# Reading > Religious Texts >  Putting God on Trial: The Biblical Book of Job

## Robert Sutherla

What do you make of that perennial classic Book of Job?

I think Job puts God on trial and never really repents of doing so? I know many translations of 42:6 say Job "repents" but the Hebrew there is "naham" meaning "to change course". It is the word that normally describes God's so-called repentances. I think it important that the normal Hebrew word "shub" meaning "to confess sin" is not used. I think Job was changing course. Through his Oath of Innocence, he was on the verge of condemning God, but found suggestions of a purpose in evil in God's two speeches and decided to adjourn the matter to the Day of the Final Judgment to await a more definitive answer to the question of why there is evil in the world.

----------


## Miranda

I think the book of Job is a lesson in faith - and also in the fact that we do not know everything that goes on in the spiritual world. God is always ultimately in control even though it appears that evil is. Satan is only allowed to operate within the parameters set by God : ie he is not allowed to take away Job's life. Job is completely unaware of the reason he is suffering - or why because the reason is hidden from him. Below is an essay I wrote a little while ago about Job - I wrote it for a friend who was going through a trying time and I am a Christian. Please ignore any parts therefore that are irrelevant to your study as I wouldn't like to detract from your subject. I don't know anything about Hebrew or the words that you quote but if you quote the biblical references, I will look them up - though I am no scholar..just a Christian that reads the bible. I wrote the essay from the point of view of what happened to Job being a test of faith. 

Job and Suffering.
Job was a wealthy man who lived in the East. He always put God first in his life and was kind to everybody that crossed his path. Because of this, God blessed him very much. There came a day when God said, Have you considered my servant Job; theres none like him in the earthperfect and uprightfearing God and having nothing to do with evil? This marked the beginning of Jobs troubles, for surprisingly, Job suddenly lost everything that he owned and everyone that he loved. This would have devastated most people, but Job simply said The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away. Blessed be the name of the Lord. Next however, Job loses his health and is covered from head to foot with terrible, itchy boils. As his illness gets steadily worse, Job gets more and more depressed, unable to understand why God is allowing it all to happen to him. His wife who is all that is left of his family, is no help. Her advice is Curse God and die. 

Eventually Jobs friends arrive and they seem more sympathetic. For seven days, they silently sit down with Job, trying to work out why he is going through such tribulation. Job breaks the silence, and with powerful words, he curses the day that he was born (Chapter 3). One by one, his friends begin to tell Job that he must have done something wrong and so God is punishing him. They all insist that God is just and does not inflict pain and suffering unfairly. Job however consistently denies that he has done anything wrong. Job has two truths that he holds on to. First is his certainty that God is all-supreme and has the right to do whatever He likes with His creation. Second, is the conviction that he is righteous before God. He says my righteousness I hold fast, I will not let it go. (26:4)

Unable to make sense of his situation, Job asks God why he is contending with him and accuses God of throwing him in the mire. He reckons God is not listening to his prayers and is cruel in oppressing him. He feels abandoned by God and says behold, I go forward, but he is not there; and backward, but I cannot perceive himI cannot behold himhe hides himself that I cannot see him. (23::9) However Jobs faith still remains and he has hope for he continues He knows the way that I take; when he hath tried me, I shall come forth as gold. He also says I know that my redeemer lives and that He shall stand at the latter day upon the earth and that after he (Job) has died, he will see God (19:25,26)

In the end, God comes and tells Job and his friends off for speaking of things that are too high for them. The friends have put their words in Gods mouth and Job himself has virtually accused God of being unjust. God says to him Will you condemn me, that you might be righteous? To Jobs friends God says that the things that theyve been saying are not right. It was Satan that had been oppressing Job, but none of them could possibly know that. Jobs faith was being tested and he was actually in a spiritual battle. Satan had said to God, if you take everything away from Jobincluding his health, then he will curse you to your face. The devil was seeking to destroy Jobs trust in God. However, though Job is in such a terrible state, he never denies God His place and despite his sufferings, often praises him. 

When God reprimands him, Job realises straight away that his attitude is at fault and apologises. He prays for his friends and then God heals Job and gives him even more than he had before. 

Jobs afflictions were an assault on his faith but he had to trust in Gods might and power and eventually God delivered him. Job.could insist on his righteousness, because he really was  for God said, Theres no one like Job in all the earth. We arent the same. Our righteousness is like filthy rags and when we are down, the devil throws all sorts of accusations at us to make us feel worse. But when we have accepted Christ as our saviour, His righteousness lives in us. Gods word says there is no condemnation to them that believe. Surrendered to God, like Job we can resist the fiery darts that come to condemn us, because our sins are forgiven as we confess and repent of them. Our faith is in Christs righteousness, not our own.

Job felt abandoned by God but He was watching all the time and had set a limit. God would not allow Satan to take away Jobs life. God is always near even when it doesnt feel like it. He says I will never leave you, nor forsake you and I will not leave you comfortless. Gods word is the anchor, unlike our feelings which ebb and flow like the tide. Faith may be stretched to the limit, but God will not suffer us to be tempted more than we are able. When talking to Peter, the Lord Jesus said, Peter, Satan has desired to sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for you, that your faith fail not. 

The reason for suffering is usually not apparent. Our part is to keep on trusting in God. Faith is the shield, which defends and sustains us. He has saved us because He loves us.

----------


## Miranda

I just looked up 42:6 and I think that I agree with you - even though I don't know the Hebrew words. I think Job was changing course - from questioning God and why He was allowing evil to come against him, to trusting Him and accepting His ultimate reign over all. This really was Job's approach in the beginning, but as more and more evil things happened to him, gradually he begins to question more and more the reason for it all as his faithfulness to God is tested by the devil.

----------


## Robert Sutherla

Miranda:

We agree on much.

Does the Book of Job assert that God did evil to Job?

----------


## Miranda

This is an interesting question and I am enjoying discussing the book of Job with you. I don't think that the book asserts that God did evil to Job, but that He allowed allowed evil to happen to him. Though Job didn't understand it, he was caught up between the war between good and evil, for Satan told God that if He took away all the good things He had given to Job - which later includes his health, he would 'curse thee to thy face.' It just strikes me that there is an equal trust here..for it seems that God is so sure that Job will remain faithful that He allows the devil to do what he wills..except take away Job's life. 

I wonder what you think about this question? I really love the book of Job, and think it contains some of the most wonderful poetry in the bible. One of the most amazing things I think is where it says in chapter 38 'hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow?' I don't know what the Hebrew words are here, but I take it to mean how each snowflake has a unique pattern - something that in Job's day would not be known - but which God knew/knows because He made them that way.

----------


## Robert Sutherla

Miranda:

How would you read Job 2:3; 2:10; 42:11?

When is a principal causally responsible for that actions of an agent?

Does causal responsibility for evil entail in all cases moral blameworthiness for that evil?

----------


## Miranda

I will attempt to answer your questions Robert, but I am far from being a scholar - and in fact need you to rephrase your questions as I do not properly understand them. I am not as well learned as you, nor as intellectual. 

Job 2:3 - This is linked to 1:9 where God uses Job as an example of righteousness, for he fears Him and rejects all evil. Though God has allowed Satan to take everything God has given him away, Job has accepted His right to do so and has not cursed Him as Satan asserted he would. Not to be wrong, Satan then continues to assert that if God takes away Job's health and makes him physically suffer, Job will curse Him. 

2:10 Here Job is refuting his wife's statement that he should 'curse God and die' which is exactly what the devil wants him to do - so that Satan is right -and God is wrong. (Satan's purpose is always to usurp God's position I think?) But still Job refuses to do this, but maintains his trust in Him and His right to do as He chooses - whether to send blessing or to allow evil to befall His people. 

42:11 There is a huge gap between these references, which isn't easily bridged in one question and answer. Everything that God allowed Satan to take away from Job, has been restored to him - and he is even more richer and blessed than he was originally, when the book begins to tell his story.

I think that the sentence you are pointing to, is 'and comforted him over all the evil that the Lord had brought upon him.' I don't know anything of Hebrew or the exact wording of this, but the translations and interpretations I have all say the same thing..that God brought these things to bear on Job. 

I think the whole of story of Job is a question of why evil happens to those who are good as well as those who do wrong. And I think the answer is that we don't know because we have little concept of what is happening in the spiritual world because we are flesh and these things are hidden from us. It's our part to keep on trusting in God's sovereignty and the sure and certain knowledge that He knows what He is doing, even though we can't understand and comprehend it - as our children can't always comprehend the things that we as adults do, or the hard decisions we sometimes have to make. 

Job maintains that he is righteousness throughout the dialogue, but whilst he comes dangerously near to condemning God for allowing him to suffer as he is, he never does condemn Him - nor does he curse Him, so he remains sinless. I think that Job is searching for an answer from God in order to comprehend his situation. He says that this is his desire in Ch 31:35. He knows the things that his 'friends' are saying arn't right, though they insist they are - yet he cannot fathom the seeming injustice of what is happening to him - which is unjustified if evil and good are a simply a matter of reward.

Was God or the devil ultimately responsible for the evil that befell Job? I think that the devil was since he proposed that Job only repected God because of the blessings He gave to him. If God had refused to prove that this was not so, then the devil would have had the 'upper hand'. So he allowed the devil to go so far..but set the parameters which shows that He was still in control of Job's fate. Ironically, Job desires the one thing that God has withheld Satan from inflicting on Job - death. But God has a better reward in store for him because he is faithful although uncomprehending and questioning. 

The question of good and evil is very hard to understand and I think this is because it's part of the mystery of God. In Isaiah, He says 'I form the light and create darkness..I make peace and create evil' as if everything He does has an opposite - a shadow. I don't pretend to understand this, but I accept that God is in control of everything and I dont have to understand, only trust Him - though I have been through a time in my life when I found this very hard and wondered what God was doing with me. 

I think God created Adam and Eve to have fellowship with Him.They were very special in that unlike animals they had free will to choose between good and evil. They were not operating on instinct, but on obedience. God wanted them to love Him unconditionally and they could choose to love and obey Him, or disobey him, which meant following their own desire instead of what he wanted them to do. Unfortunately Eve yielded to Satan's tempting and Adam quickly followed, which broke the communion between them and God and which continues throughout the generations. We have the freewill to choose to accept or deny Him as our saviour - and our acceptance brings us back into communion with Him and His love for us. Without the existence of evil, we would have nothing to choose between - and so perhaps free will would not exist. This ofcourse has a bearing on the story of Job. If all blessings were removed from him, and he received suffering in place of peace and safety, would he still have the same respect for God..would he still love him? 

I don't know if I have answered your questions..but it's sure taken me a long time to think and write about this!! All night in fact - but I enjoyed doing it. 

Ultimately maybe the question is, why does evil exist at all? Why does Satan exist? Perhaps the answer is, so that we can have free will - then again, I might be speaking of things 'too high for me' as Job was.

----------


## Robert Sutherla

Miranda:

1. On Job 2:3, I would note that God is not saying Satan destroyed Job. God is saying he God destroyed Job through Satan. God is saying he was the principal; Satan was the agent. Because God authorized and intended those actions (the destruction of Job's property, servants, family and health), God is responsible for it. He caused it. He is a party-to-the-offence, an accessory, a co-conspirator.

2. On Job 2:10, I would note that Job is saying God is the author of both good and evil The narrator says Job did not sin with his lips when he said that.

3. On Job 42:11, I would not that the narrator is saying everyone now agreed with Job that God was the author of that evil.

Doing evil is not the same thing as being evil. The criminal defense of necessity or justification is one area where that is so. Certain evil acts done in the pursuit of a higher good and necessary to the creation of that good can be justified. It seems the author of the Book of Job is taking that approach and hinting at it in Job 1:9-11. It is a difficult defense and probably requires more direct testimony on those points than God provides in his two speeches to Job.

----------


## Miranda

Robert, I havent had much time today for studying, so haven't been able to do the reading that I intended to do, but I will try to answer the points you have raised here. I really dont understand what you have written in response to my comments on 2:3 because I didn't mention Job's destruction - by Satan or by God. 

I don't agree that God did these things to Job - I believe He allowed them to happen to him..though I agree with your reasoning that this was because of the higher good. Unless God consented to Satan's attack on Job, Satan would have been in a position to continually accuse Job before Him of fearing God because of the blessings he recieved, rather than because of who God is. 

God indeed is the author of good and evil. Everything that happens is ultimately under His control. He is the one who authorises - the ultimate authority. The way I see it, God gave Satan the authority to do these things to Job - and in this He is responsible for what happened to him. I understand how you come to the conclusion that Satan is the agent, because he is the one that carries these things out, but I don't agree that God is the principal cause of what happened to Job. The principal cause I think was Satan and his pride which motivated him to challenge God..and to move Him against Job. 

I have to say Robert..I am not a clever person. I don't understand classical things and though I am enjoying this discussion you will have to forgive my ignorance, when I dont understand. I haven't even been to college... but I do think about things and try to look at them in different ways. 

I understand that from a legalistic point of view, Job has the right to challenge God because the loss and suffering he is enduring is undeserved, therefore unjustified, as he sees it. However, I could link this to the gourd which grew above Jonah's head and gave him shelter from the sun in the same way that God had hedged Job about with blessings. Jonah complained bitterly when this was taken away and yet it was God's gift - as were the blessings Job received and God had the right to take it away. I think the principle here is the same..though the lesson is different. 

I look at things this way. God created the heavens and the earth - and us. Everything belongs to Him and so He has the right to do whatever He pleases, unchallenged by us - His creation. In Isaiah, it says how He is the potter and we are the clay and how we don't have the right to turn around and say 'what makest thou?' I am taking this from memory and haven't looked it up but will when I get more time. I think God has the right to do whatever He likes with what he has made. He has bound Himself to us voluntarily - but still we do not have the right to overstep the mark and ask Him what He is doing..even though we sometimes do - and I certainly have. Yet I didn't have the right to do so. The only right I have is to expect that He will be with me and my promise in Christ to be with Him in eternity. But because He loves me and I love Him, I can trust Him and He understands when I question Him and when my faith begins to fail. 

So I don't think Job has a right to legally challenge God, though God understands His complaint. Job is not in possession of all the facts. He does not know that his treatment is justified in the broader picture. All the questions God asks Job, Job cannot answer - illustrating his ignorance in understanding all of what God does. Because if this, Job sees how little he knows and how small he is before Almighty God. As he says 'he abhors himself' this indicates to me that Job is sorry for the way he has conducted himself in his approach to God - and he repents which as you say means changing direction. God accepts this as He says in 42:8. Job's restoration begins after he refocuses his attention away from himself, and prays for his friends - as God instructs him to do. At no point has Satan won - for Job didn't curse God in all his suffering - therefore it must be that the suffering was justified for it undid the purpose of evil.

----------


## Robert Sutherla

Miranda:

1. You write: "The only right I have is to expect that He will be with me and my promise in Christ to be with Him in eternity."

What is the basis for that right? 

I take it the answer is the promises of God and the fact that God cannot contradict himself.

God's promises can be through his general revelation in creation (natural law) or through his special revelation in scripture (covenant). They both are the word of God.

I have directed my comments on the Book of Job in terms of his general revelation in creation since Job is not an Isrealite. The promise here arises in the following way: (1) God put in all human hearts the natural human desire to know the truth, (2) God has an obligation to make the truth available at some point in time, since ought implies can. If you ought to seek the truth, then it should be possible to find the truth. Job's search is for the reason behind God's authorship of evil. (Job 10:13) God has a duty to make the fulfillment of that promise possible. 

You can read the Book of Job in terms of God's special revelation in scripture since Job was a follower of God, but you would assume he is in covenant with God. A covenant is a contract between God and man with reciprocal obligations. Each party to the contract has rights and duties towards the other party. The Deuteronomic covenant is perhaps the paramount example of covenant in the Old Testament. If man does certain things, then God promises to do certain things. (Deuteronomy 28:1-14) If man fails to do certain things, then God promises to do certain other things. (Deuteronomy 28:15-45) Those mutual promises set up mutual rights and duties. The solution for one party when the other party breaches the contract is a rib or lawsuit. There are many Old Testament examples of lawsuits by God against his people for breach of covenant. The Book of Job might be read as a unique example of a lawsuit by man against God for breach of covenant. Job had diligently observed all Gods commandments (Deuteronomy 28:1) and yet God did not deliver on his promises (Deuteronomy 28:2-13) but rather imposed on Job the curses he promised would only be imposed on the wicked. (Deuteronomy 28:15-44) In fact, the evils that befall Job have close parallels to those Deuteronomic curses. In terms of covenant, the basis on which God puts man on trial is the same basis on which Job puts God on trial: a violation of an agreement made. Conceptually, holding God to his promises can involve putting God on trial.

Job actually puts God on trial. (Job 27:1-21:40) That means at a minimum Job has a right, God has a duty. God approved what Job said. (Job 42:7) At a minimum, it means Job was right in raising the lawsuit and what that involved.

If you think you have a right to God saving you because you accept Jesus' work on the cross and God has a duty to save you because of your acceptance of that, then you might reflect that the basis for that is a promise: the same basis for Job's belief in a right and a duty.

I think it is a mistake to reduce Job's complaint against God to the loss of property and family. He wants to know the reason behind evil in the world.

