Christadelphians, the Devil and Satan

[Wick Stick]

It's the only instances in the Master's ministry where he references angels.

...by that name. In the other thread, we're looking at a passage where Jesus references Satan, and devils, and evil spirits. It's not a slam-dunk that those are fallen angels (that would be petitio principii). But it's not a given that they're not, either (and a negative premise can't be proven).

Do you think this is actually the origin story for fallen angels? Personally, I don’t. Most scholars agree that the Old Testament is largely silent on the topic, which is why it’s so important to carefully consider the context of any references found in the New Testament.

If we define fallen angels as supernatural-beings-who-formerly-inhabited-heaven-and-served-God-but-no-longer-do... then no. However, that's a bad definition, mainstream or not. A better one requires some explanation...

There's a metaphor (I know what those are too!) that runs through the entire Bible. From Genesis to Revelation, the earth is (sometimes) an emblem of the common people, while the sun/moon/stars refer to the governors that are "over" them. With the knowledge that stars and angels are often the same thing in Hebrew, this makes "angels" the lesser governors - the heads of clans and rulers of single cities.

So then, a "fallen angel" is nothing more than the head of a city or clan who has rejected God in favor of some other gods or emperor, or to worship himself (like Pharoah).

So yes, there are some fallen angels throughout the Old Testament, but they aren't anything supernatural in the original meaning of the text. (But the New Testament doesn't always use the Old Testament within the original meaning.)

The vernacular of the time didn’t give them the language we might use today. If something was unknown to them, how could they possibly describe it with certainty?

Kind of off-topic, but... a purpose (the purpose?) of mythology is word-smithing. If you don't have a word for something intangible - loyalty, love, or lawfulness - you make up a story about someone who typifies that attribute. Tell the story a few times, and the name you give to your character will be understood as a new word.

Where is Lucifer mentioned in the NT?

By that name? Nowhere. But most of us squint at these two verses and think the latter is a reference to the former.

Isaiah 14: How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!
Luke 10: I saw Satan fall as lightning from heaven

No, I believe studying each occurrence in its context is the only way to gain an understanding.

Only way? No. One of the best ways? Yes.

Studying Greek word usage across just the New Testament isn't enough, though. Word meaning in the NT is best determined by looking at usage in the Greek text of the Old Testament (the LXX), and also seeking the meaning of the underlying Hebrew/Aramaic word.

I'll give you an example.

1 Timothy 3:11 "Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers (devils), but sober-minded, faithful in all things."

Why did the translators not use the word devils here?

Titus 2:3 "Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers (devils) or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good."

And here?

The next question you would ask yourself is what if they used the words slanderer, false accuser and adversary for every occurrence?

What would that do for this study?

It would make the verses immediately clearer, at the expense of taking a layer of meaning away from them.

 

[Hiddenthings]

...by that name. In the other thread, we're looking at a passage where Jesus references Satan, and devils, and evil spirits. It's not a slam-dunk that those are fallen angels (that would be petitio principii). But it's not a given that they're not, either (and a negative premise can't be proven).

This is a major issue on what is a fairly assumed belief amongst Christianity.

If we define fallen angels as supernatural-beings-who-formerly-inhabited-heaven-and-served-God-but-no-longer-do... then no. However, that's a bad definition, mainstream or not. A better one requires some explanation...

The commonly held belief in a rebellion in Heaven is something Christ never addressed, and, in fact, the Lord’s Prayer suggests the opposite. I've asked repeatedly for those believers to provide the identity of such a being and how it is they know so much about it when the text is silent.

There's a metaphor (I know what those are too!)

Lol

that runs through the entire Bible. From Genesis to Revelation, the earth is (sometimes) an emblem of the common people, while the sun/moon/stars refer to the governors that are "over" them.

Correct!

With the knowledge that stars and angels are often the same thing in Hebrew, this makes "angels" the lesser governors - the heads of clans and rulers of single cities.

So then, a "fallen angel" is nothing more than the head of a city or clan who has rejected God in favor of some other gods or emperor, or to worship himself (like Pharoah).

Angels bare God's nature and are defined as beings who always do His pleasure. Both Jesus and David are in complete harmony in terms the nature and role of angels.

So yes, there are some fallen angels throughout the Old Testament, but they aren't anything supernatural in the original meaning of the text. (But the New Testament doesn't always use the Old Testament within the original meaning.)

Angels is used of humans as well - correct

Kind of off-topic, but... a purpose (the purpose?) of mythology is word-smithing. If you don't have a word for something intangible - loyalty, love, or lawfulness - you make up a story about someone who typifies that attribute. Tell the story a few times, and the name you give to your character will be understood as a new word.


