|
Critique of Mansfield’s The Devil
and Satan
PAGE 117 SECTION 4 Not A Fallen Angel. The current teaching that the Devil is a fallen angel, with mysterious powers over the minds of men and women, is quite foreign to the Bible teaching on this theme. Foreign to most Bible teaching maybe but not foreign to the Bible itself, see Isa. 14:12-15, Rev. 12:7-10, 1 John 3:8b, Revelation 20:7-10, Jude 9, Thes. 2:18, Heb. 2:14, 2 Tim. 2:26, James 2:19, Eph. 6:12, Mat. 13:19, 21:43; 23:1, 2 Cor 11:14, 2 Pet. 2:4, etc. We learn from the Bible that Jesus
Christ was manifested that "he might destroy the works of the
devil" (1 John 3:8) (the emphasis is on ‘works’).
Again, that Jesus partook of human nature that "through death be might
destroy him that hath the power of death, that is the devil" (Heb. 2:14) Heb 2:14
says to ‘destroy him’, an entity, one who
has the ‘power of death’ and not
that he is death for one is an entity
and the other is a state of being. The word for
‘destroy’ is’ katargeo’ and means: to render
idle, unemployed, inactivate, inoperative a) to cause a person or
thing to have no further efficiency b) to deprive of force, influence,
power; etc. Therefore, to destroy
the devil doesn’t necessarily mean to kill him or totally do
away with him. In these two statements, the devil is defined as: (1) -- That which Christ came to destroy; (2) --That which has the power of death. From other parts of the Word, we learn: (1) -- That Christ came to destroy sin. Christ also came only for the lost sheep (Mat 10:26, 15:24). "He put away sin by the sacrifice of himself" (Heb. 9:26). "Christ died for our sins" (1 Cor. 15:3). "His own self bare our sins in His own body on the tree" (1 Pet. 2:24). "He was
manifested to take away our sins" (1 John 3:5). (2) -- That sin was the original cause of death. "The wages of sin is death" (Rom. 6:23). "By one man (not the devil) sin entered the world, and death by sin" (Rom. 5:12). "The sting of death is sin" (1 Cor. 15:56). These two lines of reasoning converge to show that the terms "sin" and "devil" are used synonymously. I disagree. If the devil caused the sin and the sin caused death, this doesn’t make sin death but rather something that causes death. And, it doesn’t make sin the devil but rather something that can be caused by the devil. Otherwise you could say that sin is death but we know from scripture that it is the wages of sin that is death, or you could say death is sin but is there truly any sin in dying? What if the Lord takes one home? In order to destroy the devil, Jesus came in that nature where it is found, for we shall show that the act of sin comes from the flesh. He partook of flesh and blood, that through death he might destroy the devil. So declared Paul in Hebrews 2:14. Actually, after Adam fell and sin entered the world, God sent the Law to save man. A blood sacrifice was required to propitiate the sin because the original sin was a blood sin (i.e., the seduction of Eve in the garden). When the Law failed to save man and Israel fell into idolatry, God divorced Israel. Christ was sent to redeem Israel. The Devil has yet to be destroyed. Christ destroyed the ‘works’ of the devil and in Christ we have power over the devil and power over sin. But if the devil were an angel, how would the death of Jesus destroy him? The death of Jesus has not killed Satan but destroyed his ‘works’ and thereby rendered him ineffective. Yet Paul is specific that the devil was destroyed through death! Human Nature Is The Devil. If we can show that human nature is the devil, it follows that when Jesus died, seeing that he came "in the flesh" (1 John 4:2), the devil was put to death as far as he was concerned. The Devil was not put to death but only rendered useless or to have no effect on those that have the name of Christ Iesous. The devil was defeated and will be bound for 1000 years during the millennium reign of Christ and then loosed for a season (Rev. 20:2,3). The Devil will not be put to death until he is cast into the lake of fire (Rev. 20:10). Jesus possessed our (physical) nature, but be never succumbed to it (because he possessed the spiritual nature of EL), for be never sinned. He triumphed over it ( Christ’s physical nature) during his lifetime, by figuratively putting it to death, and when he died on the cross, its power was brought to an end. When Christ died, He resurrected into His glorified body, which is a physical body that the spirit resides in, that was extremely powerful. After he had been raised from the dead, he was given "divine nature" or immortality, in which the devil, or the lusts of the flesh, find no place. Actually, the fallen angels ‘(‘elohim) took the daughters of Adam to wife who bore children to them (Gen 6), which shows that the angelic body can lust. This fact disproves that ’ the devil’ is merely ‘ the lust of the flesh’. But the devil still lives in us so long as
the lusts of the flesh hold sway, and so powerfully, unfortunately, that we
give way to sin. If the devil sin were simply the lust of
the flesh, Israelites would have sin in them since they
dwell in flesh bodies for it is written, the flesh is weak. However, the word
says that whoever is born of God (Israelites) does not have
sin in them because His seed ‘remaineth in them’. Therefore, they cannot sin because
they are born of God (1 John 3:9). To the
contrary, whoever does commit sin is of (ek = out of,
offspring) the devil (1 John
3:8) for the devil sinneth from the beginning, i.e., in
the garden when he seduced Eve and
mongrelized Cain’s seedline. In other
words, the children of the devil are born with sin in them, the
violation of divine law not to adulterate the Holy
seed. The word for ‘sin’ is Hamartano, Strong’s 264, and
means to fall short or to violate God’s law.
