Christadelphians, the Devil and Satan

[Matthias]

You aren’t the wolf, readers.

 

[Hiddenthings]

It seems you like to pick and choose when "angelos" refers to divine angels. Tell me, why is it translated as "angels" in 1 Co 6:3 in every Bible translation? Did all the biblical scholars somehow miss it? No, because "angelos" means angels (i.e. divine beings). That's the way it's used in the NT the vast majority of the times. There are maybe three instances when it's used to refer to human messengers. That's it.



Read Eze 28 carefully. Was the King of Tyre ever in Eden? Was he ever an anointed cherub? Lucifer is portrayed as the true power behind the king of Tyre in Eze 28.



Allegory then?

Go back and read the thread and seek to understand the symbolic language and how it applied to the King.

 

[Matthias]

Anecdote. The first time I was introduced to a Christadelphian he (eventually) told me, “You are the devil.”

No, I’m not the devil. If I were the devil ...

 

[Hiddenthings]

No, I’m not the devil. If I were the devil ...

You have nothing to offer on these Chapters. With Ezekiel 28 & Isaiah 14 now unlocked where should we go next?

 

[Matthias]

There are evil angels.

Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Offered in support of your position:

”The description of the dragon as the ‘ancient serpent’ identifies him as the same diabolical character of Gen. 3:1, 14. The ancient foe of God’s people here in 12:9 is also ‘called devil and Satan,’ meaning, respectively, ‘slanderer’ and ‘adversary.’ He is a slanderous adversary in two ways. Genesis 3 attributes to him the two functions of slanderer and deceiver. After the fall, the serpent and his agents do on a worldwide scale what he began in the garden (cf. Jub. 11:5; 1 En. 54:5; 2 En. 7; 18). Here in 12:9 he is called ‘the one deceiving the whole inhabited earth’ and in 12:10 ‘the accuser’ of God’s people.

On the basis of this description and the description of Satan in Job 1:6-11; 2:1-6; Zech. 3:1-2, it can be concluded that the devil was permitted by God to come before him in heaven and ‘accuse’ his people of sin. The OT texts portray Satan accusing saints of unfaithfulness, with the implication that they did not deserve God’s salvation and gracious blessings (Zech. 3:1-5, 9; cf. Midr. Rab. Num. 18:21). Implicit also in the accusation was the charge that God‘s own character was corrupt.

The emphasis on Satan’s accusatorial role here in 12:10 reveals that the angelic battle of 12:7-9 was figurative for a courtroom battle between two opposing lawyers, with one losing the argument and being disbarred for employing illegal tactics (so Caird 1966: 154-56). In addition to Satan’s accusatorial role in Job 1:6-11; 2:1-6; Zech. 3:1-2, the devil also had the role of a legal ‘accuser’ in early Judaism (Jub. 1:20; 17:15-16; 18:9-12; 48:15-18; 1 En. 40:7; T. Levi 5:6; T. Dan. 6:2), and Michael played the part of an advocate defending Israel from the accusation made by Satan in the heavenly court (T. Levi 5:6; T. Dan. 6:1-6; Midr. Rab. Exod. 18:5). Particularly interesting is Jub. 48:10-19, which says that essential to Israel’s victory over Egypt at the exodus was that Satan ‘was bound and imprisoned behind the children of Israel that he might not accuse them.‘ Christ’s death has freed Christians at a greater exodus from the devil’s accusations.”

(Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, G.K. Beale and D.A. Carson, Editors, pp. 1125-1126)

I’ll tell you right up front that this won’t persuade the Christadelphians (nor any other group or person who denies that the devil and the demons are real). They will continue to say - even when confronted with evidence! - that there is no evidence. (The same foolishness that is characteristic of atheism.) The background in Judaism is simply brushed aside, if they even know about it. (Some of them do, some of them don’t.)

They have the right to tell others what they think but what they think isn’t binding on anyone. They are making a truth claim. It’s up to everyone who hears them to evaluate the claim and decide whether or not it actually is the truth.

Everyone must be persuaded in their own mind.

 

[Muna]

Offered in support of your position:

Which would really be in support of John's position

Edit: typo

 

[Matthias]

Which would really be in support of John's position

Given that John himself is Jewish and his religion - like that of Jesus and all of the other apostles is Judaism (Christianity having begun as a new sect of Judaism founded by the Messiah) - I’m persuaded that is the case. John (and the others) are quite familiar with currents of thought in their religion and culture. Scholars have been able to show where they are quoting from when they quote non-canonical Jewish (and in the case of Paul, also Gentile) sources. None of them are on record saying - against their own religion and culture - that the devil and the demons aren’t real.

It’s one thing to evaluate the evidence and decide that it points in a certain direction and another thing entirely to deny that the evidence is evidence.

In regard to this issue, I believe you’re on the right track. Steady as she goes, I would say.

 

[TrevorHL]

Greetings again Matthias,

The description of the dragon as the ‘ancient serpent’ identifies him as the same diabolical character of Gen. 3:1, 14.