By that name? Nowhere. But most of us squint at these two verses and think the latter is a reference to the former.

Isaiah 14: How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!
Luke 10: I saw Satan fall as lightning from heaven

I'd rather ask a question than assume an understanding lol

Do you think Jesus is quoting Isaiah 14?

Only way? No. One of the best ways? Yes.

I prefaced the remark by saying "to get a right understanding" - it's impossible to draw to a right conclusion without first knowing the context in which its written. Yes, you can take something out of context, but it can be fraught with danger.

Studying Greek word usage across just the New Testament isn't enough, though.

True.

Word meaning in the NT is best determined by looking at usage in the Greek text of the Old Testament (the LXX), and also seeking the meaning of the underlying Hebrew/Aramaic word.

It would make the verses immediately clearer, at the expense of taking a layer of meaning away from them.

Agree.

 

[Hiddenthings]

@Wick Stick

I'll assume you know what Christians do to Genesis 3:1

Why would God create a creature more cunning than all the other beasts of the field, and one that is even given the ability to speak?

Not one Christian in this forum has answered this question and it's been asked multiple times in multiple threads.

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

I've found it the other way. I mean you started your post at verse 12 and then forced notions upon the Word that are not there.

Here let me help you with your study.

There are several questions that need to be addressed:

• Is Satan truly accompanied by the music of viols (or harps)? (v. 11)
• Is Satan to be covered with worms in the grave (v. 11), or is he destined to be cast into the lake of fire, as stated in Revelation 20:10?
• Why would Satan desire a place “in the sides of the north”? (v. 13)
• If Satan is a fallen angel, why is he referred to as “the man”? (v. 16)
• Why would Satan say, “I will ascend into heaven”
• What land did Satan possess that, upon its destruction, would justify his dishonorable burial? (v. 20)
• Where are Satan’s people said to be buried? (v. 20) Isn't the lake of fire described as the final destination for Satan and his followers?
• When did Satan ever control a prison and refuse to release its captives? (v. 17, RSV)

Ronald, spend some time working through these and come back with your insights.

I know what you will find.

If you have 15 minutes, the nature of Satan can be explained to you much better than I. I challenge you to listen to all 47 min. But the key issue we are discussing is answered between minute 13:30 - through minute 28:00.

Satan Satan

 

[Hiddenthings]

If you have 15 minutes, the nature of Satan can be explained to you much better than I. I challenge you to listen to all 47 min. But the key issue we are discussing is answered between minute 13:30 - through minute 28:00.

Satan Satan

I'll take look out of respect Ronald and come back to you.

 

[Wick Stick]

The commonly held belief in a rebellion in Heaven is something Christ never addressed, and, in fact, the Lord’s Prayer suggests the opposite. I've asked repeatedly for those believers to provide the identity of such a being and how it is they know so much about it when the text is silent.

Like I said before, most of what people believe about fallen angels comes from the book of Enoch:

1st Enoch chapters 6-8

1 And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto 2 them beautiful and comely daughters. And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: 'Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men 3 and beget us children.' And Semjaza, who was their leader, said unto them: 'I fear ye will not 4 indeed agree to do this deed, and I alone shall have to pay the penalty of a great sin.' And they all answered him and said: 'Let us all swear an oath, and all bind ourselves by mutual imprecations 5 not to abandon this plan but to do this thing.' Then sware they all together and bound themselves 6 by mutual imprecations upon it. And they were in all two hundred; who descended in the days of Jared on the summit of Mount Hermon, and they called it Mount Hermon, because they had sworn 7 and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it. And these are the names of their leaders: Samlazaz, their leader, Araklba, Rameel, Kokablel, Tamlel, Ramlel, Danel, Ezeqeel, Baraqijal, 8 Asael, Armaros, Batarel, Ananel, Zaqiel, Samsapeel, Satarel, Turel, Jomjael, Sariel. These are their chiefs of tens.​

1 And all the others together with them took unto themselves wives, and each chose for himself one, and they began to go in unto them and to defile themselves with them, and they taught them charms 2 and enchantments, and the cutting of roots, and made them acquainted with plants. And they 3 became pregnant, and they bare great giants, whose height was three thousand ells: Who consumed 4 all the acquisitions of men. And when men could no longer sustain them, the giants turned against 5 them and devoured mankind. And they began to sin against birds, and beasts, and reptiles, and 6 fish, and to devour one another's flesh, and drink the blood. Then the earth laid accusation against the lawless ones.​

1 And Azazel taught men to make swords, and knives, and shields, and breastplates, and made known to them the metals of the earth and the art of working them, and bracelets, and ornaments, and the use of antimony, and the beautifying of the eyelids, and all kinds of costly stones, and all 2 colouring tinctures. And there arose much godlessness, and they committed fornication, and they 3 were led astray, and became corrupt in all their ways. Semjaza taught enchantments, and root-cuttings, 'Armaros the resolving of enchantments, Baraqijal (taught) astrology, Kokabel the constellations, Ezeqeel the knowledge of the clouds, Araqiel the signs of the earth, Shamsiel the signs of the sun, and Sariel the course of the moon. And as men perished, they cried, and their cry went up to heaven . . .​

Angels bare God's nature and are defined as beings who always do His pleasure.

