Picking up where we left off in part (a) of this Part IV we showed that the Hebrew word “satan” was not properly translated but simply transliterated as though it were a proper noun, or name. The word “satan” simply means adversary. The translators made an assumption based upon their beliefs. It is not a proper noun, nor a name, but a job function, or role, or position that is taken on.
As pointed out in the comments to Part III of this series, we do not use the definite article “the” when calling someone’s name. We do not say “the Bill,” or “the Joe,” or “the Mark.” But, we do say “the doctor,” or “the District Attorney,” or “the President.” Those are positions with certain duties or skills for job functions, or positions of authority. When speaking of the old devil, the serpent in the garden of Eden that twisted God’s word, and turned God’s word into a lie, it is proper to use “the” and capitalize Adversary as the main adversary that stood against God’s people and twisted God’s word.
Peter was an adversary of Christ for a moment in time when he challenged Christ’s statements in Matt. 16:23 when Christ said to Peter, “Get thee behind me, adversary…”, which is the correct translation in Young’s.
I have heard people try to say that the Adversary, or “Satan” took Peter over at that moment and caused Peter to speak against Christ. This is the bias of the learned pagan idolatry that was floating around in the 1st century AD, and has ever since.
Peter was not taken over by the devil. This was not some demonic possession. He spoke words – his spirit – that denied Christ’s words – Christ’s spirit. In essence, Peter called Christ a liar. At that moment in time, Peter spoke falsely and stood as an adversary to Christ because of Peter’s lack of understanding. Christ very quickly corrected Peter.
We must be careful to stay in the context of the scriptures to be able to determine which adversary is being discussed.
Just as the word “satan” was transliterated, the word “angel” is also a problem. It was not translated from the original Hebrew or Greek scriptures in many instances. In the NT, it was transliterated and then Anglicized from the Greek “aggelos” which simply means a messenger, or envoy; one who was sent. (1) It is translated correctly as messenger in Matt. 11:10 where speaking of John the Immerser (Baptist). The English translations of this word should have just used “messenger” in all cases.
This failure has lead many people astray about the celestial angels. Messengers can be either human or celestial. The Hebrew word for messenger was “malak” and that is where Malachi got his name. Malachi’s name means “my messenger.” (2) (3) (4) Malachi was a man, a prophet of God.
Anyone who was sent to deliver a message is a messenger. The earthly, human messengers that God sent included some of the patriarchs (Enoch and Noah), the prophets, the Levitical priests, the judges of Israel, Moses, etc. They also included John the Immerser (Baptist), Christ in His incarnation, the disciples and apostles whom Christ sent to preach the gospel in the 1st century AD. All of these earthly messengers were “angels” of God who spoke the spirit of truth, the words of God’s truth.
We only know which messengers were celestial and which were earthly from the context of the scriptures. And, we have a clue. Those celestial angels are of greater power and strength.
“Bless Jehovah, ye His messengers, Mighty in power — doing His word, To hearken to the voice of His Word.” (Psa. 103:20, YLT)
The mightier, stronger celestial messengers are with our Father in heaven every day, and they hear His voice, and do His will. They see Him face to face. They know His power and His authority first hand. That means the celestial messengers do not sin. Therefore the celestial messengers have not and are not ever rebelling against God, and were never thrown out of heaven.
Excerpt from Angels & Demons 5: What Law Did the Angels Break by Stan Lindsay –
“Fallen Angel Stories are typically justified on the basis of some perceived Law that the angels broke. Look through the Ten Commandments. Do you see any commandment targeted at angels? I do not. The Law was given to humans, not angels…..“Why did we consider whether angels broke any of the Ten Commandments? Because, some sort of justification is needed for a Fallen Angel Story. Usually, that justification is found in some perceived “sin” of the angels.” (5)
The translators made decisions based upon their taught beliefs and biases as to when to use “messenger” and when to use “angel”. They did not stay true to the scriptures but added in their own beliefs about when a messenger was a celestial one.
The “messenger” used in Matt. 11:10 of John is the same Greek word “aggelos”, Strong’s Gr. 32 which is used in 2 Pet. 2:4. But, in 2 Pet. 2:4 the translators used the word “angel”. Why? Was it because they bought into the mythology of fallen angels?
In a discussion about the pernicious ways of false prophets (2 Pet. 2:2), the translators chose to list celestial angels as one of the categories of rebellious people who disobeyed the Father.
“For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;” (2 Pet. 2:4, KJV)
Young’s translates it correctly.
“For if God messengers who sinned did not spare, but with chains of thick gloom, having cast [them] down to Tartarus, did deliver [them] to judgment, having been reserved,” (YLT)
Then how do we know from the context that the messengers of vs.4 are earthly messengers? Because a distinction is made in 2 Pet. 2:11.
The context of 2 Peter chap. 2 continues from the discussion in 2 Pet. 1 of staying true to the faith and the gospel of Christ, to not depart from that faith. And, in 2 Pet. 1:1 he warns them of false prophets and false teachers. Their spirits / words were false.
2 Pet. 2 is concerned with “men” who are causing trouble in the assemblies. Peter then lists instances from history when other “men” were judged for their sins.
Every one will agree that vs. 5, 6, 7, and 8 were discussing men who had been judged in the past. But they want to make vs. 4 about celestial messengers. The reason we can know that vs. 4 was also about human messengers is the distinction made in vs. 11.
“Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord.” (2 Pet. 2:11, KJV)
“whereas messengers, in strength and power being greater, do not bear against them before the Lord an evil speaking judgment;” (2 Pet. 2:11, YLT)
The messengers in vs. 11 being of greater strength and power are the celestial “angels”. Verse 4 is about human messengers who disobeyed God, and were cast down to the grave (tartarus). As human messengers were the prophets who were sent by God to warn of coming judgment, and as human messengers were also the Levitical priests who were to teach God’s word to the people, and as human messengers included those selected by God such as Moses, then we must consider that the use of messengers in vs. 4 were most likely early prophets who spoke falsely (spirits of error) and were leading others astray.
They are not named in 2 Peter 2:4. There is speculation about who these men were. But, as vs. 11 makes the distinction for heavenly messengers then vs. 4 cannot be speaking of heavenly messengers. As it appears in a list before those of Noah’s flood it appears to be a logical time sequence that places them earlier than the flood.
Other than that we are not told. The Bible doesn’t say who they were, only that they were judged and sent to the grave to wait for that same “last day” in which Daniel stood in his lot at the fall of that temple in Jerusalem in AD 70 (See Part III).
Peter was warning against false teachers, and listed the consequences. The context of 2 Pet. 2 is still about holding fast to the faith against the false teachers.
The myth about fallen angels is based upon pagan beliefs, and it has been inserted into God’s word by false teachers and translators who were indoctrinated into those pagan beliefs. The idea of fallen celestial messengers (angels) is no where taught in the scriptures. Saying that celestial “angels” rebelled against God is slandering those celestial messengers who obeyed God and delivered His Spirit in Truth.
Notes:
Strong’s Gr. 32, “aggelos” at https://biblehub.com/greek/32.htm
Malachi – https://www.behindthename.com/name/malachi
Malak: Messenger – https://hebrewwordlessons.com/2018/12/16/malak-messenger-sent-one-angel/
Untranslated words – https://www.rebuildingthefoundations.org/bible-transliteration.html
Angels & Demons 5 – http://www.stanlindsay.com/2010/04/angels-demons-5-what-law-did-angels.html
Talmud & Middle Persian Culture – https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/talmud-middle-persian-culture
Excerpt from Angels & Angelology:
“A special category are the so-called Fallen Angels, frequently mentioned in post-biblical literature. This concept is also common to all Semitic peoples; the idea of vanquished gods or demons, who then appear as accursed and damned, is one that prevailed among all the peoples of antiquity. It is found in a special form in earlier versions of the story of the creation, in which Rahab appears in the role of the vanquished god. Although for a variety of reasons little trace has remained of the ideas upon which the Rahab legends are based, the dualistic concepts of paganism have nevertheless exerted a profound influence upon Judaism, and the concept of the existence of good and evil powers, contradicting as they did the idea of monotheism, found their way into Judaism through the story of the Fallen Angels. It must be pointed out, however, that the passage Genesis 6:1 ff., although usually quoted as the basis of all subsequent legends of Fallen Angels, has in fact little to do with this concept, as it later developed. Not only is the interpretation of “Nephilim” as Fallen Angels of a doubtful nature (see Num. 13:33), but the text contains no denouncement of the “Benei Elohim” who had married the daughters of men; on the contrary, it stresses that the children of these connections were “the heroes of days gone by, the famous men.” It was only at a later stage, when the dualistic belief in the existence of evil demons had become a firm component of popular religion, that attempts were made to find biblical authority for this concept, contradictory as it was to monotheism.” Source: Jewish Virtual Library – here
Further reading:
1. Excerpt from Angels & Demons 2: The Prometheus Connection: – http://www.stanlindsay.com/2010/04/angels-demons-2-prometheus-connection.html
2. Angels & Demons 3: Where Have All the Fallen Angels Gone – http://www.stanlindsay.com/2010/04/angels-demons-3-where-have-all-fallen.html
3. Angels & Demons 4: “The Great Satan” of Iran – http://www.stanlindsay.com/2010/04/angels-demons-4-great-satan-of-iran.html
Shredding The Veil 
NASB:2 Peter 2:10 and especially those who indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires and despise authority. Daring, self-willed, they do not tremble when they revile angelic majesties,
YLT: 2 Peter 2:10-11 and chiefly those going behind the flesh in desire of uncleanness, and lordship despising; presumptuous, self-complacent, dignities (Greek 1391) they are not afraid to speak evil of, whereas messengers, in strength and power being greater, do not bear against them before the Lord an evil speaking judgment;
1391 Greek doxa {dox’-ah} from the base of dokeo; glory (as very apparent), in a wide application (literal or figurative, objective or subjective):—dignity, glory(-ious), honour, praise, worship.
In 2 Peter 2:10, what / who are the ‘dignities’ that Peter is talking about here? Would this have been a reference to those who have been given a role of honor by the Lord (the apostles, prophets)?? I am not a fan of the NASB translation of ‘angelic majesties’, so I don’t believe that Peter is referring to celestial angels here. Yet in 2 Peter 2:11, it compares this to how the celestial messengers do not speak judgment. So I am little confused. If v.10 is referring to men speaking evil against dignities (for example the apostles), then what is the purpose of v. 11 comparing how the celestial messengers would handle it? Why would there ever be a time where the celestial messengers would speak judgment against any human? I am not convinced in the traditional ‘interpretation’ of these verses, but I am struggling to put the whole picture together. From what I understand, vv 1-10, and then vv 12-22 are speaking of the behavior of humans. It appears that v. 11 is a parenthetical insertion to provide some contrast, but I am struggling to understand why that is there. I am not sure my question is clear. Please let me know if you need clarification of my question in any area. Thank you for your work that you do.
LikeLike
The key is understanding vs. 9. “The Lord hath known to rescue pious ones out of temptation, and unrighteous ones to a day of judgment, being punished, to keep,” The unrighteous do not honor YHVH (Yahuah), in vs. 10 “lordship despising” refers to God’s dominion. It is God’s job to judge. Peter brought up the point in vs. 11 that even the heavenly messengers, who are mightier in power than mortal men, who see God every day and carry out His instructions doing the Fathers will (Psa. 103:20), they know better and do not presume to take over God’s function and pronounce judgment. But the unrighteous men who do not revere the Father who revel in licentious behavior and have no restraint presume to pronounce judgment on any and all dignitaries, whether they be of civil office or the saints and apostles God had appointed. As they do not fear YHVH they are without control. So vs 11 points out the restraint of heavenly messengers who have 1st hand knowledge of God in comparison to the unrighteous evil ones who have no knowledge of God. Does this answer your question?
LikeLike
Yes this helps. So in discussing this with my sister, she raised James 2:19 that says that even the demons (NASB and YLT) or devils (KVJ) believe and shudder. As I understand that the NT references to demons / devils are referring not to actual spiritual entities, but rather to idols / ‘no-gods’, then is this verse implying that simply stating that you ‘believe in God’ means nothing, since people in those days stated that idols were ‘real’ but that did not make them real, and even the dumb idols still demonstrated who the Lord is (see the OT story of Dagon in 1 Samuel 5:3, who bowed face down before the ark)?
