Three Doctrines about The Satan
August 29th, 2010 by Brian Keating
Introduction
One of the figures that Scripture refers to, in both the Old and New Testaments, is “The Satan”. In addition, the New Testament refers to a figure called “The Devil”. For example, The Satan caused the catastrophes that befell Job, and The Devil is called “The father of lies”.
An important item to note is that the Hebrew word satan means “adversary”, or “accuser”; and the Greek word diabolos (from which we get the word “devil”) means “slanderer”.
As with many other Scriptural concepts, there are several different beliefs about who – or what – The Satan actually is, among various Christian groups. Basically, there are two main questions about The Satan, that these doctrines try to answer:
- Does “The Satan” refer to a unique, personal spirit being – i.e., to an angel?
- If “The Satan” is a personal being, then how much “freedom of action” does he have?
Three different doctrines
Here are the three most common doctrines that I have seen, about The Satan – along with some Scriptural passages which appear to support each doctrine.
1. The “Metaphorical” Satan: According to this belief, the terms “The Satan” and “The Devil” are completely figurative. In other words, those terms do not refer to a personal being at all – instead, they only refer to the “sinful nature” within human beings.
Some passages that are used to support this doctrine are as follows:
Matthew 16:21-23 (ESV):
21From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised. 22And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, “Far be it from you, Lord! This shall never happen to you.” 23But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”
Acts 5:3-4 (ESV):
3But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land? 4While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.”
James 1:14-15 (ESV):
14But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. 15Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.
2. The “District Attorney” Satan: This doctrine states that The Satan is a unique, personal, spirit being. However, the only actions he can perform are ones that God has explicitly permitted him to do. So, in a sense, The Satan works for God - i.e., he is God’s “district attorney” – or perhaps God’s “hit man”.
Some passages that are used to support this doctrine are as follows:
Job 1:8-12 (ESV):
8And the LORD said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil?” 9Then Satan answered the LORD and said, “Does Job fear God for no reason? 10Have you not put a hedge around him and his house and all that he has, on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land. 11But stretch out your hand and touch all that he has, and he will curse you to your face.” 12And the LORD said to Satan, “Behold, all that he has is in your hand. Only against him do not stretch out your hand.” So Satan went out from the presence of the LORD.
1 Chronicles 21:1 (ESV):
1 Then Satan stood against Israel and incited David to number Israel.
2 Samuel 24:1 (ESV):
1 Again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go, number Israel and Judah.“
3. The “Enemy of God” Satan: In this view, The Satan is a unique, personal spirit being. In addition, he is able to perform any action that he wants to – even without God’s permission. In other words, The Satan is the “enemy of God” – i.e., he is locked in an ongoing, cosmic “struggle” with God.
Some passages that are used to support this doctrine are as follows:
Revelation 12:7-9 (ESV):
7Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon. And the dragon and his angels fought back, 8but he was defeated, and there was no longer any place for them in heaven. 9And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world— he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.
Isaiah 24:21-22 (ESV):
21On that day the LORD will punish
the host of heaven, in heaven,
and the kings of the earth, on the earth.
22 They will be gathered together
as prisoners in a pit;
they will be shut up in a prison,
and after many days they will be punished.Ezekiel 28:14-16 (ESV):
14You were an anointed guardian cherub.
I placed you; you were on the holy mountain of God;
in the midst of the stones of fire you walked.
15You were blameless in your ways
from the day you were created,
till unrighteousness was found in you.
16In the abundance of your trade
you were filled with violence in your midst, and you sinned;
so I cast you as a profane thing from the mountain of God,
and I destroyed you, O guardian cherub,
from the midst of the stones of fire.
Is The Satan a personal being?
The passages in group 1 indicate that in some cases, the generic word “satan” (adversary) does represent sinful human nature. However, that does not mean that every reference to satan refers to human nature! In particular, when the specific term The Satan – or The Devil – is used, it almost always refers to a unique, personal being – not to sinful human nature.
For example, consider Revelation 12:7-9, above. If the word satan always refers to sinful human nature, then that means that the archangel Michael fought against sinful human nature - and against sinful human nature’s angels! Does that make sense? In addition, Jude 1:9 tells us that Michael had a dispute with the devil about Moses’ body. Was the archangel Michael arguing with sinful human nature?
