The Origin of Satan and his demons

[Alfred Persson]

(Just highlighting your post for space.)
It seems fallen angels have no desire to cease from sin. Maybe reconciliation was offered to them and they refused it.

Yes but Eve (symbolism of Christs' church Eph.5:32) is offered forgiveness.

"Anointed cherub" can simply mean he was blessed by God with a great position.
Actually, Michael is the arch-angel, which can mean Michael isn't an angel, but is over them. Michael (meaning(?) He who is like God) didn't even accuse the devil but he and his angels knocked Satan to the earth.

That's very strange because the Lord of all glory rebuked but accused no one on earth.

This topic is too complex to comment on long posts.

I conclude from the "angelic sons of God" who "left their proper habitation" to have sex with human women (Gen. 6:1-2; 2 Pet. 1:4; Jude 1:6), but did not join Satan's rebellion; yet they are now in "reserved in everlasting chains...for the Judgment of the great day" (Jude 1:6) that there is no forgiveness for them. If there was it follows the chains wouldn't be everlasting. As this is spoken of the "sons of God" whose sin was only with women, how much more would it be true for Satan and his fallen angels who are guilty of far greater sins.

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

Satan is described in terms that far exceeds any other cherubim or angel. It can't be a title only.

I don't understand the last about rebuking. As Satan ends up in the Lake of Fire (Rev. 20:10) it implies God did more than rebuke Satan.

 

[journeyman]

I conclude from the "angelic sons of God" who "left their proper habitation" to have sex with human women (Gen. 6:1-2; 2 Pet. 1:4; Jude 1:6), but did not join Satan's rebellion;

Having immoral sex is rebellion against God.

yet they are now in "reserved in everlasting chains...for the Judgment of the great day" (Jude 1:6) that there is no forgiveness for them.

Seems that way. Being enslaved by the flesh is a chain too. In fact our Savior said anyone who serves sin is in prison,

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me.....to preach deliverance to the captives Lk.4:18, Isa.61:1

If there was it follows the chains wouldn't be everlasting.

"Everlasting" meaning as long as one wears it. In other words until a sinner truly repents, the chain stays on,

thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me
Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellow servant, even as I had pity on thee? And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.
Mt.18:32-34 KJV

For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was. Jas.1:24 KJV

As this is spoken of the "sons of God" whose sin was only with women, how much more would it be true for Satan and his fallen angels who are guilty of far greater sins.

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

The sons of God on earth have always been believing human beings, not unbelieving fallen angels.

Satan is described in terms that far exceeds any other cherubim or angel. It can't be a title only.

Satan means nothing more than adversary. Any adversary of God is a weakling doomed for destruction...unless he repents.

I don't understand the last about rebuking. As Satan ends up in the Lake of Fire (Rev. 20:10) it implies God did more than rebuke Satan.

The LoF is the end of all the unsaved. It's very strange. The invisible (?) battle gear we should wear...defeating evil with good?

 

[Free]

I disagree. Its obviously talking about Satan. No one else fits all the details.

As I said, I made my case. You don't agree. I won't keep repeating it.

The theory I am reading into the text, is only your opinion which so far, you fail to produce any facts that I have contradicted any detail in the context.

If a picture puzzle appears properly assembled, no pieces forced to fit, it was properly assembled and unfounded denials it was assembled properly, unproved opinion.

You tried to make a case, but it doesn't add up, which is why I disagree.

Looking at Dan 10:13:

Dan 10:13 The prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty-one days, but Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I was left there with the kings of Persia, (ESV)

Is Satan only "the prince of the kingdom of Persia"? Is he not " the ruler of this world" (John 16:11) and "the prince of the power of the air" (Eph 2:2)?

Dan 10:20 Then he said, “Do you know why I have come to you? But now I will return to fight against the prince of Persia; and when I go out, behold, the prince of Greece will come. (ESV)

Is the prince of Greece also Satan? How do you know? It seems quite evident, then, that Dan 10:13 has nothing at all to do with Satan.

