|
|
Post by previousm on Jan 31, 2007 20:56:44 GMT -8
Originally posted 2/13/06:
I was reading a book last night and there was a lot of talk about angels, specifically Lucifer. It talked about how he recruited angels for the war in Heaven. It got me to thinking about angels and their fallibility.
It seems clear to me that angels must have free will or else there could have been no fallen angels unless God created them that way. I know that God can't create something evil, therefore, I conclude that they have free will. Does that also mean that they can sin? And do they carry the burden of original sin like we do? Or are the ones that were in Heaven before people were created exempt from that?
And if angels have free will, couldn't they love God the way that he wants us to love him? I've always heard (nowhere specifically, just generally stated) it said that the angels don't have a choice in loving him, which is why He created us and gave us free will. But I don't think I agree with that. Why weren't the angels good enough for God?
Sometimes I feel like I have the brain of a 3 year old always wanting to know why, why, why.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jan 31, 2007 20:58:38 GMT -8
Originally posted 2/13/06:
First I'd say that most of the ideas about 'satan's story' come more from religious tradition and guesswork than actually from the Bible. Surprisingly, satan shows up very little in the Bible.
We have the snake in the garden, of course.
We have 'the adversary' (which is what the word satan in Hebrew means) in the book of Job (chap. 1 and 2 where he presents God will a challenge), and he shows up as an 'accuser' in Zech. 3:1-2.
He possibly makes one other appearance in 1 Chronicles 21:1, and that's about it for direct references. None of these passages tells us his 'back story' so to speak, or even tells us very much about him.
We also don't really have any information about demons either (in the Old Testament), other than references to the 'sons of God' in Genesis.
Interestingly, the word satan, translated as adversary, is used in the Old Testament for all sorts of people: anyone who was an adversary to anyone-- including David to the Philistines.
So satan is a very general term, not really a personal pronoun, until the New Testament.
Now, the idea that lucifer fell from heaven and took some of the angels with him comes from 2 very sketchy passages in the prophets. I say sketchy because if you read the passages in context, they seem to be talking about human rulers and not "Satan" at all.
These are the passages:
Ezekiel 28:1-19 (on this one, if you were just to read verses 12- 19, it might be easy to lose the context of the passage, but if you read the whole thing you'll see that the person being focused on is the ruler or Tyre.)
Isaiah 14:3-23 (on this one, verses 12-15 are often pulled out and said to be referring to 'satan'- actually this is the passage where 'lucifer' comes from, but it's clear that at least the immediate context is not an angelic being but a human king-- see verses 16 and 17 especially)
In the New Testament satan shows up much more as a personal being. We are told in Revelation 12:9 that in the days of the Messiah (and it depends on who you talk to, whether this refers to Jesus' first or second coming) he was/ will be cast out of heaven with his angels. So we don't really have much in the Bible to support him being thrown out of heaven before mankind. And heaven here doesn't mean the 'abode of God' but spiritual places of authority (ie, satan was the prince of the power of the air, but he gets cast out of that role).
So, we can assume he went astray long ago, before he was found in the garden as the snake, and many have read a double meaning into the Ezekiel and Isaiah passages above in order to envision what that 'going astray' was like. But all we can say about his 'back story' for certain is from the Scripture as a whole is that he was/ is an angel, he is a rebellious one, and he tempted mankind in the garden. And there were others angels who went evil around that time as well, which have continued to be the enemies of God since then.
One more note: it wasn't until the Babylonian exile that the Jews seemed to have developed clearer ideas about Satan and the demons. Some say this was because they came in contact with the Zoroastrians in Persia, from whom they adopted the ideas of the devil, demons, hell, and paradise.
Others say (and this is the more traditional Christian view) that God revealed these things to the Jews during the Babylonian captivity, and the Jews actually had the influence on the Zoroastrians.
I think it's a bit of both. God has this knack for "progressive revelation" and even in the rest of the OT He often reveals truths through other peoples.
As to angels and free will, we can assert from Genesis 6 and Jude 6 that angels do have free will, and in that respect are like humans. You are right to say that God doesn't create evil beings, so 'fallen' angels are good beings gone wrong.
Orignial sin doesn't really apply to them, because original sin is inherited, and angels aren't the result of sexual procreation. Hmmm, I guess maybe you're wondering if they have a tendency toward evil, like we do with original sin. I'd say no, just free will.
