The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Fallen Angels?

Theology Biblical Theology
#41

But how can this sudden interjection of demons and demon-possession into the Biblical narrative be explained? Evidently, a lot happened during the 400 years that lapsed between the close of the Old Testament canon and the birth of Christ. But whatever knowledge that the Jewish people gained during this time on the subject of demons, one thing is certain: it did not originate from any inspired source.

Perhaps the most important rule of biblical interpretation is that, whenever possible, we must allow Scripture to interpret Scripture. But as is the case with “fallen angels,” there is no light shed on the subject of demonic possession in the Old Testament (and the New Testament speaks of it without any explanation). Consequently, our understanding of it can only be derived from what the common belief was in the first century, at the time when the events described in the New Testament took place. So, the question we must ask is this: what was the common belief concerning demons and demonic possession among Jews in the first century?

In his Jewish War (Book VII, Chap. vi, sect. 3), while speaking of a remarkable root called “Baaras,” Josephus says,

“Yet after all this pains in getting, it is only valuable on account of one virtue it hath, that if it be only brought to the sick persons, it quickly drives away those called demons, which are no other than the spirits of the wicked, that enter into men that are alive and kill them, unless they can obtain some help against them.”

What does Josephus mean when he says that demons are “no other than the spirits of the wicked?” There are two possible interpretations. Neither, however, is consistent with orthodox Christian opinion. Josephus may be saying that demons are the disembodied spirits of wicked men who have died (for he seems to contrast the “spirits of the wicked” with “men that are alive”). We know that the Gentiles understood demons to be the departed spirits of great men who were thought to have the power to influence the lives of mortals for better or for worse. For the Gentiles, demons could be both good or bad. It is possible that the Jews understand demons in a similar (though less favorable) light.

The second possible interpretation is supported by the Book of Enoch. I believe that the mythology taught in the Book of Enoch prevailed among the majority of the Jewish people during the first century A.D. This includes its teaching concerning the origin, identity and nature of demons. In chapter 15 of the Book of Enoch, we read,

“Now the giants, who have been born of spirit and of flesh, shall be called upon earth evil spirits, and on earth shall be their habitation. Evil spirits shall proceed from their flesh, because they were created from above; from the holy watchers was their beginning and primary foundation. Evil spirits they shall be upon earth, and ** the spirits of the wicked they shall be called.** The habitation of the spirits of heaven shall be in heaven; but upon earth shall be the habitation of terrestrial spirits, who are born on earth. The spirits of the giants shall be like clouds, which shall oppress, corrupt, fall, content, and bruise upon earth. They shall cause lamentation. No food shall they eat; they shall be thirsty; they shall be concealed, and shall rise up against the sons of men, and against women; for they come forth during the days of slaughter and destruction.”

Here then were the most likely opinions concerning demons among the first-century Jewish people. The demons that possessed and tormented men were either thought to be the disembodied spirits of dead men, or the spirits of the giant offspring conceived by the 200 rebel angels which (according to the Book of Enoch) left their stations in heaven to copulate with women. In either case it appears that “demons” were thought to possess the bodies of men and women because they were “disembodied spirits,” and thus desired to once again take up residence in bodies within which they could dwell (even if only temporarily).

#42

Though it may come as a surprise to many Christians, this was the common Jewish understanding of the term “demon” in the days of Christ and his apostles. There is no indication that Christ and the inspired writers of the NT ascribed a different meaning to the word “demon” than that which was commonly accepted among first-century Jews. With no evidence to the contrary, we are bound to conclude that they employed the word in its common signification. We therefore have two options: either Christ and the inspired authors of the NT were, by their use of the common language, sanctioning the first century Jewish understanding of what demons were thought to be, or they were not.

The first option, I believe, poses a problem for those who hold to what is the “orthodox” opinion concerning demons. For if, in using the common language of the day, Jesus and his apostles were sanctioning the first-century Jewish opinion concerning demons and demon possession, then Jesus and his apostles were sanctioning the idea that demons are either the disembodied spirits of wicked dead men, or the disembodied spirits of half-human, half-angel giants. The “orthodox” Christian view that demons are actually “fallen angels” would have been completely foreign to the Jews of the first century.

But I would argue that Christ and his apostles were simply adapting themselves to the language of the day, and that when they referred to “demons” they simply meant the mental derangement that was thought by the Jews at the time to be caused by “demonic possession” (for the Jews only attributed demonic activity to maladies they did not understand, and not to, say, a fever). If this is the case, then we need only conclude that Christ and the apostles thought it better to allow a mere superstition to be removed by time and the general influence of truth, than for them to turn aside from their great work to refute it.

#43

Well, it’s one thing to refute it and quite another to feed the superstition with things like sending evil spirits into pigs, etc. It’s troublesome but I do like your conclusion.

I’m of the opinion that whatever they were - they had a short run (perhaps in anticipation of the cross) but that their and Satan’s defeat at the cross removed them from ever hindering the advance of Christ’s kingdom again. Luther thought they were chained and powerless.

#44

When you say they were defeated at the Cross, that is removed from influence, then how do you explain the Apostles encounters with demons after the Cross in the book of Acts? Or was it a gradual thing?

#45

You’re right. I did a quick check on how the word demons’ is used - I think Aaron’s conclusion is correct - the spirits into pigs still bothers me - but that may have been Luke simply recording a report long after the fact - certainly the center of that story was the healing of the person - not the demons and not the pigs. When Paul uses the word one can almost always substitute ‘idol’.

#46

So the woman possessed by a ‘spirit of divination’ in Acts 16 was possessed by an idol? But if an idol is an inert thing, where did she get her power? Interestingly enough, I looked up the Greek in Strong’s for ‘divination’ and come up with ‘python’ (πύθων). The definition being:

  1. in Greek mythology the name of the Pythian serpent or dragon that dwelt in the region of Pytho at the foot of Parnassus in Phocis, and was said to have guarded the oracle at Delphi and been slain by Apollo

  2. a spirit of divination

#47

Possessed by a demon that told her the future? Come on. What Paul may have cured her of was the illusion that she could tell the future through a ‘demon.’ He seems to have ended her fortune telling career. The way she was following Paul around seems compulsive. Was she mentally ill?

#48

To which Paul commanded by the name of Jesus Christ the spirit out of her and ‘he came out the same hour’ (vs 18). Perhaps she was schizophrenic? Indeed, whatever power she had in foretelling the future was gone, and neither she nor her spiritual pimps were any longer gainfully employed. But why would her schiziod personality have that ability in the first place, assuming she was mentally ill?

On the other hand, she seemed to know who Paul was, a servant of God and bearer of the Gospel, which at least was true enough, though it isn’t explicit as to whether she gained this knowledge from observation, intuition or the power she possessed. But it certainly was the catalyst for Paul to turn to her and cast the spirit out, perhaps out of the frustration of being followed around by the woman and called out.

#49

*Ah, if you want to see the devil ,you need but look in the mirror. I believe the greater Truth is found when we take the messengers(demons and angels) of God’s will and place them in the “kingdom within”. There within, the messengers (spirits, thoughts. messages, demons, angels etc.) move about, are lifted up, cast down and and war within the heavens of your mind. It helps to see the allegory in the verses. There new depths in Christ are measured and made practical.

Please read the words of one of the great pioneers of Universal Reconciliation to my generation. If you want to glean some real treasures in God, I don’t believe you will do better than reading a little J Preston Eby. *

“You has He quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins: wherein in time past you walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now works in the children of disobedience” (Eph. 2:1-2).

