The Unseen Realm Movie

[mikesw]

thank you for all of that. I appreciate the effort, but I read a lot of speculation and extra-biblical sourcing and I do not value either very much.

Let's start simple and basic. Who or What is the adversary (which is what "Satan" means)? Was he ever an angel? Is he a human? If neither, then what is Satan? Use scripture where you can, and use explicit statements from scripture wherever possible. Thanks

I am combining the contributions of various texts together.

Satan means adversary or accuser. He is the adversary or accuser of men. We see this in Job 1:8–12 (ESV)

8And the LORD said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil?”
9Then Satan answered the LORD and said, “Does Job fear God for no reason?
10Have you not put a hedge around him and his house and all that he has, on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land.
11But stretch out your hand and touch all that he has, and he will curse you to your face.”
12And the LORD said to Satan, “Behold, all that he has is in your hand. Only against him do not stretch out your hand.” So Satan went out from the presence of the LORD.

We see Satan in a vision as accuser Zechariah 3:1 (ESV)

1Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him.

He is not an angel. He is not a human. We have him more cunning that any beast of the field in Gen 3:1.

Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made.

That equates him at some level to the beasts of the field. Thus, he is a creature of some equivalence to earth creatures. I can only add that he never seems to be described as having physical qualities and he has survived from the time of the garden. This quality distinguishes Satan from other beasts of the field both that he is mostly is unseen and that he does not have limited existence like the beasts of the field.
Additionally, Satan seems able to possess people but we only see this with Judas (unless perceived to be figurative or not-quite-possessing ).
John 13:27 Then after he had taken the morsel, Satan entered into him. Jesus said to him, “What you are going to do, do quickly." (ESV)

 

[JoshebB]

He is not an angel.

Was he at any point in his existence an angel (a messenger of God).

He is not a human. We have him more cunning that any beast of the field in Gen 3:1.

That equates him at some level to the beasts of the field. Thus, he is a creature of some equivalence to earth creatures. I can only add that he never seems to be described as having physical qualities and he has survived from the time of the garden. This quality distinguishes Satan from other beasts of the field both that he is mostly is unseen and that he does not have limited existence like the beasts of the field.

Hmmm..... okay. Satan is a creature of the earth, equal at some level to the beasts of the field but he does not have physical qualities, is unseen (invisible?), has been alive since Genesis 1, and does not have limited existence (which implies his existence is unlimited).


Do I have that correct?

Additionally, Satan seems able to possess people but we only see this with Judas (unless perceived to be figurative or not-quite-possessing).
John 13:27 Then after he had taken the morsel, Satan entered into him. Jesus said to him, “What you are going to do, do quickly." (ESV)

Okay. He's an invisible earth creature who is equal on some level with the beasts of the field, but he doesn't have physical qualities or a limited existence and he can and has been living a very long time.

Do I have that correct?

 

[mikesw]

Was he at any point in his existence an angel (a messenger of God).

Hmmm..... okay. Satan is a creature of the earth, equal at some level to the beasts of the field but he does not have physical qualities, is unseen (invisible?), has been alive since Genesis 1, and does not have limited existence (which implies his existence is unlimited).


Do I have that correct?

Okay. He's an invisible earth creature who is equal on some level with the beasts of the field, but he doesn't have physical qualities or a limited existence and he can and has been living a very long time.

Do I have that correct?

I don't see anything saying Satan was an angel. My wording was an attempt to clarify that. I do see Gen 3:14 as probably a figurative change of Satan having gotten less heavenly access than he had "before." His existence was more confined to the earth -- in whatever form of existence and capability defined before and after the fall of Adam.

By limited existence, I meant that there is nothing showing he ages or is destroyed by environment or degradation. His existence may be continual in the lake of fire.

As much of scripture I can think of, Satan is unseen except that he can appear as an angel of light. The class of existence is with that of the beasts of the field even though Satan is drastically unique. I do not use the term "living" since the distinctions from living creatures and Satan are too distinct. But some people might call his existence "living." Probable correction: Gen 3:14 “Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life."

You can decide whether your description is correct to what I have clarified.

 

[JoshebB]

I don't see anything saying Satan was an angel.

Thank you for that answer.

By limited existence, I meant that there is nothing showing he ages or is destroyed by environment or degradation. His existence may be continual in the lake of fire.

So time the conditions of time or cause-and-effect do not apply to him but the conditions of space do? Not only does he have a unique relationship with time and space, but he is not mortal (he will survive the fiery lake that is so lethal it destroys death).

Do I have those two points correctly understood?

What do you make of Jude 1's statement, "And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day"? Who would you say are these abode-abandoning, darkness-bound, judgment-awaiting angels? Is there any relationship, or correlation, between them and Satan? If so, what would that be?

Again, wherever possible, please use scripture to answer the questions asked and, wherever possible, please use explicit statements from scripture. Thanks

As much of scripture I can think of, Satan is unseen except that he can appear as an angel of light.

I assume that is intended to mean he is unseen by humans. What is it you think an "angel of light" is? For example, Jesus speaks of occasions when humans have unwittingly entertained angels and there are several accounts of humans interacting with angels (messengers of God) that are, presumably, "angels of light." Where the angels with whom Gideon spoke, for example, angels of light? If so, would it then be reasonable to say Satan could appear as an angel of light similar in appearance to one of those scriptural examples? Similarly, the author of Hebrews directs the saint to show hospitality because "by this some have entertained angels without knowing it." Presumably, those who've shown hospitality to angels visibly saw the angels to whom they were being hospitable unawares. Would those angels qualify as angels of light? Is it possible for Satan to appear as one of them?

The class of existence is with that of the beasts of the field even though Satan is drastically unique.

That is apparent from the assertions of these posts.

