Greetings. I am a student of the Bible, though not a follower of Charles Taze Russell. I am a former Jehovah's Witness, and do have some affection and admiration for "Pastor Russell" as well as a few points of doctrinal agreement with him, though far more divergences. I have endeavored to study the Scriptures as thoroughly as I can using all helps available, and consulting many others who also share my commitment to studying the Sacred Scriptures apart from creeds and traditions. I hope you find my posts to be helpful and enjoyable. They are posted here for all those who still consider themselves Christians and who seek the glory of God and Christ in their own minds, hearts, and lives. My first installment is titled Evil and Sin, an exploration of these two topics that will set the stage for further more advanced studies in the Sacred Scriptures.
*************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
EVIL AND SIN
The basic truth of divine revelation, that all is of God: "For OUT (ek) of Him and through Him and for Him is The ALL [Greek: Ta Panta, "The All" everything] (Rom. 11:36) This is so severe a strain on the faith of some of God's saints, that they instinctively reject it, excusing their unfaith on the ground that it is repulsive to their spiritual natures. They seek to shelve it by making the devil the source of all evil, yet they fail to tell us how the enemy could originate it, unless the power or capacity were given him by his Creator. We sympathize heartily with the motive of those who shrink from associating evil with God, because we find that their conception of evil and sin is such that they cannot believe God's plain statements concerning them, but must modify God's Word to suit their misconception. There is dire need, therefore, of further searching of God's Word on this subject.
There are many passages in God's Word which bear out the great truth that all things--the evil as well as the good--find their source in the one and only God, Who alone can originate. Whence are the sufferings of creation, the evil that has perplexed philosophers and confounded the wise? Paul writes that the creation was not subjected to vanity voluntarily. It had no will or choice in the matter. God is subjecting it against its will (Rom.8:21). And the reason is not far to seek. It is only temporary. It is in expectation. Our sufferings will lead to an overwhelming glory, for which these sufferings are essential. Creation is enslaved by corruption with a view to a liberty which can only be enjoyed by that which has tasted its opposite. There is one feature which is common to all opposition to this truth, and that is the failure to distinguish betweenevil and sin. The words of Jehovah Himself, "I make good and create evil" (Isa.45:7), and immediately we are accused of teaching that God is the author of sin. We did not write the passage in Isaiah, nor is the prophet responsible. It is the word of Jehovah Himself, and He ought to know. Speaking of the physical creation, He challenges Job,
Where were you when I earth's foundations laid?
Say, if you know and understandest it!
Well might He say to those who deny His creation of evil, "Where were you when evil was created, since you know I had no hand in it?" We admire their zeal for God, but we deplore their denial of His words. What causes the confusion which leads to such dire misunderstanding? It lies largely, we believe, in the lack of discrimination. Instead of the Creator of evil being the Author of sin, we are sure that He cannot sin. In the languages of the Bible evil and sin are clearly distinguished by terms not in any way related to each other. Our translations are only partially consistent, so that there is some excuse for cloudy conceptions on these momentous themes. With very few exceptions (Job 24:21; Psa.41:8; 111:11; Prov.12:21), the Hebrew word rahgag underlies the English rendering evil. A few of its renderings in the KJV are, break, displease, ill, effect, harm, hurt, mischief, punish, vex, wicked. The adjective adds to these adversity, bad, calamity, distress, grief, grievous, heavy, ill favored, misery, naught, noisome, sad, sore, sorrow, trouble, wretchedness, wrong. It is evident that such diversity of translation will not aid us in forming a correct or concise conception of the real meaning of the term. What is its exact import? This is best discovered in such passages as Psa.2:9, where it rendered, break, or Dan.2: 40, also translated break. Perhaps our word shatter is its nearest equivalent. In Daniel it is used with the same force as the Chaldee d'kak, break in pieces, or pulverize. In the second Psalm it corresponds to nahphatz, which is rendered dash in pieces. In its literal root meaning it describes the effect of iron, the hardest of the common metals, when used to shatter and destroy.
It has no moral bias, such as we usually associate with it. In the passage quoted the evil is done by the hands of the Son of God. He shall deal out evil to the nations with a rod of iron when He comes again (Psa.2:9). The fourth kingdom that will be on earth at the time of the end will deal out evil to the other nations before it, in turn, is the object of His evil work (Dan. 2:40). The adjective is used of the "ill favored" cows of Pharaoh's dream (Gen.41:3-27). They were lean, no doubt, but what moral evil were they guilty of? The wonders done in Egypt were great and "sore," or literally evil(Deut.6:22). Who doubts that the Lord Himself did this evil? Who would insist that it was morally wrong? The same is true of all the evil brought upon Israel in the land (Joshua 23:15; 1 Kings 9:9; Neh.13:18). How firmly immorality is associated with evil by theologians is evident from their desire to shield God from all association with it. The KJV quite correctly states that an evil spirit from Jehovah troubled Saul (1 Sam.16:14). Newberry changes this, in his margin, to a sad spirit! This literally shows the "sad" effect of the unfounded fallacy that evil is, in itself, tainted with sin. The evil spirit was not an emissary of Satan, but of God. Our translators have tried to hide this at times, as when, speaking of the waters of Jericho, they say "the water is naught" (2 Kings 2:19). It wasevil.
Job had learned this simple lesson long before his testing. In answer to his wife's reflection on God, he replied "What? Shall we receive good from the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?" We can almost hear someone shout "Blasphemy!" when they read this. But the divine comment is, "In all this did not Job sin with his lips" (Job 2: 10). "Out of the mouth of the Most High proceedeth not evil and good?" (Lam.3:38).
The neutral character of evil is evident when both words are used together. Zimri "sinned in doing evil" (1 Kings 16:19). From this we may freely infer that evil is not necessarily sin.
The claim has been repeatedly made that, since evil is contrasted with peace, rather than good, it denotes calamity rather than "moral" evil. This method of discovering the meaning of a word is a good one, but, in this case, suffers from unskillful use. First we must be sure of the significance of the contrastive term. Then we must determine its real opposite. Moreover we must not base our conclusion on a solitary text, but upon all available occurrences. And, above all, we must not allow one instance to completely overrule the plain teaching of a multitude of others. All of these precautions are thrown to the winds when evil is denied to "moral" evil because it is the opposite of peace. "Peace," in Hebrew, has a much wider range than in English. "Calamity" is not its antonym, even in English. Evil is seldom contrasted with peace, but often with "good," which, it is allowed by all, gives it a universal range, to include all species of evil.