Ah, yes, this evil spirit is in man! On the very day of Adam’s sin the voice of God brought this message to the serpent in Eden: “Because you have done this, you art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon your belly shall you go, and dust shall you eat all the days of your life” (Gen. 3:14). When the serpent was lowered into the dust realm, man became the base of operation for his activity, which activity is limited to the realm of the flesh. “Dust you art, and unto dust shall you return,” the Lord told Adam in the same conversation. The dust man is the serpent man. “The first man was from out of the earth, made of dust - earth-minded; the second Man is the Lord from out of heaven. Now those who are made of the dust are like him who was first made of the dust - earth minded; and as is the Man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven heaven minded. And just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, so shall we and so let us bear also the image of the Man from heaven” (I Cor, 15:45-49, Amplified).

I do not hesitate to declare to you, beloved, that you will find satan operative in no other realm except the fleshly nature of man anywhere in the whole vast universe! You do not need to worry about the devil stealing the keys to your car and driving off with it. But you may have to worry about the devil in men doing so! You need not fear the devil breaking into your home at night and blowing your brains out. But the devil in men has done so many, many times. The devil as a spirit being will never try to seduce your wife, but the devil in some man may surely attempt it. Betimes it has even been the devil in a preacher! I must tell you frankly that I have not had any trouble with that terrible devil out there someplace; but I have had a great deal of difficulty with that devil I behold when I look in the mirror! That ancient serpent slithers about in the lowest realms of man’s earthiness, in the crooked thoughts, perverted desires, and unbridled emotions of the carnal nature, in all the corrupt motions of the flesh.

Within man lies the seat of satan. We have been the captives of a power within us, slaves to our own bestial nature. So Christ did not pay a ransom to God in heaven, nor to the devil in hell, in order to redeem us and gain our release. Rather, He gave His life and poured it into us that the transcendent power of His Spirit within might break asunder the bands that bind us. Victory over the carnal mind is gained only by putting on the precious mind that was in Christ Jesus. Victory over the flesh is wrought alone by the mighty power of the Christ-life within. He gives of His life to us who are in bondage, and then we have the vitality and strength to arise and return to Father’s house to claim our inheritance." (Eby)

God bless,

John

#50

I have enough on my plate already, than to get involved in this discussion (as interesting as it is).

However, I thought I should take a moment to alert Ran that I’ve modded one of his posts slightly. (And also SotW’s quote of that post.)

You’ve been warned about overly hostile language before, Ran, numerous times. Rein in your temper, or expect to be edited more often by the mods and admins.

SotW: I don’t know if it would have done any good to explain to Ran what you meant; but for what it’s worth, I understood you to mean that Jesus was trying to say that He could have called human troops to rescue Him from the cross (not to save Him from sin)–much as Jesus alludes to in GosJohn when telling Pilate that if His kingdom was of this world, then His followers would be fighting for Him.

Ran: whether or not I’m correct about what SotW meant, you could have tried that guess to see if that was what he meant, rather than jumping to the conclusion that SotW meant that Jesus might have summoned repentant sinners (or anyone else) to save Him from sin. That would have been the civil thing to do. (And should have been the more probable guess anyway, considering both that the other notion would have been practically unique to anyone claiming to be Christian–as you showed that you yourself were well aware–and also that nothing in his prior posts suggested that this was what he was aiming for.)

#51

Revelation 12:7-9

I suppose you all would consider this passage to be allegorical?

Forgive me if this passage has come up already…

#52

That’s assuming she had the ability. Modern day fortune tellers are still making money as the ‘spirits’ tell them this and that. Usually they are wrong or so ambiguous and obtuse that people forget that even a broken clock is right twice a day. “The Spirit of Prophesy” claimed by some - is claimed by others to have ceased (the Lutheran church, for example). Likewise, demonic activity has ceased or never was exactly that in the first place.

#53

Well, I ain’t run across a dragon lately. :mrgreen:

#54

Gabriel is not a name of a man, Gabriel is the title of this man. Gabriel means, “a man of God.”

So the question is, does a man of God still live or is he dead? :slight_smile:

#55

If you cannot agree on how to debate, it matters not how long you do it. Everything deals in logic, it is not my mistress, it is reality. All things must have evidence and proof, and so far your position has not been established except for argumentum ad populum and therefore there is no reason to debate it until you can prove angels the categorical name of some celestial creature in the spiritual world. So, it is not my hole I am digging, just because a lot of people believe something as being common fact, does not make it so.

#56

Here’s my understanding, Ran: The man in this passage was insane. However, he was believed to be (as well as believed himself to be) possessed by a legion of “demons,” or the spirits of wicked men (perhaps the reason why he felt compelled to dwell among tombs). But there is no more reason to believe he was actually possessed by a legion of evil spirits than there is to think that Christ was possessed by “Beelzebul,” the “prince of demons” (of which the Pharisees slanderously accused him - Matt 9:34). Jesus, as well as the Gospel writer, simply spoke in accordance with the common language of the day, with no intention of sanctioning the erroneous ideas that gave rise to it. But it may be objected that the man called Jesus “the Son of the Most High God,” and that only a supernatural being could have given the man this knowledge. But unless it could be shown that the man had never heard anything about Jesus, we need only conclude that Jesus’ fame accounts for this confession. But what about the pigs? Answer: Christ sent the man’s insanity into the pigs for the man’s benefit, as a powerful demonstration of Christ’s power and authority over whatever the man supposed held him in bondage for so many years. Perhaps he might have feared a return of his insanity, and Christ performed this miracle to put his mind at ease once and for all. Finally, we read that, after being healed, the man was found “clothed and in his right mind” (Luke 8:35), which presupposes he was not in his “right mind” before (i.e., he was insane).

#57

Correct. Not save him from sin, but from the crucifixion and these people would be those whom Jesus touched and changed, repentant sinners who He has called to salvation. He did not, because in order that all things may be accomplished, He humbled himself and died because He was not a physical king, He is the Spiritual King.

#58

Many English Bible translations (perhaps in an attempt to clarify the meaning for the reader) have “a spirit of divination” instead of “a spirit of Python.” A literal rendering, however, would be, “a spirit, a Python.” But what is meant by this? Concerning this expression, Greek-American Bible scholar Spiros Zodhiates has this to say:

“Python was the Greek name given to the mythological serpent or dragon that lived at Pytho beneath Mount Parnassus and guarded the Delphic Oracle. The name then became the surname of Apollo, the god of divination in Greek mythology, and hence applied to all oracular and divinatory spirits.” (The Complete Word Study Dictionary, AMG publishers, 1992, p.1253).

Thus, to the Gentile locals of Philippi, this slave girl (who was likely mentally deranged) was a spokesperson of the ancient Greek god, Apollo; she was considered by the locals as one through whom this god spoke. A few observations: there can be little doubt that, for the Jewish people, this girl would have been thought to have been possessed by a demon, or unclean spirit (which, to them, meant the evil, disembodied spirit of a dead man). But to the Gentiles, she was inspired by the Greek god Apollo and received her “psychic” abilities from him. Now, notice that Luke does not say that this slave girl had what the pagan locals erroneously thought was “a spirit, a Python.” No, he simply speaks *as if *she really did have such a spirit. Similarly, when Paul miraculously frees this poor girl from her affliction, he speaks as if she really were possessed by a Greek god, commanding the spirit “in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her.” But are we to believe that Luke and Paul shared the same superstitious, pagan views as the unbelieving Gentiles of this city? No, of course not; they were simply using the common language of the day without any intention of sanctioning the mistaken beliefs of the people.

As far as her “powers,” there is no indication that she actually had any. And I see no good reason to attribute the words she kept repeating to a supernatural source. As you said, her knowledge could very well have been derived from her own observation. Even insane people speak the truth sometimes.

