Is the Earth the domain of Satan?

Faith & Science Conversation
,
1

I’ve seen multiple parts of the Bible (as well as a few apologetic sites) claim that our planet, Earth (or rather Creation in general) is the dominion of Satan. Typically, some of these claims come from texts like the Gospels, where Satan was going to give the Kingdoms of Earth to Jesus, and that Jesus doesn’t rebute Satan for giving up something that isn’t him.

I guess this is part of a larger question I have: how much power/influence is Satan said to have over Creation? I don’t really “believe” in Satan because, to me, the concept of Satan seems to be a later addition of Christianity, but sometimes I wonder if the Bible indicates otherwise. Is this true?

1 Like
2

In the OT ha-satan is a title, not a person. The concept of a fallen angle comes from the Book of Enoch and this idea was merged with satan. Always amazes me how much of what people think comes from “the Bible” actually comes from non-canonical sources.

And given we are told God is continuing to create I find it hard to believe any satan would be in charge.

2 Likes
3

When Jesus died, resurrected and went to Heaven, that is seen as the decisive victory of the opposing (spiritual) forces. At least from that moment onwards, Jesus is the Lord, the King that is above all the other rulers. No satan (adversary) or ha-satan (the satan) has more power. These can act now within the limits put to them but Jesus rules.

Even before the time when Jesus was born, satan(s) were created beings, not equal to the Creator.

3 Likes
4

It all comes down to this : Does evil exist? Yes, but why?

It’s something I’ve been wrestling with, and I believe it could explain so much of our lived experience which is understanding why the world feels broken (and not just ‘unfinished’), and why God aims for redemption in the Bible.

First, I don’t believe Satan to be a mythical or metaphorical figure meant to scare people. There’s a spiritual reality beyond the natural, and that realm affects the material world as shown by the supernatural events surrounding Jesus’ crucifixion (earthquakes, the temple veil torn in two ect. ).

I don’t find the argument that Satan is a late addition to Christianity robust, since he’s woven into Scripture from Genesis to Revelation. And with the Gospels reporting Jesus’ temptation, where Satan says, “I will give you all this authority and glory,” it becomes hard to ignore that he has real, somewhat, delegated power over the world’s systems.

“We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.” (1 John 5.v19)

We emphasize humanity’s sin leading to spiritual death, but not much is said about the cosmic fall nor its timeline (if there’s one), and how much it affects creation today.

What if natural evil (earthquakes, storms, pointless suffering, disease) isn’t primarily the result of human sin but the result of Satan’s cosmic rebellion? And what if the cross is God’s response to the cosmic fall, not just humanity’s fall?

If so, then creation is functional for its temporary purpose but it is also corrupt beyond repair and ought to be made new, not restored or completed.

That’s what the Bible teaches when it reveals there will be a time when every trace of Satan’s work, from natural disasters to moral evil, will be erased, and creation will flourish as God always intended:

“The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat. They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain.” (Isaiah 11.v6-9)

1 Like
5

Rev 20:1-3 Satan bound for 1,000 Yrs. I see the Thousand Years were the time of The Holy Roman Empire for the Years 800-1800. To me now is the short time Satan is Released.

6

Is ‘natural evil’ truly evil? I would not call it evil. Earthquakes, falling space rocks, storms and such are natural phenomena in a dynamic universe. They will not disappear unless the unverse / Earth stagnates to a point where nothing happens. Being in a wrong place at a wrong time may cause death or suffering but that is the natural cost of living in this universe.

I do not deny the possibility that God may sometimes use natural catastrophes or storms to affect events or people. I assume that such cases are rare exceptions, not a rule. If there are such cases, they would not be the work of personal evil, they would be commanded by God.

From Christian perspective, both denying the existence of evil spirits/satan or giving too much credit to evil are unbalanced ways to approach the problem of evil.
For Christians, the basic rule is to look at Jesus, not what dangers are around us. Apostle Peter learned that when he tried to walk on water.

7 Likes
7

I agree since Satan appears often in second-Temple Jewish literature.

I think the most common idea is that when Adam and Eve followed the Satan’s deception they surrendered their sovereignty to him.
What’s actually humorous about Satan’s offer in the Gospels is that the elohim who also rebelled aren’t depicted as any more inclined to obey Satan than they were to obey Yahweh – “a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand” was a description of the rebel realm.

