I’ll let you know up front that this is a longer than normal post, but there was no good way to break it up. Hopefully, you’ll find the time it takes to read it well spent.
I’m a big fan of Seth Andrews and his podcast The Thinking Atheist. A week or two ago, I was listening to an episode, and Seth’s guest was Chris Matheson, who was one of the writer’s for Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure (one of my favorite films, as some of you may remember).
Anyway, Matheson has recently written a book called The Story of God: A Biblical Comedy about Love (and Hate), and that was the subject of their interview. Seth asked him if he had a favorite book in the Bible, and Matheson replied that it was Job. When asked why, he said that he views Job as a wonderful satire. That really piqued my curiosity. Could it be that the writer of Job truly intended his book to be a satire, like Jonathan Swift’s A Modest Proposal?
The idea stuck with me for several days, and I realized that I needed to revisit the Book of Job and find out for myself. Is it serious or satire?
A Breakdown of the Book of Job
Job is an interesting book. No one knows who wrote it, what the author’s nationality was, nor when it was written. There’s been speculation over the years that the book was originally written in another language and translated into Hebrew, because it contains many words and word-forms that aren’t found anywhere else in the Old Testament. However, no other text of the book has ever been found. And many scholars today have come back to the idea that the author was an Israelite who simply chose to use some foreign-looking word-forms to compliment the setting of the book, which is outside the kingdoms of Israel and Judah (wiki).
The book’s intent is to focus on theodicy, or why bad things happen to good people. In the prologue, we’re introduced to Job, who is described as being “blameless and upright,” and God has blessed him with great wealth. But Satan comes before God and says that Job’s obedience is only a result of all the good that God has blessed him with. If calamity were to befall him, he would turn his back on God. God decides to take Satan up on this bet and allows Satan to bring ruin upon Job, just so long as Job himself isn’t physically harmed.
So that’s how the book begins. Before we go further, I’d like to note something that stood out to me right away. Regardless of whether or not the author of Job was writing a satire, I’m convinced he did not believe he was writing actual history. This is a fable — actually, this is a play.
First of all, Job is presented as a little too perfect. In the first 5 verses of the book, we’re told that he is blameless, upright, fears God, and turns away from evil. He has 7 sons and 3 daughters (a total of 10 children). When it comes to his possessions, they also come out to nice round numbers: 7,000 sheep, 3,000 camels (which is the same breakdown as his children, but multiplied by 1,000), 500 female donkeys, and 500 yoke of oxen. He also has many servants and is “the greatest of all the peoples of the east.” It’s hard to know how much is included in “the east,” but this is obviously an amazing superlative. Verses 4 and 5 talk about how wonderful Job’s adult children are, and we’re also told that Job regularly offers sacrifices for all of them simply as a precaution.
The guy seems perfect, but that’s not necessarily a reason for thinking he wasn’t real. After all, it’s his exceptional character that causes him to be singled out by God and Satan anyway. But consider this: the story actually works better if it’s fictional. A real person is imperfect. If Job were real, then his friends would be more justified when they accuse him of doing something wrong (as we’ll see shortly). But if this is a fictional tale, then it’s easier for us to accept that Job is truly blameless. If the author wants to talk about why bad things happen to good people, then he needs someone who is unquestionably good; he needs a paragon. Also, consider the setting in God’s realm (1:6-12):
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them. The Lord said to Satan, “From where have you come?” Satan answered the Lord and said, “From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it.” And the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil?” Then Satan answered the Lord and said…
And the Lord said to Satan, “Behold, all that he has is in your hand. Only against him do not stretch out your hand.” So Satan went out from the presence of the Lord.
Most modern Christians believe that God is everywhere at once and always aware of everything. Why, then, would there need to be a particular day on which “the sons of God” present themselves before him (chapter 2 shows us that this was a regular occurrence)? And why would he need to ask them what they’ve been doing? If Satan is a spiritual being, why does he need to go down onto the earth and walk upon it? How could multiple bad things happen across the globe at the same time, if he has to operate in such an anthropomorphic way? And how could Satan go out from the presence of the Lord if God is everywhere? This whole setup is modeled on the way an earthly court would operate. How could this scenario be literally true?
