The Satan of Job

[Wonder Woman]

Hi guys,

I have a question that has really been bugging me, and just wondering if anybody can shed some light on the matter....

The appearance of Satan in Job is puzzling for me, particularly in light of the fact that he appeared before the Lord in the congregation of the 'Sons of God', which seems to refer to angels. (Or at least I'm assuming here....)

However, I was under the impression that God cannot/will not look on evil, and I guess the supporting verses for this would be:

For thou art not a God who delights in wickedness; evil may not sojourn with thee.
The boastful may not stand before thy eyes; thou hatest all evildoers. Psa 5: 4-5

Thou who art of purer eyes than to behold evil and canst not look on wrong, why dost thou look on faithless men, and art silent when the wicked swallows up the man more righteous than he? Habakkuk 1:13

Just wondering if anyone can shed some light on this for me?

Thanks!

[Gavin]

Wonder Woman,

thanks for the question. I would say that there is no conflict between God being too pure to look upon evil, and satan appearing before God. For one thing, Satan is not the embodiment of "evil" per se, but just a fallen angel who possesses evil. And secondly, the idea of God not "looking on evil", it seems to me, is not so much that he cannot literally see it (that would be a flaw in his omniscience), but rather runs along the same line of God not being able to tempted by evil in James 1. IOW, "looking upon evil" is not physical sight.

Those are my thoughts, hope that helps.:smile:

[Blake Reas]

What I find interesting in this passage is that Satan has to go before God and ask him if he can harm Job! I also find it interesting that he had to go before YHWH and the Sons of God.
I have always wondered if the panthenon of pagan religions where just a corruption of how God relates to his angels ( I take this paritally from Greg Boyd's book God at War). While I do not agree with Boyd's Open Theist interpretation I do think that Polytheism is a corruption of Monotheism NOT the reverse.

In Christ,
Blake

P.S. I may move that coversation to the ARCH, Department.

[Wonder Woman]

I have always wondered if the panthenon of pagan religions where just a corruption of how God relates to his angels ( I take this paritally from Greg Boyd's book God at War). While I do not agree with Boyd's Open Theist interpretation I do think that Polytheism is a corruption of Monotheism NOT the reverse.

[Tim the toolman Taylor]"Uouuuuhhh?"[/Tim the toolman Taylor]
:help:

[yxboom]

I believe he is trying to state that for instance the American Indians had a god for everything. What this is is a corrupted understanding of God and the angelic offices. Polytheism places a god over the ocean, stars and trees etc. It is not entirely false in light of Judeo-Christian monotheism. It is instead monotheism gone sour. The Hebrew authors spoke of these angelic authorities and even referred to them as "el" which is "god" little "g". Instead of seeking God big "G" who is creator and ruler of all creation, polytheism is a perversion of God's divine corporate structure of setting angelic authorities over nations, winds, waves, stars etc. and rather turning their worship over to the angelic authorities as God big "G" instead of gods little "g". Monotheism acknowledges the angelic heirarchy (gods little "g" in the pantheon) under submission of the one true and only God YHWH big "G" Does that help?

[Bill K.]

Wonder,
You pose an interesting question. Not a great deal of serious theology is spent on this subject. Just a lot of "history of religions" stuff. Christians do not seem to spend the time because - IMHO - of the tendancy toward monism in our theology; we tend to think of God as "out there" and "alone."
MOst of our philosophizing about God assumes this position. The OT, to the contrary, posits a well developed "Heavenly court"...but unfortunately does not fill us in on much. From reading Pseudopigrapha et al, I would not assume the "Sons of God" are angels, but rather represent an intimate family of deity relations, thus "sons." Angels are more associated with service.

Satan may originate out of this group, and as such is higher than the angels. This is also one reason we may assume his rebellion to be so serious, he has shared real intimacy with God.

As for God being unable to look upon sin, it is important to note that it is sinful mankind He cannot look upon. These sons in Job share a different relationship perhaps. Still, the Scriptures tells us that Christ ended even their "sojourn"-ing.

Just some thoughts.

In Christ,
Bill

[Wonder Woman]

Thanks YXBoom.... that kinda helps explain Blake's response, though I'm not sure it helps with Job and Satan!

(BTW, your new avatar is very cool!) :thumb:

Bill,

Do you mean that God has other Sons in heaven? And if you think this, do you think that the Sons of God who married the daughters of men in Genesis 6 were in fact 'Sons' of God, and not angels? If this is so, do you think that the passage in Jude where it talks about 'angels' not keeping their first estate is referring to something other than this incident?

Thanks!

[Wonder Woman]

Bill,

As for God being unable to look upon sin, it is important to note that it is sinful mankind He cannot look upon. These sons in Job share a different relationship perhaps.

Thanks for this part - that does help explain this incident...

What passage are you referring to when you say this?

Still, the Scriptures tells us that Christ ended even their "sojourn"-ing

Thanks!

[johnnybanano]

I am reminded of an idea on this which I once saw watching a documentary on the History Channel(pardon me for not remembering the name of the episode, i'll try to find it :doh:)
It might have been Who Wrote the Bible?. But anyway, there was a Jewish scholar on there who was explaining that he was of the opinion that Satan had not yet fallen in the book of Job. Satan at this point was certainly mischevious and out to show that humans were not worthy of the consideration that God gave them, but he was not yet cast out of heaven.

I am not sure whether or not this is a popular thought in Jewish history/theology. And I know that it strongly disagrees w/ most modern Christian thought.

I just thought that I would throw that out as an idea to look up and toss around. I will try to look further into that.


Bill,
You said,
From reading Pseudopigrapha et al, I would not assume the "Sons of God" are angels, but rather represent an intimate family of deity relations, thus "sons." Angels are more associated with service.

Satan may originate out of this group, and as such is higher than the angels. This is also one reason we may assume his rebellion to be so serious, he has shared real intimacy with God.

This sounds a little like the admittedly small amount of Mormanism to which I have been exposed. Are you Mormon? If not, don't take offense(some people get quite peeved when you don't nail their beliefs). I am just curious.

My only problem w/ this idea is in verses such as Jn. 3:16, For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,
John 3:16 (NIV)

This, however, I suppose can be reconciled when you take into count that the word used for "one and only" in this verse is monogenes. monos meaning one, sole, only, etc., and genos meaning kind, stock, etc. This would yield "one and only" as "unique" or "one of a kind". It is possible, I suppose for God to have multiple sons, Jesus being one of them and still retaining his "uniquness" from the others.

Anyways, just some more ways to look at it. Lemme know what you think.

Love and Respect

[Blake Reas]

The book of Job is not the only place that YHWH is depicted as being among the "sons of God" there are Psalms that picture the same scene. The ancient near east used this imagery in their religions. The funny thing is that in the earliest israelite writings the "gods"(angels) do not have names they are viewed as insignificant and God actually sentences them to death in one of the Psalms (cannot think of it off the top of my head). A good book on this subject is Patrick Miller's The Religion of Ancient Israel.

In Christ,
Blake

[RevSteve45]

Wonder Woman,

I believe that we as Christians can distinguish between "looking on sin" and having "fellowship with sin(ners)." God certainly looks upon & observes sinners all of the time. He knows them, he knows their thoughts, their actions, etc. However, he cannot have a Father/Son relationship with them, until their sin is washed away by the Blood of Jesus.

I would also note, that, as the "prince of the power of the air" (Eph. 2:2), and "prince of the devils" (Matt. 9:34, 12:24; Mark 3:22), that Satan had a RIGHT to appear before God. When mankind listened to the serpent & fell into sin, Satan became mankind's legal ruler. God does not even question Satan's right to do more or less as he will to unbelievers. It is God's children, such as Job, that Satan is restricted from afflicting, any more than God permits.

Another passage that sheds light on the "court of Heaven" is the following:

I Kings 22:19-23, And he said, Hear thou therefore the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left.
20 And the LORD said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner.
21 And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will persuade him.
22 And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so.
23 Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee. (KJV)

Now this passage has always seemed quite remarkable to me, in that God has standing before Him, apparently, angels (probably both fallen & unfallen) and spirits of all kinds. Presumably this lying spirit is a demonic spirit. God ios seemingly "seeking advice" from this court, yet He still has complete dominion & authority over the worst of these spirits.