But the ancient serpent was a creature who was discerning and could speak what he deducted and was punished at that time by God. Thus the dragon is not the same being, but of the same character as the serpent and his seed Genesis 3:15, those that persecuted the woman and her seed. I prefer the prophetic interpretation that this is speaking of the overthrow of the Pagan Roman Empire by Constantine. Exactly at what time did God cast Satan out of heaven?

I’ll tell you right up front that this won’t persuade the Christadelphians (nor any other group or person who denies that the devil and the demons are real). They will continue to say - even when confronted with evidence! - that there is no evidence. (The same foolishness that is characteristic of atheism.) The background in Judaism is simply brushed aside, if they even know about it. (Some of them do, some of them don’t.)

They have the right to tell others what they think but what they think isn’t binding on anyone. They are making a truth claim. It’s up to everyone who hears them to evaluate the claim and decide whether or not it actually is the truth.

Wow !! Evidence?

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Muna]

We know, the LORD made the serpent

Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made.

Even as it says His hand formed the crooked serpent

Job 26:3 By his spirit he hath garnished the heavens; his hand hath formed the crooked serpent.

Even as it says the LORD made leviathan

Psalm 104:36 There go the ships: there is that leviathan, whom thou hast made to play therein.

And here is leviathan, referred to as that piercing and crooked serpent that his hand has formed mentioned together as being the same as the dragon

Isaiah 27:1 In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea.

And ofcourse, the old serpent that the LORD made is called the Dragon, the Devil and Satan here

Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan,

Followed by ...

which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Job says both the deceived and the deceiver are his

Job 12:16 With him is strength and wisdom: the deceived and the deceiver are his.

 

[Matthias]

Wow !! Evidence?

Thanks, Trevor.

This sentence is the highlight of your post. It tells non-Christadelphians who are thinking about discussing the subject with Christadelphians everything they need to know beforehand.

I’m not a prophet but you made me look like one.

 

[Hiddenthings]

I’ll tell you right up front that this won’t persuade the Christadelphians (nor any other group or person who denies that the devil and the demons are real). They will continue to say - even when confronted with evidence! - that there is no evidence. (The same foolishness that is characteristic of atheism.) The background in Judaism is simply brushed aside, if they even know about it. (Some of them do, some of them don’t.)

Matthias, as I mentioned before in the forum weeks ago, it seems pointless for you to try and pinpoint the "monster" that your fictional fallen angel represents, especially since there is no direct dialogue from the Master regarding its existence. Not once does Jesus sit down with His disciples and explicitly talk about such a being.

Despite all the noise you've made and the memes you've shared, none of them provide any evidence. What you choose to imagine and fabricate in your own mind is entirely your prerogative, but it's up to you to prove those ideas to yourself first. I can tell you have not done this from your posts.

 

[Matthias]

When evidence concerning the devil and the demons is presented to the Christadelphians they do the atheist flex. It isn’t obstinacy. They are genuinely blinded by their dogma. There is nothing you can say to them that will cause them to open their eyes to even consider the evidence.

 

[Hiddenthings]

When evidence concerning the devil and the demons is presented to the Christadelphians they do the atheist flex. It isn’t obstinacy. They are genuinely blinded by their dogma. There is nothing you can say to them that will cause them to open their eyes to even consider the evidence.

I would agree with you, Matthias, if the evidence of unanswered posts and the clear exposition of truth weren't so apparent.

Putting aside the silence from the Master's ministry, what about the two great Epistles, Romans and Hebrews? What about your being's presence within them?

 

[TrevorHL]

Greetings again Matthias,

Thanks, Trevor
This sentence is the highlight of your post. It tells non-Christadelphians who are thinking about discussing the subject with Christadelphians everything they need to know beforehand.
I’m not a prophet but you made me look like one.

A brief response to the article you quoted:

”The description of the dragon as the ‘ancient serpent’ identifies him as the same diabolical character of Gen. 3:1, 14.

This disagrees with what Genesis 3:1 states, that the serpent was an actual beast of the field and had intelligence and the ability to speak and was punished.

After the fall, the serpent and his agents do on a worldwide scale what he began in the garden

Is this the same serpent that tempted Eve and Adam? An immortal or ever-living serpent?

On the basis of this description and the description of Satan in Job 1:6-11; 2:1-6; Zech. 3:1-2, it can be concluded that the devil was permitted by God to come before him in heaven and ‘accuse’ his people of sin. The OT texts portray Satan accusing saints of unfaithfulness, with the implication that they did not deserve God’s salvation and gracious blessings (Zech. 3:1-5, 9; cf. Midr. Rab. Num. 18:21). Implicit also in the accusation was the charge that God‘s own character was corrupt.

I consider the Satan of Zechariah 3 is a summary concept of the Samaritans and others who were opposing Joshua in rebuilding the Temple, and there is no mention of heaven, but a courtroom concept before the Yahweh Angel.

The emphasis on Satan’s accusatorial role here in 12:10 reveals that the angelic battle of 12:7-9 was figurative for a courtroom battle between two opposing lawyers, with one losing the argument and being disbarred for employing illegal tactics (so Caird 1966: 154-56).

