10/26/18

Deception by Gary Rose





The world we live in is constantly changing. To me, this is most evident when it comes to information. I remember, that as a young adult, I trusted the media. Generally, I believed what was on the three network channels and PBS as being the truth. Then, as time when on, something changed; it became more and more obvious that the “news” was becoming increasingly more slanted. Within the past decade or so, the “news” seems to have been replaced by propaganda. More than that, propaganda has been transformed into outright political attacks filled with hate.
The deception of all the media is apparent and both disheartening and alarming. Yet, deceit is not a new concept, only the medium is different.

Consider this passage from the book of Joshua...


Joshua 9 (World English Bible)
 1 When all the kings who were beyond the Jordan, in the hill country, and in the lowland, and on all the shore of the great sea in front of Lebanon, the Hittite, the Amorite, the Canaanite, the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite, heard of it  2 they gathered themselves together to fight with Joshua and with Israel, with one accord. 3 But when the inhabitants of Gibeon heard what Joshua had done to Jericho and to Ai,  4 they also resorted to a ruse, and went and made as if they had been ambassadors, and took old sacks on their donkeys, and wine skins, old and torn and bound up,  5 and old and patched shoes on their feet, and wore old garments. All the bread of their provision was dry and moldy.  6 They went to Joshua to the camp at Gilgal, and said to him, and to the men of Israel, “We have come from a far country. Now therefore make a covenant with us.” 

  7  The men of Israel said to the Hivites, “What if you live among us. How could we make a covenant with you?” 

  8  They said to Joshua, “We are your servants.” 

Joshua said to them, “Who are you? Where do you come from?” 
  9  They said to him, “Your servants have come from a very far country because of the name of Yahweh your God; for we have heard of his fame, all that he did in Egypt,  10 and all that he did to the two kings of the Amorites who were beyond the Jordan, to Sihon king of Heshbon and to Og king of Bashan, who was at Ashtaroth. 11 Our elders and all the inhabitants of our country spoke to us, saying, ‘Take provision in your hand for the journey, and go to meet them, and tell them, “We are your servants. Now make a covenant with us.”’  12 This our bread we took hot for our provision out of our houses on the day we went out to go to you; but now, behold, it is dry, and has become moldy.  13 These wine skins, which we filled, were new; and behold, they are torn. These our garments and our shoes have become old because of the very long journey.” 

  14  The men sampled their provisions, and didn’t ask counsel from the mouth of Yahweh.  15 Joshua made peace with them, and made a covenant with them, to let them live. The princes of the congregation swore to them.  16 At the end of three days after they had made a covenant with them, they heard that they were their neighbors, and that they lived among them.  17 The children of Israel traveled and came to their cities on the third day. Now their cities were Gibeon, Chephirah, Beeroth, and Kiriath Jearim.  18 The children of Israel didn’t strike them, because the princes of the congregation had sworn to them by Yahweh, the God of Israel. All the congregation murmured against the princes.  19 But all the princes said to all the congregation, “We have sworn to them by Yahweh, the God of Israel: now therefore we may not touch them.  20 This we will do to them, and let them live; lest wrath be on us, because of the oath which we swore to them.”  21 The princes said to them, “Let them live, so they became wood cutters and drawers of water for all the congregation, as the princes had spoken to them.” 

  22  Joshua called for them, and he spoke to them, saying, “Why have you deceived us, saying, ‘We are very far from you,’ when you live among us?  23 Now therefore you are cursed, and some of you will never fail to be slaves, both wood cutters and drawers of water for the house of my God.” (emphasis added)


The Israelites were deceived and the influence of the deceivers harmed the chosen nation of Israel in many ways. If only they had consulted God, they could have avoided introducing a destructive ungodly influence into their society.

My advice is: pay close attention to what you are exposed to. Let your life be guided in a spiritual direction by God’s word and therefore- chose your sources wisely. Listen to what is being communicated “between the words” and especially the attitude of the author or commentator. Think: some things just do not stand up to scrutiny!

Some things are obvious, like Abraham Lincoln giving advise about the Internet (he died over 100 years before that medium of information was introduced) but others are less obvious.

Jesus gave his disciples some very good advice that still applies to us today:

Matthew 10 (WEB)
 16  “Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore be wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.

Now, these are words worth listening to!!!


10/24/18

"THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY" The Work Of An Evangelist (4:5) by Mark Copeland


"THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY"

The Work Of An Evangelist (4:5)

INTRODUCTION

1. In our text (2Ti 4:5), we find Paul commanding Timothy...
   a. "do the work of an evangelist"
   b. "fulfill your ministry"
   -- Thus Timothy was to continue his service for the Lord as an
      evangelist

2. The word "evangelist" often conveys different ideas to people...
   a. Some envision an Elmer Gantry figure, an itinerant preacher who
      travels from place to place
   b. Others equate the word with pastor, expecting one to provide
      similar service

3. The function of an "evangelist" is a gift from Christ to His
   church...
   a. Given along with the functions of apostle, prophet, pastor,
      teacher - Ep 4:8,11
   b. Contributing to the equipping of the saints and edification of the
      body - Ep 4:12

[Such a 'gift' should be properly understood and appreciated.  Toward
that end, let's consider...]