----------


## Miranda

To answer your first question.. which you really have answered for me paragraph, the basis for my rights in Christ are His promises written in his word 'For God so loved the world, that he gave His only son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life' and 'Lo I am with you always, even to the end of the earth.'..so yes I agree - God's covenental promises, written in His word and the fact that God cannot contradict Himself are the basis of my rights to heaven. 

Could you explain to me what you mean by 'God's promises can be through his general revelation in creation (natural law)' I understand the last part of your statement, but are the natural laws that govern the universe, necessarily promises? Is God bound to keep them the same just because He has instigated them and can He change them if He so desires? I think that He can. But covenantal laws are different and I regard them the same way I think that you do..that God is bound by them because He has promised and He cannot break His word, nor change it.

I also agree that God has put into the human heart a desire to seek the truth - and God is that truth. God says that we will find him when we seek him with our whole hearts. So I agree with you here. I also accept that it has to be possible to find the truth with diligent searching and that God has to make the truth available otherwise it wouldnt be possible to find Him. But like Pilate said 'what is truth?' I believe the 'truth' we have a right to find, is God the Father and His Son Christ, and His redeeming love, power and atoning sacrifice. I don't think it means that God is answerable to us for what He does, unless He has bound Himself to us by a promise in His word. So I think this is where I depart from your view - I don't think that God is bound by any covenant or word to give an answer to Job as to why he is suffering as he is. But I think He is bound to reveal Himself and His salvation to us because He has promised. However, God is a God of love and I believe that Job could ask God, why he is suffering so, not as a demand, but as a son to a father, though the father does not have a right to answer - yet He will because of His love. 

I don't see the book of Job as a lawsuit against God at all, though it certainly is a complaint from Job's point of view. But as a complaint I still dont agree that God is bound to answer..though He dos. 

I agree that the book of Job is far more than just Job's complaint against God to the loss of property and family and I agree the book of Job illustrates how He wants to know the reason behind evil in the world. Im not sure that God ever actually reveals the reasons for Job's suffering, but in faith, Job learns how small he is compared to God's majesty and power and he learns to accept how things are, through Faith in Him. Do you think Robert that you can have faith, without understanding? 

Its getting really late now and I have to go to bed, but I will look at this again tomorrow, 
Miranda



or through his special revelation in scripture (covenant). They both are the word of God.

I have directed my comments on the Book of Job in terms of his general revelation in creation since Job is not an Isrealite. The promise here arises in the following way: (1) God put in all human hearts the natural human desire to know the truth, (2) God has an obligation to make the truth available at some point in time, since ought implies can. If you ought to seek the truth, then it should be possible to find the truth. Job's search is for the reason behind God's authorship of evil. (Job 10:13) God has a duty to make the fulfillment of that promise possible. 

You can read the Book of Job in terms of God's special revelation in scripture since Job was a follower of God, but you would assume he is in covenant with God. A covenant is a contract between God and man with reciprocal obligations. Each party to the contract has rights and duties towards the other party. The Deuteronomic covenant is perhaps the paramount example of covenant in the Old Testament. If man does certain things, then God promises to do certain things. (Deuteronomy 28:1-14) If man fails to do certain things, then God promises to do certain other things. (Deuteronomy 28:15-45) Those mutual promises set up mutual rights and duties. The solution for one party when the other party breaches the contract is a rib or lawsuit. There are many Old Testament examples of lawsuits by God against his people for breach of covenant. The Book of Job might be read as a unique example of a lawsuit by man against God for breach of covenant. Job had diligently observed all Gods commandments (Deuteronomy 28:1) and yet God did not deliver on his promises (Deuteronomy 28:2-13) but rather imposed on Job the curses he promised would only be imposed on the wicked. (Deuteronomy 28:15-44) In fact, the evils that befall Job have close parallels to those Deuteronomic curses. In terms of covenant, the basis on which God puts man on trial is the same basis on which Job puts God on trial: a violation of an agreement made. Conceptually, holding God to his promises can involve putting God on trial.

Job actually puts God on trial. (Job 27:1-21:40) That means at a minimum Job has a right, God has a duty. God approved what Job said. (Job 42:7) At a minimum, it means Job was right in raising the lawsuit and what that involved.

If you think you have a right to God saving you because you accept Jesus' work on the cross and God has a duty to save you because of your acceptance of that, then you might reflect that the basis for that is a promise: the same basis for Job's belief in a right and a duty.

I think it is a mistake to reduce Job's complaint against God to the loss of property and family. He wants to know the reason behind evil in the world.[/QUOTE]

----------


## Robert Sutherla

Miranda:

You write: Could you explain to me what you mean by 'God's promises can be through his general revelation in creation (natural law)' I understand the last part of your statement, but are the natural laws that govern the universe, necessarily promises? 

The natural moral law is the ethical theory that moral rules, laws in the broadest sense of the term, are deduced or derived from an examination of the natural needs that constitute human nature. Natural law asserts that that single reason behind all the moral rules is human nature itself, specifically the natural needs that define human nature. There is a certain structure to how morals are deduced or derived from natural law. This three-fold structure is called a syllogism, meaning a way of seeing things together. It begins with a major premise, an ethical principle. It proceeds with a minor premise, certain statements of fact. And it arrives at a conclusion which consists of certain moral rules. The logic is as simple as it is profound. 

The following exposition of that framework is a tangential development out of those original texts so that modern readers can understand the basic parameters of natural law and the natural human need for truth. The ancient texts imply, support and sanction such a framework, even thought the ancient Jews never fully articulated such a framework. 

(1) The major premise of natural law is the basic ethical principle that you ought to seek whats really good for you. This is a self-evident truth. Why? The opposite is unthinkable. It is unthinkable that you ought to seek whats really bad for you. And, it is equally unthinkable that you ought not to seek whats really good for you. 

(2) The minor premise consists of a number of statements of fact about whats really good.

Those statements are discovered through the insight that whats really good is what fulfills a natural human need. All animals, including man, have a nature or essence. It is what separates one kind of animal from another kind of animal. It is what allows an observer to know that a particular individual is a member of one particular kind of animal as opposed to another. A nature consists of a set of species-specific characteristics or potentialities for development within a certain direction and within a certain range. Another name for these dynamic dispositional tendencies is natural needs or desires. These natural needs are universal within a species in the sense that all members, without exception, have them. They are eradicable within a species in the sense that all members, without exception, have them at all points in their life. And they are irresistible within a species in the sense that they are constantly seeking fulfillment. Human nature consists of the set of species-specific potentialities or natural needs all human beings share which are universal, eradicable and irresistible. The natural needs are distinguishable from acquired wants or acquired needs. 

The insight that whats really good is what fulfills a natural need is a self-evident truth. Why? There is no such thing as a wrong natural need. The very idea of a wrong natural need is unthinkable. We can imagine wrong wants. We can imagine wanting something that is bad for us as human beings. We can even imagine wanting it so strongly that we try to deceive ourselves and call it something good. Addictions are very good examples of such acquired needs. They are not universal, eradicable or irresistible. These acquired needs are not natural needs. They are not rooted in human nature itself. We can imagine wanting more of a good thing than is really good for us. We can imagine wanting less of a good thing than is really good for us. But we can never imagine a wrong natural need. If it were wrong, then we would not, by nature, need it. 

Not many natural needs meet the three-fold criteria of universality, eradicability and irresistibility. Scholars agree that those natural needs include the desire to know the truth, the desire to enjoy beauty, the desire to seek goodness, the desire to be free, the desire for justice, the desire for pleasure, the desire to love and be loved, the desire to work and creatively express one's self, the desire for life, growth and health, the desire for food and drink, the desire for shelter. The desire for God may be an additional desire or it may be included in the penumbra of the desires for truth, goodness and beauty. These are needs all human beings have. They possess them at all points in their lives. These desires demand fulfillment. They may be satisfied or denied for periods of time, but they never really go away. These needs are matters of objective fact and they constitute human nature.

Real goods fulfill natural needs or desires. These real goods are biological, economic, social, political, psychological and religious goods. The biological goods include life, health and vigor. The economic goods include (a) a decent supply of the means of subsistence, (b) living and working conditions that are conducive to health, (c) medical care, (d) opportunities for access to the pleasures of sense, the pleasures of play, aesthetic pleasures, (e) opportunities for access to the goods of the mind through educational facilities in youth and adult life and (f) enough free time from subsistence work, both in youth and adult life, to take full advantage of these opportunities. The political goods include (a) liberty, (b) peace, both civil and external, (c) the political liberties of voting and holding office, together with (d) the protection of individual freedom by the prevention of violence, aggression, coercion, or intimidation and (e) justice. The social goods include (a) equality of status, (b) equality of opportunity and (c) equality of treatment in all matters affecting the dignity of the human person. The psychological goods include (a) the goods of personal association (family, friendship, and love), (b) the goods of character (the cardinal virtues of prudence, justice, courage and temperance, and the theological virtues of faith, hope and love), and (c) the goods of the mind (creativity, knowledge, understanding and wisdom). The religious goods include awe and wonder, repentance and forgiveness, gratitude and worship and a personal relationship with God. All of these real goods are matters of objective fact. Reasonable people reflecting on what it is to be human would agree that these are things people need for a good human life. The list may not be exhaustive, but it is very representative of the consensus that currently exists.

However, these real goods need ordering and proportioning so that they retain their overall goodness. That is the function of moral virtue. Moral virtue is the habit of rightly choosing the real goods that make for a good human life. The main virtues are the cardinal virtues: prudence, temperance, courage and justice. Prudence is the habit of rightly judging the means to obtaining those right ends. Temperance is the habit of resisting and limiting immediate pleasures for a future good. Courage is the habit of suffering pain or discomfort for a future good. Justice is the habit of concern for the good of others and community welfare. While they may be analytically distinct, they are not existentially distinct. You cannot possess one without the others. These virtues are matters of objective fact. 

(3) The conclusion is a basic moral rule derived or deduced from the combination of a single self-evidently true ethical principle and those objectively true matters of facts. 

(a) You should pursue and possess all the real goods that every human being needs by nature, 

(b) properly ordered and proportioned so that each good is really good for you as a human being, and 

(c) all the apparent goods that you yourself might want as an individual, 

(d) provided your pursuit and possession of those apparent goods does not interfere with your or anyone elses pursuit and possession of all the real goods every human being needs by nature. 

This is what constitutes the total good of man. This is what constitutes the good life. This is what constitutes happiness, for it is the pursuit and possession of everything you might rightly need or want such that you are lacking in nothing. This is what God intends in making man what he is. It is Gods general revelation in creation. It is rationally discoverable by all men, regardless of time or place. The author presents Job as one who has discovered that truth and made it his life.

----------


## Robert Sutherla

Miranda:

This is a continuation of the last post.

The Bible itself is imbued with an ethic of natural law. Most often, natural law is implicit, but every so often, it is made explicit. One would expect to find such explicit statements of natural law in portions of The Bible dealing with moral rules, because such statements are the articulations of the reason behind the rules. And that indeed is where the two formulations of it are to be found.

In the Holiness Code, Moses expresses his understanding of the basic ethical principle of natural law. You shall be holy for I the LORD your God am holy. (Leviticus 19:10) The key word here is holy.  The Hebrew word behind it is qodosh. It is virtually synonymous with the Hebrew word tam used to describe Job. Qodosh means holy, dedicated, devoted, separate, set apart for a special purpose. It describes three things: (1) the perfect fulfillment of (2) the purpose (3) for which something exists or is used. That purpose is found in the natural needs that define human nature. To paraphrase, Moses is saying you should perfectly fulfill the purpose for which you exist, just as the LORD your God perfectly fulfills the purpose for which he exists. The focus is on purpose within nature. The central ethical obligation is to perfectly fulfill the natural needs of man and to make ones self fully available to God for his purposes. This is the heart of Old Testament morality. All the rest is commentary on the real goods that make for a good human life. 

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus expresses his understanding of the basic ethical principle of natural law. Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matthew 5:6) The key word here is perfect. The Greek word behind it is teleios. It is virtually identical with the Hebrew tam used to describe Job. Teleios means perfect, well-rounded, whole, sound, mature, complete. It describes three things: (1) the complete actualization of (2) the potentialities (3) that define the nature of something. Those potentialities are found in the natural desires that define human nature. Teleios is a word that has a long history in Greek ethical philosophy, especially in the natural law writings of Aristotle. The focus again is on potentialities within nature. Jesus is reworking and sharpening Moses formulation of the basic ethical principle of natural law. Complete actualization corresponds to perfect fulfillment. Potentialities correspond to purpose. The nature of something corresponds to that for which something exists or is used. To paraphrase, Jesus is saying that you should be fully actualized, just as your heavenly Father is fully actualized. You should be truly and fully human, just as your heavenly Father is truly and fully divine. The central ethical obligation is to fulfill the natural needs of man. It is an obligation to be all that you can be and to be the very best you can be. This is the heart of New Testament morality. All the rest is commentary on the real goods that make for a good human life.

----------


## Robert Sutherla

Miranda:

You write: "I don't see the book of Job as a lawsuit against God at all"

What follows is a very long answer over several posts. It is my reading of Job 27-31.

The Oath of Innocence is an ancient legal device, found in Babylonian , Hittite and Jewish legal codes. It is not found in Egyptian legal codes, since Egyptian law was never codified. The word of the reigning Pharaoh was the law. However, it is found in Egyptian mythology in the Final Judgment described in The Book of the Dead. So, it may have existed in the unwritten common law of Egypt. 

The Oath of Innocence was a self-contained lawsuit involving a summary trial in absentia and two default judgments that issued virtually automatically. In all Ancient Near Eastern cultures, it was understood to have been given by God himself and reserved for those most difficult of cases where the defendant could not be found and if found, could not be compelled to come to court to answer the charges. No formal court was required. The swearing of the Oath of Innocence created a court where God himself was the judge. No summons of a defendant was required. The swearing of the Oath of Innocence dispensed with the need for a summons. No witnesses were required. The confessions within the Oath of Innocence made by the deponent provided all the evidentiary testimony needed. 

The Oath of Innocence could be used as a shield or as a sword. When a person such as Job was suspected of wrongdoing or was the victim of wrongdoing, that person could swear out an Oath of Innocence in the presence of God declaring his innocence and condemning the actual wrongdoer. The person swearing the oath would put his temporal life and his eternal salvation on the line. The Oath of Innocence could be used by Job defensively as a shield against his friends. When a person such as Job was suspected of wrongdoing, he could raise the Oath of Innocence as a complete defense. And it would be accepted by any civil or criminal court as a final adjudication of the matter. The Oath of Innocence could be used by Job offensively as a sword against God. When a person such as Job was the victim of wrongdoing, he could raise the Oath of Innocence as a civil or criminal prosecution of the wrongdoer. Ancient legal codes did not readily distinguish between civil wrongs and criminal offenses. A single court often dealt with both. And the Oath of Innocence would be accepted by any civil or criminal court as a final adjudication of that matter. 

The jurisdiction for Job to put God on trial through an Oath of Innocence arises from the fact that there were no limits on who could be a defendant. It just had to be a person. And God guaranteed that he would hear the case. (1 Kings 8:31-32; 2 Chronicles 6:22-23; Deuteronomy 1:17)

----------


## Robert Sutherla

1. Statement of Claim

Jobs statement of claim is a simple one. God is the author of undeserved evil in the world. Job has a right to know the reason why. And God has taken away that right. 

Jobs raising of the Oath of Innocence instituted civil or criminal proceedings against God. Job was the first in human history to ever raise this Oath of Innocence against God. The Oath of Innocence operated as a civil statement of claim or a criminal indictment of the actual wrongdoer. If the wrongdoer was not known or being known, could not be found, then the raising of the Oath of Innocence constituted proof of service on the wrongdoer. Job had finally found his way of summoning God. The wrongdoer was summoned by the oath to immediately appear before the court. The swearing of the Oath of Innocence instituted an immediate summary trial in absentia. The trial commenced the very moment the Oath of Innocence was sworn.

(a) Job opens his Oath of Innocence with an oath sworn in the presence of Almighty God. 

"As God lives, who has taken away my right, and the Almighty, who has made my soul bitter, as long as my breath is in me and the spirit of God is in my nostrils, my lips will not speak falsehood, and my tongue will not utter deceit. (Job 27:2-4 Italics added for emphasis) 

As God is omnipresent, the oath is sworn on the ash heap on which Job sits and not in any temple. Job is always in the presence of God. The oath is sworn on the very life of God himself. Paradoxically, Job swears the oath by the very God who has wronged him. This is a clear indication that Job believes God has a reason for sending the evil in the first place. It is an act of great faith. 

(b) Jobs statement of claim begins with that actual act of swearing the oath, but continues beyond it. 

Godhas taken away my right, the Almighty has made my soul bitter Far be it from me to say that you are right; until I die I will not put away my integrity from me. I hold fast my righteousness, and will not let it go; my heart does not reproach me for any of my days. (Job 27:2-6 Italics added for emphasis)

Job is clearly put his eternal life on the line here. The expression far be it from me is a weak translation of the Hebrew halilah, which really means Im damned. Job is saying Ill be damned if I do not demand an answer of God. Ill be damned if I ever let him off the hook without an answer. This passage has profound implications for understanding Jobs second speech to God and precludes any withdrawal of the lawsuit.

(c) Later in the Oath of Innocence, he would add a very personal statement of the loss he has suffered through Gods creation of a world of undeserved and unremitted suffering.