I do not use the term "living" since the distinctions from living creatures and Satan are too distinct.

I'd like to read more about that but think that explanation will be digressive. I wonder how a creature can exist and not be alive, possess thoughts, volition, and self-directed behavior and not be alive. I wonder how there might be an alternative to living other than dead, and what that third condition might be. For now, I think it best to stick to the basics.

But some people might call his existence "living." Probable correction: Gen 3:14 “Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life."

That is a post-created condition stated in a post-disobedient world about post-disobedient conditions. There's not a single word in that verse that applies to Satan prior to Genesis 3:14. In other words, that is an extremely bad mistake in exegesis.

Perhaps some clarification about this point is in order. Are you describing Satan as He is...... assuming some kind immutability on his part? The implication of Genesis 3:14 is that prior to God's statement in that verse, Satan, the serpent, did not "on his belly he shall go," and did not previously eat dust. In other words, that verse describes a before-and-after. Before verse 14 Satan did not go about on his belly and ate something other than dust (or did not eat at all). By extension, this means that Satan and the conditions of his non-life existence changed - he is not as he has previously been.

You can decide whether your description is correct to what I have clarified.

Of course. If I find the evidence persuasive a sound reflection of God's word, and a reasonable and rational case for the position asserted I may be persuaded. That goes without saying. Because only you can make the case for what you believe I hope you'll continue to elaborate the case being asserted.

Would you like me to bullet-list the Satan-relevant questions I've asked, or can they be answered as asked?

 

[mikesw]

Thank you for that answer.

So time the conditions of time or cause-and-effect do not apply to him but the conditions of space do? Not only does he have a unique relationship with time and space, but he is not mortal (he will survive the fiery lake that is so lethal it destroys death).

Do I have those two points correctly understood?

Mostly true. Since Satan appears in Genesis and Revelation he appears not to be affected by time or deterioration. I infer that he is not omnipresent. Jesus speaks of the spirit looking for a place of rest. Satan seems somewhat equivalent and was said to enter Judas. So omnipresence does not seem to be an attribute of Satan.
Luke 11:24 When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest; and finding none, he saith, I will return unto my house whence I came out.

But Satan appears to be unique in existence (as seen in Genesis 3) but also unique (singular) in punishment.
Revelation 20:10 (ESV) and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

What do you make of Jude 1's statement, "And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day"? Who would you say are these abode-abandoning, darkness-bound, judgment-awaiting angels? Is there any relationship, or correlation, between them and Satan? If so, what would that be?

Again, wherever possible, please use scripture to answer the questions asked and, wherever possible, please use explicit statements from scripture. Thanks

I just shared Rev 20:10 that speaks of Satan's demise. This does not talk about demons, angels, or spirits. So, it makes sense to find a distinction between Satan and the angels in view in Jude 1. Noticeable also is that Isa 14 would tend to speak of a falling later in time than Genesis 3 and thus could not refer to Satan.
For example we see Isaiah 14:12–13 (ESV)
12“How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low!
13You said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God I will set my throne on high; I will sit on the mount of assembly in the far reaches of the north;
Although the King of Babylon laid nations low (conquered them), Satan was possibly/probably promoting nations and their influence against the people of God. Roughly in view here is Rom 16:20 "The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you." and Rev 20: 7-8a "And when the thousand years are ended, Satan will be released from his prison 8 and will come out to deceive the nations that are at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them for battle"

I assume that is intended to mean he is unseen by humans.

Sure. He appears to be more like an unclean spirit and thus mainly existing as unseen. Obviously he was seen at that moment in the garden in some fashion when speaking to the woman. It sort of seems he was seen when challenging Job's faith before God. Likewise, it seems possible that Jesus saw him during these temptations of Luke 4:1-13.

What is it you think an "angel of light" is? For example, Jesus speaks of occasions when humans have unwittingly entertained angels and there are several accounts of humans interacting with angels (messengers of God) that are, presumably, "angels of light." Where the angels with whom Gideon spoke, for example, angels of light? If so, would it then be reasonable to say Satan could appear as an angel of light similar in appearance to one of those scriptural examples? Similarly, the author of Hebrews directs the saint to show hospitality because "by this some have entertained angels without knowing it." Presumably, those who've shown hospitality to angels visibly saw the angels to whom they were being hospitable unawares. Would those angels qualify as angels of light? Is it possible for Satan to appear as one of them?

I'm not sure why the long point is made here. Obviously scriptures show God's angels appearing at times. Sometimes this appears to be Christ but there are times that it may be angels that serve God. Of course any angel of God would be a true angel of light.
Matthew 1:20 (NKJV) But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.

Gideon per Judges 6:11ff sees and encounters "an angel of the Lord" visibly who turns out to be our Lord. Obviously this appearance is something God can do. In Hebrews it may largely have these type of visits in mind. I'm not sure of general angels getting hospitality. There is the angel that appeared before Balaam. Peter was awakened by the angel of the Lord (Acts 12:7)

Paul obviously introduces that Satan has appeared looking like an angel arriving for a good purpose
2 Co 11:14–15.And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 15 So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.

Paul could have heard of situations that would fit this description. We could both likely identify some accounts we would identify as Satan doing so. This does not convince me that Satan has to be visible all the time. It just means some misguided people like saw Satan and thought he was giving them useful advice but was actually evil instruction. Paul used this as analogy of caution against people with a destructive message.

That is apparent from the assertions of these posts.

I'd like to read more about that but think that explanation will be digressive. I wonder how a creature can exist and not be alive, possess thoughts, volition, and self-directed behavior and not be alive. I wonder how there might be an alternative to living other than dead, and what that third condition might be. For now, I think it best to stick to the basics.

