“God’s Monsters” by Esther Hamori: A New Book Analysis Series (Part 3: SATAN!)

Welcome to Part 3 of my book analysis series of Esther Hamori’s new book, God’s Monsters. In this post, we are going to look at Hamori’s take on “The Adversary” (i.e. SATAN) in her chapter 3.

Chapter 3: The Adversary
As is should be coming apparent thus far in this book analysis series, Hamori’s “modus operandi” tends to be that after she draws attention (quite correctly) to something in the Bible that is often glossed over or sanitized that is actually quite bizarre or troubling, she then immediately engages in some very simplistic and questionable exegesis and interpretation of certain passages. In chapter 3, she looks at the figure of Satan in the Bible.

As Hamori correctly points out, “Satan,” as we now picture him (i.e. the singular, fallen angel who is the leader of demons and God’s arch nemesis) doesn’t make an appearance in the Old Testament. If I can put it this way, in the Old Testament, there is no concept of a distinct “Satan” tempting human beings to sin, so they end up going to the fiery pits of hell. I’d argue that particular take is actually a misconception of what the New Testament portrays.

The topic of Satan is one too vast for me to properly explain in a brief blog post, but I suppose I’ve come to understand it in the following way. In the Old Testament, the source of so much evil in the world stems from idolatry—the worship of foreign gods other than YHWH leads to dehumanizing and animalistic behavior toward the weak and needy. And those foreign gods were associated in some way with lesser divine beings who attempt to draw praise and worship away from YHWH and for themselves. Nevertheless, death was just a reality, and it was believed that everyone dies and ends up in Sheol—Sheol not being a place of punishment for the unredeemed, but rather just the grave, the place of the dead. There are a few passages that express hope for some sort of resurrection from the dead, but such passages are vague.

In the New Testament, the “curtain is pulled back,” so to speak, and it is understood that there is a singular entity who leads these divine beings/demons associated with idolatry—this entity becomes known as Satan. The “good news” of the Gospel is that through the death and resurrection of Christ, the power of death is broken, Satan and his demons are defeated will eventually be destroyed forever.

All that said, this point must be made clear: the Satan figure found in the New Testament is not found in the Old Testament. Yes, the word “satan” is found in the Old Testament, but it is not a reference to the singular entity known as “Satan” in the New Testament. In the Old Testament, “satan” means “adversary,” and can reference anything from the “prosecuting attorney” who questions Job’s righteousness, to any divine being who is sent to oppose someone. But let’s be clear, those “satans” are not THE “Satan” of the New Testament. Anyone who tries to place that New Testament figure in the Old Testament is either misinformed or purposely trying to deceive you.

Earlier on in chapter 3, Hamori describes Satan in the Old Testament this way: “Before he becomes God’s nemesis, he’s already vicious and malignant—while acting as a member in good standing of God’s monstrous entourage” (76).  Satan, Hamori says, is God’s monster. Yes, that’s right. Hamori says that the Satan in the New Testament was originally part of God’s entourage in the Old Testament. I repeat, “Anyone who tries to place that New Testament figure in the Old Testament is either misinformed or purposely trying to deceive you.”

Not surprisingly, for the rest of chapter 3, Hamori’s focus isn’t so much on Satan, but on God…and how He’s worse than Satan.

Balaam and Satan
The first story Hamori looks at is the story of how King Balak of Moab sends for Balaam to curse Israel in Numbers 22. Basically, Balak sends for Balaam, Balaam enquires of God/YHWH and is told, “Don’t go with them to curse Israel. Israel is blessed.” Balak tries again, Balaam says, “Let me ask again,” and this time YHWH says, “Okay, go, but only say what I tell you to say.” As Balaam takes his donkey and goes to Balak, we are told that God was angry with him and sent an angel of YHWH to confront Balaam as “his adversary (satan).” The donkey sees the angel, Balaam doesn’t, so he gets mad at the donkey and beats him. The donkey then talks, says, “What are you doing?” Balaam’s eyes are opened, he sees the angel, and the angel tells him, “Hey jack, why are you beating on the donkey? I’ve come to oppose you because your ways are perverse!” Balaam says, “Yikes! My bad! I’ll go home if you want.” And the angel says, “No, go on, but only speak what I tell you to say.”

Granted, that is an odd story. Why would YHWH send an angel to oppose Balak after YHWH had already said he could go? Before I explain what I think is going on in the story, let me first briefly summarize Hamori’s take. First, she equates the angel of the YHWH with Satan, and says that Satan here is “a divine employee whose God-given job is to oppose people who are being obedient and faithful” (82). Second, she claims that the angel (and God by extension) “gaslights” Balaam, because Balaam was already going to say what God said. She writes, “There’s no cure for the whiplash. God gives Balaam a direct order, Balaam obeys, and God is enraged at him for it. …The divine bait-and-switch is startling even before you know that in Hebrew it says that an angel of the Lord takes his stand against Balaam ‘as a satan’” (79). Hamori concludes by saying, “This divine adversary is brutal and unfair, stopping an obedient prophet in his tracks, committing assault with a deadly weapon and attempted murder, and demonstrating dominance for its own sake” (82).