In 1 John3:9, John is referring specifically to the sin or violation
of law pertaining to offspring. The children of
God have no sin in them because they are pure seedline as opposed
to children of the devil, which are born with sin in them, i.e. they have the mongrelized seed of Cain from Eve and the
Serpent. When Paul says in Rom 3:23
that all have sinned, he is not referring to specifically to offspring
but to the law in general, which can be broken by Israelites. What can be done? We can seek the strength of God
to overcome (Phil. 4:13), and His mercy to forgive where we fail. And in
Christ, if we confess our sins, such mercy will be freely extended (1 John
1:7).
Mongrels who have sin (violation of law) ‘in them’ cannot
confess this sin and be free from it for they
cannot change their genetics. Consequently, the devil
is not simply a lustful sin nature
that can be changed but is an actual physical characteristic that was
inherited from an actual live being, namely that of Satan himself. PAGE 118 We have shown that the devil and sin are synonymous terms, and we now propose to quote Scripture to show that the term "sin" is used for human nature, the source of all transgression. Consider the following passages: "Sin dwelleth in me. For I know that in me (that is in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing" (Rom. 7:17).This verse is referring to sin in general as opposed to the sin of a mixed seedline. "He (Christ) died unto sin once" (Rom. 6:10). Since Christ came only for the lost sheep of the house of Israel, Christ died only for Israel’s transgressions, and since Israelites are by definition not mongrels, Christ’s blood was not intended to cover the sin of a mongrelized seedline. The term ‘once’ is our ‘once for all’ and means there is no longer any need for another blood sacrifice to cover our transgressions. "Reckon yourselves to be dead to sin but alive unto God" (Rom. 6:11). Israelites have been redeemed by the blood of the Lamb and are therefore dead to sin (the transgression of the law that caused her to be put away). This is a figure of speech, which means that the penalty for violating the law has been paid so the violation is dead, gone, removed. "God made him (Jesus) to be sin for us who knew no sin" (2 Cor. 5:21). This means that Christ took our sin (the violation of the law committed by Israel which cause her to be put away) upon Himself and paid the price for it. In all these places "sin" is related to human nature, or the lusts of the flesh. This is a false statement in light of 1 John 3:8,9 as just explained herein. Normally "sin" is transgression of law, but it is clearly seen that such a definition cannot apply to the references above. Bahhh. How can you say sin is the transgression of law and then say that these references to sin have nothing to do with the transgression of the law? Sin (transgression of law) springs from fleshly lusts or desires, styled in Romans 8:3 as "sinful flesh" (see Jer. 17:9; Mark 7:21-23). False statement. If an Israelite puts other gods before YHVH, this is a sin that is not necessarily related to lust of the flesh as much as it is a sin of the spirit . Our nature is such that we do not need the prompting of a supernatural devil to cause us to sin, because it springs naturally from the 'lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life" (1 John 2:16). The pride of life is distinguished from the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes. The thought of sin is generated by the "desires of the flesh," before the act of sin is committed (Ps. 10:4; 94:11) so that Isaiah exhorted the unrighteous to "forsake his thoughts" (Isa. 55:7). James summed up the matter thus: "Every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived it bringeth forth sin; and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death" (James 1:14-15). This process is illustrated by the confession of Achan: "I SAW two hundred shekels of silver, I COVETED them, and TOOK them ... I SINNED" (Joshua 7:20-21). Saw, coveted, took! That defines