CIL - Some Difficult Passages - Book 2

[Resource Manager]

 

THE CHRISTADELPHIAN ISOLATION LEAGUE

 

SOME DIFFICULT PASSAGES

 

by

 

PETER WATKINS

 

BOOK 2

 

CONTENTS

 

Satan

 

a In General

b In the Book of Job

 

The Devil and Satan

 

a Zechariah 3

b Summary

 

The Devil and Satan in the New Testament

 

a Various Passages

b Demons

c The Temptation of Christ

 

Angels

 

a 1 Corinthians 6:3

b 1 Peter 1:12

c 2 Peter 2:4

d Jude 6

[Resource Manager]

SOME DIFFICULT PASSAGES CONCERNING SATAN

 

Let us now turn our attention to the use of the word “satan” in Scripture. “That’s quite straightforward”, someone may want to say.” ‘Satan’ means ‘adversary’; so if we substitute ‘adversary’ for ‘satan’ whenever we meet the word, there should be no difficulty. No, it’s not quite as simple as that.

 

“Satan” certainly means “adversary”, but we must distinguish between the use of the word in the Old Testament and the New; and, in the Old Testament, we must distinguish, too, between the use of the word as a common noun (an adversary), and as a title or name (the adversary).

 

The Old Testament

 

The Old Testament was written in Hebrew, and the word “satan” is an ordinary Hebrew word. Usually it can be translated by its English equivalent, “adversary”; and usually the A. V. translators have done this. Young’s Concordance lists the following passages where the word “satan” is translated “adversary” in the A. V.: Num. 22:22; 1 Sam. 2 9:4; 2 Sam. 19:22; 1 Kings 5:4; 11:14, 23, 25. These passages demonstrate that the adversary may be good, bad or indifferent. The first relates to an angel of God, the second to David, the third to David’s cousins, the fourth is negative and general, and the remainder (those of 1 Kings 11) are adversaries whom God stirred up against Solomon because of his disobedience. The related verb, “satan” is used in Psalms 71:13; 109:20, 29.

 

Sometimes the translators have left the word “satan” untranslated, as, for example, in Job and Zechariah 3. Ought they not to have rendered it “adversary” here too? Perhaps they could have done so; but they had a good reason for preferring to let the original word stand. In Job 1 & 2 and Zech. 3:1 the word “satan” is preceded by the definite article. It is not “a satan” but “the satan”. It is a distinctive title given to a special adversary: so there may be some justification for leaving it untranslated.

 

There are just two passages where the A. V. translators may have misled us: 1 Chron. 21:1 and Psa. 109:6.

 

“And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel” (1 Chron. 21:1).

 

Without justification, the translators have treated “satan” as a name here. In the Hebrew, the article is omitted. It is an adversary — not the adversary. By presuming to identify this adversary as the (supposed) personal devil, they have created a contradiction. As translated, the passage does not agree with that in the parallel account in 2 Sam. 24:1, where we read, “And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them”. A lot of explaining is called for if that which is attributed to the Lord in one record is attributed to His arch-enemy in another. But if the Chronicles account had read, “An adversary stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel”, there would have been no problem. All would have understood that the Lord — or His angel — was the adversary.

 

“Set thou a wicked man over him; and let Satan stand at his right hand” (Psa. 109:6).

 

Here again, there is no article before “satan” in the original, so it would have been better translated “an adversary”. Indeed the R. V. reads thus. The A. V. translators have given a sinister significance to this Scripture that was not intended.

 

The New Testament

 

We meet the word “satan” about three dozen times in the New Testament. Why has it not been translated into English?

 

Ought it not to have been rendered “adversary” in some, at least, of these places?

 

No, it ought not! The translators have had an excellent reason for leaving the word untranslated here. Although the New Testament was written in Greek, the original text included the Hebrew word “satan”. It was transliterated — carried over — letter by letter from the one language to the other. There are several Greek words that mean adversary”. These were avoided by the inspired writers of the New Testament, and instead, the Hebrew word “satan” was inserted in the Greek text. It had a special significance that would have been missed if an ordinary Greek word had been used. “Satan” it was then to be — and thus the English translators have kept it, wisely.

 

In the New Testament, therefore, the word “satan” describes a special adversary. It does so sometimes in the Old Testament (Job and Zechariah). In the New Testament it always does so.

[Resource Manager]

Satan in the Book of Job

 

We return now to Job, and ask who was the satan, the adversary of this book. It is argued by those who believe in a personal devil that, because of Satan’s mysterious comings and goings, his wicked designs and his superhuman power, he must, in fact, be this personal devil. Although we may be able to produce an array of scriptures to demonstrate that sin is the devil of the Bible, an explanation of the stage role played by “Job’s Satan” is still desirable.

