“although you incited me against him…”?

Discussion in 'OT Wisdom Literature' started by SolamVeritatem, Jul 26, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. SolamVeritatem

    SolamVeritatem Puritan Board Freshman


    There is a phrase in Job 2:3 that piqued my interest during my bible reading time. It reads:

    “And the LORD said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the eath, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil? He still holds fast his integrity, although you incited me against him to destroy him without reason.” (ESV, emphasis mine.)

    I understand that this is not necessarily a narrative text, but it seems that if the preceding context of chapter 1 is considered, there was at first an invitation from God to Satan to test Job. Further, it appears that Job was allowed by God to be tested. However, when we come to chapter 2, there is this statement of “incited me against him…” that doesn’t seem to fit with the overall story.

    Not exhaustively speaking, but some other translations render the phrase as follows”

    · “movedst me against him” (KJV)

    · “persuaded me to destroy him” (CEV)

    · “stirred me up to destroy hm” (NET)

    · “dost move me against him” (Young’s)

    ESV, NIV and NASB all render the phrase the same.

    Fully observing and knowing the scriptural teaching of Satan being the father of lies and the destroyer, and not seeking to minimize that one bit, what is the historical orthodox understanding of that phrase? In my finite and admittedly deficient understanding of how it’s expressed in the text, it seems to give the idea of Satan somehow “getting a rise” out of Yahweh, which I know is probably not the way to interpret it.

    I am reading through Job as part of my daily bible readings, and not studying it closely at this time, although I intend to revisit a deeper study in the future. I am also not opposed at all to consult some commentaries on the matter if some of you could point me to faithful treatments of such. I give full disclosure that I do not know original Hebrew, so I’m certain there is much I’m missing from a grammatical standpoint, so I wanted to know if anyone has studied this particular phrase or just the board’s general thoughts on it. Am I misunderstanding the meeting of the sons of God in this passage? Am I looking it at it too literally? Are there certain contextual clues that I might be missing?

    The passage gives me pause, because the very nature, character, attributes and ultimately the explicit ways our sovereign God describes Himself countless times in all the Holy Writ is that He cannot be moved or coerced by any of creation, and certainly He is deserving of full worship and praise exclusively. I realize that this may open up other questions/discussions, so please forgive me in advance if that happens…:)

    Admins/mods, feel free to move this to a more appropriate forum if necessary.

    Thanks all…
  2. SolamVeritatem

    SolamVeritatem Puritan Board Freshman

    My apologies. Just realized after I posted this that I may have given the indication that a response from my dear sisters on the board was not welcomed or desired. Please weigh in ladies. I would love to hear your wisdom as well.

  3. Contra_Mundum

    Contra_Mundum Pilgrim, Alien, Stranger Staff Member

    The fact that the LORD can describe Satan's spiteful words as "inciting" does not mean that the LORD was actually incited against his servant, Job. Did the LORD "fall for" Satan's allegation, 1:9-10, that Job merely honored the LORD from a purely mercenary motive? Did the LORD "stretch out his hand against Job," as Satan urged him v11, in order to test the man for loyalty?

    No, God only gave Satan leeway to act--within specified bounds still--to stretch out his hand of evil and temptation to challenge Job's integrity. Satan did not succeed in "inciting" the LORD, who already knew everything true about Job. Satan didn't know what God knew; and Job didn't know what God knew. The ignorance of both is cleared definitively by the conclusion of the matter.

    The LORD God never attacked Job, never harmed him, never learned something he did not know about Job (or anyone else) in the course of this drama.

    [I don't know how to interpret your Q about "the sons of God"]
  4. SolamVeritatem

    SolamVeritatem Puritan Board Freshman

    Pastor B,

    Thank you. Very helpful insight (as always).

    I only mentioned the “sons of God” in the possibility that I may have missed a contextual clue from their interaction/conversation with God that may have given more insight on the phrase that was used.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page