Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 64

Thread: Putting God on Trial: The Biblical Book of Job

  1. #1

    Putting God on Trial: The Biblical Book of Job

    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.

  2. #2
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    309
    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.


  3. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    309
    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.

  4. #4
    Miranda:

    We agree on much.

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

  5. #5
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    309
    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.

  6. #6
    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?

  7. #7
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    309
    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.

  8. #8
    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.

  9. #9
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    309
    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.

  10. #10
    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.
    Last edited by Robert Sutherla; 07-11-2004 at 09:36 PM.

  11. #11
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    309
    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]

  12. #12
    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.

  13. #13
    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.

  14. #14
    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)

  15. #15
    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.)

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Movie is nothing compared to book
    By Dani in forum The Last of the Mohicans
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 02-11-2023, 10:11 AM
  2. Good book
    By Maria in forum The Prince and the Pauper
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-23-2014, 06:22 AM
  3. Great book
    By Big-Dan-T in forum The Jungle
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-04-2006, 06:03 PM
  4. Albert Goldbarth: "Library" part 1
    By amuse in forum Poems, Poets, and Poetry
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-05-2004, 07:28 PM
  5. Albert Goldbarth: "Library" part 2
    By amuse in forum Poems, Poets, and Poetry
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-05-2004, 07:27 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •