THE GREATEST TRICK

[William]

There is a well-known saying often told by Christians... "The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist”

In the Old Testament, the figure of Lucifer or Ha-Satan (meaning "the accuser" or "adversary" in Hebrew) was not the rebellious, fallen angel or the source of all evil but rather a more ambiguous figure with roles that could be understood as part of God’s cosmic order. This character, in the context of the Hebrew Scriptures, was often an agent permitted by God to test or challenge individuals, as seen in the Book of Job. As Christianity spread and became influenced by various cultural and theological ideas—particularly through Hellenistic and later medieval thought—the figure of Satan was reimagined. It began to take on characteristics associated with ultimate evil, rebellion, and separation from God, evolving into a clear antagonist representing a cosmic duality.

SOURCE

The” trick” might well be how Cultural Christianity employs the concept in order to get folk to gravitate to the NT version/image of GOD, which itself may be false.

Q: How has Cultural Christianity's outspoken myth of Satan shaped our understanding of good, evil, and the divine and is the understanding itself, truthful?

(Cultural Christianity is defined as any who call themselves "Christian".)

[theophile]

I would tend to agree with 1213 that it is a stretch to assign employee status to the satan here. The verse distinguishes the satan from the divine council, i.e., "the satan ALSO came among them," which implies the satan's presence is IN ADDITION to the divine council's.

First, the grammar doesn't imply whether the satan was or wasn't part of the council, only that he was with them ("in their midst"). The word translated as "among them" is the same one used in Leviticus 17:10 to refer to the "strangers travelling among you" and in Ezekiel 8:11, saying that Jaazaniah the son of Shaphan is "among" 70 elders of Israel. The strangers are clearly not the Israelites, but in context, Jaazaniah is one of the elders.

Okay, but that then goes to my point as much as yours, right? So we should assume for now in the story that the satan is ambiguous as to being God's employee or not...

Furthermore, God's response to the satan implies surprise and being taken at unawares. i.e., "Where have you come from?!" Begs the question of why God would ask that of a council member or employee that God presumably would have a good handle on.

Considering how formulaic the question and answer are (1:7 and 2:2 are nearly word-for-word), they seem much more like a ritual statement of the satan's position before Yahweh. The satan roves between the ends of the Earth, testing its inhabitants for disloyalty to the throne.

Again, maybe. It could also imply surprise on God's part and being caught unawares.

And I think there absolutely is something surprising about the satan's presence here. A whole new adversarial spirit coming out of seemingly nowhere in the bible. Concerning enough to warrant an address from God.

The simplest interpretation here is that the satan is an adversarial spirit originating from the earth, i.e., OUR domain, and has shown up at God's court to express the concerns it has about the job we're doing running the place. (Recall Genesis 1 when God gave the earth over to us to rule.) Hence God's next response and whether the satan has considered Job, a redeeming example of a human being, and all the testing of Job that follows to prove that out.

The point being to show the satan that there is reason to hope in humankind and God's plan for the earth, and to quell the satan's rising rebellion.

I think that's a fine theological construction, but those are all things you have to read back into the text. The satan doesn't offer any concerns, but just says that he's been doing his job. Yahweh brags about Job and the satan is skeptical, saying that Job is only loyal because he's rich and favored. Yahweh tells the satan he can do whatever he wants to Job's stuff. There's no mention of the satan being discontent or of any sort of a pending rebellion. The satan is, if anything, protecting Yahweh from a subject whose loyalty might be fleeting and based on his current level of comfort.

This only makes any sort of theological sense if Yahweh isn't omniscient. Otherwise, if he actually knows Job's heart and mind, he gives the satan authorization to slaughter Job's family to prove the loyalty that is already assured. If that's the case, it seems odd that, even if the satan isn't omniscient, that he wouldn't know that Yahweh is. The way the story's written, if the satan isn't a tester employed by Yahweh, then he's a freelancer, but still working to preserve Yahweh's interests.

I think it would be wrong to bring later theological baggage like omniscience, etc., to God. There is plenty of evidence that God is to a certain extent winging things as God goes here, and things don't always go as God plans. Like, surely God did not plan to have to flood the earth, and to regret making human beings like God says there. None of that lends itself to the kind of omniscience you're suggesting.

And I totally understand your reading of the text and agree it has basis. But let's be clear, we're both in a place where we're reading things back into it. The book of Job is notorious for that, i.e., it's ambiguity, and how it opens itself to interpretation. Just consider the multiple possible renderings of the pivotal verse 42:6 and how that can change the overall outcome of the story. Or the status of Elihu - was he right or wrong in what he said? Or why God speaks twice to Job from the whirlwind if the first speech properly chastised him. Etc, etc.

I can happily split the difference with you here. While I don't think the satan is an agent of God per se, I do think it is in God's good graces still, and generally on board with God's plans. But it does represent a real concern about humankind and our rule of the earth, and it brings this concern on its own accord. That's the important thing, because it sets up real conflict in the story, a conflict that wouldn't be nearly as pronounced or consequential if it was simply doing God's bidding all along.

More theological construction, I know, but I would trace the satan's genealogy between the serpent of Genesis 3 (i.e., a good creature on the earth with future enmity predicted between it and humankind), and Satan of the NT (i.e., the personification of a spirit in full rebellion against God). The satan of Job is the first voice of discontent and a genealogical step to the next level of perversion and rebellion. Hence again the pronounced conflict and consequences of the satan coming of its own accord and God addressing the satan's concern...

