Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
He makes an illogical leap from the presence of the definite article to a non-identification. Just because "the accuser" is the most accurate translation of the term as used in Job (and it is) doesn't mean that this accuser isn't Satan, the devil, as the host seems to think. Who else is portrayed as the premier accuser of the brethren other than Satan, the devil? The being portrayed in Job 1 and 2 has a truly Satanic theology. He believes that Job only fears God because of mercenary, selfish motivation. He wants to get Job to curse God.
It is certainly possible (I would argue likely) that the title "the accuser" is, in fact, precisely where Satan got his name.
Many see the Angel of the Lord as being the preincarnate Christ Himself.Thank you, and please be patient with me as I am on information gathering mode. His same logic, could it be said that "the angel of the Lord" is not the same as other angels because of the definite article? I realize that context alone can distinguish "the angel of the Lord" from other angels. However, what about his argument that sin or evil can be in the presence of the Lord. I take issue with that because the same problem exists in Eden where Satan is present, and so is Adam after he sinned, and even Moses stood on Holy ground.
Many see the Angel of the Lord as being the preincarnate Christ Himself.
Satan does not go into hell until at the time of the Second Coming event .Heiser is a competent OT scholar. I don't follow him in all details, though. His point is that our received demonology doesn't account for all the references the Bible makes of "spiritual beings."
I think a good case can be made that the Accuser is in fact Ha Satan. But even if he is, it sort of disrupts our Miltonian/Dantean cosmology of Hell. If Job is true, Satan isn't currently "burning" right now.
Satan does not go into hell until at the time of the Second Coming event .
Heiser is quite annoying to me of late. He uses his platform at Logos software to put out all manner of odd views about the spiritual realm, e.g.,
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/the-nephilim.91956/page-2#post-1124628
That would be the consensus view of many people, including many Christians.I actually agree, but the "common sense" view that most Christians hold is that Satan is currently in a place of torment and bad people go there when they die.
I just say "Amen" to this.A lot of so called Bible Background, especially in OT studies seems to deny the perspicuity of Scripture and how the Holy Spirit through NT authors, infallibily interprets it.
A lot of so called Bible Background, especially in OT studies seems to deny the perspicuity of Scripture and how the Holy Spirit through NT authors, infallibily interprets it.
Because of the way Hebrew works, construct phrases like "the angel of the LORD" cannot have a definite article. They are considered to be definite because they are in construct with a definite noun. If you wanted to say "An angel of the Lord", you'd have to say "An angel belonging to the Lord". Moreover, hebrew often has definite articles where English doesn't, especially where real world objects are in view. For example, in 1 Kings 18:4 the Hebrew has the definite article where English has the indefinite "fifty men to a cave". So the presence or absence of the definite article doesn't really prove what you want it to here. For example, "Satan" has no definite article in 1 Chron 21:1.That's my point, besides the context the definite article seems to imply this is a different Angel. The same argument seems to support the author of the video. Any experts in Hebrew that can chime in?
I did not say he was a liberal or denying the clarity of scripture. I have become concerned many who follow the ANE comparative approach and neglect the NT tend to move toward a slippery slope. It soon, not necessarily him but students following some professors like this, will lead to a 'christotelic' view of the NT use of the OT and we see how that has played out unfortunately.True, but Heiser has an evangelical view of Scripture. I disagree with Heiser on some areas but he is not a liberal.
This come from Job Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms by Tremper Longman III p. 82-83.
This figure has been the source of much discussion. Confusion arises over the identity of this figure because in Hebrew he is called haśśāṭān. The verb śṭn means “to accuse” or “to be an adversary,” but as may clearly be seen from the transliteration of the Hebrew, it also eventually is used as a proper name for the devil. Thus many English versions give the impression that this figure is the devil (NIV, NLT,22 NRSV). However, there are significant reasons to doubt that this refers to the devil. First, the word has a definite article prefixed to it (lit. “the satan”), thus precluding the idea it is a proper name. It would be equivalent to saying “the George.” There is also a theological issue in that it would be strange in the extreme to imagine the devil as a member of the heavenly court and God as having a conversation with his enemy in heaven, not to speak of the problem of the devil’s convincing God to harm Job. It is much more likely that this figure is one of God’s angelic associates,23 who takes the position of a devil’s advocate, so to speak, but not Satan himself.24 True, Satan gets his name from the fact that he is the ultimate accuser, the ultimate adversary, but that does not make all accusers Satan. Nor is all accusation evil. This accuser is about to challenge Job’s authenticity as a God-fearer, and at this point it is not yet clear whether he is making an accurate accusation.
Thus the accuser is a member of the heavenly court, an agent of Yahweh, who is reporting on his patrolling through the earth.25 The human analogy would be a spy’s reporting to his commander what he has discovered during his latest mission.
This may be strictly true, but again misses the point. The Genesis creation account alternates between "ha'adam" (the human) and "'adam" (the name of the archetypal human); the referent in both cases is the same. In the same way, Scripture can alternate between "hasatan" (the accuser) and "Satan" (the name of the archetypal accuser). Perhaps it doesn't have to indicate the same person, but it certainly doesn't preclude it. After all, Satan's name indicates his essential feature (something that is hard to recognize in English). For that reason, all our English translations treat hasatan as a personal name in Zechariah 3:1, following the lead of Rev 12:9-10.First, the word has a definite article prefixed to it (lit. “the Satan”), thus precluding the idea it is a proper name. It would be equivalent to saying “the George.”
I did not say he was a liberal or denying the clarity of scripture. I have become concerned many who follow the ANE comparative approach and neglect the NT tend to move toward a slippery slope.