When Satan is set loose upon Job, an incredible number of things happen to him all at once. A messenger arrives and tells Job that a band of Sabean raiders has taken all his oxen and donkeys and killed the servants that were with them. While he’s speaking, another messenger arrives and says that fire from the sky fell and burned up all the sheep and the servants that were with them. While he’s speaking, a messenger says that 3 groups of Chaldean raiders took all the camels and killed the servants that were with them. And while he’s speaking, a final messenger arrives and says that a great wind has blown down the house of one of his children — all of his children were inside, and they’re all dead.
To me, this reads more like a setup in a play or fable than actual history, even if the events were somehow spurred by Satan (did he possess the various groups of raiders? Did it infringe upon their free will? How long in advance did he have to set things in motion to make them all happen simultaneously?). There’s one more thing that makes me think this wasn’t supposed to be taken as literal history, and I’ll mention it when I come to it in just a moment.
After Job is stripped of everything, he still didn’t curse God (1:20-22):
Then Job arose and tore his robe and shaved his head and fell on the ground and worshiped. And he said, “Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return. The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord.”
In all this Job did not sin or charge God with wrong.
When Satan next appears before God, God brags that Job was still faithful, despite what Satan had done to him. To this, Satan replies that Job remained faithful, because he still had his health. A man would give all he has to save his life — so take away Job’s good health, and he’ll turn against God. So God gives Satan permission to torment Job, so long as Satan doesn’t take his life. Satan causes painful sores to spring up all over Job’s body, putting him in immense agony. Job’s wife suggests that he curse God and die, but Job refuses (2:10):
“You speak as one of the foolish women would speak. Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?” In all this Job did not sin with his lips.
Job has 3 friends that hear of his misfortune, so they come visit to offer him comfort. According to Job 2:13, they sit on the ground with Job for 7 days and 7 nights without speaking. I just find that incredibly hard to believe. This is the other aspect of the story that makes me think Job is an allegory and not meant to be actual history. And there are even Christians who take that view as well, though I wasn’t able to find any decent articles arguing for that. However, I did find a number of articles from Christians who talk about those “liberal” scholars and Christians who view Job as allegorical, but insist that it must be actual history. Mostly, they insist upon this because it seems that some later writers of the Bible thought Job was real (Ezek 14:14, 20; James 5:11), and these Christians worry about what that would mean for the inspiration of those texts. If you’re interested, you can read those arguments here and here.
Anyway, now that the stage has been set, we come to the discourse. Most of this book is a series of speeches made by the different characters. Job kicks things off, but then each of his three friends take turns speaking to him, and he replies to each. It follows that format for two and a half cycles, after which, Job gives a long speech. Then, we’re introduced to a fifth cast member — a man named Elihu, who is younger than Job and his friends. Elihu promises to offer wisdom that will cut to the heart of the matter, but much of what he says is no different than what Job’s friends have said. Once he’s finished, we finally hear from God, whom the reader assumes will finally put these questions to rest. Here’s a brief summary of the conversation:
Job: (chapter 3)
Curse the day of my birth! Why couldn’t I have been stillborn?
Eliphaz: (chapters 4 & 5)
You’ve always been an encourager, but now bad things happen to you and you fold. Well, bad things happen to people who do bad things. No man is blameless before God. God is awesome, so don’t despise his discipline.
[Incidentally, in 5:1, Eliphaz asks “to which of the holy ones will you turn?” Is this, as well as chapter 1’s reference to “the sons of god,” a hint at polytheism? Also, the last 10 or so verses of chapter 5 have Eliphaz make a number of statements about God and how he takes care of people. What’s funny is that he supports all of his statements by saying, “Behold, this we have searched out; it is true.” (v. 27). Oh, okay then. 😉 ]
Job: (chapters 6 & 7)
Things are bad — I’m pretty justified in my complaints. You guys are pretty bad friends. Life sucks — why is this happening?!
Bildad: (chapter 8)
Does God pervert justice? Don’t deny your faults — these things happen for a reason. If your children offended God, then he has dealt with them. Just repent so things can be well for you — actually, even better for you than they were before.
Job: (chapters 9 & 10)
God is supreme — no one can stand against him. I’m innocent, but even so, if God is against me, what does it matter? And if it’s not him doing this, who is? Why was I born, if this is my end?
Zophar: (chapter 11)
You don’t know anything, and you deserve worse than what you’ve gotten. Repent.
