Robert Sutherland
New Member
I think Job puts God on trial and doesn't really repent of doing so. In fact, I think God approves him for doing so.
What are your thoughts?
What are your thoughts?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Putting God on Trial: The Biblical Book of Job
- Thread starter Robert Sutherland
- Start date
harold e. rice
Member
Most Jews hold that Job was not a real historical figure. For instance, Rabbi Simeon ben Laquish said that Job never existed (Midrash Genesis Rabbah LXVII; Talmud Bavli, Bava Batra 15a.) In this view Job was a literary creation by a prophet who used this form of writing to convey a divine message. In this view, the narrative is a parable, written under divine inspiration in order to teach theological truths, but was never meant to be taken as literally true in a historical sense. Many Christians would agree.
Other Christians believe that Job was a real historical figure. Such literalist beliefs accept the narrative statements in the book which treat Job as an actual person; this belief is also based on the references to Job in the Book of Ezekiel and in the Epistle of James. Independent verification of Job's historicity is lacking, though that is perhaps unsurprising when one considers that almost no citizen of the ancient world.
It is thought by most Hebrew Scholars that the Book of Job was actually written before the book of Genesis and was written while the Jews were exiled in Babylon. This story was the answer to the question raised by the Jews who wanted to know why they were suffering so badly if they were the chosen people of God.
Other Christians believe that Job was a real historical figure. Such literalist beliefs accept the narrative statements in the book which treat Job as an actual person; this belief is also based on the references to Job in the Book of Ezekiel and in the Epistle of James. Independent verification of Job's historicity is lacking, though that is perhaps unsurprising when one considers that almost no citizen of the ancient world.
It is thought by most Hebrew Scholars that the Book of Job was actually written before the book of Genesis and was written while the Jews were exiled in Babylon. This story was the answer to the question raised by the Jews who wanted to know why they were suffering so badly if they were the chosen people of God.
Robert Sutherland
New Member
Harold e. rice:
1. I'd concur that the Book of Job is fiction. My reasons are two-fold:
(a) First, the Hebrew text begins with the word for man ish, a man there was. This is an important change in the normal Hebrew word order of verb-subject-object. Alden, R.L., The New American Commentary: Job (Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1993) p. 46. There are only two genuine parallels to this inverted syntax and they are found in the opening lines of Nathans parable (2 Samuel 12:1) and Joashs fable (2 Kings 14:9). It would appear this syntax is reserved for this type of literary fiction. Thus, The Book of Job should be read as a myth or parable about mankind. Clines, D.J.A., Job in The International Bible Commentary (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1979) p. 9.
(b) Second, the three cycles of dialogue between Job and his friends is written in poetry not prose. Real persons do not speak in poetry, certainly not for 35 chapters.
2. I'd concur that the Book of Job was written during the Babylonian Captivity. My reasons are three-fold.
(a) Parallels to 2nd millennium tales are superficial. None of those tales deal with the issue of a righteous sufferer, certainly not one putting God on trial.
(b) The prose tale also contains narrative and stylistic details that suggest great antiquity. Yet here, too, one must distinguish between what is genuinely archaic from an artistic imitation of archaic style. The most careful linguistic study has argued that the prose tale in its present form is no older than the sixth century BCE. Newsom, C..A., The Book of Job in The New Interpreters Bible: Volume 4 (Abingdon Press, Nashville, 1996) p. 325. The extensive and symmetrical repetition, highly stylized characters and studied aura of remote antiquity imitate but exaggerate features of folktale style. Alongside these features are subtle word plays and verbal ambiguities that suggest an ironic distance from the aesthethic of simple naivete. Newsom, C..A., The Book of Job in The New Interpreters Bible: Volume 4 (Abingdon Press, Nashville, 1996) p. 325.
(c) The poetic dialogues contain linguistic forms that one would expect to in archaic Hebrew, from approximately the tenth century BCE. Since these speeches appear to be written in a deliberately archaizing style and lack other poetic features one associates with very ancient Hebrew poetry, the argument for such an early date has not been generally accepted. Newsom, C..A., The Book of Job in The New Interpreters Bible: Volume 4 (Abingdon Press, Nashville, 1996) p. 325.
3. I'd concur that myth has truth value. Myth is not deceit. Deceit is the intentional communication of known error. Truthfulness is the intentional communication of a thought that accurately corresponds with reality. Myth advances certain truth claims about the divine and the human. But it advances those claims on an existential level, not a historical level. The images in the myth refer to things beyond themselves. Only the most ignorant of interpreters would confuse the image with its reference. When they do so, they commit the logical fallacy of confusing a metaphor with a truth. The truth of history is what actually happened. The truth of myth is what actually describes the human condition, either what it is or what it could be.
