Origin of Satan

Post by **_Steve** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 5:13 pm

I received the following from a listener. I will post my reply separately.

****************

Hi Steve,
I hope your doing fine, and I continue to pray for you and your family as you are brought to mind. I am very shy when it comes to asking questions over the air, and for this reason I don't usually call in. Concerning the subject of Satan's origin though, when you discuss it on the radio it causes me a certain amount of disappointment. I always appreciate your wonderful ministry and efforts and thank God for them!

Please allow me to rattle on for a few paragraphs. I agree with you that it was God's intention of allowing his creation to be tested, and that if He didn't want Satan to tempt, He would have gotten rid of Him long ago. We have the ability to choose (free-will), and apparently so do the angels, i.e., Jude 1:6. You have remarked that since God had willed that we be tempted (tested) by Satan, and that since Jesus said Satan was a murderer from the beginning, you don't know whether Satan was deliberately created to tempt others or if God allowed him to become corrupted first, and then used him to tempt others.

You are right in saying the end-result, is that we are tested by the will of God. But a very fundamental question is raised in my mind on the question of God deliberately creating Satan with the inescapable nature and desire to tempt others to live in opposition to God. We know that Satan and his angels are going to be punished by God for their actions. That means, for Satan at least, you entertain the idea that God will punish him for something he was deliberately created to do, and had no chance or choice to do otherwise.

To me Steve, it is almost inconceivable that you can think of God this way. Everything in Scripture points to God holding people responsible for their choices, but when it comes to Satan, you entertain the idea that God could have made an exception. Then why not the angels also, perhaps they also are an exception. Maybe they were created to tempt others also. We know that they will be punished for their actions. In fact, the idea of punishment itself carries with it the idea of choosing to rebel against God. What rebellion took place if you are created (programmed) only to tempt and did your job well?

I look at this subject far differently than you. Given the character of God, portrayed throughout the Bible, it is hard for me to believe that He is loving to most of His creation, but that there are exceptions. I ask you Steve, why would God punish Satan? I think it was inevitable that sin should come about; that is the price of free will. It seems much more in keeping with what God reveals to us about Himself, that He would use Satan to further His purposes after Satan had rebelled, knowing that others also would need to be tested. When you say that "perhaps God created him directly for this purpose", it seems to me to be contrary to everything God stands for. How many other exceptions are there? How many other spirit beings were created specifically for this purpose? We know the Bible talks about unclean spirits, demons, evil spirits. Were they also created for this purpose? I think that free choice itself, inevitably creates the possibility that rebellion could come about.

The term "from the beginning" does not necessarily imply from Satan's beginning, but from the beginning of mankind's relations with him or his relations with mankind. This is what I believe Jesus is referring to. I love you Steve, but I think that you're really missing the boat on this one. It is true that we are not given the details of Satan's beginning (and if you just stuck with that, it would be fine), but it is a colossal leap from that, to think God is the kind of God who perhaps could punish one of His creatures for being and doing exactly as He created them to be, which by the way, is diametrically opposed to everything God stands for. It seems very incongruous!

I know that many times in the Scriptures, people pay a price for other peoples sins. God even punishes descendants for their ancestor's sins, but these people are just as sinful as their ancestors. I think of Saul's two sons and five grandsons that were hung on a tree for something Saul had done, whether each of them had directly participated in destroying the Gibeonites, I don't know, but God describes them as a "bloody house". I think of the ancestors of Hophni and Phinehas who had to pay a penalty for the actions which were not of their own doing. The Canaanite children were also slain for the sins of their parents. In Isaiah 14:21, the Babylonian children would be punished for the deeds of their fathers. These are punishments that come upon people for the sins of their fathers, and it is a consequence of living in a fallen world, and as retribution upon ancestors for the sins of the fathers. This teaches us that our sins do not only affect us, but also our posterity. This conclusion is inescapable, given the many allusions given to it in the Scriptures.

Even though many people suffer because of other people's actions, this is a far different thing than God creating someone for the specific purpose of doing all they could to get others to rebel against Him. This, in my estimation, would not be much different than what the Calvinists believe for all people, only your hypothetical scenario would only include Satan and God only knows how many other unclean or evil spirits, which also are in opposition to Him.

