If anyone can use part of the Bible to show that God is mean, this would be one of them.
I don’t get it.
Why not just write a few sentences saying God is in control, bad things happen to the good and the bad people.
Is this one of those stories that Biblical non-literalists can discount?
Not that I’m religious, but I think many Biblical non-literalists find Job to be deeply intriguing and even troubling. I’m not sure that they discount it, rather they think about what it means about trying to being a good person, the vicissitudes of life and their relationship with with their god.
Right.
“Discount” is not the perfect word. A non-literalist would probably not believe that God and Satan actually made a bet. Nonetheless, he could still believe that the story is inspired by God, put into words by man (several men, probably). It is a story that rejects easy answers and takes issues and questioning seriously, and that says important things about how God cannot be understood by man, that all men, even good men, sin, and that bad things happen and are not punishments.
I love Job–definitely one of my Top Ten biblical books.
I think exegetes pretty much consider the tacked on ending, where Job’s wealth and family are “restored,” to be exactly that - an addendum placed there by an ancient writer who disliked the original’s pessemistic conclusion. (I don’t have a cite for this; I’m just rehashing what a biblical lit professor taught). The ending we’re all accustomed to now was perhaps once considered bitterly satirical, as the names we’re given for Job’s new children translate into nonsensical phrases. His new third daughter’s name is Keren-happuch, which translates (according to my Oxford Study Bible) as “horn of eye costmetics.”
I’ve got a completely different take on it, Humble Servant: I think there is a very easy answer to the Book of Job: it’s that the God of Job is a jerk. God never explains to Job why Job has to be tortured and his family murdered and His only excuse is “Shut up, punk, I’m bigger than you.” (in essence).
Looking at Job as a story, if He had somehow explained a cosmic purpose for his brutality (“Job, your wife and kids had some horrible disease: I took them quickly rather than letting them suffer.”), then maybe I’d agree with you about the complexity. As it is, the God of Job is just a brutal murderer.
I see no way that the God from an analogous story: the story of Abraham and Isaac, can be reconciled with the Fiend from Job. In Abraham and Isaac, God tells Abraham to sacrifice Isaac to him. Abraham prepares to do so and at the last minute, God stops him and says (in essence) “Hey dude. I may ask you to make tough choices, or perform hard tasks, but I’ll be there for you. Trust me.” The God of Job simply says “Shut up. I’m bigger than you, punk. How dare you question my right to murder and torture people.”
I can’t reconcile the two stories as being about the same God, and if I have to toss one, I’ll ignore Job’s thuggish God for Abraham’s compassionate God any day.
Fenris
I think the world of Job is a lot more like reality than Abraham’s world.
Abraham gets to talk to God, he has a well-defined mission, God tells him exactly what to do and then shows direct, merciful action to prevent Isaac’s death.
In the world we have, God doesn’t talk to us directly. We don’t know what the hell we should do many times, and God doesn’t intervene to stop the death and suffering. In the real world, God doesn’t explain particular events to us.
That’s reality. People get cancer, suffer horribly and die for no reason. They ask, why? How can we answer? One of the best parts of Job is that it rejects the lower than base “blame the victim” for being sinful stance, that suffering is a punishment. Job says that people suffer on earth, even when they are good people following all of God’s laws.
The problem of random and universal suffering drives many people entirely away from belief in God. Burying one’s head in the sand (I’m not saying your’e doing this, Fenris) and pretending that this is not a real issue, a real stumbling block, is a disservice to people who ask this question. Job is an honest evaluation and attempt to answer–and the answer, as montag and others have noted, is not in the “happy” ending.
I don’t see the God of Job as thuggish, but as a God who doesn’t intervene to prevent suffering in the world. If there is a God, that seems to be his current MO. If Abraham’s direct-acting God were intervening, the world would be a lot more fair.
I’m OK with a God that doesn’t intervene to prevent suffering. I’m NOT ok with a God that doesn’t interven to prevent suffering, but gleefully causes suffering for a bar-bet. Job’s God is the worst of both worlds: He gets involved only to f*ck with people for the fun of it.
Universal suffering is bearable (to me) if it’s random and God doesn’t play games: the whole idea that it rains on the rich and the poor alike. It becomes unbearable when there’s a capricious God, like Job’s, playing games for cosmic giggles.
Fenris
Well, see, being a non-literalist, I can view the set-up (bar bet) as a traditional story-telling technique (same as in the story where the sun and the wind have a bet over who can get the man to take his coat off) which is less important than the debates which result.
Since the premise, no matter how we read it, is that God ultimately did make the world, some would say that setting the world up the way he did is in itself playing games with us, a game where we can’t understand the rules, heads we lose, tails he wins. Job says God is not arbitrary, and is not playing games (no matter how much the big picture looks like it because we can’t figure out the rules) because he’s not actively involved in each earthly event. God is just beyond rules.
I freely acknowledge that reading it this way focuses on how humans should act in the face of suffering, rather than on trying to figure out what God is. It looks mainly to the middle sections of Job–the bar bet is just set-up and God’s revealing himself is something not to be expected in our lives. So, while you look to Job to explain what type of person God is, I’m looking to see how it tells me to act.
'Course finding different things in work is often kinda a sign of something.
OK, so in keeping with the intent of the OP, and since your post implies that you do have an understanding, enlighten me.
