Putting God on Trial: The Biblical Book of Job

On the subject of suggestions of a defense by God in his second speech, I would note:

1. the name "Leviathan" alludes to Isaiah's reinterpretion of this Canaanite and Babylonian myth,

2. that Isaian apocalypse speaks of a final destruction of that evil and an explanation for that evil,

3. that Isaian background gives Job reason to believe a full answer will be forthcoming, as it can be read as setting out the existence of an answer but no details (hence no real defense offered). For a fuller explanation, I would refer you to http://www.bookofjob.org and the brown tab on the left called "Putting God on Trial" which details those allusions.
 
On the subject of God's approval of what Job said, I would note the following.

Now God passes judgment on Job and his three friends. Elihu has fled the scene,http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=12843#_edn1 hoping to escape God’s judgment.[ii] Ironically, Elihu only escapes the opportunity for forgiveness.


“After the LORD had spoken these words to Job, the LORD said to Eliphaz the Temanite: "My wrath is kindled against you and against your two friends; for you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has. Now therefore take seven bulls and seven rams, and go to my servant Job, and offer up for yourselves a burnt offering; and my servant Job shall pray for you, for I will accept his prayer not to deal with you according to your folly; for you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has done." (Job 42:7-8 Italics added for emphasis.)

Job is declared by God to be the only one who has spoken “rightly” about God. The Hebrew word behind “right” is “kuwn”. “Kuwn” means “to establish as right or true”.[iii] “The root meaning is to bring something into being with the consequence that its existence is a certainty.” [iv] It does not carry with it any nuance of “sincerity” such that God might be understood to be excusing Job for speaking “sincerely”, but “incorrectly”. God is saying Job spoke “correctly”.[v] Through his Oath of Innocence, Job has established with certainty two points. First, God is the author of evil in the world and that evil is undeserved. Second, man has a right and need to know what why God has sent evil into the world. That is the judgment of God.[vi]

Job’s three friends are declared by God to have spoken “folly”. The Hebrew word behind “folly” is “nebalah”. “Nebalah” means “a senseless, impious, disgraceful disregard for moral and spiritual claims”[vii] The moral and spiritual claim which they have senselessly and disgracefully dismissed is Job’s claim, his demand that God give an answer to the question of why there is evil in the world. That is the judgment of God.

God’s condemnation of Job’s three friends has an impact reminiscent of the prophet Nathan’s condemnation of King David. King David had an affair with Bathsheba, got her pregnant and had her husband murdered to cover up the sin. (2 Samuel 12:1-15) The prophet Nathan found out about of it, composed a parable about it and confronted King David with it. The gist of the parable was this. A poor man had nothing, but a little lamb whom he loved with all his heart. A rich man had everything. He took the lamb from the poor man, killed it and served it as a meal to a stranger. (2 Samuel 12:1-4) The poor man was Bathsheba’s husband. The rich man was King David. Now, literature has a way of deeply engaging its reader. King David was so moved by the story that he condemned the rich man in it, saying “as the Lord lives, the man who has done this deserves to die…because he had no pity.” (2 Samuel 12:5-6) Nathan’s response: “You are the man.” (2 Samuel 12:7)

Job’s three friends, and perhaps the inattentive reader, were all looking for Job to be condemned, either for his extreme words or for his Oath of Innocence or both. The author further tempted them to that premature judgment with Job’s use of the ambiguous word “repent”. A condemnation issues, but it is God’s condemnation of Job’s three friends and the inattentive listener. “You are that man.” “You are the one deserving condemnation.” “You deserve to die because you had no pity on Job.” “You have senselessly and disgracefully dismissed the important moral question Job rightly raised.” That is the judgment of God.

So Job prays for his friends.

“So Eliphaz the Temanite and Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar the Naamathite went and did what the LORD had told them; and the LORD accepted Job's prayer. And the LORD restored the fortunes of Job when he had prayed for his friends; and the LORD gave Job twice as much as he had before. Then there came to him all his brothers and sisters and all who had known him before, and they ate bread with him in his house; they showed him sympathy and comforted him for all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him…” (Job 42:9-11 Italics added for emphasis.)

