I've been thinking some lately about the doctrine of satan and demons (not one of my favorite things to think about) and reading some of the thoughts in this category and I have a few questions.
If the traditional view of satan's origin is correct (satan as a fallen angel) then WHY did he fall. He had no sin nature. No one tempting him. I mean, I'm assuming the answer is just 'he had free will,' but why make such a dumb choice when you lived in such a perfect place?
All this has my sympathetic to thinking that satan could possibly have been created as satan for the purpose of being an accuser/tester of mankind, all under the control of God. Is this possible Scripturally?
Also...and here's the stupid hypothetical part....if there was no satan to tempt eve, how long do you think the 2 of them would have gone w/o sinning. Forever? Or did the serpent just speed up the process?
Stupid hypothetical questions
Stupid hypothetical questions
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hemingway once said: 'The world is a fine place and worth fighting for'
I agree with the second part (se7en)
I agree with the second part (se7en)
Hi Matt,
I can't find anything scripturally wrong with your thesis about God creating Satan as a divinely-appointed tester. It always seemed strange to me that a being as reputedly "wise" as the traditional view believes Satan was before his fall could be so stupid as to think he could overthrow God. Even I am not that stupid, and he would have had to have had a much fuller awareness of God's omnipotence than you or I have.
I don't know if Adam and Eve would have sinned without Satan there to tempt them. I suppose we will never know. I think, perhaps, they wouldn't have.
I can't find anything scripturally wrong with your thesis about God creating Satan as a divinely-appointed tester. It always seemed strange to me that a being as reputedly "wise" as the traditional view believes Satan was before his fall could be so stupid as to think he could overthrow God. Even I am not that stupid, and he would have had to have had a much fuller awareness of God's omnipotence than you or I have.
I don't know if Adam and Eve would have sinned without Satan there to tempt them. I suppose we will never know. I think, perhaps, they wouldn't have.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
This is a question that had me thinking for a while too, but I came up with a very interesting hypothesis to solve the conundrum.
I know that certain people aren't convinced that, for instance, the passages in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 refer to Satan. However, for the sake of argument, I'm going to assume that this is a given. We can save those arguments for another discussion topic.
In Ezekiel 28:14, Satan is referred to as "the anointed cherub who covers." I'd like to take a look at what each of these terms is referring to before giving my hypothesis.
First of all, the Hebrew word "cherub" most likely derives from the Babylonian word karibu meaning "intercessor." So if Satan was some sort of intercessor, what was he an intercessor for?
Secondly, we see Satan depicted as one who "covers." Covers what? Looking at the two cherubim atop the Ark of the Covenant, the reference becomes obvious. These two cherubim "covered" the Mercy Seat, which was seen as the throne of God. As an aside, notice that there were two cherubim here. That's something that will figure prominently in my hypothesis later on.
Finally, this cherub was "anointed." In the Old Testament, only kings, priests and prophets were anointed. Anointing constituted a dedication to service in a special role for God. So why was Satan anointed, and for what purpose?
In the previous verse, we see that "every precious stone was your [Satan's] covering." For those who don't have a deep knowledge of the Old Testament, this won't mean much. But if you look at the breastplate that the High Priest wore, you'll notice lots of precious stones! So I believe that this verse is symbolically describing Satan as being anointed in the role of priest.
Here's where it gets interesting. Does anyone remember where I mentioned in another discussion thread that earth and the physical creation is simply a mirror (and an imperfect mirror at that) of heaven? Now, consider that not only did the physical creation have a Garden of Eden, so did heaven - and so it does to this day! I believe that Satan was serving as an angelic, priestly intercessor in the presence of God's throne in the heavenly Eden. He was one of a pair of angels who originally covered God's throne.
The bible doesn't talk much about God's plan for angels. We do know that the angels are part of the Family of God (Eph. 3:14-15). We know that they're fellow servants of God (Rev. 22:8-9). We know that they're involved in God's plan (Eph. 1:10). But much more than that, we don't really know.
I believe that God created the angels to be just as diverse as mankind is, with vastly different personalities, abilities and talents. I believe that just as human beings aren't always good shepherds of themselves, neither are the angels. In other words, just as there is an order to how earthly governments are structured, with the people who are more capable of leadership holding higher positions, the same would be true of the angels. In particular, I believe that Satan's primary responsibility was to take part in ministering to the angels in order to teach them how to develop righteous character without needing the opposition of sin or wickedness in order to create the impetus to overcome.
Now, getting back to Satan and his counterpart who covered God's heavenly throne. Did anyone notice that the arch-angel Gabriel was said to "stand in the presence of God" in Luke 1:19? I believe that Gabriel and Michael are the two arch-angels with this responsibility of "covering" God's heavenly throne now. However, I believe that in the past, it was Gabriel and Lucifer who had this responsibility.
