Are there other beings called gods and there would still be one God (the Father) that there is no other god beside Him.

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Dec 30, 2020
868
228
43
#1
Might "beside him" mean next to Him or at the same level or the one God of all, rather than the only God?
1Tim 1: 17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.

"the only wise God" seems to indicate that out of a collection of gods, He is the only one that is wise.
Heb 1: 8 But unto the Son He saith, Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever; a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of thy kingdom.
Is that one intelligence talking to another intelligence or to Himself? One is calling the other God, with a kingdom to rule with a scepter of righteousness. To be righteous means to obey the will of the Father. Jesus said that His bread was to do the will of the Father. It seems that the Father is rewarding Christ with the oil of gladness above His fellows (all other beings are created beings) and giving Him a kingdom which is His (Christ) body made up of souls of Christians throughout humanity with Christ as the Head as our God, Lord, and Savior. Just as Jesus prayed to the Father and to His God, the Father is the one God of all.
 

SpeakTruth101

Active member
Aug 14, 2023
874
186
43
#2
Because the word "God" or "god" is translated from the word El/Elohim/el/elohim

It is a descriptive of a being that is very powerful beyond normal human or beyond human ability, originally meaning from it's root word "to be strong like the trunk of an oak tree"

"God/god" in Greek

G2316 θεός theos (the-os') n.
1. (properly, in Greek) a god or deity. a supernatural, powerful entity (real or imagined)
2. (by Hebraism, especially with G3588) God, the Supreme Being, the Creator, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Yahweh by name.
3. (figuratively) a supreme magistrate (in the land).
[of uncertain affinity]
KJV: X exceeding, God, god(-ly, -ward)
See also: G2304, G2299, G3588, H430

"God/god" in Hebrew

H430 אֱלֹהִים 'elohiym (el-o-heem') n-m.
אֱלֹהֵי 'elohiy (el-o-hee') [alternate plural]
1. (literally) supreme ones.
2. (hence, in the ordinary sense) gods.
3. (specifically, in the plural, especially with the article) the Supreme God (i.e. the all supreme).
4. (sometimes) supreme, used as a superlative.
5. (occasionally, by way of deference) supreme magistrates, the highest magistrates of the land.
6. (also) the supreme angels (entities of unspecified type).
[plural of H433]
KJV: angels, X exceeding, God (gods)(-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.
Root(s): H433
Compare: H5945, H7706, H8199, H4397

Neither are exclusive to YHWH

Here is an example

Psalms 82:6, 6 I, I said, “You are elohim, And all of you are sons of the Most High."

Psalms 82:6, 6 I said, “You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you; "

I think it comes from a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word
 

SpeakTruth101

Active member
Aug 14, 2023
874
186
43
#3
It's most base rott word is

H193 אוּל 'uwl (ool) n-m.
1. the body (as being rolled together).
2. (also) powerful.
[from an unused root meaning to twist together, by implication, to be sturdy, strong]
KJV: mighty, strength.
Compare: H202, H6108
See also: H352, H410
 
Dec 30, 2020
868
228
43
#4
It's most base rott word is

H193 אוּל 'uwl (ool) n-m.
1. the body (as being rolled together).
2. (also) powerful.
[from an unused root meaning to twist together, by implication, to be sturdy, strong]
KJV: mighty, strength.
Compare: H202, H6108
See also: H352, H410
Doesn't "El" mean God and "ohim" makes what ever comes before plural?
 

JaumeJ

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2011
21,472
6,726
113
#5
El may be translated as God. Elohim is plural. Eli is my God, the i o the end is the first person possive. Elohecha is your God, masculine. And so on.

The word, el, was used by many peoples to represent a word for god or gods, but my understanding is the word, el, originally meant mighty one, ergo the gods were mighty ones, but onely One is the Almighty One, our El, , Elohanu , our God.
 
Dec 30, 2020
868
228
43
#6
1 Cor 8 : 5-6 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth ( as there are gods many, and lords many) , But to us there is but one God, the Father of whom are all things, and we in Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him.
It seems that the Father is the One God who rules through the Lord Jesus Christ who is filled with the Father's Holy Spirit by which the Father communicates and empowers. Jesus Christ is the Lord and God of all creation, but the Father is the One God Almighty of all including Christ.
 