You often quote Proverbs 16:4 when discussing the subject of Satan's origin to help support your view that God may have created Satan specifically for the purpose of tempting others. Do you realize what you are doing when you say this? You are using the same argument that the Calvinists use, and in fact are taking the same position as they do. This does not jibe with other arguments you make concerning free will. Do you believe this verse only applies to Satan? That is the only way you could use it and still remain opposed to the Calvinist camp, unless you believe God makes people to be wicked for a certain period of time to carry out His purposes and then allows them repent. I do not believe God makes anyone to be wicked.

I understand that verse not as teaching that God made them wicked, but He is responsible for their existence by the act of His creation. I believe it refers to the fact that God does not have to tolerate them and could do away with them, but by allowing them to remain, He fulfills His purposes by tolerating them as He chooses, and making use of them and of their rebellion. This is a hot-button issue with me because I believe it impugns God's character to believe He created someone purposely to incite others to rebellion against Him. That would be totally contrary to everything God reveals about Himself in the Bible. He certainly uses rebellion to further His purposes and to punish others, but He doesn't create them rebellious to start with, that is the crux of the matter. If your hypothetical scenario were to be true, I bet that you would be very grateful that it wasn't YOU that God decided to make evil from the start! I only say that Steve, to help you think about the ramifications of thinking that God could do this. Satan would have had to have no choice but to be exactly as God created Him to be, and this is what the consistent Calvinist would believe not only for Satan, but also for all people.

I feel better now. I got this off my chest. I have wanted to say something about this for a long time, but I am shy about talking on the radio. It is like something that just sticks in my craw, and every time I hear it, I feel like speaking my mind concerning it. It is just that if someone allows that God did this in Satan's case, what is to prevent it from being true in other cases as well? Why stop with Satan? We are told about the angels that left their first estate, implying that they went beyond what was permissible for them, but is this true of all evil spirits, could not some have been created just for this purpose if Satan also was? I think it is untenable. Anyway, keep up the good work Steve, I appreciate your ministry and I agree with the vast majority of things you say. I love you bro.

In Christ,

H.

Post by **_Steve** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 5:19 pm

Hi H,

Thanks for writing. It seems that there are two objections that you have, principally, to the suggestion that Satan might never have been any better than he is now: 1) God's fairness in punishing a being who does only what he was created to do, and 2) whether it is very much like God to create a being to test His children.

The first problem would be essentially solved if we viewed Satan's end, not as punishment, but as annihilation. If a farmer breeds his mare to get a colt to pull his plough, but when the colt becomes old and lame, he shoots it in the head, this is not punishment. This is disposing of a creature that has served its purpose and is no longer needed. There is no unfairness in the farmer, and he is not punishing the horse.

The only verse I know of that may suggest that Satan will be "punished" beyond that which he has already experienced through the cross of Christ, is Revelation 20:10. This verse says, "The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where[a] the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever." If the "they" who are tormented include Satan, then you have a good point. If "they" refers only the beast and the false prophet, as seems possible, then there is no mention of Satan being tormented. He might be annihilated.

As for the idea that God would not create or send a deceiver to test God's people, I guess I don't see the witness of scripture as plainly against this as you do. For one thing, we are specifically told that God would test the Israelites with false prophets, working signs and wonders (Deut.13:1-3). While there is no suggestion that God made the false prophets to be false, there is every suggestion that their presence to test Israel is in keeping with God's intentions for Israel to be tested. In fact, God said that He deliberately led them duriing their wilderness wanderings so as to allow them to be humbled and tested there (Deut. 8:2).

Proverbs 17:3 tells us, "The refining pot is for silver and the furnace for gold, But the LORD tests the hearts." It seems that He does not do so directly, but through the agency of an appointed "tester" (or "tempter"—there is no difference in the original languages).

We know that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was created and planted in the Garden of Eden by God—not by Satan (Gen.2:9). Yet the tree seems to have no purpose but to provide a temptation (test) for Adam and Eve. The tree, by God's design, had within it everything necessary to tempt Eve—even in her unfallen state (Gen.3:6).

