It seems like there should be more than the "nebulous passages" (Isa & Ezek) and the Luke passage. Who is to say that Satan was not part of God's creation in Gen 1 and 2? I suppose someone would have to first refute all the standard Satan passages.

Isaiah 14 aside, I think Ezek 28:12-19 is clear as mud. It says he was perfect & blameless, was in Eden, was created, and was a guardian cherub. Sure it may be also about the human king of tyre but Ps 22 is about both David and the Messiah.

Starkman: Psalm 22 is not about the Messiah. As a matter of fact, were you to have been there when the psalmist wrote it, you would hardly think, "Hey, this is about the Messiah to come!" The psalm is extracted and MADE Messianic many years after the fact; most notably when Jesus utters the words, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" This is very similar to Matthew quoting Hosea 11 when mentioning Jesus having come out of Egypt. The passage in Hosea has nothing to do with the Messiah, but Matthew sees the bigger picture and applies the passage to Jesus (Matthew also does this with Isaiah 7 where Isaiah's utterances were about the issues in his own time.)

MattBrown: On one level I agree that it does seem like a stretch. Perhaps we are dealing with fundamental differences in our views on scripture/inspiration and on the ability of the Spirit to work with us. I do not follow the dictation theory on inspiration, however, I think God was able to work with the authors, you could say in cooperation with them and their LFW to get what he wanted across. Why is it so hard to imagine that David, clearly a Spirit filled man and man after God’s own heart, wouldn’t be able write about his own situation, but at the same time allow the Spirit to guide him in a bigger, prophetic meaning. Especially if God had a rough sketch of a redemptive plan and even a suffering Messiah in mind from at least as early as the fall.

Starkman: We are to quick to tag "Messianic" to passages that were of themselves not messianic. That the writers of the New Testament felt the freedom to make them as such is something we moderns have a hard time understanding.

MattBrown: Regardless of how we moderns can’t figure it out the fact still stands "that the writers of the New Testament felt the freedom to make them as such. Our job needs to account for the authors intended meaning, not explain it away, because it seems like they were speculating.

Starkman: "That it might be fulfilled by the prophet..." is not meant to always say, "Listen, it was predicted in Isaiah, and let me prove it to you." That's our way of thinking. It is not, however, the only manner of thinking for the New Testament writers.

MattBrown: I do subscribe to the open view. However, I still believe that God is able to work in this world, both to influence Biblical authors, to predict events, and to make events come about. Why is it a stretch to assume God can and does routinely use prophesies with multiple meaning, deeper layers, and difficult complexities?

Starkman: With regard to the passages about Lucifer in Isaiah 14, see Dennis Bratcher's article at http://www.cresourcei.org/lucifer.html. (It's short!)

MattBrown: Thanks. I agree when specifically talking about the Heb word helel. That is why I stated in my original post "Isaiah 14 aside", so as not to go down the "Lucifer" rabbit trail.

On the other hand, I can agree that helel does not refer to Satan, let alone give him a proper name, yet still contend that a deeper and more complex meaning of Isa 14 does give us a picture of Satan as an evil spiritual being. Just because Nebuchadnezzar is the immediate meaning and the one the prophet immediately address’ does not exclude the Spirit placing other more symbolic meaning in the text.

Starkman: For a bit more broader thinking about the interpretation of Ezekiel 28 passage, one can start with the NET Bible's translation and footnotes at http://www.bible.org/netbible/index.htm. It isn't that one cannot apply the passage to Satan, but the context has to to do with dealing culturally with the king of Tyre, using terms he knew (like circumcision) and refering to pagan mythologies to which he most likely would have related.

MattBrown: Thanks again, I really love the NET Bible, although I admit it is complex stuff that often goes over my head. Yet, in light of the NT (which I think we need to look to help us understand and interpret the OT) it seems clear that we can connect the dots. It is not a stretch hinging on one word or verse, but all of 28:12-19, because there is so much there, shows it as the story of Satan.

How would one construct of warfare worldview without Is 14 and Ez 28? Or do you totally reject the warfare view as speculation?

Post Edited (Starkman) : 4/13/2005 4:07:09 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (Bryan McCarthy) : 4/13/2005 5:41:36 PM (GMT-5)

Bryan: Second Question: Let's say he is a good entity gone bad. What prevents it happening again after he is vanquished at the end and everybody's happy. i.e what stops another good entity going bad and starting everything all over again?

Tom: All we need to suppose is that the sort of freedom required to make such a rebellion possible (viz., libertarian freedom) is finite and that in the final state all libertarian free will previously handed out by God will have run its course and resolved into compatibilistic freedom. There would no longer exist the sort of freedom required to make sin possible.

Just an idea.

Tom 

Hi Bryan.

From the Genesis account we know that God created both the heavens and the earth and created it very good. I would assume that includes Satan to have been created. I would read heavens as implying the spiritual realm, earth as implying the physical. There are also numerous passages which claim that there is only one God. I would say that this implies Satan is not eternal/uncreated. The other option that God created Satan as evil does not seem to square with an all good God. Thus, it almost seems like Satan had to have fallen with or without Isa & Ezek.

Hi Starkman.

I agree with you on the Hosea/Egypt thing.

We will just have to disagree on the Ps 22 thing, I just think the Spirit can and does sometimes go outside the box of the authors intended meaning. Just curious but do you also reject Isaiah 53 as Messianic, as in did the Spirit have no inkling that this would someday be fulfilled by Jesus? This passage has much more NT references and I believe was even interpreted by post-exilic Jews as Messianic.

I guess I could go any number of ways on this, but adding up the likely’s in the eternal state:

a) Satan and his crew are not part of the equation so much temptation is gone;

b) our characters have been substantially solidified by our choices;

c) we will have tasted the sting of sin/death;

d) 1 Cor 13:12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known;

e) similarly, we will be in the full abundance and blessing of life in the immediate presence and reality of God;

f) 1 Jn 3:2b what we will be has not yet been revealed. What we do know is this: when he is revealed, we will be like him, for we will see him as he is.

I could also agree with Tom that after using LFW to choose God, we eventually become Compatiblistic in the eternal state. Either way I don’t see any of us "falling" from the eternal state.

Yo Bryan.

Bryan: in my mind this doesn't really clear up him being created or uncreated, though, becuz obviosuly God did not make himself and if Satan is thought to be created merely becuz he is part of the "spiritual realm," (which we're saying here is created) well so is God, so then God would have had to make himself by this line of thinking. see what i'm drivin' at?

Matt: Yes, very good point, point taken...unless you were to consider God to be above and beyond all realms...but that is after the fact reasoning on my part.

Bryan: of course none of this even can be fleshed out at this point because i'm still stuck on how you know he didn't just mean sky and/or space by "heavens" and the terrestrial surface by "earth?"

Matt: The inspired  Net Bible notes say: Or "the entire universe"; or "the sky and the dry land." This phrase is often interpreted as a merism, referring to the entire ordered universe, including the heavens and the earth and everything in them. The "heavens and the earth" were completed in seven days (see Gen 2:1) and are characterized by fixed laws (see Jer 33:25). "Heavens" refers specifically to the sky, created on the second day (see v. 8), while "earth" refers specifically to the dry land, created on the third day (see v. 10). Both are distinct from the sea/seas (see v. 10 and Exod 20:11).

So I am sure one could go either way on this. I am of the camp that believes in the historical nature of Genesis (though not ness. a literal 7 days). Yet I think of larger importance/significance are the implications; to focus exclusively on the literal meaning of heavens and earth ignores the whole tone of the narrative. It is meant to teach us great lessons and contains cosmic themes of life and humanity and God and existence.

I love to speculate as much as the next dude but I cannot get away from the fact that the God of the scriptures is the one and only. Nor can I allow for the possibility that he created any personality evil. How the actual Behind the Music episode of Satan would play out I am not certain?

Previously Matt: There are also numerous passages which claim that there is only one God. I would say that this implies Satan is not eternal/uncreated.

Bryan: sure, but does not this view require that we first define "God" as "that which is uncreated?" Is that what it means to be "God" or does it simply mean "the enitity who alone deserves worship?" Or even just "creator of the universe?"

Matt: I would say all of the above. One could argue/speculate that the word/title/proper name YHWH may derive from "The I AM", and in matt’s laymen’s terms meaning "the self-existent one" or "the all encompassing one who defies definition".

Bryan: but you're right...i do feel that unless we want to completely change our view of God, we almost have to embrace something like the fallen angel theology as i said in the original post. But then this is the point. Should we refine our view of God in light of the fact that we do not have sufficient biblical evidence to say that Satan was not around since always or at least that he was not created bad?

Matt: What alternative do you propose?

Hi Bryan.

I have no problem if someone wants to say that the creation of the angels and all other spiritual beings pre-dates Gen 1, perhaps even by epocs of time as we know it. I guess philosphically it is pretty myopic to assume Gen 1 was the first thing God ever did in eternity past other than hang with the Trinity.

On the other hand I just can't buy into the idea that anything but God was uncreated. It sounds very Mormonish for some reason or perhaps very Greek mythological. If we assume all the spiritual being were uncreated then we sort of have pantheism.

Col 1:16-17 ¹⁶For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him. ¹⁷And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

John 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

If we assume Satan alone was uncreated (like God) but the other spiritual beings were created, then how come in Rev 12 Satan gets beat by a bunch of creatures? (I agree wholeheartedly that Rev is full of symbols and the like. However, I still think there is real historical truth behind it as opposed to fictional alegory. I think Lk 10:18 for instance shows Jesus believed Satan was a real being/person as opposed to a force.

I did a simple search for the word "Satan" in the Bible and different version gave me anywhere from 47 to 61 hits. I know many will try to explain away Satan, but remember that those same people will usually try to explain away most if not all of the supernatural, including the gospel miracles and the resurrection.