I. THE DEFINITION OF AN EVANGELIST

   A. THE WORD DEFINED...
      1. The Greek word is euanggelistes
         a. Lit., a bringer of good tidings - ISBE
         b. A form of the word euanggelion, normally translated "gospel"
            (good news)
      2. As explained by Barnes in his commentary:
         a. "This word properly means one who announces good news."
         b. "In the NT it is a applied to a preacher of the gospel, or
            one who declares the glad tidings of salvation."
      3. It occurs in only three places in the NT
         a. In our text - 2Ti 4:5
         b. In the passage we noted earlier - Ep 4:11
         c. In the place where we are told that Philip was an evangelist
            - Ac 21:8
            1) He who preached Christ to the Samaritans - Ac 8:4-5,12
            2) He who preached Jesus to the Ethiopian eunuch - Ac 8:35
      4. It is commonly equated with the term 'missionary', for
         evangelists often traveled
         a. Yet evangelists sometimes stayed in one place for extended
            periods
            1) Philip appears to have stayed in Caesarea about 20 years
               - cf. Ac 8:40; 21:8
            2) Timothy remained for some time at Ephesus - 1Ti 1:3
         b. Thus the word does not demand one be an itinerant preacher

   B. OTHER TERMS DESCRIBING THE EVANGELIST...
      1. Preacher (Grk., kerux) - cf. Ro 10:14-15
         a. "to be a herald; to publish, proclaim openly; used of the
            proclamation of the gospel and matters pertaining to it"
            - Thayer
         b. Used in the Scriptures to describe the work of:
            1) John the Baptist - Mt 3:1
            2) Jesus - Mt 4:17,23
            3) The apostles - Mt 10:7
            4) Philip the evangelist - Ac 8:5
            5) The apostle Paul - Ac 28:31; 2Ti 1:11
            6) Even Noah, a preacher of righteousness - cf. 2Pe 2:5
      2. Minister (Grk., diakonos) - cf. 1Th 3:2
         a. Translated variously as deacon, minister, servant
            1) It is not limited to preachers or evangelists
            2) It is used of other servants, such as deacons - cf. 1 Ti 3:8,12
         b. Yet is often used to describe those who preach and teach
            1) Paul - Ac 26:16; Ro 15:16; Col 1:23
            2) Epaphras - Col 1:7
            3) Timothy - 1Th 3:2; 1Ti 4:6
         c. The preacher is not the only minister of a church, for all
            Christians are truly ministers - cf. 1Pe 4:10

   C. TERMS NOT USED TO DESCRIBE THE EVANGELIST...
      1. Pastor
         a. Used of overseers (bishops) or elders (presbyters) 
              - Ep 4:11; cf. 1Pe 5:2; Ac 20:28
         b. In some cases an evangelist might also serve as a pastor,
            provided...
            1) He meets the qualifications required - 1Ti 3:1-7; Tit 1:
               5-9
            2) He serves with other pastors, for there was always a
               plurality of elders - Ac 20:17
            3) In which he is not the pastor, but only one of the
               pastors
      2. Reverend, Father
         a. Such terms were never used as titles in the Lord's church
         b. The use of such titles were condemned by Jesus - Mt 23:8-12

[The very definition of the word evangelist, along with other words
often used (preacher, minister), provides insight into the work of an
evangelist.  Yet let's take a closer at what is and what is not...]

II. THE WORK OF AN EVANGELIST

   A. WHAT IT IS...
      1. To preach the word of God - 2Ti 4:1-2
         a. Especially the gospel of Jesus Christ - cf. Ro 10:14-15
         b. As did Philip, the evangelist - Ac 8:5,35
      2. To instruct the brethren of their responsibilities - 1Ti 4:6
         a. In such matters as prayer, modesty, the role of women and
            men - cf. 1Ti 2:1-12
         b. In such matters as personal and family obligations, business
            duties - cf. Tit 2:1-10
         c. To reprove those that sin, even elders if need be - cf. 1 Ti  5:19-21
      3. To set in order things needed
         a. Encouraging the appointment of elders - Tit 1:5
         b. Training teachers, equipping the saints for ministry 
             - 2 Ti 2:2; cf. Ep 4:11-12
         c. Teaching against false teachers and false doctrine - 1Ti 1:
            3-4; Tit 1:10-11,13
      4. To set an example for the brethren
         a. In word, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity - 1 Ti 4:12
         b. A pattern of good works, in doctrine showing integrity,
            reverence - Tit 2:7
      5. To be devoted to the Word of God
         a. Giving attention to reading, exhortation and teaching - 1 Ti 4:13
         b. Being careful to handle the Word of God properly - 2Ti 2:15
      6. In contrast to the work of elders (i.e., pastors, bishops)...
         a. Elders are to take heed to themselves and to the flock of
            God - Ac 20:28
         b. Evangelists are to take heed to themselves and to the
            doctrine (teaching) - 1Ti 4:16
      -- This list adapted from The Early Church, Ferrell Jenkins,
         p.45-46

   B. WHAT IT IS NOT...
      1. To do the work of elders, deacons, or other members
         a. The evangelist is to do 'his' work
         b. He is not 'hired' to do the work of other members
      2. To be the 'official'...
         a. Visitor for the congregation
         b. Leader of prayer at public functions
         c. An evangelist is honored to do such, but the honor should
            not be reserved for him alone
      3. To be expected to take care of:
         a. All the benevolence; all the personal evangelism
         b. All problems that arise in the church; all physical chores
         c. Members have different functions; each should do their part
            - cf. Ro 12:4-8; Ep 4:16
      4. The evangelist is to teach and preach the Word, not to "run the
         church"
         a. He is not the leader, the elders are to be the spiritual
            overseers and leaders
         b. He encourages and guides through teaching the Word, but he
            is not the pastor
      -- This list also adapted from The Early Church, Ferrell Jenkins,
         p.46

CONCLUSION

1. The Lord has blessed His church with the role of evangelists...
   a. To proclaim the good news of salvation to the lost
   b. To preach the Word to Christians that they might grow in grace

2. Remember the principle established in Ac 6:1-4...
   a. Those devoted to the Word and prayer should not be distracted from
      their work
   b. Thus evangelists should encouraged and supported to do what is
      their responsibility
   c. They should not be hindered by responsibilities that properly
      belong to others

While all Christians are 'evangelists' in some measure (as they share
the good news of Christ with others), some are blessed by providence and
preparation to serve a special role as 'evangelists' in the Lord's
church.  May they be encouraged and supported to be faithful to their
gift, to do "The Work Of An Evangelist"...

