Post
by _Paidion » Sat Aug 18, 2007 11:28 pm
The concept that Satan was created by God for some special purposes seems to be contrary to the nature of God. For God is wholly good and righteous, and wants the best for every individual. To create a being who, through tempting man to sin, and thus bring physical and/or spiritual death into the world seems to do injustice to God’s character.
I did not find your scriptural justification for this idea convincing, Steve, and would like to explain where I think this justification insufficient.
1. Jesus and John both tell us that Satan was evil "from the beginning" (John 8:44/1 John 3:8 )
I notice that John 8:44 states that Satan was a murderer from the beginning. If “the beginning” refers to Satan’s creation, then whom did he kill when he was created? I have always thought that this beginning referred to the six days of creation which are called “the beginning” in Genesis 1:1. In that “beginning”, Satan tempted Eve to sin, and when she and Adam ate from the truth, death (whether natural or spiritual) was brought into the world. And so Satan became a murderer of mankind from the beginning of creation.
Similarly, he sinned from the beginning (I John 3:8 ), since he sinned at the beginning of creation by tempting Eve to disobey God, and continued to sin from that point on.
2. Proverbs tells us that God made everything for Himself...even the wicked for the day of doom (16:4)
This verse is missing in the Septuagint. It is also not present in the dead sea scrolls. But the latter fact is not surprising since only scraps from two scrolls of Proverbs have been discovered.
It is important to notice that the Hebrew word “päal” means “make” or “do”, similar to “faire” in French or “poieō” in Greek.
It does not specifically mean “create” as the Hebrew word “bara” used in Genesis 1:1. And the word translated as “even” in the passage quoted above normally means “and”. Nor is it “the day of doom” but “the day of evil.” I have not studied Hebrew, but from the translations I have examined, and from Strong’s Hebrew lexicon, I think the following is a possible rendering of the verse:
God does everything for Himself; also the wicked [does everything] for himself in the day of evil [for which he is responsible for bringing about]
There is nothing in the statement which states that the wicked person is the recipient of what God makes or does.
The passage in Ezekiel concerning the anointed cherub speaks of “the day you were created (bara)”
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).
Yes, “tempt” literally means “test”, but it also literally means, well… “tempt”. There are many records in the Bible of God testing people, but in James 1:13, we read that God does not tempt anyone (same word). I don’t think Satan is the tester, but the tempter.
As I indicated in my first paragraph, I cannot see God Himself deliberately creating an evil being that would destroy most of mankind through causing our first parents to disobey, and thus the propensity for sinning falling upon all people ---- destroying them. This just doesn’t seem to be in keeping with the character of God.
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.
I suppose by the same argument, one could maintain that God created sin, and must have had a use for it, or He would have destroyed it before now.
I don’t think God needed a devil. I think God responded to the devil whom the angel Lucifer became, by providing a way for mankind to be righteous in spite of him. As Origen stated, “It is not [Satan’s] substance which perishes, but his hostile will. Therefore his destruction means not his ceasing to exist, but ceasing to be an enemy and ceasing to be death.”
If God has use for a devil, would He not be entitled to create one for His purpose?
The answer to this hypothetical question is, of course, “yes”. But I still don’t think He had any use for a devil. But because of the free will of man and of angels, God had a way to deal with them. He has a Godly response to any contingency.
But if Yahweh created Satan to carry out His purposes, why did He rebuke him for doing so?
Zechariah 3:2 The LORD said to Satan, "The LORD rebuke you, Satan! Indeed, the LORD who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is this not a brand plucked from the fire?"
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.
True, nowhere in the Bible is it written, “Satan was an angel” or “Satan is an angel”. However, Jesus did affirm that the devil has angels:
Matthew 25:41 Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the aeonean fire prepared for the devil and his angels …
Revelation 12:9 Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought…
Thus there are angels who did or do Satan’s bidding. Could the devil have fallen at some point, and persuaded these angels to rebel also? --- Just as he persuaded Eve to rebel? Could Satan have been a leader of these angels on the basis that he was perhaps an angel himself, and a leader of angels before their rebellion?