 

We know the story. Satan stands before God and insists that Job’s exceptional righteousness does not spring from worthy motives. Job fears God for what he can get out of it. He is a very rich man: if his riches are removed he will curse God. Apparently God gives Satan a free hand, and a series of calamities rob Job of all his possessions, including his ten children. Job still fears God. Satan is persistent, and argues that if Job is made to suffer bodily afflictions he will curse God. Again, apparently, God permits Satan to operate, and Job’s body is grievously tormented.

 

Apparently! But did God really hand Job over to the power of a mighty enemy? Job’s wife seemed to think that God Himself had afflicted Job, when she exclaimed, “Curse God, and die” (2:9). Job, too, regarded his tribulations as a visitation from God, and replied, “What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?” (2:10). Again Job said to his critics, “Have pity upon me, have pity upon me, O ye my friends; for the hand of God hath touched me” (19:21). More to the point, however, are God’s own words to Satan, “Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth? ... and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause”. (2:3). These words remove the immediate problem. They show us that Satan and God both had a part in Job’s tribulations. Satan proposed the afflictions, and God performed them. Another decisive statement, showing that it was God who had acted, is found in the concluding chapter. The narrator states authoritatively: “Then came there unto him all his brethren... and comforted him over all the evil that the Lord had brought upon him” (42:11).

 

But there is still a problem. We have seen that Satan only made propositions that God acted upon. Satan would seem therefore to have been a wicked being, for wishing to see Job suffering, but not necessarily a powerful one. Who then could he have been? How are we to understand his comings and goings, his appearances and reappearances amongst the sons of God?

 

Here is a suggestion. Let us try to think of Satan here as a symbol of unworthy human thoughts — not in the world, but amongst the “sons of God”. Like winds, these thoughts would move invisibly, yet powerfully, amongst the believers. When the sons of God assembled for worship, these unworthy thoughts would be brought with them - thoughts of envy against Job.

 

But surely the basest of them would not want to see Job suffering such afflictions? He would not - and yet, he would. If looking hatefully is murder, and looking lustfully is adultery (as the Lord explains in Matthew 5), then looking enviously is wishing ill. The ultimate thought may never be brought to the surface, or even be discovered by the thinker: and yet it is there all the time. “It’s all very well for Brother Job. His health is good and his business is flourishing; he has no financial worries or domestic troubles. What sort of brother would he be if he were in my shoes, I wonder?” The hidden desire — that would almost certainly be indignantly denied — is to put Brother Job in an even worse pair of shoes than our own.

 

With startling vividness God lays bare the innermost thoughts of His unworthy servants. In accordance with their secret desires, Job is afflicted. Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar are speechless with astonishment when they see the consequence of their wicked desires. Seven days they remain silent. It is only when Job opens his mouth and curses his day that they are emboldened to speak. And how does Eliphaz begin? Just as Satan finished. Satan had said, “Afflict him and he’ll show you his true colours”. Eliphaz now says, “You’ve been afflicted and you’ve shown your true colours”; and then perhaps he adds quietly to himself, “Just as I thought”.

 

It is surely significant that Eliphaz and his companions not only come into the story when Satan disappears, but also use Satan’s very argument. It is significant, too, that they are rebuked by God when Job’s chapter of afflictions is completed — although Satan started it all. These men, and perhaps others like them, surely represent the Satan class. The story is designed to instruct us, lest we, in our own day, entertain Satanic thoughts concerning our brethren.

[Resource Manager]

CONCERNING THE DEVIL AND SATAN
 

Let us now look more closely at the Satan of Zechariah 3. The passage reads thus: “And he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him. And the Lord said unto Satan, The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan; even the Lord that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire? Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments, and stood before the angel. And he answered and spake unto those that stood before him, saying, Take away the filthy garments from him And unto him he said, Behold, I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with change of raiment” (vv. 1-4).
 

Zechariah’s vision is part of an elaborate divinely arranged drama. There are links with Jude that will help us to understand: it. Jude 9 reads as follows: “Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
 

Let us now compare the two passages:

Zechariah 3	Jude
Joshua the high priest	The body of Moses
Satan	the devil
The angel of the Lord	Michael the archangel
“The Lord rebuke thee”	“The Lord rebuke thee”
filthy garments	the garment spotted by the flesh
a brand plucked out of the fire	pulling them out of the fire (v 23)

The parallel is obvious as far as some items are concerned. Satan can be equated with the devil without difficulty; the angel of’ the Lord is named Michael in Jude; the references to unclean garments and snatching from fire are common to both. We cannot then escape the conclusion that Joshua the high priest, of Zechariah, corresponds to the body of Moses, of Jude. The equation seems to demand it. Does it make sense?

