Quantum God 
. He knows all of the potential and possible alternate universe actions.
There is a scene in the book of Job set in the court of Heaven. Satan (lit. “the accuser/adversary”) contends that man’s devotion to God is fleeting at best - the most faithful servant will abandon God the instant his wealth and health are taken away.
God then puts his servant Job in Satan’s power to disprove the hypothesis. At Satan’s behest, God strips Job of his wealth, kills his family, and afflicts him with disease. Job is ignorant of Heavenly matters and struggles to find a rational explanation for his suffering. While he refuses to blaspheme God, he does challenge God’s wisdom and righteousness. God responds to the challenge by demonstrating God’s superior knowledge and ability, by way of analogies. Job recants and relents.
I am interested in the SDMB’s interpretation of this episode within the debate on predetermination (assuming, of course, other Christian tenets).
In the Jewish interpretation I grew up with, the satan in this chapter is not an evil character but an angel whose job is to prosecute mankind. It is written that the children of the great (angels) stood before God and the satan was among their rank. So really, the question of predetermination comes down to the affairs of Heaven.
What is the point of Job’s trial if God already knows, or otherwise determines the outcome? God doesn’t need the satan to tell whether Job’s piety is true or a mere illusion. God can simply consult His omniscience and lay the matter to rest without a trial.
It seems to me that the rational explanation is that God’s motive in employing the satan and putting Job through a trial must be something other than trying Job’s piety.
What that motive is, I can only speculate. But by no means am I justified in saying it is “pointless”. Here are a few possibilities:
-
Job’s suffering is the mechanism by which God teaches countless people to be faithful. This is actually mentioned in the book itself. However assuming predeterminism it only raises another question, pointed out by the OP, what is the point if God already knows?
-
Job’s trial demonstrates his piety to the angels in the court of Heaven. The angels do not share God’s omniscience and thus must come to knowledge either by the direct word of God or by evidence. God could have simply told them Job was pious - in fact He did so tell them. Yet the rules of Heaven are so arranged that the satan sees fit to challenge this assertion. It seems a benefit accrues to the angels, in the form of knowledge, and a benefit accrues to God, in the form of pride of a father showing off the good deeds of one son (Job) before his other children (the angels).
In the Jewish tradition we don’t have the same concepts of Heaven and Hell. But I wonder about the Christian interpretation since there is a lot more scripture about Heavenly affairs.
~Max
Job repents in the end. Job used to sacrifice his own animals just incase his children sinned at parties and cursed God. Job didn’t know if they did or not, he did this as a custom just incase. This hedge of protection was using Job’s animals to even protect his children, and his children apparently ignored Job and cursed God. Satans first strike was against Job’s hedge of protection, the animals he used to sacrifice. After which his children are supposedly killed (but somehow come back in the end)
In the end, after restoration, Job was not only invited to his children’s parties, but the kids brought their own animals as needed for Job to sacrifice for their sins.
Basically Job’s kids would never learn the consequences of cursing God as Job was protecting them, but in a way that the kids didn’t even really know or care. God corrected that with the trials Job went through.
So there was a change in Job, and Job’s kids. which seems to justify the trials.
Yeah, but God being omscient and omnipotent could have tweaked Adam and Eve slightly, or adjusted aspects of the natural world, or whatever - such that thousands of years later circumstances would have been very slightly different and Hitler wouldn’t have been born because his parents had sex at a slightly different time and a different sperm reached the egg; or he was born but then got into art school and became a mediocre painter rather than leader of Germany; etc…
When you’re omniscient, setting up the initial conditions is akin to making every choice along the path, because you already know how it turns out and are setting thise initial conditions accordingly.
I agree. Reconciling omniscience and omnipotence is possible. Reconciling the two of those with omnibenevolence seems impossible.
I don’t think that’s the traditional interpretation. The usual understanding is that Job’s original children died. Later in the wrap-up of the story, it was told Job had ten children. But those were new children not the return of his original children from the dead.
^^^^THIS!!!
Oh, if only those art/architecture schools in Vienna had let him in. Imagine how many lives they would’ve saved.
I think God mostly stays out of the muck of daily human existence. I think he created the universe, and in some instances, he inserted himself into our Earthly lives (mostly via Jesus). Beyond that, I don’t see God laying out all of our destinies. I think that’s a choice we make without his fore-knowledge.
I forget the name of it, but years ago I read some online work where the plot is that when the Apollo mission is headed to the moon, they instead crash into the firmament of the sky, poking a hole into the literal heavens; and it turns out that the universe literally operates just as described in the Old Testament/Kabbalistic beliefs. Leading to the industrialization of the Names of God and stuff like that.