The difference between the angels and humans isn't free will, but free grace. You're right- it's often implied by people that God created man because the angels weren't free, but that can't be true. It's better to say that God wanted to create a people to whom He would show grace. Peter seems to indicate this forcefully in 1 Peter 1, when in a discussion about the mystery of God's grace through salvation,he says 'even angels long to look into these things'. He may be meaning that they can't understand grace because it wasn't shown to them.
Maybe this all creates more questions?
I think you should be proud to feel like a 3 year old. I know Justus would agree. He's learning things at a faster pace than any of us because he IS asking WHY WHY WHY.
|
|
aimee
Advanced Member
Posts: 136
|
Post by aimee on Jan 31, 2007 21:27:51 GMT -8
Originally posted 3/22/06: The fact that Satan is very little referred to in the Bible has also struck me as amazing. So many people including myself take for fact the stories passed on to them, it is very interesting to compare them with the biblical refrences. A good lesson to test all those beliefs we take for granted I guess  |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jan 31, 2007 21:29:04 GMT -8
Originally posted 3/23/06:
In reviewing all this recently, I might add one final thought: I didn't intend by my original title (tradition vs. scripture) to denigrate tradition. I actually personally tend to fall a little shy of 'sola scriptura' in all actuality-- seeing the importance of oral tradition in the history and practice of both the Jews and the Christian Church.
Obviously the writers of the New Testament felt this way too, because a lot of their views about demons and satan must have been influenced by oral tradition and extrabiblical literature (try reading 1 Enoch, Jude, and 1 Peter back to back).
So, I think there can be truth to such tradition, it's just much trickier to trace and pin down-- especially for us in this day and age. And I think it's definitely a good idea to test tradition against the written record of Scripture and hold our traditions more loosely, as Aimee has said.
|
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Jul 21, 2009 19:00:28 GMT -8
i dont think its anything wrong about the traditions, as long as we dont take thm for theological truth. it is like the jewish midrashim, which were stories that gave the cause for things in the bible, but were more for speculation and fun than an absolute truth. a modern midrash that is quite funny says that the tower of bableol was built to answer a little girls question: "does God have a big toe?"
but as for what the bible says, the prophets may or may not have been referring to Satan. they may have been giving a double reference, on purpose or not. exegatically though, it does not refer to satan if we were take the plain since, not acknoweledgeing possible undertones intended by the writers, or overtones that we add ourselves.
I think that the old testement speaks of Satan as the accuser, who basically points out all the bad in our life so that we do not inherit the promises. this is a job appointed by God, but not wanted by many. he was often thought of lowly in rabbinic literature, known by the name of sammael. Paul seems to see Satan as the person appointed by God to accuse, but not that he sins himself. he tells us to guard ourselves against him, and keep ourselves righteous so that when we stand before God he has nothing to say, nothing to accuse us of.
however, revelation and a few other references in the bible say that he is evil and needs to leave the earth. John in revelation says that satan was cast into the lake of fire. i think that this is a symbolic personification of evil, but not the earlier satan mentioned, who does not sin but is the accuser. i dont think that we have a sin nature, but we do have a Yetzer Hara, and evil inlincaiton. this inclination is not inherited through the parents, but is "raised" in us as we live. children do not start out with one, but attain one. Satan is the personification of this who tempts us. the accuser satan does not tempt us to sin, for then God would be in theory tempting us, which james says he couldnt do.
all in all, i think there is a satan who tempts, who is a personification of our evils (which we later made a personal agent to accuse him of our own sins) and an angel satan who accuses us of our sins, helping the judging of God. Then there is beelzebub and so forth.
satan later became a cliche to refer to evil and demons (how can satan cast out satan?), but this is not the angelic satan of the bible.
angels do have free will, for they fell and had sex with women to beget the n'filim in Gen 6, and Jude tells us that these angels are chained in fire under the earth. however, satan is still in heaven and is still accusing, not te leader of the fall. by reading the book of giants and enoch and such, there seems to have been a few groups of angels who came to earth, some to preach the gospel, but all fell into sin.
there is also a theory that the Sons of God are a group of angels seperate from serfim and cheruvim and ofanim and such that are acutally ressurected men. (from an earlier creation, which is believed to be proved bhy hte gap theory, ro not mentioned at all in the bible, as the first word of the bible is BET which is closed on all sides apart from text, which the rabbis say is to teach that we should only by concerned by what comes after the bet, not before it) if this is the cas e than we can still sin after ressurection, but this does not stop us from being reconciled to God...
