Satan among the Sons of God in Job

[Rob Bowman]

Charles,

Thanks. No, that wasn't me. I never did anything on the Compuserve BBS and never knew McKay.

Of course. I never actually meant to associate you with Walter Martin or Hankie -- I was just being annoying.

Anyway, I seem to remember you over at the Compuserve BBS. Didn't you work with Robert McKay at UMI for awhile? Or am I thinking of someone else.

[J Green]

I was hoping to see a response from Rob (or perhaps one of his cohorts).

It is apparent to me that the statement that Angels are a separate species from humans is without Biblical support.

Hi, Vance.

I've made two or three observations to Rob in several different threads, but so far they've gone unnoticed. My poor attempts at contributing to the conversation remind me of a scene in Pride and Prejudice where Lady Catherine tries to force herself into a discussion on music (chap 31):

``What is that you are saying, Fitzwilliam? What is it you are talking of? What are you telling Miss Bennet? Let me hear what it is.''

``We are speaking of music, Madam,'' said he, when no longer able to avoid a reply.

``Of music! Then pray speak aloud. It is of all subjects my delight. I must have my share in the conversation, if you are speaking of music. There are few people in England, I suppose, who have more true enjoyment of music than myself, or a better natural taste. If I had ever learnt, I should have been a great proficient.

[Vance]

Hi, Vance.

I've made two or three observations to Rob in several different threads, but so far they've gone unnoticed. My poor attempts at contributing to the conversation remind me of a scene in Pride and Prejudice where Lady Catherine tries to force herself into a discussion on music (chap 31):

``What is that you are saying, Fitzwilliam? What is it you are talking of? What are you telling Miss Bennet? Let me hear what it is.''

``We are speaking of music, Madam,'' said he, when no longer able to avoid a reply.

``Of music! Then pray speak aloud. It is of all subjects my delight. I must have my share in the conversation, if you are speaking of music. There are few people in England, I suppose, who have more true enjoyment of music than myself, or a better natural taste. If I had ever learnt, I should have been a great proficient.

It is possible that Rob has me on ignore. As I recall he told me I was "annoying".

And I also realize that he is responding on several threads, but I was hoping he could at least get one of his cohorts to engage this topic.

I am beginning to suspect that he realizes that he can't Biblically support the notion that Angels are a separate species.

I suspect that it was originated by English only speakers using poorly translated texts, (under the false assumption that those text were inerrant). And now several years later, he is forced to cobble together a (very weak) defense.

Nothing like throwing "sola scriptura" under the bus, eh?

I am wondering how such an unsupportable doctrine originated and why Rob even tries to defend it.

[Rob Bowman]

J. Green,

Please understand that the dynamics of this forum are such that I have a dozen or more Mormons wanting to argue with almost everything I say, and it's not possible for me to reply to everyone.

Everyone understands that the Hebrew word malak and the Greek equivalent angelos literally meant "messenger" and so could refer to human beings as well as spirit beings. This doesn't alter the fact that the term angelos came to be used in a narrower, semi-technical sense to refer to spirit beings. One must not confuse sense with reference. The sense of the word angelos is "messenger"; its reference is sometimes heavenly or spirit beings, and sometimes not.

In addition, figurative or apocalyptic use of "angelic" language and imagery with reference to human beings, such as priests or church leaders, simply does not prove that "angels" in that semi-technical sense are the same species as human beings.

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]

Vance,

Your suspicions are incorrect.

The view that angels are incorporeal beings by nature is not new, and certainly did not originate from the naive evangelical English-speaking readers of the Bible that you imagine! It is, in fact, an ancient understanding of the Bible, the mainstream view among both Jews and Christians. See, for example, the article "Angelology" in the Jewish Encyclopedia. The reality is that it is the idea that angels are the same species as humans that is the relative newcomer belief in the history of Jewish and Christian thought.

It is possible that Rob has me on ignore. As I recall he told me I was "annoying".

And I also realize that he is responding on several threads, but I was hoping he could at least get one of his cohorts to engage this topic.

I am beginning to suspect that he realizes that he can't Biblically support the notion that Angels are a separate species.

I suspect that it was originated by English only speakers using poorly translated texts, (under the false assumption that those text were inerrant). And now several years later, he is forced to cobble together a (very weak) defense.

Nothing like throwing "sola scriptura" under the bus, eh?

I am wondering how such an unsupportable doctrine originated and why Rob even tries to defend it.

[J Green]

No worries, Rob.

I understand the dynamics, and I'm grateful for your participation here. My Jane Austen quote was actually intended to poke fun at my own posts.

As far as angels in biblical texts, I think that there are several themes going on. I was merely pointing on that one variation seems to be pointing towards priests as the messenger/angel. I think that we can look at certain Qumran texts as representative of at least one strand of Judaism that was interpreting the angelic texts of the Hebrew Bible as a priestly function. I don't claim this strand is the only interpretation or that it is even universal, although I do think the theme is picked up in angelic imagery in Revelation that seems patterned after priestly/Most Holy Place themes.

Cheers.

[cdowis]

The view that angels are incorporeal beings by nature is not new, and certainly did not originate from the naive evangelical English-speaking readers of the Bible

Also in LDS theology, as in D&C 129. It clearly refers to angels who are spirits ==> Angels are humans, with a resurrected body, such as John the Baptist, a translated being, such as those who visited Abraham, or those not yet resurrected as described in this reference.

See also Rev. 22:8-9 which refers to an angel who is a human. Wings on an angel is merely a metaphor. Abraham certainly saw no wings -- they were indistinguishable from humans.

[Vance]

Vance,

Your suspicions are incorrect.

Thanks for correcting me on my suspicions.

The view that angels are incorporeal beings by nature is not new, and certainly did not originate from the naive evangelical English-speaking readers of the Bible that you imagine! It is, in fact, an ancient understanding of the Bible, the mainstream view among both Jews and Christians. See, for example, the article "Angelology" in the Jewish Encyclopedia. The reality is that it is the idea that angels are the same species as humans that is the relative newcomer belief in the history of Jewish and Christian thought.

Thanks for the link, it will take me a while to work my way through it.

A quick, very cursory look at it, does raise some questions though but I will refrain asking them until after I have been able to spend more time in it.

But again, Thanks!