Also, Scripture tells us that during the Millennium, Jesus will rule the nations with “a rod of iron” – and “sinners will be put to death”. This tells me that there will still be sin during the Millennium – because if there won’t be any sin during the 1000 years, then Jesus would not have to rule the Millennium so forcefully. With that in mind, consider this passage:
Revelation 20:1-3 (ESV):
1Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain. 2And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, 3and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be released for a little while.
The above passage tells us that Satan will not have any influence over people, during the entire Millennium. So, if Satan always refers to “sinful human nature”, then that means that people will not sin at all, during the 1000 years – since everyone’s sinful nature will be “bound” during that time.
Of course, since Jesus will rule the Millennium with force, that implies that people will sin during the Millennium. That, in turn, indicates that Satan does not refer to sinful human nature in this case. On the contrary – this passage strongly indicates that Satan is a unique, personal being – completely separate from humans.
How much “freedom of action” does The Satan have?
The passages in group 2 indicate that in some cases, God does permit The Satan to incite people to sin – and to even bring about calamities. However, that does not mean that God approves of every action that Satan performs!
Consider this: if Satan only performs the actions that God wants him to perform, then why would God punish him? In other words, if Satan is God’s “district attorney” – and if he always does exactly what God tells him to do – then why would God ever punish him at all?
Of course, the passages in group 3 indicate that God will punish The Satan, in the future. Isaiah 24:21-22 states that God will punish “the host of heaven, in heaven”. In other words, God will punish heavenly beings – i.e., angels. Also, Ezekiel 28 states that a cherub - a type of angel – rebelled against God; and as a result, God will destroy that angel. Finally, Revelation 12:1-9 speaks of a war in heaven – with some angels fighting against other angels – and the leader of the rebellious angels is identified as Satan!
Also, consider this passage:
Revelation 20:10 (ESV):
10and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
That passage certainly seems to preclude the idea that Satan is God’s loyal “district attorney”…
Can The Satan do anything that he wants to do?
There is one other item to note: it certainly appears that The Satan can sin against God – i.e., he can do things that God does not approve of. However, that does not mean that he can do anything that he wants to do. In other words, there are (presumably) some “limits” on what Satan can do.
After all, if Satan can do anything that he wants, then why doesn’t he just kill off every human being? Or, at the very least, why doesn’t he ensure that everyone is constantly suffering calamities like the ones that struck Job? Certainly, life during this age is very difficult – but it could be a lot worse.
Also, consider this: Scripture contains examples of God preventing humans from doing certain things! In other words, even human beings do not have complete freedom of action – i.e., sometimes God does not allow us to take certain courses of action.
For example, Moses wanted to enter the Promised Land – but God prevented him from doing so, because Moses had sinned. Also, the apostle Paul wanted to enter the province of Asia, on one of his missionary journeys, but God prevented him from doing so. It seems to me that the same type of situation exists with Satan – i.e., God prevents him from doing certain things.
Conclusion
As mentioned above, there are three common doctrines about The Satan:
- The “metaphorical” Satan;
- The “district attorney” Satan;
- The “enemy of God” Satan.
It occurs to me that each of those doctrines is partially true – and partially false:
- It is true that in some cases, the word “satan” refers to sinful human nature. However, in some other cases, Satan refers to a spirit being - not to sinful human nature.
- It is true that in some cases, God permits The Satan to perform certain actions. However, in some other cases, Satan takes actions that God does not want him to perform.
- It is true that The Satan is an enemy of God. However, Satan can not do anything that he wants to. In other words, God places “limits” on Satan’s actions, just like He limits human actions.
In closing, the reason why I think it is important to identify The Satan – or The Devil – is so that we will be able to resist him, when he attacks us. A very succinct description of this concept is provided here:
Ephesians 6:10-13 (ESV):
10Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. 11 Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. 12For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. 13Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm.
Brian,
you claim above
From even the little I have come to know from conversations with some Christadelphians and from reading a small article on this topic by a Christadelphian author, I would say that your claim here is not quite accurate, and your descriptive title of this category as “The ‘metaphorical’ Satan” is not really accurate either.
Or are there perhaps different “theological flavors” of Christadelphians around and those here in Germany have a slightly different doctrine concerning this topic than those in the USA ?