sin, without the need of a supernatural devil to tempt! The sin in this example is the sin of stealing and was prompted by the lust of the eyes as opposed to the flesh (sexual pleasures) or pride of life. Paul likewise, in treating with the subject of sin (Romans Ch. 7) speaks of it as an, element of human nature, which he found to be at enmity with the principles of God. There is no hint in his words of a supernatural devil being responsible for sin. "The evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin (human nature, alias the devil) that dwelleth in me" (Vv. 19-20). This does not prove that human nature is the devil in light of 1 john 3:8,9. Israelites can sin (transgress the law) without having the devil in them since Israelites are not of the devil and are specifically distinguished from the children of the devil. He confessed to a "law in his members" warring against the law of his mind, and bringing him into captivity to the "law of sin in his members" (Romans 7:23). The lust of the flesh does war with our spirit. The "law of sin and death," the desires of the flesh that lead us to disobey God, is the Apostle's term for human nature, the devil of the Bible (Rom. 8:2). I disagree. Significance Of The Word: Devil. The word "devil" has been used
as a translation for two entirely different Greek words: diamonion and
diabolos. The first word should be translated "demons." I disagree.
In the NT, diabolos appears 38 times and is translated as devil
35 times, false
accuser 2 times, and slanderer
1 one time; and diamonion appears 60 times, and is translated
as devil
59 times and god
1 time. It was applied to those diseases (mainly mental
disorders) which Jesus miraculously "cast out" of afflicted PAGE
119 persons.
I
disagree. When used in context as a false accuser, it does not refer to a
person with a disease. An example occurs in John 7:19-20. Jesus
asked the Jews: "Why go ye about to kill me?" They answered:
"Thou hast a devil (diamonion), who goeth about to kill thee?" The
Jews' reply, "Thou hast a devil!" is equivalent to the modern expression:
"You are mad!" OK. But here is an example where the term is not
used to refer to someone who is “mad”. Mat. 12:24
But when the Pharisees heard [it], they said, This [fellow] doth not cast out
devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils. Beelzebub =
"lord of the house" 1) a name of
Satan, the prince of evil spirits. So if a devil
is simply ‘madness’, how then is a mental
disorder caused by a mental disorder? In speaking of "demons" in that way, the
New Testament was merely using the vernacular of the times by which mental
disorders were described. The Grecian theory was that demons were the cause
of madness, epileptic disorders, and obstructions of the senses. To be
"possessed of a demon" was the way in which these illnesses were
then described; and to "cast out a demon" was to say that the
person was cured. This view discounts that evil spirits exist and
cannot be ‘cast out’ except that a doctor (sorcerer) ‘cure’
them. But Iesous says, Mat 12:26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? Mat 27 And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast [them] out? therefore they shall be your judges Christ differentiates between ‘Satanas’ and
‘diamonion’. Shouldn’t we do the same? How is it
possible for a mental disorder cast out a mental disorder? Answer: it doesn’t. The word diabolos is compounded of dia, a preposition signifying across or over, and ballo, meaning to throw or cast. My Greek translator shows that ‘Dia’ means Zeus, ‘bolos’ means to throw with a casting net, and ‘diabolos’ means slanderer, enemy, hence Satan, 1 Chron 21.1, the Devil. Matt 4.1 It defines that which crosses, or falls over, and is therefore a fit word by which to designate inordinate desires of the flesh, which cause mortal man to cross over the line of righteousness established by God, and so to sin. I would tend to believe that the word means a false god who snares! The word also signifies to
"traduce," (I cannot find where diabolos means this.)
"slander," "libel," (To libel is to put lies in
print. I seriously doubt that diabolos means this. Slander yes
but libel no.) "falsely accuse." Thus
Judas is described as a devil (diabolos) because be betrayed and slandered
Jesus to the authorities (John 6:70). In 2 Timothy 3:3 and Titus 2:3 the word
had been correctly rendered "false accusers" (Gr. diabolos), for it
should never be translated "devil." Here’s what Thayer’s
Greek Lexicon states: In the Bible, and in eccl. Writ. Diabolos is
applies to the one called in Hebr. Satan, the prince of demons, the author of
evil, persecuting good men (Job 1; Zech 3:1 sqq. Cf. Rev 12:10), estranging
mankind from God and enticing them to sin, and afflicting them with diseases
by means of demons who take possession of their bodies at his bidding; the
malignant enemy of God and the Messiah. (verses omitted) Men who
resemble the devil in mind and will are said to be of the devil, prop. To derive
their origin from the devil, trop. To depend upon the devil in
thought and action, to be prompted and governed by him: Jn 8:44; 1 Jn 3.8;
the same are called children of the devil,
1 Jn. 3:10; sons of the devil, Acts 13.10, cf. Mt 13.38; Jn 8.38; 1 Jn. 3.10.
The name Diabolos is fig. applied to a man
who, by opposing the cause of God, may be said to act the part of the devil
or to side with him: Jn. 6.70, cf. Mt. 16.23, Mk. 8.33. Accordingly, the word is used in many more contexts that this author would have us believe. A consideration of the places where the word is used, will reveal that it cannot apply to a fallen angel. In Revelation 2:10, the faithful are warned that "the devil shall cast some of you into prison." Did the fallen angel do that? Of course not! The reference is to the civil authorities of the times, who were, "falsely accusing" the Christians. In this case, sin was politically manifested. How much better would this reference read if diabolos was therein translated as it is in Timothy and Titus: "False accusers shall cast some of you into prison." I disagree. In Rev. 1, John is taken in the spirit to the Lord’s Day (Rev 1:10), which is in the end time, and is shown events surrounding that day. John is given a message for the 7 end time churches, representing all the Christian churches of the world, and not for the churches of the time of John’s vision. Otherwise, there would have been no need to take John to the ‘Lord’s Day’. In that the ruler of the beast system, the Antichrist aka the Devil, is exalted at the time of the ‘Lord’s Day’, it is very possible that the Devil will cast some into prison. This ruler is seen in the 5th trump as a star that falls from heaven, hence a fallen angel, whose name is Apolyon and Abbadon or destroyer, another name for Satan. Is the flesh nature of men going to rule the end time beast system or is a specific man going to do this? Is the dragon, the devil, the serpent of old and Satan simply a madness that casts a flood of water (people) to carry away the seed of woman Israel? Or is this an entity that does this? If it’s an entity, then it can’t be the lustful fleshy nature of man in general. Again, in Ephesians 6:11, Paul refers to the "wiles of the devil" (i.e. the false accusers). He was referring to the unscrupulous means that pagan authorities were using to obtain a conviction against Christians when they were hailed before the courts. These same "devils" were always on the watch, ready to condemn any inconsistency on the part of the Christians. The Apostle therefore warned certain ones against being lifted up with pride, and so "falling into the condemnation of the devil" (1 Tim. 3:6-7). Why would Christ say “you 12 I have chosen and ONE of you is a devil”? if the devil is the sin nature, wouldn’t all of the disciples be devils or have a devil? But no, Christ only said one was a devil, meaning that he was a child of the devil for big devils beget little devils. Would the devil taught by Christendom condemn anybody lifted up by pride? By no means! He would look favourably upon such as a most promising subject! Conversely, how could one condemn himself when lifted up in pride? He would first have to lose that pride and if he lost that pride, there would be nothing to condemn. Another reference, frequently quoted to prove the existence of a supernatural devil is 1 Peter 5:8: "Your adversary, the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about seeking whom he may devour." But let us look at the statement a little more closely. The word "adversary" is antidikos in Greek, and signifies "an opponent at law!" So, once again, we are in the atmosphere of a court case! And who is opposed to us? Why, the devil! So now we are told that anyone who is an opponent in a court of law is a devil and Satan. You mean it’s not our own flesh nature after all that is the devil? Again let us use the translation of 2 Timothy 3:3, and the "opponent at law" is a "false accuser," and against such Peter