Board index ‹ Satan

[Pitkin]

If so, in what manner. Does he love him how he loves others, or does he want him to become better. If he does love him, why was he sent to hell rather then helped?

[jimwalton]

God is love, and therefore love is God's only course of action. God's love is not to be interpreted as emotional sentimentalism, however. It is always in the context of wisdom, righteousness, goodness, and His holiness. It is with this understanding that God's love motivates Him to judge evil, because that is how love, wisdom, righteousness, and goodness sustain the universe.

God cannot not love, but He cannot also ignore evil. These don't cause a conflict of interest in God, however, because His judgment is an expression of His goodness, and therefore His love. The Bible says that one day God will reconcile all things to himself (Colossians 1.20), which doesn't imply He and Satan will become BFFs. Part of this reconciliation may imply the universal submission of all things and all beings under His sovereignty (Phil. 2.10-11). It's possible that HIs reconciliation will play itself out for Satan through his conquest and submission (Col. 2.13-15), and thus imposting peace and love on the cosmos.

> If he does love him, why was he sent to hell rather then helped?

Satan would only go to hell if he refused to be reconciled to the love of God, which is what the Bible indicates—that he is never repentant and always rebellious. He is sent to hell because he refuses help, if I can say it that way.

[Munchies]

Satan will be utterly destroyed forever along with all the wicked.

Propehcy in Ezekiel:

“By the abundance of your trading You became filled with violence within, And you sinned; Therefore I cast you as a profane thing Out of the mountain of God; And I destroyed you, O covering cherub, From the midst of the fiery stones. “Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty; You corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor; I cast you to the ground, I laid you before kings, That they might gaze at you. “You defiled your sanctuaries By the multitude of your iniquities, By the iniquity of your trading; Therefore I brought fire from your midst; It devoured you, And I turned you to ashes upon the earth In the sight of all who saw you. All who knew you among the peoples are astonished at you; You have become a horror, And shall be no more forever.”

Ezekiel 28:16‭-‬19 NKJV

[jimwalton]

There are problems with this interpretation (of the king of Tyre as Satan):

1. The king is in the garden of God (Ezk. 28.13), and yet there is no indication in the OT that the Israelites believed Satan was in the Garden of Eden. No OT passage equates or relates the serpent and Satan (as Revelation does). By placing the king of Tyre in Eden, Ezekiel is adoption a well-known biblical tradition of the garden of God as a utopian realm of prosperity and joy. In other words, the king of Tyre had everything going for him.

2. The king is identified as the cherub. And yet Scripture never suggests that Satan was ever a cherub. The cherubim are a special class of supernatural beings with specific functions. There is no basis for the speculation that Satan was once among their number, and certainly no reason to suggest that the Israelite audience would have recognized such a metaphorical allusion. Ezekiel is making no obvious connection with Eden (Satan wasn't there, nor were cherubs). Ancient Tyrian art, however, shows that the Tyrians decorated the king's throne room and temple with cherubim.

3. The passage alludes to a fall from a blameless condition. And yet the OT nowhere portrays Satan as a fallen being. Therefore, the fact that Ezk. 28 refers to a fall would not suggest to the Israelite reader that the author was metaphorically invoking the fall of Satan for comparison to the fate of the king of Tyre.

Instead, the writer (Ezekiel) is using these to suggest that the king of Tyre was full of his prideful self; he was the guardian of extensive resources. Unfortunately, he was corrupted by them, and was judged to be treacherous and irresponsible. He's writing about the king, using common imagery and metaphors; he's not talking about Satan.

> And shall be no more forever

A note of appalling final destruction to this proud king. God will judge him with destruction.

[Munchies]

Just because something doesnt make sense to the old testament audience doesnt mean that God didnt put it in the bible. This is like saying the psalms depicting Jesus death and crucifixion isnt talking about Jesus because the israelites didnt know about Jesus.

[jimwalton]

> Just because something doesnt make sense to the old testament audience doesnt mean that God didnt put it in the bible.

You've quite fully missed what I was saying. First of all, God put everything in the Bible; God wrote it, so I'm not claiming that there's something in the Bible that God didn't put there.

Second, I didn't say that it didn't make sense to the OT audience. What I said is that what you're saying is not what the author intended. I hope I'm safe in assuming we both agree that Scripture should be understood the way the author intended it to be understood, just as I'm hoping you'll understand what I'm writing here the way I intend you to understand it, viz., what I mean by what I'm saying. In the same way, we're on solid ground to say that the most accurate way to understand Ezekiel's writings is to digest what Ezekiel meant by what he said.

> This is like saying the psalms depicting Jesus death and crucifixion isnt talking about Jesus because the israelites didnt know about Jesus.

It's true that the prophets didn't always understand their prophetic messages. 1 Peter 1.10-11 make very clear to us that's the case.

But Ezekiel is different. You're saying that what Ezekiel 28 is talking about isn't prophetic to the future, but is rather an explanation of something in the past. In that case, it most certainly DOES matter that Ezekiel be able to make sense of it and that his audience understand his point.

If you read all of Ezekiel 28, it's obvious that it's a prophetic judgment on the king of Tyre, whose claims to divinity and whose pride is being judged by God. That's clearly the point of the text. And yet smack in the middle you claim that Ezekiel's entire focus and subject has changed, just for a few verses, to be talking about Satan. First of all, that's not a logical rendering of those verses. Second, the OT saints didn't have a theology of Satan and were never making claims about him. Third, we know from Ezekiel's writing style that he used literary devices in his prophecies and prophetic judgments. All the facts point to the idea that Ezekiel 28 is about the king of Tyre, not about Satan.

[Munchies]

In point 1 and point 3 you make the point that because something can not be understood in the context of the old testament only you cant therefore find a meaning for it in the new testament, and that simply isn't right. God put many things in the old testament only to be unlocked in the new testament. Look at Revelation and Daniel for example. These points are moot.

[jimwalton]

I don't think they're either moot nor illegitimate. First of all, when God uses the NT to unlock OT truths, we recognize the legitimacy of that. But there is no NT text that leads us to conclude that Ezekiel is talking about Satan, so your assertion doesn't carry. Revelation helps unlock Daniel, for sure. But Ezekiel 28 is talking about the king of Tyre, and no NT text changes that understanding or takes those verses that you claim are about Satan to unlock them or take them deeper. If you have such a NT text, I'll be glad to discuss it with you. So let's talk.