Job: (chapters 12-14)
No doubt, you are the people and wisdom will die with you. Seriously, genius, you’re not telling me anything I don’t already know. I’m a laughing stock. Successful people despise the downtrodden. God is supreme, and creation is proof of his existence. I wish I could lay my case before him. And who are you to speak for God? You guys are terrible friends. I would speak to God, and I trust him to judge justly and see my innocence. Life is short and full of sorrow. And when it’s over, you have no idea what happens after you’re gone.
[While reading chapter 13, I was struck that much of Job’s agony comes from believing that there’s a God up there who could do something about it. If he didn’t believe in God, he’d still be miserable, but at least he wouldn’t have all these questions about fairness.]
Eliphaz: (chapter 15)
You don’t fear God the way you should. Only the wicked strive against God and don’t consider him.
Job: (chapters 16-17)
You guys suck. If I were in your place, I could offer you words of encouragement, or I could tear you down. God is against me. Who will stand with me? To whom do I turn for help and hope?
Bildad: (chapter 18)
Why aren’t you listening to us? Bad things happen to bad people.
Job: (chapter 19)
How long will you speak against me? God is against me — why are you against me too? My redeemer lives!*
[* This part was strange to me. It starts in 19:23, and it seems to come out of nowhere. Job has just been saying that God is against him, so why does he suddenly say “my redeemer lives”? Is he just saying that he still trusts God will save him, despite the way things look? Is this just to represent the kind of double-speak that we all engage in when we’re troubled, worried, in pain, etc? Playing devil’s advocate with himself, in other words?]
Zophar: (chapter 20)
God is against the wicked. The wicked have a terrible end.
Job: (chapter 21)
No, Zophar, the wicked often seem to live happy, prosperous lives, and even their children after them. You say God dishes it out on their descendants. Why? Why not let the wicked see it for themselves? Why should they care what happens to their houses after they’re gone? The wicked aren’t punished. You guys are full of it.
[This is where things start to get interesting, and they continue in Job’s next speech as well. He’s finally starting to rebel against the idea that bad things only happen to bad people. He already knows that he’s not a bad person, yet he’s being plagued by unthinkable horrors. And he’s also aware that the wicked often live amazing lives.]
Eliphaz: (chapter 22)
You are wicked. Repent.
Job: (chapters 23 & 24)
I would lay my case before God, but where is he? People do all kinds of evil things, but God doesn’t charge them with anything. Why not?
[These chapters lay out the problem of evil. To me, it’s one of the crucial sections of the book. Why is there evil in the world, and why does God do nothing about it? If you have time, check out 23:8-9, and all of chapter 24]
Bildad: (chapter 25)
Man is lowly — how can man ever be right before God?
Job (chapters 26-31) — this is Job’s final defense
God is amazing and powerful. I will keep my integrity. The wicked won’t prosper. Man searches all over and performs wonderful feats to gain gold, silver, iron, etc. But where is wisdom found? Wisdom is found in the fear of the Lord. Oh, how I long for the good old days! I have fallen so low. I have tried to live righteously — if I’ve lived unjustly, let me be punished.
[Once again, we have a section where Job seems to backpedal a little. 27:13-23 has him agreeing with his friends that wickedness doesn’t pay off. Like I said, maybe this is just an illustration of indecision — he doesn’t know quite what he thinks at this point. Chapter 28 is the discourse on wisdom. It’s hard to tell from the way it’s written if this is still part of Job’s speech, or if it’s being spoken by the narrator. Scholars are divided on that. Finally, I found 29:4-5 interesting, because he speaks about “friendship with God” and “when God was with me.” How would he know? Earlier, he asked “where is God?” It’s obvious from that earlier passage, as well as when God finally speaks to him, that Job has never had a real relationship with God before. These verses in chapter 29 seem to simply be what many people do — he’s ascribing the good things of life to God automatically, without requiring any evidence for the supernatural.]
Elihu: (chapters 32-37)
I’ve kept silent because of my youth — I assumed that you older men would be wiser than I, yet you’ve been unable to answer Job. So listen to me, and I will teach you wisdom. God is amazing — much higher than any man. Far be it from him to do anything wicked. God punishes the unrighteous, and the righteous live well.
God: (chapters 38-41)
I’m awesome — who are you to question me?