Do you and the commentators explain all the (figurative) language of Revelation 12 including the woman and the stars and the war in heaven? How much of this is figurative and how much literal?

Christ’s death has freed Christians at a greater exodus from the devil’s accusations.”

Interesting comment, but is this reality?

(Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, G.K. Beale and D.A. Carson, Editors, pp. 1125-1126)

How much weight and reliance do you place on prominent Protestant Commentators?

I’ll tell you right up front that this won’t persuade the Christadelphians

Yes, you are a "prophet" in your anticipated assessment.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Matthias]

Greetings again Matthias,

A brief response to the article you quoted:

This disagrees with what Genesis 3:1 states, that the serpent was an actual beast of the field and had intelligence and the ability to speak and was punished.

There is no contradiction. The serpent is an actual beast of the field which is being used by the devil.

Is this the same serpent that tempted Eve and Adam? An immortal or ever-living serpent?

Yes. Satan, the devil. I don’t believe he is immortal.

I consider the Satan of Zechariah 3 is a summary concept of the Samaritans and others who were opposing Joshua in rebuilding the Temple, and there is no mention of heaven, but a courtroom concept before the Yahweh Angel.

Thanks.

Do you and the commentators explain all the (figurative) language of Revelation 12 including the woman and the stars and the war in heaven? How much of this is figurative and how much literal?

Commentaries explain the figurative language.

Interesting comment, but is this reality?

Yes.

How much weight and reliance do you place on prominent Protestant Commentators?

As much as I do on anyone else's. My admonition to students in the classroom was to read widely, deeply, thoughtfully, and critically.

Yes, you are a "prophet" in your anticipated assessment.

Kind regards
Trevor

I was speaking from experience. You did what Christadelphians do.

 

[Hiddenthings]

There is no contradiction. The serpent is an actual beast of the field which is being used by the devil.

 

[TrevorHL]

Greetings again Matthias,

There is no contradiction. The serpent is an actual beast of the field which is being used by the devil.

But it says that the serpent was more subtil or crafty than any other beast. No mention of the devil. One JW suggestion is that the devil used the serpent as a ventriloquist, and they also say serpents do not speak, and they thus reduce the serpent to a dumb, stupid animal. Where is your view any different?

Yes. Satan, the devil. I don’t believe he is immortal.

But Revelation 12 and the commentary says that it is the original serpent, not the devil. You seem to be merging the two, or replacing the serpent with the devil. Is the original serpent still alive? Why was the original serpent reprimanded and punished?

Commentaries explain the figurative language.

Maybe 10 different opinions.

As much as I do on anyone else's. My admonition to students in the classroom was to read widely, deeply, thoughtfully, and critically.

Yes, good advice. DA Carson defends the Trinity.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Matthias]

Greetings again Matthias,

But it says that the serpent was more subtil or crafty than any other beast. No mention of the devil.

That detail is provided later in scripture.

One JW suggestion is that the devil used the serpent as a ventriloquist, and they also say serpents do not speak, and they thus reduce the serpent to a dumb, stupid animal. Where is your view any different?

I see a double entendre in the description of the incident.

But Revelation 12 and the commentary says that it is the original serpent, not the devil.

The serpent of old is the devil.

You seem to be merging the two, or replacing the serpent with the devil. Is the original serpent still alive? Why was the original serpent reprimanded and punished?

The original creature of the field, the literal snake, isn’t still alive. The devil, Satan, the tempter, the adversary, is still alive and doing on a worldwide basis what he did in the garden with Adam and Eve.

Maybe 10 different opinions.

Let’s add yours and make it 11.

Yes, good advice. DA Carson defends the Trinity.

He does. It isn’t all or nothing. Because I agree with you about some things doesn’t require that I agree with you about all things. Most of what I know I’ve learned from trinitarian scholars.

 

[Matthias]

@TrevorHL let’s shift our conversation briefly from the incident involving the speaking snake to the much later incident involving the speaking donkey (Numbers 22:21-39).

Are we in agreement that the donkey is not the devil?

 

[TrevorHL]

Greetings again Matthias,

The serpent of old is the devil.

The serpent of old was the serpent.

the speaking donkey (Numbers 22:21-39).
Are we in agreement that the donkey is not the devil?

This is a very amusing incident, but I am not sure why you raise this. God gave the donkey a certain level of intelligence and remarkably able to voice this intelligence, and what the donkey stated was very relevant and true to the circumstances.

God gave the serpent a certain level of reasoning ability, and the ability to voice his reasoning. But the serpent's deductions were not all valid, and did not speak ALL the truth or the appropriate truth. The thoughts were completely based upon his given ability from God and his deductions based on his observations of the Angels, the Elohim of Genesis 3 who had a knowledge of good and evil, and yet the Angels were no longer subject to death, and anyway there was a tree of life in the midst of the garden.

Genesis 3:5 (KJV): For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Genesis 3:5 (ESV): For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

Kind regards
Trevor