While evil and peace are in contrast a few times, evil and good are set over against each other often. The following are most of the occurrences:
Gen.2:9,17; 3:5,22; 24:50; 31:24,29; 44:4; Lev.27:10,12,14, 33; Num.13:19; 24:13; Deut.1:39; 30:15; 1 Sam.25:21; 2 Sam.13:22; 14:17; 19:35 (36); 1 Kings 3:9; 22:8,18; 2 Chron.18:7,17; Job 2: 10; Psa.34:14 (15); 35:12; 37:27; 38:20 (21); 52:3 (5); 109:5; Prov.14:19; 17:13; Ecc.12:14; Isa.5:20; Jer.18:20; 42:6; Lam.3:38; Amos 5:15; Micah 3:2.
If God intends us to understand "moral" evil when it is contrasted with "good," here is evidence sufficient for anyone.
We are not trying to prove that God creates "moral" evil, but that the distinction is unfounded and futile. The word evil has no "moral" bias. It may or may not be wrong. Is it "moral" evil in the following passages, where it is coupled with good! "Whether it be good, or whether it be evil, we will obey the voice of Jehovah our God" (Jer.42:6). Moral evil is sin, and God does not demand that His people sin. Much will be gained if the term "moral" be discarded in this discussion, and "moral evil" be given its true name, sin.
Calamity usually heads the catalogue of evils that are not "moral." Yet it is impossible to consider a single calamity which has not a moral effect. Take for example an earthquake. No one doubts that it was a divine infliction. And who can doubt its moral effect? Humans cannot strike back at God. If the destruction had been occasioned by some other nation, however, it would be considered one of the greatest wrongs ever perpetrated against a people. In reality, the proposed distinction is not between various classes of evil, but that which is from the hand of God and that which is from the hand of man.
Perhaps the most notable and striking dissimilarity in the usage of evil and sin lies in their relation to sacrifice. Indeed, that blurred idea, which struggles so unsuccessfully to crystallize in such unscriptural expressions as "moral evil," may be clearly conveyed in the question, Does evil require a sacrifice? A careful consideration of the hundreds of passages in which it occurs will lead to the startling conviction that it is never connected with the altar and the blood. The many occasions where God is said to do evil are, of course, as righteous and holy as all His acts must ever be. In the hundreds of cases where men do evil, the presumption is that the evil is also sin and this is pointed out on rare occasions (1 Kings 16:19). Nevertheless we have found no passage in which the evil, as such, is to be covered by sacrifice.
In convincing contrast to this, the student who will go over all the passages in which sin occurs, will find sacrifice and sin such close companions, that in scores of cases, in the feminine form, the word sin has been rendered sin offering. In Leviticus, evil is mentioned scarcely half a dozen times, and then mostly in the latter part, and never in connection with the sacrifices, while sin (including the rendering sin offering occurs over a hundred times. Never is there the slightest hint that evil must be expiated by an offering. This is necessary only when it is sinful. A striking sentence is found in the midst of one of the definitions of the so-called trespass or guilt offering--the very place where we would expect to see evil condemned. "If a soul swear pronouncing with his lips to do evil or to do good, whatsoever it be...then he shall be guilty..." (Lev.5:4).
Until not only the true significance, but the moral bias of our vocabulary agrees with the divine usage, we shall not be able to fathom such truths as the origin of evil and the source of sin. We have an innate repugnance, an instinctive abhorrence of any suggestion which seems to associate sin with God. So long as we think of evil as essentially sin the door is barred to an understanding of its introduction into the universe. The Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures, usually uses one of two different Greek words in rendering the Hebrew for evil. One is the element -kak- and its derivatives, which we render EVIL , and the KJV translates evil, wicked, harm, ill, bad, vex, hurt, etc. This corresponds closely with the Hebrew in its usage. The other word is -ponˆr-, literally MISERY-GUSH , or wicked. This is usually translated evil, wicked, iniquity, etc. It carries with it a moral taint. Its contexts, associated with the word evil, have given the word the moral bias which has gradually spread until it seems to taint the acts of Jehovah Himself.
We may be sure, then, that evil, as spoken of in the Scriptures, is an act which shatters and demolishes and brings with it a train of trouble and distress. But it is neither right nor wrong in itself. This leads us to consider the subject of sin.
THE SOURCE OF SIN
The success of our search for the source of sin will depend entirely on our apprehension of the divine definition of what it is. The KJV mistranslation "sin is the transgression of the law" is clearly misleading, for sin reigned during the period which preceded the giving of the law (Rom.5). It should read "sin is lawlessness." [The Koine Greek word is anomia and means lawlessness] Failure to conform to any standard is sin, whether it be the law of Moses or any other law, natural or revealed.
We are thankful that we are not called upon to give a philosophical disquisition on the ethics of sin, or to discover its essence in the scene in which we live. Our minds are too warped, our hearts too heavy with the harvest of sin, to catch a clear conception of its true nature. We are glad to turn to the fountain of all wisdom and find there a simple simile that presents a perfect picture of God's own apprehension of what is meant by sin.
In the fratricidal war between the tribe of Benjamin and Israel, the former mustered, among others, "seven hundred chosen men lefthanded; every one could sling stones at a hair breadth and not sin" (Judges 20:16). Our version says they could not miss, which is quite correct, yet how much is gained when we render it sin, as in hundreds of other passages! Indeed, we are inclined to think the KJV translators missed, when they failed to translate the word consistently, for in so doing they covered up a delightfully descriptive and a most important definition.Sin and miss are the same word, identical in meaning. Some months ago we had occasion to throw a stone over a certain branch of a tree. A cord was attached to the stone, for the object was to draw up an aerial for radio reception without climbing up to the perilous higher branches. We confess that we sinned many times before the task was accomplished. The cord would catch as the rock ascended; the rock went too high; it went to one side; it caught in the foliage. No matter what it did, each failure was a picturesque representation of the divine definition of sin.
