Return to Syllabus

BY THE AUTHOR
Dr. W. Robert Cook, Th.D

Round the Lord in glory seated,
Cherubim and seraphim
Filled his temple, and repeated
Each to each the alternate hymn:
‘Lord, thy glory fills the heaven;
Earth is with its fullness stored;
Unto Thee be glory given,
Holy, holy, holy Lord.

Richard Mant (1776-1848)

Having considered God as the Creator and Provident Ruler of the universe we must now give attention to the two chief orders of his creation—angels and men. Mankind will be studied extensively in Part Four. Also, since God has chosen in some instances to use angels as agents of his providence, it is in order to consider them at this point.

The Bible does not present what might be called a formal doctrine of angels. Furthermore, when compared to the other major heads of theology this doctrine certainly ranks far down on the list. “The angelic world is but a secondary theme throughout the Bible; scripture concentrates instead on the incomparable glory of Yahweh and on the wonder of his provision of redemption for fallen mankind.” ^[1] Nonetheless, there is a sizable amount of data in the Bible relating to spirit beings which must be considered if we are to understand certain other truths (e.g., the doctrines of sin; the world, the Christian life).

The biblical approach to this subject should be as instructive to us as is the doctrine itself. We are given the essential information needed but no more. No room is given for wild speculation of fanciful extensions beyond the basics. Henry points out the care with which scripture approaches this subject:

The paucity of reference to angels reinforces what is characteristic of biblical religion: unlike many non-biblical religions its primary focus is on the living God in the invisible spirit world, and on man in the created universe… Unlike the polytheistic setting of the ancient near East that teems with pagan notions of the world of invisible demigods and demons, the Old Testament primarily of the centrality of the one true God and only very secondarily of life in the invisible heavenly realms. Yahweh is the one and only creative causality in the universe and in history. There is no room for strange philosophical and religious notions of transient emanations or aeons such as the Gnostics asserted. ^[2]

I.     Introduction

A.    Development of the Doctrine in Church History

Throughout the history of the church the doctrine of angels has suffered intermittently from inordinate preoccupation and inordinate neglect. Some treatments have been wildly speculative while others, especially in modern times, have viewed such a doctrine “as a relic of a pre-scientific and uncritical way of thinking.” ^[3] In the second century Justin Martyr included angles among those beings whom Christians should worship. ^[4] Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica, and other works, gave extensive attention to angels. In contrast, in this century Rudolf Bultmann has completely explained away the existence of a spirit world through his demythologizing hermeneutic. ^[5] As far as demons are concerned, Karl Barth held that “the origin and nature of demons lie in nothingness, chaos, darkness.” ^[6] Erickson goes on to note, “They are not created by God, but are part of the threat to God’s creation.” ^[7] Paul Tillich held that angels are nothing more than “concrete-poetic symbols of the structures or powers of being. They are not beings….” ^[8]

B.    Meaning and Use of the Word “Angel”

1.    Meaning

The Hebrew word for angel is mal’ak and the Greek term is angelos. They both mean one who brings a message; a messenger.

2.    Usage

The term usually refers to created spirit beings. Sometimes in the Old Testament, however, it probably refers to the second person of the Godhead (see below III. A. 4) and on a few occasions the term is used of men as messengers (for example 1 Kings 19:20; Matt. 11:10, John the Baptist; Luke 7:24; 9:52; James 2:25; Rev. 2:1, 8, 12; 3:1, 7, 14).

II.    Their Order in Creation

A.    Their Origin

1.    The Fact of Their Creation

The fact of their creation is stated in Psalm 148:2-5 and Colossians 1:16. Note well that they are created beings and, therefore while they are not of the same created order as mankind neither are they demigods. As with the entire creation they, too, are accountable to their Creator.

2.    The Time of Their Creation

The time of their creation was before the creation of the material world, Job 38:4-7. They do not seem, however, to have been created before the first day in light of Colossians 1:16 and Exodus 20:11, since all things are said to have been created during creation week (cf. Ps. 33:6). Thus it would appear that they were created at the beginning of the first day since they rejoiced over the creation of the earth.

3.    The Manner of their Creation

The entire angelic host was evidently created simultaneously and immediately since they do not reproduce (Matt. 22:30). Note, too, that they are referred to as sons of God, but never as sons of Angels.

