Re: [asa] fall of Satan logic questions

From: Jim Armstrong <>
Date: Wed Apr 29 2009 - 18:48:17 EDT
Whoa! Perhaps a fairly traditional explanation, but there's an awful lot of amplification here. And "by no means demonstrated any power over the 'angel'" sorta ignores, "When the man saw that he could not overpower him...". Of course, the language here is "a man", if that provides a momentary refuge. It's not clear to me that the renaming was a negative thing. Overall, it's a bit of a strange story, probably largely because we don't possess the context of the day of its telling or writing.  But if you're satisfied, that's OK.  I'm not trying to change anyone's mind.
Oh, and I remembered too late that it was a hyperextension, not a break. JimA wrote:

Well, the angel who wrestled with Jacob may have been a pre-incarnational appearance of Christ.  Jacob by no means demonstrated any power over the "angel" by wrestling with him.  He could have broken Jacob's neck at any moment had he wanted to.  He proved as much by merely touching Jacob's hip to put it out of socket when the climactic moment finally arrived, when Jacob was finally ready for it.  The angel had condescend to a whole night of wrestling so that Jacob would be wrestling with himself and thus discover who he was, that he was a "heal-snatcher" (as his name means), a person who had defrauded Esau and others and didn't fully trust God. Jacob had been wrestling his whole life with God.  By coming down to physically wrestle with Jacob the "angel" was creating a concrete symbol of Jacob's life to help h! im see it.  At dawn he asked Jacob his name, "heal snatcher" and finally Jacob understood.  The "angel" then pronounced that Jacob has wrestled with God and man "and prevailed," which was a supreme irony because he prevailed only by being defeated, by being humbled at the knowledge of what he had been, and by being renamed.  He was then given the limp, the "angel" requiring no effort more than a touch, which was to be the lifelong reminder of his "defeat" so that he would no longer be a heal-snatcher, but somebody who profoundly trusted 'God.

This story tells us a lot about God's condescension to wrestle with sinful man and redeem us from ourselves, but it doesn't indicate anything about the limitations of angels.


-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Armstrong <>
Sent: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 5:13 pm
Subject: Re: [asa] fall of Satan logic questions

This is one example of a place where I don't think we think too carefully, perhaps because it gets hard real quick. God is omnipotent. There is some sort of conflict with an angel, which should be a rout if God is omnipotent. Yet an angel wrestles with human Jacob and manages to only break a leg. Something seems inconsistent here, so the stories (and our understanding) would appear to be insufficient somewhere as well. Am I the only one that "wrestles" with this?   JimA [Friend of ASA] wrote:
Angels can be "bound", so I have in my head an image more like wrestling than sword-fighting.

-----Original Message-----
From: Dehler, Bernie <>
Cc: ASA <>
Sent: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 3:47 pm
Subject: RE: [asa] fall of Satan logic questions (was: ID/Miracles/Design (Behe vs. Behe))

I was telling my kid (2nd grader) the other day about a war in heaven with good 

vs. bad angels.  Good angels kicked-out the bad ones.  The bad ones, led by 

Satan, wanted to take over.

He had a good question I never thought about- can angels die?

Theology says no- that's why hell was made for them.  Forever tormented.

But here we have a case of war with no death?  What are they doing- just shoving 

each other around? Do they have weapons, but these weapons can't kill another?  

What's a war without death?  Are they cutting off limbs?  If Angels don't have 

limbs (because they are spiritual and not material), are they just being hurt in 

some way, but not completely dying?

What does this have to do with ASA? It is a matter of trying to apply logic to 

faith... does the Christian faith make sense about angel warfare and the fall of 

Satan, using modern day logic?

He asks a lot of interesting questions that somehow adults gloss over (including 

myself).  Maybe we jump too fast to the standard line "I don't know, but one day 

we'll find out in heaven."  Is that line a short-circuit for logic and truthful 



-----Original Message-----

From: Alexanian, Moorad [] 

Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 12:36 PM

To: Dehler, Bernie


Subject: RE: [asa] ID/Miracles/Design (Behe vs. Behe)

Let us not forget the fall of Satan before that of man.


-----Original Message-----

From: [] On Behalf 

Of Dehler, Bernie

Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 3:32 PM


Subject: RE: [asa] ID/Miracles/Design (Behe vs. Behe)

Dick said:

"If  good, functioning, workable "designs" are due to God's handiwork, then

 who or what is responsible for the flaws, defects and failures?  Give

 God all the responsibilty or none of it."

Haminists (followers of Ken Ham and his interpretation) say that God made it all 

good- but man's sin wrecked it.  Before the fall, there were no mosquitos, or 

they probably didn't drink blood back when they were first made, just like the 

first lions, bears, etc. didn't eat other animals either (no animal death before 

the fall, and all people were vegetarians until after the flood).  So God gets 

credit for good; man's sin is the reason for bad (or corruption of the good 



To unsubscribe, send a message to with

"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message. Received on Wed Apr 29 18:48:45 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Apr 29 2009 - 18:48:45 EDT