Oct 9, 2021
881
291
63
#7
Might "beside him" mean next to Him or at the same level or the one God of all, rather than the only God?
1Tim 1: 17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.

"the only wise God" seems to indicate that out of a collection of gods, He is the only one that is wise.
Heb 1: 8 But unto the Son He saith, Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever; a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of thy kingdom.
Is that one intelligence talking to another intelligence or to Himself? One is calling the other God, with a kingdom to rule with a scepter of righteousness. To be righteous means to obey the will of the Father. Jesus said that His bread was to do the will of the Father. It seems that the Father is rewarding Christ with the oil of gladness above His fellows (all other beings are created beings) and giving Him a kingdom which is His (Christ) body made up of souls of Christians throughout humanity with Christ as the Head as our God, Lord, and Savior. Just as Jesus prayed to the Father and to His God, the Father is the one God of all.
There can only be one God for God means supreme being, and we know there is no greater than the God of Israel so He can be the only God.

That is why God said that He knows of no other God, and there is no God beside Him, and there was no God formed before Him, and there shall be no God formed after Him.

Also a created god makes no sense because it would be made of physical matter and what kind of a god is that, and would not be the supreme being to be called god.

Jesus is God manifest in the flesh so Jesus is the supreme being.

There is no other gods except the God of Israel for He is the supreme being, and everything else that is made is made of physical matter.

A physical matter being can never be a god unless it is meant that they have more power than the wicked when they receive their glorified bodies.
 
Dec 30, 2020
868
228
43
#8
You're just repeating over and over that there is only one God but I don't see any scripture. No God formed before Him means that there was a time that existed before Him.
Rom 15 : 6 That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even (that is) the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
The Father is God of all including Christ and Christ is lord over all Creation as well as our God and Savior.
 
Dec 30, 2020
868
228
43
#9
Exodus 6: 3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.

Christ appeared to them in the name of the Father but His name is Jehovah. It was the Father that appeared in Spirit because Christ is filled with the Father's Spirit and and the Father's Spirit talks through Christ ( JEHOVAH) (who is also a spirit).
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
26,074
13,778
113
#10
"the only wise God" seems to indicate that out of a collection of gods, He is the only one that is wise.
That is not the correct interpretation. He is the only God, and all wisdom dwells in Him. All other "gods" are demons or evil angels.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,627
13,875
113
#11
There can only be one God for God means supreme being, and we know there is no greater than the God of Israel so He can be the only God.

That is why God said that He knows of no other God, and there is no God beside Him, and there was no God formed before Him, and there shall be no God formed after Him.

Also a created god makes no sense because it would be made of physical matter and what kind of a god is that, and would not be the supreme being to be called god.

Jesus is God manifest in the flesh so Jesus is the supreme being.

There is no other gods except the God of Israel for He is the supreme being, and everything else that is made is made of physical matter.

A physical matter being can never be a god unless it is meant that they have more power than the wicked when they receive their glorified bodies.
With respect, your argument is circular.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,627
13,875
113
#12
That is not the correct interpretation. He is the only God, and all wisdom dwells in Him. All other "gods" are demons or evil angels.
He is indeed the only true God, but there is a host of elohim who are loyal to Him and would not accept worship from humans. Those who rebelled, were subsequently booted from heaven, whom misguided humans call "gods", those are the evil ones.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,627
13,875
113
#13
Might "beside him" mean next to Him or at the same level or the one God of all, rather than the only God?
1Tim 1: 17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.

"the only wise God" seems to indicate that out of a collection of gods, He is the only one that is wise.
Heb 1: 8 But unto the Son He saith, Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever; a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of thy kingdom.
Is that one intelligence talking to another intelligence or to Himself? One is calling the other God, with a kingdom to rule with a scepter of righteousness. To be righteous means to obey the will of the Father. Jesus said that His bread was to do the will of the Father. It seems that the Father is rewarding Christ with the oil of gladness above His fellows (all other beings are created beings) and giving Him a kingdom which is His (Christ) body made up of souls of Christians throughout humanity with Christ as the Head as our God, Lord, and Savior. Just as Jesus prayed to the Father and to His God, the Father is the one God of all.
I'd recommend you read Michael S. Heiser's The Unseen Realm.
 