And that’s pretty much it — that’s God’s defense. He spends 4 chapters comparing himself to man and (surprise) finds man lacking.
Job speaks one last time and repents to God for ever wanting to present his case before him (chapter 42). In other words, “I’m a worm, and I’m sorry for questioning anything.”
We then find out that God is angry at Job’s three friends, because “you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has.” Remember, Job’s three friends’ main arguments were “God is amazing, and God punishes the wicked — since you’re obviously being punished, you should repent.” God himself reiterated the point that he is indeed amazing. So apparently, the part that Job’s friends got wrong was that he only punishes the wicked. In fact, God can punish anyone he wants, period. This reminds me of John Zande’s book, The Owner of All Infernal Names, where he argues that the evidence we have supports the idea of an omnimalevolent creator far better than an omnibenevolent one.
At the end of the Book of Job, we’re given an epilogue where we find out that God blesses Job with twice as much as he had before. He’s once again given 10 children (7 boys; 3 girls), which undoubtedly more than made up for the first 10, especially since we’re told “in all the land there were no women so beautiful as Job’s daughters” (42:15). And he now has 14,000 sheep, 6,000 camels, 1,000 yoke of oxen, and 1,000 female donkeys. And Job lived 140 more years, seeing his descendants to the fourth generation.
Thoughts
I’ve long been bothered by the moral implications of the Book of Job. First of all, the idea that God would allow Satan to coax him into a game of chance over someone who is loyal to him is pretty obscene. Even worse, Job’s children and servants become collateral damage and are eradicated on a whim. Why are all those lives less important than Job’s? I’m pretty confident that Job wouldn’t have seen it that way. If he could have given his own life to save theirs, no doubt he would have. Then, to end the book with the sick notion that “all’s well that ends well” because Job has been given replacement children is offensive.
But there’s also the theme of Job. As we said at the outset, the writer is tackling the question of “why do bad things happen to good people?” In the case of Job, we’re given the answer immediately — it’s because God and Satan are performing an experiment with him. But what about everyone else? Why do bad things happen to good people, if there’s a good God in control of everything. And to that question, we don’t get an answer, other than “they just do.” Or worse, “because you’re God’s property and he can do what he wants with you.”
I don’t think it ever would have struck me to view the Book of Job as a satire, but now that I’ve read it with that idea in mind, I find the notion pretty persuasive. It’s hard to imagine that the writer of Job took on this lengthy work simply to leave the question unanswered at the end, especially when he phrased the problem so well in passages like chapters 23 and 24. The satire isn’t especially overt. And if it had been, it might not have become part of the Jewish canon. But I can see the possibility that the writer was being subversive and pointing out the dilemma of theodicy below a facade of “Yay God!” enthusiasm. If that’s what’s really going on here, then I have a new respect for the book. In fact, its moral failings make far more sense from this perspective, since they heighten the absurdity of the whole situation.
If this is a morality play, Job is not at the center of it. Consider the moral implications of a god that would allow such a series of events to pass when he knew ahead of time how the events would play out and knew, with no doubt whatsoever whether, Job was or was not his faithful servant. (Also, that Satan had no power to cloud or hide that knowledge from Him.)
Job is just the equivalent of a magician’s flourish, designed to distract you where the real action is. The moral lesson of this story is that Yahweh is a malicious character who enjoys playing out scenes already predestined in which good people suffer bad happenings. Any normal god would be bored to tears, knowing everything that was going to happen and why. Satan is not a separate entity, he is just another part of Yahweh’s mind that represents part of Yahweh’s personality. Since there is only one god, but one who is all powerful, why should he not have imaginary playmates?
Then imagine Yahweh’s mirth when he convinces all of the world’s Jews, Muslims, and Christians that the Book of Job is holy scripture. His laughter must have been and still be immense.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hmm, pretty compelling points, Steve.
LikeLike
Interesting analysis, Steve.
LikeLike
Nate,
Great post on a topic that seems bottomless: the story of Job and the interpretations thereof have so many variations and consequences.
Young-earth-creationists use the book as scientific text. Fundamentalists read it as literal and factual history. Other strains of Christianity are less hard-lined in their interpretation, but most have no idea what to do with the book except use Job as “a biblical example of how a Christian should respond to suffering.”
