Feedback archive → Feedback 2008

The Fall, Curse and Satan

Illustration Wikipedia.org

A Creation magazine subscriber from Australia disagreed with the June issue Creation for Kids section on the Fall, the curse, and the role of Satan. The CfK author, Russell Grigg, responds in detail (which was obviously inappropriate to spell out in a Kids’ article).

Hi Russell,

Having just received the latest Creation magazine, I was greatly concerned when I read your article for children. It contains several false and misleading statements. It distresses me that such poor teaching is all too common.

-------

Asking what Satan looks like and making assumptions that Satan is a very special angel—beautiful, powerful and intelligent—are misleading and useless discussions [2 Timothy 2:23].

You have the order of Christ’s work incorrect and you foolishly focus on Satan rather than on Christ. Satan rebelled against God early on in creation [1 John 3:8]. Satan was cast out of heaven when Christ died and rose—having conquered death [Revelation 12:9–17] and paid the penalty for those whom God calls to trust Him [Acts 16:31; Joel 2:32].

You imply that Satan is responsible for man’s sin and curse on creation. Not so. Man is responsible and accountable for his sin and disobedience of God [Genesis 3:17]. Man sins because of his own evil desire [James 1:14–15]. Without God’s gracious gift of faith [Ephesians 2:8; Romans 5:15–21; Romans 6:23], we consciously choose to be enemies of God [Colossians 1:21].

Having been ‘hurled to the earth’ [Revelation 12:13], Satan pursues God’s people to cause them to doubt God, please themselves and to neglect to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ. [Revelation 12:17; 1 Peter 5:8–11.]

You stated that, ‘[God] also withdrew some of His sustaining power in the world.’ Nonsense. God actively cursed the world because of our sin [Genesis 3:17]. It’s not as if God created the world, set it in motion, sustained it and then lost interest once we’d sinned and decided to stop sustaining, maintaining and directing His creation and kind of let it ‘run down’. [Isaiah 51:15–16; Hebrews 1:3; Colossians 1:15–17.] All creation is His [Psalm 24:1–2].

You said that, ‘When God judged sin.’ God has not judged sin—yet. But, He will return to do so [Matthew 25:31–46; Jude 14–15; 2 Timothy 4:1; Romans 2:5]. We experience the consequence of our sin—sickness, decay, death [Romans 1:18–20]. We live in a time of grace and proclamation [2 Corinthians 6:1–2].

-------

Children are very impressionable. Even adults often don’t bother to read the Scriptures for themselves and blindly accept, believe and even defend false teaching. [Acts 17:11.]

Be very careful that you only preach the Word of God. [Revelation 22:18–19.]

Regards,

M.E.

Hi Russell,

Having just received the latest Creation magazine, I was greatly concerned when I read your article for children. It contains several false and misleading statements. It distresses me that such poor teaching is all too common.

Hi Mark,

False and misleading statements are always a concern, especially if it is suggested that Christians have made them. That is one reason why, here at CMI, articles in our Creation magazine, including the children’s section, are read by a panel of five in-house editors which includes all our scientist speakers, before publication.

Asking what Satan looks like and making assumptions that Satan is a very special angel—beautiful, powerful and intelligent—are misleading and useless discussions [2 Timothy 2:23].

My aim in writing the Children’s articles is twofold. First to tell the relevant Bible passage in an informative and educative way (usually in a story format) that children will want to read. Secondly to answer questions arising from the Bible passage, that children may already have, or that may arise in their minds, e.g. from TV documentaries, or that they will one day face, e.g. at school or later at university.

One idea that children will face sooner or later in life is the atheistic claim that Satan and the spiritual realm do not exist, and another is the evolutionary claim that right and wrong are human concepts, not divine ones. The idea that Satan can appear as ‘an angel of light’ is the Apostle Paul’s description (2 Corinthians 11:14).

We have worked our way through Genesis chapters 1 and 2, in 12 children’s articles in Creation magazine from Vol. 27, No. 4 to Vol. 30 No. 3, and have now reached the episode of the Temptation and Fall. It was therefore highly appropriate that we should now discuss the role of Satan.

