The Nature, Purpose and Destiny of the Adversary (Part Five)

Satan’s eonian purpose and ultimate destiny

Having defended the view that “the Adversary” (tou diabolou) and “the Satan” (tou satanas) referred to in the Greek Scriptures should be understood as an intelligent, superhuman being who belongs to the same order of celestial spirits as Michael and Gabriel, I’ll close this study with a brief scriptural defense of what I believe his present, eonian purpose is, and what I believe his post-eonian destiny will involve.

With regard to Satan’s present eonian purpose and role, one of the following must be true: either (1) Satan was created by God with a sinful character/disposition or (2) he acquired a sinful character/disposition at some point subsequent to his creation. Most Christians hold to the latter view, and believe that Satan underwent a change in character at some point after he was created (at which point he went from being righteous and “pure in heart” to being sinful and wicked). However, I believe that Scripture reveals that no such change in Satan’s character/disposition ever took place.

The titles “Satan” and “the Adversary” reveal to us the eonian purpose for which the spiritual being to whom these titles belong (and by which he is known) was created by God. His role in God’s plan is to be the adversary, or opponent, of God (and, by implication, the adversary/opponent of mankind). In accord with this point, we read in John 8:44 that Christ declared the following to a group of unbelieving Jews:

“You are of your father, the Adversary, and the desires of your father you are wanting to do. He was a man-killer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, for truth is not in him. Whenever he may be speaking a lie, he is speaking of his own, for he is a liar, and the father of it.”

And in 1 John 3:8 we find a similarly-worded description of the Adversary:

”Yet he who is doing sin is of the Adversary, for from the beginning is the Adversary sinning. For this was the Son of God manifested, that He should be annulling the acts of the Adversary.”

The words “from the beginning” in these verses indicate that the Adversary (i.e., Satan) has been sinning (and a “man-killer”) since the time that he was created by God. 

It should be noted that someone can be considered a “man-killer” without actually killing anyone. In 1 John 3:15, we read that anyone who has hatred for his brother is a “man-killer.” Being a “man-killer,” then, has to do with the unloving desires and disposition of a person’s heart. It does not require that one be responsible for the actual act of taking someone’s life (or even that they have the intention of taking someone's life).

Meyer's NT Commentary articulates this point well:

“Every one who hates his brother is a murderer, not merely inasmuch as hatred sometimes leads to murder, but because by his nature he is inclined to the destruction of his brother, and if he does not attain this object is only hindered from it by other opposing forces” (https://biblehub.com/commentaries/1_john/3-15.htm).

Thus, Satan can be said to have been “a man-killer from the beginning” if, in accord with God’s eonian purpose, Satan was created with a sinful and malicious disposition that inevitably led him to seek the destruction and ruin of mankind as soon as he had the opportunity to do so. That is, Satan's created nature is such that he was inclined to bring about the death of mankind.

Notice, also, that the reason that Satan does not “stand in the truth” is that "truth is not in him." The implication is that, if the truth was in him, he would "stand in the truth." But what does it mean for the truth to not be in him? It means he's ignorant of the truth (i.e., the truth that, if apprehended, would result in him standing in the truth rather than being a liar and a deceiver). We can thus conclude that God – in order that Satan do what he does – has deprived him of some important truth, and keeps him from coming to a realization of this truth (and it can be inferred that this has been the case “from the beginning”).

In response to this understanding of Satan’s purpose and “original state,” those who hold to the most commonly-held view concerning Satan (i.e., that he was originally a “holy angel” with a pure/sinless disposition) may be inclined to object as follows: 

The expression “from the beginning” simply means, “from the beginning of creation” (as is the case in Matthew 19:4; cf. Mark 10:6). Thus, we need not believe that Satan was sinful when he was created; rather, the words “from the beginning” simply tell us that, by the time God created the heavens and the earth, Satan had already become a sinful being.

In response to this objection, when Christ used the same expression in Matt. 19:4 in reference to Adam and Eve, the “beginning” in view refers to the time when mankind was created by God:

Now He, answering, said, “Did you not read that the Maker from the beginning makes them male and female…?”

