SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : OT Texts Regarding Satan's Origin

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 Next Page )
PosterThread
pilgrim777
Member



Joined: 2011/9/30
Posts: 1211


 Re:

The philosophical issue is that a benevolent God would want to prevent or overcome as much evil and suffering as possible. An all-powerful God would be able to overcome evil and suffering. But since there is a lot of evil and suffering in the world, it would appear that either God cannot or will not prevent it or overcome it. If God cannot, that impugns omnipotence. If God will not, that impugns divine love.

This is usually what non-Christians say and they don't think it is a proper answer when Christians just say, "His ways are higher than our ways."

I have been in discussions where Christians are derided because they seem to know so much about God, the meaning of life, sin, grace, salvation, the nature of the Trinity, the divine and human natures of Jesus, and so on. But when it comes to theodicy, they suddenly get ignorant.

Maybe evil is not a problem to be solved but a challenge to be met. We know Jesus Christ has solved the issue of sin and now the the issue of suffering is to be endured, conquered, and otherwise dealt with in ways that deepen trust in the God of grace who has a purpose in all things. Although, I do believe in Divine healing, it seems very few people get healed.

Then, there is the Calvinistic notion that God created and then condemned to eternal damnation a good portion of the human race.

So, this is a very big subject for sure, but underpinning a Christian who is filled with the Spirit of God should be two things:

God is love
All things work together for good, for those that love God.

Pilgrim

 2012/7/12 9:41Profile
EverestoSama
Member



Joined: 2010/5/17
Posts: 1175


 Re:

Quote:
In "The Pursuit of God," AW Tozer talked about reading scripture as "an intelligent plain man" and commended this approach. He said the intelligent plain man "approaches the Bible without any previous knowledge of what it contains. He is wholly without prejudice; he has nothing to prove and nothing to defend."

Frankly, at this point in my life this is the only way I want to approach scripture. I have heard enough of everyone else's theories. If I have to know "midresh" or whatever to understand the scriptures, then I am hurtin' for certain. Of course, I don't believe a person has to know midresh to understand the scriptures.



I mean, that's fine, man. I'm not saying you need midrash to understand the basic truths about the Bible, but if your question is to understand why certain things in Jewish prophecy are interpreted the ways that they are, you're going to need to understand the way Jews read and interpreted prophecy themselves (midrash).

Midrash is clearly demonstrated as being used all throughout Paul's letters, and it's extremely apparent in John's Gospel at the beginning (which is a midrash on the creation narrative).

You can continue to try and understand a Jewish book, with a Jewish God, using Jewish methods, to a Jewish audience through the lens of a twenty-first century western approach, or you can take a stab at understanding it in the way it was written and would have been received.

I appreciate Tozer, but if I have to look at how to view Jewish prophecy, I'm going to use the same method that Paul, John, Mathew, and the other apostles used over Tozer's approach.

Like I said, these few words will not do any justice to what I'm talking about, as the topic is much larger than I have the time to address, but again, send me an email if you wish and I can present you with a much stronger argument with much more relevant material. If you want to at least hear out why it's a good method to understand prophecy, I can help you out there. If you want to reject it before knowing anything about it, that's your call too.

A little teaser, though. The word "midrash" itself, is actually in the Bible, and is shown as a valid method for the understanding of Scripture, as Scripture itself actually validates it. It's not some new or foreign concept. It's an old one that's always been there.

There's at least four sermons here on SI specifically talking and teaching about/with it as well. Though there are probably more.

 2012/7/12 12:16Profile
TMK
Member



Joined: 2012/2/8
Posts: 5639
NC, USA

 Re:

Hi Everest--

I didnt mean to come across like I see no value in knowing "midrash" etc because I am sure it IS valuable. I have no idea what it is, but I am sure it was valuable and if I could snap my fingers and know all about it I would do so.

But honestly I don't think I have the time or patience to begin a study of that now. That probably sounds bad but it's the truth.