That isn't within the meaning of the word. Mala'ak and aggellos both mean messenger. Well, a bit more than that - a messenger with a writ of authority. If we're giving simple words in translation, EMMISSARY is the right one. How would that change the word study?

"God's nature" is a strange combination of words to me. In the Bible, natural is the opposite of spiritual, and God is a spirit. I see where man bears God's image. I see where God indwells Jesus bodily.

I don't see anything that talks about angels having God's nature, image, or being indwelt. Am I looking for the wrong words?

I'd rather ask a question than assume an understanding lol

Do you think Jesus is quoting Isaiah 14?

I think it's a reasonable interpretation. I'm not dogmatically for it - a coincidence of words is not strong evidence. I'm not dogmatically against it either.

 

[Hiddenthings]

Like I said before, most of what people believe about fallen angels comes from the book of Enoch:

You have raised this a number of times now.

That isn't within the meaning of the word. Mala'ak and aggellos both mean messenger. Well, a bit more than that - a messenger with a writ of authority. If we're giving simple words in translation, EMMISSARY is the right one. How would that change the word study?

The Greek word “aggelos,” translated as “angel,” simply means “messenger” or “agent,” and is used for both human and divine messengers. For example, it clearly refers to humans in Matthew 11:10, Luke 7:24, 27, Luke 9:52, and James 2:25.

"God's nature" is a strange combination of words to me. In the Bible, natural is the opposite of spiritual, and God is a spirit. I see where man bears God's image. I see where God indwells Jesus bodily.

The Master speaks to this in Luke "For they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection."

Number of issues with the Lords understanding here and I'm sure a few Chrstians would like to correct him!

2 Peter 1:4 "by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire."

I'm sure they would want to correct Peter as well!

Can you see the issues for fallen angels? angels sinning and dying?

I don't see anything that talks about angels having God's nature, image, or being indwelt. Am I looking for the wrong words?

Just provided it clear as day

I think it's a reasonable interpretation. I'm not dogmatically for it - a coincidence of words is not strong evidence. I'm not dogmatically against it either.

Enjoy

 

[Wick Stick]

You have raised this a number of times now.

It seems to me that if we can determine if Enoch is reliable and literal, then we shall also have the answer to the question about Satan being a fallen angel.

The Greek word “aggelos,” translated as “angel,” simply means “messenger” or “agent,” and is used for both human and divine messengers. For example, it clearly refers to humans in Matthew 11:10, Luke 7:24, 27, Luke 9:52, and James 2:25.

Yes, we seem to agree that "angels" are often men.

The Master speaks to this in Luke "For they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection."

Number of issues with the Lords understanding here and I'm sure a few Chrstians would like to correct him!

Luke 20 is a mess to reckon. Is this a figurative meaning of death..? We all still seem to die after the literal meaning.

I sympathize with the fellows in verse 40:

40 And after that they durst not ask him any question at all.

2 Peter 1:4 "by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire."

I'm sure they would want to correct Peter as well!

Can you see the issues for fallen angels? angels sinning and dying?

I get the distinct feeling I'm missing something that you think is obvious.

 

[Wick Stick]

@Wick Stick

I'll assume you know what Christians do to Genesis 3:1

Why would God create a creature more cunning than all the other beasts of the field, and one that is even given the ability to speak?

Not one Christian in this forum has answered this question and it's been asked multiple times in multiple threads.

I interpret the early bits of Genesis as non-literal. Most everyone hates when I do that, but since you asked..

The serpent here is a symbol of worldly-wisdom, as I reckon it. Satan does appear in Gen 3, but he isn't the snake...

 

[Hiddenthings]

It seems to me that if we can determine if Enoch is reliable and literal, then we shall also have the answer to the question about Satan being a fallen angel.

So, are you suggesting that the source for a creature not clearly defined in the biblical canon comes from a book outside of Scripture?

Yes, we seem to agree that "angels" are often men.

