Doctrine of Creation (Part 22): The Origin of Satan

2. The Origin of Satan

We finished our lesson last time by raising the question of the origin of Satan. Satan, as we've seen, is presented as a tremendous adversary of the Kingdom of God with whom we have to contend. This raises the obvious question of the origin of this being. Since God is not evil and cannot create evil, then how could there be such a being as Satan? When God created in Genesis 1 it says that he looked at creation and he saw that it was all very good. So how do you explain the origin of someone like Satan and the demons?

One thing that is very clear that we need to insist upon is that Scripture does not teach some sort of dualism. It does not teach that there is God and anti-God who is equal and opposed to God; that there is light and there is darkness and that these are equally opposed to each other. This dualistic view is completely foreign to both Judaism and Christianity, which think of God as the sole source of all reality outside himself. Anything that is not God – anything that exists other than God – is created by God. There isn't any reality apart from God that is uncreated. This is the burden of my book God Over All which defends God as the sole ultimate reality. So dualism is simply out of the question.

To give just one Scripture on this, consider Colossians 1:15-16. Speaking of Christ, it says:

Paul will talk elsewhere about these principalities and powers in reference to the demonic realms that exist, as well as the angelic realms. He is quite clear in Colossians that these things do not exist independently of Christ. Rather, they are all created through him. So dualism is simply out of the question. If there is such a being as Satan and beings like his demons, then these are part of the created order. They were made by God. That's the clear implication here.

But that leaves us then with this very difficult question. How could God create something which seems to be so intrinsically evil and opposed to God? Unfortunately, this is not a question that is explicitly addressed in the Bible. Even in the story of the Fall in Genesis 3 there's no attempt to explain where the evil serpent came from. Man is simply confronted with the serpent in the garden. So the best that we can do is to try to piece together various clues and intimations in Scripture and try to draw some tentative conclusions about this.

Some people have said that Isaiah 14:12-17 are a reference to the origin of Satan. Isaiah says,

Some have said that this language could not be used to describe any human person. This is rather a description of Satan when he was an angelic being who, through pride and vaulting ambition, opposed himself to God and so fell away. While I think that that view of the origin of Satan is probably close to the truth, I don't think that that is what Isaiah is talking about. As you can see from the beginning of chapter 14, this is a taunt that is directed against the king of Babylon. That's why in verses 16 and thereafter it says, “Is this the man who . . . shook kingdoms, . . . who . . . overthrew its cities, who did not let his prisoners go home?” It's clearly talking about an earthly king whom Isaiah identifies as the king of Babylon. It is using hyperbolic language to describe the vaunting ambition and pride whereby the king of Babylon sets himself against God. So, while I think that the view expressed about the origin of Satan might well be correct, I'm very skeptical that this is what this passage is about.

Similarly, Ezekiel 28 has been interpreted to describe Satan's fall. Ezekiel 28:12-19 says,

Here again the suggestion is that this is a description of Satan prior to the Fall – how he was originally created good and then he fell away and became evil. But once again the context of the passage doesn't support this. It sounds like Satan only if you read it out of context. If you look at verse 11, it says, “Moreover the word of the Lord came to me: ‘Son of man, raise a lamentation over the king of Tyre, and say to him, Thus says the Lord God.’” And then the passage follows. So this is a lamentation over the King of the city of Tyre, an earthly city. Similarly, in verse 16 it goes on to say,

So here it's condemning him for his unfair trade practices in the commerce that was conducted by the king of Tyre. Obviously this wouldn't be applicable to Satan. It goes on to condemn the other things that this king did which were wrong. So once again, I think when read in context, this is not a passage about Satan or his origin.

What some critics have claimed is that originally these passages were myths about some sort of angelic fall which the biblical prophets borrowed and demythologized in order to apply them to human kings. They took these pagan myths (which were about angels or humans falling away) and then they demythologized them and applied them to the king of Tyre and the king of Babylon. The problem with such a hypothesis is that it is ultimately untestable. Since we know of no such pagan myths in the ancient Near East, this theory is no better than conjecture. It is what might be called nephelococcygia about these texts. Now, in case you do not know the word “nephelococcygia,” this is a word which means finding shapes in the clouds. I think that is a good description for those who would attempt to discover these pre-biblical pagan myths that are not attested anywhere and therefore cannot be confirmed. It is literary nephelococcygia. In any case, the passage as we now have it is clearly not about an angelic fall. It's about earthly kings.

So, again, the suggestion of an angelic fall may be theologically correct, but I think it's eisegesis to read it into these passages. That is to say, the interpretation is not being read out of the text; it's being read into the text. It takes these passages in Isaiah and Ezekiel and in effect says that when read out of context they give us a really nice theory of Satan's origin if we interpret them as describing the devil's fall. But there's nothing in the context to suggest that this is, in fact, what the passages are about.

What other indications in Scripture are there about the origin of Satan from which we might make some intelligent inferences? Well, consider again the book of Job, chapter 1. Job 1:6 says: “Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them.” Then it goes on to tell the rest of the story. Here it seems to be talking about angelic beings who are presenting themselves before God, and Satan is there. This takes place in heaven because Satan responds to God's question about, Where you have come from, by saying, I've come from going to and fro upon the Earth. So this scene is not something that takes place on Earth. This is the heavenly throne room, so to speak, and here Satan appears to be included among the sons of God who are there. So he does seem to be some sort of an angelic being who has now set himself against God and in opposition to God.

