Satan among the Sons of God in Job

[David Bokovoy]

I think you are beating a dead horse with that one. I am not trying to "link" anything with anything. I am merely recognizing what is already recognized in Christian theology, which is the role of Satan as the "accuser," which is what his name in both Hebrew and Greek actually means. Satan's role as the "accuser" is set in contrast to Jesus' role as the "Advocate". The role of an advocate is exactly the opposite of the role of an accuser. In modern legal terms you can liken it to the "prosecutor" and the "defense counsel". Satan tempts mankind to sin, and when they sin, they become subject to him, and members of his kingdom. Jesus on the other hand atones for our sins, and when we believe and repent, He reclaims us from Satan and makes us members of His kingdom. On judgement-day Satan stands before God and accuses us of sin. If we have not believed in God and repented, then his accusation stands, and he claims us as members of his kingdom. Jesus cannot act as Advocate to rescue us from him. If on the other hand we have believed and repented, then Jesus plays His Advocacy role, pleads our cause before God, and rescues us from Satan and saves us in His kingdom. Satan's accusatory role is well portrayed in the book of Job. He is basically accusing Job of being a sinner. Jesus' advocacy role is beautifully portrayed in the Doctrine and Covenants as follows:

D&C 45

:

3 Listen to him who is the advocate with the Father, who is pleading your cause before him

[zerinus]

Moses, Nephi, the original twelve apostles, and Joseph Smith are all identified as "accusers" in the divine council,...

I don't understand that. I don't know what you mean by that.

[Ron Beron]

Ron,

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

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

Thank you for the correction. As one who lives and dies on correction I appreciate it.

Thanks to David also for the props.

[ebeddoulos]

The Bible never offers an explanation for this linguistic pattern. The simplest way of explaining it may be that this is a feature of divine speech, in which the deity refers to himself in the third person. There may be a more subtle or complex explanation. I

[cdowis]

Rob explains

The Bible never offers an explanation for this linguistic pattern. The simplest way of explaining it may be that this is a feature of divine speech, in which the deity refers to himself in the third person.

Perhaps you can give us one of your simplified explanation ==>> "Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done."

It's that homoousia thing again, but I'm confident that you have the skills of sophistry to get yourself out of this jam. I'm just curious to watch and see how you do it. I have several others that need your skills.

[Vance]

Angels are incorporeal spirits (Heb. 1:7), possessing as part of their nature no bodies of flesh and bones

Not necessarily,

Heb 1:7 And of the (Gr. aggelous meaning messengers) angels he saith, Who maketh his (Gr. aggelous) angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.

In the following verses the same basic Greek word is used to describe embodied messengers (angels).

Luke 7: 24

[David Bokovoy]

I don't understand that. I don't know what you mean by that.

I realize that this proposal may initially seem shocking for readers unfamiliar with the role of the divine council in biblical and Near Eastern literature. But this view really is the only way to make sense of the text. Moreover, when one recognizes how the ha-Satan figure in Job ties in with both Old Testament theology and modern revelation, the account in Job actually makes sense and appears much less problematic for most Latter-day Saint readers.

First, it

[Rob Bowman]

Ron,

You wrote:

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?

I don't know everyone here yet, so I need to ask you: Are you LDS?

For the record, there is a difference between disagreeing with minimalists and ignoring them. I don't ignore them; I simply disagree with them.

I have further comments on your reply, but first I would like to know if you are LDS.

[zerinus]

I realize that this proposal may initially seem shocking for readers unfamiliar with the role of the divine council in biblical and Near Eastern literature. But this view really is the only way to make sense of the text. Moreover, when one recognizes how the ha-Satan figure in Job ties in with both Old Testament theology and modern revelation, the account in Job actually makes sense and appears much less problematic for most Latter-day Saint readers.

First, it

[Rob Bowman]

Charles,

You wrote:

"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.

You know, this attempt to portray me as akin to Saul the Pharisee is bogus and offensive. Unlike Saul the pre-Christian Pharisee, I am a Christian. Like Paul the apostle, I believe in the risen and living Jesus Christ, not the stone letter of the Torah, as the center of my faith and life. Like Paul, my hope for eternal life is in a righteousness that is not my own merited by keeping the commandments, but the righteousness that comes through faith in Christ (Philippians 3).

What separated Saul the Pharisee from Paul the apostle was not that as a Pharisee he didn't believe in living prophets but as a Christian he did. Pharisees did not subscribe to a belief that no new prophets could arise. The issue was Jesus, pure and simple. Saul regarded Jesus as a false Messiah and blasphemer and his followers as traitors to the Jewish faith because of their faith in Jesus.

Furthermore, my position with regard to angels as created beings has biblical support from a variety of texts, not just that one in Psalm 148:5. Indeed, one of the texts I cited was from that "Paul the prophet" you profess to admire (Col. 1:16).

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

I had written:

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.

You replied:

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.

I don

[David T]

Thank you David for your explanation. Those are interesting concepts you develop, but I think you are making two mistakes here. Firstly, you are casting Satan as some kind of "prosecutor" or "prosecuting attorney" in a trial who is perfectly harmless in other respects. I don

[David Bokovoy]

David is talking about the ha-satan figure in the Divine Council setting in the Hebrew Bible. You're bringing a later application and association of that title to the Enemy/Rebel/Fallen Angel figure.

That's precisely correct. The whole point is that grammatically, the being is not Satan, he is ha-satan, a God in Yahweh's heavenly council. "Satan" doesn't work grammatically, historically, and/or theologically in the text.

Best

[volgadon]

Isn't it interesting that although Satan and the devil are used interchangably in the BoM, the devil actually occurs more frequently?

Before Zerinus leaps all over the appearance of the title Satan, it is not at all clear that this wasn't how Joseph translated it, in terms that a 19th century Western Christian would understand.

[maklelan]

Dan,

I had written:

You replied:

I don

[J Green]

Furthermore, my position with regard to angels as created beings has biblical support from a variety of texts, not just that one in Psalm 148:5. Indeed, one of the texts I cited was from that "Paul the prophet" you profess to admire (Col. 1:16).

Angels are treated in various ways in the biblical texts. But one of the more interesting motifs in the latter portion of the Heb Bible, Qumran texts, and portions of the NT is the theme of priests as angels.

For example, in Malachi ('my messenger' or 'my angel') chapter two, the angel/priest accuses the other priests of not performing their duties adequately in, among other things, teaching the law:

For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger (Heb

malak,

also means angel) of the LORD of hosts. (Malachi 2:7 KJV)

??????????????? ?????? ????????????????? ????????? ??????????? ?????????? ????? ????????? ????????????????? ??????

This reflects the understanding that the priests are teachers of the law (cf. Lev 10:10-11; Deut 33:10; Jer 18:18; Ezekiel 44:23). And Malachi tells us that the priest should be an angel/messenger (????????? -malak) in the context of imparting knowledge of the LORD.

The Qumran community took this text and developed a whole motif of angel-priests. In 4Q400 fr I i (Songs for the Holocaust of the Sabbath), the priests (as angels) impart divine knowledge of judgment and mercy for those who repent. Crispin H. T. Fletcher-Louis makes a fairly good case for direct points of contact between the language here and Malachi 2:7 (All the Glory of Adam: Liturgical Anthropology in the Dead Sea Scrolls [Leiden: Brill, 2002], p. 284). In 4Q511 fr 35 (Songs of the Sage), God, angry at the wickedness of man, appoints a community of priests as angels to terrify and subdue the wicked.

The angel-priest theme is picked up the book of Revelation in the NT, where the priestly leaders of each church in Asia called to repentance were named angels (e.g., 2:1, 3:1, etc.). Later, seven angels would come out of the temple dressed in the clothing of priests (15:6) to receive vials full of the wrath of God against the wicked (15:7).

Another instance is implied in Zechariah 3, where Joshua is taken into the presence of the Divine Council before the angel of the Lord, along with the angelic accuser that David has been talking about. The angel tells Joshua:

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

You wrote:

The historical reconstruction that Ron cited is identical to the maximalist conclusions I quoted. They are the same conclusions. You claim in the quote above that such reconstructions are indicative of a minimalist approach that treats the text as suspect and secondary. I showed that that reconstruction is not minimalist and does not neglect the text of the Hebrew Bible by any stretch of the imagination. Everyone I cited accepts the text as a source for history, but when the artifacts, being interpreted by conservative religious scholars, preclude the events of the narrative, the narrative must take a back seat. No archaeologist will ever have a job who claims the text is right no matter what the archaeology points to. Your assessment of Ron's methodology was mistaken, irrespective of what you think about what you believe to be apostate Israelite religion.