Perhaps you can succinctly explain for me how using midrash would result in the conclusion that the Isaiah passage and the Ezekiel passage in the OP are talking about Satan. I mean, assuming the passages DO have the dual meaning you describe, how do we know the "hidden" meaning is about Satan, and not something or someone else?


_________________
Todd

 2012/7/12 16:53Profile
TMK
Member



Joined: 2012/2/8
Posts: 5639
NC, USA

 Re:

Hi Pilgrim--

I certainly agree with your last post!


_________________
Todd

 2012/7/12 16:58Profile
EverestoSama
Member



Joined: 2010/5/17
Posts: 1175


 Re:

Quote:
I mean, assuming the passages DO have the dual meaning you describe, how do we know the "hidden" meaning is about Satan, and not something or someone else?



Pattern.

Again, I may sound like a broken record here, but if you understand the basic concepts of midrash it will make a lot more sense, and you'll be able to get a clearer picture over all, but it's not something that I can explain in just a line or two and do it proper justice.

Here;

http://media.sermonindex.net/12/SID12037.mp3

Start with this. It doesn't address the issue of Satan directly if I remember (though it's been a long time since I've heard it). If you understand this, you might see how this works. Give it a listen, and we can go from there if you're interested.

 2012/7/12 23:18Profile
IssacharSon
Member



Joined: 2012/7/12
Posts: 185
Southeast USA

 Re: Satan as a "serpent"?

Satan as a serpent?

Why was the word in the Hebrew ever translated "serpent"? It has given rise to a very false idea about the facts of Genesis 3: 1-5 - that there was in the Garden of Eden a talking snake.

I have no doubt in my mind that if God chose to make a snake talk, He could. I accept fully the other account in the Bible of a talking animal, when God opened the mouth of Balaam's ass and spoke to the prophet through the donkey. I have no problem with this. Even man can teach animals to talk, and surely God can do so.

But the interesting thing is that this account in
Gen. 3: 1-5 does not really say that there was a snake in the Garden of Eden. The Hebrew word here is a verb form of "nachash", which means literally "to shine", or in the noun form here, "a shining one." If you read it that way, an entirely different being emerges,

"Now the shining one was more subtle than any other wild creature that the Lord God had made..." (Gen. 3: 1).

So, how did we get a "serpent" from a "shining one"?

Love-in-Christ

KP

 2012/7/13 14:21Profile
IssacharSon
Member



Joined: 2012/7/12
Posts: 185
Southeast USA

 Re: Tozer Does it Again

Amen!

Are we forgetting the power of the Holy Spirit in revealing God's Word to his people?

Only a god of the Pharisees would want his word to be a secret or inside joke in which only a few and proud get the punchline.


"I mean, that's fine, man. I'm not saying you need midrash to understand the basic truths about the Bible, but if your question is to understand why certain things in Jewish prophecy are interpreted the ways that they are, you're going to need to understand the way Jews read and interpreted prophecy themselves (midrash)."

"the basic truths about the Bible" is Christ, Him Crucified and Resurrected. I can see Christ making incarnate cameo appearances all through the OT. Though the OT and NT are all the more enriching as they are embedded into the cultural identity and values of a particular nation.

The Jewish nation is a macrocosmic example of what goes on in the spiritual life of every individual who comes to Christ. They are a truly blessed people, the very wife of God as the church is the bride of Christ. And both Jew and Gentile have the appropriate revelation which God allots thru His Word.

Love-in-Christ,

KP

 2012/7/13 14:40Profile









 Re:


Gen 3:1 Now the serpentH5175 wasH1961 more subtilH6175 than anyH4480 H3605 beastH2416 of the fieldH7704 whichH834 the LORDH3068 GodH430 had made.H6213

H5175
נחשׁ naw-khawsh' From H5172; a snake (from its hiss): - serpent.

H5172
נחשׁ na^chash A primitive root; properly to hiss, that is, whisper a (magic) spell; generally to prognosticate: - X certainly, divine, enchanter, (use) X enchantment, learn by experience, X indeed, diligently observe.