Luke 20 is a mess to reckon. Is this a figurative meaning of death..? We all still seem to die after the literal meaning.

Divine nature occurs when its "put on" mortal nature - a change - no longer flesh and blood but flesh and spirit.

How can we prove this is true?

I sympathize with the fellows in verse 40:

40 And after that they durst not ask him any question at all.

I get the distinct feeling I'm missing something that you think is obvious.

Corruption is our current condemnation - the gradual decaying of our nature both in life and in the grave.

The promise of divine nature is the opposite.

Angels behold the face of God and are His Nature - they have His Essence...the same Jesus was given at his resurrection.

Paul's speak plainly about the transformation

Romans 1:4 "and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord,"

It's the in power part (and by) which is the exalted change in his nature - Life given...immortality granted.

Once this state is received no more temptation or sin as God's nature is eternal; its substance cannot be the source of temptation as the Bible is clear this can only happen in our current flesh and blood nature.

 

[Hiddenthings]

I interpret the early bits of Genesis as non-literal. Most everyone hates when I do that, but since you asked..

The serpent here is a symbol of worldly-wisdom, as I reckon it. Satan does appear in Gen 3, but he isn't the snake...

I don't mind those who do this as a friend and brother of mine does the same.

The first example the Bible presents of the seed of the serpent is Cain, who killed his brother. This expression refers to those who are born of the flesh and driven by carnal desires.

Paul works through this comprehensively in Romans 7 & 8

 

[TrevorHL]

Greetings again Matthias,

I appreciate that you aren’t endorsing what Allfree says in his booklet. That leaves room for constructive dialogue.

I endorse his overall view that there are no supernatural demons causing sickness, deafness and blindness

I also haven’t watched or listened to the debate you mention.

There is no mention of a debate, but it speaks of the fact that additions and alterations were the result of "correspondence ... especially with members of the Restoration Fellowship" on page 15. John Allfree passed away in 2007 and his son may not have much of a record of what transpired.

In Luke 11:14 both the man and the demon are said to be mute. When the demon is cast out, the man is able to speak. The text doesn’t go on to say if the demon was no longer mute.

I consider that John Allfree's explanation was reasonable. There is no ambiguity in the parallel or similar record.
.
Luke 11:14 (KJV): And he was casting out a devil, and it was dumb. And it came to pass, when the devil was gone out, the dumb spake; and the people wondered.

Matthew 9:32-33 (KJV): As they went out, behold, they brought to him a dumb man possessed with a devil. 33 And when the devil was cast out, the dumb spake: and the multitudes marvelled, saying, It was never so seen in Israel.

Ethelbert W Bullinger in his usual thorough analytical way in his book Figures of Speech used in the Bible 1898 states on page 561 of the reprint 1968, under the general heading "Metonymy of the Effect"::
Luke 11:14 (KJV): And he was casting out a devil, and it was dumb.
i.e., it produced dumbness in the man possessed.

In fact, the man was possessed by about two thousand demons

Sounds a bit crowded. Are demons that stupid?

On another aspect, do you disagree with the Christadelphian view of the introduction of sin in Genesis 3, and our view that the serpent was real, and when he created it God gave it reasoning ability and the serpent could speak?
.
Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Matthias]

Greetings again Matthias,

I endorse his overall view that there are no supernatural demons causing sickness, deafness and blindness

There is no mention of a debate, but it speaks of the fact that additions and alterations were the result of "correspondence ... especially with members of the Restoration Fellowship" on page 15. John Allfree passed away in 2007 and his son may not have much of a record of what transpired.

I consider that John Allfree's explanation was reasonable. There is no ambiguity in the parallel or similar record.
.
Luke 11:14 (KJV): And he was casting out a devil, and it was dumb. And it came to pass, when the devil was gone out, the dumb spake; and the people wondered.

Matthew 9:32-33 (KJV): As they went out, behold, they brought to him a dumb man possessed with a devil. 33 And when the devil was cast out, the dumb spake: and the multitudes marvelled, saying, It was never so seen in Israel.

Ethelbert W Bullinger in his usual thorough analytical way in his book Figures of Speech used in the Bible 1898 states on page 561 of the reprint 1968, under the general heading "Metonymy of the Effect"::
Luke 11:14 (KJV): And he was casting out a devil, and it was dumb.
i.e., it produced dumbness in the man possessed.

Sounds a bit crowded. Are demons that stupid?

On another aspect, do you disagree with the Christadelphian view of the introduction of sin in Genesis 3, and our view that the serpent was real, and when he created it God gave it reasoning ability and the serpent could speak?
.
Kind regards
Trevor

Thanks for your reply.

