 |
| "the form of the fourth is like the son of God" is NOT THE SAME as "the fourth is the son of God." They are worlds apart! |
https://www.facebook.com/sing.f.lau/posts/10212711464996989
November
15, 2018
"...
the form of the fourth is like the son of God" is read and understood as
"... the fourth is the Son of God." h- a classic example of the dreadful disease of soundbytitis.
The picture depicts a great historical event; it reminds me of a popular but grievous error. It is about the fourth
person in the fiery furnace.
Daniel
3:25
"He
answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire,
and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the son of God."
This
is Nebuchadnezzar's description of what he saw. In the language and mind of
Nebuchadnezzar and his contemporaries, what does the term "son of
God" mean?
The
form of the fourth is like the son of God. Today, when many hear the sound
"son of God", they automatically conclude that it refers to the
second person of the triune God. Soundbytitis turns "the form of the
fourth is like the son of God" into "the fourth is the son of
God."
Daniel 3:28 ¶Then Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who hath sent his angel, and delivered his servants that trusted in him, and have changed the king's word, and yielded their bodies, that they might not serve nor worship any god, except their own God.
In
his sober and composed moment, he stated that the fourth person is an angel of God in his glorious declaration.
In
the Scriptures, angels are referred to as the sons of God (Job 1,2) in the same
way as Adam was the son of God (Luke 3:38). They are both the sons of God because
they came directly from God's creative activity; they have no progenitor,
they came directly from the creation of God. The "daughters of men"
are simply the female offspring of men.
Be healed from the dreadful disease of soundbytitis. Please don't equate a mere creature to its Creator; it is a grievous error.
===
Doug
Messer
Possibly.
However, it says "the" (unique) son of God. And "son",
singular. And how do you know for sure that it truly wasn't a manifestation of
Christ himself?
[sing: would you apply the same definite article "the" (unique) son of God reasoning here?
Luk
3:38 "Which
was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam,
which was the son of God.]
Sing
F Lau
I
like your question. If I may, I would ask a similar question,
"And
how do you know for sure that it was a manifestation of Christ himself?" I
don't need the word "truly", it is either a manifestation of Christ
himself, or it is not.
Perhaps
you and I can agree on, at least a wee bit, that the declaration of
Nebuchadnezzar in Dan 3:28-29 is a supernatural revelation, and not of natural
discovery.
Dan
3:28
Then Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach,
and Abednego, who hath sent his angel, and delivered his servants that trusted
in him, and have changed the king's word, and yielded their bodies, that they
might not serve nor worship any god, except their own God.
29
Therefore I make a decree, That every people, nation, and language, which speak
any thing amiss against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, shall be
cut in pieces, and their houses shall be made a dunghill: because there is no
other God that can deliver after this sort.
In
that glorious declaration, it is revealed that the fourth person is an angel.
That's what I read.
For the singular bit, it is about "the FORM of the fourth is like the son of God." How is the form of the fourth be like the son of God? Do you know? What is the form of the son of God? Please tell us. Thanks.
Vins
Howell
Just
curious, brother, how do you reconcile your take on the "sons of God" in
Job 1 and 2 with Heb. 1:5?
Also out of curiosity, if you believe Job 1 and 2 refer to angels, do you also have the same interpretation in Gen. 6?
Sing
F Lau
Just
as curious, what reconciliation is needed? Please explain. Thanks.
For
your curiosity on Job 1 and 2 and Gen 6, you can search the blog "Things New and
Old" - you may find something useful to quench your curiosity.
[Read here for an exposition of:
- Genesis 6:1 https://things-new-and-old.blogspot.com/2016/02/and-it-came-to-pass-after-15-long.html
- Genesis 6:2 http://things-new-and-old.blogspot.my/2016/02/they-saw-that-daughters-of-men-were-fair.html
- Genesis 6:3-5 http://things-new-and-old.blogspot.my/2016/02/mighty-men-men-of-renown.html ]
Vins
Howell
I
take Heb. 1:5 to mean that God does not use the term "son/sons" to
refer to angels.
Sing
F Lau
Now,
I see the connection you are making. I fear the apparent contradiction that you
think needs reconciliation is of your own making.
You may wish to prove that Heb 1:5 provides that idea.
Vins
Howell
It
would seem to me that, if the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to make that
declaration in Heb. 1:5, then to interpret "sons of God" in Job 1 and
2 as angels rather than men of the elect family of God would be an erroneous
interpretation. Unless I'm missing some nuance to the verse in Heb., the language
seems fairly straightforward to me.
Vins
Howell
It
seems to me the onus of proof is on the interpretation that "sons of
God" means angels in the book of Job.
Sing
F Lau
Please
tell us the subject and context of Heb 1:5. Thanks.
Heb 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
Vins
Howell
The
Subject is Christ, and the context is a declaration of His station and
position. Paul is exalting Christ as the Son of God. It also seems to me that
he is contrasting His position and station above the angels by clearly stating
that, while He refers to Christ as His Son, He does not refer to the angels in
the same way -- illustrating the point that He is so much greater than them.
Vins
Howell
...while
the Father* refers to Christ...
Sing
F Lau
"
For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day
have I begotten thee?"
=====
This
simply states that what God did to His only begotten Son Jesus Christ, He did
not do to the angels.
How does it negate or conflict with the simple idea that the angels are sons of God because their owed their origin to God, and were not reproduced by some progenitor?
Vins
Howell
I
think the distinction is in the term. I certainly don't dispute that God
created the angels directly. However, using that as the proof by itself that
"sons" is an appropriate term to use for them would also mean that
it's an appropriate term to use for Satan. God created him, but I don't believe
that "son" is an appropriate term to use for him
I
understand that the main thrust of Heb. 1:5 is Christ's position, but I believe
the language also makes it clear that He doesn't use the term "son"
in reference to any angel. Especially the last half of the verse, "And
again, I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to me a Son."
In
light of that, I wouldn't think the Holy Spirit would inspire the writer of Job
to use that language to refer to angels.
[sing: would the Holy Spirit inspire the writer of the book of Daniel to use "his angel" to refer to the son of God then? Isn't it a big mistake to call THE Son of God His angel?]
Dan 3:28 Then Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who hath sent his angel, and delivered his servants that trusted in him, and have changed the king's word, and yielded their bodies, that they might not serve nor worship any god, except their own God.]
