The Divine Council in the Book of Job

An excerpt from Christopher D. Kou, “A Biblical Theology of the Divine Council,” Theopolis Institute, March 2017.

The most extensive biblical account of the Divine Council is found in the Book of Job. In Job 1, the “sons of God” ( הִ֔ים בְּניֵ֣ האֱָ bĕnê hāʾĕlōhîm) gather together in the heavenly council, and השַּׂטָָן֖) haśśāṭān) “the adversary” gathers with them. It is not explicitly told whether or not the  adversary is to be counted among the “sons of God,” but it is clear enough that he is part of the council proceedings, as Yahweh directly addresses him to point out Job’s faithfulness. While the word for “adversary” is the same word as that which refers to Satan, the great enemy, it is now common to consider the adversary to be a neutral, or even good, officer in the Divine Council—an angelic servant of Yahweh who does only his bidding, and in the Book of Job acts simply as Yahweh’s agent to test and confirm Job’s loyalty to God. To support this, many scholars note that haśśāṭān is properly translated as “the adversary,” with the definite article. Thus, it is argued, the role of adversary or accuser in early Hebrew conception is not that of the great cosmic enemy, but rather simply that of the courtroom prosecutor—a neutral role. Mullen observes that all uses of “Satan” as a name are post-exilic.¹Mullen, Divine Council, 276. As Michael Heiser puts it:

The satan in Job 1–2 is not a villain. He’s doing the job assigned to him by God. The book of Job does not identify the satan in this scene as the serpent of Genesis 3, the figure known in the New Testament as the devil. The Old Testament never uses the word saṭan of the serpent figure from Genesis 3. In fact, the word saṭan is not a proper personal noun in the Old Testament.²Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible, First Edition. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2015), 57-58. While pressing the currently popular notion that “the satan” is simply a generic term that is later adopted as a name, Heiser seems reluctant about coming down definitively on one side or another as to whether the divine being known as “the satan” in Job and elsewhere is that same individual who later earns the name. First he opens with the simple statement that “the saṭan in Job 1-2 is not a villain. He’s doing the job assigned to him by God.” But then he issues the far more ambivalent conclusion: “The dark figure of Genesis 3 was eventually thought of as the ‘mother of all adversaries,’ and so the label satan got stuck to him. He deserves it. The point here is only that the Old Testament doesn’t use that term for the divine criminal of Eden.” (emphasis mine). But while it is quite evident that the Hebrew authors don’t explicitly use the term śāṭān for the divine rebel, this far from establishes that the same individual is not being referred to. See also John H Walton, Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary (Old Testament): The Minor Prophets, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, vol. 5 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009), 251-252.

However, noting that in the Hebrew שׂטָָן֖ śāṭān is rarely used in the ordinary personal name form sidesteps the question of whether “the satan” or “adversary” in heaven is indeed the individual who is known by that proper name in later Scripture. That śāṭān is a functional noun simply demonstrates the role of that individual within the heavenly court. It does not necessarily follow that the individual known as “the adversary” must be some other person than the one called by the personal name Satan by later authors.

Heiser points out that in Numbers 22:22 when the Angel comes to stand against Balaam, he is referred to as śāṭān. However, it seems to me that this by itself proves very little. First, the identity of Balaam’s adversary is hardly ambiguous. It is the Angel of Yahweh. Second, it does not say that the Angel is השַּׂטָָן֖ haśśāṭān but rather יְהוָ֛ה . . . לְ שׂטָָן֣ לוֹ֑ וַיִּתְיַצֵּ֞ב מַלְאַ֧ wayyiṯyaṣṣēḇ malʾaḵ yĕhwâ . . . lĕśāṭān lô. That is, the Angel of Yahweh is not “the adversary,” but merely stood against Balaam “as adversary to him.” Even more than the definite article might, the prepositional prefix depersonalizes the word, making it attributive, and far more about an assumed function in this isolated case than haśśāṭān in the Book of Job, which speaks more of a specific individual holding a specific office.

As an example, on a naval vessel “the captain” is the commanding officer of the ship. Crewmen may indeed refer to him as “the captain” in many cases. But he may also be often addressed directly as “Captain,” sans definite article, or even referred to with his official rank of “Captain” attached to his personal name as if it were a part of it. There could hardly be any confusion about who was being spoken of were one crewman to say “Captain” and another “the captain.” They are obviously referring to the same person. Complexities and some confusion may ensue only when there are two individuals with identical rank aboard the same vessel.