Let us clear our mind of all side issues; let us forget the forms in which sin appears. It may seem gilded and glittering; it may seem sordid and sear; at its center it is the same. However it affects our feelings, it finds its essence in failure. As it is paraphrased in Paul's indictment of all mankind (Rom.3:23), "all sinned [hamartia, "missed"] and fall short of the glory of God." We have failed to reach the divine standard. Unless this is clear it is useless to go further. We will surely stumble in our search for the source of sin unless we discard all human definitions and cling closely to the divine. Mature reflection will fully confirm this conception. It does not deny that some sins are much more than a mere mistake. There is transgression, sin against a law, offense, sin against the feelings, but these are only aggravated forms of the central thought. When God charges all with sin, He does not insist that all are guilty of heinous offenses against law and decency and love, but that all have missed, fallen short. Even their best efforts--their "good" deeds--are done in error. It is the broadness of this definition which is its strength. A sinner need do nothing that man may condemn to deserve his name, he only needs to fail to fully realize God's high standard of holiness and glory.
We now come to the crux of the whole matter. Since all things are of God, yet He cannot sin, how did sin originate? Whence did it come? And how?
All so-called "solutions" which trace sin up a blind alley and stop short of God are neither scriptural nor satisfactory. We know that sin came into the world through one human being, yet who would stop there? Sin did not originate in Adam. The serpent was in the garden before Adam sinned. Neither is it enough to go beyond Adam and say "sin is of the devil," or Slanderer, for the Slanderer, just as much as Adam, is a creature, and, as such, originated nothing. He was made a Slanderer in the beginning, or it was dormant in him from his creation, or he was influenced from without after his creation. There must be an adequate cause for every effect. We only condemn ourselves as theological evolutionists when we trace sin back to a creature and refuse to acknowledge the Creator. Many who do not spare the shortsightedness of science and condemn its labored efforts to banish God from His own universe, are practicing the same deception when confronted with the origin of sin.
The subject of Satan will be taken up in another installment. Meanwhile we will simply state our conviction that current Miltonian effusions regarding his primeval perfection and his subsequent fall are not to be found anywhere in the Word of God. "The Slanderer is sinning, from the beginning" (1 John 3:8). We ourselves were infected with the virus of tradition and doubted this plain statement, but we humbly acknowledge our error. It makes no real difference to the course of our present discussion, but it is simpler to follow the lines of truth. We have, then, a creature, called a Slanderer and Satan, and to him the Scriptures trace back all sin. Our inquiry is now narrowed down to the question whether this one is really a creature, or self-created--in fact, another god, such as the Zoroastrian religion worshiped. If he is not self-existent we are shut up to his creation by the hand of God. If we allow that God created Satan (as such), the crucial question arises, Did God sin in creating the Slanderer? The answer will depend entirely upon the object He had in view. Was it God's will that sin should invade the universe or was it due to an error on His part? Remembering the Scriptiural definition of sin [to miss the mark], we must be prepared to say that God has sinned, if the entrance of sin was a mistake.
If God created Satan perfect and his defection was a surprise and a disappointment to God, then there is no use in hiding behind mere words. God failed. He started out to make a flawless creature who turned out bad. There is no one else to charge with this failure but God. But this is all wrong, for God never fails, or sins. Sin has an essential, though transient, part in God's purpose. God made due preparation for it before it came. The Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world. Creation reveals some aspects of God's power and wisdom, but His love can be displayed only where sin has sown the seeds of hate.There can be no Saviour apart from sin. There can be no reconciliation apart from enmity. God locks up all in stubbornness in order that He may be merciful to all. (Romans 11:32)
Shall God's affections remain forever pent up in His own bosom? Shall He never taste the sweet response of love? Then all He needs is a perfect universe, where His creatures have no need of Him and His gracious ministrations. But if He wants the deep satisfaction of requited love, and desires to impart to His creatures the delicious sense of His fatherly affection, then there must be distance, distress and condemnation, to form the field for the exercise of His favor. Since sin must enter this scene and play its part, since it is essential to God's purpose, and absolutely under His control; since it will eventually change the universe from cold, independent creatures into a loving family circle, and God from a distant Creator into an affectionate Father, it was by no means a mistake (or sin) on God's part when he created a creature who should not only sin but should scatter it in all creation.
We have now arrived at the heart of the problem. It was no mistake for God to create Satan, for the adversary did exactly what God had planned he should do. And the astonishing conclusion forces itself upon us that, the moment we try to shift the ultimate origin of sin to Satan, then we are making God a sinner! For if God did not intend Satan to sin, but Satan did it on his own initiative, then God missed the mark!
We have been accused of making God "the author of sin," whatever that may mean. In no such vague and uncertain terms we say with all kindness that those who introduce sin into the universe as an excrescence, an unforeseen calamity, an irremediable blot, they are charging God with failure, which is sin. Or if they introduce it surreptitiously, without God's act, making Satan sovereign in sin, then God's failure has been the greatest of all sins. We cannot and do not believe that God ever fails or sins. It is only by acknowledging that He created Satan to sin that we can possibly clear Him from its stain. Sin is not a theory. It is a sad, a terrible, a tremendous fact. I pity the despair of those who are mentally equal to the consequences, if it has broken loose from the hands of God or never was under His control. Their highest hope is chaos. Their only reasonable consummation is eternal torment, not only for all, believers as well as unbelievers, and the hosts of heaven, but for God Himself, for love always suffers with its object. The only Scriptural, the only rational, the only true solution, lies in the acceptance of God's grand dictum that all is out of Him, and through Him and for Him. The Scriptures are not so squeamish on this subject as its self-constituted defenders. Jehovah says boldly in Isaiah 54:16 (A.V.) "I created the waster to destroy." To waste, or corrupt, is not simply evil. It is sin. Jehovah does not claim to do it, but to create the one who does. If the corrupter were created by another, or self-existent, then he would be out of hand, and Jehovah could not guarantee immunity to His people, or control the evil and harness it to His purpose.
Some will ask, what Scripture have you for the statement that God created Satan, as such. The very question is proof of the darkness into which we have drifted. What Scripture have you, that God created you? There are innumerable objects in the physical and spiritual universe concerning which this might be asked, and in no case can we find that the particular object is specifically mentioned in God's Word. What a bulky tome it would be if such were the case! But we have the plain declaration that all came into being through the Word and apart from It nothing has come into being (John 1:3). Moreover "the universe was created in the Son of God, that in the heavens and that on the earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominions, or sovereignties, or authorities" (Col.1:16). Satan is specifically included as the chief of the aerial jurisdiction. It is a sad state of affairs when our thinking is more powerfully influenced by the pagan philosophies of the past than the living oracles which have been confided to us. A stranger coming into Christendom would certainly deduce from the literature of the day that there are two great powers struggling for the supremacy, one good, and one evil, and that the evil was not only uppermost, at present, but would eternally prevail over the good because only a feeble fraction would be saved from his clutches. Any reasonable intelligent being could not help from deducing from this system of theology that there are, in reality, at least two gods, and that Christianity is an offspring of Zoroastrianism and kindred cults.
In our next we will deal with God's method of coping with sin. There are so many "theories of the atonement" that a fresh study, based on the true significance of sin, will be welcomed by many (Rom. 5:11 A.V.).
SIN FOR SIN
Nowhere, perhaps, are man's theories and God's thoughts further apart than on the means of dealing with sin. This divergence is limited to theology, however, for in other walks of life man finds his ideas will not work, so reverts to the true and practical solution. Man "atones" for misdeeds by good conduct. God demands another wrong to make a matter right. Let us admit that this seems so far wrong that few will even consider it. We have the proverb: "Two wrongs never make a right." Indeed, in man's moral ethics, uncontrolled by God, it would be a dangerous doctrine. For it is only when two wrongs are properly related to each other that they are mutually corrective.
Not long since I had a striking experience of how two mistakes may combine with a very happy effect. We were building an evangelistic van. Some one, unknown to me, jacked up one of the rear wheels. After the hardwood framework had been carefully set so as to be square and the posts perpendicular, the jack was found and taken away. Then the whole rear end leaned over to one side an inch or two. I tried hard to force the frame into position, but it had been securely bolted, and would not budge. After losing nearly a night's sleep over it, it suddenly occurred to me that the large swinging door would have a tendency to throw the posts out of perpendicular. On testing it out it was found that the weight of the door exactly counterbalanced the slant of the posts and made them perfectly plumb!
Here we have a practical example of a mistake and its justification or vindication. I acknowledge freely that it was my mistake to get the door post out of plumb, but I insist that I was justified/vindicated by the outcome. Any carpenter or builder can appreciate the possibility of making such a mistake, but they do not issue instructions to make them, for their happy outcome is beyond human control. In other spheres, however, the principle is recognized and applied. In all commercial transactions and in bookkeeping it would be exceedingly silly to try to correct a mistake by doing right. If a man is overcharged, he is not satisfied to be charged what is right on other items, but wants a rebate. This, of course, is essentially wrong, for it is a payment for nothing. A friend recently forgot to deduct ten dollars from the bill for printing my magazine. How is he going to make it right? By not doing it again? No, but by wrongly deducting it from the next bill. God's earliest lesson in "atonement" or covering is full of significance. Adam had sinned. He tried to cover himself with fig leaves. He did not do another wrong to cover his first offense. But God is not satisfied. He sacrifices an innocent lamb to provide a covering. On what ground could we have justified Adam if he had taken the life of a lamb to clothe himself? But are we not doing this very thing every day? Creatures against whom no charge can be laid are slaughtered for peltries to provide our covering. The sin that brought the need of covering demands another wrong to provide it.
Sin and sacrifice are constant associates--far closer in the vocabulary of Biblical languages than any English version. In the fifth of second Corinthians many margins make "He made Him to be sin," "He made Him a sin offering," on the ground that, in the Hebrew the phrase sin offering is simply sin. Our translators have not always been clear in their own minds how to render it. Thus, when they had always translated "for a sin offering," in the fourteenth verse of the fourth of Leviticus they suddenly change to "for the sin." Whether it is rendered "a young bullock for the sin," or "for a sin offering" may not seem to matter much until we see that it applies to the sacrifice of the bullock, not to the sin of the congregation. But, some will say, how can a sacrifice to cover sin be itself a sin? The point we wish to press at present is that, in the inspired language of scripture, there is no other term for it, and were we speaking Hebrew, we must always refer to the sin offering as the "sin." Nor can we convince ourselves that this is merely accidental, a curious circumstance, without reason or significance. On the contrary, it points to the path of truth. Let us consider carefully just what the offering of a sacrifice involves. Is there any aspect in which it too partakes of the nature of a sin, or mistake?
Since the flood it has become necessary for mankind to slay animals for food. Occasionally it is right to kill some unfortunate animal to put it out of its misery. But what would we think of the farmer who deliberately chose a young bullock, a perfect specimen of its kind, and killed it for no other purpose than to burn it up? He would be called a fool, or worse, a criminal. It was wrong to take the bullock's life. It did not deserve death, and its death served no useful purpose. Such an act would surely be a mistake, a sin. Yet this is precisely what the sacrifice for sin was, viewed apart from its sacred associations. Do we then wonder that it was called a sin by God Himself? Let us consider the real nature of the "sin offering", quite apart from those religious prejudices (which have no place in the Scriptures), which hamper our thought and chain our reason. The hunter who slays wantonly, for no other incentive than the lust to kill, justly forfeits the respect of mankind. Some may justify it as a sport, but who would consider the sacrifice of a young bullock in that light? Were the flesh or the skin needed or used for the support of human life, it might be condoned. But no. The only reason for its death is that its owner has done wrong!
Can the slaying of a perfect, inoffensive, useful creature be regarded in any sense as right?Does it compensate for the sin for which it is offered? Does it alleviate the loss of the one who suffers from the sin? From the human standpoint, apart from the illumination afforded by divine revelation, it was a huge mistake. Propitiation, a shelter for sin, was by means of a sin! One mistake, contrary to the Divine precepts, was temporarily met and covered by another, which was in accord with His revealed ritual. Does not this account for the fact that the bullock was not burned on the altar, in the sacred courts, but at a distance far from the divine dwelling, outside the camp? Being a "sin," it was brought far from the holy dwelling place of God and consumed with fire.