Here is a passage which may relevant to this discussion. Paul said:
And what I do I will continue to do, in order to undermine the claim of those who would like to claim that in their boasted mission they work on the same terms as we do. For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 2 Cor 11:12-14 RSV
“disguise” in not quite the correct translation of the Greek word “metaschematizō”. Nor is the word “transforms” as the NKJV correct. That swings to far on the other side of the pendulum. The Greek word literally means “I change in fashion.” And even the word “fashion” in English seems to come short of describing that which comprises “everything in a person which strikes the senses, the figure, bearing, discourse, actions, manner of life etc.” (Online Bible lexicon)
One has to be a very good actor to change himself (temporarily, of course) in all of these ways. The false apostles of whom Paul spoke, apparently had such ability. But how could Satan, who is supposedly the most evil being in the universe, change himself in such a fashion as to appear “in his bearing, discourse, actions, and manner of life” as an angel of light? Could the answer be that that is exactly what he was before his rebellion, so that he, having been “Lucifer” or “Morning Star”, a great angel of light, had some memories of how an angel of light behaves?
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?
I have no problem taking both passages figuratively. The question in chapter 27 which we must ask ourselves is with whom or with what, in this figure of speech, is the king of Tryre being compared? He is being compared to one who was an anointed cherub, one whom God set in the holy mountain, one who walked up and down in the midst of stones of fire, one who was perfect in all his ways, one who was a covering cherub, but one who had become perverse.
Of course I don’t take the passage “literally”. If I did I would have to affirm that all of these descriptions apply directly to the king of Tryre. Rather, God is saying that the king of Tryre, is similar to the one to whom this description applies. And who is that one, if not the devil? Was not God saying that the king of Tyre is like Satan? Wasn’t Jesus using a similar figure of speech when he addressed Peter as “Satan”? He surely didn’t mean that Peter was Satan, but that he was like Satan, when he said, “May it not be, Lord that [death] shall happen to you!” For by saying so, Peter showed that he was not on God’s side.
Of course, you may be saying that the description itself cannot be taken for what it says, but is an allegory for something else. But if so, then what does the allegory mean? Why warn the king of Tyre with a mysterious allegory, and not tell him the meaning of the allegory?
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!
There’s no question that the king of Tyre was a man. But it seems that the one with whom God was comparing him was the devil.
Yes, the king of Tyre may have been corrupted by trading and merchandise --- one of the ways in which he was like Satan after Satan became “perverse”. Sometimes in the message to the king of Tyre, God addresses the king’s sins and weaknesses; at other times he compares him with Satan was --- once righteous, but who rebelled, and continued to sin.
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.
The simple fact that the man, the king of Babylon is addressed as “Lucifer” or “Morning Star” does not indicate that he is “identified” as such, anymore than Christ calling Peter “Satan” identified Peter with Satan. Rather, the king of Babylon was similar in some ways to the fallen Lucifer or Satan. That’s where the figure of speech comes in.
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).
That may be so. Or it may be that Satan had one fall immediately after his rebellion, and another one which Christ saw, possibly prophetically.
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).
I agree that it does not tell us of the devil’s actual present nature, but it may be an indicator of his actual former nature, of which he has enough memory to enable him to act out.
In the final analysis, Dave is right in saying that his agreement with Irenaeus and Tertullian puts him in good company. In fact, he is in the excellent company of (probably) 95% of Christians who have lived over the past 2000 years. Those who believe in infant baptism are also in the same good company, though the Bible nowhere teaches that doctrine.
This doesn’t seem to be a good comparison. For as far as I can determine, infant baptism was not taught in the church proper before the beginning of the third century, whereas the view that Satan was once a righteous angel who later fell, was the only view that was taught in the main church from the beginning.
I think Dave is mistaken in identifying the nontraditional view with Augustine. Though I have never read Augustine on this subject, I am quite sure that he also held to the traditional view of the fall of Satan. But then, Augustine taught many things that I am pleased to disagree with. Nonetheless, I expect to fellowship with him in heaven.
I hope your expectation will be fulfilled, and that you will find Augustine in heaven.
I think Augustine taught many new ideas that caught on in the church, but I agree that Dave is mistaken here, in believing Augustine started the nontraditional view of Satan’s origin. For it seems clear that Augustine himself held the traditional view. He wrote:
Do the holy and blessed angels possess not only this knowledge of
their actual character, but also a foreknowledge of what they shall
afterward become? If they do, I cannot see how it was possible for Satan
ever to have been happy, even while he was still a good angel, knowing, as
in this case he must have known, his future transgression and eternal
punishment. --- Letter 73 to Jerome chapter 3, section 7.
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.
If that is so, then there is real reason for concern. But those positive traits and excellence are not attributed to any period after he rebelled, are they?
In any case, I see no reason to extol his virtues before he rebelled either. If an ongoing rapist and murderer had been at one time a good man who served other people, what purpose does it serve to extol these former virtues when that is not a description of the man as he is now?
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.
AMEN to your final sentence!!! I try to ignore Satan and his demons as much as possible.
Last edited by
Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason: Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