I’ll be kind and say that interpretation is just a tad problematic. First of all, Balaam is never called a prophet of YHWH. Quite the contrary, he was a foreign diviner. Secondly, the fuller context of the Balaam story makes it clear that he wasn’t obedient. Yes, he issues blessings over Israel and doesn’t curse them, but then he advises Balak to send the hot Moabite women into the Israelite came to seduce the men into idol worship at Baal-Peor. Thirdly, in Numbers 22:32, the angel of YHWH tells Balaam he has come out as his adversary because Balaam’s way is perverse to YHWH, not because YHWH was angry with Balaam for obeying Him. And what is Balaam’s way? He’s a foreign diviner—he’s a hired gun for rulers that want the help of “the gods.”

If anything, this story reveals something about how YHWH was perceived by other cultures in the ANE at the time. To the point, clearly, YHWH was a known “god” in the ANE world, but He wasn’t seen as the unique creator God—that was what came to be major tenet of Israel’s faith. But even at this time, it is clear that the Israelites themselves were still pagan in their outlook. And that is why I believe YHWH sends an angel to oppose Balaam. The point of the story is that Balaam, the foreign diviner, was more spiritually blind than a donkey, and that YHWH was not going to be treated like any other foreign deity that Balaam regularly consulted.

In any case, Hamori is just wrong to equate this angel of YHWH with Satan and to claim that Balaam was an obedient prophet of YHWH.

Job and Satan…and God
The next story Hamori looks at is the story of Job. Indeed, the beginning of the story of Job really is problematic. After all, YHWH has a discussion with “the satan” about Job’s righteousness and faithfulness, and they end up essentially making a bet that no matter how much crap “the satan” inflicts on Job, Job would never curse God. That very situation makes it seem like God is literally gambling with the life and well-being of a faithful and righteous man. That doesn’t sound too good!

For time’s sake, let me say that the Book of Job is Wisdom Literature, and in that sense, it is a fictional story. It didn’t really happen. Also, being Wisdom Literature, the Book of Job is wrestling with the age-old question, “Why do righteous people suffer?” Job’s three friends give bad answers to that question (i.e. Job is a secret, filthy sinner who deserves it), and ultimately God vindicates Job. Still, God never tells Job the answer to that question. And that’s the point: we will never know why bad things happen to good people. Only God in His wisdom knows, and He is under no obligation to tell us. That is why God gives Job a verbal dressing down in chapters 38-41, but then also vindicates Job at the end. Ultimately, (1) good and righteous people do suffer in this life, (2) we don’t know why that happens, (3) YHWH is sovereign, so ultimately, He does allow it for some reason, but (4) He doesn’t “owe us” an explanation—He’s God; we’re not.

Yes, that is a tough lesson to swallow, but that’s reality. We may want nice and clear answers, but the tough lesson of the Book of Job is that in his life we don’t get them. Suck it up. And let’s face it—that’s true.

Given all that, the Book of Job still is Wisdom Literature and we need to keep that in mind when interpreting it. With any kind of literature, our interpretation must stay within the bounds of that particular genre. For example, in Star Wars, Luke Skywalker is a hero who blew up the Death Star and saved the rebellion. We don’t say, “Woah! Skywalker is a murderous psychopath! Did you ever consider that all those troops on the Death Star had families who lived there as well? By blowing up the Death Star, Luke Skywalker committed genocide!” No one in their right mind would say that because that is idiotic.

Let’s see Hamori’s take on the story of Job…

In her version, YHWH is equivalent of a corrupt judge who deliberately targets someone he knows to be innocent. Not only does he target an innocent person, He provokes Satan into tormenting Job. She claims it is almost as if YHWH and Satan teamed up. She writes, “If you’re going to be in a partnership doing torturous human experiments, this is a nice model for teamwork. There’s an inspirational poster in here somewhere” (88). I know she probably thought that last sentence was clever, but it strikes me as juvenile and sophomoric.

She ends by commenting on the conclusion to the story, where God blesses Job and Job gets his health, flocks, and even a new family back: “No matter how hard we might try to wrest a spiritual justification out of the divine treatment of Job, there’s no tempering this for the ten dead children” (90). Yep, no matter how much you try to convince yourself that Luke Skywalker is a hero, think of all those dead wives and children who were living on the Death Star, you sick bastard!

Joshua the High Priest…and Satan
In Zechariah, the Zechariah sees a vision of Satan accusing Joshua the high priest (Zechariah 3). Joshua is dressed in filthy garments. An angel of YHWH then declares YHWH has removed Joshua’s iniquity, and he is given new clothes. The point of the prophetic vision is that Joshua represents the Jews. Their sin (filthy garments) is what got them sent into the Babylonian exile. But, after the exile, YHWH purifies them and removes their sin, so they can be His people (new garments). Hooray!

That’s not how Hamori sees it! No, YHWH the judge shuts up Satan the accuser because YHWH, that corrupt judge, has already decided he wants the guilty to walk away scot-free! How can anyone blame Satan here? He was just doing his job…and he had a valid case! Nope! According to Hamori, YHWH’s decision is the epitome of “judicial corruption” because YHWH declared “the exoneration of a guilty man” (95).

Wow…what can you say to that?

David and the Census…and Satan…or God…Whatever
The story of David and the census is found in both II Samuel 24 and I Chronicles 21. The story in both books is pretty much the same, with the exception of one curious thing. In II Samuel 24, we are told that YHWH incited David to take a census of Israel, whereas in I Chronicles 21, we are told that Satan incited David to do it. After that, the story unfolds in the same way: YHWH gets angry with David for taking the census and gives David a choice of three punishments for taking the census: 3 years of famine, 3 months of running from your foes, or 3 days of pestilence. David chooses 3 days of pestilence. It comes, via and angel of YHWH, 70,000 people die. But YHWH relents and tells David to build an altar on the threshing-floor of Ornan the Jebusite. When David does it, the plague stops. The end.

Granted, this is a very curious story, especially the II Samuel 24 version. After all, how can YHWH get angry with David for doing something He got David to do? But still, the mention of YHWH in II Samuel 24 doesn’t really make sense in the context of the story, for when David orders a census to be taken, Joab says, “May the LORD your God increase the number of the people a hundredfold, while the eyes of my lord the king can still see it! But why does my lord the king want to do this?”—suggesting that what David wanted to do was against the will of YHWH.

On top of that, there is nothing (at least of what I can find) in the Old Testament that prohibits the taking of a census. Bruce Waltke suggests that this census was taken for military purposes, to build up David’s army, and the 70,000 dead were soldiers, not common people. In any case, it is just a bizarre little nugget in the Old Testament, where there is the same story, but the instigator in one being YHWH and in the other being Satan. Did the later writer of I Chronicles 21 “clean up” that unnecessary bit in II Samuel 24, or is it just a scribal error in II Samuel 24?

Whatever the case, this story is so curious and shaky, a wise biblical scholar will tread lightly. He/She might offer some suggestions and insights, but it is wise not to be so dogmatic with its interpretation.

Hamori apparently doesn’t feel the same way. Her take is simple: “God and the Adversary have a history of working as a team” (96). On top of that, God kills 70,000 people just because David obeyed Him! As for the choice David must make, geesh, it’s just like the Joker’s choice in The Dark Knight! God is the Joker!

Ehh…

A Quick Run Through the New Testament
I see I’m over my usual self-imposed 2,000ish word limit for my posts. Let me sprint through these final few examples.

Hamori says that in Luke 22:31, Jesus tells Peter shortly before Jesus is arrested in Gethsemane, that “Satan has obtained permission to sift you all like wheat.” “Did you catch that?” she says, “Satan asks for permission from God to torment Peter, and God allows it! Once again, God is double-teaming with Satan to torture His faithful followers!”

Hamori then talks a bit about the Apostle Paul. In II Corinthians 12:7-9, when talking about his “thorn in the flesh,” he calls it “a messenger from Satan to torment me.” I believe that Paul is referring probably to some kind of eye problem that came about as the result of his encounter with Jesus on the Damascus Road. In any case, it is clear that Paul sees this physical ailment as a way to keep him humble. Hamori’s interpretation? Satan! God let’s Satan torture faithful followers!

And then there is Paul’s comments in I Corinthians 5:5 regarding the man who had been having sex with his stepmother. Paul tells the church to “hand this man over to Satan,” clearly meaning to not allow him to take part in their church fellowship as long as he continued doing that. Paul is essentially saying, “If that man wants to practice sexual immorality and live like a pagan, let him. But don’t let him pretend to be a Christian. Kick him out, and hopefully he’ll repent and come back. That is what “hand him over to Satan” means. Amazingly, Hamori doesn’t know this: “Whatever exactly it means to turn someone over to Satan—the phrase resembles known ancient curses, and could involve physical harm or even death, or exclusion from the community—the implications about our dynamic duo are stunning” (101). That’s right, she interprets it as God teaming up with Satan again to hurt people!

Finally, there is Hamori’s take on Jesus’ words to the church of Smyrna in the Book of Revelation, when he warns them that some of them were going to suffer at the hands of Satan. She writes, “Jesus has just revealed detailed knowledge of Satan’s next move. The divine lines of communication are still open. The followers of Jesus aren’t talking or turning someone over to Satan this time. Satan’s torture seems to be simply his own plan in the making—but Jesus is already in the loop” (102).

What do you think of these interpretations? I’m not impressed.