Satan among the Sons of God in Job

[David Bokovoy]

Despite the fact that Satan wreaks havoc in Job's life, the book of Job reports with approval Job piously acknowledging YHWH's (God's) sovereignty in these things (Job 1:21-22; 2:10)... Satan is merely one of those creatures, capable of choosing to cause misfortune, but having no ability to do so beyond what YHWH, his God, permits. God's creatures with the capacity for making choices are divided into two broad categories: spiritual beings (including the "sons of God" and Satan) that act within the spiritual or heavenly realm, and physical beings (humans) that act within the physical or earthly realm.

In reality, the book of Job says nothing at all about

[zerinus]

Does that mean you believe Jesus was not the Son of God?

[maklelan]

In reality, the book of Job says nothing at all about

[David Bokovoy]

This is something I'm still working on, but the only places ??? shows up with the definite article is in Zechariah and Job, both very late books. We know ????? was used as a proper name with the definite article in later books (Chronicles, for instance), which leads me to believe we may be dealing with a transitional phase between the generic "adversary" and the fallen angel opposed to God. I think it's closer to the latter, though, given in Zechariah YHWH is to rebuke ????, and in Job Satan is trying to prove YHWH wrong.

Interesting, Dan. I like your idea about the transitional phase apparent in these late biblical books and I'm confident you're on to something important. I don't see, however, the accuser in Job trying to prove YHWH wrong. I simply see the accuser taking an assertive role in the discussion concerning Job's righteousness. As I see it, this role relates to the over arching position given to the council members to discuss matters with the High God of the assembly and act as jury members and witnesses all throughout the Hebrew Bible.

[USU78]

maklekan: This is something I'm still working on, but the only places ??? shows up with the definite article is in Zechariah and Job, both very late books. We know ????? was used as a proper name with the definite article in later books (Chronicles, for instance), which leads me to believe we may be dealing with a transitional phase between the generic "adversary" and the fallen angel opposed to God. I think it's closer to the latter, though, given in Zechariah YHWH is to rebuke ????, and in Job Satan is trying to prove YHWH wrong.

Interesting, Dan. I like your idea about the transitional phase apparent in these late biblical books and I'm confident you're on to something important. I don't see, however, the accuser in Job trying to prove YHWH wrong. I simply see the accuser taking an assertive role in the discussion concerning Job's righteousness. As I see it, this role relates to the over arching position given to the council members to discuss matters with the High God of the assembly and act as jury members and witnesses all throughout the Hebrew Bible.

"Hast thou considered my servant, Job?" begins G-d, apparently in the middle of a conversation with haSatan. Now, this could be the initial ritual statement by the G-d/King as He begins His judgment proceedings against Job, or it may be, as I believe, an in medias res beginning just as Genesis appears to be.

Structurally, such "beginnings" which are no beginnings at all serve to make the rhetorical point that what looks like a beginning for temporal us, to Eternal G-d, any point you look at as a beginning remains an arbitrary point in G-d's everlasting now.

So . . . is that statement by G-d the functional equivalent of G-d reading the docket?

Or is it, as maklekan and I believe, an ongoing disputing by haSatan of G-d's apparent default position, that Job's a terrific guy.

[zerinus]

In reality, the book of Job says nothing at all about

[Rob Bowman]

nackhadlow,

Hi there. You wrote:

Not to enter this as evidence, or even as part of this particular discussion at all, just wondering: Rob, have you read Margaret Barker's The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God? I'd honestly be very interested in what you thought of what was presented in it.

I have read it, and I have some objections to it, as you might imagine. For example, Barker, like many others, interprets the prologue to the book of Job as representing a different author and perspective than the body of the book. I reject this approach to the book (on literary and hermeneutical grounds, not merely theological or dogmatic grounds). According to Barker, the sons of El or Elohim in the Bible are always spirits while the sons of YHWH are always humans (4, 10). This theory rests on a handful of texts (for both halves of the claim) and doesn't fit Hosea 1:10 (and I didn't find her explanation cogent, 9).

I would also point out that Barker's views don't help LDS theology unless one picks and chooses from her book elements rather arbitrarily. For example, Barker claims that the earlier Israelites had multiple, local Yahwehs, and that the Deuteronomists had conflated them into one Yahweh (50).

These are just a few quick observations; I wish I had more time to offer a thorough response, but I can't at the moment. In general, I am in agreement with Paul Owen's critique in The New Mormon Challenge, despite the criticisms of some LDS writers (e.g., Kevin Christensen and Barry Bickmore in a couple of issues of FARMS Review). Christensen's and Bickmore's main criticism of Owen in those articles seems to be that he did not write a much lengthier, thorough critique of the whole corpus of Barker's writings.

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

Reading the Bible as theologically consistent does not mean taking one or two controversial texts (Deut. 32:8; Ps. 82:1, 6), teasing from them supposedly clear evidence to support a doctrinal conclusion, and then pitting these stray texts against the thousand-plus texts that clearly support the traditional doctrinal position. I laughed, because you made an appeal to the Bible's teaching as a unified whole when you don't believe there is any such thing. Again, if we really take the Bible as a unified whole, we will go with the overwhelming, general theological outlook of the whole and regard the very few possibly contrary texts as anomalous.

If you now agree that the Bible is not univocal then great, I can scratch that argument. I have more. If you still assert that the Bible is univocal, then this is what the Bible teaches. It's up to you which route you'd like to take.

[David Bokovoy]

The "accuser" is the same as Satan:

Revelation 12

:

9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.

11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.

Sorry, Zerinus, but this connection breaks apart both theologically and linguistically. The Greek word translated as "the accuser" in Revelation 12 is the Greek participle kategoreon which derives from the word kategoreo meaning "to accuse." However, as we see from John 5:45, an "accuser" in the heavenly realm need not be Satan/the Devil. According to the logic you impose, Moses must be Satan for Jesus identified him as fulling the role of kategoreon:

"Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth (kategoron) you, even Moses, in whom ye trust" (John 5:45).

The accuser in Job 2 is one of the gods of Yahweh's council and contextually he fulfills a legal role like Moses, rather than kategoreon in Revelation 12.

[David Bokovoy]

"Hast thou considered my servant, Job?" begins G-d, apparently in the middle of a conversation with haSatan. Now, this could be the initial ritual statement by the G-d/King as He begins His judgment proceedings against Job, or it may be, as I believe, an in medias res beginning just as Genesis appears to be.

Structurally, such "beginnings" which are no beginnings at all serve to make the rhetorical point that what looks like a beginning for temporal us, to Eternal G-d, any point you look at as a beginning remains an arbitrary point in G-d's everlasting now.

So . . . is that statement by G-d the functional equivalent of G-d reading the docket?

Or is it, as maklekan and I believe, an ongoing disputing by haSatan of G-d's apparent default position, that Job's a terrific guy.

It's an interesting question you raise USU78. It's important for those who dispute the scholarly consensus on ha-satan to note that in the Hebrew Bible, the noun satan "adversary/accuser" is specifically applied to human adversaries (see 1 Sam 29:4; 2 Sam 19:23; 1 Kings 5:18; 11:14,23, 25).

Note particularly Psalm 109:6 which shows that in a legal context, the satan appears called upon in a judicial process against the Psalmist to prove guilt and bring about a punishment. As I have illustrated, in a heavenly context, Moses will fulfill this same role, as will the prophet Nephi. Hence, interpreting the divine council member hasatan in Job 2 in accordance with the scholarly consensus actually allows Job 2 to work well with LDS theology.

[Rob Bowman]

Ebeddoulos,

First, I want to commend you for an excellent effort on your part.

Basically, your case rests on a single argument, supported by several examples from the text of the book of Job. You expressed your argument in the form of a question:

If

[Ron Beron]

This is something I'm still working on, but the only places ??? shows up with the definite article is in Zechariah and Job, both very late books. We know ????? was used as a proper name with the definite article in later books (Chronicles, for instance), which leads me to believe we may be dealing with a transitional phase between the generic "adversary" and the fallen angel opposed to God. I think it's closer to the latter, though, given in Zechariah YHWH is to rebuke ????, and in Job Satan is trying to prove YHWH wrong.

I think that if you read Jeffrey Burton Russell's five-volume history of the concept of the devil: The Devil (1977), Satan (1981), Lucifer (1984), Mephistopheles (1986) and The Prince of Darkness (1988) you will see that he develops this very same premise. Additionally, I have previously mentioned much of what has been encapsulated here; that satan is rarely used in the OT except as a title and not as a proper name except, as Mak states, a transitional being garnered ostensibly with Zoroastrian influence. As I have posted previously...

There isn

[zerinus]

Sorry, Zerinus, but this connection breaks apart both theologically and linguistically. The Greek word translated as "the accuser" in Revelation 12 is the Greek participle kategoreon which derives from the word kategoreo meaning "to accuse." However, as we see from John 5:45, an "accuser" in the heavenly realm need not be Satan/the Devil. According to the logic you impose, Moses must be Satan for Jesus identified him as fulling the role of kategoreon:

"Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth (kategoron) you, even Moses, in whom ye trust" (John 5:45).

The accuser in Job 2 is one of the gods of Yahweh's council and contextually he fulfills a legal role like Moses, rather than kategoreon in Revelation 12.

There are lots of "accusers". Anybody who accuses someone of something becomes (obviously) an accuser. But there is only one "The Accuser," and that is Satan. The words Satan and devil (in Greek and Hebrew) literally mean "accuser". Here is a dictionary definition:

Devil

[zerinus]

Reading the Bible as theologically consistent does not mean taking one or two controversial texts (Deut. 32:8; Ps. 82:1, 6), teasing from them supposedly clear evidence to support a doctrinal conclusion, and then pitting these stray texts against the thousand-plus texts that clearly support the traditional doctrinal position.

That is actually what you are doing. You are focusing exclusively on the book of Job (on specific verses in fact) and ignoring the rest of the Bible which tends to clarify and modify its meaning.

I laughed, because you made an appeal to the Bible's teaching as a unified whole when you don't believe there is any such thing. Again, if we really take the Bible as a unified whole, we will go with the overwhelming, general theological outlook of the whole and regard the very few possibly contrary texts as anomalous.

Your "laughter" was uncalled for and premature. You are employing double standards. You want to have your cake and eat it. In one sense the Bible is a diversified collection of texts of different kinds (poetic, historical, legal, prophetic, wisdom, hymnal) written at different times; while in another sense all if it is the word of God, therefore it can be taken as a unified text when it comes to the interpretation of Christian doctrine. Are you suggesting that the diversity of material found in the Bible means that it cannot be relied upon to give us a correct interpretation of Christian doctrine?

[maklelan]

Dan,

Reading the Bible as theologically consistent does not mean taking one or two controversial texts (Deut. 32:8; Ps. 82:1, 6), teasing from them supposedly clear evidence to support a doctrinal conclusion, and then pitting these stray texts against the thousand-plus texts that clearly support the traditional doctrinal position. I laughed, because you made an appeal to the Bible's teaching as a unified whole when you don't believe there is any such thing. Again, if we really take the Bible as a unified whole, we will go with the overwhelming, general theological outlook of the whole and regard the very few possibly contrary texts as anomalous.

Satan does not exist in a "general theological outlook" of the Bible. I'm talking about taking Deut 32:8-9 and Job as the point of reference. If you don't want to use them as the point of reference, then you're left without a Satan.

[Rob Bowman]

Consiglieri,

I had written:

Just to avoid any possible misunderstanding: I affirm that Jesus is Jehovah. I simply disagree that Jehovah/Jesus was a different deity than Elohim, or that he was one of the group of beings called "the sons of God."

You replied:

Does that mean you believe Jesus was not the Son of God?

I am getting confused here . . .

No, it does not mean I believe Jesus was not the Son of God. I fully affirm and believe that Jesus is the Son of God. Please notice, I said he was not "one of the group of beings called 'the sons of God.'" Jesus Christ is the "Son of God" in a unique sense, one not applicable to any of the created heavenly beings that the OT calls "sons of God." Whereas the angels (the usual NT term for those heavenly beings) were created spirit servants of God, the Son, who became incarnate as Jesus Christ, was the uncreated, eternal Son who made the universe and who is worshipped by all of the angels (Hebrews 1). In that sense, as Hebrews says, God never referred to any of those angels as his "Son" (see Heb. 1:5).

[Rob Bowman]

Charles,

I had written:

YHWH is the "God" to whom the "sons of God" are related as his "sons." (Thus, the suggestion that YHWH is the "brother" of the sons of God, ruling over his younger siblings, is incorrect.)

You replied:

Heb 1: 1-2 tells us that the Father hath "appointed [Christ] heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds" I assume you are familiar with the concept of power of attorney. If my father gives my power of attorney over his estate, an I have the authority to act in all things in his behalf, even above my brothers and sisters. That power does not come from myself but from the father.

I am familiar with the concept, but it doesn't prove that Christ in heaven had spirit brothers and sisters. Jesus Christ has human brothers and sisters, specifically, those who through faith in him are adopted by God as his children, indwelled with and led by his Spirit, and in the process of becoming conformed to the image of God's one and only divine Son (Romans 8:14-29).

You wrote:

The scriptures tells us about the Council in Heaven where the Father selected Christ above all His other children to carry out His plan.

This idea is in the LDS scriptures, but not in the Bible. That is, whereas the Bible does use the imagery of a heavenly Council, it never teaches this idea that God had a bunch of spirit children, one of whom was selected to be the Savior.

You wrote:

Finally, the prophets and Christ taught that we are joint heirs with Christ, where we can be one with the Father in the same way that Christ and the Father are one.

You're running together a variety of texts to produce a conclusion none of them teach. "We" who are joint heirs with Christ are not all human beings, but only those who have been united to Christ by faith and indwelled by the Spirit (see Romans 8 again). Believers right now, in this mortal life, can exhibit a unity among themselves and with the Father like the incarnate Son's unity with the Father (John 17:21-23). This is not talking about a future deification, since Jesus prays that we may be "one" in this sense now, in this mortal life, so unbelievers will know that the Father sent the Son. Therefore, this is not the same sense in which the Son, as the Shepherd of the sheep, who gives eternal life to his sheep, is "one" with the Father (John 10:27-30). (That's a very, very abbreviated answer with regard to your use of John 17.)

You wrote:

The power that Christ exercises over the earth and the universe is from the authority given to Him from the Father.

I don't dispute this statement, but I disagree with the context in which you place it.

You wrote:

I understand that you disagree with these teachings, as you reject the revelations from the modern prophets. Your understanding of this doctrine is based on the teachings and wisdom of man.

I understand you think so.

[Rob Bowman]

Zerinus,

I wrote:

"Reading the Bible as theologically consistent does not mean taking one or two controversial texts (Deut. 32:8; Ps. 82:1, 6), teasing from them supposedly clear evidence to support a doctrinal conclusion, and then pitting these stray texts against the thousand-plus texts that clearly support the traditional doctrinal position."

You replied:

That is actually what you are doing. You are focusing exclusively on the book of Job (on specific verses in fact) and ignoring the rest of the Bible which tends to clarify and modify its meaning.

I am certainly not ignoring the rest of the Bible. Pick any book of the Bible and try to show me that the book teaches a different doctrine. You won't be able to do it. The doctrine I am defending is taught from Genesis to Revelation.

You wrote:

Your "laughter" was uncalled for and premature. You are employing double standards. You want to have your cake and eat it. In one sense the Bible is a diversified collection of texts of different kinds (poetic, historical, legal, prophetic, wisdom, hymnal) written at different times; while in another sense all if it is the word of God, therefore it can be taken as a unified text when it comes to the interpretation of Christian doctrine. Are you suggesting that the diversity of material found in the Bible means that it cannot be relied upon to give us a correct interpretation of Christian doctrine?

No, I never suggested anything of the sort. I was laughing not because I disputed the possibility of the Bible presenting a unified theology, but because Dan absolutely rejects that possibility while speaking as if he did not. I am the one here who thinks the Bible teaches a consistent theology!

[USU78]

The Son is not the Father, according to the formulation Filius non Pater est.

This was formulated and published following the Master's resurrection.

Was it also true at the Creation?

Was it also true at the time of Abraham?

Was it also true at the time of Moses?

[cdowis]

I am familiar with the concept, but it doesn't prove that Christ in heaven had spirit brothers and sisters.

The primary purpose of my post is to demonstrate that the Son is subservient to the Father. The Nicene doctrine of homoousia places an almost impossible apologetic burden to defend in the context of these New Testamant scriptures.

If you can agree with the New Testament scripturesthat Christ received the authority from the Father, that Christ acted under the authority of the Father, that he placed the will of the Father above his own will, we then can move forward to what this all means relative to other issues. For example, we are joint heirs with the Son, and can become one with the Father, "perfect in one", in the same way that the Father and Son are one.

Think about Christ is teaching here. And you are stuck with the "outside source" of the Council of Nicea to defend the indefensible. We have the foundation of apostles and prophets, you have the creeds and counsels of man.

"We have the Bible."

Read what it teaches, what Christ Himself taught. Believe what the Bible actually teaches.

Saul followed the Bible scholars of his day, the scribes and Pharasees. He became Paul when he began to follow the living prophets and revelation.

[Rob Bowman]

David,

First, your point about the definite article is really irrelevant. I agree that "Satan" is technically a title, not a proper name, but the same is true of "Christ," which in the NT sometimes functions titularly and sometimes nominally. 1 Chronicles 21:1 uses the term Satan without the article, possibly in a nominal sense. It's a bit too easy to dismiss the Chronicler's use as a later one that "should not be confused" with the figure in Job (and Zechariah?).

Second, I disagree with the claim that in the book of Job the Adversary is merely doing his legitimate, assigned job as a prosecuting attorney. The Adversary alleges that Jehovah is mistaken to think that Job serves him out of loyalty (1:9-11). After Jehovah allows the Adversary to take away his blessings, Jehovah tells the Adversary that he had incited him against Job unjustly (2:3). The limits that Jehovah puts both times on what harm the Adversary can bring on Job (1:12; 2:6) implies that the Adversary would have liked to do more harm--that his intention was malicious. Certainly, the fact that the Adversary seeks permission to do harm to one of Jehovah's most reliable servants wrecks your analogy between Satan and the heavenly malak in Genesis 22 and Nephi (not to mention Joseph Smith, an especially ill-advised analogy from the LDS perspective, I would think!). In my discussion of this issue in a book I wrote, I suggested that Satan comes across in Job 1-2, not as the government's prosecuting attorney, but more like a supernatural "ambulance chaser" or opportunistic "trial lawyer" -- someone running around (see 1:7; 2:2) looking for opportunities to get people into trouble (Sense and Nonsense about Angels and Demons, 108-9).

In reality, the book of Job says nothing at all about

[Rob Bowman]

USU78,

Yes, yes, and yes.

The Son is not the Father, according to the formulation Filius non Pater est.

This was formulated and published following the Master's resurrection.

Was it also true at the Creation?

Was it also true at the time of Abraham?

Was it also true at the time of Moses?

[USU78]

USU: The Son is not the Father, according to the formulation Filius non Pater est.

This was formulated and published following the Master's resurrection.

Was it also true at the Creation?

Was it also true at the time of Abraham?

Was it also true at the time of Moses?

Yes, yes, and yes.

If the Son is not the Father, and this was true from at least as early as the Genesis depiction of the Creation and at every point in time since then,

what was the Son up to all that time?

[Brade]

Brade,

Your analysis assumes that I am presenting a simple syllogistic argument, which is not the case. My interpretation is based on an inductive study of the entire book of Job, drawing together all that it says into a coherent picture.

Fair enough. I was lazily just going by the OP which makes it sound as though you are trying to present an argument of the sort I offered on your behalf. So, to make sure I have it right, you're merely claiming that the burden of textual evidence paints a certain picture of YHWH's relationships to various beings (us, Satan, etc.). If that's your claim, I'm happy to assent to that.

[Rob Bowman]

USU78,

You asked:

If the Son is not the Father, and this was true from at least as early as the Genesis depiction of the Creation and at every point in time since then,

what was the Son up to all that time?

He was doing everything that God was doing, because the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God. This included creating and sovereignly ruling over the world; revealing himself to Adam, Noah, the patriarchs, Moses and Israel, the judges and the prophets; performing the wonders of the Exodus and Conquest--again, everything that the Father did with respect to creation, the Son did, because the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God.