I basically corrected myself based on scripture saying Satan is alive per Gen 3:14. The other option is that the serpent refers to an actual animal we would have seen in the forest but was possessed. But that is not likely. We can consider him alive in the sense of having an intellect and of acting on his thoughts.

That is a post-created condition stated in a post-disobedient world about post-disobedient conditions. There's not a single word in that verse that applies to Satan prior to Genesis 3:14. In other words, that is an extremely bad mistake in exegesis.

We see in this verse that Satan was cursed only after deceiving the woman not for some pre-creation act. Nothing says Satan was cursed because of a rebellion in heaven. He would already be cursed for being cast down if that were the case. As to any pre-creation, I have rejected that based on Isa 14 speaking of the middle of time. Plus, no text in scripture says Satan rebelled unless I missed that text.

Perhaps some clarification about this point is in order. Are you describing Satan as He is...... assuming some kind immutability on his part? The implication of Genesis 3:14 is that prior to God's statement in that verse, Satan, the serpent, did not "on his belly he shall go," and did not previously eat dust. In other words, that verse describes a before-and-after. Before verse 14 Satan did not go about on his belly and ate something other than dust (or did not eat at all). By extension, this means that Satan and the conditions of his non-life existence changed - he is not as he has previously been.

I see no indication that Satan is an angel. He only can make himself appear such that some wicked-inclined (or misinformed) people figure he is giving them a good message. Next, I do not see how Satan could be unchangeable since God obvious changed him in Gen 3:14. The description appears to me to be analogical. So this appears to be hampering of Satan's mobility, perhaps between heaven and earth, but there is nothing to say he had been an angel before God. My point was not that Satan's existence could not be modified but rather that he does not exist as flesh and blood that could decay.

Of course. If I find the evidence persuasive a sound reflection of God's word, and a reasonable and rational case for the position asserted I may be persuaded. That goes without saying. Because only you can make the case for what you believe I hope you'll continue to elaborate the case being asserted.

Would you like me to bullet-list the Satan-relevant questions I've asked, or can they be answered as asked?

Hope this helps. It takes possibly a couple hours to write out the answers and gathering some verses.

 

[mikesw]

It is interesting about Jude 5–6 (ESV)
5Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.
6And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day—

The point about angels appears after the mention of Jesus saving the people out of Egypt. As such, if this is a true event or one just of common culture, we have no solid information in the bible to clarify anything. One commentary notes
"Jude does not necessarily endorse its truth; he does, however, like any shrewd preacher, use the current language and thought forms of his day in order to bring home to his readers, in terms highly significant to them, the perils of lust and pride" {Michael Green, 2 Peter and Jude: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 18, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1987), 191.}

 

[mikesw]

It is interesting about Jude 5–6 (ESV)
5Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.
6And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day—

The point about angels appears after the mention of Jesus saving the people out of Egypt. As such, if this is a true event or one just of common culture, we have no solid information in the bible to clarify anything. One commentary notes
"Jude does not necessarily endorse its truth; he does, however, like any shrewd preacher, use the current language and thought forms of his day in order to bring home to his readers, in terms highly significant to them, the perils of lust and pride" {Michael Green, 2 Peter and Jude: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 18, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1987), 191.}

I should have included that the commentary pertains to verse 6

 

[JoshebB]

Mostly true. Since Satan appears in Genesis and Revelation he appears not to be affected by time or deterioration............ But Satan appears to be unique in existence (as seen in Genesis 3) but also unique (singular) in punishment.

Is Satan the only creature of his kind?

Revelation 20:10 (ESV) and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.


I just shared Rev 20:10 that speaks of Satan's demise. This does not talk about demons, angels, or spirits. So, it makes sense to find a distinction between Satan and the angels in view in Jude 1.

Then Jude 1 has nothing to do with Satan because the Jude 1 text twice explicitly specifies angels. Is that correct?

Noticeable also is that Isa 14 would tend to speak of a falling later in time than Genesis 3 and thus could not refer to Satan.

I do not see that in the Isaiah 14 text. What is it that leads you to conclude Isaiah 14 is only about a post-Eden event?

For example we see Isaiah 14:12–13 (ESV)
12“How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low!
13You said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God I will set my throne on high; I will sit on the mount of assembly in the far reaches of the north;
Although the King of Babylon laid nations low (conquered them), Satan was possibly/probably promoting nations and their influence against the people of God. Roughly in view here is Rom 16:20 "The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you." and Rev 20: 7-8a "And when the thousand years are ended, Satan will be released from his prison 8 and will come out to deceive the nations that are at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them for battle"

I see nothing there indicating a fall that can be only post-Eden. Let me also observe the recurring introduction of eschatology into the discussion. I am not currently interested in any eschatological aspects relevant to Satan. I am only trying to grasp your understanding of Satan's ontology. Nothing more. broaching non-ontological content obfuscates the conversation. On any occasion where I may ask about a passage that contains eschatological content it is not the eschatology that I am asking about. It is the ontology of Satan we're discussing. For example, Jude 1 specifies angels. If Satan is not an angel, then he cannot be one of the angels who did not keep their proper abode. Likewise, if Satan is not an angel, then he's not among the angels who've been held in bonds of eternal darkness.

My inquiry has nothing to do with eschatology.

Sure.

Thank you for the succinct answer. Satan is not an angel, but he can appear as one. Ontologically speaking, he can appear as an angel of light.

I'm not sure why the long point is made here.

It was claimed Satan "is mostly unseen" and "does not have limited existence like the beasts of the field," even though he is a beast of the field. I am not asking about the faculties of angels or Jesus. We're discussing the nature of Satan. Nothing more.

Paul obviously introduces that Satan has appeared looking like an angel arriving for a good purpose.

Yes, Satan can appear looking like an angel, an angel of light, but he is not an angel. He is a beast of the field whose existence is not limited like the other beasts. That his teleology may be good (he serves God's purpose) is not a matter in dispute.