Paul mentioned that everthingg on heaven and earth will be reconciled to God through the cross. Job says that the heavens are unclean in his sight. In other words, angels can still sin and be in heaven, being reconciled to God through the cross like us.
and to answer your question about the angels having a sin nature. like i said, i think that there is no such thing as a sin nature, like augustus claimed (though he was a good theologian).
i think that there is a Yetzer hara, and i think that we have it because it forms by our tendency to oppose the letter if we are without the spirit. and we have this tendency as a result of living in a sinful world. so if the heavens are just as sinful, than angels can definitely gain this Yetzer hara, and will oppose the letter if they are without the spirit.
but when the spirit comes in, then when we read the letter, instead of opposing it, the spirit (which is"the finger of God" that engrove the letters of the tables of the law) engraves the law in your fleshy tables of the heart. the words are now not oopposed by our evil inclination, form a God inclination.
so the spirit cicrumcises the Yetzer hara from us.
it lets us die to our old self and come alive to God, being released of the previous charges of sin.
it lets us take off the old man, raising and putting on the new man (arising form the practice of taking off your clothes before mikveh (baptism) and putting them back on after it).
i know this is alot, but i hope it helped. i was in a rambling mood today. lol
shalom- john
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 21, 2009 19:43:44 GMT -8
It's okay to ramble.... especially on this thread.
Your "two satan" theory seems a bit arbitrary to me.
If you think Paul speaks of Satan as merely a netural "accuser" who doesn't "tempt", I'm curious your take on these verses:
1 Cor. 7:5
Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
Romans 16:20
The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you.
2 Cor. 2:11
...in order that Satan might not outwit us. For we are not unaware of his schemes.
2 Cor. 11:14
And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.
1 Thess 2:18
For we wanted to come to you—certainly I, Paul, did, again and again—but Satan stopped us.
These verses indicate a satan that is personal, self-aware, evil, and able to tempt. And why can't such a being also be called an accuser?
In Zechariah 3:1-2 he is both an accuser and someone who needs to be rebuked by the Lord. Why would God rebuke his own servant?
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 22, 2009 7:45:02 GMT -8
yeshuafreak, since this thread touched a fair amount on the subject of "sinful nature", I thought you might like to comment on our discussion of this elsewhere: Original Sin? |
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Jul 22, 2009 10:25:19 GMT -8
as for those verses, why could they not refer to a personification of evil? you have to remember that the greek word for satan is simply 'adversary' look within the context and we may find out that the advesary spoken of may not refer to a personal angelic being, but advesaries in general who persaecuate christians, or an advesary in the church.
it must e reemembered that there are people like simon magus and such that the church constanly called "satan"... the word was basically a cliche for anyone who was against the beliefs of God.
as for zechariah, Job also portrays satan as both a servent of God and one to be rebuked by God. are you a christian, a son of God? but havve you not dont things that are to be rebuked by god? The view of satan was actually a progressive idea. first he was just evil in general, not really a person. next he was an angel who accused men. then the babelonians and zorastrians polluted this idea by saying that satan was and evil god, te complete opposite, for, they say, the world is a duality, and everything has an opposite. (what they failed to notic ethough is that created things have and opposite, but God was not created, for he is eternal and eternal things have no need for a cause, or an opposite). So now he became a rebellious angel from god who does everything in his power to pollute and divert the plans of God away from their intention. So he is no longer enemy of man, but also of God. most historians realize tlhat this is the case. i dont deny "progressive revelation" from god, and in fact, i support that idea. but i dont think this is the case here. Satan was not that big a deal to begin with, but we made it so for we are fascinated with evil.
i was looking for the original sin thread. i will post on it. thank you.
shalom- john
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 22, 2009 22:51:02 GMT -8
The linking of the term satan with a personal pronoun in several of these verses, coupled with the fact that the actions of satan in these verses seem to require an intelligence, seems strong enough reason to suppose the apostles had in mind an self-conscious being. I do believe info about satan was progressively revealed, and I think the worldview of the New Testament apostles shows that they accepted much of it- especially the idea of satan as a personal agent.