But now they make sport of me, those who are younger than I, whose fathers I would have disdained to set with the dogs of my flock. What could I gain from the strength of their hands? All their vigor is gone. Through want and hard hunger they gnaw the dry and desolate ground, they pick mallow and the leaves of bushes, and to warm themselves the roots of broom. They are driven out from society; people shout after them as after a thief. In the gullies of wadis they must live, in holes in the ground, and in the rocks. Among the bushes they bray; under the nettles they huddle together. A senseless, disreputable brood, they have been whipped out of the land. "And now they mock me in song; I am a byword to them. They abhor me, they keep aloof from me; they do not hesitate to spit at the sight of me. Because God has loosed my bowstring and humbled me, they have cast off restraint in my presence. On my right hand the rabble rise up; they send me sprawling, and build roads for my ruin. They break up my path, they promote my calamity; no one restrains them. As through a wide breach they come; amid the crash they roll on. Terrors are turned upon me; my honor is pursued as by the wind, and my prosperity has passed away like a cloud. "And now my soul is poured out within me; days of affliction have taken hold of me. The night racks my bones, and the pain that gnaws me takes no rest. With violence he seizes my garment; he grasps me by the collar of my tunic. He has cast me into the mire, and I have become like dust and ashes. I cry to you and you do not answer me; I stand, and you merely look at me. You have turned cruel to me; with the might of your hand you persecute me. You lift me up on the wind, you make me ride on it, and you toss me about in the roar of the storm. I know that you will bring me to death, and to the house appointed for all living. "Surely one does not turn against the needy, when in disaster they cry for help. Did I not weep for those whose day was hard? Was not my soul grieved for the poor? But when I looked for good, evil came; and when I waited for light, darkness came. My inward parts are in turmoil, and are never still; days of affliction come to meet me. I go about in sunless gloom; I stand up in the assembly and cry for help. I am a brother of jackals, and a companion of ostriches. My skin turns black and falls from me, and my bones burn with heat. My lyre is turned to mourning, and my pipe to the voice of those who weep. (Job 29:1- 30:31 Italics added for emphasis.)

----------


## Robert Sutherla

(d) The swearing of the claim is service of that claim on the alleged wrongdoer; in this case, God. Job has identified God as the wrongdoer in the opening sentence: Godwho has taken away my right. (Job 27:2) 

However, Job deepens that identification. The answers he seeks are the answers only God has. So Job incorporates a traditional hymn to God into his oath. It is a hymn to wisdom. In Jobs mouth, the wisdom in question becomes the answer to why there is evil in the world. 

Surely there is a mine for silver, and a place for gold to be refined. Iron is taken out of the earth, and copper is smelted from ore. Miners put an end to darkness, and search out to the farthest bound the ore in gloom and deep darkness. They open shafts in a valley away from human habitation; they are forgotten by travelers, they sway suspended, remote from people. As for the earth, out of it comes bread; but underneath it is turned up as by fire. Its stones are the place of sapphires, and its dust contains gold. "That path no bird of prey knows, and the falcon's eye has not seen it. The proud wild animals have not trodden it; the lion has not passed over it. "They put their hand to the flinty rock, and overturn mountains by the roots. They cut out channels in the rocks, and their eyes see every precious thing. The sources of the rivers they probe; hidden things they bring to light. "But where shall wisdom be found? And where is the place of understanding? Mortals do not know the way to it, and it is not found in the land of the living. The deep says, 'It is not in me,' and the sea says, 'It is not with me.' It cannot be gotten for gold, and silver cannot be weighed out as its price. It cannot be valued in the gold of Ophir, in precious onyx or sapphire. Gold and glass cannot equal it, nor can it be exchanged for jewels of fine gold. No mention shall be made of coral or of crystal; the price of wisdom is above pearls. The chrysolite of Ethiopia cannot compare with it, nor can it be valued in pure gold. "Where then does wisdom come from? And where is the place of understanding? It is hidden from the eyes of all living, and concealed from the birds of the air. Abaddon and Death say, 'We have heard a rumor of it with our ears.' "God understands the way to it, and he knows its place. For he looks to the ends of the earth, and sees everything under the heavens. When he gave to the wind its weight, and apportioned out the waters by measure; when he made a decree for the rain, and a way for the thunderbolt; then he saw it and declared it; he established it, and searched it out. And he said to humankind, 'Truly, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding. '" (Job 28:1-28 Italics added for emphasis) 

In Jobs mouth, this hymn to wisdom becomes a poetic style of cause. It identifies the wrongdoer God as the object of the lawsuit. Only God has the answer. And only God can give it. Job fears God and turns from evil. (Job 1:1,8; 2:3) This wise and understanding servant demands an answer from his master.

In adopting this hymn to wisdom, Job may be ironically playing off Eliphazs earlier jibe. 

If you return to the Almighty, you will be restored, if you remove unrighteousness from your tents, if you treat gold like dust, and gold of Ophir like the stones of the torrent-bed, and if the Almighty is your gold and your precious silver, then you will delight yourself in the Almighty, and lift up your face to God. You will pray to him, and he will hear you, and you will pay your vows. You will decide on a matter, and it will be established for you, and light will shine on your ways. (Job 22:24-27) 

Eliphaz had unknowingly tempted Job to manipulate God into restoring his former position by falsely repenting. This Satan had claimed was the essence of sin. In his Oath of Innocence, Job turns to God not in repentance, but in the integrity of his ways. This hymn and Eliphazs earlier comments link precious stones and metals with a plea to God. Eliphaz had contemplated a successful plea. The matter will be established for you. (Job 22:27) At this point, Job seems to be goading both Eliphaz and God. Ultimately, the matter will be established in Jobs favour, though not in the way Eliphaz intended. Job will be declared by God to have spoken rightly about God. (Job 42:7-8) The Hebrew word kuwn there means established with certainty. It will be established that Job has a right to know the reason behind evil.

(e) In any event, Job drives home his service of the Oath of Innocence on God with his next to last words in the oath.
 
Oh, that I had one to hear me! (Here is my signature! let the Almighty answer me!) Oh, that I had the indictment written by my adversary! Surely I would carry it on my shoulder; I would bind it on me like a crown; I would give him an account of all my steps; like a prince I would approach him. (Job 31:35-37)

Jobs three friends are left speechless. It is a formal indictment of God for crimes against humanity. 

Job signs his signature to the Oath of Innocence with a mark in the air. The Hebrew word here for signature is tau meaning a mark. In the ancient Hebrew language, that mark was made through the sign of the cross: +. With his right hand, Job makes the sign of the cross in the air and swears by it. 

Within a canonical perspective, Jobs action reverberates down through the halls of scripture. Job is a suffering servant, a Christ figure. This moment is his garden of Gethsemane. But rather than saying not my will but thy will be done, Job is saying the opposite: let my will, not thy will, be done. Time will tell if his will is Gods will. The Book of Job rewrites what will become an important part of The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The righteous man of God may be a suffering servant, but he need not be a lamb that goes silent to the slaughter.

----------


## Robert Sutherla

2. Proof of Claim

The proof of that claim is accomplished by a series of self-imposed curses in the Oath of Innocence by which Job puts his temporal life and eternal salvation on the line. Ancient legal codes are very unclear as to whether the normal civil standard of proof was proof on a balance of probability and whether the normal criminal standard of proof was proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In any event, it did not matter. The swearing of the Oath of Innocence established proof beyond all possible doubt. It converted a summary trial into a summary default proceeding. 

(a) Jobs positive confession surfaces early in the Oath of Innocence. Job stands on his personal integrity. 

As long as breath is in me and the spirit of God is in my nostrils, my lips will not speak falsehood, and my tongue will not utter deceitUntil I die I will not put away integrity from me. I hold fast my righteousness, and will not let it go; my heart does not reproach me for any of my days. (Job 27:2-6 Italics added for emphasis.)

The raising of the oath is an expression of the integrity that God has already declared in heaven to be beyond reproach. (Job 1:8; 2:3)

Job deepens that positive confession with a recounting of his former life. Job was once a judge who did justice in both his personal and professional lives.

"Oh, that I were as in the months of old, as in the days when God watched over me; when his lamp shone over my head, and by his light I walked through darkness; when I was in my prime, when the friendship of God was upon my tent; when the Almighty was still with me, when my children were around me; when my steps were washed with milk, and the rock poured out for me streams of oil! When I went out to the gate of the city, when I took my seat in the square, the young men saw me and withdrew, and the aged rose up and stood; the nobles refrained from talking, and laid their hands on their mouths; the voices of princes were hushed, and their tongues stuck to the roof of their mouths. When the ear heard, it commended me, and when the eye saw, it approved; because I delivered the poor who cried, and the orphan who had no helper. The blessing of the wretched came upon me, and I caused the widow's heart to sing for joy. I put on righteousness, and it clothed me; my justice was like a robe and a turban. I was eyes to the blind, and feet to the lame. I was a father to the needy, and I championed the cause of the stranger. I broke the fangs of the unrighteous, and made them drop their prey from their teeth. Then I thought, 'I shall die in my nest, and I shall multiply my days like the phoenix; my roots spread out to the waters, with the dew all night on my branches; my glory was fresh with me, and my bow ever new in my hand.' "They listened to me, and waited, and kept silence for my counsel. After I spoke they did not speak again, and my word dropped upon them like dew. They waited for me as for the rain; they opened their mouths as for the spring rain. I smiled on them when they had no confidence; and the light of my countenance they did not extinguish. I chose their way, and sat as chief, and I lived like a king among his troops, like one who comforts mourners. (Job 29:2-25 Italics added for emphasis.)

Job consistently met the needs of those in need. He perfectly fulfilled the demands of justice and love. He now calls on God to do the same.

It is worth noting Jobs allusion to the phoenix. (Job 29:18) In Ancient Near Eastern mythologies, the phoenix was a symbol of moral righteousness. Through its righteousness, it earned the right to a long life and the right to resurrection and eternal life. Every 500 to 1500 years depending on the myth, the phoenix would die in its nest, be renewed and reborn by a fire from God. Job claims the moral righteousness that is the right to resurrection and eternal life.

----------


## Robert Sutherla

(b) Jobs negative confession occurs near the end of his Oath of Innocence. It consists of sixteen self-imposed curses. The gist of these curses is two-fold. It is as if Job is saying: 

If I have sinned in thought, word or deed, then let me be cursed forever. But if I have not sinned in thought, word or deed, then I reserve to myself the right to curse my enemy for what he has done to me. 

Job is putting his temporal and eternal life on the line. Job has already indicated he would suffer the unrelenting pain of a hell to get that answer. (Job 6:10) And now he is preparing to condemn or damn God to such a metaphorical hell should he not get his answer.

1. [If] I have made a covenant with my eyes; how then could I look upon a virgin? What would be my portion from God above, and my heritage from the Almighty on high? Does not calamity befall the unrighteous, and disaster the workers of iniquity? Does he not see my ways, and number all my steps? (Job 31:1-4)

2. "If I have walked with falsehood, and my foot has hurried to deceit-- let me be weighed in a just balance, and let God know my integrity! (Job 31:5-6)

3. if my step has turned aside from the way, and my heart has followed my eyes, and if any spot has clung to my hands; then let me sow, and another eat; and let what grows for me be rooted out. (Job 31:7-8)

4. "If my heart has been enticed by a woman, and I have lain in wait at my neighbor's door; then let my wife grind for another, and let other men kneel over her. For that would be a heinous crime; that would be a criminal offense; for that would be a fire consuming down to Abaddon, and it would burn to the root all my harvest. (Job 31:9-12)

5. "If I have rejected the cause of my male or female slaves, when they brought a complaint against me; what then shall I do when God rises up? When he makes inquiry, what shall I answer him? Did not he who made me in the womb make them? And did not one fashion us in the womb? (Job 31:13-15)

6. "If I have withheld anything that the poor desired, or have caused the eyes of the widow to fail, or have eaten my morsel alone, and the orphan has not eaten from it-- for from my youth I reared the orphan like a father, and from my mother's womb I guided the widow (Job 31:16-18)

7. if I have seen anyone perish for lack of clothing, or a poor person without covering, whose loins have not blessed me, and who was not warmed with the fleece of my sheep; (Job 31:21:19-20) 

8. if I have raised my hand against the orphan, because I saw I had supporters at the gate; then let my shoulder blade fall from my shoulder, and let my arm be broken from its socket. For I was in terror of calamity from God, and I could not have faced his majesty. (Job 31:21-23)

9. "If I have made gold my trust, or called fine gold my confidence; (Job 31:24)

10. if I have rejoiced because my wealth was great, or because my hand had gotten much; (Job 31:25)

11. if I have looked at the sun when it shone, or the moon moving in splendor, and my heart has been secretly enticed, and my mouth has kissed my hand; this also would be an iniquity to be punished by the judges, for I should have been false to God above. (Job 31:26-28)

12.: "If I have rejoiced at the ruin of those who hated me, or exulted when evil overtook them-- I have not let my mouth sin by asking for their lives with a curse(Job 31:29-30)

13. if those of my tent ever said, 'O that we might be sated with his flesh!'-- the stranger has not lodged in the street; I have opened my doors to the traveler(Job 31:31-32)

14. if I have concealed my transgressions as others do, by hiding my iniquity in my bosom, because I stood in great fear of the multitude, and the contempt of families terrified me, so that I kept silence, and did not go out of doors(Job 31:33-34)

15. "If my land has cried out against me, and its furrows have wept together; (Job 31:38)

16. if I have eaten its yield without payment, and caused the death of its owners; let thorns grow instead of wheat, and foul weeds instead of barley." (Job 31:39-40 Italics and paragraphing added for emphasis.)

A number of items here merit comment. The standard of social justice Job claims to have met is centuries, perhaps even millennia, ahead of its time. All human beings are created equal by God. Every person, regardless of rank or wealth, is entitled to the equal benefit and protection of the law. (Job 31:13-15) The standard of personal righteousness Job claims to have met is very high. The sins denied are not merely deeds, but words and thoughts. This standard greatly exceeds the accepted Old Testament norm of morality. 

Perhaps, the most interesting passage is Jobs denial that he has concealed transgressions as others do. (Job 31:34) The actual Hebrew text reads as Adam did. This is clearly a reference to original sin. The essence of Adams sin was that he failed to take personal responsibility for his actions and be forgiven on the spot by God. Job claims he does not do as Adam did and would not have done what Adam did. Within a canonical perspective, this is a profound rewriting of The Book of Genesis and a rejection of most formulations of the doctrine of original sin. Human beings can be perfect, both in terms of righteousness and justice. Job claims to be such a man.

----------


## Robert Sutherla

Jobs negative confession has remarkable parallels to the Egyptian Oath of Innocence and notable differences. 

In Egyptian mythology, the Oath of Innocence is found in the Egyptian Book of the Dead, dated to between 1500 and 1350 BC. The Oath of Innocence occurs in the context of the Final Judgment. The soul is ushered into the Halls of Maat. Maat means order, truth, and justice and it describes the natural moral order that underlies all of creation. The soul appears before the high God Osiris, the Lord of the Underworld and the Judge of the dead. Here the soul is asked to swear a formal Oath of Innocence. The oath is a negative one. It describes the sins a person has not committed. It is sworn in the presence of Osiris himself and the forty-two divine jurors that represent the forty-two districts in the land of Egypt. 

Usekh-nemmt from Anu - I haven't committed sin.
Hept-khet from Kher-aha - I haven't committed robbery with violence.
Fenti from Kemenu- I haven't stolen.
Am-khaibit from Qernet - I haven't slain men and women.
Neha-her from Rasta - I haven't stolen grain.
Ruruti from heaven - I haven't purloined offerings.
Arfi-em-khet from Suat - I haven't stolen the property of God.
Neba, who comes and goest - I haven't uttered lies.
Set-qesu from Hensu - I haven't carried away food.
Utu-nesert from Het-ka-Ptah - I haven't uttered curses.
Qerrti from Amentet - I haven't committed adultery - I haven't lain with men.
Her-f-ha-f from thy cavern - I have made none to weep.
Basti from Bast - I haven't eaten the heart.
Ta-retiu from the night - I haven't attacked any man.
Unem-snef from the execution chamber - I am not a man of deceit.
Unem-besek from Mabit - I haven't stolen cultivated land.
Neb-Maat from Maati - I haven't been an eavesdropper.
Tenemiu from Bast - I haven't slandered no man.
Sertiu from Anu - I haven't been angry without just cause.
Tutu from Ati (the Busirite Nome) - I haven't debauched the wife of any man.
Uamenti from the Khebt chamber - I haven't debauched the wife of any man.
Maa-antuf from Per-Menu - I haven't polluted myself.
Her-uru from Nehatu - I have terrorized none.
Khemiu from Kaui - I haven't transgressed the law.
Shet-kheru from Urit - I haven't been wroth.
Nekhenu from Heqat - I haven't shut my ears to the words of truth.
Kenemti from Kenmet - I haven't blasphemed.
An-hetep-f from Sau - I am not a man of violence.
Sera-kheru from Unaset - I haven't been a stirrer up of strife.
Neb-heru from Netchfet - I haven't acted with undue haste.
Sekhriu from Uten - I haven't pried into matters.
Neb-abui from Sauti - I haven't multiplied my words in speaking.
Nefer-Tem from Het-ka-Ptah - I have wronged none - I have done no evil.
Tem-Sepu from Tetu - I haven't worked witchcraft against the king.
Ari-em-ab-f from Tebu - I have never stopped the flow of water.
Ahi from Nu - I have never raised my voice.
Uatch-rekhit from Sau - I haven't cursed God.
Neheb-ka from thy cavern - I haven't acted with arrogance.
Neheb-nefert from thy cavern - I haven't stolen the bread of the gods.
Tcheser-tep from the shrine - I haven't carried away the khenfu cakes from the Spirits of the dead.
An-af from Maati - I haven't snatched away the bread of a child, nor treated with contempt the city god.
Hetch-abhu from Ta-she (the Fayyum) - I haven't slain the cattle belonging to the god. 