4. I'd concur in part that the meaning of the Book of Job emerges out the evils and suffering of the Babylonian Captivity. It is the occasion for the composition of the work, but the work itself is not reducible to a simple allegory of the Babylonian Captivity. It is pitched on a much grander scale addressing the existence of evil in the world, not merely in the life of the nation of Isreal.
Here is the meaning I draw from the Book of Job.
"Widely praised as one of the greatest books ever written, The Book of Job is a theodicy, an attempt to morally justify the ways of God to man. It is a most provocative theodicy for it is the story of the most righteous man on earth putting God on trial for crimes against humanity and refusing to acquit him.
To the question of why there is evil in the world, The Book of Job offers a non-traditional answer.
(a) God created a world of undeserved and unremitted suffering in order the make the highest form of human love possible: a completely selfless love of man for God. Selfishness corrupts selfless love. If human beings know with certainty that God rewards those who love him, then they will serve God for what they can get from him. Undeserved evil is morally necessary in order to bring the existence of God into doubt and to sever any connection between righteousness and reward.
(b) God cannot reveal this explanation for evil in this life without defeating his own purpose in the creation of the world and the creation of man.
(c) God expects man to challenge him for the creation of such a world. Prima facie, it is an act of injustice to impose evil for reasons other than punishment or character development. The undeserved evil God sends is more punishment than any man deserves. And the undeserved evil God sends destroys character more often than not. Human beings have a moral duty to challenge God for such evil. They have a natural need to know and a natural right to receive the explanation for evil in world. God expects human beings to stand up to him. They sin if they either prematurely condemn or prematurely acquit God for sending evil into the world. They must wait for the answer that only God can give.
(d) God will reveal that answer on the Day of the Final Judgment. At that time, God will resurrect all human beings to give them that answer. God will grant all human beings a special grace to understand the necessity and sufficiency of undeserved evil. God is causally responsible for the evil in the world, but not morally blameworthy for it. At that time, all will know and understand Gods purpose in the creation of a world of undeserved and unremitted suffering. And God will then judge all human beings on the selflessness of their love for God.
This Hegelian theodicy in The Book of Job has two real advantages over the traditional Augustinian and Irenean theodices which draw heavily on The Book of Genesis and The Epistles of Paul.
(a) It offers an explanation for existence of undeserved evil in the world. Augustinian theodicies strain and break in their attempt to attribute all the natural and moral evils of the world to the act of a single man. Irenean theodicies strain and break in the face of evil that is so great it destroys character more often than not.
(b) And it offers an explanation for Gods general practice of non-intervention in the world to prevent evil. Augustinian and Irenean theodices correctly posit the importance of freewill, but serious stumple over the fact that the existence of freewill is consistent with a knowledge of God and Gods intervention in the world. Free-will itself does not require Gods non-intervention. However, a particular form of free-will, a completely selfless love of man for God, probably does require Gods non-intervention.
The Book of Job presents a new and engaging perspective based entirely on the existence of undeserved evil and a moral requirement that God not intervene to disclose the reason for evil in this world.
The Book of Job presents that philosophical answer in poetry and prose through the vehicle of drama. As drama, The Book of Job is understandably a legal drama. The moral issues of theodicy are easily translated into a legal framework of duties and rights. In fact, The Book of Job consists of a number of overlapping and interlocking trials. God puts Job on trial. Satan puts God on trial. God puts Job on trial a second time. Jobs friends put Job on trial. Job puts his friends on trial. Everything builds to the climactic moment when Job puts God himself on trial and refuses to acquit him.
Many scholars find the legal metaphor of an Oath of Innocence inappropriate, though for different reasons.
Some liberal scholars opt for an aesthetic, not a moral, resolution of the question of evil in the world. They find a sublime beauty in Gods review of the animal and physical worlds, Behemoth and Leviathan. And it is certainly there. But that is all they find. They find no suggestions of a moral purpose in Gods creation and control of evil. Indeed, they feel none could be forthcoming. God is beyond good and evil so no moral resolution is possible. Since no moral resolution is possible, a legal metaphor such as a lawsuit dramatizing the moral question is inappropriate. They interpret Job to understand that position. And they interpret him to retract the lawsuit in its entirety. They interpret the lawsuit metaphor to be inappropriate because there are no answers to the moral question of evil in the world. To the extent there is a scholarly consensus on The Book of Job and there probably is not such a consensus, this is the majority reading. Clines, D.J.A., Job in The International Bible Commentary (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1979) p. 1029, 1044. Dick, M.B., Job 31: A Form-Critical Study (UMI Dissertations, Ann Arbor, 1977) p.180, 183. Frye, N., The Great Code: The Bible and Literature (Academic Press, Toronto, 1982) pp. 196-198. Gordis, R., The Book of God and Man: A Study of Job (The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1965) p. 304. Gordis, R., The Book of Job: Commentary, New Translation and Special Studies (The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, New York, 1978) p. xxx-xxx1. Habel, N.C., The Old Testament Library: The Book of Job (Westminister Press, Philadelphia, 1985) p.66, 579. Habel, N.C., The Cambridge Bible Commentary on the New English Bible: The Book of Job (Cambridge University Press, London, 1975) p. 228. Scholnick, S.H., Lawsuit Drama in the Book of Job (UMI Dissertations, Ann Arbor, 1975) p. 303-305. Westermann, C., The Structure of the Book of Job: A Form-Critical Analysis, Trans. C.A.Meunchow (Fortress Press, Philadelphia, 1977) 126-127.
This author feels such liberal scholars miss a moral resolution for five reasons.
(a) First, they fail to give adequate weight to Satans first speech in heaven setting out the moral solution. Selfless love is the reason God chooses to create a world of undeserved and unremitted suffering for Job and by implication, for us. This sets the entire plot in motion. Their resolution however leaves this important point hanging such that the beginning and ending are completely disjointed.
(b) Second, they misinterpret Jobs struggle with God to be a request for a restoration of his former position, rather than a request to know the reason behind evil in the world. As such, they see the moral issue Job raises to be nothing more than a retributive version of justice whereby righteousness is rewarded. This is not the moral right Job raises in his Oath of Innocence. The moral right is the right to know the reason behind evil in the world.
(c) Third, they fail to appreciate the moral restrictions under which God has to operate. God cannot reveal any moral answers directly without defeating his very purpose in the creation and control of evil. As a result, they miss the suggestions of moral purpose in Gods two speeches and the inferences God would have Job draw.
(d) Fourth, they fail to fully appreciate the legal dynamics of the enforcement mechanism of Jobs Oath of Innocence. In particular, they fail to appreciate the distinction between causal responsibility and moral blameworthiness. Thus, they do not understand Gods comments concerning vindication and condemnation in his first speech to Job. And they do not understand Jobs hesitation to proceed beyond his own vindication to a condemnation of God in Jobs first speech to God. Ultimately, they fail to see Jobs adjournment and continuation of his Oath of Innocence implied by the allusion to the story of Abraham and Sodom and Gomorrah in Jobs final speech.
(e) Finally, they fail to give full expression to Gods ultimate judgment on Job. Job and only Job spoke rightly about God. In the face of such a judgment, there is no room to deny the ultimate propriety of the moral and legal question as a way of framing mans encounter with God.
Some conservative scholars opt for a moral resolution of the question of evil in the world, but their resolution is equally unsatisfying. They interpret Jobs so-called excessive words in his speeches preceding the Oath of Innocence to be morally wrong. They interpret Jobs raising of the Oath of Innocence to be a sin of presumption. While they accept Gods two judgments on Job in heaven, they feel subsequent events show Job sinning. While God is not beyond good and evil, God is under no moral obligation to reveal any reason for sending evil into the world. Thus they would have Job retract his lawsuit in its entirety and repent morally for either his so-called excessive words, his raising of the lawsuit or both. They feel the legal metaphor is inappropriate because while there is an answer to the moral question of evil in the world, no human being has a right to that answer and God is under no duty to give that answer. To the extent there is a scholarly consensus on The Book of Job and there probably is not such a consensus, this is the minority reading. Alden, R.L., The New American Commentary: Job (Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1993) p. 408. Anderson, F.I. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries: Job (Inter-Varsity Press, Downers Grove, 1974) p. 292. Fyall, R.S., Now My Eyes Have Seen You: Images of Creation and Evil in the Book of Job (Inter Varsity Press, Downers Grove, 2002) p. 180. Hartley, J.E., The New International Commentary on the Old Testament: The Book of Job (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, 1988) p. 537. Pope, M., The Anchor Bible: Job (Doubleday, New York, 1973) p. lxxx. Terrien, S., The Book of Job in The Interpreters Bible: Volume 3 (Abingdon Press, Nashville, 1954) p. 1193. Tur-Sinai, N.H., The Book of Job: A New Commentary (Kiryath Sepher Ltd., Jerusalem, 1957) p. 578.
