There are tons of commentary on where Satan came from. You'll find some who even claim that the passage in Ezekiel 28:11-19 means that Satan was once a mere human.
I would be the last to claim that everything in Scripture will make sense to us humans. Human logic, as part of fallen humanity, suffers limitations in spiritual matters. Have you ever tried to explain the Trinity? You can't -- yet the Church has clearly taught it, in no uncertain terms, since 125AD. I contend that the Scripture clearly teaches it, but there is a tangential issue involving whether you accept modern translations. Updated translations are a good idea, I maintain, but taken from corrupt texts, so far. I use the New King James.
See if you can follow this: Hebrew language is picturesque in the extreme. It is based on non-Western logic, and it's hard for us to grasp sometimes. For example, the Hebrew word for 'snake' is nakawsh (naw-kawsh) -- doesn't that sound like a snake (try drawing out the last syllable)? It takes time to get used to the way Hebrew writing works, and thus we often miss things in the Old Testament. I can't condense here 3 years of Seminary level Hebrew, much less the work of PhDs from whom I have learned it (for the record, I have no seminary time, just lots of reading of seminary texts, and pestering those at the PhD level for information). You are certainly permitted to reject any or all of this, but please do so after careful study.
We see "the Serpent" in Genesis 3, and it's just a poetic term for Satan. How much of Genesis is properly taken literally or not is subject to debate, but Paul's comment to Timothy in 2 Timothy 2:15 is a reference to just such an effort -- to accurately discern the natural intent of the Word. So I don't envision a big snake or lizard, but an "Angel of Light" (2 Corinthians 7:14). From the context, we can assume that Eve recognized him as someone to whom she might normally talk. If we compare this scene with the opening paragraphs of Job, we begin to get a picture of someone who was allowed to come and go on the Earth at will, had tremendous power, and yet was accountable to God. Further, he had some access the God's throne room, and seemed familiar with the protocols for addressing God.
Next, we look at Isaiah 14. Again, there has been much ink spilled over this one. One school of thought reminds us that every condemnation against a human, guilty of great evil, is at least an indirect condemnation of the one who inspired their evil: Satan. The poetic lines of condemnation for Nebuchadnezzar (vv. 12-15) sound a great deal like the condemnation against the "King of Tyre" in Ezekiel 28:11-19. In the case of Tyre, we know for a fact that there was never any person bearing the title "King." There was a Prince (more accurately translated "leader from among the people"). We also know that the Prince was simultaneously the high priest of a very nasty religion. In the eyes of Hebrew prophets, the pagan god a people worshipped was their true ruler. For centuries, Bible scholars have said that this passage in Ezekiel could only be about Satan. Keep in mind, that every pagan god and goddess was merely a front for a demon (1 Corinthians 10:19-20). It's not too much of a stretch to see Tyre's demon as Satan himself.
If you chase down the passages in Scripture regarding Satan (AKA Lucifer, the Enemy, the Accuser, etc.) and piece them together, you get a feel for this character. Seen as a whole, they describe one who, at first was the "Covering Cherub" of God. Try to imagine that few in Creation can bear the presence of God Himself, without losing their created form (i.e., they die). Thus, someone had to be a cloak to shield Creation. No inanimate thing would do; so God created one to handle the task. This meant that all traffic/communication between God and Creation had to pass through this Living Cloak. No surprise that this being got a big head over his unique status, and tried to skim off some of that glory and praise meant for God, and keep it for himself. It's all metaphor, because Hebrew is itself mostly metaphor.
The next part I get from C.S. Lewis and his Narnia series of children's books. It seems consistent with what I know of Scripture. Knowing what we do about God, His holiness, etc., and His other characteristics, we can make certain assumptions based on the belief that God is also self-consistent. So God can't let this trespass go by unanswered. He condemns Lucifer, but may have felt magnanimous about clarifying the rightness of His judgment. At the same time, the punishment fits the crime: a being is conceived in the mind of God as a proving ground between Lucifer's declaration about himself (including declaration by behavior) versus what God had said was Lucifer's place.
Of course, a place had to be made that would allow this being to live, act, etc. So, we have the world, and all that is in it. God breathed life into Man and thus there is some inherent kinship. Man can choose to follow God, or he can listen to Lucifer's seductive lies about God and His purpose. All of humanity in history, until the Second Coming and Final Judgment, is one long courtroom testimony.
Beyond that, it's too murky for me to speculate. I'm already way out on a limb, but this explanation forms a useful part of my faith life serving Him. It seems to explain some things which happen beyond my control, and it helps to explain even my own feelings at times. Is it "The Truth"? Can't say. I only know it seems to fit with all the things that are much more clearly addressed in Scripture.
By Ed Hurst
05 July 2007
COPYRIGHT NOTICE: People of honor need no copyright laws; they are only too happy to give credit where credit is due. Others will ignore copyright laws whenever they please. If you are of the latter, please note what Moses said about dishonorable behavior -- "be sure your sin will find you out" (Numbers 32:23)