As far as “Universalists” are concerned, I have no clue what they believe and thus my comment here does not include them.
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Wolfgang,
What is the impression you got from the Christadelphian article you read? I actually agree with the article here, that the Christadelphian Satan is believed to be largely human nature. You are correct – there are large disparity among some groups regarding Satan’s identity in spec. places.
Jaco
It seems to me that Jesus can call a man Satan, or he can call people the light of the world, depending on what spirit they are connected to as they walk, talk, and do.
I believe Satan is one being, a spiritual one.
I believe he sins against God.
I believe he is against the truth.
I believe he ‘takes his lumps’ in the heavenly court.
I don’t believe he ever repents.
I believe he likes to use those who are willing to be used for his own destructive ends, and end.
It seems to me that he once knew good, but turned to evil and became evil ever since he fell.
I wonder if Satan continues to become more and more evil or if he just became evil since he fell and remains in that evil condition.
The scripture talks about a bottomless pit. (Rev 9)
When men fall into sin and don’t repent are they not destined to repeat the offence, or at least have the propensity, bend, or inclination to do the same things again and again?
Haven’t we all noticed that sin may take a man farther and farther into it if he does not resist it? If he doesn’t find the saviour from it
and come to terms with him, isn’t it always waiting to take him again?
Jaco,
my impression was that they basically understand the term “satan” or “devil” as terms with the meaning that they have, rather than as a personal name, or a specific designation of one particular “Spirit Being”. In other words, they understand the Greek words as “adversary” / “slanderer” / etc.
Next, form the context of certain scriptures, such as the one mentioned by Brian from James, they understand in relation sin, deception, etc. that “man” is his worst “adversary” … thus they actually do not define “human nature” as “Satan” (or say that “Satan” is the “human nature”, they explain that man due to the influence perhaps of his lust / human nature is his own “satan” (adversary). When speaking of being tempted by Satan, they understand that as being tempted by one’s own lust (exactly as James describes it !) .. thus when I am tempted, I am not tempted by some Satan who as a “fallen angel” is cruising as a spirit prince of the air through the atmosphere whom I then perhaps could blame for my sin, but the adversary (Satan) that is tempting me is my own lust (as James declares!)
Thus, to generalize in the way the article here does, is — as far as I can tell from my own personal experience with Christadelphians and their teaching — somewhat inaccurate and reflects a wrong understanding of what the Christadelphians are teaching.
It reminds me also of those who immediately declare “Christadelphians” as wrong because “they do not believe in Satan and the devil” … this too is a false accusation and only shows that those propagating such ideas about this group are rather ignorant and talking stuff they obviously do not understand! The Christadelphians most definitely believe in “Satan” and “the Devil” … BUT it is not the Satan or the Devil as preached by most of orthodox Christianity! Would unitarians like it to be accused of not believing in God and Jesus, because they do not believe in the trinity Godhead? Most likely not … they would like to at least be understood correctly. Well, I pray that folks will give Christadelphians and their understanding of Satan and the Devil at least the same courtesy and try to represent them correctly rather than propagating false information about them
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Wolfgang,
I see your point to an extent. On another blog a few of us had some discussions on the identity of Satan and demons. Depending on the most suitable explanation in a section and personal opinion, they either claim Satan and demons to be fallen human nature, temptation, humans, Jehovah himself, or psychosis.
Nor is it the Satan or Devil as depicted by Jesus and his apostles…
The notion that “I’ll have someone to blame for my sin” if Satan is held responsible is one not held by any serious Christian I know. That’s a strawman par excellence. Even with Adam and Eve’s sin due to external temptation, were they held accountable, since they had free moral agency.
I agree that it serves no good to spread lies about groups. I just don’t think the criticism in this area is really unfair or unfounded.
Jaco
Hi All,
From my experience, most Christadelphians do have the “metaphorical” Satan belief. I say this both from reading Christadelphian literature, and from attending Christadelphian Bible studies.
This is exactly what I meant by the “metaphorical” Satan! Perhaps something was “lost in translation”.
