Eight years ago, I had to attend a five-day retreat called “License to Preach School” as one part of the lengthy licensing and ordination process in our denomination. For one assignment, we had to preach a sermon in front of our peers, all of whom were also going into ministry. One of them preached on Job. She referred several times to the wager that Satan—the one and only devil from hell—made with God.
The sermon raised many questions in my mind, the foremost of which was, Why would God grant Satan an audience in his heavenly court, much less entertain a wager from him? Why are God and Satan on such friendly terms? Besides, while I hadn’t yet been to seminary, I did read a lot. I took Disciple Bible study. I knew a few things. I shared my concerns with another classmate, who had already completed his first year of seminary.
I told him, “My understanding is that ‘Satan’ in Job is not a proper noun; it’s ‘the satan,’ the accuser. He’s an angel alongside other angels in God’s heavenly court.” My classmate simply said, “I wouldn’t rest too comfortably in that understanding”—which was kind of a jerky thing to say. Tell me why I’m wrong, if you think I’m wrong!
It’s eight years later. I’ve now been to seminary. I’ve read even more. And I’m no less convinced that the accuser mentioned in Job is not Satan of the New Testament. By all means, our English translations do us a disservice by capitalizing the name (and omitting the definite article). But still…
I’m happy, therefore, that a blogger at Scot McKnight’s blog has taken up the cause, using a couple of theologically conservative evangelical commentaries to back him up. Of this “satan,” he writes:
The setting is a divine assembly where God as the supreme king is consulting with his court. Heaven is described in analogy with an ancient Near Eastern royal court. Most English translations translate “the accuser” as Satan, capitalized to indicate a proper name. The dramatized audio I listened to cast the voice as a stereotypical diabolical Satan. Both Walton and Longman point out that this is wrong. Walton prefers to use the term “Challenger” while Longman calls him the accuser. Not only is the accuser not Satan, but there is nothing particularly diabolical about the exchange. The accuser is not out to destroy mankind in general or Job in particular. Rather he is challenging the policy of reward and retribution.
Walton summarizes his conclusions about the Challenger (p. 74 – Walton):
He is one of the “sons of God” (a member of the divine council)
He serves as a policy watchdog.
He uses the ambiguity of Job’s motives and concept of God to challenge God’s policies.
He does not act independently.
He is not inherently evil.
He cannot confidently be identified with Satan in the New Testament.
All of this accords well with everything else I’ve read and studied. I have a friend who got a Ph.D. from Emory. Her dissertation was on Job. She agrees with all of the above as well.