The theology behind 'roaring like a lion'(

[he-man]

Setting Zechariah 3:2-3 aside for the moment, what class of people was Micheal addressing in Jude 1:9?

Jude 1:9 was addressing it as the quote from Zechariah 3:2-3 and he was saying it to the beloved Jude 1:3 and he exhorted them that they should earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints. a reading of Zachariah 3:6 explains who was being addressed as the adversary "And the ANGEL of the LORD protested to Joshua saying"

 

[Hidden In Him]

he was saying it to the beloved Jude 1:3.

Jude 1:9 is about the burial of Moses. What evidence is there from Zechariah 3:2-3 that it is about the burial of Moses?

 

[actionsub]

After research, I can find no clear "Lion of God" reference except for
an OT angel. It is not a well supported phrase.

While I cannot find support for physically mimicking a lion's roar, there is Scriptural precedent for referring to Jesus as a lion:
Behold the lion of the tribe of Judah, the root of David, has overcome to open the scroll and its seven seals. – Revelation 5:5

That said, the next verse describes Jesus as a lamb led to the slaughter, so...

 

[he-man]

Jude 1:9 is about the burial of Moses. What evidence is there from Zechariah 3:2-3 that it is about the burial of Moses?

It is noteworthy that the same rebuke is recorded here as used by the Angel of the Lord, in pleading for Joshua, the representative of the Jewish Church in Zec 3:2 whence some have thought that also here "the body of Moses" means the Jewish Church for its filthiness on which ground the adversary demands that devine justice should take its course against Israel, but is rebuked by the Lord who has "chosen Jeresalem" thus as "the body of Christ" and is the Christian Church, so "the body of Moses" is the Jewish Church. [BROWN].Cruden defines διαβολος as a mere Hebrew word and signifies an adversary, an enemy, an accuser. Parkhurst defines it as a substantive an accuser, slanderer.

 

[dqhall]

Hi!

I was at a conference in august this year an encountered this little thingie.

I have never understood the theological foundation for it.
If that exists for this then pls help me and explain.
Also when people say that it's the manifest lion of God, is this something other then just emotion and bad theology?

Respectfully
Johan, Sweden

I saw a show about tigers in India. Tigers attacked people walking on jungle paths from behind to lessen the chance of resistance. Some people are the same way. One should be watching and not trust someone who may be hostile.

You would not want to jump into the lion pit at the zoo. Their roar is not a guarantee of safe passage. Generally lions have been compared to soldiers or commandos. A Hebrew warrior may have been compared to a lion of the Judean desert.

 

[Hidden In Him]

It is noteworthy that the same rebuke is recorded here as used by the Angel of the Lord, in pleading for Joshua, the representative of the Jewish Church in Zec 3:2 whence some have thought that also here "the body of Moses" means the Jewish Church for its filthiness on which ground the adversary demands that devine justice should take its course against Israel, but is rebuked by the Lord who has "chosen Jeresalem" thus as "the body of Christ" and is the Christian Church, so "the body of Moses" is the Jewish Church. [BROWN].Cruden defines διαβολος as a mere Hebrew word and signifies an adversary, an enemy, an accuser. Parkhurst defines it as a substantive an accuser, slanderer.

The context of Jude 1:9 is that Jude brought the story up specifically to illustrate how Micheal refused to open his mouth and speak evil against Satan (Jude 1:8, Jude 1:15-16). How do your sources account for this in the Zechariah account?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Hi!

I was at a conference in august this year an encountered this little thingie.

I have never understood the theological foundation for it.
If that exists for this then pls help me and explain.
Also when people say that it's the manifest lion of God, is this something other then just emotion and bad theology?

Respectfully
Johan, Sweden

There's no particular "theological foundation" for roaring like a lion. In other words, we aren't ever urged, scripturally, to do that. We are urged to watch out for the devil, who is said to roar like a lion. Not a very foundational thought there. More like a description of a bad habit of his.

 

[DamianWarS]

Hi!

I was at a conference in august this year an encountered this little thingie.

I have never understood the theological foundation for it.
If that exists for this then pls help me and explain.
Also when people say that it's the manifest lion of God, is this something other then just emotion and bad theology?

Respectfully
Johan, Sweden

there's a lot of verses about lions, some show good qualities some don't, some point to God, some point to the enemy and still others something else. With a spiritual context of "roaring like a lion" as God manifests it then you would be selecting the scriptural references that express God or at least in some way his virtues.

this is more topical theology rather than exegetical theology. For example Num 23:24 says “Behold, a people rises like a lioness, And as a lion it lifts itself; It will not lie down until it devours the prey, And drinks the blood of the slain.” The verse is the blessing of Balaam to people of Israel when he was hired to give them a curse. We could superimpose this over ourselves and say we too are blessed and charged with rising like a lion in similar manor. Doing so may give us an emotional response but exegetically this blessing is not intended for us nor should we claim it for ourselves.

topical approaches to scripture are very popular and it's not that they are wrong but tend to promote irresponsible methods of interpretation, harnessing every moment in scripture then molding and fitting it to teach a certain value or get a certain response. Typically they mirror gospel values but can be used to warp and pervert them into any ideology even counter-gospel.