B.    Their Nature

1. They are spirit beings (Heb. 1:14).

2. They are incorporeal (Luke 24:39, cf. Heb. 1:14), although they can assume bodily form (Gen. 18:1-19:1).

3. They do not propagate after their kind (Matt. 22:30).

4. Angles do not die (Luke 20:36).

C.    Their Number

They are innumerable (Heb. 12:22; Rev. 5:11) and since there is neither birth nor death the number seems to be fixed.

D.    Their Rank

There is at least one archangel, Michael (Jude 9), while the angels are divided into various orders (for example: rulers, authorities, powers, dominions, etc.) (Eph. 1:21; 6:12; Col. 1:16; 2:15).

E.    Their Relationship to Men

1. They are not glorified human beings as seen in Hebrews 12:22-23 where they are distinguished from mankind. Note the hos (“as” or “like”) in Matthew 22:30 and the isangeloi in Luke 20:36 (which should be understood as “like the angles” not “equal to angels”).
   Furthermore, they are above the sphere of men (Ps. 8:4-5, cf. Heb 2:7) in the same sense that they are pure spirit and thus of a different created order; they rejoice over the salvation of men (Luke 15:10); and they will be judged by the saints (1 Cor. 6:3) all of which distinguish them from human kind.

2. They are not to be worshipped (Col. 2:18; Rev. 19:9-10; 22:8-9). Perhaps the passage which most pointedly distinguishes them from deity, and thus from any rightful worship, is Hebrews 1:5-2:9. This passage clearly establishes the superiority of Jesus Christ to angels.

3. At least once they transported a soul to heaven. (Luke 16:22; cf. Jude 9).

4. They are not omniscient but do have great knowledge (2 Sam. 14:20, cf. Matt. 24:36; 1 Pet. 1:12).

5. They are not omnipotent but do have great power (Ps. 103:20, cf. 2 Pet. 2:11).

III.    Their Classification

A.    Unfallen Angels

1.    Their nature

1. They are holy, that is separated unto God and from sin for special purposes (Mark 8:38; Acts 10:22; Rev. 14:10).

2. They are elect, that is chosen by God for the accomplishment of divine ends (1 Tim. 5:21).

3. They are not redeemed (or, in the case of fallen angels, redeemable) as is true of mankind (Heb. 2:16).

2.    Their abode

Heaven, possibly the second heaven (the first being physical and the third the throne of God), is their abode (Heb. 12:22; Matt. 18:10; 22:30). Isaiah 14:12 and following seems to suggest that they live in a sphere lower than God’s throne. In light of such passages as Job 38:7 and Revelation 12:4, 9, where angels are associated with stars, some have felt that they dwell in celestial abodes or have a similar relationship to those heavenly bodies that mankind has to earth (cf. Deut. 4:19; Isa. 3:4; Jer. 8:2; where “hosts of heaven” is used of stars with 1 Kings 22:19; Luke 2:13; revelation 19:4 where it is used of angels and Psalm 148:1-6; Isa. 24:21-23; 40:26; Job 38:7 where it is used of both at once. See Erich Sauer, The Dawn of World Redemption, p. 28).

3.    Their ministry

Many of the following functions of angels seem to reinforce and illustrate the idea that angels are agents of God’s providence.

a.    To the elect

They minister to the elect, even before salvation (Heb. 1:14; although “salvation” here could refer to final salvation and thus this would be a statement regarding the “guardian angel” concept).

b.    To the Church

They minister in relation to the church. Particularly, they observe the order of authority practiced therein and learn of God’s wisdom (1 Cor. 11:10; Eph. 3:10; 1 Pet. 1:12).

c.    To Israel

They minister in relation to Israel. According to Daniel 12:1, Michael, the archangel, “who stands guard over the sons of [Daniel’s] people,” has special concern for Israel. Also angels were present at the giving of the law (Acts 7:5; Gal. 3:19) and in the future will gather elect Israel at the time of Christ’s second coming (Matt. 24:31).

d.    To children

They care for children. This is intended as an indication of the Father’s interest in and concern for children and therefore of the concern that we in turn should have (Matt. 18:10).

e.    To the People of God

They have special interest in the people of God. This is sometimes referred to with the phrase “guardian angel” (see Ps. 91:11). Among other things they protect and deliver (Gen. 19:10-11; 1 Kings 19:5; Dan. 3:28; 6:22; Acts 5:19; 12:7-11; cf. 2 Kings 6:16-17) and inform, direct and encourage them (Matt. 28:5-7; Acts 8:26; 27:23-24).

