# The Satan myth



## Sydnorphyn (Jan 26, 2008)

Friends:

Does the Bible actually present an "origin" of the Devil - A "Fall" or Satan/Devil, or is this Christian mythology?

Thanks in advance.

John

PS. let's keep the discussion to the Biblical text, not the creeds, sorry.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 26, 2008)

Some have said that Is. 14:12-15, in predicting the astonishing and awful fall of the Babylonian empire, which had wrought such cruel devastation upon the holy nation, that therein Isaiah makes an allusion to Satan's fall. This may or may not be accurate, although I do believe that Isaiah was certainly given some insights into pre-history respecting the Covenant of Redemption. So, it would not be beyond question for God to at least allude to the pride of Satan. Nevertheless, the devil is not directly mentioned in this passage.

Jesus may be making an allusion himself to Satan's original fall when Luke 10:18 he rejoices in the joy of the returning disciples who are triumphing over Satan on earth.

We are on the best ground in Rev. 12:4 and vv7-9, which describe war in heaven, Satan and his angels cast out. Connect with 2 Pet. 2:4, Jd 6, which speak of the angels that kept not their first estate being kept in chains.


----------



## Barnpreacher (Jan 26, 2008)

Sydnorphyn said:


> Friends:
> 
> Does the Bible actually present an "origin" of the Devil - A "Fall" or Satan/Devil, or is this Christian mythology?
> 
> ...




I'm not trying to be contrary, but when you say you want to ignore the creeds are you not then in essence saying that we should ignore church history on this particular subject? How can we do that? If we cannot look back through the annals of church history and find out what the church fathers had to say about this then we are doing ourselves a great disservice. Certainly they, like Rev. Buchanan just did, used biblical texts to form their thoughts on this matter.

I guess what I'm saying is it sounds like you are looking for people to just pull out proof texts on the subject so they can be shot down by modern criticism. But if our church fathers believed the fall of Satan was true and biblical (x) amount of years ago, then who are we to argue?


----------



## Richard King (Jan 26, 2008)

I'm not trying to be contrary, but when you say you want to ignore the creeds are you not then in essence saying that we should ignore church history on this particular subject? How can we do that? If we cannot look back through the annals of church history and find out what the church fathers had to say about this then we are doing ourselves a great disservice. Certainly they, like Rev. Buchanan just did, used biblical texts to form their thoughts on this matter.

I guess what I'm saying is it sounds like you are looking for people to just pull out proof texts on the subject so they can be shot down by modern criticism. But if our church fathers believed the fall of Satan was true and biblical (x) amount of years ago, then who are we to argue?[/QUOTE]



I think the reasoning there is that there are MANY who believe in no creed but the Bible so to convince them you have to have verses in hand from the actual Bible. I am just guessing ofcourse because I wasn't the original poster but I remember hearing NO CREED BUT THE BIBLE constantly growing up as a Southern Baptist.


----------



## Sydnorphyn (Jan 26, 2008)

The point is that "proof texting" may have lead to some of the problems (even in church history) - of course I am not looking for someone to proof text this issue, what does the Bible teach in the subject - in context of course; we can leave church history to another discussion.


----------



## Zenas (Jan 26, 2008)

> But if our church fathers believed the fall of Satan was true and biblical (x) amount of years ago, then who are we to argue?



"Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. "


----------



## Barnpreacher (Jan 26, 2008)

Zenas said:


> > But if our church fathers believed the fall of Satan was true and biblical (x) amount of years ago, then who are we to argue?
> 
> 
> 
> "Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. "




I am not saying creeds over the Bible. I am not saying don't search the Scriptures.  I am saying if a doctrine has been settled in the annals of church history *according to Scripture* then who are we to come along (x) amount of years later and start doubting what God's word has to teach on that subject?


----------



## Barnpreacher (Jan 26, 2008)

Zenas said:


> "Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. "



I give this advice to my congregation all the time. I tell them to search the Scriptures and see whether what I am teaching and preaching is biblical or not.