warned Christians to be on their guard. Does this mean any opponent at law is a false accuser? Or is he saying that these false accusers are false witnesses in a court of law? Who knows what he is trying to say. But why describe him as a "roaring lion?" Because, as the use of a similar expression in 2 Timothy 4:17 shows, this was a figure of speech by which the fierce and unscrupulous antagonists of Christianity were described. I show that this is Paul establishing his claim, as a Roman citizen, not to meet his death in the amphitheatre; or it may be a metaphor for Nero. They were men of the flesh, and they personified sin in political manifestation. The flesh, with its lusts, is a false accuser and a calumniator (if you are of the wicked one), because if its desires are gratified, mankind will never attain unto the Kingdom. It slanders God, because it reasons that He does not really want men to do the things He has asked them to do. It is a deceiver, because it claims that true happiness is found only in gratifying its desires. This is only true for those who are not of the spirit of God. The whole world lieth in wickedness (1 John 5:19), This verse is taken out of context. Look at it in its entirety and the preceding verse: 1 John 5:18 “We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not (meaning he is pure). 19 And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.” The subject of these verses is ‘those who are born of God’ in contrast to ‘the rest of the world’. This is about seed line and it is saying that those who are begotten of God do not have sin in them. Their flesh is pure and they are not wicked. Those begotten of the wicked one do have sin in them and hence ‘lieth in wickedness.’ and there are but few who are prepared to "resist the devil," and so gain a victory over flesh. There are very few people with a pure seed line left in this world and we are encouraged to mix race now more than ever. Most are "children of the devil," in that they obey its lusts without consideration of God's way, thus revealing that they are "of their father the devil" or sin's flesh. Yet the scripture just told us that not everyone’s flesh sinneth but only those who are begotten of the devil that sinneth (or have sin) in their flesh. There is not a reference to the words "devil" or "satan" in the Bible that cannot be interpreted in accordance with the principles outlined above. Sure, anyone can misinterpret scripture and twist them however much they want but it doesn’t make it truth. The Word "Satan." The Hebrew word "satan," means "adversary." In contrast to the word diabolos which denotes an evil adversary, satan can refer to either a good or an evil adversary! In Numbers 22:22 it is used in the former
way. The verse reads: "The angel of the Lord stood in the way for an
adversary (Heb. satan) against him." Here the word satan had been
correctly translated "adversary," though the same Hebrew word in
many other places has been transliterated "satan." In the LXX
the word ‘satan’ is not found in that verse, ‘And God was
very angry because he went; and the angel of the Lord rose up to withstand
him.’ Therefore,
this is not a valid example due to an error in the Textus
Receptus here. In v. 32, the word satan had been rendered "withstand." In the LXX, the word for withstand is ‘diabolen’ and not diabolos or diamonion. The account has to do with the withstanding of the wicked prophet Balaam by an angel of God, so that in this, we have an example of a good satan opposing a wicked man. I would go that far. When something needs to be withstood, it is not a good thing. It was good to withstand Balaam under the circumstances, but it would have been better had there been no need to withstand in the first place. So this is an example of 2 negatives action to creative a positive result. It is a good to kill someone? What if it is in self defense? Another example of a good satan, or adversary, is contained in 1 Chronicles 21:1. It records: "Satan stood up against Israel and provoked David to number Israel." The parallel account in 2 Samuel 24:1 reveals that the "satan" (adversary) in question was God, (not exactly as shown below) Who was opposed to Israel at the time because of the wickedness of the people. The record in Samuel reads: "The anger of the Lord was PAGE 121 kindled against Israel, and He moved David against them to say, Go,
number Israel and Judah." The LXX reads, ‘And the Lord
caused his anger to burn forth again in Israel, and [Satan] stirred up David
against them, saying, Go, number Israel and Juda.’ This was
not the Lord who provoked David because in v. 10 we
find that it was a sin for David to number Israel. The Lord
wouldn’t cause David so sin would he? 10 And David's heart smote him
after that he had numbered the people. And David said unto the LORD, I have
sinned greatly in that I have done: and now, I beseech thee, O LORD, take
