Ichthys Acronym Image

Home             Site Links

The Nature of Angels

Word RTF

Question #1:  Are all angels and demons non corporeal beings? I've been told that Satan is a spirit being and therefore has no form and this has brought me some confusion. How can Satan be one of the most beautiful creatures God created if he is a spirit and can't be seen? also, if Heaven is corporeal and can be seen, and is made of literal precious stones and building material, then it would seem odd that angels, who are spirit beings dwell in a place that can be seen. So we have unseen spirit beings dwelling in a place that can be seen. If angels have no bodies and are mere spirit beings, then when we are given glorified bodies...are we the only one's who have literal bodies while they (angels) remain unseen, or can we somehow see them? I was thinking that the angels are spirits, but that spirits does not necessarily mean that they cannot be seen, but are not "flesh and blood." Perhaps Satan and angels have spirit bodies? Thanks in advance!

Response #1:  The quote below is from a previous email response posting (More on Antichrist and his Kingdom), and I think it addresses the question pretty well even if the context is a bit different:

Angels are restricted in time and space, only to a lesser degree than is the case for human beings. I believe that a fair assessment of all the pertinent scriptures reveals them to be creatures who are "spiritual" in comparison with "physical" human beings. But of course human beings all have a spiritual part as well: the human spirit. And from what I can glean from scripture, our spirit is never meant to be "naked", that is, without a body of some sort, be it our initial one, our interim one, or our permanent, resurrection one (cf. 2Cor.5:3). Angels, on the other hand, are not dichotomous, but are purely "spirits". However, in that pure "spirituality" they are apparently limited to a size almost equivalent to human size, occupy one place at a time, have to move from place to place "physically", and are recognizable to each other as individuals (even if at present invisible to fleshly eyes). What all this says to me is that our traditional categories of "spiritual and material" are not so precise as to be able to build doctrinal statements upon them as truly representing unique and discernible categories. Human "materiality" is more complex than meets the eye; likewise; angelic "spirituality" is apparently more relative than absolute. As Paul says at 1st Corinthians 15:40, "there are heavenly bodies, and there are earthly bodies", and while it is true that he goes on to talk about the planets, the connection between the stars and angels is one made throughout scripture; all of which leads me to think that Paul and the other writers of scriptures understood very well through the Spirit that while angels are "spirits", that does not mean they don't possess the equivalent of bodies of some non-earthly and more "spiritual" sort.

That is my essential position on the issue, although it is true that angels can be seen by angels and there is no indication from scripture that they are ever invisible, one to the other (to the contrary, I would say). From the descriptions of the heavenly worship in the book of Revelation, I would opine that it is only presently, in these mortal bodies, that angels are invisible to us. In eternity, after all, we shall know God "even as we are known" – how much more so angels. I think that is precisely what Paul suggests in 1st Corinthians 15 (e.g., v.40: "There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies" NIV). Angels are finite, visible (except to us, temporarily), capable of interacting with the material world – and capable of being acted upon (Satan the demons will be "physically" removed from the world and thrown into the lake of fire where they will be restrained in a manner similar to the present "physical" restraint those presently confined to the Abyss are now experiencing). All this leads me to say what I say in the quote above that our notions of "physical" or "material" on the one hand, and "spiritual" on the other do not quite explain everything the Bible has to say about the angelic order of creation. Since we are dichotomous, I suppose it might be possible to hypothesize that angels are dichotomous too, at least in some sense, or, better put, a singular unity which possesses aspects of both categories traditionally termed "spiritual and physical": angels are of this creation, so that their spirituality cannot really be compared to God's in an absolute way.

We human beings are, at present, more clearly material than spiritual. That is to say, the physical/material is what we see and experience most palpably, though everyone with any insight appreciates the spiritual side of our nature as well – and I mean by this "spiritual" in the biblical sense, not the "new age" sense. Conversely, angels are more clearly spiritual than material. That is why they are occasionally termed "spirits", since it is the spiritual side that is the more obviously functional side of their nature from our point of view: they are invisible to us at the moment, and are not constrained by many of the physical restraints that presently limit us. For angels possess neither the tangible mortal bodies we now inhabit, nor the perfect immortal bodies which will be ours at the resurrection. At present, our superior materiality is offset by greatly reduced spirituality; in the future, we shall have no such limitations whatsoever.

This is a long way of saying that I think that your conclusion to the effect that angels have "spirit bodies" would be fine if by that we understand a finite, visible (to other spirits), somewhat less than completely intangible "thing" which is at the same time a "spirit" (again, only one distinct part which, however, has these variable aspects). Since the Bible calls them spirits, and since Jesus assures the assembled disciples after the resurrection that He is not "a spirit" because He has "flesh and blood", I think we are well-served to take care on the point of drawing too direct a comparison between indisputable dichotomy in the case of human beings on the one hand and the nature of angels on the other. Your point to the effect that they are not entirely insubstantial just because they are incorporeal is very important and absolutely true – and is about as far as I would want to push it; technically speaking, angels are not dichotomous (even if the analogy given may be helpful in understanding the situation).

Thanks for your question.

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #2: 

Hi Dr. Luginbill!

In Revelation 20 it says that the devil and all the lost will be cast into the lake of fire. I understand that those who will be cast into the lake of fire will have bodies because they have been resurrected unto damnation. If the devil is a spirit and cannot be seen, does this imply that although the devil is cast into the lake of fire with the lost who can be seen in their resurrected bodies, that the devil will be invisible since he is a spirit? or can he be seen in some way? This has puzzled me since we will have glorified bodies in heaven and will dwell with the angels who are spirits. Will we be able to see angels or spirit beings in the eternal state? I can't imagine dwelling in heaven with a glorified corporeal body with the angels who cannot be seen since they are spirits. I believe that you wrote that we will have interim bodies. Would this also mean that the angels have some sort of form in heaven that we can see? Thanks!

God Bless you for your ministry,

Response #2: 

Great to hear from you as always. In my view of what scripture is saying, angels are indeed "spirits", but that does not mean that do not have some sort of "restricted being". We might call this thing that is them "a body", except for the fact that people would find that confusing (and of course scripture calls them "spirits"). Angels are clearly restricted to one time and place even now, so that their "spirituality" is clearly limited when compared to God's; also, we human beings are spiritual beings too – only we have a very tangible and even more restricted (at the moment) physical body. What we have and what the angels have in terms of "bodies" is obviously different, but they have more in common with us than they do with God in this respect, clearly, for He is omnipresent and not limited to this creation. I would imagine if it were ever the case that human beings were, even for a moment, disembodied entirely (i.e., no present, no interim, no eternal body), that our spirits would be similar to the angels in some respects. In both groups, it is a case of something limited and discernible. For the angels, of course, this is their natural and only state, so that I posit on the basis of the descriptions of them in scripture a kind of "spiritual-corporeality" (note that they always seem to be the same size and of the same general appearance), even though the terms are inherently contradictory. We cannot see angels now, but that is because of our limitations, not because of their essence. They may not suffer now, but they will in the lake of fire (which, since it was "prepared for the devil and his angels", certainly is designed for their displeasure as well as for that of rebellious human beings). Generally speaking, many people take the word "spirit" way beyond what scripture envisions in regard to angels. They are creatures of this present time-space and are fully subject to it. It is only in comparison to us that they can seem to some ethereal in the extreme. But let us not forget that it was precisely the desire to be more corporeal than they are by nature that Satan used to seduce most of his followers (see part 1 of Satan's rebellion, section 4.3.b, "Satan's Revolutionary Platform").

I have also written about this elsewhere at the following links:

Angelic Issues.

Angelic Issues II.

More on Antichrist and his Kingdom

The Purpose, Nature, and Creation of Angels

Hope this helps!

Yours in Jesus our dear Lord,

Bob L.

Question #3:

Hi Doc!

I hope you're enjoying the holidays. This may sound a bit cliche but you and I know that Jesus is the true reason for the season. :)

The book of Revelation has plenty of symbolism and I wanted to know if this particular passage is symbolic or literal.

Revelation 19:11 - And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

Will Jesus literally return on a white stallion? I know God can do whatever He chooses to in His omnipotence but it seems kind of odd for the Lord to come to earth on a real stallion from the heavens. Although I am not denying that this will occur. In the book of Isaiah it describes Jesus returning with "chariots" instead of a white horse.

Isaiah 66:15 - For, behold, the LORD will come with fire, and with his chariots like a whirlwind, to render his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire.

Does the word chariot here refer to some sort of general conveyance or does it refer to a horse carriage? Thanks in advance!

Response #3:   

You make a very good point. I would call your attention to 2nd Kings 6:18 where Elisha prays for the Lord to open the eyes of his servant who then sees "the hills full of horses and chariots of fire". Thus it seems that the angelic armies of the Lord do have chariots (which are no doubt drawn by horses) as well as "cavalry" as we should say. That would be the meaning in Isaiah 66:15 as well. Revelation chapter 19 is very explicit on this point vis-a-vis our Lord but also regarding us:

The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean.
Revelation 19:14 NIV

Thus we too, following our resurrection, will accompany our Lord mounted upon heavenly horses. This is a good indication, by the way, of what we should expect, namely, that, when scripture says "Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward a and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?" (Eccl.3:21 NIV), we are probably meant to understand that no spirit is ever created by the Lord without an eternal purpose. There is clearly much that we do not presently know about the life to come, but scripture does give us some very important indications (as on this issue) that the traditional view of heaven as some ethereal place lacking true substance is dead wrong: for one things, "heaven" in the sense of our eternal abode will be on earth, the New Earth, that is, and both it and we will be "tangible" in every way, only without further sin or corruption (not to mention the addition of capabilities about which at present we can only speculate). These are the sorts of things that ought to motivate us mightily to seek what contributes to our eternal reward, rather than becoming overly focused on the temporary and corruptible here and now.

In anticipation of that wonderful day to come!

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #4:  

Someone had asked if angels had confidence. My friends had asked him, "confidence in what?" He responded by saying, "think about it!" What kind of question is this? it almost sounds like a trick question, and why should it matter to us? Do you know what he may mean from this? thanks in advance!

Response #4: 

I'm with you. We could also ask, as the Schoolmen did, "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" There comes a point when putatively "biblical" questions are so far divorced from the meaningful search for God's truth that they should not be dignified with an answer. If the person has a legitimate question lurking behind this seemingly pointless question, let him/her ask it. Speculation about other people's internal processes is certainly pointless, especially in the case of creatures we cannot even see and about which the Bible is careful to say very much less than we want to know (not for no reason, I would argue).

For what scripture does say about angels, please see the following link:

Bible Basics 2A: Angelology

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #5:

WOW....I am so very delighted to find this informative website and I want to thank you so very much for your time and work and 'blessing'. I think that my Lord will be answering many of my questions and I look forward to a day of literary indulgence. But I want to ask you about some of the information on the internet that suggests that there were colonies on both Mars and the Moon and even Saturn (Richard Hoagland sees former structures in the Rings of Saturn that have been through war and destruction and also the named Phoebus circulating the Moon to be actually a 15 mile wide former space ship...now abandoned and almost destroyed....the Russia. launched robotic space probe to take pictures etc. in 2012). I thought I 'had it' about Satan and his minions until your information said they were only spirit and wanted a body to experience the earth and its abundance.......if they were spirit than they would not need the cities on the Moon and Saturn etc. I get the part where they saw the women of men to be beautiful and wanted sons etc. And how because of this we had giants, Rephaim, Nephilim, etc. And how the behind the scenes rulers of this earth are mostly fallen angel guided if not possessed. But what of those civilizations in space? After messing with the beings/animals etc on earth before man did they go up to space and make these cities on other planets because they were forbidden from earth at that time? H E L P I know all of this has been going on for a really long time. I guess I want it set in my mind so I can also have answers for those who now and in the future will have questions. I have read that the UFO and ET scenario will open up and they will say they made us long ago and have been watching and now we need their help. Of course this will be a great deception from Lucifer himself. Want to be loaded and ready. Thanks if you can help. I am getting lunch and reading more.

Response #5:   

Good to make your acquaintance. Thank you for your kind words. Please feel free to visit Ichthys any time (all of the material is downloadable as well).

As to your question, I am highly skeptical about angelic involvement along the lines related. Clearly, we cannot know what is happening elsewhere in the universe. But we do know that the angels are the only morally responsible life off of planet earth. There are reportedly over a 100 billion stars in our galaxy, and over a hundred billion other galaxies. I certainly cannot say for certain how the Lord has structured or furnished them. I do know that earth was the place where He originally had His throne; that earth was the place Satan chose as his headquarters after his fall and the departure of the Trinity to the third heaven; and that earth was the place where the Lord decided to refute and replace Satan by creating the other unique class of creature in the universe possessed of the image of God, mankind. Earth will also be the place of God the Father's return in the New Jerusalem (on this, please see the link: Coming Tribulation part 6), the place where we will spend eternity with our Lord Jesus and the Father and the Spirit. I also know that the angels are very interested in what is happening on earth (e.g., 1Pet.1:12). This is the place where Satan is contesting God's sentence of death; this is the place where the elect angels are protecting those who choose for Jesus; and this is the place to which the Son of God Himself came down, becoming a human being as well as God in order to die for the sins of all mankind. In other words, theologically, this planet is the center of the universe, and nothing that could be happening elsewhere could even hold a candle to earth in terms of the importance of events from the divine point of view. Since that has always been the case, and adding your very fine arguments to the mix, I remain skeptical of such things as you have encountered and report (and doubt we would be able to perceive angelic activity elsewhere in the universe, seeing as we cannot perceive it here – and it is going on here).

Your observation about the devil's use of these sorts of claims to further his own ends is also very astute. As Christians we are supposed to be innocent as doves, but wise as serpents  (Matt.10:16; cf. Rom.16:19; 1Cor.14:20; Prov.14:18). After all, the great serpent is the one who opposes our every positive step forward for the Lord. Praise God that he is no match for the One who loved us enough to lay down His life on our behalf!

Please feel free to email me about any questions you may have regarding these studies. For more on all the matters you have touched upon, the Satanic Rebellion Series is a very good place to begin (please see the link).

In our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Bob Luginbill

Question #6: 


I thank you for your essay on Satan's rebellion, which I found & read last night, like an exciting mystery novel in which all the clues suddenly make sense. I wondered if you had considered these possible motivations:

- that becoming sinful, the fallen angels were increasingly discomforted by occupying spirit, which, being God's substance, tolerates ambiguity much less than mortality; so even their existence is torturous. The more sinful they were, the more they wanted flesh.

- that an original motivation in possessing mortals was to create offspring, i.e. to create new beings as God did- to angels, an astonishing discovery.

- that the draw to human females wasn't female beauty in aesthetic terms, but to the reproductive capacity. You suggest the fallen were drawn to bodies of "their own essential shape," but surely male anatomy is more angelic than female? Conversely, however, human females are not drawn into sexual congress with angels so much as human men (the women of Sodom being indifferent). As each is drawn to cross their estate, angels drawn to flesh, go for females; men drawn to spirit, go for males.

- that fallen angels by human example were being given an example of repentance, as humans were ingeniously fashioned, not for virtue as angels are, but for repentance?

- that human history lasts as long as will be needed for Lucifer to transform wholly into Satan. The question that occurs to me is whether prophesy is substantially directed to Satan, who is being told how he will act- even as his central motivation is now rebellion.

Also, if the sexual instinct in humans is a form of that drive toward 'possession'.

Response #6: 

Good to make your acquaintance. It is probable that there are female angels (see the links: Are there female angels? and More on Female Angels). I would readily concede that the motivations of both fallen angels and pre-flood human beings may well have been more complex than I have written. I make it my practice to be reluctant to go too far down the road of speculation where there seems to be no sure scriptural guideposts. You have some interesting and thought-provoking ideas! I will keep them in mind as I prepare for the next installment of Coming Tribulation. And I quite agree that the creation of mankind is not at all unrelated to this issue (as I have written also in later issues of the SR series: see the link in SR 3: "The Purpose of Man").

Yours in our Lord Jesus,

Bob Luginbill

Question #7:

Dr. Luginbill, thank you for your kind reply. Lately with family & friends I've been, 'Dr. Luginbill suggests that...'- endlessly. The idea that female angels are rarely seen as earth is a 'military' war zone, is absorbing. So God doesn't favor women in combat?? Ha ha. Once when staying at a friend's house he claims to have awoken in early morning to see a woman leaning over me, smiling. I always wondered about that. Then I was wondering today if the evidence of angelic paternity in the Bible suggests they may only be able to sire male children- perhaps the female, hierarchically the lowest of spiritual beings, but who incarnates in flesh the highest creative power of God, is somehow beyond their ability to reproduce. And also, if perhaps after Noah's flood, Satan himself sired children as this was the most noted affront to God then available to him, and did so, still believing God loved him enough not to punish him as lesser angels were. It suggests a certain pathos to David v. Goliath anyway. As I'm sure Satan is our foremost scholar of biblical prophesy, it's possibly a central paradox that being rebellious & desiring to prevail, he'll want to do other than what the text suggests will lead to his ruin; but ends up doing it anyway. I somehow always feel that way when writing shopping lists.

Response #7:   

I know what you mean about the shopping lists. By the way, total reversal of behavior to what the true reality of the situation demands is of course not unique to the devil, but is endemic in the world of human beings as well. We all know we are going to die, going to stand before God, and going to have nothing to say for the evil we have done – unless we are able to stand on the work of Jesus instead of on our own works. Yet most of humanity from the very start to the very end has lived and continues to live as if these weighty realities were not true. As I often observe, most people live as if they will live forever, even though they know full well that this is not the case. Here are some links that address the issue, at least as far as Satan is concerned:

Is the devil "mad" to oppose God?

Didn't the devil know he couldn't defeat God?

The Cross, Sin, and the Devil in God's Plan.

Free-Will Faith and the Will of God

Thanks for your e-mail and interesting observations!

In our dear Lord Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #8:

Hi Again Dr,

Hope you are well. Could you please explain to me why in, Daniel 10:13, the Prince of the Kingdom of Persia withstood Gabriel twenty one days, that even Michael had to come and help. Was the prince (Cyrus) dealing with a spiritual warfare? was he possessed of a demon? and was this related to him because he was allowing the Jews to build the temple. Or is it related to Daniels vision that he was mourning about for twenty one days?

Also in Daniel 10:20 Gabriel has to go back to fight with the Prince of Persia. (although the prince withstood him in verse 13) when it says 'with' does this mean Gabriel is fighting against the Prince or with him supporting him, because then it mentions that the Prince of Greece will come. So is Gabriel going to fight this Greek Prince with the Prince of Persia, or fight him after fighting with the Persian Prince, or are the Princes just going to fight each other. And does this relate to Daniels vision. Or is there a completely different interpretation to both verses ? Help.

Could you please tell me if the Greek leader was Phillip II or Alexander the Great or another.

I really look forward to hearing the correct interpretation of these verses

Thank you and God Bless

Response #8:   

Very good to hear from you again. Most conservative scholars (myself included) believe that the sar (often translated "prince") in that passage is not a human being but rather an angelic being, specifically, one of Satan's hierarchy. The devil apparently has always had his own "ambassadors" to all human kingly courts. Politics appears to be his specialty (what a surprise!). The unseen "fighting" these passages represent goes on around us all the time, and will continue to do so until the devil and his angels are incarcerated when our Lord returns. I have written about all these sorts of issues in some detail, and invite your attention to the following links:

Bible Basics part 2A: Angelology: the Study of Angels

The Organization of the Fallen Angels (in part 4 of the SR series)

Please do not hesitate to write me back about any of this.

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #9:

Hello Dr Lunginbill,

Thank you for your reply. I did wonder if the referred to prince was a fallen angel working on the devils behalf; as a mere human is not going to withstand Gabriel. But then I thought that the Prince had an evil spirit in him like I'm sure Hitler must of had to be so evil. But yes it makes a lot of sense that the Prince was indeed one of the devils angels. But what where they fighting about? I have not read your study of angels yet but I will do so as I have read a lot of your series and have enjoyed reading them. I suppose reading the study on angels should have been one of the first things I should of read. Once again thank you for taking the time to write these series for everyone including me and for taking the time to answer my questions.

In Jesus

Response #9:   

You're very welcome. There is much we cannot now know about angelic combat (see the link: in SR 4, "Angelic Combat"), but it seems clear from what scripture tells us that demons do try to impede the actions of believers who are operating in the will of God:

Wherefore we would have come unto you, even I Paul, once and again; but Satan hindered us.
1st Thessalonians 2:18 KJV

No doubt the elect angels keep the demons from preventing godly activity indefinitely. The conflict which rages us around us is therefore significant, but we do not have special divine insight into these operations as Daniel and Paul were given, so we can only speculate about them in our own circumstances. I am sure that if we could see more than we do, it would, for the vast majority of us, prove more of a disadvantage than a help. We can, however, be confident that, being on God's side, we have nothing to fear from evil, seen or unseen, no matter what our fleshly eyes may tell us.

For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 8:38-39 NIV

In our dear Lord Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #10:

Dr Luginbill,

I have read your work for quite a while and I have the greatest admiration for you. So I couldn’t think of anywhere else to ask this question in hopes of getting some insight.

And to be fair, I think this question might spin itself into two parts… so bear with me.

If I understand correctly, Lucifer, before his fall, was a guardian to God’s Throne (or if I’m wrong about this role for Lucifer, then we can reference other angels whose role was a guardian of Gods Throne). So if Lucifer was a guardian, or there were guardians at the time Lucifer resided in Heaven, I am to assume this is before "Sin". My point is that God has guardians of his Throne before Lucifer’s "sin" and rebellion…. During the time when Lucifer was still "a good guy"… if I may be so simple. If this is the case, then what exactly could Lucifer or the other Cherubs be guarding Gods throne from? How could there be any danger at that time?

Certainly I realize that there is a purpose for this position now, but again I can’t help but wonder, and can’t find anything to provide and answer… What did His Throne need protection from before Lucifer rebelled?

I’ve thought that the threat could simply be from other free-willed Angels, but if that were the case… I suspect the guardian angels would have had "suspicion" of their role. And that opens an entire line of thought in itself. However I quickly dismiss that line of thinking because it just does not seem to fit within Gods perfection… or maybe it does.

So again, I come back to the question… Was there another threat? A previous threat? Could God have created another "storey" before ours with similar outcomes of an "Adversary" of another time? Was God part of a previous "story" prior to all of creation (it including angelic kind) as we know?

Thank you for your time, I look forward to the hopes of your insight.


Response #10:   

Very good to make your acquaintance. It's an interesting question. First, I would have to say that God has never needed any sort of protection. He exists independent of the universe which He created and governs – and has planned every single aspect of creature history from the end to the beginning (to the last swerve of the last quark in the last galaxy at the end of the universe the nanosecond before eternity begins). It would be impossible for Him to be negatively affected by His own creation in any way even if He could be negatively affected in any way (which by definition of His divinity He cannot be). That is one reason why Satan's rebellion is so astounding. I have had a number of emails in the past remarking on or asking about the "insanity" of the devil in picking a fight with God. From the divine viewpoint, it clearly was "insane", but of course all creatures with free will have the capacity in time to distort the truth in their own thinking, and when truth has been distorted, all conclusions to which a person comes, human being or angel, will necessarily be likewise tainted. About the only thing that can be said in defense of Satan's original strategy is that it depended not upon the ouster of God by main force (for even in the corrupt state of his arrogant thought pattern the devil is well-aware of the impossibility of such a thing), but upon what must have seemed at the time a "clever" attempt to use God's own character against Him (i.e., the erroneous assumption that God could not in righteousness condemn, restore or replace His own creatures).

In my reading of scripture, Satan was the original "guardian cherub" (Ezek.28:16), a position he apparently held alone (but in which he has now been replaced by the college of the four "living beasts", aka "cherubs" or "seraphs" – and their representations of the four ages of human history does show that this history is a response to the devil's revolt; see the link). There was no adversary before the devil's revolt, so I would have to say in answer to your question that the position was symbolic – and significantly so. The importance of God's holiness would have been made crystal clear by this office of "guardian", and that is so even allowing as how 1) there was no threat to guard against, and 2) there is no way that God's holiness could ever be compromised. Indeed, just as the existence of the tree of "knowing good and evil" had no practical positive purpose in the garden of Eden – apart from its message and the test of free will it represented (and of rendering the bodies of all who would partake mortal and their consciences active to the reality of evil; see the link in BB 3A, "the Conscience") – so also the fact of a guardian in the throne room of God made clear the necessity of God's protecting of His holiness whatever His creatures might choose to do, and also the test of free will which choosing to "protect" it or not entailed for Satan. Instead of test of refraining which was failed then turned into a test of accepting God's Substitute (as would be the case for mankind born consecutively), for the angels, the essential desire of their free will was proven by a test of maintaining their allegiance to the One True God . . . or choosing to rebel. In the event, of course, rather than honoring his charge, Satan sought to violate his trust and do the very thing he was charged with preventing. God was not disadvantaged in the least in his doing so, but Satan's true heart was revealed by this very means.

O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable [are] his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and through him, and to him, [are] all things: to whom [be] glory for ever. Amen.
Romans 11:33-36 KJV

Thank you for your excellent question. Please do feel free to write back about any of this.

In our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,

Bob Luginbill

Ichthys Home