It was thus that Elisha healed the waters of Jericho. Being so near the salt sea leads us to suppose the waters alkaline and thus unfit for use. What is the remedy? Elisha cast salt into the water. This should have made it worse, but, by the divine alchemy, it cleared the waters.God's ways and man's are not the same. We would not commend salt as a purifier of water unless the Divine Chemist prescribed it. Neither would we advise anyone to sin, in order to cover a previous sin. Only God's will and wisdom can correct sin by sin.
The cross of Christ is the touchstone of Truth. If we find that it confirms our faith we need have no fear of its falsity. But if it fails to confirm it, we may well view our theology with suspicion and distrust. We now desire to consider the great crisis in the career of Christ entirely apart from all else but His dealings with God. Man's attitude and acts, and Satan's persecution we reserve for another time.
It is evident on the surface that the latter part of our Lord's ministry was weighted with His impending doom, which even caused a clash between Himself and one of His disciples. But it is not till we reach Gethsemane that the veil is torn aside and we get a glimpse of the awfulness of the cross as it affected His fellowship with God. Hitherto the will of Christ was in perfect parallel with that of His Father. True, He did not do His own will, but He acquiesced in the Divine will cheerfully and with His whole heart. But now He begs that the cup pass from Him. His will was not at all in line with the will of God. But the will is not the final arbiter. The heart may furnish motives deeper and more powerful. So He adds "Not My will, but Thine, be done!"
We need not even ask the question whether He had a right to refuse to drink the cup which God had put to His lips. God Himself had opened the heavens and testified that He was delighted in His beloved Son. Christ had challenged any one to convict Him of sin and no one even dared to try. Pilate washed his hands of His case. Heaven and earth and the very demons declared His righteousness. There were no flaws in Him. Was it right, then, that He should suffer so severely that the very anticipation drew clots of blood from His agonized brow? We are not now concerned with the physical pain and shame inflicted by men. How undeserved that was we shall see again. Men are ignorant, as He Himself declared when He prayed "Father, forgive them, they know not what they do." Men are unjust and hateful, so we have no difficulty in understanding their attitude toward the holy One of God.
We are now concerned only with those most mysterious and terrible of all His sufferings, the loss of fellowship, the averted face, the active hostility of God Himself, which wrung from Him the orphan cry "My God, My God, why didst Thou abandon Me?" The terror of those three hours of darkness, when the Sun of His life was hid from His soul, surpass the power of the pen, yet the psalmist compares it with the force of fire and water and the sword. This was God's dealing with His Son. Our present question is, Was it right? Did Christ deserve such suffering? Was there any ground, in His relation with God, for the distance and despair which He endured?All will agree, even an infidel will concede, that, if any one ever deserved the opposite it was that lowly, holy Man. We are face to face, then, with this great truth, that God did visit with direst evil the dearest object in His universe. God does inflict evil even where no direct cause exists. The fact that sin had invaded the universe is no reason why Christ should suffer. The penalty of sin applies to the sinner, not to the only One Who was not corrupted by its contact. We are now confining ourselves to a consideration of the justice of His case, and exclude all higher thoughts.
It will not destroy this truth to say that His case was exceptional and that the apparent wrong was justified by the results to mankind and the whole creation. This is most true. It is the very truth for which we contend. God uses evil to attain a higher good. It is the means He employs in turning His creatures from neutral indifference to an active and affectionate response to His love. The attitude of God toward Christ on the cross is, in reality, a much deeper "problem" than the entrance of evil or sin. The glories He had before he emptied Himself to become a man entitled Him to respect and honor. The life He lived, the service He performed in His humiliation called forth praise and demanded a suitable reward. There was not the slightest cause in Him for divine condemnation.
If we are backward in acknowledging that evil came into the world in accord with God's purpose, what shall we say of His treatment of Christ? Christ did not want to drink the cup set before Him, yet this was God's will. The shame and indignity heaped upon Him during His ministry were not deserved. We acknowledge that men were awfully wrong in their treatment of Him. What then, shall we say of God Who forsook Him in His deepest need, Who sent fire from above into His bones, and more than this, delighted to crush Him! (Isa.53:10). There was only one greater wrong in all the universe than that He should be a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief, and that was that His sorest affliction should come from the heart of His God and Father. Let every one who imagines that God has no connection with evil listen to that lonely forlorn cry of the forsaken Son, "My God, My God, why didst Thou abandon Me?" In vindication we point to the infinitely blessed results flowing from it. We find that even the Sufferer Himself shall see of the travail of His soul and be satisfied. And this is the answer which suffices for the first entrance of evil as well as for its foremost example.
Murder is an evil of the first degree. To take the life of an enemy is usually punishable with death. To take the life of a friend is far worse, and one who slays his own beloved ones is usually adjudged insane, for it is a crime too terrible for a rational being to commit. It is this thought which intrudes itself upon us when we read of the faith of Abraham, when he offered up his son Isaac. He doubtless felt the same as we do about it, for we know that he consoled himself with the thought that God, Who was in reality responsible for the apparent crime, could take care of its consequences, for He could rouse Isaac from the dead.
The chief interest for us lies, not in Abraham's deed, for he did not actually slay his son, but in the great antitype, when God and His Son came to Golgotha. Then there was no substitute, but the Father's knife found its sheath in the Son Whom He loved, and in Whom all His hopes were centered. Our purpose in referring to it is to point out that, from every human standard, Abraham's intended act was insanely criminal. It was absolutely without justification apart from the revealed will of God. What had Isaac done to deserve death? And, infinitely more deserving as was the Son Whom he represented, why should He be slain? If we confine our inquiry to Christ and God, in their past relationships, and exclude the sin of man and creation and the benefits to come to all through His sacrifice, we must confess that it was a temporary wrong to the Victim. Is not this the thought underlying the statement that "He was made sin?" And this was for our sakes, that we might become God's righteousness in Him. No man made Him sin, and certainly Satan had no such laudable object in view. It was God Who did it, and to such purpose that it rectified and justified all other sins. The prevalent conception of the perfected universe is one scarred and marred by sin. God's thought is infinitely higher. The cross of Christ has transmitted sin into righteousness, transgression into obedience, offense into reconciliation, hate into love. Temporarily, during the earthly kingdom, sin is pardoned, offenses are forgiven. But eventually sin is justified, or vindicated. In itself it is criminal; in combination with the crime of the Cross, it is an essential factor in the revelation of God's heart.