Anyways, good stuff. This is one of the greatest books ever written precisely because of discussions like this that it opens up.

[William]

Difflugia.
The Satan Borrowed from Zoroastrianism
Your Argument:
You argue that the concept of the New Testament Satan is influenced by Zoroastrianism’s Ahriman, which Diaspora Jews encountered during the Persian period. You highlight the contrast between the Satan of Job, who acts under God’s authority, and the Satan of the New Testament, who embodies rebellion and evil. You also point out that the devil in Mark 3:12-13 aligns more with the Old Testament’s functional adversary role, rather than the later dualistic enemy.

My Concern:
While Zoroastrian influence on Jewish theology is a plausible hypothesis, the connection between Ahriman and Satan remains speculative. The transition from the adversarial figure in Job to the rebellious Satan in the New Testament could equally result from internal theological evolution rather than direct borrowing. Additionally, Mark 3:12-13 refers to unclean spirits, not explicitly to Satan, which weakens your argument about continuity.

My Question to You:
How do you address the lack of direct evidence for Zoroastrian influence on the concept of Satan? Can you provide more robust textual or historical support for this connection, and how does Mark’s account fit into your broader argument?

Purple Knight.
Humanity Created God and the Test of Sin
Your Argument:
You propose that Abraham’s decision to obey God, even against his own moral instincts, reflects humanity outsourcing morality to a divined entity, effectively “creating” God. You further argue that the New Testament’s focus on sin is a test to reject scapegoating and choose personal accountability over offloading the consequences of one’s actions onto another (e.g., Christ).

My Concern:
Your response is philosophically engaging but only tangentially addresses the thread question. The discussion focuses more on the nature of divined morality and human agency than on the myth of Satan. While you touch on scapegoating, which could relate to Satan’s role in cultural Christianity, the connection is not made explicit. Additionally, your interpretation of sin as a test to reject scapegoating departs significantly from traditional Christian doctrine, which centers on grace and redemption through Christ’s sacrifice.

My Question to You:
How does your interpretation of scapegoating connect to the evolving myth of Satan in Cultural Christianity? Could you explore how the figure of Satan externalizes human moral struggles and enables the very scapegoating you critique? How might this influence perceptions of good, evil, and the divined in Christian theology?

1213
The Satan as God’s Employee
Your Argument:
You respond to the atheist claim that Satan is God’s employee by questioning where the text explicitly supports this. You highlight that Satan is described as “among” the sons of God in Job, which doesn’t necessarily make him a divined council member. You also argue that the “unclean spirit” in Mark 3:12-13 is not synonymous with Satan, emphasizing that adversaries to God’s will can be labeled “satans” without being the Satan of later Christian theology.

My Concern:
Your critique rightly challenges overgeneralizations but risks dismissing the functional role of the satan in Job. By focusing on technicalities (e.g., “employee”), you sidestep the broader question of Satan’s subordinate relationship to God in the narrative. Additionally, your dismissal of Zoroastrian influence lacks engagement with historical context.

My Question to You:
If Satan is not a member of the divined council or an “employee,” what framework best describes his role in Job? How do you reconcile your interpretation with the explicit authorization given by God to test Job?

Theophile:
The Satan as Earthly Adversary
Your Argument:
You propose that the satan is an earthly adversarial spirit, distinct from the divined council, who raises concerns about humanity’s stewardship over the earth. You argue that God’s question (“Where have you come from?”) implies surprise, indicating the satan is not a regular council member. You suggest that the testing of Job aims to demonstrate hope in humanity and quell the satan’s rebellion.

My Concern:
Your interpretation of the satan as an earthly spirit lacks textual evidence and introduces speculative elements. The satan’s role as a tester seems more consistent with a divined courtroom setting than with rebellion or dissatisfaction. Additionally, the text does not explicitly link the satan to concerns about human governance.

My Question to You:
What textual evidence supports your claim that the satan originates from earth or expresses dissatisfaction with humanity? How does your interpretation align with the structured, courtroom-like interaction described in Job?

Difflugia: (Response to Theophile on the Satan's Role)
Your Argument:
You counter Theophile’s claim that the satan is independent of the divined council by arguing that the grammar in Job does not clarify whether the satan is part of the council or a separate entity. You draw parallels to other biblical uses of "among them," which suggest both inclusion and distinctiveness are context-dependent. You propose that the satan’s role is ritualistic, functioning as a tester roving the earth to evaluate human loyalty. You reject Theophile’s notion of rebellion, asserting that the satan operates to protect Yahweh’s interests by questioning the sincerity of human faith. However, you note a theological tension: Yahweh’s omniscience makes the test of Job seemingly unnecessary and performative.

My Concern:
Your response provides a detailed grammatical and contextual rebuttal, but it does not fully address Theophile’s claim about the satan being a spirit from earth with concerns about humanity’s stewardship. While you rightly dismiss rebellion as unsupported by the text, your focus on the satan as a ritual tester assumes Yahweh’s interests align with allowing human suffering to test loyalty. This assumption could imply a moral dissonance in Yahweh’s actions, particularly when considering omniscience. Your assertion that the satan functions as a “freelancer” also leaves ambiguity about his ultimate accountability within the divined hierarchy.

My Question to You:
How do you reconcile the satan’s role as a tester with the moral implications of Yahweh permitting Job’s suffering to prove a point already known to an omniscient deity? Additionally, if the satan operates as a freelancer, what prevents his role from conflicting with Yahweh’s broader interests, and how does this align with the ritualistic framework you describe?

Theophile: (Responding to Difflugia on Ambiguity in the Satan’s Role)
Your Argument:
You acknowledge the ambiguity in the satan’s role in Job, conceding that it is unclear whether he is an employee of God or an independent agent. You argue that the satan’s presence introduces an adversarial spirit previously unmentioned in the Bible, warranting surprise from God and creating real narrative conflict. You suggest that omniscience is not an inherent characteristic of God in Job, pointing to other biblical instances (e.g., the flood and God’s regret) to support your claim that God is “winging it.” Additionally, you trace the satan’s genealogy from the serpent in Genesis to the rebellious Satan of the New Testament, proposing that the satan in Job represents a transitional figure—discontent but not yet in full rebellion.

My Concern:
Your argument about God “winging it” offers an intriguing perspective but risks undermining the broader theological coherence of God’s sovereignty as presented in other parts of the Bible. Furthermore, your suggestion that the satan brings concerns about humanity on his own accord is speculative, as the text does not explicitly attribute independent motivation to the satan. This interpretation may overstate the narrative conflict, given that the satan’s testing aligns with God’s authority and permission. Lastly, while your genealogy of Satan is a fascinating construction, it relies heavily on intertextual connections not explicitly stated in the text of Job.

My Question to You:
How do you reconcile your interpretation of God “winging it” with the broader biblical themes of divined sovereignty and foreknowledge? Additionally, if the satan represents a transitional figure between discontent and rebellion, what textual evidence supports this progression, and how does it align with the ritualized interaction in Job’s narrative?

Athetotheist: (Questioning Demonic Possession and the Devil’s Strategy)
Your Argument:
You highlight an inconsistency in the belief of demonic possession, questioning why a being (Satan or demons) who supposedly wants to convince the world of his nonexistence would reveal himself through possession and erratic behavior. This creates a contradiction between Satan’s supposed strategy (concealment) and the overt manifestations attributed to him (demonic possession).

My Concern:
While this critique is logically valid, it focuses on a narrow point within the broader framework of the thread question, which explores how the myth of Satan influences perceptions of good, evil, and the divined. Additionally, the argument presumes that demonic possession is necessarily counterproductive to Satan’s goals, which may not account for theological explanations that depict possession as part of a broader strategy (e.g., sowing fear, chaos, or distrust in God’s power).

My Question to You:
How does this critique of demonic possession fit into the broader question of how Satan’s myth shapes moral and theological understanding in Cultural Christianity? Could you explore whether the belief in possession reflects a deeper need to externalize personal or societal failings, and how this might align with Satan’s role as a scapegoat for evil?

Thank you to everyone who have contributed to this fascinating discussion on the thread subject and question. The diverse perspectives—from theological interpretations to philosophical critiques and linguistic analyses—have enriched our understanding of how Cultural Christianity’s myth of Satan shapes perceptions of good, evil, and the divined. Your thoughtful arguments and counterpoints have illuminated the complexities within the text of Job, the evolving character of Satan, and the theological tensions this raises.

This dialogue showcases the power of collaborative inquiry to deepen our insights into ancient texts and their modern implications. Thank you for your engagement, creativity, and intellectual rigor!

[William]

There is a well-known saying often told by Christians... "The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist”

In the Old Testament, the figure of Lucifer or Ha-Satan (meaning "the accuser" or "adversary" in Hebrew) was not the rebellious, fallen angel or the source of all evil but rather a more ambiguous figure with roles that could be understood as part of God’s cosmic order. This character, in the context of the Hebrew Scriptures, was often an agent permitted by God to test or challenge individuals, as seen in the Book of Job. As Christianity spread and became influenced by various cultural and theological ideas—particularly through Hellenistic and later medieval thought—the figure of Satan was reimagined. It began to take on characteristics associated with ultimate evil, rebellion, and separation from God, evolving into a clear antagonist representing a cosmic duality.

SOURCE

The” trick” might well be how Cultural Christianity employs the concept in order to get folk to gravitate to the NT version/image of GOD, which itself may be false.

Q: How has Cultural Christianity's outspoken myth of Satan shaped our understanding of good, evil, and the divine and is the understanding itself, truthful?

(Cultural Christianity is defined as any who call themselves "Christian".)

SGM-Based Response to the Thread Question.
The thread question asks how Cultural Christianity’s myth of Satan has shaped our understanding of good, evil, and the divined, and whether that understanding is truthful. The Subjective GOD Model (SGM) offers a unique lens to approach this question, emphasizing co-creation, subjective moral authority, and the evolving nature of spiritual truth. Here’s how SGM engages with the topic:
________________________________________
1. Evolving Moral Truths and Co-Creation with GOD
Cultural Christianity’s depiction of Satan as a personified evil externalizes moral responsibility, offering a convenient scapegoat for human failings. SGM, by contrast, views morality as an evolving, co-creative process between individuals and GOD. Satan, rather than being an autonomous antagonist, reflects humanity’s internal struggles with alignment and disalignment with divined values. This shifts the focus from combating an external evil to refining our own moral understanding in collaboration with GOD.
________________________________________
2. Internal Moral Framework vs. External Attribution
SGM challenges the myth of Satan by emphasizing subjective moral authority. While Cultural Christianity often attributes sin and temptation to Satan, SGM holds individuals accountable for filtering external influences through their spiritual discernment. This perspective dissolves the binary of good versus evil imposed by an external Satan and encourages personal responsibility for moral development.
________________________________________
3. Free Will, Accountability, and Historical Atrocities
The figure of Satan as a rebellious tempter can obscure human agency, framing atrocities and moral failings as influenced by an external force. SGM refutes this, asserting that harmful actions arise from independent human agency outside divined alignment. The myth of Satan may comfort individuals by shifting blame, but it undermines the necessity of personal and collective accountability, which is central to SGM’s vision of moral evolution.
________________________________________
4. Forgiveness and Reconciliation
SGM reframes forgiveness as an internal, healing process independent of external agents like Satan. By viewing divined interaction as subjective and restorative (e.g., through NDEs or synchronicities), SGM transcends the punitive duality of Satan’s myth. Instead, it emphasizes reconciliation with divined values as a path to spiritual growth.
________________________________________
5. The Myth of Satan as an Archetype for Discontent
From the perspective of SGM, Satan represents humanity’s archetypal discontent with divined order and moral challenges. This aligns with SGM’s view of moral growth as a pre-birth agreement to engage with life’s complexities. Satan’s evolution from an adversary in Job to the cosmic rebel of the New Testament mirrors humanity’s own shifting understanding of accountability, struggle, and divined justice.
________________________________________
6. GOD as a Subjective Presence
The SGM critiques Cultural Christianity’s externalization of Satan as an antagonist to an objectified GOD. Instead, SGM views GOD as an integrated, subjective presence, inviting individuals to discover the “Kingdom of GOD” within themselves. The myth of Satan, in this framework, reflects humanity’s projection of internal moral conflicts outward, which can hinder the co-creative process with GOD.
________________________________________
7. Integration of Science and Spirituality
Finally, SGM integrates spiritual and scientific exploration, questioning the literalism of Satan’s myth. By treating Satan as a metaphor for moral and spiritual struggles, SGM aligns with a balanced approach that respects both subjective experience and objective inquiry.
________________________________________
Conclusion.
The myth of Satan, as perpetuated by Cultural Christianity, has shaped a dualistic worldview that externalizes evil and shifts moral responsibility. SGM reclaims this narrative, emphasizing that good and evil are not forces imposed by external entities but opportunities for co-creation with GOD. This approach fosters a deeper, more personal engagement with morality, accountability, and spiritual growth, transcending the limitations of the traditional Satan myth.
By reinterpreting the myth through the SGM framework, we move from fear of external evil to a focus on evolving moral truth, empowering individuals to align more fully with divined values.

In short.
On Good and Evil:
Cultural Christianity externalizes evil through Satan, creating a scapegoat for human failings. SGM rejects this dualism, emphasizing that good and evil are co-created within individuals' alignment (or disalignment) with GOD. Evil actions are a result of human free will, not an external tempter.

On the Divined:
The myth of Satan reinforces a view of GOD as an external, authoritarian figure locked in opposition to Satan. SGM reclaims GOD as a subjective presence experienced internally, fostering a personal, co-creative relationship rather than reliance on externalized forces.

Truthfulness of the Understanding:
The myth of Satan oversimplifies morality by attributing human failures to an external force, undermining accountability. SGM replaces this with a model of evolving moral truth, where individuals take responsibility for their actions and actively align with divined guidance.

[theophile]

Theophile:
The Satan as Earthly Adversary
Your Argument:
You propose that the satan is an earthly adversarial spirit, distinct from the divined council, who raises concerns about humanity’s stewardship over the earth. You argue that God’s question (“Where have you come from?”) implies surprise, indicating the satan is not a regular council member. You suggest that the testing of Job aims to demonstrate hope in humanity and quell the satan’s rebellion.

My Concern:
Your interpretation of the satan as an earthly spirit lacks textual evidence and introduces speculative elements. The satan’s role as a tester seems more consistent with a divined courtroom setting than with rebellion or dissatisfaction. Additionally, the text does not explicitly link the satan to concerns about human governance.

My Question to You:
What textual evidence supports your claim that the satan originates from earth or expresses dissatisfaction with humanity? How does your interpretation align with the structured, courtroom-like interaction described in Job?

My textual evidence that the satan originated on earth is the satan's response to God's question about where it came from, where the satan explicitly says it came from the earth. This feels like pretty good evidence and the best assumption to make unless told otherwise.

My textual evidence for the satan's dissatisfaction with humanity's rule of the earth is:
1) The fact that the satan is adversarial in nature, as evinced by its name / direct translation (this should have us right-away thinking the satan has a bone to pick)
2) The fact that it came from the earth, and tying this to Genesis 1 where we know the earth is given to humankind as a dominion - a bone to pick with real potential consequence and case to be judged...
3) The fact that God brings up Job as a redeeming example of humankind, assumption being that God understands where the satan is coming from once God learns its origin, and that God may even share such feelings (recall intertextual examples like the flood and God's regret at making humankind there);
4) The fact the satan responds with doubt to God's suggestion of Job, and repeatedly questions Job's motives. (Clearly the satan has little faith in humankind...)

Ultimately, the book should setup real conflict, stakes, and resolution. If the satan has no bone to pick then what is the point? The story reduces to God torturing a good man just to prove Godself right. No stakes whatsoever except to God's ego and vanity. And that doesn't make sense if this a courtroom and a real trial is going on, nor is it what we would expect of a good God. What makes more sense is that there is a real question at hand by both God and the satan about humankind, and whether we are worthy of rule, and should continue to be part of the plan.

The court-like setup and ritualistic repetition is to get us focused on the problem, and the proof that is required to answer.

Theophile: (Responding to Difflugia on Ambiguity in the Satan’s Role)
Your Argument:
You acknowledge the ambiguity in the satan’s role in Job, conceding that it is unclear whether he is an employee of God or an independent agent. You argue that the satan’s presence introduces an adversarial spirit previously unmentioned in the Bible, warranting surprise from God and creating real narrative conflict. You suggest that omniscience is not an inherent characteristic of God in Job, pointing to other biblical instances (e.g., the flood and God’s regret) to support your claim that God is “winging it.” Additionally, you trace the satan’s genealogy from the serpent in Genesis to the rebellious Satan of the New Testament, proposing that the satan in Job represents a transitional figure—discontent but not yet in full rebellion.

My Concern:
Your argument about God “winging it” offers an intriguing perspective but risks undermining the broader theological coherence of God’s sovereignty as presented in other parts of the Bible. Furthermore, your suggestion that the satan brings concerns about humanity on his own accord is speculative, as the text does not explicitly attribute independent motivation to the satan. This interpretation may overstate the narrative conflict, given that the satan’s testing aligns with God’s authority and permission. Lastly, while your genealogy of Satan is a fascinating construction, it relies heavily on intertextual connections not explicitly stated in the text of Job.

My Question to You:
How do you reconcile your interpretation of God “winging it” with the broader biblical themes of divined sovereignty and foreknowledge? Additionally, if the satan represents a transitional figure between discontent and rebellion, what textual evidence supports this progression, and how does it align with the ritualized interaction in Job’s narrative?

It's like winning a war. You have a clear objective and plan but it's in the tactical responses and shifts in strategy that you achieve it. God has a design / plan for all things, e.g., humankind ruling the earth per above. But there are significant variables not within God's control, which requires God 'winging it', at least to a certain extent. These same conditions are what give rise to possibilities like the satan as well, e.g. truly adversarial figures with a broader trajectory and significance.

As to the satan being a transitional figure per my genealogy, we can only surmise from the book of Job what we see in the epilogue, where the satan appears to have been appeased. Job is restored and then some, and humanity is allowed to continue to rule the earth. We are given no indication of an escalation to full blown rebellion but we could imagine other endings, like Job failing, the satan being refused any consequence, and eventually turning on humankind and perhaps even God.

The book opens up these possibilities.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to William in post #0

How do you address the lack of direct evidence for Zoroastrian influence on the concept of Satan? Can you provide more robust textual or historical support for this connection

2 Samuel 24:1-10 (pre-Babylonian exile)
And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah. For the king said to Joab the captain of the host, which was with him, Go now through all the tribes of Israel, from Dan even to Beersheba, and number ye the people, that I may know the number of the people. And Joab said unto the king, Now the Lord thy God add unto the people, how many soever they be, an hundredfold, and that the eyes of my lord the king may see it: but why doth my lord the king delight in this thing? Notwithstanding the king's word prevailed against Joab, and against the captains of the host. And Joab and the captains of the host went out from the presence of the king, to number the people of Israel. And they passed over Jordan, and pitched in Aroer, on the right side of the city that lieth in the midst of the river of Gad, and toward Jazer: Then they came to Gilead, and to the land of Tahtimhodshi; and they came to Danjaan, and about to Zidon, and came to the strong hold of Tyre, and to all the cities of the Hivites, and of the Canaanites: and they went out to the south of Judah, even to Beersheba. So when they had gone through all the land, they came to Jerusalem at the end of nine months and twenty days. And Joab gave up the sum of the number of the people unto the king: and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the sword; and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand men. And David's heart smote him after that he had numbered the people. And David said unto the Lord, I have sinned greatly in that I have done: and now, I beseech thee, O Lord, take away the iniquity of thy servant; for I have done very foolishly.

1 Chronicles 21:1-8 (post-exile)
And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel. And David said to Joab and to the rulers of the people, Go, number Israel from Beersheba even to Dan; and bring the number of them to me, that I may know it. And Joab answered, The Lord make his people an hundred times so many more as they be: but, my lord the king, are they not all my lord's servants? Why then doth my lord require this thing? Why will he be a cause of trespass to Israel? Nevertheless the king's word prevailed against Joab. Wherefore Joab departed, and went throughout all Israel, and came to Jerusalem. And Joab gave the sum of the number of the people unto David. And all they of Israel were a thousand thousand and an hundred thousand men that drew sword: and Judah was four hundred threescore and ten thousand men that drew sword. But Levi and Benjamin counted he not among them: for the king's word was abominable to Joab. And God was displeased with this thing; therefore he smote Israel. And David said unto God, I have sinned greatly, because I have done this thing: but now, I beseech thee, do away the iniquity of thy servant; for I have done very foolishly.

[William]

[Replying to theophile in post #14]

Your Argument:
You propose that God operates with an overarching plan but must adapt tactically, akin to "winging it," due to variables outside divined control. You argue that this framework allows for the satan’s adversarial nature and broader significance. Additionally, you suggest that the satan in Job is a transitional figure, evidenced by its eventual appeasement in the narrative’s resolution, which prevents escalation to rebellion.

