John Lawrence: Demonology Part 5 of 5

Part 5
(b) The fact of what Christ stated concerning angels in the New Testament
Those who hold that angels are spirit beings that do not have bodies and could not take wives of the daughters of men refer to what Christ said as proof of the impossibility of angels propagating using Matt. 22:30; Mark 12:25; Luke 20:35-36. We consequently need to examine just what our Lord did say very carefully because much of the interpretation
hinges on these statements made by Christ.
When we consider the context of Matt. 22:23-33, Christ is saying to the
Sadducees that "Your question is out of order". The Law of Leviticus is made for earthly matters, and perpetuation of the human race and keeping of the land in the original family. This is an important dispensational truth. The question is out of order because in the resurrection there is no propagation at all: "just like the angels in heaven". The fixed law of the earth is for each to begat after their kind. However, animals do not begat angels. We do not know just what angels could begat if they did begat. We do know, nevertheless, that angels are seen as men, sometimes no different from those of the human race. It is certainly not impossible that wicked fallen angels could leave their proper realm and invade the human sphere in order to work such abominable confusion among humanity that the promise of Genesis 3:15 could never be fulfilled.
Christ said that the angels of God in heaven neither marry nor are given in marriage. The reason: angels are immortal and each is the direct creation of God. They do not propagate their company by having baby angels. There is no possibility of a marriage relationship among the angels in heaven for there are no female angels, and there is absolutely no need for such with the Creator there.
So very significant is the phrase "in heaven" that A. W. Pink makes the following pointed comment:
"Against the view that the sons of God refer to fallen angels Matt. 22:30 is often cited. But when the contents of this verse are closely studied it will be found there is, really, nothing in it which conflicts with what we have said above. Had our Lord said, "in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God" and stopped there, the objection would have real force. But the Lord did not stop there. He added a qualifying clause about the angels: He said as the angels of God in heaven. The last two words make all the difference. The angels in heaven neither marry nor are they given in marriage. But the angels referred to in Genesis 6 as the 'sons of God' were no longer in heaven; as Jude 6 expressly informs us 'they left their own principality’. They fell from their celestial position and came down to earth, entering into unlawful alliance with the daughters of men. This, we are assured, is the reason why Christ modified and qualified His assertion in Matt. 22:30. The angels of God in heaven do not marry, but those who left their own habitation did". Gleanings in Genesis, p 94-95.
Christ's statement about angels, rather than showing they cannot marry, enforces the position that some of them actually did "marry" (they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose) and are confined in Tartarus now for this wicked, wicked act. Such sin was immediately judged.
(4) The Nature of Satan and his activity favors this view
His principle scheme: Deception
His program requires evil spirits
Both the work and program of Satan throughout history favor the
position that the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 were fallen angels
who cohabited with women. When God gave the promise in Genesis 3:15 concerning the coming of the seed of the woman, Satan inspired Cain to kill his brother. Then he worked to corrupt the entire world of humanity so that there was a race of "monstrosities" and an impure race, trying to make it impossible for God to fulfill His word in the garden (cf. Gen. 3:15). If Satan could do this, he would have averted his eventual doom there prophesied. How nearly he succeeded is evident from the fact, that with the exception of one family, "all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth" (Gen. 6:12). Failing at this, Satan set out immediately after the flood with the Tammuz story (Ezek. 8:14): a counterfeit worship of one who was dead and resurrected and the
fulfillment of the promised seed.
This idolatrous worship filled the whole earth. It was out of this that God called Abraham and promised that the Coming One was to be a descendant of his (Gen. 12:3; Gal. 3:18). Satan's attacks were now concentrated on this one and his family. He failed to have the son of promise after the time of Life for both him and his wife Sarah. Nevertheless, God was faithful. This same barrenness was experienced by Isaac and Rebekah (Gen. 25:21), when God heard and intervened. Jacob experienced great difficulty with his brother Esau. Later, when his
whole family was in Canaan a great famine took place, which, except for God's working, would have annihilated them by starvation. Nevertheless, they disobeyed by leaving the land of promise. Being preserved in Egypt where they grow to a great nation, again Satan sought to destroy the promised seed by moving Pharaoh to seek to destroy all of the male children (Ex. 1:15,16). Having failed by outward pressures to extinguish them, Satan tried the method of joining them. The children
of Israel having left Egypt experience the leavening influence of the mixed multitude and their continual murmuring which nearly caused their entire destruction. When God narrowed the line to Judah, he became the object of Satan's attack. When it was narrowed to the family of David, the Satanic attack upon David became tremendous through Absalom and others as the result of David’s sin. In the line of David the lineage was often narrowed to one descendant to the throne because of Satan’s attacks.
We see that Satan has sought continually to oppose God’s will and God’s Word. The method of angels marrying women of the human race and producing offspring half human and half angel has been just a part of Satan's total working to nullify God’s Word and to thwart his own judgment and doom.
Satan undoubtedly had something else behind this action of permitting some of his angels to cohabit with women. Satan is not omnipotent nor is he omnipresent. Moreover, when he fell, only one-third of the heavenly host fell with him according to Rev. 12:4, leaving two-thirds with God. If Satan is going to be victorious, there is the great need for additional forces to be secured on Satan’s side – particularly spiritual forces that could do spiritual battle. This was a very ingenious way of accomplishing this. The offspring of this union would be of such a nature that even upon death would be spirit beings who would continue to carry on the work and program of Satan because they were wicked themselves, and different from pure human beings. We shall be discussing why they would not be confined in Sheol below.
Wait a minute, you say. Why could not God just create more forces of His own? Isn’t He the infinite God and Creator? I suppose He could, but YOU will have to ask HIM.
(5) The Results of the Union favors this view
If pious Sethites married unbelieving women of the family of Cain, there is no reason whatsoever that their progeny should be any different from the rest of humanity. However, if angels cohabited with women, it would be expected, and rightfully so, that their offspring would be very distinct.
What does Scripture say?
Genesis 6:4, "There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."
We need to carefully look at this verse:
The word translated "giants" is "Nephilim"(plural). This is a verbal adjective or noun of passive significance and comes from "Naphal," which means "to fall". Hence, "Nephilim" means "the fallen ones."
The Septuagint translators rendered the Hebrew Nephilim by ‘gigantis’, and this suggested the translation "giants". The basic idea behind this Greek word is not monstrous size, which is a secondary and developed meaning. It is "earth-born" from the Greek ‘gegenes’, and was employed by the Greeks of the mythical Titans who were partly of celestial and partly of terrestrial origin.
What then does Genesis 6:4 mean? "There were fallen ones in the earth in those days." Newall points out that "earth" is the emphatic word here in the sentence: "in the earth" where they had no business to be.
The "fallen angels" had been cast down to the sphere of the earth, but now they had entered into a sphere where they had no right to be. In the language of the NT they had "left their own (R.V. 'proper') habitation" (Jude 6).
But even after that--i.e., even after God judged the fallen angels for this extreme wickedness, yet "fallen ones" persisted on the earth through the births that were produced.
Gen. 5:3, "Adam begat a son in his own likeness."
Just so these Nephilim would have produced offspring after their own likeness. Then the name "Nephilim" would refer to the offspring even as it did to the fathers after the fathers were off the scene. This is where the Greek word "earth-born" becomes involved.
Unger believes that Nephilim all the way through Genesis is a reference to the offspring and that the expression "and also after that" refers to the sons of Anak in Num. 13:33. I do not believe this is possible.
First, God destroyed all of this wicked mixture at the flood. Secondly none of the angels who practiced this sin are free to do it again, it is very unlikely that others would do it in light of the punishment inflicted upon the angels who did. The expression used in reference to calling the sons of Anak "fallen ones" might be a derived meaning because of their strength, size, and wickedness, etc., without being a direct indication that these were in anyway related to half angel and half human birth.
Regardless of whether the references to Nephilim refer to the fallen angels or their fallen offspring, or both, the end of the verse must be a reference to the offspring of this union.
"And they bare (children) to them, the same (became) mighty men which were of old, men of renown." Two concepts are referred to here:
(1) They were very strong.
(2) They were intelligent and leaders in wickedness.
At this point we need to review the doctrine of angels. Angels have:
(1) Great strength.
Ps. 103:20, "Bless the Lord, ye his angels, that
excel in strength . .
2 Pet. 2:11, "whereas angels, which are greater in
power and might. . ."
Rev. 18:21.
Matt. 28:2; Mark 16:4.
(2) Great wisdom or knowledge.
2 Sam. 14:20, "and my lord is wise, according to the wisdom of an angel of God, to know all things that are in the earth."
With these things understood about angels, it is understandable that the offspring from such a marriage would be "mighty men which were of old." Thus, the nations all speak about this in their traditions as the Greeks do of the Titans; "men of renown," men of greater than normal intelligence or knowledge. However, this strength and intelligence was not used for God; it was used for wickedness and evil. Wickedness is the third result of this union.
"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." Genesis 6:5.
There is no reason why this would be the outcome if Sethites married Cainites. However, it would have been impossible for it to have been otherwise for angels to produce Nephilim who reproduced other
offspring who continually were perpetuating evil. Consequently, the results of the union indicate that the angels were involved with humanity:
(l) They are called the same as their fathers: Nephilim,
(2) They are mighty,
(3) They are renown,
(4) They are wicked and leaders in wickedness.
(6)) The fact that God has various places of confinement favor this view. We need to carefully distinguish the places of abode in the underworld because they are not synonymous terms.
Gehenna = Lake of Fire: The eternal abode of all the wicked, prepared for the devil and his angels.
Matt, 5:22,29,30, 10:28, 13:9, 23:15,33.
Mark 9:43,45,47.
Luke 12:5.
James 3:6. ... What about Rev 9:14?
Tartaros, or Tartarus = Present prisonhouse (place of the dammed) for angels that sinned. 2 Pet. 2:4.
Hades or Sheol (OT) = Place of the departed spirits of man. Since the resurrection of Christ this involves only the unrighteous dead.
Abyss (Gr. abussos, appears 9 times in NT, meaning boundless or bottomless, transl. 7 times as "abyss" in my NASB)
(See Pember, pp. 75-6 for connection with the Sea),
Luke 3:31, translated "the deep."
Rev, 9:1-11 "bottomless pit" = "the pit or shaft of the abyss."
This is the release of demons who have been confined to the abyss and they are all freed in the middle of the tribulation period.
Rev. 11:7 with 17:8 = The Roman Empire.
Rev. 20:1-3, Satan kept in the Abyss during the Millennium.
Tartarus keeps angels, Hades keeps men and the abyss keeps demons, showing a distinction between each.
Christ had the power to send the legion of demons into the abyss, which Mark says was "out of the country," and there they would have been confined until the middle of the Tribulation. Luke 8:31, Mark 5:10.
Satan seems to have God’s permission in the middle of the Tribulation to release all the demons in the abyss. God allows this to show that He still is in sovereign control and that all the demons cannot change the course of events and the plan of God.
Whenever demons cry out to the Lord it was to acknowledge the fact that they knew who He was, and to ask if He had come to torment them before their time. Matt. 8:29.
Both statements would have been out of place for angels who present themselves before the throne of the Living God, being the direct creation of God, but very significant for demons who were not created by the Lord, but created by "fallen angels" through cohabiting with the daughters of humanity. This (verse) shows their great intellect and supernatural knowledge of things and even of their ultimate doom and torment.
Why would the Nephilim not go to Sheol or Hades when they died in the flood? Simply because Sheol was the place for the spirits of the human race; but with the intrusion of angels into humanity, the offspring was neither angelic nor human. They could be confined neither to Tartarus, nor to Sheol. Therefore, they were "free" to roam the earth following the flood as free spirits seeking a body to possess and control for wickedness and violence. Because of their wisdom they were able to deceive many as to their true nature. The Lord seemingly prepared a place for them, called the abyss, and while He was here on earth confined many demons to the abyss. These then will be freed in the middle of the Tribulation, and all confined along with Satan and his
angels to the abyss during the Millennium. These are all loosed again for a short season; then to be confined eternally to the Lake of Fire at the great White Throne Judgment.
The very fact that there are these separate places of confinement for angels, demons and mankind, is added confirmation that demons were the offspring of angels and members of the human race. Upon their destruction in the flood, they could not be confined either with angels, nor with mankind, but became free spirits to roam the earth.
What about Colossians 1:16?
"For by(‘en) Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by (di’) Him and for(‘eis’) Him."
According to this teaching demons were directly created by Him. Therefore, this must be a wrong interpretation of Scripture and a wrong view as to how demons originated???
Not at all! Man has the power of procreation and Adam begat a son in his likeness. Christ created Adam who procreated a son, etc. Christ also created the angels and seems to have given them powers of procreation even though these powers are not used in the angelic sphere. Christ is a man in heaven, but does not use His manhood; in the same way men and women will retain their sexual distinctions in the resurrection, but will not be used in marriage (Matt.22:30). Christ did not say that man and woman would be without sexual distinction in the resurrection, but only that they did not marry.
If God created angels and created man, He created also all that might be produced by them potentially in the original person. That is, Adam contained the world in his own body. All the offspring of Adam are subject to the sovereign control and authority of the Lord Jesus Christ as Creator. The same thing would be true of the offspring of such a union of angels and mankind. They are subject to the Lord Jesus Christ.
Demons recognized this and they bowed before Him. Mark 5:6.
They recognized His person. Mark 5:7.
They realized His power to punish and command them. Mark 5:7-10.
Demons are not out of the Sovereign control of the Lord. Colossians 1:16 is given to refute the Gnostic concept of dualism which held that there were other "gods" and powers eternally existent over which the Lord had no control or authority. This is unbiblical. Col. l:l6 in no way teaches against demons coming from a mixture of angels and human beings.
(7) The Judgments Inflicted on the Wicked Favors this View
There is both the judgment upon angels that are confined to Tartarus
and there is the Judgment upon humanity that resulted in the destruction of all with the exception of one man and his family that needs to be considered in dealing with this subject.
Unger commenting on this point says:
"...the divine account in the 0.T. and the inspired comments in the NT unanimously represent the whole episode as being a unique and shocking abnormality, breaking down every God-ordained law for both the physical and the spiritual realms, and producing outrageous confusion in both; so that unmitigated incarceration in the lowest pits of Tartarus is the penalty for the angelic offenders on one hand, and a
world-engulfing deluge the punishment for human folly on the other." Ibid, p. 51. Each dispensation is always and MUST be followed by judgement.