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

eXTReMe Tracker 

Should the Pope Be Celibate? by Moisés Pinedo


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=2602

Should the Pope Be Celibate?

by Moisés Pinedo


One of the Catholic doctrines that is considered demonstrative of papal dedication to holiness is that of celibacy. For most professed Catholics, the idea of a married pope is blasphemous. In fact, from a Catholic perspective, the idea of a “papa pope” with a wife is unthinkable. But it is important to analyze the doctrine of papal celibacy to determine if it is biblical.
When we speak of “celibacy” in a religious sense, we are referring to the unmarried state of a person for ecclesiastical purposes. Addressing the subject of celibacy, a Catholic apologist states:
[T]he “sacerdotal celibacy” is not a “law” of obligatory character for all of the Church, but is better understood as an “ecclesiastical discipline” that emerged to fulfill the advice of the Apostle Paul and, above all, our Lord Jesus Christ (see Zavala, 2000, emp. added).
Through this declaration, we understand that celibacy is not considered a mandatory law but a “submission” to the advice of the apostle Paul and Jesus. But to what advice is this statement referring? The same apologist clarifies that it is referring to the apostle’s statement in 1 Corinthians 7:7 (“For I wish that all men were even as I myself”), and Jesus’ statement made in Matthew 19:11-12 (“There are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it”).
Do these declarations provide any biblical authority for papal celibacy? Even celibacy supporters, when confronted with the biblical evidence, are forced to admit that celibacy is not a “law of obligatory character.” The truth is that Paul, stating optional advice due to the “present distress” (vs. 26), mentioned that it was better to remain single in order to give more attention to the “things of the Lord” (1 Corinthians 7:32-34). However, Paul mentioned that not everybody has the same gift from God. In fact, some had a gift “in this manner” (i.e., remaining unmarried; cf. 1 Corinthians 7:7), and others had a gift “in that manner” (i.e., to be married; cf. 1 Corinthians 7:7). Therefore, Paul, having declared, “But even if you do marry, you have not sinned” (1 Corinthians 7:28), concluded that whoever marries “does well,” and he that does not, during a time of distress, “does better” (1 Corinthians 7:38).
Jesus’ statement in Matthew 19:12 (“He who is able to accept it, let him accept it”) did not imply that the “incapacity” to accept celibacy was a sin. Paul agreed (1 Corinthians 7:28). Rather, Jesus implied that many lacked the “gift of abstinence,” so it would be better for them to marry and avoid fornication (1 Corinthians 7:9). The Bible does not obligate anyone to marry nor to remain single.
But if the choice is between “what is good” and “what is better” (in a time of distress; 1 Corinthians 7:38), Catholics may argue: “Why question the practice of celibacy in our religion?” The truth is that the problem is rooted, not in the personal choice of staying unmarried, but in God’s requirements for those who fill specific ecclesiastical roles. The Bible tells us that God constituted different ministries in the church (Ephesians 4:11). Every one of those ministries had (and has) its specific qualification requirements. For example, in the case of apostleship, the requirements included learning directly from Jesus and seeing Him after His resurrection (Acts 1:21-22). Even Paul saw the resurrected Lord while on his way to Damascus (Acts 9:3-5; 22:6-8). He learned the Gospel directly from the Lord (Galatians 1:11-12).
There are also biblical requirements concerning bishops. Since the pope is considered the “Universal Bishop,” it is expected that he “universally” fulfills the requisites for bishops. Let us, then, go to the Bible and see whether or not celibacy is a requirement for bishops.
The title “bishop” is equivalent to the title “elder” or “pastor.” These three terms refer to the same person in the same office (e.g., Acts 20:17,28; Titus 1:5,7; 1 Peter 5:1-2). In 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1, we find the biblical requirements for bishops. Paul began his statement about the requirements for bishops with the following expression: “A bishop then must be...” (1 Timothy 3:2, emp. added). With these words, the apostle Paul implied that a bishop did not have the option to fulfill the following requirements, but rather that every one was mandatory.
Generally, the requirements focus on the morality of the prospective bishop. Among these is the following: “the husband of one wife...one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence” (1 Timothy 3:2,4, emp. added). If we connect these requirements with Paul’s statement in 1 Timothy 3:2, we learn that for the bishop it was (and is) necessary to be a husband, and to have his home and children in subjection to the Lord. Does this conclusion contradict the idea that the Bible obligates no one to marry? No. The Bible obligates no one to marry, just as it obligates no one to be a bishop of a congregation. Paul himself indicated, “If a man desires [desire is optional] the position of a bishop, he desires a good work” (1 Timothy 3:1, emp. added).
Although the Bible obligates no one to marry or to be a bishop, it requires that he who “desires” the office of a bishop must be a person who is already married and already has children who are under God’s subjection. This simply means that the unmarried (good and faithful as they may be) cannot be bishops, since they fail to meet the divine qualifications for this office. It is important to notice here that being unmarried impedes no one from serving God, since there are many other ministries in which to serve Him. The bishop’s office, though, is reserved for faithful, married men who have children.
Why is this the case? Paul said that it is better to remain unmarried (1 Corinthians 7:38). Does that imply that the unmarried one could “serve better” in the office of a bishop? Remaining unmarried is a good decision that allows more freedom (from obligations inherent in marriage) to serve God and spread the Gospel (particularly in a time of oppression and persecutions; see Lyons, 2004). The Bible does not require preachers, evangelists, and teachers to be married. But, bishops keep watch over the internal affairs of the congregational family and should be married. Paul stated in 1 Timothy 3:5: “[F]or if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?” It is necessary for the bishop to demonstrate that he can govern his own physical family (wife and children). In doing so, he shows his ability to be a bishop over a spiritual family (a local congregation of the church). The wisdom in this requirement becomes evident when we consider that the church is formed by many families, and, therefore, needs leaders who have shown faithfulness and wisdom in leading their own families. A man who has never been married has no family subjected to him. Because of this, he does not fit all qualifications of a bishop.
Still, some may argue, “Paul was a great apostle who was unmarried. Did he not do a great work for the church?” Absolutely! Paul was a great apostle and evangelist, but he was not a bishop. He knew the requisites for a bishop and, therefore, did not dare to take this title. When teaching the young man Titus, he told him who could be a bishop: “A man [who] is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination” (Titus 1:6, emp. added).
Considering once more the papal order, we should ask if the “Universal Bishop” of the Catholic Church—the pope—fulfills God’s episcopal requirements of being married and having children. What many Catholics consider to be blasphemous (a married bishop with children) is, in fact, a biblical requirement for bishops. And, what many Catholics consider a symbol of purity and selfless sacrifice (papal celibacy) is disobedience to the Word of God.
Today, although the Catholic Church allows marriage for its members, it does prohibit marriage among those who participate in the role of bishop (as well as many priests, monks, and nuns). The apostle Paul (to whom many Catholic defenders appeal for argumentation in favor of celibacy) wrote: “Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth” (1 Timothy 4:1-3, emp. added). The Catholic Church prohibits marriage when it forbids a bishop to marry. It falls away from the faith when it rejects the divine requirements for bishops and instead requires the opposite. Prohibition of marriage is a false doctrine about which the Holy Spirit warned us.