With regard to the body of Moses, John Carter has written (Prophets after the Exile p. 54), “Paul’s expression in 1 Cor. 10:2 supplies a key to the meaning. Israel were baptised into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. As those baptized into Christ formed the “body of Christ”, so the Israelites formed the “body of Moses”. The Israelitish nation is thus indicated.”
 

It is reasonable then to regard the body of Moses as the Israelitish nation. If Joshua the high priest is to be equated with the body of Moses, he must represent the Israelitish nation. This surely is valid. A priest is a representative man. He is a living symbol of the people to whom he ministers. We recall that Zechariah was a prophet of the restoration, and Joshua was a priest of the restoration. Joshua would thus represent the people of the restoration. And his filthy garments? Would they not represent the spiritual uncleanness of these people who had married strange wives and transgressed the commandments of God? We read of their defilement in Ezra and Nehemiah.

We have observed that the power called Satan in Zechariah 3 is called the devil in Jude. This is not the only occasion when the two names are used interchangeably. In Matthew’s account of the Lord’s temptation in the wilderness, the tempter is called the devil, whereas in Mark’s account the tempter is called Satan. In Rev. 12:9 and 20:2, a power is described as “the great dragon.., that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan”.
 

But let us return to the Satan of Zechariah 3 and see if we can proceed any further in the identification. As already intimated the historical background of Zechariah is supplied by Ezra. Many Jews had returned from captivity to Jerusalem, and had begun to build the temple in accordance with the decree of Cyrus. The Samaritans resented this Jewish activity and persuaded the Persian king to stop the work. “So it ceased unto the second year … of Darius king of Persia” (Ezra 4:24). This was the time when Haggai and Zechariah began to prophesy, as both prophets testify, and, as Ezra 5:1 tells us: “Then the prophets, Haggai the prophet, and Zechariah the son of Iddo, prophesied unto the Jews”. It is evident that these prophets encouraged the people to get back to the work of building the temple, because the narrative continues: “Then rose up Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and Jeshua the son of Jozadak, and began to build the house of God which is at Jerusalem”. Immediately the enemies of the Jews, led by Tatnai, Shethar-boznai and “their companions”, challenged the Jews and complained to Darius, the Persian king, about this seditious activity; but God was with His servants and the work prospered, to the confusion of the Jews’ enemies.
 

Just as Job’s Satan represented those who unworthily opposed that man of God, so Zechariah’s Satan would seem to represent those who unworthily opposed the people of God during the restoration. Precisely how and when the archangel would say, “The Lord rebuke thee” to the men who attempted to frustrate the work of God’s people, remains a problem.
 

It is worth noting that there were three main actors in Zechariah’s vision, and that each of them represented a multitude, Joshua represented the people of God; Satan, the Samaritan enemies; and Michael, the angelic host. “Those that stood before” Michael (Zech. 3:4) would, presumably, be other angels, ready to minister to the people of God. 

[Resource Manager]

A slanderer

 

Consider now another link between the Satan of Job and Zechariah, on the one hand, and the power represented as the great enemy of the New Testament, on the other. In Job and Zechariah, Satan plays the role of an accuser. Job’s Satan accuses Job, and Zechariah’s Satan accuses Joshua. It is significant that in these two places Satan should be a slanderer. Already we have seen that the power called Satan in Zechariah is called the devil in Jude. And now we remind ourselves of the fact that the Greek word “diabolos” (from which the English word “devil” comes) means “slanderer” or “false accuser”.

 

A quotation from Rev. 12:9, 10 is apposite here: “And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night”.

 

Summary

 

Let us now attempt to summarize our findings concerning the devil and satan, so far:

 

1. In all but two places in the Old Testament “satan” means, simply, “adversary”.
    
   
2. In the two places excepted above (Job and Zech. 3) the use of the definite article (the Satan) indicates a special adversary, and suggests a link with the New Testament use of the word “satan.
    
   
3. In the Greek New Testament, the presence of the untranslated Hebrew word, “satan”, shows that the adversary in question is always a special adversary.
    
   
4. The Satan of Zechariah is called “the devil” in Jude
    
   
5. The words “satan” and “devil” in the New Testament are different names for the same power,
    
   
6. In Job and Zechariah Satan is a slanderer; and —
    
   
7. the related New Testament word “diabolos” (the devil) means “slanderer”. Moreover the devil of the New Testament is represented as slandering “our brethren”.

There are then evident links between the two “special” satan-passages of the Old Testament and the New Testament passages concerning the devil and satan. In Job and Zechariah Satan represents the enemy and accuser of God’s people. Envious and antagonistic human beings (and their thoughts) are personified. In the New Testament the idea is developed. The people who are accused, deceived and tempted are those who bear the name of Christ. And Satan begins working from within — within the heart of the believer and within the community of the faithful. Satan is the personification of the unworthy desires of the heart. Ultimately Satan must be cast out. Carnal thoughts must be thrust out of the Christian’s heart, and carnally minded people must be purged from the Christian community.

 

CONCERNING the DEVIL and SATAN in the NEW TESTAMENT

 

It comes as a surprise to some people to learn that the first occurrence of the word “devil” in Scripture is in Matt. 4:1; “Then was Jesus led up of the spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil”.

 

Although the word “satan” occurs in Old and New Testaments (being a Hebrew word carried over into the Greek New Testament), the word “devil” (Greek - diabolos) is only found in the New Testament. It means “slanderer” or “false accuser”. The word occurs 38 times in the New Testament; 3 5 of these are in the singular; and in 34 of the 35 instances the definite article is used - i.e. the devil, and the context shows that it must be regarded as the great evil power.

 

This, in itself, would suggest a link between the words “satan” and “devil” in the New Testament. (We anticipated this in our summary at the end of the previous section). There is further evidence, however, to support the idea that “satan” and “devil” are different names for the same power. Whereas Matthew tells us that the Lord Jesus was tempted by the devil, Luke says that he was tempted by satan. Again, in both Revelation 12 & 20 the two names are put side by side, as describing the same power.

 

The passage from Revelation 12 is worth quoting in full because it provides us with several further clues to the understanding of this complex subject: “And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death” (vv. 9-11).

[Resource Manager]

Let us take note of the following points: -

 

1. The names “devil” and “satan” are brought together. They are different names for the same power.
    
   
2. This power is also called “that old serpent... which deceiveth the whole world”. This invites us to regard the serpent in Eden as the basis of the figure.
    
   
3. This power has angels or messengers associated with it. (We may appreciate the importance of this point later).
    
   
4. This power is called “the accuser of our brethren”. It thus fulfils the meaning of the word “diabolos” (false accuser, slanderer), and reminds us of the role played by the “special” satan of Job and Zechariah. 5)

The conquest of this power is effected by “the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death”. This last point is very significant, and provides a link with Heb. 2:14 - but we shall have to return to it later. An over-all picture should now be gradually taking shape in our minds. Perhaps we could regard this theme concerning the devil and satan as an elaborate, sustained New Testament parable. The subject is rooted in Eden, and we are further prepared for this recurring New Testament theme by the two “special” Old Testament passages concerning satan, discussed earlier.

 

If we are correct in thinking that the subject is rooted in Eden, we should expect to find reminders of Eden’s serpent in some of the New Testament passages about the devil and satan. We do, in fact, find these links with Eden’s serpent, as the following examples illustrate:

 

Matt. 16:23: “He turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan.”

 

The Lord Jesus had stated that he must go to Jerusalem to die. Peter was tempting him to disobedience (as the serpent did in Eden). Indeed, one can almost hear the voice of the serpent in Peter’s pleading, “Thou shalt not surely die”. 2 Cor. 11:14: “Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Paul expresses fear lest “as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ” (v. 3). False teachers are thus likened to the serpent. Paul is carrying this thought on to vv. 13, 14. Speaking of the false teachers of his day, he says, “For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ”. This is not to be wondered at, he says, in effect, when one considers that even to this day that same serpent is regarded as a messenger from God Himself. His actual words are, “And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light”. The words of the serpent, “Thou shalt not surely die”, have been the philosophy that has ruled the world. Nearly all religious people, of whatever kind, believe they are immortal; and all, without exception, tend to act as if they will never die. Thus the first lying message is man’s first creed, and the first lying messenger is transformed, in men’s minds, into a celestial light bearer. Little wonder then that lesser deceivers are held in such high esteem.

 

Rom. 16:20: “And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly”.

 

May we invite the reader to begin reading at v. 1 7 in order to get these words in their context, and then to count the number of allusions to the Garden of Eden. Our count is seven.

[Resource Manager]

Demons
 

Let us digress from our main theme to anticipate a difficulty here. Someone may want to question the assertion that the word “devil” is nearly always found in the singular, and nearly always preceded by the definite article (the devil). It may be remarked that there are many “devils” referred to in the New Testament. For example, Jesus cast seven devils out of Mary Magdalene, and “many that were possessed with devils” came to him to be healed.
 

Unfortunately the A. V. translators have misled us here. There are two distinct and separate Greek words: “diabolos” and “daimonion”. The translators have hidden the difference between these words by translating them both “devil”. Obviously we cannot complain about their rendering “diabolos” as “devil”. The English word is derived from the Greek word. But there can be no justification for translating “daimonion” by the same word. The English derivative from “daimonion” is “demon”, and if this word had been supplied there would have been no confusion.
 

A comparison of two sets of passages will demonstrate the difference between the two words:
 

Some passages in which the original word for “devil” is “diabolos”

 

Matt. 4:1	Then was Jesus led up of the spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil”.
Matt. 13:39	“The enemy that sowed them (the tares) is the devil”.
John 8:44	“Ye are of your father the devil”.
Heb. 2:14	“Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil”.
James 4:7	“Resist the devil, and he will flee from you”.

Some passages in which the original word for “devil” is “daimonion”

 

Matt. 7:22	“In thy name have (we) cast out devils”.
Matt. 12:27	“if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out?”
Luke 4:33	“And in the synagogue there was a man, which had a spirit of an unclean devil, and cried out with a loud voice”.
John 8:48	“Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan and hast a devil?”
1 Cor. 10:21	“Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils”.

The following differences will be noted: -

 

DIABOLOS	DAIMONION
1. Nearly always used in the singular	Usually plural
The three exceptions are: 1 Tim. 3:11;
2 Tim. 3:3; Titus 2:3.
2. Nearly always the devil. The one	Usually a devil when singular
exception is John 6:70.
3. The great enemy of God, and	The word is applied to malignant influences associated with certain
tempter of man.	ailments and (occasionally) certain forms of wickedness

It is not our purpose to discuss the difficulties associated with demons now. Our immediate purposes are these: firstly, to clear up the confusion created by the translation of two different Greek words by the same English word; secondly, to suggest that although the words are different, there is an association of ideas. Demons may also be a part of this great New Testament “parable”; and the relationship between the devil and demons is that of “the devil and his angels”. 

[Resource Manager]

The Temptation in the Wilderness

 

Who or what was the devil that tempted the Lord Jesus Christ in the wilderness? Let us try to discuss this question logically and unemotionally.

 

The popular idea is that the devil that tempted Christ was a person — a powerful, supernatural embodiment of wickedness. A quick reading of the accounts in Matthew, Mark and Luke seems to provide support for this idea. There is a dialogue between the devil and the Lord Jesus. The devil suggests that it would be to Jesus’ advantage to do certain things which are contrary to the will of God. Jesus repudiates these suggestions, and the devil leaves him.

 

A careful reading reveals a number of difficulties, however. First, there are difficulties relating to the circumstances of the temptation. We are told expressly in Matthew, Mark and Luke, that the temptation took place in the wilderness. Thus Mark states: “And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him” (1:13). Yet we read that in one of the temptations the Lord Jesus is taken to the pinnacle of the temple, in Jerusalem. Jerusalem was not in the wilderness. Again, we are told that the devil takes Jesus up to a high mountain and shows him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. Is there, or has there been, in the wilderness or outside of it, a mountain from which all kingdoms could be seen at once? One can almost hear the rejoinder that these things are written, and we must believe them. True; but perhaps they can be understood in another way.

 

There are further difficulties in the way of regarding the tempter as a person — more serious ones. From all that is revealed about Jesus, can we imagine him submissively following the tempter; walking meekly behind him to Jerusalem, and so to the temple; and then ascending, after him, to the pinnacle of the temple — before saying “No”? Making such concessions to a wicked tempter would not be consistent with what we have learned of the character of Jesus.

 

Consider again the temptation to bow down to Satan, and receive all the kingdoms of the world. Let us imagine that some important and impressive person made this offer to us. How would we react? However great the tempter, we would know that he was not in a position to make such a promise. The temptation would not be real. We would probably be more amused than impressed. Certainly Jesus, who had such respect for the Word of God, and who would know so well that “The earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof”, would not be tempted in the slightest degree by any impostor (for an impostor he would be) who made such an extravagantly impossible offer. Again, do we seriously suppose that a powerful and deceitful personal tempter would be frightened away by hearing three passages from Deuteronomy quoted against him?

 

The destruction of the devil at Calvary

 

Any interpretation of Scripture that doesn’t make sense must be rejected. We must see whether the temptation in the wilderness can be understood in a way that does make sense. But before we do this, we want to look at another passage that can help us. Whereas the Lord Jesus resisted the devil in the wilderness (however this is to be understood), he destroyed the devil when he was crucified. Thus Heb. 2:14 declares: “Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil”.

 

Let us try to understand this passage. It tells us that because “the children” (that is, those who are saved by Christ, as we learn from the preceding verses) are flesh and blood creatures, Christ also bore a similar nature to them. Why? that he might die. And why was it necessary for him to die? that, through death, he might destroy the devil.

 

Suppose that the popular idea is true, and that the devil is a powerful, wicked being. Is it reasonable to suppose that Jesus Christ would have come in our weak human nature and died upon a cross in order to destroy this monster? How would the death of Christ have effected the destruction of this mighty embodiment of evil — if indeed the devil is to be thus regarded? Here again we can see that another explanation is needed. We require a definition of the devil that will make sense of the gospel accounts of the temptation, and of the passage from Hebrews that we have just been looking at.

 

The devil and human lusts

 

The proposition that we now want to submit is that the devil is a symbol of human lusts or desires. The reasonableness of this proposition can best be appreciated by noting that the Scriptures say the same things about the devil as they do about human lusts. Thus both are represented as being; the enemy of God - the tempter of man - exceedingly deceitful -responsible for death - destroyed by the death of Christ, Ample Scripture proof could be provided here. We suggest that those interested could profitably do a spot of “digging” on their own account. Our immediate purpose must be to see how this definition fits the temptation of the Lord Jesus in the wilderness, and the passage from Hebrews 2.

[Resource Manager]

Another look at the temptation

 

The devil is a symbol of human lusts or desires. If our proposition is valid, we must regard the devil that tempted the Lord Jesus as his own human desires. We know that there is abundant testimony, particularly in Hebrews, to the fact that the Lord Jesus possessed a nature just like ours. (Heb. 2:14 is just one example). Indeed we are told that “he was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin” (4:15). It is not dishonouring to Christ to say that he was tempted as we are. We honour him the more because we acknowledge that, although he was tempted as we are, he did not sin, now let us try to work out the details.

 

After a long period of fasting the Lord Jesus felt hungry. No food was available, so his thoughts would be concerned with how food could be procured. Forty days earlier he had heard God calling him His Son; and he had been equipped with new and wonderful powers. If he was the Son of God, and if, as such, he really possessed these miraculous powers, this was the occasion to use them. Tentatively, and reverently, we try to think out the sort of thoughts that our Lord would have to contend with: “You are the Son of God; you have come to do the will of your Father. If you are to do the Father’s will, you must live. If you are to live, you must eat. If you are to eat you must produce food yourself, because there is none in this wilderness. You must put your miraculous powers to good use, and so ensure that you will remain alive to do God’s will”. It would have been very easy for someone possessing our flesh and blood to think like that. And it would have been fatally easy to yield to such thoughts. But if the Lord Jesus had yielded it would have been sin, and the tragedy of Eden would have been re-enacted, with irrevocable consequences.

 

It was difficult to imagine the Lord following a personal tempter to the pinnacle of the temple; but it is easy to imagine his thoughts being borne to that exalted place. “If you are the Son of God”, he would perhaps have said to himself, “why not provide men with the proof of that fact? It will ensure the success of your work for God, and God will be glorified. Throw yourself down.!”

 

It was difficult to think of Jesus literally ascending a mountain from which all kingdoms could be seen in a moment of time. But it is easy to think of him ascending, in his imagination, to a great vantage point, from which he could view the kingdom that God had promised him. Yes, it had been promised to him, and now it was within his grasp, for he had power on his side. If he took possession of the world now, the ultimate purpose of God would be fulfilled, and the pain and shame of crucifixion could be avoided. The idea was an attractive one. All he had to do was to bow down to self — and the kingdom would be his!

 

Temptation of this kind was real. And the victory of the Lord Jesus over his own Adamic nature would have helped him in the life situations of the ministry that was about to commence. Have we noticed that the temptations that the Lord had to grapple with in the wilderness were temptations that presented themselves in a more subtle way during his ministry? In the same chapter in Luke (4), we read that the angry crowd at Nazareth tried to throw Jesus over the precipice. How easy it would have been for him to let them throw him; and then they would have been astonished to see him being gently borne through the air by the angels of God. The temptation was a more subtle one, because this “publicity stunt” was none of his choosing. It was altogether their doing. ‘ But already his thoughts had been exercised about this matter. He knew what to do, and “he passing through the midst of them went his way”. This is but one example. There are others — and more opportunity for “digging”.

 

If it should be asked why human desires are personified in these accounts of the Lord’s temptation in the wilderness, we would suggest that by this means we are given a more vivid impression of the duel that was taking place — between the Holy Spirit and the human spirit. It can be expressed thus: the Lord Jesus received the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit led him to the place of temptation; human desires sought to frustrate the Spirit of God; the Spirit of God (in the “Word”) defeated these human desires, and they forsook Mm; in the power of the Spirit of God, Jesus went to Galilee, and read an appropriate prophecy - “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,...” Remember our earlier suggestion that we could regard the subject of the devil and satan as an elaborate, sustained New Testament parable?

 

Hebrews 2:14 again

 

The human desires that were frustrated in the wilderness were destroyed at Calvary. As long as there was an Adamic nature there was the possibility of temptation. It was not enough to frustrate human desires that opposed the will of God. They had to be destroyed. And how else could this be done but by the destruction of the source of these ungodly desires — the nature inherited from Adam. Thus the Lord Jesus destroyed sin in the place where it resided: “he destroyed sin in the flesh”.

 

This is the message of Heb. 2:14. Jesus came in our nature that he might die, that by his death the devil — or ungodly human desires - could be destroyed at their source. He “put away sin by the sacrifice of himself” (9:26).

[Resource Manager]

CONCERNING ANGELS
 

There are four difficult passages concerning angels in the New Testament: -

 

1 Cor. 6:3:	“Know ye not that we shall judge angels?”
1 Pet. 1:12:	“Which things the angels desire to look into”.
2 Pet. 2:4:	“For if God spared not the angels that sinned...”
Jude 6:	“... And the angels which kept not their first estate ...”

These passages are difficult because they seem to contradict the general picture that we are given of angels in Scripture. We understand that angels are God’s immortal spirit-messengers, whose goodness, wisdom and power far exceed that of men. Yet here we seem to have ignorance, folly and sin attributed to angels. How are we to reconcile the four passages listed above with the general picture?
 

We suggest that the difficulty would not have arisen if the translators had not inadvertently misled us. Here are the facts: The Greek word from which the word “angel” is derived is “aggelos” (pronounced “angelos”). It means, simply, “messenger. There are different kinds of messengers. Some are human; others possess spirit natures. In the Greek New Testament the word “aggelos” is used for them all, and the context indicates the kind of messenger under consideration.
 

The following two passages will illustrate this. In each of them the word “aggelos” appears in the Greek, but in the first passage the word refers to a human being, John the Baptist, whereas the second passage is concerned with God’s heavenly messengers: “Behold, I send my messenger (aggelos) before thy face” (Mark 1:2). “... and the angels (aggeloi - plural of aggelos) ministered unto him” (Mark 1:13).
 

We can see at once what the translators have done in these two passages. Although the original word is the same for a human messenger as for a spirit messenger, the translators have distinguished between the two. They have translated the former, “messenger” and the latter, “angel”. They have, in fact, tried to show this distinction throughout their translation of the New Testament. (Indeed, they have acted in the same way in the Old Testament too. The Hebrew word “malak” has been translated “messenger” when it refers to a human being, and “angel” when it refers to a spirit being. )
 

Why did the translators think it necessary to distinguish between messengers and messengers in this way? Probably because the English derivative, “angel”, had by common usage come to mean celestial messenger only. It would have created confusion if they had translated “aggelos” by “angel” without regard to the question of whether the “aggelos” was a human being or a spirit being. It would have been less confusing if they had used the word “messenger” every time, but even this would have laid them open to criticism — the criticism of having neglected the obvious English word “angel”, when so many of the passages so clearly referred to these immortal beings. Having then decided to make this distinction between messengers and messengers, the translators had to play the role of interpreters as well. They had to determine from the context which kind of messenger it was, and to translate accordingly. Generally speaking their “interpretation” is sound — but not invariably.
 

It is submitted here that, in our four difficult passages, the translators have wrongly assumed that the “aggeloi” in question were spirit messengers. If they had recognized them as human messengers, and put the word “messenger” in the English text in each case, we would have been spared a deal of trouble and misunderstanding.
 

Thus, in 1 Cor. 6:3 Paul is telling the Corinthians that they will judge some responsible human messengers: and Peter is saying that certain messengers desired to look into things that had been revealed to the saints; and both Peter and Jude have some important things to say about certain messengers who sinned and did not keep their first estate.
 

There is a group of “angel” passages in the Book of Revelation where the interpretation of the translators has virtually been called in question too. Many have thought that the angels of the churches in Revelation are bishops, or elders. If this is true, then “messenger” would have been a happier translation.
 

Just one other disputed passage: 1 Tim. 3:16: “God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory”. Imagine that the word “aggeloi” had been translated “messengers” here: “... seen of messengers”. Almost certainly we should have thought of the apostles and other human witnesses of the resurrected Christ. Certainly these men had a message to proclaim. But what are we to understand by “... seen of angels”? Have the translators misled us?
 

Now let us look more closely at our four passages, and see if they make more sense if “messengers” is substituted for “angels”. 

[Resource Manager]

“We shall judge messengers” (1 Cor. 6:3)

 

The main difficulty is certainly removed from this passage, if we read it thus, but we still have to decide who these messengers are. We cannot be dogmatic here, but perhaps we can get some help from the context.