Read and study the scriptures for yourself to extract the meanings in its context before applying it to yourself. once you understand the original context for the original audience it often changed our insights which inevitably will change its application on your life.

 

[he-man]

The context of Jude 1:9 is that Jude brought the story up specifically to illustrate how Micheal refused to open his mouth and speak evil against Satan (Jude 1:8, Jude 1:15-16). How do your sources account for this in the Zechariah account?

The Christian Church is the "body of Christ" as I told you and the word for διαβολος is accuser, an enemy, an adversary as Cruden explains and it is a mere Hebrew word and Parkhurst agrees with Cruden. Jude brought the story up to illustrate that those who follow others in evil acts will suffer the same as Sodom

The context of Jude 1:9 is that Jude brought the story up specifically to illustrate how Micheal refused to open his mouth and speak evil against Satan (Jude 1:8, Jude 1:15-16). How do your sources account for this in the Zechariah account?

Jude brought the story up to illustrate what diabolos means that the accuser was angel of the Lord and what happens to those who do not follow the truth and they will meet the same fate as Sodom.

 

[aiki]

Hi!

I was at a conference in august this year an encountered this little thingie.

I have never understood the theological foundation for it.
If that exists for this then pls help me and explain.
Also when people say that it's the manifest lion of God, is this something other then just emotion and bad theology?

Respectfully
Johan, Sweden

I'm afraid I don't know what the "manifest lion of God" refers to. Can you explain, please? Thanks.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Jude brought the story up to illustrate that those who follow others in evil acts will suffer the same as Sodom

What evil acts are you suggesting specifically? It appears obvious that Jude is addressing a specific sin here. Verses 8-10 read:

"Nevertheless, these dreamers likewise also defile flesh, repudiate Lordship, and defame those clothed in glory. But the archangel Michael, when arguing with the Devil in legally disputing over the body of Moses, dared not bring a character defamation against him in accusation, but [simply] said, "The Lord rebuke you." But these men know not what they defame, yet like unsuspecting beasts, what things they observe in the natural, through these they succumb to bodily corruption. (Jude 1:8-10)

The sin described here is specific: Verbal defamation and evil speaking. It is a sin he is specifically focused on in the letter, and returns to it again in Jude 1:14-16.

Jude brought the story up to illustrate what diabolos means that the accuser was angel of the Lord and what happens to those who do not follow the truth and they will meet the same fate as Sodom.

I'd like to respond to this post, but the lack of punctuation and articles in certain places makes it very difficult to read. If you can, please reword it.

 

[Aseyesee]

Hi!

I was at a conference in august this year an encountered this little thingie.

I have never understood the theological foundation for it.
If that exists for this then pls help me and explain.
Also when people say that it's the manifest lion of God, is this something other then just emotion and bad theology?

Respectfully
Johan, Sweden

In this context (a devil?), it's no different than an angel of light, a lamb that speaks like a dragon, or a Christ over here, or over there; different words, but all painting a picture of the same thing.

 

[he-man]

What evil acts are you suggesting specifically? It appears obvious that Jude is addressing a specific sin here. Verses 8-10 read:
"Nevertheless, these dreamers likewise also defile flesh, repudiate Lordship, and defame those clothed in glory. But the archangel Michael, when arguing with the Devil in legally disputing over the body of Moses, dared not bring a character defamation against him in accusation, but [simply] said, "The Lord rebuke you." But these men know not what they defame, yet like unsuspecting beasts, what things they observe in the natural, through these they succumb to bodily corruption. (Jude 1:8-10)
The sin described here is specific: Verbal defamation and evil speaking. It is a sin he is specifically focused on in the letter, and returns to it again in Jude 1:14-16.
I'd like to respond to this post, but the lack of punctuation and articles in certain places makes it very difficult to read. If you can, please reword it.

You answered your own question. "But these men know not what they defame". Men not devils but accusers, enemies, adversaries as Cruden and Parkhurst defines διαβολος. You asked how Jeremiah 3:2 could be applie to Jude 1:9 and you said they made no mention of the body of Moses. Clement of Alexander says some consider the body of scriptures, the words and names, as if they were the body of Moses. [GILL] You cant read why Jude brought up the story to show what the word διαβολος means, accuser, enemy, and is used as an adjective in the subtantive. The Angel of God was so called διαβολος, an accusation thrower, because he resisted what Michael was saying and that their judgement would be the same as Sodom's if they continued in their evil. Perhaps you should read Daniel 10:13, Daniel 10:20-21 and tell me if it means the Prince of the Kingdom of Persia was also a devil?

 

[Hidden In Him]

You answered your own question. "But these men know not what they defame". Men not devils but accusers, enemies, adversaries as Cruden and Parkhurst defines διαβολος. You asked how Jeremiah 3:2 could be applie to Jude 1:9 and you said they made no mention of the body of Moses. Clement of Alexander says some consider the body of scriptures, the words and names, as if they were the body of Moses. [GILL] You cant read Jude brought up the story to show what the word διαβολος means, accuser, enemy, and is used as an adjective in the subtantive. The Angel of God was so called διαβολος, an accusation thrower, because he resisted what Michael was saying and that their judgement would be the same as Sodom's if they continued in their evil.

If you want to continue discussing this, let me ask the following:
1. Please use proper punctuation. I'm asking politely.
2. I know what you are contending the word διαβολος means already. Trust me.
3. I also know that it's an adjective often used as a substantive.
4. Please forget that I asked what Cruden and Parkhurst think, LoL. If I hear one more word about what Cruden and Parkhurst think I may have to start praying that those two names get expunged out of the Book of Life... and that's if they're in it, LoL. I'm doing my best to communicate with YOU here on what you interpret these two passages to mean. Just try and communicate your interpretation to me clearly.

Now clarify something: If you acknowledge that the angel of God Michael was addressing was an accuser, yet teach that there is no Devil, who then do you believe this angel was?

 

[he-man]

If you want to continue discussing this, let me ask the following:
1. Please use proper punctuation. I'm asking politely.
2. I know what you are contending the word διαβολος means already. Trust me.
3. I also know that it's an adjective often used as a substantive.
4. Please forget that I asked what Cruden and Parkhurst think, LoL. If I hear one more word about what Cruden and Parkhurst think I may have to start praying that those two names get expunged out of the Book of Life... and that's if they're in it, LoL. I'm doing my best to communicate with YOU here on what you interpret these two passages to mean. Just try and communicate your interpretation to me clearly.
Now clarify something: If you acknowledge that the angel of God Michael was addressing was an accuser, yet teach that there is no Devil, who then do you believe this angel was?

thanks for the critical analysis of my Grammer and as forum rules state, "Do not belittle politely the person posting, address what was posted". Micheal was addressing another Angel of God who was acting as an accusation thrower. How much plainer can I get? Now answer the question. Do you think the Prince of the Kingdom of Persia was a devil? Daniel 10:13; But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days; but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me: and I remained there with the kings of Persia. And in Daniel 10:20-21Michael said "...and now I will return to fight with the prince of Persia..."

 

[Hidden In Him]

thanks for the critical analysis of my Grammer and as forum rules state, "Do not belittle politely the person posting, address what was posted"

No, no. He-man. I'm not belittling you at all. You're just very hard to read sometimes.

The Angel of God was an accusation thrower. How much plainer can I get?

So you're saying he was an evil angel, but not the Devil himself, correct?

Do you think the Prince of the Kingdom of Persia was a devil? Daniel 10:13; But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days; but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me: and I remained there with the kings of Persia. Daniel 10:20-21

Was he a devil... Do you mean was he a fallen angel? Yes. I believe he was a fallen angel, a ruling prince over the region of Persia. Why?

 

[he-man]

No, no. He-man. I'm not belittling you at all. You're just very hard to read sometimes.
So you're saying he was an evil angel, but not the Devil himself, correct? Was he a devil... Do you mean was he a fallen angel? Yes. I believe he was a fallen angel, a ruling prince over the region of Persia. Why?

Iam sorry to say that he was defeated with the help of Michael and if you can, please read the verse in Daniel 10:20-21, and lo, when I go the prince of Greece shall come.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Iam sorry to say that he was defeated with the help of Michael and if you can, please read the verse in Daniel 10:20-21, and lo, when I go the prince of Greece shall come.

I'm not following your point. What are you trying to tell me?

@Johan Andersson: I'm sorry, Johan. It would appear we have a made a mess out of your thread by branching off into a completely different subject matter. In a way it's good because it keeps the thread active where others might see it. But I admit we've gotten WAY off track from where you started.

 

[he-man]

I'm not following your point. What are you trying to tell me?

Greece defeated the Persians and they were not fallen agels, they were real people. Don't you know anything about History? Did you read verse 20-21? Over three hundred thousand Persians were killed and only one thousand Greeks. Where did you come up with the "fallen angel" theory? Please tell me what all this has to do with roaring lions?

 

[Hidden In Him]

Don't you know anything about History?

Ok, now what a minute. You just asked me not to belittle you over grammar and I promised you that that's not what I was doing. I know about the history, he-man. You were not making your point clear. And instead of making clear arguments now you're blaming me...

And then this, after I was just apologizing to the OP for us branching off the subject.

Please tell me what all this has to do with roaring lions?

Looks like we'd better call this conversation off.