To capitulate: God settles sin by sin. Every sin is transmuted by the sin of sins into an act essential to God's highest glory and the creatures' greatest good. All the righteousness and glory and honor which are Christ's, either before His incarnation or after His glorification do not offset sin. His undeserved humiliation and distress and shame and death are sufficient to transform all sin into righteousness and holiness and bliss.
The "fall of Satan" | |
The fall of Satan is a fundamental factor in human and satanic theology. Like many another false notion, such as natural immortality, it is so vital to the spirit of error which pervades theology that no one seems to notice its absence from the pages of Scripture. It is blasphemy to deny it, though God has not spoken. But once we have our eyes opened to examine God's revelation on this point, we see that the blasphemy is against the god of this world, who has blinded the minds of men lest the illumination of the glory of God should shine into their hearts. Satan's fall is only another and coarser form of Gnosticism, the "science, falsely so-called," against which the spirit of God has warned the saints. It is the old, old, attempt to relieve God of the responsibility of the creation as we know it, and to shift its shadows to the shoulders of His creatures. The Gnostics divided this responsibility among many, and thus dissipated the blame. Today it is concentrated on Satan, the Slanderer, who deceived our parents in Eden. It did not seem to suggest itself to the Gnostic that his scheme was not only unscriptural but unscientific as well; that is, contrary to reason as well as revelation. It shelved the problem rather than solved it. It does not occur to the defenders of this satanic falsehood that it is not only absent from God's word, but no real relief in answering the question which it covers. If Satan fell, we must account for his fall. If the impulse was from within, or if it came from without, it is this which is responsible. Where did it come from? In speaking of Satan, or the Slanderer, it will be of considerable advantage if we drop the common term "devil." Satan is the Hebrew word for an adversary, and has not been corrupted by misuse. "Devil" is derived from the Greek diabolos, but it has been incurably corrupted by being applied to demons. Diabolos means slanderer. It is a common noun, and is applied to others besides the one who has it for a title. It has a definite and instructive significance, but "devil" has acquired a very different, though indefinite, meaning. "That ancient serpent, the Slanderer and Satan" (Rev.20:2) is not known by name, but by descriptive, terms and titles. He is not the only adversary or the only slanderer, but he is the chief adversary of God and Christ, and the supreme Slanderer of God and man. He is the leader of the opposition in the divine government. It is his function to test and call in question, to thwart and to destroy every move made by God in His administration of the universe. Let us suppose that Adam had been named "Sinner" instead of Adam. How would that have suited his circumstances before he fell? If we had no account of his transgression at the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, would we not have the strongest kind of suspicion that his name was an index of his true character? Adam became entitled to the name sinner just as soon as he became what the name describes. So with Satan, the Slanderer, the ancient serpent and the dragon of the end time. He has many appellations, but is there one which redeems his character? Is there one that intimates that he ever was anything but an adversary and a slanderer? The statement that the Slanderer is sinning from the beginning is self evident because he would not be a slanderer if he was not a sinner. He must have been called by some other title if he was once righteous. Such is not revealed. There is a strong tendency to ignore the plain revelations concerning Satan and to form a blurred, composite picture by confusing him with every other evil spirit, as our translators have done in the case of demons. The motive that prompts this is palpably the desire to prove that he is an excrescence on God's creation, which has intruded contrary to God's purpose and will and in spite of every precaution. The first step in this propaganda is to prove that Satan was originally perfect, so that God is not at all responsible for his subsequent default. The various attempts to explain the entrance of sin into the universe are all essentially the same. The modern systems, though indignantly repudiating any connection with Gnosticism because it is denounced in the Scriptures, are really only a fragment of it.The Gnostics introduced evil by gradations. They invented a series of angelic castes, "Aeons", the highest created nearly perfect, and each lower level less so, until sin reached man. In this way they attempted to exonerate God from the charge of committing a great sin, but fastened on Him the responsibility of the primeval peccadillo. Of course, they did not look at it in this way. They thought they were clearing Him of all implication with sin. Modern systems are not so elaborate. Pointing to Gen.1:2, they assure us that Adam's fall was not the first. If we look back of Adam we find another "fall." Modern minds being more easily muddled than the acute thinkers of the early centuries, it does not seem necessary to invent still another, "fall" before that, and so on ad infinitum. It reminds me of a label I once saw, which puzzled my youthful, inquiring, but stubborn mind for some time. On the label was a picture of the label itself. Of course, on the picture of the label there must be a picture of the label, and on the picture of the picture there must be--. So I got a microscope and found that the artist had settled my difficulties very easily. He just made a little blot for the picture of the picture. That is the way theology tries to settle the origin of sin! It first seeks to reduce it so that our perceptions are unable to follow and then if any one insists on using a microscope it makes a blot on God's character! The principle is precisely the same as the "scientific" philosophy of evolution. First reduce everything to a mere speck of protoplasm and then--nothing! Men of God say rightly that it is foolish to reduce everything to a form for which there is no reason or evidence, merely to bludgeon our minds into the acceptance of a theory which it rejects when things are kept within the range of human perception. It is far more foolish for those whose minds have been enlightened by God's spirit to use a similar course in connection with evil and sin. The problem is not changed though we invent ever so many "falls," for which the Scriptures give no warrant. Another point we must insist on if we are to be clear concerning these things. Not only do we read of no "fall" before Adam, we never read of the "fall" of Adam. Let no one mistake my meaning. That Adam sinned, transgressed, offended and became a dying creature with a variety of consequences is all too true. But God has never seen fit to use the term "fall" to denote the fact. Ordinarily we might overlook the use of a convenient term, but in this connection it is made the vehicle of obscure and unscriptural thoughts. Let any one try to transfer the facts and consequences of Adam's "fall" to Satan, and he will soon be convinced that it is merely a blanket to cover ignorance. A