Fallen Angels

[RandyPNW]

Just random thoughts...

[Mar 5:9-12 NIV] 9 Then Jesus asked him, "What is your name?" "My name is Legion," he replied, "for we are many." 10 And he begged Jesus again and again not to send them out of the area. 11 A large herd of pigs was feeding on the nearby hillside. 12 The demons begged Jesus, "Send us among the pigs; allow us to go into them."

Why did they want to go to the pigs?

Do (fallen) angels get disembodied or do they always appear in some bodily form?

Do angels appear plural as one or do they appear individually?

These are good questions. I can't say anything definitively, but I'll offer you my opinions. Legion may or may not be a reference to a Roman military group. They were pagan in spirit, and worshiped false gods. The demons inspired the Romans to hate the Jews and became God's instrument of judgment against the Jews for their sins.

The demons wanted to go into pigs to point out the sins of Israel, since they hated the Jews and wanted to point out their sins and their failure to follow God. They wanted God to appear as a failure in calling them to Himself.

The demons did not need bodies to live in. They just liked to use earthly vessels to justify their presence on earth doing sinful things. They took advantage of sinful human beings to possess them and make them greater vessels of demonic sin. They would take advantage of pigs to expose Israel's sin in keeping pigs for food, which was prohibited by the Law of Moses.

Is a"fallen angel" the unclean spirit in this verse below?

[Mat 12:43 ESV] 43 "When the unclean spirit has gone out of a person, it passes through waterless places seeking rest but finds none.

Yes, unclean spirits, or demons, never find complete rest. They wander without a final oasis to settle in. They do not even find rest in a human or animal body. They are purely "seeking" satisfaction to justify their sins.

Was it an angel tormenting King Saul?

[1Sa 16:14 NIV] Now the Spirit of the LORD had departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD tormented him.

Yes, fallen angels are, I believe, demons. They can possess people. They can torment people. They look for a weak, unclean spot to inhabit and to increase the evil, or to express their own evil.

 

[Paleouss]

Scripture says forgive one another Col 3:13 yet you bring up the same matters again.

As you wrote, "scripture says forgive one another." I am moving on and I take it that your presentation of Col 3:13 as evidence that you are as well. Peace be to you, brother.

In another post you wrote...

[Mar 5:9-12 NIV] 9 Then Jesus asked him, "What is your name?" "My name is Legion," he replied, "for we are many." 10 And he begged Jesus again and again not to send them out of the area. 11 A large herd of pigs was feeding on the nearby hillside. 12 The demons begged Jesus, "Send us among the pigs; allow us to go into them."

Why did they want to go to the pigs?

I see your thoughts. Do you have answers to these questions? I would point out, regarding your Mark 5:9-12 example, there is the same account in Luke 8:32. Both are the same account but I think Luke gives a little more insight into the fact that these demons were afraid of being cast out into the "abyss" (I take this as being like the chained), so anything is better than that. But to your point about the pigs...what is it?

Do (fallen) angels get disembodied or do they always appear in some bodily form?

Do angels appear plural as one or do they appear individually?

You will have to give your answers for these. Your point is unclear, to me.

Is a"fallen angel" the unclean spirit in this verse below?

[Mat 12:43 ESV] 43 "When the unclean spirit has gone out of a person, it passes through waterless places seeking rest but finds none.

We see in Hebrews that "angels" are also referred to as "ministering spirits" (Heb 1:13-14). So angles can be also spoken of as "spirits". We also see in Matt 8:16 that the term "demon" can be synonymous with "spirits" when it says, "many were demon-possessed. And He cast out the spirits with a word". So angels, demons, and spirits can be synonymous.

So to your question, is a "fallen angel" the unclean spirit? According to what I just presented, possibly. But that is not your view, I know. Just presenting that there is another reasonable view.

Was it an angel tormenting King Saul?

[1Sa 16:14 NIV] Now the Spirit of the LORD had departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD tormented him.