The overall context of this verse is referring to those who say they have faith, but have no works to back it up, so was he building on the understanding that those who worship idols (demons) do so with their ‘faith’, but there is no life to those idols, therefore, it is fruitless?
Was it that the people who wrote the Bible were just people who were influenced by the culture of their day and used terminology that would have been common to them at the time?
I am struggling to answer her question specifically, so I was hoping to get your thoughts on this.
LikeLike
It takes time to get used to thinking of people taking on the role of an “evil spirit” or a false accuser (devil). The word used interchangeably in the translations of James 2:19 as demons / devils is the Gr. “daimonion” (G1140), and the first definition is “evil spirit”, or demons. I would refer you back to 1 John 4:1-3 where John said that anyone who denies that Christ had come in the flesh was the spirit of anti-Christ. That would be an evil spirit, a false teacher, or a demon wouldn’t it? So even those people with evil spirits, or evil thoughts, or evil deniers of Christ believe that God is one and shudder. Testing The Spirits – Part I may be helpful to review. Devils are people who falsely accuse others, and who falsely accused Christ. So are demons – false teachers, false spirits, deniers of Christ, evil spirits = demons. They are not a nebulous spiritual entity. They are people. And, the language of their day in the 1st century AD is sometimes a stumbling block for us almost 2,000 years later.
LikeLike
I still struggle with Mathew 8:28-32 I have not read a good explanation to this one yet.
“When Yeshua arrived at the other side of the lake, in the Gadarenes’ territory, there came out of the burial caves two men controlled by demons, so violent that no one dared travel on that road. They screamed, “What do you want with us, Son of God? Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?” Now some distance from them a large herd of pigs was feeding. The demons begged him, “If you are going to drive us out, send us into the herd of pigs.” “All right, go!” he told them. So they came out and went into the pigs, whereupon the entire herd rushed down the hillside into the lake and drowned.”
Mattityahu (Mat) 8:28-32 CJB
LikeLike
Yes, discussed this one in detail in Part VI (c) of Demons, Devils & Idols. It is critical to pay attention to the context. Sometimes the Greek will use demons for pagan idols, and sometimes it will be in the usage of evil of false spirits. Either way, if the context is idols, then the demons do not exist. If the context of the language is having feelings or takes actions, then that is human in origin. So, the word is used in both instances. Please read the 3rd part (c) of Demon, Devils & Idols about the Gadarene “legion”. Blessings…
LikeLike
What is the correct interpretation of the scripture where the demons ask Jesus to put them into the herd of swine after Jesus removed them from the man? Also the demon who asked Jesus if he came to bring judgement on them before the appointed time? Thank you for your help.
LikeLike
What are the demons who asked Jesus to cast them out of the man and send them into the herd of swine? Also the demon in the person who asked Jesus if he came to bring judgement on them before the appointed time? What is the correct interpretation of these verses? Thank you for your help.
LikeLike
Coming next in Part VI (a) and VI (b).
LikeLike
Ok thank you, sorry for the double post I’m new on here and didn’t realize my post went through lol. Thank you again for replying.
LikeLike
No problem.
LikeLike
I have a question to ask you about your articles. Is there a correct forum that I should use to do that, or should I use this email?
Thank you
Nathan D. Lewis
Sent from my iPhone
LikeLike
You can ask here.
LikeLike
I appreciate the information you’re passing along. Before delving into preterist interpretation, I never considered equating “angel” with “human messenger”. When Jesus says, “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” are the words “devil and his angels” simply a general reference to human adversaries?
Also, I mentioned Revelation 20:10 previously. Just to go over that once again. When it states, “the devil who deceived them” please explain once again how to properly view “devil” in this verse. Who is deceiving them? Is this an example of a generalized term for adversary?