Once again, the author reaffirms that fact that it is God and no other that has brought “evil” into the world. The Hebrew word for “evil” here is “ra-a”, the same word used to describe Job’s turning from evil (Job 1:1,8) and Job’s comment “shall we not receive good at the hand of God, and not receive the bad”. (Job 2:10) The word for evil carries “a dual meaning of being wrong in regard to God’s original and ongoing intention and detrimental in terms of its effects on man.”[viii] It is the author’s profound commentary on God’s two contradictory intentions in the creation of the world and the creation of evil. The only harmonization will come on the day of the Final Judgment when God answers Job a third time.

The appropriate response to those who suffer is sympathy and comfort.

http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=12843#_ednref1{i} If Elihu was present, then God may just have ignored him. The reason would not lie in the truth of what Elihu had to say, for Elihu clearly spoke incorrectly of God. The reason would lie in his age. Elihu may have been below the age of moral accountability. In Hebrew law, accountability increases with age. Age 20 is an important turning point. Those below age 20 were not required to pay the poll tax which was understood as a ransom for their lives. (Exodus 30:14) Those below age 20 were not subject to certain levies for the building of the Temple. (Exodus 38:26) Those below age 20 were not recorded on the natural census. (Numbers 1:18) Those below age 20 were not subject to military service. (Numbers 26:2) Those below age 20 were exempted from God’s judgment that those who had rebelled in the wilderness could not enter the promised land. (Numbers 32:11) If Elihu were merely an overly enthusiastic teenager, then God may have spared him condemnation on a legal technicality; he was below the age of moral accountability.





[ii] My wife thinks God feeds Elihu to Leviathan as he is talking to Job. Some of Elihu’s comments read like a self-imprecation: “I’ll be damned if God appears to answer you.” In light of the Egyptian background to an Oath of Innocence, damnation is feeding the sinner to the chaos monster Ammit.





[iii] Harris, R.L., Archer, G.L. and Waltke, B.K, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament: Volume 1 (The Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, 1980) pp. 433-434. Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament: Volume 2, Edit. E. Jenni and C. Westermann; Trans.M.E. Biddle (Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, 1997) pp. 602-606.; New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis: Volume 2, Edit. W.A. Van Gemeren (Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, 1997) pp. 615-617.; Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament: Volume 7, Edit. G.J.Botterweck, H.Ringgren; Trans. J.T.Willis (Wm.B.Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, 1974) pp. 89-101.

[iv] Harris, R.L., Archer, G.L. and Waltke, B.K, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament: Volume 1 (The Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, 1980) pp. 433.

[v] Pope, M., The Anchor Bible: Job (Doubleday, New York, 1973) p. 350.

[vi] Any attempt to limit the scope of God’s words here to Job’s declaration of innocence alone is fundamentally flawed. In his Oath of Innocence, Job asserted both his innocence and God’s causal responsibility for evil. A declaration of innocence is a statement about Job. A declaration of causal responsibility by God is a statement about God. Since God says the truth of Job’s statements and the error of friends’ statements lays in their comments on God, God’s comments here make no sense unless he is referring to Job’s attribution of evil to God and his friends’ denials of that attribution.

[vii] Harris, R.L., Archer, G.L. and Waltke, B.K, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament: Volume 2 (The Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, 1980) pp. 547.;Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament: Volume 2, Edit. E. Jenni and C. Westermann; Trans.M.E. Biddle (Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, 1997) pp. 710-714.; New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis: Volume 3, Edit. W.A. Van Gemeren (Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, 1997) pp. 11-14.; Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament: Volume 9, Edit. G.J.Botterweck, H.Ringgren; Trans. J.T.Willis (Wm.B.Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, 1974) pp. 157-172.

[viii] Harris, R.L., Archer, G.L. and Waltke, B.K, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament: Volume 2 (The Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, 1980) p. 854-856.

 
Robert Sutherland said:
On the subject of God's approval of what Job said, I would note the following.
Click to expand...
Robert:

You make a very compelling case that Job harbors an accusation against God for creating evil at the end of the story. I agree that it isn't unreasonable to interpret the story as a sort of cynical divine comedy. I don't find much spiritual insight in that interpretation because I am not bothered by "the problem of suffering." In fact, I don't have any experience or knowledge of an external anthropomorphized "God" as imagined in literal myth so I find little spiritual truth in Job when interepreted the way you suggest.