It is unclear to me if the evil spirit here is refering to illness or a spiriual being. Various translations are "harful spirit" (ESV), "distressing spirit" (NKJV), "evil spirit" (NIV, but gives a note that it could be "harmful spirit"), "evil spirit" (NASB). I tend to lean toward a spiritual entity, however.

Strong's
רַע raʻ, rah; from H7489; bad or (as noun) evil (natural or moral):—adversity, affliction, bad, calamity, displease(-ure), distress, evil((-favouredness), man, thing), +exceedingly, great, grief(-vous), harm, heavy, hurt(-ful), ill (favoured), + mark, mischief(-vous), misery, naught(-ty), noisome, + not please, sad(-ly), sore, sorrow, trouble, vex, wicked(-ly, -ness, one), worse(-st), wretchedness, wrong. (Including feminine raaah; as adjective or noun.)

On a change of direction, I will present a delimma for those that hold the fallen angels are evil spirits view. Yes, I am presenting a challenge to my own view.

If Jude 1:6 and 2Peter 2:4 speak of the same thing, that is, there are fallen angels chained until judgement. Then how can fallen angels be evil spirits here on earth if fallen angels are chained? At this time, to reconcile this fact, I hold something in common to the angel view. That is, there were some angels that did present on earth in physical form (one must give a reason why some angels are chained and other not). I do hold that the book of Enoch speaks some truth, but is not Spirit inspired and therefore contains error (possibly some by intention).

(Jude 1:6 NKJV)
And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day;

I currently think that some angels presented in physical form when thrown to earth and others did not. I use Jude 1:6 and the two criteria as justification. Some of the fallen angels that were cast down to earth remained in their "own abode" (spritual form) and were not chained.

For me this reconciles the fact that angels are spoken of as demons and spirits in the Biblical text, per the verses above, and the fact that some are chained, and that some tradition of the Jewish people may be true if it does not contradict scripture and reason from scripture. I realize this view leaves me open to critique. But doesn't every view.

May God do a fruitful work through you.

 

[zippy2006]

I will say it again. Early Christians were as susceptible as any generation of Christians to error.

You haven't managed to address the argument at hand.

• Randy: "Early Christians were as susceptible as any generation of Christians to error."
• Zippy: The early Christians, like the Apostles, were less susceptible to error than we are.
• Randy: "But to say they were immune from error [...] is another argument entirely..."
• Zippy: No one said they were immune to error. What was said is that they were less susceptible. You are attacking a strawman. Your claim that "less susceptible" means the same as "immune" is false, and because of this your argument fails.

 

[RandyPNW]

You haven't managed to address the argument at hand.

• Randy: "Early Christians were as susceptible as any generation of Christians to error."
• Zippy: The early Christians, like the Apostles, were less susceptible to error than we are.
• Randy: "But to say they were immune from error [...] is another argument entirely..."
• Zippy: No one said they were immune to error. What was said is that they were less susceptible. You are attacking a strawman. Your claim that "less susceptible" means the same as "immune" is false, and because of this your argument fails.

I will say it again. My statement about "immunity to deception" directly relates to my statement that every generation is equally susceptible to error. Since none of us is immune from deception, all generations are equally susceptible to error. Why is this difficult?

Let's take a step past this barrier to further discussion? Why would one generation be less likely to deception in understanding what the Apostles' taught? Well, as you say, those who lived nearer to the time of the Apostles likely heard a purer form of what they actually taught. So their representation of what the Apostles' taught was likely less susceptible to the error of multiple transmissions over time.

So we agree on that. But that was not my argument. My argument was that regardless of the advantage early generations of Christians had in interpreting the Apostles' teachings, they are *all* equally susceptible to error, to sin, to deception. Even those with the greatest proximity to the Apostle John, like the heretic Cerinthus, were equally susceptible to error as anybody else! Please, let's not play words games!

