Satan in Job

Dear Bro. Don Styles:

Recently we have noted much discussion on whether “Satan” in Job 1:1-12 was human or angelic. As one who came through the churches of Ad­ventism and Witnessism, it struck me odd that this should be a point of contention among us as it has to do with a fundamental first principle of the Faith.

In Bro. Cyril Tennant’ s book, “The Book of Job,” pages 51 & 52, we find arguments advanced for Satan being an angelic being. Bro. Cyril offers the following in support for not “believing that Satan was a human being.”

  1. “There is no indication of ‘ecclesial-type’ meetings in the days of Job.” (If “ecclesia” means “called out ones,” were not Job and his family part of the “ecclesia” of “called out ones?”)
  2. “Had there been such a meeting, it is not likely that God would have exalted Job in this way amongst the worshipers.” (Did not God exalt Moses as “God” to Pharaoh? [Ex. 7:1]. What about Joseph, Daniel and Christ — weren’t they all exalted among the believing worshipers — the ecclesias of their respective times?)
  3. Cyril reckons that the phrase, “sons of God,” is a term more applicable to “angels” than men. (By contrast, one should note Gen. 4:26; 6:2; Deut. 14:1; Psa. 82:6 where “sons [Hebrew is ben which is also often translated “children”] of God” refers to believers.
  4. Cyril urges that, “Power …could not have been given to an abstract concept.” (Who thinks that a human being, jealously opposing Yahweh, is abstract? Didn’t the magicians of Egypt duplicate the first three miracles that God performed in Egypt? Wasn’t Judas given power to turn Jesus over to the authorities? [John 13 :27].)

Other points

Bro. Cyril says that “none could converse freely with God,” as Satan did. (Had he considered these men who spoke freely to God — Adam [Gen. 3:8-12], Abraham [Gen. 18:22- 33] , Moses [Ex. 4:10-13], Samuel [I Sam. 3:10], Daniel [Dan. 9:3-23] and Elijah [I Kings 19:4] as well as Job, who replies to God in 42:1-6? These men, and others, had intimate conversations with God.)

Another point raised is that “it is inconceivable that God would invest His power in such a person (as this Satan).” (Doesn’t God invest power in the basest of men [Dan. 4:14] who in their turn are a satan to others as a chastening rod? Examples are Nebuchadnezzar [Isa. 14:4-16], Rome [Matt. 24:28] and Gog [Ezek. 38 & 39]. These all play the part of “Satan” in their appointed time.)

“No man could be described as walking to and fro in the earth and moving up and down in it.” (Bro. Tennant should consider Daniel 12:4 which reads, “Many shall run to and fro.” The word “earth” in Job is the Hebrew eretz which simply means the locality of the area in context. It doesn’t have to mean the whole earth [cf. Isa. 1:1-2].)

Bro. Cyril gives an example in Numbers 22:22 where the Satan (angel) played the adversary against Balaam. We should notice here that the angel does not oppose God but represents God against Balaam. In Job, Satan challenges, opposes and is in opposition to Yahweh, that is the difference. To believe that an angel can challenge God breaks the principle that “angels are His ministering spirits” (Heb. 1:14); perform His word (Psa. 103:20-21); guard the elect (Psa. 91); oversee us (Eccl. 5:6); fight for the elect (II Kings 19:35); remove them from danger (Dan. 3:28); watch over them (Dan. 4:17); forsake the unrighteous (Judg. 2:1-4) and save the righteous (Gen. 19; Amos 4:11). After all, can there be a challenge, a rebellion in heaven?

I see this thinking as a major slide back to the apostate churches from which many of us came.

What do you and the readers think?

Sincerely in the Truth,
Peter Kurtis , Vernon, BC

We think you are right and that you have brought out a number of good points to substantiate your position. There are some additional considerations that can be added in support of Satan being a human being, not an angel.

  1. Angels want us saved; Satan wanted Job destroyed. Angels rejoice in the repentance of unbelievers (Lk. 15:10) and serve those who are heirs of salvation that they might receive eternal life (Heb. 1:14). Despite the fact Job was upright, fearing God and abhorring sin, Satan wanted him destroyed for no good reason: “Thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause” (2:3). Satan’s object was for Job to curse God, not continue in obedience (1:11; 2:5). This is a malicious attitude and is directly opposite to the character of angels.