Brian
Brian,
what is “metaphorical” in saying that one is one’s own enemy/adversary? If I say that Mr SoandSo is my adversary … is that metaphorical? If I say I am my own worst adversary … is that metaphorical? I would say, no. Seems to me that in such case, the word “adversary” is understood in its normal regular sense …
This would only be not literal, if one defined “Satan” as having the normal regular meaning of “fallen evil angelic evil being who acts as adversary”, and then I would use this term in the above statements and apply a figure of speech to the term “Satan” when using it of Mr. SoandSo or myself.
What seems “lost in translation” is the simple fact that the Gr word for “Satan” means “adversary”, and the Greek word for “Devil” means “slanderer”. Instead, most translations do not translate those terms but use them as sort of a “personal name” for what they say is “the top fallen evil angel”
Wolfgang
Wolfgang,
Here is a definition of the word “metaphor”:
A metaphor is an analogy between two objects or ideas; the analogy is conveyed by the use of a metaphorical word in place of some other word. For example: “Her eyes were glistening jewels”.
In the first example I gave, Jesus calls Peter Satan. Of course, Peter’s name is not actually Satan. Instead, Jesus used that word as a way of stating that Peter was not following God. In other words, Jesus was using the word Satan as a metaphor.
In the second example I gave, Peter asked Ananias, “why has Satan filled your heart”. However, Peter goes on to clarify, “why have you contrived this deed in your heart”. In other words, Peter was using the word Satan as a metaphor for Ananias’ sinful nature.
So, the reason why I called this doctrine the “metaphorical” Satan is because this doctrine claims that all references to the word “satan” are metaphorical.
I am not going to respond to any further comments on the term metaphorical!
Brian
Ray
You said, “Haven’t we all noticed that sin can take us farther and farther into it if he does not resist it? If he doesn’t find the savior from it and come to terms with him, isn’t it always waiting to take him again?”
Yes. I have noticed that. My faith in God and his son Yeshua/Jesus helps to keep me from being tempted to return to my old sinful habits…
Brian,
Well put, friend. I think you made it VERY clear. Peter’s name also means “rock,” since he was the predominant apostle in the outworking of God’s purpose for the First Century Church. No one will deny, thus, that EVERY instance of “rock” means anything else than exactly that. Likewise, the First Century concept of Satan and demons was firmly established and primarily used in its prototypical form. The radial or conceptual network of various usages could thus spread from that prototype (personal Satan) and extended to be used metaphorically.
Metaphorical application is an asymmetrical extension process, meaning that connotations or properties of a concrete referrent is used to describe another entity, but not the other way around, namely, that the entity it’s applied to does not limit or change the reality of the metaphorical prototype.
Jaco
Jaco,
you write
what was the 1st century concept of Satan and demons? Was it what folks centuries later have made of it and what is now prevalent in Christian circles? What did the term “demons” (“evil spirit”) mean in that concept? Was it a reference to a living spirit being (angel) ?
Has anyone noticed that “demon possession” in the biblical records is connected with what we today would term “sicknesses” (either physical or mental)? Could it be that in biblical times and biblical culture certain sicknesses were ascribed to “demons” as a cause when no other explanation was available?
I would say that (once again) it is rather important to understand these matters from a perspective of the original writers and original audience and NOT from the perspective of readers centuries or milleniums later …
Even though I do not really know what the 1st century concept was, I do know that much of what is read into these records are non-biblical ideas of later times which for me do not make sense … thus I am continuing to search for a better understanding of this topic of “Satan / demons”, and for that reason I asked the above questions …. perhaps you or others have some biblically based insights that will prove helpful
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Matthew makes a distinction between those that were sick and those that were possessed.
Matt 4:24 – And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them.
From that I would gather that some afflictions were considered from demons and some were not. Yet Jesus healed them all.
Wolfgang,
Could it be that in biblical times and biblical culture certain natural events, such as rain, the rising of the sun and natural disasters were ascribed to God Almighty as a cause when no other explanation was available?
Have a look at Jude 6, 7 and 2 Pet 2:4, and decide for yourself. These texts do not need some forced “Mormon-like” explanation to squeeze them into some dogmatic mold.
Jaco
Jaco,
unfortunately, much of a lot is squeezed into some theological dogmatic mold when Christians discuss the Scriptures … and the basic reason for this is simple: they are affiliated with a certain church/group/denomination/ministry and need to uphold a particular dogma … Very few are free from such bonds and are free to evaluate and re-think and change their understanding and what they then preach.