 

REFERENCES

Lyons, Eric (2004), “Is Marriage a ‘Good’ Thing?,” [On-line], URL:http://apologeticspress.org/articles/576.
Zavala, Martín (2000), “Celibacy, Why Do Priests Not Marry?” [“El Celibato, ¿Por qué No se Casan los Sacerdotes?”], [On-line], URL:http://www.defiendetufe.org/por_que_no_se_casan_los_sacerdotes.htm.

Shaving Faith with Ockham’s Razor by Trevor Major, M.Sc., M.A.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1342


Shaving Faith with Ockham’s Razor

by Trevor Major, M.Sc., M.A.


The cosmological argument for the existence of God concludes that there is an uncaused First Cause Who exists beyond nature (see last month’s feature article). The alternatives are entirely naturalistic: either the Universe is eternal and uncaused, or it is finite and had a natural cause. To invoke a supernatural cause, the critics charge, is to add something quite extraordinary to the explanation; it is to ask us to believe that something wholly outside our normal experience is responsible for the Universe. A natural first cause is an improvement, they may admit, but still it requires too many exceptions and special arguments. The simplest argument, and therefore the most preferred explanation, is that some “stuff ” (whatever that may be) always has existed.
The presumed justification for this conclusion is the principle of parsimony made famous by William of Ockham (c. 1285-1349). Ockham’s razor, as it is known, attempts to “shave” away all unnecessary parts of an argument. “Plurality is not to be assumed without necessity,” he said, and “What can be done with fewer [assumptions] is done in vain with more” (Moody, 1967, 8:307). This became an important guiding principle in modern science because, statistically speaking, more mistakes are possible as a theory grows in complexity and assumptions.
Ockham’s razor became a popular excuse for removing God from any description of reality. Often this is illustrated by the legendary encounter between Laplace and Napoleon. The French scientist presented his new book on celestial mechanics to the emperor who, having scanned through the work, inquired as to why it contained no reference to God. Laplace replied, “Sire, I have no need of that hypothesis.”
However, while Ockham’s razor may be a fine guiding principle, some explanations are more complicated than they may seem at first. Many science students find this out when they have to unlearn the simplistic ideas of the previous year before they can go on to learn the more complicated and realistic version of the story. And the new study of “chaos” is an example of a science designed to work with highly complex phenomena that confound conventional thinking. As Rem Edwards observes:
No scientific or metaphysical hypothesis is preferable to a competitive hypothesis merely because it is simpler. It is not the simplest hypothesis per se, but rather the hypothesis that is the simplest and at the same time does full justice to its subject matter, that men of reason must prefer (1972, p. 150).
Ockham’s razor does not work in every instance, and there seem to be no firm criteria that determine when an assumption is an unnecessary complication. Hence, the theistic position is not wrong merely because it includes God in the sum of reality.
Moreover, eliminating God is as much a claim beyond experience as adding God. Neither claim is self-evident; that is, each is not immediately, obviously true. Naturalism assumes that the material Universe of space and time is all that exists, that it depends on nothing else for its existence, and that some part of it has always existed. Supernaturalism holds the equivalent but opposite views: that something does exist beyond the material world, that the Universe is dependent for its existence on this entity, and that the material world is finite. These assumptions represent competing world views that are subject, not to an arbitrary swipe of Ockham’s razor, but to philosophical debate.
Finally, we have to wonder whether naturalists have abandoned the standard of simplicity when it comes to their own descriptions of origins. The Big Bang, for example, seems impervious to disproof. Exceptions and special arguments are plastered over theoretical and observational holes. Some scientists are desperate enough to invoke the cosmological constant—a “fudge factor” pulled out of thin air to rescue the equations from the evidence (Flamsteed, 1995, 16[3]:77). Such flagrant violations of Ockham’s razor are possible, it seems, as long as the added assumptions are naturalistic. That God cannot be the best explanation for the Universe is yet another incredible assumption.

REFERENCES

Edwards, Rem B. (1972), Reason and Religion (New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich).
Flamsteed, Sam (1995), “Crisis in the Cosmos,” Discover, 16[3]:66-77, March.
Moody, Earnest A. (1967), “William of Ockham,” The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Paul Edwards (New York: Macmillan), 8:306-317.

Satan--His Origin and Mission [Part II] by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=138


Satan--His Origin and Mission [Part II]

by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.


[EDITOR’S NOTE: Part I of this two-part series appeared in the October issue. Part II follows below and continues, without introductory comments, where the first article ended.]

WHY HAS SATAN ARRAYED HIMSELF
AGAINST BOTH GOD AND MAN?

