Satan among the Sons of God in Job

[Vance]

* This one God is a single, eternal being.

I would like to see the Biblical basis for this statement. Can you provide it?

Edited to make sure it is clear that this is a Call For a Reference!!

Edited to add,

I read your link and found it wanting. It is interesting that you claim the use of singular pronouns to indicate one "being", but then the use of singular pronouns doesn't indicate one "person".

I smell DOUBLE STANDARD!

You also neglect to address the use of plural pronouns as applied to this one God as is the case in Genesis.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

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?

You're getting annoying. (Okay, not "getting." You're there.) I have never held that the "gods" in Psalm 82:6 were Israelite priests. And even if I did, I didn't even bring it up. Dan did, and he asserted as fact that Jesus interpreted it that way. Here, I'll review for you. Dan wrote:

Now, clearly this phrase "sons of God" is related to Job 1:6 and 2:1's "sons of God," Gen 6:2's "sons of God," Ps 29:1's "sons of God," Deut 32:8's "sons of God," and, most importantly, Psalm 82's "sons of Elyon." If this is incorrect, please let me know. Given what we know (and what I've tried to explain) about the historical context of this concept of God's offspring, was Jesus' application in John 10 of Psalm 82 correct?

http://www.mormonapo...es-and-job-387/

I replied: "Without conceding everything you claim to have shown with regard to the 'sons of God' in these OT texts, I certainly maintain that Jesus' application in John 10 of Psalm 82 was correct."

Then Dan responded:

Then you've got some explaining to do. Jesus appealed to a Second Temple Period interpretation of "Sons of Elyon" as a reference to Israelite priests. John appealed to a related ideology in John 1:12 with "sons of God." Now, you're saying (accurately, in my opinion) that the OT "sons of God" are not human. Who is right, the Old Testament or the New Testament? If there's some nuance to the question, please explain. As it stands, your reading of Job 38:7 does not square with Christ's reading of Psalm 82.

http://www.mormonapo...87/page__st__20

I hadn't gotten around to answering the above post from Dan (as I explained, I was rather shocked that he stated so plainly that Jesus adopted a false interpretation). Then Dan posted the following to this thread:

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."

http://www.mormonapo...ob/page__st__40

Vance, may I suggest that you quit while you're behind?

[Vance]

You're getting annoying. (Okay, not "getting." You're there.)

LOL!!!

The fact is you (misunderstood ? and) misrepresented what Mak was saying. And you tried to make it look like he was calling Jesus into question. Which he CLEARLY wasn't.

If me pointing that out to you is annoying to you, then feel free to cry about it.

[cdowis]

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.

OK, for the purpose of discussion.

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

Sigh.

Your logic is flawed, based on your premises. You are hobbling together concepts into one syllogism.

May I suggest that you take this to a teacher in logic, and let him give you feedback. It will be very instructive.

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?

But homoousia is an integral part of your argument. Is Christ a child of the Father -- one child among many children, or is he one substance with the Father. Your entire argument is based on this doctrine.

[maklelan]

Dan,

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

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.

And we have even more texts from the Hebrew Bible with no Satan to your zero verses that have an individualized supernatural being named Satan. I'm preparing a thread to address Deut 32:8-9 exclusively.

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.

The texts also don't disassociate him from them. In fact, he is shown to be in their midst each time. The plain reading is that he's one of them. Yours is not the default. Yours is the position that requires substantiation.

You wrote:

I have already offered a brief reply to David.

And your reply contained little in the way of support. You cited Chronicles, and I cited an article that undermines your appeal to Chronicles. My position is also not identical to David's.

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:

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

My apologies. As I hope is clear, I meant Hebrew Bible.

You wrote:

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?

I think this is irrelevant.

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.

I don't assume regarding Psalm 82. The gods there are simply not humans. That's not really debatable in any sense that could be called academic. Elohim does not stand in the midst of humans to judge; nor are human judges members of the council of El; nor would a human judge's death as a human require a striking contrast against his nature as a Son of Elyon. Finally, elohim simply does not mean judges or rulers. It means gods, god, God, divinity, or divine. In short, the text gives absolutely no reason whatsoever to conclude it means the exact opposite of most of what it says.

Regarding John 10:35, Jesus is appealing to contemporary interpretations of the Psalm. Jesus' interpretation is identical to one of the most common rabbinic interpretation. "Those to whom the word of God came" was interpreted either as the priests at Sinai, as judges over Israel, or as Adam and Eve. Jesus appeals most likely to the first. Jesus' statement does not means that "'gods' was applied in Psalm 82 to the group being addressed as 'gods.'" Nowhere is the "word of God" mentioned in Psalm 82, much less as being received by the gods. The "word of God" is an exclusively revelatory term that deals with God's communications to prophets (and, interestingly, not ever to judges). It does not leave the group unspecified at all. In fact, it is intended clearly specify who they are, and the Pharisees were supposed to understand. Given rabbinic Judaism is an outgrowth of Pharisaic Judaism it's not a stretch at all to conclude that Jesus was interpreting (at least for them, if not for himself) the text in the same way the Rabbis did. Lastly, the rhetorical purpose of his citation of Psalm 82 is completely and totally undermined if he is not presenting it as a reference to humans.

On this I recommend Anthony Hanson, "John's Citation of Psalm LXXXII Reconsidered," New Testament Studies 13 (1966-67): 363-67; James S. Ackerman, "The Rabbinic Interpretation of Psalm 82 and the Gospel of John: John 10:34," Harvard Theological Review 59.2 (1966): 186-91; Jerome H. Neyrey, "'I Said: You Are Gods': Psalm 82:6 and John 10," Journal of Biblical Literature 108.4 (1989): 647-63; as well as to the Targumic translation of Psalm 82; Midr. Psalm 82; Exod. Rab. 32:7; Lev. Rab. 4:1; b. Ber. 6a; and 'Abod. Zarah 5a. From Ackerman (188):

Whenever Ps. 82:6-7 is used out of context by the rabbis, as Jesus has done, it always refers to the Israelites' being named gods when they received the Law at Sinai.

Your interpretation is not tenable. You have argued in this thread that the "sons of God" are not humans. In my thread on YHWH and Elohim you recognized that the Hebrew Bible refers to other deites, but that they're not as powerful as Yahweh. You've stated that Psalm 82 does deal with the divine council. Jesus referred to them as humans. It remains to be shown that Jesus is not simply appealing to a common interpretation that is quite distinct from the intent of the original author.

[consiglieri]

I remain hopeful that God loves us even if we don't understand Him completely.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Droopy]

What's to explain?

How Jesus Christ was "begotten" by the Father, and how he is the Firstbegotton.

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

Neh. 9:6:

Thou, even thou, art Lord alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee.

This isn't even relevant to my point...or yours.

Ps. 103:19-22:

19 The Lord hath prepared his throne in the heavens; and his kingdom ruleth over all.

20 Bless the Lord, ye his angels, that excel in strength, that do his commandments, hearkening unto the voice of his word.

21 Bless ye the Lord, all ye his hosts; ye ministers of his, that do his pleasure.

22 Bless the Lord, all his works in all places of his dominion: bless the Lord, O my soul.

Again, this mentions nothing as to the metaphysical or ontological nature of Angels, and provides no particular resolution to the question of "created" as understood in EV Protestantism and post Nicene Christianity generally.

Ps.148:2-5:

2 Praise ye him, all his angels: praise ye him, all his hosts.

3 Praise ye him, sun and moon: praise him, all ye stars of light.

4 Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens.

5 Let them praise the name of the Lord: for he commanded, and they were created.

Yes, but again, what does it mean to "create" Angels? That's the question, not that they would not exist as coherent entities without God's creative activity.

Col. 1:16:

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him

None of this either demonstrates evangelical Protestant claims of divine creation ex nihilo for such beings, or LDS claims of divine familial relationship. None of these verses demonstrate anything other then that God creates. Now, of course, what you have claimed is that God "created" creatures. LDS claim that these are, and the NT is express in its implications regarding, human beings like ourselves who have moved on to a higher spiritual state of existence, and who are related to us by divine lineage. They are men and woman and our brothers and sisters, not "creatures" as defined as beings of a different species than ourselves. We can, of course, play with semantics all day. Any living organism is a 'creature" and all creatures have been "created" in some sense. The question is: what was in the original biblical author's mind when he committed these words to ink and paper?

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?

I await with baited breath some biblical support for this assertion.

[volgadon]

I remain hopeful that God loves us even if we don't understand Him completely.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Amen!

[Droopy]

The texts also don't disassociate him from them. In fact, he is shown to be in their midst each time. The plain reading is that he's one of them. Yours is not the default. Yours is the position that requires substantiation.

As seems to be the case with the vast majority of EV theological arguments regarding LDS doctrines and their alleged inharmoniousness with "orthodox" Christianity.

[USU78]

"Benei Elokim" means something in this context. Either it's g-ds, angels or pre-mortal spirits of human beings (to the extent these three things are not the same thing).

Question: Where in the Tanakh do we find it written that what we call angels are of another order of being than we are?

[Vance]

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?

I too, would like to see a Biblical reference to support this claim.

Especially considering that the Hebrew (OT) and Greek (NT) words that are translated in to "angel" are used to describe John the Baptist.

[Ron Beron]

Quote

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.

While this could make sense in a theological manner it isn't necessarily consistent with the historical or archaeological record. There are clear evidences to show that proto-Israelite religion was based on similar Levantine deities such as Ba'al/El. It was the introduction later of the Moabite belief in their tribal deity, YHWH that supplanted and certainly conflated many of the characteristics of the Ba'al/El.

In Exodus 3:14 "God" introduces himself to Moses with "And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And He said, "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel,

[Rob Bowman]

Droopy,

You said that you wanted me to explain

How Jesus Christ was "begotten" by the Father, and how he is the Firstbegotton.

The title prototokos ("firstborn") as applied to Jesus does not mean that he was the first one begotten. This designation derives primarily from Psalm 89:27, where it is a Messianic title connoting an exalted status as ruler over all other rulers.

You had asserted:

Nowhere does the Bible ever mention "created heavenly beings."

I had cited several texts for you that does mention heavenly beings who were created. Your reply equivocated by asserting that while these texts say the heavenly beings were created, the texts do not say they were created ex nihilo. I know it's fun to play a moving target, but it's not constructive to illuminating discussion.

These texts describe these heavenly beings' origin using words like "created," "made," and "his works." Furthermore, at least one of these describes the heavenly beings' origin as that of fiat creation: "he commanded, and they were created" (Ps. 148:5). These texts are consistent with and supportive of the classic Christian view that God made these entities, and not at all supportive of or consistent with the LDS claim that God the Father "begat" or procreated these beings as his literal offspring. I personally don't even argue that God made these spirits ex nihilo. That would certainly make sense from my perspective, but it isn't essential to my doctrine of creation. What I do maintain is that they were neither eternal beings nor literal spirit sons and daughters of heavenly parents.

I had asserted that angels are not of the same species as human beings. You replied:

I await with baited breath some biblical support for this assertion.

Angels are incorporeal spirits (Heb. 1:7), possessing as part of their nature no bodies of flesh and bones (cf. Luke 24:39). Human beings have such physical bodies.

[Rob Bowman]

Ron,

What is authoritative for Christians is not "proto-Israelite religion," but God's revelation of the truth from which proto-Israelite and Israelite religion all too often strayed. That revelation is preserved for us in authoritative permanent form in the Bible. The historical reconstruction that you cite is one that presupposes a "minimalist" approach to biblical archaeology in which the text is always suspect and the archaeological evidence as interpreted by modern liberal and skeptical scholars is always given priority over the text. I don't accept this methodology.

While this could make sense in a theological manner it isn't necessarily consistent with the historical or archaeological record. There are clear evidences to show that proto-Israelite religion was based on similar Levantine deities such as Ba'al/El. It was the introduction later of the Moabite belief in their tribal deity, YHWH that supplanted and certainly conflated many of the characteristics of the Ba'al/El.

In Exodus 3:14 "God" introduces himself to Moses with "And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And He said, "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel,

[Ron Beron]

Ron,

What is authoritative for Christians is not "proto-Israelite religion," but God's revelation of the truth from which proto-Israelite and Israelite religion all too often strayed. That revelation is preserved for us in authoritative permanent form in the Bible. The historical reconstruction that you cite is one that presupposes a "minimalist" approach to biblical archaeology in which the text is always suspect and the archaeological evidence as interpreted by modern liberal and skeptical scholars is always given priority over the text. I don't accept this methodology.

Well, that certainly speaks volumes about you, Rob. Disagreement and the ignoring of modern minimalist scholarship is certainly your prerogative, but it isn't honest nor does it further the debate in exorcising the scholars views. The text is always suspect because of the human and historical frailties behind it. Your unstated paradigm here is that the Bible, in toto, is always correct. That is distinctly impossible to maintain given the level of scholarship today. Certainly, there is a great deal of speculation that accompanies this, but for the most part the research is solid. Secondly, when one objects on solid scientific lines such as archeology then you reject their findings only to claim authority when science agrees with your own beliefs. Which is it? Do your reject all critical scholarship or only when it objects to your seated understandings?

[Droopy]

What is authoritative for Christians is not "proto-Israelite religion," but God's revelation of the truth from which proto-Israelite and Israelite religion all too often strayed. That revelation is preserved for us in authoritative permanent form in the Bible. The historical reconstruction that you cite is one that presupposes a "minimalist" approach to biblical archaeology in which the text is always suspect and the archaeological evidence as interpreted by modern liberal and skeptical scholars is always given priority over the text. I don't accept this methodology.

