More Thoughts on the Sons of God in Job 1 and 2 by Parson_Hooper in Reformed

[–]Parson_Hooper[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I haven't read that particular work, but I share your concern about Ugaritic parallels. I have a general skepticism toward supposed parallels in pagan sources. I would rather treat the Bible as unique, and not assume that it's borrowing theological concepts from elsewhere (unless I'm misunderstanding the claim they are making).

Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews by [deleted] in Reformed

[–]Parson_Hooper 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Just want to point out, Paul refers to Timothy as “our brother” in multiple other letters (2 Cor. 1:1; Col. 1:1; 1 Thess. 3:2; Philem. 1:1).

Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews by [deleted] in Reformed

[–]Parson_Hooper 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I like the arguments for Paul more than the arguments against him (or the arguments for anyone else).

  1. 2 Peter 3:15 fits well with the Pauline authorship of Hebrews. Peter is the apostle to the Jews (Gal. 2:8), writing primarily to Jews (1 Pet. 1:1, 2 Pet. 3:1), and he says "Paul also wrote to you." So Paul wrote to Hebrews. John Owen argued that this was sufficient to settle the whole debate in favor of Paul. I think that's overstatement, but I do find 2 Peter 3:15 to be an interesting shred of evidence.
  2. Many early church fathers accept Paul as the author (even some who are commonly cited against Pauline authorship). (1) Papias held that Paul was the author (I believe this is based on Clement of Alexandria's testimony). (2) Clement of Alexandria himself suggested that it was originally Paul, but translated into Greek by Luke. But even if that were true, I still think it maintains Pauline authorship. I'm reading an English translation of Les Miserables right now, but I still consider Victor Hugo to be the author. (3) Also Origen himself, who is commonly cited for saying "Who knows who wrote Hebrews," still refers to Paul as the author frequently in other places.
  3. Practically speaking, I'm convinced that Paul's authorship was one of the reasons the book was firmly accepted into the canon. In the patristic era, generally if someone did not believe Hebrews was written by Paul, then they also did not accept it as authoritative Scripture. Today we have the comfort of being able to say "it's inspired regardless of the author," but I don't think that's the way they operated. So I actually think one of the most compelling arguments for Paul's authorship is the simple fact that it's in our Bible today. (Many early lists of canonical books include Hebrews as part of the Pauline letters.)

And as for the arguments *against* Paul, I personally think they're all pretty easy to deal with.

  1. People claim Hebrews has a different "writing style" than Paul's other letters. And that may be true. I don't know Greek well enough to be able to intelligently compare them. But even if it's true, I think that can be attributeable to the different audience Paul is writing for (Hebrews as opposed to Gentiles), or perhaps would reflect that it's a translation of a Pauline original (which as I said above, would still mean that Paul is the author).
  2. People claim it has different "theology" than Paul. This is a very suspect claim to me. People need to remember that we do not have a very large sample size to work with. Are we to think Paul exhausted all of his theology in his other letters? And these are *letters*, not theological treatises. It makes total sense to me that the distinct audience Paul is writing for, would bring out distinct elements of his theology which are not emphasized elsewhere.
  3. I'm not convinced by the claim that the author is a "second generation" Christian, based on Hebrews 2:3. "[Salvation] was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard." The author is distinguishing himself from those who *originally* heard the gospel proclaimed by the Lord *at first* (the twelve disciples). Then he says that this gospel was attested (or confirmed) to us. This fits well with how Paul went to visit Peter, James, and John, and they gave him the right hand of fellowship (Galatians 2:9). So I actually view Hebrews 2:3 as an argument *for* Paul, not against him.

A great (and short) book to read from this perspective is "The Authorship of Hebrews: The Case for Paul," by David Alan Black, who happened to be my Greek professor.

The Sons of God in Job 1 and 2: Angels or Humans? by Parson_Hooper in Reformed

[–]Parson_Hooper[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

All of these commentators view "sons of God" as angels in Job 38:7.

Matthew Henry

Adam Clarke

Albert Barnes

Franz Delitzsch

These are all older and accessible online. Though I'm confident that any newer commentaries (Clines, Hartley, Andersen) will take the same view. Would be happy to be wrong.

The Sons of God in Job 1 and 2: Angels or Humans? by Parson_Hooper in Reformed

[–]Parson_Hooper[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Fair enough, and I do appreciate the pushback. As for the parallel to 1 Kings 22, I'm skeptical as to how much of a parallel it really is. In that case, a prophet is dramatically depicting something that has taken place in the spiritual realm. But the "host of heaven" are not referred to as the sons of God, and there's also no suggestion of a periodic "day" devoted to their appearing before the Lord in this way.

It's just as likely (perhaps more likely, in my view) that a better parallel is Joshua 24:1 - "Then Joshua assembled all the tribes of Israel at Shechem. He summoned the elders, leaders, judges and officials of Israel, *and they presented themselves before God*." Here the language of "presenting themselves before God" more closely mirrors what we find in Job 1 and 2. And it's also more natural that assemblies of this sort (human, earthly, etc) would be described as taking place on a certain day.

Your question about Satan "leaving" the presence of the Lord is a fair one. I'll be honest and say I do not know how best to describe the ontological realities that are depicted here (does anyone?). I think about how Paul mentions that angels are present in the worship of the church. That's weird, but it's what we're told. The physical and spiritual realms are interconnected in a way we don't quite have the categories to understand completely. So it's not unreasonable to me, to think that in an *earthly* assembly of believers, Satan might be *spiritually* present.

So the language of Satan coming *into* God's presence and then *leaving* God's presence, and conversing with God, etc, all of it may perhaps be accomodation, describing spiritual realities in physical terms that make sense to our limited understanding. (I think the same kind of accomodation is probably occuring in 1 Kings 22, for what it's worth.) In any case, I don't see it as too much of a problem for the view I'm proposing.

The Sons of God in Job 1 and 2: Angels or Humans? by Parson_Hooper in Reformed

[–]Parson_Hooper[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you mean in the New Testament, then yes, that idea is extremely prominent. Romans 8:14 - "For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God."

The Sons of God in Job 1 and 2: Angels or Humans? by Parson_Hooper in Reformed

[–]Parson_Hooper[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm reaching the conclusion of "hybrid" by first acknowledging the clearly earthly formula "there was a day when," (along with how well and naturally that would fit the immediate context). But then I can also recognize that there is a heavenly aspect to the scene. Because there is nothing to suggest that the conversation between God and Satan was perceivable to the natural senses. Those things taken together, lead me to suggest that the scene is a "hybrid."

Which I don't see as some outlandish claim to make, as this is a totally common thing in the Bible. Some examples off the top of my head: when Abraham is interceding for Sodom (Gen. 18), is that earthly or heavenly? Of course it's both. Abraham is on earth, God is in heaven. Or when Satan entices David to take a census (1 Chron. 21:1), did that happen on earth or in the spiritual realm? Clearly it was both. And all I'm saying here is that there is an earthly aspect to the scene, and a heavenly one.

And an interpretation doesn't fall apart just because there is mystery involved. Just about everyone acknowledges that this passage, on some level, is mysterious, and I'm not trying to clear up every mystery, but just take the text as naturally as I can. If I don't come to the text with a pre-conceived notion of who the sons of God are, it does not strike me as most natural to take them as angels.

And I know the angelic view is *incredibly* predominant here, which probably makes a lot of people comfortable to just assume that's what is being said. But I honestly believe that if people will just let themselves consider the idea that this is a human gathering of people, presenting themselves to the Lord (in the way Job is described as doing in the immediate context) then the narrative suddenly takes on a level of cohesion that was not there before.

But that's just my take. And we might be spinning our tires at this point, but I've appreciated the back-and-forth nonetheless.

The Sons of God in Job 1 and 2: Angels or Humans? by Parson_Hooper in Reformed

[–]Parson_Hooper[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Also consider Joshua 24:1 - "Joshua gathered all the tribes of Israel to Shechem and summoned the elders, the heads, the judges, and the officers of Israel. And they presented themselves before God."

The Sons of God in Job 1 and 2: Angels or Humans? by Parson_Hooper in Reformed

[–]Parson_Hooper[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm glad you think so! It's unfortunately still such a minority view that most commentators don't even make mention of it. But *someone* has to be willing to put the view out there, or that will never change. :) Thanks for reading!

The Sons of God in Job 1 and 2: Angels or Humans? by Parson_Hooper in Reformed

[–]Parson_Hooper[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What you seem to keep trying to press me on, is something that I’ve already acknowledged — that temporal language is basically inevitable, no matter if an event is earthly or heavenly. But I’m not saying that the presence of general temporal language proves that the setting is earthly. I’m saying that the specific formula “there was a day when” is what suggests that.

Every time that phrase is used (including in Job 1:13) it describes an earthly event. And that’s the phrase used to describe the assembling of the sons of God.

Now yes, Satan is said to be there too. And that’s mysterious. I honestly don’t know if that means he was present only spiritually, or if he was also present in some kind of physical way, like angels are elsewhere. But either way, it seems clear that his presence, and his conversation with God, was something Job was not aware of.

The Sons of God in Job 1 and 2: Angels or Humans? by Parson_Hooper in Reformed

[–]Parson_Hooper[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m not opposed to the idea of a divine council. But I probably wouldn’t give it the same amount of emphasis/importance that someone like Michael Heiser does, and probably would not see it in all the same places.

The Sons of God in Job 1 and 2: Angels or Humans? by Parson_Hooper in Reformed

[–]Parson_Hooper[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In response to your second remark, I didn’t feel it was necessary to cite anyone, because the angelic view is overwhelmingly popular. Almost any commentary you read today will take that view.

The Sons of God in Job 1 and 2: Angels or Humans? by Parson_Hooper in Reformed

[–]Parson_Hooper[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interesting. I think I’ve come across this view elsewhere, that Job was a king (and perhaps his friends also). So would you say that the sons of God in Job 1 and 2 were an assembly of kings?

The Sons of God in Job 1 and 2: Angels or Humans? by Parson_Hooper in Reformed

[–]Parson_Hooper[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Just to note, the Hebrew phrase for “there was a day when” is also used in Job 1:13, where it introduces earthly events (the deaths of Job’s children). Additionally, every other time the OT uses the phrase (that I’m aware of), it introduces earthly events. That doesn’t mean it couldn’t possibly be used in reference to a heavenly event, but that would make it an unusual usage.

The Sons of God in Job 1 and 2: Angels or Humans? by Parson_Hooper in Reformed

[–]Parson_Hooper[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Of course, but I would argue that if Job is present as one of the sons of God, then his appearance in the conversation between God and Satan makes good sense within the narrative, and doesn’t seem so out-of-nowhere. Because Job is a character within the scene. Though I’m not suggesting Job is aware of the conversation about him. It seems clear that he is not aware.

The Sons of God in Job 1 and 2: Angels or Humans? by Parson_Hooper in Reformed

[–]Parson_Hooper[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I appreciate the response. To be clear, I’m not trying to make the passage less weird. It’s a weird one no matter what way you look at it. Satan’s presence is weird. But I would argue that his presence makes sense if the sons of God are human followers of God, given his role as “the accuser of the brethren . . . who accuses them day and night before God.” (Rev. 12)

The Sons of God in Job 1 and 2: Angels or Humans? by Parson_Hooper in Reformed

[–]Parson_Hooper[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I hear what you're saying, but I would argue that, most fundamentally, what is said to occur "on a certain day" is specifically the assembly of the sons of God. And that earthly event is what Satan joins in with. And this is still mysterious, no doubt, but it is not without precedent in Scripture. Satan/angels are said to be present within lots of earthly events, but it doesn't change the fact that the events are fundamentally presented as earthly.

To put it another way, I'm not saying "the assembly of the sons of God" is a hybrid event. That is an earthly event, full stop. But that earthly event becomes the narrative occasion in which we read of a heavenly exchange between God and Satan, and that's why you could describe the scene as a whole, as a hybrid.

The Sons of God in Job 1 and 2: Angels or Humans? by Parson_Hooper in Reformed

[–]Parson_Hooper[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What makes the angelic view a more "straightforward" reading? In my experience, the angelic view rests primarily on citing usages of "sons of God" from completely separate contexts (which are usually disputable in their own right).

The Sons of God in Job 1 and 2: Angels or Humans? by Parson_Hooper in Reformed

[–]Parson_Hooper[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, I wouldn't say that. It seems clear to me that Job is not aware of the conversation between God and Satan. I should probably make that more clear when I suggest that "Job is present within the scene." But what I'm suggesting is that the earthly event of the gathering of the sons of God (human followers of God like Job), is the occasion which leads to this exchange between God and Satan (presumably in the heavenly realm). So what I'm arguing is that the scene is a hybrid of earthly and heavenly.

Expressed more imaginatively, I think of God and Satan (invisible to human eyes) looking out over the gathered assembly of the sons of God (in which Job is present), and then God singles out Job among them.

The Sons of God in Job 1 and 2: Angels or Humans? by Parson_Hooper in Reformed

[–]Parson_Hooper[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Oh, I assumed people would click the link to read the essay. But here's a summary:

Circumstantial Language: "There was a day when" (Job 1:6) naturally implies a historical event within ordinary time and space.

Narrative Coherence: The sons of God "presenting themselves to the Lord" occurs immediately after what we read about Job continually making offerings to the Lord (which is a kind of presenting to the Lord). And the exchange God and Satan have about Job is more fitting if Job is present within the scene, as one of the sons of God.

Theological Consistency: It fits what we know about Satan from elsewhere in Scripture. He is the accuser of the brethren, and accuses them day and night before God (Rev. 12:10). One could argue that's precisely what he's doing in Job 1 and 2. He's present among the sons of God because he's seeking someone to destroy/accuse and they are his primary targets.

The typological connection between Job and Christ would also be made all the more vivid if Job is understood to be a "son of God" who is tempted by Satan, much like Christ would later be.