Demonology

[Chris D]

Why not? People withstand the Lord himself all the time in the Bible. God doesn't always act in a manner which is irresistible, so I wouldn't expect angels to do so either.

Well, not to split hairs but, as a Calvinist, I believe God is irresistible, and it's only when His will is that they resist that they are capable of, in fact, resisting. But let's save that debate for another time .

RBerman's point is right, though. If God allows it, people even resist Him (through Moses, in the case of Pharaoh), so why wouldn't they be capable of resisting angels if God so allows?

[RBerman]

Well, not to split hairs but, as a Calvinist, I believe God is irresistible, and it's only when His will is that they resist that they are capable of, in fact, resisting.

As a Calvinist, I agree 1000%.

[Chris D]

As a Calvinist, I agree 1000%.

Woops, I should have checked that

[seanD]

Why not? People withstand the Lord himself all the time in the Bible. God doesn't always act in a manner which is irresistible, so I wouldn't expect angels to do so either.

You've actually reversed the spiritual warfare. Paul argued that we don't wrestle with humans, but spiritual entities. You're not only arguing that Daniel's spiritual activity was thwarted by a human, but that a human actually opposed a spiritual entity. And I find it hard to believe that the Lord would allow a human to thwart his messenger, if that's even possible, for twenty days which required him to send yet another angel to intervene.

[seanD]

Which is a good reason why I pay more mind to technical commentaries than to pastoral or devotional commentaries. Technical commentaries are more geared towards academics and those with a working knowledge of the original languages. They seem to me to try to hold back personal bias (as best as possible) and offer up "just the facts". A lot of good commentators look at the context and beliefs relevant to the subject. Norman Porteous, for instance, tries to demonstrate a Jewish belief in angelic/demonic principalities by citing not only the canonical books of Deuteronomy, Jude, and Revelation, but also Pseudepigrapha like Enoch 1 and 2, Jubilees, the Dead Sea scroll War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness, the Apocryphal book Sirach/Ecclesiasticus, and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan.

As an example, Jubilees has this to say:

Jubilees 15:31-32

And He sanctified it, and gathered it from amongst all the children of men; for there are many nations and many peoples, and all are His, and over all hath He placed spirits in authority to lead them astray from Him. But over Israel He did not appoint any angel or spirit, for He alone is their ruler, and He will preserve them and require them at the hand of His angels and His spirits, and at the hand of all His powers in order that He may preserve them and bless them, and that they may be His and He may be theirs from henceforth for ever.

At any rate, I find commentaries of all sorts to be indispensable while studying the scriptures.

I find their historical and cultural assessments extremely helpful, much like the church fathers. But most of their theological interpretations... eh... particularly when things are much different today where you have so many different varying views and doctrines.

[Chris D]

You've actually reversed the spiritual warfare. Paul argued that we don't wrestle with humans, but spiritual entities. You're not only arguing that Daniel's spiritual activity was thwarted by a human, but that a human actually opposed a spiritual entity.

Where is it stated that spiritual warfare is unidirectional?

[Chris D]

I find their historical and cultural assessments extremely helpful, much like the church fathers. But most of their theological interpretations... eh...

I think their theological intepretations are likewise useful. That doesn't mean they're perfect or authoritative in and of themselves, though.

[Chris D]

You've actually reversed the spiritual warfare. Paul argued that we don't wrestle with humans, but spiritual entities. You're not only arguing that Daniel's spiritual activity was thwarted by a human, but that a human actually opposed a spiritual entity.

And where is RBerman arguing that Daniel's spiritual activity was thwarted by a human? Unless you're saying that it was indirectly in that the angel's response to Daniel was slowed because he was busy with said human.

[seanD]

And where is RBerman arguing that Daniel's spiritual activity was thwarted by a human? Unless you're saying that it was indirectly in that the angel's response to Daniel was slowed because he was busy with said human.

His prayer got through to God. The response from God was thwarted. I don't know, I guess I call that "spiritual activity." But I'll wait for RB's response.

[Chris D]

His prayer got through to God. The response from God was thwarted. I don't know, I guess I call that "spiritual activity." But I'll wait for RB's response.

No, that's fine. But again, it was indirect.

[Chris D]

Where is it stated that spiritual warfare is unidirectional?

Sorry, I misunderstood you. Your point, I'm guessing, in speaking of direction, is that godly humans resist ungodly spiritual entities, not the other way around. So let me change my question. Where is it stated that godly spiritual entities don't wrestle with ungodly humans?

[Adrift]

Sorry, I misunderstood you. Your point, I'm guessing, in speaking of direction, is that godly humans resist ungodly spiritual entities, not the other way around. So let me change my question. Where is it stated that godly spiritual entities don't wrestle with ungodly humans?

Ephesians 6:10 seems to indicate that the only reason we're able to wrestle is because we are strong by putting on the full armor of God. As a counter example we have the case in Acts 19

[13] Then some of the itinerant Jewish exorcists undertook to invoke the name of the Lord Jesus over those who had evil spirits, saying, “I adjure you by the Jesus whom Paul proclaims.” [14] Seven sons of a Jewish high priest named Sceva were doing this. [15] But the evil spirit answered them, “Jesus I know, and Paul I recognize, but who are you?” [16] And the man in whom was the evil spirit leaped on them, mastered all of them and overpowered them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.
(Acts 19:13-16 ESV)

[Obsidian]

So if Cambyses was the Prince of Persia, then who was the Prince of Greece? Hercules? Or was Socrates going to come down to debate Daniel in philosophy?

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.

Strictly speaking, the identity of angels is pretty much always ambiguous aside from their unusual appearance or supernatural feats. "Angel" just means messenger. We have to judge from the context whether the messenger is a human or a spirit. In this case, we have to judge from the context that the princes were spirits.

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.

It's not his amillennialism. It's probably his Calvinism. He's unwilling to admit that Satan could actually have a significant amount of "sovereignty" over a country.

[seanD]

It's not his amillennialism. It's probably his Calvinism. He's unwilling to admit that Satan could actually have a significant amount of "sovereignty" over a country.

I figured it had to be some tie to a traditional doctrine.

[disciple100]

It's not his amillennialism. It's probably his Calvinism. He's unwilling to admit that Satan could actually have a significant amount of "sovereignty" over a country.

I figured it had to be some tie to a traditional doctrine.

What does RBerman's Calvinism and Amillenialism have to do with this?