Satan is only mentioned three times in the OT outside of Job, which mentions Satan 15 times:

1Ch 21:1 Then Satan stood against Israel and incited David to number Israel. (ESV)

Zec 3:1 Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him.
Zec 3:2 And the LORD said to Satan, “The LORD rebuke you, O Satan! The LORD who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is not this a brand plucked from the fire?” (ESV)

Nowhere in those verses is any sort of description of Satan or what he did before he fell given. We only see some of the actions that he does. The same goes for the NT.

You stated: "Satan looked deep within himself and saw iniquity, he had selfish motives for serving God."

Where is that in Scripture?

"Therefore, God made a terrible mistake believing sentient life would share life with Him in mutual “true love”. As God made a mistake, His own criteria disqualified from being God (Is. 41:21-24)."

I don't know why you want to diminish God's omniscience by saying "God made a terrible mistake." I don't even know what this has to do with Satan.

You stated: 'Satan is more powerful than the Archangel Michael (Dan. 10:13; Jude 1:9), he is called the “anointed cherub” making him “Arch-cherub” among the Cherubim which is the highest order of created beings above seraphim and angels. While the other cherubim carried the throne of God, Satan was its “covering roof” a “canopy over the Throne” (Ez. 28:14).

“Perfect” in his ways until iniquity was found in him, he became prideful about his own beauty (Ez. 28:15, 17; 1 Tim. 3:6) and his wisdom was corrupted (Ez. 28:17), desiring to be worshiped (Isa. 14:13-15; Lk. 4:6-8). Rather than glorify God for his perfections, he became vain in his reasoning.'

Where does the title "Arch-cherub" appear in Scripture? Anointed cherub, or "anointed guardian cherub" (ESV), appears in Eze 28:14, but that is a "lamentation over the king of Tyre" (v. 12):

Eze 28:11 Moreover, the word of the LORD came to me:
Eze 28:12 “Son of man, raise a lamentation over the king of Tyre, and say to him, Thus says the Lord GOD: “You were the signet of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
Eze 28:13 You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was your covering, sardius, topaz, and diamond, beryl, onyx, and jasper, sapphire, emerald, and carbuncle; and crafted in gold were your settings and your engravings. On the day that you were created they were prepared.
Eze 28:14 You were an anointed guardian cherub. I placed you; you were on the holy mountain of God; in the midst of the stones of fire you walked.
Eze 28:15 You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created, till unrighteousness was found in you.
Eze 28:16 In the abundance of your trade you were filled with violence in your midst, and you sinned; so I cast you as a profane thing from the mountain of God, and I destroyed you, O guardian cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.
Eze 28:17 Your heart was proud because of your beauty; you corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor. I cast you to the ground; I exposed you before kings, to feast their eyes on you.
Eze 28:18 By the multitude of your iniquities, in the unrighteousness of your trade you profaned your sanctuaries; so I brought fire out from your midst; it consumed you, and I turned you to ashes on the earth in the sight of all who saw you.
Eze 28:19 All who know you among the peoples are appalled at you; you have come to a dreadful end and shall be no more forever.” (ESV)

That was fulfilled and done. There is no mention of Satan in that passage.

You stated: 'Satan then “trafficked (Ez. 28:5) his argument angel to angel.'

Really?

Eze 28:1 The word of the LORD came to me:
Eze 28:2 “Son of man, say to the prince of Tyre, Thus says the Lord GOD: “Because your heart is proud, and you have said, ‘I am a god, I sit in the seat of the gods, in the heart of the seas,’ yet you are but a man, and no god, though you make your heart like the heart of a god—
Eze 28:3 you are indeed wiser than Daniel; no secret is hidden from you;
Eze 28:4 by your wisdom and your understanding you have made wealth for yourself, and have gathered gold and silver into your treasuries;
Eze 28:5 by your great wisdom in your trade you have increased your wealth, and your heart has become proud in your wealth— (ESV)

Where is Satan in this passage? Where is Satan shown to be trafficking "his argument angel to angel"?