I basically corrected myself based on scripture saying Satan is alive per Gen 3:14.

And I greatly appreciate both the self-correction and those who have enough integrity to do so. Let's pin it down:

Satan exists and is alive. Yes?

The other option is that the serpent refers to an actual animal we would have seen in the forest but was possessed.

Scripture elsewhere tells us the identity of Eden's serpent.

Revelation 12:9
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.

According to that verse,

1. Satan is the "serpent of old."
2. Satan was thrown down to earth.
3. Satan has angels that are his.
4. His angels were thrown down to earth with him.

Yes?

I see no indication that Satan is an angel.

I do not read anyone saying Satan is an angel. The question is, "Was he ever an angel?"

If I have understood the posts correctly, then your answer is, no, Satan was never an angel; he is a unique beast of the field who is not have limited existence like the other beasts. He is not and was not ever an angel, although he can appear as one.

My point was not that Satan's existence could not be modified but rather that he does not exist as flesh and blood that could decay.

Does he have any kind of flesh? Let me clarify that question because I mean does he have any kind of a material body. Humans have matter. We all have bodies of matter. Every animal on the planet also has a material body of matter. Angels have bodies; they have mass, the have matter. Angels, apparently, also have the ability to alter there material state. One day we, too, will be changed, but we will still have bodies. The resurrected Jesus had a body, a resurrected body, and his body could appear and disappear, have one appearance in one moment and another appearance in another moment. It could walk through walls, and it had enough mass that it retained the wounds suffered at Calvary and it could be touched physically by the humans in the room. In point of fact, there is no such thing as a bodiless soul or a bodiless spirit in the entire Bible. If a spirit can be seen then it has mass.

I do not want to get lost in the weeds here. I am not asking about the physics of earthly versus heavenly life. I am specifically asking about the assertion Satan does not exist as flesh and blood that could decay. If he doesn't have flesh and blood, does he have any kind of flesh (materialness) at all?


Are you aware that the word most commonly used for "destruction" in the New Testament means decay or rot?

Galatians 6:8
Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.

The Greek word there for "destruction" is "phthoran," which means decay, rot, or decomposing. It's the same word Jesus and the New Testament writers use for the consequences of the final judgment (in which Satan would be included).

Hope this helps. It takes possibly a couple hours to write out the answers and gathering some verses.

No worries. You're doing well. For the most part the specific questions asked are being answered. Patience and forbearance with my many inquiries is evident in the posts. The ability to self-correct is observable. Neither my posts nor me personally have been dismissed or attacked.

I commend your example, @mikesw, and hope everyone lurking takes note and learns from it.

Don't muck it up .


In review:

• Satan is not and never was an angel.
• Satan is like a beast of the field who is alive BUT his existence is not limited like the other beasts.
• Satan can transcend time, but not space.
• Satan is not among the angels mentioned in Jude 1.
• Satan has no flesh and blood (?) that can decay.
• Isaiah 14 is not about Isaiah and if that text has anything to do with Satan, then it is only a post-Eden event.

Is that correct? Did I leave anything out? Let me know (just put it in bullet points, but try to stick to ontology, not teleology).

Can you address the facts of Revelation 12:9 and the four bullet points thereof?
Can you address the fact decay is one of the inevitabilities cited in the last judgment of all creatures (which would, logically, include Satan since he is a created creature)?


Thanks

 

[mikesw]

Is Satan the only creature of his kind?

Then Jude 1 has nothing to do with Satan because the Jude 1 text twice explicitly specifies angels. Is that correct?

I do not see that in the Isaiah 14 text. What is it that leads you to conclude Isaiah 14 is only about a post-Eden event?
....

Can you address the facts of Revelation 12:9 and the four bullet points thereof?
Can you address the fact decay is one of the inevitabilities cited in the last judgment of all creatures (which would, logically, include Satan since he is a created creature)?


Thanks

Where are people to help answer these questions?

I'm kidding. I am sharing what I have gleaned/inferred/synthesized from scripture. I will try not to get to this quickly since I need to work on my project too.
The little bit of inconsistency was that you did not want eschatological issues included but then you brought in Rev 12:9. That's fine. Ask what you need, but fewer questions are better.

 

[JoshebB]

Where are people to help answer these questions?

I suspect most of them have views different than yours, so they cannot aid you in answering my questions about your position. Only you can explain your views. Our conversation is one-sided. I have not offered an alternate satanic ontology. I may not do so in this thread. Our conversation started solely because I am curious about statements you made relevant to this op and, as I said, only you can elaborate on your views. It would be inappropriate for others to speak on your behalf unless they share your specific point of view. I'd push back on anyone presuming to speak for you who does not share the same pov.

I'm kidding. I am sharing what I have gleaned/inferred/synthesized from scripture.

Yes, I understand the levity and the effort. I appreciate both.

I will try not to get to this quickly since I need to work on my project too.

Take your time. The thread is not going anywhere. One of the wonderful things about text-based media is that the posts don't go anywhere. We can pick up a conversation whenever time and inclination permit. I've got another conversation going on with someone in another forum where we've been discussing Covenant Theology and possible covenant-based alternatives. That conversation has been going on for two or three weeks with breaks between posts due to our schedules and availability.

Take your time.

The little bit of inconsistency was that you did not want eschatological issues included but then you brought in Rev 12:9.

I did not bring up Rev. 12:9 eschatologically. I brought it up ontologically. If I was not clear when I first did so the matter has since been clarified. That verse makes several existential and ontological statements about Satan. I would like to know if those points have been considered and, if so, how do they figure in with the statements already made about Satan?

That's fine. Ask what you need, but fewer questions are better.

