# Satan in Job is not the Devil?



## Shimei (Nov 2, 2017)

Could someone view this short video and answer whether there is merit to this?


----------



## greenbaggins (Nov 2, 2017)

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.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Shimei (Nov 2, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> 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.



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.


----------



## OPC'n (Nov 2, 2017)

_Institutes I.14.17_ "With regard to the strife and war which Satan is said to wage with God, it must be understood with this qualification, that Satan cannot possibly do anything against the will and consent of God. For we read in the history of Job, that Satan appears in the presence of God to receive his commands, and dares not proceed to execute any enterprise until he is authorised." John Calvin


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 2, 2017)

Shimei said:


> 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.


----------



## Shimei (Nov 2, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Many see the Angel of the Lord as being the preincarnate Christ Himself.



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?


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 2, 2017)

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.


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 2, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> 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 .


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 2, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Satan does not go into hell until at the time of the Second Coming event .



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.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Nov 2, 2017)

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

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 2, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> 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



I originally cut him some slack because I was in intellectual circles that really pushed the ideas of Sitchin and others, and Heiser has done some good work refuting Sitchin (and Neo-Gnosticism in general). 

I had received one of his books via ILL but I could never get into it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 2, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> 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.


That would be the consensus view of many people, including many Christians.


----------



## arapahoepark (Nov 2, 2017)

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.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 2, 2017)

arapahoepark said:


> 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.


I just say "Amen" to this.

Does anyone who has read through the NT--starting with the "words in red," and all the rest--have good reason to stumble/wonder at "Who is this cat?" in Job?

If, peradventure, there was some _ambiguity_ before Christ and his apostles (whether there was a particular Enemy of mankind), I should think it was pretty well clarified by the end of the NT revelatory era. QED

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 3


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 2, 2017)

arapahoepark said:


> 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.



True, but Heiser has an evangelical view of Scripture. I disagree with Heiser on some areas but he is not a liberal.


----------



## iainduguid (Nov 2, 2017)

Shimei said:


> 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?


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.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 2


----------



## arapahoepark (Nov 2, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> True, but Heiser has an evangelical view of Scripture. I disagree with Heiser on some areas but he is not a liberal.


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.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Shimei (Nov 3, 2017)

I just want to say that I appreciate this board. I posted this video and the commentator's view on a Calvinism Facebook group and received nothing but unsatisfactory answers and was even called a freak for presenting the case. 

Here's another source:



> 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.
> ...


----------



## iainduguid (Nov 3, 2017)

Shimei said:


> 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.”


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.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## KGP (Nov 6, 2017)

arapahoepark said:


> 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.



ANE comparative approach can add some color and appreciation to the breadth of God's wisdom and the superiority of the Scriptures compared to the best the world at that time had to offer. I see major problems when the Bible's relation to ANE sources moves from one of comparison only to interpretation, where one starts using extrabiblical sources as a fundamental interpretive component.

The interpretation of scripture has to start with God's purpose to reveal himself to his people. That is the principal foundation. ANE sources help us broaden our understanding of the contexts in which God was revealing himself, but they absolutely do not _alter_ plain biblical understanding.

Trent, you mention those who give attention to ANE comparative approach and neglect the NT. Those go hand in hand if you are trying to _interpret_ the text, rather than merely adding depth of detail.

_"For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope." ~ Romans 15:4_

You'll never find this interpretive principle from anywhere in the ANE, so if you being to rely on ANE to _construct_ substantive meaning from the text, you'll set yourself on a trajectory of decreasing usefulness to the church I believe.

Reactions: Like 1


----------