The central problem is that your entire position is circular. You state that "Its obviously talking about Satan. No one else fits all the details." However, those are the only verses with those particular details and none mentions or hints at Satan. You must necessarily already have these ideas in your mind about Satan in order to be able to say "Its obviously talking about Satan. No one else fits all the details." That's circular, correct?

 

[JLB]

Yet Michael the archangel, in contending with the devil, when he disputed about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a reviling accusation, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!" (Jude 1:9 NKJ)

The context being that even Michael, the strongest of God's mighty angels did not bring a reviling accusation against Satan.

• Likewise also these dreamers defile the flesh, reject authority, and speak evil of dignitaries. Yet Michael the archangel, in contending with the devil, when he disputed about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a reviling accusation, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”

But I want to remind you, though you once knew this, that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day; as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
Likewise also these dreamers defile the flesh, reject authority, and speak evil of dignitaries. Yet Michael the archangel, in contending with the devil, when he disputed about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a reviling accusation, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!” But these speak evil of whatever they do not know; and whatever they know naturally, like brute beasts, in these things they corrupt themselves. Woe to them! For they have gone in the way of Cain, have run greedily in the error of Balaam for profit, and perished in the rebellion of Korah. Jude 1:5-11

 

[Alfred Persson]

You tried to make a case, but it doesn't add up, which is why I disagree.

Looking at Dan 10:13:

Dan 10:13 The prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty-one days, but Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I was left there with the kings of Persia, (ESV)

Is Satan only "the prince of the kingdom of Persia"? Is he not " the ruler of this world" (John 16:11) and "the prince of the power of the air" (Eph 2:2)?

Unfortunately I'm too busy to engage your superficial treatment of scripture in detail. Why do I describe it as "superficial"?

Daniel 10:13 illustrates this perfectly. You assume "prince of the kingdom of Persia" is a mere demon, lifting it out of context.

Persia controls the world, Cyrus who decreed the restoration of the Temple in Jerusalem is in Power. The "kings" in this verse are those with Cyrus. "The "prince of the power of the air" is Satan, he is also called the 'God of the world". There is no contradiction, they aren't two different demons.

Satan is the one in authority over the entire "kingdom of Persia", and he is trying to turn Cyrus and his court against Israel, rescind his decree:

22 Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, so that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and also put it in writing, saying,
23 Thus says Cyrus king of Persia: All the kingdoms of the earth the LORD God of heaven has given me. And He has commanded me to build Him a house at Jerusalem which is in Judah. Who is among you of all His people? May the LORD his God be with him, and let him go up! (2 Chr. 36:22-23 NKJ)

NKJ Daniel 10:1 In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a message was revealed to Daniel, whose name was called Belteshazzar. The message was true, but the appointed time was long; and he understood the message, and had understanding of the vision. (Dan. 10:1 NKJ)

Satan, the "prince of the kingdom of Persia" is not the same as the "prince of Persia" he is working through, to turn Cyrus against and his kings against the decree he just made.

Later, the demon Prince of the Greeks through Antiochus will come and defile the Temple that was rebuilt.

I don't have time to address everything in detail, right now. But I will. However, lest you think my delay in responding is because I can't answer, recall this proverb:

So the king of Israel answered and said, "Tell him,`Let not the one who puts on his armor boast like the one who takes it off.'" (1 Ki. 20:11 NKJ)

 

[Alfred Persson]

You tried to make a case, but it doesn't add up, which is why I disagree.

Looking at Dan 10:13:

Dan 10:13 The prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty-one days, but Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I was left there with the kings of Persia, (ESV)

Is Satan only "the prince of the kingdom of Persia"? Is he not " the ruler of this world" (John 16:11) and "the prince of the power of the air" (Eph 2:2)?

Dan 10:20 Then he said, “Do you know why I have come to you? But now I will return to fight against the prince of Persia; and when I go out, behold, the prince of Greece will come. (ESV)

Is the prince of Greece also Satan? How do you know? It seems quite evident, then, that Dan 10:13 has nothing at all to do with Satan.

The phrase "ruler (08269 שַׂר sar) of the kingdom" occurs only here, "prince" is also translated as "ruler" 33 times in the KJV. The Rotherham Bible does it here, as does the Greek Septuagint "ὁ ἄρχων βασιλείας Περσῶν" (Dan. 10:13 BGT)

But, the ruler of the kingdom of Persia, withstood me twenty-one days, but lo! Michael, one of the chief rulers, came in to help me,--and, I, left him there, beside the kings of Persia. (Dan. 10:13 Rotherham)

In the New Testament Satan is "the ruler" ὁ ἄρχων" of the demons (Mt. 9:34; 12:24) " ; "the ruler of this world" (John 12:31) and "ruler of the air" Eph. 2:2).

As the archangel Gabriel "(warrior of God") spoke to Daniel in Dan. 8:16; 9:21 many commentators deduce it is Gabriel speaking here. No one lesser than Satan could delay Gabriel from his mission, and it required Michael the Archangel's help to overcome him.

Satan is the one who deceives the world to fight God (Rev. 12:9; 1 John 5:19) and he is influencing the entire kingdom of Persia in an attempt to stop the rebuilding of the Temple:

Thus the following will be the meaning of the passage: Now shall I return to resume and continue the war with the prince of Persia, to maintain the position gained (v. 13) beside the kings of Persia; but when (while) I thus go forth to war, i.e., while I carry on this conflict, lo, the prince of Javan shall come (הִנֵּה with the partic. בָּא of the future)—then shall there be a new conflict. This last thought is not, it is true, expressly uttered, but it appears from v. 21. The warring with the prince, i.e., the spirit of Persia hostile to Israel, refers to the oppositions which the Jews would encounter in the hindrances put in the way of their building the temple from the time of Cyrus to the time of Darius Hystaspes, and further under Xerxes and Artaxerxes till the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem by Nehemiah, as well as at a later time on the side of the Persian world-power, in the midst of all which difficulties the Angel of the Lord promises to guide the affairs of His people. שַׂר יָוָן is the spirit of the Macedonian world-kingdom, which would arise and show as great hostility as did the spirit of Persia against the people of God.-Keil, C. F., & Delitzsch, F. (1996). Commentary on the Old Testament (Vol. 9, pp. 774–775). Hendrickson.

None of the above can be the work of a minor demon prince, it’s the ruler of the demons Satan who is opposing God.

None of this requires the "ruler (prince) of the kingdom of Persia" to be also the "Prince of Greece", a clear qualitative element exists in the "Prince of the kingdom of Persia" which controlled Israel at that time, and any other "prince." Just as "ruler (prince) of the power of the air" implies Satanic power over the entire earth, so here the addition of "kingdom" to the phrase is meant to distinguish this "prince" from other demons.

 

[Alfred Persson]

The context being that even Michael, the strongest of God's mighty angels did not bring a reviling accusation against Satan.

• Likewise also these dreamers defile the flesh, reject authority, and speak evil of dignitaries. Yet Michael the archangel, in contending with the devil, when he disputed about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a reviling accusation, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”

But I want to remind you, though you once knew this, that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day; as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
Likewise also these dreamers defile the flesh, reject authority, and speak evil of dignitaries. Yet Michael the archangel, in contending with the devil, when he disputed about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a reviling accusation, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!” But these speak evil of whatever they do not know; and whatever they know naturally, like brute beasts, in these things they corrupt themselves. Woe to them! For they have gone in the way of Cain, have run greedily in the error of Balaam for profit, and perished in the rebellion of Korah. Jude 1:5-11

Seems like I obliquely made the same point. Perhaps you should explain what you are implying.

I didn't speak evil of anyone.

 

[Free]

The phrase "ruler (08269 שַׂר sar) of the kingdom" occurs only here, "prince" is also translated as "ruler" 33 times in the KJV. The Rotherham Bible does it here, as does the Greek Septuagint "ὁ ἄρχων βασιλείας Περσῶν" (Dan. 10:13 BGT)

But, the ruler of the kingdom of Persia, withstood me twenty-one days, but lo! Michael, one of the chief rulers, came in to help me,--and, I, left him there, beside the kings of Persia. (Dan. 10:13 Rotherham)

In the New Testament Satan is "the ruler" ὁ ἄρχων" of the demons (Mt. 9:34; 12:24) " ; "the ruler of this world" (John 12:31) and "ruler of the air" Eph. 2:2).

As the archangel Gabriel "(warrior of God") spoke to Daniel in Dan. 8:16; 9:21 many commentators deduce it is Gabriel speaking here. No one lesser than Satan could delay Gabriel from his mission, and it required Michael the Archangel's help to overcome him.

Satan is the one who deceives the world to fight God (Rev. 12:9; 1 John 5:19) and he is influencing the entire kingdom of Persia in an attempt to stop the rebuilding of the Temple:

Thus the following will be the meaning of the passage: Now shall I return to resume and continue the war with the prince of Persia, to maintain the position gained (v. 13) beside the kings of Persia; but when (while) I thus go forth to war, i.e., while I carry on this conflict, lo, the prince of Javan shall come (הִנֵּה with the partic. בָּא of the future)—then shall there be a new conflict. This last thought is not, it is true, expressly uttered, but it appears from v. 21. The warring with the prince, i.e., the spirit of Persia hostile to Israel, refers to the oppositions which the Jews would encounter in the hindrances put in the way of their building the temple from the time of Cyrus to the time of Darius Hystaspes, and further under Xerxes and Artaxerxes till the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem by Nehemiah, as well as at a later time on the side of the Persian world-power, in the midst of all which difficulties the Angel of the Lord promises to guide the affairs of His people. שַׂר יָוָן is the spirit of the Macedonian world-kingdom, which would arise and show as great hostility as did the spirit of Persia against the people of God.-Keil, C. F., & Delitzsch, F. (1996). Commentary on the Old Testament (Vol. 9, pp. 774–775). Hendrickson.

None of the above can be the work of a minor demon prince, it’s the ruler of the demons Satan who is opposing God.

Again, it is begging the question to presume Satan is meant in Dan 10:13.

None of this requires the "ruler (prince) of the kingdom of Persia" to be also the "Prince of Greece",

And I have not said otherwise.

a clear qualitative element exists in the "Prince of the kingdom of Persia" which controlled Israel at that time, and any other "prince." Just as "ruler (prince) of the power of the air" implies Satanic power over the entire earth, so here the addition of "kingdom" to the phrase is meant to distinguish this "prince" from other demons.

Yet, there is nothing to suggest Satan is the one mentioned in Dan 10:13.

 

[Alfred Persson]

You stated: "Satan looked deep within himself and saw iniquity, he had selfish motives for serving God."

Where is that in Scripture?

"Therefore, God made a terrible mistake believing sentient life would share life with Him in mutual “true love”. As God made a mistake, His own criteria disqualified from being God (Is. 41:21-24)."

I don't know why you want to diminish God's omniscience by saying "God made a terrible mistake." I don't even know what this has to do with Satan.

That's because you totally misunderstood my argument and scripture. God never makes mistakes. It can be deduced from Job THAT is what Satan was trying to do, prove God made a mistake:

6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them.
7 And the LORD said to Satan, "From where do you come?" So Satan answered the LORD and said, "From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking back and forth on it."
8 Then 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, one who fears God and shuns evil?"
9 So Satan answered the LORD and said, "Does Job fear God for nothing?
10 "Have You not made a hedge around him, around his household, and around all that he has on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land.
11 "But now, stretch out Your hand and touch all that he has, and he will surely curse You to Your face!"
(Job 1:6-11 NKJ)

Why would Satan care about Job? He is being used to make a point. Satan argues God is wrong, Job isn't blameless. In fact, he is selfish. Remove his reward and he would curse God.

Why would this argument be heard in the "heavenly Court?" Because a legal case is being made by Satan, that God makes mistakes.

Why would Satan want to prove to the court God makes mistakes? Because God predicates His RIGHT to be God because He does NOT make mistakes:

21 "Present your case," says the LORD. "Bring forth your strong reasons," says the King of Jacob.
22 "Let them bring forth and show us what will happen; Let them show the former things, what they were, That we may consider them, And know the latter end of them; Or declare to us things to come.
23 Show the things that are to come hereafter, That we may know that you are gods; Yes, do good or do evil, That we may be dismayed and see it together. (Isa. 41:21-23 NKJ)

If it could be proved God made a mistake about Job, God would have to do the honorable thing and "recuse Himself" from being God over angels that want to go their own way.

THAT argument is how Satan convinced a third of heavens angels to join him in his rebellion. They wanted to do evil and Satan seemed to have an incontrovertible argument.

It is a fact all intelligent life acts for their own self interest, to obtain some "good". We all see this illustrated when insane people, who have no reason to move their arms and legs, do so wildly. We all know immediately they are insane.

BUT self-interest can be "good". I want God to be happy I exist, because I love Him. I don't want anything in return. He already loves me. That is the "good" I achieve by my acts, but its good self-interest, not selfish.

 

[Alfred Persson]

Again, it is begging the question to presume Satan is meant in Dan 10:13.


And I have not said otherwise.


Yet, there is nothing to suggest Satan is the one mentioned in Dan 10:13.

Yes, I proved it using the NT.

 

[Alfred Persson]

Again, it is begging the question to presume Satan is meant in Dan 10:13.


And I have not said otherwise.


Yet, there is nothing to suggest Satan is the one mentioned in Dan 10:13.

Everything I cited suggests it. The Hebrew, the Greek and the entire context in the light of NT revelation about Satan.

 

[Alfred Persson]

Another obvious reason why the "ruler of the Kingdom of Persia" is Satan and not a lesser demon, is the importance of stopping the rebuilding of the Temple and the prophetic chronology which then moves forward to Satan's ultimate doom.

 

[Free]

My only point is that you have not at all proved Satan in any of those verses and that is why a Bible dictionary wouldn’t have included them. If a resource that is meant to help people understand the Bible better doesn’t have what you are saying, that should be reason to pause and rethink what you think those passages are saying.

 

[Alfred Persson]

My only point is that you have not at all proved Satan in any of those verses and that is why a Bible dictionary wouldn’t have included them. If a resource that is meant to help people understand the Bible better doesn’t have what you are saying, that should be reason to pause and rethink what you think those passages are saying.

Among my points is you have not disproved Satan most definitely is in those verses:

1. The Hebrew, the Greek and the entire context in the light of NT revelation about Satan
2. Satan wouldn't trust a lesser demon to stop the rebuilding of God's Temple
3. A lesser demon could not withstand the Archangel Gabriel for 21 days.

As for Bible dictionaries, what made them better than scripture?

Which do you think is correct? Those produced by the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Scientologists?

Where did you get the notion these will go beyond the consensus of their particular theological persuasion and can be trusted?

 

[JLB]

Seems like I obliquely made the same point. Perhaps you should explain what you are implying.

I didn't speak evil of anyone.

I didn't say or imply you were speaking evil of anyone.


My point is that just because Michael didn't bring a reviling accusation against Satan, doesn't mean Satan is more powerful than Michael.

 

[Alfred Persson]

I didn't say or imply you were speaking evil of anyone.


My point is that just because Michael didn't bring a reviling accusation against Satan, doesn't mean Satan is more powerful than Michael.

You could be right. "Dared not" as its used in the NT elsewhere doesn't arise because of comparative strength.

I recalled Peter's comment which seems to refer to the same people, its reference to angelic power, and assumed Michael's action was explained by relative strength. That assumption doesn't fit as well as I first thought:

8 Likewise also these dreamers defile the flesh, reject authority, and speak evil of dignitaries.
9 Yet Michael the archangel, in contending with the devil, when he disputed about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a reviling accusation, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!"
10 But these speak evil of whatever they do not know; and whatever they know naturally, like brute beasts, in these things they corrupt themselves. (Jude 1:8-10 NKJ)

Compare:

9 then the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations and to reserve the unjust under punishment for the day of judgment,
10 and especially those who walk according to the flesh in the lust of uncleanness and despise authority. They are presumptuous, self-willed. They are not afraid to speak evil of dignitaries,
11 whereas angels, who are greater in power and might, do not bring a reviling accusation against them before the Lord.
12 But these, like natural brute beasts made to be caught and destroyed, speak evil of the things they do not understand, and will utterly perish in their own corruption, (2 Pet. 2:9-12 NKJ)

Angels much more powerful than these dreamers don't dare speak evil...so "power" is relevant.