God has a "crown of life" awaiting those who "endure temptation" (James 1:12). It seems possible that God, for all eternity, intended to give this award to those who pass a series of tests—tests that were designed for the purpose of the contest through which one can obtain the award, just as the Olympic Games were created for the purpose of giving out awards to those who show excellence in the overcoming of certain obstacles (1 Cor.9:24-27). Though James tells us that God does not directly induce us to do evil (James 1:13), this does not mean that He has not created the contest and all of its participants—including the opponent to His people.

Though God did not directly tempt Jesus, we do read that the Spirit of God drove Him into the desert to face a contest with the devil (Matt. 4:1). Is this not a microcosm of the contest in which God has involved the entire human race? If God did not create the devil, nonetheless, He certainly must prefer the devil to exist at this present time, or else He would destroy him. Doesn't this suggest that it is very compatible with God's character to create this world as a testing ground for humanity, and to install a tempter into the scene? If not, then it seems only a very convenient coincidence that the devil fell and thus accidentally came to occupy a niche in God's perfect purposes.

Whether we look at the Garden of Eden, the history of Israel, the life of Jesus, or the writings of the New Testament about the trials of the Christian life, I see a consistent picture of a God who views this present life as a probationary and testing period, to prepare and qualify His children for "graduation"—eternity in His presence.

As for Proverbs 16:4, I don't know what the verse means. I think you may be right in your interpretation. Or maybe not. It could refer only to Satan, or (as Calvinists assert) to all evil people. The wording sounds like it means what Calvinists say, but, like yourself, I find that meaning to be revolting and unbiblical. If "the wicked" refers only to Satan, this would not support Calvinism, would take the wording at face value, and would not contradict any other scripture.

The bottom line is, the Bible tells us nothing clearly about the origin of Satan. The most we can say about the traditional view is that it is somewhat philosophically comforting—but it has no scripture in its favor. The alternative view has no unambiguous scripture in its favor either. Therefore, I can find no compelling reason, biblically, to settle finally on one position over the other.

Post by **_Paidion** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 9:07 pm

Origen (c. 185-255) had some rather interesting things to say about the matter:

When it is said that "the last enemy shall be destroyed", it is not to be understood as meaning that his substance, which is God's creation, perishes, but that his purpose and hostile will perishes; for that does not come from God but from himself. Therefore his desctruction means not his ceasing to exist, but ceasing to be an enemy and ceasing to be death.
Nothing is impossible to omnipotence; there is nothing that cannot be healed by its maker; the Creator made all things in order that they might exist; and if things were made that they might exist, they cannot become non-existent.

De Principiis I.vi.1-4

Post by **_mdh** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:17 am

Steve,

I think I understand your position, and if you view Satan's destiny as annihilation I suppose it is not too hard to accept. But I still need to understand why God would have cursed the serpent (later revealed to be Satan) in the garden (Gen. 3:14-15) if Satan was just doing what God wanted him to do.

Why would God create someone in such a way, and then curse him for doing what he was designed to do? It does not make sense to me.

I agree that it makes sense that God allows Satan to continue because he fulfills a purpose. And I agree that scripture reveals that from the beginning (of something?) Satan was a bad guy. But it seems to me that Satan had to of crossed a line that God did not want him to cross if he was cursed for doing what he did.

On a side note, you brought up Rev 20:10, where the beast and the false prophet are mentioned being in the lake of fire. If they are the ones being tormented, who are they (in your view). Are these literal people? I thought I understood your position as them being symbols for political and/or religious systems? Perhaps I am getting your view confused with someone elses.

Mike

Post by **_Steve** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 4:08 pm

Hi Mike,

I believe the cursing of the serpent had symbolic significance. I believe the story in Genesis 3 is literally true, and that serpents, being legless, bear the marks of the curse uttered there. However, I don't think the snake consciously suffers for being legless (they manage to be as mobile as are bipeds and quadrapeds). The curse on the serpent, therefore, does not represent a state of conscious suffering for the snake, but for all who observe it, its condition serves as an on-going reminder of God's disapproval of those who (like the serpent) serve as agents of the devil in causing others to stumble.