What we read in Mark 10:6 is in accord with this understanding:

“Yet from the beginning of creation God makes them male and female.”

Here, “the beginning of creation” refers to the six days of God’s creative work (for it was on the sixth day that God created mankind; see Gen. 1:27, 31; 5:1-2; cf. Deut. 4:32). It’s because God created mankind (and made “male and female”) at “the beginning of creation” that the expression “from the beginning of creation” is used in Mark 10:6. Had mankind been created earlier than “the beginning of creation,” the use of the additional words found in Mark’s Account (“of creation”) wouldn’t have been used. For the point is that, as long as mankind has existed on the earth, they have been male and female. Thus, when we find the expression “from the beginning” used in reference to Satan, we can reasonably conclude that the “beginning” refers to the time when Satan was created by God.

Moreover, the above objection requires that Satan was created by God at some point prior to “the beginning” of which we read in John 8:44 and 1 John 3:8. But the view that Satan came into existence before “the beginning” referred to in these verses is contrary to what we read in John 1:1-3. In these verses we read the following:

“In the beginning was the word, and the word was toward God, and God was the word. This was in the beginning toward God. All came into being through it, and apart from it not even one thing came into being which has come into being.”

According to what we read here, it was “in the beginning” that everything that has come into being came into being. Since Satan is a created being (and thus came into being through the divine word of which John wrote), it follows that he – along with all other celestial beings – came into being “in the beginning.” And since Satan has had a murderous, lying and sinful disposition “from the beginning,” we can conclude that he’s been this way since the time that he was created by God (and that, therefore, God created Satan to be the adversary that he is).

Most Christians cannot accept even the possibility that God might have created Satan (or any other being) with a sinful disposition. For this, of course, would mean that God is ultimately and absolutely responsible for the entrance of sin into the universe through Satan. However, Scripture is clear that the sovereignty of God is absolute, and that his purpose is all-encompassing (click here for a defense of this important truth). As is clear from verses such as Isaiah 45:7 and 54:16, God is responsible for both good and evil circumstances:

“Maker of welfare and Creator of evil, I, Yahweh Elohim, make all of these things.”

“And I, I created the ruiner to harm.”

Since God is operating all in accord with the counsel of his will (Eph. 1:11), it follows that the entrance of sin and evil into the universe through Satan was an event that God intended to occur, and that the sinfulness of Satan is in accord with God’s sovereign purpose. Satan’s first sinful act after being created by God did not, therefore, take God by surprise or thwart his intention. Rather, the commencement (and continuation) of Satan’s sinful career was just as much in accord with God’s intention and purpose as was the creation of the heavens and the earth. When Satan, through the serpent, deluded Eve, he was doing exactly what God created him to do (and thus did exactly what God expected him to do). Does this mean that Satan’s actions at this time weren’t sinful? No. That which makes any volitional action sinful (or not) is the motive behind it. Thus, if the motive with which Satan did what he did when he deluded Eve in the garden was sinful, then Satan sinned when he deluded Eve. It’s that simple. The fact that Satan was created by God with a sinful disposition (and thus is doing exactly what he was created to do) does not change the fact that he was sinning when he deluded Eve and caused her to transgress God’s command (for a more in-depth defense of the truth that sin is still sin – and that God is still good – even though God is ultimately responsible for the sinfulness of his creatures, click the following link: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2015/03/sin-is-still-sin-and-god-is-still-good.html).

One expression that’s commonly used by Christians in defense of the view that God should not be considered responsible for the entrance of sin into the universe is that “God is not the author of sin.” The rhetorical force of this expression, however, is entirely dependent on its inherent ambiguity. If this statement is to be understood as meaning, “God did not create a being with a sinful disposition,” then it would simply be question-begging in nature (and – apart from any reason provided in defense of such a claim – can simply be dismissed as a mere unsubstantiated assumption). On the other hand, the statement “God is not the author of sin” could also be understood to mean, “God has never sinned.” If that’s how the expression should be understood, then I take no issue with it. I fully agree that God has never sinned (and indeed cannot sin). The only way that the sinlessness of God could possibly constitute an objection to the view that God created Satan with a sinful disposition (and thus willed that sin exist) is if it was a sin for God to have done this. But is this, in fact, the case? I see no good reason to believe that it is.

For God to intend that sin exist in the universe and for him to actually sin are two completely different things. There is no good reason to think that God couldn’t do the former without doing the latter. Again, that which makes any volitional action sinful (or not) is the motive behind it. Thus, if God had a wise and benevolent reason for bringing into existence a being whose disposition was such that he was incapable of not sinning (which would imply that God knew the creation of such a being would ultimately contribute to the maximization of his glory and the happiness of every created being), then God’s intention to create such a being could in no way be considered sinful. And this would be the case even if one didn’t understand how, exactly, God’s intention to create a sinful being could spring from a wise and benevolent motive (or how, exactly, such an act on God’s part could ultimately result in his being glorified, and in the happiness of all being maximized).

One reason why many Christians can’t accept the truth that God created Satan with a sinful disposition is because they believe that, because of Satan’s deceptive work in the world, billions of people are going to be “eternally lost.” Thus, if God himself were responsible for Satan’s sinful disposition (and, by extension, Satan’s sinful acts), then this would make God ultimately responsible for the eternally tragic fate that most Christians believe awaits those whom Satan has managed to deceive (and who end up dying in a deceived, unbelieving state). Consider the following argument (which reflects the reasoning of many Christians):

1. If those whom Satan has managed to deceive are going to be eternally lost, then it cannot be true that God (who is perfectly loving and just) is responsible for the sinful disposition of Satan.

2. Everyone whom Satan has managed to deceive is going to be eternally lost.

3. It cannot be true that God (who is perfectly loving and just) is responsible for the sinful disposition of Satan.

However, as I’ve argued in greater depth elsewhere on my blog (see, for example, the following article: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2020/01/are-unbelievers-destined-for.html), the second premise is unscriptural and false. Scripture doesn’t teach that anyone is going to be “eternally lost.” Not only does Scripture reveal that all humanity is going to be saved, but it’s further revealed that every other being in creation who is (or ever will be) in need of being subjected to Christ and reconciled to God is, in fact, going to be subjected to Christ and reconciled to God. And this necessarily includes Satan himself. In 1 Corinthians 15:25-28 we read the following:

For [Christ] must be reigning until He should be placing all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy is being abolished: death. For He subjects all under His feet. Now whenever He may be saying that all is subject, it is evident that it is outside of Him Who subjects all to Him. Now, whenever all may be subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also shall be subjected to Him Who subjects all to Him, that God may be All in all.

Satan is thus destined to be subjected to Christ and to become part of the “all” in which God is ultimately going to be “All.” And, as Paul tells us in Colossians 1:17-20, this final state will involve being reconciled to God:

And He [Christ Jesus] is the Head of the body, the ecclesia, Who is Sovereign, Firstborn from among the dead, that in all He may be becoming first, for in Him the entire complement delights to dwell, and through Him to reconcile all to Him (making peace through the blood of His cross), through Him, whether those on the earth or those in the heavens.

Most Christians are, of course, just as opposed to the truth that Satan is ultimately going to be saved (and will thus cease to be sinful) as they are to the truth that he was created by God with a sinful disposition. They don’t want God to be responsible for Satan’s salvation any more than they want him to be responsible for Satan’s sinfulness. One verse that is sometimes appealed to by Christians in support of the view that Satan is never going to be saved is Hebrews 2:14 (where we’re told that Christ died so that he ”should be discarding him who has the might of death, that is, the Adversary…”). However, the word translated “discarding” in this verse (καταργέω, or “katargeo”) does not mean or imply that the Adversary is never going to be saved. In Luke 13:7, the same word katargeo was used to refer to a land being made unproductive. In Thayer’s Greek Lexicon, the first three meanings of the word katargeo are given as follows:

1: to render idle, unemployed, inactivate, inoperative

1a: to cause a person or thing to have no further efficiency

1b: to deprive of force, influence, power

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=kjv&strongs=g2673

In light of these definitions, it can be said that Christ – by virtue of his sacrificial death (through which he acquired “all authority in heaven and on earth” and became “Lord of all”) – is ultimately going to deprive the Adversary of his influence and power, and cause him to “have no further efficiency.” This is in accord with what we read in 1 John 3:8: ”For this was the Son of God manifested, that He should be annulling the acts of the Adversary.”

Revelation 20:10 is, by far, the main “proof-text” to which most Christians will appeal in support of their belief that Satan will never be saved. Here is how this verse reads in the English Standard Version (which can be considered representative of how this verse reads in most English Bibles):

“…and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.”

However, as I’ve argued elsewhere, a more literal and accurate translation of the Greek expression that is translated as “forever and ever” in most English Bibles (eis tous aiónas tón aiónón) would be “for the eons of the eons.” Here is how Rev. 20:10 reads in the Concordant Literal New Testament:

And the Adversary who is deceiving them was cast into the lake of fire and sulphur, where the wild beast and where the false prophet are also. And they shall be tormented day and night for the eons of the eons.

The time period expressed by the words “for the eons of the eons” in this verse is the same time period that’s in view in Eph. 2:7 (where Paul referred to “the oncoming eons” during which God shall “be displaying the transcendent riches of His grace in His kindness to us in Christ Jesus”). These future “eons of the eons” (called such because they will be the greatest of all the eons) are the eons of the reign of Christ and the saints (Rev. 22:5). However, we know from Paul’s prophecy in 1 Cor. 15:22-28 that Christ’s reign (and thus the eons during which Christ and the saints shall be reigning) is eventually going to end. And this means that the span of time expressed by the words eis tous aiónas tón aiónón (“for the eons of the eons”) cannot be endless. 

Consider the following argument:

1. The Greek expression translated “for the eons of the eons” in Rev. 20:10 does not refer to a span of time that will extend beyond the span of time during which Christ shall be reigning.

2. According to what is revealed in 1 Corinthians 15:22-28, Christ is not going to be reigning over the kingdom for an endless duration of time (his reign is only “until” a certain point).

3. Thus, the span of time to which the expression “for the eons of the eons” refers cannot be endless in duration.

In light of these considerations, we can conclude that Satan’s period of torment in the lake of fire is not going to be “eternal.” Instead, it’s going to continue no further than the reign of Christ. And when Christ has subjected all to himself and delivered the kingdom to his God and Father, the being formerly known by his titles “the Adversary” and “Satan” will be reconciled to God and be part of the “all” in whom God is going to be “All.”

The Nature, Purpose and Destiny of the Adversary (Part Four)

Spiritual forces of wickedness among the celestials

The being who is most commonly referred to in Scripture as “the Adversary” and “Satan” is not the only adversarial superhuman being in existence. This is evident from Rev. 12:7-9, where we read that the Adversary (who, as noted in part one, is symbolically represented in these verses as a “great dragon”) has his own “messengers” who will assist him in a battle against “Michael and his messengers”:  

And a battle occurred in heaven. Michael and his messengers battle with the dragon, and the dragon battles, and its messengers. And they are not strong enough for him, neither was their place still found in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, the ancient serpent called Adversary and Satan, who is deceiving the whole inhabited earth. It was cast into the earth, and its messengers were cast with it.

Another passage in which it’s implied that Satan holds sway over an unknown number of other adversarial, superhuman beings is Ephesians 6:11-12. In these verses, Paul wrote the following:

“Put on the panoply of God, to enable you to stand up to the stratagems of the Adversary, for it is not ours to wrestle with blood and flesh, but with the sovereignties, with the authorities, with the world-mights of this darkness, with the spiritual forces of wickedness among the celestials.”

