I don't think there is no, I mean, they're certainly casting out demons,

but for this purpose of sanctification, I don't see that happening among Christians. It doesn't seem to be a practice that you identify whatever demon is. causing your sins and you cast that demon out. It's just not there. So I think whenever that happens, whatever the practice is, look for it and see if it's actually taught there because if the Bible is adequate for every good work, as Second Timothy says, then it will be there. Absolutely. And when Jesus is casting out demons, by the way, some of them are associated with sickness. So you have a deaf-mute demon, and they can affect the physical health of the body, just like in Job, how Satan was able to affect the physical health of Job, but there's no indication that they are the source of our sins.

That's a way of deflecting responsibility from ourselves to something outside of us. And whenever we do that in any way, it makes us the victim, and it kind of subtly removes the responsibility we have of personally addressing it ourselves. We got to go find some person to cast this demon a lust or this demon of fear or this demon a divorce or something like that out of the Christian, but that is completely non-biblical. Do you think it could be different for Christians versus non-Christians? Would you look at this differently? Well, I don't think so. I'm trying to think of why I would look at differently. What we're speaking of here is how the text characterizes the impact of demons on people. And Christians have the flesh and non-Christians have the flesh.

There are demonic possessions, no question. But we see Jesus addressing a lot of that in the Gospels. We don't see much of it in the Book of Acts. We see some, but the Gospels has more. And so, you know, the demons, in the case of that one fortune-telling girl, she was not a believer, obviously. And Paul cast the demon out of her, and that caused him all kinds of problems because those who made a profit off of her were really mad. And then they made a big deal and it was a riot or something like that. But I don't see a reason to think of it as significantly different. All right. Well, thank you, Erin.

Thank you, Bethany. Thank you, James. And we'd love to hear your question on X with the hashtag STRSk or on our website at STR.org. This is Amy Hall and Greg Kokel for Stand to Reason. Thank you.