Satan as a person versus an abstract concept of evil

¶ … Theology

Sections IV-VI

Angels, demons, and Satan are persons. Satan is often presented to both the religious and secular communities as a label for an abstract concept of evil. I think it is possible that the misinterpretation could certainly work toward Satan's advantage simply because of the sheer enormity of the idea. Humans often have a fear of what they do not understand, and it is extremely difficult to truly understand such a grand, sweeping concept. This can lead the individual to become overwhelmed by their inability to grasp a concept, thereby opening a door for Satan to enter in. Fear will lead to a spiritual hijacking, and then the individual will be lead down the path of sin and way from God. Imagining Satan as a person scales down the concept of evil into more manageable pieces. It also leaves the opportunity for reflection on the fact that, if Satan does not personify evil, but is in fact a person with emotions, thoughts, and will, then there are other elements to evil as well. Once evil has been broken up into its individual components, it is much easier to fight, much like an algebraic equation must be broken down into its smaller components in order to work out the solution. Dealing with facets of evil one by one is far more productive than trying to wrestle a giant abstraction. This concept is solidified even more as the text moves into this discussion when Ryrie points out that if Satan were a personification then there could be no blame attached to him, and therefore God could not punish an abstraction. Since Satan was punished, it proves that Satan was a person.

Michael was promoted. Ryrie asserts that there are a finite number of angels in existence; there will never be any more, nor any less. He also asserts that in the governmental hierarchy of angels, there is only one archangel, Michael. However, later he points out that Satan was the archangel before his fall -- this is explicitly pointed out in at least two passages the author cites, and Ryrie also uses the fact that Michael did not dispute with Satan about Moses' body as additional proof of Satan's rank. Since Ryrie points out that the angels are a governmental body with a strict hierarchy and assignment of duties, then the space that Satan left from his fall had to be filled. Michael then apparently moved into that place from a clearly subordinate, though only subordinate to Satan, and of course God himself, Also, since angels are persona and have emotions, it is a valid question to wonder if Satan may feel that he has the advantage in the end times because he is, in fact, of higher rank than Michael. By the same assertion then, would Michael feel at all intimidated or inferior when the inevitable battle comes? Of course this idea moves into the idea that since God is omnipotent, and he foresaw Satan's fall, then perhaps Michael is not, in fact, inferior, but the original choice for the role of archangel to start with, he just simply had to wait for Satan to vacate his seat.

Adding of baptism is a fallacy. Certainly a huge cross-section, across denominations, of Christians believe that the baptism is a necessary tool, or rite of passage into the realm of forgiveness. In fact, there are many that espouse a hierarchy of sorts within the church that leaves those un-baptized souls at the very bottom, almost treated as outsiders, or spiritual neophytes. Ryrie states that there is no solid indication that baptism is this mandatory right of passage that we have been lead to believe. Instead, baptism is a result of forgiveness, not an entrance into forgiveness. Repentance is the crucial moment of entrance into the realm of God, and the baptism is a physical affirmation of this act.

Section XII

Worthship. Language is an integral part of any culture, and it can be especially important to a spiritual community. Knowing that the word worship is a shortened form of the word "worthship" really crystallizes the meaning of the word. Not only does it help clarify the mundane meaning, but it makes the act of prayer that much more meaningful for the Christian. Prayer can often take the form of selfish desires if the worshipper isn't in the right frame of mind. Knowing the root of the word reminds us that prayer isn't about us, and shouldn't be so much about being a supplicant, instead it should be about reaching out and being submissive. It's an acknowledgement of His greatness and our position as sinners, and the word "worthship" really brings this concept back to the forefront.

There is no connection of the Lord's Day with the Sabbath. It's fascinating to note that there's an hierarchy of importance even within the Ten Commandments -- so much so that the Fourth Commandment isn't really stressed. It isn't even connected to the calendar since Ryrie points out that "a weekly division of time was unknown in the Greek and Roman world" (500). It makes even more profound though to know that the traditional day of worship seems to have been chosen because of Christ's appearances in various states were all on Sundays. This creates the feeling that our day of worship is connected in a much more intimate way with God and Christ. Also, it seems logical to conclude that if all of Christ's major events took place on Sundays, then the likelihood for His return to occur on a Sunday is extremely likely. How delightful for us all if this even occurred while all of the Christian worshippers were already in His house!

Not hasty, but with deliberate steps. One very common complaint among both the religious and secular communities about decisions that come down from the Church Officials is the time that it takes for these executive decisions to be made. For example, the recent scandals within the Catholic Church have been extremely hurtful to the organization, and the judicial methods they employ are still rather mysterious so many are simply unaware of the process that is taking place in deciding the manner of discipline to prescribe to the sinners. Many times I heard people complaining of the time it took to decide on the punishment of the sins of the clergy who were involved with the ongoing situation, and there are occasions when I would join them in their impatience. However, seeing how the Bible tells us to not enter into these decisions with haste helps to restore some confidence that the individuals handing down the discipline are, in fact, doing so in the must true way they can. They are following the word of God by not giving in to the pressures of secular culture to come down with a swift and powerful decision.

Section XIII

The River in Egypt is in debate. The river that marks one of the boundaries for the land promised in the Covenant of Abraham may or may not be the Nile. Because the Nile is such a popular and readily recognizable river, many simply assume that this is in fact the river being referred to as the boundary. Ryrie brings up a very good point that the word used in the text originally indicates a continuously flowing river, which the Nile is, but the el-Arish is not. This seems like a very strong argument for the Nile being the intended boundary, and my opinion of it has not changed, however, I was enlightened to the fact that the river is, in fact, in debate.

God took sole responsibility for fulfilling the Covenant. I think it is often assumed or alluded to in some teachings that there were (are) certain obligations of man in order for the Covenant to be fulfilled. I also think that an unenlightened secular individual may even think it arrogant that Christians simply assume that this will be fulfilled, but Ryrie offers clear evidence that God not only took it upon himself the full responsibility to keep his promises regardless of Abraham's actions, but he did so completely on his own when Abraham was asleep. Even though Abraham was sleeping, he awoke with the full knowledge of what God had promised. Perhaps the caveat that it's the enjoyment of the blessings of the Covenant that is conditional on the behavior of man, but the fulfillment of the promises are unconditional that is slightly misunderstood.

The Covenant will be fulfilled literally. Ryrie asserts that much of the covenant has already been fulfilled, and it has been fulfilled literally, therefore it seems impossible not to assume that the remaining elements, including the land promised to Abraham, would not be fulfilled literally as well. This actually helps make sense of much of the current political and military issues that are happening in, around and about Israel at the moment. Admittedly I am not one to really pursue political interests, and therefore I am at a loss to understand much of what is going on in the Middle East in general -- the real story that is; the background information of why these things are happening, not just what is happening -- and although I am perfectly aware of the religious interests in the area in general, I realize now why so many people believe that this covenant will be fulfilled in such a literal sense. It makes it even more clear the strife in the area when it is taken into account that Muslims also believe in the Covenant, though slightly different in the way of who will enjoy these blessings.

Words Cited

Ryrie, Charles. Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical

Truth Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth. Chicago: Moody Pub., 1999.