Origin of Satan

[Guest]

I listened to the preaching about the Morning Star and the origin of Satan. It answered many questions I had about the whole origin of Satan thing. I have actually heard the Devil created as a tester thing before. Near the end of the message you touched on my major question. Doesn't the Bible say that Hell was created for the Devil and his demons? Or is this another assumption that we have all been taught? And in the light of Rev.20:10, where it says that the Devil will be tormented day and night forever and ever, how can God hold him responsible for something he was created to do? I know you answered this question a bit but do you have any further insight?

[Guest]

RK poses a good question that I don't know if anyone has answered (especially the last part):

"Doesn't the Bible say that Hell was created for the Devil and his demons? Or is this another assumption that we have all been taught? And in the light of Rev.20:10, where it says that the Devil will be tormented day and night forever and ever, how can God hold him responsible for something he was created to do? I know you answered this question a bit but do you have any further insight?"

If this has been answered somewhere could someone point the way? If not is there anyone willing to take a stab at it?
Could this maybe get into the idea of annihilationism? In that if that doctrine is true or possible that some how this could fit in with the idea of how or why the devil (if he was created as such) be tormented for what he was created to do???

Erich <><

[Guest]

Hey guys,

Heres my shot in the dark. Maybe God holds satan responsible because he was created to be held responsible.

James 1:13
Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone.

And maybe being tormented day and night is another way of saying "being seperated from God" which satan is already so it really wouldn't be that much of a stretch on satans part.

I could be completely off base though....it's been known to happen.

[Guest]

And maybe being tormented day and night is another way of saying "being seperated from God" which satan is already so it really wouldn't be that much of a stretch on satans part.

I like that because often we think of hell or the lake of fire as this physical place of pain (which it appears could be) but it would seem that the true pain is in the eternal, irreversible spiritual separation one would have from God and since Satan is already in that position (created to be?) than it helps puts things (correctly?) in perspective in regards to his destiny.

Erich <><

[Guest]

Regardless what form of punishment Satan may suffer, it is difficult to reconcile his having to be punished at all with the idea that he is simply fulfilling the destiny that he was created to fulfill.

In this respect, I would expect Calvinists to be more comfortable than the rest of us with this doctrine, since they have already come to terms with the proposition that billions of non-Christians people will burn forever in hell simply because they, in their repropation, fulfilled the destiny that God predestined them to fulfill.

I am not a Calvinist, however, and do not see God's dealings with humanity in that light. Satan is obviously in a different category from mankind, but if he is a sentient being (as I believe him to be) then it remains strange, to say the least, that he would be tormented forever for simply doing his assigned job very well.

It would be easier to think of him being created as a tempter, and then, when God is done with him, being abruptly annihilated when he has finished doing his damage—like shooting a mad dog—end of story. But the language of Revelation sounds as if it speaks of eternal torment.

This conundrum (as I have said elsewhere) may be the strongest argument for the traditional view of Satan's origin, as opposed to the "created to test" theory. If the latter theory is correct, then either the language of Revelation must be entirely symbolic (not a particularly unlikely suggestion), or else God has some principles of just retribution that are beyond my grasp (also not an entirely unlikely possiblity).

[Guest]

It was the universal view of the early church that Satan was indeed a fallen angel, that he was indeed the "Lucifer" that is described, that some of the description of Lucifer could not apply to a mere man.

From the point of view that all rational beings shall of their own free will be someday reconciled to God, the Satan explanation is as follows:

God created Satan as perfect as any of the other angels. He became filled with ambition: "I will be like the Most High", and of his own free will rebelled against God. The day will come when this last enemy shall, as a result of his own free will, in co-operation with God's grace, will be reconciled to God, just as every other rational being shall do.

All of the lost will doubtless be in much sorrow during the ages of ages in which they will be corrected in Gehenna, but they will be ultimately be reconciled. According one early writer, "they will individually over the course of many ages be reconciled to God, some out in front, others far behind, until finally the last enemy shall come."

I have been "quoting" by memory. Sorry, I can't give you any references. I am away from home writing from a local computer, and do not have the usual resources at my disposal.

[Guest]

If you connect the dots does'nt it seem that Satan chose to be prideful and that he was'nt created that way.
Luke 10.18 " I was watching Satan fall from heaven like lighting." This was Jesus speaking about Satan being thrust out of heaven. Why would he be forceibly thrust out of heaven?
Rev 12.9 "And the great dragon was thrown down ,the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan who deceives the whole world he was thrown to the earth, and HIS ANGELS were thrown down with him."
Again this sounds like a forced eviction.
1 Tim 3.6 " And not a new convert ,so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil."
Isn't Paul drawing a comparison to the devil who became conceited?
Ezekial 28.15 " You were blameless in your own ways,from the day you were created. Until unrighteousness was found in you."
Ezekial 28.19 " And you will CEASE TO BE FOREVER."
I realize that not everyone accepts Isaiah 14.12 and Ezekial 28.14-15 is about Satan but i think combined with Jesus's and Paul's statements it's entirely consistent. IMHO all the combined verses taken together indicate that Satan chose an evil path based on his pride and envy of God and that he and his demons were forcefully evicted from heaven.

