We run our website the way we wished the whole internet worked: we provide high quality original content with no ads. We are funded solely by your direct support. Please consider supporting this project.

Did God use Satan to test Job?
Question: In Job 1:21 and 2:10, Job seems to accept “adversity” from God while continuing to trust him. Job blames his troubles on God (i.e. “He shattered me” [16:12], “He breaks me down on every side” [19:10], “For he performs what is appointed for me” [23:14]). In Chapters 1 and 2, God even seems to encourage Satan to harm Job. This seems to refute your reading of Job and the “warfare” approach to understanding evil which you advocate (in Is God to Blame? and Satan and the Problem of Evil). Satan has to ask God for permission for all he does—which means God must have a reason for allowing every particular evil in the world. This isn’t about a battle between God and Satan, but about how God uses Satan to test us.
Answer: I will make five brief comments in response to this objection.
1) This objection is rooted in the assumption that Job’s perspective on his suffering is accurate. But throughout his ordeal, Job attributes many things to God that we do not consider accurate or pious. For example, Job claims that God mocks the suffering of innocent people; that God causes judges to make poor judgments; and that God ignores the prayers of oppressed and dying people (Job 9:23–24, 21:17–26, 30–32; 24:1–12). Moreover, Job wrongfully concludes that God must be a ruthless predator who arbitrarily destroys him for fun (e.g. Job 10:8–10, 16:7–17; 30:18, 21). We have to be very careful, therefore, in extracting theological truth from the mouth of Job or his friends.
2) When God finally shows up at the end of this book, he rebukes both Job and his friends for the things they said about him. Job confesses that he spoke of things he did not understand (42:3) and then repents (42:6).
3) The genre of Job is poetic drama, and the prologue functions as a literary device to set up the story (like the conversation between the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16). So I don’t think it’s wise to base doctrine on a literal reading of this passage (i.e. that Satan and God literally have conversations in heaven), since the genre indicates that this was not its intended purpose.
4) Even if one insists on reading the prologue literally, why should we universalize this passage to conclude that Satan must always ask for specific permission to do things or that every atrocity is a “test”? Isn’t there something grotesque about calling (say) the kidnapping, raping and then murder of a child a “test”? What does the dead molested child learn from this “divine testing”?
5) We must also note that Satan was “roaming about the earth” before he came to the throne, and there’s never a suggestion that he got God’s specific permission to do this. Indeed, God asks, “where were you?” This too suggests its unwarranted to conclude that Satan receives specific permission for everything he does.
Category: Q&A
Tags: Bible, Old Testament, Problem of Evil, Q&A
Topics: Spiritual Warfare, Cosmic Conflict, The Problem of Evil
Related Reading

Don’t Wilberforce’s achievements refute your stance on the separation of faith and politics?
Question: William Wilberforce was a Christian whose passionate involvement in politics almost single-handedly brought an end to the slave trade in 19th century England. Don’t his achievements show the importance of Christians being involved in politics, thus refuting your contention that Christian’s should keep their faith and values separate from politics? Answer: First, while I…

What is the significance of Jeremiah 3:19–20?
“I thought how I would set you among my children…And I thought you would call me, My Father, and would not turn from following me. Instead, as a faithless wife…you have been faithless to me…” If the future is eternally and exhaustively settled, and if God therefore knows it as such, he could not have…

The Bible is Infallible NOT Inerrant
While the cruciform understanding (explained here) of the “God-breathed” nature of Scripture is in tension with the way most talk about inerrancy (See previous post on inerrancy), I do not believe it is at all incompatible with what the Church has always sought to express by affirming the “infallibility” the Scripture. The core conviction is that Scripture will…

What’s the Purpose of the Old Testament Law?
Whereas the old covenant was rooted in the law, the new covenant is rooted in simple faith, such as Abraham had. Whereas the old covenant was forged with one particular nation, the new covenant is available to all who are willing to accept it, regardless of their ethnicity and nationality. Whereas forgiveness of sins within…

5 Ways the Bible Supports Open Theism
Open Theism refers to the belief that God created a world in which possibilities are real. It contrasts with Classical Theism which holds that all the facts of world history are eternally settled, either by God willing them so (as in Calvinism) or simply in God’s knowledge (as in Arminianism). Open Theists believe God created humans and…

Process Theology & Open Theism: What’s the Difference?
Question: When ReKnew talks about Open Theism is it a mistake for people to equate it with Process theology, and if so what are the defining differences? I guess I am starting to lean toward Dr. Boyd’s thoughts for all things theologically egg-heady, so I thought I would ask the question. Your ministry has been freeing…