Evidently, the Adversary is the ruler of a hierarchy of other superhuman, adversarial beings that Paul went on to describe in v. 12 as ”the sovereignties,” “the authorities,” and “the world-mights of this darkness.” Paul was not, by his use of these terms, referring merely to abstract, impersonal and lifeless things. As with the other references to “sovereignties” and “authorities” in Scripture (e.g., Rom. 8:38; Eph. 1:21; 3:10; Col. 1:16; 2:15; 1 Pet. 3:22), what Paul referred to in Eph. 6:12 as “sovereignties” “authorities” and “world-mights” should be understood as titles belonging to living, personal beings who had varying degrees of influence over the lives of those to whom he wrote (or over the society to which they belonged). Just as Paul had in mind living, personal entities when he referred to “the superior authorities” in Rom. 13:1-7, so he had in mind living, personal entities in Eph. 6:12.

In Romans 13:1 and Titus 3:1 (cf. Luke 12:11), it’s evident that Paul had human beings in mind when he used the terms “sovereignties” and “authorities.” However, such is not the case in Eph. 6:12. For, in this verse, Paul contrasted the entities to which he referred (including “the Adversary”) with beings who are “blood and flesh.” Elsewhere in Scripture, the expression “blood and flesh” (or “flesh and blood”) refers to the mortal and corruptible nature of human beings (1 Cor. 15:50; Heb. 2:14), or – by extension – mortal humans themselves (Matt. 16:13-17; Gal. 1:16). Whether we understand the expression “blood and flesh” in Eph. 6:12 to mean “mortal human nature” or “mortal humans,” the implication of what Paul affirmed in this verse (i.e., that “it is not ours to wrestle with blood and flesh”) is clear: neither the Adversary nor the entities referred to in v. 12 are beings with a mortal, human nature. Rather, they belong to a different class, or order, of beings entirely.

This is confirmed by the fact that these entities are further described as “spiritual forces of wickedness among the celestials.” No human “sovereignties” or “authorities” could legitimately be described as “spiritual forces of wickedness among the celestials.” According to Paul’s usage of the term “spiritual” elsewhere, the only humans who can be considered “spiritual” are those who are being “taught by the spirit,” who are “receiving those things which are of the spirit of God,” and who are “walking in spirit” (see 1 Cor. 2:13-15; 3:1; 14:37; Gal. 6:1 [cf. Gal. 5:16]). In these and other verses, Paul contrasted humans who are “spiritual” with those who are “soulish” and “fleshly.” Thus, the adversarial entities with whom Paul believed the saints in the body of Christ have to “wrestle” (i.e., the “spiritual forces of wickedness among the celestials”) can’t be considered “spiritual” in the same sense in which Paul described certain humans as “spiritual.” It simply wouldn’t make any sense. The only other sense in which living, intelligent beings who are “wicked” could be referred to as “spiritual” is if they belong to that order of non-human entities who are referred to elsewhere as “spirits” (see, for example, Luke 24:39; Heb. 1:14; 1 Pet. 3:19; Rev. 5:5 [cf. Rev. 8:2; Luke 1:19]).

The expression “among the celestials” confirms this understanding of the nature of the “spiritual forces of wickedness” referred to by Paul in Eph. 6:12. Earlier in this letter, Paul wrote that, after rousing Christ from among the dead, God seated him “at his right hand among the celestials, up over every sovereignty and authority and power and lordship, and every name that is named…” (Eph. 1:20-21). Here, the location in which Christ is presently located is said to be “among the celestials.” And where is Christ located at this time? Answer: At the right hand of God. And where is this? Here is Hebrews 8:1-5 and 9:23-24:

“Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, a minister in the holy places, in the true tent that the Lord set up, not man…Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.”

Since Christ is located in what the author of Hebrews called “heaven itself,” we can conclude that to be “among the celestials” means being among those whose dwelling place is in heaven, and whose nature makes them suited for life in this heavenly, “extraterrestrial” realm (in contrast with those whose nature is merely terrestrial/earthly).[1]

In light of the above considerations, the beings referred to by Paul as “spiritual forces of wickedness among the celestials” should best be understood as belonging to that order of superhuman, spiritual beings who are elsewhere referred to as the “host of heaven” (see 1 Kings 22:19; Neh. 9:6; Isaiah 24:21; Dan. 4:35; cf. Luke 2:13), and among whom are beings such as Michael and Gabriel. But is there any other scriptural evidence for the view that, among the celestial beings who constitute the “host of heaven,” some are wicked and antagonistic toward humanity? I think so. In fact, in one of the verses referenced above, I think this fact is clearly implied. In Isaiah 24:21-22 (ESV) we read the following:

On that day the Lord will punish

    the host of heaven, in heaven,

    and the kings of the earth, on the earth.

