Satan Reconsidered: What Does Scripture Actually Say?

Was Satan Really a Fallen Angel? Revisiting William Ashdowne’s Radical 1794 Scriptural Inquiry

William Ashdowne (1723–1810) was an English Unitarian preacher and religious writer associated with the General Baptist congregation at Mount Ephraim in Tunbridge Wells, England. In 1794, he published the second edition of An Attempt to Prove That the Opinion Concerning the Devil, or Satan, as a Fallen Angel, and That He Tempts Men to Sin, Hath No Real Foundation in Scripture. The book was printed in Canterbury by W. Bristow as a supplement to Ashdowne’s earlier inquiry into the scriptural meaning of the word Satan. This article is based upon historical scans preserved by Cornell University Library Digital Collections and Google Books, including a digitised copy originating from Oxford University. The present interpretation and commentary have been independently prepared for TheDevanshuPathak.com by the Devanshu Pathak International Paranormal Help And Research Society. The libraries and digitisation organisations credited here preserve the historical material but do not necessarily endorse Ashdowne’s conclusions or the interpretations presented in this article.

A Forgotten Challenge to the Traditional Devil

For centuries, many Christian traditions have taught that Satan was originally a glorious angel who rebelled against God, fell from heaven, became the Devil and subsequently began tempting humanity into sin. This figure is often understood as the serpent who deceived Eve, the adversary who tested Job, the tempter who confronted Jesus and the invisible force behind temptation, possession and spiritual corruption.

William Ashdowne questioned this entire theological structure.

His argument was not that wickedness, temptation or suffering were unreal. Instead, he asked whether Scripture genuinely describes Satan in the way later Christian tradition does. He believed that theologians had combined different biblical expressions, interpretations and inherited traditions to create a doctrine that was not explicitly taught in the biblical text.

Ashdowne approached the question through language. He examined words translated as Satan, Devil, demons, evil spirits and angels. He argued that translators and theologians often treated these words as if they always referred to one supernatural enemy. According to him, their original meanings and contexts were much broader.

The Hebrew word translated as Satan can mean an adversary, accuser or opponent. The Greek word diabolos can mean a slanderer or false accuser. The word angel fundamentally means a messenger and does not automatically identify a heavenly being. Ashdowne therefore insisted that each passage should be studied in its own context before supernatural conclusions were drawn.

Satan in the Old Testament

Ashdowne begins by examining the Old Testament because it formed the scriptural foundation available to Jesus, the apostles and the Jewish people of their time.

His central observation is striking: the Old Testament never presents a complete narrative in which a powerful angel rebels against God, is expelled from heaven and becomes an invisible tempter of humanity.

Later theology may connect Isaiah 14, Ezekiel 28, Genesis 3 and other passages to construct such a narrative, but Ashdowne argues that the passages themselves do not explicitly make those connections.

“Devils” as Idols and False Gods

Passages such as Leviticus 17:7, Deuteronomy 32:17, 2 Chronicles 11:15 and Psalm 106:37 speak of sacrifices being offered to “devils.”

Ashdowne argues that these references concern idols, false gods and objects of pagan worship. They do not describe fallen angels moving invisibly through the world.

The Israelites sacrificed to the gods of surrounding nations. In Ashdowne’s interpretation, calling these objects “devils” expressed their false, corrupt or idolatrous character. It did not prove that each idol represented an actual rebellious spirit.

Who Provoked David?

First Chronicles 21:1 states that Satan stood against Israel and provoked David to number the people. However, the parallel narrative in 2 Samuel 24:1 associates the event with the anger of the Lord.

Ashdowne observes that David accepts responsibility for his decision. David does not claim that an invisible spirit entered his mind or forced him to act. Joab warns him, but David insists upon proceeding.

Ashdowne suggests that David’s “Satan” or adversary may have been pride, political ambition, fear of an enemy or another improper desire. The passage can therefore be understood without introducing a fallen angel as its hidden cause.

The Satan in the Book of Job

The Book of Job presents one of the Bible’s best-known appearances of Satan. The adversary questions Job’s motives and receives permission to test him through suffering.