f.    To Christ

They had and will have an extensive ministry to Christ: at birth (Luke 2:13); following the temptation (Matt. 4:11); at the ascension (Acts 1:10)l at the rapture (1 Thess. 4:16); at the second coming (Matt. 25:31; 2 Thess. 1:7).

g.    To the Nations

They have a ministry to the nations (Dan. 10:10-11:1; 12:1). The precise nature of this work is difficult to ascertain but it may be an extension of the “guardian angel” concept. (Ephesians 6:12 seems to give the negative (evil) side of this truth).

h.    To God

They worship and serve God as He chooses (Ps. 148:2; Matt. 18:10; Luke 1:19, 26; Heb. 1:6; Rev. 5:11-12; cf., Ezek. 28:14) and sometimes function as instruments of his judgment (Gen. 19:12-13; 2 Sam. 24:16; 2 Kings 19:35; Ezek. 9:1; Matt. 13:36-42; 49-50; Acts 12:23; Rev. 7:2; 8:6-9:21; 16:4-17).

i.    To Praise

They function as agents of praise (Rev. 4:6-9; 5:8-14; 7:11-12; 16:5-6; 19:1-7). This is an extension of the preceding point but given enough prominence as to be separately noticed. In recognizing the true worth of the God of reality they cannot help but sing his praise (W. Robert Cook, The Theology of John, pp. 246-48).

j.    Other Instances

They were involved somehow, perhaps only as observers, in creation (Job 38:4-7); they may be involved in the answer of prayer, (Dan. 9:20-23).

4.    Their names

a.    The Angel of Yahweh ^[9]

This is probably a theophany or preincarnate appearance of Christ (doing the work of a messenger), i.e., it is the second person of the godhead who normally appears to men. See Genesis 16 and 18 for example. Thus, technically, this does not belong in a discussion of angelology.

b.    Gabriel (“the mighty one”)

See Luke 1:19, 26-38; Dan. 8:16; 9:21. He is always related to some special mission for God.

c.    Michael (“who is like God”)

See Rev. 12:7 and following; Dan. 10:21; 12:1; Jude 9. He is the only one called an archangel; the head of the armies of heaven; and is related to Israel in a special way.

d.    Cherubim

See Gen. 3:24; Exod. 25:17-22; 26:31; Ezek. 28:14. They are first seen in Eden. Their likeness was on the mercy seat and in the veil. They seem to be defenders of God’s holiness. It is possible that they should be identified with the four living creatures of Revelation 4:5 (cf. Ezek. 1:5-25; 10:20-22).

e.    Seraphim (Isa. 6:2-7)

They ascribe praise to God and are associated with the cleansing of a saint for service.

f.    Other

“Certain angels are known only by the service they render. Of these, there are those that serve as angels of judgment (Gen. 19:13; 2 Sam. 24:16; 2 Kings 19:35; Ezek. 9:1, 5, 7; Ps. 78:49). Account is made of the ‘watcher’ (Dan. 4:13, 23); ‘angel of the abyss’ (Rev. 9:11); ‘angel over fire’ (Rev. 14:18); ‘angel of the waters’ (Rev. 16:5); and of ‘seven angels’ (Rev. 8:2).” ^[10]

5.    Their destiny

Revelation 5:11-14 and 21:12 suggest that they will continue into eternity.

B.    Fallen Angels

1.    Their character

1. They are evil and fallen (Job 4:18; Matt. 25:41; 2 Pet. 2:4; Jude 6; Rev. 9:11; 12:7-9). Since they are creatures, and all that God created was originally good, their evil character must have come subsequent to creation. If the “everything” of Genesis 1:31 be pressed to include the whole work of creation and not just the creation of the earth alone, then at this point on the sixth day everything, including angels, was good. Therefore, the fall of the angels must have been after creation week. ^[11]

2. They know Christ (Matt. 8:29; Mark 1:23-24), but not savingly.

3. They have an orthodox belief in God (James 2:19) which brings terror rather than life and peace.

4. They are unclean and fierce (Matt. 10:1; 8:28).

2.    Their activity

a.    Some are bound.

A group of them are confined to Tartarus and kept for judgment (2 Pet. 2:4; Jude 6; cf. 1 Cor. 6:3; Rev. 20:10; Matt. 25:41). Since all are not bound it would appear that these are bound due to some specific sin.

Jude tells us that the reason they are being “kept in eternal bounds” is that they “did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode.” This has been variously interpreted. Some have held that it refers to the sin of Genesis 6:1-4 (see discussion at the end of this chapter) while other have viewed it as describing a desire for more power and authority. Thiessen, commenting on the latter view states:

It is assumed that God appointed one or more angels over each of the nations. The fact that various nations are thus under one or another of these angelic princes is clear from Daniel (10:13, 20 f.; 12:1). To leave their own principality [domain] might thus mean that they became unfaithful in the performance of their duties, but more probably it means that they sought to obtain a more coveted principality. To leave their proper habitation might mean that they left their heavenly dwelling and came down to earth. ^[12]

Erickson, on the other hand, rejects the idea that these verses teach that there are two classes of fallen angels.

Another possibility is that these two verses describe the condition of all demons…. In verse 9 [lf 2 Peter 2] Peter says that “the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trial and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment.” This language is almost identical to that used in verse 4. Note that the remainder of the chapter (vv. 10-22) is a description of the sinful activity of these people who are being kept under punishment. We conclude that, likewise, though cast into nether gloom, the fallen angels have sufficient freedom to carry on their evil activities. ^[13]

If it is only the comparable statements between 2 Peter 2:4 and 9 that are noted, Erickson’s view may be plausible. However, the sinning angels of verse 4 are “committed to Tartarus,” a place of confinement, while the sinning humans of verses nine and following are not described as confined at all.

b.    Some are free (referred to as demons in the New Testament).

1)    Theories of origin

1. They are disembodied spirits of evil men now deceased. Luke 16:22-31 and Revelation 20:13 disprove this theory for they show that evil human beings continue to be just that in eternity and that they yet face a judgment of their own as humans not angels.

2. They are disembodied spirits of a pre-Adamic race. Scripture, however, teaches that Adam was the first man (Gen. 2:7; 1 Cor. 15:45) and that all things were created within creation week (Exod. 20:11).

3. They are disembodied spirits of the “nephilim” of Genesis 6. This concept is set forth in the apocryphal book of 1 Enoch, chapter 15. This describes the illicit union of angels (sons of God) and women. From this union it is held that both forbidden knowledge (magic) and demonic spirits issued. This idea is extra-biblical and contradicts biblical evidence which links the fall of angels (demons) with the fall of Satan.

4. Fallen angels are demons. A comparison of Matthew 12:24-27, where Satan is seen as prince of demons, with Matthew 25:41, which speaks of the devil and his angels, seems to identify the two. While it is true that the two are never expressly identified, neither are they clearly distinguished. The tow do share certain common characteristics such as the ability to possess the bodies of depraved men (cf. John 13:27 and Luke 11:23-26; see also Rev. 9:11 and context).

2)    Their work

(Note well they are Satan’s angels, Matt. 25:41; Rev. 12:7-9, and he is their prince, Matt. 12:22-26, thus their work is his work.)

1. They seem to be bodiless spirits which need, or at least greatly desire, to be embodied to exercise maximum control (Mark 5:1-13; Luke 11:2-26).

2. They are many in number and thus make Satan appear to be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent (Luke 8:30) as the work with him in carrying out his plans (Eph. 6:11-12; Rev. 12:7-12).

3. They can cause physical and mental disease or aberrations, such as dumbness, blindness, insanity, great physical strength (Matt. 9:32-33; 12:22; Mark 5:4-5; Luke 8:35; 9:37-42; cf. 2 Cor. 12:7).

Having noted these facts, and without minimizing them, two cautions are needed. In the first place, all illness should not be attributed to demonic activity. As Erickson observes,

It is noteworthy that the biblical writers did not attribute all illness to demonic possession. Luke reports that Jesus distinguished between two types of healing: “Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow” (Luke 13:32). A similar distinction is made in Matthew 10:8; Mark 1:34; 6:13; Luke 4:40-41; 9:1. Nor was epilepsy mistaken for demon possession. We read in Matthew 17:15-18 that Jesus cast out a demon from an epileptic, but in Matthew 4:24 epileptics (as well as paralytics) are distinguished from demoniacs. ^[14]

Secondly, and actually a corollary of the first caution, we should be very careful today about concluding that mental illness is the result of demon activity. There are doubtless examples in contemporary society of demonically induced mental imbalance but many times the causes are physical or emotional.

1. They may inflict personal injury (Luke 9:38, 39, 42).

2. They may lead into immorality. Probably all references to “unclean” spirits suggest this idea in light of the fact that the term akatharotos often is used this way and that being spirits without physical bodies it must refer to moral impurity (cf. 1 Tim. 4:1-3).