#59

Yep, it’s all symbolic. The “heaven” in which the “war” arose is the same “heaven” in which appeared the “great sign” that John saw in v. 1. There, John describes “a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars,” etc. If what John describes as taking place in the “heaven” of v. 1 is not literal (and it isn’t), then neither is what he describes as taking place in the “heaven” of v. 7. So what is the identity of the great red dragon? The following is an excerpt from something I wrote about a year ago on this topic:

The “great red dragon” is first introduced in Rev 12:3, and is called “the devil” and “satan” in v. 9. The word “devil” means “false accuser” or “slanderer,” and the word “satan” means “adversary” or “opponent.” Neither word is the name or title of a single person; anyone who slanders or falsely accuses another is a “devil,” and anyone who opposes or acts as an adversary to another is a “satan” Thus, whenever the words appear in Scripture, the reader should always ask, “Who or what is the opponent or false accuser being spoken of in this verse or passage?” Some examples: in Numbers chapter 22, verses 22 and 32, the angel of the Lord is called a “satan.” In 2 Sam 19:22, David refers to Joab and his brothers as “satans.” In Matt 16:23, Jesus calls Peter “satan” because his mind was set on the things of man instead of on the things of God, thus making him an adversary or opponent to Christ. In John 6:70, Jesus refers to Judas as a “devil” because Judas was going to betray him into the hands of the enemy. In 1 Tim 3:11, the apostle Paul says the wives of deacons are not to be “devils” (slanderers). In 2 Tim 3:3, Paul refers to the wicked people of the last days in which he lived as being “devils” (slanderers). In Titus 2:3 he says that older women aren’t to be “devils” (slanderers). Thus, any person who falsely accuses, or is an adversary to, others, may be called a “devil” or “satan.”

John had previously used both of these titles to describe the hostile civil and religious authorities that were working in opposition to the first-century Christians (Rev 2:10, 3). In Rev 2:10, John tells the Church in Smyrna, “Do not fear what you are about to suffer. Behold, the devil (i.e., the false accuser) is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and for ten days you will have tribulation.” John is here referring to the persecutors (likely both Jewish and Roman) of the first-century Church. They are collectively referred to as “the devil” because of their unified efforts to get the Christians imprisoned by bringing false accusations against them. And in Rev 2:13 Christ tells the church in Pergamum, “I know where you dwell, where satan’s throne is” - i.e., where the throne (or seat of power) of the adversary or opposition is. Being the center of Roman administration of the province of Asia and the center of the state religion, Pergamum was a stronghold of idolatry and emperor worship in the Roman Empire, and was served by a powerful priesthood. In fact, Pergamum was the first city in the empire to have an emperor cult. Julius Caesar was honored with a statue there as early as 63 BC, and in 29 B.C. a temple had been built to “the divine Augustus Caesar and the goddess Roma,” with a bronze statue of the emperor (now in the Vatican Museum) being placed there in 31 B.C. The great, throne-like altar of Zeus was also built here under Eumenes II around 180 B.C.

#60

I was passing through on another (mod related) matter; and I’m sure someone else will point this out, too. But it seems like they could have said, “This girl is not possessed, only ill! Here, we will cure her, to prove it!”–and then done so, without charging the (ostensibly unreal) ‘spirit’ per se to come out of her–in the name of Jesus Christ no less.

The data, in short, doesn’t fit the theory. It’s not only significantly different than the theory, it’s different in how their actions thereby attest to the authority of Jesus Christ. (There is no significant difference in the text here among the various copies, btw. They all read that Paul said to that spirit, “I am charging you, in the name of Jesus Christ, to be coming out from her!”)

So actually, yes, I think the reader is supposed to believe that Luke (this is a “we” passage) and Paul believed this was a spirit, personally distinct compared to the person of the girl, and that they addressed it as such, as an exercise of the authority of Jesus Christ over it. It isn’t like this would be an inference from silence in the details, reading that idea into the text; the text has positive data qualities pointing in a direction.