My Concern:
Your analogy of "winging it" risks undermining the broader biblical portrayal of divined sovereignty and foreknowledge. While the Bible does depict instances of God responding to human action (e.g., the flood, Abraham’s intercession for Sodom), these moments do not necessarily imply a lack of omniscience but rather a relational dynamic with humanity. Suggesting that variables lie outside God’s control could conflict with scriptural affirmations of God’s ultimate authority over creation. Furthermore, the idea of the satan as a transitional figure relies on inference rather than explicit textual evidence, particularly in the context of Job, where the narrative emphasizes the satan’s role as a tester within God’s permission, rather than as an agent of independent motivation or rebellion.

In addition, your argument contains several logical fallacies that weaken its coherence:

Appeal to Speculation:

Your claims about alternate endings and the satan's broader trajectory beyond Job are hypothetical and lack textual grounding. This reliance on speculation detracts from the strength of your argument.

False Dichotomy:

You suggest that the satan must either "have a bone to pick" with humanity or the narrative lacks stakes entirely. This oversimplifies the range of possible roles the satan might play within the divined council.

Overreliance on Analogies:

Comparing God's actions to "winning a war" anthropomorphizes divined actions and risks oversimplifying theological concepts, particularly God's omniscience and sovereignty.

Circular Reasoning:

Your argument that the satan is adversarial because of its name presupposes its dissatisfaction with humanity, without demonstrating how the text specifically supports this adversarial motivation.

Intertextual Overreach:

Tracing a genealogy of the satan from Genesis to the New Testament involves drawing connections not explicitly supported by the text of Job. While intriguing, this approach risks imposing a framework that the narrative itself does not suggest.

My Question to You:

How does your interpretation of God "winging it" align with the broader biblical themes of divined sovereignty and omniscience? Are there specific passages in Job or elsewhere that support the notion of God adapting tactically rather than exercising complete foreknowledge?
What specific textual evidence from Job supports your claim that the satan’s dissatisfaction with humanity or its eventual appeasement represents a transitional stage in its development, rather than a defined role as a tester within God’s divined council?

How do you respond to the identified fallacies in your argument, particularly the reliance on speculation and intertextual connections not explicitly present in the text of Job?

[William]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #15]

Your Argument:
You highlight a textual shift between 2 Samuel 24:1-10 (pre-exilic) and 1 Chronicles 21:1-8 (post-exilic), where responsibility for David’s census shifts from “the anger of the Lord” to “Satan.” This change underscores an evolution in the depiction of divined and adversarial roles, particularly in how evil or temptation is attributed. By invoking this contrast, you suggest that the concept of Satan evolved as a distinct scapegoat for human failings, reflecting broader theological developments within post-exilic Judaism.

My Concern:
While this observation about textual differences is compelling, your argument does not explicitly connect this shift to the broader topic of demonic possession or Satan’s strategy, which was the focus of your earlier critique. It is unclear how this textual evolution supports or challenges the idea that demonic possession might align with Satan’s goals or how it shapes theological understandings of evil. Furthermore, you do not provide analysis of why this shift occurs or how it reflects changes in cultural, theological, or moral perceptions.

Additionally, while the textual shift is significant, it could also reflect different authorial intents rather than a fully formed theological evolution of Satan as a distinct entity. The narrative’s focus on divined justice, human responsibility, or collective punishment could remain central in both accounts, even if the agency shifts.

My Question to You:

How does the shift in attribution between these two texts align with your earlier critique of demonic possession as counterproductive to Satan’s goals? Does this evolution suggest a strategic redefinition of Satan’s role in theological thought?
Can you explore whether this textual evolution supports the idea that Satan’s myth, including beliefs in demonic possession, reflects broader cultural needs to externalize personal or societal failings?
Are there additional historical or cultural factors (e.g., exposure to Zoroastrian dualism during the Babylonian exile) that you believe contributed to this shift, and how do they inform our understanding of Satan’s evolving role?

[theophile]

Appeal to Speculation:

Your claims about alternate endings and the satan's broader trajectory beyond Job are hypothetical and lack textual grounding. This reliance on speculation detracts from the strength of your argument.

Granted I raised it, but I think you're a bit too stuck on the satan as a transitional character with these two points. I do think a strong intertextual case can be made for this theory, but like I said in my last post, we aren't given that evidence in the book of Job itself. I admitted as much. There the satan transitions from adversarial to appeased. We don't see any hint of its progenitor (the serpent), except for the satan's indication that it came from the earth, or what it may or may not become (Satan).

It also doesn't change my core argument about the satan. It just helps situate and strengthen it.

False Dichotomy:

You suggest that the satan must either "have a bone to pick" with humanity or the narrative lacks stakes entirely. This oversimplifies the range of possible roles the satan might play within the divined council.

What would the stakes be otherwise? Job's reputation on top of God's? Okay, I'll grant that one. But still pretty low stakes. Still hard to justify the torturing of a man and the killing of all his children to make the case...

Also, any other 'role' you suggest the satan plays on the council would be more speculative than any that I have so far suggested, which is frankly the simplest possible answer: none. The satan is simply the adversary who has come to the court to make a case.

Overreliance on Analogies:

Comparing God's actions to "winning a war" anthropomorphizes divined actions and risks oversimplifying theological concepts, particularly God's omniscience and sovereignty.

But God is essentially at war, no? You have read Revelation, right?

As to a critique of strong notions of divine omniscience and sovereignty, I already pointed to the flood, where God expresses regret at making humankind. You could look at the golden calf incident in Exodus as well -- there we see God explicitly change God's mind with Moses, i.e., first saying Israel should be smited and then relenting to Moses' argument. You could look at the negotiation with Abraham over Sodom as well, where we are given a strong impression that the outcome there is not yet decided and open for debate. From a book of Job perspective, you could look at God's intervention and speaking from the whirlwind TWICE to Job because, presumably, the first speech doesn't cut it... All of these examples imply a certain pragmatism to God's interaction with the world in achieving God's ends. That God is not omniscient or sovereign in the strong sense of these words.

Again, God has a vision and end in mind, and God will be victorious in the fulness of time, but getting there means working with intractable variables like humankind. Or water, arguably the core element of creation in Genesis 1, which we know resists taking form and easily slips through our fingers. i.e., creation is based on a chaotic flux.

Last, just look at the book of Job and the very idea of testing Job. It loses all sense and purpose whatsoever if God knows the outcome like you're suggesting. The whole thing becomes a farce. That is the alternative interpretation with assumptions like this.

Circular Reasoning:

Your argument that the satan is adversarial because of its name presupposes its dissatisfaction with humanity, without demonstrating how the text specifically supports this adversarial motivation.

No, you've got it backwards. I'm strictly talking about its name. It means the adversary. No presupposition whatsoever there, just straight up translation. The leap I'm making is from its name, which is all we know of the satan when it first appears, to that it must have a bone to pick on account of its name. I think that's a pretty safe move. i.e., Why call it the adversary unless to make us think it harbors some sort of dissatisfaction and enmity? And to get us thinking what that might be? The next move I make on top of that point is speculative, and I am totally open to other ideas that bring more depth and explaining power than what I have proposed. I just haven't heard any

Frankly, I get the sense you want the book to spoon feed you the answer by outright telling you. I think the book wants to make us think for ourselves and figure it out based on a bunch of subtle hints.

Intertextual Overreach:

Tracing a genealogy of the satan from Genesis to the New Testament involves drawing connections not explicitly supported by the text of Job. While intriguing, this approach risks imposing a framework that the narrative itself does not suggest.

Sure. But we are cognizant enough to manage that risk, no? And if the shoe fits, as it very nicely does here, it provides a bulwark for understanding.

My Question to You:

How does your interpretation of God "winging it" align with the broader biblical themes of divined sovereignty and omniscience? Are there specific passages in Job or elsewhere that support the notion of God adapting tactically rather than exercising complete foreknowledge?
What specific textual evidence from Job supports your claim that the satan’s dissatisfaction with humanity or its eventual appeasement represents a transitional stage in its development, rather than a defined role as a tester within God’s divined council?

How do you respond to the identified fallacies in your argument, particularly the reliance on speculation and intertextual connections not explicitly present in the text of Job?

I think I've answered these above. As another note, we've actually only been talking about, say, 1/10th of the book of Job here. The prose prologue and epilogue. We haven't even broached the poetic dialogue in between which opens up a whole other conflict between Job and God that should factor into this. I think if we did that, my argument at least would be that the exact same question comes into focus as what I proposed between God and the satan, namely, the worthiness of humankind, which Job begins to doubt as a result of his treatment.

Now this opens a can of worms, but I would argue that this is precisely the case God makes to Job from the whirlwind, and appeases Job with (that humankind is worthy), just as Job's case appeases the satan. i.e., there is a perfect symmetry going on here, which strengthens my case all the more.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to William in post #17

your argument does not explicitly connect this shift to the broader topic of demonic possession or Satan’s strategy, which was the focus of your earlier critique.

As you can see from the quote at the beginning of my last post, I was stepping in with a response to your request for textual evidence of a Zoroastrian influence on the concept of Satan.

while the textual shift is significant, it could also reflect different authorial intents rather than a fully formed theological evolution of Satan as a distinct entity.

The writing of the Chronicler suggests that the theological evolution of Satan into a distinct entity has taken place by the time of the Chronicles, since the author's intent is obviously to insert Satan into the episode as a distinct entity.

Are there additional historical or cultural factors (e.g., exposure to Zoroastrian dualism during the Babylonian exile) that you believe contributed to this shift, and how do they inform our understanding of Satan’s evolving role?

Given the time frame between the Samuel version of the story and the Chronicles version [pre-exile to post-exile], exposure to Zoroastrian dualism is exactly what seems to be on display here. The Israelites were freed from Babylon by the Persians, who were Zoroastrians. Isaiah 45:1 even has Jehovah refer to the Persian king Cyrus as his "anointed".

Rather that going back to my earlier comment on possession, this ties more to the OP topic of Satan supposedly not wanting the world to know that he exists. If Satan were behind the numbering of Israel, as the Chronicler says, shouldn't the author of Samuel have said so earlier? The fact that he doesn't indicates that the concept of Satan went through some significant "evolving".

[William]

[Replying to theophile in post #18]

Appeal to Speculation

Your willingness to concede speculative elements is honest, but the reliance on them to "situate and strengthen" the argument leaves a gap. In the absence of textual evidence, the satan's supposed transitional role risks being more interpretive projection than grounded analysis.
While speculation can enrich interpretation, the weight of an argument in theology often hinges on textual fidelity. The claim of the satan transitioning from adversarial to appeased lacks explicit markers in Job beyond its silence post-prologue.

False Dichotomy

While you make a valid point about the stakes (e.g., Job’s and God’s reputations), dismissing alternative roles the satan could play as speculative undermines your openness to broader interpretive possibilities. For example, the satan might act as an agent testing human righteousness without personal enmity, consistent with ancient divined council frameworks.
Your emphasis on simplicity aligns with Occam's Razor but risks oversimplifying complex theological motifs.

