Demonology

[disciple100]

Whoa! Hey there, what's a thread entitled 'Demonology' doing in the Christianity 201 Forum?!

That's probably what you're thinking.

Well, the reason I started a thread entitled 'Demonology' is that I am interested in what other Christian perspectives are on, you guessed it, Demonology.

It is, from my understanding, that the Bible need not be our only source of knowledge. However, what about when we start venturing towards the matter of other dimensions and those that inhabit those dimensions? Should we take the time to understand the origin of demons, and all the different sub-types, if any exist at all? Is it all a hoax, just another attempt to distract us from God that we need to ignore? Surely we can agree that things of the paranormal do indeed occur, so what do we attribute them to? Are their ghosts? Or are what we perceive to be human ghosts actually demons attempting to, yet again, distract us from God via the occult? Similar situation with aliens?

One of my favorite shows, Destination Truth, has also been a trigger for this.

Trust me when I tell you that there is a wealth of extra-Biblical non-Christian resources on demons, and even angels. Many people claim (key word being claim) that they have sojourned into the other realm (kind of like in Oblivion) and slain demons, and are even being attacked by succubi or asking how to summon one. Sick stuff. What I'm asking is, basically, should I, a Christian, care? Is it best, as far as demons are concerned, to just ignore? What about possession? Is it about frightening away a demon with the Holy name of God, or about refocusing someone onto God? And what about the Book of Enoch?

I realize that some of this stuff has been scattershot throughout the website, but I felt it was time to concentrate all of it into one thread. This has been eating away at me for awhile, so if I could get some honest answers out of my fellow Christians, I would really appreciate it.

And if there are any non-Christians who wish to honestly (key word being honestly) participate in this discussion, once you have permission from the moderators, you have my consent.

I would like to keep things civil, more like a discussion than a debate, if possible.

Thank you.

[RBerman]

I made the following post on another forum a few days ago; it summarizes most of what I know about Satan and demons as they act at present.

The extent of Satan's power is something we get only a few glimpses of in Scripture. We know his evil intent (1 Peter 5:8), his ability to take Jesus here and there (Matt 3), his successful temptation of David (1 Chron 21:1) at God's behest (2 Sam 24:1), and his affliction of Job (Job 1-2), done with God's permission. Some see the "Prince of Persia" (Daniel 10:13,30) as Satan battling God's angels, but that's probably a reference to Cyrus instead (Daniel 10:1). Can Satan appear as more than just a talking snake (Gen 3)? What is entailed by a demon's ability to possess a person (Mark 1:34, Acts 19:13, and many other places in the NT) or a pig (Luke 8:33)? These are not things Scripture explains, though there's no shortage of extra-Biblical speculation in any century you care to name. So if someone wanted to attribute the storm in Matthew 8 to Satan, I couldn't say definitively that's wrong. But neither do I see anything in that text to indicate that it was an act of Satan. It could just as easily have been a set-up by God to demonstrate Jesus' power and increase the faith of the disciples. Nor are those two answers mutually exclusive; God could have worked through Satan, frustrating Satan's evil design with a good result.

[Obsidian]

That seems like sort of a lame interpretation of Daniel 10, Berman. Do you think Michael was just some Persian guy, too?

[seanD]

So Gabriel needed Michael to help battle Cyrus, because Cyrus kept Gabriel from getting through to answer Dan's prayer?

[seanD]

That seems like sort of a lame interpretation of Daniel 10, Berman. Do you think Michael was just some Persian guy, too?

Quite honestly, that really surprises me.

[Manwë Súlimo]

Way back when I played WoW, I speced my Warlock in Demonology.

[RBerman]

That seems like sort of a lame interpretation of Daniel 10, Berman. Do you think Michael was just some Persian guy, too?

Michael is clearly an angel in Jude 9 and Revelation 12:7. That informs my reading of Daniel 10, assuming that it's the same Michael; there are several human Michaels in the OT as well, but no one of consequence that would fit the story in Daniel. If you can produce a reference to "prince of Persia" being a demon of some sort, I would like to see it. Daniel 10 begins with a reference to Cyrus being the leader of Persia, so it seems reasonable to suppose that he is the "prince of Persia" spoken of throughout the chapter. What does it mean for an angel to contend with Cyrus, be delayed, and need Michael's assistance? I haven't the faintest idea. It's one of those glimpses of the spiritual realm that we get throughout Scripture from time to time.

[seanD]

Michael is clearly an angel in Jude 9 and Revelation 12:7. That informs my reading of Daniel 10, assuming that it's the same Michael; there are several human Michaels in the OT as well, but no one of consequence that would fit the story in Daniel. If you can produce a reference to "prince of Persia" being a demon of some sort, I would like to see it. Daniel 10 begins with a reference to Cyrus being the leader of Persia, so it seems reasonable to suppose that he is the "prince of Persia" spoken of throughout the chapter. What does it mean for an angel to contend with Cyrus, be delayed, and need Michael's assistance? I haven't the faintest idea. It's one of those glimpses of the spiritual realm that we get throughout Scripture from time to time.

Biblical exegesis and deductive reasoning. Paul declared that we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, archon and kosmokrators, invisible rulers in the air about us. Since we know that all of Paul's Roman and Jewish opponents had flesh and blood, he must have been talking about spirit rulers who were capable of manipulating his flesh and blood opponents, and since we know he wasn't talking about angels, he must have been referring to demons. If Jesus called Peter Satan, and we certainly know Peter wasn't Satan himself, then logic would have us conclude Satan had manipulated Peter to try and thwart Jesus' teachings about his mission. Thus if these spirits can manipulate human beings, then Dan must have been speaking of a spirit prince who was capable of manipulating the whole empire of Persia, or he was assigned this territory, that required the assistance of the angel Michael.

