Does anyone understand the book of Job?

So I was reading the book of Job in the Bible, and I got confused. Partially because it’s difficult to keep straight what people are actually saying (because there are long strings of verses exalting god’s power). But what struck me was that it does not appear to tell the story I was lead to believe it tells.

As I learned it long ago in church, Job is thus:

Satan and God get into a wager, where Satan says Job is only a good man because Jehovah has blessed him and provided him with lots of wealth and power, so Jehovah says Satan can take it all away and they will see. Satan in waves first takes away all the wealth and land, then later afflicts Job with sores and illnesses. Through it all, Job remains faithful to Jehovah, despite calls from his “friends” to curse Jehovah. Because he is so good, Jehovah wins the bet (so to speak) and then restores to Job all that he lost - new children, new land and wealth, restored health and long life.

Okay, some of that is accurate. But not all of it.

First, it is Jehovah that brings Job to Satan’s attention, saying, “Have you seen my servant Job?” It could be argued as interpretive that it is, in fact, Jehovah that sparks the bet. Be that as it may, that’s not where the trouble for me is.

After Satan destroys all Job’s wealth and his children and afflicts him with boils and disease, then the string of debates start. Three “friends” come to visit Job and mourn with him, and they sit for some time (seven days) before they finally start talking.

Job begins by lamenting his fate, and cursing the day he was born (yes, he actually curses the day as if it is an object or event that can be relived). He basically says “I wish I had never been born, or died in childbirth. Just kill me now and get it over with.”

Each friend in turn accuses Job of being a bad person. They say, in effect, “God only punishes the wicked, and since you’re suffering you must be wicked. Repent.” Job responds to each set of arguments that they lie, he is a good person, and Jehovah is picking on him. “But who am I to stand up to God? He’s so powerful he makes me afraid, and if I were to try to stand up to him he would just make me too afraid to do so.” A lot more pity talk, but also a fair amount of saying that there’s no point in being righteous and good, because the wicked get off scott free while Job suffers wrongly. Which is actually correct, by the story, but Job is accusative in his tone.

This goes on repeatedly, each person taking two or three times to say the same things. Job still maintains his goodness and the unfairness of his punishment. While he doesn’t actually curse God, he does state that he is blameless and wishes that he could get Jehovah to show up and confront him so the lack of wrongdoing could be sorted out.

Finally a fourth guy shows up and argues that Job is being sinful by rebuking Jehovah, by declaring that Job is righteous when he must be sinful, and accusing Jehovah of wrongful persecution.

Suddenly Jehovah appears (as a whirlwind), and then he, too, jumps on Job’s case. “Who are you to accuse me? Did you make the world? Did you create the dirt and make the heavens and tell the birds how to build nests and teach them to sing and …” blah blah blah, a long string of “I’m powerful, you’re not”.

So here’s the kicker, Job repents. That’s right, Job says, “I was wrong.”

And then Jehovah restores all his wealth and gives him new children and lets him live to 150.

And then Jehovah tells the others that they spoke wrongly about Himself, and should all repent. But that doesn’t make any sense, either, because they all describe God as just and as punisher of the wicked. So how were they lying about God?

So, according to the story, Job did in fact sin by accusing God (whether the accusation was true or not is apparently irrelevant as Jehovah was offended by being accused). But that is in disagreement with they way the story was taught to me, where Job was blameless and didn’t sin even after all the downfall. According to the way I learned it, God won the bet, but by this version Job was prideful and had to repent, so wouldn’t that mean that Satan actually won?

Besides which, Satan didn’t even make a follow-up. He shows up twice in the first chapter, then is gone for the rest of the book. And note that the only person that actually tells Job to curse Jehovah is his wife, and that’s dealt with in the first chapter.

So, I’m confused. If I’m in error, please point out where. It seems to me that churches are teaching this story incorrectly. Or at least mine did.

One final irrelevant detail that struck me as funny. There is actually a description of a dragon in Job. Sure, the annotations say it is unspecified and is perhaps a crocodile, but the description clearly includes breathing fire.

The behemoth bit is interesting.

I am no Australian, but even I know that crocodiles don’t ‘feed on the grass’. I didn’t see the part about breathing fire, but it did have ‘bones of bronze’. But if it had a bronze skeleton, it should probably stay out from ‘under the lilies’, flotation issues and all that.

I just skimmed an online version of BoJ, and other then the interesting behemoth stuff, it was a rather depressing book, even by OT standards.

G.K. Chesterton sums up the book of Job as Job saying to God, “I don’t understand!”, and God saying to Job, “You don’t understand”.

It is an attempt to deal with the problem of evil. I interpret the sin of Job as an attempt to impose a moral standard on God that is higher than God. There is no such, nor can there be.

The contrast is, for me, between the petty sort of bet-making between God and Satan at the beginning, and the superficial moralism of Job’s comforters, and the presence of God in the whirlwind at the end that brings a halt to all questions.