[Guest]

It is possible to get a clear picture by connecting dots, if enough dots are provided to trace a complete outline. Five or six dots can be arranged in more than one way, and any number of conflicting and misguided theses can often show themselves to be "consistent" with a half dozen or more verses.

There is another thread in this forum on precisely the same subject. I will paste in here a portion of what I said there:

In my lectures, I make it plain that the tradition of associating Satan with "Lucifer" (Isa.14:12) and with the "King of Tyre" (Ezek.28:12ff), goes back at least as far as Tertullian (and possibly to the rabbis of pre-Christian times), and that all the fathers since then have seemed to follow this idea. Therefore, the quotations given above from the church fathers simply confirm what I have myself stated in my teaching. However, I am not a teacher of patristics, nor an adherent to the Roman Catholic view of the placing of tradition on a par with Scripture. I am merely a simple Bible teacher, whose task is to teach what the Bible says...not what any number of people may claim that it says. Anyone listening to my teaching on this knows that I do not take a firm stand on either view of the origin of Satan. If someone asks me whether Satan is a fallen angel, my response is, "How should I know? The Bible says nothing about it, and where else would I look to find authoritative information on the subject?"

An unembellished summary of the biblical data is as follows:

1. Jesus and John both tell us that Satan was evil "from the beginning" (John 8:44/1 John 3:8)

2. Proverbs tells us that God made everything for Himself...even the wicked for the day of doom (16:4)

3. These verses may or may not be addressing the origin of Satan, but if they are, they suggest that God may have created Satan as a divinely-appointed "tester" (the literal meaning of "tempter"), to test His people's loyalty (as He said He would test Israel with false prophets--Deut.13:1-4).

4. The fact that God has tolerated the presence of Satan up till now demonstrates at least one indisputable fact: God has use for him, or else He would have chucked him into the lake of fire before now. If God has use for a devil, would He not be entitled to create one for His purpose?

5. Though the Bible attests that some angels have fallen (2 Pet.2:4/Jude 6), yet no scripture anywhere ever says that Satan is or was himself an angel.

6.In the poetic language of Ezekiel (which never mentions Satan), the king of Tyre is said to have been a cherub in the garden of Eden (28:13-14). But then, in the poetic language of the same prophet, the Assyrian is said to have been a tree in the garden of Eden (31:3, 9)! Why take one passage more literally than the other?

7. A few verses earlier than the disputed passage (v.2), the ruler of Tyre is specifically said to be a "man" (not an angel). The statements that the king of Tyre is "full of wisdom," "perfect in beauty" and "perfect in all thy ways" are hyperboles, which have been used earlier in the book about the city of Tyre itself (27:3, 28:3). This "king of Tyre" was corrupted by "trading" or "merchandise" (v.16), a distinctive of the city of Tyre, but hardly fitting any reasonable scenario of the activities of an unfallen angel in heaven!

8. Similarly, "Lucifer" (Isaiah 14:12) is clearly identified as the "king of Babylon" (Isa.14:4) and as a "man" (v.16). The lofty ambitions of "Lucifer" are exactly those of the builders of the Tower of Babel (the origins of Babylon). Lucifer is nowhere identified with Satan in the scriptures.

9. That Satan was seen by Christ falling "like lightening from heaven" (Luke 10:18) does not tell us anything about Satan's origin. Jesus did not state a timeframe for what He saw, and might well have been seeing prophetically the downfall of Satan which He later mentions in John 12:31, and which John depicts in Revelation 12:9---both of which apparently were fulfilled at the cross (cf. Col.2:15/Heb.2:14).

10. None can doubt the devil's ability to "be transformed into an angel of light" (2 Cor.11:14), but this tells us no more about his actual nature than we can learn about the actual character of his ministers from the fact that they "are transformed into ministers of righteousness" (ibid. v.15).


My concern about the traditional view is that it attributes to Satan great positive traits and excellence that is never attributed to him in Scripture. The Bible does not flatter Satan, though many Christians do so in their preaching. I have heard many Christians say, "The devil is the most beautiful, intelligent creature God created!" Satan must love to hear this flattery from the mouth of Christians! I think Satan receives enough accolades from unbelievers...he doesn't need any from the followers of Jesus Christ.

I hope these observations may be helpful.

[Guest]

Steve, I agree that either way Satan ends up being used as a tester by God so does it really matter? A lot of what we believe about the majesty of Christ comes from Paul so how about what he said about the devil?
1 Tim 3.6 " and not a new convert ,so that he will not become conceited and fall into condemnation incurred by the devil."
Isn't Paul implying that the devil became conceited by using him as an example that a new convert should not follow?

[Guest]

Hi STEVE7150,

I believe that 1 Timothy 3:6 is poorly translated in many versions. In the Greek, the literal phrase is "the condemnation of the devil." This leaves open the possibility that it means "the same condemnation as the devil" (as in the NKJV) or that it means "the condemnation instigated by the devil."

If the second is the meaning, it would not be making a reference to the devil's past. In favor of this second meaning, one might observe the similar phrase, "the snare of the devil" at the end of the following verse. In this case, the "snare" is not one into which the devil has been trapped, but the one in which he hopes to entrap the novice minister.

I do agree with you about the bottom line, however.