Ashdowne finds the conventional interpretation morally and textually difficult. He asks why God would permit a thoroughly evil angel to inflict extreme suffering upon a righteous servant merely to test an accusation.

He also observes that Job, his wife and his companions speak of his suffering in relation to God’s providence. They do not explain his afflictions through an independent kingdom of evil.

Most importantly for Ashdowne’s argument, the Satan in Job does not secretly inject sinful thoughts into Job’s mind. The narrative therefore does not demonstrate the kind of invisible temptation commonly attributed to the Devil.

Satan as a Human or Political Adversary

In Zechariah 3, Satan stands against Joshua the high priest. Ashdowne connects the vision with the historical opposition faced by Joshua and Zerubbabel during the rebuilding of the Temple after the Babylonian captivity.

The books of Ezra and Zechariah describe human authorities and political opponents attempting to stop the work. Ashdowne therefore understands Satan as a representation of those adversaries.

He applies similar reasoning to Psalm 109. The Hebrew term translated as Satan is also translated elsewhere in the same passage as adversary. David is surrounded by hostile accusers and wicked people. Ashdowne sees no reason to transform these human opponents into fallen angels.

Evil Spirits and Disturbed Human Conditions

Ashdowne also considers Old Testament references to evil spirits.

When an “evil spirit from the Lord” troubles King Saul, Ashdowne does not interpret it as demonic possession. He studies the circumstances surrounding Saul:

- Saul had disobeyed God.
- He had been rejected as king.
- David had been chosen as his eventual replacement.
- Saul became consumed by jealousy, guilt, fear and resentment.
- David’s music temporarily relieved his condition.

Ashdowne concludes that Saul was suffering from a deeply disturbed emotional and mental condition. The success of music as treatment supports, in his view, a natural or psychological explanation.

When Judges says that God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the people of Shechem, Ashdowne interprets the expression as hostility, division and revenge arising between human parties.

For Ashdowne, an “evil spirit” can describe a destructive disposition, troubled mental state or hostile relationship without implying the presence of a fallen angel.

Did Angels Fall from Heaven?

Two important New Testament passages—2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6—describe angels who sinned, abandoned their proper position and were confined in darkness awaiting judgement.

These passages appear, at first, to provide strong evidence for fallen angels. Ashdowne nevertheless argues that they do not contain the complete later doctrine.

The texts do not explicitly state that:

- These angels were led by Satan.
- They attempted to overthrow God.
- They became the Devil’s demons.
- They presently travel through the world tempting humanity.
- They were responsible for the serpent in Eden.
- They possess people or implant sinful thoughts.

Because angel also means messenger, Ashdowne considers whether the passages could refer to sinful human messengers. He suggests the spies sent to examine Canaan, whose faithless report discouraged Israel and led the people into rebellion.

This particular interpretation is debatable and remains one of the more speculative parts of his work. Nevertheless, Ashdowne’s larger observation deserves attention: the two passages provide far less detail than later doctrines commonly assume.

Was the Serpent in Eden Satan?

Genesis describes a serpent speaking with Eve, but it does not explicitly call the serpent Satan, the Devil or a fallen angel.

Ashdowne argues that identifying the serpent with Satan is a later interpretation rather than a statement made directly in Genesis.

Even if one assumes that Satan acted through the serpent, the temptation is presented as a conversation. The serpent makes an argument, Eve considers it and she chooses to eat. The account does not portray an invisible spirit secretly inserting a sinful thought into her unconscious mind.

Ashdowne therefore distinguishes between persuasion through words and the later belief that Satan invisibly manipulates human thought.

The Temptation of Jesus

The temptation of Jesus in the wilderness is perhaps the strongest apparent challenge to Ashdowne’s position.

The Devil asks Jesus to turn stones into bread, throw himself from the Temple and worship the tempter in exchange for worldly kingdoms.

Ashdowne raises several questions:

- Could Satan genuinely expect the Son of God to worship him?
- Did Satan actually possess the authority to give away every kingdom?
- Would these proposals have created an authentic sinful desire within Jesus?
- Does the story describe an external physical encounter, a visionary experience or a symbolic presentation of inner testing?

