Genesis 2:22-25 ~ How do YOU interpret this?

[Greg Merrill]

God created the angels ex nihilo - out of nothing.
God created Lucifer ex materia - out of his own spirit substance to be his 'loved one'.
God so made Eve ex materia, out of the substance of Adam, to reflect the way he created Lucifer.

The story of Eve was not only a physical reenactment of the creation of Lucifer, but a physical reenactment of the rebellion of Lucifer.

I am familiar with the term "ex nihilo" but have never heard of ex-materia.
God created Lucifer ex materia - out of his own spirit substance to be his 'loved one'. What is the authority or source for the above sentence? I don't think the Bible teaches that.

 

[JackRT]

God didn't create Satan, man did. Satan (ha'shaitan) occurs by name in the Old Testament in the Book of Job, and here it's clear that Satan is not the Devil! The Devil is supposedly banished from the presence of God, yet in Job, Satan is allowed to talk with and to come and go from God's presence and on a mission for God yet! What's going on? Satan here is not "the Devil" but sort of God's prosecuting attorney. There is a very common perception that the 'Lucifer' in Isaiah 14:12ff refers to Satan, the supernatural personification of evil. This misconception comes from two sources. The first is wishful thinking in the sense that it is nice to think that 'the Enemy' will get his come-uppance eventually. The second has to do with the old caution that scripture is to be read only 'in context'. This requires going back and reading all of Isaiah 13 and the earlier verses in Isaiah 14. When this is done we suddenly realize that scripture is not speaking of a supernatural Satan at all but of a Babylonian king with an immense ego. Read Isaiah 14: " 4 you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon:" What follows is a long rant against this oppressive king filled with numerous reference to his human nature like Isaiah 14: "16 Those who see you stare at you, they ponder your fate: Is this the man who shook the earth and made kingdoms tremble, 17 the man who made the world a desert, who overthrew its cities and would not let his captives go home?" This passage is in no way a reference to Satan or the devil. The Jews did not originally believe in devils but they picked up this concept during the Babylonian Exile from the Persians who followed Zoroastrianism. The Zoroastrians believed in both a god of good (Ahura-Mazda) and a god of evil (Ahrulman) engaged in a cosmic struggle. The Jews picked up and ran with this idea. It was easy to cast YHWH in the role of the God of good. They took also the angel ha'shaitan (Satan) in the book of Job and recast that character as Satan the near divine force of evil. Up to that time, their concept of God was of a being responsible for everything, both good and evil. Isaiah 45:”7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.” is just one quote that demonstrates this. The Jews never connected Satan to the serpent in the Garden of Eden. It was the second-century Christian martyr, Justin of Samaria, who was first to argue that Satan appeared as a serpent to tempt Adam and Eve to disobey God.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I am familiar with the term "ex nihilo" but have never heard of ex-materia.
God created Lucifer ex materia - out of his own spirit substance to be his 'loved one'. What is the authority or source for the above sentence? I don't think the Bible teaches that.

It's in there, hidden between the lines. Proverbs 25:2 (not that I'm a King or anything).

 

[Greg Merrill]

It's in there, hidden between the lines. Proverbs 25:2 (not that I'm a King or anything).

I hope no one takes ex materia as true Biblical doctrine.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I hope no one takes ex materia as true Biblical doctrine.

God created Adam and Eve, which is generally accepted as part of 'creation doctrine', ex materia.

 

[DeaconDean]