Moreover, in the Hebrew, much as in English, the definite article may (though in admittedly few cases) be used with proper names that were originally appellative. Thus, the 144 occurances of the definite article in היַּ רְַדּןֵ֔ hayyardēn do not suggest to us that there are many rivers called Jordan and this is but one of them, but are references to a specific river by the name of Jordan or places associated with that river. Nor are the 25 attestations of הַלְּבָנוֹן hallĕḇānôn intended to imply to us that there may be other multiple Lebanons. Rather, these are descriptive identifiers which have become proper nouns while retaining the definite article. Jordan likely derives from ירד yrd, which means to “go down,”³“ירְַדּןֵ,” TDOT, 323. and Lebanon means “white mountain.”⁴“לְבָנוֹן,” HALOT, 518. The same may be the case with haśśāṭān, “the adversary.”

This is simply to say that the grammar is not conclusive either way. There is a lot of complexity we have to sort out with the title and name of “the satan.” Are they both referring to the same individual? Or are their multiple individuals with the same rank and role? Despite the use of the definite article for “the adversary,” it does not necessarily follow that the person known by the name Satan cannot be the same individual.

The claim that the adversary of Job is a mere innocuous agent of Yahweh’s commands does not hold up to a close reading of the book. The adversary is clearly privy to the council in Job 1, but he is also somewhat separate. The sons of God assemble, and the satan is also there. This doesn’t necessarily imply that he is not one of the assembly, but certainly he is singled out. Yahweh orders him to report, and then challenges him. Already we see that the satan is not merely the prosecutor of men in the divine court, but he is actually singled out because he is indeed the adversary of Yahweh himself. God therefore urges him to take note of the uprightness of Job, his servant. It is often suggested that the satan is the one who challenges God in the heavenly council scene of Job, but we do not find that here. Rather, we see God challenging the satan: “Isn’t my servant Job great?”

The answer of the satan to Yahweh is not “well, then, let us try and prove him to see if his loyalty is true,” which is what one might expect of a faithful agent of God, since it would be in line with God’s motivation revealed over the course of the book, and would even parallel God’s test of Abraham when he commanded him to sacrifice his son Isaac. Instead, the satan’s words are much more insidious. “Does Job fear God for no reason? Have you not put a hedge around him and his house and all that he has on every side? . . . But stretch out your hand and touch all that he has, and he will curse you to your face.” As Boyd points out, “there is something sinister about the eagerness of the satan to destroy Job.”⁵Boyd, God at War, 147.  That there is a man as upright as Job is an affront to the adversary, and so he turns immediately to seek to tear him down.

In the second confrontation in the heavenly court, after Job does not curse God even in the face of tragedy, the sons of God again assemble to present themselves before Yahweh, but the focus is again on the interplay between God and the satan. Yahweh first reminds the satan, “He still holds fast his integrity, although you incited me against him to destroy him without reason.” This is not to say that Yahweh has no reason to test Job, for his reason becomes clear in the end. This is instead an indictment of the satan’s arbitrary desire for Job’s ruin. It is a rebuke and a yet renewed challenge from Yahweh to his traitorous council member. For while Yahweh’s purpose is for the testing of Job, the satan’s express goal is either to provoke Job to curse God or to leave him entirely crushed.

The satan’s tone at this second challenge from Yahweh now takes on an even more acerbic tone. “Skin for skin!” he exclaims. “All that a man has he will give for his life. But stretch out your hand and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will curse you to your face.”

Again, the goal of the satan is to provoke Job to sin (i.e. to curse his Creator). This encounter ends the dealings of Yahweh with the adversary, and from there on God deals with Job directly. But the character of the satan is established by this point. He is not merely a faithful servant of the Council or of God. Indeed, the context of the Divine Council brings the nature of the confrontation into stark relief. The contest is initiated by God, but is done in the sight of all the sons of God. Job’s loyalty to God vindicates not only Job, but it also vindicates Yahweh before the Council.

From here we can see that not all is well in the Divine Council. There is revolt within the very court of heaven. Is haśśāṭān of Job to be identified with the great enemy Satan? In light of the insidious character of the adversary here, I think there can be little doubt. What, then, is he doing in the court of heaven? It seems, under the Old Covenant, that Satan in fact has a place in the Divine Council. He actually has God’s ear in the court of heaven, and God allows his presence. His function in the court is as “the adversary” of Yahweh and of his people, but there is more to it than that. I believe the modus operandi makes it clear, this satan can be none other than “the accuser of the brethren” who has a place in the Council in the Book of Job, but is doomed to be cast down out of heaven in Revelation 12:10.