3. They disseminate false doctrine (2 Thess. 2:2; 1 Tim. 4:1; 1 John 4:1-3; cf. 2 Cor. 11:14-15).

4. They oppose the life and ministry of believers (Rom. 8:38-39; Eph 6:12).

5. They have power to work “miracles” (Rev. 13:12-15; 16;14; cf. 2 Thess. 2:9 where the statement is not about bogus miracles but miracles, signs and wonders in support of falsehood as in Matt. 24:24).

6. They encourage idolatry (1 Cor. 10:20; Rev. 9:20; cf. 2 Thess 2:3, 4, 9).

7. They influence human governments (Dan. 10:13-20; Eph. 6:12).

8. They work in opposition to unfallen angels (Dan. 10:12-13).

9. There apparently was increased demon activity during the life of our Lord on earth and will be again in the end times prior to is second coming (Rev. 9:20; 13:4; 16:13-14; 2 Thess. 2:9).

10. God sometimes uses them to accomplish his purposes (Judges 9:23; 1 Kings 22:20-23; Ps. 78:49).

c.    Their manifestation

Demons serve Satan in a variety of ways. These demonstrate his consuming desire to thwart God’s purposes and establish his own kingdom. Thiessen identifies three categories of demonology. The first may be broadly categorized as fortune-telling. This includes such things as ouija boards, tarot cards, tea leaves, palm reading and gazing in a crystal ball.

On the lowest plane, this may be mere human foresight, studied deception, or pure superstition. In biblical times there was augury or foretelling of the future by means of natural signs, such as the flight of birds or the disposition of the entrails (Ezek. 21:21), hydromancy or foretelling from the appearance of the water poured into a vessel or objects dropped into the water (Gen. 44:5), and astrology or the determination of the supposed influence of the stars on the destiny of a person (Isa. 47:13). ^[15]

Since these are all attempts to know the future apart from divine disclosure they are at the least demonic in character and when such information is actually forthcoming they are demonic in fact (see Acts 16:16).

The second category involves actual demon worship. Various pagan religious rites, voodoo and modern satan cults fall into this grouping. “Apostate Israel sacrificed to demons (Deut. 32:17; Ps. 106:37). Food sacrificed to idols in the New Testament times was actually sacrificed to demons (1 Cor. 10:19 f.)” (ibid.).

The third category is sometimes referred to as spiritualism but is better designated as spiritism. “Spiritism is the belief that the living can communicate with the dead and that the spirits of the dead can manifest their presence to men. Necromancy, as this is called, is supposedly done through the agency of a human being, known as a “medium”. ^[16] Witches, warlocks and magicians (not those involved in prestidigitation) are manifestations of this kind of demonism (see e.g., 1 Sam. 28:3-14; Acts 8:9-24; 13:6-9). Israel was commanded by God not to consult with such as these at peril of death (Lev. 19:31; 20:6, 27; Deut. 18:10-12; 2 Kings 21:6; 1 Chron. 10:13; Isa. 8:19).

This service of Satan may evidence itself at two levels and the various demonic works may be carried on at either one.

1. Demon possession. One of the most terrifying and perplexing evidences of demonic activity is demon possession. It involves demonic control of the individual from within and may be viewed as the unholy counterpart of the filling of the Holy Spirit. From the standpoint of God’s original intention for human beings it may be viewed as a transgression and violation of the person, that is, of the imago dei. “That [demons] possess individuals is part of their continuing effort to frustrate the program of God, rather than merely a desire to be clothed with a human body.” ^[17]
   
   Demon possession may bring a variety of effects and be evidenced in widely divergent ways. It may evidence itself in mental derangement or superhuman physical strength and may lead to bodily harm (Mark 5:105).
   
   One who is demon possessed may function as a medium (Acts 16:16-18) or a clergyman (2 Cor. 11:12-15). On occasion there are multiple possessions (Mark 5:9; Luke 8:2) and there are degrees of control (Matt. 12:45). Often there is close psychological identification between the victim and the demon (Mark 1:23-26; 5:6-12).
   