Magenta

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2015
61,248
30,363
113
#14
Deuteronomy 32:16-18 They provoked His jealousy with foreign gods; they enraged Him with abominations.
They sacrificed to demons, not to God, to gods they had not known, to newly arrived gods, which your fathers
did not fear. You ignored the Rock who brought you forth; you forgot the God who gave you birth.


Leviticus 17:7 They must no longer offer their sacrifices to the goat demons to which they have
prostituted themselves. This will be a permanent statute for them for the generations to come.


1 Timothy 4:1-2 Now the Spirit expressly states that in later times some will abandon the faith to follow deceitful spirits
and the teachings of demons, influenced by the hypocrisy of liars, whose consciences are seared with a hot iron.


1 Corinthians 8:4-6 So about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world,
and that there is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there
are many so-called gods and lords), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and
for whom we exist. And there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we exist.
 

williamjordan

Senior Member
Feb 18, 2015
516
126
43
#15
You're just repeating over and over that there is only one God but I don't see any scripture. No God formed before Him means that there was a time that existed before Him.
Rom 15 : 6 That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even (that is) the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
The Father is God of all including Christ and Christ is lord over all Creation as well as our God and Savior.
There's a couple things worth notating here. And please don't take what I'm about to say in the wrong way. I know (from first hand experiences that I’ve had on other threads) it is easy to succumb to “heightened senses” when certain notions go challenged, much like what took place in my recent discussions on Gen. 1:1 when I challenged a particular interpretation of Job 38:4-7.

But because of it’s relevance to the discussion, I will be referring to points made in that discussion here. I will also be drawing from posts where I have tried to engage you in the past, because I think they also play a critical role in articulating my main point.

As a real brief overview, in light of the texts being alluded to (Deut. 32:39, Isaiah 44-45), I do not think we can refer to Christ as “a god” in the same way angels are referred to as “gods.” And I hope to outline just why that is, here.

Take a moment to read through these next couple of posts so you can see (from my vantage point) why your view is untenable and quite problematic. Hopefully what I say will help connect some of the dots.

Isaiah 44-45 and Deut. 32:39 will be the primary focus for the entirety of my thesis. I want you to hear the import that these two texts have on the NT authors.
 

williamjordan

Senior Member
Feb 18, 2015
516
126
43
#16
1 Cor 8 : 5-6 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth ( as there are gods many, and lords many) , But to us there is but one God, the Father of whom are all things, and we in Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him.
It seems that the Father is the One God who rules through the Lord Jesus Christ who is filled with the Father's Holy Spirit by which the Father communicates and empowers. Jesus Christ is the Lord and God of all creation, but the Father is the One God Almighty of all including Christ.
To begin, I think the easiest thing to do would be to start with 1 Cor. 8:5-6. I really do hate reposting what has been said on other threads, but I think it may be of some benefit in our situation to bring all that information together into one spot so you can see how it all connects to one another, and to show just how reliant on Deut. 32:39 and Isaiah 44-45 the apostles were when penning their letters.

Without further delay, here I will repost comments I had made previously in a thread entitled, "How do you reconcile the first commandment with the Trinity?" (Post #55),

To answer the question, I think it of significance to open your Bibles to 1 Cor. 8:6, where the Shema is clearly in reference (1 Cor. 8:4).

Some have taken 1 Cor. 8:6 and argued that lords are a subordinate (and earthly) class of beings distinguished from gods, who are their heavenly counterparts. Thus, it is argued that the “Lord” Jesus (1 Cor. 8:6b) is in a completely different class than “God” the Father (1 Cor. 8:6b). So to argue that 1 Cor. 8:6 speaks of Jesus as “Lord” directly contradicts the notion that Jesus is “a god.”