The Divine Council scenes of Job also serve to establish the term הִ֔ים בְּניֵ֣ האֱָ bĕnê hāʾĕlōhîm as referring to those who are seated in the heavenly court. In Job, at least, these are clearly angels. Job’s own friend and councilor Eliphaz poses the rhetorical question, “Have you listened in the council of God?” (Job 15:8). The obvious answer is no; Job has not. The heavenly council is portrayed as being closed to men. At the same time, the fact that this question appears here, in a book which describes the heavenly council, suggests to us in itself that more is determined for man where the council is concerned. Certainly, the author of the Book of Job, whether that be an older Job himself or some other writer, has been privy to the workings of the heavenly council, since he relates to us in the text exactly what has taken place there between God and the satan.

The complete paper is available at www.academia.edu.

With the inheritance of Canaan and the dividing up of this priestly territory among the tribes, Israel became a microcosm of the nations of the world.

This division between Israel and the nations as a substitutionary “land and sea” would prevent another global rebellion, and thus another global judgment.¹For more discussion, see Michael Bull, Cosmic Language. The existence of a “peculiar” people who could never assimilate prevented a repeat of the compromise of the sons of Seth (Genesis 6:2) and of the sons of Joktan, the first Hebrews (Genesis 10:25 – 11:2). Serving as a restraint from sin, circumcision was thus a divine mercy which, to some degree, blessed all nations right from its inception. This office is prefigured in Abram’s kingly prevention of a conspiracy of nations in Genesis 14, followed by his priestly refusal to lay his hand on the spoils. He was in covenant with God and could have no open obligations, through treaty or intermarriage, to the kings of the land. Not only would his inheritance come from the hand of God, his ministry of evangelism among its current inhabitants could not be tainted.²For more discussion, see James B. Jordan, Primeval Saints: Studies in the Patriarchs of Genesis, 65-66.

Continue reading at Theopolis Institute.

Why are there four Gospels? There would be so much less confusion — and theological spade work — if there were just the one. The most obvious answer is that each one was written for a different audience, as described here. The least obvious answer is that God was not only writing the commandments in human flesh, He was also “measuring out” the architecture of the Tabernacle in humanity.

You must be logged in to see the rest of this post.

Join now for a year for $15!

For the tools to make sense of the parsing below, get the Bible Matrix books. Book 1 describes the sevenfold Creation pattern. Book 2 describes the fivefold Covenant pattern from which the sevenfold pattern is derived (and how both of them are derived from the threefold Trinity).

T R A N S C E N D E N C E

Strangely, the RSV does a better job of the flow on this one than the NKJV or ESV. Here is where literary structure helps translation of Hebrew! Line 5 does not begin a new sentence.

You must be logged in to see the rest of this post.

Join now for a year for $15!

One interesting facet of biblical symbols is their identification by “use” and “motion.” Objects that have no link in the natural order of things can be tied together through their use in a similar purpose in the work of the house of God. This is not entirely strange. Diverse things which have no relationship in the natural order are brought together by man for use in “housework.” For the Author of the Bible, nature is “plastic.” This factor is one reason why the Bible is strange to modern ears and minds.

[This post has been refined and included in Sweet Counsel: Essays to Brighten the Eyes.]

You must be logged in to see the rest of this post.

Join now for a year for $15!

Cut and Uncut Stones

4    As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by humans but chosen by God and precious to him—

Peter’s use of the stone image should bring many Old Testament images to mind:

• the precious stones of Havilah, intended to be mined from the Land to glorify the sanctuary [1]
• the false stones of Babel (they had brick for stone)
• Jacob’s head on the altar stone, in a deep sleep
• Jacob’s raising of an altar stone in Bethel: “And this stone which I have set as a pillar shall be God’s house, and of all that You give me I will surely give a tenth to You.”
• Zipporah’s sharp stone of circumcision
• Moses enthroned on a stone at the defeat of Amalek
• Israel’s altars of stone (one stone for each tribe) at Sinai and Carmel
• The precious stones on the breastplate of the High Priest
• The tablets of stone carrying the ten words
• The stones of the “Levitical” house in the city filled with plague
• The stones of judgment, the ground itself as a witness executing transgressors outside the camp
• The black and white stones in the ephod

We have two types of stones: uncut stones (altar, judgment – the Law) and cut, or precious, stones (glory and riches – Grace).

It was forbidden to use worked stones to build holy altars.