The implication in the curse that Christ (the woman's seed) would crush the head of Satan (the serpent) may refer simply to the destuction of the power of Satan at the cross (not his eventual obliteratio0n from existence) or the destruction of his "works" (1 John 3:8). In any case, the issue at stake seems to be the reversal of the conditions (condemnation and defiling of the earth) brought on by the sin of the first couple at the serpent's urging.

As for the beast and the false prophet being systems, rather than individuals, you are correct in identifying this as my view. Their being cast into the lake of fire and being tormented is following the dramatization that has characterized the book of Revelation throughout--where these systems are alternately personified or liked to animals. Depicted as individuals in the symbolism, they are condemned and punished in keeping with the same symbolism. Obviously, a political or religious "system" cannot literally suffer torment. However, my understanding of the symbolic nature of John's visions does not require literalism. Remember, the fourth beast of Daniel 7, representing the Roman Empire, is depicted as being slain and its body cremated (Dan.7:11). Such imagery simply speaks of the fall of the empire.

Post by **_Some Partial-Pret guy** » Wed May 24, 2006 12:03 am

I think of the 'curse' on the snake as a reminder much the same way as I do of the rainbow in the sky as a reminder of the flood. I also agree that snakes don't suffer from it...snakes may think we suffer because we can't slither around..lol

Post by **_Ely** » Sun Jun 11, 2006 9:22 pm

The traditional view of Satan is neat and tidy but it has little if any scirptural support. It seems to me that Steve has conclusively shown that Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 have nothing to do with Satan.

Also, Revelation 20:11 seems to me (as a Chillaist interpreter) to be clear proof that Satan will indeed be burning forever and ever. This, coupled with the various denunciations of Satan in the scirptures, leads me to believe that Satan must have commited a crime and chosen to go against his Creator - although as Steve has pointed out, this is not stated in the scriptures.

God could have destroyed him by now but He has a purpose for him. Satan's final judgement is sure, but God still permits him to do his evil for His own greater purposes. The same can be said of the false teachers who Peter rails against in his second epistle. Their judgement was also assured (2 Peter 2:3) but God allowed them to continue to work for His own purposes (to mature the church?).

methinks anyway!
ybiM
Ely

Post by **_Allyn** » Sun Jun 11, 2006 9:37 pm

I think we are all in for a big surprise when we enter into the eternal realm outside of this life. I believe we shall see just how complex and intentional all facets of God and His work have been and how far we have missed in understanding them.

Post by **_Hebrews 4 12** » Wed Jul 26, 2006 1:08 am

This whole thing makes my head hurt, Steve. Thanks a lot.

I guess it's no wonder that "few will enter" on the narrow path. With all of the tests and refinement that God has put His people through over the course of history, those who have not and do not fall by the wayside and do not turn away from Him are definitely of a different quality (spiritually, anyway).

What about Romans 8:31?

What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us?

If God is the ultimate author of good and evil and has created a being whose sole purpose is to put stumbling blocks in front of us, it almost seems like God is both for and against us.

I repeat. This makes my head hurt. I'm going to bed now.

Post by **_Ely** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 9:00 pm

This evening, we watched a DVD by a minstry which teaches that Hip Hop culture is demonic by nature. The speaker spins an amazing tale that the devil was originally a beautiful worship-leader/cherub called Lucifer who had musical instruments in his body (!). Lucifer saw the power which music had on the other angels and then tried to lead them in a rebellion agaist God. After his fall, he lost the name Lucifer because he no longer had access to heaven and became known as satan. Now, he has unleashed his greatest weaponever to hypnotise the minds of the church youth... Hip Hop!! He seriously taught this stuff. Sadly, people will be sucked in by this nonsense because he said alot of "God told me."

As a result of this, I've had to go public with the "satan isn't lucifer" idea. I'm now doing some researcht to present to the folks. In the porcess, I've run across these interesting articles concerning the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helel
(Be forewarned, it contains some stuff about satanists at the bottom)

http://www.tegart.com/brian/bible/kjvonly/helel.html

Does anyone know of any other good online resources on the issue?
Ely