 

The Corinthian believers are rebuked for asking unbelievers to settle their disputes. They ought to be able to settle their own affairs “in their stride”, because they are destined to judge the world: “Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?” (vv. 1, 2). Paul continues: “Know ye not that we shall judge messengers? how much more things that pertain to this life?” In the future, when the saints will judge the world, they will have to judge men who, by God’s appointment or permission, are in authority. They are messengers, or agents, or (as “malak” is occasionally translated in the Old Testament) ambassadors. We wonder whether Psalm 149:5-9 is appropriate here: “Let the saints be joyful in glory: let them sing aloud upon their beds. Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a two-edged sword in their hand; to execute vengeance upon the heathen, and punishments upon the people; to bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron; to execute upon them the judgment written: this honour have all his saints. Praise ye the Lord”.

 

“Which things the messengers desire to look into” (1 Peter 1:12)

 

Who are these uninformed messengers? Surely they are not spirit beings, for, in that case, we should have to suppose that knowledge which had been withheld from these elevated beings had nevertheless been revealed to mortal believers; and we should also have to think of God’s immortal servants as “desiring” to have access to this knowledge which had been denied them, but revealed to lesser creatures. We appreciate, of course, that some things were not revealed to the angels in heaven (e. g. the day of the Lord’s coming - Mark 13:32); but we cannot think that, when Peter wrote, heavenly angels would have been more ignorant than the believers.

 

If we think of these messengers as human beings, not only do these difficulties disappear, but we have an explanation consistent with the context. Peter has already said that the prophets had striven to understand the Messianic prophecies that God had inspired them to write: “Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow” The prophets could not understand because these prophecies were not for themselves, but for later believers, such as those to whom Peter wrote: “Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you... which things the messengers desire to look into”. The messengers would seem therefore to be the uncomprehending prophets already referred to. Ten years ago the following sentence appeared in a C. I. L. paper on “Angels: Mortal and Immortal”: “One cannot help wondering whether the words of the well-known hymn concerning ‘the angel watchers of the sky’ looking down ‘with sad and wondering eyes’ would have been written, if the translators had put ‘messengers’ instead of ‘angels’”.

 

“The messengers that sinned” (2 Peter 2:4)

 

Who are the messengers that sinned? 2 Peter 2 is linked with the preceding chapter. Peter has already stated that “the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit”. Now he goes on to say that there were also false prophets in Old Testament times, and that there will be false teachers in the church, who will deceive many. He gives an assurance that these false teachers will be punished, as surely as certain messengers of the past who had sinned were cast down to hell, and reserved unto judgment.

 

Who then were the messengers that sinned? Does it not seem clear that they were, in fact, the false prophets already referred to? Prophets are messengers: we have already seen that the uninformed messengers of 1 Peter 1 were probably prophets. “Messengers that sinned” would seem to be a fitting description of false prophets who withstood the work of God’s “holy men”. Moreover, if we regard the messengers that sinned as false prophets, the parallel that Peter seems to be developing is completed. Thus: there were false prophets, and there will be false teachers; the false prophets were punished, and the false teachers will be.

 

Peter develops his argument. By reference to Noah and Lot he shows that God not only punishes rebels, but delivers the faithful: “The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished”. A description of the false prophet and false teacher class follows: they walk after the flesh, despise government, are presumptuous, self-willed; they dare to slander dignities”. V. 11 is particularly interesting. Peter has spoken about the false prophets — the wicked human messengers - who open wide their mouths in condemnation of those who are better than they. Yet other messengers — other “aggeloi” — who are greater in power and might, are far more restrained in their condemnation of these wicked human messengers. And who are these other superior messengers? Surely these are God’s immortal servants — the angels in heaven. Many attempts have been made to identify the messengers that sinned. May we suggest, without dogmatism, that they could well have been Korah, Dathan and Abiram. The messengers who sinned were men; they were enemies who opposed the word of God’s true prophets; they were false prophets “among the people”; they were not afraid to speak evil of dignities; they were literally and dramatically cast down to hell. “The messengers which kept not their first estate” (Jude 6)

 

Jude has much in common with Peter. He warns the early Christians against certain false teachers who are already at work. He draws a lesson from the history of Israel, who, having been saved from Egypt, were afterwards destroyed. He lays special emphasis upon the messengers who kept not their first estate, who are “reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day”. These messengers would seem to be the same as Peter’s “messengers that sinned”. And we note that they were numbered amongst the generation that came out of Egypt, but was afterwards destroyed — a further clue to their identity. And, once again, there is a contrast with God’s celestial messengers: “Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities. Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil ... durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.”

 

SomeDifficultPassagesBook2_PeterWatkins_CIL.pdf