The verse you quote, 2 Timothy 2:23, reads: ‘But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes’ (KJV). Cf. NASB ‘ … refuse foolish and ignorant speculations … .’ However, this begs the question about whether the article falls into this category. The role of Satan, which the Bible tells us about, is certainly not foolish, unlearned or speculative by definition.

You have the order of Christ’s work incorrect and you foolishly focus on Satan rather than on Christ.

Not so. The conclusion of the main article is that God’s Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, paid the penalty for our sins by His death on the cross, and that Christ conquered death by rising from the dead. The necessary details about Satan are in a box, rather than in the main article.

Also, it is unreasonable to attack a particular article for not being ‘focused on Christ’ in a magazine that is focused on Christ in its general thrust. One may as well attack the articles on Jupiter and on crocodiles as ‘foolishly focusing on Jupiter and crocodiles rather than on Christ’.

Satan rebelled against God early on in creation [1 John 3:8]. Satan was cast out of heaven when Christ died and rose—having conquered death [Revelation 12:9–17] and paid the penalty for those whom God calls to trust Him [Acts 16:31; Joel 2:32].

God has chosen not to tell us very much about the origin and apostasy of Satan. However, from what He has revealed in Scripture, we can make some logical deductions.

The two Bible passages that are usually invoked on this subject are Isaiah 14:12–15 and Ezekiel 28:13–17. Although both of these passages are in the context of prophecies about earthly kings (of Babylon and Tyrus), and no explicit reference is made to Satan in either passage, they both contain references of mystical significance to behaviour that transcends human abilities and conduct, such as, ‘you said in your heart “I will ascend to heaven … I will make myself like the Most High”’ (Isaiah 14:13,14), and ‘You were blameless in your ways From the day you were created, Until unrighteousness was found in you’ (Ezekiel 28:15). For this reason some theologians say that the verses refer to Satan’s original state (wherein he was named Lucifer) and the sin which led to his downfall (a view propounded by some of early church Fathers as early as the third century, e.g. Origen’s Exhortation to Martyrdom 18). The alternative view, that these passages refer only to earthly kings, is held by some other theologians, as well as by those who reject the concept of the existence of a personal devil. You will note that I did not quote either of these passages in my article.

The name Satan means ‘adversary’ or ‘enemy’. It is inappropriate to suggest that God created Satan in a state of enmity against Himself, as God could then be considered as the author of evil. For this reason some theologians say that Satan’s name originally was Lucifer (meaning ‘light-bearer’) and that after he was created he rebelled and dragged a portion of the angels with him into apostasy. The word ‘Lucifer’ occurs only once in Scripture, in Isaiah 14:12, and only in the Latin Vulgate and some older English translations. Thus it would be unwise to base any doctrine on this—again, I did not go into this in the article (see also this note from our article on Venus).

1 Timothy 3:6 tells us that the devil fell through pride.

The verses you quote, Revelation 12:9–17, do not state that Satan was cast out of heaven at the time that Christ died or rose again.

However, logical deduction from biblical teachings does enable us to constrain when Satan did fall. It couldn’t have been during Creation Week, because God called everything ‘very good’ after the sixth day of creation, when God ‘saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good’ (Genesis 1:31). Nor is there any indication that it happened on the 7^th Day, because God blessed this, and there was no hint of any sin or curse on this day. Therefore, the Fall must have occurred after Creation Week.

However, the Fall can’t have been too long afterwards, because of the history of their immediate descendants. Adam and Eve were commanded to ‘fill the Earth’; they would have obeyed in their unfallen state, and their physically perfect bodies would have been capable of conceiving immediately, at least within the first menstrual cycle. But the first child they conceived (Cain) was indisputably sinful (Genesis 4).

