The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Fallen Angels?

Theology Biblical Theology
#61

(Continued from my previous post)

The dragon is also called “that ancient serpent,” which harkens back to the serpent in the garden of Eden that deceived Eve into eating from the forbidden tree. As is shown elsewhere, the serpent of Genesis 3 was employed by Moses as a symbol for the deceptive desires of the flesh from which all sin originates. When we couple this fact with what John describes the dragon as doing, it becomes evident that this creature is meant to symbolize sinful desire manifesting itself as a persecuting power against God’s people. The seven-headed “beast” to which the dragon gives its “authority, throne and power” in Rev 13:2 is imperial Rome (and its then-ruling representative, Nero Caesar). The “false prophet” introduced in v. 11 (which is said to exercise its authority on behalf of the first beast), is the false religious system and pagan priesthood which sought to propagate emperor worship and idolatry throughout the Roman Empire (its headquarters being located in Pergamum). The dragon’s defeat in Rev 20:7-10 is treated separately from that of the beast and false prophet inasmuch as he is the perennial enemy of God and his people, having assumed the form of various persecuting civil powers throughout redemptive history, including Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon (cf. Ps. 74:13-14; 104:26; Isa. 14:29; 27:1,13; 51:9; Jer. 51:34, 44; Ezek. 29:3-4; 32:2-6, where these nations and/or their rulers are variously described as Leviathan, a serpent, or a dragon).

So is that which John is seeing and describing in Rev 12:7-9 to be understood as a literal scene that has or will literally transpire somewhere in the universe? No, because this seven-headed, ten-horned beast is not literal or real, but figurative and symbolic. Being thus a figure, whatever it does, and whatever happens to it, must also be figurative. For instance, when John writes that the dragon “poured water like a river out of his mouth” (Rev 12:15) we are not to understand this literally. The dragon is not a literal dragon; it’s a symbol. Consequently, that which John describes the dragon as doing cannot be understood literally, either (i.e., literal water cannot proceed from the mouth of a figurative creature). Similarly, we are not to understand that the dragon was literally bound by a “great chain” and thrown into a “bottomless pit” (Rev 20:1-3). Once again, the dragon is not literal; consequently, that which John describes as happening to the dragon cannot be literal, either (i.e., a literal chain cannot bind a figurative creature). All of the imagery is symbolic; only that which is being symbolized by the imagery is intended to be understood literally and plainly.

#62

I’m curious about something pertaining to this, Craig. How would you explain the passage in Jude (1:6) in light of this view? What is the identity of the ones who did not keep their first estate? Also, what are principalities, powers, and spiritual forces of wickedness in high places? (I understand we may not be able to necessarily categorize these as “angels” per se, but I’m interested in your identification of these obviously spiritual entities)

#63

So what’s the “spirit” which they were addressing, Jason? The same data which you think “doesn’t fit the theory” tells us she had “a spirit, a Python” (did she really?) and that she was “fortune-telling” (was she really?). Since you think Paul and Luke believed themselves to have been actually addressing “a spirit, personally distinct compared to the person of the girl,” were they addressing a “serpent or dragon that lived at Pytho beneath Mount Parnassus and guarded the Delphic Oracle?” Or were they perhaps speaking to “Apollo, the god of divination” himself? Or perhaps it was simply the disembodied spirit of a wicked man or angel-human hybrid. What’s your theory? Do you also think that when Jesus referred to “Beelzebub, the prince of demons” in Matt 12:27 he thought this pagan god of Ekron (2 Kings 1:2) had a literal, personal existence?

When Paul commanded the “spirit” (and yes, I would read the word as if in quotations) to come out of the girl, he was commanding the insanity to leave her using the common language of the day. That which “came out of her that very hour” was her mental illness. If it be objected that a person’s mental illness is not something that can be “commanded,” it need only be said in response that Christ is said to have “rebuked” a high fever (Luke 4:39), which we are told then “left” Peter’s mother-in-law.

#64

While I agree that the information is delivered in poetic form, I notice that you’ve shifted your ground a bit here. The text doesn’t read as talking about “a” Satan and “a” devil (no more than “a” dragon either). Of course, Greek doesn’t have an indirect article; and the lack of one in the text isn’t necessarily significant either way. But while there are no direct articles for the description at verse 3 (thus “a dragon great fire-red”), there are repeated direct articles in verse 9 relating to the object; and that’s normally a very strong signifier in Greek that the object is being discussed with name-titles. Kai eble_the_ (And was cast) ho drako_n (the dragon) ho megas (the great) ho ophis (the serpent) ho archaios (the ancient or the original) ho kaloumenos diabolos (being called the adversary, or the one being called adversary) kai ho satanas (and the accuser) ho plano_n te_n oikoumene_n hole_n (the one deceiving the whole common-home).

Moreover, this dragon is treated as threatening figures which, though again being poetically described, are surely supposed to be particular persons!–namely Christ and His mother. (Though the woman may also represent Israel or even all of the created kosmos, or both. But we unless we are prepared to simply dismiss the existence of Jesus’ mother, much less Jesus Himself, on the basis of a poetic description of them in RevJohn, the larger representational possibilities should not be taken to exclude the personal reality of those characters.) While reading a gestalt-meaning into the identity of the dragon isn’t strictly impossible, it does tend to go against the how personal figures are used just as poetically in this passage without necessarily abrogating their identities as real and distinct persons. (It also tends to go against the verb usage: I think you’re going to find it’s pretty rare for the NT to use that term {kaleo_} and cognates, for naming an abstract concept or gestalt!)

True, but your identity of the opponent is being read into this verse. Not always a bad thing, but somewhat against the grammatic constructions in this case.

True, but you’re rather begging the question by adducing this as evidence that rebel angels weren’t behind what was happening in those persecutions. The language itself would positively suggest otherwise, and would fit the notion of Near Middle Eastern representative agency (including in religious matters).

#65

Actually, the textual record is kind of split between the text reading {pneuma putho_nos} (‘a spirit a python’) and {pneuma putho_na} (which looks a little grammatically weird, but is probably meant to read ‘a python spirit’ with the ‘python’ being treated as a descriptive noun). On text critical principles, the odds favor the latter (which is the more difficult reading but is widely attested in early copies and their families; whereas most later copies and families use the former. The evidence suggests scribes were trying to ‘correct’ the original grammar.)

Either way, the concept would be ‘a spirit like the one at Pythia’. And I don’t think that concept would be difficult to understand. :wink: (Especially to 1st century Greco-Roman readers.)

So, yeah: the story reads that the girl really had a spirit like the one at Pythia; that’s how she behaves, that’s how her owner treats her, that’s exactly how Paul treats her in the story, and that’s how Luke relates the story. (Whether I believe she had a divining spirit like the one attributed to the Pythian Oracle, is kind of beside the point. :wink: I’m only describing the narrative form, construction, and contexts.)

So says the story. {shrug} As to whether that entailed real fortune-telling, I have no opinion, other than I don’t believe such things are impossible.

No theory. Just reporting the text. If I had to make a theory, I’d say the story is supposed to indicate they were addressing some otherwise unknown spirit that behaved like the one people believed to operate at Pythia. The details don’t indicate anything more than that. It’s a pretty low-key description, compared to how the story might have easily been fleshed out. (No fancy descriptions of the pedigree of the spirit; Paul & Co. don’t go around afterward boasting, “Dude, we just punched out Apollo by the authority of the name of Jesus Christ!” They just get into big local trouble afterward for ruining her owner’s business.)

Don’t see why not; I think Jesus has a literal, personal existence. (Including as the 2nd Person of God Most High.) Doesn’t mean Jesus accepted everything the pagans said was true about him, though. On the contrary, I doubt His subsequent series of witty wordplays based on the Hebrew or Aramaic word for ‘plunder’ (Beezeboul means “Plunder-possessor”) was the kind of thing that the Ekronites were teaching about that god! :laughing:

That running wordplay retort would be a typical rabbinic style, and highly entertaining for the audience, as well as increasingly embarrassing for His opponents. But the underlying point is pretty serious: the Pharisees have started claiming Jesus does exorcisms by the power of Beezeboul, trying to undermine His status with the crowd. (Notably this happens after Jesus heals a ‘demented’ blind/mute man; if GosMatt’s order of events is accurate on this point, this is most likely a guy Jesus has already healed!–which would fit very well into what Jesus says shortly afterward about what happens when an unclean spirit is thrown out but the person doesn’t put Someone Else in his soul instead.) Jesus’ reply, though delivered in a clever parabolic form, doesn’t involve mocking them for supposing that the pagan god of Ekron really is the ruler of the demons (or that the ruler of the demons was operating as the pagan god of Ekron.) While Jesus doesn’t take the person of “Beelzebub” very seriously (in a way), He takes the charge of operating by the power of an evil spirit instead of by the power of the Holy Spirit extremely seriously. (Enough so that this is the scene where He invokes the Unforgivable Sin, for blasphemy against the HS. And also, by the way, refers to the notion of the condemnation of evildoers on judgment day. “And I tell you that for every idle word which people speak, they shall be made to render an account for it on Judgment Day. For by your words shall you be justified; and by your words shall you be damned.” But that’s another thread’s debate. :wink: )

Considering that illnesses in general were often attributed to demons, that would tend to be tantamount to confirming for Peter, his mother-and-law, and anyone else on the scene, that something personally rebukable was behind that particular fever. Indeed, since deathly fevers need not have been considered a result of evil spirit activity for the Jews, treating this one as rebukable would have classified it one way instead of the other for the audience. (Relatedly, not long afterward Jesus rebukes a tornado on Lake Galilee: something that practically every culture on Earth has traditionally associated with hostile demonic forces. Jesus’ actions are only going to be reinforcing that notion for His followers: Jesus is doing the work of God in the OT, taming the rebel spirits! A notion that has more than a few relations to universalism, by the way. :slight_smile: Though admittedly universalism doesn’t have to have rebel spirits exist per se.)

#66

Continue reading Jude.

Jude 1:5-6
Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe. And of the messengers who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home? These he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day.

He is speaking of the Hebrew people, IIsrael, the Jews, because they were entrusted with the oracles of God. They are the Messengers (angels).

**Romans 3:1-2 **
Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the (B)oracles of God.

Matthew 23:38
*Look, your house is left to you desolate. *

Romans 11:7-2
*What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened, 8as it is written: “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes so that they could not see and ears so that they could not hear, to this very day.”[d] And David says: “May their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a retribution for them. May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see, and their backs be bent forever.”

Again I ask: Did Israel stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fullness bring!*

Luke 3:7-9
John said to the crowds coming out to be baptized by him, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. The axe is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.”

**Romans 11:21-23 **
Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.

Again, one must prove that the messengers Jude was referring to was talking about heavenly creatures types called ‘angels’ and not the messengers entrusted with the oracles of God.

However, did you have Jude actually mention angels and then later celestial beings? Distinguishing angels from celestial beings?

Jude 1:8
In the very same way, these dreamers pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings.

Jude mentions both angels and celestial beings (in the sense that most people think Angels are), making a distinct seperation of the two, otherwise he would just have repeated angels or places celestial beings in both instances.

To make things more confusing. Jude actually is referring to Moses as a celestial being in Jude 1:8, because Moses never entered the promise land, that is why there was a dispute between the devil and Michael and Michael was not going too slander Moses (because of this fact) and simply rebuked the devil instead. Moses may not have entered the promise land, but the Lord has plans for His Messengers that we do not know.

#67

I’m not sure how I “shifted my ground,” Jason. When I said, “anyone who slanders or falsely accuses another is a “devil”” (etc.), I’m speaking indefinitely (hence, “anyone”) and consequently I used the indefinite “a” instead of “the.” How would you have worded that? Moreover, I fail to see in your analysis of the Greek text any argument of substance against my interpretation of this passage. I have no problem understanding the dragon of v. 9 with a preceding definite article, since the creature was introduced to the reader in v. 3, and the definite article being used before “dragon” is completely natural after it’s already been introduced into the text. And the fact that John uses definite articles when further describing this symbolic beast is completely consistent with my understanding of that which I believe John was using the dragon to represent (i.e., sinful desire, manifesting itself in those who were persecuting God’s people). Sinful desire may appropriately be described as “THE slanderer” and “THE adversary,” since it is the original (and universal) “slanderer” and “adversary.” And since I believe Moses used the serpent in the Genesis narrative as a symbol for sinful desire (a position for which I will be arguing in more detail shortly), it is completely appropriate that John would call the dragon “that ancient serpent” and “the deceiver of the whole world.” No need to inject “rebel angels” into the text.

Actually, it was never my position that either of these characters were impersonal (though I would dispute your assertion that the woman represents Mary, and only “may” represent Israel - but I’ll hold off on that for now!). But the fact that “the woman clothed with the sun” and the “child” to which she is representing as giving birth represent literal persons in no way necessitates or even renders probable that “the great red dragon with seven heads” should also be understood as a personal being or beings - and I know of no interpretive rule that would dictate otherwise. In fact, I believe the way in which John describes the appearance and actions of the dragon is evidence against understanding it as a personal being (especially considering the fact that the Bible doesn’t teach the existence of a supernatural being that could possibly be represented by the dragon). For instance, we both agree that “the woman” and “the child” represent persons, and to interpret them as such is very natural since the very symbols John uses (a woman and a child) are what one would expect if he were talking about personal beings. But when we get to the dragon, it’s a different story completely. Here we have a red, seven-headed, ten-horned serpentine beast - which, to say the least, does not exactly “mesh” well with the first two symbols if this dragon is also to be understood as a person.

Moreover, what precedent would John have for even introducing a “rebel angel” into the narrative? Where is such a being first introduced in the Bible that would allow John’s Jewish readers to say when they come to this portion of Revelation, “Ah, this red, seven-headed dragon must represent that rebel angel which God has previously revealed to us in the inspired Scriptures”? Is it in Genesis 3? The first two chapters of Job? Where? You cannot just take the existence of such a being for granted and then read him into the text whenever it’s convenient. And I submit that unless one already takes for granted the existence of such a being (an entity with such great power that he is apparently capable of deceiving the whole world), it is most reasonable to conclude from the text that John is not, in fact, referring to an individual person, but rather something else entirely (i.e., sinful desire, which is the original slanderer/adversary of both God and man, and the true deceiver of “the whole world”).

It’s not only not impossible, I would say it’s extremely likely given the fact that John identifies the dragon as “that ancient serpent,” which was a symbol for sinful desire in Genesis 3 and has nothing to do with a “rebel angel” of which the rest of Scripture provides us no evidence. And as far as verb usage goes, I think you’re going to find it’s even rarer for the NT to use such terms for naming a supernatural being whose existence the Bible is silent on. :wink:

John refers to it as “the ancient serpent,” which, as I’ll be arguing for shortly, is a symbol for the desires of the flesh. But the concept of a “rebel angel” is so foreign to the inspired Scriptures from which John derived much of his imagery and symbolism that one would have to read such an idea into the text here.

But Jason, are you not begging the question by implying that rebel angels were “behind what was happening in those persecutions,” when the text nowhere hints at this? Once again, where in the Hebrew Bible are “rebel angels” even introduced? And how does “the language itself positively suggest” that “rebel angels” were behind the persecutions? The fact that John refers to the pagan opposition as “the devil” or “satan” (i.e., with the definite article) merely presupposes that his first-century readers already knew what he was talking about (thus to speak of them in an indefinite sense would have been inappropriate). However, the language itself in no way suggests that what they were familiar with as being behind their perseuctions were “rebel angels.”

#68

Only if this passage is read in isolation from the inspired Hebrew Scriptures does your interpretation of the text carry even the least amount of weight. And even then, the traditional “cosmic rebellion” view must be presupposed in order to make any kind of sense out of the narrative. However, I submit that when we approach the text with the assumption that both Paul and Luke shared a worldview grounded in the Old Testament, the idea that they were addressing and casting out a supernatural entity which the pagans believed gave real psychic abilities to those who were possessed by it, and which they associated with a mythological being from their own superstitious belief system (on which, even according to your view of the passage, Paul never corrects them by revealing that “Python” has no real existence, and giving them the “true identity” of the “spirit”) loses all plausibility. Even assuming the alternate reading is correct (i.e., that it should read pneuma putho_na, or “a Python-like spirit”), it would imply that there really was thought to be a “Python spirit” of which the “spirit” supposedly possessing the slave girl was like - which seems equally problematic to your interpretation of the text (your assertion that either construction should be read to mean “a spirit like the one at Pythia” is without justification).

Again, your interpretation demands that the story be read in isolation from that rather substantial portion of inspired Scripture that firmly grounded the belief-system of Luke and Paul (but not at all the pagan slave girl or her pagan owners). The way Paul treats her, and the way Luke relates the story, is in no way inconsistent with the view that they were merely employing the common language of the day to convey simple facts about which the pagans were in error due to their superstitions. Your interpretation also demands an explanation: what was the true identity of the “spirit” which may or may not have given this slave girl psychic powers, and which was associated with Python? And where in Scripture is the identity of this entity (and others like it) revealed? Surely you read this narrative having some idea of what exactly Paul and Luke were dealing with. From what source did you gain the information which informs your reading of this passage in such a way that you neither share my view nor remain agnostic in regards to your understanding of “demonic possession” as described in the New Testament? The source cannot be the Old Testament, for it is silent in regards to “demonic possession.” And it cannot be the New Testament, because that would be begging the question.

I would argue that you’re actually interpreting the text in a way that best fits your “cosmic rebellion” view, because the text does not at all demand that we understand the “spirit” to have a personal existence if we keep in mind that Paul was simply speaking in a way that the pagans would understand, without any intention of sanctioning their view, and that Luke was simply recording the facts using the same language used by Paul (again, without sanctioning the common opinions of the day).

How does this in any way follow from the fact that Jesus has a literal, personal existence?

Do you think Jesus accepted everything the unbelieving Jews understood about this “prince of demons?” If he did, from where did the unbelieving Jews derive their correct information concerning this entity? And if he didn’t, why didn’t he correct them?

Agreed! :smiley:

Wait, where are we told that “illnesses in general were often attributed to demons?” From my reading of the NT, it seems the only illnesses which the Jews attributed to demons were those most difficult to explain, cure or account for (e.g., those that are psychological in nature).

I see this as somewhat question-begging, Jason. Nowhere are demons said to have been responsible for this fever, or for the storm that arose on Lake Galilee. If Christ were addressing evil spirits in these passages, why doesn’t it say so? I see no reason to take the literal existence for such beings for granted as you do, especially in light of what the OT teaches (or rather doesn’t teach). The only thing I understand Christ to be “reinforcing” by his rebuke of the fever and the storm is that impersonal things can be personified (as they frequently are in the OT). And where in the Old Testament are we taught the existence of powerful evil beings who have the ability to control people and the weather?

I do not deny that pagan cultures have associated forces of nature with evil spirits, but where in the OT is such an idea sanctioned? And where in the OT is God ever said to “tame rebel spirits?” I don’t find “rebel spirits” even referred to in the OT, let alone “tamed” by God.

#69

It is a commonly-held view among mainstream Christians that a fallen, rebel angelic being took possession of (or transformed himself into) the serpent of Genesis 3, and that it is this evil being which is here being addressed by God. However, neither in the immediate context nor in the rest of the OT is there any indication that the serpent is to be identified with, or was possessed by, a rebel angel. No person reading the OT for the first time would draw such a conclusion, unless it was already taken for granted prior to their reading. There is no mention of a fallen, rebel angel anywhere in this passage, in the rest of the book of Genesis, or in the other four books of the Torah.

Now, most Christians are in agreement that the promised offspring of the woman of whom God speaks in Gen 3:15 refers to the Messiah (Luke 3:23-38; Gal 4:4). What then is the identity of the serpent? Answer: Moses specifically identifies this creature as a “beast of the field that the LORD God had made,” and attributes its craftiness to the very serpentine nature with which it had been created (v. 1; cf. v. 14). Now, if the true antagonist of this historical narrative was a fallen angel in disguise - and Moses knew this to be true - why would he introduce it into the story as a “beast of the field that the LORD God had made?” And why emphasize the natural craftiness of the serpent if it was “really” the craftiness of a *fallen, rebel angel * which led to Adam and Eve’s transgression? Moreover, it should be observed that God deals with three parties in the fall of mankind: Adam, Eve and the serpent. An alleged fourth link in the chain of guilt – an evil, superhuman being - is nowhere mentioned in the Genesis narrative. God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this…” (v. 14) Paul likewise says that “*the serpent *deceived Eve by his cunning” (2 Cor. 11:3) – i.e., the cunning this creature is represented as possessing by virtue of having been made a serpent by God (Gen 3:1) - not by virtue of its having been possessed by an angelic being. Such language as used by Moses and Paul would be entirely inappropriate if the serpent was simply an innocent, unintelligent creature that had been used as a tool by an evil, angelic being (or if it was not really a “serpent” at all, but a fallen angel in disguise).

Although possible, it is unlikely that Moses is teaching that Eve held dialogue with a literal, talking snake with legs (which is implied the serpent possessed prior to its being judged by God - v. 15). God certainly could have caused a snake to speak, as he did with Balaam’s donkey (Num 22:28). However, there is no indication that the serpent’s ability to speak was due to God’s miraculous intervention, as was the case with Balaam’s donkey. There is also no indication that Eve was the slightest bit surprised or amazed that the snake could speak - yet imagine such a thing happening today! But if the inclusion of this “beast of the field” into the narrative was simply a literary device used by Moses, and the serpent was actually a symbol or figure for something else, then it would make perfect sense for Moses to give no explanation for its ability to speak, or for Eve’s casual conversation with it. Understood in this way, Moses’ language is entirely appropriate.

But for what did Moses employ the serpent as a figure? It must be something that shares some distinctive quality or characteristic of a serpent. And what characteristic of the serpent does Moses emphasize in this passage? Answer: Moses makes it a point to note that the serpent was “more crafty” than any other animal God had made (v. 1; some versions read “subtle” or “cunning”). Thus, whatever the serpent represents, it shares this distinctive characteristic. Now, to find out what Moses used the serpent to represent we need simply consider what he describes the serpent as doing. And what did the serpent do? Answer: It deceived and seduced Eve into transgressing God’s command. Thus, we may understand the serpent of Genesis 3 as being a figure for that which deceives and seduces humanity into violating God’s law. That is, the serpent represents the universal tempter of mankind which, when yielded to, leads inevitably to the committing of sin. But what is the source of our temptation to transgress God’s law? The experience of every sinner testifies to the fact that temptation originates from within our own hearts, and is produced by our own desires. That which is external to ourselves is merely the occasion for temptation (in Eve’s case, it was the fruit). It is not, however, the source. Desire is the source. But if any doubt their own experience, we have inspired authority for believing this to be true. James, the brother of our Lord, declares:

“Let no one say when he is tempted, ‘I am being tempted by God,’ for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire.” James 1:13-14

Thus, if the “serpent” in Genesis 3 was intended by Moses to represent and symbolize that which lures and entices us to sin, then it is to be identified with the fleshly desires within each one of us which so often succeed in drawing us away from obedience to God. The serpent is represented as deceiving Eve because that is what the desires of our flesh do (Eph 4:22). And what is the “offspring” of the serpent which is represented as being at “enmity” with the offspring of the woman (v. 15)? Those who believe the serpent to have been a literal talking snake possessed by a fallen angel (or a fallen angel in disguise) will here fall into a glaring inconsistency. For if the serpent is to be understood in a literal sense, why not also its “offspring?” Once again, the apostle James provides us with the best commentary on this passage in Genesis. From James 1:15 we learn that the “offspring” of human desire or lust is that to which it “gives birth” when we yield to it – i.e., sin. And we are further told that “sin, when it is fully grown, brings forth death” (v. 15) - which is exactly what God said would take place on the day that Adam and Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen 2:16-17).

#70

Ah, Ok. Thanks, Craig.
Actually, when I went back and looked at Jude to look up the reference, I had read through there a bit and instantly realized a part of what you said here, but thanks for the additional info. as well. It’s really weird to read through a scripture you’ve seen a bunch of times and thought you knew what it said, then suddenly realize you’ve been reading something into it that wasn’t really there…

At any rate, could you also answer the second question as to the identity of Principalities, Powers, and Spiritual forces of wickedness or darkness in high places? I’m still curious about these. (Can’t recall the scripture ref. offhand).

#71

I agree with your conclusion. But what do you make of Christ’s temptation - I do not believe that was an ‘interior monologue’.

#72

Oh, excellent points by the way Aaron (and Craig). I’m enjoying this thread immensely.

This is actually the direction my understanding has been going on this for some time now, but it’s a pleasure to read those who have thought and studied through it enough to explain it so well.

I am curious about your explanation in response to Ran’s question however, as this was something that came to mind for me as well. However, I would inject here that the scripture does tell us that Christ was tempted just as we are, (but without sin) so…

#73

RanRan, it might not have been a monologue but it was interior … the old man talking to the new man, maybe eh?

“There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.” Mrk 7:15

A simple explanation might be; Jesus was in the flesh, just like any other man, thus He also had a natural mind. He had carnality in him just like any other man, and it was that carnality in Him that tried to tempt him into relinquishing his authority in the spirit over to His flesh.

“For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.” Heb 4:15

Blessings,

John

#74

I can also see this, and I think it makes sense whether you take the ortho view that Jesus was fully God and fully Man, or if you take the view (ala Martin Zender) that he was not fully either one, by the nature of his uniqueness.

#75

Yes Mel, I’ve not read that by Zender, but do enjoy the content and entertaining style of his writings. Jesus is indeed wonderfully unique.

If you read Zender you might also be familiar with this fellow.
This is an an understandable and informative writing on the subject. I have shared it with many over the years.

Where Did the Devil Come From?
by J. Preston Eby
The Serpent
Who Made the Devil?
Why the Devil?

kingdombiblestudies.org/serpent/Serpent.htm

#76

Well, there was that one time when a evil spirit came upon Saul (sent by the Lord, no less), after the Spirit of the Lord departed him (I Sam 16:14-23). Then Saul requested a harp to be played by David and the evil spirit left him. Which begs the question: If we are going to say that all evil spirits, demons, etc. are manifestations of our earthly desires, then what do you make of the ‘Spirit of the Lord’ in this case? Is the ‘Spirit of the Lord’ just a manifestation of our spiritual desires?

#77

I should probably post the quote (from a recent newsletter of his) for clarification.

Here is the quote from Zender: "

Theology likes to say that our
Lord Jesus Christ was “fully God
and fully man.” Neither is true. As
usual, theology gets everything
wrong. Our Lord demonstrated in
many ways that He had a God: He
prayed to His Father in the Garden
of Gethsemane (Mt. 26:39);
He said that the Father was
greater than He (Jn. 14:28); He
claimed to speak the Father’s
words, not His own (Jn. 14:24).
None of these things can be said
of Absolute Deity. And yet neither
was our Lord fully man; He was
born of woman, but was at the
same time the only human ever
generated by spirit rather than
sperm. Let us, therefore, worship
Christ for what He is: a unique
Creation perfectly suited to be
the Bridge between God and mortal
humanity."

Well, that last point of his isn’t entirely true. Adam and Eve were also generated by spirit and not sperm, but you get the idea.

#78

Christ, the beginning and end of all things dwells within us, in His fullness. The whole of creation lays within Christ, Who abides in us. This is part of the fantastic Mystery of Christ. All the spirits are within and they may be quickened or enlivened at God’s whim, by whatever stimuli He chooses.

Satan is so intertwined with the carnal mind they cannot be separated. Thus the soul must die to be raised anew. This death and resurrection is progressive.

mi dos centavos,

Juan

#79

Thanks for posting that Mel.

I once had a personal revelation come to me by the Spirit one night. Today, I lean toward kenosis, as I believe God so loves us, He emptied Himself completely into an immeasurable gift to us in Christ Jesus. He gave us, all of Himself and equally amazing, each of us individually contains within, the fullness of God in Christ Jesus.
Preempting any naysayers I might ask, “how do you measure the infinite nature and love of God?”

I believe Madame Guyon had this same revelation, when she wrote:
*“There are but these two truths, the all and the naught. Everything else is a falsity.” *

“O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments. and His ways past finding out! For from Him every thing comes; through Him everything exists ; and in Him everything ends! Glory to Him forever! Amen.” Rom. 11:33,36

John

#80

Hi Dondi,

Actually, I don’t think evil spirits and demons are “manifestations of our earthly desires.” However, I do think the terms “devil” and “satan” sometimes (though certainly not always) refer to sinful desire (i.e., desires which, when yielded to, lead to sin, and of which the serpent in Genesis 3 is a figure). One primary example where I believe “the devil” and “satan” are used to refer to the personification of sinful desire are the accounts of Christ’s temptation in the wilderness. Some other examples are Luke 22:3; John 8:44; 13:27; Acts 5:3; Eph 4:27; Heb 2:14; James 4:7; 1 John 3:8, 10. In other places (both in the OT and NT) the words stand for human adversaries or accusers/slanderers.

Regarding the case of Saul and the “evil spirit,” I wrote the following earlier in this thread:

Some have seen possible evidence of “demonic oppression” (though not possession) in the account of King Saul and the “evil spirit from the LORD” (see 1 Sam 16:14ff; 18:10; cf. 19:9; Judges 9:23). However, there is no reason to understand this “spirit” (ruach) to have been “demonic” (as is commonly understood), or even to have been a personal being. Both in the Old and New Testament, the word “spirit” (ruach and pneuma, respectively) can signify several different things depending on the context, one of which is a mental disposition or state of mind (e.g., Deut 34:9; Num 5:14, 30; 1 Sam 1:15; 1 Kings 21:5; Psalm 51:17; Prov 16:9, 18, 19; Eccl 1:14; 7:9; Isa 11:2; 19:14; 61:3; Rom 11:8; 1 Cor 4:21; Gal 6:1; Eph 4:23; Phil 2:19; 2 Tim 1:7; 1 Pet 3:4; 1 John 4:6). Understood in this sense, the “evil spirit” from God that afflicted Saul simply referred to the troubled state of mind which God allowed Saul to be subject to because of his sin. Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown summarize this point well in their commentary: “His own gloomy reflections—the consciousness that he had not acted up to the character of an Israelitish king—the loss of his throne, and the extinction of his royal house, made him jealous, irritable, vindictive, and subject to fits of morbid melancholy.” That this is the true sense is evident from the fact that David’s soothing music is said to have refreshed Saul and made him well, and caused the “evil spirit” to depart from him (1 Sam 16:23).

As far as God’s Spirit goes, I understand it (in general) to denote God’s influence, power, presence, etc. But that’s another topic entirely! :slight_smile: