Bully's Blog

The Divine Council in the Book of Job

An excerpt from Christopher D. Kou, “A Biblical Theology of the Divine Council,” Theopolis Institute, March 2017.

The most extensive biblical account of the Divine Council is found in the Book of Job. In Job 1, the “sons of God” ( הִ֔ים בְּניֵ֣ האֱָ bĕnê hāʾĕlōhîm) gather together in the heavenly council, and השַּׂטָָן֖) haśśāṭān) “the adversary” gathers with them. It is not explicitly told whether or not the  adversary is to be counted among the “sons of God,” but it is clear enough that he is part of the council proceedings, as Yahweh directly addresses him to point out Job’s faithfulness. While the word for “adversary” is the same word as that which refers to Satan, the great enemy, it is now common to consider the adversary to be a neutral, or even good, officer in the Divine Council—an angelic servant of Yahweh who does only his bidding, and in the Book of Job acts simply as Yahweh’s agent to test and confirm Job’s loyalty to God. To support this, many scholars note that haśśāṭān is properly translated as “the adversary,” with the definite article. Thus, it is argued, the role of adversary or accuser in early Hebrew conception is not that of the great cosmic enemy, but rather simply that of the courtroom prosecutor—a neutral role. Mullen observes that all uses of “Satan” as a name are post-exilic.¹Mullen, Divine Council, 276. As Michael Heiser puts it:

The satan in Job 1–2 is not a villain. He’s doing the job assigned to him by God. The book of Job does not identify the satan in this scene as the serpent of Genesis 3, the figure known in the New Testament as the devil. The Old Testament never uses the word saṭan of the serpent figure from Genesis 3. In fact, the word saṭan is not a proper personal noun in the Old Testament.²Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible, First Edition. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2015), 57-58. While pressing the currently popular notion that “the satan” is simply a generic term that is later adopted as a name, Heiser seems reluctant about coming down definitively on one side or another as to whether the divine being known as “the satan” in Job and elsewhere is that same individual who later earns the name. First he opens with the simple statement that “the saṭan in Job 1-2 is not a villain. He’s doing the job assigned to him by God.” But then he issues the far more ambivalent conclusion: “The dark figure of Genesis 3 was eventually thought of as the ‘mother of all adversaries,’ and so the label satan got stuck to him. He deserves it. The point here is only that the Old Testament doesn’t use that term for the divine criminal of Eden.” (emphasis mine). But while it is quite evident that the Hebrew authors don’t explicitly use the term śāṭān for the divine rebel, this far from establishes that the same individual is not being referred to. See also John H Walton, Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary (Old Testament): The Minor Prophets, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, vol. 5 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009), 251-252.

However, noting that in the Hebrew שׂטָָן֖ śāṭān is rarely used in the ordinary personal name form sidesteps the question of whether “the satan” or “adversary” in heaven is indeed the individual who is known by that proper name in later Scripture. That śāṭān is a functional noun simply demonstrates the role of that individual within the heavenly court. It does not necessarily follow that the individual known as “the adversary” must be some other person than the one called by the personal name Satan by later authors.

Heiser points out that in Numbers 22:22 when the Angel comes to stand against Balaam, he is referred to as śāṭān. However, it seems to me that this by itself proves very little. First, the identity of Balaam’s adversary is hardly ambiguous. It is the Angel of Yahweh. Second, it does not say that the Angel is השַּׂטָָן֖ haśśāṭān but rather יְהוָ֛ה . . . לְ שׂטָָן֣ לוֹ֑ וַיִּתְיַצֵּ֞ב מַלְאַ֧ wayyiṯyaṣṣēḇ malʾaḵ yĕhwâ . . . lĕśāṭān lô. That is, the Angel of Yahweh is not “the adversary,” but merely stood against Balaam “as adversary to him.” Even more than the definite article might, the prepositional prefix depersonalizes the word, making it attributive, and far more about an assumed function in this isolated case than haśśāṭān in the Book of Job, which speaks more of a specific individual holding a specific office.

As an example, on a naval vessel “the captain” is the commanding officer of the ship. Crewmen may indeed refer to him as “the captain” in many cases. But he may also be often addressed directly as “Captain,” sans definite article, or even referred to with his official rank of “Captain” attached to his personal name as if it were a part of it. There could hardly be any confusion about who was being spoken of were one crewman to say “Captain” and another “the captain.” They are obviously referring to the same person. Complexities and some confusion may ensue only when there are two individuals with identical rank aboard the same vessel.

Moreover, in the Hebrew, much as in English, the definite article may (though in admittedly few cases) be used with proper names that were originally appellative. Thus, the 144 occurances of the definite article in היַּ רְַדּןֵ֔ hayyardēn do not suggest to us that there are many rivers called Jordan and this is but one of them, but are references to a specific river by the name of Jordan or places associated with that river. Nor are the 25 attestations of הַלְּבָנוֹן hallĕḇānôn intended to imply to us that there may be other multiple Lebanons. Rather, these are descriptive identifiers which have become proper nouns while retaining the definite article. Jordan likely derives from ירד yrd, which means to “go down,”³“ירְַדּןֵ,” TDOT, 323. and Lebanon means “white mountain.”⁴“לְבָנוֹן,” HALOT, 518. The same may be the case with haśśāṭān, “the adversary.”