away the iniquity of thy servant; for I have done very foolishly. A careful consideration of the use of this word throughout Scripture reveals that it should not be interpreted to signify a fallen angel. Mansfield has far from covered all the uses of the word throughout scripture and has avoided those that prove his theory to be incorrect. For example, how does he explain Rev.12 where it says that Satan is the devil, that old serpent (in the garden) and ‘the dragon that was kicked out of heaven and his angels kicked out with him’? How can he explain a walking, talking Serpent whom we are told was more subtile than any of the other beasts as the flesh nature? And what about the verse in Rev. 2 that says that the Church of Thyratira is where Satan dwells and has the ‘seat of Satan’. How can the flesh nature dwell in a church or have a ‘seat’ which is a position like the pontiff? For example, in 1 Timothy 1:20, Paul wrote that he had delivered certain heretics "unto Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme." The expression ‘delivered unto Satan’ is a figure of speech meaning that he has washed his hand of them. Would the Satan of orthodoxy teach them "not to blaspheme?" They might if being ostracized from the brethren would teach them a lesson. Not if the current doctrine is true, on the contrary, he would teach them to blaspheme. The satan in this instance was the pagan world to which Paul had excommunicated the heretics, in order that they might be disciplined, and eventually brought back to an acknowledgement of the truth (see Titus 3:10; 2 Thess. 3:6, 15). Mansfield simply misses the point. In 1 Timothy 5:15, Paul wrote of certain women being "turned aside unto Satan." They bad not sought out the invisible tempter of orthodoxy, but bad been drawn aside by the allurements of the world, the great adversary of the Truth (1 John 2:15-16). Again, Paul is using the term as a figure of speech to mean that they have gone the way of the wicked one. The Bible refers to a "synagogue of satan" (Rev. 2:9), or a religious congregation in opposition to the true one. True to the word, the Jewish Synagogues observe the Talmud that nothing short of Satanic worship. It describes Satan's seat as being in the Asian city of Pergamos (Rev. 2:13), In that Pergamos means ‘height’ it is possible that this church represents the church that exalts it’s leader to a high position. because that city became the temporary headquarters of those heretics which troubled the early Ecclesias (cp. v. 14). It has recently come to light that the black pope, leader of the Jesuits, is a Luciferian who performs Satanic rituals. It’s very possible that the Antichrist will emerge from this platform. It refers to satan as being
"bound" during Christ's millenial reign (Rev. 20:2), The word Satan, therefore, signifies "adversary." Whilst it can relate to a good adversary opposing wickedness, most often it is an evil adversary that is in view. The greatest and most evil adversary to righteousness that mankind possesses are the lusts of the flesh. The desires are so powerful, that to gratify them men turn their backs upon God. Jesus taught that "from within, out of the heart of man" proceed all forms of sin (Mark 7: 21-23), and that is the satan we need to dread most. As seen from scripture, those who are pure in race do not have sin in their flesh but only those who are children of the devil, the mixed breeds or nephilim. Therefore, to lust after other races is wickedness and is the sin of adultery – to adulterate the seed line by mixing the holy seed. To have natural affection for one’s own race is not lust. Satan In Job And Revelation. Satan figures largely in the book of Job, and many base their concept of a fallen-angel-devil upon the expressions of this book. It is alleged, for example, that the scene of Ch. 1:6-7 which depicts Satan appearing before the Lord in company with the sons of God, relates to God's dwelling place in heaven, and at first sight it seems to read that way. But obviously, if God is so holy that He "cannot look upon sin," He would not tolerate such a creature in close prox- PAGE 122 imity to Him. I do not see a scripture that says the Lord cannot look upon sin. And a true interpretation of the verses does not require such an inconsistent picture. We learn from Deuteronomy 19:17 that when a person appeared before a priest (God's representative on earth) he appeared before the Lord, because God was with the priest in the judgment (2 Chron. 