It’s worth noting that the word for “world” there – κόσμος (COZ-mohs) – often refers to the organized human realm.

Any second-Temple Christian would hear this and be like, “Well, duh!” Messiah was supposed to fix it all.

In the Greek those concepts are effectively the same – Creation is “old” in the same sense that we have an “old man” that is the result of fallenness.

“The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.” I John 3:8

2 Likes
8

Given the politics of the HRE, that’s a real stretch.

9

Given that Yahweh declares that it is He Who “creates catastrophe”, that’s a good question – though the problem is that Western humans have conflated two ideas that were pretty distinct in Hebrew thought.

1 Like
10

I think the general view is that the Devil has been unleashed but how much power and/or dominion he has is more related to who accepts him or not, rather than some sort of Universal Slaver

When Jesus turns on Peter for rebuking Him, He is claiming opposition, not a specific character or title.

The origins of “The Devil” are probably more linguistic as in Devil rather than specific.

Having said that, to dismiss He, She, it, is probably foolish. If we accept the presence of a power for good then logic and balance dictates that there will be a opposite. Folk Lore tends to side on the the Devil because of the disadvantage or morality but Scripture is more adamant that Good triumphs over the Devil.

Richard

1 Like
11

Note I said the usage in the Hebrew Bible, not the NT. The concept of Satan/Devil/Lucifer developed over time.

Does this mean I should avoid eating deviled eggs? :wink:

Might want to check a dictionary.

1 Like
12

You do know there is a New Testament right? What Max suggested is absolutely Biblical even though he isn’t sure why or how.

Start with the temptation narrative. Also, who entered Judas?

Both you @Bill_II have this attitude that additions to the Bible are a bad thing. As one who subscribes to progressive revelation that our knowledge can increase over time, and thinks things like slavery we’re never ideal, I couldn’t disagree more. Why can’t additions clarify that which was only obscure or fuzzily known? Later additions to the Bible (unless we are talking about textual corruptions) are inspired just the same. My honest opinion is you both have been entrenched in a radical skepticism and are not approaching scripture as an inspired text with a hermeneutic of trust.

Vinnie

1 Like
13

It was a spreading of the Exposure of Jesus, not the Methodology.

14

In Gnosticism, the physical world is the evil God Nebro’s. The good God is the nonphysical Barbelo. Saklas, the fool God, made man in his own image. We have to escape the physical world and enter Barbelo’s heaven.

~ Gospel of Judas of Iscariot.

15

Never said it was “a bad thing.” Progressive revelation is a thing but it should just provide context for previous revelation and not a wholesale change to that previous revelation.

You are saying later additions can change the meaning of the Hebrew as originally written? The use of satan as a title is well established in the Hebrew Bible. Sorry but that is a bridge too far. You might want to check Numbers 22:22 where satan was applied to the Angel of the Lord.

I was about to ask if you consider the Book of Enoch as inspired, but I think you do.

My honest opinion is you have no idea how I personally approach Scripture. If you are basing that off of the questions I raise you are very wrong.

What is your opinion of using Second Temple Judism (which seems to get thrown around a lot) as a source? Were they inspired?

3 Likes
16

Check out to origins of ‘good’ and ‘God’ too.

17

I think we need to keep in mind that throughout the Scriptures people were trying to make sense of the world using the concepts and language and literary tools they had at their disposal. Personifying supernatural forces of evil into a single entity, The Accuser is something they did to try to think and talk about supernatural forces of evil. It’s not the only way, even within the texts of the Bible, and I think trying to take a couple verses here and there and come up with some kind of statement of absolute truth on the ultimate reality of the universe is kind of misguided. The whole point of the Bible is to record people’s encounters with God, it’s not to give us an objective scientific understanding of supernatural realm.

I would say Satan is a construct for understanding people’s supernatural experiences. Constructs are real. But I tend to take verses that say things like earth is the domain of Satan to be more emotionally expressive than objectively descriptive. People get frustrated when it seems like there is no justice and everyone is suffering and humanity keeps sucking.

2 Likes
18

It wasn’t actually Satan in Genesis, though, it was the serpent.

1 Like
19

People get confused because in some expressions like God be with ye, God became good over time (good bye). In Spanish it’s still God (adios from a Dios)

But linguists say that God comes from old verb that meant “to invoke,” so the noun form basically meant one who is called on in prayer. And that was the best word available in the lexicon when the Christian beliefs were first translated into English.

5 Likes
20

And that is not how it always works in my view. If we take the plain meaning of things I see a lot of pushback in scripture against itself:

OT/Moses: permitted the giving of a certificate of divorce.
Jesus: Nope you hard hearts. Can’t do that.

OT: yes on taking oaths
Jesus: Nope

Parts of OT: Law is good and perfect.
Ezekiel: I gave you crappy laws.

God in Pentateuch: I pushing children for their parents sins to third and fourth generation.
God in Ezekiel 18:20: No I don’t do things this way.

The Bible uses the cosmology/history/philosophy/background knowledge of its day to express theological truths. It reveals a larger story over time. Granted it is a diverse book, it will not always be univocal and may express things early on in a manner that may be inconsistent with how later revelation perceives things.

For me, I stick with the interpretation of Jesus and those He appointed. Being a Christian and not a Mosesian, that seems entirely reasonable. It is probably best to look at the whole story of scripture anyways, as opposed to pitting its parts against one another. No one knew the snake/tempter of Adam and Eve–who was simply a crafty animal-- was Satan x thousands of years ago but by the time we get the end of the canon, the full story is revealed (Rev 12:9 and 20:2). Unless of course you think the serpent only speaks of the leviathan of Isaiah and has no connection to Genesis (incorrect in my view). At any rate, things have progressed to a full fledged demonology by the time of Jesus who engaged in a LOT of exorcisms and spoke to Satan (demons) and referenced him several times in the Gospels.

It seems easier to understand the spiritual realm being revealed progressively over time as opposed to calling Jesus and major parts of his ministry and story as pure fiction or complete misunderstandings trying to explain why bad stuff happens. Calling this a construct really undercuts the message of the Gospels in my mind. It puts them in make believe land. That might be okay to some but the amount of things I would have to readily admit Jesus got wrong (and implicitly claim I know better than Him on) or are ultimately made up in the gospels tends to undercut my ability to consider them reliable. What else did He get wrong? Jesus knew the Father but was absolutely clueless about how the spiritual realm really worked? [Matthew: “All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."] Tough sell for me. Jesus was an exorcists. That is one of the most historically certain aspects of His ministry.

It also goes against the genre of ancient bios that is written in such close proximity to the events to deny much of this material actually belongs to ministry of the historical Jesus. I don’t think Jesus was a liar or misguided when he said: “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.” I also don’t think that only applies to those words me and the worldview I have been imbibed in since birth find palatable. I need to bend to my Lord and Savior, not make Him agree with me. Not to mention I feel beholden to historic Christianity which many are quick to dismiss as they become davinci coders finding the secret meaning of the Bible (armed with sola scripture) the rest of the church missed–that just so happens to be palatable to modern secular ideology.

Jewish Study Bible: 22: As an adversary: In the Bible the term “satan” is used attributively (1 Sam. 29.4), or when personified it refers to a divine being who answers to God (Job 1.6–12; 1 Chron. 21.1), rather than to an independent entity who is God’s adversary (“Satan”). The concept only later developed into the “Devil.”

I have no problem with this. Neither does the Catholic Church which feels the fullness of scripture teaches the following:

391 Behind the disobedient choice of our first parents lurks a seductive voice, opposed to God, which makes them fall into death out of envy.266 Scripture and the Church’s Tradition see in this being a fallen angel, called “Satan” or the “devil”.267 The Church teaches that Satan was at first a good angel, made by God: “The devil and the other demons were indeed created naturally good by God, but they became evil by their own doing.”

They understand the concept of Satan evolved and since they are not wooden literalists, have no issues with that.

It is not a part of the Catholic canon.

It should inform how we understand Jesus and His followers since they were all second temple Jews. I think there was quite a bit of diversity.

Fair enough and I apologize for presuming. So, how do you personally approach scripture?

Vinnie