----------



## matthew11v25 (Jan 26, 2008)

what about:

Eze 28:13 *You were in Eden, the garden of God*; every precious stone was your covering, sardius, topaz, and diamond, beryl, onyx, and jasper, sapphire, emerald, and carbuncle; and crafted in gold were your settings and your engravings. On the day that you were created they were prepared. 
Eze 28:14 You were an *anointed guardian cherub*. I placed you; *you were on the holy mountain of God*; in the midst of the stones of fire you walked. 
Eze 28:15 You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created, till unrighteousness was found in you. 
Eze 28:16 In the abundance of your trade you were filled with violence in your midst, and you sinned; so I cast you as a profane thing from the mountain of God, and I destroyed you, *O guardian cherub,* from the midst of the stones of fire. 
Eze 28:17 Your *heart was proud because of your beauty*; you corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor. I cast you to the ground; I exposed you before kings, to feast their eyes on you. 

could this be metaphorical for satan?


----------



## Denton Elliott (Jan 26, 2008)

A search on "satan" in the NASB produced 50 verse hits...
Yes my friend satan is a prowling lion seeking whom he will devour.
But for God's general grace, satan would kill everyone!


----------



## Richard King (Jan 26, 2008)

Sydnorphyn,

If I was still in charismania I could tell you I think I may have spotted him.
Who is that in your avatar?
Could it be....SAtan!



Okay, just kidding, joke, no offense, not being serious when the topic is no joke. I can't help myself. Again, sin nature and all. Carry on.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Jan 26, 2008)

Barnpreacher said:


> Zenas said:
> 
> 
> > > But if our church fathers believed the fall of Satan was true and biblical (x) amount of years ago, then who are we to argue?
> ...



Barney: For one, I am glad Luther and the reformers did not have this thought written in stone. That said, caution MUST always be done when broaching a subject of this matter. The church 'fathers' were wrong on certain matters and is only proof to show that Apostolic teaching did not last long. One thing we must remember, all who confess such and such a doctrine, use scripture, at least they say they do. Even the RCC can 'back' up their detestable doctrines with the word by spiritualizing texts to their destruction.

I say it is worth the look. I personally have not thought about it at all, so this is green pasture for me.


----------



## Barnpreacher (Jan 26, 2008)

Amazing Grace said:


> Barnpreacher said:
> 
> 
> > Zenas said:
> ...



Again, I struggle to make myself clear. I was just arguing for confessionalism on a confessional board. Normally I'm the one on the other side of the issue getting a lecture on not being confessional enough. Then when I argue for it I get the same lecture. I can't win. 

I was just saying, why should we ignore what the church fathers say about this issue? It seems like that's when all kinds of false and new doctrines begin to spread.

It's all good. I'll shut up now.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jan 26, 2008)

matthew11v25 said:


> what about:
> 
> Eze 28:13 *You were in Eden, the garden of God*; every precious stone was your covering, sardius, topaz, and diamond, beryl, onyx, and jasper, sapphire, emerald, and carbuncle; and crafted in gold were your settings and your engravings. On the day that you were created they were prepared.
> Eze 28:14 You were an *anointed guardian cherub*. I placed you; *you were on the holy mountain of God*; in the midst of the stones of fire you walked.
> ...



metaphor? Why not literal?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 26, 2008)

matthew11v25 said:


> what about:
> 
> Eze 28:13 *You were in Eden, the garden of God*; every precious stone was your covering, sardius, topaz, and diamond, beryl, onyx, and jasper, sapphire, emerald, and carbuncle; and crafted in gold were your settings and your engravings. On the day that you were created they were prepared.
> Eze 28:14 You were an *anointed guardian cherub*. I placed you; *you were on the holy mountain of God*; in the midst of the stones of fire you walked.
> ...


This passage, like the Isaianic passage previously mentioned, presses a direct reference to another historic figure (King of Tyre) into service for a description of Satan's fall. This is *employment in another cause*, and we ought to be very careful about using such a passage to describe an event for which we have little direct commentary.

This passage refers by way of analogy not to Satan's fall, but to ADAM's fall. Adam was the one to fall "Eden, the garden of God." Adam was bedecked with glory--like precious stone adornements--all which died with him in his rebellion, when "unrighteousness was found in him." As for the reference to "anointed guardian cherub," it is the _reversal_ of status which is brought into view; Adam was the first "guardian" or caretaker of the garden, and after his fall and ejection, an alternate guardian--an angel with a flaming sword--is interposed to enforce our first parent's removal.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jan 26, 2008)

But Adam was not an angelic being - where is a Man ever referred to as a cherub?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 26, 2008)

um, maybe in Eze 28?