In His Service,
RevSteve45

[FirstSunday33ad]

that I would like to point out that might help (maybe not)

Job is almost certainly a parable or work of fiction. So "Satan coming before God" was just a literary devise and not a literal event.

:rose:

[Blake Reas]

Today @ 05:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=112739#post112739)
FirstSunday33ad:

that I would like to point out that might help (maybe not)

Job is almost certainly a parable or work of fiction. So "Satan coming before God" was just a literary devise and not a literal event.

:rose:

Really? Would you lay out the evidence for that?

Blake

[RevSteve45]

that I would like to point out that might help (maybe not)

Job is almost certainly a parable or work of fiction. So "Satan coming before God" was just a literary devise and not a literal event.

First Sunday 33rd,

James semed to think Job was historical:

James 5:11, Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord; that the Lord is very pitiful, and of tender mercy. (KJV)

So did God, in 2 places in Ezekiel:

Ezek 14:14, Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord GOD. (KJV)

Ezek 14:20, Though Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, as I live, saith the Lord GOD, they shall deliver neither son nor daughter; they shall but deliver their own souls by their righteousness.(KJV)

Therefore, just offhand, I would say that God is true, and you're a liar.

In His Service,
RevSteve45

[FirstSunday33ad]

I’m kind of restricted by the environment however; I will give you some of my reasoning.

First off, the character of Job is not the writer of the story, this is can be seen by the opening

“1 In the land of Uz there lived a man whose name was Job. This man was blameless and upright; he feared God and shunned evil. 2 He had seven sons and three daughters, 3 and he owned seven thousand sheep, three thousand camels, five hundred yoke of oxen and five hundred donkeys, and had a large number of servants. He was the greatest man among all the people of the East.”

This prologue also has the “Once upon a time” element. It does not tell us when Job lived or any other details we encounter in personal histories, only that he lived in the land of Uz.

Secondly, the writer of Job includes details of which he could have no knowledge. For example in the dialogue between Satan and God; nowhere in Job or elsewhere is it explained how the writer came to know that these were the words spoken. If God told him, that would make the writer a prophet and the prologue would read, “In the day of X the word of the Lord came to X a prophet and he was commanded to write” or words to that effect. If they came to Job, who relayed them to the writer, we would have expected Job would have told the writer “this is what the Lord said to me”. Since the words – if literal – could only have been relayed by God to either the writer or Job, it is interesting that neither thought it important enough to mention this.

Thirdly, the dialogue itself; Satan speaks, is answered and then replies; this is characteristic of human interaction and is not found anywhere else in the Bible. Even in the dialogue between Satan and Jesus; Jesus it gave short pointed replies to Satan and did not debate or argue with him. Why does God entertain Satan’s question in this way when His Son would not?

Fourthly, reading the dialogue between God and Satan, the character of God is different than is found elsewhere. God here, boasts about Job and antagonizes Satan into challenging Job’s faith. Additionally, Satan, who surely knows God better than any, doesn’t seem to realize that God would know he would challenge Job’s faith, or that God would know the result of the contest before it even began. Yet twice God holds Job up to Satan and twice Satan takes the bait.

Fifthly, once Job’s afflictions begin and his friends come and sit with him they begin a long debate over the reason for evil and the worth of good. Each takes his turn and Job answers each in turn. Yet never is it mentioned or implied or possible to determine reasonably how this interaction came to be recorded. That long speeches occur in the Bible without direct reference to a scribe is common, however in each of those instances it can be reasonably determined how the speech came to be recorded. In Job we have no such references. The passage regarding the arrival of his friends states:

“11 When Job's three friends, Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar the Naamathite, heard about all the troubles that had come upon him, they set out from their homes and met together by agreement to go and sympathize with him and comfort him. 12 When they saw him from a distance, they could hardly recognize him; they began to weep aloud, and they tore their robes and sprinkled dust on their heads. 13 Then they sat on the ground with him for seven days and seven nights. No one said a word to him, because they saw how great his suffering was.”