Let me be clear. I agree with the archaeologists who argue that preexilic Israelite religion during the period for which they have significant evidence, roughly 1000 BC-586, was largely syncretistic. Again, this assessment actually agrees with the Hebrew Bible. I think I agree with everything you stated in your previous post about the nature of preexilic Israelite religion. Where I disagreed with Ron specifically was his claim that Yahweh originated as a Moabite tribal deity. I also disagreed with his acceptance of the controversial interpretation of Exodus 3:14 that understands it to be introducing a tribal deity Yah as a replacement of the deity El. I'm not asserting that no tribe ever treated Yahweh as its tribal deity -- in fact, Jonah seems to have started off with a similar notion before he found out otherwise -- but I'm disagreeing with the claim that Yahweh originated as a tribal deity. Yahweh, in fact, is the Maker of heaven and earth, the God who spoke to the patriarchs and Moses. This is an assertion that archaeologists can neither prove nor disprove.

You wrote:

You conflate the discipline of biblical theology with the theology of the Bible. Both "biblical theology" and "the study of Israelite religion" are modern academic disciplines. Hess isn't talking about the teachings of the biblical writers, he was talking about biblical theology, the modern academic discipline.

I understand the distinction. Biblical theology is a study of the theology of the biblical writers.

You wrote:

You've also not commented on the other two archaeologists and their relationship to Ron's conclusions.

See above. Gilmour's article simply claims to have identified another example, possibly, of an archaeological remain dating from the period of the monarchy depicting Yahweh and Asherah together. No doubt this is very interesting, but it doesn't in any way contradict the position I articulated.

[zerinus]

David is talking about the ha-satan figure in the Divine Council setting in the Hebrew Bible.

Maybe I am losing the thread of the argument here. Not unheard of, since I tend to read posts very quickly. Are you (is he) suggesting that the person called Satan in Job 1:6; 2:1 (KJV) is not the same as the being called Satan, devil, Lucifer elsewhere in the Bible, such as in Revelation 12:8-11? Is that the argument that is being put forward?

You're bringing a later application and association of that title to the Enemy/Rebel/Fallen Angel figure.

Later than what? Which title is supposed to have come when, and why, and what is the biblical basis for that belief?

[maklelan]

Dan,

You wrote:

Let me be clear. I agree with the archaeologists who argue that preexilic Israelite religion during the period for which they have significant evidence, roughly 1000 BC-586, was largely syncretistic. Again, this assessment actually agrees with the Hebrew Bible. I think I agree with everything you stated in your previous post about the nature of preexilic Israelite religion. Where I disagreed with Ron specifically was his claim that Yahweh originated as a Moabite tribal deity.

I saw no indication in your post that you were only responding to a specific element of his post. I saw you flatly reject his entire methodology.

I also disagreed with his acceptance of the controversial interpretation of Exodus 3:14 that understands it to be introducing a tribal deity Yah as a replacement of the deity El. I'm not asserting that no tribe ever treated Yahweh as its tribal deity -- in fact, Jonah seems to have started off with a similar notion before he found out otherwise -- but I'm disagreeing with the claim that Yahweh originated as a tribal deity. Yahweh, in fact, is the Maker of heaven and earth, the God who spoke to the patriarchs and Moses. This is an assertion that archaeologists can neither prove nor disprove.

Archaeologists don't seek to "prove" anything. They seek evidence for theories, but little can ever be proven in archaeology. However, you'll find that most Jewish and Christian Bible scholars support the conclusion that YHWH was a southern tribal deity (more commonly Edomite or Midianite than Moabite) brought into Canaan by Israelites. This conclusion actually originates within the text itself and was only corroborated by archaeology in the last century or so. The theory comes from Deut 33:2, where the text says YHWH rose up from Seir to the Israelites, and spoke to them from Sinai. Since YHWH first introduces himself at Sinai (Exod 6:3 - he claims to not have been known by the name YHWH previously), since Deuteronomy says he came to the Israelites from Seir/Sinai/Paran, since the name "YHWH" is first attested in 14th-13th century BCE Egyptian sources in place-names from the region of Seir, and since Deuteronomy tells the Israelites to leave the Edomites alone because they're related (Seir/Sinai/Paran is in Edom), it is concluded by most that he originated there and was brought into Israel by the wandering Israelites.

You wrote:

I understand the distinction. Biblical theology is a study of the theology of the biblical writers.

And it's not the same thing as the theology of the biblical writers.

You wrote:

See above. Gilmour's article simply claims to have identified another example, possibly, of an archaeological remain dating from the period of the monarchy depicting Yahweh and Asherah together. No doubt this is very interesting, but it doesn't in any way contradict the position I articulated.

But you only just articulated your position in this post. Your original statement about minimalist methodologies, however, is untenable.

[Ron Beron]

Ron,

You wrote:

I don't know everyone here yet, so I need to ask you: Are you LDS?

For the record, there is a difference between disagreeing with minimalists and ignoring them. I don't ignore them; I simply disagree with them.

I have further comments on your reply, but first I would like to know if you are LDS.

I am LDS although not the most fundamental of them. I like to think of myself as Christian with a Mormon discipline. Whatever that means.

[David T]

Maybe I am losing the thread of the argument here. Not unheard of, since I tend to read posts very quickly. Are you (is he) suggesting that the person called Satan in Job 1:6; 2:1 (KJV) is not the same as the being called Satan, devil, Lucifer elsewhere in the Bible, such as in Revelation 12:8-11? Is that the argument that is being put forward?

There is no being ever named Lucifer in the Bible. There is, however, a text in Isaiah typifying the King of Babylon as a light-bearer/day star who has been cast down from the heavens. The stars were often used as stand-ins for the bene elohim. The term 'Lucifer', coming from the Latin translation, seems to have stuck in translation for many as a name/title.

The Fallen King story, which appears to have reference to the Divine Council (and Psalm 82?) also referenced in Ezekiel, can also be applied to the Adam figure in the Genesis Garden Narrative. David and Mak are better versed in the dating of the texts and progression of the theology than I am, and perhaps can better explain where this myth fits into the development of the NT Satan figure.

[Ron Beron]

Maybe I am losing the thread of the argument here. Not unheard of, since I tend to read posts very quickly. Are you (is he) suggesting that the person called Satan in Job 1:6; 2:1 (KJV) is not the same as the being called Satan, devil, Lucifer elsewhere in the Bible, such as in Revelation 12:8-11? Is that the argument that is being put forward?

Later than what? Which title is supposed to have come when, and why, and what is the biblical basis for that belief?

The Satan mentioned in the OT especially those parts that relate prior to exile are specifically to a title ha-satan given to a deity in the heavenly council to act as special prosecutor of God. The Satan/Devil etc., mentioned later esp., in the NT are of a personal adversary to man. This particular semi-deity is an evolutionary figure brought on ostensibly by assimilation of Mesopotamian beliefs during the exile.

[zerinus]

Archaeologists don't seek to "prove" anything. They seek evidence for theories, but little can ever be proven in archaeology. However, you'll find that most Jewish and Christian Bible scholars support the conclusion that YHWH was a southern tribal deity (more commonly Edomite or Midianite than Moabite) brought into Canaan by Israelites. This conclusion actually originates within the text itself and was only corroborated by archaeology in the last century or so. The theory comes from Deut 33:2, where the text says YHWH rose up from Seir to the Israelites, and spoke to them from Sinai. Since YHWH first introduces himself at Sinai (Exod 6:3 - he claims to not have been known by the name YHWH previously), since Deuteronomy says he came to the Israelites from Seir/Sinai/Paran, since the name "YHWH" is first attested in 14th-13th century BCE Egyptian sources in place-names from the region of Seir, and since Deuteronomy tells the Israelites to leave the Edomites alone because they're related (Seir/Sinai/Paran is in Edom), it is concluded by most that he originated there and was brought into Israel by the wandering Israelites.

I don't know whether you are arguing from the Mormon point of view or not; but Mormonism discounts that idea. Mormonism teaches that the Deity was known to the ancients by the name of Jehovah as far back as Abraham, and undoubtedly beyond:

Abraham 1

:

16 And his voice was unto me: Abraham, Abraham, behold, my name is Jehovah, and I have heard thee, and have come down to deliver thee, and to take thee away from thy father's house, and from all thy kinsfolk, into a strange land which thou knowest not of.

Abraham 2

:

8 My name is Jehovah, and I know the end from the beginning; therefore my hand shall be over thee.

And Exodus 6:3 has been corrected in the JST as follows (words in bold italics added by Joseph Smith):

JST Exodus 6

:

3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob.

I am the Lord

God Almighty;

the Lord

JEHOVAH.

And was not my name

known

unto

them?

And here is the original Exodus 6:3, just so people can compare them:

Exodus 6

:

3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.

[zerinus]

There is no being ever named Lucifer in the Bible. There is, however, a text in Isaiah typifying the King of Babylon as a light-bearer/day star who has been cast down from the heavens. The stars were often used as stand-ins for the bene elohim. The term 'Lucifer', coming from the Latin translation, seems to have stuck in translation for many as a name/title.

The Fallen King story, which appears to have reference to the Divine Council (and Psalm 82?) also referenced in Ezekiel, can also be applied to the Adam figure in the Genesis Garden Narrative. David and Mak are better versed in the dating of the texts and progression of the theology than I am, and perhaps can better explain where this myth fits into the development of the NT Satan figure.

The Satan mentioned in the OT especially those parts that relate prior to exile are specifically to a title ha-satan given to a deity in the heavenly council to act as special prosecutor of God. The Satan/Devil etc., mentioned later esp., in the NT are of a personal adversary to man. This particular semi-deity is an evolutionary figure brought on ostensibly by assimilation of Mesopotamian beliefs during the exile.

Are you guys Mormons? Do you believe in the fallen angel figure described in these verses:

Abraham 3

:

27 And the Lord said: Whom shall I send? And one answered like unto the Son of Man: Here am I, send me. And another answered and said: Here am I, send me. And the Lord said: I will send the first.

28 And the second was angry, and kept not his first estate; and, at that day, many followed after him.

Moses 1

:

12 And it came to pass that when Moses had said these words, behold, Satan came tempting him, saying: Moses, son of man, worship me.

13 And it came to pass that Moses looked upon Satan and said: Who art thou? For behold, I am a son of God, in the similitude of his Only Begotten; and where is thy glory, that I should worship thee?

14 For behold, I could not look upon God, except his glory should come upon me, and I were transfigured before him. But I can look upon thee in the natural man. Is it not so, surely?

15 Blessed be the name of my God, for his Spirit hath not altogether withdrawn from me, or else where is thy glory, for it is darkness unto me? And I can judge between thee and God; for God said unto me: Worship God, for him only shalt thou serve.

16 Get thee hence, Satan; deceive me not; for God said unto me: Thou art after the similitude of mine Only Begotten.

17 And he also gave me commandments when he called unto me out of the burning bush, saying: Call upon God in the name of mine Only Begotten, and worship me.

18 And again Moses said: I will not cease to call upon God, I have other things to inquire of him: for his glory has been upon me, wherefore I can judge between him and thee. Depart hence, Satan.

19 And now, when Moses had said these words, Satan cried with a loud voice, and ranted upon the earth, and commanded, saying: I am the Only Begotten, worship me.

20 And it came to pass that Moses began to fear exceedingly; and as he began to fear, he saw the bitterness of hell. Nevertheless, calling upon God, he received strength, and he commanded, saying: Depart from me, Satan, for this one God only will I worship, which is the God of glory.

21 And now Satan began to tremble, and the earth shook; and Moses received strength, and called upon God, saying: In the name of the Only Begotten, depart hence, Satan.

22 And it came to pass that Satan cried with a loud voice, with weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth; and he departed hence, even from the presence of Moses, that he beheld him not.

23 And now of this thing Moses bore record; but because of wickedness it is not had among the children of men.

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

[David Bokovoy]

Isn't it interesting that although Satan and the devil are used interchangably in the BoM, the devil actually occurs more frequently?

Before Zerinus leaps all over the appearance of the title Satan, it is not at all clear that this wasn't how Joseph translated it, in terms that a 19th century Western Christian would understand.

Yes indeed! The issue of "Satan" in the Book of Mormon is extremely interesting! Interestingly, the Book of Mormon cites the King James translation of Isaiah 14 including the proper name Lucifer (see 2 Nephi 14:12).

Isaiah 14:12-15 is clearly based upon an early North West Semitic tradition of a god in the divine council who attempts to usurp the throne of the high deity; see the evidence provided in Mark R. Shipp's Of Dead Kings and Dirges: Myth and Meaning in Isaiah 14:4b-21 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002)

Michael Hesier goes so far as to suggest that the reading can be entirely correlated with the Baal-Athtar myth from Ugarit. See Michael S. Heiser,