But the second figure in the vision is ‘the Satan,’ standing in the plaintiff’s place at the Judge’s right hand, to accuse Joshua.  The Old Testament teaching as to the evil spirit who ‘accuses’ good men is not so developed as that of the New, which is quite natural, inasmuch as the shadow of bright light is deeper than that of faint rays.  It is most full in the latest books, as here and in Job; but doctrinal inferences drawn from such highly imaginative symbolism as this are precarious.  No one who accepts the authority of our Lord can well deny the existence and activity of a malignant spirit, who would fain make the most of men’s sins, and use them as a means of separating their doers from God.  That is the conception here.

But the main stress of the vision lies, not on the accuser or his accusation, but on the Judge’s sentence, which alone is recorded.  ’The Angel of the Lord’ is named in verse 1 as the Judge, while the sentence in verse 2 is spoken by ‘the Lord.’  It would lead us far away from our purpose to inquire whether that Angel of the Lord is an earlier manifestation of the eternal Son, who afterwards became flesh—­a kind of preluding or rehearsing of the Incarnation.  But in any case, God so dwells in Him as that what the Angel says God says and the speaker varies as in our text.  The accuser is rebuked, and God’s rebuke is not a mere word, but brings with it punishment.  The malicious accusations have failed, and their aim is to be gathered from the language which announces their miscarriage.  Obviously Satan sought to procure the withdrawal of divine favour from Joshua, because of his sin; that is, to depose the nation from its place as the covenant people, because of its transgressions of the covenant.  Satan here represents what might otherwise have been called, in theological language, ’the demands of justice.’  The answer given him is deeply instructive as to the grounds of the divine forbearance.

Note that Joshua’s guilt as the representative of the people is not denied, but tacitly admitted and actually spoken of in verse 4.  Why, then, does not the accuser have his way?  For two reasons.  God has chosen Jerusalem.  His great purpose, the fruit of His undeserved mercy, is not to be turned aside by man’s sins.  The thought is the same as that of Jeremiah:  ’If heaven above can be measured ... then I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done’ (Jer. xxxi. 37).  Again, the fact that Joshua was ’a brand plucked from the burning’—­that is, that the people whom he represented had been brought unconsumed from the furnace of captivity—­is a reason with God for continuing to extend His favour, though they have sinned.  God’s past mercies are a motive with him.  Creatural love is limited, and too often says, ’I have forgiven so often, that I am wearied, and can do it no more.’  He has, therefore he will.  We often come to the end of our long-suffering a good many times short of the four hundred and ninety a day which Christ prescribes.  But God never does.  True, Joshua and his people have sinned, and that since their restoration, and Satan had a good argument in pointing to these transgressions; but God does not say, ’I will put back the half-burned brand in the fire again, since the evil is not burned out of it,’ but forgives again, because He has forgiven before.