I have asked what I wanted to ask, and fewer questions have proved not to be possible because the assertions made about Satan beg further inquiry. For example, it was asserted Satan is like a beast of the field but unique in at least three specific, specified ways. That alone could prompt a very long list of questions. I have, in fact, kept those questions few. Scripture states quite a lot about the "beasts of the field," and were I to unpack all of that scripture and apply it to what's been said about Satan we'd be here for a very long time (or until you tired of my inquiries and having to explain yourself). Similarly, the three specific areas of uniqueness could have a lot of scripture brought to bear on them but I, again, have already limited my inquiries in both number and substance. I want to understand the basics, not every detail of your position. Likewise, I am sure you can understand all the questions that could be prompted from Satan being like a beast of the field who is not an angel but has his angels. Perhaps we won't get to any of those lines of inquiry, but they are natural avenues of inquiry given the intersection of the posts with scripture.



Right now, what I am asking is whether or not I have correctly understood what's been posted so far, how you factor in the ontology asserted in Rev. 12:9, whether or not you're knowledgeable regarding the decay scripture speaks about because it was claimed Satan's body does not or cannot decay, and what it is in Isaiah 14 that leads you to think the passage is only post-Edenic.

In review:

• Satan is not and never was an angel.
• Satan is like a beast of the field who is alive BUT his existence is not limited like the other beasts.
• Satan can transcend time, but not space.
• Satan is not among the angels mentioned in Jude 1.
• Satan has no flesh and blood (?) that can decay.
• Isaiah 14 is not about Isaiah and if that text has anything to do with Satan, then it is only a post-Eden event.

Is that correct? Did I leave anything out? Let me know (just put it in bullet points, but try to stick to ontology, not teleology).

Can you address the facts of Revelation 12:9 and the four bullet points thereof? According to that verse,

1. Satan is the "serpent of old."
2. Satan was thrown down to earth.
3. Satan has angels that are his.
4. His angels were thrown down to earth with him.

Yes?

Can you also address the fact decay is one of the inevitabilities cited in the last judgment of all creatures (which would, logically, include Satan since he is a created creature)? What it is in Isaiah 14 that leads you to think the passage is only post-Edenic.

That is four questions. The first might be answered in a single word. Maybe a couple of bullet points. The second inquiry has four parts so that might be an answer of some length, but it might not be. The third and fourth inquiries can be answered, one way or the other, in a few words as well. None of the inquiries is particularly complicated and no will is intended with any of them.

If you would like me to prioritize the inquiries, then I would like an answer to the four statements Revelation 12:9 makes about Satan, relevant to what you've already posted. The rest is less important (as long as I have correctly understood what's been posted so far).



Take your time. If it helps, think of yourself as a teacher and I your student, a student who wants to understand your position when it comes to the identity and nature of Satan. I check the forum daily, and if I don't see anything today, tomorrow, or the next, that's okay. Post when time and inclination permit. No hurry.

Blessings,

J~

 

[JoshebB]

@mikesw,

Here's the short version of what I'd currently like to know most. It's the Rev. 12 content.

Can you address the facts of Revelation 12:9 and the four bullet points thereof? According to that verse,

1. Satan is the "serpent of old."
2. Satan was thrown down to earth.
3. Satan has angels that are his.
4. His angels were thrown down to earth with him.

Yes?

 

[mikesw]

@mikesw,

Here's the short version of what I'd currently like to know most. It's the Rev. 12 content.

Can you address the facts of Revelation 12:9 and the four bullet points thereof? According to that verse,

1. Satan is the "serpent of old."
2. Satan was thrown down to earth.
3. Satan has angels that are his.
4. His angels were thrown down to earth with him.

Yes?

Here's a view of Rev 12:7-12 I pretty much agree with. It is the introduction to what I would say. I was listening to it again just now.

This event is tied with Christ's resurrection and the transition to his influence and power over the earth. The text utilizes apocalyptic imagery and symbolism to describe Satan's actions and the struggles of people on earth. This is Satan's last stand to prevent Christ's work from taking hold on the earth.

1. Satan is the "serpent of old."
The designation of serpent is symbolic or analogical. I think the imagery of actual threatening creatures are used to give us a physical association of the operation of Satan. Plus, he likely appeared as a physical serpent either because he chose this appearance or he possessed the creature. We could imagine Satan with an shape similar to people based on some descriptions of angels.

2. Satan was thrown down to earth.
This happens after Christ's resurrection and represents Satan's loss of power and deception over nations.

3. Satan has angels that are his.
The main point to note here is that an angel is a messenger to someone. It does not make the best sense to say that Satan is a messenger if he is a messenger. I use "messenger" just to make the distinction in this argument but not to identify the function of angels

4. His angels were thrown down to earth with him.
This means that all who were under Satan's deception and influence (over the nations and leaders) was moved from their lofty positions to come against Christ and the Christians. We can include the leadership in Jerusalem among those. Demons could be more active at this early time after Christ's resurrection, but they would seem to have lacked any lofty leadership role.

I would not claim this text against a possible concept of a heavenly presence of Satan at some point in time. But the idea of heavens mainly would refer to his lofty or "high" role of influence over nations in a mostly invisible sense.

If we were to align this text with popular lore then the devil and angelic figures are cast down after Christ's resurrection but this is after they had been cast down from heaven before Satan deceived the woman in the garden. Then Isa 14 would have Satan cast down after having influence over the nations (Isa 14:12) -- but without mention of angels being cast down

 

[civic]

Is Satan the only creature of his kind?

Then Jude 1 has nothing to do with Satan because the Jude 1 text twice explicitly specifies angels. Is that correct?

I do not see that in the Isaiah 14 text. What is it that leads you to conclude Isaiah 14 is only about a post-Eden event?