Or is that you don't believe this because it's too fantastic?

[Obsidian]

Daniel 10 begins with a reference to Cyrus being the leader of Persia, so it seems reasonable to suppose that he is the "prince of Persia" spoken of throughout the chapter.

Well Cyrus was the king over Israel, too, so why don't we just say that Cyrus must also have been Michael, the prince of Israel? I find your argument a bit weak, considering the word "prince" is used immediately afterward to describe an angel.

The prince of persia is analogous to the prince Michael, and they both seem to be spirits.

[RBerman]

Well Cyrus was the king over Israel, too, so why don't we just say that Cyrus must also have been Michael, the prince of Israel? I find your argument a bit weak, considering the word "prince" is used immediately afterward to describe an angel.

The prince of persia is analogous to the prince Michael, and they both seem to be spirits.

You could be right. But the text doesn't call Cyrus "king over Israel." It calls him the king of Persia. "Prince" historically is a word whose meaning overlapped with that of "king." The Hebrew word "sar" simply means "leader." It occurs many times in the OT, but as far as I know Daniel 10 and 12, with reference to Michael, are the only clear instances where it's obviously used for a supernatural being. You may extrapolate that the other uses of it in Daniel 10 and 12 intend the same implication. Maybe so, but the word is used seven times in Daniel 1-9, always with reference to a human.

[seanD]

You could be right. But the text doesn't call Cyrus "king over Israel." It calls him the king of Persia. "Prince" historically is a word whose meaning overlapped with that of "king." The Hebrew word "sar" simply means "leader." It occurs many times in the OT, but as far as I know Daniel 10 and 12, with reference to Michael, are the only clear instances where it's obviously used for a supernatural being. You may extrapolate that the other uses of it in Daniel 10 and 12 intend the same implication. Maybe so, but the word is used seven times in Daniel 1-9, always with reference to a human.

Cyrus was never called a prince anywhere in scripture, and Daniel identified him as "king of Persia." God declared that Cyrus was his messiah, and 2 Chronicles 36:23 indicates he was God’s favorable servant. God had sent the man to address Daniel while he was praying, yet if we assume the prince of Persia he was referring to was Cyrus, why would Cyrus prevent the man from seeing him, and why would God allow Cyrus to prevent him from seeing him for twenty days? And who was this Michael who would have fought with Cyrus the Great in order to assist the man? And who were these individuals that were interpreting Daniel's visions and giving him divine information about future events? Unless you imagine some sort of higher spiritual individuals in Babylon that were working undercover.

[RBerman]

Cyrus was never called a prince anywhere in scripture, and Daniel identified him as "king of Persia." God declared that Cyrus was his messiah, and 2 Chronicles 36:23 indicates he was God’s favorable servant. God had sent the man to address Daniel while he was praying, yet if we assume the prince of Persia he was referring to was Cyrus, why would Cyrus prevent the man from seeing him, and why would God allow Cyrus to prevent him from seeing him for twenty days? And who was this Michael who would have fought with Cyrus the Great in order to assist the man? And who were these individuals that were interpreting Daniel's visions and giving him divine information about future events? Unless you imagine some sort of higher spiritual individuals in Babylon that were working undercover.

Cyrus was indeed annointed by God to send the Israelites home, and served God's purposes in that respect. I already addressed Michael's identity; he is clearly an angel. The identity of the prince of Persia does not rouse a great deal of excitement in me one way or the other. Daniel 10 is not specific on this issue, so I am not either. I do protest dogmatic declarations of certainty which I don't believe the text warrants.

[seanD]

Cyrus was indeed annointed by God to send the Israelites home, and served God's purposes in that respect. I already addressed Michael's identity; he is clearly an angel. The identity of the prince of Persia does not rouse a great deal of excitement in me one way or the other. Daniel 10 is not specific on this issue, so I am not either. I do protest dogmatic declarations of certainty which I don't believe the text warrants.

What I think it is is that you're obstinately dismissing the obvious interpretation because it sort of disrupts your Amil doctrine. If you believe Satan is chained up, to believe that his minions are still roving around reeking havoc on mankind sort of makes that belief insignificant. I could be wrong, of course, but I can't find any other reason a person like you would be so careless and sloppy in your biblical exegesis, no offense. And if this is a case of you letting traditional doctrine dictate how you interpret scripture, then this really surprises me.

[RBerman]

What I think it is is that you're obstinately dismissing the obvious interpretation because it sort of disrupts your Amil doctrine. If you believe Satan is chained up, to believe that his minions are still roving around reeking havoc on mankind sort of makes that belief insignificant. I could be wrong, of course, but I can't find any other reason a person like you would be so careless and sloppy in your biblical exegesis, no offense. And if this is a case of you letting traditional doctrine dictate how you interpret scripture, then this really surprises me.

I don't see how Amillenialism impacts the interpretation of Daniel 10, which speaks of a period prior to the work of Christ. I also don't see that your interpretation is obvious or clearly the best, but neither do I dismiss it. You are ascribing to me a level of certainty which I do not perceive within myself.

[seanD]

I don't see how Amillenialism impacts the interpretation of Daniel 10, which speaks of a period prior to the work of Christ. I also don't see that your interpretation is obvious or clearly the best, but neither do I dismiss it. You are ascribing to me a level of certainty which I do not perceive within myself.

The only other alternative for prince of Persia other than a supernatural being the reader would have associated him with is Cyrus, but since Cyrus was God's messiah, this makes no sense. The fact Michael had to intervene and fight with this Prince makes it crystal clear what he was. None of these characters are addressed anywhere in Daniel as historical characters, thus the scene doesn’t mean much to the reader on a historical basis and is rather convoluted fiction and allegory unless you assume spirit beings interacting with each other.