This author feels such conservative scholars miss a satisfactory moral resolution for three reasons.
(a) First, they fail to understand the depth of Satans challenge to God. It is not merely that Job will curse God. It is that God is wrong in his judgment on Jobs goodness. God has missed sin in Jobs life. Such scholars think their moral resolution is possible, because although Job sins, Job does not actually curse God. The problem they have is that their resolution actually makes Satan right in his challenge of God. Satan claimed Job was a sinner and they feel Job sinned. Thus Satan is in the right in his lawsuit with God and God should step down from his throne and destroy mankind.
(b) Second, they fail to give proper weight to Jobs blamelessness and integrity. The raising of the Oath of Innocence is an expression of that blamelessness and integrity. It is what God expects of Job, though he cannot tell him that directly. If Job sins in raising the lawsuit against God, then the sin is blasphemy and God is seriously mistaken in his judgment of Jobs blamelessness and integrity.
(c) Finally, they fail to give full expression to Gods ultimate judgment on Job. Job and only Job spoke rightly about God. In the face of such a judgment, there is no room to attribute sin or wrongdoing to Job for either his so-called excessive words or for his Oath of Innocence. In the face of such a judgment, there is no room to deny the ultimate propriety of the moral and legal question as a way of framing mans encounter with God.
My personal interpretation charts a new middle course between these two-fold horrors: a liberal Scylla which places God beyond good and evil and a conservative Charybdis which attributes sin to Job, either for his so-called excessive words, his Oath of Innocence or both. I reject both streams of conventional scholarly interpretation, because they fail to integrate all the elements in The Book of Job. God has a moral reason for sending evil. Man has a need and a right to know that reason. But God need not provide that reason here and now. An adjournment of Gods trial to the Day of the Final Judgment and its continuation then is strongly implied. It is implied through the allusion to Abraham. It is implied through the allusion to a Redeemer who stands up in court at the Final Judgment to plead Jobs cause. It is implied through the allusion to the apocalyptic destruction of Leviathan at the Messianic banquet and the explanation of all things that follows. The legal metaphor is highly appropriate. A satisfactory moral solution is only possible because of the distinction between casual responsibility and moral blameworthiness embedded in Jobs Oath of Innocence. That distinction is central to the criminal law defense of justification or necessity. God may be causally responsible for the evil in the world, but not morally blameworthy for it. He has a necessary and sufficient reason for the evil and will ultimately give it. Job grants him that time without denying his need to know and without withdrawing his right to know. In this work, my intention is to present a single comprehensive and coherent interpretation of The Book of Job that preserves the moral integrity of both God and man."
1. I'd concur that the Book of Job is fiction. My reasons are two-fold:
(a) First, the Hebrew text begins with the word for man ish, a man there was. This is an important change in the normal Hebrew word order of verb-subject-object. Alden, R.L., The New American Commentary: Job (Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1993) p. 46. There are only two genuine parallels to this inverted syntax and they are found in the opening lines of Nathans parable (2 Samuel 12:1) and Joashs fable (2 Kings 14:9). It would appear this syntax is reserved for this type of literary fiction. Thus, The Book of Job should be read as a myth or parable about mankind. Clines, D.J.A., Job in The International Bible Commentary (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1979) p. 9.
(b) Second, the three cycles of dialogue between Job and his friends is written in poetry not prose. Real persons do not speak in poetry, certainly not for 35 chapters.
2. I'd concur that the Book of Job was written during the Babylonian Captivity. My reasons are three-fold.
(a) Parallels to 2nd millennium tales are superficial. None of those tales deal with the issue of a righteous sufferer, certainly not one putting God on trial.
(b) The prose tale also contains narrative and stylistic details that suggest great antiquity. Yet here, too, one must distinguish between what is genuinely archaic from an artistic imitation of archaic style. The most careful linguistic study has argued that the prose tale in its present form is no older than the sixth century BCE. Newsom, C..A., The Book of Job in The New Interpreters Bible: Volume 4 (Abingdon Press, Nashville, 1996) p. 325. The extensive and symmetrical repetition, highly stylized characters and studied aura of remote antiquity imitate but exaggerate features of folktale style. Alongside these features are subtle word plays and verbal ambiguities that suggest an ironic distance from the aesthethic of simple naivete. Newsom, C..A., The Book of Job in The New Interpreters Bible: Volume 4 (Abingdon Press, Nashville, 1996) p. 325.