The judgment of only certain angels and not all fallen angels and Satan cannot be accounted for in any other way. Yet, from the very fact that it is introduced in the NT, without explanation, it is necessary to have an adequate Scriptural explanation. This view that the sons of God are angels alone gives us an adequate explanation and it is completely harmonious with all Scripture on the subject.
The judgment upon mankind must also have an adequate Scriptural explanation. The fact of Sethites marrying unbelieving Cainites, while certainly no small thing in God's sight, is nevertheless not something for which God destroys all mankind in righteous wrath. A righteous judge must have a punishment equal to the crime committed. If God were going to destroy the race, the sin of Adam and Eve was far greater in wickedness with everlasting results than that of Sethites marrying Cainites. A father who over punishes his son is just as wrong as a father who never punishes his child. God is infinitely righteous and the punishment shows the gravity and depth of the sin. When we look at the judgment of the flood upon humanity, only the position of angels cohabiting with humanity and producing confusion and wickedness would
account for such action on the part of the Creator. The nature of the judgment then is added proof that the sons of God are angelic beings.
(8) The inadequacies of the opposite position favors this view
Those who have held that the sons of God are simply godly Sethites and that the daughters of men speak of Cainites and these are the ones who intermarried include many such as:
John Chrysostom (the literalist interpreter of the Eastern Church), Cyril of the allegorical Alexandrian school, Theodoret, almost all the later theologians, and in modern times Hengstenberg, Keil, Lange, Jamieson, Fausset, Brown, Matthew Henry, C.I. Scofield, and many others.
There are certain objections to this view which have no adequate explanation if we hold that the sons of God and daughters of men refer only to believers and unbelievers respectively.
(a) It leaves unexplained why God's people were limited to
the male sex.
(b) It leaves unexplained why the daughters of men were limited to unbelievers.
(c) If the sons of God were believers then they perished in the flood, but 2 Peter 2:5 states otherwise that the flood came upon the world of the ungodly. This is unanswerable for the sons of God is never used of men who did not have positional righteousness and eternal life.
(d) There is no hint at all in the Divine record that God had yet given any specific command forbidding His people to marry unbelievers. In view of this silence it seems exceedingly strange that this sin should have been visited with such a fearful judgment. This is not God's way of righteous judgment or sovereign planning.
Moreover, in all ages there have been many (most?) of God’s people who have failed to keep themselves separate from unbelievers and yet will not suffer for it any calamity comparable with the Deluge.
(e) It also needs to be explained why the union of believers
and unbelievers should produce a race of giants or "fallen ones" who were of great strength and men of renown.
Why should all be wicked? Many times in Israel's History a wicked king would have a godly son.
Why should they all be strong? No reason genetically.
Why should they all be leaders? Usually a mixture produces just the opposite.
(f) It leaves unexplained also why the sons of God did not marry just one of the daughters of men or descendants of Cain, and why it was that they took them wives of all which they chose. There was violence in the earth in those days, and the Cainites, if they had been separate from the Sethites, could easily have destroyed them with their superior numbers and strength.
(h) It leaves unexplained how the Cainites remained separate and distinct during all of this time when Adam and Eve also had other descendants (Gen. 5:4) so that the world was divided into just Cainites and Sethites.
These are unanswerable questions! It unequivocally points to the fact that the sons of God were not men of any kind, but were fallen angels who left their proper habitation to work havoc among the human race in defiance of the Creator.
Regardless of how this passage of Scripture is approached, this position stands steadfast, while the opposite view will not stand the test of scrutiny. We conclude then that the sons of God were angels.
(9) The Nature of the Man of Sin favors this view
(This consideration might best be placed under the nature of Satan.)
There is one final reason for believing that sons of God in Genesis 6 are angels. When God gave the prophecy to Satan of the Coming of the Seed of the woman that would bruise the serpent’s head, He also said, "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed . . ." (Gen. 3:15).
Not only is the woman to have seed which is the Lord Jesus Christ, but also the serpent is to have seed which is the Man of Sin, the Son of perdition. Just as the one is literal, so the other is literal. If literal, then the Man of Sin is evidently the actual seed of Satan or offspring of Satan here on earth.
Satan always imitates God and tries to be like Him. Just as God had His Son on this earth, so Satan will have his son on this earth. Satan's son will be bent on wickedness, but, like Satan, will be very deceptive as to his true nature and will deceive the world even as Judas deceived the disciples that he was the "son of perdition" and the one to betray Christ. The disciples never suspected Judas, so there is the danger for Israel to be deceived in the tribulation. (Matt. 24:24).
b. The Result of the union are the demons found around the earth today.
While Unger seems to favor in some ways the view that angels cohabited with women, he does not hold that the result of this union were demons.
He says; "To establish ...that demons were the result of these unholy alliances, is wholly impossible in the face of the silence of revelation. It is pure speculation to reason as does the writer of the Book of Enoch that the progeny were born wicked earth-dwelling spirits, or to imagine that the monstrous offspring became disembodied spirits (demons) when their corporeal bodies were destroyed in the flood, and instead of being consigned to Sheol as were other wicked antediluvians, as monstrosities, were left to plague subsequent generations of mankind as demons." Ibid, pp. 51-2.
What Unger seems to have completely overlooked is that the offspring were neither pure angel nor man. They were part one and part the other, They could neither be consigned to Sheol, the place for men who died nor to Tartarus, the place where the fallen angels who sinned were confined. They were, therefore, free spirits left after the flood to continue their wickedness, seeking a body to possess and control, showing that they originally possessed the same.
c. The Nature of demons.
Everything that demons are by nature fits the description of the world before the flood.
They are fiendish, Mark 9:17,18; Rev1 9.
They are called unclean, Mark 1:27; 3:11; Rev. 16:13,14.
They are leaders of faction and disorder, in the sphere of righteousness, James 3:14,15 R.V.
They are able to produce great strength, Mark 5:4.
They are termed seducing spirits, 1 Tim. 4:1.
They have great knowledge, 1 Tim. 4:1; Acts 16:16.
They incorporate sex sins with idol worship, Num. 25:1-3, 1 Cor. 10:14,19-21. This is told all through paganism, but is never dwelt on in Scripture.
They are opposed to God's work and promote Satan's work.
While demons are under the sovereign control of the Lord and they recognize Him and His authority, they, nevertheless, are allowed to remain free to extend the work of Satan at this present time. However, a place has been prepared to keep them, called the abyss, where some were confined evidently during our Lord’s ministry on earth. These will be freed during the tribulation period of Rev. 9.
The character of demons and their practice is summarized in these 7 or 8 forms: Magic
Divination
Sorcery
Witchcraft
Necromancy
Prognostication
Ventriloquism and Perhaps hypnotism
Perhaps mysticism

John Lawrence: Demonology Part 4 of 5

DEMONOLOGY
Part 4
4. Demons are the offspring of a union between angels and women in Genesis 6.
This involves two things:
(1) that the sons of God of Genesis 6 are fallen angels who cohabited with mortal women and produced offspring, rather than the sons of God being righteous Sethites who married unbelieving daughters of Cain; and
(2) that the offspring of this unnatural union are the demons who are evil spirits today that roam the earth.