return to Scriptural language will shed light. The real usefulness of the term "fall" lies in the unproven assumption that sin has always come from without, as in Adam's case, to a creature originally sinless. This would recoil on itself if it were carried to its logical conclusion. How many creatures in the chain suffered a "fall" and passed on the burden of sin makes no difference. There was a first one. And we are driven to the horrible conclusion that God Himself must have played the role of serpent in the first instance! Should not this make us beware of embarking on this unscriptural and unreasonable philosophy? If Satan fell, where is the evidence? The word "fall" is not used. The desperate need for some evidence is all that is proven by the appeal to passages which no sober student would have pressed into service otherwise. The favorite passage for proving the original perfection and subsequent fall of Satan is found in the twenty-eighth chapter of Ezekiel. The "king of Tyrus," we are told, is another name for the devil. His presence in Eden is perhaps the only fact which points that way. But this does not establish the identity of the serpent with the king of Tyre. We are never told that Satan was the only spirit who had access to the garden. Moreover, the creature in Ezekiel was perfect at that time, for surely it was not one of the glories of the king of Tyre to have been in that scene as the serpent, the adversary of God! This would put his "fall" subsequent to the great cataclysm of the second verse of Genesis, which, we are told, was a result of it. The prince of Tyre is emphatically described as a man, a human being (Ezek.28:2,9). The king of Tyre was known among the people and his destruction was a matter of public astonishment. How can this apply to Satan? Those who have seen the ruins of Tyre and have some idea of its ancient magnificence will find nothing in this passage too wonderful to be accounted for. There is not the slightest hint that it concerns any one but the ruler of Tyre. If it involves the spiritual king of Tyre, corresponding with the "prince of Persia," the "prince of Grecia," or Michael, the prince of Israel (Dan.10:20,21) it is most unlikely that Satan should be assigned to a small kingdom like Tyre, or, indeed, any single kingdom, for he claims all kingdoms as his. Why should we give him such a subordinate place, simply to get a passage to prove that he once was perfect? Moreover, it is always well to inquire what is intended by "perfect" in the Scriptures. The Greek has three words for "perfect," and the Hebrew uses it for about six. It is questionable whether it ever denotes sinlessness. Any other meaning would be of little value in this discussion. The word used in Ezekiel 28:15 is tahmeem, meaning flawless. The A. V. renders it without blemish, complete, full, perfect, sincerely, sincerity, sound, without spot, undefiled, upright, uprightly, whole. It is most often found of the animals used in sacrifice. Noah was "perfect" (Gen.6:9) in his generations. This certainly does not mean that he was sinless. David said, "I was also upright perfect before Him." Does this prove that David escaped the lot of all of Adam's descendants up to this time? It is evident that the meaning is limited to apparent flaws, not to innate tendencies. It is not a question of sinlessness. The same word "perfect," is used in the passages which are usually adduced to prove that Satan was created sinless, such as "His work is perfect" (Deut.32:4), "As for God, His way is perfect" (2 Sam.22:31; Psa.18:30). It does not deny the great truth that all is of God. There is no flaw in the creation of a creature perfectly adapted to carry out a part of His purpose. Satan is as "perfect" in this sense as any of His creatures. Still further, in the case of the Tyrian king, this perfection was in his ways, till iniquity was found in him. The iniquity did not come from without. It was in him while his ways were perfect, but undiscovered. This can easily be understood of a man, but cannot be applied to a sinless creature. Iniquity could not be found in such a one, for it is sure evidence that sin was already there. Our ignorance of the spiritual forces of wickedness leads us to call them all "devils." Thus our version calls the demons "devils," and it is common to include Apollyon, the king of the monstrous locusts and messenger of the abyss, and every evil power of the unseen world, as a "devil." There is only one Slanderer, and most of the minions of evil among the celestials are his messengers, as is seen under the figure of a dragon which drags a third of the heavenly host down with it. Each kingdom or government of earth doubtless has a spiritual "prince" or overlord, under Satan's suzerainty. We have been delivered from the authority of darkness. But Satan himself is never limited to one land. His peculiar province seems to be the aerial jurisdiction. He is sovereign over all, as he was the first of all to oppose the government of God. He did not offer our Lord the kingdoms of Tyre and Babylon as a reward for worship, but all the kingdoms of the earth, for he was over all. Were we considering the end of Satan instead of his beginning, the very same expositors would absolutely refuse to accept their own identification, for, in the Authorized Version rendering, his practical annihilation is tersely stated thus: "and never shalt thou be any more." Compare this with "The devil that deceived them...shall be tormented day, and night for ever and ever." Changing "for ever" to "the eons" does not help the identification. There is no point in Satan's career when he "shall not be." The nearest approach is the thousand-year period, when he is bound, but the fact that he will be loosed and lead the largest host of his career in his final defection after that, makes it impossible to apply this passage to the Slanderer. The true reading, for the eon (LXX) would teach that Satan is not alive today! The king of Tyre was judged in the sight of those who knew his glory. The fact that such a passage should be pressed altogether out of its proper place assures us that the underlying motive is false. If Satan was sinless from the beginning a plain passage could be found, and a false one need not be distorted. Compare the words in Ezekiel with those of John. In one we read of the king of Tyre, "Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee" (Ezek.38:15). The apostle was inspired to write, "the Slanderer is sinning from the beginning." Suppose we falsely say "Adam was sinning from the beginning." "No! No!" we hear our readers exclaim. "He did not sin until Eve was tempted by Satan." What shall we believe, a fanciful inference, or God's absolute declaration? A favorite refuge from the plain and apparent sense, that Satan was a sinner and murderer from the beginning, is the suggestion that this dates from the beginning of man rather than Satan himself. The fact that such a statement could not have such a sense if applied in any other connection shows how desperate and hopeless this argument is. Moreover, the same expositors insist that all the evidences of sin, such as the cataclysm of Gen.1:2 are due to Satan! They occurred long before man came on the scene. Satan was a sinner, according to their own teaching, ages before Adam's advent. When was "the beginning?" As in the opening of John's evangel, the article the is absent. The conception of an absolute beginning is outside the range of human comprehension. We cannot look back to any definite point of time and say, "Nothing-- not even God--existed before this. "So, in Scripture, the word beginning has the definite article--the beginning--when the context definitely decides what is in view. When the article is absent, as here, we would probably use the indefinite article, "as a beginning," or, when used of a person, the possessive pronoun, "his beginning." The "beginning" is always limited by the immediate context. Here this is finally fixed by the title used. So long as the Slanderer was a slanderer he was a sinner. This, we are told, was "from the beginning." No other deduction is possible but that sin began when he began. Isaiah's description of the King of Babylon in the yet future day of Israel's restoration, is also taken as referring to Satan's fall in the past (Isa.14:3-20):