There are massive contextual problems for those who suggest that lords are the earthly representatives of their heavenly counterparts (the gods). For one, the works (or actions) of the “one Lord” (1 Cor. 8:6b) are placed in direct juxtaposition with God the Father’s (more on this below). Therefore, it is not plausible that this “one Lord” is then seen as an “earthly representative” to the “one God” in heaven, especially when He is being referred to as “Lord” in the context of creation. Moreover, in Romans 11:36, Paul speaks of God the Father as the one “from” whom, “through” whom, and “for” whom everything exists. These three prepositional phrases express God’s causation of all things in three ways: as the efficient cause for (“from whom”), the instrumental cause (“through whom”), and the final cause (“for whom”). In 1 Cor. 8:6, Paul assigns two of the causal functions to the Father, and one to Christ. If this “one Lord” is the subordinate earthly representative of the “one God,” why then does this “one Lord” participate in this one God’s work as dictated in Romans 11:36? Paul does not make this kind of distinction between gods in heaven and lords on earth, as the text specifically dictates in 1 Cor. 8:5, “For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth… .”

1 Corinthians 8:6
εἷς θεὸς ὁ πατήρ, ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς αὐτόν
one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we for Him

καὶ εἷς κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, δι' οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς δι'αὐτοῦ
And one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and we through Him

Notice the parallelism: Paul begins by stating that just as there is only “one God,” there is also “one Lord.” It is the “one God… from whom are all things,” and “we for Him” which is placed in juxtaposition to the “one Lord… through whom are all things” and “we through Him.” 1 Cor. 8:6b presents a balanced structure resembling 1 Cor. 8:6a.

Jesus’ work in creation is coextensive with God the Father’s. All things that subsist in the category of “creation” — and without exclusion — are “from” the Father. If it exists within the category of “creation” then it is “from” the Father. That means, all things in creation, without exclusion to any created thing. If Jesus is “created,” he falls into that category. Yet, according to Paul, absolutely everything (“all things”) that are “from” the Father, came into existence “through” the Lord. The parallelism between 8:6a and 8:6b does not allow for one to distinguish between the “all things” that are “from” the Father, and the “all things” that are “through” the Lord Jesus, as if they are two distinguishable categories. If 8:6a’s reference to “all things” means that absolutely everything in existence is “from” the Father, then it necessarily follows that 8:6b’s reference to “all things” likewise means that absolutely everything which came into existence “from” the Father did so “through” the one Lord. By placing Jesus’ work in creation in juxtaposition with God’s, this therefore, implies Jesus’ eternality, which is a trait that uniquely belongs to God. Paul places Jesus in this role as joint participant with God the Father in His eternal being and the duo’s joint venture in bringing forth all creation. Simply put, according to Paul, it is the one Creator — the “one God, the Father, from whom,” and the “one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom” — are “all things.”

1 Cor. 8:6b is a polemic against the “many lords” (v. 5) which entails that only “one Lord” exists and He alone is unique. Paul is here drawing upon an allusion to Deut. 6:4, which served to highlight the uniqueness of the “one Lord” of the OT against the polytheistic context that surrounded Israel. This is further evidenced in the latter half of Paul’s argument, specifically in 1 Cor. 10:21-22.

The question raised in 1 Corinthians 10:21-22 (“Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy?”) is an allusion to the Song of Moses (Deut. 32:21, “They have provoked me to jealousy with what is no god”), the very place Paul alludes to (cf. Deut. 32:4, 15, 18, 31) when he speaks of Christ as “the Rock” (1 Cor. 10:4). Further, Paul’s utilization of δαιμόνιον (“demon”) in 10:20-21 (“…they sacrifice to demons and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons”) directly alludes to Deut. 32:17 LXX (“They sacrificed to devils and not to God; to gods whom they knew not…”). And of course, Paul’s reference in 10:20-21 to “the Lord” (1 Cor. 10:22) is a reference to Jesus. The “cup of the Lord” and “table of the Lord” are a reference to the Lord’s Supper (cf. 1 Cor. 11:27-28, 10:16-17). There is an interesting parallel found in Malachi 1:7-12, where the expression—“the table of the Lord”—is used for the altar which the prophet Malachi warned against defiling, something the Corinthians were also warned against by Paul. In addition, there is a referential connection being made between 1 Cor. 10:22 (“provoking the Lord”) and 1 Cor. 10:9 (“testing Christ”). This reference to “testing Christ” in 10:9 (“nor put Christ to the test, as some of them did, and were destroyed by snakes”) is an allusion to Numbers 21:5-9. Paul alludes to the OT a number of times throughout the discourse as well (many of which I have not even mentioned), but the point I’m building on is that 1 Cor. 10:4–22 is gushing from the seams with allusions from the Pentateuchal narratives, specifically those regarding idolatry.