Now, we're all aware that one of the most important elements in a person's character growth is in their recognizing the need for it. Right? When we're talking about repentance and conversion, a person would never repent of their sins if they couldn't recognize the need for it. But in heaven, before sin existed, what would have been the impetus for character development in the absence of sin?
I believe that the answer is in the strengths and weaknesses that we are individually given. Some of us are naturally stronger in certain areas of our character than others. For example, I've never had a problem with alcoholism, even though there are many people who have struggled with it. That's a strength I have that others don't. But on the other hand, there are weaknesses I have that others might not have. Right?
I believe that Satan and his counterpart were given opposite strengths and weaknesses. They were supposed to learn from one another and overcome their weaknesses without needing sin as an impetus to show the need for overcoming. In so doing, they were supposed to become living examples to the rest of the angels.
But instead of serving others, Satan chose to serve himself.
What do you think? Does this sound like a reasonable hypothesis?
Damon
I know that certain people aren't convinced that, for instance, the passages in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 refer to Satan. However, for the sake of argument, I'm going to assume that this is a given. We can save those arguments for another discussion topic.
In Ezekiel 28:14, Satan is referred to as "the anointed cherub who covers." I'd like to take a look at what each of these terms is referring to before giving my hypothesis.
First of all, the Hebrew word "cherub" most likely derives from the Babylonian word karibu meaning "intercessor." So if Satan was some sort of intercessor, what was he an intercessor for?
Secondly, we see Satan depicted as one who "covers." Covers what? Looking at the two cherubim atop the Ark of the Covenant, the reference becomes obvious. These two cherubim "covered" the Mercy Seat, which was seen as the throne of God. As an aside, notice that there were two cherubim here. That's something that will figure prominently in my hypothesis later on.
Finally, this cherub was "anointed." In the Old Testament, only kings, priests and prophets were anointed. Anointing constituted a dedication to service in a special role for God. So why was Satan anointed, and for what purpose?
In the previous verse, we see that "every precious stone was your [Satan's] covering." For those who don't have a deep knowledge of the Old Testament, this won't mean much. But if you look at the breastplate that the High Priest wore, you'll notice lots of precious stones! So I believe that this verse is symbolically describing Satan as being anointed in the role of priest.
Here's where it gets interesting. Does anyone remember where I mentioned in another discussion thread that earth and the physical creation is simply a mirror (and an imperfect mirror at that) of heaven? Now, consider that not only did the physical creation have a Garden of Eden, so did heaven - and so it does to this day! I believe that Satan was serving as an angelic, priestly intercessor in the presence of God's throne in the heavenly Eden. He was one of a pair of angels who originally covered God's throne.
The bible doesn't talk much about God's plan for angels. We do know that the angels are part of the Family of God (Eph. 3:14-15). We know that they're fellow servants of God (Rev. 22:8-9). We know that they're involved in God's plan (Eph. 1:10). But much more than that, we don't really know.
I believe that God created the angels to be just as diverse as mankind is, with vastly different personalities, abilities and talents. I believe that just as human beings aren't always good shepherds of themselves, neither are the angels. In other words, just as there is an order to how earthly governments are structured, with the people who are more capable of leadership holding higher positions, the same would be true of the angels. In particular, I believe that Satan's primary responsibility was to take part in ministering to the angels in order to teach them how to develop righteous character without needing the opposition of sin or wickedness in order to create the impetus to overcome.
Now, getting back to Satan and his counterpart who covered God's heavenly throne. Did anyone notice that the arch-angel Gabriel was said to "stand in the presence of God" in Luke 1:19? I believe that Gabriel and Michael are the two arch-angels with this responsibility of "covering" God's heavenly throne now. However, I believe that in the past, it was Gabriel and Lucifer who had this responsibility.
Now, we're all aware that one of the most important elements in a person's character growth is in their recognizing the need for it. Right? When we're talking about repentance and conversion, a person would never repent of their sins if they couldn't recognize the need for it. But in heaven, before sin existed, what would have been the impetus for character development in the absence of sin?
I believe that the answer is in the strengths and weaknesses that we are individually given. Some of us are naturally stronger in certain areas of our character than others. For example, I've never had a problem with alcoholism, even though there are many people who have struggled with it. That's a strength I have that others don't. But on the other hand, there are weaknesses I have that others might not have. Right?
I believe that Satan and his counterpart were given opposite strengths and weaknesses. They were supposed to learn from one another and overcome their weaknesses without needing sin as an impetus to show the need for overcoming. In so doing, they were supposed to become living examples to the rest of the angels.
But instead of serving others, Satan chose to serve himself.
What do you think? Does this sound like a reasonable hypothesis?
Damon
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason: