Board index ‹ Angels

[jimwalton]

The category is "spirit beings." Within that category, we have angels, archangels, cherubim, and seraphim. Cherubim are not angels; seraphim are not angels. Cherubim and seraphim are different things from each other. So also angels are differing things. Cherubim and seraphim have wings, angels do not.

[Facelift]

Demons can "shape-shift" as angels of light, create "illusions" and possess humans. Though they do not have real corporeal forms because they are spirits.

By this logic, angels, who are also spirit beings, may also be used by God. Command them to take the physical form of men (which I believed was what happened in Genesis 19) or of "strangers" (Hebrews 13:2)

[jimwalton]

I'm glad you put "shape shift" in quotes, because that's not what they're doing and they're not capable of it. "Shape-shifting" demons is not taught in the Bible, let alone shape-shifting angels. What 2 Corinthians 11.14 says is that "Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light." First of all, it's a masquerade, not a change of form. He is playing a ruse. He's a deceiver, not a shape-shifter. Second, it makes no suggestion that Satan was once an angel of light or, in fact, any other sort of angel. The Bible never says or teaches that Satan was once an angel. We don't know what kind (classification) of spirit being he was or is. Nowhere does the Bible suggest that Satan was once among the angels, much less the leader of the rebellion. What the verse teaches is that Satan is known for his deceptive qualities as an illustration of the deceit of false apostles. The verse is encourage testing the spirits, it's not a discussion on the attributes of celestial beings. Satan's main gig is deceit, and that most often plays itself out in the false teaching of false prophets, false teachers, and false messiahs.

> By this logic, angels, who are also spirit beings, may also be used by God.

As I showed, your analysis ("logic") of 2 Cor. 11.14 is not sound, but it's true that angels are used of God. That is their precise role and function: messengers.

> Command them to take the physical form of men

Um, every time we see angels they HAVE the physical form of humans. What would make you think they ever have a different form? Please give me some biblical evidence. Angels always look like humans every time they appear in Scripture and are described to us.

[Nice Show]

Where is the category spirit beings brought up in scripture. When does the Bible distinguish between angels and seraphim and cherubim. I agree the seraphim and cherubim are different, but it seems to me that they are both a category of angel, just like archangels.

[jimwalton]

> Where is the category spirit beings brought up in scripture.

Heb. 1.7: "In speaking of the angels he says, 'He makes his angels spirits, and his servants flames of fire.' ” They are distinguished from humans in Heb. 1.14: "Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?" So we know they are spirit beings.

As a distinct category, cherubim are never identified with angels. They guard the presence of God (1 Sam. 4.4; Ps. 80.1; 99.1, Ezekiel 10.3-20, et al.)—in the Garden of Eden, on the Ark of the Covenant, symbolically in the tabernacle curtain. These are never described as angels.

Seraphim appear only once in the Bible, in Isaiah 6. They are associated with fire and surround the throne of God. There is no indication that they are associated with or categorized as angels.

> it seems to me that they are both a category of angel

Why? They're never called angels, they don't look like angels look, they don't do what angels do, and they're never associated with or categorized with or as angels.

[Nice Show]

Thanks for teaching me, this is an area that I don’t know much about, so I’m thankful for this!

[Faceless]

Sorry for the late reply. I've only logged in today.

First of all, I've just reread this whole discussion and your belief about "spiritual beings which are also called "angelic beings" (whether fallen or not, they're still "angelic beings") and therefore usually, broadly and simply called "angels". I misunderstood an important part of this discussion because in my vocabulary all of these "spiritual beings" are "angelic beings"/"angels". There's quite a confusion in this discussion, my bad. I do also believe on those classifications of roles of the angelic beings though I believe that the Cherubim is the "highest" of them all.

Second, I believe that Angels(messengers) are spirit beings, so they do not have any essential physical form but do have the ability to appear in human form. They always resemble a normal human male when they appear in human form. But they also have the ability to appear as something other-worldly that their appearance was terrifying to those who encountered them (whcih are never explicitly described every time), such as in Matthew 28:2 [Note: I do think there's a difference in the titles "THE Angel of The Lord", which is I believe to be the pre-incarnate Christ and "AN angel of The Lord" which are just the angels(messengers) in the bible] Which is why I also think they can technically "change forms" (perhaps "a part" of their "true forms"?) as God orders them to. They can also appear in dreams and visions. Satan and the other demons can therefore probably appear physically, in visions, in other forms much like holy angels can, their only and core difference is they refuse to give worship to Jesus. Aside from that, I also take the passage 1 Corinthians 13:12 "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known." into account, that we can only see(understand,hear,etc.) dimly, partly, imperfectly, and fallibly of the "spiritual realm". But someday we can see and understand every physical and spiritual thing perfectly within a perfect glorified body, within the New Creation and in our God.

Third, regarding Satan/Lucifer, you must have not believed that passages like Ezekiel 28:12–18, Isaiah 14:1–32 were symbolic interpretations of Satan. Which I believed they are to be. I understand that people are divided whether the word "Lucifer" is even a proper name. But I believe that they are clear references to Satan's fall too aside from being a literal condemnation of the King of Babylon due to how poetic and similar their sins and fate are. e.g. he falls from heaven, cast down to the earth, destroyed nations (verse 12) sought to ascend to God’s throne (v.13) desired to be like the Most High (v.14) relegated to the lowest part of the Pit (v.15)

Ez. 28:14 calls Lucifer(which is concluded to be Satan in this assumption) a "guardian cherub" which are angelic creatures. He was an "angelic creature" called Lucifer before he became a demon/fallen angel. or Satan. But whether or not Satan is technically an angel is beside the point. Satan is an angelic-type creature with a close connection. to the angels. It is a consistently biblical interpretation so I believe Lucifer to be Satan.

Anyways thanks for taking the time in discussing these all within the community, I really appreciate it. God bless you brother.

[jimwalton]

> Satan and the other demons can therefore probably appear physically, in visions, in other forms much like holy angels can

The problem with this position is that there is no biblical evidence or support for it. For all intents and purposes, you're making it up. There is also no biblical support for the position that Satan or demons are the same kind of spirit beings that angels are. Satan is never identified as an angel, nor are the demons.

> regarding Satan/Lucifer, you must have not believed that passages like Ezekiel 28:12–18, Isaiah 14:1–32 were symbolic interpretations of Satan.

Correct. I do not. Isaiah 14 and Ezk 28 are about the kings of Tyre and Babylon. The passages are quite clear that's who it's about. To read Satan into them is unwarranted. There's no reason to take the whole chapter except those verses in the middle to be about the kings, and that the writer suddenly switches focus and referent for a few verses to talk about Satan, especially when the OT writers had no concept of Satan as we do since the ministry of Jesus.

> Satan is an angelic-type creature with a close connection. to the angels

There is no biblical evidence of this. We have to go by what the Bible teaches. We are not free to add to it. Satan is obviously a spirit-type being, but he is never identified as an angelic-type creature with a close connection to the angels. We can't just put things into the Bible that aren't there.

> It is a consistently biblical interpretation so I believe Lucifer to be Satan.

Lucifer allegedly appears only once in the Bible: Isa. 14.12, but he doesn't even appear there. The Hebrew term is helel, translated "morning star," a reference to Venus. This text is the only one in Scripture that uses this term, so there's no "consistently biblical interpretation" about it. It's a one-shot.

Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the OT: "Lucifer, as a name given to the devil, was derived from this passage, which the Fathers interpreted, without any warrant whatever, as relating to the apostasy and punishment of the angelic leaders. The appellation is a perfectly appropriate one for the king of Babylon, which reached back far into human history and was a prominently astrological culture."

Walton, Matthews, and Chavalas, in the IVP Bible Background Commentary: "The Hebrew word behind this translation, helel, is not used anywhere else in the OT. Many interpreters ancient and modern see it as a designation of Venus, the morning star. It is this interpretation that was behind the early Greek translation of the term, as well as the Latin Vulgate’s luciferus (= shining one, i.e., Venus). Most modern interpreters believe that Isaiah is using a well-known mythological tale as an analogy to the failure and consequences of the king of Babylon’s rebellion and arrogance."

John Walton, in the Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary: "This “Shining one” probably refers to Venus and is found also in Ugaritic mythology, with mention of “daughters of the morning star.” The Vulgate translators rendered this as “luciferus,” also the morning star, Venus. This led English interpreters to associate this passage with Satan, though it is not he who is the subject under discussion, but rather the Babylonian king."

John Oswalt, the New International Commentary on the Old Testament: "The scene shifts from the underworld to heaven and illuminates the pretense of human pride. That pride refuses to brook any rival, even God himself, insisting that all his prerogatives will be its own. While some church fathers took this text to refer to the fall of Satan, the great expositors of the Reformation were unanimous in arguing that the context does not support such an interpretation."

[Faceless]

> The problem with this position is that there is no biblical evidence or support for it. For all intents and purposes, you're making it up.

It's not completely baseless. Passages like Revelations 9 describes an instance where demons assume an animal-like physical form, it may or may not be different kind of demons, so it may or may not be that it's possible for them to appear like that at present. There's no confirmation that it is or that it isn't.

> There is also no biblical support for the position that Satan or demons are the same kind of spirit beings that angels are. Satan is never identified as an angel, nor are the demons.

They are referred to as [fallen] angels , they are angelic beings. Fallen angelic beings.

> he is never identified as an angelic-type creature

I mean like I said I call all "spiritual beings" the "angelic beings" because I believe that demons are fallen angels. Fallen angels and demons are not distinct. Lucifer is Satan etc.

> To read Satan into them is unwarranted. There's no reason to take the whole chapter except those verses in the middle to be about the kings, and that the writer suddenly switches focus and referent for a few verses to talk about Satan, especially when the OT writers had no concept of Satan as we do since the ministry of Jesus.

The judgement doubles as both as a judgement against the king of Babylon and against Lucifer. Of physical and spiritual. Of the "Heavens" and of the "Earth".

I believe the spiritual aspect, is thematically and poetically very consistent with the whole story of the Bible (i.e this is what I meant by "biblical") and since the interpretation takes into account the whole biblical theme and story so it makes sense the OT prophets may not fully know about it. Satan’s fall from heaven, mentioned by Jesus; Satan’s temptation of Eve that suggested she could be like God; Satan’s work as a destroyer; and Satan’s masquerading as an “angel of light". The link between Satan and Lucifer seems to be supported by The New Testament. To read.

Just to be clear though, I do not believe all this dogmatically, for there's so many things that aren't clear about this topic that no one can really be dogmatic about it.

[jimwalton]

> Passages like Revelations 9 describes an instance where demons assume an animal-like physical form

The "locusts" are never identified as demons nor associated with demons. The various possibilities of what these things are are very different.

1. Demons, as you have suggested
2. God's judgment against unbelievers, told in this symbolic language
3. Actual locusts, symbolizing natural disasters the world will experience
4. Symbols of destruction
5. World war
6. The rise of Islam.

The text certainly doesn't confirm the idea that demons are shape-shifters.

> They are referred to as [fallen] angels , they are angelic beings. Fallen angelic beings.

Fallen angels are never identified with demons. They are a different kind of spirit being. Fallen angels are mentioned in Jude 1.6, but never there identified with demons.

> I believe that demons are fallen angels.

My point is that the Bible never makes that connection, so you are remiss to do so. You are making the Bible say something it doesn't.

> Satan’s fall from heaven

Luke 10.18. This is an expression to say that his kingdom was under significant attack. It’s not like Satan has an office in heaven. This fall is the response to the 72’s successful ministry, of which they had just observed, “Even the demons submit to us in your name” (v. 17). It is therefore a possibility, if not a probability, that Christ is referring not to the primeval past, but to the recent triumphs of the 72 (cf. Jn. 12.31).

As F.F. Bruce writes,

"When we think of the fall of Satan, we tend to be more influenced by John Milton’s fanciful poetry than by the Bible. There is no biblical authority for this picture, however. The reader may also think of Isa. 14.12, but that text is about the king of Babylon.

"Jesus is not speaking of an event in the remote past, but of the effects of his ministry at the time. The disciples’ casting out of demons was a sign that the kingdom of God was conquering the kingdom of evil. Many of the rabbis held that, at the end of the age, God or the Messiah would overthrow Satan. The report of the 70 showed that Satan’s overthrow had already taken place, and Jesus’s 'vision' of his fall from heaven confirmed this. See also Jn. 12.31.

"The downfall of Satan may be regarded as the decisive victory in the campaign; the campaign itself goes on."