Satan among the Sons of God in Job

[Rob Bowman]

ebeddoulos,

I had presented a detailed argument from numerous biblical texts to show that apparent references by "Jehovah" to "God" in the third person are not evidence that these are two separate deities. I showed that where such references occur in Job, one typically finds evidence in the immediate context that identifies Jehovah as God. I also cited numerous texts in which "God" refers to "God" in the third person and in which "Jehovah" refers to "Jehovah" in the third person. These texts refute the claim that such third-person statements by Jehovah indicate two separate deities. I concluded:

"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]

What is glaringly missing from your post is even an acknowledgment of, let alone a response to, the detailed argument I presented

Rob,

Since you have ignored my responses, the questions in my several posts, regarding the relationship between the Father and the Son, we can assume that you concede that your argument has collapsed. I have cited at least three or four scriptures, and you response is, "But let's not derail the thread, okay?"

You continue to make vacuous statements such as

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.

You are actually quoting *yourself* as evidence! The simplist explanation, one which you find impossible to accept, is that there two separate individuals.

Homoousia is impossible to defend in the context of the teachings of Christ and the prophetic word in the New Testament. You are in a real jam here, so can we assume that you will continue your silence.

[Rob Bowman]

Charles,

You wrote:

Since you have ignored my responses, the questions in my several posts, regarding the relationship between the Father and the Son, we can assume that you concede that your argument has collapsed. I have cited at least three or four scriptures, and you response is, "But let's not derail the thread, okay?"

That is exactly what you are doing. The subject of the thread is the teaching of the book of Job with regard to Satan and God. You want to keep changing the subject to homoousios. I gave you a link to an outline study that lists over a thousand biblical references supporting the doctrine of the Trinity and asked that you not keep trying to derail the thread. Since you ignored the outline and keep taking silly pot shots at the Trinity (e.g., thinking you've scored a knock-out punch with the Gospels' report that Jesus prayed "not my will but yours be done"), I saw no reason to play along.

[ebeddoulos]

ebeddoulos,

I had presented a detailed argument from numerous biblical texts to show that apparent references by "Jehovah" to "God" in the third person are not evidence that these are two separate deities. I showed that where such references occur in Job, one typically finds evidence in the immediate context that identifies Jehovah as God. I also cited numerous texts in which "God" refers to "God" in the third person and in which "Jehovah" refers to "Jehovah" in the third person. These texts refute the claim that such third-person statements by Jehovah indicate two separate deities. I concluded:

"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

[Ron Beron]

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

Do you think that this character is real? Do you think he exists anywhere in the Bible? If so, where? Does he appear in the OT, or NT, or both, or neither?

I think you are misunderstanding our position here. It is simply as David B. as said; the character and personage of Satan in the OT is not fully developed until the NT. It does not mean he doesn't exist, however it does mean that like God our understanding of it was and probably is not complete.

Secondly, I am sure you don't mean to imply that all Mormons believe in "lockstep" theology?

[zerinus]

I had presented a detailed argument from numerous biblical texts to show that apparent references by "Jehovah" to "God" in the third person are not evidence that these are two separate deities. I showed that where such references occur in Job, one typically finds evidence in the immediate context that identifies Jehovah as God. I also cited numerous texts in which "God" refers to "God" in the third person and in which "Jehovah" refers to "Jehovah" in the third person. These texts refute the claim that such third-person statements by Jehovah indicate two separate deities. I concluded:

"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

[Ron Beron]

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.

Big ooops. I concur with Dan that it should be Midianite. I got my tribes confused. As to the tribal assimilation it is not a new theory, but somewhat old. Amihai Mazar in his text, Archeology of the Land of the Bible, finds that the association of Yahweh with the desert tribes may be the product of its origins in the south of Israel. A biblically induced theory states that YHWH was a tribal deity of the Midianites because of Moses' connection with that region and especially because of his connection with Jethro.(Judg. 5:4; Deut. 33:2; 1 Kings 19:8, etc.).