They will be gathered together

    as prisoners in a pit;

they will be shut up in a prison,

    and after many days they will be punished.

In these verses we find “the host of heaven, in heaven” distinguished from “the kings of the earth, on the earth.” However, both of these groups are going to be “punished” (or “called to account,” CVOT) in the day of the Lord – i.e., during that future period of judgment when God defeats the enemies of Israel and restores the kingdom to his covenant people (Isaiah 24:23; cf. chapters 25-27).

In other articles on my blog, I’ve shared my view that, in Psalm 82, Asaph had in view superhuman, heavenly beings to whom God has given a certain degree of authority over the nations of the earth (and who are using their authority to promote – rather than prevent – injustice on the earth). This chapter reads as follows in the English Standard Version: 

God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:  “How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked? Selah Give justice to the weak and the fatherless; maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute. Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.”

They have neither knowledge nor understanding, they walk about in darkness; all the foundations of the earth are shaken. I said, “You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you; nevertheless, like men you shall die, and fall like any prince.” Arise, O God, judge the earth; for you shall inherit all the nations!

It’s evident that the members of this “divine council” who we find being addressed by Yahweh are not righteous beings. Rather than making sure that the weak, fatherless, afflicted, destitute and needy are taken care of, these beings were instead showing “partiality to the wicked” and allowing (or even enabling) the wicked to prosper and take advantage of those less powerful than they. They are thus rebuked by Yahweh for their unjust administration, and for the misuse of the authority that God had given them. The final verse of this Psalm is, I believe, especially telling: ”Arise, O God, judge the earth; for you shall inherit all the nations!” This plea and expectation of Asaph implies that it is “all the nations” which were being (and continue to be) negatively influenced by the wicked “gods” and “sons of the Most High” (and that this unjust state of affairs will be made right when God finally intervenes and judges the earth). But what is the nature of these “gods?”

The very fact that the members of the “divine council” referred to in Psalm 82 are said to be both “gods” (or “elohim”) and “sons of the Most High” suggests that they’re not human beings. Significantly, the beings referred to in Deut. 32:43 and Psalm 8:4-6 as “the gods” are, in the letter to the Hebrews, referred to as “the angels” (Heb. 1:6; 2:7, 9). And in this letter, “the angels” (or “the messengers”) to which the author referred should be understood as belonging to a different (and higher) order of beings than mortal humans. For other references to the superhuman beings referred to as “the gods” in Psalm 82, see Exodus 15:11; Deut. 3:24; 10:17 (cf. Dan. 2:47; 11:36); 1 Kings 8:23; Psalm 86:8; 95:3, 6-7; 96:4; 97:9; 135:5; 136:2. [2]

Psalm 89:5-7 confirms this understanding by locating the “divine council” referred to in Psalm 82 in “the heavens” (rather than on the earth):

“Let the heavens praise your wonders, O Lord, your faithfulness in the assembly of the holy ones! For who in the skies can be compared to the Lord? Who among the heavenly beings is like the Lord, a God greatly to be feared in the council of the holy ones, and awesome above all who are around him?”

If the “gods” being addressed by Yahweh in Psalm 82 are non-human, heavenly beings (which seems reasonable, especially in light of Psalm 89:5-7), then this Psalm can be understood as revealing that these beings had been given a certain degree of authority over the nations of the earth (and were using their authority in a way that was displeasing to God). That God had allotted the nations of the earth to certain heavenly beings (the “sons of God”) is, arguably, revealed in Deuteronomy 32:8-9 as well. In the English Standard Version, these verses read as follows: “When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God. But the Lord’s portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage” (other translations that read “sons of God” – or something similar – in Deut. 32:8 are the New American Bible (Revised Edition), the New Revised Standard Version and the Concordant Version of the Old Testament).[3] For other occurrences of the expression “the sons of God,” see Gen. 6:1-2, Job 1:6 and Job 38:7. As argued in the last installment of this study, I think it’s pretty clear that the “sons of God” referred to in Job are non-human, celestial beings (for a concise defense of the view that the “sons of God” referred to in Genesis 6 should be understood as celestial beings as well, I recommend the following article by Chuck Missler: http://www.khouse.org/articles/1997/110/).

