Do angels have free will?

[mee]

By personal choice, hordes of angels joined Satan in his rebellion.—Re 12:7-9; Mt 25:41.

[Thomas]

There is one argument ...

... if angels do not possess free will, that is cannot think for themselves, then they would be very inefficient messengers, because they would not be able to dialogue with the person to whom they transmit the message, but rather spout, somewhat parrot fashion, words they have learnt, but don't understand?

Thomas

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by Thomas

There is one argument ...

... if angels do not possess free will, that is cannot think for themselves, then they would be very inefficient messengers, because they would not be able to dialogue with the person to whom they transmit the message, but rather spout, somewhat parrot fashion, words they have learnt, but don't understand?

Thomas

I think the term "freewill" has attached itself too much to the concept of morality. But I could decide of my own accord to go out and ride my bike and that would not be committing any kind of sin. I think as long as angels operate within the permissive will of God, that they expressing freewill. A hint of this is found in I Peter 1:12:

"Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into."

Seems to me this suggests curiousity and intent on the part of angels. They are not autonomous beings.

I would go so far as to say that this would be a similiar state that we as humans will find ourselves in heaven. Jesus hinted at this also in his dialog with the Sadduccees:

"For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." - Matthew 22:30

Satan, who was Lucifer, the Star of the Morning, got too high on his perch, being the Archangel, and through willful action, fully knowing what it would irrevokably cost him, rose up against God and was thus cast down. My feeling is in what ever realm he resided in after his fall, he wasn't as evil, but rather in the progression of time, he became more and more evil.

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by Dondi

Satan, who was Lucifer, the Star of the Morning

Lucifer, first comes into light in most bibles.... 14th book of Isaiah... Oh old test? Funny how a LATIN name is in HEBREW manuscripting.... Is this book talking of Satan? Oh no? A fallen king of Babylon? Yes.... MAN changed, this into a story of a "fallen angel", Lucifer, (Latin translation; Bringer of Light.) Ironically.... the Prince of "darkness" lol.....

And!!! What I love is the irony of the christians that call Satan, Lucifer... You do realise that is the same title given to jesus in 2ndpet 1:19 and Rev22:16... Right? What is going on in Job: 38:7?

We could do that silly number game that Leo started on this.... jesus is Lucifer? So Lucifer is Satan? lol

SO A=1x9 B=2x9 C=3x9 D=4x9.... And so on... lol

JESUS = J(90) E(45) S(171) U(189) S(171) zomg!!! 666....

MESSIAH = M(117) E(45) S(171) S(171) I(81) A(9) H(72) ZOMG!!! 666...
(maybe it is more than just People "editing" the Hebrew texts!! No... It's just me playing silly b*ggers with numbers.....)

Thought maybe interesting to look at these "versions" of your verse...

Liber Isaiae: 14:12 Quomodo cecidisti de caelo, lucifer, fili aurorae?
Deiectus es in terram, qui deiciebas gentes,


How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn!" The New American Standard Bible.

"How you are fallen from heaven, O shining star, son of the morning!" The New Living Translation.

"How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn!" The Revised Standard Version.

How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn!" The New Revised Standard Version

"How hast thou fallen from the heavens, O shining one, son of the dawn!" Young's Literal Translation.

"How art thou fallen from heaven, O day-star, son of the morning!" American Standard (1901).

"King of Babylon, morning star, you have fallen from heaven," New Century Version.

"King of Babylon, bright morning star, you have fallen from heaven!" The Good News Bible in Today's English Version.


Will the real morning star, please stand up! Please stand up! Please stand up!

[bananabrain]

Originally Posted by dondi

I think the term "freewill" has attached itself too much to the concept of morality. But I could decide of my own accord to go out and ride my bike and that would not be committing any kind of sin. I think as long as angels operate within the permissive will of G!D, that they expressing freewill.

you see, that's where you and i would disagree - i don't think the two can be separated. riding your bike is not a morally neutral act if:

a) the place you choose to ride is wrong: on a busy road, across someone's pristine lawn, down a pedestrian street
b) how you ride it: cutting people up, running over stuff, going the wrong way up streets, jumping lights
c) associated acts: if you ride without a helmet and someone hits you in a car, you're more likely to be hurt, which causes them some degree of guilt because you didn't take care.

i don't agree that there is such a thing as a morally neutral act, therefore it is impossible to separate an act of freewill from one with some kind of moral consequences. bear in mind that what may seem "good" or "evil" to us may look completely different on G!D's moral compass, hence theodicy.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[17th Angel]

ARGH!

I forgot to mention Rev: 2:28.... I am slipping.

[InLove]

Originally Posted by 17th Angel

Will the real morning star, please stand up! Please stand up! Please stand up!

This bothers me, too, Angel. My best understanding so far is that in the Isaiah passage, either Jerome's transliteration of the Hebrew phrase does not work, or that he was actually pointing a finger at the Bp. of Calgliari, whose name was Lucifer, therefore comparing him to the king of Babylon. The rest of the Scriptures that use the term do appear to be describing Christ.

You probably already know all of this, but I thought I'd post to bump the thread because I was hoping for a number of Christian responses. I want to understand the issue better. Should we ask on that board? (It isn't that I mind hearing the non-Christian viewpoint, just that I am trying to narrow it down a bit.)

InPeace,
InLove

[Thomas]

According to the New Jerome Biblical Commentary, and the notes in the New Jerusalem Bible, the most part of Isaiah 14 (4-21) is a 'masal', a Hebrew term which the Greek translates as 'metaphor' (although in the Hebrew has a much broader meaning), and in this case comprises a Taunt-Song against the King of Babylon.

The terminology used, specifically the reference to the Day Star, 'shining star, son of the dawn' (v12) which the Vulgate translates as Lucifer, is in Hebrew 'heylel' which is a pun on the name Helel ben Shahar, a figure who, in Canaanite mythology, ascended Mount Zaphon, the mountain of the gods, to make himself equal to Elyon, 'the Most High' (Elyon is used in v14, and as 'Most High' is a name of The Lord, but it is also the name of El, the Canaanite divinity), and for which presumption he was cast down into the netherworld.

Isaiah is then likening the Babylonian king, probably Nebuchadnezzar (Jerusalem's destroyer), or Nabonidus (the last king of Babylon) to Helel ben Shahar. The previous verse "Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, [and] the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee" (v4) signifying that in the end even he is destined for the grave.

+++

The Patristic Fathers sought always to bring out the spiritual reading of the text (explicit to the Hebrew), a metaphysical context more acessible to the Hellenic mind rather than an apparently cosmological one (apparently because Hebrew cosmology is founded on the Immanent and active Presence of God, something absent in Hellenic philosophical cosmology).

So they translated 'Day Star' as Lucifer ('light bearer'), and as some scholars saw the principle of the fall in the account ...

"For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: (Canaanite myth) I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit." (v 13-15).

... Lucifer became a name, and largely the name, of the devil.

Since in Abrahamic belief there is no evil in God, then the devil must be a created being which became corrupt, and in this sense the only form of corruption is that which is contrary to the Divine Will, for it corrupts what is essentially good, and does so at the level of the will. So Satan, or Lucifer, was created as an angelic being, but fell. The sin of Satan and the sin of Adam are essentially the same – in putting one's self-will before the Divine Will.

Thomas

[Thomas]

Jean Danielou SJ wrote:

"The word angel has an essentially concrete value. It designates a supernatural being which manifests itself. However, the nature of this supernatural being is not determined by the expression, but by the context."
"Theologie du judeo-christianisme"

The nature of an angel then must be determined by its context. Abraham is approached by three angels (Genesis 18), and he speaks to them as Lord and to one as God, and that angel appears to make a decision that rightly only God can make.

The angel who appears to Mary (Luke 1) is without question an envoy, the archangel Gabriel. In fact, Gabriel is linked with the Holy Spirit, whereas Michael is linked with the Word.

The angel who enters the waters at the Pool of Siloam is not an envoy, but would appear a nature spirit.

So it depends on what kind of angel as to what degree of free will.

It's worth mentioning that the generalised idea of angel today bears little resemblance to theology, but is more the invention of the Romance Movement of the 18/19 centuries, based on the idealised anthropomorphism of Renaissance art.

Thomas

[InLove]

Hi Thomas,

Thanks for responding regarding the name "Lucifer". I had looked into all the study material I have, including the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, and had not found all of that. I did, however, come to an independent reasoning that the way it was being used might be as a kind of refutation for anyone attempting to set themselves up in a false authority. It really can be quite confusing for readers unfamiliar with these details. Appreciate it....

InPeace,
InLove

[Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine]

[Originally posted by Thomas[/i]
Since in Abrahamic belief there is no evil in God,

Um, actually, in Judaism, G!d does contain evil since He "contains" everything. Ha-Satan is just the prosecuting attorney, not the embodiment of evil that shows up most frequently in Christianity.

bananabrain or dauer can expound more upon this topic since they're more familiar with the more traditional aspects of Judaism on more than one front.

Sorry.

Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine

[Thomas]

Hi Phyllis –

Originally Posted by Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine

Um, actually, in Judaism, G!d does contain evil since He "contains" everything.

A fair point. I should have been more precise.

Originally Posted by Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine

Ha-Satan is just the prosecuting attorney, not the embodiment of evil that shows up most frequently in Christianity.

Does that not then support my thesis, that there is no evil in God?

Christianity shifts the understanding of the adversary towards the idea of resistance to the Divine Will – "And (Satan) saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me" (Matthew 4:9).

Now Satan might, as the prosecuting attorney, make such a case to show human fallibility, but the offer made is a lie, as soon as man succumbs Satan triumphs before God "See, I said I could break him," and none of the promises are forthcoming, that was never the object. So what Christianity brings out is that the lie only works if man is susceptible to its offer ... and this is the bit that Jesus concentrates on, He speaks of evil not as an abstract entity, nor as its experience as a test of faith, but as a reality of the fallen human psyche, and one that needs to be faced and overcome.

Mark alludes to the temptation of Christ in just two verses – basically it happened, but without a full knowledge of Jesus' inner experience and consciousness one cannot say precisely what happened.

Matthew and Luke's account (attributed to Q) goes into greater detail, as a means of pastoral exegesis, and Christ's forty days in the wilderness echoes the forty years in the desert – the parallels are there, notably that all Jesus' answers are quotations from Deuteronomy 6-8.

The three temptations of Christ are basically to cause him to sin against the Deuteronomic commandment to love God 'with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your might' (6:5) as such Jesus moves the adversarial thinking on, from an Hebraic question as to why bad things happen to good people, to a more pointed and profound tendency of the will to self-determination.

Thus the three temptations are those which all must face, and must overcome, by the Grace of God, if they are to enter into the Divine Life – a life in which sin and suffering has no place.

Thomas

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

you see, that's where you and i would disagree - i don't think the two can be separated. riding your bike is not a morally neutral act if:

a) the place you choose to ride is wrong: on a busy road, across someone's pristine lawn, down a pedestrian street
b) how you ride it: cutting people up, running over stuff, going the wrong way up streets, jumping lights
c) associated acts: if you ride without a helmet and someone hits you in a car, you're more likely to be hurt, which causes them some degree of guilt because you didn't take care.

i don't agree that there is such a thing as a morally neutral act, therefore it is impossible to separate an act of freewill from one with some kind of moral consequences. bear in mind that what may seem "good" or "evil" to us may look completely different on G!D's moral compass, hence theodicy.

b'shalom

bananabrain

Even so, your only attaching these consequences to the possible result of the act, not the act itself. The mere fact of riding a bike has no moral law. What has moral consequences is my use of the bike. It is still my decision whether to ride on a busy street or alone in an empty parking lot.

Some of the examples you gave implied that I had a malicious intent, in which case I would agree that the choice would have moral implications. But in the example of riding without a helmet, or riding in a busy street could cause consequences attributed to stupidity, not moral intent.

[dauer]

Thomas,

In one sense the metaphor of God as Electrical Tower works to approach the Jewish concept of angels. There are power lines that carry His electricity down to the village. I've presented this material before from Rambam's Guide for the Perplexed, but it seems worth presenting again:

"...This leads Aristotle in turn to the demonstrated fact that God, glory and majesty to Him, does not do things by direct contact. God burns things by means of fire; fire is moved by the motion of the sphere; the sphere is moved by means of a disembodied intellect, these intellects being the 'angels which are near to Him', through whose mediation the spheres [planets] move....thus totally disembodied minds exist which emanate from God and are the intermediaries between God and all the bodies [objects] here in this world."

"...Aristotle's doctrine that these disembodied spheres serve as the nexus between God and existence, by whose mediation the sphere are brought into motion, which is the cause of all becoming, is the express import of all the Scriptures. For you will never in Scripture find any activity done by God except through an angel. And "angel", as you know, means messenger. Thus anything which executes a command is an angel. So the motions of living beings, even those that are inarticulate, are said explicitly by Scripture to be due to angels.
...Our argument here is concerned solely with those "angels" which are disembodied intellects. For our Bible is not unaware that God governs this existence through the mediation of angels...(Maimonides then quotes discussions of angels from Genesis, Plato, and Midrash Bereshit Rabbah)...the import in all these texts is not—as a primitive mentality would suppose—to suggest any discussion or planning or seeking of advice on God's part. How could the Creator receive aid from the object of his creation? The real import of all is to proclaim that existence—including particular individuals and even the formation of the parts of animals such as they are—is brought about entirely through the mediation of angels.
For all forces are angels! How blind, how perniciously blind are the naïve?! If you told someone who purports to be a sage of Israel that the Deity sends an angel who enters a woman's womb and there forms an embryo, he would think this a miracle and accept it as a mark of the majesty and power of the Deity—despite the fact that he believes an angel to be a body of fire one third the size of the entire world. All this, he thinks, is possible for God. But if you tell him that God placed in the sperm the power of forming and demarcating these organs, and that this is the angel, or that all forms are produced by the Active Intellect—that here is the angel, the "vice-regent of the world" constantly mentioned by the sages—then he will recoil. For he [the naïve person] does not understand that the true majesty and power are in the bringing into being of forces which are active in a thing although they cannot be perceived by the senses.
The sages of blessed memory state clearly—to those who are wise themselves—that every bodily power (not to mention forces at large in the world) is an angel and that a given power has one effect and no more. It says in Midrash Bereshit Rabbah "We are given to understand that no angel performs two missions, nor do two angels perform one mission."—which is just the case with all forces. To confirm the conclusion that individual physical and psychological forces are called "angels", there is the dictum of the sages, in a number of places, ultimately derived from Bereshit Rabbah, "Each day the Holy One creates a band of angels who sing their song before him and go their way." Midrash Bereshit Rabbah, LXXVIII. When this midrash was countered with another which suggests that angels are permanent...the answer given was that some are permanent and other perish. And this is in fact the case. Particular forces come to be and pass away in constant succession; the species of such forces, however, are stable and enduring....[Giving a few more examples of the mention of angels in rabbinic writings, Maimonides says] Thus the Sages reveal to the aware that the imaginative faculty is also called an angel; and the mind is called a cherub. How beautiful this will appear to the sophisticated mind—and how disturbing to the primitive."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel#Jewish_views