I see nothing there indicating a fall that can be only post-Eden. Let me also observe the recurring introduction of eschatology into the discussion. I am not currently interested in any eschatological aspects relevant to Satan. I am only trying to grasp your understanding of Satan's ontology. Nothing more. broaching non-ontological content obfuscates the conversation. On any occasion where I may ask about a passage that contains eschatological content it is not the eschatology that I am asking about. It is the ontology of Satan we're discussing. For example, Jude 1 specifies angels. If Satan is not an angel, then he cannot be one of the angels who did not keep their proper abode. Likewise, if Satan is not an angel, then he's not among the angels who've been held in bonds of eternal darkness.

My inquiry has nothing to do with eschatology.

Thank you for the succinct answer. Satan is not an angel, but he can appear as one. Ontologically speaking, he can appear as an angel of light.

It was claimed Satan "is mostly unseen" and "does not have limited existence like the beasts of the field," even though he is a beast of the field. I am not asking about the faculties of angels or Jesus. We're discussing the nature of Satan. Nothing more.

Yes, Satan can appear looking like an angel, an angel of light, but he is not an angel. He is a beast of the field whose existence is not limited like the other beasts. That his teleology may be good (he serves God's purpose) is not a matter in dispute.

And I greatly appreciate both the self-correction and those who have enough integrity to do so. Let's pin it down:

Satan exists and is alive. Yes?

Scripture elsewhere tells us the identity of Eden's serpent.

Revelation 12:9
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.

According to that verse,

1. Satan is the "serpent of old."
2. Satan was thrown down to earth.
3. Satan has angels that are his.
4. His angels were thrown down to earth with him.

Yes?




I do not read anyone saying Satan is an angel. The question is, "Was he ever an angel?"

If I have understood the posts correctly, then your answer is, no, Satan was never an angel; he is a unique beast of the field who is not have limited existence like the other beasts. He is not and was not ever an angel, although he can appear as one.

Does he have any kind of flesh? Let me clarify that question because I mean does he have any kind of a material body. Humans have matter. We all have bodies of matter. Every animal on the planet also has a material body of matter. Angels have bodies; they have mass, the have matter. Angels, apparently, also have the ability to alter there material state. One day we, too, will be changed, but we will still have bodies. The resurrected Jesus had a body, a resurrected body, and his body could appear and disappear, have one appearance in one moment and another appearance in another moment. It could walk through walls, and it had enough mass that it retained the wounds suffered at Calvary and it could be touched physically by the humans in the room. In point of fact, there is no such thing as a bodiless soul or a bodiless spirit in the entire Bible. If a spirit can be seen then it has mass.

I do not want to get lost in the weeds here. I am not asking about the physics of earthly versus heavenly life. I am specifically asking about the assertion Satan does not exist as flesh and blood that could decay. If he doesn't have flesh and blood, does he have any kind of flesh (materialness) at all?


Are you aware that the word most commonly used for "destruction" in the New Testament means decay or rot?

Galatians 6:8
Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.

The Greek word there for "destruction" is "phthoran," which means decay, rot, or decomposing. It's the same word Jesus and the New Testament writers use for the consequences of the final judgment (in which Satan would be included).

No worries. You're doing well. For the most part the specific questions asked are being answered. Patience and forbearance with my many inquiries is evident in the posts. The ability to self-correct is observable. Neither my posts nor me personally have been dismissed or attacked.

I commend your example, @mikesw, and hope everyone lurking takes note and learns from it.

Don't muck it up .


In review:

• Satan is not and never was an angel.
• Satan is like a beast of the field who is alive BUT his existence is not limited like the other beasts.
• Satan can transcend time, but not space.
• Satan is not among the angels mentioned in Jude 1.
• Satan has no flesh and blood (?) that can decay.
• Isaiah 14 is not about Isaiah and if that text has anything to do with Satan, then it is only a post-Eden event.

Is that correct? Did I leave anything out? Let me know (just put it in bullet points, but try to stick to ontology, not teleology).

Can you address the facts of Revelation 12:9 and the four bullet points thereof?
Can you address the fact decay is one of the inevitabilities cited in the last judgment of all creatures (which would, logically, include Satan since he is a created creature)?


Thanks

What do you think "ontologically " satan is then ?
You have said what He is not, but what is he ?

 

[mikesw]

What do you think "ontologically " satan is then ?
You have said what He is not, but what is he ?

Thus far he seems to convey that Satan exists or existed as an angel in heaven. His questions reflect the idea of angels being alive and having bodies. In the sense of being able to think and act, they would be living. But he does seem to say that Satan's "body" can deteriorate like flesh and blood bodies.
I also infer that angels have bodies but not physical ones except as necessary to appear before people. The imagery of them with bodies would be appropriate for them as having limited presence around the physical creation. Satan could be of the same constraints while only being a creature of the earth.
The description of him is rather difficult to achieve since it is hard to imagine how the "unseen realm" intersects with the physical creation.

 

[JoshebB]

Here's a view of Rev 12:7-12 I pretty much agree with. It is the introduction to what I would say. I was listening to it again just now.

This event is tied with Christ's resurrection and the transition to his influence and power over the earth. The text utilizes apocalyptic imagery and symbolism to describe Satan's actions and the struggles of people on earth. This is Satan's last stand to prevent Christ's work from taking hold on the earth.

1. Satan is the "serpent of old."
The designation of serpent is symbolic or analogical. I think the imagery of actual threatening creatures are used to give us a physical association of the operation of Satan. Plus, he likely appeared as a physical serpent either because he chose this appearance or he possessed the creature. We could imagine Satan with an shape similar to people based on some descriptions of angels.

2. Satan was thrown down to earth.
This happens after Christ's resurrection and represents Satan's loss of power and deception over nations.