One may hold to the first position while not holding to the second. Examples of this are Pember and Larkin who defend the angel theory in Genesis, but hold that demons originated from a race that existed before Adam. Ryrie holds to the angel theory, but believes that demons are fallen angels. There are others who agree with Ryrie, such as Unger. These two doctrinal positions encompass the majority of Christendom.
We are not helped here by two errors in the notes of the Schofield Bible on Genesis 6. He says (italics mine), "Some hold that these ‘sons of God’ were the angels which kept not their first estate of Jude 6. It is asserted that the title is in the O.T. exclusively used of angels. But this is an error (Isa. 43:6). Angels are spoken of in a sexless way. No female angels are mentioned in Scripture, and we are expressly told that marriage is unknown among angels (Mt. 22:30). The uniform Hebrew and Christian interpretation has been that verse 2 marks the breaking down of the separation between the godly line of Seth and the godless line of Cain, and so the failure of testimony to Jehovah committed to the line of Seth (Gen 4:26). For apostasy there is no remedy but judgment (Isa. 1:2-7, 24, 25; Heb. 6:4-8; 10:26-31). Noah, ‘a preacher of righteousness’, is given 120 years, but he won no convert, and the judgment predicted by his great-grandfather fell (Jude 14,15; Gen. 7:11)".
First, the reference to Isaiah 43:6 is incorrect and without value. It speaks only of ‘sons’, and does not use the Hebrew for sons of God. All five references as ‘sons of God’ must be angels, as will be shown. Second, the ‘uniform Hebrew and Christian interpretation has been that verse 2 marks the breaking down of the separation between the godly line of Seth and the godless line of Cain’ is incorrect as will be shown. For the most part, many if not most of the Hebrew writers contradict Schofield, and many early church fathers deny his claim until about the 4th century. He also misses the point in Matt. 22, for it expressly says, ". . . as the angels in heaven". No marriage in heaven. Nothing is said about conditions and situations on earth.
Consequently, it will be necessary to show two things if it is to be shown that demons are the result of the union of angels and women in Genesis 6:
that the sons of God did cohabit with women and produced offspring; and
that the offspring of this union are now demons.
a. The Union of Angels and Women in Genesis 6.
(1) The History of the View favors it.
The view of angels uniting with women is of great antiquity. In fact it is impossible to trace back to its absolute origin. It appears to have existed from the time of the flood itself and was the basis for the countless legends of the loves of the gods in mythology. Those who were there at the flood and immediately following, would certainly be the best informed as to tell us the facts as they were. To claim that their accounts are totally false now in the 20th or 21st Century is to let reason and other things overrule the evidence.
(a) Greek mythology has many accounts of the gods cohabiting with women and producing offspring that is half human and half divine. Unger writes, "...one thing is certain, ancient classic writers obtained their conceptions of the gods and demigods, whose amorous propensities for members of the human race led to births half human and half ‘divine’, from some source originally pure and uncorrupted. It is not impossible that this might explain the origin". Biblical Demonology, p. 49.
The word in the Septuagint of Genesis 6 translated "giants" comes from the word meaning "earth-born" and this word was employed of the Titans in Greek mythology, who were partly of celestial and partly of terrestrial origin. These monstrous beings of mixed birth rebelled against their father Uranus (Heaven), and after a prolonged contest were defeated by Zeus and thrown into Tartarus. Ibid. p. 48.
This view explains the numerous passages in the Greek classics and also the ancient literature of other languages in which human families are traced to a half divine origin. Pember, p. 212.
(Ref. John Fleming, "The Fallen Angels and the Heroes of Mythology").
(b) The Septuagint Translation definitely carries this
concept, thus establishing that it was the view of the translators in the 3rd Century, B.C. "In regard to the Septuagint," Pember writes, "all MSS render the Hebrew 'sons of God' by 'angels of God' in Job 1.6, and 2:1, and by 'My angels' in Job 38.7--passages in which there was no dogmatic reason for tampering with the text. In Gen. 6:2,4, the Codex Alexandrius and three later MSS exhibit the same rendering, while others have 'sons of God,' Augustine, however, admits that in his time the greater number of copies read 'angels of God' in the later passage also (De Civit, Dei, 15.23). It seems, therefore, extremely probable that this was the original reading", Pember, p. 207.
(c) The Jewish Concept was universally this view.
It was held by the ancient Jewish Synagogue (Larkin, p. 26) and by Josephus who writes in "Antiquities)" I.3.1., "for many angels of God accompanied with women, and begat sons that proved unjust, and despisers of all that was good, on account of the confidence they had in their own strength, for the tradition is that these men did what resembled the acts of those whom the Grecians call giants."
It is very decidedly the view presented in the apocryphal Book of Enoch and in the so-called "Minor Genesis" showing that it represented the Jewish thinking of the day. It was held by Philo and most of the rabbinical writers and was also generally accepted by learned Jews in the early centuries of the Christian era.
(d) Many Church Fathers universally held this view also. It was the view of Justin, Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, and Lactantius.
Larkin writes: "That the 'Sons of God' of Gen. 6:1-4 were ANGELS was maintained ... by the Christian Church up until the Fourth Century, when the interpretation was changed to 'sons of Seth' for two reasons. First, because the worship of angels had been set up, and if the 'Sons of God’ of Gen. 6:1-4 were angels and fell, then angels might fall again, and that possibility would affect the worship of angels. The second reason was, that Celibacy had become an institution of the universal Church, and if it was taught that the angels in heaven did not marry, and yet that some of them were seduced by the beauty of womanhood came down from heaven to gratify their amorous propensities, a weakness of a similar kind in one of the 'earthly angels' (Celibates) might be the more readily excused." The Spirit World, p. 26-7.
(e) The Restoration of the View.
Luther is said by Unger to have held this view, as well as a great number of modern exegetes as Koppen, Alford, Hofmann, Delitzsch,
W. Kelly, A.C. Gabelein, and others.
Certainly any unbiased student would have to state that this view has the weight of history on its side even if it has nothing else.
(2) The Scriptures favor this view.
(a) Direct Statements of Genesis 6:1-4.
Genesis 6 reads: "And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the Sons of God saw the daughters of men..."
By "men" in both places in the text it is clear that all mankind is signified. The entire human race began to multiply on the face of this globe. It involves both the descendants through Cain and also through Seth, and also through other sons of Adam (Gen. 5:4).
There is absolutely no proof that the "daughters of men" were confined to the descendants of the Cainites. The text expresses the natural increase of the whole human family, not just the increase of a special
branch of it. For what reason should daughters just be born to the sons of Cain?
The Scriptures do not divide either the lines of Seth or Cain and say all the Sethites were godly and all the Cainites were ungodly.
Moreover, the assumption that the "sons of God" must mean the godly line of Seth is at variance with the uniform use of that term in the OT where it appears restricted to angels (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7). Every place in the OT where the term "sons of God" is used, it without exception refers to angels. Now when there is a uniform usage of a term, the burden of proof is on the man who makes an exception to the usage to prove why it cannot be correct in a specific passage. In Genesis 6 it fits very well to take sons of God as referring to angels. We have previously seen that the Septuagint translation originally translated sons of God by "angels of God."
The passage in Genesis 6:4 states that the result of this union was "giants," mighty men who were of old, "men of renown". If the sons of God were only men who traced their ancestry back to Seth, and they married Cainite women, why should their progeny have been of such a special nature?