(c) The poetic dialogues contain linguistic forms that one would expect to in archaic Hebrew, from approximately the tenth century BCE. Since these speeches appear to be written in a deliberately archaizing style and lack other poetic features one associates with very ancient Hebrew poetry, the argument for such an early date has not been generally accepted. Newsom, C..A., The Book of Job in The New Interpreters Bible: Volume 4 (Abingdon Press, Nashville, 1996) p. 325.
3. I'd concur that myth has truth value. Myth is not deceit. Deceit is the intentional communication of known error. Truthfulness is the intentional communication of a thought that accurately corresponds with reality. Myth advances certain truth claims about the divine and the human. But it advances those claims on an existential level, not a historical level. The images in the myth refer to things beyond themselves. Only the most ignorant of interpreters would confuse the image with its reference. When they do so, they commit the logical fallacy of confusing a metaphor with a truth. The truth of history is what actually happened. The truth of myth is what actually describes the human condition, either what it is or what it could be.
4. I'd concur in part that the meaning of the Book of Job emerges out the evils and suffering of the Babylonian Captivity. It is the occasion for the composition of the work, but the work itself is not reducible to a simple allegory of the Babylonian Captivity. It is pitched on a much grander scale addressing the existence of evil in the world, not merely in the life of the nation of Isreal.
Here is the meaning I draw from the Book of Job.
"Widely praised as one of the greatest books ever written, The Book of Job is a theodicy, an attempt to morally justify the ways of God to man. It is a most provocative theodicy for it is the story of the most righteous man on earth putting God on trial for crimes against humanity and refusing to acquit him.
To the question of why there is evil in the world, The Book of Job offers a non-traditional answer.
(a) God created a world of undeserved and unremitted suffering in order the make the highest form of human love possible: a completely selfless love of man for God. Selfishness corrupts selfless love. If human beings know with certainty that God rewards those who love him, then they will serve God for what they can get from him. Undeserved evil is morally necessary in order to bring the existence of God into doubt and to sever any connection between righteousness and reward.
(b) God cannot reveal this explanation for evil in this life without defeating his own purpose in the creation of the world and the creation of man.
(c) God expects man to challenge him for the creation of such a world. Prima facie, it is an act of injustice to impose evil for reasons other than punishment or character development. The undeserved evil God sends is more punishment than any man deserves. And the undeserved evil God sends destroys character more often than not. Human beings have a moral duty to challenge God for such evil. They have a natural need to know and a natural right to receive the explanation for evil in world. God expects human beings to stand up to him. They sin if they either prematurely condemn or prematurely acquit God for sending evil into the world. They must wait for the answer that only God can give.
(d) God will reveal that answer on the Day of the Final Judgment. At that time, God will resurrect all human beings to give them that answer. God will grant all human beings a special grace to understand the necessity and sufficiency of undeserved evil. God is causally responsible for the evil in the world, but not morally blameworthy for it. At that time, all will know and understand Gods purpose in the creation of a world of undeserved and unremitted suffering. And God will then judge all human beings on the selflessness of their love for God.
This Hegelian theodicy in The Book of Job has two real advantages over the traditional Augustinian and Irenean theodices which draw heavily on The Book of Genesis and The Epistles of Paul.
(a) It offers an explanation for existence of undeserved evil in the world. Augustinian theodicies strain and break in their attempt to attribute all the natural and moral evils of the world to the act of a single man. Irenean theodicies strain and break in the face of evil that is so great it destroys character more often than not.
(b) And it offers an explanation for Gods general practice of non-intervention in the world to prevent evil. Augustinian and Irenean theodices correctly posit the importance of freewill, but serious stumple over the fact that the existence of freewill is consistent with a knowledge of God and Gods intervention in the world. Free-will itself does not require Gods non-intervention. However, a particular form of free-will, a completely selfless love of man for God, probably does require Gods non-intervention.
The Book of Job presents a new and engaging perspective based entirely on the existence of undeserved evil and a moral requirement that God not intervene to disclose the reason for evil in this world.
The Book of Job presents that philosophical answer in poetry and prose through the vehicle of drama. As drama, The Book of Job is understandably a legal drama. The moral issues of theodicy are easily translated into a legal framework of duties and rights. In fact, The Book of Job consists of a number of overlapping and interlocking trials. God puts Job on trial. Satan puts God on trial. God puts Job on trial a second time. Jobs friends put Job on trial. Job puts his friends on trial. Everything builds to the climactic moment when Job puts God himself on trial and refuses to acquit him.
Many scholars find the legal metaphor of an Oath of Innocence inappropriate, though for different reasons.