3. Satan has angels that are his.
The main point to note here is that an angel is a messenger to someone. It does not make the best sense to say that Satan is a messenger if he is a messenger. I use "messenger" just to make the distinction in this argument but not to identify the function of angels

4. His angels were thrown down to earth with him.
This means that all who were under Satan's deception and influence (over the nations and leaders) was moved from their lofty positions to come against Christ and the Christians. We can include the leadership in Jerusalem among those. Demons could be more active at this early time after Christ's resurrection, but they would seem to have lacked any lofty leadership role.

I would not claim this text against a possible concept of a heavenly presence of Satan at some point in time. But the idea of heavens mainly would refer to his lofty or "high" role of influence over nations in a mostly invisible sense.

If we were to align this text with popular lore then the devil and angelic figures are cast down after Christ's resurrection but this is after they had been cast down from heaven before Satan deceived the woman in the garden. Then Isa 14 would have Satan cast down after having influence over the nations (Isa 14:12) -- but without mention of angels being cast down

These posts show a chronic practice of adding your own thoughts and interpretations to scripture. It causes me to wonder whether you believe scripture as written. I do not mean to offend. I hope those statements will prompt you to reconsider your own views because of the frequent personal interpretations added to scripture, the repeated inconsistencies with some of the plainest statements in scripture, and the inconsistencies in the posts themselves. I have already witnessed one amendment, so I know you possess the ability for self-reflection and self-correction.

1. Whether symbolic or analogical, the reference to the serpent of old is a symbol, or an analogy, of someone who is very real, namely Satan. The verse explicitly states Satan is the serpent of old. How many serpents were there "of old"? Which would be the first "serpent of old"? The text explicitly states the serpent, not a serpent. The first serpent ever mentioned in the Bible is the serpent in Eden. Other serpents are mentioned but none of them fit the description of Satan provided throughout the whole of scripture.
2. Satan was already thrown down long before Calvary. You have already stated Jesus' observance of Satan falling from heaven was either a post-garden event or occurred when the apostles were sent out to preach. Neither view would be consistent with his being cast down after Jesus' resurrection. Furthermore, the view asserted in Post 52 does not change the facts the Revelation 12:9 Satan is thrown down from heaven. Verse 7 explicitly states there is a war, and the war is in heaven. The war that occurs in heaven is with Satan and his angels (messengers) on one side, and Michael and his angels on the other side. It is from heaven that Satan is thrown down. It is from heaven that the creature like the earthly beast of the field is thrown down. We might think, for a moment, that this is a post-Calvary event because verse 10 declares salvation has come, and salvation came with the incarnation of Jesus. However, verse 13 explicitly states when Satan was thrown down, he persecuted the woman who gave birth to her male child. Is this male child thought to be a reference to someone other than Jesus? Someone born after Jesus' resurrection? If so then who would that be? Who is it that was born after the resurrection that scripture identifies as the persecuted male child? If verse 13 is a reference to Mary and Jesus then the Satan's being thrown down happened before the resurrection, before Jesus' death on Calvary, before he began his earthly ministry (which is what this video states). In other words, your timeline is incorrect and inconsistent with the video you've asserted as veracious (why would I be asked to view a video you then contradict or dispute?).
3. Yes, the word "angel," literally means "messengers." There are heavenly messengers and there are earthly messengers. Michael has messengers. Moses had messengers. The apostles and other evangelists could also be called messengers. Context generally implicitly tells whether a messenger, or "angel," is heavenly or earthly because human messengers cannot do things heavenly, or angelic, messengers can do. Human messengers cannot, for example, literally cause a person's descendants to multiply. Human messengers cannot suddenly and instantly transport a person from the wilderness to the top of the temple, or possess a person causing them to have seizures. Satan has messengers, and he and his messengers can do things humans and the other beasts of the field cannot do. One of the things Satan and his angels can do is wage war in heaven.
4. Why is it necessary to abandon what is stated exactly as written, ignore the first rule of exegesis (and Occam's Razor), and adda very figurative interpretation when the verse Satan's being thrown down can be understood as a simple matter of geography. The war is in heaven. Satan is defeated and thrown down. The war is explicitly stated to occur in heaven, not Jerusalem. You either mean the city of Jerusalem here on earth, which would directly contradict verse 7, or the new Jerusalem, the heavenly city which begs a variety of questions like how does an earthly creature wage war in heaven against the heavenly city here the attributes of chapter 21 apply? And how are there demons in heaven? What are these demons, because if they are angels that did not keep their proper abode then they're already bound. How did those that are bound manage to wage a war in heaven?

The text states what the text states and the first rule of exegesis is to read the text of scripture exactly as written unless there is something in the surrounding text that gives reason to do otherwise. Another basic rule of proper exegesis is to first use scripture to render scripture. So when a verse states Satan is the serpent of old the statement should be read exactly as written and if there is any figurative, symbolic, analogical, allegorical, or connotative meaning to be attached then that would be dependent on the surrounding text indicating that condition and it would be other scripture that informs and explains the additional meaning (not our extra-biblical, man-made doctrines). The war is in heaven. This is very important because throughout the entirety of Revelation many things are said to occur on earth and many things are said to occur in heaven. One of the most alarming (and divisive) facts of Revelation is that Jesus is NEVER explicitly stated to physically be on earth until chapter 21. He is not ever said to physically be on earth in chapters 19 or 20. About a third of Protestant Christianity believes something that is nowhere stated in God's word.... AND they deny what is stated because it isn't until chapter 21 that Jesus is explicitly reported to come to earth. Jesus is in heaven, from which he commands a lot of things, some of which stated to occur in heaven, and some of which are stated to occur on earth. There is a war on earth. The kings of the earth wage it. There is also a war in heaven.

Or at least that is what the text explicitly states.