In any study of Satan, the question is bound to arise: Why has Satan established himself as God’s archfiend and man’s ardent foe? No doubt a portion of the answer can be found in the fact that he, too, once inhabited the heavenly realm, but as a result of his defiant rebellion against the great “I AM,” was cast “down to hell” (2 Peter 2:4). Satan’s insurrection failed miserably, and that failure had dire, eternal consequences. His obstinate attempt to usurp God’s authority cost him his position among the heavenly host and doomed him forever to “everlasting bonds under darkness” (Jude 6). In the end, his sedition gained him nothing and cost him everything. Regardless of the battle plan he adopted to challenge the Creator of the Universe, regardless of the battlefield he chose as his theater of war, and regardless of the strength or numbers of his army, the simple fact of the matter is that—in the most important contest of his existence—He lost!
The conditions of his ultimate surrender were harsh. Although his armies had been thoroughly routed, although he had been completely vanquished, and although the Victor had imposed the worst kind of permanent exile, Satan was determined not to go quietly into the night. While he had lost the war, he nevertheless planned future skirmishes. Vindictive by nature (Revelation 12:12), in possession of cunning devices (2 Corinthians 2:11), and determined to be “the deceiver of the whole world” (Revelation 12:9), he set his face against all that is righteous and holy—and never once looked back. His anger at having been defeated fueled his determination to strike back in revenge.
But strike back at whom? It was futile to attempt a second mutiny. God’s power was too great, and His omnipotence too all-consuming (Job 42:2; 1 John 4:4). Another target was needed; another repository of satanic revenge would have to be found. And who better to serve as the recipient of hell’s unrighteous indignation than mankind—the only creature in the Universe made “in the image and likeness of God” (Genesis 1:26-27)? As Rex A. Turner Sr. has suggested: “Satan cannot attack God directly, thus he employs various methods to attack man, God’s master creation” (1980, p. 89). Sweet revenge—despoiling the “apple of God’s eye” and the zenith of His creative genius! Thus, with the creation of man, the battle was on—and has been ever since. As Basil Overton has warned: “Satan is out to get us. He will take advantage of us if we let him. It is a fight to the finish!” (1976, 5[4]:3).
It was through mankind that Satan would exact his revenge—the correct emphasis here being on the word “through.” As the apostle Paul stated in Romans 5:12: “Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned” (emp. added). Man thus became the agent who caused sin to be in the world. Richard Batey wrote: “Paul’s point is rather that since the power of sin is a universal human experience (Rom. 1:18-32; 3:9-23), this power must have come into the world through the representative man, Adam” (1969, 1:72).
As the “prince of this world” (John 12:31), Satan stalked about “as a roaring lion, ...seeking whom he may devour” (1 Peter 5:8). He, and his ignominious band of outlaws (“sons of the evil one”; Matthew 13:38), have worked their ruthless quackery on mankind from the moment the serpent met mother Eve in the Garden of Eden. Their goal is nothing short of the complete spiritual annihilation of all mankind which, no doubt, is why Satan personally is identified within Scripture as the “king of the abyss,” the “Destroyer” (“Apollyon,” Revelation 9:11; see Easton, 1996), and the “wicked one” (“Belial,” 2 Corinthians 6:15; see Vine, et al., 1985, p. 60).
In his war against Heaven, Satan will stop at nothing; it is a “no holds barred/winner take all” battle. Witness, for example, his cruel deception of Eve (Genesis 3:1-6) with its temporal and eternal consequences of physical/spiritual death (1 Corinthians 15:21; Ezekiel 18:20). Recall the trials, tribulations, and tragedies visited upon the Old Testament patriarch, Job (Job 1-2). Take notice of Israel’s beloved monarch, King David, being tempted and convinced to sin (1 Chronicles 21:1,7). Remember the devil as Joshua’s adversary (Zechariah 3:1ff.). Commit to memory Beelzebub’s part in Paul’s thorn in the flesh (2 Corinthians 12:7), or how he hindered the apostle’s missionary efforts (1 Thessalonians 2:18). Cower in fear (as the early church did—Acts 5:11) at the results of his having persuaded Ananias to lie to the Godhead (Acts 5:3). Weep in sadness at the Great Adversary’s so successfully convincing Judas to betray His Lord (John 13:2) that Christ even referred to this singular apostle as “the devil” (John 6:70).
Or, tremble in dismay at the potential ruin of humanity, had Satan succeeded in causing Christ to sin when he tempted Him in the wilderness those many years ago (Matthew 4:1-11). Had Jesus yielded, there would have remained “no more a sacrifice for sins” (Hebrews 10:26), and man would have been doomed—destined to inhabit forever the “blackness of darkness” (Jude 13) in the eternal presence of his most vituperative enemy, but, more important, in the eternal absence of His God.
Make no mistake about it. Satan has arrayed himself against both God and man. He is God’s archfiend, and man’s ardent foe. Nothing short of an absolute victory will assuage him; nothing short of a hell filled with every single member of the human race will dissuade him. He is, indeed, “the enemy” (Matthew 13:39).

WHY HAS GOD ALLOWED SATAN TO CONTINUE TO EXIST?