I would be interested to learn what you understand to be a “demon”/ evil spirit, etc in these contexts where the terms are used in the gospels. Is a demon an angelic (a living) spirit-being (“person”)? is it spirit power? is this “spirit” something “mental” (an influence affecting the mind)? something else?
I am wondering and trying to learn more … and I do not know answers to those questions. I am hoping that perhaps you or some others who seem to know more can share their knowledge and insight based on scriptural support.
Wolfgang
Brian,
Speaking as a Christadelphian, I’d like to clarify our position on this issue. You represent us as rejecting any possibility that “Satan” could refer to a literal person, which is not correct. I think your use of the term “metaphorical Satan” is confusing, and doesn’t do justice to our theology. You would be on firmer ground with the term “metaphorical devil”, though this would still require qualification.
I like what Wolfgang said here:
This is a terrific summary of the Christadelphian position. We believe that the terms “Satan” and “devil” can refer to internal and external forces of temptation and opposition. These include humans, angels and the sinful influence of human nature. “Satan” simply means “an adversary” or “enemy”, while “devil” (“diabolos”) means “false accuser.”
The angel who opposed Balaam is described as a “satan” in Numbers 22:21-22; David is described as a potential “satan” to the Philistines in II Samuel 24:1; Hadad the Edomite is described as a “satan” to Solomon in I Kings 11:14.
Jesus referred to Judas as “the devil” in John 6:70, “Jesus replied, ‘Didn’t I choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is the devil?’” He was not comparing Judas to an evil supernatural being; he was describing him as a slanderer or false accuser.
Jesus calls Peter “Satan in” Matthew 16:23, “But he turned and said to Peter, ‘Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me, because you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but on man’s.’” He didn’t say “You are like Satan”; he was calling Peter an adversary.
Some of the Greeks referred to Jesus as a foreign god in Acts 17:18, “Also some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers were conversing with him, and some were asking, ‘What does this foolish babbler want to say?’ Others said, ‘He seems to be a proclaimer of foreign gods.’ (They said this because he was proclaiming the good news about Jesus and the resurrection.)”
The Greek word translated as “gods” in this verse is actually “daimonion”, which is commonly rendered “demon” (though it obviously does not have that meaning here). Its lexical range is wider than commonly assumed.
We should take care to draw our conclusions from the individual contexts in which these words are found. They do not always refer to the same thing, and they do not always mean the same thing.
Hi Dave,
thank you for your note and the information ….
I am certainly happy to see that I obviously understood the Christadelphian position correctly from my little bit of conversation and discourse with some Christadelphians some time ago.
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Yes, you’ve done an excellent job of defining our position. This is rare, in my experience!
Brian
I think the CD question boils down to finding out if Ancient Judaism, that is the beliefs expounded in the Torah, believed in Satan/Devil and demons. In other words, it sounds like the CD argument is centered on the theory that the NT writers were part of that post-Babylon-Hellenized Judaism that integrated certain pagan beliefs into their own ancient, religious beliefs.
So, is there any clear evidence or material we can use to show that early Judaism held to a belief in Satan/demons similar or the same as 2nd Temple Jews did?
Xavier,
it seems pretty clear from the scriptures that in biblical times the Jews believed in satan/devil and demons! BUT, did they understand those terms the same way that most Christians nowadays do?
You then mention “early Judaism” belief and “2nd temple Jews” belief, asking whether these were similar … Would you please clarify what you understand to have been the early Judaism belief in satan/devil and demons? Would you please clarify what you understand to have been what the 2nd temple Jews believed regarding these matters?
Jaco,
in reply to a post from you, I had asked the following
Would you be so kind as to answer and/or comment on these questions?
Wolfgang
According to the CD argument, the Jews of the 2nd Temple period had been “paganized” and believed in things that their earlier ancestors did not right? One of them being personal Devil/demons. Something that was very prevalent especially in Roman/Greek mythology.
Yes, according to the scriptures we do find evidence for some type of belief in “Satan/adversary” and rogue angelic figures it seems. But were these personal beings in the same way that the Jews of thousands of years later understood them as? For example, references to Satan/Devil as a personal being are vague in the supposed “origin” stories found in Isaiah and Ezekiel.