 

[zippy2006]

I will say it again. My statement about "immunity to deception" directly relates to my statement that every generation is equally susceptible to error. Since none of us is immune from deception, all generations are equally susceptible to error. Why is this difficult?

Let's take a step past this barrier to further discussion? Why would one generation be less likely to deception in understanding what the Apostles' taught? Well, as you say, those who lived nearer to the time of the Apostles likely heard a purer form of what they actually taught. So their representation of what the Apostles' taught was likely less susceptible to the error of multiple transmissions over time.

So we agree on that. But that was not my argument. My argument was that regardless of the advantage early generations of Christians had in interpreting the Apostles' teachings, they are *all* equally susceptible to error, to sin, to deception. Even those with the greatest proximity to the Apostle John, like the heretic Cerinthus, were equally susceptible to error as anybody else! Please, let's not play words games!

So were the Apostles less susceptible to error or were they not less susceptible to error? You are contradicting yourself.

And your original post was about "mistaken beliefs" regarding things like the Nephilim. It was not about "susceptibility to sin." Here is a link to that post.

 

[Paul4JC]

In post #58 I gave the source of view 2.

From where does view 1 originate?

I believe in understanding any teaching we need sources from where such teachings come, otherwise, they are hearsay.

 

[BobRyan]

The Bible may give some attention to books like "Enoch" but that doesn't mean they are giving support to the literature as inspired or Scripture. Some accounts contained in that book may have some legitimacy--I build my beliefs on Scripture alone

Amen.

In fact we can say by faith that God Himself preserves inspired scripture - but not such guarantee exists for texts such as the book of Enoch that clearly have no history at all running back 5000 years to the time of the actual Enoch, and even the Jews rejected this as a book not written by an inspired prophet - but written by some unknown source a few centuries before the time of Christ.

 

[BobRyan]

I will say it again. My statement about "immunity to deception" directly relates to my statement that every generation is equally susceptible to error. Since none of us is immune from deception, all generations are equally susceptible to error. Why is this difficult?

Let's take a step past this barrier to further discussion? Why would one generation be less likely to deception in understanding what the Apostles' taught? Well, as you say, those who lived nearer to the time of the Apostles likely heard a purer form of what they actually taught. So their representation of what the Apostles' taught was likely less susceptible to the error of multiple transmissions over time.

So we agree on that. But that was not my argument. My argument was that regardless of the advantage early generations of Christians had in interpreting the Apostles' teachings, they are *all* equally susceptible to error, to sin, to deception. Even those with the greatest proximity to the Apostle John, like the heretic Cerinthus, were equally susceptible to error as anybody else! Please, let's not play words games!

And Paul himself warns his readers in 2 Thess 2:1-4 that fake documents were destined to come out, fake letters, fake books, some claiming to be written by Paul.

 

[Paleouss]

Well, as you say, those who lived nearer to the time of the Apostles likely heard a purer form of what they actually taught. So their representation of what the Apostles' taught was likely less susceptible to the error of multiple transmissions over time.

Hello Randy, great day here. Hope yours is as blessed.

It seems to me that those living closer to the text had advantages that those today do not have.

I hold that all spiritual truth is given by God to whom he pleases, when he pleases and through the Spirit of wisdom. Even though one might live closer to the actual text does not mean God decided to reveal that truth. Regardless, those godly men living closer to the text should always be considered but always tested against the biblical text.

Following the same logic, it would seem those of the Hebrew faith that are closer to the text should understand the text better. For example, the Targum Onkelos is the primary Jewish Aramaic targum of the Torah written in the early second century CE. It interpreted 'sons of God' as men of the generation of the flood (Sotah 3:9a) and not angels. Should the Jewish understanding in this early 2nd century be held as superior? To me, it should be considered and tested against the text.

Additionally, Philo, who lived in the early 1st century calls these 'sons of God' angels in one place, he later called them 'good and excellent men' (Q. Gen. 1.92). So the angel view was far from settled even in the 1st and 2nd century.