LikeLike
Not just the human adversaries, tho they are included. John 8:44, to the scribes & Pharisees, “… ye are of your father the devil…” The devil in Rev. 20:10 refers back to Rev. 20:2 which calls out the original devil / satan / adversary from the garden in Gen. 3. He knew he only had a little time left, the short time of Rev. 12:12 to try to prevent or stop Christ’s salvation work. He was the deceiver, false accuser, & those deceived were men of the Sanhedrin who held that illegal trial, Caiaphas who charged Jesus with blasphemy, all those unrepentant who stood before Pilate & asked for Jesus’ blood, all those who persecuted the saints during the tribulation, and killed the apostles… these were all earthly men who were adversaries of Christ, and therefore were on the devil’s side, whether knowingly or unknowingly… they picked the wrong side. All of these human agents having sided with the deceiver / devil were his defacto messengers / angels. So, they all qualify as being deceivers / false accusers, and devils, too. But, THE Adversary lost that battle. Christ won. THE Adversary is no more. He is gone.
LikeLike
That explanation helps a great deal. Now I’m trying to understand the origin of the adversary that we find in Gen 3. Was this original adversary created by God and placed in the Garden for the purpose of being adversarial? I will assume, based on what we’ve discussed so far that this original adversary in Gen 3 was not cast out of heaven.
LikeLike
We are not told. We do not have that info. God has not told us where that adversary came from, nor who he was. I believe that is why so many ppl continue to search alternative belief systems to try to find that info. I believe this is why the Jewish Rabbis spend so much time writing so many books about laws they derive from one word of a verse of scripture.
My view is that if it is not in God’s word, then He considers it unnecessary. He has given us everything we need in order to be able to be saved by the blood of Christ (2 Pet. 1:3). He has provided everything we must have to be able to be reconciled to Him for our eternal salvation. But, there are some things we have not been told that we will have to wait to learn. I envision a freshman orientation class when we get to heaven, and I want to sit in God’s library for a while.
I think it is more appropriate to view this life as a child in grade school. We have to learn in steps. We don’t graduate high school after 1st grade. So, right now we are learning to trust God, to depend upon Him, to know His word, and know He is our creator, that without the air He provides for us to breathe we would all die.
So searching the scriptures, where does the Bible say that all evil comes from? Gen. 6:5, “thoughts of his heart was only evil continually…” Jer. 17:9, “The heart is more deceitful than all else..” Jer. 7:24, “…their own counsels and in the stubbornness of their evil heart,..” Mark 7:20-23 “…For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts,”
Evil comes from within the heart of man. So speculating philosophically… Was the adversary in the garden only a substitute for Eve to cast blame? Was the devil of Rev. 20 just a symbolic representation of the evil thoughts of the Sanhedrin? Was Job just a salutary lesson, an allegory? Was the figurative symbol of the snake / serpent which God used in prophesy to represent the evil kings / tyrants that oppressed the people that same adversary in the garden? These questions have been asked for centuries. I don’t think we are going to solve some of these until we are all together in heaven. Sometimes I think that mankind collectively is that adversary. So, at this time, I cannot answer that question, and I don’t think anyone else can either.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Also, the portion of Gen 3 that always baffles me, is that God curses the serpent among all other wild animals. The serpent is cursed to crawl on its belly. To me, this sure comes across as a reference to the animal that we see slithering through the grass. Every time I read this, I always come to the same conclusion that this story is illustrating how snakes, as we know them, came to exist as these legless creatures “crawling” along the ground.
LikeLike
Possibly. I don’t know of any woman of my acquaintance that likes snakes. I think our psyche is imprinted with the image of snakes symbolizing absolute evil. They are totally repugnant. We have to keep in mind however that not everything in the Bible is literal. Some things, mostly in prophesy, are figurative and symbolic. Not always easy to tell, but Gen. 3 involves the prophesy of God’s salvation plan through His Son who would defeat that evil.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks again for all the effort you put into this site. This site has been instrumental in helping me understand biblical prophecy. Unfortunately, full-preterism has been marginalized, and the majority of christians today don’t even want to hear it. All you can do is speak the truth and not worry about others turning a deaf ear to it.
LikeLike
See also The Signs of Revelation – Part VI: The Judgement Day, Chap. 20
LikeLike