The text not only favors the view that the sons of God are angels, but nearly demands it. Further, let us consider the doctrine of the Total Depravity of man. Both Seth and Cain were under sentence of death due to the sin of their father, for the wages of sin is death. There are no exceptions. We understand that so were their children – all of them.
(b) The Context Preceding Genesis 6.
The context preceding Genesis 6 enforces the view that the sons of God are angels.
Those who hold that the daughters of men were ungodly Cainites and the sons of God were pious Sethites, say that Genesis 4:26 is to be connected with Genesis 6:1. They say that Genesis 5 is the genealogy book of Adam and is a unit by itself. By connecting 4:26 with 6:1 they say you can clearly see the connection and that no angels are involved.
There are some important things, however, that have been overlooked by all who do this. First, it certainly is true that Cain was godless and went out from the presence of the Lord to build a godless civilization where they would not retain the knowledge of God in their hearts. But God was going to have a godly seed on the earth through which eventually His own Son of promise (Gen. 3:15) would come. With the death of Abel, God selected another Son of Adam and Eve. And Scripture notes that it was in the days of the birth of Seth's son, Enos, that "men began to call upon the name of the Lord," or as the Revised Version reads, "to call themselves by the name of the Lord."
All this indicates is that there was a remnant who were believers. They were saved by grace through faith. This in no way indicates that all of Seth's children were godly. Adam had two boys and one was ungodly, and one was godly. The ungodly one murdered the godly one making himself the majority. The godly have always been in the minority. All Genesis 4:26 indicates is that there was a remnant who did believe in God and called upon Him, or themselves by Him. From this remnant came Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah and Noah’s sons.
Enoch was translated.
Methuselah and Lamech died before the flood.
Noah and his sons were believers and saved by building an ark.
Scripture indicates that no one in the Cainite civilization called upon the name of the Lord, but some did in the line of Seth, and this remnant was perpetuated down through the years, probably never being very large. Another thing that has been missed by all who consider the sons of God in Genesis 6 as only pious Sethites is that the world of mankind did not just consist of Cainites and Sethites. Adam had sons and daughters according to Genesis 5:4. There may have been some of Adam’s other sons and daughters who worshipped God also and some who did not. The point is that there would have been continual inter-marriage of all the sons and daughters of Adam and their immediate relatives. No clear cut line could possibly be maintained of Sethites and Cainites from the Scripture.
Lastly, the time element between Genesis 4:26 and 6:1 is never brought out by any who try to connect the two passages together, but it needs to be. There is about l300 years between Enos and Noah according to Ussher, when Noah was called to build the ark. This 1300 years is according to the chronology of the present Hebrew text, but it is nearly 1700 years according to the chronology given in the Septuagint!
Thus it will be seen chronologically that the two passages are not meant to be connected or identified together at all. There was a godly remnant on the earth even at the time of the flood and it was Noah
and his three sons, but they are never called "sons of God" .
The context preceding Genesis 6 enforces the view that the sons of God who cohabited with men are angelic beings and this took place when men--all mankind--began to multiply on the face of the earth. It was a population explosion!
(c) Subsequent Context
When we look at the verses following Genesis 6:1-4, we find that they also reinforce the view that angels are referred to by the expression "sons of God."
Gen. 6:9, "Noah was a just man and perfect (upright) in
his generations"
There are two Hebrew words often translated as "generation": The first used here is ‘toledoth’ (also in Gen. 5:1 for Adam), meaning genealogies from ‘yalad’, to beget. Hence, it implies (1) generations, families, races, or (2) history, origin.
The second is used in Gen. 9:12, ‘dor’, from ‘dur’, meaning period, or to dwell. Hence, it can be translated as age or generation.
In Noah’s generation it speaks of a specific ancestral line. Noah was perfect in his age. This statement implies that no one else was--all other lines were given over to lustful and fleshly desires. What verse 9 implies, verses 10-13 then state specifically. Notice carefully the expressions:
"corrupt before God"
"filled with violence"
"corrupt''
"all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth"
"the end of all flesh is come before me"
"filled with violence through them"
"I will destroy them"
While there is no mention of angels, there does not need to be. The angels who sinned could have been already judged by God (we will look at Jude 6) and only the wicked, vile, corrupt offspring were present on earth perpetuating that corruption and wickedness still further among the human race. If the angels that sinned from this union were bound by God, then the wicked offspring, half human and half angelic, could and would continue to intermarry with part angelic and part human offspring, or with humans – all wicked and evil. The human part would increase, while the angelic part would gradually decrease. This continued until the whole world was completely corrupt, except for Noah and his children and their wives. We have no evidence from Scripture that they did not, too, live long lives.
The Nephilim in Gen. 6:4 could also be translated "fallen ones". The progeny of this union was "fallen ones". These fallen ones continued to corrupt the earth through marriage and their subsequent progeny would not be quite as wicked as their fathers.
If this interpretation is correct, we should find that demons vary in degree of wickedness. Is there any Scripture that bears this out? The answer is yes there is, and there is no other way of accounting for the degree of wickedness in demons. Fallen angels vary in rank, but not in
wickedness; the same would have been true of a pre-Adamic race.
Matt. 12:43-45. "more wicked then himself."
Genesis 6:17 reads: "And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and everything that is in the earth shall die"
It is noted that everything here in this part of Chapter 6 is referred to as "flesh." While this includes the animal world, this would also be the logical designation of a corrupted world of humanity--part angel and part man.
(d) The References in Job
There are three and only three places in the OT other than Genesis where the term "sons of God" are used. These three are all found in the book of Job: Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7.
The term is used in Job 1:6 and 2:1 to speak of all angelic beings regardless of whether good of evil. Since Satan is one of the angelic beings, "Satan came also among them". He did not come by himself but with "them". The same is true in 2:1.
Angels, whether holy or fallen, are the direct creation of God and are ultimately subject to their Creator directly. This is evidently the meaning of the term sons of God, and clearly fits all the NT references. Adam is called a "son of God" (Luke 3:38) and believers who
are individually born again as a direct creation of God are "sons of God" (John 1:12).
The important point concerning the references found in Job is that Job is probably the oldest book of Scripture and may have been written before the five books of Moses. The designation of "sons of God" therefore in Genesis 6 would automatically denote in the minds of all of those who heard these words the concept of angels. If they were not angels, but only the pious sons of Seth, then God deceived all of those peoples for nearly two Millenniums. This is unthinkable. W. F. Albright says: "The Israelites who heard this section recited unquestionably thought of intercourse between angels and women (like later Jews and Christians)." From the Stone Age to Christianity, p. 226.
But there is still something else that needs to be said. While the authorship of Job is not certain, the most logical person to have written the book would have been Moses himself.
Halley says: "Jewish tradition was that Moses wrote this book while he was in the wilderness of Midian, where he could easily have learned of Job and his great affliction." God did the rest.
A Guide for Bible Study writes: "Most of the arguments set forth for the Mosaic authorship of Genesis can likewise be used for Job. No one can study the book of Deuteronomy, especially the poetic portions, without coming to the conclusion that this eminent Hebrew scholar had both the information and the qualifications for the task. Besides early training in Egypt, Moses' forty years experience as a shepherd in Midian would explain the presence of so much natural theology and the many references to rural life with which the book of Job abounds."