Ashdowne notes that the narrative never says Satan secretly inserted thoughts into Jesus without his awareness. Every temptation is expressed openly and answered consciously.

He therefore doubts that this account proves the existence of an invisible being responsible for ordinary human temptation.

Why Did Judas Betray Jesus?

The Gospels state that Satan entered Judas before the betrayal of Jesus. Ashdowne nevertheless examines what the texts reveal about Judas’s established character.

Judas was entrusted with the common purse, but he was accused of stealing from it. He negotiated with the religious authorities and agreed to betray Jesus for money. He deliberately searched for an opportunity to hand Jesus over away from the crowd.

According to Ashdowne, greed, dishonesty and personal calculation already provide an explanation for Judas’s conduct. “Satan entered into him” may therefore be a forceful, figurative expression indicating that Judas had surrendered himself completely to an adversarial and wicked purpose.

Peter, Fear and the Meaning of Satan

Jesus tells Peter that Satan desires to sift him like wheat. Later, Peter denies Jesus three times.

Ashdowne identifies a clear human cause: fear.

Peter witnessed Jesus being arrested and accused. He understood that association with Jesus could place him in danger. When confronted, fear overcame his courage and loyalty.

Ashdowne does not deny that Peter was tempted. He questions whether an invisible spirit is required to explain the temptation. Peter’s circumstances and instinct for self-preservation already account for his failure.

Satan in the Parables

In the Parable of the Sower, Satan removes the word planted in certain hearers. Other parts of the same parable identify additional causes of spiritual failure:

- Lack of understanding.
- Fear of persecution.
- Attachment to wealth.
- Worldly anxiety.
- Pleasure and competing desires.
- Failure to develop a good and receptive heart.

Ashdowne argues that these observable causes explain why the teaching does not grow. Satan symbolises the adversarial influences that prevent truth from taking root.

Likewise, in the Parable of the Wheat and Tares, the enemy plants tares and wicked people are called children of the wicked one. Ashdowne reads this language figuratively. People become “children” of a moral pattern when they imitate it.

When Jesus says that those who follow Abraham’s faith are Abraham’s children, the relationship is spiritual and behavioural rather than biological. Ashdowne applies the same principle to the expression “children of the Devil.”

Ananias and Sapphira

In Acts 5, Peter asks Ananias why Satan filled his heart to lie. Yet Peter also asks why Ananias conceived the deed in his own heart, and the narrative shows that Ananias and Sapphira deliberately agreed upon their deception.

Ashdowne identifies the underlying motives as covetousness, dishonesty and the desire to appear more generous than they truly were.

The couple wanted the reputation associated with surrendering the complete price of their property while secretly retaining part of the money. In this interpretation, Satan personifies their deceitful intention rather than functioning as a separate being who controls them.

Satan as a False Teacher or Persecutor

Paul warns that Satan can transform himself into an angel of light and that Satan’s ministers may appear to be ministers of righteousness.

Ashdowne connects this passage with false apostles and deceptive teachers who presented themselves as representatives of Christ. He considers the possibility that “Satan” refers to a leading human opponent of Paul who claimed apostolic authority.

Similarly, when Paul says that Satan prevented him from returning to Thessalonica, the book of Acts describes hostile people stirring up persecution and driving him away. Ashdowne therefore identifies the obstructing Satan with those human adversaries.

When Peter describes the Devil as a roaring lion seeking someone to devour, Ashdowne connects the image with violent persecutors. Early Christians knew exactly who was arresting, beating and threatening them. Resisting the Devil meant remaining faithful under persecution.

The Armour of God

Ephesians instructs Christians to wear the whole armour of God so that they can withstand the Devil’s schemes.

Traditional interpretation often understands this as spiritual protection against an invisible supernatural enemy. Ashdowne instead connects the passage with visible threats:

- Persecution.
- False teaching.
- Slander.
- Political pressure.
- Religious hostility.
- Attempts to force Christians to abandon their convictions.

Truth, righteousness, faith and perseverance serve as armour because they enable believers to withstand those pressures.

The Real Origin of Temptation

James 1:14–15 provides the foundation of Ashdowne’s alternative explanation:

«Every person is tempted when drawn away and enticed by their own desire. Desire, once conceived, gives birth to sin.»