As we study this enemy, another question comes to mind: Why has God allowed Satan to continue to exist? Since he is denominated within the pages of Scripture as “a murderer” (John 8:44), why not simply impose on him the same death penalty that civilized nations have imposed on murderers from time immemorial (cf. Numbers 35:16)? What possible justification could God have for allowing one so wicked to continue to live?
The answer, I am convinced, has to do with the nature of God, and the nature of the spirit beings (angels) that He created. There is a clue regarding this point in the text of Luke 20:33-36. Within this passage, Jesus spoke of the righteous who one day would inhabit heaven, and stated that “neither can they die any more, for they are equal unto the angels.”
If righteous humans who will inhabit heaven cannot die, and if they are equal to the angels, then it follows logically that angels cannot die. While the Godhead is eternal, humans and angels are immortal. As Douglas Kelly correctly observed, angels (and this certainly would include Satan prior to his fall) “are immortal, but only the Triune God is eternal” (1997, p. 93).
In his excellent, thought-provoking work, Systematic Theology, Turner addressed the issue of Satan’s continued existence when he wrote:
Why did God not destroy Satan when he sinned? Why let Satan continue to exist and influence others to sin? The answer here lies in God’s nature—his eternal nature which he has passed on to angels as well as to men—for there will never be a time when the spirits or angels, the evil as well as the good, will cease to exist. Punishments and prescribed limits have been passed upon evil spirits, and the more will be passed upon them, but they will always exist (1989, p. 83).
Scripture delineates angelic beings as immortal; thus, they—whether righteous or sinful—never will cease to exist. However, there may be more to Satan’s continued existence than simply the angels’ immortal nature. In addressing the question of exactly why Satan persists, Lloyd Ecrement has suggested:
Perhaps the reason might well be expressed in the words the Lord asked Moses to say to wicked Pharaoh: “For by now I could have put forth my hand and struck you and your people with pestilence, and you would have been cut off from the earth; but for this purpose have I let you live, to show you my power, so that my name may be declared throughout all the Earth” (Exodus 9:15-16) [1961, p. 33].
Indeed, from a purely human vantage point, the continuation of evil—even for a brief period—generally is not viewed as either desirable or ideal. But, as T. Pierce Brown has proposed, God may have “allowed Satan to retain his power, temporarily, until he is through using him to test and purify a people for his ultimate glory and purposes” (1974, 91[16]:245). Certainly, God’s glory was exemplified by mankind’s creation because Isaiah, speaking for Jehovah, said that man was “created for my glory” (Isaiah 43:7).
In John 9, the story is told of a man who had been born blind. When Jesus’ disciples inquired as to the reason for his predicament, He responded that it was in order that “the works of God should be made manifest in him” (John 9:3, emp. added). What all this entails, we may not profess to know, realizing that the “secret things belong unto Jehovah our God” (Deuteronomy 29:29). But the Scriptures do reveal enough information for us to conclude that Satan’s continued existence follows logically from the immortal nature of angelic beings. They also reveal that the devil’s existence is not at variance with Heaven’s eternal plan, since at times it affords opportunities for mankind to witness the working of God amidst His creation.

WHAT IS SATAN’S MISSION?

Were Satan made of flesh and bone, we might employ the oft’-used phrase to describe him as a “man with a mission.” But do not let the fact that he is spirit rather than flesh trick you into thinking he has no mission. He most certainly does—and has since the day he was cast from the heavenly portals. Simply stated, that mission is the complete destruction of all humanity in hell.
It is no accident that, within the pages of Scripture, Satan (i.e., our “adversary”; Zechariah 3:1) routinely is denominated by such unseemly designations as: (a) the devil (i.e., slanderer; Matthew 4:1); (b) “the god of this world” (2 Corinthians 4:4); (c) “the prince of the powers of the air” (Ephesians 2:2); (d) the father of lies (John 8:44); (e) the “Great Dragon” (Revelation 12:9); (f) “Beelzebub” (i.e., prince of demons; Matthew 12:24). (g) the “wicked one” (Matthew 13:38); (h) “the prince of this world” (John 12:31); (i) the ruler of darkness (Ephesians 6:12); (j) “the tempter” (1 Thessalonians 3:5); (k) “accuser of the brethren” (Revelation 12:10); (l) a “murderer” (John 8:44); (m) “the enemy” (Matthew 13:39); (n) “a roaring lion” (1 Peter 5:8); (o) a “serpent” (2 Corinthians 11:3); (p) “Belial” (i.e., “wicked one”; 2 Corinthians 6:15); and (q) “angel of the bottomless pit” (Revelation 9:11).
After even a cursory glance at these appellations, surely we could agree with L.O. Sanderson when he wrote: “These alone should make us fearfully concerned” (1978, 120[43]:678). Satan’s names describe his mission. His primary goal is to alienate men from God by causing them to sin. His main objective is to make men his slaves, thereby robbing them of the freedom that God’s Word alone can impart (John 8:32). But how, exactly, does Satan do this?

HOW DOES SATAN CARRY OUT HIS MISSION AGAINST HUMANITY?

The Bible makes it clear that the devil is the originator, the father, of sin. John wrote: “[H]e that doeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning” (1 John 3:8). In speaking to this point, Wayne Jackson has written: “Disease, infirmity and death are ultimately the responsibility of Satan, for by his introduction of sin into the world, he brought about such woes and hence he is really the murderer of the human family (John 8:44)” [1980, p. 76].
However, it is important to recognize that while Satan is the originator of sin, he is not the immediatecause of sin. As Ecrement has warned:
Satan tempts, but he cannot compel men to do evil against their wills. A man must yield to Satan’s temptation and desire before he becomes guilty of sin. To be tempted is not sin, but to yield to temptation is sin. We are answerable and responsible for our own sins, notwithstanding the temptation and influence of the devil. God endowed us with reason and a free will, therefore we have the ability to choose good or evil; in other words, we are free moral agents. So our sins are our own, and our own responsibility (1961, p. 34).
Satan’s constant coercion and tantalizing temptation do not, and cannot, override man’s free will. James affirmed this in his epistle when he wrote:
But each man is tempted, when he is drawn away by his own lust, and enticed. Then the lust, when it hath conceived, beareth sin: and the sin, when it is fullgrown, bringeth forth death (1:14-15).
As an example of this point, consider the apostle who betrayed the Son of God. Overcome by the grotesque nature of his dastardly deed, Judas eventually lamented: “I have sinned in that I betrayed innocent blood” (Matthew 27:4). Even in his final hours, he did not attempt to lay the blame for his sin at someone else’s feet.
Similar lessons are taught in Acts 5 and 2 Samuel 12. In Acts 5, when Ananias and Sapphira lied about the amount they had received from the sale of a piece of land (and the amount they subsequently professed to have donated to the church), Peter inquired of Ananias: “How is it that thou hast conceived this thing in thy heart? thou has not lied unto men, but unto God” (Acts 5:4, emp. added). The apostle wanted Ananias to know that he, personally, bore the guilt for his sin. He could not claim (with any legitimacy): “The devil made me do it.”
In 2 Samuel 12, the prophet Nathan was sent by God to convict King David of the sin of adultery with Bathsheba, wife of Urriah the Hittite. This he did. After hearing the evidence against him, “David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against Jehovah” (12:13). To his credit, David realized that not even powerful potentates are immune to the personal responsibility that accompanies transgression of God’s law.
If we are responsible for our own actions, how, then, does Satan influence us to sin? In 2 Corinthians 2:11, Paul spoke of the fact that “no advantage may be gained over us by Satan: for we are not ignorant of his devices.” The word “devices” in this text derives from the Greek noemata, which “refers to intelligent notions, purposes, designs, devices, etc.” (Overton, 1976, 5[4]:3). In Ephesians 6:11, Paul admonished Christians to “put on the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.” The word “wiles” derives from the Greek methodeias, from which we get our word “methods.” Methodeias “is from the Greek verb that means to trace; to investigate; to handle methodically; to handle cunningly.... The devil is a skilled artisan. He will deceive you if you do not work at the job of fighting back at him” (Overton, 1976, 5:[4]:3).
Indeed, deceit is perhaps Satan’s most powerful tool. Through his “devices” and “wiles,” Satan pressures us “with all deceit of unrighteousness” (2 Thessalonians 2:10). Sanderson has suggested that Satan’s traits “clearly show the Devil to be a cunning, deceitful hypocrite. He is truthless, dishonest, and fraudulent in every possible way” (1978, 120[43]:678). Adding to this assessment, L.M. Sweet wrote: “Satan’s power consists principally in his ability to deceive. It is interesting and characteristic that according to the Bible Satan is fundamentally a liar and his kingdom is a kingdom founded upon lies and deceit” (1939, 4:2693). The New Testament provides ample evidence to substantiate such a conclusion. Wayne Jackson summarized some of that evidence when he acknowledged that the deceiver:
(1) Delights in blinding the minds of the unbelieving that the light of the gospel should not dawn upon them (II Cor. 4:4). (2) To accomplish this he does not hesitate to transform himself into an angel of light along with his ministers who pretend to be ministers of righteousness (II Cor. 11:14,15). (3) When people are inclined not to believe the truth, the devil takes the gospel from their hearts (Luke 8:12). (4) He is full of trickery. He has his snares (I Tim. 3:7), and employs his “wiles”—a deliberate planning or system (Eph. 4:14; 6:11) [1980, p. 81].
But what power does Satan have that allows him to accomplish his task of deceiving humanity? How extensive is that power, and how is it wielded?

WHAT ARE SATAN’S POWERS?

There can be no doubt that, as “god of this world” (2 Corinthians 4:4), Satan is powerful in his own right. When the devil tempted the Son of God in the wilderness, he offered Him all the power and glory of the kingdoms of this world, if only He would fall down and worship him (Matthew 4:9). His justification for this insidious offer was based on his claim that, as the lord of this planet, he could offer its possessions to “whomsoever I will” (Luke 4:6). Interestingly, Jesus refuted neither Satan’s position as “god of this world,” nor his ability to impose his will upon it. Erich Sauer therefore concluded:
This whole offer would have been unreal from the first for the Lord as a temptation, if some such legal basis for Satan’s dominion in the world had not existed. Otherwise Jesus would only have had to point out that the necessary presuppositions for Satan’s legal claim to and ability to dispose of the glory of the world simply did not exist. The Lord however left this claim of the devil’s uncontradicted and merely declared that man should worship and serve God alone (Luke 4:8). With this He recognized in principle the tempter’s right to dispose of the kingdoms of this world in this present age. This same thought lies behind the various sayings of Jesus in which He calls Satan “the Prince of this world” (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11) [1962, p. 66].
We would do well to recognize the same thing the Son of God recognized: Satan is an important and powerful foe!
As powerful as he is, however, Satan is not omnipotent—a fact that even he recognized. During his temptation of Christ, he admitted that his earthly reign “hath been delivered unto me” (Luke 4:6). When the devil robbed Job of his family and earthly possessions, and even when he afflicted Job physically, he did so only with the expressed permission of God (Job 1:12; 2:6). When he sought to “sift” Christ’s apostles as wheat, he first had to “ask” for them (Luke 22:31). It is evident, therefore, that his powers do have limits.
But exactly what powers are in his possession? When T. Pierce Brown observed that “apparently he is able to make some sort of suggestions to the heart” (1974, 91[16]:5), he provided a picture window into which we may peer to observe the way Satan works among men. Among Satan’s powers are these. He perverts the Word of God (Genesis 3:1-4). He instigates false doctrine (1 Timothy 4:1-3). He blinds men to the truth (2 Corinthians 4:4). He sows tares among God’s wheat (Matthew 13:24-30,36-43). He steals the Word of God from human hearts (Matthew 13:19). He lays snares for men (2 Timothy 2:26; 1 Timothy 3:7). He tempts (Matthew 4:1; Ephesians 6:11). He afflicts (Job 2:7; Luke 13:16; Acts 10:38; 2 Corinthians 12:7). He deceives (Revelation 12:9; 20:8-10). He undermines the sanctity of the home (1 Corinthians 7:3-5). He prompts both saints and sinners to transgress the laws of God (1 Chronicles 21:1; Matthew 16:22-23; John 13:2; Acts 5:3). He hinders the work of God’s servants (1 Thessalonians 2:18). And he even makes accusations against God’s children before Heaven’s throne (Job 1:6-11; 2:3-6; 21:1-5; Zechariah 3:1-4; Revelation 12:9-10).
Satan employs his power of “suggestions to the heart” in a feverish manner to pervert the truth. In his book, Get Thee Behind Me Satan, Virgil Leach assessed our much-feared, other-worldly adversary in these words:
He is the great pretender and the first liar and hypocrite with special skills in deception.... No one escapes his trickery; every man knows something of deception. He will influence men to conceal or distort truth for the purpose of misleading, cheating and fraud. If he cannot overthrow truth he will neutralize it, water it down to dilute it. Qualities of guile, craftiness, dissimulation and pretense are used in all his maneuvers. Satan is a master of deceit and is well aware that half lies mixed with half truths more often do the trick and will more easily be swallowed and digested, not that he will not use an out-and-out lie should it fit the occasion. Loving darkness, he would prefer a tree to hide behind than an open field and would prefer an ambush over an open warfare. Our adversary would desire to plant his “Judas kiss” on the cheek of every man (1977, pp. 14-15).
Like a lion ready for the hunt (1 Peter 5:8), Satan waits to devour us via his “suggestions to the heart.” Like a well-hidden, coiled snake (Revelation 20:2), he is able to strike in an instant, injecting the poison of his venom into the minds of men. Or, using what is perhaps the most insidious disguise at his disposal, he even may portray himself as an “angel of light” (2 Corinthians 11:14) who feigns humility, piety, and righteousness, yet whose intentions all the while are as insincere as they are sanctimonious.
What awesome powers the devil commands! What subtle meanness he exhibits! One moment he presents himself as an innocent-faced, sweet-talking “angel”; the next he is a ravenous mammal or slithering reptile. Little wonder Paul wrote to the Thessalonians:
For this cause I also, when I could no longer forbear, sent that I might know your faith, lest by any means the tempter had tempted you, and our labor should be in vain (1 Thessalonians 3:5).
The apostle’s inner stirrings on behalf of those he had worked so long, and so hard, to wrest from the devil’s grasp were based on his knowledge that they faced daily a formidable foe who was more than capable of ravishing both their bodies and their souls.