“If you make an altar of stones for me, do not build it with dressed stones, for you will defile it if you use a tool on it.” (Exodus 20:25)

These raw stones represent Adam, drawn “raw” from the Land, before he was cut and bloodied under the “raw Law” (stoicheia). Worked stones are Adams prepared to construct the “bridal” Temple. They are not decorative gemstones, but they are indeed precious.

The Jews (“men”) misjudged Jesus and rejected Him as a rough stone, when in fact He was precious. They looked on His outward appearance and found nothing to esteem. But He was already cut, a worked stone, a circumcised heart, the founding work on a Temple for the Spirit.

5    you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

Jesus built a house for the Spirit, a “Mosaic Tabernacle” made of His disciples. He filled the house with fire at Pentecost, and it came alive. Once purified, it was ready to be decorated, robed as a bride.

Gemstones are also stones filled with fire — living stones — but they are not united by the mason. They are united on the body of the Bridegroom. These reflect the light of God, and so can enter into the tent, carried upon the High Priest. Adam was supposed to be robed in glory, not bloody skin.

The famous “gemstone” passage in Ezekiel 28 doesn’t refer to Satan. Nor does it refer precisely to the king of Tyre. It is prophetic sarcasm, aimed at the Edenic Sanctuary built by Solomon.

“You were in Eden, the garden of God; Every precious stone was your covering: The sardius, topaz, and diamond, Beryl, onyx, and jasper, Sapphire, turquoise, and emerald with gold. The workmanship of your timbrels and pipes Was prepared for you on the day you were created.” Ezekiel 28:13

The precious materials for Solomon’s Temple were mined and carried from Tyre. The “king of Tyre” here was the corrupt High Priest, who had capitulated to the false gods of Tyre, reversing the influence of Solomon upon king Hiram. It was reverse evangelism, just as Satan promised a false glory to Adam and to Jesus if they would capitulate to him.

But we have a faithful High Priest, a stone not worked by lawless men but cut by the finger of a lawful God, an Adamic altar stone “cut out without hands,” and glorified with Evian gemstones, stones mined and cut from the Land of Israel — His glorious offspring. Unlike Adam, He has no need to cover Himself and hide.

“Here am I and the children whom God has given Me.” (Hebrews 2:13) [2]

____________________________________
[1] See Worship as Commerce.
[2] See Pilgrim’s Egress for how this “corporate salvation” is overlooked in Bunyan’s allegory.

Remy Wilkins recently proposed a thesis about serpents and dragons in the Bible. Is there a difference? Are the words interchangeable? And even if they aren’t, how are these animals–and the spiritual truths they were created to represent–related?

This post has been slain and resurrected for inclusion in my 2015 book of essays, Inquietude.

You must be logged in to see the rest of this post.

Join now for a year for $15!

Someone made the comment that the “Bible Matrix” is something mystical. While it is certainly typological, it is not mystical. And it is only typological because it is the process of maturity God has built into everything under heaven. Trees and men grow up and bear fruit. That’s typology.

The next step is to understand each cycle as a stage of greater maturity that leaves a legacy. Adam’s faithfulness in the Garden would have won him dominion in the Promised Land, and so on…

Jesus was tested three times in the wilderness. The wilderness is the place where God’s people are sifted like wheat under the Ethics of the Law. This is where the 5 point Covenant pattern expands to the 7 point New Creation. The test is, “Will I be a living sacrifice?” There are three tests within the Ethics, and they relate to the process of sacrifice: Flesh, eyes and life. [1] To combat the lust of the flesh, we put the flesh on the Altar. To combat the lust of the eyes, we submit to the eyes of heaven, the seven Spirits before the throne. To combat the pride of life, we trust God for resurrection. In the ascension rite, this is meat, fire and smoke. In the Tabernacle this is Bronze Altar, Lampstand and Incense Altar. The process of transformation has three stages.

Jesus’ victory over Satan qualified him to come out of the wilderness and cast demons out of others. He had beaten Goliath, one-on-one, so He could now chase the rest of the Philistines away. What most commentators fail to see is this process repeated in the church after Pentecost. James Jordan notices three strikes against the church: Jewish persecution (the flesh on the Altar), false doctrine (strange Fire, seven demons), and then Jewish-Roman persecution (the final legal witness of a “resurrected” Israel, leaving the house “filled with smoke”). This explains the various bindings and loosings of Satan recorded in the Revelation before chapter 20. The church dealt with each temptation, but the Lord allowed another one that required greater maturity. The church was being sifted like wheat and purified. Just as the persecution took on a temporary Jew-Gentile body against the Church, the Church was a Spirit-filled Jew-Gentile body that would actually last.

But the final binding, the one in Revelation 20, is not a recapitulation of this period. (Jim Hamilton thinks this is the case, and so do hyperpreterists). Not only does the Covenant structure of Revelation make this impossible, [2] but it means the baby church learned nothing during this foundational time.

The righteousness or unrighteousness of an individual always leaves a corporate legacy (this is the Covenant Head and Body). Jesus’ “Garden” victory left the legacy of the Spirit for those in the Land. It was the inverse of the legacy which Adam left for Cain. Just so, the “Land” victory of the Apostolic church left a legacy of kingdom wisdom for the conquest of the World. As Jordan observes, the chain in the right hand of the Angel in Revelation 20 is the Church. It is an application of the seven stars of the New Covenant Lampstand in Jesus’ right hand. Satan’s fall was due to Jesus’ “gravity.” [3] But is is the gravity of the Apostolic church’s legacy that keeps him bound from “deceiving the nations” until Jesus has finished His own work of gathering the nations. [4] Hyperpreterism, premillennialism and amillennialism, the inept recapitulators, leave no hope for the nations. Only postmillennialism gives Jesus what He came for as an inheritance, as a Covenant legacy: a corporate holiness of, not one (AD30-AD70), but a thousand generations.

_____________________________________
[1] See Satan’s Synagogue.
[2] See Moses vs. Hyperpreterism.
[3] Notice that Satan’s anti-Covenant “mission” was Garden-Heaven-Garden (his last stand being in Herod’s Temple, poisoning the “springs” of Edenic waters), but Jesus’ mission was Heaven-Garden-Heaven.
[4] On the “thousand years”, see For A Thousand Years, and the comments following.

Many, or most, evangelicals, assume that God is into spoonfeeding us. They think that if a biblical type is not explicitly referred to in the text, then it is risky business. Many evangelicals are brilliant thinkers, but most are not lateral thinkers when it comes to literature. Or at least, they are too cautious to think laterally when analysing the Bible, and only read “the letter of the law.” They, and their congregations, miss out on 50% of the Scriptures — all the parts written between the lines. The funniest part is that this is exactly the element that makes many children’s books, and the most delicious adult dramas, so entertaining. What a bunch of bores. They are like the naive Australians in a Noel Coward play who took every word of the sophisticated Brits at face value. The Bible is far more sophisticated than any other book on your shelf. It is indeed a crafty beast.

Our God expects us to read between the lines, to search things out as New Covenant kings. This is how we grow in wisdom. As we read the Bible, He gives us boundaries, certainly, but He also gives us plenty of room to explore, to notice things (like parallel events) and draw some conclusions. [1]

God didn’t tell Adam about the serpent. He expected Adam to grow a brain and do some faith-filled logical thinking based upon the revealed Word. Adam was supposed to “read between the lines” in the light of God’s character, and understand that anything withheld from him was for his own good, and only a temporary prohibition until he was ready for it.

Instead, Satan “filled in the gaps” in what God said. He “read between the lines” in a way that slandered God’s character. When the Lord’s Day came, the legal expectation was for Adam to be standing there, waiting for God, with a bruised heel (a limp?) and his foot on a crushed serpent’s head. That was the Government expected of a Sacramental Adam under the authority of God’s Word.

The rest of the Bible expands upon the events of Genesis in parallel events. To deny this exists is to be, bluntly, extremely obtuse. Some of these parallels only become clear after many years of familiarity with the Bible. And then we realize how obvious they were the whole time. James B. Jordan writes:

The December 2010 issue of the Journal of the Evangelical Society (53:4) contains an excellent essay by Dane C. Ortlund entitled “‘And their Eyes Were Opened, and They Knew’: An Inter-canonical Note on Luke 24:31″ (pp. 717-728). Ortlund explores the fact that this phrase in Luke 24 is virtually identical with Genesis 3:7, “and the eyes of both were opened, and they knew.”

Ortlund begins by listing at least eighty commentaries and studies that did not catch this allusion at all. he then mentions three recent scholars who do notice the link, but who do little more than suggest some kind of reversal of the fall: Luke Timothy Johnson, N. T. Wright, and Arthur Just.