I’m on board with the satire interpretation. So far, for me, it’s the only thing that makes sense. I’ve been studying the book for awhile now (because I’m attempting my first novel: a modern-day Job story, told from Mrs. Job’s point of view) and so many things about the biblical tale are horrifying:
1. The way Job’s wife is depicted: she’s seen as an antagonist when all we ever hear of her is one sentence spoken during extreme grief.
2. Job’s children and servants are completely expendable. Which contradicts that whole “least of these” Jesus mentions in the NT.
I think people generally interpret Job as a historical event and a proper response to suffering because they must. One of the main reasons people have faith is to give their suffering meaning. If this book is satire, then there are other reasons for human suffering, and that creates a helluva lot of serious problems for people who need to believe “God is good all the time.”
Mary Doria Russell’s critically acclaimed sci-fieries that starts with _The Sparrow_ is a fantastic take on this issue from a wildly different setting. (Synopsis: His eye may be on the sparrow, but the sparrow still falls.) Highly recommended.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Job’s children and servants are completely expendable. Which contradicts that whole ‘least of these’ Jesus mentions in the NT.”
That’s an outlook I had never previously considered – thank you for that, Rodalena! (Beautiful name, btw, it just rolls off the tongue – Rodalena –)
“One of the main reasons people have faith is to give their suffering meaning.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rodalena,
Thanks for the comment! I agree with arch that I never thought about the “least of these” angle — that’s a great connection.
I’ll check out The Sparrow — I’ve seen you mention it before. And good luck with your own book! That sounds like a great perspective to write from! I can’t wait to read it. 🙂
LikeLike
Thanks guys. The way women are depicted in the bible has always extremely bothered me; it’s one of the things that was a catalyst to my own crisis of faith several years ago.
The moniker is a nickname my former fil gave me…I always liked it.:-)
LikeLiked by 1 person
“fil”? Is that a typo, or have I missed the release of another internet slang word? 🙂
LikeLike
Father-in-law? I’ll bet you were born in the last century, Nate!
(As were most of us, but it sure sounds OLD when you say it that way, doesn’t it?)
LikeLike
Ah, thank you arch! I really don’t know how I didn’t figure that out… 😛
LikeLike
G. B. Caird makes a passing reference to this passage from Job when referring to the story of the Shepherds seeing the heavenly host in Luke’s Gospel.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wow, that’s really fascinating, Peter. Thanks for pointing it out!
LikeLike
Hi Nate, I can understand how Job could be read as a satire, but I find it hard to think that this was the author’s intention. What is the author criticizing if it’s a satire?
If anything, it seems the author is criticizing a specific idea about God expressed by the 3 friends. The 3 friends insist Job is suffering because of his personal sin, but the reader knows Job is righteous, and God vindicates Job and condemns his friends. So, the idea being criticized is that righteous people are spared from loss and suffering.
Brief note on theology. God promised blessings and curses for Israel based on their obedience to the law at the end of Deuteronomy, so applying this logic to individuals such as Job would mean Job should never be cursed on account of his righteousness. The author goes against this idea and states that God may test individuals. Elsewhere, in Judaism God may bless or curse individuals for their actions (i.e., David and Bathsheba’s first child dies on account of their sin). The point is, for any given circumstance there are multiple theological explanations, so we should not focus too much on one at the expense of others. God may punish people for their sins on earth, but sometimes bad things happen to good people.
And what is the theodicy? We’re never explicitly told a justification. After being questioned by the Almighty, Job ends up saying “Sure I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know” which is an anti-theodicy! God’s justification for allowing the righteous to suffer at times is unknowable to humans.
I’m not persuaded the author is satirizing Jewish theology in any way. Rather the author is criticizing an overly-simplistic Jewish theology.
LikeLike
Yeah, you’re right. YHWH’s a monster who likes causing his minions great suffering, visiting death on their loved ones, and screw them if they dare to ask why – STFU says he.
But here we are 2500(ish) years later, still trying to figure out what the book means. Maybe he’s not a monster, he’s just a terrible communicator.
Or…anybody got a razor?
LikeLike
Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the water —
LikeLike
The more I think on it, the more I like the satire spin:
“oh. god is sooo, good. he’s sooo great. He just killed all my livestock and made me feel just awful by giving me a bad case of the boils, but I dont notice so much because he also murdered my children for a bet. I love god so much though, because he knows about nature and he’s giving more kids that are prettier than the old ones. Arent we lucky to have such a wonderful god…”
and you know, once I type it out like that, it doesn’t look so bad,m does it?
LikeLike
@william
I understand that’s the kind of Hitchenesque eisegesis that you are drawn to.
I haven’t seen any convincing argument that Job is a satire. We need to start with reasons, not assertions. There are reasons Job is a serious criticism of the idea that loss and suffering is always do to personal sin. First, the majority of the book is Job discussing with his friends whether or not he’s offended God by sinning. Second, the idea that loss and suffering is punishment for personal sins is prevalent in Jewish thought meaning there is a reason for the author to address this. Third, the author never explicitly justifies God and sidesteps the problem of evil.
The notion that it’s a subversive satire does not hold much clout. Why have the majority of the conversation about sin? Why the happy ending? It seems plainly a criticism of over-simplified theology of sin and punishment, nothing more. Anything else twists the intended meaning.
LikeLike
oh well certainly. And I can also understand that you are drawn to that sort of apologetic eisegesis.
But I do think you’re probably right. I do doubt that Job was intended to be a satire, even though I do think it works that way, without much assertion, based on how unreasonable it for a good, benevolent god to treat his beloved creation so poorly.
That being said, I have always like the point that is at the surface of this story, that bad luck isn’t an indication one’s righteousness or lack thereof.
So, satire or not, that is a good and valid lesson. We shouldn’t kick people while they’re down.
But c’mon, this story has God inflicting the worse kind of experiences and losses on a man just to win a bet with satan. This still inst exactly a flattering portrait of God.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Why the happy ending?” – I really don’t think you’re viewing that from the perspective of the first family and the herdsmen, are you –?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Should I?
LikeLike
Shouldn’t you?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Brandon,
I think you’re likely right that the author wasn’t really writing a satire, but I still think it’s possible that he may have been. You’re also right that the main point of the book is to dispel the notion that bad things happen to bad people and good things happen to good people. At the same time, the message that bad things also happen to good people is not very uplifting.
Chapters 21 and 23-24 still stand out to me as some of the major points of the book: the wicked aren’t punished and God is hidden. Those two points very neatly wrap up the problem of evil, and that problem is never answered. That’s what I see as the evidence for this possibly being a satire. I mean, why else bring up the problem of evil and leave it unanswered? Even when God shows up at the end of the book, he doesn’t answer the problem either — he just criticizes lowly humans for asking the question. And if this book had truly been inspired, then why wouldn’t God have answered the PoE once and for all?
As to the conversation that you and Arch are having, yes, I think you should be concerned with the perspective of the children and servants that were killed for the sake of this bet. If the story is true, then those are real individuals, who should be just as important as Job. Remember the claims of the New Testament: “God is not a respecter of persons,” and “as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
That goes back to the old saw, Nate, “He made us, he can do anything he wants with us,” which is a copout for the head of the Morals Department.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah, and there are certainly some theists who honestly view that as a reasonable answer. But I think a deity who operated that way wouldn’t match the “loving and merciful” description.
LikeLike
Nate,
In all honesty, I do not think the PoE has a comprehensive, satisfactory solution available to the human intellect. Failing to answer the PoE in the book of Job or scripture as whole is not a deficiency in my view. It’s simply admitting the limitations of humans. It’s analogous to the scientific mystery. I would rather scientists say “We don’t know what happened before the Big Bang” “We don’t know what Dark Energy is” than tickling our ears with a pat answer. Similarly, scripture affirms a theological mystery through Job and doesn’t give a pat answer.
From a literary perspective, I am not concerned about the author’s lack of addressing other’s perspectives. From a theological perspective, of course I am concerned about Job’s children and others who were killed! I reject that it was a bet like a casino game. It was more like a test similar to that of Abraham on the mountain and Jesus in the wilderness. And, I don’t think these deaths were just collateral damage in the testing of Job.
Something I’ve been pondering lately is relevant here. God is not human, therefore God’s rights do not map onto human rights. That doesn’t mean God can do anything and it’s magically good. Scripture says God cannot lie, for instance. One thing God can do that we cannot (with few exceptions) is take life.
All of these characters were given the gift of life, God eventually took all of their lives including Job. Do you think God is should be obligated to give everyone an equally successful, happy earthly life? Why so?
-B
LikeLike