Therefore, their Fall must have occurred a very short time, perhaps three to four weeks at most, after Creation Week. And Satan must have fallen before this, so he could tempt man, as recorded in Genesis 3 (see also Who was the serpent?). Therefore, we can also narrow down Satan’s fall to the narrow window between the blessed 7^th Day and the Fall of mankind.

You imply that Satan is responsible for man’s sin and curse on creation. Not so. Man is responsible and accountable for his sin and disobedience of God [Genesis 3:17].

What I actually wrote about Adam and Eve was, ‘They wanted to decide what was good and what was evil for themselves. They wanted life without God. … they deliberately defied Him. They obeyed Satan rather than God.’ What we see in Genesis 3 was a two-fold process. Satan tempted, and Adam and Eve chose.

Note that we have covered in Creation magazine the fallacy ‘The Devil made me do it!’ or the modern form, Evolution made me do it!

Man sins because of his own evil desire [James 1:14–15].

Yes, this is what James says in these verses, and he also wrote, ‘Resist the devil and he will flee from you’ (James 4:7). When we compare Scripture with Scripture, we see that the purpose of our putting on the whole armour of God is so that we ‘may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil’ (Ephesians 6:11).

Without God’s gracious gift of faith [Ephesians 2:8; Romans 5:15–21; Romans 6:23], we consciously choose to be enemies of God [Colossians 1:21].

Right on. But believers (who have the gift of faith) sin also.

Having been ‘hurled to the earth’ [Revelation 12:13], Satan pursues God’s people to cause them to doubt God, please themselves and to neglect to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ. [Revelation 12:17; 1 Peter 5:8–11.]

It is true that Satan is described as ‘the ruler of this world’ (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11), and ‘the god of this world’ (2 Corinthians 4:4), and ‘the prince of the power of the air’. (Ephesians 2:2). However, in Job where Satan was certainly pursuing one of God’s people, Satan had access to God in Heaven and carried on a vigorous debate with Him (Job 1:6–12; 2:1–7). Also Ephesians 6:11–12 speaks of his current activity ‘in the heavenly places’.

You stated that, ‘[God] also withdrew some of His sustaining power in the world.’ Nonsense. God actively cursed the world because of our sin [Genesis 3:17]. It’s not as if God created the world, set it in motion, sustained it and then lost interest once we’d sinned and decided to stop sustaining, maintaining and directing His creation and kind of let it ‘run down’. [Isaiah 51:15–16; Hebrews 1:3; Colossians 1:15–17.] All creation is His [Psalm 24:1–2].

We don’t deny that there was an active component to the curse, and have indeed pointed out a number of times that it was not merely a passive withdrawal of power. Our most detailed article was probably Henry Smith, Cosmic and universal death from Adam’s Fall: an exegesis of Romans 8:19–23a, Journal of Creation 21(1):75–85, 2007. Romans 8:20 states: ‘For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but on account of the one who subjected it in hope.’ So who did this?

‘The one who subjected it in hope’

… Paul’s use of ktisis (κτίσις) in this context refers to the whole sub-human material creation, excluding humanity and the angels. Pasa hē ktisis (πάσα ‘η κτίσις) ‘the whole creation’, has been subjected to futility, and someone (the one) is responsible for this act.

There are three possible candidates who could be the one who subjected it in hope, Adam, Satan, or God.¹ The exact meaning of the phrase appears to be somewhat ambiguous at first glance,² but through further analysis the identity of the ‘one who subjected it in hope’ can be ascertained. Verse 20 reads: ‘For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but on account of the one who subjected it in hope.’ Several observations shed light on the meaning of the text and reveal the identity of the subjector.

1) The creation plays a passive role in the subjecting. The aorist³ passive, hupetagē (‘υπετάγη), is used to describe the action. Therefore, the creation has been acted upon by something or someone from outside of itself. ‘The inanimate creation was a passive sufferer, sharing in the curse which fell upon man for his apostasy.’^4,5

2) The phrase, ouch hekousa (ουχ ‘εκούσα), not willingly, indicates that the creation was not only passively acted upon by some outside force, but it was acted upon in opposition to its will.⁶

Although the whole sub-human created order does not have a sentient will⁷ per se, the repetition emphasizes that the creation had no control over its subjection. The creation was acted upon passively and unwillingly.

3) The phrase, eph elpidi (έφ ελπίδι), in hope, modifies either hupetagē or hupotaxanta (‘υποτάξαντα). ‘It does not make much difference whether eph elpidi is taken with hupetagē or hupotaxanta. But it is preferably taken with the former as the main verb rather than with the participle.’⁸ In either case, hope is in view when the act of subjection occurs. This subjector, therefore, would have to possess the power and authority to subject the entire sub-human creation to futility, and have hope in view at the same time. The expression, in hope, is understood as having the purpose of hope, or ‘upon the basis of hope’ when the act occurs.^9,10

The fact that this cosmic event took place in hope negates the possibility of Satan being the subjector.¹¹ Clearly, he would not be responsible for such an act for the purpose of bringing about hope. Although he possesses more power than Adam and is directly responsible for deceiving Eve (2 Corinthians 11:3, 1 Timothy 2:14), even Satan would not be able to bring about such a state of affairs. Even if he were able to do such a thing, what motive would he have for committing such an act in hope?

Can Adam be ‘the one who subjected the creation to futility, in hope’? Assuming for a moment Paul has Genesis 3 in view (to be discussed shortly), as the federal head of humanity (Romans 5:12–21), Adam is held responsible by God for plunging the world into sin (Genesis 3:14–19). Adam had the authority to ‘hand over’ his responsibility as creation’s steward to Satan (Luke 4:6), but handing over authority as a steward does not imply adequate enough authority or power to subject the creation to futility on a universal scale. Adam certainly could not have subjected the creation to futility in hope. The power to bring about such a sweeping state of affairs cannot be ascribed to Adam.¹²

The only alternative is to choose God as the subjector.^13,14,5 If the subjection took place during the creation of the universe …, the only possible choice is God. But if it took place at the time of Adam’s fall in Genesis 3, only God would have the power to subject the whole sub-human creation to futility and the bondage of corruption, and to bring about such a state of affairs with hope in view. ‘Only God, being both Judge and Saviour, entertained hope for the world he cursed.’¹⁵ God could do such a thing with the ability, foreknowledge, authority and power to have hope in view.¹⁶ Only God could orchestrate all the events of history to bring hope in the end. The use of the aorist divine passive, hupetagē points to a specific event in the past, ‘and the analogy with Paul’s argument in Romans 5 indicates a direct reference here to Genesis 3:17. The passive suggests God is the agent here, not Adam.’¹⁷

The parallel statements, ‘the creation was subjected to futility’ and ‘the creation itself will also be liberated’ strengthen the argument that God is the subjector. Only God has the power to subject the creation in hope, just as only God has the power to liberate it from its present state.

I hope you would agree that the above would have been rather too technical for even a main article in Creation magazine, let alone the Creation for Kids section!

You said that, ‘When God judged sin.’ God has not judged sin—yet. But, He will return to do so [Matthew 25:31–46; Jude 14–15; 2 Timothy 4:1; Romans 2:5].

Three of the passages you quote have to do with sinful actions, not sin as an abstract entity. Thus, Matthew 25:31–46 refers to what the ‘sheep’ and the ‘goats’ did and did not do; Jude 14–15 refers to ‘ungodly deeds which the ungodly have done’; and Romans 2:5 plus v. 6 refers to what people have done. It is true that these verses all refer to future judgment(s), and the Great White Throne judgment of Revelation 20:11–15 is also obviously in the future. However, there are, in fact, four outstanding occasions when the whole of sinful mankind has already been judged by God for what they have done. These are:

1. At the Fall, God pronounced the judgment known as the Curse. This contained spiritual and physical dimensions, not only for Adam and Eve, but also for their descendants, i.e. all mankind—in fact, the whole created order.
2. At the Flood, God judged all of sinful mankind (apart from one family) with the penalty of physical death, because ‘the wickedness of man was great’, ‘every imagination of his heart was only evil continually’, ‘all flesh had corrupted his way upon earth’, and ‘the earth was filled with violence’ (Genesis 6:5–13).
3. At Babel, God judged the then world population for their refusal to carry out His command that they spread out and inhabit the earth (Genesis 9:1), by forcing them to do so through the confusion of languages.
4. At the cross, our sins were judged once and for all in Christ (Isaiah 53:4–6; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Galatians 3:13; Hebrew 10:10–14; 1 John 2:2), so that the believer in Christ is accordingly freed from the guilt and penalty of sin, because Christ has accepted the guilt and paid the penalty for him.

We experience the consequence of our sin—sickness, decay, death [Romans 1:18–20]. We live in a time of grace and proclamation [2 Corinthians 6:1–2].

Yes, proclamation of the gospel, i.e. the fact that fact that ‘Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures’ (1 Corinthians 15:1–4), and that ‘There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus’ (Romans 8:1).

Children are very impressionable.

Photo stock.xchng

Flood

Yes, that’s one reason why we should teach them the truth about God, temptation, sin, Satan, Christ and the cross, etc. as early in life as possible. And at the same time not teach them anything they will have to unlearn at a later date.

Even adults often don’t bother to read the Scriptures for themselves and blindly accept, believe and even defend false teaching. [Acts 17:11.]

Yes, but Acts 17:11 commends the Bereans, who searched the Scriptures daily to see whether what Paul was teaching them was the truth. We heartily recommend every reader of Creation magazine to do likewise.

Be very careful that you only preach the Word of God. [Revelation 22:18–19.]

Regards,

M.E.

Make that the Word of God in its entirety [Acts 20:27, 2 Timothy 3:15–17].

Regards,

Russell Grigg

Related articles

• Curse and catastrophe
• Who was the serpent?
• Slipshod logic in Creation for Kids?
• The fall into sin