In a sense, the restoration of Job’s fortunes at the end is almost anti-climatic - the sort of tacked-on happy ending that resembles the simple-minded condemnation of Job as a sinner.

A very subtle and complex book.

Regards,
Shodan

I’ve recently read an interpretation of the book that cleared up my many questions. When I can break away from the nematodes, maybe I can hunt down the link.

Basically. the author thinks the story is one of saying the right thing, at the right time.

He thinks Job’s friends were wrong to scold him. Instead of consoling him, they scolded him, questioning his righteousness and grace, just generally giving him a hard time. They blame the victim rather than helping him. I think Job illustrates how wrong it is to sit in judgement of someone just because they are down on their luck. It’s easy to judge someone when you aren’t covered in boils.

I personally think it’s a lesson about how life sucks sometimes, and when faced with adversity, you have to suck it up and deal. Job pisses God off when he questions His actions, and basically God says, “I can do whatever I want to do cuz I’m the boss.” Even though Job is a good man, he’s still at the whim of the Lord, just like all of us. By expecting God to behave a certain way and questioning his actions at every turn, we proclaim ourselves to be God-like. We aren’t any more God-like as a molecule of water is ocean-like.

Dex’s interpretation of the book of Job for SDSAB.

I always thought that the Book of Job was a lesson in endurance.

God’s wager with the Devil is to see how much shit Jobe will take before he comes off with an attittude.

Jobe loses his posessions, kids, health, etc., and still Job says Lord Giveth, Lord taketh away, blessed be the Lord.

God keeps on piling it on until the day Job’s resolve breaks.

“Yo, God! What the hell are ya doin to me, huh?” At which point God turns around and Job gets his ass handed to him.

“You think you know better than me? Where were you when I made the universe? Who the hell are you to tell me how I do things around here?”

At which point Job apologises, and eventually gets back all he lost, and more.

We must all endure the share of suffering assigned to us without question.

Sorry–this round is decided by Occam’s razor.

In a natural world, stuff happens. No spirits are out to get you or bless you, but you can be unlucky and have a series of bad events randomly coincide to make it seem like they are. Conversely, you can have a series of good events appear to make you blessed. And both good and bad will be an ordinary day you won’t notice.

In a world dominated by spirits who wouldn’t want to see gratutious suffering, however, you have to reconcile it (Harlequin Fetus syndrome springs to mind immediately) with the existence of those beings. Moreover, you have to explain why it suspiciously looks like the natural world mentioned previously.

The more parsimonious explanation is that there are no beings interfering or caring about events on our world. That includes personal, loving gods.

Durn, it won’t me edit my post.

The Book of Job appears to be an early apologetic on the problem of evil. It’s about as succesful as the rest–awkward, contrived and ultimately irrational for more reasons than can be listed in one post. It makes very much sense that ancient man, when faced with something that made his belief system difficult to reconcile with reality, needed to create something like it to avoid cognitive dissonance; it doesn’t, however, make any sense that the exchanges between Satan, God and Job actually happened as they were described.

But the whole “Who are you to question ME? I made the entire freaking UNIVERSE” thing is a huge logical fallacy and Job shoulda called God on it. The fact that God-the-Architect made the universe and did a very workman like job has nothing to do with whether torturing Job is moral, which is the question at hand.

Imagine seeing your boss light a cat on fire and chuckling gleefully as the poor creature burns. And when you demand an explaination he says “I’m your boss. I hired you. I run this company. I think I know what I’m doing. You just don’t get it.”

“Appeal to Authority” is never an effective debating tactic, and God uses it. At no point does he justify the morality of torturing the poor shmuck, he just says “Hey. I’m God, dude. How dare you question ME?” and that’s just a bullshit argument.

Fenris

So God’s message in Book of Job is that God doesn’t exist?

In short, I assume this thread is about what the Book of Job says, not what anyone wants it to say.

Oh, and the Book of Job also says that God “restored” Job to his previous state by giving him new wealth and a new family. God’s head must be up his celestial backside if he thinks that giving Job new children makes up for Job’s first set of kids being snuffed for a cosmic bar-bet.

Fenris

But the whole “Who are you to question ME? I made the entire freaking UNIVERSE” thing is a huge logical fallacy and Job shoulda called God on it. The fact that God-the-Architect made the universe and did a very workman like job has nothing to do with whether torturing Job is moral, which is the question at hand.

Imagine seeing your boss light a cat on fire and chuckling gleefully as the poor creature burns. And when you demand an explaination he says “I’m your boss. I hired you. I run this company. I think I know what I’m doing. You just don’t get it.”

“Appeal to Authority” is never an effective debating tactic, and God uses it. At no point does he justify the morality of torturing the poor shmuck, he just says “Hey. I’m God, dude. How dare you question ME?” and that’s just a bullshit argument.

Fenris

The ‘boss’ thing is the same thing. For all I know, my boss may have an excellent reason for setting light to that cat. However, it’s pretty unlikely, because I understand the Universe just as well as my boss does. My boss and I share pretty much the same ability to judge what is a moral act and what isn’t, and there are few circumstances where burning a cat to death and finding it funny are warranted.