This all goes to show that Paul’s reference to Jesus as “Lord” is not mere usage, but is deeply rooted in it's historical Jewish context. In 10:14-21, it is covenant loyalty to the “one Lord” which stands in contrast to pagan idolatry.

Let that sink in.
 

williamjordan

Senior Member
Feb 18, 2015
516
126
43
#17
You're just repeating over and over that there is only one God but I don't see any scripture. No God formed before Him means that there was a time that existed before Him.
Rom 15 : 6 That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even (that is) the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
The Father is God of all including Christ and Christ is lord over all Creation as well as our God and Savior.
With what I had just stated in Post #16 (1 Cor. 8:5-6), consider the comments I had made to you several weeks ago in the thread entitled, "The Trinity" (Post #286),

I do want to point out one more thing. You stated, "All other beings are created by Christ." When in fact, the actual text (1:16) is speaking about God creating "in" and "through" Christ.

Allow me to explain this in a way that may be more useful.

Col. 1:16
ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα
ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα εἴτε θρόνοι εἴτε κυριότητες εἴτε ἀρχαὶ εἴτε ἐξουσίαι τὰ πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται

Rev. 4:11
ἄξιος εἶ ὁ κύριος καὶ ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν λαβεῖν τὴν δόξαν καὶ τὴν τιμὴν καὶ τὴν δύναμιν ὅτι σὺ ἔκτισας τὰ πάντα καὶ διὰ τὸ θέλημά σου ἦσαν καὶ ἐκτίσθησαν

The use of “created” (Rev. 4:11) is completely consistent with Col. 1:16’s use. If only for the verb “created,” both texts express the same thing. The very thing God does in Rev. 4:11, He does “in” and “through” His Son in Col. 1:16, thus, both texts are completely consistent with one another from this vantage point. The verb used for “created” (Rev. 4:11) is an active verb, i.e., something that God does. In Col. 1:16, the verb used for “created” is a passive verb, meaning that it is someone other than Christ (i.e., God) who performs the action of the verb. In both texts, it is God who performs the action of the verb, but in the Col. 1:16 text, it is God who performs the action “in” and “through” His Son. What is implicit in Col. 1:16, is explicit in Rev. 4:11. One text tells you plainly that God created “all things,” the other tells you how He did it.

So whatever is intended by “all things,” it certainly carries the same semantic force in both texts. If by “all things,” absolutely everything in creation is intended (Rev. 4:11), why then should it carry an altogether different nuance in the corresponding text (Col. 1:16), in light of the fact that it is God who is the one performing the action?

It is not that God created Christ first, and then Christ created everything else, but that God was the one doing the creating of “all things,” “in” and “through” Christ.
 

williamjordan

Senior Member
Feb 18, 2015
516
126
43
#18
To cite Post #224 from the thread entitled, "Jesus, before becoming a man,"

I would like to preface this by saying: I am an extremely skeptical person, and try to be very cautious in voicing my thoughts. I am more critical of my own views than probably any of my own critics could ever be. That said, I do not tend to express my thoughts or conclusions in an open forum format unless I can say (in my own mind), and without hesitation, that it (will and) has survived the scrutiny it deserves. Laced into my subconscious is the Proverb,