As this is still future, it can hardly refer to Satan's primeval "fall." At that time Satan will have been literally cast out from heaven (Rev.12:9, compare Luke 10:18). But these facts give us no license to identify the two. There will be a king of Babylon who will arrogate divine honors to himself and who will lord it over the kings of the nations, and who will shake kingdoms. Yet he is a man (Isa.14:16), and Satan is not a man. Moreover, an examination of the Hebrew text, will convince any one that the evidence for the title "Lucifer" is exceedingly slight. It is precisely the same word as the translators rendered "howl" in Zech.11:2. In the feminine it occurs again in this very chapter, at the beginning of verse 31. In slightly different forms it is found in Isaiah ten times, and it is always rendered howl (13:6; 15:2,3; 16:7,7; 23:1,6,14; 52:5; 65:14). There is no valid reason why Isaiah 14:12 should not be rendered, "Howl!" instead of "Lucifer." This name is a human invention, and should have no place in the Scriptures. Are not these futile efforts to find a foundation for the primeval perfection of the devil a tacit admission that no actual evidence exists? More than that, are they not desperate devices to disprove the clear, unequivocal statements that the Slanderer is sinning from the beginning (1 John 3:8), was a man-killer from the beginning (John 8:44), and is not only a liar, but the father of it?. Having disposed of passages which cannot be connected with Satan, it may be well to inquire whether we have not overlooked some which really have a bearing on his origin. We are perfectly safe so long as we keep to the titles given him in the Scripture-- Serpent, Slanderer, and Satan. Is there any suggestion as to who brought the serpent into existence? In Job 26:13, we read,
If this were the utterance of one of Job's friends, we might well beware, lest it be merely human philosophy, for the Lord said, "ye have not spoken of Me the thing that is right, as My servant Job hath" (Job 42:7). Besides, we must be careful to check the translation of the vital expressions. The Revisers change "formed" to "pierced," yet the same word in 39:1 is left "the hinds do calve." There is more consistency between "form" and "calve" than "pierce" and "calve," yet the Revisers have made a change in the right direction. The Hebrew word ghool refers to the travail which accompanies birth (Isa.13:8; 23:4; 26:17; 54:1; 66:78). When Eliphaz used this word, the translators themselves rendered it, "the wicked man travaileth with pain" (Job 15:20) and the Revisers concur. This, it will be seen, is allied to both forming and piercing. How incongruous "pierce" is will be seen if we should render Deut.32:18, "thou hast forgotten God that pierced thee." They had forgotten the God Who had suffered in the travail of their birth. Coming back, now, to the serpent, Job declares that
Note the contrast between the garnishing of the heavens by His spirit and the painful production of the serpent by His hand. The spirit is used of intimate and vital association, the hand holds its work at a distance and suggests power and skill, rather than communion. The immediate application of these lines is, of course, to the material heavens. But no one who has studied the stars and their relation to holy writ, will fail to see a far deeper meaning. The stars are often used as figures of celestial powers, and in the ancient constellations, both Draconis and Serpens have always represented the Satan of Scripture. The Dragon's tail drew a third part of the stars of heaven (Rev.12:4). This does not prove that we have here the divine description of Satan's origin, but it is ever so much nearer a demonstration than the passages which are usually produced. The Septuagint reads: Yet locks of heaven dread Him, and by an edict He puts to death the dragon apostate. We have not been able to reconcile this and the Hebrew text, which seems, in this case, to be superior, for the context seems to call for God's revelation of Himself in nature, past and present, not the future, which was not in evidence. But there is one more link which will put the matter beyond question. Not only is the term serpent (Hebrew, nahghahsh the same as the name of Eve's tempter in Eden's garden (Gen.3:1,2,4, 13,14), but Isaiah describes it in precisely the same terms, the fugitive serpent (Isa.27:1):
The context clearly shows that this will be when the Lord comes to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity (Isa.26:21). Its connection with the twelfth chapter of the Unveiling is too close to deny. If Satan is that "ancient serpent" (Rev.20:2), how can we help identify him with Isaiah and Job and Genesis? All will acknowledge Genesis and Isaiah. As precisely the same name and descriptive term is used in Job as in Isaiah, the evidence is as conclusive as it can well be. The "fugitive serpent" of Job is the same as the "fugitive serpent" of Isaiah. The "fugitive" serpent of Job (A. V. "crooked") and Isaiah seems to refer to the constellation Serpens, for it flees from the grasp of Ophiuchus. The "crooked" serpent of Isaiah may be Draco (or Draconis), which winds its way among the northern stars. The Unveiling and Isaiah give us his end, Genesis and Job give us his beginning. He is not introduced to us in the garden as an angel of light, though such he simulates today. He was seen as a serpent. Job gives us his origin. The One Who has garnished the heavens--His hand was pained with the travail of bringing forth the serpent. It is well to seek for truth in its proper place. The judgment of Tyre and Babylon is no place to look for the origin of Satan. Job, however, is speaking of the creation of the universe and the manner of its making. God hangs the earth on nothing. The clouds and the sea are all displays of His power. Each couplet includes both good and evil. So, in the heavens, He it is Who made all. It is an elaboration of the great truth that all is of God (Rom.11:36). We are now able to appreciate the peculiar term which has puzzled the translators, so that some render it formed, others, pierced. The woman was not the first to travail in pain because of sin. Jehovah travailed when Satan, was formed. Sin and pain appear together. Satan is now transformed into an angel of light, and many of the Lord's own receive him as such. His ministers are ministers of righteousness, posing as the ministers of Christ. This deception is no greater than his successful entrance into theology and enlistment of many great and grand servants of Christ, in proof that he actually was an angel of light at the first. |