Many scholars believe that הַשָּׂטָ֖ן (haśśāṭān)
here is not “Satan” but translate the term as a common noun, “the adversary,”
and regard him a loyal angel whose take it is to make accusations against humans,
bringing their misdeeds to God’s attention (he is a prosecutor), or to serve as
YHWH’s executioner. That is, the figure is not to be identified as the devil
but as a prosecutor faithfully doing the work that God assigned to him. In
favor of this interpretation is the fact that הַשָּׂטָ֖ן has the definite article,
suggesting that it is a common noun and not a proper name. Indeed, שָּׂטָ֖ן is
used as a common noun meaning “adversary” in several passages, such as 1 Sam
29:4 and 1 Kgs 5:4. Also, שָּׂטָ֖ן without the article appears as a proper name
(“Satan”) in 1 Chr 21:1, suggesting that in Job, because it has an article, it
should be regarded as a common noun. The fact that this is a divine assembly
suggests that he is merely another angel making a report.
Several factors, however, go against
this interpretation. First, his presence in the divine assembly does not
demonstrate that he is a good and holy; the “lying spirit” of 1 Kgs 22:22
should not be considered to be a holy being, and yet he was in the divine assembly.
Second, his words have an undeniable tone of malevolence. In 1:8, God calls
Satan’s attention to the righteous Job, and Satan responds by declaring that Job
does good only because God protects and enriches him (1:9-11). That is, when
confronted with Job’s obvious virtue, Satan is determined to explain it away. A
faithful prosecutor should not try to make the innocent seem guilty. Third, he
does his best to provoke Job to do evil by afflicting him as savagely as possible.
This, again, is not the behavior of a righteous being. Such a royal official,
one who abused people in an effort to get them to commit crimes against the
crown so that he could execute them. would rightly be regarded as exceedingly
corrupt and malevolent. Fourth, the definite article is not proof that הַשָּׂטָ֖ן
is a common noun. In Zech 3:1-2, הַשָּׂטָ֖ן stands near Joshua the high priest as a hostile
and spiteful accuser, suggesting that even if translated as “the accuser,” הַשָּׂטָ֖ן
is a specific, malevolent spirit, a being that can be equated with “the devil.”
Zech 3:2 is especially telling with respect to how he is addressed: וַיֹּ֨אמֶר יְהוָ֜הa
אֶל־הַשָּׂטָ֗ן יִגְעַ֨ר יְהוָ֤ה בְּךָ֙ הַשָּׂטָ֔ן (wayyōʾmer yəhwâa
ʾel-haśśāṭān yigʿar yəhwâ bəkā haśśāṭān, “And YHWH said to הַשָּׂטָ֖ן, ‘May
YHWH rebuke you, הַשָּׂטָ֖ן.’”) Here, הַשָּׂטָ֖ן functions as a proper name and
can be correctly translated as “Satan.” Fifth, the primary object of Satan’s accusation
is not Job but God. He declares that God is maintaining a fraudulent system of
justice by dolling out wealth and other blessings to Job in exchange for pious
service. God keeps up the charade whereby he pretends to be a righteous judge
and Job pretends to be a devout man of integrity. This, too, is not the stance
of a loyal servant of the crown. Sixth, in the Bible, a supernatural accuser
who seeks to bring people under condemnation, is by definition an evil being.
In Rev 12:10, Satan the “great dragon” is identified principally as “the
accuser” (κατηγωρ, katēgōr) of our brothers.”
Andersen (87) suggests that “and Satan
came among them as well” suggests that Satan had no right to be among the divine
assembly and was an intruder. God, in effect, asked what business he had being
there. Though perhaps attractive, this is not persuasive. The clause noting
that Satan was among them does not imply he had no right to be present, and God
only asks what he had been doing, not why he was there. In his answer, moreover,
Satan made no defense of his right to be present; he simply answered God’s
question. From the standpoint of Christian theology, Satan did have a right to
be present until the cross. After Christ made atonement for sin, Satan was “cast
out of heaven,” but until that moment, he was in the heavenly throne room
accusing people “day and night.” (Rev 12:10). (Duane A. Garrett, Job [Evangelical
Exegetical Commentary; St. Bellingham, Wash.: Lexham Academic, 2024], 63-65)
