Satan as a "type of Christ"

Perhaps it will be helpful if I place on this thread the relevant part of my O.P. on the other thread. It may help you to stop misquoting me.

So how can Satan possibly be a type of Christ? He can only be a type of Christ made sin for us. The Lord Jesus was manifested to destroy the works of the devil (1 John 2:8). The primary satanic work was the luring of mankind into sin. Christ on the cross was made the very epitome of sin for us, figured by the brazen serpent, and paid the penalty of His people’s sin in full, so that ‘the accuser of our brethren…..has been cast down’ (Revelation 12:10). Satan can no longer accuse Christians of sin because Christ has taken away their sin debt, nailing it to the cross (Colossians 2:14) marked tetelestai, ‘Paid in Full’ (John 19:20; c.f. Matthew 17:24). Therefore, ‘Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies; who is he who condemns?’ (Romans 8:33-34).

 

Mistranslations can result in mistaken doctrine. Was Christ sin or a sin sacrifice. He was a lamb without blemish. The epitome of sinless perfection.

 

The problem is that while you view might indeed be valid here, there are some who win take it to an extreme view that Jesus became a sinner, and died spiritually, and had to get born again, as many in WoF do take it as Jesus becoming/taking on the nature of Satan!

 

The bronze idol of the serpent though indeed spoke to the coming Cross where the deadly disease called sin would be healed only when one looked at Him hanging upon that Cross with faith!

 

Without Satan, Christ would not have needed to bear our sins upon the cross. Satan 'was a murderer from the beginning.' 'In Adam [who followed the blandishments of Satan] all die.' So how is it that looking to a representation of Satan nailed to a post (and don't forget that the literal meaning of stauron is a post or stake) heals all those who look upon it? Because Christ was made sin for us, as pre-figured by the serpent om the post.

 

Uh no. Not only no but no way.

 

First off, let me emphatically state that the Christ never sinned, nor did He even have the ability to sin.

Now, when He stood before the Father, He stood before Him guilty, as He had been imputed the sins of His elect sheep. He stood there before His Father as if I stood there. God spared Him not one stroke, but crushed Him as if I was standing there.

He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things?[Romans 8:32]

this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.[Acts of the Apostles 2:23]

 

It's a stretch, especially with no direct pointer given in the scripture.

 

A desperate stretch IMO.

 

You may believe it's a stretch, but it is strongly supported by the Scriptures as I have shown.
It is the Lord Jesus Himself who points to the similarity between Himself and the serpent in John 3:14. It is the Scriptures themselves that point directly to the identity of the 'fiery serpent' of Numbers 21:6-8 and the 'great fiery red dragon of Revelation 12:3, which is identified as the serpent or Satan in verse 9.

It's as plain as the nose on your face, as we say in England.

 

You've focused on the serpent when the focus should be on the 'lifting up'. It's like putting the emPHAsis on the wrong syLAHbull as we say here in America.

This is the sort of stretch that gives an Allegorical approach to scripture a bad name. Rev 12 makes a clear distinction between the dragon and the man child that the dragon is out to kill.

 

Well, I have John Gill to support me. @JonC has mentioned him earlier, but here he is on John 3:14.

'.......For as the Israelites were bitten by fiery serpents , with the poison of which they were infected, and were in danger of death, and to many of them their bitings were mortal; so men are poisoned by the venom of that old serpent, the devil, by which they are subjected to a corporeal death and are brought under a spiritual, or moral death, and are liable to an eternal one.
And as these bitings were such that Moses could not cure, so the wounds of sin, through the old serpent, are such as cannot be cured by the law, moral or ceremonial, or by obedience to either. And as they were the Israelites who were convinced of their sin, and acknowledged it, and had a cure by looking to the brazen serpent; so such to whom the Spirit of God convinces of sin, and to whom He gives the seeing eye of faith, these, through seeing the Son, and looking to Jesus as crucified and slain, receive healing by His stripes and wounds......... To add no more, this was done in the wilderness: which may signify this world, Christ's coming into it, His crucifixion in it, and His going outside the camp, bearing our reproach, or suffering outside the gates of Jerusalem.'

 

Martin your imagination is clouding your reading comprehension, nowhere in that text does Gill refer to Satan as a type of Christ. Neither will you find anywhere in the scriptures that point to Satan as a 'figure' of Christ, i.e., Romans 5:14. The more I think about it the more absurd the notion becomes.

IMO, Gill would probably agree that it is THE LAW that accentuates the sin here because where there is no law there is no sin, Romans 5:13; Romans 7:8:

9 And I was alive apart from the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died;
10 and the commandment, which was unto life, this I found to be unto death:
11 for sin, finding occasion, through the commandment beguiled me, and through it slew me. Ro 7

55 O death, where is thy victory? O death, where is thy sting?
56 The sting of death is sin; and the power of sin is the law:
57 but thanks be to God, who giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. 1 Cor 15

As noted in post #36:

 

Yet the context of the OT account does not point to a sin offering, rather that which gives life.

The sin offering was not life giving. For such the Lord's death and resurrection had to take place.

As such, the serpent was symbolic of the power stripped over death and the grave.

There was no blood on the poll lifted up in the wilderness.

By not accounting for the aspects of the crucifixion is may be that you have placed the priority upon the blood. That is not bad in itself. Yet, it was not the blood that Peter and Paul were often pointing toward (yet they certainly didn't neglect it) rather it was the death and the resurrection.

For example in 1 Corinthians is seen an outline form of the preaching of Paul.

3For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,...
12Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; 14and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain....
18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.... 20But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. 21For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. 23But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming, 24then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power....

and so forth.

​

If one stops at the blood of the crucifixion, then according to Paul the preaching is in vain.

One must also have that that preaching of the believer in Christ is alive - eternally.

Paul in Romans states, "...the wages of sin is death..." Not the payment of blood results in life but that "eternal life is the gift of God"

The serpent was not a type of "Christ made sin for us," rather Christ rose and conquered death for us.

I find it rather fascinating that the focus is of some is upon the blood, when there was no blood shed on that pole, but those that looked were given life.

This life "look (believe) and live" aspect is also born out on John three.
"The ones who believe have eternal life..."

Do not consider that I am presenting a bloodless salvation. Certainly there was blood shed.

However, one of the more interesting aspects of the types found in the OT is that which is seen at the sacrificial altar. Was not the blood removed prior to being placed on the altar? Was not the blood splashed against the altar?

The crucifixion is far more than the blood on the cross. When were stripes bloodless? When were wounds of thorns bloodless? ...