The Story of Job- God's Bet With the Devil

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think 1 and 2 would describe my belief except for the concept of God tormenting people. The torment in this account came from the devil. And before you can say it, no, God did not create the devil to be evil, the devil did that on his own.

But in the story, God does explicitly give the Devil free reign to do evil, with only one restriction. God was previously protecting Job and his family, and deliberately stopped protecting him in order to allow the Devil to perpetrate evil on these people.

You can't say that God didn't know that this was going to happen - the story describes God and the Devil discussing what the Devil wants to do.

You can't say that it's a matter of the requirements of "free will", because God was apparently content to protect Job at the beginning of the story.

How do you reconcile this with the system that you've laid out?

 

[Just_me_Mike]

My POV is that God is in control no matter what.
So it is demonstrated in that man may suffer temporarily, but for those that believe, feel, and can comprehend the blissful infinite that awaits after this short life, God showed how it really didn't matter to Job.
It seems to me Job understood that either way, it is God's world/will so what can he really do? He was thankful and bitter at the same time. Bitter he was born, but thankful that God is God.

To me it is a testimony that is mirrored in the Psalms, when we read about walking in the valley of the shadow of death, and fearing nothing.

 

[james2ko]

Let's remember God did not create a devil. He created an "angel of light" or morning star [Lucifer] (Eze 28:13) who's name was changed to satan [adversary] after his rebellion. God is using satan as an instrument to fulfill His sovereign will on this planet until Christ's return.

The story of Job is a classic tale on how bad things can happen to good people. Job's faith was certainly being tested but more importantly, God's intention was to bring to light Job's major character flaw. It's interesting to note how God points out Job to satan first (Job1:8) God obviously had it all planned and knew Job would pass the test. Throughout the book, Job's friends accused him of wrongdoing, but Job refused to accept the fact he did anything wrong. And hence the flaw--Self Righteousness.

 

[Smoke]

Should you love God because:

1) He's a good guy who knows what's best for you even though he might torment the hell out of you?
2) He controls your destiny so comply or else?
3) It's just a story designed to emphasis that faith will be rewarded?

I vote for No.3.

I think God comes across as a real jerk in this story. But I doubt that "God is a jerk" was the intended message.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's interesting to note how God points out Job to satan first (Job1:8) God obviously had it all planned and knew Job would pass the test.

You make God sound horribly immoral.

Let me take you to the herding ground
Where all good men are trampled down
Just to settle a bet that could not be won
Between a prideful father and his son

- "Sorrow", Bad Religion

 

[Zardoz]

It's worth remembering that the bulk of the Bible, the Hebrew Scriptures or Tanakh (which Christians refer to as the Old Testament) is actually Jewish sacred text. It was written by Jews, for Jews, in the Jewish language, hundreds of years before Jesus, much less Paul....

Well said, brother.

Job is good example of the problems that can happen when others appropriate our texts and don't know the whole picture. Job is not so much about a 'test of faith' as people think. Job is not just some random 'good guy' that is played around with as an experiment or bet. There is history to Job that we do not see in the book of his name, and there is crucial events occurring during this time frame that again, we do not see in this book. Only by knowing the whole picture does the reason for G-d's actions and the reason HaSatan is there becomes clear.

My opinion is here, in my DIR. It may shed some light...

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/messianic-judaism-dir/91370-story-job.html

...or not. It's not complete and with Shabbat almost here I'm sure this thread will veer off into some wild tangent before I can get back.

 

[james2ko]

You make God sound horribly immoral.

Let me take you to the herding ground
Where all good men are trampled down
Just to settle a bet that could not be won
Between a prideful father and his son

- "Sorrow", Bad Religion

So it may seem, but the perceived "immorality" of God trumps the amorality of men (Isa 55:8-9). God allowed satan to test Job and take his family with full knowledge that they will live again (1 Cor 15:22)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So it may seem, but the perceived "immorality" of God trumps the amorality of men (Isa 55:8-9).

Meaning what, exactly?

And the passage you cited, in the context you've used it, is a cop-out.

God allowed satan to test Job and take his family with full knowledge that they will live again (1 Cor 15:22)

So... kidnapping's acceptable as long as the victims wind up unharmed in the end?

 

[james2ko]

Meaning what, exactly?

According to His sovereign and perfect will, the One who created all life, most certainly, has the right to take it away. God alone determines what is right and wrong not weak and feeble man. Job himself understood and acknowledged these concepts (Job 1:21; 2:10; 42:1-6).

So... kidnapping's acceptable as long as the victims wind up unharmed in the end?

It's obvious you have not read the book. This is a biblical debate. Please have at least some knowledge of the material before posting.

And the passage you cited, in the context you've used it, is a cop-out.

Of course it is

 

[gnostic]

Let's remember God did not create a devil. He created an "angel of light" or morning star [Lucifer] (Eze 28:13) who's name was changed to satan [adversary] after his rebellion.

I don't think so.

Lucifer was never name used until Jerome's translation of the scriptures into Latin. The Hebrews or Jews never called Satan "Lucifer". That's what the Christians grafted on to the Satan. Satan was also not the "Devil", to the Jews, he was simply an angel of God, not the personification of evil that the Christians portrayed to Satan to be.

In the Book of Job, it is quite clear that Satan was doing God's bidding, hence a servant of God, not God's opponent. And if Satan is evil, as you think he is, then so is God. Although, Satan was the one who killed Job's children, God is the ultimate author of Satan's actions.