In the tenth chapter of the book of Daniel we find further confirmation that there are, in fact, wicked celestial beings who are exercising their authority in a way that is antagonistic toward the saints on earth. In Daniel 10:12-14 and 10:20-21, we read the following:

“Fear not, Daniel, for from the first day that you set your heart to understand and humbled yourself before your God, your words have been heard, and I have come because of your words. The chief of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty-one days, but Michael, one of the first chiefs, came to help me, for I was left there with the chief of the kings of Persia, and came to make you understand what is to happen to your people in the latter days. For the vision is for days yet to come.”

“Then he said, “Do you know why I have come to you? But now I will return to fight against the chief of the kingdom of Persia; and when I go out, behold, the chief of Greece will come. But I will tell you what is inscribed in the book of truth: there is none who contends by my side against these except Michael, your chief.”

The heavenly messenger who spoke the words we find recorded in these passages was likely Gabriel (see Daniel 8:16; 9:21). And based on what this messenger declared to Daniel, we can conclude that there are several “chiefs” among the celestial beings who preside over the nations of the earth (which is in accord with what we read in Psalm 82 concerning the unjust “elohim”). And among these celestial “chiefs” is Michael (who, in Dan. 10:21, is referred to as “[Daniel’s] chief,” and later in Dan. 12:1 as “the great chief who is standing over the sons of [Daniel’s] people”).

While Michael (who is the “chief” of Daniel’s people, Israel) is clearly on the side of God and the saints among God’s covenant people, there are others (e.g., the “chief of the kingdom of Persia”) who are, evidently, antagonistic toward them. And the fact that Gabriel needed help from Michael after being “withstood” by the “chief of the kingdom of Persia” for three weeks indicates that this “chief” was at least as powerful as Gabriel himself (a fact which undermines any possible objection that these “chiefs” might have been merely human rulers).

Keeping the above verses from Daniel 10 in mind, let’s now consider Ephesians 2:1-2. In these verses read the following:

“And you, being dead to your offenses and sins, in which once you walked, in accord with the eon of this world, in accord with the chief of the jurisdiction of the air, the spirit now operating in the sons of stubbornness…”

The fact that Paul referred to the Adversary as “the chief of the jurisdiction of the air” in Eph. 2:2 is, I believe, significant. In the Septuagint, the term translated “chief” in Eph. 2:2 (archon) was used to translate the Hebrew term translated “chief” (or “prince”) in the above verses from Daniel 10 and 12. Paul was likely very familiar with this Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, and it’s possible that he had these verses from Daniel in mind when he used the expression “the chief of the jurisdiction of the air” in Eph. 2:2. In any case, if there are any verses from the Hebrew Scriptures that can inform our understanding of what Paul wrote in Eph. 2:2, it’s the verses from Daniel 10 and 12 in which certain superhuman “chiefs” are in view. It is, therefore, reasonable to understand the spiritual entity referred to by Paul as “the chief of the jurisdiction of the air” as the same sort of superhuman being as the chief of Daniel’s people (Michael) or the chief of the kingdom of Persia.

Unlike these other “chiefs” (who each have jurisdiction over a particular nation or kingdom of the earth), the jurisdiction of the chief to whom Paul referred in Eph. 2:2 is said to be “the air.” This suggests that the authority of this chief is not limited to any one nation or kingdom on the earth. Rather, like the air that surrounds the earth, the jurisdiction of the chief referred to in Eph. 2:2 is worldwide in scope. The worldwide scope of the Adversary’s jurisdiction is in accord with the fact that (as noted in part two of this study) he was able to offer Christ ”all the kingdoms of the world and their glory.”