God’s point in the Book of Job is that He is the all-singing, all-dancing Creator of the world, whereas we are mere mortals. Thus we cannot understand Him.

God may have had an excellent, important reason to do what He did to Job (hey, maybe his reason was so that the SDMB may debate his reasoning thousands of years on), that we cannot understand. But, unlike my boss, God - because He created the Universe and has much more knowledge and power than us - may very well have a great reason to do what He did, and we do not have the knowledge to question Him.

Thanks, hansel, I had vaguely remembered a column but didn’t remember it was so thorough. That was a very good summary and discussion of what I read. And Dex actually makes my point for me.

See, that is at total odds with the way the story is taught in church. Job is Mr. Patience and totally “God is so great he knows what he’s doing all you losers stop trying to get me to curse God”. Sorry, that is not what the text says at all.

Brutus, it’s not actually the behemoth, but the Leviathan.

Job 41:14-21. New King James version, verse numbers omitted for clarity.

Which, to be fair, is a partial source of my initial confusion - the King James version. So I looked it up in a New International Version, and that helped a little.

Shodan, it doesn’t seem Job is applying a higher moral standard to God, just asking that the common one be applied evenly. “Why is this happening to me?” “Shut up, I’m God and I’ll do whatever I want. You couldn’t possible understand.” “You’re right, I’m so pathetic, nevermind, just keep torturing me all you want.”

monstro, there’s something to what you say about consoling rather than accusing, and that would be a good lesson for churches to teach. But that’s not they lesson they teach from Job (at least the church I was in).

Thanks, Fenris.

WinAce, I appreciate the participation, but your comments weren’t really necessary. In no way to I take this as something that really occurred - I’m an avowed atheist. I just am trying to understand from within the story what it means. I’m in agreement with your second comment about the necessity of a story to explain the problem of evil.

But we know His reasoning: He wanted to win a bar-bet. He said so.

And I don’t accept the “we’re too dumb/limited to understand” argument. We ate from the tree of knowlege of good and evil. The whole point was that by eating of the tree we assumed responsiblity for distinguishing between good and evil instead of having it…um…instinctual, I suppose. Based on that, I’m quite comfortable saying that the God of the book of Job is a vicious, evil thug. He murdered Job’s family to win a bar-bet. I’m a Jew but I’m quite comfortable ignoring the book of Job as a horribly twisted text that got stuck in by mistake.

I’m fine with a God who sees each sparrow fall and weeps but doesn’t stop them from falling*. I have a huge problem with a capricous God chortling with a cosmic BB gun as he blows some sparrows away and protects others.

MY God doesn’t play bullsh*t games like the God of Job does. Evil happens 'cause we’re not God’s puppets. Humans have the capacity to indulge in evil and all too often do so. My God lets it happen because A) Actions MUST have consequences if we’re to learn and B) if he arbitrarily saved some and didn’t save others, he’d be capricious and a capricious God is nightmare fodder.

As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, my Sister-in-law is dying of cancer and the only thing from a religous POV that makes it bearable is the idea that it’s NOT “God’s Will”, it’s chance and circumstance and that He’ll be there for her after she dies. The idea that God picks and chooses who to save and who to torture is obscene.

Fenris

*I can’t find the quote, so sorry about the butchery, but hopefully the meaning still survives.

I just wanted to clarify that God does not himself do the damage to Job. He tells Satan that he can do what he will as long as he does not actually harm Job. The distinction is important because while he does allow Satan to do great harm to Jobs family and wealth, he does not necessarily know what it is that Satan will do to test Job. He is however committed to the original agreement of the “bet”.

That’s bullshit, Rhapsody. While he may not have instructed Satan (or The Satan, as the case may be) in exactly how to go about torturing Job, it’s not like it would be unknown to him what would happen. He would know it would involve destruction of everything Job had, and probably including Job’s family, and eventually he knew it would involve Job’s health (“just don’t kill him”). And the fact that Satan could not do anything to Job without God’s approval puts the moral burden squarely on God.

Just look at our legal code, where a person can be tried for murder for hiring someone else to kill the person. You are responsible for the acts of another that you direct. In that manner, God is culpable for all that happens to Job. Your feeble distinction is a thin justification that does not stand up to moral evaluation.

My understanding of the Book of Job is that when Job complains about his treatment, God’s answer is, “Shut up and row, I’m in charge here.”

That depends on which church you go to.

Agreed, but not all churches teach such things. Unfortunately, there ARE preachers who don’t regard the Bible with due reverence, and thus, take an elementary school level approach to exegesis. Such preachers might indeed falsely paint Job as Mr. Patience. One can’t help but wonder if they ever actually read the book.
Thankfully, I know a good many churches – and radio preachers – who are more fastidious when it comes to exegesis.

It seems to me that you haven’t actually read the thing, then.