I do not dispute that the author could have intended that it be interpreted that way or that it is reasonable to interpret the way you do. That interpretation is just not enlightening to me.
 
Robert:

You might have mentioned that you wrote an entire book on this subject.;)

www.bookofjob.org

That would explain how you put all of this together so quickly (you had already written it). I'm not sure why you solicited thoughts on the subject when you intended to drop your book on anyone who bit. Oh well.

I have read excerpts from your book and obviously haven't had the time to delve into the issue as much as you have. However, at the outset I don't agree with how much you read into the phrase "dust and ashes", particularly given its use in Job 30:19. I think that's an interesting story - man challenges God to justify evil on the "day of judgment." I'm just not sure I see that story in Job.

Moreover, that resolution - God will explain the evil at a later date - simply rings hollow to me. That's an answer that reminds of the feeling I had upon completing Camus' "The Myth of Sisyphus." I know a much more meaningful resolution to good/evil and god/human.
 
Robert:

I do have one question. What if - on the day of judgment - God comes to offer his defense at his trial and Job remains unconvinced and convicts God as a monster?

For example: what if God's explanation is that he allowed evil and suffering solely for his own entertainment?
 
"Have you not considered my servant Job?"

The answer is right there.

Combine that with "I knew you before you were stitched together in the womb".

He knows what we can do. And - oh my, Has He FAITH in US or what?!

I love this forum. I get more out of this with you all then I would out of a thousand sermons at church.

Have a blessed day.

v/r

Q
 
Robert Sutherland said:
Does Job sin in the Book of Job?
Click to expand...
Not that I can recall. But that was the whole point. Satan's argument was that if God would allow Job to suffer, Job would sin.

The Book is really about Job's trail, and the other main characters are an all powerful controller (God) and a persecutor (Satan). Yes it is ture that the other two main characters are playing with Jobs life. However if you read Ecleasesactis (that book next to Proverbs) you will get the impression that God did not promise even the faithfull a good time only. It states we will have both good and bad. And yes, if you believe God is... then God is the reason for both.

The new testiment even presents a God that will try us by fire. Symbolic for pain and suffering.

The Book of Job gives me the impression that Job had it good for "too long".

The Christian God is like Zen : nomatter what "bad things happen" -- maybe it is the .. that bring you to enlightenment or total unenlightenment .. we will not know until you go through it. And that you will.
 
The point of this thread is the very basic question for any religious person of (in Milton's words) "justifying the ways of God to man." The occasion is the Book of Job, one of the great works not only in the Bible, but in world literature. Job may have provided more food for thought than any other work in Jewish scriptures, at least.

The original poster here is Robert Sutherland, and his thesis is bluntly that Job is putting God on trial as much as the other way around. And that Job is right to insist on his innocence.

"Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him.
But I will maintain my own ways before Him."
 
In line with the thesis of this thread, it's interesting that in one parable, Jesus compares God with an unjust judge.
 
Jeannot said:
In line with the thesis of this thread, it's interesting that in one parable, Jesus compares God with an unjust judge.
Click to expand...

Do you mean Luke 18? That's an interesting comparison. I read the parable of the widow and the unjust judge along these lines: "even an unjust judge who cares not about people will respond to pleas for justice if asked enough." Initially, my thought was to read into the parable the idea along the lines of "and God would at least do as much as an unjust judge." But if you think about it, the point of the parable is to encourage the disciples to continue praying ceaselessly. Of course, that would only be necessary if in fact God was just like the unjust judge. For it is implied that a just judge would care about people and would not need to be repeatedly begged for justice.

In short, the parable in Luke 18 actually does seem to liken God to the unjust judge who doesn't care about the pleas of people unless they irritate him by repeated entreaties. I doubt the author intended that meaning, but nevertheless, for the point of the parable as stated in Luke 18:1 to make sense, that is how it must logically be read.
 