The sins denied are both ceremonial and moral. The ceremonial sins are about ten in number, constituting almost a quarter of the entire oath. The moral sins are almost exclusively sins of deed. There is perhaps one sin of word, the cursing of God. It is a stark contrast to Jobs Oath of Innocence which consists entirely of moral sins. By this oath, the soul puts its eternal life on the line. If the oath is false in any respect, the person swearing the oath is eternally damned.

Once the Oath of Innocence is sworn, the heart of the person is placed on the scales of justice and weighed against a feather of truth. In Egyptian thinking, the heart represents the person. The feather of truth represents Maat, the natural moral order. If the two balance equally on the scales of justice, then the soul is vindicated. Its life has been in accordance with the natural moral order. And it may proceed into the halls of the righteous for a favourable afterlife. Interestingly enough, Job has previously claimed my heart does not reproach me for any of my days (Job 27:6) and asked in his negative confession for the scales of justice: let me be weighed in a just balance and let God know my integrity! (Job 31:6) 

In Egyptian mythology, those who swear falsely and whose lives are not in accordance with the moral order await a gruesome fate. If the heart and the feather of truth do not balance equally on the scales of justice, then the soul is condemned. Osiris sends it to a chaos monster, Ammit, seated beside him. Ammit means the gobbler. Ammit is part crocodile, part lion and part hippopotamus, representing the destructive powers of chaos. Ammit is seated beside a lake of burning fire. The condemned soul is consumed by the chaos monster and passes into non-existence. This aspect of the Egyptian Oath of Innocence sets an ominous backdrop to Jobs Oath of Innocence. When God examines him in his second speech, the chaos monster Leviathan is there beside God to devour Job if Job has in any way sworn falsely in any aspect of his Oath of Innocence. 

Egyptian theology never reached the height of ethical monotheism because of the corrupting power of magic. The essence of magic is power. The power in question is the power to overpower the gods and the demonic. Over time, magic corrupted the use of the Oath of Innocence in the Final Judgment and deprived it of its moral quality. Charms and spells were used to supplement the oath and overpower the gods, especially Osiris. A special heart scarab was always buried with the deceased. It was thought to prevent the heart from owning up to any crimes the person had committed in life. This was important because the oath was sworn before the heart is weighed. The testimony of the heart might contradict the testimony of the lips. A correct recitation of the Oath of Innocence, using the proper pronunciation and tone, coupled with the possession of a heart scarab was deemed magically sufficient to guarantee the soul a favourable judgment on the scales of justice. Through magic, things always balanced out. Osiris, the god of judgment, became a rubber stamp. Morality was reduced to magical ritual. Jobs Oath of Innocence is grounded in morality not magic. When God appears to answer Job, God is bound only by morality not magic.

----------


## Robert Sutherla

3. Enforcement of claim

The enforcement of that claim is through a summary default procedure. When the actual wrongdoer, in this case God, did not show up and enter a defense to the Oath of Innocence, a two-fold summary default judgment would immediately issue. 

The first judgment was automatic. The person swearing the Oath of Innocence Job would be immediately vindicated of any suspected wrongdoing and the actual wrongdoer God would be immediately convicted of the alleged wrongdoing. That first judgment of vindication or justification was a finding of causal responsibility. 

The second judgment was almost as automatic, but it issued differently. The person swearing the Oath of Innocence Job was legally entitled to proceed further and condemn the actual wrongdoer God. The condemnation was a curse separate from oath itself. The person swearing the Oath of Innocence Job would then formally curse the wrongdoer God. That second judgment of condemnation was the actual imposition of blame, shame and guilt on the one causally responsible. Both were summary default judgments in absentia.

It should be remembered that God himself in giving the Oath of Innocence had promised that he would execute those summary default judgments. (1 Kings 8:31-32; 2 Chronicles 6:22-23)

That curse is foreshadowed early in the Oath of Innocence. 

"May my enemy be like the wicked, and may my opponent be like the unrighteous. For what is the hope of the godless when God cuts them off, when God takes away their lives? Will God hear their cry when trouble comes upon them? Will they take delight in the Almighty? Will they call upon God at all times? I will teach you concerning the hand of God; that which is with the Almighty I will not conceal. All of you have seen it yourselves; why then have you become altogether vain?(Job 27:7-12)

"This is the portion of the wicked with God, and the heritage that oppressors receive from the Almighty: If their children are multiplied, it is for the sword; and their offspring have not enough to eat. Those who survive them the pestilence buries, and their widows make no lamentation. Though they heap up silver like dust, and pile up clothing like clay-- they may pile it up, but the just will wear it, and the innocent will divide the silver. They build their houses like nests, like booths made by sentinels of the vineyard. They go to bed with wealth, but will do so no more; they open their eyes, and it is gone. Terrors overtake them like a flood; in the night a whirlwind carries them off. The east wind lifts them up and they are gone; it sweeps them out of their place. It hurls at them without pity; they flee from its power in headlong flight. It claps its hands at them, and hisses at them from its place. (Job 27:13-23 Italics added for emphasis)

If God fails to answer Jobs claim, then Job can activate that curse. That is the nature of a trial in absentia and a summary default judgment. He does so by speaking the curse a second time. Let the one who has wronged me be cursed now and forever. This was something Satan had prophesized Job would do; namely, curse God to his face. God would then execute that judgment by cursing himself. And Job has put in place the legal machinery to activate that curse.

----------


## Miranda

Robert, This is an awful lot to read, but I will read it when I have more time. I have never heard of this 'Oath of Innocence' before but am interested to find out about it. Thank you for posting this, 
Miranda

----------


## Robert Sutherla

Miranda:

I think the ancient Oath of Innocence was really helpful for Job. He was complaining he couldn't serve God with a legal summons. The Oath of Innocence is a lawsuit that doesn't require a summons.

How do like that Satan figure: Ammit the gobbler. He probably lives in the lake of fire and comes out of it to grab the damned, drag them back into the lake of fire and eat them.

----------


## Carrie

Robert (and Miranda):

I hopped into this discussion because I am teaching a class on the book of Job, and thought it would be interesting to see what you have to say.

Robert, it seems that you have lots of knowledge, but to the average person, your knowledge is too much. I have read lots of what you've posted, but I am getting lost as to what your point is because you have too much material. Also, in your conversations with Miranda, you have not acknowledged her viewpoints in a good way. I would suggest that you use the forum with a little more "grace", if I may be so bold.

I would welcome any comments from you.

Carrie

----------


## Robert Sutherla

Carrie:

You write: "I am getting lost as to what your point is because you have too much material. Also, in your conversations with Miranda."

I think the Book of Job is a theodicy. 

1. God has no duty to create the best of all possible worlds. God is the author of some evil in the world. (Job 1:21; 2:3,10; 40:19; 42:11) That evil is undeserved. That evil is morally necessary for the production of a particular type of faith or love: a completely selfless love of man for God. (Job 1:9-11)

2. Man has a right to know the reason behind evil in the world. That is the gist of Job's virtual sinlessness, his launching the Oath of Innocence and God's approval of Job's actions and words.

3. God has a duty to give an answer to that question. That is the gist of God's being the defendant in an Oath of Innocence. But that duty is nuanced; he doesn't have to give it here and now. The right to the truth is not inalienable and indefeasible. It can be deferred, if its deferral is necessary to prevent the production of a higher good; here, a completely selfless love of man for God.

4. Job grants God that time adjourning his lawsuit to the Day of the Final Judgment.

----------


## Robert Sutherla

Miranda:

You asked privately what I thought Leviathan was. Here is my response. It is lengthy and should cover several posts.

In his second speech to Job, God picks up on Jobs hesitation to proceedfurther in his Oath of Innocence to a condemnation of God. Having suggested a purpose in creation in his first speech, God now suggests a moral purpose in the creation and control of evil. That purpose is expressed through the cross-cultural myth of Leviathan where Leviathan is the embodiment of evil in the world. And that purpose finds its completion in the Jewish reworking of the myth.

1.	The mythological world: Behemoth- Leviathan

Leviathan is a cross-cultural symbol of evil incarnate. The image is found in the Babylonian myth of creation, the Canaanite myth of recreation and the Jewish myth of apocalypse.

Leviathan is a proper name. It means twisting one as befits a serpent. And Leviathan is a supernatural serpent, much like Satan. Leviathan is the Jewish chaos monster Rahab by another name. Leviathan is the Canaanite chaos monsters Litan, Yam and Mot by another name. Most scholars believe that the Leviathan gets his name from this Canaanite chaos monster Litan. Litan is Yam by another name. The Ugaritic word for Litan ltn and the Hebrew word for Leviathan liwyatan are almost identical linguistically. And the Ugaritic word for writhing or fleeing brh and the Hebrew word for writhing or fleeing bariah are almost identical linguistically.  Leviathan is the Babylonian chaos monsters Tiamat, Qingu and their offspring by another name. 

Leviathan is behemoth, because behemoth is a common not a proper noun. It is not a personal name and is never mentioned anywhere else in the Old Testament or outside it. The Hebrew word behemoth means the great beast, the beast par excellence. It is a plural noun used with singular verbs as the verses which follow indicate. It is the plural of majesty or the plural of fullness. Such plurals were regularly used to describe the one true God and their usage here indicates an intentional contrast. The plural of majesty suggests that Leviathan claims a kingship that is Gods alone. The plural of fullness suggests that Leviathan embodies all the attributes of evil in their perfection. It may even suggest a plurality of modalities or persons within the one evil. If so, all the predators of the earth, human and otherwise, are but the incarnations or manifestations of this one beast. 

Some scholars believe Behemoth is a chaos monster separate from Leviathan. If so, then Behemoth is probably the Jewish reworking of the Canaanite chaos monster Atik. In the Canaanite myth of recreation, the high God Baals sister claims to have defeated both Yam and Atik. 

Surely I smote the Beloved of El, Yam?
Surely I exterminated Nahar, the mighty god?
Surely I lifted up the dragon
I overpowered him?
I smote the writhing serpent,
Encircler - with-seven heads!
I smote the Behoved of El, Arsh,
I finished off Els calf, Atik,
I smote Els *****, Fire,
I exterminated Els daughter, Flame.
I fought for the silver,
I took possession of the gold
of those who drove Baal from the heights of Saphon,
knocking him like a bird from his perch,
(who) drove him the throne of his kingship,
from the back-rest,
from the siege of his dominion. 

The chaos monster Yam is a dragon, a writhing serpent, an Encircler with seven heads. This seven headed dragon is the chaos water that encircles the earth. Yam is the Canaanite Leviathan. Atik is a mythological bull calf. From other Canaanite myths, Atik appears to be the chaos monster that ravages the land as a wild bull might. If Yam is Leviathan, then presumably Atik is Behemoth. 

If so, Satan, Behemoth and Leviathan form a kind of unholy trinity in The Book of Job. Three persons, one chaos monster. Within a canonical perspective, they foreshadow the three chaos monsters of The Book of Revelation. There, the sky dragon is Satan. (Revelation 12:1-18) The composite monster from the sea is the Antichrist. (Revelation 13:1-10) And the composite monster from the earth is the False Prophet. (Revelation 13:11-17) Three persons, one evil.

----------


## Robert Sutherla

The Ancient Near Eastern chaos monster was always pictured as a supernatural dragon. This fire-breathing dragon has many heads, many eyes, many teeth, a huge mouth and many horns. The exact number varies from culture to culture. The many eyes and the many heads represent knowledge. The knowledge in question is the intention to bring about evil. The many teeth represent appetite. The appetite in question is the desire to bring about evil. The many horns and the fire represent power. The power in question is the ability to bring about evil. While it normally lives in the sea and represents it, this dragon has wings and can fly. It rules the sea, the land and the air. This power of flight represents a certain kind of omnipresence. The omnipresence in question is the pervasiveness of evil. It can strike anywhere and at anytime. This dragon is heavily armored with many scales on its body and rows of back plates and spines along its undulating back and tail. The many scales and back plates represent a certain kind of invincibility. The invincibility in question is the difficulty in subduing and ultimately destroying evil. This dragon is a supernatural twisting serpent. The twisting or crooked body represents the twisted and forever twisting nature of evil. 

Leviathan is clearly a primordial chaos monster, a dragon. It is a fire-breathing dragon. Its sneezes flash forth light, and its eyes are like the eyelids of the dawn. From its mouth go flaming torches; sparks of fire leap out. Out of its nostrils comes smoke, as from a boiling pot and burning rushes. Its breath kindles coals, and a flame comes out of its mouth. (Job 41:9-21) It is a heavily armored dragon with impenetrable scales on its body and rows of back plates and spines along its undulating back and tail. I will not keep silence concerning its limbs, or its mighty strength or its splendid frame? Who can strip off its outer garment? Who can penetrate its double coat of mail.Its back is made of shields in rows, shut closely together as with a seal. One is so near to another that no air can come between them. They are joined one to another; they clasp each other and cannot be separated. (Job 41:12-17) The fire and the armor suggest invincibility. On earth it has no equal, a creature without fear. It surveys everything that is lofty; it is king over all that are proud. (Job 41:33-34) This proud chaos monster is a king, a king ever ready to expand his kingdom. He continually surveys the lofty heavens looking for a chance to do evil and overturn the rule of God. Its heart is as hard as stone, as hard as the lower millstone. (Job 41:25) It will never change.

----------


## Robert Sutherla

2. Creating the dragon

Leviathan is the first of the great acts of God. (Job 40:19) He is a created being, like Job. (Job 40:15) The evil he represents is created evil, evil created by God. Evil is the first of the great acts of God. In fact, the Hebrew here re sit darke el may very well mean this evil is the finest demonstration of Gods power since the Ugaritic root drkt can mean dominion or power. That would mean Gods creation and control of evil is the finest demonstration of his power, a clear indication of purpose. His purpose is the creation of good in the midst of evil. This description of Leviathan as the first of the ways of God is a deliberate reworking of Proverbs 8:22 which posits wisdom, not evil, as the first of his acts of long ago. In the eyes of the author, Gods shrewd and considered plan or purpose in the world (Job 42:2b) involves a deep, even dark, wisdom that is the mystery of evil and its role in the world. In terms of mythic image and its reference, I had often thought Leviathan a good metaphor for, among other things, the beauty and ugliness of the evolutionary process which produced the human body, as opposed to the human mind. Life feeds on life and death is in the world long before Adam.

The author of The Book of Job is rewriting both the Babylonian myth of creation and The Book of Genesis on two points. Evil is created by God. Evil is in the world before the fall of man. It is worth looking at those two other myths for similarities and differences.

In the Babylonian myth of creation, evil is pre-existent. 

In that myth, the world was created out of the body of a slain chaos monster. When the high God Marduk divided Tiamat,

Half of her he set up and made as a cover, heaven. 
He stretched out the hide and assigned watchmen,
And ordered them not to let her waters escape.
He crossed heaven, he inspected (its) firmament. 

He made the position(s) for the great gods,
He established (in) constellations the stars, their likenesses.
He marked the year, described its boundaries,
He set up twelve months of three stars each. 
After he had patterned the days of the year,
He fixed the position of Neberu to make the (star) relationships.
Lest any make an error or go astray,
He established the position(s) of Enlil and Ea in relation to it. 
He opened up gates on both (side of her) ribs,
He made strong bolts to left and right.
In her liver he established the zenith.
He made the moon appear, entrusted (to him) the night. 
.
He set down her head and piled [ ] upon it,
He opened underground springs, a flood was let flow(?).
From her eyes he undammed the Euphr[ates] and Tigris,
He stopped up her nostrils, he left
He heaped up high-peaked mo[unt]tains from (?) her dregs.
He drilled through her waterholes to carry off the catchwater.
He coiled up her tail and tied it as(?) The Great Bond. 

He set her crotch as the brace of heaven,
Spreading [half of] her as a cover, he established the earth.
[After] he had completed his task inside Tiamat,
[He spre]ad his net, let all (within) escape,
He formed (/?) the[ ] of heaven and netherworld. 

In Ancient Near Eastern thinking, the universe was tri-partite: heaven, earth and the underworld. The earth was a disk sitting on water, surrounded by water. The earth is created out of Tiamat. The remains of Tiamat are confined to three places: the heavens, the oceans surrounding and encircling the earth and the underworld below. The reference to heaven is direct here: half of her he set up and made as a cover, heaven. The reference to the surrounding and encircling oceans is direct as well though some readers might miss it: He coiled up her tail and tied it as(?) The Great Bond. The surrounding waters are the bond that holds the heavens, the earth and the underworld together. The reference to the underworld is found in the eyes that are the springs of the Euphrates and Tigris rivers. From the underworld, water comes forth onto the earth. 

Echoes of this creation of the world might be heard early in The Book of Genesis. 

And God said, Let there be a dome in the midst of the water, and let it separate the waters from the waters. So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so. God called the dome Sky. And there was evening and morning, the second day. And God said, Let the waters under the sky be gathered together into one place and it was so. God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:6-10) 

And echoes of this creation of the world might even be heard in Gods first speech to Job, with its references to establishing the heavens and setting boundaries therein. 

"Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements--surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone when the morning stars sang together and all the heavenly beings shouted for joy? Or who shut in the sea with doors when it burst out from the womb?-- when I made the clouds its garment, and thick darkness its swaddling band, and prescribed bounds for it, and set bars and doors, and said, 'Thus far shall you come, and no farther, and here shall your proud waves be stopped'? Have you commanded the morning since your days began, and caused the dawn to know its place, so that it might take hold of the skirts of the earth, and the wicked be shaken out of it?... Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades, or loose the cords of Orion? Can you lead forth the Mazzaroth in their season, or can you guide the Bear with its children? Do you know the ordinances of the heavens? Can you establish their rule on the earth? Can you lift up your voice to the clouds, so that a flood of waters may cover you? Can you send forth lightnings, so that they may go and say to you, 'Here we are'? (Job 38:4-13, 31-35) 

Such intimations foreshadow the appearance of Leviathan in Gods second speech to Job.

The poetic point being made by the Babylonian poet is a very simple one. Chaos is evil. Evil is all around us. Evil is above us, beside us and beneath us, just as the waters of chaos are. Evil is part of the very fabric of creation. Evil is a part of the high God Marduks plan in the creation of the world.

----------


## Robert Sutherla

In that Babylonian myth, man was created out of the blood of a slain chaos monster. In Ancient Near Eastern thinking, the blood is the life. The life is the character of a man. Man takes his life, his character from his parents. Qingu is mans father. Tiamat is mans mother. The blood of the evil ones flows in mans veins. The poetic point being made by the Babylonian poet is a very simple one. Chaos is evil. Evil is deep within us. Evil flows within our veins. Evil shapes our life and our character. Evil is part of the very fabric of our being. Evil is part of the high God Marduks plan in the creation of man.

In The Book of Genesis, evil comes into the world with the fall of man. Man is created out of the dust of the earth and the spirit or breath of God. (Genesis 2:7) He is awakened to a truly human life through a kiss from God. It is Gods love that animates man. His parents are mother earth and father God. He takes his body from the earth. But he takes his mind, his intellect and free will, from God himself. That is what it is to be made in the image and likeness of God. (Genesis 1:26) Unlike any other animal, man is capable of apprehending the immaterial concepts of good and evil and choosing accordingly. Man is created neither good nor evil. His natural orientation is towards the good, for that is what makes for a truly and fully human life. But man becomes good or evil through his choices. He is evil not by nature, but by nurture. 

In The Book of Genesis, the evil of the chaos monster is not put into the heart of man by God. Man takes the chaos monster into himself through his choices. In the story of Adam and Eve, the chaos monster appears in a diminutive form, a serpent in the grass. The serpent tempts man to do evil and when man falls, he acquires a second parent, that serpent. He becomes the offspring of Satan. He becomes evil by nurture. With the repeated choice of evil, he becomes less and less human, more and more bestial. And for all appearance sake, he acquires a second nature. Chaos now reigns in his being. His passions are no longer subordinate to his reason and life becomes a struggle to impose order on chaos. That is the meaning of original sin. It is the loss of the original justice that was the subordination of the passions to reason. The moral point of the Babylonian poet remains. Evil is deep within us. Evil is part of who and what we have become. We are all little monsters at heart.

The moral point being made by the author of The Book of Job is similar yet different. While evil is part of the fabric of creation, man is not corrupted to the point he cannot choose good over evil. In fact, he is capable of the perfect goodness that is the completely selfless love of man for God.

----------


## Robert Sutherla

The ancient Jewish poets adopted the Babylonian and Canaanite myths of a cosmic conflict between the high God and the chaos monster to a monotheistic framework. The imagery is retained but transformed. Creation ceases to be a struggle with the divine and the demonic. Creation is now understood as creation through fiat command. And in time, that creation through fiat command will deepen to be understood as creation out of nothing. In the meantime, the imagery of a primordial sea monster is retained and demythologized to various degrees. Creation is no longer a life and death struggle between a high God and a chaos monster. Creation is the creation and control of that monster and the evil it represents by an all-powerful, all-present, all-knowing and all-good God. Re-creation is the continuing control of that monster by that one true God. Any challenge to the civilized order, whether it is a force of nature or a human force, is always regarded as a re-emergence of that primordial chaos. The threat may be economic as seen in the annual death of vegetation. Or the threat may be political as seen in the frequent wars and rebellions. The defeated chaos monster is behind all these threats to civilization. The chaos monster has escaped his prison and seeks to destroy the human world. 

The ancient Jewish conception of time was linear, not cyclical. God was beyond space and time and the author of both. God was not an expression of Mother Nature, as were the pagan gods of Babylonia and Canaan, and was not subject to the recurring cycles of nature. In the Canaanite myth of recreation, the high God Baals victories over the chaos monsters Yam, Litan and Mot are only temporary. The high God is a fertility god closely chained the cycles of the nature. As the vegetation dies every year, the high God is annually defeated by the chaos monster and descends into the underworld. But as the vegetation returns each New Year, the high God is annually reborn and overpowers that chaos monster. The pattern repeats itself for all eternity. There is no final resolution to the conflict. While a polytheistic god might be able to control a pre-existent chaos monster to a certain degree, a monotheistic God could have a purpose in creating such a thing, perfectly controlling it and ultimately destroying it. 

The great Jewish genius was in the reworking of the Babylonian myth of creation and the Canaanite myth recreation into a Jewish myth of an apocalypse where Gods purpose in evil could be accomplished and explained. Redemption was pictured not only as a temporary defeat of the monster, but as its complete and utter destruction. At the end of human history, God will intervene and destroy the dragon once and for all. It and the evil it represents will never reappear to trouble the moral and natural orders. 

The myth of Leviathan finds in highest development in the writings of the Jewish prophet Isaiah. In the full myth, three elements are consistently conjoined: 

(1) Gods capture of the chaos dragon and his drawing it out of the water by hooks, snares or nets, 

(2) a Messianic feast, and

(3) a symposium following the meal when God would answer all questions. 

One follows the other sequentially in time. The presence of any one of these three elements suggests the presence of the other two and events to follow. 

In Isaiahs reworking of the myth, a Messianic banquet is thrown by God the Messiah. All the peoples of the world are invited to it. At that banquet, the body of the chaos dragon that has been captured and drawn from the water is served as the main course. All the people of the world consume the roast beast. The animals of the world feed on the scraps from the table. This Messianic banquet will mark the end of time. It will usher in a new creation, a new heavens and a new earth whether there is neither pain nor suffering. Part and parcel of that removal of all suffering is an explanation of all things by God the Teacher immediately following the meal. 

It was a poetic way of saying there will come a time when the evil around us, the evil within us will be finally purged and destroyed. The dragon represents that evil, all sorts of evil. In its most horrific form, the dragon is a personification of death. The dragon is the person Death. The death of Death is the creation of new life, now and forever. The communal eating of the dragon at the Messianic feast is a kind of sacramental acceptance of the new life God offers at the end of time, an eternal life in a completely transformed world. The ancient Jews transformed the Ancient Near Eastern myths of creation and re-creation into a myth of the coming apocalypse. The communal eating of the chaos dragon by the animals and people of the world is the symbol of that new creation, that new heavens and new earth.

The author of The Book of Job expects the discerning reader to see these suggestions of a final resolution to the moral problem for they are embedded in the myth of Leviathan itself. God expects Job to see the very same suggestions with his description of Leviathan in his second speech to Job. Leviathan implies the Isaian apocalypse. And the Isaian apocalypse implies the existence of a defense through a symposium where God answers all questions, though the nature of the defense is never articulated.

----------


## Robert Sutherla

This legitimacy of this interpretation requires a date of composition for The Book of Job subsequent to 1 Isaiah, probably sometime within the 7th or 5th centuries B.C. Since most conventional scholars opt for a date of final redaction within between the 7th and 5th centuries B.C., this interpretation seems possible.

(a) Job is presented as a non-Israelite, but not necessarily a pre-Israelite. While it is often assumed Job lives in a patriarchal age more or less contemporaneously with Abraham in the 19th-17th centuries B.C., it is important to remember that the patriarchal world continued well into the mid-1st millennium B.C. in lands to the east and south of Israel. Uz may have been such a land. Uz would be to Israel as a third world country would be to a first world country. Both Uz and Israel could have existed contemporaneously, but not necessarily contiguously. Thus, the real life setting of Job could be within the timeframe of the 6th-5th centuries B.C. 

(b) The Book of Job is profoundly counter-cultural and the absence of any reference to Jewish ritual may merely reflect a counter-cultural preference for myth over ritual and not an early date. Similarly, the absence of any reference to the Exile may merely reflect a counter-cultural preference for myth over history and not an early date. 

(c) Job is clearly aware of all the mythologies of the Ancient Near East including those of Israel, without regarding any particular mythology as special revelation for him. In that respect, Job is in the position of many a modern reader. Myth is an embodiment of the hopes and dreams of all mankind and the occasion for insight for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear. God inspires all great poets. God presents Job and the reader with 1 Isaiah's reworking of the Leviathan myth and invites both to explore the "redemptive analogies" found therein. The redemption is not merely the redemption of man, but the redemption of God. That redemption is a time for the destruction, explanation and justification of evil.

----------


## Robert Sutherla

3. Capturing the dragon

The first aspect of the Jewish reworking of the Leviathan myth is the capture of the dragon. 

God tells Job that he and he alone can draw Leviathan from the chaos waters. Seven times God promises he will do it: by hooks, snare, draw, fishhook, cord, rope, hook. Can one take it with hooks or pierce its nose with a snare? Can you draw out Leviathan with a fishhook, or press down its tongue with a cord? Can you put a rope in its nose, or pierce its jaw with a hook? (Job 40:24-41:2) The number seven here has symbolic import. It is the perfection of divine power. Only God can destroy the chaos monster. Drawing the monster from the waters is the first part of its destruction. 

No lesser divine being can control, let alone, destroy the evil that it represents. 

Any hope of capturing it will be disappointed; were not even the gods overwhelmed at the sight of it? No one is so fierce as to dare to stir it up. Who can stand before it? Who can confront it and be safe? --under the whole heaven, who? (Job 41:9-11) When it raises itself up the gods are afraid; at the crashing they are beside themselves. Though the sword reaches it, it does not avail, nor does the spear, the dart, or the javelin. It counts iron as straw, and bronze as rotten wood. The arrow cannot make it flee; slingstones, for it, are turned to chaff. Clubs are counted as chaff; it laughs at the rattle of javelins. (Job 41:25-29) 

Here, God is drawing on the Babylonian myth of a cosmic struggle between good and evil, where even the gods themselves are dumb struck.

In the Babylonian myth of creation, the god of wisdom Ea is struck dumb with horror and sat stock still at the rebellion of the chaos monster Tiamat. Ea goes to his grandfather Anshar and tells him the bad news of a demonic horde.

They are massing around her, ready at Tiamats side
Angry, scheming, never laying down night and day,
Making warfare, rumbling, raging,
Convening in assembly, that they might start hostilities,
Mother Huber, who can form everything,
Added countless invincible weapons,
gave birth to monster serpents,
Pointed of fang, with merciless incisors (?),
She filled their bodies with venom for blood.
Fierce dragons she clad with glories,
Causing them to bear auras like gods, (saying)
Whoever see them shall collapse from weakness!
Wherever their bodies make onslaught,
they shall not turn back!
She deployed serpents, dragons, and hairy hero-men,
Lion monsters, lion men, scorpion men,
Mighty demons, fish men, bull men,
Bearing unsparing arms, fearing no battle.
Her commands were absolute, no one opposed them.
Eleven indeed on this wise she created. 

This demonic refrain will be repeated four times in the poem to heighten the fear of the gods. Anshar orders Ea and Anu in turn to destroy Tiamat, but both:

stopped, horror-stricken, then turned back.
Her strength is enormous, she is utterly terrifying,
She is reinforced with a host, none can come out against her.
Her challenge was not reduced,
it was so loud (?) against me,
I became afraid at her clamor, I turned back. 

Even the high God Marduk is dumb struck as he approaches that evil. Tiamat cast her own spell on him and his tactic turned to confusion, His reason was overthrown, his actions panicky. 

No human being such as Job can destroy the evil Leviathan represents. Look on all who are proud, and bring them low; tread down the wicked where they stand. Hide them all in the dust together; bind their faces in the world below. Then I will also acknowledge to you that your own right hand can give you victory. (Job 40:12-14) Only God can destroy it.

----------


## Robert Sutherla

This destruction of Leviathan by drawing it out of the water finds some interesting parallels in Psalm 74, Ezekiel 29 and 32.

(a) Psalm 74 is a lament incorporating both a myth of creation and a myth of re-creation. As in the Canaanite myth of re-creation, the emissaries of the chaos monster have occupied and devastated the holy place of God. This violent act has upset the moral order. This psalm is a plea, a petition, that God restore or recreate that moral order. 
O God, why do you cast us off forever? Why does your anger smoke against the sheep of your pasture Remember your congregation which you acquired long ago.Your foes have roared within your holy place; they set up their emblems there. At the upper entrance they hacked the wooden trellis with axes. And then, with hatchets and hammers, they smashed all its carved work. They set your sanctuary on fire; they desecrated the dwelling place of your name, bringing it to the ground. They said to themselves, "We will utterly subdue them"; they burned all the meeting places of God in the land. Yet God my King is from of old, working salvation in the earth. You divided the sea by your might; you broke the heads of the dragons in the waters. You crushed the heads of Leviathan; you gave him as food for the creatures of the wilderness. You cut openings for springs and torrents; you dried up ever-flowing streams. Yours is the day, yours also the night; you established the luminaries and the sun. You have fixed all the bounds of the earth; you made summer and winter. (Psalm 74:1-2,4-8,12-16 Italics added for emphasis.)

The hope is that this King from of old will act as he did in the times of old and once again subdue the powers of chaos. They are a threat to his kingship and he needs to restore that kingship. Only God can restore the moral order. Echoes of the Babylonian myth of creation can be heard in the references to the dividing of the sea and the openings for springs and torrents which recall the splitting of Tiamat and the creation of the Tigris and Euphrates from the eyes of her body. Echoes of the Canaanite myth of re-creation can be heard in the reference to a multi-headed Leviathan which recalls the seven headed Litan. 

(b) Ezekiel 29 describes the tyrannical Pharaoh, king of Egypt, as a chaos dragon living in the waters of the Nile. 

Mortal, set your face against Pharaoh king of Egypt, and prophesy against him and against all Egypt; speak, and say, Thus says the Lord GOD: I am against you, Pharaoh king of Egypt, the great dragon sprawling in the midst of its channels, saying, "My Nile is my own; I made it for myself." I will put hooks in your jaws, and make the fish of your channels stick to your scales. I will draw you up from your channels, with all the fish of your channels sticking to your scales. I will fling you into the wilderness, you and all the fish of your channels; you shall fall in the open field, and not be gathered and buried. To the animals of the earth and to the birds of the air I have given you as food. (Ezekiel 29:3-5 Italics added for emphasis.)

This chaos dragon regards himself as the lord of creation. My Nile is my own; I made it for myself. (Ezekiel 29:3) Herein lies a threat to the created order that recalls the Canaanite myth of re-creation. Inherent in this refusal to accept ones created status lies a claim to deity or at least to the kingship that is Gods alone. Just as the Canaanite chaos monster Mot is flung into the wilderness, this chaos dragon will be similarly overthrown. 

(c) Ezekiel 32 continues the thought as it describes the Pharaoh, king of Egypt, as both a dragon in the seas and a lion among nations. Echoes of the Canaanite myth of re-creation can be heard here. A voracious lion is how Mot, the Canaanite dragon of death, describes himself. His appetite is such that it consumes the earth and all in earth. 

Mortal, raise a lamentation over Pharaoh king of Egypt, and say to him: You consider yourself a lion among the nations, but you are like a dragon in the seas; you thrash about in your streams, trouble the water with your feet, and foul your streams. Thus says the Lord GOD: In an assembly of many peoples I will throw my net over you; and I will haul you up in my dragnet. I will throw you on the ground, on the open field I will fling you, and will cause all the birds of the air to settle on you, and I will let the wild animals of the whole earth gorge themselves with you. I will strew your flesh on the mountains, and fill the valleys with your carcass. I will drench the land with your flowing blood up to the mountains, and the watercourses will be filled with you. When I blot you out, I will cover the heavens, and make their stars dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give its light. All the shining lights of the heavens I will darken above you, and put darkness on your land, says the Lord GOD. I will trouble the hearts of many peoples, as I carry you captive among the nations, into countries you have not known. I will make many peoples appalled at you; their kings shall shudder because of you. When I brandish my sword before them, they shall tremble every moment for their lives, each one of them, on the day of your downfall. (Ezekiel 32:2-10 Italics added for emphasis.)