Xavier,
Have you ever read John Schoenhiet’s book “Don’t Blame God!”? I found it a fascinating read and think he really gives a great answer to this.
Not to ruin it for you or anyone else, but the short answer is that before the arrival of the Messiah, God purposely didn’t reveal the true nature of the adversary until his defeat was sealed by the success of the “2nd Adam”. Jesus then not only succeeds where Adam fails and defeats The Devil’s attacks, but he (and his apostles) bring to light greater knowledge of the forces of evil.
Here’s a couple of quotes from it from their truthortradition website:
Hmmmm.
Ron S.
So I was right in my assumption then, we really do not have any clear examples from the OT? We have to rely on the NT?
Xavier,
thanks for the further remarks about the 2 Jewish “beliefs” (original ancient vs 2nd temple Jews).
I suppose the next question to ask would be: When the scriptures mention that someone was “demonized” (devil possessed/overtaken by devil controlled), do the scriptures literally mean that some “evil angel” (or many of those) was inside a human being? Or do the scriptures describe something in a particular manner which literally has nothing to do with “evil angels”?
I think the question arises because when we look at these records and the effects ascribed to being “possessed by demons”, the records rather clearly describe people who are tormented, mentally or even physically sick, etc. and do the records do not detail anything about “evil angelic beings”, do they?
The ancients — not knowing any further details or causes to certain sicknesses, and especially so about sicknesses where the cause was not obvious or with their means detectable — did ascribe the cause of mental sicknesses or disorders, etc. (such as are mentioned in the gospels) to some unknown unseen cause and described it as “demonized”, “afflicted by evil spirit”, etc. Thus it seems to me that the gospel records are not speaking about evil angels (spirit persons) entering into human beings and living in them … but they record incidents involving people with certain sicknesses that caused the person to appear not to be in control of their actions or words or thoughts and describe these sicknesses as “demon possession”.
By the way, when scriptures speak about “angels” and about them interacting with our human world, they never do in the sense of angelic beings “entering inside a human being”, but rather about angelic beings “taking on the form of (manifesting themselves as) a human being”
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Wolfgang
If your referring to the NT “records” they at times give a personal “name” to these “evil beings”. As in the case of “Legion” in Mar 5.9; Lu 8.30 [cp. Mat 8.28-34; Mar 5.10].
Could you please provide some scriptural evidence for this statement?
Just as there are different categories [types?] of angelic beings [archangels, cherubs, etc.] so in the way they interact with the physical world. For example, there is a “special” type of angelic host who apparently were able to assume physical form in order to have sexual relations with human women [Gen 6]. These, according to the NT writers, are being held in a special place called Tartaros.
Xavier,
you mention the incident where the possessed spoke (apparently influenced by what is described from the writer’s view as “demons”) and named himself as “Legion” … In the first place, one should note that this is not “a personal name”, but – as the immediate further words of the possessed explain (!) – a term to describe that there were “many”. Now, in Semitic languages and culture, sometimes things are put in the plural to emphasize a majesty, a severity or a gravity of something, not necessarily a “plural” of something in a literal sense. In other words, we are given the impression that this was a “very severe case”.
We still need to acknowledge that Scripture does not speak of angelic beings (“persons”) as being inside of humans. The reason seems rather simple: From how the Scriptures define and describe a “person” (a human being or any other “person”, such as God Himself or his heavenly host), such persons are separate and do not enter into one another. Therefore any description or mention, where it might appear as if one was “in” another, the language is not literal, but figurative. (cp. the phrase “Christ IN you” … this is obviously NOT speaking about the literal individual / person of the risen Christ now residing in a human being or many human beings … the literal person Christ is residing/living in the presence of God at God’s right hand in heaven)
When the scriptures speak of “holy spirit” being in a believer, does that mean that there is a “good angel” now living in that person? If not, why would a mention of an “unclean spirit” being in a person mean that there is an “evil angel” living in that person?
It seems to me that scripture itself and what it does tell regarding a matter and related matters provides sufficient clues for a proper understanding of what is being stated. To refer to Sean’s recent post about a proper order for arriving at a correct “theology”, we must not let “theological” influences (even “orthodox” or “majority” theology of many centuries) determine the exegesis …
As for Gen 6, in light of the above observations and what Scriptures do teach about God’s laws for pro-creation, etc. … I would NOT adhere to the interpretation you give that record of “angelic beings” having sexual relations with “human beings”, but instead I would re-consider what other possibilities there are for understanding the terms “sons of God” and “daughters of men” used in Gen 6.
