Get the entire Tekton site on CD or zipfile. Get a stripped-down copy of this page.

It's another one of those deals where the critics think they can detect evolution in action, and this time it's with the guy in the tights on the Spam can. The claim made is that Old Scratch in the OT is only a shadow of the Big Red Meanie in the NT. In between, it is said, some outside influences (usually Persian religion, it is said) transformed Satan from a slimy prosecution attorney to a Darth Vader in Total Evil. Is this the case? Not really. If anything it's a case of folks not thinking multi-dimensionally yet again.

Out data pool from the OT will be from Job alone. 1 Chr. 21:1 we will discard as we agree (with Glenn Miller) that the "Satan" here may not be the personal being but another adversary. We will also leave out Gen. 3, for though I think the serpent was indwelt by Satan, Gen. 3 would add little to the data pool not already found in Job. Ps. 109:6 will be ignored for the same reason, and Zec. 3:1-2 add nothing not found in Job. (A secondary idea, that Job itself is from the Persian period, we do not consider viable, but it is beyond the scope of this article.)

Our process will be to identify where Satan is found in the NT, then see if what he does is any different than what is in the OT. We will find that all of the cites are answered in one of two ways:

1. They show a distinct parallel to what is found in Job.
2. They show what is actually a universal motif for ANY evil being or any person doing evil, whether the Persian devil Ahriman, Screwtape, or Jesse James.

Now for relevant NT citations.

• The Tempter. Satan's role is as a tempter (obviously), and he claims to own the world (Matthew 4:9 and parallels). The former is obvious in Job -- Satan's whole purpose was to tempt Job to forsake God. That leaves his claim to be able to turn the world over to Jesus, which has no parallel in Job at all. Is this a problem? I think not. If it isn't bravado on Satan's part (hubris, an element that IS clearly visible in Job), then it is if nothing else an offer to turn over those persons who are under his sway. Now let me ask critics a question: In Job, Satan says that he has been "going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it." Now given his character, what is it that critics suppose Satan to have been doing while he was wandering around the earth? Was he sightseeing? Collecting international green stamps? No, he was undoubtedly looking after his own interests. And since his primary interest in Job is to turn Job away from God, isn't it a simple idea that whatever else he was doing was intended to serve the same interest? And that means that Job implies directly that Satan had been out swaying people over to his side already. Satan's own profession in Job is to be doing what Peter says he is doing as "a roaring lion, [who] walketh about, seeking whom he may devour." Satan's role as a deceiver in the NT also comes under this rubric.
• Head Over Demonic Powers. We see this first in the NT in Matthew 12:26 and a few times more after this. In Job Satan has no obvious entourage, and here is where one might argue that later influence played some part. However, this is rather best understood as one of the universal motifs grounded in a reality. There is no leap in supposing that any figure or person would or could gather helpers or assistants. There is a difference here, but it is a "no big deal" difference that is meaningless.
• General Power. In the NT Satan has titles like Prince of the Power of the Air and "god of this world." Is this a promotion from the OT figure in Job? Not at all. Once again, when we realize that Satan in Job was probably not running around the world just painting pictures of himself on canned meats, it's obvious that these titles are not promotions but rather recognitions.

So in conclusion, there is no need to go wandering around to Ahriman or any other being to explain Satan's (non-)differences in the NT. The Satan of the OT is the same figure -- the NT is simply more theological in orientation and has a great deal more ideological space to talk about him.

And now an update. On an obscure little forum I found a 2003 entry in which a poster named "Orion" criticized this article. As usual there's not much to it. He starts:

There is a lot I can say about all of this but the author avoids one very important question - what was Satan doing in the presence of a holy God, making requests at that too? Another thing the writer does is subtly shove aside the other mentions or alleged implications of him in the Old Testament (kinda like refusing to admit evidence in court) in casual fashion and then focuses on the account in Job which some scholars believe is either a work from the exile period or the part of including Satan was a later edit into the story to show the spiritual goings one behind the scenes.

I don't know what Orion finds "subtle" about the other passages being left out; I clearly stated why, and he does not explain why my "why" is in error. The date of Job is outside this article's scope, so that makes two red herrings for Orion. The final point: I "avoided" no such thing; that also is a different topic, but to answer the question: First of all, Satan makes no "request" in Job but issues a challenge of honor, and there is nothing at all, Biblically, against Satan being able to be in God's presence, any more than it is a problem that sinful men can be in the presence of the Shekinah.

Orion then merely sums up (with no argument) a claim that Job was post-exilic; then he says:

If the author had to use the other accounts in the Old Testament, Satan comes off as nothing more than an angel God uses to carry out his will. The Job story would then appear like a later understanding of Satan after his place in Judaistic theology had developed into the complex theory it had become.

How this is so is not explained; that is, how it is that "Judaistic theology" somehow changed (and when) concerning Satan. As it is, the idea that Satan is used to carry out God's will is hardly anything that needed to be developed; surely Orion would not argue that a Jew could have conceived of a being that did NOT do God's will, if not willingly, then in spite of itself.

Might I add that the Old Testament would have been a far better staging ground to present Satan in the character he became in the New Testament. The Old Testament dealt with far more diverse characters whose actions could have easily been linked to Satan's manipulations, temptations, and evil impulses.

What an astonishing argument! Naturalist critics make hash over "how often" demons, Satan, etc. allegedly run all over the text; now Orion applies backspin and complains that Satan is not featured enough! You're darned if you do and darned if you don't when there guys are around.