This is simply to say that the grammar is not conclusive either way. There is a lot of complexity we have to sort out with the title and name of “the satan.” Are they both referring to the same individual? Or are their multiple individuals with the same rank and role? Despite the use of the definite article for “the adversary,” it does not necessarily follow that the person known by the name Satan cannot be the same individual.

The claim that the adversary of Job is a mere innocuous agent of Yahweh’s commands does not hold up to a close reading of the book. The adversary is clearly privy to the council in Job 1, but he is also somewhat separate. The sons of God assemble, and the satan is also there. This doesn’t necessarily imply that he is not one of the assembly, but certainly he is singled out. Yahweh orders him to report, and then challenges him. Already we see that the satan is not merely the prosecutor of men in the divine court, but he is actually singled out because he is indeed the adversary of Yahweh himself. God therefore urges him to take note of the uprightness of Job, his servant. It is often suggested that the satan is the one who challenges God in the heavenly council scene of Job, but we do not find that here. Rather, we see God challenging the satan: “Isn’t my servant Job great?”

The answer of the satan to Yahweh is not “well, then, let us try and prove him to see if his loyalty is true,” which is what one might expect of a faithful agent of God, since it would be in line with God’s motivation revealed over the course of the book, and would even parallel God’s test of Abraham when he commanded him to sacrifice his son Isaac. Instead, the satan’s words are much more insidious. “Does Job fear God for no reason? Have you not put a hedge around him and his house and all that he has on every side? . . . But stretch out your hand and touch all that he has, and he will curse you to your face.” As Boyd points out, “there is something sinister about the eagerness of the satan to destroy Job.”⁵Boyd, God at War, 147.  That there is a man as upright as Job is an affront to the adversary, and so he turns immediately to seek to tear him down.

In the second confrontation in the heavenly court, after Job does not curse God even in the face of tragedy, the sons of God again assemble to present themselves before Yahweh, but the focus is again on the interplay between God and the satan. Yahweh first reminds the satan, “He still holds fast his integrity, although you incited me against him to destroy him without reason.” This is not to say that Yahweh has no reason to test Job, for his reason becomes clear in the end. This is instead an indictment of the satan’s arbitrary desire for Job’s ruin. It is a rebuke and a yet renewed challenge from Yahweh to his traitorous council member. For while Yahweh’s purpose is for the testing of Job, the satan’s express goal is either to provoke Job to curse God or to leave him entirely crushed.

The satan’s tone at this second challenge from Yahweh now takes on an even more acerbic tone. “Skin for skin!” he exclaims. “All that a man has he will give for his life. But stretch out your hand and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will curse you to your face.”

Again, the goal of the satan is to provoke Job to sin (i.e. to curse his Creator). This encounter ends the dealings of Yahweh with the adversary, and from there on God deals with Job directly. But the character of the satan is established by this point. He is not merely a faithful servant of the Council or of God. Indeed, the context of the Divine Council brings the nature of the confrontation into stark relief. The contest is initiated by God, but is done in the sight of all the sons of God. Job’s loyalty to God vindicates not only Job, but it also vindicates Yahweh before the Council.

From here we can see that not all is well in the Divine Council. There is revolt within the very court of heaven. Is haśśāṭān of Job to be identified with the great enemy Satan? In light of the insidious character of the adversary here, I think there can be little doubt. What, then, is he doing in the court of heaven? It seems, under the Old Covenant, that Satan in fact has a place in the Divine Council. He actually has God’s ear in the court of heaven, and God allows his presence. His function in the court is as “the adversary” of Yahweh and of his people, but there is more to it than that. I believe the modus operandi makes it clear, this satan can be none other than “the accuser of the brethren” who has a place in the Council in the Book of Job, but is doomed to be cast down out of heaven in Revelation 12:10.

The Divine Council scenes of Job also serve to establish the term הִ֔ים בְּניֵ֣ האֱָ bĕnê hāʾĕlōhîm as referring to those who are seated in the heavenly court. In Job, at least, these are clearly angels. Job’s own friend and councilor Eliphaz poses the rhetorical question, “Have you listened in the council of God?” (Job 15:8). The obvious answer is no; Job has not. The heavenly council is portrayed as being closed to men. At the same time, the fact that this question appears here, in a book which describes the heavenly council, suggests to us in itself that more is determined for man where the council is concerned. Certainly, the author of the Book of Job, whether that be an older Job himself or some other writer, has been privy to the workings of the heavenly council, since he relates to us in the text exactly what has taken place there between God and the satan.

The complete paper is available at www.academia.edu.