Ashdowne treats this as a direct psychological description of temptation:

1. A desire or passion arises.
2. The person permits it to dominate attention.
3. The desire weakens reason and conscience.
4. The person chooses the wrongful action.
5. Repeated choices develop into corrupt character.

He considers this explanation more practically useful than telling people to resist an invisible being whose influence cannot be reliably distinguished from their own thoughts.

Cain and the Works of the Devil

The First Epistle of John describes Cain as belonging to the wicked one. Genesis, however, explains Cain’s conduct through anger, jealousy and resentment toward Abel.

God warns Cain about the danger before the murder. Cain nevertheless allows his anger to prevail.

Ashdowne concludes that Cain became a child of the Devil by following a wicked disposition. The Devil represents the principle and practice of evil; Cain’s own uncontrolled passions produced the crime.

When Christ is said to destroy the works of the Devil, Ashdowne understands this as the reformation of human character. Christ destroys the Devil’s works when people abandon hatred, deception, injustice and uncontrolled desire.

Delivering Someone to Satan

Paul directs a Christian community to deliver an immoral member “to Satan” so that he may ultimately be saved.

Ashdowne argues that handing someone to a malicious supernatural being would not logically promote repentance. A being devoted to humanity’s destruction would presumably encourage the offender to continue sinning.

He therefore understands the expression as removal from the Christian community. The offender loses the privileges, fellowship and moral protection of the congregation. Experiencing the consequences of exclusion may lead him to repentance and restoration.

Ashdowne’s Final Conclusion

Ashdowne concludes that the Bible does not clearly teach that Satan is a fallen angel who invisibly introduces sinful thoughts into human beings.

For him, Satan can represent:

- A human adversary.
- A persecutor.
- A false teacher.
- A political opponent.
- A slanderer or accuser.
- Fear, greed, envy or anger.
- Uncontrolled desire.
- The collective influence of a corrupt society.
- Any force that stands against truth and righteousness.

Ashdowne does not deny the reality of evil. He relocates its immediate cause. Instead of blaming a supernatural being, he places responsibility upon human desires, decisions, social influences and institutions.

His Rejection of Possession and Exorcism Claims

In the book’s postscript, Ashdowne extends his argument to alleged possession.

If Scripture does not establish the existence of rebellious angels who exercise power over human bodies and minds, he argues, then physical and mental conditions attributed to those spirits require reconsideration.

He proposes that supposed possession may involve natural physical or mental disorders. He also cautions against accepting historical exorcism accounts merely because respected religious writers reported them.

Sincere and educated people can still misinterpret events when their observations are shaped by powerful inherited beliefs.

This was an unusually bold position in the eighteenth century. Ashdowne was effectively asking readers to separate medical or psychological conditions from supernatural explanations at a time when that distinction was far less established.

The Strength of Ashdowne’s Inquiry

The principal strength of Ashdowne’s work is his insistence upon context.

He repeatedly asks readers not to assume that every occurrence of Satan, Devil, spirit, demon or angel refers to the same supernatural personality.

He also raises an important moral question: if every sinful thought is blamed upon Satan, do people avoid responsibility for governing their own desires?

His interpretation calls people to examine:

- Their motives.
- Their emotional reactions.
- Their attachments.
- Their fears.
- Their social environment.
- Their deliberate choices.

This makes his work relevant not only to theological history but also to the study of how supernatural beliefs influence human psychology and moral responsibility.

The Limitations of His Argument

Ashdowne’s conclusions should not be treated as universally accepted.

Many Jewish and Christian scholars interpret the development of Satan differently. They point to later biblical and Second Temple traditions in which the idea of a cosmic spiritual adversary becomes more developed.

Some of Ashdowne’s individual interpretations—particularly his suggestion that the angels who sinned were human messengers—remain highly disputable.

His work is therefore valuable not because it permanently settles the question, but because it demonstrates that the identity of Satan has long been debated within religious thought.

It forces readers to distinguish between:

- What a passage explicitly says.
- What may be inferred from it.
- What later traditions added.
- What translators communicated through word choice.
- What believers may assume before examining the text.