Hi Xavier (comment #19),
As far as I know, there aren’t any passages in the OT which explicitly state that Satan (or any other spirit being) are actively opposed to God. For the most part, the OT seems to portray Satan as “working for God”, in a sense.
Of course, if the “guardian cherub in Eden”, described in Ezekiel 28:11-19, is actually Satan, then that passage does state that Satan is directly opposed to God.
In addition, there is one passage in the OT which indirectly indicates that many heavenly beings are actively opposed to God. Here is that passage:
The “host of heaven” certainly seems to refer to spirit beings – i.e. to angels in heaven. Since God is going to punish those angels, that implies that those angels must have opposed God – because why else would God punish them? In other words, if Satan is merely carrying out God’s orders, then why would God ever want to harm him?
Wolfgang
Like a “severe case” of the flu?
Sorry couldn’t help myself.
My point is that Jesus spoke many times to “demons” and they answered [or vice versa]. He was not addressing the person who was “demonized”. In other words, there is a BIG difference between a “terrorist” and the “terrorized”.
I think this is besides the point. If Jesus ordered these demons to come out of people, the reader would have to assume he was referring to someONE else other than the “demonized” person.
Agreed! But at the end of the day we have to come back to Messiah’s words. I find it hard to believe that if personal demons/Devil did not exist the lord Jesus was deceitful in the way he went about exorcising and communicating with said demons/Devil. That would not only make him a flat out liar but crazy in anyone’s book.
Can you show how any of those “other possibilities” are in anyway good exegesis? Especially in the light of the OT precedent for “sons of God” ALWAYS referring to “angelic beings” [benei elohim].
Brian Keating
What about the account in the book of Daniel…
To those who believe this “prince of Persia” was just that, a human figure: I do not think you cannot have, in the same sentence, the same word ["prince"] with two entirely different meanings. Unless, obviously, the context dictates it!
correction: “I THINK you cannot have, in the same sentence, the same word [”prince”] with two entirely different meanings. Unless, obviously, the context dictates it!”
hey ’tis late…
Hi Xavier,
Daniel 10:13 definitely seems to indicate to me that there are heavenly beings who are opposed to God. Unfortunately, that verse does not explicitly state that. Here is the ESV rendering:
Certainly, that verse appears to indicate that the “prince of Persia” is a heavenly being opposed to God – both because the word “prince” is used twice (to refer to him and to Michael), and because being talking to Daniel is (apparently) a heavenly being, himself. It is just unfortunate that that verse does not explicitly state that.
BK
Huh? First I thought you agreed with me and the other commentators but then you did not? What were your reasons again? Sorry, couldn’t understand where you were going with this.
Xavier,
were there two persons separate and distinct from each other, yet with only one body, standing in front of Jesus?
or was there only the person who was “demonized” standing in front of Jesus? Since there was only one person to whom Jesus was speaking, it should be clear that Jesus was talking to the man, even though the record describes it as Jesus “said to the demon” or “said to the unclean spirit” … In another place we read about Jesus rebuked a fever … and it left Simon Peter’s mother in law who had been sick with the fever. Is a fever perhaps a “demon/person” so that Jesus could talk to and rebuke it? Or is this involving a particular idiomatic way of expressing what happened when Jesus addressed the person thus afflicted?
I am highly in favor of coming back to the Messiah’s words, and in particular of not assigning a theological picture to his words which would distort what he actually said and did.
Jesus “drove out demons” … I’ve heard people speak about “driving out someone’s fear” or a person’s “fear, depression, etc. being driven out” (maybe, such expressions are not as familiar in the English language?) Are people using such language talking about an evil angel living inside the person with such mental illness? Or could it be that those who would understand such expressions in that manner mistaken?
Wolfgang
In the case of demonic possession looks like it.
By the context it sounds like Jesus and his apostles both healed and exorcised demons. Two different things with the same result if you will: liberation!