19:6). Why not apply the same principle of interpretation to Job Ch. 1:6 -- a principle that is consistent with other parts of Scripture? Because Job isn’t appearing before a priest. When that is done, the whole transaction is understood as taking place on earth, before God's priest. But the transaction is initially between God and Satan, not God and Job or Job and some priest of God. But what of the term: "Sons of God"? Does not that indicate the angels of heaven? Yes. Ben elohim is referring to angels as the sons of God in Job just as it is used in Gen. 6. By no means. The same phrase is used of mortal believers (see Deut. 14:1 (yes we are sons of YHVH ‘elohim as found here rather than sons of elohim as found in Job 1:6)); Hos. 1: 10 (this verse says the sons of Israel); Isa. 43:6-7 (these verses do noe even have the term ‘ben elohim’ in them so they cannot even be compared to Job 1:6) ). John, writing to mortal believers, declared: "Now are we the sons of God" (1 John 3:2). Thus the term relates to mortals, not angelic beings. Not necessarily. If Mansfield understood the concept of being born from above and Jer 1:5 where it is written ‘before I formed thee in the womb I knew thee’ he would understand that we were ‘elohim’ before we were born of water. See The Plan of God by Lance Knight. Satan (many Bibles supply the alternative -- "adversary" in the margin) was also a son of God, or a believer, but one who was motivated by jealousy and envy against Job, and who was therefore his adversary. He sought to blacken Job's reputation in the sight of God by imputing unworthy motives to his blameless life, and by accusing him of hypocrisy. Mansfield is now saying that Satan was a son of God, an entity It is by no means uncommon to have such people among the believers, and claiming to be sons of God in the sense of 1 John 3:1. Even among the disciples of the Lord, there was satan in the person of Judas (John 6:70) as well as Peter (Matt. 16:23, Mark 8:33). Every Christian community has its satan, its Judas in its midst, so that Job's experience was by no means unique. It is sometimes claimed, however, that the Satan of Job exercised the powers of life and death over the patriarch. The book does not say so. It claims that all the trials that Job experienced came from God (Job 2:3; 19:21; 42:11). Actually, it says that Satan moved God against Job. He was tested that his enemies might be confounded, and that a principle of faith in adversity might be exhibited as an example for all times (James 5:11). [We would like to also point out, that throughout the book of Job, Job and his friends NEVER attributed any of the trials he was experiencing to any one but God. -- Antipas] Another reference frequently advanced to prove the existence of Satan in heaven as a fallen angel is Revelation 12:7: "There was war in heaven . . ." Mansfield definitely doesn’t understand the ‘world that then was that perished’. This seems conclusive, but is far from being so when the context is examined. For example, vv.1-2 depicts a woman giving birth to a son "in heaven." It is the same "heaven," but is it God's dwelling place? Mansfield also doesn’t understand the symbolism in Revelation, and about the woman with 12 stars representing Israel and the seedline that Christ would come from. Such an idea is unthinkable. There is neither marriage nor giving in marriage there (Luke 20:36). It is obvious that we are in the presence of symbolic language (see Rev. 1:1), and the "heaven" in question relates to the political "heavens" which are set up on earth! In fact, all this chapter is couched in symbolic language, PAGE 123 and should be interpreted in that light. It is completely wrong to base a Bible doctrine on the literal interpretation of such expressions. Even though its couched in symbolism, it refers to the birth of Christ, and that happened, and it refers to the dragon being cast out of heaven, and that happened, The same chapter speaks of a "great red dragon" (also in heaven) "having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads" which catches a third of the stars in his tail and casts them into the earth. He’s mixing up the dragon with the beast. This guy really should not be teaching scripture since he knows so little about what it is saying. Obviously this is not literal language; nor is it the language of fantasy. It is the language of symbol, the clues for the understanding of which, are carefully given (see Rev. 17:9-10). And these reveal that the symbols have relation to political events on earth, not in heaven, in which God's purpose is worked out. The doctrinal evidence of the Bible shows, without doubt, that the devil revealed therein relates to sin in its various forms which Christ came to destroy. All this dissertation shows is that without a doubt Mansfield doesn’t know what he’s talking about. QUESTIONS TO STUDY No. 17 1. What, according to the Bible, was the original cause of death? 2. Explain in scriptural terms the process of sinning and its results. 3. What does the word "devil", used in our English Bible version, really mean, when properly translated from the Greek? 4. How should the Hebrew word "salan" be translated into English? 5. Did Job think that the evil brought upon him was caused by a super-natural Satan? 6. Where, in the Book of Job, do we have proof that the trials were divinely controlled? |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