Further reading

• Death and Suffering Questions and Answers

References

1. Almost all commentators agree on these three possible choices. Return to text.
2. ‘The phrasing is awkward … The reason for the difficulty is probably that Paul was attempting to convey too briefly a quite complicated point: that God subjected all things to Adam, and that included subjecting creation to fallen Adam, to share in his fallenness.’ Dunn, Word Biblical Commentary 38a: Romans 1–8, 471. Return to text.
3. Aorist verbs in languages such as Greek and Sanskrit indicate simply that something has happened; compare imperfect where the action was ongoing or the perfect where the action and consequences are completed. E.g. ‘he was dribbling the ball (imperfect—ongoing action) till he scored a goal (aorist—it doesn't say when, just that he scored) and which won the final match (perfect—game over). Return to text.
4. Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 274. Schreiner sees hupetagē (‘νπετάγη) as a divine passive, Schreiner, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, 435. Gienusz notes that the use of hupetage in Pauline writings always refers to God/Christ. Gienusz, Romans 8:18–30 Suffering Does Not Thwart the Future Glory, 158. Return to text.
5. Ouch hekousa (ουχ ‘εκούσα) = not willingly. Fitzmyer, J., Romans: A New Translation, Anchor Bible, Doubleday, New York, p. 507, 1993. Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 274. Gienusz defines the phrase as: ‘not its own fault’. Gienusz, A., Romans 8:18–30 Suffering Does Not Thwart the Future Glory, Scholar’s Press Atlanta, GA, pp. 154–6, 1999). Also, Sanday, The Epistle to the Romans, 208. NIV, NAS and NRSV all translate this as ‘not of its own will/choice’. The meaning is essentially the same. Return to text.
6. The NIV and NRSV translate this phrase as: ‘but by the will of the one who subjected it…’ The will is absent from the Greek text. Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, 321. This phrase was probably added in these English texts to contrast ouch ekousa = not willingly. The aorist, active participle hupotaxanta (‘υποτάξαντα) is derived from the root verb hupotassō (‘υποτάσσω), and is used in the accusative, alla dia ton hupotaxanta (αλλά διά τόν‘υποτάξαντα). ‘To cause to be in a submissive relationship, to subject, to subordinate.’ Danker, Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 1042. Dia (διά) is used with the accusative, making ‘on account of’ an appropriate translation. Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation, 227. Alla dia ton hupotaxanta can also be translated ‘but on account of the one who did the subjecting.’ Dunn, Word Biblical Commentary 38a: Romans 11–8, 470. Because this phraseology is somewhat vague, the one is the preferred translation over the more specific word, him. For him see, Plumer, W., Commentary on Romans, Kregel Publications,Grand Rapids, MI, p. 408, 1971. Godet, Commentary on Romans, 314. ‘The one’ will be identified as God, effectively rendering him correct. Return to text.
7. The personification of nature is well known in the Old Testament. Isaiah 24:4, 7; 65:17,25, 66:22. Jeremiah 4:28, 12:4. Return to text.
8. Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 303. Schreiner prefers hupetagē as the referent. Schreiner, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, 436. Fitzmyer argues hupetagē is too remote in the sentence, and therefore eph elpidi modifies hupotaxanta Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation, 508. Hodge asserts that in either case the sense is the same: Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 274. Return to text.
9. Wuest, Romans in the Greek New Testament, 139. Return to text.
10. Hoti kai autē hē ktisis (‘ότι καί αυτή ‘ή κτίσις). Dioti (διότι) is found at the beginning of this phrase in several witnesses, including a, D*, F, G, and 945. Aland, K. and B., Nestle-Aland Greek English New Testament, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart, Germany, pp. 423, 690–1, 2005. A plausible explanation for the variant dioti could be dittography—the repetition of the last two letters of the previous word, elpidi. Thus, the scribe could have miscopied ΕΛΠΙΔΙΟΤΙ as ΕΛΠΙΔΙΔΙΟΤΙ (note, there were no spaces between words, and the oldest manuscripts are uncials or capitals). Hoti is the generally accepted reading, and can be found in P⁴⁶, A, B, C, D2, Ψ, and other witnesses. Aland, Nestle-Aland Greek English New Testament, 423, 690–91. Dunn, Word Biblical Commentary 38a: Romans 1–8, 466. Also is not found in the NRSV and NIV. Kai is rendered as also in the appropriate context. Mounce, W., Basics of Biblical Greek, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, p. 436, 2003. Since hoti (because) is placed first in the sentence and connects Paul’s previous thought, kai would not be rendered here as and, but rather as also. Return to text.
11. Godet makes a quasi-argument for Satan, concerned that there is a risk of assigning some immoral culpability to God if God is the subjector. Godet, Commentary on Romans, 3:14–15. Most commentators quickly dismiss Satan as the subjector, based mainly on the same arguments stated here. Return to text.
12. Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation, 508. Schreiner, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, 434–35. Schreiner states: ‘[T]he word “subjection” implies an authority that does not fit with the tragic consequences of Adam’s sin in which subjection was lost rather then gained.’ Return to text.
13. Bruce, F.F., ed. R. Tasker, Romans, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. InterVarsity Press, Leicester, U.K., pp. 168–74, 1963. Return to text.
14. Oke, C., A Suggestion with Regard to Romans 8:23, Interpretation 11: 460, 1957. Return to text.
15. Stott, Romans, 239. Return to text.
16. Hill, E., Construction of Three Passages from St. Paul, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 23: 297, 1961. For a full exposition of God’s lordship over all things, see: Frame, J. The Doctrine of God: A Theology of Lordship, P&R Publishing, Phillipsburg, NJ, 2002). Return to text.
17. Bolt, J., The Relation between Creation and Redemption in Romans 8:18–27, Calvin Theological Journal 30: 46, 1995. The use of the 3rd person aorist passive indicative verb ‘υπετάγη is considered a divine passive in this instance, as noted in Schreiner, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, p. 435. Return to text.

Published: 14 June 2008(GMT+10)