Are we to conclude that these three friends going to comfort Job thought it wise to bring along a scribe to write down what was said?

Fifthly, the style of speech for each speaker is the same. They use the same terminology and order of words. Four people – even those from the same family – will not speak in the same manner. If the words spoken were being recorded, the style of speech would vary from speaker to speaker. This is a portion of each speaker’s words, can you tell where one speaker leaves off and another begins?

“That day - may it turn to darkness; may God above not care about it; may no light shine upon it. May darkness and deep shadow claim it once more; may a cloud settle over it; may blackness overwhelm its light.

That night - may thick darkness seize it; may it not be included among the days of the year nor be entered in any of the months. May that night be barren; may no shout of joy be heard in it. May those who curse days curse that day, those who are ready to rouse Leviathan.

I myself have seen a fool taking root, but suddenly his house was cursed. His children are far from safety, crushed in court without a defender. The hungry consume his harvest, taking it even from among thorns, and the thirsty pant after his wealth.

For hardship does not spring from the soil, nor does trouble sprout from the ground. Yet man is born to trouble as surely as sparks fly upward.

The arrows of the Almighty are in me, my spirit drinks in their poison; God's terrors are marshaled against me. Does a wild donkey bray when it has grass, or an ox bellow when it has fodder? Is tasteless food eaten without salt, or is there flavor in the white of an egg? I refuse to touch it; such food makes me ill.

Will they not instruct you and tell you? Will they not bring forth words from their understanding? Can papyrus grow tall where there is no marsh? Can reeds thrive without water? While still growing and uncut, they wither more quickly than grass. Such is the destiny of all who forget God; so perishes the hope of the godless. What he trusts in is fragile; what he relies on is a spider's web. He leans on his web, but it gives way; he clings to it, but it does not hold.

His wisdom is profound, his power is vast. Who has resisted him and come out unscathed? He moves mountains without their knowing it and overturns them in his anger. He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble.

He speaks to the sun and it does not shine; he seals off the light of the stars. He alone stretches out the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea.

Can you fathom the mysteries of God? Can you probe the limits of the Almighty? They are higher than the heavens-what can you do? They are deeper than the depths of the grave -what can you know? Their measure is longer than the earth and wider than the sea

Finally, God comes to Job at the end of the debate and states His case. He does not tell Job about the challenge from Satan, instead He makes Job understand the difference between man and God. This is also a very long speech, but what is significant is that the pattern of speech does not change; God sounds remarkably similar to Job and his friends.



Lastly, the epilogue is consistent with “Once upon a time” stories. Like Cinderella, Job is vindicated in the end and given even more than he had before. When you compare the story of Job with actual histories, however, you do not find God acting in this way. Jeremiah was not vindicated; he was murdered. Isaiah did not have an “a-ha, told you so” moment. The “happy ending” is inconsistent with other histories of righteous men.

This is partly why I have come to agree with those who state Job is a “moral play” that attempts to explain our relationship with God in face of suffering and evil and is not the recording of a literal event in history.

Addendum:

James semed to think Job was historical:

James 5:11, Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord; that the Lord is very pitiful, and of tender mercy. (KJV)

This is the same as saying “have you heard about the rich man and Lazarus?” Job in this context is being used to illustrate a truth that James wanted to impart. James’ audience would have immediately understood the point James was making. That the book of Job was a parable would not affect this understanding.

So did God, in 2 places in Ezekiel:

Ezek 14:14, Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord GOD. (KJV)

Ezek 14:20, Though Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, as I live, saith the Lord GOD, they shall deliver neither son nor daughter; they shall but deliver their own souls by their righteousness.(KJV)

Therefore, just offhand, I would say that God is true, and you're a liar.

Again, Job is being used to illustrate a point that the audience would immediately understand. It would be no different than if I said, “I wouldn’t trust you even if George Washington, Abe Lincoln and Santa Claus vouched for you.” The fact that I use Santa for my example doesn’t mean I believe he is real.