Furthermore, who do you think Jesus was speaking to during His temptation in the desert? And who did Adam and Eve speak to in the garden? And with what voice were those who were demon possessed speaking, if not self-conscious intelligent evil powers?
|
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Jul 23, 2009 11:38:34 GMT -8
once again, i do not take these things literally in that a concious being did not tell jesus that he should abuse his power- Jesus himself did. Jesus was fighting his evil inclination, which we all have.
adam and eve spoke with either a literal snake that could talk but was NOT satan himself, or they were also fighting their evil inclination. The demons are another story. they could be spirits of the n'filim who could literally posses. then again, demons just may have been a way for the early people to explain early psychological problems, though this is doubtful. anyway, there is always a way for my interpretation.
and i have to say that i do not fully trust it now... it is only a theory that i am throwing out there to give solutions to a few probles. if it cannot be refuted by scripture, and another theory that i came up with cant either, than those two theories i will regard as possble interpretations, but cannot pin point which one is exactly right, if either.
do you really have the authrrity to speak exegatically. by this i want to piont out something: you deny the proper exegesis of ezekiel. he writes the sacrifices and temple as a literal thing with measurements and days to offer them yet you say that it is symbolic. this does NOT give me a right to do the same, but i wanted to point out some inconsistancy on your part.
to answer your question, Paul speaks of us as a man of two parts: the old and new man. he speaks of evil with personal pronouns. but are we to take these things literally? NO!! of course not. this is an example of NT personification. he was personaifying evil with the old man and the good of us with the new one. satan can be a lpersonification of evil and still be described with personal pronouns. that is what a personification does, is describe a non living entity with personal prnouns and charges.
sometimes, evil looks like something fun.... it masks itself as light. (2cor 11 14)
sometimes, evil seems to come into our lives so cunningly that it seems to have a plan. our job is not to let evil outwit us.2 cor 2 11)
etc. i think that the NT men were using the culture to explain beliefs of a culture foreign to them. in judaism there is a yetzer hara. so, Paul uses the "old man" or the "flesh" as a way of explaining this concept to the greeks. on the verse, the new man and the spirit symbolize the Yetzer hatov, the good inclination.
other things that paul tried to teach the greeks and romans he did so through quoting their poets and using their proverbs.
satan was one of these things that the apostles used as a way to convey the message that Yeshua was conquetring evil.
shalom- john
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 26, 2009 17:36:23 GMT -8
I disagree. I think John goes out of his way to identify satan as the snake in the garden of Eden:
The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him. Rev. 12:9
He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. Rev. 20:2
If you'd like to discuss the "proper exegesis" of Ezekiel, I'd be more than happy to go there with you, and humbly of course, because that's very murky waters and I don't know Hebrew. But you've never demonstrated to me that your understanding of Ezekiel is the "proper exegesis" and I don't think it's fair for you to challenge me in this way on this topic in regard to something else we've barely discussed.
Yeshuafreak, I don't think your argumentation is illogical, and I see how you could argue that in all these biblical instances, satan could be merely a personified force, but I have to ask- what is your main reason for tending to see it this way? I think the burden of proof is on you because the plain reading of these passages seems to me to indicate that satan is a personal agent.
In other words, what arouses your strong suspicion that we are not talking about a personal agent here? Is it more than just the fact that "satan" means "adversary"?
Furthermore, you say you probably believe in the existence of demons. Well, how do you account for the statement in Rev. 12:4 that the dragon/ satan/ the devil sweeps a third of the stars from the heavens (stars being angel is pretty clear in the text) and then in Rev. 12:7 where is says that Michael and his angels waged war with the dragon and his angels? If you're willing to admit that demons are personal agents, doesn't it seem logical that they are lead also by a personal agent, just as Michael the archangel (personal agent) leads the holy angels?
|
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Jul 27, 2009 16:06:23 GMT -8
i dont think you understand my point. even if i did believe that satan was the leader of the demons (demons, not fallen angels), than i would not think that the satan of Job was the same person as this.
the reason i dont think the christian view of satan is correct is because everywhere in the OT, satan is portrayed as a servent of God, not a rebel of him. either the NT and the OT speak of two seperate people, or they refer to two different things regarding the name "advesary."