WHAT IS SATAN’S ULTIMATE DESTINY?

Is all lost, then? Hardly! Although the Scriptures repeatedly affirm Satan’s immense power, they likewise affirm that “he [God] that is in you is greater than he [Satan] that is in the world” (1 John 4:4). We know this to be the case because the Scriptures testify eloquently to the fact that Satan—far from having free reign—has been “bound.”
The concluding book of the New Testament, Revelation, was written to offer encouragement to first-century Christians who, because of their professed faith in the Son of God, were threatened hourly with severe persecution “even unto death” (Revelation 2:10). Within this book, which is written in apocalyptic literature that is highly figurative, the message is one not only of comfort, but of ultimate victory over the devil and his forces. The twentieth chapter, especially, presents a picture of God’s archfiend and man’s ardent enemy, Satan, as being “bound” (vs. 2) and “cast into the abyss” (vs. 3). As Hardeman Nichols has suggested:
If in our study of Revelation 20 we fail to see the final overthrow of Satan and his collaborators, we have missed a major truth. If we do not appreciate the final triumph of every righteous person, we have not been sufficiently blessed by this study (1978, p. 260).
Concerning the devil, Nichols went on to write that “[w]hen, in the unspecified eternity before the world he initiated his rebellion, God put a restraint upon him” (p. 263).
That restraint never has been removed. And, in fact, it has been tightened. While it is true that in the first century the devil and his minions were able to affect people physically (cf. Luke 4:41; 8:26-33), fortunately that no longer is the case. For example, when the prophet Zechariah foretold of the coming of the Messiah, and spoke of the blessings that would attend His reign, he stated that eventually the Lord would “cause the prophets and the unclean spirit to pass out of the land” (13:1-2). Concerning Zechariah’s prophecy, Homer Hailey remarked:
Likewise, unclean spirits, the antithesis of the prophets, would cease. In the conquest of Christ over Satan and his forces, unclean spirits have ceased to control men as they did in the time of the ministry of Christ and the apostles (1972, p. 392).
L.M. Sweet correctly observed that in our day and age there is no evidence that “Satan is able to any extent to introduce disorder into the physical universe or directly operate in the lives of men” (1939, p. 2694). [For a more in-depth discussion of these points than the limited space here will allow, the reader is referred to Jackson, 1990, 1998.]

CONCLUSION

God not only “bound” Satan, but sealed his ultimate doom. Our Lord will be victorious over Heaven’s Great Adversary, for “to this end was the Son of God manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil” (I John 3:8). It is via the power inherent in His own death and resurrection that He will “bring to nought him that had the power of death, that is, the devil” (Hebrews 2:14). The fate that awaits this traitorous tyrant is clear:
And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where are also the beast and the false prophet; and they shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever (Revelation 20:10).
Eternal punishment in hell has been “prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matthew 25:41).
God’s covenant pledge, made with our forefathers in Genesis 3:15, then will be fulfilled once and for all: “he [Christ] shall bruise thy [Satan’s] head.” The paradise lost of Genesis will have become the paradise regained of Revelation. With the earthly reign of Satan brought to an end, and the eternal bliss of God’s saints secure, then, surely, we shall be able to say with the psalmist of old: “This is the day which Jehovah hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it” (Psalm 118:24).

REFERENCES

Batey, Richard (1969), The Letter of Paul to the Romans (Austin, TX: Sweet).
Ecrement, Lloyd L. (1961), Man, the Bible, and Destiny (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Hailey, Homer (1972), A Commentary on the Minor Prophets (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Jackson, Wayne (1980), “Satan,” Great Doctrines of the Bible, ed. M.H. Tucker (Knoxville, TN: East Tennessee School of Preaching).
Jackson, Wayne (1990), “Miracles,” Giving a Reason for Our Hope, ed. Winford Claiborne (Henderson, TN: Freed-Hardeman College).
Jackson, Wayne (1998), “Demons: Ancient Superstition or Historical Reality?,” Reason & Revelation, 18:25-31, April.
Kelly, Douglas F. (1997), Creation and Change (Geanies House, Fearn, United Kingdom: Christian Focus Publications).
Leach, Virgil (1977), Get Thee Behind Me Satan (Abilene, TX: Quality).
Nichols, Hardeman (1978), “The Binding of Satan,” Premillennialism: True or False, ed. Wendell Winkler (Fort Worth, TX: Winkler Publications).
Overton, Basil (1976), “Satan,” The World Evangelist, 5:[4]:3, November.
Sauer, Erich (1962), The King of the Earth (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Sanderson, L.O. (1978), “The Devil and His Wiles,” Gospel Advocate, 120[43]:678, October 26.
Sweet, L.M. (1939), “Satan,” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Turner, Rex A. Sr. (1980), Systematic Theology (Montgomery, AL: Alabama Christian School of Religion).
Vine, W.E., Merrill F. Unger, and William White (1985), Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Nashville, TN: Nelson).