Who Is Satan? Pt. 3

 

What do we do with the other Bible passages that do not reference Leviathan, yet are often used to describe the Serpent of Genesis 3?

 

How should we interpret passages such as Ezekiel 28:1-19; Isaiah 14:4-22; Revelation 12:1-9, 20:2-3, and John 8:44 in light of our new understanding of Leviathan and our conversations on the Serpent of Genesis 3?

 

Let's take a look at some of the passages we didn't get to last week...

 

 

As you listen, read along and examine for yourself 1) Who the central characters are and 2) How the characters are described.

 

Are the characters human or is there room for something else?

 

Is there anything in the text to indicate that the King of Tyre is anything other than a human king? if so, what?

 

Yes, Eden language is used to describe the King of Tyre. Is the passage is still referring to the King of Tyre or is there something in the passage that tells us that we are suddenly talking about someone or something completely different?

 

 

As you listen, read along and examine for yourself 1) Who the central characters are and 2) How the characters are described. 

 

Are the main characters human or is there something in the text indicating that we are talking about someone other than the King of Babylon? If so, what?

 

How does this passage describe the King of Babylon? What terms, words, or phrases are used to describe this character?

Are these the kinds of descriptors we would use to describe a celestial entity such as an angel, demon, or Satan? Or are these the kinds of words and phrases we would use to describe human kings?

 

Lucifer is the Latin phrase for "Morning Star" or "son of the Morning." The Hebrew says "Heylel, son of the Morning" and is likely referring to an ancient Canaanite and Ancient Near eastern god known as Attar. (Note: it is possible that the Bible references Attar by calling him Ishtar, but this is unclear).

 

Attar was the Ancient Canaanite god of Venus, the star known as the "morning star" in ancient times. At the time of his writing, Isaiah would have known about the story of Attar, how Attar tried to scale the walls of the holy city of heaven, but was struck down by the chief sun god. Attar fell to earth and was defeated. 

 

So it's exceptionally biting here, that Isaiah is using the same kind of words and language that the King of Babylon was most likely using of himself. Isaiah used this same kind of boastful language to insult the King of Babylon. Essentially, Isaiah is saying, "Hey! King of Babylon, You call yourself the 'morning star,' but did you forget that the morning star fell from heaven when he tried to become a chief god himself? The Lord Yahweh says, 'Don't think yourself a god, otherwise you will fall just like Attar fell.'"

 

This was a chilling critique to the King of Babylon. God used Isaiah to criticize the King in order to make a point that the King was a mere mortal and not a god himself. 

 

 

Re-read these passages from last week. Instead of focusing on the Leviathan concept, think more generally. 

 

Could all of these descriptors be talking about a snake in Genesis 3? Or is there something more going on here?

 

When do these events take place? Before creation? At the second coming of Christ? 

 

There are timeline issues if we force this passage upon Genesis 3. 

 

If this took place before creation, all sorts of problems arise like:

Why don't we have any other biblical accounts of these events?;

Who is the woman? Is she Eve? Is she symbolic or a metaphor? If so, what are they symbolic of and what scriptures must we turn to in order to support this?; 

How can there be a wilderness before creation? and why only for 1260 days will she flee to that location?;

How can there be day and night or a sun and a moon if creation had not yet taken place?

 

This passage is a strong counter example to the hypothesis that the serpent in Genesis 3 is just a serpent. 

John 8:44 provides an example of some entity that was the "father of lies," from the beginning.

 

However, note how else John uses the word for beginning. Look at John 6:64, 8:25, 15:27, 16:4; 1 John 2:7, and 2 John 1:5. 

All of these passages reference the "beginning," yet are all of these passages referring to the beginning of creation?

 

This is not to say that John 8:44 is not a reference to the beginning of creation, but it is important to note the broader understanding of the word "beginning" and not simply assume every usage of this word is referring to the creation event.

 

 

Here is a common line of reasoning that many people use to support the idea that Satan is the Serpent of Genesis 3

 

Sin = bad

Satan is associated with sin and bad things

Therefore, Satan = bad

---------------------------------

Since the serpent of Genesis 3 brought sin into the world, the serpent is the 1st and the worst bad guy

Who is the worst bad guy we know of?--> Satan

Therefore, Satan must be the Serpent of Genesis 3.

 

This makes a lot of sense logically, however, is it biblical? Sure this makes a lot of sense when we think about it, but is that how the Bible describes the serpent and Satan? 

Does this Logical proof override or supersede all of the biblical evidence we have looked at over the past several weeks? 

 

 

 

Satan in the Old Testament is described in several ways. 

 

In Job and Zechariah, Satan seems to be functioning as a sort of prosecuting attorney. Satan is fulfilling the specific role that God has given to him. Satan only does what God allows him to do and never goes beyond what God instructs. 

 

Satan seems to have a negative function regarding this prosecuting attorney role. He kills Job's family, destroys Job's health, and accuses Joshua of not being qualified enough for the priesthood. Yet, Satan still remains within the bounds of God's commands.

 

The Old Testament doesn't seem interested in talking about where Satan comes from or what specifically Satan is.

 

Satan seems to be a celestial entity, yet that remains unclear based upon the Old Testament text. Satan is in the presence of God as seen in Job. Satan can stand before God and converse with the creator without being destroyed or punished. Other than that, we must look elsewhere like the New Testament to learn more about who/what Satan is. 

 

It is likely, based upon this conversation and the evidence we have examined, that Satan is not the serpent of Genesis 3. 

 

By the time we get to the New Testament, Satan is DEFINITELY a bad guy. Where this shift happened, is unclear. It is likely that somewhere along the way, Satan overstepped his bounds and acted beyond what God had commanded him. 

 

 

What are your thoughts on this new perspective?

 

Does the past three weeks change your understanding of who or what Satan is?

 

Does this change anything about our salvation?

 

How does learning something like this expand your understanding of the Bible, its complexities, and how we should seek to examine God's word more closely in the future?