the stars are definitely angels i reveelation. however, seeing as how i think we let the traditional view of revelation prevent any other scholarship on to find out the meaning of Yochanon himself when writing it, i dont think i have a right to discuss revelatin now. right now i am ding a commentary on mark, but i will get to revelation. anyway, the simplest answer i will give, but i think there is a better answer that is too mch to discuss here. the angesls fell into sin and came to earth. satan is symbolically this evil. and this evil is represented by a serpent because a serpent of the garden was the first to tempt, and therefore represents evil. although he himself is bound with the fallen angels jude spoke of.
furthermore, angels and deomons are very different. this onece again is not the place to discuss this. however, deomns seek bodies- angels have them. this is a common argument given.
as for ezekiel, i think it is fair to say such. i didnt claim that you said anyhnig that you didnt, but i DID mention what we DID speak about. whether we barely spoke about it yet or not is not the point. you gave me your interpretation, and it does not make since exegetically this waas all i mentioned. and i never claim that mine is the absolute right answer, for i can make mistakes. however, i can say that my studies have led me to conclude something or another.
anyway, a serpent has long been a symbol of evil itself in jewish culture. these verses actual strengthen my case that satan is the personification of evil, for that is what the snake represented in the jewish culture. the snake was not the anti-god, or anything of the sort. but he represented all evil, collectively. a personification of evil.
and i think that rebel angels are just as much under control Gods control as rebel humans. and just as rebel humans are led by rebel governeers and rebel mayors and rebel presidents or fuhers or kings or such, so the rebel demons are, and so rebel angels WERE, until they were bound as recorded by jude. there are MANY rebel leaders of demons, not just one sepreme one. they can be cp ed to this world in that way. beelzebub is probably one of the rebel leaders, but we must remember that beelzebub is a human name for the doctrine of the truth of rebel leaders of demons.
shalom- john
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 27, 2009 16:36:34 GMT -8
Satan is nowhere presented as a "servant" of God in the OT- whether 1 Chron. 21, Job 1-2 or Zech 3. You have to read that into the text.
On another note, you haven't mentioned some of the best verses in support of your claim that Satan is more of a force, idea, or embodiment of evil, which come from Matthew, with it's phrases like, "satan driving out satan" (Matt. 12:26) or Jesus calling Peter satan (Matt. 16:23).
I'll consent that the term can be used more generally, but I don't think these uses negate the reality of a personal agent satan/ devil/ dragon/ serpent.
Imo, if there's anything I doubt in the story of Gen. 3 it's not the existence of a personal agent satan, it's whether or not the snake was literal. So, I see it that the serpent is a symbol of satan and evil in general.
This is precisely how I interpet Job's depiction of satan's relationship with God. Not his servant, but a hostile pawn under God's control nontheless.
|
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Aug 11, 2009 9:49:44 GMT -8
how could satan enter in heaven then in job? if satan is who you claim he is, than he was cast out of heaven. why allow him back in? he gathered with the rest of the b'nei elohim?
and you have to read your interpretation into the text of the OT as well. so maybe we are both wrong.
shalom- john
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 11, 2009 10:32:54 GMT -8
Actually, I tend to think that Satan was cast out of "heaven" during Jesus' ministry on earth (Luke 10:18, Rev. 12). However, I suppose even if he was "cast out", he could make some appearances by request |
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Aug 11, 2009 16:53:33 GMT -8
lol.
okay, i see your view. but even then... satan is referred to in jude as fighting over the body of mosheh. he is also refferrred to as temting people before Yeshua. this proves my point that sometimes satan is not reffering to a personal entitiy- because according to you, satan had not fallen yet. satan would not have been the one tempting adam and eve if he was not yet fallen, but john clearly says it was satan. this should telly ou that satan sometimes refers to an impersonal force, or just evil, or one who does evil.
shalom- john
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 12, 2009 22:38:50 GMT -8
Perhaps I need to explain further. I don't equate "fallen from heaven" with "fallen into evil".
I think satan fell into evil before the creation of mankind (or at the very latest, when he tempted Eve). But I don't think he was removed from "the heavens" (i.e., fell from heaven) until the advent of Christ.
My understanding of Rev. 12 and other relevant New Testament passages is that satan was "the prince of this world" (John 16:11) and the "ruler of the powers of the air" (Eph. 2:2) until shortly after the resurrection of Christ (John 12:31), when he, the strong man (Matt. 12:29- also in Mark and Luke), was bound in the great abyss spoken of in Rev. 20.
|
|