BUT your point remains, and I agree this event does NOT prove Satan is stronger than Michael, "who dares not" put himself in the place of God judging evil. God permits the devil act as he does, for God's own purposes. Compare this similar event:

1 Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the Angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to oppose him.
2 And the LORD said to Satan, "The LORD rebuke you, Satan! The LORD who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is this not a brand plucked from the fire?" (Zech. 3:1-2 NKJ)

However, the events in Daniel 10:13 do indicate Gabriel wasn't able to overcome the Devil without Michael's assistance.

And as Satan is a Cherub---Cherubim are depicted as the strongest creatures in God's army, Guarding Eden and God's throne from any intrusion, it follows he is stronger than the Archangel Michael. But I agree, Jude 1:9 doesn't corroborate that.

 

[LeviR]

Satan or the devil is mentioned so often in the N.T. that I find it strange he doesn’t even seem to exit during the first temple period.
One would think if he is a rebellious fallen angel that his presence would have surely been known throughout most of the beginning of the OT scripture, at least as some kind of warning to the people.
It may be possible, I think, that the book of Job, or the story, may have been known at some point during that period.
If so, the question needs to be asked as to who the sons of God are in Job.
If the sons of God in Job were thought to be the same sons of God in Gen 6, then it certainly needs to be determined who they are or were.
If one believes the sons of God in Gen 6 to be fallen angels then he would also suspect the same of those in Job. The same idea would exist if one thought the sons of God refers to men.
Depending on one’s thinking of this, it would definitely affect where it leads him from there.
One might go from there, back to the garden and the serpent.

 

[Alfred Persson]

Satan or the devil is mentioned so often in the N.T. that I find it strange he doesn’t even seem to exit during the first temple period.
One would think if he is a rebellious fallen angel that his presence would have surely been known throughout most of the beginning of the OT scripture, at least as some kind of warning to the people.
It may be possible, I think, that the book of Job, or the story, may have been known at some point during that period.
If so, the question needs to be asked as to who the sons of God are in Job.
If the sons of God in Job were thought to be the same sons of God in Gen 6, then it certainly needs to be determined who they are or were.
If one believes the sons of God in Gen 6 to be fallen angels then he would also suspect the same of those in Job. The same idea would exist if one thought the sons of God refers to men.
Depending on one’s thinking of this, it would definitely affect where it leads him from there.
One might go from there, back to the garden and the serpent.

Genesis, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Zechariah contain a wealth of information about Satan.

The NT mentions him by name more, but the coming of Christ is why. Satan's "devices" against the truth skyrocketed.

 

[LeviR]

Genesis, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Zechariah contain a wealth of information about Satan.

The NT mentions him by name more, but the coming of Christ is why. Satan's "devices" against the truth skyrocketed.

It seems odd that for all the evil taking place early on in Scripture that Satan is never called into account for any of it. It is either said to be caused by the people or by God as a disciplinary device.
It seems strange that all of a sudden Satan is attributed to all evil.

 

[Alfred Persson]

It seems odd that for all the evil taking place early on in Scripture that Satan is never called into account for any of it. It is either said to be caused by the people or by God as a disciplinary device.
It seems strange that all of a sudden Satan is attributed to all evil.

I don't agree, Eve is deceived by Satan and God cursed him personally for it, at the very beginning of the Bible:

13 And the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?" The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."
14 So the LORD God said to the serpent: "Because you have done this, You are cursed more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you shall go, And you shall eat dust All the days of your life. (Gen. 3:13-14 NKJ)

God called Satan to account, blaming him for deceiving Eve.

But I would agree the NT revelation unveils everything Satan is, which didn't happen in the OT. Nothing strange about that, with Christ came the True Light on everything, including evil.