Your response on the Balaam point is right on the mark.

  1. As you noted, using a righteous person as an example to promote right conduct on the part of others is very common in scripture. That is, in fact, what the examples in scripture are about. A good addition to the ones you mentioned is the apostle Paul, who refers to himself as one to be followed as he followed Christ. Job is set forth as an example to be followed with the intent of converting Satan to a right way of life.
  2. The problem of God inflicting suffering on Job is not changed irrespective of the identity of “Satan.” Whether Satan was an angel or a man, the power was of God. The real answer is the one you have noted: God brings suffering for ultimate good. The ultimate good is seen in this case because we have the whole story. While troubles are in process, however, only the person of faith can react as Job did without cursing God.

Incidentally, you will note that the only disaster attributed to the direct action of Satan is the disease which befell Job (2:7). This is the one circumstance mentioned that a person could directly cause by deliberately infecting another person with a contagious disease.

  1. The morality of the whole situation revolves around a righteous person temporarily suffering that sinners might be saved. Of course, we see God does work this way as evidenced by the sufferings of the Lord Jesus Christ on behalf of others.

A right understanding of the book starts with a recognition that the conversion of the adversary (exemplified by Satan) is the primary reason for Job’s sufferings (angels, of course, do not require conversion). Job does personally benefit; he has weaknesses of understanding and of attitude that are corrected. His deliberations and God’s revelation bring him to a full realization that salvation is of the grace of God. But that is not the initial reason for his sufferings. His troubles come because God is seeking to convert the adversary. None of the participants of the book consider this possibility. God must educate them on this point that some people do suffer that those less worthy than they might be saved. In the end, everyone’s understanding is corrected and improved and the three friends who were, in fact, adversaries, are saved.

  1. While “Satan” is an individual, he is a representative man. His thinking represents the carnal mind which exists in every person. Inherent to our thinking is a love of freedom from divine restraints (going to and fro in the earth) and a cynical attitude to those who are sincere worshipers of God. Thus Job’s Satan comes very close to being a personification of sin and of human nature.

Apostate thinking

There is one point mentioned that we find somewhat disturbing. We sympathize that having come out of communities which teach a fallen-angel devil, one is highly sensitive to any view of angels where they would oppose God. That sensitivity is very valuable to the Christadelphian community in keeping us from inadvertently slipping back into the teachings from which the Truth was rescued.

But, one needs to be careful as to how one portrays the expositions of a fellow believer. There are at least two dangers readily apparent:

We can react so strongly to ideas with which we disagree that we frighten brethren into silence. This stultifies thinking and results in breth­ren bottling up questions that should be asked. For example, some letters we have received (which have not so far been published) regarding Christ offering for himself (a recent point of discussion in the magazine) have been phrased in the strongest of terms. They categorize the ideas of respected brethren as being in league with trinitarian theology. Such accusations could quickly stamp out useful discussion of Biblical passages that are not easy to understand.

Second, extreme statements invite extreme responses. Before long, strong accusations and harsh words are flying about, with brotherly love being the victim. The brothers and sisters on this continent come from a great variety of backgrounds. Because of this variance, some things that bother one person do not worry another. For example, some coming from the Roman Catholic Church are very offended by arguments favoring the unbreakable marriage bond and prohibitions on the remarriage of converts who are single divorcees. They find Catholic arguments they left behind being replicated by Christadelphians who, in effect, forbid to marry. Others find prayers most repugnant that seem to ask Christ to pray for us to a less merciful God. They find this duplicates a view of the atonement they thought they had left behind when they forsook teachings of 19th century protestant theology.

If we are not temperate in our words, we soon find charges of heresy and apostate thinking leading to strife. Let us remember that “the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle and easy to be entreated” (James 3:17).

Outright perversion of the Truth must be met with the strongest of protests. But we need to carefully discern between reasonable points of view and deliberate attempts to subvert the doctrine.