Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | origin of the devil | Ezek 28:13 | jonp | 184133 | ||
Hi It is not strictly true to say that the majority of scholars see Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 as referring to Satan. The majority opinion among leading scholars is actually that those Scriptures refer to ancient kings who made grandiose claims for themselves, claims which the prophets derided. That Satan was a created spiritual being is necessarily so. But he appears from 'nowhere' in the Fruitful Plain of Eden where he is seen to be in opposition to God (just as the angelic court are assumed in God's words 'Let us make man in OUR image' (Genesis 1.26). We are given a recognition that such spiritual beings exist but not given the details. They came before the creation of heaven (sky) and earth. (Although some would see them as included in Genesis 1.1). His minions crop up in Genesis 6.1-4 and he suddenly appears in Job 1-2, as an angelic being, a son of the elohim, and having to submit to God's authority. In 1 Chronicles 21 he leads David astray. In Zechariah 3 he is once again seen as in opposition to God. In Daniel 10 we again see something of his minions. It is in the New Testament that his opposition to God's ways comes out more emphatically. But his origin is never explained. Jesus tells us that he 'fell from Heaven' and Revelation 12 indicates that he dragged others with him. We must beware of seeing him as almost on a par with God. Powerful though he is he is no match for God and he knows it. Why does God allow Satan to continue in action? As well ask why God allows us still to be in action. It is all within His overall plan. But when Jesus came he was in a sense bound because the Kingly Rule of God had come (Mark 3.27; Matthew 12.28-29 compare Luke 11.22). This binding of Satan is also referred to in Revelation 20.1-3. For his release for a little while compare Revelation 9.1-13. We must recognise that when speaking of details dealing with Satan they cannot be taken too literally. Satan is a spiritual being. He cannot be bound with a chain, be put in prison, or indeed be affected by a literal lake of fire. These are all pictures illustrating how God deals with him in His own way. Job makes clear that he is under God's authority. He cannot do just what he wants. But he is exceedingly powerful (Jude 9). Jesus claims a putting of him under further restraint. He has him under restraint even now. If he had not had him under restraint the church would not have survived for five minutes. And yet his influence is continually felt by the church (1 Peter 5.8). That is why we need to be clothed in the armour of God for our weapons against him are faith, the word of God, a knowledge of the truth, And prayer. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
2 | origin of the devil | Ezek 28:13 | ebrain | 184173 | ||
You have said. "those Scriptures refer to ancient kings", when referring to, "Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28". This is a common mistake, as it is only the first 11 verses of each chapter that refers to ancient kings. You will note, that I started both my quotations at verse 12. Isaiah 14:12, says, "O Lucifer,* son of the morning!", this title as far as I am aware was never used by any of the ancient kings, nor is it recorded that any of them said, 'I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will also sit on the mount of the congregation". It is abundantly clear therefore that the individual refereed to in these verses is non other than Satan. Referring now to Ezekiel 28:12-13. The King of Tyre was born, not created, and there is no way in which he could have transported himself back in time to, "Eden, the garden of God;" You also said, (just as the angelic court are assumed in God's words 'Let us make man in OUR image' (Genesis 1.26). We are given a recognition that such spiritual beings exist but not given the details. They came before the creation of heaven (sky) and earth. (Although some would see them as included in Genesis 1.1). This also is incorrect as it is a Jewish explanation for "'Let us make man", "us", indicates to Christians, that God is not a single person, man is made in the image of God, that is to say that man is also a tri-unity, "Spirit Soul, and Body". The Jews say no God is not three persons, but only one person, and therefore when God said "us", He meant Himself, and the Angels. |
||||||
3 | origin of the devil | Ezek 28:13 | jonp | 184177 | ||
Hi, Firstly may I say that I recognise that good Christians can quite genuinely have differences of opinion on various controversial subjects. And no subject is more controversial than this one. Thus I never seek to persuade people to turn from an established position (unless I feel it is totally unscriptural). However I do seek to answer questions and try to present a case which defends my answers, without falling out with those who disagree with me. I am assuming that your reply was in the nature of a question so I will seek to put my position. There are many good Christians who hold your position. I did myself consider it as a possibility. Isaiah 14 is especiallt alluring as it seems to fit in with other things said about Satan. But when I looked into it in more detail I felt that (rather reluctantly for there is nothing nicer than to think that we have solved a problem) it did not fit in with the facts. Firstly I would point out that 'Lucifer' means light bearer. And that was precisely the kind of name that Mesopotamian kings did claim for themselves. There are many examples archaeologically. And they certainly associated themselves with the stars. Furthermore they did make claims about ascending into heaven and sitting among the gods on the mountain in the north and being exalted above the stars. In fact they regularly made the most extraordinary claims. They had a very high opinion of themselves and it established their authority among their people. It also meant that people were less likely to rebel. After all you would not want to get in the bad books of someone so exalted. Thus there is nothing unlikely about a person making such claims in the time of Isaiah. Now you say that it is only up to verse 11 that refers to ancient kings. But I see nothing in the text which suggests a break at verse 11. Furthermore similar to what is said in verses 10-11 is said about 'the Light-bearer' in verses 16-20. But even more devastating for your view is that this 'so-called 'Light-bearer' descends into Sheol, the world of the grave. Satan is never said to die. And on top of this the dead kings say if him "Is this the man who made the worlds to tremble, who shook kingdoms, who made the world like a desert and overthrew its cities and did not allow his prisoners to go home". Now speaking of the kings of Babylon this is very apposite. They were precisely like this. On the other hand as a desciption of Satan it is just not on. And there are absolutely no reasons for separating verses 12-14 from the rest of the text. We must not treat Scripture as though we can just pick and choose, as I am sure when you think about it you will agree. With regard to the king of Tyre we do know that in the Tyrian temples they did try to emulate Paradise and had temple gardens which simulated Paradise. Thus this is precisely the kind of thing that a king of Tyre would claim on the basis of the then current mythology. You will note how totally different this Paradise is from Eden. This is a kingly Paradise not that of a working man. That was the difference between mythology and Biblical truth. Furthermore let me assure you that these kings had no difficulty in transporting themselves in their imagination wherever they liked. And the idea of creation ties in very well with myths about the beginning of things. Thus in my view both these descriptions fit precisely in with the ideas of those days.------------- with regard to the use of 'US' in Genesis 1. This was of course written before there were either Jews or Christians. And it forms the beginning of a long history which is careful to stress that there is only one God in opposition to the ideas of the polytheists. It would be totally out of character for a plural to be introduced speaking of God unless of course it was an intensive plural, a plural of grandeur . It is far more likely to have in mind the angelic court. After all some explanation is required for where the Cherubim in 3.24 came from. And as we know from the Tabernacle (and from Ezekiel and Revelation) the Cherubim were God's close companions. This is not a Jewish explanation. This is part of the original script. I do not of course deny for one moment that we can see the Triune God as included. But I very much fail to see how this New Testament idea could be introduced here by the writer deliberately. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||