Some liberal scholars opt for an aesthetic, not a moral, resolution of the question of evil in the world. They find a sublime beauty in Gods review of the animal and physical worlds, Behemoth and Leviathan. And it is certainly there. But that is all they find. They find no suggestions of a moral purpose in Gods creation and control of evil. Indeed, they feel none could be forthcoming. God is beyond good and evil so no moral resolution is possible. Since no moral resolution is possible, a legal metaphor such as a lawsuit dramatizing the moral question is inappropriate. They interpret Job to understand that position. And they interpret him to retract the lawsuit in its entirety. They interpret the lawsuit metaphor to be inappropriate because there are no answers to the moral question of evil in the world. To the extent there is a scholarly consensus on The Book of Job and there probably is not such a consensus, this is the majority reading. Clines, D.J.A., Job in The International Bible Commentary (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1979) p. 1029, 1044. Dick, M.B., Job 31: A Form-Critical Study (UMI Dissertations, Ann Arbor, 1977) p.180, 183. Frye, N., The Great Code: The Bible and Literature (Academic Press, Toronto, 1982) pp. 196-198. Gordis, R., The Book of God and Man: A Study of Job (The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1965) p. 304. Gordis, R., The Book of Job: Commentary, New Translation and Special Studies (The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, New York, 1978) p. xxx-xxx1. Habel, N.C., The Old Testament Library: The Book of Job (Westminister Press, Philadelphia, 1985) p.66, 579. Habel, N.C., The Cambridge Bible Commentary on the New English Bible: The Book of Job (Cambridge University Press, London, 1975) p. 228. Scholnick, S.H., Lawsuit Drama in the Book of Job (UMI Dissertations, Ann Arbor, 1975) p. 303-305. Westermann, C., The Structure of the Book of Job: A Form-Critical Analysis, Trans. C.A.Meunchow (Fortress Press, Philadelphia, 1977) 126-127.
This author feels such liberal scholars miss a moral resolution for five reasons.
(a) First, they fail to give adequate weight to Satans first speech in heaven setting out the moral solution. Selfless love is the reason God chooses to create a world of undeserved and unremitted suffering for Job and by implication, for us. This sets the entire plot in motion. Their resolution however leaves this important point hanging such that the beginning and ending are completely disjointed.
(b) Second, they misinterpret Jobs struggle with God to be a request for a restoration of his former position, rather than a request to know the reason behind evil in the world. As such, they see the moral issue Job raises to be nothing more than a retributive version of justice whereby righteousness is rewarded. This is not the moral right Job raises in his Oath of Innocence. The moral right is the right to know the reason behind evil in the world.
(c) Third, they fail to appreciate the moral restrictions under which God has to operate. God cannot reveal any moral answers directly without defeating his very purpose in the creation and control of evil. As a result, they miss the suggestions of moral purpose in Gods two speeches and the inferences God would have Job draw.
(d) Fourth, they fail to fully appreciate the legal dynamics of the enforcement mechanism of Jobs Oath of Innocence. In particular, they fail to appreciate the distinction between causal responsibility and moral blameworthiness. Thus, they do not understand Gods comments concerning vindication and condemnation in his first speech to Job. And they do not understand Jobs hesitation to proceed beyond his own vindication to a condemnation of God in Jobs first speech to God. Ultimately, they fail to see Jobs adjournment and continuation of his Oath of Innocence implied by the allusion to the story of Abraham and Sodom and Gomorrah in Jobs final speech.
(e) Finally, they fail to give full expression to Gods ultimate judgment on Job. Job and only Job spoke rightly about God. In the face of such a judgment, there is no room to deny the ultimate propriety of the moral and legal question as a way of framing mans encounter with God.
Some conservative scholars opt for a moral resolution of the question of evil in the world, but their resolution is equally unsatisfying. They interpret Jobs so-called excessive words in his speeches preceding the Oath of Innocence to be morally wrong. They interpret Jobs raising of the Oath of Innocence to be a sin of presumption. While they accept Gods two judgments on Job in heaven, they feel subsequent events show Job sinning. While God is not beyond good and evil, God is under no moral obligation to reveal any reason for sending evil into the world. Thus they would have Job retract his lawsuit in its entirety and repent morally for either his so-called excessive words, his raising of the lawsuit or both. They feel the legal metaphor is inappropriate because while there is an answer to the moral question of evil in the world, no human being has a right to that answer and God is under no duty to give that answer. To the extent there is a scholarly consensus on The Book of Job and there probably is not such a consensus, this is the minority reading. Alden, R.L., The New American Commentary: Job (Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1993) p. 408. Anderson, F.I. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries: Job (Inter-Varsity Press, Downers Grove, 1974) p. 292. Fyall, R.S., Now My Eyes Have Seen You: Images of Creation and Evil in the Book of Job (Inter Varsity Press, Downers Grove, 2002) p. 180. Hartley, J.E., The New International Commentary on the Old Testament: The Book of Job (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, 1988) p. 537. Pope, M., The Anchor Bible: Job (Doubleday, New York, 1973) p. lxxx. Terrien, S., The Book of Job in The Interpreters Bible: Volume 3 (Abingdon Press, Nashville, 1954) p. 1193. Tur-Sinai, N.H., The Book of Job: A New Commentary (Kiryath Sepher Ltd., Jerusalem, 1957) p. 578.
This author feels such conservative scholars miss a satisfactory moral resolution for three reasons.
(a) First, they fail to understand the depth of Satans challenge to God. It is not merely that Job will curse God. It is that God is wrong in his judgment on Jobs goodness. God has missed sin in Jobs life. Such scholars think their moral resolution is possible, because although Job sins, Job does not actually curse God. The problem they have is that their resolution actually makes Satan right in his challenge of God. Satan claimed Job was a sinner and they feel Job sinned. Thus Satan is in the right in his lawsuit with God and God should step down from his throne and destroy mankind.
(b) Second, they fail to give proper weight to Jobs blamelessness and integrity. The raising of the Oath of Innocence is an expression of that blamelessness and integrity. It is what God expects of Job, though he cannot tell him that directly. If Job sins in raising the lawsuit against God, then the sin is blasphemy and God is seriously mistaken in his judgment of Jobs blamelessness and integrity.
(c) Finally, they fail to give full expression to Gods ultimate judgment on Job. Job and only Job spoke rightly about God. In the face of such a judgment, there is no room to attribute sin or wrongdoing to Job for either his so-called excessive words or for his Oath of Innocence. In the face of such a judgment, there is no room to deny the ultimate propriety of the moral and legal question as a way of framing mans encounter with God.
My personal interpretation charts a new middle course between these two-fold horrors: a liberal Scylla which places God beyond good and evil and a conservative Charybdis which attributes sin to Job, either for his so-called excessive words, his Oath of Innocence or both. I reject both streams of conventional scholarly interpretation, because they fail to integrate all the elements in The Book of Job. God has a moral reason for sending evil. Man has a need and a right to know that reason. But God need not provide that reason here and now. An adjournment of Gods trial to the Day of the Final Judgment and its continuation then is strongly implied. It is implied through the allusion to Abraham. It is implied through the allusion to a Redeemer who stands up in court at the Final Judgment to plead Jobs cause. It is implied through the allusion to the apocalyptic destruction of Leviathan at the Messianic banquet and the explanation of all things that follows. The legal metaphor is highly appropriate. A satisfactory moral solution is only possible because of the distinction between casual responsibility and moral blameworthiness embedded in Jobs Oath of Innocence. That distinction is central to the criminal law defense of justification or necessity. God may be causally responsible for the evil in the world, but not morally blameworthy for it. He has a necessary and sufficient reason for the evil and will ultimately give it. Job grants him that time without denying his need to know and without withdrawing his right to know. In this work, my intention is to present a single comprehensive and coherent interpretation of The Book of Job that preserves the moral integrity of both God and man."
You all have overlooked the fact that the Book of Job could merely be a narration told in a poetic style in an effort to better reach the audience. Keep in mind that many stories were told in this way back then. I know of Paul Revere only because I had to memorize a stupid poem in fifth grade. "One if by land, two if by sea; and I on the opposite shore will be." I'm sure Paul Revere didn't make sure his words always rhymed, but the story was (mostly) accurate. It's just another literary form. Think outside the box people. Job was real. He really existed, but his story is told differently.
Robert Sutherland
New Member
Dan:
Excellent point on Paul Revere.
My interpretation of the overall message of the book does not change whether the literary form is myth or history.
Excellent point on Paul Revere.
My interpretation of the overall message of the book does not change whether the literary form is myth or history.
Ceridwen018
Well-Known Member
Alright then, I personally think that we see a kind of sadistic side of god in the book of Job...he tortures this righteous man to prove a bet to satan.
Robert Sutherland
New Member
Ceridwen018:
I think "sadism" is an inappropriate description of God in the first two chapters.
(a) God's intention is clearly that Job pass not fail the test. In terms of ancient lawsuits, Job is God's champion.
(b) The test, while brutal, is not without a purpose. It is not the infliction of pain and suffering for no reason at all.
I think "sadism" is an inappropriate description of God in the first two chapters.