Once again, the imagery of drawing the chaos monster out of the waters and the feeding on the body of the monster are conjoined. The one follows the other. This time there is the suggestion that defeat may be everlasting. The dragon will be blotted out. The day of his downfall sounds like the day of the Final Judgment. The sun, moon and stars go dark. Darkness covers the land. Most of the inhabitants of the nations of the earth tremble and shutter at this Day of Judgment.

----------


## Robert Sutherla

4. Eating the dragon at the Messianic Feast

The second aspect of the Jewish reworking of the Leviathan myth is the eating of the dragon at the Messianic banquet where God is the Messiah. The fullest expression of that is found in the writings of the prophet Isaiah. 

On this mountain the LORD of hosts will make for all peoples a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wines, of rich food filled with marrow, of well-aged wines strained clear. And he will destroy on this mountain the shroud that is cast over all peoples, the sheet that is spread over all nations; he will swallow up death forever. Then the Lord GOD will wipe away the tears from all faces, and the disgrace of his people he will take away from all the earth, for the LORD has spoken. It will be said on that day, Lo, this is our God; we have waited for him, so that he might save us. This is the LORD for whom we have waited; let us be glad and rejoice in his salvation. (Isaiah 25:6-9 Italics added for emphasis.)
On that day the LORD with his cruel and great and strong sword will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, Leviathan the twisting serpent, and he will kill the dragon that is in the sea. (Isaiah 27:1 italics added for emphasis.)
The time is the end of human history. The dead of the world are summoned to a Messianic feast. The shroud of death which is the shroud that is cast over all peoples, the sheet that is spread over all nations is lifted by God himself. (Isaiah 25:7) A universal resurrection of the dead has been accomplished. This final resurrection is contemporaneous with a Final Judgment. 

Leviathan the fleeing serpent, Leviathan the twisting serpent, Leviathan the dragon that is in the sea will be judged. He will be killed once and forever. (Isaiah 27:1) The dragon represents that evil, all sorts of evil. In its most horrific form, the dragon is a personification of death. The dragon is the person Death. The death of Death is the creation of new life, now and forever. On that day, God will swallow up death forever. (Isaiah 25:7) This death of Death is the creation of a new earth and a new heaven. On that day, God removes all tears. God wipes away all disgrace. (Isaiah 25:8) This is the day of salvation for which all peoples have waited. (Isaiah 25:9) 

The communal nature of the Messianic feast strongly suggests the participants partake of the dead body of the chaos dragon. They eat what the host eats. This communal eating of the dragon is a kind of sacramental acceptance of the new life God offers at the end of time, an eternal life in a completely transformed world. This communal participation is implied but never explicitly stated. All that is required in my interpretation is that Job infer that God will swallow up Leviathan in a final judgment to end all human history.

----------


## Robert Sutherla

Still, it may be interesting to explore later understandings of this passage to gain a more canonical perspective to communal participation. Later Jewish tradition, apocryphal, pseudo-epigraphical and rabbinic, has the body of the dragon being consumed by the participants in the Messianic banquet. It makes explicit what was merely implicit in 1 Isaiah.

(a) The apocrypha means things that are hidden. It refers to fifteen or so Jewish works written in Greek that were not included in the Hebrew canon of the Bible, but which were included in early Greek translations of that Hebrew canon. For the most part, Jews inside Israel did not accept those works as authentic; Jews outside Israel did. The Orthodox and Catholic branches of Christianity generally accept them as authentic; the Protestant branch does not. Many of the early church fathers did accept them as authoritative.

2 Esdras is one such apocryphal work, probably written in the first century A.D. For our purpose, it is important in that it reveals the common Jewish understanding of Isaiahs apocalypse. It refers to the eating of the chaos dragon at the Messianic banquet.

Upon the fifth day thou saidst unto the seventh part, where the waters were gathered that it should bring forth living creatures, fowls and fishes: and so it came to pass. For the dumb water and without life brought forth living things at the commandment of God, that all people might praise thy wondrous works. Then didst thou ordain two living creatures, the one thou calledst Enoch, and the other Leviathan; And didst separate the one from the other: for the seventh part, namely, where the water was gathered together, might not hold them both. Unto Enoch thou gavest one part, which was dried up the third day, that he should dwell in the same part, wherein are a thousand hills: But unto Leviathan thou gavest the seventh part, namely, the moist; and hast kept him to be devoured of whom thou wilt, and when. (2 Edras 6:47 Italics added for emphasis.)

It was always Gods intention to kill the dragon. The dragon was kept alive only for the Messianic banquet to be devoured by whom thou wilt and when. It makes clear what is already fairly clear in the Isaian Apocalypse; namely, that human beings consume the dead body of the chaos dragon at the same time God does.

(b) The pseduoepigrapha means falsely written. It refers to a large number of Jewish works written in Greek that purported to be from God, but which works were not accepted by the majority of Jews living inside or outside of Israel as either canonical or authoritative. They are not part of the Hebrew or Christian scriptures in any way. 

2 Baruch is one such psedoepigraphical work, probably written early second century A.D. For our purpose, it is important in that it reveals the common Jewish understanding of Isaiahs apocalypse. It refers to the eating of the chaos dragon at the Messianic banquet.
And he answered me and said to me: That which will happen at that time bears upon the whole earth. Therefore, all who live will notice it. For at that time I shall only protect those found in this land at that time. And it will happen that when all that which should come to pass in these parts has been accomplished, the Anointed One will begin to be revealed. And Behemoth will reveal itself from its place, and Leviathan will come from the sea, the two great monsters which I created on the fifth day of creation and which I shall have kept until that time. And they be nourishment for all who are left. The earth will also yield fruits then thousandfold. And on one vine will be a thousand branches, and once branch will produce a thousand clusters, and one cluster will produce a thousand grapes, and one grape will produce a cor of wine. And those who are hungry will enjoy themselves and they will, moreover, see marvels every day. (2 Baruch 29:1-7 Italics added for emphasis.) 

It makes clear what is already fairly clear in the Isaian Apocalypse; namely, that all human beings who are left consume the dead body of the chaos dragon at the same time God does.

I Enoch is another such psedoepigraphical work, probably written between the second century B.C. and the first century A.D. For our purpose, it is important in that it reveals the common Jewish understanding of Isaiahs apocalypse. It refers to the eating of the chaos dragon at the Messianic banquet.

On that day, two monsters will be parted- one monster, a female named Leviathan, in order to dwell in the abyss of the ocean over the fountains of water; and (the other) a male called Behemoth, which hold his chest in an invisible desert who name in Dundayin, east of the garden of Eden, wherein the elects and the righteous dwell.And the angel of peace who was with me said to me, These two monsters are prepared for the great day of the Lord (when) they shall turn into food. So that the punishment of the Lord of the Spirits should come down upon them in order that the punishment of the Lord of the Spirits should not be issued in vain but slay the children with mothers and the children with their fathers, when the punishment of the Lord of the Spirits comes down upon everyone. After that there shall be the judgment according to his mercy and his patience. (1 Enoch 60:7-8, 24-26 Italics added for emphasis.) 

(c) The rabbis were local teachers in the synagogues of Israel following the return of the Jewish people from the captivity in Babylon in the sixth century B.C. They established an oral tradition, preserving and passing on the teaching of one generation to the next. Those teachings include common understandings of scripture. As various points in time, those oral traditions were converted to writing. The Mishnah converted some oral traditions to writing in the second century A.D. The Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds converted some oral traditions to writing in the fourth and sixth centuries A.D. respectively. And the Midrash Rabbah converted some oral traditions to writing in the fifth through seventh centuries A.D. The precise dating of any oral tradition is very difficult. It may be very early or it may be very late.

The Midrash Rabba on Leviticus preserves an oral rabbinic tradition concerning the common Jewish understanding of Isaiahs apocalypse. It refers to the eating of the chaos dragon at the Messianic banquet.

R. Judan b. R. Simeon said: Behemoth and the Leviathan are to engage in a wild-beast contest before the righteous in the Time to Come, and whoever has not been a spectator at the wild-beast contests of the heathen nations in this world will be accorded the boon of seeing one in the World to Come. How will they be slaughtered? Behemoth will, with its horns, pull Leviathan down and rend it, and Leviathan will, with its fins, pull Behemoth down and pierce it throughR.Berekiah said in the name of R. Isaac: In the Time to Come, the Holy One, blessed be He, will make a banquet for his righteous servants, and whoever has not eaten nebelah in this world will have the privilege of enjoying it in the World to Come. (Midrash Rabba Leviticus 13:3 Italics added for emphasis.) 

The rabbis were especially concerned with ceremonial law, including the proper killing and eating of food. A concern had been expressed that the slaughter of the chaos monsters Leviathan and Behemoth may not have been in accordance with proper ritual. The concern is dismissed. This passage makes clear what is already fairly clear in the Isaian Apocalypse; namely, that Gods righteous servants consume the dead body of the chaos dragon at the same time God does.

----------


## Robert Sutherla

The Isaian Apocalypse is a new Exodus. 

Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the LORD! Awake, as in days of old, the generations of long ago! Was it not you who cut Rahab in pieces, who pierced the dragon? Was it not you who dried up the sea, the waters of the great deep; who made the depths of the sea a way for the redeemed to cross over? So the ransomed of the LORD shall return, and come to Zion with singing; everlasting joy shall be upon their heads; they shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away. I am he who comforts youYou have forgotten the LORD, your Maker, who stretched out the heavens and laid the foundations of the earthThus says your Sovereign, the LORD, your God who pleads the cause of his people. (Isaiah 51:9-13, 22 Italics added for emphasis.) 

God will interfere in human affairs to do in the near future what he has done in the generations of long ago. The old Exodus foreshadows the new and final Exodus. He will free his people from the chaos of their world. This prophecy of a future death of the chaos monster carries with it the promise of full and final destruction to that evil. The death of that dragon will inaugurate a new redemption that will bring everlasting joy and gladness. All sorrow and sighing shall fall away. God the Redeemer will finally plead the cause of his people and justice will be established for all to see. God the Redeemer will finally plead the cause of Job himself.

The Isaian development of the myth of Leviathan into a Messianic feast was a poetic way for the ancients to say three things. Evil is all around us, deep within us. But there will come a time when that evil within us will be purged and destroyed. For evil is not God's final purpose in creation.	

In Gods second speech to Job, the scholar Tur-Sinai finds a reference to this Messianic feast of 1 Isaiah. The NRSV obscures the allusion with its translation: can you fill its skin with harpoons, or its head with fishing spears? (Job 42:41:7) Tur-Sinai would clarify the allusion with his own translation: couldst thou stud his body with cloves, with fish-onions his head? Harpoons have been replaced by cloves; fishing spears, by fish-onions. 

If Job thus appears to be questioned as to the filling of the body of Leviathan, which had been bought and divided by food-hoarders or merchants, then this inquiry would seem to refer to the preparation of Leviathans body for cooking. In that case, bslsl is not slsl with prepositional b, but bslsl with b as a radical, meaning a kind of seasoning (small) onions, like bslswl in the Mishna. The omission of another, prepositional b- if at all necessary- may be due to the frequent phenomenon of haplography or haplology, as byt prsh for bbyt prsh etc. The mention of small onions in connection with the cooking of the fish seems quite natural.- It follows that sbwt is likewise a condiment, probably clove, Naglein (= skwt Accadian, shikkatu pin, nail etc.). (the transliteration from Hebrew to English is mine) 

The image is that of a stuffed and roasted beast. Since Leviathan is a sea monster, the image is that of a stuffed and roasted fish. 

Tur-Sinai finds additional support for his view in what he sees as an earlier reference to a stuffed and roasted fowl. And having caught him, would you bind him and hand him to your maidservants, so that they might prepare him for your table?- spwr is here a general term for any edible fowl, as e.g. in Deuteronomy 14:11, and in Canaanite inscriptions. 

There are many good reasons to adopt Tur-Sinais understanding of the passage. 

(a) First, the amendments are minor. It is easy to understand how the corruption of the text could have occurred. 

(b) Second, his interpretation makes good sense in terms of the surrounding verses. God has been talking about the preparation of a special meal connected with Leviathan. The image of stuffing an animal for cooking is strong. 

(c) Third, his interpretation accords with the common Jewish understanding that Leviathan would be served up as the main course at the Messianic banquet at the end of human history. This is especially the case when one remembers the structure of that apocalyptic myth. The capture of the chaos dragon by hooks and by net is immediately and invariably followed by a feast, a feeding on the dead body of the dragon, by the animals and peoples of the world. The verses that closely precede these focus on the capture of the chaos dragon by hooks. Can one take it with hooks or pierce its nose with a snare? Can you draw out Leviathan with a fishhook, or press down its tongue with a cord? Can you put a rope in its nose, or pierce its jaw with a hook? (Job 40:24-42:2) And the verse that immediately precedes this passage focuses on food preparation in the market. Will traders bargain over it? Will they divide it up among the merchants? (Job 42:6) Certainly, the dividing up of the monster by the fish mongers of the market can mean cut up in preparation for a meal. (Job 41:6) The preceding verse describes an edible fowl (Job 41:5), a bird that one might play with, but a bird that is normally meant for eating. 

In any event, Tur-Sinais insights are not necessary to this interpretation. Gods seven-fold reference to the capture of the dragon Leviathan entails its ultimate destruction and an answer to all things. This is the apocalyptic structure of the Jewish myth of Leviathan. It is a myth of purpose, Gods purpose in the creation, control, destruction and justification of evil.

This ultimate destruction of evil is a significant advance on the Babylonian myth of creation and the Canaanite myth of recreation.

In the Babylonian myth of creation, the high God Marduks victory over evil is temporary. The strong suggestion is the evil will re-emerge. God and man have the joint responsibility for continuing that struggle. The gods made Marduks destiny highest, they prostrated themselvesThey established him forever for lordship of heaven and netherworld.He shall do the same on earth as what he brought to pass in heaven. Marduk will continue to battle an evil that he cannot completely destroy. Man will assist. Gods will, Marduks will, is to be done on earth as it is in heaven. Mans struggle on earth is a divinely imposed burden. It is the struggle to impose order on chaos that is the history itself. It is never ending. And so the myth ends.

In the Canaanite myth of recreation, the high God Baal and the chaos monsters Yam and Mot reach a compromise, a mutual co-existence. Each will retain their separate kingdoms. Divine <M>ot was afraid: the Beloved of El, the hero was in dread. Mot started at her voice. [He lifted up his voice and cried:] Let Baal be installed [on the throne of] his kingship, on [the back-rest, on the siege of] his dominion! Together they sit down to a communal meal to seal the peace. Shapsh, you rule the chthonian gods; lo, mortals are your company. Kothar is your associate, and Hassis is your companion. In the sea of Arsh and the dragon, Kothat-and-Hasis, steer (the bark)!, Pilot (the ship), Kothar-and-Hasis. The realms of order and chaos are both preserved. Chaos is not destroyed for ever. The dragon that is in the sea Yam remains alive. An accommodation is reached between the forces of order and the forces of chaos. Baals counselors Kothar and Hasis drive off chaos enemies. The conflict continues, though in a muted form. The high God Baal may control death, but he can never defeat it once and for all. And so the myth ends.

----------


## Robert Sutherla

5. Explaining the dragon at the Symposium to follow

The third aspect of the Jewish myth of an apocalypse is the explanation for evil that follows in the Symposium after the Messianic banquet. This is where the justification for evil is given to all mankind. Again, the prophet Isaiah has the best exposition of that Symposium. It is a time when God the Messiah sits down and explains all things to all people.

"Whom will he teach knowledge, and to whom will he explain the message? Those who are weaned from milk, those taken from the breast? For it is precept upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, here a little, there a little." Truly, with stammering lip and with alien tongue he will speak to this people, to whom he has said, "This is rest; give rest to the weary; and this is repose"; yet they would not hear. Therefore the word of the LORD will be to them, "Precept upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, here a little, there a little;" in order that they may go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken. (Isaiah 28:9-13 Italics added for emphasis.)

On that day the deaf shall hear the words of a scroll, and out of their gloom and darkness the eyes of the blind shall see. The meek shall obtain fresh joy in the LORD, and the neediest people shall exult in the Holy One of Israel. For the tyrant shall be no more, and the scoffer shall cease to be; all those alert to do evil shall be cut off-- those who cause a person to lose a lawsuit, who set a trap for the arbiter in the gate, and without grounds deny justice to the one in the right. (Isaiah 29:18-21 Italics added for emphasis.)

Therefore the LORD waits to be gracious to you; therefore he will rise up to show mercy to you. For the LORD is a God of justice; blessed are all those who wait for him. Truly, O people in Zion, inhabitants of Jerusalem, you shall weep no more. He will surely be gracious to you at the sound of your cry; when he hears it, he will answer you. Though the Lord may give you the bread of adversity and the water of affliction, yet your Teacher will not hide himself any more, but your eyes shall see your Teacher. And when you turn to the right or when you turn to the left, your ears shall hear a word behind you, saying, "This is the way; walk in it." (Isaiah 30:18-21 Italics added for emphasis.) 

This is the moment for which the weary have waited. This is the moment in which God gives the explanation for why there is evil in the world. The Lord has given the bread of adversity and the water of affliction, but God the Teacher no longer hides himself or his purposes in creation. God answers all questions at this time. That is the time God will answer Jobs question as to why he created a world of undeserved and unremitted suffering.

The author of The Book of Job may have had this passage before him. For it curiously makes reference to a person much like Job. That person is one involved in a lawsuit who was in the right but denied justice at the time. (Isaiah 29:21) On the terms of Gods trial by Satan, God could not in this life answer Job and give him the reason for evil in the world. Job is denied justice in this life. But in eternity that restriction will be lifted. At that moment, the Lord will hear the sound of Jobs cry, and answer it. At that moment, God will fulfill the requirements of justice and reveal his hidden purpose (Job 10:13-14) in creation. At that moment, God will give a full and final explanation to all and to Job as to why there is evil in the world. 

There is nothing in either the Babylonian myth of creation or the Canaanite myth of recreation that even remotely compares to this explanation and justification for the existence of evil.

In his appearance and his two speeches, God reveals himself and his intentions through the literary imagery of myth. It is not so much revelation as the occasion for the insight and inference.

----------


## Robert Sutherla

6. Condemnation and Justification

Will you even put me in the wrong? Will you condemn me that you may be justified? (Job 40:7-8 Italics added for emphasis and clarification.)

God has picked up on Jobs hesitation to proceed further. In the context of Jobs Oath of Innocence, that can only mean Jobs hesitance to proceed beyond his own vindication to a condemnation of God brought about by a curse. The mere swearing of the oath has vindicated Job. Gods appearance and the fact that God has not struck him dead has vindicated Job. Job is justified. The question is whether Job fully understands that fact. A condemnation of God for wrongdoing is neither logically nor legally necessary at this point. Job is vindicated and God has been found causally responsible for evil. As yet, God has not been found to be morally blameworthy for that evil. The question is whether Job will pass a prematurely blame and condemn God, depriving God of the chance to work out his purpose in bringing evil into the world. God expects Job to walk that razors edge. 

God suggests a moral purpose in his review of the mythological world. The image of Leviathan carries with it two time frames: the beginning of time and the end of time. The beginning of time is the creation and control of the chaos monster. There is an efficient cause for evil in the world. The end of time is the destruction of that chaos monster and an answering of all questions. There is a final cause for evil in the world. Through the myth of Leviathan, God is subtly drawing Jobs attention to the beginning of time and the end of time. From the beginning of time symbolized by the creation of the dragon to the end of time symbolized by the destruction of that dragon, God claims to be in control of that evil and to be using it for his own purpose. 

At best, these are all suggestions. The suggestion to Job is that he should infer from Gods creation and control of evil an ultimate purpose for that evil. Job should infer from Gods ability to capture the dragon and draw it out of the waters the two further Jewish developments of the myth: namely, a Messianic feast symbolizing the full and final destruction of evil and God as Teacher sitting down with mankind after that meal to answer all questions including the question of why there is evil in the world. These three elements of the Jewish apocalypse follow one after another and the presence of one suggests the presence of all three. Moreover, Job should infer that that ultimate explanation will be a rational demonstration and justification of the need for evil in the world. These are inferences that Job might reasonably draw, but they are inferences that he need not draw. 

In his second speech to Job, God never mentions what that moral purpose is. He never mentions what has transpired in heaven. He never mentions a special second order good, a particular type of selfless love, which might justify a massive first order evil, this world of undeserved and unremitted suffering. He never explains how and why the one might justify the other. God rests his case, so to speak, having hinted at the existence of a defense, but having never presented it. 

And in doing so, God deliberately opens himself to the condemnation that is the second default judgment in the Oath of Innocence. In doing so, God puts Job and mankind to the ultimate test. Will we condemn God so that we ourselves might be justified? Will we condemn God so that we ourselves might be vindicated?

----------


## Robert Sutherla

Jobs Second Response 

In his second and final response, Job appears to have understood Gods strategy of indirection. 

Then Job answered the LORD: "I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted. 'Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?' Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know. 'Hear, and I will speak; I will question you, and you declare to me.' I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you; therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes." (Job 42:1-6 Italics added for emphasis and clarification.)

1. I understand your purpose.

"I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted.. I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you.. (Job 42:2 Italics added for emphasis.) 

Job finds purpose in Gods two speeches. Job has understood the suggestions of purpose and providence in Gods first speech. And Job has understood the suggestion of a final purpose in Gods creation and control of evil in Gods second speech. The Hebrew word for purpose here is mezimma, meaning considered plan. It is often associated with wisdom and prudence but there is a certain shrewdness to it. That shrewdness may evidence a sophisticated or nuanced approach to Gods goodness. At least, the author may be suggesting the same. In any event, it is a purpose that cannot be thwarted. The Hebrew world for thwarted here is batsar, meaning cut off. Cut off usually means death. So in Jobs thinking, Gods purpose in life cannot be defeated by even death itself. Gods purpose in life cannot be defeated by the person Death that is Leviathan himself.

God had commanded Job to listen and he has listened attentively to everything that God had just spoken and left unspoken, with the consequence that he now saw or understood the existence of a possible answer. The hearing by the ear refers to the two sets of speeches God has just delivered and not to any prior revelation received secondhand. Job has learned something through Gods second speech, but it is not Gods sovereignty over the evil that is Leviathan. Job had much earlier in his speeches acknowledged that God was sovereign over Leviathan. (Job 9;8,13; 26:12) Job has learned that there will be an end to the evil that is Leviathan and there will be an explanation for that evil. Those two insights explain Jobs comments I uttered what I did not understand. (Job 42:1)

Job knows that God has not answered his ethical question: why do the innocent suffer, why do I suffer. But Gods coming to Job, in the midst of his suffering, deepens his understanding. For all Gods blustering, Job finds in it evidence that God cares. Whatever suffering may be, it is not punishment; it is not correction. He has seen the face of God and lived. No formal declaration of innocence is required, though one has issued. God has not entered a defense and Job is vindicated or justified through his Oath of Innocence.

However, evidence that God cares is not sufficient evidence to acquit God on the charges facing him. The mere fact that God is with those who suffer is no justification for God having caused the suffering in the first place. At best, Gods ex-post facto compassion may be relevant to sentence, but not to guilt. The trial of God must continue. 

Job temporarily grants God the benefit of the doubt, which in this case is the benefit of time. Whatever that purpose may be, God should have the opportunity to bring it to fruition. God will have all of human history to work out his purpose in his use of evil. At the end of human history, all the evidence will be in and God will be able to present a full and meaningful defense, a defense of justification or necessity. Job will not thwart that purpose by prematurely passing judgment on God and blaming him for evil in the world.

----------


## Miranda

Dear Robert, 
In some ways Carrie is right and instead of directly answering the points that I raise, you direct me to huge portions of text which really take an awful lot of reading and though I like to learn, I find a lot of this confusing and I don't have time to study and take it all in. I have attempted to read some of this regarding the chaos monster, but haven't finished it yet. I answered your post originally because I love the book of Job and decided I would like to discuss it but I had no intention of taking up a full scale study which this is turning into. 

I totally agree with this: 'In The Book of Genesis, evil comes into the world with the fall of man. Man is created out of the dust of the earth and the spirit or breath of God. (Genesis 2:7) He is awakened to a truly human life through a kiss from God. It is Gods love that animates man. His parents are mother earth and father God. He takes his body from the earth. But he takes his mind, his intellect and free will, from God himself. That is what it is to be made in the image and likeness of God. (Genesis 1:26) Unlike any other animal, man is capable of apprehending the immaterial concepts of good and evil and choosing accordingly. Man is created neither good nor evil. His natural orientation is towards the good, for that is what makes for a truly and fully human life. But man becomes good or evil through his choices. He is evil not by nature, but by nurture.'

But lots of other things I dont agree with you on. What is running through my mind now is this: The bible is written under the inspiration of God. He has preserved it as His Word through the ages and He enlightens those who truly search for the truths in it, by the Holy Spirit. So it is, that even a child can understand the things of God, when He reveals Himself and His will and purpose. However, all this with the chaos monster, babylonian myth etc, must be learned and to be learned, much studying of other ancient texts has to be undertaken. So I have to ask 'is it possible to understand the book of Job as it stands' without all this 'background knowledge?' I think that it's inclusion in the bible was intended by God and that He also intended it to be understood by ordinary people and not just by scholars. But to understand about The Oath of Innocence (which I had never previously heard of) the chaos monster etc, considerable research and study must be undertaken. I wonder what your opinion of all this is? Is it possible to understand the book of Job in simplicity of understanding, enlightened perhaps by the operation of the Holy Spirit, or must great study be undertaken to comprehend it properly?

Miranda

----------


## Robert Sutherla

Miranda:

You ask why I gave extended posts on the Oath of Innocence and Leviathan. 

Modern culture is radically different from ancient Hebrew culture. These items were widely known in the ancient world, but not so in the modern world.

----------


## Miranda

Dear Robert,
I have given you extended and thoughtful answers too, that have taken me a long time to write, and have given much considered attention to the points you have raised and would be pleased if you would answer the points that I raised in my last post, regarding the inspirational word of God and how He has meant us to understand it ie: 

'What is running through my mind now is this: The bible is written under the inspiration of God. He has preserved it as His Word through the ages and He enlightens those who truly search for the truths in it, by the Holy Spirit. So it is, that even a child can understand the things of God, when He reveals Himself and His will and purpose. However, all this with the chaos monster, babylonian myth etc, must be learned and to be learned, much studying of other ancient texts has to be undertaken. So I have to ask 'is it possible to understand the book of Job as it stands' without all this 'background knowledge?' I think that it's inclusion in the bible was intended by God and that He also intended it to be understood by ordinary people and not just by scholars. But to understand about The Oath of Innocence (which I had never previously heard of) the chaos monster etc, considerable research and study must be undertaken. I wonder what your opinion of all this is? Is it possible to understand the book of Job in simplicity of understanding, enlightened perhaps by the operation of the Holy Spirit, or must great study be undertaken to comprehend it properly?'

----------


## Robert Sutherla

Miranda:

1. You write: "He has preserved it as His Word through the ages"

Infallibility refers to the original writings not the transcribed copies. The transcriped copies were substantial accurate.

God perserved the text not the culture in which it was written. He left that to man. 

2. You write: "He enlightens those who truly search for the truths in it, by the Holy Spirit"

And he expects you to use your mind and his Spirit to study everything.

3. You write: "So it is, that even a child can understand the things of God,"

I don't think a child can understand the Book of Job, the Book of Daniel or the Book of Revelation. A child can understand love and the stories of Jesus quite easily.

4. You write: "However, all this with the chaos monster, babylonian myth etc, must be learned and to be learned, much studying of other ancient texts has to be undertaken."

Yes, that is true in our case. Although just about every commentary will talk about the Oath of Innocence and the chaos monster. Those things were known to the original people who received the book. The connections would have been clear to them.

5. You write: "So I have to ask 'is it possible to understand the book of Job as it stands' without all this 'background knowledge?'"

Not fully or correctly.

6. You write: "I think that it's inclusion in the bible was intended by God and that He also intended it to be understood by ordinary people and not just by scholars."

With the right knowledge.

7. You write: "is it possible to understand the book of Job in simplicity of understanding, enlightened perhaps by the operation of the Holy Spirit,"

No. 

8. You write: "or must great study be undertaken to comprehend it properly?'"

Yes. A pearl of great price requires great effort. It is worth the effort.

----------


## Miranda

Robert, I believe that God's word is infallible and I also believe that He is able to reveal the meaning of His word by the power of the Holy Spirit without reference to any other texts if this is His will. I believe that the King James version of the bible was so carefully translated by many scholars who prayerfully pored over each word that there are very few mistakes in it, especially as the translation was guided by God - and I do believe this is so. I think you and I are looking at the bible in different ways. You are seeing it from the historical viewpoint where background and knowledge are essential, whereas I see it from a more spiritual point of view - the difference being that I believe that when God wants to make known a truth to someone, He highlights His word and will bring to them the meaning that he wants them to understand. It is possibe, Jesus said to hear and not understand, and to see but not percieve. The Scribes and Pharisees could quote the law and the prophets without hesitation, but spiritually they were dead, devoid of spiritual understanding. ..blind leaders of the blind. When the Saducees came to Jesus and asked Him a question about marriage in heaven, despite their much study and deliberation over the scriptures, Jesus told them..'Do you not err, because you do not know the scriptures, neither the power of God?' Thus it is possible to have lots of knowledge, yet still miss the essential truth. I am not saying that you have missed the essential truth Robert, but am trying to point out that head knowledge isn't everything and without the operation of God's Holy Spirit, some things are impossible to understand..even the plainest. Thus I believe that a child is able to understand the prophets and prophecies - if God so wished to enlighten him. Samuel was but a child when God called him, as was Ezekiel himself. Moses couldn't even speak properly and had to have Aaron to speak for him. God chooses the weak things to demonstrate His power - not the cleverest or the mightiest. He chose to set His name in Israel because it was the smallest among nations..and He made it great when the people trusted Him. 

You see the book of Job as a lawsuit against God, but I see it as an explanation of why good people suffer and an inspiration to continue to have faith in God despite adversity...although I think that you would not disagree with my view. But I don't see it as a lawsuit against God. I don't think mankind has a right to challenge God in that way and I think this is why God intervenes and shows Job how mighty He is and how puny and ignorant Job himself is by comparison - even in comparison to the things He has made. 

Taking your point of view..Job has the right to challenge God because God has broken a covenant relationship with Him by taking away the blessings he had bestowed on Job and also by allowing evil to torment him. God's lawsuit against us has a far stronger case for we broke His commandment in the first instance which separated us from Him. God warned..you shall surely die.. and as we are all sinners, we are all guilty and worthy of death. But Jesus died in our place on Calvary..and mankind is guilty of His death and suffering for if we were all sinless He would not have died - nor been separated from His Father. I don't think that Job had a case against God since God is able to do whatever he chooses with His creation..but He does have a case against us and not only are we guilty but the condemnation and judgement has been already given.. our sentence is death. But because Jesus has died in our place, if we accept Him as our sacrifice, He sets us free from death and we receive eternal life instead of the condemnation we richly deserve. God would not allow Satan to take away Job's life..yet he allowed us to put His son on a cross. He did not allow Abraham to take away Isaac's life but intervened providing a lamb for the sacrifice. Jesus later became the sacrifice which delivers us from death, giving His life a ransom for many. 

I don't accept that a person needs the 'right knowledge' to understand the book of Job - when God enlightens the understanding this is all that is needful. When Jesus called the disciples, He chose fishermen - not scholars. He lived among the common people and taught them the truths that the educated city fathers couldn't understand despite all their knowledge and study.

----------


## q0987

God is saying he God destroyed Job through Satan. God is saying he was the principal; Satan was the agent. Because God authorized and intended those actions (the destruction of Job's property, servants, family and health), God is responsible for it. He caused it. He is a party-to-the-offence, an accessory, a co-conspirator.

Interesting comment here. If you took it a bit further you could also say that God put Himself on trial through Job.

----------


## Miranda

Hi..I dont know what to call you! I haven't been here for a long time until yesterday and its strange that you should answer my post of long ago now for this discussion took place last summer. Well summer in the UK anyway! This is one of Robert's points, that God put himself on trial through Job. I got a little frustrated with replying to Robert because he kept referring back to his book and I didn't have time to read through all the places he referred me to, though I did some. Robert dealt with the text from a historical/knowledge point of view and believed that to properly understand the book of Job you had to study it deeply and understand the ancient myths buried within the text. But my view is that the book of Job was written to give us some insight into why mankind suffers and that God by His Holy Spirit can enlighten the reader as to its meanings, without recourse to great study and head knowledge. 

Miranda




> God is saying he God destroyed Job through Satan. God is saying he was the principal; Satan was the agent. Because God authorized and intended those actions (the destruction of Job's property, servants, family and health), God is responsible for it. He caused it. He is a party-to-the-offence, an accessory, a co-conspirator.
> 
> Interesting comment here. If you took it a bit further you could also say that God put Himself on trial through Job.

----------


## subterranean

Funny that I watched South Park episode last nite, and Kyle has this hemorit which is really painfull for a fourth grader..On the other hand, the fat Cartman just recently inherited money and bought his own theme park. Then Kyle said, "God, how can you be so unfair", coz he thinks that Cartman is the most horiblle kids. Then his parents told him the story of Job. But in conclusion, Kyle said, " Why God brings so much pain to a very fine man, just to prove his words to satan?? That's it...I renounce my belief...There is NO God"..

----------


## q0987

Actually you missed the point of the Trial of God. Let me point out to you that it was God who singled out Job. Satan responds to Gods question by accusation and challanges God to test Job. God accepts the challange. He gives Satan liberty in how he would test Job up to the point that no physical harm could come to him. Satan tests Job and Job passes. God again questions Satan about the righteousness of Job. Satan again accuses God and challanges God to test Job. He accepts once more and gives Satan the right to physically harm Job up to the point of taking Jobs life. As all of this is going on, Job has no idea that Satan has asked to sift Job. 
In 1st Corrinthians 6:2, there is a passage that states; " Don't you know that the saints will judge angels?" The way we will judge angels is by the way we respond to the trials of life. Job never lost faith in God even through all that was taken away from him. Satan has no faith in God at all. In the end it was Job who was the judge against Satans accusations. He glorified God by the way he responded to the temptation to curse God and die. Job put God on trial because he felt that it was unfair that God should put him through all of that. God responded that since you don't know all the facts you are unable to judge properly. Job agreed with God and repented. God accepted Jobs apology.