Are demons that stupid? I’ve personally encountered (and read about) various behavior types among them. “Stupid” would make the list.

Do I disagree with the Christadelphian view of the introduction of sin in Genesis 3, and your view that the serpent was real, and when he created it God gave it reasoning ability and the serpent could speak? Yes, I disagree with it. Thank you for inquiring.

 

[Hiddenthings]

Thanks for your reply.

Are demons that stupid? I’ve personally encountered (and read about) various behavior types among them. “Stupid” would make the list.

Do I disagree with the Christadelphian view of the introduction of sin in Genesis 3, and your view that the serpent was real, and when he created it God gave it reasoning ability and the serpent could speak? Yes, I disagree with it. Thank you for inquiring.

Interesting response.

In Genesis, we find the cunning of the serpent identified as the serpent's own:

Genesis 3:

1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any other wild animal that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God say, ‘You shall not eat from any tree in the garden’”

In the gospels we find Christ identifying the wisdom of the serpent as its own:

Matthew 10:

16 “See, I am sending you out like sheep into the midst of wolves; so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.

Paul likewise attributes the serpent's cunning to the serpent itself:

2 Corinthians 11:

3 But I am afraid that just as the serpent deceived Eve by his treachery, your minds may be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.

It's impossible to reason with a man who denies such plainly stated text.

Leave him to his own devices.

 

[Hiddenthings]

But what about Jesus’ words in John 8?

John 8:44 “You are of your father the devil, and you choose to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.”

Doesn’t this clearly identify the devil as the one who lied "from the beginning"? Doesn’t it suggest that the serpent in Eden is actually a symbol for a supernatural being called “Satan”?

On the contrary, the context of Jesus’ statement points not to the serpent, but to Cain. Jesus is confronting the Pharisees, who seek to kill him for speaking the truth, just as Cain murdered Abel out of jealousy because God accepted Abel’s offering and not his own.

Consider these key points:

• The defining trait Jesus points to is not lying, but murder.
• Cain, not the serpent, was the first murderer.
• Cain "did not remain in the truth" he turned away from God’s instructions and eventually from God Himself. The serpent is never said to have been “in the truth” to begin with.

John, in his epistle, reinforces this connection by describing Cain in similar terms:

1 John 3:12 “We must not be like Cain, who was from the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his deeds were evil and his brother’s were righteous.”

This confirms that Jesus was speaking metaphorically: Cain is described as “the devil”, or more accurately, as a manifestation of the "evil one" a symbolic way of describing the human inclination to oppose God.

 

[Wick Stick]

Doesn’t this clearly identify the devil as the one who lied "from the beginning"? Doesn’t it suggest that the serpent in Eden is actually a symbol for a supernatural being called “Satan”?

Ezekiel 28 seems to identify the angel that blocks the way to the Garden of Eden and the Tree of Life as being the enemy. Compare:

13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God
14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth

with...

Gen 3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

 

[Hiddenthings]

Ezekiel 28 seems to identify the angel that blocks the way to the Garden of Eden and the Tree of Life as being the enemy. Compare:

13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God
14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth

with...

Gen 3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

I love this chapter—it's beautifully written, and its significance would have been immediately clear to the Hebrew people.

If you are interested, I don't mind stepping, you through it.

First observation is the number of symbols being referenced

“You were in Eden, the garden of God” (v. 13)
“You were anointed as a guardian cherub” (v. 14)
“You walked among the fiery stones” (v. 14)

So, the prophecy brings together the Garden of Eden and the High Priests Breastplate.

How do these symbols relate to the King of Tyre.

You need to think about the symbol and then apply the symbol to the Kings activities.

Once you do this the Chapter will come to life!

 

[talons]

On another aspect, do you disagree with the Christadelphian view of the introduction of sin in Genesis 3, and our view that the serpent was real, and when he created it God gave it reasoning ability and the serpent could speak?

Hello Trevor , question for you . So according to you is it God or is it the snake that is the author of this evil that was offered to mankind ?

@Matthias will vouch for my sanity .

 

[Hiddenthings]

When @Matthias rejected Genesis 3:1 he did so to preserve his ventriloquist story which has no basis in the Word of God, at all.

In fact, when asked why God made the serpent more cunning and gave it a voice, he flatly refuses to answer.

When that happens, you can sense something's off, and this one's starting to really stink.

 

[talons]

Contending with the devil

“First, the devil is real. In popular culture, there are a wide variety of depictions of the devil. These depictions range from the comical to the abstract. Sometimes, the devil is a little red man with horns, a tail, and a pitchfork, urging people towards sin. Other times, the devil is merely...

www.christianityboard.com