Although authorship of Job cannot be firmly established, Jewish tradition indeed suggests a Moses author. Who wrote the last few verses of Deuteronomy? Maybe Joshua. Maybe Samuel. Maybe God did.
(e) References in the New Testament
There are several references in the NT that add great Scriptural support to the position that angels are referred to in Genesis 6. These passages are 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6.
2 Peter 2:4, "For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell (Tartarus), and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment."
Jude 6, "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitations, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day."
What angels are these that are bound and not free as Satan's angels are (Cf. Rev. 12:9)?
The only possible conclusion that we can draw is that there are two groups of fallen angels identified in Scripture. One group is free and serve Satan in the forces of unrighteousness. Another group is not free but are reserved in everlasting chains in Tartarus awaiting a final judgment. Scripture says that what caused this is that they "kept not their first estate, but left their own (proper) habitations". What does this mean? The context of both 2 Peter and Jude give us solid if not definite direction that it refers to the sons of God in Genesis 6.
The loose living of the Apostate teachers is linked to the kind of sin which angels engaged in and also Sodom and Gomorrah — an unspeakable, perverted sex sin. This is also connected with the time of the flood in 2 Peter 2:5.
These angels left their own sphere and entered the human sphere, and because they were "sons of Elohim" and responsible to Him, God directly judged them for this action by confining them so that they were no longer permitted to operate on earth. However, the result of their evil actions would continue to be perpetuated in humanity through their progeny.
If this is not the reason why some angels are free and some are confined, then there is no other reason found in any passage of Scripture. Since there is not other explanation, and some Scriptural explanation must be behind the statements of 2 Peter and Jude, the interpretation of Genesis 6 as angels is both logical, and also Scriptural. (See Unger page 53 for further discussion).
We state categorically that Larkin is incorrect when he considers that these angels that sinned were angels that did not rebel with Satan against God originally, but were additional "late" sinners to reinforce Satan. The entire doctrine of Angelology stands against this. The angels made one choice (one event) to serve God or to rebel and follow Satan. Those who did not rebel are confirmed in holiness, and are holy angels for all eternity. Those who rebelled against God are confirmed in wickedness and will be wicked for all eternity. Those angels who further apostatized had to come from those angels who originally sinned with Satan. Some of them were engaged in this further degradation which cost them their ‘freedom’, but, which was a very ingenious plan to corrupt all humanity and thus try to make it impossible for the promise of Genesis 3:15 of ever being fulfilled. (We must consider 3:15 further.) K. Wuest, The Practical Use of the Greek New Testament, pp 31-35 was consulted here.
(3) The Nature of Angels favors this view
The entire doctrine of angels favors the view that the Sons of
God of Genesis 6 refers to angels. We have seen that the use of the term "sons of God" in both the 0T and the NT are loose to serve Satan while others are confined to Tartarus. There are two other factors concerning the nature of angels that may be added as supporting this position: (1) the fact that angels are always seen as young men, and (2) the fact of what Christ stated concerning angels in the NT. Let us look at each of these separately.
(a) The fact that angels are always seen as young men.
Why is it that angels are always seen as being of the masculine sex and usually young men? Gender indicatives are used in both the Hebrew and the Greek, as opposed to the English language. It can only be that they are of that particular ‘sex’.
Mark 16:5, "a young man"
Luke 24:4, "two men"
Act. l:l0, "two men"
These last two references are the notes of Doctor Luke.
Angels are always spoken of in the masculine gender.
Genesis 18 and 19:
18:1 The Lord
:2 three men
:16 the men
:22 the men
19:1 two angels
:10 the men
:12 the men
:13 and the Lord hath sent us to destroy it
:15 the angels
:16 the men
:21 I will not overthrow this city
:22 I cannot do anything till thou be come thither
These angels were men. They appeared in every way as men unto the men of the city of Sodom, Gen. 19:5.
Angels seem to have a body (just like men do – maybe not?), but not existing on a blood and bones principle for life like ours. They eat food however, for manna was used as angels’ food in Ps. 78:25. They seem to have a body that is based on a spiritual principle even as Christ's was. Just as Christ's body after the resurrection was solid and visible at times, yet invisible at other times, so with the angels. Note that Christ did not cease to be a man even though he had a g1orified body.

John Lawrence: Demonology Part 1 of 5

DEMONOLOGY Part I
OUTLINE:
I. Introduction 9 pgs
Importance
Definition.
Problems.
Origin.
Bible as Standard.
II. The Existence of Demons. 10 pgs - Part 2
I. Introduction.
A. The Importance of Demonology
It isn’t enough in warfare to know all about the commander-in-chief of the opposition. It is equally if not more important to know about the enemy troops that you personally will be facing on the front lines of battle. In the study of demonology, we are engaged in just such a study. These are the myriads of workers Satan uses in every land, from paganism to culturism, to blind men's eyes to the truth and
hold them in fear and superstition.
The importance of this subject is seen if one considers the amount of space devoted to it in both Testaments, and particularly the Gospels. These many accounts come to be clearly understood only as we completely see the total picture of demon activity. Much of Israel's contact with her surrounding nations can only be understood through an under- standing of the whole realm of evil supernaturalism. Cf. Deut. 18:9-14.
Demonlogical phenomena has been recorded from the very earliest of recorded antiquity down to the present, and it is impossible to interpret accurately the religious phenomena and practices of paganism, false religions, and Christian cults apart from a thorough grasp of this complete doctrine.
B. Definition of Demon
1. The Greek language
"Demon" = daimonion (daimonion), in the earlier Greek, ‘daimon’ (daimon). Plato derives it from daemon, an adjective formed from ‘dao’ and signifying "knowing" or "intelligent". We survey the historical development of the term’s meaning in order to see its preparation for NT usage. Four principle meanings of the term demon are used from the period of Homer to the time of the Septuagint (LXX).
a. In the early history of the Greek language, as in Homer,
daimon was synonymous with "god" (theos). Homer and the earlier poets used both terms for the same beings.
b. After Homer, the term was used of beings who were inter-mediaries between the gods and men.
In Hesiod these mediators are the spirits of the good men of the Golden Age. Plato states: "The deity has no intercourse with man; but all the intercourse and conversation between gods and men are carried on by the mediation of demons," Symposium, pp. 202-3.
The view was held at that time that everyone from his birth on had a special demon of his own (an opposite view from the fact that every believer has a guardian angel from the time of his new birth). This demon of the individual was regarded as separate from the man himself
and not the same as his soul or spirit.
c. A third stage came when the early Greeks began to view demons as morally imperfect beings. Some of these were good and some were evil. Posidonius, a Stoic philosopher of the first century before Christ, developed an elaborate theory of demons as good and evil with the purer inhabiting the higher regions, and the impure remaining nearer the earth.
The Koran, or Qu’ran, maintains this definition of demons, viewing
some demons as good and some as bad.
d. The final stages of history viewed all demons as evil in varying degrees and all active members of Satan's kingdom. This is the usage in the Septuagint and the New Testament. Early Christian writers abound with this same usage.
2. The Old Testament
Mention is made frequently by the term "familiar spirits,"
i.e., spirits who know something or are familiar with someone and imitate them. Much more will be stated about this below.
The work of demons in the 0T is seen in the magicians of Egypt and the sorcerers of Babylon, as well as others. The Septuagint uses the Greek word demon for five different Hebrew words.
a. "Lords"; Shedhim = always plural.
