Years ago, a group of us at the church that I attended was getting
into some theological discussions. Our Sabbath school lesson was about
the rebellion of Satan and his angels against God: you probably know the
story about how Satan was originally an angel, but he rebelled against
God, and that’s how he became Satan. We were puzzling over how angels
could have revolted against God. Where did they get the thought that
inspired them to do that? The reason that we were puzzled was that one
person in the group had said that being in the presence of God
transforms a person for the better. We were an independent Seventh-Day
Adventist church, and one of Ellen White’s (a prophetess and founder of
Seventh-Day Adventism) often-repeated sayings, which was probably based
on II Corinthians 3:18, was that, by beholding God, we become changed. How could angels be in the presence of God, beholding God, and yet decide to rebel against God?
We eventually got into questions about free will, since that was part
of the pastor’s solution to our question about Satan, and someone asked
if God had free will. We were a little hesitant to go that far, for
would that suggest that God was able to sin? (Many of them believed,
however, that God, in Jesus, had taken on sinful flesh at the
incarnation and thus was tempted to sin, but that is another story.)
There was also the consideration that we, as human beings, had free
will. Someone asked, “Can God give what he does not have?”
In response to that, I made a point that was a good point, but one
that I could have made more elegantly. I said that God gave trees bark,
but that does not mean that God has bark. That probably sounds silly,
but I think that the point that I was trying to make was valid. God
does not necessarily share the attributes that God gives to creatures.
God can make creatures and things that are different from Godself. God
can give characteristics that God does not possess as part of God’s
nature.
I read Archie Spencer’s The Analogy of Faith a while back,
and I learned from that book that there does seem to have been a belief
in the history of philosophical and Christian thought that there is an
analogy between God’s creation and the way that God is, and that one
reason for this is that God caused the creation to exist. In short,
this belief states that one can look at creation and draw conclusions
about God (natural theology). Indeed, there are passages from Scripture
that appear to suggest this: Genesis 1:27’s statement that God created
human beings in God’s image, and Paul’s statement in Romans 1:20 that
aspects of God are understood by the things that are made.
How does this relate to the questions of whether God has free will,
or whether God can give what God does not have? I would say that
Genesis 1:27 is relevant to the question of whether God has free will:
we, human beings, have free will, and we are made in God’s image, so
perhaps we can conclude from this that God has free will. At the same
time, bringing Romans 1:20 into the discussion, I would not say that God
has to share every characteristic with God’s creation, that God can
only give what God possesses Godself as part of God’s nature.
Obviously, there are features of creation that are different from the
way that God Godself is. I would suggest that Romans 1:27 is saying
that God’s creation demonstrates the power of God, and maybe even
attributes of God: God is not like the sponge, to use a random example,
but one can draw conclusions about God’s wisdom by looking at the
sponge. What I am saying may actually coincide with the views of some
of the natural theologians whom Spencer surveys.
The question of whether God can give what God does not have occurred
to me as I was reading “The Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan,” a
Christian document from the fifth century C.E. to the ninth century
C.E. In Book 1, Chapter 51, verse 6, the Word of God (who would become
Jesus Christ) is telling Adam and Eve about how mistaken they were to
follow Satan’s advice in the Garden of Eden. They see Satan’s horrible
and pitiful appearance, and the Word of God tells them:
“This is he who promised you majesty and divinity. Where, then, is
the beauty that is on him? Where is his divinity? Where is his light?
Where is the glory that rested on him?” (The translation is the one in
the Lost Books of the Bible and the Forgotten Books of Eden.)
Satan in the Garden of Eden promised Eve that she and her husband
would be as gods after they ate the forbidden fruit from the Tree of the
Knowledge of Good and Evil (Genesis 3:5). But, after eating the
forbidden fruit, they did not become like gods. (Genesis 3:22, however,
says that they actually became like god after eating the forbidden
fruit, and, while I do not know how, or if, “The Conflict of Adam and
Eve with Satan” handles this, you can read this post
to see how other ancient interpreters handled it.) Earlier in “The
Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan,” in Chapter 45:5, there appears to
be a suggestion on the Word of God’s part that Adam and Eve, on some
level, possessed divinity in the Garden of Eden, but Satan deprived them
of that when they ate the forbidden fruit. “The Conflict of Adam and
Eve with Satan” is probably trying to harmonize themes from the
different creation accounts, Genesis 1 and Genesis 2-3 (though he most
likely was unaware that they even were different creation accounts): one
says that Adam was made by God in the image of God, and the other
presents Adam and Eve as wanting to become like god by eating the
forbidden fruit.
But back to “The Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan” Book 1, Chapter
51, verse 6! The Word of God seems to be suggesting there that Satan
could not give what Satan himself did not possess. Satan promised Adam
and Eve divinity and exaltation, but look at him! He obviously lacks
divinity and exaltation! He is pathetic! How can he give what he does
not have? If you want exaltation, then you should stick with God, who
alone can provide it.
There is a rhyme and reason to what the Word of God is saying in that
verse: it is not iron-clad reasonable, but it makes a degree of sense.
It is not iron-clad because one can picture scenarios in which a being
can exalt others, without himself being exalted. I think of genies:
they grant wishes that can exalt the person who found them, but the
genies themselves remain subservient. And yet, the Word of God’s
reasoning makes a degree of sense, for, if Satan were able to help
others by giving them divinity and exaltation, would not Satan at least
exalt himself? The fact that he has not given himself divinity, or
otherwise possess it, arguably indicates that he cannot make anyone else
divine.
In terms of spiritual application, I am encouraged, when I find that I
lack love, to go to God, the embodiment and source of love. In my
mind, God can give what God has, and what God is.