Pointless Pontification: August 2007 Archives

This topic may not interest very many of you. It's not related to writing in any way I can manufacture. It's simply something that I've had on my mind lately and I have to get my thoughts down somewhere so I can obsess about the next thing on the list.

This post is about Satan.

He's a fascinating character, I have to admit. The arch-enemy of Man has appeared in all kinds of literature (not to mention other creative endeavors) throughout human history. We're told to be wary of his subtle ways and we're admonished (quite rightly) to be careful of our own arrogance so we don't end up one day becoming neighbors with the fiery Prince of Darkness.

One of the things that has drawn my attention over the years (off and on…I'm too ADD to pay attention to any one thing for an extended period of time) is the question of angels and demons and what happened in that, as Charles Williams puts it, War in Heaven.

Well, I've been doing some digging and I don't think we're looking at the fall of Satan correctly.

I've always been taught that Satan and God had their big row at some time before the Bible records human history. In other words, Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth" (KJV) is lying. Well, not "lying" per se, but at the very least omitting certain important facts. After closely re-reading a few important verses, I don't think that any longer. I think Satan and God butted heads somewhere between Genesis 2:18 and 2:21.

I now take Genesis 1:1 literally. The word "heaven" used (in the King James…the NIV uses the word "heavens," plural; I'm not sure what implication that has on our understanding, but there it is) is the Hebrew word "shamayim" or "shameh." The same word used fairly often in Genesis 1 to refer both to the universe and the atmosphere (although in the King James, the phrase "firmament of heaven" is used to describe the air). Luke 10:18 says that Satan fell from "heaven" (Greek word: ouranos or Uranus, like the planet and the various gods of the sky—it seems to mean basically the same thing as the Hebrew equivalent in the Old Testament) and that Jesus personally witnessed it. So how could Satan fall from something that wasn't yet created if his fall occurred before Genesis 1:1? And if he was already fallen before Genesis 1, why was he allowed into the Garden of Eden? Or even on this planet? Wouldn't his very presence defile the perfect creation that hadn't yet known the effects of Sin? Well, I think the answer is: he couldn't, he wouldn't have been, and absolutely. I think Satan, when he conversed with Eve, was not yet fallen. Leaning in that direction, sure. Maybe even had it out a time or two with the boss.

I think the Bible is fairly clear on when the fall of Satan occurred. It happened in Genesis 3:14. Before then, he was "more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made" (Gen 3:1 KJV) but the comparison between the animals and Satan—an angel, after all—is hard to ignore. Angels may be a little higher than Man on the totem pole, but they're not a substitute for us. After Genesis 3:14, he was changed into (basically) a snake, which is the image that sticks with us over the centuries.

But why did God create him? I think therein lies the rub. Angels were created as helpers to Man. Genesis 2:18 is God saying that "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a suitable helper for him." (NIV) Genesis 2:19-20, though, is Adam naming the animals:

Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. (NIV)

We've probably just assumed that the whole parade of sundry animals was the audition for Man-helper (say it with me: "That's disgusting!"). That interpretation makes some sense, since it's sandwiched between God ruminating on Man's companions and the creation of woman. But all this talk about helpers is strangely absent from the verses talking about Adam naming the animals. And the animals had all been created in the first week. Why would God say "let's go make a helper for Man" if He was going to pick from things already created? Wouldn't He have said "let's go find a helper for Man"?

UPDATE: Athol Dickson has drawn to my attention that, even at this point, we're still in the creation mode. That God could have been drawing up an animal and asking Adam "Okay, what about this one?" I'll have to look into this a little more.

I think He would have if that had been the plan. I think, after having gone back over this carefully, that the angels were created after Genesis 2:18. As helpers. As subordinates?

UPDATE: Okay, so it doesn't ever say that angels, specifically, were "created" as our helpers. Maybe that's a little bit of a stretch too. Athol points out that they were "sent" (Heb 1:14) but that that's not necessarily the same as created for that purpose.

Yeah, that's where we lost Satan too.

The last sentence of Genesis 2:20, then, turns ominous: "But for Adam no suitable helper was found." (NIV) Wait a minute, I thought God went off and created a "suitable helper" for Adam? How is it that, in the space of two verses, it's ixnay on the elperhay? Well, from what we know about Satan, things just didn't work out. With a little dash of free will and a heavy dose of inflated ego, I suspect Satan said something along the lines of: "I'll quit if you make me take orders from that human!" Ever the good executive, though, God probably said: "Well, we hate to lose you. Don't let the door hit you in the…"

So what are the implications? None, really. Oh, purists would argue that anything that helps us take the Bible as literally as it was meant to be taken is A Good Thing. Believing in God, and then believing in Jesus and his saving grace came easy for me. Probably too easy. But for some people, any alleged gap in the timeline is a stumbling block. But if that's the case, there are bigger issues at work there and an untrained theologian's observations on obscure Bible lore isn't going to make much difference.

But you never know. Maybe someone needs to hear, in a different way, that this whole universe is all about you. Well, me too, but that's another theological sticky wicket. It really is all about us. About Man. About God's relationship to us in this physical world and consequences that stretch into "the heavens." If the angels were created as helpers to Man, then the angels weren't the "first try," the "beta," or the Grand Experiment. Sure, God gave them free will, but that's just the kind of God he is. He's cool like that. We're the important thing. Not the pretty little bunnies or the cute little trees or the fluffy spotted owls. Us. Humans. People. Creatures with souls and minds and hearts.

Am I all wet? (Of course I am, but that was a rhetorical question) After close reading and study, I don't think so, but feel free to offer your own informed opinions. In a way, this is your blog too.

I'm often thankful for selfish people. They provide great object lessons for my kids. I can point out what selfishness looks like from outside and even the kids can understand why only looking out for number one is just an all-around bad idea.

We just got back from a week's vacation in Branson and I'm always amazed at the grandiose display of self-centeredness of A Gaggle Of Americans On Vacation. Besides the obvious lack of analytical skills (which becomes apparent when folks are called upon to make quick decisions in heavy traffic…it becomes obvious who can think on their feet and who can't), I'm always struck by the sheer selfishness of some people.

We took the kids to WhiteWater, a ginormous swimming pool (with a wave pool, tubes, and the like) one day last week. I'm still paying for that (suffice it to say that years and years in an office with no exposure to sunlight does not adequately prepare one for five hours of scalding Missouri sunshine…and I do mean scalding). In the wave pool, the facility provides a great many inflatable inner tubes, to be shared by the guests. The system is simple and works fairly well: you show up at the wave pool when the wave machine is just shutting off and some people decide to go off to some other part of the park. If you stand around and look pitiful, you're likely to get someone to offer you their inner tube, which you politely thank them for, and you pass the favor on to the next person when the wave machine shuts off the next time around. It's not complicated. There are no lists and no enforcement. It's just a system based on human politeness and common sense.

Enter the cranky grandmother. Apparently, some family decided that they didn't want to have to wait for an inner tube to become available, so they heisted a couple of them from the wave pool and stacked them up under a tree and posted their cranky grandmother as sentry to guard them from being filched.

We all had a good laugh at their expense and it was a nice object lesson in why being selfish is patently unnecessary. It's also nice to have an objective example to show the kids that selfish people are always cranky (have you ever met someone you came to know as utterly self-centered and discovered that they were fabulously well-adjusted and just generally happy people?).

Enough of the soap box. This post is filed in Pointless Pontification anyway because human selfishness defies all attempts to stomp it out—in your kids or someone else's—and it's something we're all guilty of.

Here's some pics I took last week: