Identity Theft (2)
And He said, “Who told you that you were naked?” Genesis 3:11 NASB
Told – Who told you? Who told you that there was something flawed in your world? Who told you that something is interfering with your enjoyment of just being alive? Who told you that you had a problem with God? Adam’s unspoken answer is the same as yours and mine. I told myself!
Just as the woman told herself that the Tree was good for food, pleasant to the eyes and provided knowledge, we tell ourselves that we no longer fit in God’s creation. God doesn’t really have to explain it (but He does anyway). We know! We know that somehow this isn’t the way things are supposed to be. We know that we have been exposed, uncovered. We know that we have to hide who we really are because something has gone wrong. Sha’ul tells us that everyone knows two crucial things about life: 1 – God must be acknowledged for who He is because I am not God, and 2 – I must be grateful that God has given me life and all that goes with it. These are the same two things that stand in opposition to our desire to be in control. And when we refuse to accept these two things, terrible consequences come into play.
No one had to tell me that I am not God. I know I am not Him. And as soon as I become aware that I am not God, I realize that there is something not quite right between God and me. Who told me that? I did. The emergence of conscience occurs as soon as I am aware that something is wrong. God designed me with the early warning program and it is self-starting.
The Hebrew verb nagad means “to declare, to expound, to proclaim, to publish, to acknowledge, to announce and to report.” The pictograph “life lifted up to enter” describes how a report or a proclamation works. The announcement lifts up something that enters into my life. From the moment I hear it, my life is changed. It can’t be erased. I can’t rewind the tape and pretend nothing happened. To be told is to be a participant in the report. How many times have you wished that we could be “un-told.” But it’s too late. Once I proclaim myself “naked,” I can never go back to the place where naked meant nothing. Once I receive the declaration that God and I have issues, it is no use to pretend I didn’t hear. Now it is part of me, no matter what I do with it.
In Jewish thought, Man is in the crossfire of yetzer ha-tov and yetzer ha-ra. He is the intersection of the impulse toward good and the impulse toward evil. This is no accident. He was designed that way. The question before us is not, “How do I erase knowing?” The question is, “Now that I know, what must I do?” Awakening the yetzer ha’ra is at the same time awakening the yetzer ha-tov. To know who asks is to know who must respond. “I have declared to myself that I am exposed to You, O Lord . . . and I am afraid.” Perhaps the question isn’t so odd after all. Perhaps we have just chosen not to listen to it.
Topical Index: told, nagad, naked, afraid, Genesis 3:11, who
If we spent less time running and hiding from God, blaming Satan and others, and more time surrendering and submitting to the One who loves us beyond measure, walking in the acts of righteousness that mirror the image of Yeshua, our world would be so incredibly different.
Thank you for this blessed Word to day!
You have distilled it perfectly. Thanks
This is a really good word today, Skip. I don’t think it could get much more ‘original’!
Years I spent in vanity and pride
Caring not my Lord was crucified
Knowing not it was for me He died on Calvary
By God’s Word at last my sin I learned
Then I trembled at the law I’d spurned
Till my guilty soul imploring turned to Calvary
And mercy there was great, and grace was free
And pardon there was multiplied to me
There my burdened soul found liberty at Calvary
Now I’ve given to Jesus everything
Now I gladly own Him as my King
Now my raptured soul can only sing of Calvary
Oh, the love that drew salvation’s plan
Oh, the grace that brought it down to man
Oh, the mighty gulf that God did span at Calvary
And mercy there was great, and grace was free
And pardon there was multiplied to me
There my burdened soul found liberty at Calvary
Alas! and did my Savior bleed,
and did my Sovereign die!
Would he devote that sacred head
for sinners such as I?
Was it for crimes that I have done,
He groaned upon the tree?
Amazing pity! Grace unknown!
And love beyond degree!
Well might the sun in darkness hide,
and shut its glories in,
when God, the mighty maker, died
for His own creature’s sin.
Thus might I hide my blushing face
while His dear cross appears;
dissolve my heart in thankfulness,
and melt mine eyes to tears.
But drops of tears can ne’er repay
the debt of love I owe.
Here, Lord, I give myself away;
’tis all that I can do.
At the cross, at the cross
Where I first saw the light,
And the burden of my heart rolled away
It was there by faith I received my sight,
And now I am happy all the day!
Text: Isaac Watts, 1674-1748
“Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.” (Galatians 3.24) Faith in the propitiating, atoning, precious blood of Yeshua HaMashiach, the Lamb of G-d, the ONE who died the death of a criminal on the tslav, the ONE who has taken away the sins of the world, including my own.
What shall we say then? [Is] the law sin? G-d forbid. No, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, “Thou shalt not covet.” (Roman 7.7)
Skip’s post reminded me of this quote: ”Because the pain of knowing who we are is so great, we spend a lifetime running from ourselves. We have become experts in dodging, avoiding, hiding, pretending, covering, running, protecting, eluding, escaping, averting, evading the real us. This ‘Great Escape’ from ourselves is the way most of us have chosen to live our lives, Christian or not, because it is the way of less pain. That is why the Good News of the Gospel is so painful. Jesus wants to do much more than forgive our sins. He wants to capture our real self – and for us to face who we are. Not only is our real self full of sin, it is full of flaws and brokenness – and full of hope. To see who we are meant to be, who we are capable of being if we will stop running and start looking, is what conversion is all about.” (Mike Yaconelli, Christianity Today)
“WE HAVE CAPTURE” a book by a previous astronaut – General Thomas P. Stafford…http://www.thelogbook.com/book/we-have-capture/
I’m standing this morning – like all mornings- at the corner of ha’ra (evil) and ha’tov (good). Which way will I go? Some suggest the choice is clear. Why does it often appear otherwise? One way promises reward and the other judgement. I’m afraid of both. I hesitate, but the traffic this morning is heavy; no place to pull off.
“In Jewish thought, Man is in the crossfire of yetzer ha-tov and yetzer ha-ra. He is the intersection of the impulse toward good and the impulse toward evil. This is no accident.”
Several years ago, my old company moved to a new building on Great America Parkway (the “GAP” bldg).
I was given a seat on the top floor outside the president’s office, next to an attractive younger woman.
Knowing that she was one of the president’s favorites and a model of discipline, I assumed one of my jobs would be to follow her lead in an unofficial capacity.
To introduce my game plan, I drew a cross on the board; told her that many years ago I had written a dissertation on The Scarlet Letter, and said that IMO the “A” stood for two things.
On the one hand it stood for Alienation (sin and suffering) and on the other it stood for Androgyny (wholeness and fulfillment).
I also told her that at previous companies they had moved me around a lot and that I tended to focus on troubleshooting issues.
“Androgyny (wholeness and fulfillment)”
Hawthorne in his heavy-handed way tells that the A also stands for Adam, Able, Authenticity, etc.
The stange thing is that Hester Prynne is an outcast in her 17th century Puritan society.
And she is very much at home at home in the middle of the darkest forests.
With the tribes of wild Indians.
About this time in college, I read a book by Phillip K Dick, “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep.”
The movie, Blade Runner, is loosely based on the book called Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep.
Harrison Ford, the Action-Hero of many famous movies, plays the hero in Blade Runner.
Which begs the question, what is an Android?
If not just the name of Google’s mobile operating system?
I would argue that the concept itself comes from Genesis 1:27
God created man in the image of himself,
in the image of God he created him
male and female he created them.
This image of wholeness, of what men and women can become, is based on a “model of discipline.”
What does it look like when we faithfully obey the commands that are given to us, at any cost?
Maybe we become a little bit like Hester Prynne who faithfully serves her community.
Or like Matt Damon in The Bourne Identity: very predictable and almost unstoppable.
A model of discipline.
from Michael—What does it look like when we faithfully obey the commands that are given to us, at any cost?–
then, having been taught by our Teacher, we will model our Master and will be conformed (through heat and pressure) into the image/eicon/likeness of Christ. We will look like Him; “little Christs” or “Christians,” and they (those outside of Christ) will know we are Christians by our love.
–And He said, “Who told you that you were naked?” (Genesis 3:11)
What do the scriptures -(G-d’s written Word) -the Writings say? (Galatians 4.30)
“Before G-d, nothing created is hidden, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must render an account.” (Hebrews 4.13)
Render an account?
“For we must all appear before the judgment seat of the Messiah, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.” (2 Corinthians 5.10)
“But I say to you, That every idle, (lazy, thoughtless, unprofitable, injurious) word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.” (Matthew 12.36)
TMI? too much information? Who told you? “and the word of the LORD came unto (Eve..) “and the word of the LORD came unto (Adam…) “and the word of the LORD came unto ______ .”
According to the “shema” if we hear the word of G-d what is our right-response? What was the “epic failure” of Eve, then Adam? What was their “wrong” response?
What was the right response of the erring son who “came to his senses” in Luke 15.21,22?
“And the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’
And what was the response of the Father to the son who asked forgiveness? (ask and you will receive)
“But the father said to his servants, ‘Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet.”
Well, Michael – i am so curios – what was her response to your game plan that you drew for her…
“To introduce my game plan, I drew a cross on the board; told her that many years ago I had written a dissertation on The Scarlet Letter, and said that IMO the “A” stood for two things.
On the one hand it stood for Alienation (sin and suffering) and on the other it stood for Androgyny (wholeness and fulfillment).
I also told her that at previous companies they had moved me around a lot and that I tended to focus on troubleshooting issues.”
jan
“what was her response to your game plan that you drew for her”
Hi Jan,
Well actually it was not a “game plan,” it was more of a position statement, a statement of values
I had been told that she was the President’s “favorite” and we had been seated together
Outside the President’s Door
I probably don’t look like the type who would start talkng about The Scarlet Letter in any event
Regarding an interpretation of the text that was unique to me at that time
So she probably didn’t know what to say
And, as I recall, she just smiled and went back to her cube
But it might help to know that we were working on networking hardware and software
She owned the “FastIron” switches and I owned the “ServerIron” switches
And the President had founded the company called Foundry
So the roles were clear to me 🙂
Hi Skip,
I am writing this separately from the forum as it is rather long and with many questions.
(Note to readers – Skip suggested I put this on the blog along with his reply)
Whilst I hear what you say regarding these two inclinations Skip there is no mention by you of the adversary playing any part – why? If it is just that we are born with two inclinations why is there so much in scripture about and enemy who is crafty and subtle so much so that even the elect could be deceived? One who is called a murderer the father of lies from the beginning (from the greek root word – ä’r-kho-mī. Meaning to be first, the first to do anything) Could this verse in John 8:44 be talking about the liar ‘in who abode no truth’ from the beginning, in the garden be the one who said ‘you shall not die’? If it is us who decide between Yetzer ha’ra and Yetzer Tov what does Paul mean when he says ‘we wrestle not against flesh and blood but powers and principalities’?
I read a book last year that I found very thought provoking by a guy called Bill Cloud called ‘Enmity between the Seeds’. He introduces a concept about the principle of the seed then goes on to make a case for looking at how YHWH intended things to be from the beginning, but an Adversary sought to corrupt those intentions by planting another seed. He points out that in Genesis 2:9 it says’ ……the Lord God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil’, noting that God made only the trees that were ‘pleasant to the sight and good for food’. So who planted the seed that made the other tree? In answering this question he devotes a chapter to exploring who, how and why these two trees have different sowers. He gives an understanding of what he calls the Principal of the Seed by covering the following points about seed:
– the seed for everything is in the beginning
– seed (only) reproduces after its kind
– there is only one good seed, the word of God
– there is enmity between good and wicked seed
– God forbids the mingling of seeds
Referring to his above ‘fundamental points’ he unpacks an interesting premise showing that what took place in the garden has a major impact on how things will turn out in the end i.e. ‘the end is revealed in the beginning’, He asks the reader to consider the dichotomy between YHWH’s seed and the Serpent’s seed and its possible outcome over time and in the ‘end of days’. I found it very thought provoking and its contents came back to me recently listening to your Genesis series. Then this excerpt from ‘today’s word’ caused me to ask questions about the yetzer ha’ra and the yetzer ha’ tov and the ‘walking, talking naked snake’. Who causes him to walk and speak? Could he not be ’….the adversary the devil….who is as a roaring lion, walking about seeking whom he may devour’ 1 Peter 5: 8
In your article yesterday you said:
‘We know that somehow this isn’t the way things are supposed to be. We know that we have been exposed, uncovered. We know that we have to hide who we really are because something has gone wrong.’
Somehow? How?
Something? What?
You call it identity theft….do we steal our own identity? Only a thief wants our identity – we can safe guard it and have the opportunity to safe guard it in many ways. However, if we are not vigilant and let our guard down…pow! Is not that why we are told to ‘put on the armour of God’….to withstand the fire darts of the enemy and not just our own Yetzer Ha’ra ?
I have not done an in depth study into this nor do I have the knowledge and expertise you have in Greek and Hebrew but Skip I wonder why you don’t mention the enemy but stress that its our Yetzer Ha’ra . Am I missing something here?
Yeshua in the parable of the sower talks of ‘an enemy that sows a seed while men slept’ when telling the disciples about how the kingdom of God works. Mathew 13:24-25. Why did Yeshua then go on to say that if one doesn’t understand the parable of the ‘wheat and tares’ how will you understand any of the parables regarding the Kingdom of God? Who sowed the tares? I ask all these questions because I don’t see you mention anything about Ha Satan/enemy/fallen angel etc.
Welcome your comments
Christine
Dear Christine,
Good questions. Maybe you will want to post this to the blog for others to comment.
Here is my view. The idea of HaSatan is a later development of Scripture. In fact, there is very little about him in the Tanakh. After the rabbinic period which began about 200BC, we find much more about this being. Yeshua reflects that same rabbinic perspective. But that doesn’t mean we can read him back into the Genesis account. The first principle of exegesis is to deal with what the text actually says, not what we add to it from later periods.
Furthermore, I see no sound basis for the argument that somehow the Tree wasn’t put there by God. To suggest that it was the work of Satan is to suggest that God either 1) didn’t know about it, or 2) allowed Satan to plant it anyway. Both of these alternatives seem improbable. Rabbinic thought is more robust. The Tree is there on purpose. God put it there. The yetzer ha’ra is an essential part of being human, not the result of a fallen nature. Bill’s view reads too much into the text. It is true that there are a great number of unanswered questions in the Genesis account, but that is just what they are – unanswered. The idea of the “seed” can probably be traced back to Aristotle’s view of entelechy, a Greek concept about the inevitable nature of seeds.
Does that mean I don’t believe in HaSatan? Of course not. Yeshua has a lot to say about him. But as long as Yeshua doesn’t identify him as the serpent or the sower of the Tree in the garden, I don’t see that I have the exegetical tools to do so.
Finally, on parables. Parables are short fictional accounts that attempt to clarify a point of teaching. They are not usually designed to provide exegetical material for unrelated passages. The wheat and the tares is about the kingdom, not about the garden.
It’s easy to want to connect all the dots and in the process make claims that aren’t found in the text. We all do it because we want the answers. Maybe one of the lessons we must learn is that we don’t have all the answers – and it’s OK.
Blessings,
Skip
“I ask all these questions because I don’t see you mention anything about Ha Satan/enemy/fallen angel etc. Welcome your comments, Christine”
Hi Christine,
As a proper character, Satan appears only once in the Tanach – in the Book of Job. He is depicted as an angel who mocks the piety of the righteous Job.[3]
Job 1:6: Now the day came about, and the angels of God came to stand beside the Lord, and the Adversary (הַשָּׂטָן), too, came among them.[2]
From the dialogue in the opening chapter of the Book of Job we see that HaSatan is a member of the angelic hosts of the abode of Hashem and has no independent power.
Job 1:7, 12: (7) The Lord said to the Adversary (הַשָּׂטָן), “Where are you coming from?” And the Adversary (הַשָּׂטָן) answered the Lord and said, “From going to and fro on the earth and from walking in it.” … (12) Now the Lord said to the Adversary (הַשָּׂטָן), “Behold, all that he has is in your hands; only upon him do not stretch forth your hand.” Now the Adversary (הַשָּׂטָן) left the presence of the Lord.[2]
From this exchange we see that HaSatan is an angel who watches over the activities of humanity, searching for mankind’s sins and then appearing as their accuser to Hashem. HaSatan is not considered an opponent to Hashem as Christianity teaches. (From Judaism 101)
One thing we can be sure of in regards to this portion of scripture, whoever this creature is, it demonstrates a certain degree of emnity towards God. That can be determined by the statements made in regards to God by him. That emnity can be extended to mankind insofar as it is contrary to the stated will of God for Adam. It would be difficult to support an absence of opposition in light of the statements made by this creature.
I suppose the name lucifer would be more theologically in line with this creature simply by the meaning of the name. It’s perhaps a little easier to see if you distinquish lucifer as a separate entity than satan, as I lean toward.
In regard to the seed concept, when Jesus taught the parables of the seed in the field, you’ll note that there were tares planted among the wheat so that there is two opposing seeds in play. Another interesting pattern in scripture is concerning the lineage of Cain. Although we know that Adam is the physical father of Cain, when the lineage is given it starts with Cain, then it “backs up” and determines another seed or lineage starting with Adam through Seth, therefore exempting Adam from Cain’s lineage. One lineage was destroyed in judgement while the other was preserved in rest and became the inheritors of a new world. Interesting thing though, Noah had siblings. They were part of the righteous “seed”, yet took part in the judgement. Did they buy into the ideaology of the world system and refuse to separate themselves from it therefore leading to taking part of the judgement of the unrighteous? One of the foundational principles of this creation is that seed produces only that which is after it’s kind. Literally, grass grassing and fruit making fruiting. Doesn’t leave a lotta room for variance! Just thinking out loud 🙂 food for thought.
“One thing we can be sure of in regards to this portion of scripture, whoever this creature is, it demonstrates a certain degree of emnity towards God.”
Hi Robert,
If enmity means “The state or feeling of being actively opposed or hostile to someone or something,” I see no evidence of enmity in Ha Satan toward God.
Job 1:6 One day the Sons of God came to attend on Yahweh, and among them was Satan.
Job 1:7 So Yahweh said to Satan, “Where have you been? …. “Round the earth,” Satan answered, “roaming about.”
Job 1:8 So Yahweh asked him, “Did you notice my servant Job? There is no one like him on earth: a sound and honest man who fears God and shuns evil.”
Job 1:9 “Yes,” Satan said “but Job is not God fearing for nothing is he? Have you not put a wall around him and his house and all his domain?”
To me, these “characters” appear to be almost equal and though they are “gods,” they are almost like old friends; like two old Jews at the Del Mar racetrack handicapping a horse.
But in this case the horse being handicapped is poor old Job.
“surely you will not die”.
Sounds pretty hostile to me. He just called God a liar.
“surely you will not die”.
Robert: “Sounds pretty hostile to me. He just called God a liar.”
Hi Robert,
I don’t tend to see the snake in the garden, who says “surely you will not die,” as the same character as Ha Satan.
In Genesis 3:14, Yahweh God says to the serpent: “because you have done this (tricked Adam and Eve), …. you shall crawl on your belly and eat dust the rest of your life.”
Ha Satan is never seen eating dust as far as I know; in my mind Ha Satan would seem to be more like St. Michael the archangel than the Snake in the garden.
The identity of the creature in the garden is, theologically speaking, up for grabs, That it was hostile in that setting towards God and man is pretty obvious to those who care to examine the text as a whole, ie the creation scenario with all the directives of God regarding man and the rest of creation.
In regards to satan, there’s another time in another garden where he tempts another Adam. Definitely hostile. Especially if the one being tempted was, as a true Israelite, under the mosaic law, and was aware of the intention of God toward man. But what did you expect him to say when he was asked where he had been. What does anyone say who has been caught in the act of doin’ something wrong?
Hey, whaddaya doin’?
Who me!! Nuthin!! (as cookie crumbs are falling off the lips) just wandering around on top of the cabinets ya know, seein’ if I could keep my balance up here! 🙂
“That it was hostile in that setting towards God and man is pretty obvious to those who care to examine the text as a whole, ie the creation scenario with all the directives of God regarding man and the rest of creation.”
I agree. That’s why God says to the serpent: “because you have done this (tricked Adam and Eve), …. you shall crawl on your belly and eat dust the rest of your life.”
Regarding Matt 4:1, where the Spirit (God) leads Jesus into the wild to be tempted by the devil, I guess my 1st question would be is the devil Ha Satan: but in any case again, as in Job, this devil is not a snake and like Ha Satan in Job is an agent of God….or so it seems to me.
The connection is made in Rev 12:9 as you know. There the devil is associated with satan. As far as being an agent of God is concerned, ultimately all things serve God’s purposes. He dosen’t have to allow anything to happen outside His will. When He does allow some activity that would seem contrary to His will, you can bet there’s a GOOD purpose behind it, otherwise God is slandered.
“Rev 12:9…. There the devil is associated with satan. As far as being an agent of God is concerned, ultimately all things serve God’s purposes.”
Hi Robert,
Basically, I understand your comments above and don’t disagree with them.
But in the NASB translation below, Ha Satan is portrayed as an agent of God acting on a direct command:
Job 1:12 Then the LORD said to Satan, “Behold, all that he has is in your power, only do not put forth your hand on him.”
In the OT Ha Satan can be seen as a manifestation of God, but in the NT the Devil is an evil spirit and cannot be seen as a manifestation of God IMO.
But in the NASB translation below, Ha Satan is portrayed as an agent of God acting on a direct command:
Hi Michael,
I don’t think what was stated by God to satan would qualify as a command. An allowance would seem to be a better term. You may remember that satan’s response to God was that He had built a wall around him and everything he owned. How did he know that!? ya reckon he had tried to get to Job? Here’s a classic case of someone being in WAY over their head. God and satan aren’t anywhere near equals. If you remember the end of the story, what happened to Job actually prospered him. There’s another time satan had permission to destroy a man and it turned out to betoward the salvation of the whole world. And the beat goes on.
To call satan a manifestation of God in the old testament is to suggest that any agent God uses is the same. The danger is that it’s a wide open door for heresy. Very new age don’t cha know! I’m god, your god the devils god, rocks, trees, good, evil, etc. etc. etc. it’s all god…..uhh, maybe that’s old age! Nothing new under the sun!!
What’s the division between “old testament” and “new testament”? It’s an amazing thing to see God use the nature of the enemy to destroy himself and his kingdom. It’s the same whether it’s Job in the “old” or Paul in the “new” or the Messiah “in between”. God’s the same all the time and defies being boxed by our characterizations of Him. We’re left with His self defining word to observe His nature. Scripture can’t be broken!
God still uses evil against itself, just like He used Pharaoh. That doesn’t make God responsible for Pharaoh’s actions or anyone elses, we will all stand accountable for our own free agency decisions. The insidious nature of sin is this; it blinds one to the truth or maybe more aptly stated, reality. So that the end result is that even in the face of demonstratable, insurmountable odds, your totaly convinced you’ll come out on top. The lesson wasn’t learned with Job or with the Messiah or with the Apostles, and there’s another contest coming that will result in the destruction of the enemies kingdom on this earth, but he doesn’t believe that either. Just like the man who’s running from God, no matter which way he runs it’s towards Him, for the enemies of God, no matter what they do to destroy God and/or His authority they destroy themselves in the very act.
Hi Robert,
I appreciate your very thoughtful and detailed response.
Just a few of my clarifications here:
Robert: I don’t think what was stated by God to satan would qualify as a command.
Mike: I agree, it is not like “thou shalt love thy neighbor,” but it is a “king” authorizing an action.
Mike: The king is boasting about his loyal servant, about what a good job his servant is doing.
Mike: Ha Satan rightly argues that if you give a guy everything he wants, what’s the big deal?
Mike: Yahweh applies a “Hands Off” policy for Job, and then authorizes a “reign of terror” on his family, or so it seems to me.
Mike: King Lear goes through a similar process in the greatest of Shakespeare’s tragedies, and my favorite line from that play is the following:
“As flies to wanton boys
are we to the gods,
they kill us for their sport.”
“As flies to wanton boys
are we to the gods,
they kill us for their sport.”
To which I would reply: “the foolishness of God is wiser than the wisdom of man.”
The question that remains for us is do we see throughthe lens of scripture, and therefore through the eyes of God, or is our perception skewered by the cosmos that has been set up as contrary to YHWH. Often the only difference in a given situation is intent. God was looking not only to Job’s prosperity but to his refinement as well (which is true prosperity) Ha satan was looking to the destruction of Job, as is revealed in his own words. Loosley translated as, “if you take away all his stuff, he’ll drop you like a hot rock.” We don’t need an accuser, we need an advocate. That’s what makes deception so deceptive, it’s hard to tell the difference between what’s right and wrong.
I’ll leave you with this, and btw it has been a pleasure discussing these things with you.
Rendering the text of Gen.1 as written, it says God makes a distinction between the light and between the darkness. Some call that a literary constructio. I call it a “it says what it says.” Yeshua our Messiah said that if the LGHT that is in you IS DARKNESS, than how deep is that darkness.
and separated Elohim between the light VAV between the darkness!
“Ha satan was looking to the destruction of Job, as is revealed in his own words. Loosley translated as, “if you take away all his stuff, he’ll drop you like a hot rock.” We don’t need an accuser, we need an advocate.”
Hi Robert,
Just to put the story in a narrative context, Ha Satan appears on the scene with the Sons of God, who make up God’s heavenly court and council.
The “sons” are identified with the angels, so Ha Satan would seem to be in pretty good company with them and in pretty good standing with the Father as well.
And if the Father did not think Job needed an accuser, Ha Satan would not have a role in Job’s life.
Or so it seems to me 🙂
Just to put the story in a narrative context, Ha Satan appears on the scene with the Sons of God, who make up God’s heavenly court and council.
That is an assumption, especially the council part. We could ascertain from scripture that they are the administrators of God’s will, (at least to some degree) but advisors or councilors are a mistaken term. “who has given YHWH council” is not a question, it a statement.
We all have the same information available to us. It’s the conclusions we arrive at that are driven by our perception that tell on us. Yeshua said that you will know them by their fruit. That’s the stuff that determines what kinda tree it is. 🙂
Satan accuses because it’s his nature. Do you really think God was unaware of Job’s shortcomings? or that any of us need to have our sins reiterated to God? From God’s point of view that would be totally unnessesary. So what is satans role? God’s word answers that question. Job’s understanding was increased.
Job 42:5 I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee.
Job 42:6 Wherefore I abhor [myself], and repent in dust and ashes.
The “sons” are identified with the angels, so Ha Satan would seem to be in pretty good company with them and in pretty good standing with the Father as well.
Everything and everybody is accountable to God as their creator. Because one is presented to God does not mean they are in a right standing with Him.
Every knee shall bow, involves the good the bad and….. well, you get my drift.
The heavenly is host called to be a witness as well, not only to good, but to evil also.
“And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,” (Revelation 20.2)
Revelation 22:16 I, Jesus, have sent my angel, to make these revelations to you for the sake of the churches. I am of David’s line, the root of David and the “bright star of the morning.”
Hi Carl,
On the one hand, one of my favorite movies was based on Revelation (Bergman’s, The Seventh Seal.)
But the problem I have with the book of Revelation, theologically speaking, is that even Jesus seems to be connected to Satan/Lucifer/the bright star of the morning.
For some odd reason, “the book always seems to be better than the movie,” but how would you perceive/understand Jesus/Yeshua/Son of man/Son of G-d to be connected to Satan/Lucifer/the bright start of the morning? And what is the foundation of your understanding? What is this knowledge based upon?
“And what is the foundation of your understanding?”
Hi Carl,
The following quote is from my Bible:
“Revelation 22:16 I, Jesus, have sent my angel, to make these revelations to you for the sake of the churches. I am of David’s line, the root of David and the bright star of the morning.”
The “bright star of the morning” is typically associated with Lucifer.
We can debate whether the footnote in my Bible is mistaken regarding the “heavenly council” (Robert’s comment).
But The Jerusalem Bible was the edition selected by the founder of the philosophy department at UCSD to teach in the Humanities Department.
Avrum Stroll (born 1921) is a research professor at the University of California, San Diego. He is a distinguished philosopher and a noted scholar in the fields of epistemology, philosophy of language, and twentieth-century analytic philosophy[1][2].
In his youth, Professor Stroll was a “star” rabinnical student and I tended to trust what he valued.
The hebrew word nagad has the same root ngd as the word neged (part of kenegdo). I also read that the noun can mean prince or leader. Is there a connection?