Angelology: Discussion Questions on Graham Cole's Against the Darkness
As said by Cole, "Scripture X needs to be in conversation with Scripture Y and Scripture Z. A tota scriptura approach is necessary" (p. 41). Therefore, it is appropriate to look towards the Epistle of Hebrews in which the author quotes Psalm 8 to inform his audience that Christ for a time was made lower than angels in His incarnation (Heb.
1. Does Psalm 8 teach that angels are “higher beings” than humans?
Does Psalm 8 teach that angels are ‘higher beings’ than humans? Which other Scriptures considered in this chapter of Against the Darkness are relevant, and why? What are the relevant positions, who holds them, and why? What follow-up questions might one ask after reading Cole’s chapter when attempting to answer this biblically and theologically?
As said by Cole, “Scripture X needs to be in conversation with Scripture Y and Scripture Z. A tota scriptura approach is necessary” (p. 41). Therefore, it is appropriate to look towards the Epistle of Hebrews in which the author quotes Psalm 8 to inform his audience that Christ for a time was made lower than angels in His incarnation (Heb. 2:5-9). If David implied for אֱלֹהִים (ʾĕlōhîm) to be read as “God,” as Cole suggests (pp. 36-37), then a more appropriate question is why does the author of Hebrews prefer the rendering of the Septuagint? However, Cole does answer this question, quoting Peter C. Craigie. He states in reference to the Septuagint’s translation of אֱלֹהִים (ʾĕlōhîm) as ἄγγελοι (angeloi), “the translation angels may have been prompted by modesty, for it may have seemed rather extravagant to claim that mankind was only a little less than God” (pp. 36-37). Regardless of the reasoning, the authors of both passages, David and the author of Hebrews, declare that Christ is crowned with glory and honor and that all things are made subject to Him despite being made lower for a time. Furthermore, the author of Hebrews declares that humans share in the glory of Christ: “For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering. For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one source. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brothers” (Heb. 2:10-12).1 Later, the author states that Christ has delivered “the offspring of Abraham” and not angels (Heb. 2:16).2 Thus, the author’s main goal in this passage is to demonstrate that Christ has been lifted higher than any creation and that His people share in His glory. Cole declares and I agree that “whatever the answer is to the right translation, what is clear is that humankind may begin in a lowly way but in this psalm [and the passage of Hebrews] they become exalted creatures ‘crowned… with glory and honor’” (p. 37).
2. Does Matthew 18:10 teach that there are guardian angels?
Does Matthew 18:10 teach that there are guardian angels? Which other Scriptures considered in this chapter of Against the Darkness are relevant, and why? What are the relevant positions, who holds them, and why? What follow-up questions might one ask?
While not a severe issue, Matthew 18:10 implies that believers have angels who guard them, known as guardian angels. According to Graham Cole in his book Against the Darkness: The Doctrine of Angels, Satan, and Demons, guardianship is, at the very most, corporate, yet there is evidence that this guardianship is more of a designated kind than a corporate one (Cole, 71). Cole notes this evidence and states that Jerome declared Matthew 18:10 to teach the doctrine: “The dignity of human souls is so great, for each has an angel appointed to guard it,” and Aquinas approved of this position (Cole, 71). However, even though this text does imply the presence of guardian angels in the lives of Christians, particularly young ones, “the accent of the text is not on guardianship but on representation before God” (Cole, 72). While I agree with this notion and realize this verse is more about God caring for His flock, I do not think it is wrong to arrive at the logical conclusion of this verse that God has appointed His angels to care for and watch over His people. Indeed, God, who is immensely powerful and sovereign, can protect His people of His own accord, yet just as He uses humans to share His Gospel, He also uses angels as His instruments.
Furthermore, another text that implies designated guardianship is Acts 12:15, when Peter is rescued from prison by an angel, and the household of Mary, the mother of John Mark, confuses Peter at the door for his angel. However, Cole declares this passage is descriptive, not prescriptive (Cole, 73). On the other hand, there is no fair reason to abandon the Jewish ideology of designated guardian angels, which this verse implies, for it remained within Church tradition, as evidenced by Jerome and Aquinas. As Christians, we are not to abandon all of Jewish theology and doctrine unless it interferes with Christian beliefs and the Gospel, for Jewish doctrine and even speculation are a part of our heritage as God’s people, the Church or the True Israel.
It is worth mentioning that Psalm 91:11-12 paints the picture of corporate guardianship (Cole, 72), yet I am not rejecting this position. Guardianship can be both corporate and designated.
3. Does Ezekiel 28 teach about Satan’s fall?
Does Ezekiel 28 teach about Satan’s fall? Which other Scriptures considered in this chapter of Against the Darkness are relevant, and why? What are the relevant positions, who holds them, and why? What follow-up questions might one ask?
Indeed, Ezekiel 28:2-19 and Isaiah 14:3-23, another section of Scripture concerning the question, teach of Satan’s fall, yet the passages’ meanings are twofold. Cole agrees with Allen P. Ross in this regard, for the texts are literally about the two kings of Tyre and Babylon, yet they archetypally reveal Satan and his sin (Cole, 92-93). The sin of the kings, as demonstrated by the statements, “Your heart was proud because of your beauty” (Ezek. 28:17) and “You said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God’” (Isa. 14:13) demonstrates the kings’ sins of pride. At the very least, if these verses do not speak directly of Satan, which they do speak directly of the kings (Ezek. 28:2; Isa. 14:4), they undoubtedly compare the sins of the kings to Satan’s own sin of pride. Furthermore, various church fathers, Augustine (354-430), Origen (c. 185-c. 254), Ambrose (c. 333-397), Chrysostom (c. 347-407), and Jerome (347-419) believed pride to be the devil’s sin, yet others, Irenaeus (c. 135-c. 202), Justin Martyr (c. 100-c. 165), Tertullian (c. 155-c. 220), and Cyprian (c. 210-258), thought Satan’s sin was envy (Cole, 93-94). This idea is not so far-fetched, for the texts also say things such as “you corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor” (Ezek. 28:17) and “I will make myself like the Most High” (Isa. 14:14), which demonstrate envy. It is worth noting that these two latter verses are subsequent to the verses mentioned formerly about pride. Therefore, it is plausible that Satan’s sin was both pride and envy. First, Satan assumed he was better than God and then coveted something that did not belong to him, mainly glory. According to Cole, the exaggerated language of the passages, Satan’s sin of pride [that leads to envy], and the support of the early church fathers “combine to strengthen the contention that Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 contain a double reference: earthly rulers and the devilish usurper” (Cole, 93).
4. Who are the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:1–4?
Who are the ‘sons of God’ in Gen 6:1–4? Which Scriptures considered in this chapter of Against the Darkness are relevant, and why? What are the relevant positions, who holds them, and why? What follow-up questions might one ask?
The sons of God and daughters of men in Genesis 6:1-4 are highly debated. There are three different interpretations: “‘the sociologically fixed races view’ (despotic male aristocrats and beautiful female commoners),” “‘the cosmologically mixed races view’ (angels and humans),” and “‘the religiously mixed races view,’ or as [Graham Cole] prefer[s] to say, the morally mixed humans view (e.g., godly Sethites and worldly Cainites)” (Cole, 115-117, 138). The first view is held by Targum Onkelos, Midrash Rabbah, Meredith G. Kline, John Walton, and Walter Kaiser; the second by Gordon J. Wenham; and the third by the early church with Julius Africanus (c. 160-240), Augustine (354-430), and in the modern era, So Schemm. Cole also adheres to this latter interpretation, but he “leave[s] open the question as to which humans precisely” are discussed as morally superior or inferior (Cole, 140).
Several sections of Scripture go hand-in-hand with interpreting the passage: Job 1:6-12, where the “‘sons of God’ refers to angels,” 2 Peter 2:4, and Jude 6-7, all of which seem to support the “cosmologically mixed races view” (Cole, 116). However, Cole declares, “there is no compelling reason for thinking that these texts are alluding to Genesis 6:1-4, unless extrabiblical literature is used to decide the exegesis” (Cole, 117). Therefore, literature such as 1 Enoch is relevant to the discussion (Cole, 118-119). Still, referring to this, Augustine says the following:
Let us omit, then, the fables of those scriptures which are called apocryphal, because their obscure origin was unknown to the fathers from whom the authority of the true Scriptures has been transmitted to us by a most certain and well-ascertained succession. For though there is some truth in these apocryphal writings, yet they contain so many false statements that they have no canonical authority. (Cole, 119).
Cole asks two significant questions for follow-up, depending on the interpretation taken: 1) “How can celestial spirits have intercourse with terrestrial flesh?” 2) “How could a union of mere men and mere women produce physical giants, if the Nephilim are understood to be such?” (Cole, 116-117). The former question encourages the “cosmologically mixed races view” to be denied. However, if this view is rejected, how then can the Nephilim be a race of giants? The question may lead us to conclude that the Nephilim were not giants after all.
5. Does 1 Corinthians 2:8 teach that God “baited” Satan with the death of Christ?
Does 1 Corinthians 2:8 teach that God ‘baited’ Satan with the death of Christ? Which other Scriptures considered in this chapter of Against the Darkness are relevant, and why? What are the relevant positions, who holds them, and why? What follow-up questions might one ask?
1 Corinthians 2:8 does not demonstrate that Christ was the ‘bait’ to defeat Satan, nor does it attribute deception to God. Paul writes in the verse, “None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.”1 But what does “this” refer to? A look at the surrounding literary context of the verse is necessary. Paul begins 1 Corinthians 2 by proclaiming the Gospel, not “with lofty speech or wisdom… but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power” (vv. 1-5). Furthermore, the prior verses speak of a “secret and hidden wisdom of God” that does not belong to the contemporary “age” nor “the rulers of [it]” (vv. 6-7). The verses that follow verse 8 elaborate that this wisdom has been revealed through the Holy Spirit to Christians who have received it: “Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God” (v. 12). What things are freely given? The Gospel! Therefore, 1 Corinthians 2:8 shows that the “rulers of [the] age” could not understand the Gospel because they lacked the Spirit, not because God had deceived them. Verse 14 also shows this well: “The natural [the unredeemed] person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.” Considering the literary context of the verse, this makes perfect sense. However, what do “the rulers of the age” have to do with Satan? René Girard posits that “the rulers of this age, are the same thing as the powers of this world [principalities are probably meant] and Satan himself” (Cole, 156). While his position is understandable, it would be humorous to assume that demons and Satan are even capable of understanding the Gospel. Moreover, Girard claims that the Gospel is a sociological solution to the problem of evil, for it changes the disposition and contagion of people (Cole, 155-156). The Gospel is so much more than this! At the same time, Girard implies that Satan is not a celestial entity but serves as a metaphor for the entire mimetic process. Therefore, his position should be taken cautiously, if not dismissed altogether.
Some follow-up questions after reading this chapter:
- Should the Gospel be considered a mere sociological redemption, or is it much more? If so, what is it?
- If we say that the humanity of Christ “baits” Satan, but the divinity of Christ defeats him, are we separating the natures of Christ in a way that Chalcedon condemns? Does one nature become superior to the other, and thus, the other becomes inferior? If it is indeed true that Christ “baits” Satan, how should we understand or reconcile this in light of the hypostatic union?
6. How does Ephesians 6:10–20 teach Christians to conduct “spiritual warfare”?
How does Ephesians 6:10-20 teach that Christians are to conduct ‘spiritual warfare’? Which other Scriptures considered in this chapter of Against the Darkness are relevant, and why? What are the relevant positions, who holds them, and why? What follow-up questions might one ask?
Ephesians 6:10-20 teaches believers to engage in spiritual warfare defensively rather than offensively by equipping themselves to be ready against the enemy and his entourage and putting on the whole armor of God. Cole describes the nature of these battles as defensive: “The language of ‘stand’ and ‘withstand’ suggests to me that a defensive rather than an offensive posture is on view. Put another way, I do not see the passage calling for Christians to seek out the devil and his entourage for combat. However, if we are engaged in [G]ospel ministry, devilish attacks are to be expected” (Cole, 190). Because attacks from evil and even the temptations of the flesh are so prominent in the everyday lives of humans, Christians must be ready to use the armor of God in defense: the belt of truth, the breastplate of righteousness, the readiness given by the Gospel as shoes, the shield of faith, the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit. Cole writes that the passage contains a Christocentric focus, even explicitly stated when Paul mentions the readiness of the feet (Cole, 190). The Gospel influences all of the items and has profound significance for all of them. Just as the Gospel equips Christians to take a defensive stand against the enemy, it is equally important in the entirety of their lives. Cole writes, “The Christian engaged in spiritual warfare, whatever the form it takes, is a person who needs to be ever ready to practice 1 John 1:9: ‘If we confess our sins, [H]e is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness’” (Cole, 196).
7. In what way is Satan “bound” in the millennium, per Revelation 20:1–3?
In what way is Satan ‘bound’ in the millennium, per Revelation 20:1-3? Which other Scriptures considered in this chapter of Against the Darkness are relevant, and why? What are the relevant positions, who holds them, and why? What follow-up questions might one ask?
Revelation 20:1-3, a perplexing section of Scripture, informs its audience that Satan has or will be bound. If the passage is read alongside verses such as 2 Corinthians 4:4, “In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God,” a particular conundrum is presented: What does it mean for Satan to be bound if he is not kept from influencing individuals? Many eschatological interpretations and positions—Historic Premillennialism, Amillennialism, Postmillennialism, and Dispensational Premillennialism—seek to answer this puzzle and others (Cole, 212-217). While this discussion post will not define these terms exhaustively, it will address their views concerning the binding of Satan. All four positions agree that the millennium is inaugurated after the binding of Satan. Still, two of them, Historic Premillennialism and Dispensational Premillennialism, posit that the millennium and the binding of Satan are future events (Cole, 217). Therefore, these two answer this question negatively: “Satan is not yet bound and therefore able to influence whomever.” The other two positions offer further insight, declaring, along with Revelation 20:3, that his binding occurs “so that he might not deceive the nations any longer.” Yet, the Text does not limit Satan from having any influence whatsoever. Perhaps this is why Paul in Ephesians 2:2 says sinners follow “the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience,” not adding the statement “and in the nations,” for Paul’s statement was written during a time in which Satan was bound. His influence was held back, not over individuals but the entire world.
Of these four positions, I prefer the optimism of Postmillennialism. Still, I am convinced by Scripture for amillennialism, in which Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection bring about Satan’s limited power (Matt. 12:26-29), and the millennium co-occurs with the church age or the age of now (Cole, 213). Cole, referencing Augustine, explains this position: “As for those who come to life to reign with Christ (Rev. 20:6), they are those who are born again. This is the first resurrection, and it is a spiritual one.” (Cole, 213). Yet, the subsequent verse of Revelation 20:6 uses the same language as the previous for those raised at the end of the millennium. Therefore, my only reservation with amillennialism is that it represents an incontinuity of “coming to life” within the two verses; the former is spiritual, and the latter is physical. Thus, if the second resurrection is called spiritual, advocates of the position may slip toward the heresy of universalism. Regardless, a quote from Bruce Metzger helps conclude this short discussion: “Each of these interpretations involves various difficulties [one of which I mentioned in amillennialism], but the central truth of all [four] is the clear and direct affirmation: Christ will return, as he had promised (John 14:3), and will destroy the forces of evil and establish God’s eternal kingdom.”3