Ortlund then notices many more parallels. In both Genesis 3 and Luke 24, a “supernatural” being approaches a human pair and begins asking them questions. The humans do not recognize this person for who he/He really is. Then food is offered, a special kind of food in both cases. The food is accepted. When eaten, a profound spiritual effect occurs indicated by the phrase “their eyes were opened and they knew.” The human pair is separated from God in the immediate aftermath, with Adam acting to hide from God, and Jesus hiding from Cleopas and his wife.

We can go on. Cleopas and his wife returned to Jerusalem to the disciples, and then the parallels continue: God suddenly appears in the midst of the disciples. In both cases the humans are frightened. God begins to ask questions of Adam and Eve, and Jesus asks questions of the disciples. God reminds Adam and Eve of His word of command to them, and Jesus reminds the disciples of His words. God forces Adam and Eve out of the garden, while Jesus sends His disciples out into the world… [2]

Jordan moves on from here to some really wonderful stuff. But you will have to subscribe. Simply make a donation to Biblical Horizons, provide your postal address, and you are on the list. Subscribe here.

______________________________________________
[1] See Cross-eyed Exegesis.
[2] Excerpt from James B. Jordan, The Better Lucifer, Biblical Horizons No. 217, February 2011.

.

The new atheists believe Christianity is a wet paper bag, and they are intent on punching their way out of it. They don’t understand that Christianity is the source of blessing, and that through their unbelief they are its bastard (or mutant) children. They are unlike the old atheists. Their moral outrages are not at all consistent with their nihilistic beliefs.

The truly evil are the ones who do understand the integrating, empowering, culture-building force of Christianity, and shamelessly steal it for their own ends. Satan knows the Scriptures. His policy isn’t scorched earth. His desire is a thorny crop of his own, and for that he must imitate Covenant hierarchy – a totus Diabolus. An authority structure has the potential for far more carnage than anarchy does, especially one with a dictatorial “Covenant succession” built-in.

It is a strange fact that many tinpot dictators, many terrorists, many proponents of promising but destructive modern philosophies, were products of a Western education. Or is it so strange? Counterfeiters invest a lot of time in studying the real tender before they manufacture their own currency, otherwise their plans will fail. The finished product is identical but for two things: the source of authority (Head); and the end result on the community (Body). Gary North writes:

“Satan needs a chain of command in order to exercise power. Thus, in order to create the greatest havoc for the church, Satan and his followers need to imitate the church. Like the child who needs to sit on his father’s lap in order to slap him, so does the rebel need a crude imitation of God’s dominion theology in order to exercise power. A child who rejects the idea of his father’s lap cannot seriously hope to slap him. The anti-Christian has officially adopted an “anti-lap” theory of existence. He admits no cause-and-effect relationship between lap and slap. To the extent that he acts consistently with this view, he becomes impotent to attack God’s people.

This means that with an increase in epistemological self-consciousness, the ethical aspects of the separation become more and more fundamental. Not logic but ethics is primary. Reprobation is by ethics, not logic. Thus, the increasing epistemological self-consciousness on the part of the power-seeking unbeliever does not lead him to apply Satan’s philosophy of ultimate meaninglessness and chaos; it leads, him instead to apply Satan’s counterfeit of dominion religion, the religion of power. He can achieve power only by refusing to become fully consistent with Satan’s religion of chaos. He needs organization and capital — God’s gifts of common grace — in order to produce maximum destruction. Like the Soviet Union, which has always had to import or steal the bulk of its technology from the West in order to build up an arsenal to destroy the West, so does the satanist have to import Christian intellectual and moral capital in order to wage an effective campaign against the church.

This is the key point in my argument against Van Til’s view of common grace. First, the Christian exercises dominion by becoming epistemologically self-conscious, meaning morally and logically consistent with the new man within him, and therefore by adhering ever more closely to God’s law. Biblical law is the covenant-keeper’s fully self-consistent tool of dominion.

Second, the covenant-breaker exercises power by becoming inconsistent with his ultimate philosophy of randomness. He can commit effective crimes only by stealing the worldview of Christians. The bigger the crimes he wishes to commit (the ethical impulse of evil), the more carefully he must plan (the epistemological impulse of righteousness: counting the costs [Luke 14:28-30]). The Christian can work to fulfill the dominion covenant through a life of’ consistent thought and action; the anti-Christian can achieve an offensive, destructive campaign against the Christians – as contrasted to a self-destructive life of drugs and debauchery – only by stealing the biblical worldview and twisting it to evil purposes.

In short, to become really evil you need to become pretty good.“

Gary North, Dominion and Common Grace: The Biblical Basis of Progress, p. 130-132