God didn't create Satan, man did. Satan (ha'shaitan) occurs by name in the Old Testament in the Book of Job, and here it's clear that Satan is not the Devil! The Devil is supposedly banished from the presence of God, yet in Job, Satan is allowed to talk with and to come and go from God's presence and on a mission for God yet! What's going on? Satan here is not "the Devil" but sort of God's prosecuting attorney. There is a very common perception that the 'Lucifer' in Isaiah 14:12ff refers to Satan, the supernatural personification of evil. This misconception comes from two sources. The first is wishful thinking in the sense that it is nice to think that 'the Enemy' will get his come-uppance eventually. The second has to do with the old caution that scripture is to be read only 'in context'. This requires going back and reading all of Isaiah 13 and the earlier verses in Isaiah 14. When this is done we suddenly realize that scripture is not speaking of a supernatural Satan at all but of a Babylonian king with an immense ego. Read Isaiah 14: " 4 you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon:" What follows is a long rant against this oppressive king filled with numerous reference to his human nature like Isaiah 14: "16 Those who see you stare at you, they ponder your fate: Is this the man who shook the earth and made kingdoms tremble, 17 the man who made the world a desert, who overthrew its cities and would not let his captives go home?" This passage is in no way a reference to Satan or the devil. The Jews did not originally believe in devils but they picked up this concept during the Babylonian Exile from the Persians who followed Zoroastrianism. The Zoroastrians believed in both a god of good (Ahura-Mazda) and a god of evil (Ahrulman) engaged in a cosmic struggle. The Jews picked up and ran with this idea. It was easy to cast YHWH in the role of the God of good. They took also the angel ha'shaitan (Satan) in the book of Job and recast that character as Satan the near divine force of evil. Up to that time, their concept of God was of a being responsible for everything, both good and evil. Isaiah 45:”7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.” is just one quote that demonstrates this. The Jews never connected Satan to the serpent in the Garden of Eden. It was the second-century Christian martyr, Justin of Samaria, who was first to argue that Satan appeared as a serpent to tempt Adam and Eve to disobey God.

Scripture also tells us that Lucifer was of the class of angels known as the Cherubim.

"Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth;" -Eze. 28:14 (KJV)

The King of Tyre sure wasn't an "anointed cherub".

Revelation shows us in two places that "Lucifer/Satan" is identified as being in the Garden of Eden:

"that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan," -Rev. 12:9 (KJV)

"that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan," -Rev. 20:2 (KJV)

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Greg Merrill]

God created Adam and Eve, which is generally accepted as part of 'creation doctrine', ex materia.

You said "God created the angels ex nihilo - out of nothing.
God created Lucifer ex materia - out of his own spirit substance to be his 'loved one'."
Yes, I would agree with how God created Adam and Eve and the angels, but not that God created Lucifer ex materia. Lucifer was one of the angels, and created just like they were.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You said "God created the angels ex nihilo - out of nothing.
God created Lucifer ex materia - out of his own spirit substance to be his 'loved one'."
Yes, I would agree with how God created Adam and Eve and the angels, but not that God created Lucifer ex materia. Lucifer was one of the angels, and created just like they were.

Several scriptures strongly indicate that Lucifer was God's ' special angel' and possessed beauty, brains, and talents that other angels did not have. He (it) along with the one who became Jesus is called a "morning star" in distinction from other angels that are merely called 'stars' or 'sons of God'.

The 'material' that Lucifer was created from, whether wholly or in part, was the spiritual substance of God, as is portrayed in the creation of Eve, so to be a beloved companion of God ("walking up and down in the stones of fire", a privilege and station that no other angel held).

 

[Greg Merrill]

Several scriptures strongly indicate that Lucifer was God's ' special angel' and possessed beauty, brains, and talents that other angels did not have. He (it) along with the one who became Jesus is called a "morning star" in distinction from other angels that are merely called 'stars' or 'sons of God'.

The 'material' that Lucifer was created from, whether wholly or in part, was the spiritual substance of God, as is portrayed in the creation of Eve, so to be a beloved companion of God ("walking up and down in the stones of fire", a privilege and station that no other angel held).

God created the physical/material stars with different colors, sizes, temperatures etc.. I would think he did the same with the angels, all out of nothing, but all different, or at least some like Lucifer different. The way you have written above, it seems like you might think Jesus had been an angel before becoming Jesus. Of course Jesus was the eternal second person of the Triune God, never an angel. Care to clarify your words on this?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

God created the physical/material stars with different colors, sizes, temperatures etc.. I would think he did the same with the angels, all out of nothing, but all different, or at least some like Lucifer different. The way you have written above, it seems like you might think Jesus had been an angel before becoming Jesus. Of course Jesus was the eternal second person of the Triune God, never an angel. Care to clarify your words on this?

I don't know exactly what "morning star' means in regard to what Jesus was before his human birth. I do believe it is quite different from other spirit beings however and that it is direct reference to him. Revelation 22:16

 

[Greg Merrill]

I don't know exactly what "morning star' means in regard to what Jesus was before his human birth. I do believe it is quite different from other spirit beings however and that it is direct reference to him. Revelation 22:16

It is a direct reference to Jesus. The ancients had no electric lighting, and many spent some long dark nights outside. They called the planet Venus the bright and morning star because it was so bright, and often appeared just before it started to get light in the morning. It gave them hope and expectancy of good things when they saw it. It is a good reference to and illustration of the coming of Jesus, both the first and second coming, for believers. He gives hope of salvation the first time, and hope of a world wide reign of righteousness the second time.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It is a direct reference to Jesus. The ancients had no electric lighting, and many spent some long dark nights outside. They called the planet Venus the bright and morning star because it was so bright, and often appeared just before it started to get light in the morning. It gave them hope and expectancy of good things when they saw it. It is a good reference to and illustration of the coming of Jesus, both the first and second coming, for believers. He gives hope of salvation the first time, and hope of a world wide reign of righteousness the second time.

The reference also predates the creation of man (Job 38:7) which also seems to indicate at least two different kinds of spirit beings.

 

[Greg Merrill]

The reference also predates the creation of man. Job 38:7

Job 38:7 is not referring to the Second Person of the Trinity at all (unlike Rev 22:16 which does refer to Jesus). Job 38:7 is only referring to angelic beings, not Jesus.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Job 38:7 is not referring to the Second Person of the Trinity at all (unlike Rev 22:16 which does refer to Jesus). Job 38:7 is only referring to angelic beings, not Jesus.

It is a reference to spirit beings, whether angels or some other 'kind'.

 

[Greg Merrill]

It is a reference to spirit beings, whether angels or some other 'kind'.

Not that I am arguing, mind you, but asking in honesty "What is your authority in making the above statement?" We know that Satan came before God with the "sons of God", Job 1:6. We know that other beings are mentioned as being there also, from Ezekiel and Revelation. We know that the Trinity is there. But how can one say with authority that Job 38:7 is referring to anyone other than the angels, or that the "morning stars" and the "sons of God" are not both referring to the same beings, or class of beings, and not to Jesus.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Not that I am arguing, mind you, but asking in honesty "What is your authority in making the above statement?" We know that Satan came before God with the "sons of God", Job 1:6. We know that other beings are mentioned as being there also, from Ezekiel and Revelation. We know that the Trinity is there. But how can one say with authority that Job 38:7 is referring to anyone other than the angels, or that the "morning stars" and the "sons of God" are not both referring to the same beings, or class of beings, and not to Jesus.

I'm not saying it with "authority". It's my own conclusion from my own study. I share it as a matter of interest as I do many of my opinions.

That said the 'Trinity' is widely believed but has no sound scriptural basis (since you mentioned it).

 

[Greg Merrill]

I'm not saying it with "authority". It's my own conclusion from my own study. I share it as a matter of interest as I do many of my opinions.

That said the 'Trinity' is widely believed but has no sound scriptural basis (since you mentioned it).

There are a number of verses to support the Trinity, like 2 Corinthians 13:14; 1 John 5:7; and studies on the Father, the deity of Christ, and the Holy Spirit. Even the first verse of the Bible uses the plural word "Elohim" for God.
As far as using your own opinions, well that is exactly what they are then, just your own opinions, dear sir.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

There are a number of verses to support the Trinity, like 2 Corinthians 13:14; 1 John 5:7; and studies on the Father, the deity of Christ, and the Holy Spirit. Even the first verse of the Bible uses the plural word "Elohim" for God.
As far as using your own opinions, well that is exactly what they are then, just your own opinions, dear sir.

It is the personage of the Holy Spirit that is the problem. The bible doesn't identify the Spirit as a person without some pretty creative linguistic gymnastics.

Personal opinions are the basis of most discussions, and arguments, in these forums.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

.

 

[Greg Merrill]

It is the personage of the Holy Spirit that is the problem. The bible doesn't identify the Spirit as a person without some pretty creative linguistic gymnastics.

Personal opinions are the basis of most discussions, and arguments, in these forums.

Actually the Bible does portray the Spirit as a person, not as the "force" or energy of God. Electricity is a force or energy, yet one can not "grieve" energy, as the HS is grieved in Ephesians 4:30. Electricity doesn't have a will of it's own, yet the HS has a will, never in contrast to the will of Jesus or the will of the Father.
In John 15:26 Jesus gives the HS the personal (personality) pronoun "he".
The following link will give you various articles on the personality of the HS.
personality+of+the+holy+spirit - Bing