Some believe that, since the chief of the jurisdiction of the air is referred to as a “spirit,” he should be understood as a mental disposition, attitude or mindset that certain persons have. While it’s true that the Hebrew and Greek words translated “spirit” (ruach and pneuma, respectively) can, in certain contexts, be understood to denote a certain mental disposition, feeling or attitude (e.g., a “spirit of fear” or a “spirit of jealousy”), it’s also true that the terms can denote intelligent, superhuman beings (such as the kind of beings that Michael and Gabriel are). For example, in 2 Chron. 18:20, a member of the heavenly council is referred to as “a spirit,” and in Hebrews 1:14 all of the non-human messengers with whom Christ is contrasted throughout this chapter are referred to as “spirits.” We also read in Rev. 5:5 that the “seven torches of fire” which John saw “burning before the throne” represent “the seven spirits of God.” These “seven spirits of God” who were represented as torches of fire burning before God’s throne are later referred as “the seven messengers who stand before God” (concerning the possible identity of one of these seven spirits, see Luke 1:19).

In 2 Pet. 2:4-5 and Jude 6, certain beings are referred to as “sinning messengers” who “kept not their own sovereignty” but left “their own habitation.” As a result of their sin, we’re told that these messengers were thrust into “the gloomy caverns of Tartarus” and given up “to be kept for chastening judging” (or, as Jude says, these messengers are being “kept in imperceptible bonds under gloom for the judging of the great day”). That these “sinning messengers” should be understood as belonging to the same order of non-human beings as the messengers referred to in Hebrews 1:14 (who, again, are referred to as “spirits”) is further evident from 1 Pet. 3:19-20, where they’re referred to as “the spirits in jail” who were “once stubborn, when the patience of God awaited in the days of Noah…”

We thus have just as much reason to believe that the spirit who Paul referred to as “the chief of the jurisdiction of the air” and “the Adversary” is a living, personal being as we have reason to believe that the messengers Gabriel and Michael are living, personal beings.

Part five: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2020/05/the-nature-purpose-and-destiny-of_1.html

---

[1] Some may object that, in Eph. 2:5-6, we’re told that God “vivifies us together in Christ…and rouses us together and seats us together among the celestials, in Christ Jesus…” However, Paul was simply using the figure of speech “prolepsis” here (according to which that which is certain to happen is spoken of as if it had already taken place, or was already taking place). Just as no member of the body of Christ has been vivified or roused yet, so our being seated together among the celestials is also a future reality.

[2] In many Bibles, Psalm 96:5 says that all the elohim of the nations “are idols.” Based on this translation, some have argued that the elohim of the nations must not be real, living beings who were created by God. However, the term sometimes translated “idols” in Psalm 96:5 (אלילים) literally means “useless things” or “insufficient things.” To translate this term as “idols” obscures the rhetorical force of the verse. The Psalmist was making a play on words here; the term looks and sounds very similar to the Hebrew word אלהים (elohim or “gods”), but the elohim of the nations are powerless compared to Yahweh (who, in contrast with the “useless” elohim of the nations, “made the heavens”).

That these “elohim” were not merely imagined, non-existent beings is evident from Deut. 32:17, where we read the following: “They sacrificed to demons, not Eloah, to elohim–they had not known them before–to new ones that came from nearby…” Compare this verse with 1 Cor. 10:19-20, where Paul identified the elohim referred to in Deut. 32:17 (and which were commonly represented by idols) as demons. In light of this connection, the elohim of the nations should be understood as belonging to that category of wicked spiritual beings among the celestials referred to by Paul in Eph. 6:12.

[3] Some Hebrew manuscripts have “according to the number of the sons of Israel” rather than “according to the number of the sons of God,” and the majority of English translations – starting with the King James Version – have opted for this reading (with many still including the alternate reading in a footnote). However, this textual variant is almost certainly a corruption of the original text. For a defense of the “sons of God” reading, I recommend the following article by Michael Heiser: “Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God” (see also http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/Deuteronomy32OTWorldview.pdf).