The words of a man’s mouth are deep waters;
The fountain of wisdom is a bubbling brook.
5 To show partiality to the wicked is not good,
Nor to thrust aside the righteous in judgment.
6 A fool’s lips bring strife,
And his mouth calls for blows.
7 A fool’s mouth is his ruin,
And his lips are the snare of his soul.
8 The words of a whisperer are like dainty morsels,
And they go down into the innermost parts of the body.
9 He also who is slack in his work
Is brother to him who destroys.
10 The name of the Lord is a strong tower;
The righteous runs into it and is safe.
11 A rich man’s wealth is his strong city,
And like a high wall in his own imagination.
12 Before destruction the heart of man is haughty,
But humility goes before honor.
13 He who gives an answer before he hears,
It is folly and shame to him.
In short: I try to spend more time articulating and developing my points, than yapping like a poodle. That way, when I do “yap” (as we all do), it is rooted and grounded in its proper dwelling, so that when the “verbal assault” and “punches” come, I am not caught off guard like a deer in the headlights, but that they are met by the “strong tower.” And not a “strong tower” based off “imagination,” but rooted in the Strong Tower. That’d be a bit like punching a brick wall.

That said, I do not hesitate to say, that Jubilees, 2 Ezra, or Enoch is not at all valid, but I don't dismiss it as irrelevant. Total avoidance is not the right approach. It is real, historical data that gives us a glimpse into what scribes during the time believed. You don't have to accept it (I don’t). Or you might accept parts of it, and not the rest. In either case, that doesn’t mean we should dismiss the fact that what’s missing from each of these accounts, in each their own tradition (Jewish, Christian, or Secular), is one very important aspect: Angels existing prior to Gen. 1:1.

That should at least cause folks to give pause for a moment before they jump the gun on Job 38:4-7.

We just need to be a bit more pragmatic and objective to the approach, and take into serious consideration that our previously held interpretation of Job 38:4-7 just might be due for some fine tuning, given the fact that the language does not require any such tradition that sometimes gets imposed onto the text. People have read too much into Job 38:4-7, and not enough into the texts that attribute the act of “creation” to her Creator.

It would be one thing if I was basing this objection off a tradition with minimal attestation, but that’s not necessarily the case in our situation. We have information coming from multiple streams/traditions that suggest angels find their place in the order of things sometime along the 7-Day spectrum. Some of those sources may agree or even disagree with one another. But the one thing they do agree on is simple: Angels did not exist prior to Gen. 1:1.

That said, that should cause the reader to dig further into Scripture to see what God’s Word does, and does not say. The OT does not specify with any degree of precision which day the angels came into existence, but one thing is certain: Job 38:4-7 (in harmony with the other aforementioned data) does not require we push their existence back to a time that antedates Gen. 1:1, either.

And when one takes into account texts such as Isaiah 44-45, Deut. 32:39 and couple that with the NT (where both sets of texts are alluded to over and time again), it becomes quite clear that the only power responsible for “creating” are (in harmony with Targum Neofiti on Gen. 1:1), Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (cf. Jn. 1:1-3). Angels find their place in the natural sequence of things, but the only power present prior to the formation of the heavens and the earth are Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. John doesn’t mention angels anywhere in his prologue. Paul (while alluding to the Genesis mandate) specifically identifies none other than the Father, through the Son, in Spirit, bringing forth creation.

Therefore, I am on very solid ground to suggest Job 38:4-7 is probably best understood (with some flexibility) in this order of sequence:


1693690543713.png


To expand on this a little further, consider Jubilees 2:2-4 (translation by RH Charles),

For on the first day He created the heavens which are above and the earth and the waters and all the spirits which serve before him -the angels of the presence, and the angels of sanctification, and the angels [of the spirit of fire and the angels] of the spirit of the winds, and the angels of the spirit of the clouds, and of darkness, and of snow and of hail and of hoar frost, and the angels of the voices and of the thunder and of the lightning, and the angels of the spirits of cold and of heat, and of winter and of spring and of autumn and of summer and of all the spirits of his creatures which are in the heavens and on the earth, (He created) the abysses and the darkness, eventide <and night>, and the light, dawn and day, which He hath prepared in the knowledge of his heart.

And thereupon we saw His works, and praised Him, and lauded before Him on account of all His works; for seven great works did He create on the first day.

And on the second day He created the firmament in the midst of the waters, and the waters were divided on that day -half of them went up above and half of them went down below the firmament (that was) in the midst over the face of the whole earth. And this was the only work (God) created on the second day.
This account from Jubilees 2 is quite “packed.” There are probably a couple different ways the reader can understand the specifics of this. One option is to see the author as taking events from the “Day 2” account of Genesis and merging it together with its own version of the “Day 1” account. But I think the better option is that the author of Jubilees is describing the creation of the “third heavens” (along with its hosts) in its “Day 1” account, and then latter goes on to describe a “lower heaven” on Day 2. Either way, packed into their version of the “Day 1” account, the author arranges its (“Day 1”) events in a sequence that follows a pattern which Gen. 1 routinely makes: The “dwelling” is established first (whether that “dwelling” is the earth [for its inhabitants], sea [for the sea creatures], land [for land mammals], heavens, etc.), and then the mention of its corresponding inhabitants/hosts are made.

This same theme is illustrated in 2 Enoch’s account, though it does lay out the details in a bit of a different order, but the “prepared dwelling” → “host” sequence remains the same.

I mention this, because I think this helps illustrate a point as we detour through the OT. While Ps. 104 does not exclusively identify which “day” the angels were brought into existence, there is, (tucked away into the backdrop) a presupposition that relies on a similar sequence of events: “prepared dwelling” → “hosts”

In Ps. 104:2-3, it describes God as “stretching out the heavens,” and “laying the beams of His upper chamber.” But then notice, that as a part of that process of “stretching out the heavens” (as laid out in the second half of v. 2) is “who makes cloud His chariot,” “who rides on the wings of the wind,” “who makes His messengers the winds,” and “attendants a flame of fire” (cf. Heb. 1:7). This sort of language comports perfectly with Jubilees 2. Whereas in the Jubilees account, angels are apart of that “third heavens” creation experience, so too is that what is being drawn upon in Ps. 104. Both accounts list the sequence of that “third heavens” creation experience with the “dwelling” coming first, and then thereafter, the angelic hosts.

So while I do not see Jubilees as “inspired,” I do see it as an ancient Jewish attempt at understanding Gen. 1 in light of Ps. 104. Whereas in Ps. 104, the angels are referred to as “messengers of the winds,” and “attendants of fire,” the Jubilees account likewise refers to the angels as “messengers of fire,” and “messengers of the wind.” The point being is that Ps. 104 provides details that were not otherwise provided in Gen. 1. These angels are brought into existence prior to the formation of the “earth” (Job 38:4-7), but after their dwelling had been established first (Ps. 104:2-3). Christ is said to have existed “before all things” (Col. 1:16-17), and is instrumental in their creation (Col. 1:16, Jn. 1:1-3, Heb. 1:7-10). Angels did not assist God in creation, nor were they there “passively” when “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” They are only on the scene at sometime on Day 1 or Day 2, prior to the formation of earth.

If we want to discuss angels, we can start by putting them back into their proper pecking order.
 

williamjordan

Senior Member
Feb 18, 2015
516
126
43
#19
Complimentary of the prior post, I also want to reference Post #155 from that same thread, "Jesus, before he became a man." This post compliments what was stated prior. Try to weed through some of the "drama" that is intertwined, and extract from it the pertinent data.

No one is denying angels existed prior to the foundations of the earth. My post was against those suggesting that they have existence prior to the foundations of the heavens. Creation of earth was a Day 4 event. The creation of heaven was a Day 1 event. You have no historical records that suggest angels existed prior to Day 1. I am simply saying (with historical evidence to back up the claims) that angels came into existence sometime after Day 1. Notice the sources I cited:

  • In 2 Enoch (28:1-33:2), the heavenly abode was created on Day 1. And then on Day 2 of the creation project, God then fills the heavenly abode with its hosts. This places their existence on par with Day 2 of creation (cf. Gen. 1:6-8).

  • In Jubilee (2:1-33), the angelic hosts are brought into existence on Day 1 of creation. And even though the two accounts may (at least in some regard) differ, the one thing they do agree on, is: That the angelic hosts did not exist prior to Gen. 1:1-2.

  • Psalm 148 provides further support. The author of Psalm 148 lists the angels amongst the things created in a context which alludes back to Gen. 1.