For a random internet work with such a strange concept, it was a surprisingly fun bit of “what if” philosophy, and in the end [spoilers, I guess] the heroes, who are seeking an angel to figure out the Problem of Evil, decide that since God told Job “You can’t understand the answer, who are you, have you even wrestled Leviathan into submission?”. So they hunt down the Leviathan and harpoon it with a magitech lightning bolt, or something like that; and find this angel who basically tells them, “God created all possible worlds where in the end net good outweighs net evil. So there are perfect worlds with no evil at all, and there are worlds with just a little bit of evil, and there are even worlds with so much evil in them that the good just barely outweighs the bad.”
I don’t find this to be all that satisfying of an answer, nor do I think it was meant to be - it is just the philosophical McGuffin of a Kabbalah themed fantasy universe - but I found it interesting nonetheless.
AFAIK there are 3 common explanations. The one I mentioned, the one you did and the 3rd that though Job was told his children died, they really did not.
The interpretation you (@kanicbird) gave in Post #63 above is one I don’t remember encountering before, though I find it interesting and not unreasonable.
There’s an interesting twist on this in season 2 of Good Omens.
That is an interesting interpretation. I always assumed the children tended the father’s flock rather than having independent herds of cattle, the children died, etc. There seems to be a line in the King James Bible that indicates the children never actually died:
My breath is strange to my wife, though I intreated for the children’s sake of mine own body.
Job 19:17
But other translations use brothers instead of children.
I don’t see the basis for assuming the children bring their own animals after Job’s wealth was restored to him. At Job 42:8, God commands Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite, and Zophar the Naamathite to bring Job animals so he could pray for them over a burnt sacrifice. However, these are the friends of Job and not his children. Job’s fortunes were only restored when he prayed on behalf of his friends. The reason for the sacrifice is given by word of God: these men spoke falsely of God and their sin can only be atoned by Job’s intercessance because God favors Job. It is heavily implied that the sins consisted of the three’s actions earlier in the chapter, i.e. accusing God of punishing Job for his alleged wickedness and, after Job had refuted their arguments, remaining silent.
On top of this, I don’t see how that interpretation accounts for the latter part of Job’s trial - the physical ailments he suffers. It is the loss of health that finally breaks Job, causing him to curse the day he was born and question God’s governance.
I see what you’re saying. But,
You rely on the assumption that teaching people a lesson isn’t pointless.
The deductive argument from the OP (as I understand it) is that if God is omniscient, then there is no point to living. survinga relied on a hidden premise that the point of living is to make choices, and another argument stating if God is omniscient, then people do not make choices, because a choice implies even God doesn’t know beforehand.
If you grant these three premises for the sake of argument,
- God is omniscient
- The point of living is to make choices
- A choice implies even God doesn’t know beforehand
do you agree that the interpretation you put forward ceases to justify Job’s trial?
~Max
What translation is that based on? (If you’re reading the original Hebrew, you’ve left me behind.)
Here’s the New International Version translation:
While he was still speaking, yet another messenger came and said, “Your sons and daughters were feasting and drinking wine at the oldest brother’s house, when suddenly a mighty wind swept in from the desert and struck the four corners of the house. It collapsed on them and they are dead, and I am the only one who has escaped to tell you!” - Job 1:18-19
King James:
While he was yet speaking, there came also another, and said, Thy sons and thy daughters were eating and drinking wine in their eldest brother’s house:
And, behold, there came a great wind from the wilderness, and smote the four corners of the house, and it fell upon the young men, and they are dead; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.
English Standard:
While he was yet speaking, there came another and said, “Your sons and daughters were eating and drinking wine in their oldest brother’s house, and behold, a great wind came across the wilderness and struck the four corners of the house, and it fell upon the young people, and they are dead, and I alone have escaped to tell you.”
New Living Translation:
While he was still speaking, another messenger arrived with this news: “Your sons and daughters were feasting in their oldest brother’s home. Suddenly, a powerful wind swept in from the wilderness and hit the house on all sides. The house collapsed, and all your children are dead. I am the only one who escaped to tell you.”
They all seem to agree that Job’s children were killed. The only ambiguity seems to be that the King James text could be interpreted that only Job’s seven sons were killed and his three daughters survived.
That was the words of the servant which may or may not be accurate. For instance the servant may have seen the house colapse and assume they are dead. However it also considers Job 42:
10 After Job had prayed for his friends, the Lord restored his fortunes and gave him twice as much as he had before. 11 All his brothers and sisters and everyone who had known him before came and ate with him in his house 12 The Lord blessed the latter part of Job’s life more than the former part. He had fourteen thousand sheep, six thousand camels, a thousand yoke of oxen and a thousand donkeys. 13 And he also had seven sons and three daughters
In that: 1: ‘everyone’ who had known him before came and ate with him. 2: The number of children the same, they are not doubled also hints at they were never taken.
It appears to me more likely that the servants tended the herds. the children almost seem to be rich trust fund kids from the very little we get. I admit there are many more possibilities, but considering Job’s wealth, and devotion to their children and the method he uses to cleanse them even if he does not know if they sin does indicate a level of continued support even though they have independant homes.
It most likely is brothers, though family is also used in at least one translation.
You are correct here, I went too far on old memory. The point was Job used to use his own flocks, yet God corrects this method after repentance to now the sinner’s owe animals are now used, also Job is at the celebration, as opposed to not with his kids’s events. But yes that does not state one way or another about Job’s kids bringing their own animals.
I’m not sure what you are saying here. My understanding is Satan removes Job’s hedge of protection first, but ultimately wants to prove skin for skin (which I read if Job’s ‘skin’ is struck, Job will strike God’s skin). That it happens in 2 steps to get there why does it matter?
Yes, as I take it it’s a major repeating theme of life itself in the Bible. And I think perhaps that is the key to unlocking the apparent paradox of the OP. And I don’t know why we can exclude teaching a lesson as a way that God can influence what we may chose. It’s still a choice, but God teaches wisdom and gives understanding of where the choices will lead.
Just to add before edit timeout: Job’s fortunes were only restored when he prayed on behalf of his friends.. I see the turning point at Job’s repentance, as opposed to the sacrifice.
I asked, what was the point of Job’s trials if everything is pre-determined? And you pointed out, the trials punished the sons and daughters who had sinned, and this justifies killing them. My reply is that no divine punishment explanation can justify Satan making Job physically ill, because Job was an upright man.
Given the premises (God is omniscient, the point of living is to make choices, and a choice implies nobody else - God included - knows beforehand) it follows that we make no choices. So when you frame the trial of Job as God influencing Job’s choices, and therefore not pointless, that contradicts at least one premise put forward by survinga.
I read your post at #17 and to be honest my read of it is that you are saying under some circumstances God does “not know us”, therefore sometimes we have some “independence” from God to choose salvation through Christ or forego it. Either you reject the definition of a “choice”, or you reject God’s omniscience. Please correct me if I misunderstand you.
I personally read Matthew 7:23 with a different sense of the word “know”, meaning a posteriori knowledge, e.g. Matthew 1:25 regarding Joseph and Mary, “And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son…” Of course, Joseph knew Mary before Jesus was born. But he didn’t know her, in the sense of having experienced intimate relations (in this case sexual relations), at least not before the birth of Jesus. My interpretation of Matthew 7:23 uses that sense of the word “know” - God will profess to the false prophets that he has never been intimate with them, i.e. He has not dwelt within them and given them visions, etc. I do not interpret the verse as meaning God ever lacks a priori knowledge of any action a false prophets takes, past, present, or future. Nor do I interpret any of the cited verses as meaning God ever lacks a priori knowledge of who will accept Christ. If omniscient, then God knows every single action a person will ever take, including the act of accepting or rejecting Christ, even before conception.
The turning point for Job’s fortunes is the prayer given during the sacrifice. Job had sinned as well, although he repented he still wasn’t absolved of sin. Jesus had not been around yet so at the time, the best they could do was mask their sin by sacrificing animals and giving God a nice whiff. See eg. Hebrews 10:1. Job 42:9-10 is explicit. In verse 10 you can see Job’s prayer is directly linked to God turning him from captivity (curing his disease) and restoring his fortunes. It also makes sense - imagine if Job had refused to intercede.
~Max
My answer is that Job repented in the end. Thus in repentance is a changed person. I do understand that the sacrifice that Job made appears to have allowed God’s restoration of Job’s fortune. But I still argue that the repentance was the tipping point that allowed God’s justification of Job along the lines of Ro 8:30 where the act of repentance leads to God’s glorification of Job, and also blessings extended to his children, especially his daughters.
Yes the Bible does say that Job is a righteous man (YLT “Job his name – and that man hath been perfect and upright – both fearing God, and turning aside from evil.”).
To be frank that was something I pondered quite a lot about. Even to the point of asking is Job Jesus ? Which I have dismissed, so another explanation is needed:
Not to mention Job’s ‘perfectness’ does stand in contrast to Ro 3:23-24 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
As a major theme of the Bible is we all need Jesus, and that no one was found worthy to open the scroll in revelation till the lamb. I don’t see how Job was at that level of perfection.
It would appear to me (and I would be open to others), a way to reconcile this is Job’s righteousness was based partly on animal sacrifice which atones for sin, plus Job’s belief, which is credited as righteousness. Ro 4:3 “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness”. But I do have another explanation, which is the one by which I understand it:
He 12:6 “For those whom the Lord loves he disciplines, and he scourges every son whom he receives”. If the Lord brought Job to repentance this is discipline. This would indicate that Job is already a son of God (not the Son of God) in this lines of John 1:12-13 “To all who did receive Him, who believe in his name, He gave the right to become children of God, who were born not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God”
If that was the case, which I believe it is, Job has already surrendered himself to God and is a child of God, and in the hands of the father being conformed to the likeness of His Son. This discipline and to the level it was, was needed for Job’s correction.
If my above premise holds, once you become a child of God, which is a free will decision, you now live for God, in the will of the Father, and doing His work for Him. Eph 2:10 “For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do”.
So up until that time, to use a paraphrase, we are our own gods, does that in itself preclude God knowing what we will do? Just because we move forward in time do we limit God to that set of physical laws? Up until we surrender to the Father, we follow paths that all will lead to destruction. Conjecture: God sees our paths beginning to end, and knows how and when to intercede and when to help us avoid that final destruction/ruin. After all is it written that Jesus will reconcile all things to Himself (Col 1:20), this indicated active intercession. As there is only one way, that was is of God and is God. Once on that path we by default become part of God (children of God).
I agree with what you state here. It is obvious that God knows us in some ways but really knows some who are His and walk in His way. And using sexual relations as an example brings up the two becoming one, which Paul defines as a great mystery of Christ becoming oen with His church. So yes i fully agree with you.
Bold mine: I don’t believe this is true. John 8:58:Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!". We have accounts of those who seemingly made it to ‘paradise’, and arguably raptured. Enoch and Elijah both taken by God, not dying. Moses and Elijah in glorified bodies at the transfiguration. The short mathematical equivalent I can express this as is Jesus is God. God is unchanging, is the same ‘yesterday, today and tomorrow’. Jesus is the (only) way, thus the way is unchanging, is the same ‘yesterday, today and tomorrow’. Thus the path to salvation was always open.
Simple: Job is a Jewish story, that wasn’t written with the “we are all sinners who need Jesus” context in mind.
Is it time for that Lewis Black quote?
Summary
And yet every Sunday I turn on the television set, and there’s a priest or a pastor reading from my book, and interpreting it, and their interpretations, I have to tell you, are usually wrong. It’s not their fault, because it’s not their book. You never see a rabbi on the TV interpreting the New Testament, do you? If you want to truly understand the Old Testament, if there is something you don’t quite get, there are Jews who walk among you, and THEY—I promise you this—will take TIME out of their VERY JEWY, JEWY DAY, and interpret for you anything that you’re having trouble understanding.
Yes if you take the story of Job in isolation, or from a jewish perspective. However the OP asked for a Christian perspective. From a Christ centered perspective where everything was created for Jesus (Col 1:16), everything will be reconciled to Jesus (Col 1:20), and the scriptures testify about Jesus (John 5:39, it does shift the perspective of the Bible, from us to Jesus. The Bible becomes more of a learning instrument to who Jesus is and who we are becoming. At which, and from that perspective, we can also look the case of pre-destination. As such we are predestined to become brothers and sisters of Christ, at which time there is only one way. As I take it free will enters before this time, and that is the question is the person before coming to Christ, predestined on a God is omniscient way.
In Job 40:14 God asks Job if Job himself can save himself, indicating that the solution was not in Job, but God.
You speculated about why Job doesn’t seem to fit that “Christ centered perspective”, and I gave you the simple answer: before the story of Job was culturally appropriated by Christians, it was a Jewish story, which is why Job is a righteous man, no Jesus needed.
What are you talking about?
This is the part of the story where Job questions God, so God berates him, saying “who are you to question me? Can you do all of these things that I can do? If so, I will answer you, otherwise you have no right to question me”.
I bolded 40:14.
In that line, and the ones just before and after, God is saying: “can you go and beat up every “proud man” out there, leaving him “humbled” in the dirt? If so, I will respect and praise you - otherwise, stop questioning me.”
I have seen “triumph” translated as “save”, but it certainly isn’t meant in the Jesusy Christian sense of saving your immortal soul - God is saying “if you fought all these warriors and won, I would admit it was your own hand that saved you in the battle”.
On an unrelated note… This is part of the same speech that has my favorite part, where God says “can you catch the Leviathan on a fishhook? No? Then shut up”.
If you look at one word from one line, completely out of context, you can say “Look! JESUS!”. But that’s a pretty dishonest read of the text.