Deut. 32:17, Ps. 106:37.
The word comes from the root shudh = "to rule, to be lord." The underlying significance is idols or lords; the Hebrews realized idolatrous images were mere visible symbols of invisible demons.
Ps. 96:5 (LXX 95:5), 1 Cor. 10:20.
b. "He-goats", hairy ones = Seirim (also plural)
Lev. 17:1-7.
The Israelites were commanded to slay their sacrificial animals only at the entrance of the Tabernacle lest they might go into the desert to "sacrifice their sacrifices unto the he-goats" (seirim, LXX gives ‘daimonia’).
This very form of demon worship persisted outside Israel until the days of Jeroboam I (929-909 B.C.), who brought it into the very heart of the Northern Kingdom. Rejecting the Priests of Aaron, he "appointed him priests for the high places, and for the he-goats (seirim, LXX, daimonia), and for the calves which he had made". 2 Chron. 11:15.
Josiah (636-608) "broke down the high places of the gates" (shearim) which Kittel states is to be read seirim "the high places of the he-goats" (2 Kings 23:8).'
c. "Idols", 'elilim’.
Ps. 96:5 (LXX 95:5), "For all the gods of the people are idols ('elilim, LXX: diamonia), but Jehovah made the heavens".
The Hebrew 'elilim, is the plural of the adjective meaning, "of nought, empty, vain." Thus the name itself shows that the outward idols are "mere nothings", "non-realities". The demons behind them are the real entities.
d. "Fortune" = gad. See Isa. 65:11.
It has been suggested that the god of Fortune (Gad) was worshipped by the Babylonians. He is elsewhere called Bel, or Baal.
The Septuagint translators render him as "the demon."
e. "Destruction"; geter.
Ps. 91:6 (LXX 90:6), "For the pestilence that walketh
in darkness, nor for the destruction (geter) that wasteth at noonday."
This shows that the translators of the Septuagint considered that demons were responsible for much that occurred. This may not be the best translation, but it clearly shows the concept of the word and the thinking of that day.
3. The New Testament (daimon and daimonion).
From Homer to the New Testament period, the words decreased in position and increased in evil. Their positions definitely were always inferior beings and those who communicated as intermediates between the gods and men; and they obtained more and more the evil connotation until finally at least by the New Testament period, the term by itself meant "evil spirit" or "unclean spirit."
The King James version unfortunately translated two different Greek words by "devil": ‘diabolos’ = devil, also translated ‘diamonion’ or ‘diamon’(demon) as devil. There is only one devil, but many demons.
There are some 80 references to demons in the New Testament, and in every case they are recognized as "evil".
The Scriptural Concept: An evil spirit being who has a certain relationship to Satan.
Names used in Scripture include:
Demon, Evil spirit, Familiar spirit, Unclean spirit.
C. Problems in the Study of Demonology
1. The Problem of the silence of Scripture on certain phases
of the doctrine.
While Scripture is silent on certain phases of this doctrine, there is much that is revealed, and where Scripture is silent we can know that it is silent for a purpose and that this is beyond that legitimate realm for our knowledge at present. Where Scripture stops we need to stop also, and not be guilty of trying to supply the quest of our own curiosity. This assertion contradicts much of what is said about demons! In addition, do not let your curiosity lead you into demonic practice!
2. The Problem of the Accuracy of Interpretation
This is a genuine problem area for the child of God. Very few theologies treat this subject, and those who do are extremely sketchy. Many writers deal with this subject only as an evolution of religious beliefs and superstitions. Some writers have gone to the other extreme and have used their imagination and superstitions. This was the path that Jewish demonology developed.
3. The Problem of the Prevalence of Superstition.
Very few individuals today are completely free of concepts and ideas handed down to them. Many have "private" superstitions even if they are not voiced. There is no subject in all of the world where superstition has received more fantastic distortion. Consider this: in the ancient world
Jewish demonology became very superstitious in spite of clear OT revelation
The Middle Ages developed superstition piled on superstition in spite of clear NT revelation.
The practice of lighting sacred candles, as Rome does, harks back to ancient modes for keeping evil spirits in check by fire.
In Modern times: people have been guilty of burning witches
at the stake, and many are very superstitious today.
Mission fields of the world today and over the last century or so are simply filled with superstition, demon possession, etc.
4. The Problem of the Predominance of Doubt
This is the opposite problem of superstition. We are living today in the space age. It is the age of science and enlightenment. Such things as belief in demons belong to another age of darkness and superstition. We reject completely today, they say, the supernatural. Therefore, we reject belief in demons and Scripture that testifies of demons. Bible believers, beware!
However, to rule out the entire realm of supernaturalism; (good and evil) is not really scientific. We will see this clearly when we look at the existence of demons. There is much evidence as to their existence by many peoples over a long and extended period of time.
Knowledge of the supernatural, however, can only come through supernatural revelation, since it is above and beyond natural law. Further, revealed truth can only be accepted and understood through faith in the revelation and hence in the Revealer. Many have cut themselves off completely from even attempting to understand "scientifically" this doctrine.
Since we are dealing with "evil" supernaturalism, the problem is even more precarious. The powers to be dealt with are not only above the natural realm, and hence wiser and more powerful than man in the natural realm, but they are "evil". They are able to deceive and lead astray. They resent truth and stay in darkness. The natural man has a two-fold problem. He cannot know the things pertaining to the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 2:14), i.e. the supernatural. And he is actually subject to the deception and perversion of real truth because he is a prey to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons who deceive him without his knowledge! (1 Tim, 4:1).
Note: Whether one takes the route of superstition or rationalism, the same end result is achieved: The true facts are violated and the understanding of the subject is obscured.
D. The Origin of Demons (M. Unger)
How is the widespread and deeply ingrained belief in demons among all the ancients to be explained? This is a part of the larger problem concerning the origin of religion in general.
1. The Humanistic Theory,
This view connects the origin of the demons with the rise of "gods". It says that religion sprang from fear of ghosts. The gods are but the spirits of departed men, whom men worship mainly out of fear. At first the terms god and demon were interchangeable. Then when the gods became more exalted, demons became intermediate beings or messengers for the gods to men. Later they were looked upon not only as good but as evil. As time progressed the wicked demons were regarded as authors not only of physical, but of moral evil.
This explanation clashes with the Word of God and with the facts of secular history. Most tribes from the earliest times clearly distinguish between those deities who had once been men, and the gods proper, who had never been men, and consequently had never died.
2. The Animistic Theory.
This is an evolutionary theory stating that demonism can be traced from its original source in primitive animism, upward through polytheism, finally into monotheism. The theory states that in animism, primitive man looked upon nature about him as being alive, and imagined that natural phenomena was due to the operation of living wills. Looking for causes, he considered every object in nature to have a personality like his own. Thus man considered himself surrounded by a "society of superhuman agencies, some of which ministered to his well-being, others to his injury", up the evolutionary scale.
The objections to this theory:
(a) It is at variance with the truth of the Word which shows
religious faith and practice generally to be a degradation rather then an evolution. Rom. 1:21-23,
(b) It clashes with the witness of comparative religion, which also notes a downward rather than an upward tendency in ethnic faiths.