Or you might be asking where _else_? Well, Ps 82:6, men are called "gods," and Christ makes reference to this, Jn 10:34-35. That may be rare, but proves such a reference is not impossible.

Angels are spoken of as appearing as men, why not the other way around? What sort of glory did Adam have prior to the fall? How would we describe it, if it were up to us?


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jan 26, 2008)

sorry, multitasking - I thought the traditional hermeneutic of this passage was that the King of Tyre was being compared to Satan, not Adam. Just as Peter was when Christ scolded him. 

Where is Man compared as an Angel?

Little "g" gods was commonly used to refer to high ranking Men, not heavenly beings. I have always considered "gods" as a reference that, while powerful, we are "a little while lower" than the heavenly beings.

Do you believe that angels are "gods"?

Trying to get the connection.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Jan 26, 2008)

Barnpreacher said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> > Barnpreacher said:
> ...





You are perfectly clear to me Barney. But does the WCF or WLC or WSC speak on this matter or any confession for that matter? I do not know. I do not believe merlin is saying we should ignore history. Use it as a strong guide, but never just sit and experience faith by proxy. Again where would we have ended up if Luther et al listened to the pope about the "history of the church?'


----------



## Barnpreacher (Jan 26, 2008)

Amazing Grace said:


> But does the WCF or WLC or WSC speak on this matter or any confession for that matter? I do not know.



See I don't either. That's why I didn't understand why we would not want to bring them into the discussion. See what church history has to say about the matter. If what they say is Scriptural and cannot be refuted from the Bible then how can we argue against that? That's all I was trying to say. 



> Use it as a strong guide, but never just sit and experience faith by proxy.



I whole heartedly concur. In fact, like I said, I am just learning how to become confessional, so I don't always express myself in the best manner on some things. I used to be one of those "No creeds but Christ" guys. 



> Again where would we have ended up if Luther et al listened to the pope about the "history of the church?'



Well, what Luther was going against was the unscriptural stands that the "church" was taking. I'm not saying that everything that church history says about a matter sets it in stone, but I also don't believe it can be left out of a discussion like this.

I guess I do get a little edgy when people want to start calling things a myth. This coming on the heels of the "Is Genesis 1-11 a myth" thread.

Blessings, brother.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Jan 26, 2008)

Barnpreacher said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> > But does the WCF or WLC or WSC speak on this matter or any confession for that matter? I do not know.
> ...





Blessings to you also...

Now that we are done, let's look at the task at hand shall we? lol

_Does the Bible actually present an "origin" of the Devil - A "Fall" or Satan/Devil, or is this Christian mythology?_


I am going to guess it should read "A fall OF (not or) satan/devil. Angelology is a subject I have not really thought of. So I guess I can learn a lot.,


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Jan 26, 2008)




----------



## moral necessity (Jan 26, 2008)

Sydnorphyn said:


> Friends:
> 
> Does the Bible actually present an "origin" of the Devil - A "Fall" or Satan/Devil, or is this Christian mythology?
> 
> ...



I think that there is definitely a strong case that can be made to say that Scripture does present an origin to the Devil, in my opinion. It appears that he has to be a created being; for Col. 1:16 says, "For 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." If he was not created, then he must be eternal; and it would appear that we would then have a universe with two gods.

As for a "fall" of Satan, I think this is assumed by many because, in Genesis, when God created everything, he said that it was "good." So, those who assume that Satan was created during this time conclude that he would have been considered "good" as well. Some assume that the angels were made during this time because Gen. 2:1 says, "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them." Those who don't include the angels in this account of creation usually assume Satan to have fallen from a "good" estate because, otherwise, God appears to be the creator of evil.

Those who say that Satan and the angels were made prior to the six day creation do so because Job 38:4-7 says, "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements - surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone, when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" They would include Satan and the angels as a creation either before Gen. 1:1 or during it. If they were created during it, they would probably say that the Job passage refers to the forming of the heavens and the earth into a more organized state, molding it into such from its previous "formless and void" state. So, they would say that the angels were created along with the heavens and the earth in verse 1; and so were around to sing praise regarding it when God decided to "stretch the line" over it and fashion it into a more organized condition. 