The question we always at the end of the day return to here is ultimately, with regard to the text I have bolded above, how do you know this?

[Vance]

Ron,

If you don't mind, may I make a minor correction?

Your unstated paradigm here is that YOUR INTERPRETATION OF the Bible, in toto, is always correct.

I think that is a more accurate reflection of his views.

[cdowis]

"he commanded, and they were created" (Ps. 148:5).

Rob,

This where our discussion on theologians vs living prophets comes into play. The book of Psalms is poetry, using poetic devices, and you take a few words from this book of poetry and interpret it using human wisdom.

And that is the difference between Saul the Pharasee and Paul the prophet.

[David Bokovoy]

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:

Just as there are many "sons of God," but only one "The Son of God;" there are also many "accusers," but only one "The Accuser," who is called the devil and Satan.

The linguistic/textual link that you are attempting to make between references to ha-satan in Job and the

[maklelan]

Ron,

What is authoritative for Christians is not "proto-Israelite religion," but God's revelation of the truth from which proto-Israelite and Israelite religion all too often strayed. That revelation is preserved for us in authoritative permanent form in the Bible. The historical reconstruction that you cite is one that presupposes a "minimalist" approach to biblical archaeology in which the text is always suspect and the archaeological evidence as interpreted by modern liberal and skeptical scholars is always given priority over the text. I don't accept this methodology.

I'm afraid this is mistaken. The reconstruction that he cited is common to both the minimalist and maximalist positions. The primary area of contention between the two camps is the existence and dating of a united monarchy, the ethnogenesis of Israel, and the dating of the composition of the biblical texts. Maximalists recognize that Israel was monolatrous just like the minimalists. They recognize that there were multiple Israelite temples, that they had images of YHWH in them, and that much of the Bible was written for propagandist purposes. Bill Dever, for instance, is one of the most vehement opponents of the minimalist position. He wrote Did God Have a Wife? He answers in the affirmative. Richard Hess is an Evangelical from Denver Seminary who recently wrote a book called Israelite Religions in which he states (13),

It is, in fact, no longer possible to accept a simple division between those who worshiped Yahweh as a single and unique deity, on the one hand, and those who served Baal and a pantheon of deities, on the other. Yahweh has now become a member of the pantheon of Iron Age Palestine.

On page 288:

Thus Yahweh had a consort. At least one or two writers of this graffiti (from Samaria) had a view of their god that allowed for other deities, a perspective reflected as well in the prophets.

This article was written by a professor of mine here at Oxford who is also a pastor and a staunch maximalist.

The position you advocate is not representative of the minimalist or the maximalist positions within scholarship. It's much more representative of the fundamentalist position.

[David Bokovoy]

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."

For the record, I agree with everything that Dan has written concerning this topic throughout this entire thread. I also accept his position that the ha-satan figure represents a "transition," to quote his word, towards an adversary to God and that it is clear from a historical perspective that this figure influenced later views regarding the Devil. Suffice it to say that Dan's views on the council and texts such as Deuteronomy 32 parallel my own conclusions and research.

[David Bokovoy]

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).

When one studies council texts from the world of the Bible, it becomes clear that "disagreement" and "discussion" of various proposals by the deities represents a central element in such accounts.

After Jehovah allows the Adversary to take away his blessings, Jehovah tells the Adversary that he had incited him against Job unjustly (2:3).

This in no way presents a challenge to my interpretation. Consider the frustration expressed by YHWH against the council deities in Psalm 82.

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.

The fact that the adversary wants to effectively fulfill his assignment and that YHWH places a limit upon how severe the trials may be, in no way indicates that the adversary's 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!).

Not when the text is interpreted in context.

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).

Thank you for sharing your book. Suffice it to say that my research into the Hebrew Bible leads me to reject your interpretation.

[David Bokovoy]

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

[maklelan]

For the record, I agree with everything that Dan has written concerning this topic throughout this entire thread. I also accept his position that the ha-satan figure represents a "transition," to quote his word, towards an adversary to God and that it is clear from a historical perspective that this figure influenced later views regarding the Devil. Suffice it to say that Dan's views on the council and texts such as Deuteronomy 32 parallel my own conclusions and research.

Thanks for the kind words, Dave, but I'm still going to root for the Broncos.

[zerinus]

The linguistic/textual link that you are attempting to make between references to ha-satan in Job and the