(c) The genetic connection between animism and polytheism is far from clear. Many have researched this field to show that animism and polytheism have coexisted without actual combination or assimilation for long periods of history.
3. The Astral Theory
This theory accounts for demons under the superstition that religion began with the worship of the heavenly bodies, to which the primitive religious mind attached personality. The most important bodies (sun, moon, planets) were assigned the status of full deities. The lesser bodies, as the innumerable fixed stars, were given the position of lesser deities or demons.
The objections to this theory:
(a) It is at variance with the Word of God
(b) It lacks historical corroboration as the evidence of
ancient inscriptions do not support it.
(c) It is destitute of scientific astronomical support.
Note: Each one of these theories are at variance with each other as well as with the Word of God. Moreover, each one of these human explanations makes an attempt to account for the belief but without believing in their existence.
4. The Biblical Account
Divine revelation alone is adequate to explain anything beyond history and beyond visible reality. Scripture speaks of Satan, and of his fall from heaven to earth (Isa. 14; Ezek. 28), of his being a king with a kingdom (Matt 12:26), and a portion of that consists of demons (Matt. 12:24).
As to the origin of demons, man is divided as to what Scripture teaches:
a. Some feel they are fallen angels.
b. Some feel that they represent inhabitants of the pre-Adamic
earth that was destroyed with the fall of Satan.
c. Some taught that they are the wicked souls of wicked men.
d. Others feel that they come from the progeny of the Sons of
God with the daughters of men in Genesis 6.
Whatever their origin (we will delve into this), Scripture shows that the basis and belief in demons is factual rather than fancy. Further-more, there is a basic similarity between primitive demonological traditions recorded in Genesis and those preserved in the archaeological records of the earliest nations of the earth. Even though the later has extravagance and error, the similarities point to a common source for both and supplies evidence that they are due to a common 1nheritance of traditions concerning the early history of the race, upon which both have drawn.
This same similarity is observed in other primitive traditions of the human race as (1) the creation of the earth, (2) the origin of man, (3) the story of the fall (original sin), and (4) the account of the flood. How are we able to account for this similarity?
The only feasible explanation that meets all the facts is that their likeness is due to common inheritance possessed by all the civilized nations of antiquity and drawing from the same original source of primitive tradition.
Biblical demonology is the source and basis of all demonology: ethnic, Jewish and Christian. In the book of Genesis, the author assumes the existence of demons just as plainly as he assumes the existence of God and the fall of Satan and his angels.
E. The Bible as a Standard for Demonology
In the study of any subject, one must obtain source material that will be used as a basis of actual fact. The person who studies the subject of Demonology has three sources to which he may go for information:
Ethnic demonology found in the polytheistic systems of thought throughout the world,
Rabbinic demonology found in Judaism,
Biblical demonology found in Scripture of both the Old and New Testament.
Let us briefly look at each.
1. The Character of Ethnic Demonology.
The whole realm of polytheism is morally corrupt. The character of heathen deities are always degraded and they degrade those who worship them. Behind the whole system of worship are demons who are evil spirits and strive to have individuals do that which is vile and immoral.
Ethnic demonology is full of extravagance and superstition. This is true whether considering religious thought either ancient or modern. Ancient Babylonians pictured every nook and corner as swarming with mischievous and evil-working spirits. The modern Arab sees demons everywhere: in the desert, in trees, springs, and rocks.
Many forms and actions are employed in ethnic demonology as protection against demons, which are nothing but enslaving rituals fostered by the demons themselves.
Charms.
Magical incantations.
Body mutilations.
Curious amulets.
Odd articles of dress.
Fire.
Devil dances.
Blood sacrifices.
Human sacrifice.
Orgiastic rites.
Self (body) punishments
The more one is involved in such practices the more he becomes enslaved by them. His fear of demons increases and his chances of deliverance from the clutches of such spirits decreases as he becomes hopelessly bound to the powers of evil. All of this and much more shows that ethnic demonology can be no true standard for a correct study of demonology.
2. The Character of Rabbinic Demonology.
While ethnic demonology is completely unacceptable as a standard for truth concerning demonology since it is but the deception of demons themselves, Rabbinic demonology having the Old Testament as a background might be expected to be quite different. Such, however, is not the case.
Rabbinic Demonology contains many distortions of Biblical truth: The fall of Satan and his angels is said to be after the creation of man and was occasioned by their jealousy and envy of him. Various ideas as to the origin of demons is entertained:
(l) They were created on the eve of the first Sabbath before their bodies could be finished, thus supposedly accounting for their being only spirits.
(2) They are the offspring of Eve with male spirits, or of Adam and female spirits, or with Lilith, queen of the female spirits.
(3) They are a transformation of vipers (serpents), or the offspring from the backbone of him who did not bow in worship.
Their nature and character is equally exaggerated. Fully sexed, they multiply rapidly, and are innumerable, a thousand at your right hand, ten thousand at your left. No one could survive the shock of seeing their actual number. In ancient Jewish literature, the right hand was often associated with righteousness, and the left with evil. Cf. Jonah 4:11.
They are arranged in four classes, according to the divisions of the day--morning, midday, evening, and night spirits. The night spirits are the most dangerous and wicked.
Rabbinic demonology is unmistakably mixed with heathen superstitions.
Their methods of managing demons included:
Torchlight by night.
Ablutions (i.e. a washing or cleansing specifically as a religious rite),
Phylacteries (Scriptures worn on arm or forehead).
Amulets (an ornament worn as a chain against evil spirits and often inscribed with a magic incantation)
Magic formulae.
Their modes of expelling demons:
They felt that demons could be reached through the avenues of the senses even as paganism:
Sense of taste was by "hell-broths" and vile mixtures,
Sense of hearing was by curses or withering abuse,
Sense of smell was by fumigations, pleasant or odious,
Sense of sight was by shocking or terrific exhibition,
Sense of touch was by the infliction of manifold tortures.
For these and many other reasons, Rabbinic demonology must be completely rejected as a standard for truth in the realm of demonology. There is little in Jewish thought concerning demons that is unaffected by error or excess.
3. The Character of Biblical Demonology.
Scripture in every realm presents a vivid and true picture of whatever it depicts without exaggeration or superstition. Everything is presented as it is in truth. This includes both good and evil, which are seen in their true color. Nowhere is this presentation of truth, without distortion or extravagance, so clearly seen as in the realm of evil supernaturalism.
Unger lists seven characteristics of Biblical demonology:
(1) Lofty in its tone.
(2) Free from exaggeration and superstition.
(3) Accurate and reliable in its sphere.
(4) Vast in its sweep.
(5) Practical in its purpose.
(6) Sound in its theology.
(7) Relieved by effectual deliverance.
Unger then draws this conclusion: "Perfection and inerrancy may rightly he expected from anything of divine origin, and from whatever is a product of infinite wisdom. The character of Biblical demonology not only proves that it is what it claims to be, a revelation from God, but also, as such, demonstrates that it is true and thoroughly reliable as a criterion of appraisal. It furnishes the model of truth to test error. It constitutes the pattern of reality to try all imagination and unreality. In its light we see light, as well as darkness, crookedness, and unreality. It alone can furnish an infallible norm to differentiate between truth and falsity, fact and fancy. Measured by its sure and trustworthy standards, demonology, whether ethnic or Rabbinic, is seen in its true light." Biblical Demonology, p. 29.