(a) God's intention is clearly that Job pass not fail the test. In terms of ancient lawsuits, Job is God's champion.
(b) The test, while brutal, is not without a purpose. It is not the infliction of pain and suffering for no reason at all.
Ceridwen018
Well-Known Member
Robert,
Of course, god would not have chosen someone who he knew would fail--then he would have lost the 'bet'.
So what is the purpose then?
Of course, god would not have chosen someone who he knew would fail--then he would have lost the 'bet'.
So what is the purpose then?
Robert Sutherland
New Member
Ceridwen018:
To demonstrate to all who have eyes to see and ears to hear that human beings can have a completely selfless love by man for God consistent with their moral integrity. It is important that human beings challenge God but not prematurely condemn God.
To demonstrate to all who have eyes to see and ears to hear that human beings can have a completely selfless love by man for God consistent with their moral integrity. It is important that human beings challenge God but not prematurely condemn God.
The difference between Job and someone who thinks it sadistic to expose Job to those trials is that Job is not pissed at God just because he can't figure his own life out. God lets nothing happen to any man that is not for his own benefit. It all depends on our faith and our trust in God's omniscience. Like George Michael says: You gotta have faith-a-faith-a-faith...babay.
Robert Sutherland
New Member
dan:
1. You write: "Job is not pissed at God..."
A lot depends on how you define "pissed".
(a) Job does say "It is all one; therefore I say he destroyes both the blameless and the wicked." (Job 9:22-23)
(b) Job describes God as the Lord of the Underworld for creating this Hell on earth. The imagery and Ugaritic language is on the model of Canaanite Resheph. (Job 6:4; 16:9-17)
2. You write: "God lets nothing happen to any man that is not for his own benefit."
If I am right that this is a Hegelian theodicy, not an Irenean theodicy, then there is no one to one correspondence between burdens and benefits.
I doubt the descriptions of Job as the best there is or could be allow for any meaningful improvement in his character.
And there remains the deeply troubling moral question as to whether or not it is legitimate to use another human for one's benefit. If this is an Irenean theodicy, then a lot of people are killed for Job's benefit. It certainly wasn't for their own benefit.
1. You write: "Job is not pissed at God..."
A lot depends on how you define "pissed".
(a) Job does say "It is all one; therefore I say he destroyes both the blameless and the wicked." (Job 9:22-23)
(b) Job describes God as the Lord of the Underworld for creating this Hell on earth. The imagery and Ugaritic language is on the model of Canaanite Resheph. (Job 6:4; 16:9-17)
2. You write: "God lets nothing happen to any man that is not for his own benefit."
If I am right that this is a Hegelian theodicy, not an Irenean theodicy, then there is no one to one correspondence between burdens and benefits.
I doubt the descriptions of Job as the best there is or could be allow for any meaningful improvement in his character.
And there remains the deeply troubling moral question as to whether or not it is legitimate to use another human for one's benefit. If this is an Irenean theodicy, then a lot of people are killed for Job's benefit. It certainly wasn't for their own benefit.
But God's providence puts the right people in the right situations. If one person deserves to overcome another, that other deserves to be overcome. God makes everything fit together perfectly; and there is a one to one correspondence, but we don't see all the benefits or all the consequences in this life.
harold e. rice
Member
Job was the first Old Testament book written, not Genesis.
Ceridwen018
Well-Known Member
"But God's providence puts the right people in the right situations. If one person deserves to overcome another, that other deserves to be overcome. God makes everything fit together perfectly; and there is a one to one correspondence, but we don't see all the benefits or all the consequences in this life."
You Hope.
If god fits everything together so perfectly, then why do things suck so much sometimes? If he has to sacrifice out happiness to acheive balance, that doesn't sound very perfect to me.
You Hope.
If god fits everything together so perfectly, then why do things suck so much sometimes? If he has to sacrifice out happiness to acheive balance, that doesn't sound very perfect to me.
Ardhanariswar
I'm back!
in some cases, perfection is balance, ceridwen.
things suck because they do. the reason is, we as humans made it that way.
God only tests us to make us a better person, stronger emotionally, physically, and spiritually.
things suck because they do. the reason is, we as humans made it that way.
God only tests us to make us a better person, stronger emotionally, physically, and spiritually.
Robert Sutherland
New Member
Gerani1248:
I think the Book of Job portrays the evils of this world as having the purpose of "showing" we are the persons we could be and should be not "making" us the persons we could be and should be. A subtle but important difference.
I think the Book of Job portrays the evils of this world as having the purpose of "showing" we are the persons we could be and should be not "making" us the persons we could be and should be. A subtle but important difference.