Overreliance on Analogies

Your analogies (e.g., "winning a war") effectively contextualize a dynamic relationship between God and creation, but they anthropomorphize divined attributes. While passages like Genesis 6:6 (God regretting humanity) and Exodus 32 (God relenting to Moses) indicate responsiveness, they do not negate divined foreknowledge; rather, they reflect God’s interaction within human understanding.
The argument that Job’s testing becomes a "farce" under omniscience overlooks the possibility that God’s foreknowledge might coexist with testing to reveal or demonstrate truths to created beings rather than to the Creator.

Circular Reasoning

Your reasoning about the satan’s name is reasonable but incomplete. While "adversary" implies opposition, it does not necessarily denote personal dissatisfaction with humanity; it could signify a functional role within the divined council.
The claim remains logically plausible but would benefit from stronger textual substantiation or engagement with alternative readings, such as the satan as a neutral prosecutor.

Intertextual Overreach

Intertextual readings, while insightful, must be carefully bounded by the specific text in question. The satan in Job functions differently from the serpent in Genesis or Satan in Revelation, and conflating these figures risks anachronism.
Your approach is compelling for broader theological discussions but less suited to a strict exegetical reading of Job.

Broader Themes of Divined Sovereignty and Omniscience

Your interpretation enriches the relational dynamics in biblical narratives but challenges classical theism. The view of God "winging it" prioritizes narrative coherence in Job at the expense of broader theological consistency with passages affirming God’s omniscience (e.g., Isaiah 46:10).
The idea of God tactically adapting aligns with open theism but requires a more explicit framework to reconcile it with traditional notions of divined omnipotence.

Relevance to the Thread Question:

Exploration of Satan’s Role in Job
You challenge the Cultural Christian myth of Satan as a rebellious, independent antagonist by grounding his interpretation in Job, where the satan operates within divined authority. This critique aligns with the thread’s goal of reevaluating the accuracy of the Satan myth but does not directly explore its cultural implications.

Divined Sovereignty and Omniscience
Your argument indirectly critiques Cultural Christianity’s portrayal of God as a sovereign judge in stark opposition to Satan, emphasizing instead a collaborative relationship between God and adversarial forces. However, it doesn’t explicitly tie this dynamic to the thread's cultural focus.

Cultural Christianity and Misrepresentation
You implicitly critiques Cultural Christianity for overemphasizing Satan's independence and rebellion, which distorts the Hebrew Bible’s depiction of adversarial figures. However, your response focuses more on biblical intertextuality than on evaluating the broader cultural or theological impacts.

Theological Implications of The Satan Myth
This perspective contrasts with the Cultural Christian framing of Satan as the source of evil and opposition to God. Your interpretation invites readers to rethink Satan’s role in shaping moral and theological frameworks but stops short of fully exploring how this affects modern perceptions of good, evil, and divined authority.

While you critique the evolution of Satan’s role, you don’t directly evaluate whether the modern myth is truthful. Instead, you focus on reconstructing the satan’s biblical role.

Your arguments about God’s adaptive, relational nature provide an alternative to the rigid theological constructs often associated with Cultural Christianity. This opens the door to a more nuanced understanding of divined action and morality. It aligns with the model (SGM) I follow.

The Evolution of Satan’s Character in Light of Human Perception
I invite reflection on how the character of Satan has evolved alongside the development of Abrahamic religions and their historical contexts. This evolution mirrors broader theological and cultural dynamics, where religious entities adapted to their times, gaining influence and addressing new challenges to their authority and worldview. Similarly, this adaptive quality is seen in the evolving understanding of key figures, such as Jesus.

In the case of Jesus, his portrayal in the Gospels reflects a relatively consistent narrative of his teachings and actions during his ministry. However, the ongoing acts of the apostles expand and sometimes reinterpret his character and legacy. We encounter doctrines, practices, and interpretations attributed to Jesus' influence, which are not directly recorded in the Gospel accounts but emerge through the apostles’ understanding and their efforts to address the needs of the early church. This "reaching" represents an evolving theological comprehension that, while rooted in scripture, continues to develop beyond the immediate accounts.

This phenomenon extends to the figure of Satan. The satan of Job, a figure within divined permission who tests human righteousness, becomes over centuries the Satan of Christian theology: an ultimate rebel and the personification of evil. This transformation likely served practical purposes, such as framing cosmic dualism to address theodicy or creating a clear moral antagonist for human struggles. By the time we reach Revelation, Satan is depicted as the ultimate enemy, awaiting eschatological defeat—a stark contrast to his ambiguous and functional role in Job.

This historical evolution could be compared to the effects of altered states of consciousness or entheogenic experiences, where revelations appear vivid and final in the moment but lead to ongoing interpretations and debates as they are revisited in broader cultural and theological frameworks. The decision to "end" the evolving understanding with Revelation is reminiscent of this process, freezing the narrative and leaving subsequent generations grappling with its implications.

The result is a collective uncertainty—a world left “scratching their collective heads”.
This uncertainty can sometimes lead to the extremes of conflict or exclusion, as differences in interpretation become intractable. However, it also offers an opportunity for deeper engagement, encouraging us to revisit foundational texts, challenge assumptions, and explore the broader meanings of good, evil, and divined authority.

Ultimately, this evolving perception reflects not just the complexity of Satan’s character but the dynamism of human understanding itself—a process that is ongoing, reflective, and, ideally, open to growth.


“Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:”