   Probably the most vexing question relating to this subject is, who can be possessed? It has been suggested that “the fact that the ‘seek’ rest [see Matt. 12:43; Luke 11:24] would indicate that they cannot possess just anyone. They apparently cannot violate the will of an intended victim and so seek those who willing yield themselves to their evil influences.” ^[18]
   
   It would appear, however, from Mark 9:21, that there may be exceptions to this. The term translated “from a child” literally means from the time of early childhood and allows for the possibility that it was at a time before such willful choice of evil would be exercised. While Smith’s analysis may be generally true, we need to recognize, as Merrill Unger suggests, that “there may be special divine permission of unusual Satanic operation to accomplish some extraordinary purpose of divine wisdom in accordance with the principles of the divine sovereignty.” ^[19]
   
   There is no question that the unbelievers may be and sometimes are possessed by demons. There is ample biblical evidence as well as experiential data to support this.
   
   But what about the believer? Experience seems to suggest that they may, but is there any biblical evidence of such a possibility and is it theologically compatible with the Christian doctrine?
   
   It is argued by many, without any specific biblical teaching as support, that believers cannot be demonized or possessed because they are indwelt by the Holy Spirit; and, two spirits, one evil and the other holy, cannot indwell the same person at the same time. Thus, to be indwelt by the Holy Spirit is held to be the guarantee against demon possession. This assertion, however, is just that and remains to be demonstrated. Also, since demon control is not necessarily permanent it is questionable that it should be paralleled to the indwelling of the Spirit which is permanent.
   
   Others have claimed that there are no biblical examples of a believer being possessed by a demon although, as will be noted below, Ananias (Acts 5:3) may well be such a person. It is true that there are not examples of sinful believers being exorcised and there is no command to exorcise such but this is strictly an argument from silence. Also it loses any force that it may have in light of the fact that there is no command to exorcise anybody in the scriptures.
   
   A more compelling argument in support of this view is found by reference to such passages as John 17:15 where Christ prays that the Father will keep his own from the evil one; Romans 8:38-39 where Paul declares that angels cannot separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord; and Colossians 1:13 where Paul declares that we have been rescued from the authority of darkness.
   
   There does seem to be some evidence, on the other hand, in at least one case, of a believer being demon controlled. The term daimonidzomai, to be under the power of a demon (e.g., Matt. 15:22), is not used of one who is clearly identified as a believer although in most cases of its use there is nothing in the context, apart from the demon possession itself, to suggest that they are not.
   
   In Acts 5:3 Peter says of Ananias that Satan, a demon or fallen angel, “filled his heart.” This verb is clearly used metaphorically much as it is in Ephesians 5:18 of the Holy Spirit. In both places it means “control.”
   
   It may be questioned as to whether Ananias was a believer but the context clearly establishes that he was a member of the church in Jerusalem. Also, the death of Ananias and Sapphira brought “great fear” upon the church as well as upon others and if it were unbelievers being judged it is questionable that the church would have been thus affected.
   
   It would appear, then, that disobedience to divine revelation (as with Ananias and Sapphira who lied to God and the Holy Spirit and agreed together to test the Holy Spirit, Acts 5:3-4, 9) may open one to such control. But, at the same time, it is of utmost importance to remember that the way in for the demon is the way out of demon control for the believer.
   
   Just as willful disobedience may bring it on so willing obedience to God’s word will bring deliverance and protection. The passages referred to above as possibly precluding demon possession (John 17:15; Rom. 8:38-39; Col. 1:13; together with 1 John 4:4) do not necessarily guarantee that demons may not temporarily control the believer but they do guarantee that any control they do exercise is limited and temporary.
   
   Whether one believes that believers may be demon possessed or not there are, nonetheless, people who are son controlled. What is the biblical pattern for exorcism or is there one? There are several instances in the New Testament of the exorcism of demons although there is no direct instruction as to how exorcism is to be conducted. On some occasions the demon being exorcised leaves the victim with reluctance (Matt. 12:27; Mark 9:26).
   
   There are examples of Jesus removing demons with a command (Mark 1:25; 9:25) and on other occasions he says that he casts them out by the Spirit of God (Matt. 12:28), that is the finger of God (Luke 11:20). His authority to cast out demons was inherent and was often acknowledged by the demons themselves. The disciples, on the other hand, had a derived authority, given by the Lord (Matt. 10:1, 8).
   
   In some instances their ability to function this way was hindered by their lace of faith (Matt. 17:19-20) and in others our Lord’s activity was curtailed by lack of faith in others (Mark 9:23-24; cf. 6:5-6). On another occasion prayer was said to be vital (Mark 9:29).
   