Abogado del Diablo said:
In short, the parable in Luke 18 actually does seem to liken God to the unjust judge who doesn't care about the pleas of people unless they irritate him by repeated entreaties. I doubt the author intended that meaning, but nevertheless, for the point of the parable as stated in Luke 18:1 to make sense, that is how it must logically be read.
Click to expand...
MUST logically say what? Logically, to me, the word 'unjust' contrasts or differences the person in the flesh with God (swt). The word 'speedily' is also in contrast. Logically, to me, the man is not unjust because he was prodded into judging, but because he does not see all, hear all, and know all. Logically, the man can only judge by what he sees, by evidence and testimony... and there is very little of that when someone seeks to be avenged of an adversary. Also, the man judged not because he fears God (swt) or Man, but only because it benefitted him. I suggest to you that God (swt) does not have those limitations.

I witness that the parable teaches a few things... especially that this relationship between people who seek judgement for condemnation against each other is counter to those people having 'faith' in each other.

It may interest Christians to know that the Qur'an directly says the problem with most Christians is that they do NOT judge for what is true. While judging what you can't see is wrong (the plank in your eye)... not judging what you can see is also not struggling for the truth. The "do not judge lest you be judged" became fully, "do not judge" in the eyes of St. Paul. The fact is when you judge anything you place yourself on the table for judgement. The Qur'an also notes that people tend to only judge when it benefits them, which is obviously wrong. How many parents do not know the trouble they cause if they do not judge their children and teach them what is right from wrong? Notice the command, 'Listen to what the unjust judge has to say'.

I love that parable... it is one of many that enforces the word 'faith' contrary to the one that so many people cling to. If you can pray to God (swt) and have a situation speedily judged, how does that place in question whether the Son of Man will find faith? It is not faith in God (swt) that is in question there, but people not placing faith in each other because they are adversary.
 
cyberpi said:
MUST logically say what? Logically, to me, the word 'unjust' contrasts or differences the person in the flesh with God (swt). The word 'speedily' is also in contrast. Logically, to me, the man is not unjust because he was prodded into judging, but because he does not see all, hear all, and know all.
Click to expand...
That's possible. The story seems to indicate that the judge is unjust because he "neither fears God, nor cares about men." And because of this, he doesn't seek justice for the widow until she repeatedly entreats him to do so.

You could certainly be a person who does not see all, hear all and know all and still be interested the problems of people and desire to do the right thing by God, right?

More importantly, if God sees all, hears all and knows all (thereby making him the "just" judge, even in your understanding of the tale), then, presumably, he should be unlike the unjust judge in that he would care about seeing justice done without having to be asked repeatedly.

Yet . . . the whole point of the story is expressly stated in the first line, which is to encourage people to continue to entreat God with prayers. This would only make sense if, in fact, God were like the "unjust " judge in the parable.

cyberpi said:
I witness that the parable teaches a few things... especially that this relationship between people who seek judgement for condemnation against each other is counter to those people having 'faith' in each other.
Click to expand...
I think I like and agree with this sentiment, but I'm not following how it is reflected in this particular story from Luke. Can you elaborate on this, please?
 
BTW, for the convenience of anyone following this discussion, here's the parable from Luke 18 (NIV):

1Then Jesus told his disciples a parable to show them that they should always pray and not give up. 2He said: "In a certain town there was a judge who neither feared God nor cared about men. 3And there was a widow in that town who kept coming to him with the plea, 'Grant me justice against my adversary.' 4"For some time he refused. But finally he said to himself, 'Even though I don't fear God or care about men, 5yet because this widow keeps bothering me, I will see that she gets justice, so that she won't eventually wear me out with her coming!' "
6And the Lord said, "Listen to what the unjust judge says. 7And will not God bring about justice for his chosen ones, who cry out to him day and night? Will he keep putting them off? 8I tell you, he will see that they get justice, and quickly. However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?"
Click to expand...
 
Abogado del Diablo said:
BTW, for the convenience of anyone following this discussion, here's the parable from Luke 18 (NIV):
Click to expand...

I perceive that if the unjust judge would bring about an answer to the widow, how much quicker will the Just Judge of Heaven do the same? Or maybe I'm way off, but somehow I doubt it. ;)

v/r

Q
 
Quahom1 said:
I perceive that if the unjust judge would bring about an answer to the widow, how much quicker will the Just Judge of Heaven do the same? Or maybe I'm way off, but somehow I doubt it. ;)

v/r

Q
Click to expand...
That's what I originally thought, too, until Jeannot's comment prompted me to read the parable a little more closely.

