The Christian Doctrine of Satan

[veritas]

Satan was originally called Lucifer. He was one of the chief angels. He rebelled against God and wanted to be in the position of God. This rebellion was the origin of evil.

Isaiah 14:12-14 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

Hi, Osteng,

I took the liberty of splitting this topic from "The Origin of Good and Evil."

The verse you quote above has long and traditional associations with Satan, but it was specifically a taunt to be directed by the Jews against the king of Babylon. Verse 16 and on specifically states that this was no angel (fallen or otherwise), but a human being.

Isaiah 14:16: They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;
17 That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?
18 All the kings of the nations, even all of them, lie in glory, every one in his own house.
19 But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet.
20 Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people: the seed of evildoers shall never be renowned.
21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.
22 For I will rise up against them, saith the LORD of hosts, and cut off from Babylon the name, and remnant, and son, and nephew, saith the LORD.

Justin

[otseng]

I took the liberty of splitting this topic from "The Origin of Good and Evil."

By all means, I encourage people to start new topics.

The verse you quote above has long and traditional associations with Satan, but it was specifically a taunt to be directed by the Jews against the king of Babylon.

Yes, it can be interpreted that way. But, like you said, the traditional interpretation is that it refers to Satan.

But, just looking at verses 12-15, the language used seems to refer to some supernatural being instead of a person.

[veritas]

I took the liberty of splitting this topic from "The Origin of Good and Evil."

By all means, I encourage people to start new topics.

The verse you quote above has long and traditional associations with Satan, but it was specifically a taunt to be directed by the Jews against the king of Babylon.

Yes, it can be interpreted that way. But, like you said, the traditional interpretation is that it refers to Satan.

But, just looking at verses 12-15, the language used seems to refer to some supernatural being instead of a person.

:nods: But notice the phrasing here: "Seems to refer." Osteng, you're relying on interpretation, rather than what the book actually says. The most probable root of of this particular interpretation is in the "dualism" of Zoroastrianism, as best demonstrated by the Manichean heresy.

It's an interesting point to consider, but I'm honestly not sure if I can construct a good debate on the point. How much of modern Christian doctrine is from the Bible, and how much is modern interpretation and tradition?



Justin

[perspective]

I took the liberty of splitting this topic from "The Origin of Good and Evil."

By all means, I encourage people to start new topics.

If all new posts are supposed to have a question to debate, where's the question in this one?

[veritas]

I took the liberty of splitting this topic from "The Origin of Good and Evil."

By all means, I encourage people to start new topics.

If all new posts are supposed to have a question to debate, where's the question in this one?

Well, it really wasn't a question, but an assertion: that the interpretation of Isaiah 14 as "the fall of Satan" is extra-biblical.

Justin

[cookiesusedunderprotest]

Some thoughts on Isaiah 14:12-15:
- "It would not be uncommon for Hebrew prophetic speech to pass from descriptions of human events to descriptions of heavenly events that are parallel to them and that the earthly events picture in a limited way. [corresponding footnote: See, for example, [Psalm] 45, which moves from a description of an earthly king to a description of a divine Messiah.]", Systematic Theology, Wayne Grudem, p. 413.
- Terminology similar to that found in this passage is used in the book of Revelation, especially in chapter 12, to refer to Satan (Rev 12:9).

However, regardless of whether Isaiah 14 is referring to Satan, I believe that, Biblically, the existence of Satan, as a supernatural being, is undeniable. There is much evidence for this, but perhaps the most concise proof is Luke 22:3: "Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve." (KJV) Can a being other than a supernatural one enter into a man (I don't think Judas was a cannibal)?

[veritas]

Some thoughts on Isaiah 14:12-15:
- "It would not be uncommon for Hebrew prophetic speech to pass from descriptions of human events to descriptions of heavenly events that are parallel to them and that the earthly events picture in a limited way. [corresponding footnote: See, for example, [Psalm] 45, which moves from a description of an earthly king to a description of a divine Messiah.]", Systematic Theology, Wayne Grudem, p. 413.
- Terminology similar to that found in this passage is used in the book of Revelation, especially in chapter 12, to refer to Satan (Rev 12:9).

However, regardless of whether Isaiah 14 is referring to Satan, I believe that, Biblically, the existence of Satan, as a supernatural being, is undeniable. There is much evidence for this, but perhaps the most concise proof is Luke 22:3: "Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve." (KJV) Can a being other than a supernatural one enter into a man (I don't think Judas was a cannibal)?

:nods: Now, as a non-Christian, I can (of course) be expected to have a different take on those scriptures, but that's a side issue.

I guess this is the "debate question": how much of the current Christian doctrines on the existence and charagcter of Satan is Biblical, and how much is interperative and extra-biblical?

Justin

[cookiesusedunderprotest]

I guess this is the "debate question": how much of the current Christian doctrines on the existence and charagcter of Satan is Biblical, and how much is interperative and extra-biblical?

Good question, and, most unfortunately, there is a significant amount of doctrine (at least in general) among Christians and those that call themselves Christians that has little or no Biblical basis. However, those doctrines vary across various local Churches, denominations, Christian organization, etc. Therefore, I'm afraid you will have to limit your question to a specific group that holds a consensus position on this issue.

The local Church that I am a part of does not mention Satan in its Statement of Faith. This is not to imply that there are any doubts about the existence of Satan, at least not to my knowledge. Rather, I suspect the leaders felt it sufficient to say that our focus is to be on God and that the Bible is the "final authority for Christian faith and life."

I personally believe that Satan (a.k.a the devil) is an angel who was created by God but rebelled against Him and is now the enemy of God, the father of lies, the leader of demons (other angels who rebelled against God), a primary force of evil in our world (though he isn't to be used as a scapegoat for one's one actions: 1 Corinthians 10:13), wishes to destroy all people, is eternally condemned, and will one day be striped of all his power. My reasoning for these believes comes from a holistic view of the Bible and is more complicated than I am able to explain in this post, however the following passages provide a basis: Colossians 1:16, Job 1-2, John 8:44, Revelation 12, 20:10, Romans 16:20, 2 Peter 2:4.

(By the way, for anyone who may not have a Bible, www.biblegateway.com provides the full text of several translations with both a passage lookup and a word search.)

[Shild]

I guess this is the "debate question": how much of the current Christian doctrines on the existence and charagcter of Satan is Biblical, and how much is interperative and extra-biblical?

I agree with cookiesusedunderprotest (that's a mouthful ) about the diversity of doctrines, but I think it is safe to say that, by and large, Christian doctrine concerning the nature of Satan is firmly based in the foundation of scripture.

However, there are a large number of popular non-doctrinal conceptions of Satan which are both interpretive and extrabiblical. For example, the appearance and specific mannerisms of Satan, in the popular view, have their source in pagan images. Satan has a pitchfork, a la Poseidon, and his similarities with hoofed/horned animals closely resembles many pagan deities, such as Pan.

Now these ideas are partly scriptural; Satan is often associated with pagan deities in the Bible, such as Dagon and Baal (in the OT) and Beelzebub and Mammon (not a deity per se, but a personification of worldly desires) in the NT. Paul even refers to pagan gods as demons at one point.

As for the Isaiah passage, its interpretation makes no practical difference in terms of doctrine; Satan's nature and function are well established throughout the Bible in other books, such as Genesis, Job, and the Gospels.