Jesus called the twelve apostles together and gave them power and authority over every demon and power and authority to cure diseases. Luke 9.1; Mat 10.1
The expression “driving out someone’s fear” or a person’s “fear, depression, etc. being driven out” is not familiar to me either in Spanish or English.
Perhaps you missed my questions:
Gen 6: Can you show how any of those “other possibilities” are in anyway good exegesis? Especially in the light of the OT precedent for “sons of God” ALWAYS referring to “angelic beings” [benei elohim].
So you adhere to the CD regarding Satan/Devil and “demons” as diseases/illnesses?
Xavier,
I am somewhat surprised that you would think that there can be two persons inside one body …. I’ve heard of “split personalities” (a kind of mental or psychiatric disorder), but thus far had not encountered someone who think that there were two persons inside one body standing in front of Jesus …
As for Gen 6, I already pointed out what I wanted to point out and will leave it up to you to search the Scriptures to find further information so that you don’t need to get stuck with the unscriptural idea of angelic spirit beings (by the way, were they of an evil kind or a good kind (since they are called “sons of GOD”) ? ) having sexual intercourse with human flesh and blood beings …
As for an understanding of “demons”, I am endeavouring to go by what the scriptures indeed do tell (especially within the immediate contexts), and to understand what is stated in light of the original linguistic and historical as well as cultural contexts
Wolfgang
If we go by Messiah’s words and actions that is the likely scenario. Furthermore, verses such as Luke 9.1 seem to imply that demons are spiritual in nature, i.e. personal demonic powers.
I have “searched the scriptures” regarding this matter and found that in the OT the phrase benei elohim at Gen 6.2 ALWAYS refers to angelic beings!
You love to question scripture and throw arguments up in the air don’t you? Why don’t you offer up any answers to what you perceive as “problems”?
Good. Hope this snippet from The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia Online on DEMON; DEMONIAC; DEMONOLOGY helps:
Xavier,
I hate to question scripture … I love to question people’s ideas and interpretations of scripture.
Yes, I do usually love to ask questions since I believe that asking questions and getting people (including oneself) to think achieves far more in helping anyone to arrive at a proper understanding than any preaching at people and telling them that what one is preaching is the truth could ever do. I do offer solutions to “problems”, namely by means of such questions … but I do leave the responsibility for being convinced or persuaded to each person’s own considerations and evaluations. My experiences have shown that quite many Christians seem not to like such approach, they seemingly rather want to be lectured and told what to believe.
Above, I mention that I endeavour to go by what the Scriptures indeed do tell … to which you replied with
See, you apparently find what I said there to be good, but then you yourself do NOT adhere to what you declare to be good and you turn to a theological viewpoint from an encyclopedia rather than scripture. What was your purpose of the encyclopedia quote?
The section from the encyclopedia contains some statistical information on various details mentioned in passages where reference is made to demons, etc. … BUT what did the author of the article actually convey in terms of how a reader can approach these passages in order to arrive at a proper understanding of what the NT writers meant and to what “possessed by demons” refers?
Wolfgang
Most people are not teachers of scripture. In general most people are students, hence James’ warning regarding those who perceive themselves as teachers.
In case you did not notice they cite many scriptural references which support their argumentation. You do not have to agree with all those scripture references or commentators I cite but I at least offer some alternatives with the similar scriptural support on which you base your assumptions. You do neither.
Xavier,
you write
should teachers preach at or lecture students or should they perhaps rather lead them so the students themselves engage in pondering and evaluating and then arrive at their understanding for which they then will take responsibility? could it be that too many students “have been served fish” (and then often hide behind “but my professor taught, but my preacher said”) rather than “being taught to fish” (so they can for themselves utilize the tools they were instructed to use to gain an understanding)?
well, did you think I have other scriptural references which would support my understanding? Those many scriptural references are the same ones I am reading and which I use to support my understanding … I do agree with those many scriptural references and what the scriptures state.
The problem with that approach is that this is neither a classroom nor a student/teacher scenario. This blog is for the purpose of discussion, and the exchange of ideas. No one is a designated teacher here. So if you in fact have clear viewpoints that you have formulated from the study of Scripture, you would do well to share your views and how you came by them. It doesn’t help the exchange of ideas if you do nothing but ask questions without answering either your own or those that are asked of you.
Mark C.
Thanks for clearing up what I have been trying to say.