If God is a "just" judge who knows all and sees all, then why is asking for justice even necessary? By the logic of the parable, the just judge would desire to see justice, and would know to bring justice, even if not asked. But even if the just judge, for some reason, needed to be asked, he still wouldn't need to be asked more than once, would he? But it's inescapable that the point of the story according to the author is that one should keep praying to God - which assumes that like the unjust judge, he may not respond to only one request.
 
For some reason this discussion reminded me of this passage:

25"Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? 26Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? 27Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life?

28"And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. 29Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. 30If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? 31So do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' 32For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. 33But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. 34Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own. (Matthew 6)
Click to expand...


Like many parables and stories of the Bible the question is not about changing what God would do, but changing our way of looking at it. In the parable of the unjust Judge I also would read it that if the unjust judge would eventually do as asked, how much more so would God who cares for us.

The prayers are not to plea to God as judge. God already knows all that we need and gives us what we need. Prayer is not for us to change God's mind and somehow get Him to perform for us, but for us to see that all that we have is already His Providence. The prayers are for us.

2 c,
luna
 
Abogado del Diablo said:
Yet . . . the whole point of the story is expressly stated in the first line, which is to encourage people to continue to entreat God with prayers. This would only make sense if, in fact, God were like the "unjust " judge in the parable.
Click to expand...
Ok, I see what you are saying. There are lots of things where there is a polarized quality of something and then the absence of it. For example there is a truth, a lie, and no information at all. Or love, hate, and apathy. Hope, fear, ambivalence. Hot air, cold air, vacuum. So in this case there is possibility for a just judgement, an unjust judgement, or no judgement at all. It seems like you are combining an unjust judgement with none at all... or an unjust judge with a person who doesn't judge unless asked. To me, unjust means an unfairness, imbalance, bias, or partiality... and an unjust judge is a person who might create new injustices.

If you think about it, when we ask someone a question we are essentially asking for judgement. Maybe not to divide from an adversary, but for the judgement of our thoughts or for a situation. Like the other parable of knocking at the door... if we don't ask in prayer we might not get the answer.

Faith: I could write a long boring book on that word. I simply note it in the last line of the parable, and I see that two people who don't get along and persist to demand justice from each other may not have much of a relationship left. Most people cry for justice from their adversary, yet mercy for themselves. Rather than learn from each other and agree to disagree they may wish to be divided and isolated... where there is no faith left between them. Hence the need for the important aspects of forgiveness and mercy.

To me, the word judge is split in definition. It is one thing to judge and condemn or punish, and another to judge and just provide information. To me, the word 'rebuke' is an example of the latter. A person can toss away the rebuke but it still gives them key information from the judgement.

A couple of related verses that I like to contrast:
Luke 17:3 Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.
Luke 6:37-38 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven. Give, and it shall be given unto you...

So in the first, we are told to rebuke a sin... and in the second we are told that if we don't judge, then we won't be judged. If you think about it, any judgement placed on the table with someone can instantly bring their judgement.

Sadly, the definition of the words judge and condemn are alternating too, and muddying it up between versions. But there is no parable of the unjust condemner and in an example like John 8:1-11 the word condemn is used for 'stoning' instead of judge.

More than you asked for and all my opinion of course, guided or misguided.
 
Abogado del Diablo said:
That's what I originally thought, too, until Jeannot's comment prompted me to read the parable a little more closely.

If God is a "just" judge who knows all and sees all, then why is asking for justice even necessary? By the logic of the parable, the just judge would desire to see justice, and would know to bring justice, even if not asked. But even if the just judge, for some reason, needed to be asked, he still wouldn't need to be asked more than once, would he? But it's inescapable that the point of the story according to the author is that one should keep praying to God - which assumes that like the unjust judge, he may not respond to only one request.
Click to expand...

Why did my father wait until I "asked" for a base ball glove? He knew I wanted, even needed it for that particular time in my growth. But there was something more important that I had to learn. That was to ask.

my thoughts

v/r

Q
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top