  • In 2 Ezra 6, the angelic hosts come into existence at some unspecified time during the 7-Day Creation

  • In the Palestian Targumim, the angelic hosts have their existence on Day 2 of creation, “And the Lord said to the angels who ministered before Him, who had been created in the second day of the creation of the world, Let us make man in Our image, in Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl which are in the atmosphere of heaven, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every reptile creeping upon the earth.”
Simply finding sources that say angels existed before "the earth" won't do. You need to be able to establish their existence before Day 1. Good luck with that.

Unfortunately, you failed in your attempt to "put to bed" my objection. You are being very sloppy with your research. You are making the common man's mistake and running to other instances of the term ἐθεμελίωσας (“founded”), while ignoring the fact that this is the same verb found in Ps. 104 (which is referenced in Heb. 1:7), specifically v. 5. It is also the same verb used in Ps. 8 (specifically, v. 3), which is referenced in the very next chapter (Heb. 2:6), and it is also the same verb found in Prov. 8—used exclusively in contexts which speak about YHWH creating. Each of the OT pericopes in Hebrews 1–2 draw from contexts where the verb is used, and no one would dare argue that the term carries any other sense in those texts. Yet, here when applied to Christ, it all of a sudden carries a different nuance, despite the fact that the author of the epistle gets his diction from the the OT contexts which are interweaved into his narrative. In each of the OT texts referenced throughout the narrative, ἐθεμελίωσας is something YHWH (exclusively) does. Even in the Wisdom literature, ἐθεμελίωσας is an act exclusive to YHWH, and does not mean anything substantively different than what is eludicated in each of the subject texts (Ps. 8, 102, 104, Deut. 32).

On top of the OT references, you are faced with another issue, namely that the text (Heb. 1:10) speaks about the heavens "perishing." What does that mean?
 

williamjordan

Senior Member
Feb 18, 2015
516
126
43
#20
Also Post #161 from, "Jesus, before he became a man." Focus attention (really key to the argument) to the allusions being made in Isaiah 45:5-6 with Gen. 1:1 and Jn. 1:1-3.

Of course he fell before Gen. 3, but I don't see how that requires his (Satan's) existence being before Gen. 1:1, especially when all the ancient Jewish sources seem to suggest the angelic hosts were created during some time during the 7-Day spectrum. Taken in unison with the Christian sources, and the fact that Job 38:4-7 only makes reference to the "earth," I do not find it difficult that Satan could have just as easily been created on Day 2 (like the Palestinian Targumim suggests), or Day 3, or Day 4, or Day 1, and still be cast down at some unspecified time before Gen. 2 or 3. Nothing requires Satan or any of the other angelic beings to exist prior to Gen. 1:1. Especially in light that Isaiah 44-45 says that God “alone” is the sole agent in the action of creation itself; that He “alone” (and no other) stretched out the heavens, without the assistance of anyone else. None of the angelic hosts assisted God in stretching out the heavens. Thus, to argue that the angelic hosts existed with God is anything but the point.

The fact is: The Word participated in the very work that Isaiah 44-45 solely attributes to God, something that can be said of no other god (Isaiah 44-45). That is the point. It just so happens that in Isaiah 45:4-6, God alone is credited with “forming light,” and “creating darkness.” This statement in Isaiah 45 is an immediate allusion to Gen. 1:1-3, and is something the Word Himself participates in (John 1:1-4; Targum Neofiti on Gen. 1:1-3).

Could it perhaps have been that Isaiah was not only crediting to God (who, alone is the one responsible for bringing forth) “light” and “creating darkness,” but is likewise making an assertion that is rooted in the fact that prior to “forming light” and “creating darkness” (Gen. 1:1-3), there were in fact no other heavenly celestial beings present? I think it’s a bit of both; that Isaiah’s primary argument (that God “alone” created the heavens without the assistance of others) is rooted in the fact that there were in fact no other gods present during God’s formation of the heavens—a double entendre of sorts.

Maybe someone ought to inform the apostle John that he forgot to include "angels" in his prologue, and makes no mention of their participation in creation (or "renewal").