Was Satan the "fallen" angel in the book of Job?

[volzcpa]

A couple of weeks ago the first Sunday reading was from the book of Job and our deacon, in his homily, said that Satan in Job was still one of God’s angels as he had not yet fallen/been cast out of heaven. I asked our pastor about this and he said the deacon was correct and my pastor emailed me the following quote from the Jerome Biblical Commentary, adding “which I think Catholic Biblical Scholars usually look to as a primary source.”

"…Yahweh is anthropomorphically represented as an Oriental monarch seated on his throne receiving the reports of his servants and issuing his commands. The servants, the agents through whom he governs, are the “sons of Elohim” originally conceived as lesser divinities but in Israelite theology reduced to the rank of Yahweh’s ministers. Among them is the Adversary (“the Satan”; not to be treated as a proper name), the prosecutor who spies on men’s wrongdoings and reports it to his master. (cf. Zech. 3:1 ff)He is not yet the devil of later Jewish and Christian theology… (page 470)

I replied that the CCC (#391) indicates that the fallen angel Satan was the tempter of Adam and Eve so how could he be “not” fallen in the book of Job. His reply was “Certainly our first parents existed before Job, but I don’t think that Job in the book of Job is necessarily an historical figure. Similarly, Satan, the devil, the spirit of evil – however you want to refer to “him” – seems to have existed at the time of our first parents.

My gut feeling is that the Jerome Bible Commentary is not in line with Church teaching. Is my gut right, or am I missing something?

 

[Veritas41]

Unless I’m missing something, too, I think your gut reaction is right. Check out this article by Antonio Fuentes on the book of Job:

catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9310otg.asp

 

[puzzleannie]

the reply cited by the pastor from the bible commentary is not about who Satan is in all actuality and the actual attributes of Satan, but how he was perceived and described and understood by the author of the book of Job. the article is describing the evolution of the Jewish understanding of Satan, the demons, angels, the fall of the angels etc. Not all the authors of all the books of the bible are writing from a fully blown developed theology and understanding. Satan is not a different entity in Job and Genesis, but the understanding and viewpoint of the human authors of each book is different.

 

[tjmiller]

Just because Satan was cast out of heaven doesn’t mean he can’t go back. Just not to his original position. The Apocalypse shows us that he still accuses us night and day “before God”.

It doesn’t matter what the theological understanding was of certain biblical authors at certain points of history. What they wrote is nonetheless the inspired and inerrant word of God.

The NEW Jerome Biblical Commentary cannot be considered reliably Catholic. It is rife with false doctrine. The only reason I have not thrown out my own copy is that it serves as useful evidence of the truly pathetic state of Catholic biblical scholarship.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

In Jewish commentaries Satan here in Job is viewed as an adversary angel, which is a special creation and is not the devil, who is a fallen angel. In Christian theology Satan in Job is viewed as being the devil himself who is a fallen angel before Adam and Eve and therefore before Job too. So, that commentary may be going with the Jewish understanding of Satan to deal with the problem of evil in God’s holy presence.

Term used in the Bible with the general connotation of “adversary,” being applied (1) to an enemy in war (I Kings v. 18 [A. V. 4]; xi. 14, 23, 25), from which use is developed the concept of a traitor in battle (I Sam. xxix. 4); (2) to an accuser before the judgment-seat (Ps. cix. 6); and (3) to any opponent (II Sam. xix. 23 [A. V. 22]). The word is likewise used to denote an antagonist who puts obstacles in the way, as in Num. xxii. 32, where the angel of God is described as opposing Balaam in the guise of a satan or adversary; so that the concept of Satan as a distinct being was not then known. Such a view is found, however, in the prologue to the Book of Job, where Satan appears, together with other celestial beings or “sons of God,” before the Deity, replying to the inquiry of God as to whence he had come, with the words: “From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it” (Job i. 7). Both question and answer, as well as the dialogue which follows, characterize Satan as that member of the divine council who watches over human activity, but with the evil purpose of searching out men’s sins and appearing as their accuser. He is, therefore, the celestial prosecutor, who sees only iniquity; for he persists in his evil opinion of Job even after the man of Uz has passed successfully through his first trial by surrendering to the will of God, whereupon Satan demands another test through physical suffering (ib. ii. 3-5).

Yet it is also evident from the prologue that Satan has no power of independent action, but requires the permission of God, which he may not transgress.He can not be regarded, therefore, as an opponent of the Deity; and the doctrine of monotheism is disturbed by his existence no more than by the presence of other beings before the face of God. This view is also retained in Zech. iii. 1-2, where Satan is described as the adversary of the high priest Joshua, and of the people of God whose representative the hierarch is; and he there opposes the “angel of the Lord,” who bids him be silent in the name of God. In both of these passages Satan is a mere accuser who acts only according to the permission of the Deity; but in I Chron. xxi. 1 he appears as one who is able to provoke David to destroy Israel. The Chronicler (third century B.C.) regards Satan as an independent agent, a view which is the more striking since the source whence he drew his account (II Sam. xxiv. 1) speaks of God Himself as the one who moved David against the children of Israel. Since the older conception refers all events, whether good or bad, to God alone (I Sam. xvi. 14; I Kings xxii. 22; Isa. xlv. 7; etc.), it is possible that the Chronicler, and perhaps even Zechariah, were influenced by Zoroastrianism, even though in the case of the prophet Jewish monism strongly opposed Iranian dualism (Stave, “Einfluss des Parsismus auf das Judenthum,” pp. 253 et seq.). An immediate influence of the Babylonian concept of the “accuser, persecutor, and oppressor” (Schrader, “K. A. T.” 3d ed., p. 463) is impossible, since traces of such an influence, if it had existed, would have appeared in the earlier portions of the Bible.

jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=270&letter=S&search=Satan

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

In the Gospels where Jesus tells Peter get behind me Satan, replace Satan with adversary.

Thus Jesus told Peter to stop being his adversary at that time.
We know from the text that Peter was not Satan himself, nor was Peter possessed by Satan — Jesus calling Peter an adversary in that instance makes most sense in that culture.