In Revelation 12, a book that is acknowledged to be filled with figurative language that can be correctly understood only by consulting other scripture, Satan, the serpent of old, wages a war in heaven. It's not a war with heaven; it's a war in heaven. Huge difference between "with" and "in".

Somehow.... it is an earthly creature that does this; a creature that is like the beasts of the field, according to you. You seem to realize there are inherent problems with that position so there is a need to say he is unique and qualify some of his eccentricities. The end result is that he becomes so unique there is only one like him and he is so powerful that he can transcend time but not space. He can roam the earth and wage war in heaven.

Two last points about Satan that haven't come up. I'll broach them succinctly and perhaps we can discuss them if you think them worthy. The first is the fact that Satan is a sinner. He, as a liar, has disobeyed God and is, therefore, subject to the consequences of sin that are stated in scripture. He is dead in sin. The wages of sin is death. He, therefore, has all the conditions and attributes of sin's effect on a creature. The second is that although the scriptures repeatedly speak of "war" and conflict the simple truth of the matter is that The Creator is omni-attributed and almighty. It is, therefore, literally impossible to wage any war against him for a fraction of a nanosecond longer than He permits. God is so powerful that He can speak out of existence anyone who tries to resist Him in the slightest. So powerful is that ability that all memory of the individual's or group's existence could be wiped from the memory of all. It would be as if they never existed in the first place. In other words, given the omni-attributed God, all mentions of war, rebellion, or any other kind of conflict should be understood as someone trying to blow spit wads through a straw at a nuclear explosion at the point of the blast. The blast doesn't even know you're there. It incinerates you instantly and all record of your existence is eradicated. Therefore, everything scripture says about war has a context to it that occurs in addition to the fact of God's almighty might and sovereignty.

Satan is a minion.

 

[JoshebB]

Here's a view of Rev 12:7-12 I pretty much agree with.

I find a lot to agree with in the video (although I have not yet watched it in its entirety. I am encouraged you find Gore, a Reformed-influence, Presbyterian who appears to be an amillennial Idealist (I didn't find anything in my brief search that specified his eschatological pov) informative. I also find some veracity to what you've said about Satan, but very little. There's too much speculation for one thing. I hesitate to go far afield of the op but when I have time perhaps I will post an alternative view of Satan relevant to Heiser's Unsen Realm and we can switch roles, and you can ask me any questions you like .

 

[mikesw]

Satan is a minion.

This is the part I find most confounding. I just cannot see Satan looking like a twinkie wearing overalls.

I may have some questions. So far there seems to be too much of a misconception due to Rev 12 being interpreted without recognizing the apocalyptic language and imagery.

 

[mikesw]

I find a lot to agree with in the video (although I have not yet watched it in its entirety. I am encouraged you find Gore, a Reformed-influence, Presbyterian who appears to be an amillennial Idealist (I didn't find anything in my brief search that specified his eschatological pov) informative. I also find some veracity to what you've said about Satan, but very little. There's too much speculation for one thing. I hesitate to go far afield of the op but when I have time perhaps I will post an alternative view of Satan relevant to Heiser's Unsen Realm and we can switch roles, and you can ask me any questions you like .

I think he simply has an amillennial preterist view. The symbology and language represent the events actually happening while also showing the role Satan plays in these events. Satan's influence in government has a strong element here.

He does try to add relevance of each lesson to assurance or worship useful to Christians today, but that seems a stretch in many of the passages he covers. Or course it is fine any time we find something specified or inherent to the text. I just would read Revelation to understand the prophecy and events being shared.

 

[mikesw]

I find a lot to agree with in the video (although I have not yet watched it in its entirety. I am encouraged you find Gore, a Reformed-influence, Presbyterian who appears to be an amillennial Idealist (I didn't find anything in my brief search that specified his eschatological pov) informative. I also find some veracity to what you've said about Satan, but very little. There's too much speculation for one thing. I hesitate to go far afield of the op but when I have time perhaps I will post an alternative view of Satan relevant to Heiser's Unsen Realm and we can switch roles, and you can ask me any questions you like .

The "speculation" should only be found in trying to describe why we don't see Satan heading down the street blowing fire out of his nostrils. I was trying to bridge to your apparent idea that Satan was physical like angels -- whatever that could mean. I'm not sure how anyone gets beyond a level of speculation in explaining Satan's "material" form. The closest I could assume from bits and pieces of what you share is that there a heavenly analog to the earthly physicality.

 

[JoshebB]

Satan is a minion.

This is the part I find most confounding. I just cannot see Satan looking like a twinkie wearing overalls.

LOL!

minion: a follower or underling of a powerful person, especially a servile or unimportant one.

Satan is a servile underling of The Most Powerful Person.

I may have some questions.

Ask away.

So far there seems to be too much of a misconception due to Rev 12 being interpreted without recognizing the apocalyptic language and imagery.

Hogwash. I fully recognize and acknowledge the apocalyptic language and imagery of Revelation. Nothing I posted should have been, or ever be, construed to sat otherwise.

I think he simply has an amillennial preterist view.

Perhaps. If so, then he and I, a partial-pret, likely share that perspective.

The symbology and language represent the events actually happening while also showing the role Satan plays in these events.

That's a meaningless statement. EVERYONE thinks the symbology and language represent actual events. Dispensationalists chronically say that very thing. Think. The alternative would be the symbology and language represent events that will ever happen.

Satan's influence in government has a strong element here.

non sequitur

The "speculation" should only be found in trying to describe why we don't see Satan heading down the street blowing fire out of his nostrils.

Then you've broken your own rule because the posts assert and self-acknowledge a lot of speculation..... and that speculation often has nothing to do with why he's not heading down the street blowing fire out of his nostrils (literally or figuratively).