And, some also say that there was no fall to Satan, for I Jn. 3:8 says, "Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning."; and in Jn. 8:44, Jesus says, "You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies."

That's all I have to offer for now.

Blessings!


----------



## Sydnorphyn (Jan 26, 2008)

*beginning*



moral necessity said:


> Sydnorphyn said:
> 
> 
> > Friends:
> ...



What does beginning refer to, his creation, fall, etc?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 27, 2008)

panta dokimazete said:


> sorry, multitasking - I thought the traditional hermeneutic of this passage was that the King of Tyre was being compared to Satan, not Adam. Just as Peter was when Christ scolded him.


Well, just speaking traditionally, using my e-sword resources, I only find Henry, JFB, Gill, K&D all _in disagreement_ with the view that Satan is being alluded to. Henry explicitly affirms the Adam-view.



> Where is Man compared as an Angel?


And I said: "Right here in this passage!" But I'm guessing you want some *OTHER* passage, one that isn't in dispute at the moment, and off top of my head I can't give you one.

The most common term for angel in the Old Testament in "malak". However, it is nearly as frequently translated human 'messengers' or 'ambassadors'.



> Little "g" gods was commonly used to refer to high ranking Men, not heavenly beings. I have always considered "gods" as a reference that, while powerful, we are "a little while lower" than the heavenly beings.
> 
> Do you believe that angels are "gods"?
> 
> Trying to get the connection.


My argument is: if the term "Elohim" can be granted to *men* in appropriate circumstances, and "gods" would be "higher" than "angels" on most orders-of-being, then there isn't anything inherently objectionable about the concept of describing a man under "angelic" description. He's already been described under description of something even higher than an angel.

Furthermore, Ps. 8:5 uses "Elohim" where we normally translate "angels," so there we have "gods" used poetically for angels once. But no, I don't normally equate angels and gods.

Angels are referred to frequently as having forms like men; so why would it be strange if a _glorified man_ (or pre-fallen man) were described as a glorious angel? That just doesn't seem odd to me.

Peace.


----------



## SRoper (Jan 27, 2008)

Augustine is OK with calling angels gods when communicating with pagans. He then argues that angels should not be worshiped because they are either evil and don't deserve our worship or they are good and would have us direct our worship to the one true God.


----------



## moral necessity (Jan 27, 2008)

Sydnorphyn said:


> moral necessity said:
> 
> 
> > Sydnorphyn said:
> ...



That's a good question! What do the context of those verses seem to indicate? And, what does the word "beginning" typically mean in scripture? If John and Jesus were saying that Satan has been sinning since the time he fell into sin, that seems to be sort of redundant to some, for "he who commits a sin is a slave of sin". Naturally, everyone who falls into sin will continue in it from that time forward. To others, Jesus' point seems to be that this sinful character has been Satan's all along, that there was no real moment in time in which he went from good to bad. He would, therefore, appropriately be called the "father of lies." 

But, others are open to the prophecy in Ezek. 28 having some overlapping stories within it. Though it directly refers to the king of Tyre, it could possibly contain within it a truth regarding the fall of Satan. If so, then, one may think his fall would have occurred not too long after his creation. But, the problem then would be reconciling the word "beginning" with that idea. Some suppose it could mean that he has been a sinner since the beginning of sin's existence amongst the creations of God. He would then be the first sinner. But, to others, this wouldn't make him so much the "father" of lies, as much as it would make him the first to stumble into sinfulness or lying. They tend to view the phrase "father of something" to mean the "source or fountain of that something." 

So, him being a sinner "from the beginning" seems like it could mean either: (1) that he was created in a fallen state, and was a sinner since his beginning; or (2) that he was the first to fall into sin, and therefore was a sinner since the beginning of sin's existance amongst God's creations. 

Personally, I tend to lean towards Satan being of a sinful bent or inclination from his very beginning. I think he was a created being in whom the Holy Spirit imported a zero influence upon after his creation. And so, the absence of the Holy Spirit, or of God's presence and goodness, naturally brings about the opposite; just as the absence of light brings about darkness.

Blessings!


----------