 

[james2ko]

I don't think so.

Lucifer was never name used until Jerome's translation of the scriptures into Latin. The Hebrews or Jews never called Satan "Lucifer". That's what the Christians grafted on to the Satan. Satan was also not the "Devil", to the Jews, he was simply an angel of God, not the personification of evil that the Christians portrayed to Satan to be.

I did mention angel of light or morning star in my post, no? I believe I also have Lucifer's name in brackets.

Originally Posted by james2ko
Let's remember God did not create a devil. He created an "angel of light" or morning star [Lucifer] (Eze 28:13) who's name was changed to satan [adversary] after his rebellion.

In the Book of Job, it is quite clear that Satan was doing God's bidding, hence a servant of God, not God's opponent.

According to Strong's Concordance, satan (H7854) appears 27 times in the Hebrew scriptures. It is used interchangeably with the words "adversary and withstand". Satan's relationship with God is unique in that he is God's adversary yet still under God's sovereign control.

And if Satan is evil, as you think he is, then so is God. Although, Satan was the one who killed Job's children, God is the ultimate author of Satan's actions.

9-10 penguin and I discussed this. Read the thread beginning from post #25.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

According to His sovereign and perfect will, the One who created all life, most certainly, has the right to take it away. God alone determines what is right and wrong not weak and feeble man. Job himself understood and acknowledged these concepts (Job 1:21; 2:10; 42:1-6).

Might makes right. Gotcha.

It's obvious you have not read the book. This is a biblical debate. Please have at least some knowledge of the material before posting.

No, I have read the book.

I find that switching the setting of the scenario to something that's morally equivalent is a good way of seeing whether special pleading is being used. Apparently, it is.

Here's what you said to excuse God's actions in this story:

God allowed satan to test Job and take his family with full knowledge that they will live again (1 Cor 15:22)

The meaning I took from this is that the fact that his family ended up okay justifies the original offensive action. If this is true as a general principle, then it excuses other things as well, like the kidnapper I mentioned. If you're not arguing that it's true generally, then you have more legwork to do to support your position.

Or did you mean something else? If so, what?

Of course it is

Yes, it is:

8"For My thoughts are not (A)your thoughts,
Nor are (B)your ways My ways," declares the LORD.
9"For (C)as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways
And My thoughts than your thoughts.

It's simply the old "God works in mysterious ways" line... IOW, a cop-out. It's not an actual argument; it's a placeholder for an argument that's just meant to shut people up.

 

[james2ko]

No, I have read the book.

If you did, you would have known that his children were killed not kidnapped.

It's simply the old "God works in mysterious ways" line... IOW, a cop-out. It's not an actual argument; it's a placeholder for an argument that's just meant to shut people up.

Call it what you please. There is no sense in wasting my time arguing the matter any further. Because the carnal fleshly mind cannot, will not understand the things of God (Rom 8:5-7) Your chance will come.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you did, you would have known that his children were killed not kidnapped.

Yes, I know that. I wasn't saying that the story describes a kidnapping. I'm doing what I talked about in the previous thread: creating a morally equivalent scenario to see if the general principle you appeal to actually works.

You justified the fact that God knowingly allowed Job's family to be killed by telling us that they'd end up living again in Heaven... some sort of "no harm, no foul" excuse.

This is morally equivalent to a human being kidnapping a family and putting them through a generally unpleasant experience, provided they came through it unscathed. Again: no harm, no foul, right?

Call it what you please. There is no sense in wasting my time arguing the matter any further. Because the carnal fleshly mind cannot, will not understand the things of God (Rom 8:5-7) Your chance will come.

Our "carnal fleshly minds" are all we have to reason with. If they can't be trusted, then we're safe in discarding your arguments as well.

 

[james2ko]

Yes, I know that. I wasn't saying that the story describes a kidnapping. I'm doing what I talked about in the previous thread: creating a morally equivalent scenario to see if the general principle you appeal to actually works.

Yeah, ok

You justified the fact that God knowingly allowed Job's family to be killed by telling us that they'd end up living again in Heaven... some sort of "no harm, no foul" excuse.

Heaven? Who said anything about living again in heaven? Your false assumption about my beliefs is indicative of your hasty generalization about our God.

Our "carnal fleshly minds" are all we have to reason with. If they can't be trusted, then we're safe in discarding your arguments as well.

Really? Prove it from scripture.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Heaven? Who said anything about living again in heaven? Your false assumption about my beliefs is indicative of your hasty generalization about our God.

Okay... if you meant something else, tell us what it is.

Really? Prove it from scripture.

Why on Earth would I do that?

And since we're apparently playing the "throw arbitrary restrictions at each other" game, type your response while standing on your head.

 

[james2ko]

Why on Earth would I do that?

because this is a scriptural debate thread....

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

because this is a scriptural debate thread....

Yes, and we're debating scripture: the Book of Job. This doesn't mean that everything outside the Bible is irrelevant.

 

[james2ko]

Yes, and we're debating scripture: the Book of Job. This doesn't mean that everything outside the Bible is irrelevant.

But it does mean that scripture should be used to support your opinions. All I've read from you is smooth sounding, intellectual conjecture.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But it does mean that scripture should be used to support your opinions. All I've read from you is smooth sounding, intellectual conjecture.

If you'd like, I could take your tactic of sprinkling my posts with cherry-picked, out-of-context Bible verses, but I don't really see how it would be helpful.