Why This Book Still Matters

Ashdowne’s book remains significant for theologians, demonologists, paranormal researchers, historians and students of comparative religion.

For demonology, it challenges researchers to examine the historical development of the beings they study.

For paranormal investigation, it warns against immediately interpreting every unusual mental, physical or environmental event as evidence of an evil entity.

For spiritual practitioners, it encourages discernment between symbolic, psychological, theological and paranormal explanations.

For religious readers, it asks whether inherited teachings are always identical to the original wording and context of Scripture.

Most importantly, the book demonstrates that questioning traditional interpretations of Satan is not exclusively a modern development. More than two centuries ago, a Christian preacher was already conducting a detailed scriptural investigation into whether the conventional Devil was a biblical reality, a theological construction or a symbolic personification of evil.

A Balanced Research Position

Ashdowne’s work should neither be dismissed simply because it challenges tradition nor accepted merely because it appears rational and unconventional.

A responsible researcher should compare his claims with:

- The Hebrew and Greek terminology.
- The literary context of each biblical passage.
- Jewish beliefs during the Second Temple period.
- Early Christian interpretations.
- The historical development of demonology.
- Medical and psychological knowledge.
- Documented paranormal claims and their alternative explanations.

Such research requires openness without credulity and scepticism without prejudice.

Ashdowne’s deepest contribution may therefore be methodological rather than doctrinal: inherited beliefs should be examined carefully, words should be understood in context and extraordinary explanations should not be accepted before ordinary causes have been investigated.

Final Reflection

William Ashdowne’s final position is clear: humanity’s immediate adversaries are uncontrolled desire, fear, anger, pride, greed, deception, persecution and corrupt human conduct.

Whether one accepts or rejects his denial of a personal supernatural Satan, his inquiry presents a serious challenge:

Before attributing darkness to an invisible being, have we fully examined the darkness arising from human choices, wounded emotions, destructive desires and systems of power?

That question remains relevant to theology, psychology, paranormal research and spiritual practice today.

---

Sources, Archival Credits and Acknowledgements

Primary historical work:
William Ashdowne, An Attempt to Prove That the Opinion Concerning the Devil, or Satan, as a Fallen Angel, and That He Tempts Men to Sin, Hath No Real Foundation in Scripture, second edition with considerable additions, Canterbury: W. Bristow, 1794.

Author information:
Biographical information concerning William Ashdowne was checked against the historical Dictionary of National Biography entry and related bibliographical records.

Digital preservation and access:

- "Cornell University Library Digital Collections" (https://digital.library.cornell.edu/catalog/witchcraft010) — archival catalogue and digital-book access through Cornell’s historical witchcraft collection.
- "Google Books" (https://books.google.com/books/about/An_attempt_to_prove_that_the_opinion_con.html?id=lrgHAAAAQAAJ) — full-view digitised edition and bibliographical record.
- Oxford University — identified by Google Books as the institution holding the original copy used for its digitisation.
- Google Books Library Project — responsible for digitising and making its scanned edition accessible.
- Cornell University Library — responsible for preserving and providing access to its archival copy through the Cornell Digital Collections platform.
- W. Bristow of Canterbury — printer and principal seller of the 1794 second edition.
- William Ashdowne — original author and intellectual source of the arguments examined in this article.

Modern research presentation:
Prepared for www.TheDevanshuPathak.com by the Devanshu Pathak International Paranormal Help And Research Society for historical, theological and paranormal-research purposes.

Editorial and Independence Notice

This article is an independent modern summary and critical interpretation of a public-domain historical work. Modern spelling and explanatory language have been used for readability. Cornell University, Oxford University, Google Books and the other institutions credited above are archival or bibliographical sources only. Their inclusion does not indicate sponsorship, collaboration, affiliation or endorsement of this article, its author, the website or the organisation publishing it.

Research Disclaimer

This article discusses historical religious interpretations, demonology, alleged possession and mental or physical conditions for educational and research purposes. It does not provide medical diagnosis, psychological treatment or proof for or against any spiritual or paranormal belief. Individuals experiencing distressing thoughts, perceptions or health symptoms should seek assistance from appropriately qualified medical or mental-health professionals.