With that in mind, go to the New Testament to Luke 10:17-18. This is the story of the disciples going out on their mission preaching the Gospel that Jesus has sent them on. When they return from their mission, in verse 17, it says: “The seventy returned with joy, saying, ‘Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name!’ And he said to them, ‘I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.’” Is Jesus talking here about an angelic fall that he saw, perhaps in a pre-creation state; that he saw Satan fall from heaven? Or is he merely talking here about the way in which the demons were cast out by the disciples, and Jesus is reflecting on the triumph of their mission by saying, I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven in what you did. Well, it's unclear. We don't know for sure the correct interpretation. But at least we do have in this passage the idea clearly expressed of a satanic fall from heaven which Jesus mentions.

Now turn to 2 Peter 2:4. Here we have something a little bit more specific. The author says, “For if God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of nether gloom to be kept until the judgment. . . .” What is indicated clearly here is that there are angels who have sinned. This could well be a reference to the sons of God mating with human women in Genesis 6:1-4. But minimally I think at least it shows us that there are angels who have sinned. It says that these sons of God have been incarcerated in the underworld in some sort of nether darkness. Here we have some indication of the idea of an angelic fall that could be relevant to the origin of demons.

Also, in Jude verse 6 this same event is mentioned. That passage says,

Here again is an indication that there are angels who have sinned and fallen away and whom God has now imprisoned in the underworld until the judgment on the great day. These fallen angels seem to be incarcerated; they're not let out. But the speculation is that perhaps there are others who are free to roam upon the Earth, and that Satan and his minions are some of these. Satan also appears to be one of the company of angels. So it could be that the origin of Satan and the demons lies in an angelic fall, and that some of them are still free (within limits) to work their wrath upon the Earth even though there are others who are kept in this underworld.

1 John 3:8 is also relevant. 1 John 3:8 says, “He who commits sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.” Here again we have indication of sins that have been committed by Satan, by the devil, which would obviously result in a sort of fall. So we have evidence in Scripture, I think, of an angelic fall and specifically of sin on the part of Satan which would bring him into condemnation before God.

Another verse that might be relevant is 1 Timothy 3:6 which might tell us something about the sin of Satan. Paul is giving the qualifications here for someone who wants to be a bishop in the church, and he is warning against pride. He says that the candidate, “must not be a recent convert, or he may be puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil.” The question is how do you interpret that phrase “the condemnation of the devil.” Does it mean that the recent convert who gets puffed up with pride would then be condemned by the devil? That it is the devil who would condemn him? Or does it mean rather that he would fall into the same condemnation that the devil fell into, namely, by being puffed up with pride and arrogance. Setting himself against God, he finds himself also condemned before God just like Satan. If we interpret the phrase in that latter way then this would suggest that the devil’s sin was indeed some sort of pride or arrogance whereby he raised his heel against his creator, against God, and so fell away.

Finally, 1 Timothy 5:21 says, “In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels I charge you to keep these rules without favor, doing nothing from partiality.” The phrase I want to draw your attention to here is the phrase “the elect angels.” There are certain angels who are elect to glorification just as we are. We are among the elect – the chosen ones on this planet among human beings. But there are also elect angels, which implies that there are other angels which are not elect. They would be fallen angels and would be under God's condemnation.

So, all in all, I think there are scriptural hints that the traditional understanding of Satan and the demons is very plausible, namely that originally God created a realm of angelic beings who were created good but who, through an exercise of free will, rebelled against God and so fell away and are condemned. And the Earth now lies under the power and sway of these fallen angels. These fallen angels (or some of them at least) become what we would call demons.

This raises a deeper question: how could angels who are in the presence of God fall away? And is it possible that more angels might fall away in the future? What prevents the elect angels from sinning? On this matter, we can only offer plausible speculations. It seems that God would have to create the angels originally at a sort of epistemic distance – at arm's length, so to speak – so as to allow them the freedom to rebel against God and to sin. Having made their choice, the wills of the elect angels are then sealed in that choice by being given a fuller vision of God's greatness and glory so irresistible that further sin is impossible. So there is no danger of a further angelic fall. Their free choice having been made, their will is now sealed.

But then what about the fallen angels? Could they now freely turn to God in repentance and be saved? The church father Origen actually believed such a thing. Origen believed in the doctrine called apokatastasis, or the restoration of all things. He believed that in the end even Satan himself will be saved and that everything will be restored to its original good condition. But Origen's view was condemned as heretical by the church. In Matthew 25:41, Jesus refers to “the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” Notice the eternality of the punishment of the devil and the demons: “the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” Christ's atoning death was offered on behalf of mankind, not on behalf of angels. So in that very peculiar sense, the doctrine of the limited atonement is true – it is limited to the human race and does not include angels.

In fact, medieval theologians like St. Anselm believed that the number of elect human beings was chosen by God to precisely replace the number of the angels who had fallen away, so that the complete number of the elect will be saved – human beings will be substituted in the place of those angels that fell away. So there is no availability of atonement or salvation for the demonic beings.

Lest anyone think it unloving on God's part not to offer an atonement for the fallen angels, consider that God may know that Satan and the demons, having become evil, would never freely choose to repent and believe even if provision were made for them. So why make it?

Next time we want to talk about the nature of demonic beings.