H5175
נחשׁ Total KJV Occurrences: 31
serpent, 25
Gen_3:1-2 (2), Gen_3:4, Gen_3:13-14 (2), Gen_49:17, Exo_4:3, Exo_7:15, Num_21:9 (3), 2Ki_18:4, Job_26:13, Psa_58:4, Psa_140:3, Pro_23:32, Pro_30:19, Ecc_10:8, Ecc_10:11, Isa_27:1 (2), Jer_46:22, Amo_5:19, Amo_9:3, Mic_7:17
serpents, 4
Num_21:6-7 (2), Deu_8:15, Jer_8:17
serpent’s, 2
Isa_14:29, Isa_65:25



Gen 3:14 And the LORDH3068 GodH430 saidH559 untoH413 the serpent,H5175 BecauseH3588 thou hast doneH6213 this,H2063 thouH859 art cursedH779 above allH4480 H3605 cattle,H929 and above everyH4480 H3605 beastH2416 of the field;H7704 uponH5921 thy bellyH1512 shalt thou go,H1980 and dustH6083 shalt thou eatH398 allH3605 the daysH3117 of thy life:H2416


.....................


*2Co 11:2,3 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.
But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.


Rev 12:9, 14, 15 & 20:2




 2012/7/13 14:45
IssacharSon
Member



Joined: 2012/7/12
Posts: 185
Southeast USA

 Re: Serpent or Shining One?

But why choose "snake" over "shining one"?

Wouldn't the second meaning adequately capture satan's deceptive guise as an "angel of light"?

And the "shining" feature of the tempter would more likely attract the desire of woman than the features of a serpent.

This is a big deal to me because Satan is a tempter and it would be helpful to know the form and matter in which the tempter presents itself.

Maybe there was something about the "shining" feature of this tempter which contributed to its potency in deception.

KP

Thank you for the above references.

 2012/7/13 14:57Profile









 Re: Serpent or Shining One?

Quote:
by IssacharSon

But why chose "snake" over "shining one"?

Wouldn't the second meaning adequately capture satan's deceptive guise as an "angel of light"?

And the "shining" feature of the tempter would more likely attract the desire of woman than the features of a serpent.

This is a big deal to me because Satan is a tempter and it would be helpful to know the form and matter in which the tempter presents itself.

Maybe there was something about the "shining" feature of this tempter which contributed to its potency in deception.

KP



Simply - Because GOD chose "serpent" and because in all definitions, both in the Hebrew and Greek - no where is that word "serpent" found defined as "shining".

Does that mean that every serpent/snake that you see is Satan? Of course not. He can appear in any form he chooses - human and otherwise or just invisibly more often than any way.

The main point being that - we don't change GOD's Word to suit our understanding - but search out the Words He uses to understand it and Him.

Could you provide your source for this word that is translated as "serpent" - where you found it as a "verb of shining"?


Thanks!


Quote:
Satan as a serpent?

Why was the word in the Hebrew ever translated "serpent"? It has given rise to a very false idea about the facts of Genesis 3: 1-5 - that there was in the Garden of Eden a talking snake.

I have no doubt in my mind that if God chose to make a snake talk, He could. I accept fully the other account in the Bible of a talking animal, when God opened the mouth of Balaam's ass and spoke to the prophet through the donkey. I have no problem with this. Even man can teach animals to talk, and surely God can do so.

But the interesting thing is that this account in
Gen. 3: 1-5 does not really say that there was a snake in the Garden of Eden. The Hebrew word here is a verb form of "nachash", which means literally "to shine", or in the noun form here, "a shining one." If you read it that way, an entirely different being emerges,

"Now the shining one was more subtle than any other wild creature that the Lord God had made..." (Gen. 3: 1).

So, how did we get a "serpent" from a "shining one"?

KP

 2012/7/13 15:09





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy