Satan among the Sons of God in Job

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

You wrote:

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.

First, I don't know what relevance Deuteronomy 32:8-9 has with regard to Satan, since it doesn't mention him.

Second, Satan is mentioned in two other books of the OT besides Job.

Third, I am happy to use Job as a point of departure with regard to Satan. See my recent reply to David.

Fourth, my Bible includes the New Testament, which mentions Satan (or the Devil) some 75 times in 20 of its 27 books. (There are 36 references to "Satan" in 12 of the NT books.) So how would I be "left without a Satan" even if I didn't have Job (let alone Deuteronomy 32:8-9)?

[USU78]

USU: 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.

Take us through the scriptural support for Moses seeing all three when he saw and spoke with G-d.

Take us through the scriptural support for Jacob wrestling with all three when he wrestled and spoke with G-d.

[Rob Bowman]

USU78,

I don't maintain that Moses saw three separate beings, or that Jacob wrestled with three separate beings. I maintain that God is one infinite divine Being. My view is that whenever a human being saw or interacted with a visible manifestation of God in human form in the Old Testament, that theophany was specifically the preincarnate Son (not separate from the Father and Holy Spirit, but operating toward creation in a distinct way).

Take us through the scriptural support for Moses seeing all three when he saw and spoke with G-d.

Take us through the scriptural support for Jacob wrestling with all three when he wrestled and spoke with G-d.

[cdowis]

... that theophany was specifically the preincarnate Son (not separate from the Father and Holy Spirit, but operating toward creation in a distinct way).

It appears that you are using one of those "outside sources" -- perhaps a textbook in theology.

As I said, that homoousia thing is really difficult to defend.

[Rob Bowman]

Charles,

You wrote:

It appears that you are using one of those "outside sources" -- perhaps a textbook in theology.

As I said, that homoousia thing is really difficult to defend.

Naw. The NT contains several references to Christ as the one who had appeared in the OT as God. No outside source required.

[maklelan]

Dan,

You wrote:

First, I don't know what relevance Deuteronomy 32:8-9 has with regard to Satan, since it doesn't mention him.

It establishes that YHWH is one of the Sons of God, as is Satan, according to Job.

Second, Satan is mentioned in two other books of the OT besides Job.

The word Satan is used, but as David has already pointed out, an individualized supernatural being with the name "Satan" who opposes God is not found in the Hebrew Bible. The word "adversary" is the best way to read the vast majority of the occurrences of the word, and as Dave and I have been discussing, ????, with the definite article, seems to refer to a station within God's divine council. I see it as a transition toward the adversary to God (although not quite there), and David sees it as an adversary to humanity operating on behalf of God. Again, Satan, as you are presenting him, is not found in the Hebrew Bible. A good recent article on this is a JBL article (128.1 [2009]: 91-106) by Ryan Stokes called "The Devil Made David Do It . . . Or Did He? The Nature, Identity, and Literary Origins of the Satan in 1 Chronicles 21:1."

Third, I am happy to use Job as a point of departure with regard to Satan. See my recent reply to David.

Fourth, my Bible includes the New Testament, which mentions Satan (or the Devil) some 75 times in 20 of its 27 books. (There are 36 references to "Satan" in 12 of the NT books.) So how would I be "left without a Satan" even if I didn't have Job (let alone Deuteronomy 32:8-9)?

The New Testament is not the Hebrew Bible, and it never will be. The ideologies of the New Testament are far removed from those of the Hebrew Bible, thus my concern, which remains unanswered, regarding Jesus' use of Psalm 82 in light of what we know about the Sons of God in the Hebrew Bible. I still contend that Jesus' use of ??? ????? as a reference to Israelite priests is mistaken, and you've not yet engaged my concerns.

[Droopy]

Let me put it this way. YHWH laid the foundations of the earth; he created all of the environmental conditions for life; he made the living things that populate the earth; and he rules over nature and all living things. YHWH is distinct from the "sons of God," who gather before him, and who shout for joy at his handiwork. 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.)

An obvious logical fallacy is in play here in the claim that because YHWH is a God, and rules over the "sons" of God, that that a sibling/family relation is therefore excluded. No such implication exits in the Job text. All the text tells us is that YHWH is God and that there are a number of other subordinate beings to whom he is related as to authority and power. The text tells us nothing further regarding their relationship beyond this relation of authority. At the very least, the fact that Job mentions "sons of God" would, to any unprejudiced mind, indicate a familial relation among these beings, which would logically imply sibling relationships among the group.

I see no way to exclude the concept of "sibling" while including and accepting the concept "son" or "daughter". Bowman, however, is defending, not an ancient Israelite conception of God, but a fundamentally Hellenistic conception unknown to either the writer of Job or the Christians of the NT era.

The total picture that we get in the book of Job is consistent with and supportive of the orthodox worldview. There is one God, YHWH, to whom all creatures, even the most wondrous heavenly beings, are subordinate. This one God is given sole credit as the creator of the world. He rules over nature and all creatures in a transcendent sovereignty,

What does this mean?

so that ultimately all that takes place in creation does so under his providential rule but not in any way morally to blame for the evil acts of creatures. 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.

I would like Mr. Bowman to support the contention that either class of "spiritual beings" or humans are anywhere in the OT or NT conceived of as "creatures", fundamentally of a different species than God. The very fact that Rob must wrestle within the very same paragraph with Job's use of "sons of God" for his "creatures" is indicative of the task he has set for himself here.

[Droopy]

Charles,

Likewise, thank you for sharing your personal opinion on the subject.

What is obviously missing from Job, of course, is any indication that there is a God superior to YHWH. Such an idea must be imported into the text from outside. As the book stands, YHWH is God, not one of the sons of God invested with power of attorney while God and his wife are apparently on an extended holiday somewhere.

Well, there is, as all events, a great deal missing from the OT corpus as originally in circulation over a number of centuries, as the existence of a substantial library of sacred religious texts from the OT period attests, not the least of which are the Qumran scrolls, the "non-canonical" Enoch, Abraham, and Moses literature, among many others.

Once Josiah and the Deuteronomist redactors finished their apparently severe editing and amending of the scriptures and sundry religious writings that formed the core traditions of ancient, pre-exhilic Israelite religion, there is little wonder that a large number of "plain and precious" ideas and teachings bit the dust long before the compiling of the texts that became the foundation for our present OT.

[Droopy]

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.

What Mr. Bowman is claiming here is, at the very least, the following;

God the Father is Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is God the Father. God the Father and Jesus Christ are the Holy Spirit, and vice versa.

This means that whenever Jesus, while in mortality, prayed to his Father, he was praying and speaking to himself, and did so even in private. When Jesus was baptized and a voice came from Heaven saying " This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased", this voice was the voice of Jesus Christ, speaking and functioning as God the Father, speaking to himself as God the Father (as God the Father is Jesus Christ) and to himself as Jesus (as Jesus is God the Father), from a remote location. Jesus prays to himself as if he himself were in another location removed from the earth, and "The Father", who is actually Jesus Christ, speaks from Heaven and announces that he is pleased with himself.

Since Jesus is the Father, Jesus sent himself to die for the sins of the world, which is to say the Father sent himself to die for the sins of the world and in the process of his messianic mission, promised that the Holy Ghost (himself) would be given after his death and resurrection and always be with the Saints. This is to say that Jesus (the Father and the Holy Ghost) would leave his disciples, but a Comforter(himself, the Father, and the Holy Ghost) would be sent to be with the Saints after he (Jesus, but also the Father and the Holy Ghost, who, since the Holy Ghost is Jesus and the Father, didn't have to be sent, as he was among the NT saints from the very beginning in the very person of Jesus) was crucified and ascended to his Father (himself and the Holy Ghost).

Jesus said "the Father sent me" to do this or that, which ontologically means that The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost sent itself (the traditional triune metaphysical entity) to earth to perform these specific tasks. This entity speaks, acts, and relates to itself and to others as if it itself were three separate and distinct beings, and makes clear, in a number of statements and object lessons, both its anthropomorphic and material nature.

In all these cases, however, "it" is actually acting, speaking, and relating to itself as an ontological whole in the guise of various "persons" or aspects of itself that it projects into bodies (such as that of Jesus) or manifests as voices or direct visionary experiences (Stephan's vision of Jesus standing on the right hand of himself,etc. (which also implies the Father standing on the right hand of himself, the Father standing on the right hand of Jesus, Jesus standing on the right hand of the Holy Ghost, the Holy Ghost standing of the right hand of himself, the Father, and Jesus, etc.)) that appear to be distinct from the ontological whole.

All of this might certainly be gist for various strains of Hindu religion and mythology, but I'm not at all sure of its hamoniousness with NT teachings as they are (and were) written and articulated.

That Rob, or anyone else, can actually claim to find this idea in the Bible is a testament, if anything, to the sheer will they bring to that project.

[USU78]

I don't maintain that Moses saw three separate beings, or that Jacob wrestled with three separate beings. I maintain that God is one infinite divine Being. My view is that whenever a human being saw or interacted with a visible manifestation of God in human form in the Old Testament, that theophany was specifically the preincarnate Son (not separate from the Father and Holy Spirit, but operating toward creation in a distinct way).

Waaaaal . . . that's as good a definition of the modalist heresy as I've seen in a while.

What part of "non est Pater" don't we seem to be understanding here?

[Rob Bowman]

USU78,

You wrote:

Waaaaal . . . that's as good a definition of the modalist heresy as I've seen in a while.

What part of "non est Pater" don't we seem to be understanding here?

Let's see. You are an anonymous Mormon, a member of a religion whose members (correct me if I'm wrong here!) bristle whenever an evangelical dares to state his understanding of the LDS Church's doctrine. I am an evangelical Christian scholar with a Master's degree from an accredited seminary in biblical studies and theology who has written a book on the Trinity, two books on Christology (one of which has been praised by numerous biblical scholars and theologians), peer-reviewed articles also on the Trinity and Christology, and debated popular anti-Trinitarians on the subjects of the Trinity and Christology before large audiences. And you are trying to tell me that my view of the Trinity is "modalist"?

Hah!

[Rob Bowman]

Brade,

Thanks for your response. Yep, I think you've got it. I have additional posts in this and another thread on Job 38:7 that elaborate on the subject.

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.

[Droopy]

USU78,

You wrote:

Let's see. You are an anonymous Mormon, a member of a religion whose members (correct me if I'm wrong here!) bristle whenever an evangelical dares to state his understanding of the LDS Church's doctrine. I am an evangelical Christian scholar with a Master's degree from an accredited seminary in biblical studies and theology who has written a book on the Trinity, two books on Christology (one of which has been praised by numerous biblical scholars and theologians), peer-reviewed articles also on the Trinity and Christology, and debated popular anti-Trinitarians on the subjects of the Trinity and Christology before large audiences. And you are trying to tell me that my view of the Trinity is "modalist"?

Hah!

Let's see. Modalism claims that God manifests himself in three forms or modes, Father, Son and Holy Ghost. The "orthodox" trinitarian view is that God is a single, unitary entity that exists eternally as three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. This unitary entity (the triune God), then manifests itself as these three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost depending upon the fucntion each performs in its relationship with the earth and its "creatures".

Yes, that's correct. The modalist vs. trainitarian argument is primarily an 800 pound distinction with very little difference; a classic neo-Platonic Christological tour de force of philosophical hair splitting that is, in any case, utterly irrelevant to anything actually found in the Bible.

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

You wrote, with regard to Deuteronomy 32:8-9:

It establishes that YHWH is one of the Sons of God, as is Satan, according to Job.

Slow down there, fella. Your interpretation of Deuteronomy 32:8-9 is that it represents a kind of fossilized remains of the idea that YHWH was one of the "sons of God." This one text does not "establish" this idea as theological truth. As you have admitted, I have a thousand texts (in "the Hebrew Bible") that say otherwise to your one.

Furthermore, the book of Job does not actually identify Satan as one of the sons of God. I would argue that the wording of Job 1:6 and 2:1 distinguishes Satan from the sons of God. Even if you don't buy that, the texts certainly don't identify Satan as one of the sons of God.

You wrote:

The word Satan is used, but as David has already pointed out, an individualized supernatural being with the name "Satan" who opposes God is not found in the Hebrew Bible.

I have already offered a brief reply to David.

You had said that without Job I had nothing in "the Bible" on which to base a concept of Satan. I pointed out that Satan is mentioned frequently in the New Testament, which of course is part of the Bible. You replied:

The New Testament is not the Hebrew Bible, and it never will be.

You're equivocating. Previously, you said simply "the Bible," not "the Hebrew Bible."

You wrote:

The ideologies of the New Testament are far removed from those of the Hebrew Bible, thus my concern, which remains unanswered, regarding Jesus' use of Psalm 82 in light of what we know about the Sons of God in the Hebrew Bible. I still contend that Jesus' use of ??? ????? as a reference to Israelite priests is mistaken, and you've not yet engaged my concerns.

I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone. A Mormon is actually writing that Jesus' interpretation of the Hebrew Bible "is mistaken." I've been slow to respond because I keep rubbing my eyes in disbelief. You realize what fun I could have with your statement if I was only interested in fodder for propaganda. Oddly, none of the other Mormons here seems to be bothered by your statement. What's up with that?

It is plausible enough to interpret John 10:34-36 to mean that Jesus understood the term "gods" in Psalm 82:6 to refer to Israelites, perhaps even Israelite priests. On the other hand, the referent of "gods" is not specified in John 10:35; the text reports Jesus saying, "those to whom the word of God came." That expression simply means that the term "gods" was applied in Psalm 82 to the group being addressed as "gods"; in other words, it leaves the identity of the group unspecified. So it is quite a fallacious jump to reason that Jesus was mistaken, even assuming, as you do, that the "gods" in Psalm 82 represent heavenly beings rather than human beings.

[Droopy]

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).

You might want then, to explain Hebrews 1:6.

Nowhere does the Bible ever mention "created heavenly beings" This is medieval Christian superstition and Hellenistic philosophical fodder, not NT or OT doctrine. Angels are messengers, and they always appear in the form of human beings of the same species as ourselves, as in Acts 1:10, for example.

Mr. Bowman"s primary problem is that, whatever he may think of Mormonism, probably 90% of what he believes regarding what the Bible actually says is itself unbiblical, and cannot, in point of fact, be found within that text. This leads, of course, to Mormonism appearing to be itself unbiblical, from the point of view of one who has spent the bulk of his life steeping in modern interpretations of neo-Platonic metaphysics and the heady world of evangelical Protestant polemics, which itself, as a derivative of Catholicism, is an heir to that religions doctrinal patrimony.

[Vance]

A Mormon is actually writing that Jesus' interpretation of the Hebrew Bible "is mistaken."

Wow!!!

How did you ever come up with that?

Certainly, either you didn't read his statement carefully or you are being disingenuous.

"I still contend that Jesus' use of ??? ????? as a reference to Israelite priests is mistaken", is not a statement questioning Jesus' interpretation but YOUR interpretation (that Jesus was referring to "Israelite priests").

[Vance]

Mr. Bowman"s primary problem is that, whatever he may think of Mormonism, probably 90% of what he believes regarding what the Bible actually says is itself unbiblical, and cannot, in point of fact, be found within that text. This leads, of course, to Mormonism appearing to be itself unbiblical, from the point of view of one who has spent the bulk of his life steeping in modern interpretations of neo-Platonic metaphysics and the heady world of evangelical Protestant polemics, which itself, as a derivative of Catholicism, is an heir to that religions doctrinal patrimony.

Very well put.

[Droopy]

You had said that without Job I had nothing in "the Bible" on which to base a concept of Satan. I pointed out that Satan is mentioned frequently in the New Testament, which of course is part of the Bible.

The Bible is not a book, but a collection of books that were written over many centuries by disparate individuals in disparate circumstances. The fact that we have the present sixty six books in coherent form is a wonder, as, had it been left up to many of the early Christian doctors, given the early canon lists that have survived, probably a third of the present NT never would have made it past the Third Century.

Pointing out that Satan appears in the NT has little bearing upon the question of his general absence, in that form, from the OT record. The restored Gospel explains this nicely, as Moses restored an already ancient gospel that had been lost, and the gospel, in any dispensation, is restored line upon line, principle upon principle, here a little and there a little.

Satan was certainly known to OT prophets and peoples, but there is no reason to think that the fragment of the entire OT corpus we actually have and know as the OT need have retained that particular aspect of gospel teaching in substantial form. Heaven knows the OT was divested of much of its content (celestial ascent narratives, much of its apocalyptic tradition, the Grand Council, Heavenly Mother and the Great Angel, God's anthropomorphic nature etc.) before it took its present form.

[consiglieri]

As is well known, translating the term ha-satan in Job 2 as "Satan" is grammatically incorrect. The Hebrew particle ha- functions as the definite article, which cannot precede a proper noun.

Strangely, the Book of Moses seems to follow that usage . . .

Moses 4:1 And I, the Lord God, spake unto Moses, saying: That Satan, whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same which was from the beginning, and he came before me, saying

[USU78]

Let's see. You are an anonymous Mormon, a member of a religion whose members (correct me if I'm wrong here!) bristle whenever an evangelical dares to state his understanding of the LDS Church's doctrine. I am an evangelical Christian scholar with a Master's degree from an accredited seminary in biblical studies and theology who has written a book on the Trinity, two books on Christology (one of which has been praised by numerous biblical scholars and theologians), peer-reviewed articles also on the Trinity and Christology, and debated popular anti-Trinitarians on the subjects of the Trinity and Christology before large audiences. And you are trying to tell me that my view of the Trinity is "modalist"?

Hah!

consiglieri, help me out here. Was that ^ an appeal to authority?

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

Wow!!!

How did you ever come up with that?

Certainly, either you didn't read his statement carefully or you are being disingenuous.

"I still contend that Jesus' use of ??? ????? as a reference to Israelite priests is mistaken", is not a statement questioning Jesus' interpretation but YOUR interpretation (that Jesus was referring to "Israelite priests").

One little bitty problem with your claim, Vance: I never said that Jesus was referring to Israelite priests.

[cdowis]

Naw. The NT contains several references to Christ as the one who had appeared in the OT as God. No outside source required.

Jesus is indeed the I AM of the Old Testament. The Father gave that assignment to the Son, who acted with the complete authority of the Father, as mentioned in Heb. 1:1-2 and elsewhere in the New Testament.

But the "one substance" doctrine is not found in the Bible, and you are using those "outside sources" whenever you refer to that doctrine.

Perhaps you should get back to the BOM and try that parallel argument again. You're not doing so well on this one. You are stuck with that homoousia thing and it has totally collapsed

[Rob Bowman]

Droopy,

You wrote:

You might want then, to explain Hebrews 1:6.

What's to explain?

You wrote:

Nowhere does the Bible ever mention "created heavenly beings" This is medieval Christian superstition and Hellenistic philosophical fodder, not NT or OT doctrine.

Of course the Bible mentions created heavenly beings (Neh. 9:6; Ps. 103:19-22; 148:2-5; Col. 1:16).

You wrote:

Angels are messengers, and they always appear in the form of human beings of the same species as ourselves, as in Acts 1:10, for example.

True, when angels appear to human beings, they typically appear in human form. But they are not, of course, actually human beings, nor are they actually of the same species. You agree with that, don't you?

You wrote:

Mr. Bowman"s primary problem is that, whatever he may think of Mormonism, probably 90% of what he believes regarding what the Bible actually says is itself unbiblical, and cannot, in point of fact, be found within that text. This leads, of course, to Mormonism appearing to be itself unbiblical, from the point of view of one who has spent the bulk of his life steeping in modern interpretations of neo-Platonic metaphysics and the heady world of evangelical Protestant polemics, which itself, as a derivative of Catholicism, is an heir to that religions doctrinal patrimony.

Hey, I'm here, you know. Why not address me directly?

Nice rhetorical, condescending, and unsubstantiated criticism.

[Vance]

One little bitty problem with your claim, Vance: I never said that Jesus was referring to Israelite priests.

No, but it is rather clear that that IS YOUR position. (Why else would you claim Mak was wrong?)

Or, are you going to deny that is your position?

[Rob Bowman]

Charles,

You seem to think that by continually bringing up something I didn't (the term homoousios), you can distract attention from what I actually have said.

The argument for homoousios is actually quite biblical:

* There is one God who created the world and rules over all things.

* This one God is a single, eternal being.

* The Father is this one God.

* The Son is this one God.

* Therefore, the Son is one being (homoousios) with the Father.

For the biblical support, see my online resource, The Biblical Basis of the Doctrine of the Trinity: An Outline Study.

But let's not derail the thread, okay?

Jesus is indeed the I AM of the Old Testament. The Father gave that assignment to the Son, who acted with the complete authority of the Father, as mentioned in Heb. 1:1-2 and elsewhere in the New Testament.

But the "one substance" doctrine is not found in the Bible, and you are using those "outside sources" whenever you refer to that doctrine.

You are stuck with that homoousia thing, and you're just pretending that it will simply go away.