![\"StephenNollAngelsOfLight\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/347\/2014\/09\/StephenNollAngelsOfLight.jpg\")
<\/a>Title: Angels of Light, Powers of Darkness: Thinking Biblically About Angels, Satan & Principalities<\/em><\/p>\nAuthor: Stephen F. Noll; Publisher: InterVarsity; Publication Date: 1998; Pages: 255<\/p>\n
Reviewer: Kermit Zarley. Bible quotations are from the NRSV unless otherwise noted.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
The subject of angels, and especially Satan, went out of vogue in the western world with Enlightenment. But in our present age of post-modernity, angels and heaven are having a serious comeback. It\u2019s partly due to New Age. However, nearly all books written on these subjects are on the popular level and usually concern merely peoples\u2019 experiences.<\/p>\n
Stephen Noll is professor of biblical studies and academic dean at Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry in Ambridge, Pennsylvania. His biblically oriented book on angels is endorsed on its back cover by two scholars. Richard J. Bauckham, a distinguished New Testament (NT) scholar says this book is \u201cwell-informed\u201d in \u201cbiblical scholarship.\u201d And Peter H. Davids claims it \u201cshould be a standard on the topic for years to come.\u201d The preface says Bauckham and Larry Hurtado \u201cassisted with particular parts\u201d of the book.<\/p>\n
The Bible often mentions angels. Noll rightly views them as personal, spiritual beings. Yet he relates, \u201cthe Bible does not attempt to explain logically the nature and activity of spiritual beings\u201d (p. 14). Perhaps this dearth of information contributes to why Noll observes, \u201cmost theologians neglect the heavenly angels\u201d (p. 198). Bible believers therefore are left with many unanswered questions about angels. This book helps.<\/p>\n
Noll writes from \u201can evangelical perspective\u201d and thus \u201cunderstand[ing] the Bible to be the word of God written\u201d (p. 27). He begins in Chapter 1 by briefly setting forth the angelology of various leading thinkers in church history, such as Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, John Milton, John Locke, Friedrich Schleiermacher, Karl Barth, who wrote 250 pages on angels in his famed Church Dogmatics<\/em>, and liberal Walter Wink, who treats angels as impersonal powers and dismisses Satan as a negative force in<\/em> God!<\/p>\n I think Chapter 2 is the best of the eight chapters in this book. It\u2019s about a subject that has become of interest to me in recent years. Noll says there is a similar correspondence between the ancient, polytheistic, pagan beliefs in multiple gods and angels in the Bible. So, Noll repeatedly characterizes angels in the Bible as \u201cdivine beings,\u201d which I cannot accept. Noll briefly addresses the conflict of this identification with monotheistic belief in Judaism and Christianity (pp. 33-34). Yet Noll says of the Bible, \u201cIt is not possible to make a clean semantic distinction between angels and gods\u201d (p. 31). Some biblical texts seem to support his assertion, especially psalms that mention God\u2019s council members (Ps 82.1; 97.9; 135.5; 136.2; 138.1). In them, the Hebrew text applies the word elohim<\/em>, which means \u201cGod\/god\u201d or \u201cgods,\u201d to these council members, who also are called \u201cthe holy ones\u201d (Ps 89.5-7).<\/p>\n Most Christians are unaware that the Bible portrays God as having a council with which he meets regularly in heaven (cf. 1 Kgs 22.19). In Job 1.6 and 2.1, the members of this assembly are literally called \u201cthe sons of God,\u201d which the NRSV renders \u201cheavenly beings.\u201d Scholars generally regard them as a certain class of angels. Noll thinks the (seven?) archangels may be included in this council (p. 40), but I doubt it (cf. 1 Thes 4.16; Jude 9; Rev 8.1; 15.1). He is right in saying the seraphim and cherubim are not council members (e.g., Gen 3.24; Isa 6.2).<\/p>\n I believe, as does Richard Bauckham, that the members of God\u2019s heavenly council are the enthroned, twenty-four \u201celders\u201d in heaven who are mentioned repeatedly in the book of Revelation (Rev 4.4, 10; 5.6, 8, 14; 11.6; 19.4), and it is their thrones that are set up in the royal coronation ceremony in heaven mentioned in Dan 7.9.[1] Noll is quite right in saying, \u201cThe divine assembly shows that God\u2019s lordship is supreme but not totalitarian\u201d (p. 47).<\/p>\n Noll is right in distinguishing two overall classes of angels: God\u2019s angels and Satan\u2019s angels (e.g., Rev 12.7-9), meaning Satan is their leader or chief. And Noll rightly views all of God\u2019s angels as his heavenly \u201chost,\u201d which is his army. This idea should not be thought inappropriate for the God of the Bible, especially due to the conflict between good and evil, God and Satan. The Song of Moses says, \u201cThe LORD is a warrior; the LORD is his name\u201d (Ex 15.3). And Isaiah prophesies, \u201cThe LORD goes forth like a soldier, like a warrior he stirs up his fury; he cries out, he shouts aloud, he shows himself mighty against his foes\u201d (Isa 42.13). Isaiah says of the endtime, \u201cFor the LORD will come in fire, and his chariots like the whirlwind,\u2026 and those slain by the LORD shall be many\u201d (Isa 66.15).<\/p>\n Noll (p. 44) also states, \u201cWhile the LORD is the divine warrior par excellence, he also has a glorious \u2018commander of the army of the LORD\u2019 (Josh 5:13-15).\u201d Noll rightly regards this commander as Michael the archangel, the guardian angel of Israel, and the head of God\u2019s angelic army in heaven (Ex 23.20-23; 33.2; Dan 10.21; 12.1; Jude 9; Rev 12.7-9).<\/p>\n I think Noll does well to liken God and his heavenly council with the myths in Canaanite literature about its gods regularly meeting together with the chief of god named El (p. 35). But it can be disturbing for Bible readers to learn this, since God in the Hebrew Bible is also called el<\/em>, the shortened form of elohim<\/em>.<\/p>\n My biggest disagreement with Noll in his book is that he repeatedly asserts the idea that the angelic members of God\u2019s heavenly council mentioned in Ps 82 are \u201cby no means pure\u201d (p. 36). Thus he alleges, \u201cThe old divine council was contaminated by evil figures and was itself judged as corrupt\u201d (p. 145). Psalm 82 begins (in the NRSV), \u201cGod has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment: \u2018How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked?\u2019\u201d (vv. 1-2). God then chastises these \u201cgods\u201d (elohim<\/em>) for not caring for the lowly of society. Then we read, \u201cI say, \u2018You are gods, children of the Most High, all of you; nevertheless, you shall die like mortals, and fall like any prince\u2019\u201d (vv. 6-7). Despite the expression \u201cthe divine council\u201d in v. 1, vv. 6-7 cannot refer to God\u2019s heavenly council of angels because it says they \u201cshall die like mortals,\u201d that is, like all other people. Angels are not physical beings. Angels are spirit beings. Spirit cannot die. Only physical life dies.<\/p>\n The fallacy of Noll\u2019s interpretation of Ps 82 becomes most evident when we examine Jesus\u2019 reference to it, which Noll surprisingly ignores. Modern scholars sometimes purposely ignore the NT when interpreting the Old Testament (OT). Jesus said, \u201cThe Father and I are one\u201d (Jn 10.30). The Jews misunderstood him to be \u201cmaking yourself God\u201d (v. 33). Jesus denied it by citing Ps 82 in saying, \u201cIs it not written in your law, \u2018I said, you are gods\u2019? If those to whom the word of God came were called \u2018gods\u2019\u201d (vv. 34-35), and the remainder of his response is not pertinent to our subject. Those to whom that word of God came were humans, not angels. So, Jesus meant that the psalmist referred to sinful rulers of Israel.<\/p>\n In Chapter 3, I think Noll makes the common mistake of presuming that God created the angels. The Jewish Encyclopedia<\/em> well observes, \u201cUpon the important problem of the origin of angels Biblical writers do not touch; but it is inferred that angels existed before the Creation (Gen. i. 26; Job, xxxviii. 7).\u201d Indeed, Job 38.7 says that when God completed his creation, \u201cthe morning stars sang together and all the heavenly beings shouted for joy.\u201d Christian, systematic theologians often cite only two biblical passages to support their view that God created the angels. They are Psalm 148.1-5 and Colossians 1.16. It is by means clear that these texts indicate that God created the angels. Perhaps I will blog about them another day.<\/p>\n Contrary to most scholars nowadays, Noll says he accepts, as I do, the old interpretation that the Bible presents a hierarchical, three-tiered view of existence in which there is an underworld, earth, and a heaven where God dwells that is an actual place \u201chigh\u201d above earth (pp. 50-53). I think this is why God is often called in the Bible \u201cthe Most High (God).\u201d Bible readers underappreciate this title for him. Perhaps it is because they do not have a view of heaven in which it is a place very far \u201cabove\u201d the earth. But I don\u2019t mean a physical location. Noll is right that God, angels, and heaven are spirit, not physical (p. 68).<\/p>\n I think Noll errs by interpreting \u201cthe sons of God\u201d in Gen 6.2 and v. 4 as angels of Satan who cohabitated with women, resulting in them giving birth to the \u201cNephilim\u201d who supposedly were giants (pp. 55-56). This interpretation of Gen 6.1-4 appears in the non-canonical 1 Enoch (chs. 6-7) and Jubilees (5.1-2; 7.22-25), apocalyptic texts in inter-testamental Jewish literature. I am amazed that this interpretation of Gen 6.1-4 recently has gained immense acceptance with biblical scholars. Noll repeatedly trumpets this interpretation in his book. To make matters worse, he doesn\u2019t even mention or interact with opposing interpretations.<\/p>\n I was taught this \u201cangelic interpretation\u201d of Gen 6.1-4 in my youth. But I soon rejected it since there are so many biblical injunctions and logical arguments against it. Foremost is that when the Sadducees, who did not believe in the idea of the resurrection of the human body, challenged Jesus about this, he said of humans, \u201cin the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven\u201d (Mt 22.30 and parallels).<\/p>\n So, Jesus clearly meant that angels do not have sexual intercourse or procreate. How so? Angels are like God by having no gender and therefore no sexual organs. That is why we read of creation, \u201cThen God said, \u2018Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness;\u2026\u2019 So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them\u201d (Gen 1.26-27). The words \u201cmale and female\u201d are added since God is neither. And recall that the Jewish Encyclopedia<\/em> citation above interprets the \u201cus\u201d in this Genesis text as referring to angels, which I think is correct.<\/p>\n I don\u2019t need to say much about Noll\u2019s Chapter 4, \u201cAngels and the Triune God.\u201d Readers of my books and\/or this blog know I was a Trinitarian for twenty-two years and that I later wrote a 600-page book, entitled The Restitution of Jesus Christ<\/em> (2008), wherein I cite 400+ scholars as I biblically refute the church doctrine of the Trinity and that Jesus is God. Yet I believe all other major teachings of the church about Jesus. I just think church fathers got this wrong.<\/p>\n Chapter 5, \u201cThe Fallen Angel,\u201d is about Satan, whom Noll rightly interprets as an angelic, personal being who is chief of the angels opposed to God and his angels. Although the Bible has many narratives in which angels literally have appeared to human beings by looking very human-like and speaking, Noll makes the interesting observations that \u201cSatan never appears in personal form anywhere in the Bible, except possibly in the temptation of Jesus\u201d (p. 102), and \u201cSatan never uses the sacred name YHWH\u201d (p. 105), which is God\u2019s name. The book of Revelation identifies \u201cthe ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan\u201d (Rev 12.9). Because Satan, in the form of a serpent in the Garden of Eden, caused the Fall of man (Gen 3), Noll speaks of \u201cthe general problem of theodicy\u201d (p. 99). But this issue is exacerbated by the unbiblical notion that God created Satan and his angels.<\/p>\n Noll states (p. 120), \u201cA fall presumes Satan\u2019s prior residence in heaven with angels, where he does appear in the Old Testament (1 Kings 22:21; Job 1-2; Zech 3:1-7)\u2026. Satan is an intelligent being who converses with God and human beings\u2026. The Bible never directly calls him an angel, or \u2018son of god.\u2019 He has no personal name equivalent to YHWH or Jesus or even Michael. Satan, devil, Beelzebub<\/em> and the like are titles.\u201d I agree and disagree with this.<\/p>\n What do people mean by \u201cthe fall of Satan\u201d? They usually mean that (1) Satan was a perfect creation of God and that he afterwards spiritually fell into sin prior to or during Gen 3, and\/or (2) Satan resided in heaven but literally fell from heaven to earth during the time of Jesus with no further access to heaven. The first view is an assumption unsupported from the Bible, and I think the second view is erroneous. It is usually based on two scriptures. First, Jesus said, \u201cI watched Satan fall from heaven like a flash of lightning\u201d (Lk 10.18). It is generally assumed that Jesus meant Satan literally fell from heaven at that moment and that this is corroborated by Rev 12.7-9 about Michael and his angels fighting a war in heaven with Satan and his angels, who were defeated and then cast out of heaven to earth. But it is wrong to apply that to Jesus\u2019 time since the context of this passage is the endtimes on earth. And this text reveals that Satan and his angels still reside there in heaven until this future war occurs, since it says, \u201cthere was no longer any place for them in heaven\u201d (v. 8).<\/p>\n However, this raises the question, \u201cwhat is heaven\u201d? If we mean according to the Bible, that is a difficult question I don\u2019t have space here to engage. But briefly, I think the heaven where God and his angels dwell is a separate location from the larger heaven that includes the dwelling place of Satan and his angels. Both Jewish and pagan, apocalyptic literature include much speculation about heaven having several levels, usually three, seven, or ten. And whatever the apostle Paul meant, he did write of himself, apparently, \u201cI know a person in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven\u201d (2 Cor 12.2).<\/p>\n Many Bible believers also cite Isa 14.3-21 and Eze 28.1-23 as referring to the supposed spiritual fall of Satan. But both of those texts are about a human king or prince, not Satan. It is wrongly assumed that the person featured therein cannot be an actual man. I plan to be saying much about the Isaiah text in a future volume of my STILL HERE series.<\/p>\n Noll is right in saying Satan, the devil, and Beelzebub are not names but titles. In fact, the word \u201cSatan\u201d occurs every time except once in the original text of the Bible with the article as \u201cthe satan.\u201d English versions never include it, and I think they should. It is comparable to calling Jesus \u201cthe Messiah\/messiah.\u201d Satan<\/em> is a Hebrew word meaning \u201cadversary.\u201d When Satan and his angels lose that war in heaven and are cast down to earth, God\u2019s angels will proclaim in a loud voice, \u201cNow have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Messiah, for the accuser of our [human] comrades has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God\u201d (Rev 12.10). This recalls Satan standing before God in heaven and, like a prosecuting attorney, accusing righteous Job on earth (Job 1-2).<\/p>\n But contrary to Noll, I think Satan does have a personal name. It appears four times in the Bible, all in the same place\u2014in Leviticus 16. It is Azazel. This chapter represents instruction for the most important day of the year for ancient Jews\u2014Yom Kippur<\/em>, which means \u201cDay of Atonement.\u201d And on this most sober day of complete fasting, at the temple in Jerusalem the high priest conducted a very mysterious ritual involving two goats and the casting of lots. One stone lot had Hebrew writing on it meaning \u201cfor Yhwh,\u201d and the other stone lot had Hebrew writing on it meaning \u201cfor Azazel.\u201d The high priest reached into a box with both hands, pulled out the two lots, and placed one lot on the head of one goat and the other lot on the head of the other goat. The goat for Yhwh was first sacrificed on the altar. The goat for Azazel was then escorted about ten miles due east into the desolate Judean wilderness and released alive. Years later, Jews changed this element of their tradition which Moses had given them and pushed the goat over a cliff to its death.<\/p>\n There has never been any consensus among either Jewish or Christian scholars about the meaning of this ritual. Christians generally have thought the \u201cgoat for Yhwh\u201d symbolized Jesus\u2019 crucifixion death and that the \u201cgoat for Azazel\u201d referred to God removing human sins far away due to Jesus\u2019 death. I think this interpretation of the goat for Yhwh is correct, but this interpretation of the goat for Azazel is incorrect. (See my book, Warrior from Heaven<\/em>, pp. 85-98). Instead, the goat for Azazel symbolizes the Israelites being removed from their land and buffeted by Satan as they wandered about in the wilderness of the nations. Thus, Azazel is the personal name of Satan just as Yhwh\/YHWH is the personal name of God. And in case readers don\u2019t know, since Hebrew at one time was a rather dead language, we don\u2019t know for sure how Yhwh\/YHWH should be pronounced, whether Yahweh, Yehwah, etc.<\/p>\n Chapter 6, \u201cPrincipalities and Powers,\u201d is standard fare that needs little comment. I thought it interesting that Noll says, \u201cDemons are not heavenly beings; they are associated with death and the underworld\u201d (p. 133). Most Bible believers think demons are fallen angels. Most of this chapter is about the Apostle Paul\u2019s teaching about Satan\u2019s angelic hierarchy. I don\u2019t like Noll saying of Rev 12.9, \u201cJohn draws on the myth of the fallen watchers\u201d (p. 144). Much Jewish, inter-testamental literature has speculative commentary on angels mentioned in the biblical book of Daniel that describes them as \u201cwatchers\u201d of humans on earth (Dan 4.13, 17, 23). It is not a myth. Angels are intensely interested in humans (e.g., Heb 1.14; 2.5-7). Many of them, both holy and evil, come to earth and watch human beings. I have a book manuscript that is partly about this subject, and I intend it for my STILL HERE series.<\/p>\n Chapter 7, entitled \u201cHoly Angels As Messengers and Militants,\u201d I find quite stimulating. Noll compares pagan literature about assemblies and wars of their gods with the Bible. Then he states, \u201cMilitary victory therefore forms a central image of the mighty acts of salvation throughout the Bible\u201d (pp. 156-57). He well adds concerning angels (p. 171), \u201cthere are national guardians\u201d (Dan 10:21; 12:1).\u201d Noll discusses Mt 18.10 and asks, \u201cDoes the Bible clearly teach that everyone has a guardian angel? I think that claim goes beyond the evidence of the texts\u201d (p. 172).<\/p>\n I strongly disagree with Noll in saying, \u201cin the New Testament, however, holy angels are described as escorting the soul to heaven\u201d (p. 175). The only NT text that can give people the common idea of saintly souls going to heaven is Luke\u2019s single account of Jesus\u2019 parable in Luke 16 about a rich man and a poor beggar named Lazarus who both died. Jesus said, \u201cthe poor man died and was carried away by the angels to be with Abraham\u201d (v. 22). People assume that Abraham\u2019s soul resides in heaven because they believe in the immortality of the soul. But that is a Greek, philosophical concept that is not supported in the Bible despite the two main texts Christians cite for it: 2 Cor 5.1-8; Phil 1.21-23. And Greek philosophers ridiculed the Hebrew concept of the future resurrection of the human body because Greeks regarded flesh as evil or the source of evil (cf. Ac 17.32.) The OT teaches clearly that when people die their souls go to \u201cSheol,\u201d a Hebrew word that appears 67 times in the Hebrew Bible. It corresponds to the Greek concept of the so-called \u201cunderworld\u201d that they name Hades. The writers of the Hebrew Bible clearly meant that when people die their souls go \u201cdown\u201d to Sheol, a place they described as located inside the earth.<\/p>\n Randy Alcorn has written the best-selling book about heaven entitled Heaven<\/em>. But Noll has written a more scholarly book about angels that touches on heaven with the following, excellent excerpt on p. 178 about heaven in the OT with which I will end this book review:<\/p>\n First, heaven (Heb. Pl. samayim<\/em>; Greek sing. Or pl. ouranos<\/em> [oi<\/em>] is thought of as singular in comparison with earth (\u201cheaven and earth\u201d) but as multilevel when thought of in itself. The idea of three heavens incorporates the expanse of the sky, the domain of angels and the dwelling place of God, the \u201cheaven of heavens\u201d (Deut 10:14; Neh 9:6). The idea of seven heavens is not found in Scripture but symbolizes the fullness of the heavenly world.<\/p>\n Second, since the earthly tabernacle is said to be patterned after what is above (Ex 25:40), heaven is portrayed as a kind of temple complex, with the Lord dwelling in the \u201choly of holies.\u201d The visions of the divine council are not, in my opinion, set in the heavenly sanctuary. Possibly the idea of the Lord\u2019s throne includes his palace (Heb. hekal<\/em>) or the courts outside it, where he takes his seat for periodic meetings of the sons of God (Ps 82:1). As for other \u201cintimate angels\u201d (archangels, or angels of the presence), their place in heaven is not specified in the Old Testament; but by analogy with the priests of the Jerusalem temple, they may be thought to serve regularly in the holy place.<\/p>\n [1] Kermit Zarley, The Restitution of Jesus Christ<\/em>, 168-69; Richard Bauckham, The Theology of the Book of Revelation<\/em>, 34.<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Title: Angels of Light, Powers of Darkness: Thinking Biblically About Angels, Satan & Principalities Author: Stephen F. Noll; Publisher: InterVarsity; Publication Date: 1998; Pages: 255 Reviewer: Kermit Zarley. Bible quotations are from the NRSV unless otherwise noted. \u00a0 The subject of angels, and especially Satan, went out of vogue in the western world with Enlightenment. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1477,"featured_media":2606,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[11],"tags":[510,511,512,513,514],"class_list":["post-1077","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-book-reviews","tag-angels","tag-heaven","tag-heavenly-council","tag-satan","tag-war-in-heaven"],"yoast_head":"\n