While I didn't fully establish the connection I also believe that the name was derived from the Akkadian deity Ia or Ea (Enki). Earlier Assyriologist Fredrich Delitzsch believed but further the hypothesis. While it has fallen disfavor it is nonetheless intriguing.

[zerinus]

I think you are misunderstanding our position here. It is simply as David B. as said. The character and personage of Satan in the OT is not fully developed until the NT. It does not mean he doesn't exist it does mean that like God our understanding of it was and probably is not complete.

Secondly, I am sure you don't mean to imply that all Mormons believe in "lockstep" theology?

If so, first of all what has that got to do with the OP, secondly what has it got to do with the argument that I was developing with Rob?

[Ron Beron]

If so, first of all what has that got to do with the OP, secondly what has it got to do with the argument that I was developing with Rob?

I was answering your question. "

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

Do you think that this character is real? Do you think he exists anywhere in the Bible? If so, where? Does he appear in the OT, or NT, or both, or neither?"

If you do not wish an answer do not ask the question. As to your question with Rob, it doesn't nor was it meant to.

Lose the chip.

[zerinus]

I was answering your question. "

If you do not wish an answer do not ask the question. As to your question with Rob, it doesn't nor was it meant to.

Lose the chip.

I joined this thread in the hope of having a good discussion with Rob. But most of the time I find myself in better agreement with him than with the Mormons round here. That is weird.

[Vance]

So, when Lehi, in the Book of Mormon, states that an angel of God, i.e. a divine being from the heavenly host, fell from heaven, Lehi's interpretation directly reflects the West Semitic origins of the taunt. Lehi then takes the myth one step further by interpreting this "angel" as a being who actively seeks the misery of mankind, and who reflects the serpent in the story of Eden. This element clearly takes the North West Semitic tradition beyond its original meaning.

However, there exists a well-established tradition in later Rabbinic and Christian texts of

[David Bokovoy]

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:

[David Bokovoy]

WOW!!

That is very interesting.

Am I mistaken in taking this as evidence of the ancient nature of the BOM?

Thanks, Vance for showing some interest. My friend Volgadon got us going on this great subtopic. I suppose I don't see it so much as "evidence" for the ancient nature of the BofM, as much as I would define it as a very good explanation for an alleged anachronism in the work. It's pretty cool stuff and could be construed, I suppose, as evidence for the book's highly complex link with the ancient world. I'll explain later, off to Church for the day.

Shabbat shalom to everyone!

[Ron Beron]

I joined this thread in the hope of having a good discussion with Rob. But most of the time I find myself in better agreement with him than with the Mormons round here. That is weird.

Weird? Not really. Rob makes some good points and for the most part agrees with mainstream Mormonism. See, there is no "lockstep" here. Besides, I enjoy your rejoinder...at times.

[David Bokovoy]

Weird? Not really. Rob makes some good points and for the most part agrees with mainstream Mormonism. See, there is no "lockstep" here. Besides, I enjoy your rejoinder...at times.

Agreed. It's not at all "weird." Rob comes out of the same Protestant/Evangelical background that has influenced the way many Latter-day Saint readers have traditionally interpreted this text. From my perspective, Latter-day Saint readers should abandon these post-biblical lenses when interpreting the work.

[Rob Bowman]

ebeddoulos,

Since you and I are not part of the same "contingent," I didn't find your story about good-natured ribbing among fellow soldiers at all reassuring. I won't deny that sometimes it's difficult to tell in online discussions what's meant seriously and what's meant in fun.

I'm afraid I can't agree with your claim that my argument was "nothing more than complexity trying to camouflage the simple." Should I take this as a serious criticism, or are you just playing with me again? Because it isn't true. My argument wasn't complex at all. Perhaps you are confusing detail with complexity. Here, for those who like the motto KISS, is a simple statement of the argument:

1. The Old Testament clearly identifies Jehovah as Elohim roughly a thousand times or more.

2. There are a few places in the OT where Jehovah is speaking and he refers to "God," seemingly in the third person. However:

a. There are also places in the OT where "Jehovah" is speaking and he refers to "Jehovah," and

b. There are also places in the OT where "Elohim" is speaking and he refers to "Elohim."

3. Therefore, the places where Jehovah is speaking and he refers to "God" do not negate the clear and repeated teaching of the OT that Jehovah is Elohim.

This argument will be too simple for Dan and David, but perhaps it will work for you.

You have my apologies. It was not my intention to have you feel that I "responded in ad hominem fashion". Let me tell you a story. Back in 1986, I was away from my family on a year long middle-eastern vacation courtesy of Uncle Sam's Army. I was part of a small U.S. contingent providing logistics support for an eleven-nation military force with a peace keeping mission. Good folks all but in a somewhat tense situation which we handled in the traditional military fashion - good natured ribbing about anything. Case in point: A major showed up at an informal function with one of the few female contractors on his arm. What was the kicker was both he and she were wearing identical hawaiian print shirts but cut in a western cowboy pattern complete with fringe. Needless to say he got ribbed, teased and made fun of but in a good natured way. We awarded him the weekly traveling trophy called the "Golden Camel Pie" which was a bronzed and gilded with a footprint of a military boot inbedded in the middle. Good times; good memories.

How does this apply to you. You were the subject of some good old fashioned ribbing. Why? because you stepped in it of course. You went out of your way to make what I thought was a pretty good case for your point of view considering. But it violated the KISS principle - Keep It Simple and Short. Your argument, in my opinion, was the apologetic equivalent of a matching pair of cowboy shirts cut from an Hawaiian print. It was a Rube Goldberg argument which in the convoluted process lost track of the simple explanation. Your final summation

revealed its deficiencies and shortcomings. Why did I concentrated on it? Because the rest of your argument was nothing more than complexity trying to camouflage the simple. I guess my teasing struck a nerve. That was not my intention.

What you call ad hom and condescension, I see as good old fashioned American ribbing. Now if you wish to take umbrage to being teased, that is your call. You have my apologies and my explanation. I on the other hand have a smile and another fond memory. This is probably not the time to misquote the old saying "It is a poor carpenter that blames his tools" as "It is a poor apologist who blames Old Testament authors."

[Rob Bowman]

Zerinus,

You wrote:

Your arguments are for the most part valid, and I agree with them as far as it goes. The LDS belief in the separate identities of the Father and the Son is not derived from, nor can it be proved by, the supposed "Jehovah vs. Elohim" dichotomy. That dichotomy is more contrived than real, and cannot be proven from the OT text. Joseph Smith even said that Elohim should be translated as "Gods"! The LDS belief in the separate identities of the Father and the Son is derived, firstly from modern revelation, and secondly from the most obvious and natural reading of the New Testament text, such as Jesus praying to His Father and addressing Him as His God, stating that the Father is greater than Him, stating that He had been sent by the Father and that He was returning to Him, and was doing His will etc. That is how we establish the fact that the Father and the Son are two separate beings.

You seem to be something of an oddity here...a Mormon who understands the scriptures in a fairly traditional LDS fashion. How interesting!

[maklelan]

The LDS belief in the separate identities of the Father and the Son is not derived from, nor can it be proved by, the supposed "Jehovah vs. Elohim" dichotomy. That dichotomy is more contrived than real, and cannot be proven from the OT text.

I agree that it's not derived from the Hebrew Bible, but I completely disagree that it is not found within the Hebrew Bible. Non-Mormon scholars have concluded that YHWH and El were not originally the same deity for quite some time. See my own discussions of this here and here (I'm hoping Rob will take up the challenge I pose in the latter at some point).

[zerinus]

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

[zerinus]

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:

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).

I am afraid the text of the New Testament disagrees with you:

John 20

:

17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto

my Father, and your Father;

and to

my God, and your God

.

If that is designed to convey anything at all, it conveys the idea that Jesus is a Son of God in the same way that we are. Here is another quote:

Hebrews 2

:

10 For it became him

[i.e. the Father]

, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing

many sons

unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation

[i.e. Jesus]

perfect through sufferings.

11 For both he that sanctifieth

[i.e. Jesus]

and they who are sanctified

[i.e. the saints]

are

all of one [i.e. of the same class or category of beings]:

for which cause he

is not ashamed to call them brethren,

12 Saying, I will declare thy name unto

my brethren,

in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.

13 And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.

14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

This passage is again designed to convey the idea that Jesus and the rest of us of the same category of beings, for which cause He is not ashamed to call us His "brethren". What stronger scriptural evidence could one have for this doctrine than what is presented in these verses?

[zerinus]

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).

If you accept that Jesus has human brothers and sisters because He has called them such, what is there to prevent you from concluding that He also has spirit brothers and sisters because He has called them such? When the Book of Job tells us that there are spirit beings in the universe who are called the "sons of God," then we must conclude that they are equally the brothers ans sisters of the Son of God just as we are, no?

[zerinus]

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?

Except that the earliest Christians believed in a plurality of Gods, that Jesus was a God lower in rank than God the Father and subordinate to Him, and that when the saints are deified they will be gods but lower in rank to Jesus who was Himself lower in rank and subordinate to His Father:

. . . and they have received the title of

[maklelan]

So it looks like you are in the minority among scholars as far as this dispute is concerned.

I disagree. The portion of all biblical scholars actually participating in Bible translation is small, and they're generally the more conservative. The translations you've cited are pretty much the most conservative out there, as well. NRSV (among the less dogmatic translations) uses "Satan," but puts in the note that the Hebrew is "the Accuser." Irrespective, Bible translations are not really a good gauge of academic consensuses since they aren't accompanied by commentary or defenses of their choices. They can say whatever they want. I'll give you an example. Show me how all these translations you cited translate 1 Sam 13:1.

[volgadon]

Zerinus, the definitive article is absolutely vital. Let us take Adam. With the article it becomes man, or mankind. Try ignoring the article in Deut 20:13 and you are left with the phrase Adam is the tree of the field.

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

Thanks for your response.

Jesus' wording in John 20:17 seems designed to avoid the very conclusion you posit. If we are God's sons in the same way that Jesus is, why didn't Jesus say simply "our Father and God," rather than the otherwise very cumbersome "my Father and your Father, and my God and your God"? It is striking that Jesus throughout the Gospels avoids saying "our Father" or "our God" including himself with his disciples. ("Our Father" in the so-called Lord's Prayer are words he taught them to say, not words he said himself in prayer.)

Hebrews 2:10-12 doesn't say we are of the same category of being as Jesus. It says that we become God's sons and Jesus' brothers through what Jesus did for us. Hebrews is quite clear that not everyone is genuinely God's children (e.g., Heb. 12:7-8 ). Elsewhere, the NT teaches that we can become God's children by God adopting us as his children (Rom. 8; Gal. 3-4) and by being "born" with new spiritual life from God (e.g., John 1:12-13).

I am afraid the text of the New Testament disagrees with you:

John 20

:

17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto

my Father, and your Father;

and to

my God, and your God

.

If that is designed to convey anything at all, it conveys the idea that Jesus is a Son of God in the same way that we are. Here is another quote:

Hebrews 2

:

10 For it became him

[i.e. the Father]

, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing

many sons

unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation

[i.e. Jesus]

perfect through sufferings.

11 For both he that sanctifieth

[i.e. Jesus]

and they who are sanctified

[i.e. the saints]

are

all of one [i.e. of the same class or category of beings]:

for which cause he

is not ashamed to call them brethren,

12 Saying, I will declare thy name unto

my brethren,

in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.

13 And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.

14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

This passage is again designed to convey the idea that Jesus and the rest of us of the same category of beings, for which cause He is not ashamed to call us His "brethren". What stronger scriptural evidence could one have for this doctrine than what is presented in these verses?