   It is evident from this data the there is not set formula or pattern in the scripture for exorcism but that the authority of Jesus Christ, trust in God and prayer are characteristic aspects of this exercise.
   
   Because of the inordinate fascination that some evidence for exorcism a word of caution is in order. It is a serious aspect of one’s ministry. Nowhere is the Christian commissioned to cast out demons. Unless one accepts the validity of the long ending Mark’s gospel (16:17) there is nothing more than a descriptive record of exorcisms that have taken place in the scripture. This does leave open the possibility of such activity but does not give it prominence.
   
   Even our Lord’s ministry did not place the focus here and on one occasion, when it became apparent to him that his disciples were being unduly attracted toward exorcism he cautioned them with a mild rebuke. Luke records, “and the seventy returned with joy, saying, “Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name.’ And he said…‘do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you, but rejoice that your names are recorded in heaven’” (Luke 10:17-20). In other words, without denying the validity of such a ministry whereby Satan is defeated, he reminded them that something else is of far greater importance. Our commission is to make disciples not to cast out demons.
    

2. Demon influence. In contrast to demon possession, demon influence refers to external demonic activity from outside an individual through pressure, suggestion, and temptation. Such activity is with a view to the hindrance of God’s purposes for mankind and the extension of Satan’s sphere of authority. Among other things this involves the misleading of the unbelievers (2 Cor. 11:13-15) and the waging of war upon the believer (Eph. 6:12).
    

3. The believer’s defense against the activity of demons. The bible gives very strong prohibition of every form of the occult. The reason is that it is so closely related to demonic activity. In Deuteronomy 18:19-22 God not only pronounces these pagan practices as detestable he also says that any of his people who practice them are detestable to him. The point of the passage seems to be that God’s people are not to rely upon any other source for guidance or any other word of authority than that from God himself. For this reason, he says he will raise up his spokesman who will speak his message as his prophet. Today the completed scriptures serve that function for us for with the coming of Christ, the prophet greater than Moses the last word has been spoken.
    

4. This strong prohibition regarding occult knowledge includes astrology, as well. As Isaiah records God’s proscription of Babylon’s errors he includes astrology along with sorceries and magic spells (Isa. 47:13-15). From the beginning stars are presented in scripture as created by God and thus subject to him. They were appointed to govern day and night and not to govern men’s lives (Gen. 1:16-17). That is God’s province alone.

3.    Their destiny

1. Temporary. The intermediate destiny of the bound fallen angels is Tartarus (Greek text) (2 Pet. 2:4); or the abyss (Luke 8:31; rev. 9:1-11; 20:1-3).

2. Final. The ultimate destiny of all fallen angels is the lake of fire (Matt. 25:41).

4.    The problem of Genesis 6:1-4

Another puzzling problem relating to the doctrine of fallen angels relates to Genesis 6:1-4. does the reference to “sons of God” have angels or human beings in view” Unlike the problems surrounding demon possession one’s view on this issue has little theological or practical ramifications.

a.    The “Sethite” hypothesis.

1. This was first seriously proposed by Augustine although probably held earlier by Chrysostom. It was held by Calvin, Hengstenberg, Keil, Matthew Henry, Scofield, and G. Vos.

2. It seems to have the strength of the preceding context in that there is no mention of angels up to this point in Genesis (see, however, 3:24). Also, Seth’s line seems to be presented as the godly line—chapter 4 shows the Cainites and the Sethites divided; chapter 5 presents the Sethites in devotedness; chapter 6 sets forth the mingling of the two lines. Genesis 4:26 pictures the godliness of the Sethites.

3. The term “sons of God” refers to unfallen angels or to believers in the Old Testament and this in the latter literature (Isa. 43:6; Job 1:6; 2:1). In the historical literature angels are never styled by this term.

4. Intermarriage between angels and men is impossible, (Matt. 22:30).

5. The results of the wedlock were nothing unusual (as claimed by some who hold the other view). The text says Nephilim “were” not “came to be” on the earth. Also, there were Nephilim later on (Num. 13:33) so how can it be said that they were destroyed in the flood?

6. According to verse 3 the judgment is upon men only. Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4 refer to a prehistoric incident. The Jude 6 passage teaches that Israel sinned through unbelief in the divine revelation; angels sinned against the divine ordinance which gave them a certain position as they sought after greater dominion, and that the Sodomites sinned against the divine laws of sexual relationship.
   
   The three judgments of these three instances are distinct from one another. The statement “in like manner with these” is to be related to “set forth as an example” while the words “given themselves over to fornication and gone after strange flesh” are parenthetical and refer only to the Sodomites.
   
   This view holds that the sin which brought about the flood was the breaking down of the line of demarcation between the godly and the ungodly.

b.    The “angel” hypothesis.

1. Every time the title “sons of God” is used in the Old Testament it refers to angels. The type of literature in which it occurs is of no particular significance. The passages used to prove that believers are so named in the Old Testament do not use this title. Believers are nowhere in the Old Testament called sons of god in this phraseology (bne Elohim or bne hael).

2. There is no evidence that the term “daughters of men” should be limited to Cainites.

3. This view alone accounts for the sudden appearance of and enigmatic references to the Nephilim (fallen ones). Otherwise there is no reason to mention them. (There is no reason from this context to think that they were giants. This is inferred from Numbers 13:32-33. Also, the LXX does not read gigantes here.)
   
   These may be a reference to the unusual progeny of this union or to “fallen ones,” that is, depraved men who subjected themselves to demon possession and in turn cohabited with the daughters of men. The progeny then would be those referred to in verse 4 as of the same type of union, but merely that there were those who could be thus described (cf. the use of the term hagioi in the New Testament both of saints and angels).
   
   The occur­rence of Nephilim in Numbers 13 does not mean that they survived the flood, nor even that they are of the same type of union, but merely that there were those who could be thus described (cf. the use of the term hagioi in the New Testament both of saints and angels).
    

4. Matthew 22:30 is not intended to prove anything other than the fact that with resurrection bodies men will not procreate human babies just as angels do not produce angelic offspring. It does not rule out the possibility of angels with assumed bodies cohabiting with women and producing some sort of abnormal human progeny.
    

5. Some versions of the LXX use angeloi here, indicating that the translators held this view.
    

6. Jude 6-7 suggest that the sin pf Sodom and Gomorrah was like (hos) that of angels. Toutois, “with these,” refers back to angels in verse 6 grammatically, not to the word cities (see Alford, Lenski, Robertson, in loc.). The flesh for which the Sodomites lusted was “strange (heteras) flesh” and Genesis 19 indicates that this did include angels. No specific biblical explanation of the angels leaving their proper habitation is given by any other view.
    

7. 2 Peter 2:4-5 refers to Tartarus as a special place of confinement for the angels who did the things there attributed to them and this view accounts for the need for such a place.
    

8. History gives an answer to the change from the angel view to the other.

 

• One of the Ante-Nicene fathers, Julius Africanus, proposed the other view but it was not accepted until Augustine.
   

• It was accepted from Augustine’s time, as he set it forth, because of the philosophic setting of the day. Greek mythology said that there was an unholy union between the gods of heaven and the goddesses of earth which brought forth monstrosities that were in turn cast into Tartarus.
   

• Since the two stories resembled each other, Augustine and others were embarrassed and tried to explain the incident otherwise.
  
  This view has been held by Justin, Tertullian, Cyprian, Lactantius; Delitizsch, Stier, Kell, Luther, Pember, Gaebelein, Unger, Ryrie. ^[20]

ix.    This view holds that Satan was in this way attempting to pollute the line through which Christ was to come (cf. Gen. 3:15), and that God sent the flood because of the extreme wickedness in the earth and to destroy the resultant creatures of this cohabitation.

c.    The “nobleman” hypothesis.

Without elaborating it, brief reference should be made to a third viewpoint recently advanced by Meredith Kline. This is a restatement of an ancient Jewish interpretation which holds that the “sons of God” refers to Cainite kings or nobles. In this view the “daughters of men” are women in general and the sin for which the earth was judged is rampant polygamy. In Kline’s article his primary concern is to state this alternative view.  ^[21] Leroy Birney also supports this view. He gives a very [short] summary and inadequate treatment of the “angel” hypothesis and dismisses it much too easily. His treatment of the “Sethite” view is much more sympathetic.

References:

Return to Syllabus

AncientPath Network Dallas, TX 77523, USA

Copyright © 2007 by AncientPath Network and the authors. All rights reserved. From our web sites at AncientPath.net and AncientLight.org, you may download the information and print it for yourself and others as long as you give it away and do not charge for it. In this case, free means free. It cannot be bundled with anything sold, nor can you charge for shipping, handling, or anything. It is provided for personal study or for use in preparation of sermons, Sunday school classes, or other non-commercial study.

052107