Wednesday, March 01, 2006
History and Satan and God
We know from an extensive study of Scripture that Satan existed before he tempted Eve, and that he planned that temptation, and that his intention was to overthrow the rule of God. He has acted that way as history has progressed. Paul, for example speaks of two "mysteries:" one is the mystery of God's will acted out and revealed through history toward the ultimate conquering of evil and salvation of creation from it, the other is the mystery of iniquity or Satan's will toward the ultimate conquering of good and the destruction of creation (which speaks of the creator). This seems to indicate that there are competing eschatalogical plans for the universe, one is God's and the other is Satan's. The events in the Garden of Eden are the same. We know from certain passages of Scripture that "that Serpent of Old" is the Devil. We know that it was part of his plan to destroy creation.
I have a couple of important observations to make at this point.
One consists of the nature of good and evil. In God's record of history, we find definite boundaries of morality. Good, being a foundational characteristic of God's nature ("And God saw everything that He had made, and behold, it was very good") existed, or better said has always been, eternally as a part of God's character. Evil, as a function of God's permission and not of His character, has only existed within the confines of history. Furthermore, it has a definite beginning and end (an entirely different work for another time, but eternal dualism is not biblical). Therefore, whenever Satan began this plan and its execution, it was within history, for he is a finite creature operating under the permissive will of God.
The second observation is in regard to the biblical text. Why did Moses not tell us all of this? It is almost mysterious how he describes this serpent and its conversation and the whole event with little to no explanation of exactly what is taking place. One reason clearly is that he cannot tell all at once. I believe the second is because the focus of the event and its purpose is to launch themes more central to God's plan. How long do we have to read in the Bible until we find such and explanation? We find little until Job, and there the evidence is scant. More is clarified in the prophets, but we really do not get the whole picture until we see the last books of the New Testament writing about last things. Clearly, the events surrounding the fall of man have heavy relevance to demonology, but the focus of Moses is on once again introducing at a fundamental level the nature of the books of the Bible. For this, he does not articulate deeply. I now feel a little guilty, for I have begun to articulate deeply, and I see that is not Moses intention. He is introducing. The explanation comes later. We should be careful about ordering our teaching the same way.
I am a firm believer in the chronological teaching method. By this I mean that we should order teaching programs and even evangelism around the structure of Scripture. I believe therefore that the tensions created by leaving some of the obvious questions until later (who was the Serpent) will serve to follow the logic of the Scriptures more closely. Having already violated this principle, I stand in judgment. As we shall see later, the Christ is a central message of this story, but He is never mentioned by name, nor is His ministry described in any detail. This tension should also be left to be resolved.
As a reader of classic literature and a fan of Charles Dickens, I cringe every time a new movie comes out from one of the classic books, because they skip around too much. A reader of Great Expectations never knows who the benefactor is until the end. It is a great read, I do not want to spoil it for you. It is also an illustration of my point. I could tell you the end or the alternative endings and explain how it all fits together right now, but the impact of the story only comes from sensing the tensions and questions and events and characters of the story. The same is true of the Bible. It is not a dry series of proof texts, but a living story of history that resolves beautifully in the end. However, the impact of its teaching comes from teaching it progressively in context from beginning to end. Stop asking "What does God have to say about...?" and start asking "What does God have to say?"
I have a couple of important observations to make at this point.
One consists of the nature of good and evil. In God's record of history, we find definite boundaries of morality. Good, being a foundational characteristic of God's nature ("And God saw everything that He had made, and behold, it was very good") existed, or better said has always been, eternally as a part of God's character. Evil, as a function of God's permission and not of His character, has only existed within the confines of history. Furthermore, it has a definite beginning and end (an entirely different work for another time, but eternal dualism is not biblical). Therefore, whenever Satan began this plan and its execution, it was within history, for he is a finite creature operating under the permissive will of God.
The second observation is in regard to the biblical text. Why did Moses not tell us all of this? It is almost mysterious how he describes this serpent and its conversation and the whole event with little to no explanation of exactly what is taking place. One reason clearly is that he cannot tell all at once. I believe the second is because the focus of the event and its purpose is to launch themes more central to God's plan. How long do we have to read in the Bible until we find such and explanation? We find little until Job, and there the evidence is scant. More is clarified in the prophets, but we really do not get the whole picture until we see the last books of the New Testament writing about last things. Clearly, the events surrounding the fall of man have heavy relevance to demonology, but the focus of Moses is on once again introducing at a fundamental level the nature of the books of the Bible. For this, he does not articulate deeply. I now feel a little guilty, for I have begun to articulate deeply, and I see that is not Moses intention. He is introducing. The explanation comes later. We should be careful about ordering our teaching the same way.
I am a firm believer in the chronological teaching method. By this I mean that we should order teaching programs and even evangelism around the structure of Scripture. I believe therefore that the tensions created by leaving some of the obvious questions until later (who was the Serpent) will serve to follow the logic of the Scriptures more closely. Having already violated this principle, I stand in judgment. As we shall see later, the Christ is a central message of this story, but He is never mentioned by name, nor is His ministry described in any detail. This tension should also be left to be resolved.
As a reader of classic literature and a fan of Charles Dickens, I cringe every time a new movie comes out from one of the classic books, because they skip around too much. A reader of Great Expectations never knows who the benefactor is until the end. It is a great read, I do not want to spoil it for you. It is also an illustration of my point. I could tell you the end or the alternative endings and explain how it all fits together right now, but the impact of the story only comes from sensing the tensions and questions and events and characters of the story. The same is true of the Bible. It is not a dry series of proof texts, but a living story of history that resolves beautifully in the end. However, the impact of its teaching comes from teaching it progressively in context from beginning to end. Stop asking "What does God have to say about...?" and start asking "What does God have to say?"