May God do a fruitful work through you

 

[Paleouss]

And Paul himself warns his readers in 2 Thess 2:1-4 that fake documents were destined to come out, fake letters, fake books, some claiming to be written by Paul.

As an added, regarding the referrence to some outside writings within the Biblical text. The book of Jude and Peter say nothing about angels procreating with humans. Also, the reference by Jude and Peter in no way suggests that the book of Enoch is inspired and all true, or, that Peter and Enoch think it is all true (this would have to be inferred). Paul, in Acts 17:27-29 quotes the writings of poets. No one thinks these poets writings should be considered as divinely inspired. But that Paul is using a well known saying or concept that relates to a message to connect with the people he is writting too.

 

[RandyPNW]

Hello Randy, great day here. Hope yours is as blessed.

I'm blessed that I have the hope of Eternity. I never know what each day will bring.

It seems to me that those living closer to the text had advantages that those today do not have.

I hold that all spiritual truth is given by God to whom he pleases, when he pleases and through the Spirit of wisdom. Even though one might live closer to the actual text does not mean God decided to reveal that truth. Regardless, those godly men living closer to the text should always be considered but always tested against the biblical text.

I think that's sound wisdom.

Following the same logic, it would seem those of the Hebrew faith that are closer to the text should understand the text better. For example, the Targum Onkelos is the primary Jewish Aramaic targum of the Torah written in the early second century CE. It interpreted 'sons of God' as men of the generation of the flood (Sotah 3:9a) and not angels. Should the Jewish understanding in this early 2nd century be held as superior? To me, it should be considered and tested against the text.

Yes, it should be tested, particularly when you're considering "Jewish" writings. Rabbinic Judaism crucified their biblical interpretations after the advent of Christianity. That should be noted, as well.

Additionally, Philo, who lived in the early 1st century calls these 'sons of God' angels in one place, he later called them 'good and excellent men' (Q. Gen. 1.92). So the angel view was far from settled even in the 1st and 2nd century.

May God do a fruitful work through you

I'm aware that the belief that "sons of God" were "angels" had an early view. But as you suggest, this is not decisive.

I do think "sons of God" can refer to angels, as in Job 1. However, it is a flexible term, which may explain why there is some confusion over Gen 6.

I think though an early period of scrutiny has definite value, in this regard, there are also disadvantages. They didn't have modern methods of study and communication. Fables had easy sway over the masses, who lacked education.

The sexual mix of angels and women sounds very much like a fable, and would likely appeal to popular interest in seedy things like that. Just my opinion.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The Bible assumes the existence of malevolent entities that are, in some sense, hidden from the seen world. But never provides us with anything resembling a clear answer.

I'm fairly content with that. And I'm also content with the traditional Christian view on the subject (i.e. demons = fallen angels)

There is more that I don't know than what I do know. But what is known is relevant for my life here in this world, to follow Jesus, to resist the devil, to hold firm to the promises of God, to know right from wrong, to love my neighbor, to repent, confess my sin, and believe the Gospel.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[BobRyan]

The sexual mix of angels and women sounds very much like a fable, and would likely appeal to popular interest in seedy things like that. Just my opinion.

I recall reading that the Book of Enoch claimed that such births killed the women involved.
The whole thing is a lot of interpolation in at text that could not possibly have been written by the Enoch of 5000 years ago, but at best is a few snips of some of his sayings handed down over time.

 

[Rose_bud]

Hi there

I've been following this thread with much interest. I don't have a set in stone view on either, although I was taught they are the fallen angels.
Also I was also taught that Nephilim were the giants born to the woman and fallen angels, but never that they became disembodied evil spirits, after death.
(I've never had the need to be critical of this particular teachings, thank you it's given me cause for some thinking).

As to the comments that sexual union between spiritual beings and humans was possibly hearsay or stories. I think it could have been a possibility especially considering the Sodom and Gomorrah incident where the men of the town wanted to have sex with men/ angels. Although they in turn were judged for this. There is at least a possibility that if the thought existed to do this wickedness with holy angels, how the not more women with unholy angels?

Also the caution and judgment on sexual immorality may be rooted in things we just glance over...

 

[BobRyan]

Hi there

I've been following this thread with much interest. I don't have a set in stone view on either, although I was taught they are the fallen angels.

yep - that can be shown from the actual Bible

Also I was also taught that Nephilim were the giants born to the woman and fallen angels, but never that they became disembodied evil spirits, after death.

That one is not in the Bible at all.

 

[Rose_bud]

yep - that can be shown from the actual Bible

That one is not in the Bible at all.

Yes, I've read through the thread.
The arguments/agreement for either view.
And the honesty in admitting not much is available to support either view. Hence the OP request.

How often have you heard this preached from a pulpit? as opposed to faith, baptism, salvation. I speculate most preachers avoid this passage in Genesis and skip right over to Noah's ark...

It could be that its not discussed much because, it has not been researched enough or it could be that it's not discussed much because there is not enough information to research.

 

[Paul4JC]

As I already stated you don't have an original source for [(1) Evil spirits are fallen angels)]. So there is no basis for this position.​

​

The main source for [(2) Evil spirits are the disembodied spirits of the Nephilim (the product of fallen angel and human women procreation).] is the Book of 1 Enoch, which the earlier church fathers agreed with.​

Naked Bible 93: The Book of Enoch in the Early Church​

Naked Bible 93: The Book of Enoch in the Early Church

The book we know as 1 Enoch was well known to early Christians. Its importance produced an understandable question among some influential early Christian writers and, one may presume, Christians in general: Should 1 Enoch be considered inspired and thus “Scripture” in the manner of other books...

nakedbiblepodcast.com

The only way to remove the (2) position is to remove the book of 1 Enoch which later church fathers did, without any basis, other than they were uncomfortable with (2).

 

[BobRyan]

As I already stated you don't have an original source for [(1) Evil spirits are fallen angels)].​

We have the Bible for that.

So there is no basis for this position.​

​

The main source for [(2) Evil spirits are the disembodied spirits of the Nephilim ​

That is not the Bible so it is 'no source' for those interested in sola scriptura testing of all doctrine

And Paul himself warns his readers in 2 Thess 2:1-4 that fake documents were destined to come out, fake letters, fake books, some claiming to be written by Paul.

 

[BobRyan]

How often have you heard this preached from a pulpit?

never the book of Enoch

In sola scriptura testing groups this is never used

as opposed to faith, baptism, salvation. I speculate most preachers avoid this passage in Genesis and skip right over to Noah's ark...

oh you mean Genesis 6 -- yep I hear about Gen 6 just about every month from the pulpit.

 

[BobRyan]

Note "Demons" , "Evil spirits" , "Devils" are not mentioned at all in the entire chapter of Genesis 6. That is not what it is about.
=============
Demons are angels who fell:

"Satan and HIS angels" = "the dragon and HIS angels"

2 Peter 3
4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into Tartarus and committed them to pits of darkness, held for judgment; 5 and did not spare the ancient world, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly

Rev 12
3 Then another sign appeared in heaven: and behold, a great red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads were seven crowns. 4 And his tail *swept away a third of the stars of heaven

It is then a case of "Satan and HIS angels" vs the angels of heaven in Rev 12.

7 And there was war in heaven, Michael and his angels waging war with the dragon. The dragon and his angels waged war, 8 and they did not prevail, and there was no longer a place found for them in heaven. 9 And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.

Matthew 25:41: “Then He will say to those on His left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.’”

Matt 12:23 “This man casts out demons only by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons.”
954. Beelzeboul -- Beelzebul, a name of Satan

... 2 Ki 1:2) -- Beelzebul, a title of Satan which stresses he is the prince
over demons . See also 4567 ("Satan").

Matt 10:8 “Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. Freely you received, freely give.

KJV devils: G1140 daimonion
NASB demons: G1140 daimonion