I see the story of Job as another parable, that people should pay their taxes under all circumstances; no matter what it looks like others are doing with it; because you are not in charge. I tend to think most of the Bible is about taxes.
-Justhink
I don’t see how you can not see the god of Job as thuggish. Job’s sufferings are directly attributable to God. The suffering in this case is because of the bet with Satan. Without God telling Satan to do what ever is necessary to break Job’s faith Job would not be suffering.
Exactly.
And why wouldn’t God stop in time to save Job’s kids?
He’d made His point, I’d think.
I , personally, wouldn’t think that more kids would make up for losing the one I loved.
Maybe I should quit belieivng the literalists.
Polycarp whats your take on this?
dreamer?
Ever since I got old enough to read the Bible and think for myself, it’s been clear to me that The Book of Job is really a piece of religiou fiction that has been incorporated into a collection of books that have been accepted as instructional books and ven, by some, the literal truth. As such, it’s sort of like finding Stephen King novel stuck in an anthology of historical writings. Or philosophical writings. Seen that way, it’s ridiculous to expect this tale of why the universe works the way it does (“Maybe God and the Devil had a bet, and hat’s why this well-behaved, moral guy got whomped with all the ills of the world,” thought our unknown author. “Let’s see what we can do with THAT.”) to be consistent with th religious or philosophical books it got stuck with. There have actually been theologians wh tried to identify the charcters in the BOJ with known historical characters. Misguided, I say. Vanity of vanities.
My favorite comment on the “argument” section is in George Bernard Shaw’s The Adventures of the Black Girl in Search of God: “That isn’t an argument – it’s a sneer. You do not seem to know what an argument is.”
Ever since I got old enough to read the Bible and think for myself, it’s been clear to me that The Book of Job is really a piece of religiou fiction that has been incorporated into a collection of books that have been accepted as instructional books and ven, by some, the literal truth. As such, it’s sort of like finding Stephen King novel stuck in an anthology of historical writings. Or philosophical writings. Seen that way, it’s ridiculous to expect this tale of why the universe works the way it does (“Maybe God and the Devil had a bet, and hat’s why this well-behaved, moral guy got whomped with all the ills of the world,” thought our unknown author. “Let’s see what we can do with THAT.”) to be consistent with th religious or philosophical books it got stuck with. There have actually been theologians wh tried to identify the charcters in the BOJ with known historical characters. Misguided, I say. Vanity of vanities.
My favorite comment on the “argument” section is in George Bernard Shaw’s The Adventures of the Black Girl in Search of God: “That isn’t an argument – it’s a sneer. You do not seem to know what an argument is.”
When I read a book that a lot of people over a long period of time have found worthwhile, I start with the assumption that there is probably something worthwhile in it. As I said, both the part about the bet and the “happy” ending do not seem to have the spark that would keep people interested in the work for a few thousand years, and beside seem cliche.
So, I focus on the middle parts, and read Job from Job’s point of view–he doesn’t know about any bet, he just knows that he’s tried to serve God but has experienced horror and suffering. He wants to know why, but gets no answer. That’s an awful lot like how it really is for us today, and that is what I like about Job–it is an honest examination of the problem of pain.
Cal, I agree that the “arguments” of the middle section of Job don’t look like what we call argument. (The Shaw quotation is great.) Nonetheless, they are, IMHO, philosophical. Several possible answers to Job’s questions are presented, considered and rejected. Anyone looking just for plot will find the middle sections interminable.
To me that sounds a lot like sticking your fingers in your ears and singing so you don’t hear things you don’t like. Job does get an answer and the answer is God is a capricious jerk that will kill off lesser characters on a whim.
From my literal POV:
Job 1:8
"Then the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blamelss and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil.”
Maybe the reason God brought up Job’s name to Satan was because he knew Job would overcome and be faithful to whatever ailment’s Satan sent his way. I don’t think it was a bet with Satan, I see it as God saying “No matter what you try to do to my people, they will not turn against me.”
Wasn’t Noah sort of in the same position? Not that Satan harmed him, but he was the only “Godly man” at the time and he had to trust God without any understanding to build the ark while everyone else laughed at him, mocked him, and eventually he had to watch them die. That would take an incredible amount of faith without questioning what the heck is going on, why it’s going on, why God chose him to do it, and what the purpose of it is.
I think it’s all about how we are supossed to put our lives in God’s hands and trust him with it. No matter what afflictions come our way, we must trust that he is God and he knows best. Now obviously you cannot possibly do that if you do not love him with everything that you are. I think that Job and Noah did trust him with their lives and because of that God was able to use them for his greater purpose. IMHO
Well, that certainly worked well for Job’s wife and children. Job loved and trusted God completely, and for this, his wife and children get killed before their faith can grow as strong as his. And since dead people don’t get another chance, they are doomed to hell for all eternity - because Job is such a swell guy and God is so wonderful.:rolleyes:
I like this one:
Sort of makes hash of the arguments that the devil did it. This puts the blame right square on the Magical Sky Pixie himself - never mind moral responsibilty for Satan’s actions, the big guy did personally.
Yes but if Job’s wife and children are in Heaven with God, and since I believe Heaven is to be in God’s presence, then they didn’t get such a bad deal. In God’s eyes their purpose was served, whatever that was.
I’m not here to debate with you about that. I was asked to share my opinion on the topic and I did.