You also went through a trial of faith. When you saw this show you denounced God. You did not pass your test like Job and keep your faith. You judged God on insufficient evidence. You saw things in your own frame of reference. " Why God brings so much pain to a very fine man, just to prove his words to satan?? That's it...I renounce my belief...There is NO God"..

This shows that you do believe in God, but you don't approve of His methods. Your what is known as a weak believer. If there is was no God, then Job did not go through all of this, and the story is a lie. This means that you would be upset at a mirage. The fact is, you don't know why people go through tragedy, and this bothers you. You want to blame someone for it all. and the way you choose to show your rage is to claim that there is no God. You need to rethink your position and learn who God is and what relationship does he have with you. A small group setting with a mentor would be ideal.

----------


## Miss Darcy

q0987, welcome to the forum, just as a by-the-way-I-seem-to-have-forgotten thing.  :Wink: 

I don't think Sub meant that _she_ renounced God because of the Book of Job (though I have heard of many, many Christians deconverting after reading the Bible properly...what with anti-Semitism, child abuse, and no women's rights)...wasn't she merely quoting from the show?




> If there is was no God, then Job did not go through all of this, and the story is a lie. This means that you would be upset at a mirage.


Firstly, there is no more reason for believing in a Biblical god than there is for believing in any of the gods of ancient mythology, say Isis and Osiris, or Thor, or Zeus, or any of them. The only thing that separates the Bible from other mythology is that nowadays people still believe in it. You wouldn't have to call it a lie...merely myth or legend. Mythology is something purely made up, as the Creation of the world (not talking about the Big Bang of course  :Wink: ), and legend is something vaguely based on facts and passed down through the generations to become a fictious story. I think Jesus, for example, would fit into the legend field, as there apparently was a man called Jesus living a few centuries BC, though as he lived in the Middle East he was dark-haired and had a dark complexion. Nothing wrong with that. Facts can get twisted through the ages. And so Jesus becomes the fair-haired young man we now imagine him as. Perhaps this real Jesus even made no claim to be God. Or so I hope. I'd have a lot more sympathy for him.

But I digress! Back to the subject - "getting upset at a mirage." Well, has a fictious story never moved with you? Have you never burst into tears or at least become really tense or sad about the death of a character in a film? About anything made-up? If not, then I understand, but people can get pretty upset at mirages as a general rule.

Darcy

----------


## Miranda

Darcy,
There is a big difference between belief in the mythical gods and believing in the God of the bible. There is no way anyone can have a relationship with mythical beings, but I have a relationship with the Lord Jesus. You could not judge one way or the other whether what I say is true anymore than you could judge my relationship with anyone else, since you do not know me. To know someone you have to be willing to enter a relationship with them. I was willing to enter a relationship with Jesus and accepted Him as my saviour when I was a teenager and now I know him and I love him. Since then I have been through many troubles and trials but I am not as perfect as Job in the bible. I always found that Jesus was with me in everything and he has guided my life. I can come to him with my troubles - anything at all, and he helps me. But I had a time like Job's and unlike him, my faith failed me. But God is faithful and he does not let go of those he loves. He did not let go of me either and he showed me himself. I never found out why I suffered so much all at the same time, but I found out something - God loves me with a love that will not let me go and it is unlike any other love, because it is faithful in all things..even when I am faithless. There were two things during my troubles that I could never deny and these were that God exists and that he loved me. The reason that I could not deny God's existence was because I knew him. And I could not deny his love for me because he had showed it to me not only since I committed myself to him, but even before I was born. 

I think that maybe Sub was being light hearted in his post. I love South Park as well at the Simpsons - but much of the humour is based on sarcasm which is what makes them hilariously funny. 

Miranda

----------


## subterranean

Darcy was right...I was just quaoting Kyle's words..but in a point I still think that the point is valid, "why would god gave so much pain to Job, just to prove his words to Satan, that there's a man who trully love him and he's willing to accept anything and still praise God for all the pain he suffers"

On the other hand, who can tell that God did not take part in Job's perseverence...

----------


## q0987

Again you missed the point. God used Job to judge Satan since Satan wanted to test Job. Job glorified God by doing the best he could under the circomstances. Also God did not leave Job hanging, he blessed Job with far more then he once had. 
We feel for Job because we suffer in this life in a simular fashion as to what Job went through. Because of our own suffering, we can identify with his "why me" arguement. 

Jesus said, "Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!" Jesus would understand suffering because of offenses. When we look at the way Job suffered and compare it to the way Jesus suffered, we can see a corallation between them. They both suffered under extreme physical anguish. 
We live in a world of offences. And we know anguish, whether it is caused by our own behavior or someone elses, we suffer from them.
I am thankful that I believe that Jesus was God in the flesh. This gives me great comfort to know that God understands what we go through every day.

----------


## Miss Darcy

> There is a big difference between belief in the mythical gods and believing in the God of the bible. There is no way anyone can have a relationship with mythical beings, but I have a relationship with the Lord Jesus.


But Jesus himself, as God's son, is just a myth. No offence, but he isn't anything better than Zeus or Thor. Besides, the priests of Ancient Egypt certainly had a kind of "relationship", as you put it, with their gods, particularly Amun-Re. You will find plenty of other examples throughout history.

I have read that religious feeling can sometimes be likened to love. Though personally I think loving an actual person is better than loving a belief, everyone is different.

Darcy.

P.S. I love your name, Miranda. Did you get it out of The Tempest or off Uranus' moon?

----------


## atiguhya padma

<I am thankful that I believe that Jesus was God in the flesh. This gives me great comfort to know that God understands what we go through every day.>

If he understands, then I presume he would help. It seems to me that your god is just voyeuristic. During natural disasters, which kill thousands of people, what is God doing? He understands our fears and our sufferings, you imply. But he seems not to help the vulnerable and defenceless, the children and the incapacitated. 

He isn't a good role model for parents.

Miranda,

I really don't have a clue what you are going on about. Anybody who can have a relationship with a non-physical, invisible, inaudible (to everyone else apart from possibly you), 'personality', can have a relationship with any old thing in my opinion, even a mythological god. I really don't see much difference between the worship of Adonis or Mithras and what you are talking about. In fact, as Miss Darcy has said, Amon Re was a cult that involved personal identification and communication with a single mythological entity. Amon Re was the first monotheistic god, upon whom your jewish/christian god was based.

----------


## Miss Darcy

I perfectly agree. It sounds rather strange to call God understanding, to say that he answers, for example, prayers for little things, and yet is not be able to/be unwilling to keep the more disastrous, large catastrophes/poverty/starvation/wars/you name it from happening. As Epicurus says:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

In Ancient Egypt, every morning before the sun would rise, a priest would pray for Amun-Re to help him win his struggle with a serpent so that day could begin again. Otherwise the sun would never come up again and the world would end (Amun-Re rode across the sky in his boat - he was the sun god, as well as the most important god of Ancient Egypt).

Another Ancient Egyptian god with whom the pharaoh himself especially (the priests weren't so important) had a very intimate "relationship" with was the Aten during the reign of Akhenaten. Only the pharaoh worshipped the Aten, everybody else just worshipped the pharaoh. It was partially the worship of the Aten that made Akhenaten unpopular and considered as something of a heretic. People didn't like how he had disposed of all the traditional gods to make room for this one, "true" god. However, Akhenaten contributed much to the new "realistic" style of art, among other things.

This isn't an ancient history discussion, I know, but well, when I get started... :Biggrin: 

Darcy

----------


## Scheherazade

Why is it so hard for us to accept that some people find comfort in believing a greater being/creator and would like to spend their time worshiping that superior being? Why do we feel the need to prove them wrong if we are persuaded that there is no superior being?

----------


## atiguhya padma

Maybe it is isn't so difficult to accept. Maybe what is difficult is when people use their religious experiences to differentiate themselves from others.

----------


## Scheherazade

And being different is bad?

----------


## atiguhya padma

Not at all. Being different is good. However, is it not the goal of most religions to create dull homogenous thinking rather than diverse thought?

----------


## atiguhya padma

The point I was trying to make in the previous post, was that religious believers often feel they have a moral high ground; that they have god on their side; and that basically we should all be doing as they do, with regards to believing and worshipping.

Is that not the reason why atheists feel the need to prove religious believers wrong? Anyway, I'm not sure anyone can prove the case either way. Atheism can only ever 'prove' that believers have no apparent reason to believe in god; that there is not a good argument for such belief. Essentially, we cannot know, and we would need to know to prove the case. But we can know what does and doesn't make sense. And when people claim that god exists; that there is a saviour etc; then those claims assume what they have no right to assume. And in doing so, those claims can have a great deal of influence and consequences that would affect many people including us atheists. Therefore, we feel the need to curb religious growth and to argue against religion, to protect ourselves, and others too.

I have met many believers in a variety of weird and unusual things: from christianity to ufology to various conspiracy theories etc. What they all seem to have in common, is a firm belief that experience is equivalent to reality: if you have an abduction experience THEN that means there are aliens; if you have a conversion experience THEN that must mean Jesus lives. Of course, experiential narrative can be compelling. But the reasoning is flawed. Experience is not a good indicator of truth or reality.

----------


## Scheherazade

When something is a matter of pure belief and faith, it is hard to discuss what is sensible or not.

----------


## sunriZe

Hi all that's my first post, I would like to share you all this point of view, please read in patience.

THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION OF THE BOOK OF JOB

(GOD'S CHAMPION OR GOD'S TOY)
Study prepared by Rev. Maurice Podder 

To correctly interpret the Old Testament we must have revelation from the New. For "until this day" 2 Cor 3:14 much of what is contained in it was obscured or completely hidden.
Let us begin by asking some basic but important questions.
*1. What part of the book of Job does the New Testament tell us to give the greatest consideration (beginning, middle, or end)?* 
James says to consider "the end of the Lord" James 5:11 in Job's life. For God saw Job, as he would be, "perfect and upright", not as he was, fearful and doubting. Job 1:1 Job 3:25 
*2. Under whose dominion was Job?*
When Adam sinned he relinquished his birthright to Satan and Satan became the "god (spelled with a small g meaning ruler) of this world" 2 Cor 4:4 Gen 25:34 John 14:30 Eph 2:2. Job was under the dominion of Satan.
*3. If Satan became "the god (ruler) of this world," what does the word WORLD mean?*
The two main words translated world in the New Testament are aion (NT:165 ahee-ohn') meaning an age or particular period 2 Cor 4:4 and kosmos (NT:2889 kos'-mos) meaning order or government Eph 2:2 Therefore when Adam sinned, Satan became the god (ruler) of the age of Adam, exercising authority over the governmental structure of its society for a particular period, but the earth and its contents still belonged to God. Ps 24:1. The world is the societal structure of a particular period or age.
The picture being portrayed is that of a landlord (God) and a lease holder (Adam first and then Satan). The landlord does not relinquish ownership of his property by leasing it for a particular period of time, but the landlord and the leaseholder are limited by the terms of the lease. The landlord, because of the lease, has limited access to his property and the leaseholder is limited in what he can do to and with what belongs to the landlord.
*4. Do we expect Satan's words to be truth?*
Jesus told us the devil is a liar and "there is no truth in him." John 8:44 In Gen 3:4-5 we have a written record of his lies. Then why do we expect the words he spoke in the book of Job to be true?
5. Did God give Satan permission to torment Job?
Now is when we break the fiery chains of Satan. In particular the lie that God is permitting or allowing evil in our lives for our good, or to test us. 
In Job chapter one Satan makes a bold statement of his authority and dominion over all that once belonged to Adam. For when God asked: "Whence comest thou?" "Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it." Job 1:7 
To Satan's bold statement of authority and dominion, God asks a question. Hast thou considered my servant Job? Job 1:8 (Have you seen my champion in the earth?) Satan's answer to God is first an accusation, then a complaint and finally a lie. 
*The Accusation* -- Job 1:9 --
Doth Job fear God for nought? The meaning of the word fear (OT:3372 yare' (yaw-ray') is to revere and of the word nought (OT:2600 chinnam (khin-nawm') is to cost nothing or free.
Satan uses a rhetorical question which expects the answer of NO! The accusation was that God had paid Job for his reverence and worship with blessings and protection. 
*The Complaint* -- Job 1:10 -- 
Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land. Satan's complaint was that God had placed a hedge of protection around Job and all that he had for the purpose of obtaining Job's reverence, worship, and loyalty. That this protection went beyond what was available to other men. Satan inferred God was a respecter of persons. This special privilege of protection, Satan complains, keeps him from exercising his legal right of dominion (obtained from Adam) over Job. 
*The Lie* -- Job 1:11 -- 
But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face. This is the lie the church has accepted. That God would put forth His hand to destroy one that loves Him, directly or indirectly by allowing it . God does not use evil, allow it, or permit it for the purpose of producing good. When Paul was accused of teaching "Let us do evil, that good may come?" Rom 3:8 He said this was a slanderous report and that GOD FORBIDS the use of evil to get good. Rom 3:5-7 Yet this slanderous report continues to resound from our church pulpits. That God is permitting or allowing Death, Sickness, Disease, Destruction, or failure for our good. 
Now that we understand the accusation, the complaint and the lie we can answer the question that was asked at the beginning of this section. Did God give Satan permission to torment Job? To find our answer we must ask another question. What was Satan's reason for coming into the presence of God? 
We saw earlier in this study that God's relationship to the one who has dominion is that of a landlord to a lease holder (Adam first and then Satan). The landlord and the leaseholder are limited by the terms of the lease. It is the terms of the lease Satan has come to clarify. Satan did not and does not understand the blessings that come through our love and reverence of God or the protection that comes by shunning evil and living upright before Him. Job 1:8 Because Satan knows no other way to obtain what he desires he tries to manipulate God, through accusation and complaint, and when that fails he lies. These are the same devices he has always used. 2 Cor 2:11 
In Job 1:12 God clarifies the lease. This clarification is not permission. It is fact. 
*"Behold, all that he hath is in thy power"
"Only upon himself put not forth thine hand"*
And now God Almighty, the Creator of the universe, and the One to whom all thing ultimately belong proclaims the limit of the lease that Adam had and that Satan must now adhere to. You do not have the authority to kill under the terms of the Adams dominion. 
God again confirms these two facts of dominion and its limit in Job 2:6.
So what is the answer to our question did God give Satan permission to torment Job?
*No! No! No!*

----------


## Pendragon

Let me say first of all, that there is something I call "Job Syndrome". This occurs whenever a Christian or Bible believer experiences disaster and is immediately pounced upon by a host of others who claim to be the same demanding to know what you did wrong. I know of what I speak, it happened to me. When my bipolar went off, the church I was in decided I was possessed by the devil and had me excomunicated. This is, of course, a treatable condition, and with proper medication taken regularly I do rather well. I have episodes at unpredictible times so I'm disabled, yet still, a change in the medication, some yoga, meditation, whatever and I'm OK.  :Thumbs Up:  Do I blame God for this? No. Did I question God about this? Yes, even as Job did. And I cling to my integrity even as Job did. The whole point of the Book of Job is a lesson: Life isn't a cakewalk. Can you hang on through the worst? And Job does at one point ask for a lawyer Job 16:21. But then he cries out, seeing through the eyes of faith "For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold and not another: though my reins be consumed within me" Job 19:25-27.

----------


## fishfully

I know I am a bit late in coming across this topic, but miranda if you are still out there you might shed some light on the following thoughts...

Paul said
2 For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified.
1 Cor 2:2 NKJV

So what does JOB have to do with Jesus Christ? 
On a seperate note the Bible implies a concept of for lack of a better name "The Courts of the Universe" This concept can be seen primarily in Romans (unfortunately I could not find my notes on specific references.) Basically God does everything so right that he submits it to be viewed by all and in the end everyone will agree he did it right.

It is submitted ealier in the postings that JOB is a covenant person...I would submit that JOB is Gods way of proving that man IS A VALID covenant partner. That God knowing that through His covenant with Abraham would obligate Himself to offer up His Son. God "catches the wise in their own craftiness". See how God sets Satan up..."Have you considered my servent JOB?" Satan then submits the only reason man serves God is because of things, then health, etc...
I dont know the legal concepts related to a covenant (or the closest equivalent in our day...contractual) partner...but if you begin to look at the story of JOB from this aspect, it exemplifies many of the truths of Gods character and Word. It also clarifies many of the questions that are raised. 

I must admit that this is a concept that was revealed to my dad in his years of study of the Word as one of the questions he kept in his mind was..."Lord what does JOB have to do with this?" So while I agree with Him and believe this to be one of the central aspects of the story of JOB; I am not nearly as well studied in it.

(P.S. I thought you might be able to supply the legal concepts related to covenant partners and how these are principals are established in the story of JOB)

----------


## Redzeppelin

The book of Job actually reveals (at least to a certain degree) why suffering is often permitted in this world. Satan's charge against God - that Job only serves him because God blesses him - is at the root of the cosmic war going on in the universe. Satan's primary charge is that God is unfair - that people serve Him either a) because they're afraid of Him, or b) because God "bribes" them through blessings. The book of Job refutes those assertions because God answers the challenge, and Job performs admirably in his challenge. There are times that God withdraws His protection from us - sometimes because we need the correction or challenge to bring us into alignment with His plan for us; other times, we may go "into the fire" because we are to help vindicate God by showing - through faith - that we serve Him even when we cannot see/feel His presence in our lives. That's faith - and it is faith and the servitude of God in our darkest of hours that slams shut Satan's accusations against God.

----------

