Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Job

[Newbie]

So it can also be assumed that Satan and the Christian god conspired together in the Book of Genesis.

The following is what we get when we meld the first two chapters of Job into Genesis 2 and 3 providing a back story to the Fall of Man....

Genesis 2
15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.
15.1 And it came to pass, after several millennia of watching the humans eat, drink, urinate, defecate, copulate and sleep that the LORD said, "This is boring, I shall introduce a bit of sport to the garden."
15.2 And so the LORD said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Adam? He tends to the garden as I have commanded.”
15.3 “Tending to the garden is all that Adam knows” Satan replied. 15.4 “Have you not put a hedge around him and his companion? You have blessed the work of his hands. 15.5 But now allow me to introduce a competing idea into the garden and he will surely disobey you.”
15.6 The LORD said to Satan, “Very well, then, everything in the garden is at your disposal, but to the man himself do not say a word.”
15.7 Then Satan went out from the presence of the LORD.
Fast forward to Genesis chapter 3
12 The man said, “The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.”
12.1 And the LORD said, "Now I will perform my greatest act of genius for which the humans will sing my praises from now until eternity. 12.2 I shall create a justice system which necessitates my own mockery, torture and death at the hands of the very creatures I shall smite for the next several hundred years because of their crimes. 12.3 Yes. That is what I shall I do. And the humans shall be amazed at my intelligence. Surely, they are fortunate to have me as their LORD."
13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?”
etc.

The Christian god probably punished Satan in the Genesis story because he is a sore loser (he lost the bet).

[jimwalton]

The story of Job is neither a conspiracy nor a wager. It is a philosophical/theological treatise on the issue of the retribution principle and the character of God. It attacks the age-old question of who God is, and do people honor God only because he rewards righteousness and punishes evil. We have this idea that the righteous should prosper and the wicked should suffer: is this the way life works, should work, or should be expected to work?

Secondly, "Satan" in the book has a definite article, and therefore should not be understood as a proper name. It's more like, "The Prosecution." The context of Job is a courtroom where God is being put on trial. The prosecutor presents his case, the humans are called forth and witnesses, and the Lord's policies are on trial. Job's character is the test case at hand. The conclusion that this character is whom we call Satan is invalid.

Back to Genesis 3. This chapter does not refer explicitly to Satan; that connection is never made here. Therefore we must avoid importing into the OT texts the idea that Satan was to be equated with the serpent. Likewise, we cannot rely on the narrative of Gn. 3 to enhance or inform our understanding of the OT view of Satan. At the same time we can recognize that the NT eventually does offer some basis for connecting the serpent and Satan in Rom. 16.20 and Rev. 12.9; 20.2.

> The Christian god probably punished Satan in the Genesis story because he is a sore loser (he lost the bet).

This is really funny. And sad. Where do you come up with this stuff?

[The King]

The Christian god employed Satan to torment Job. There is no way around that.

> It is a philosophical/theological treatise on the issue of the retribution principle and the character of God.

Yeah. And it is within the character of the Christian god to employ Satan to test his followers.

> Secondly, "Satan" in the book has a definite article, and therefore should not be understood as a proper name. It's more like, "The Prosecution."

Ah so there is more than one Satan.

> "The context of Job is a courtroom where God is being put on trial."

Not seeing it. I see Job being put to the test by two gods. Standard mythology.

> "The prosecutor presents his case,"

WTF are you talking about? All the "prosecutor" did was talk the Christian god into letting him test Job. And then the "prosecution" tested Job.

> the humans are called forth and witnesses,

Witnesses? All but one of the 'witnesses" are rebuked by God for engaging in speculation.

> and the Lord's policies are on trial.

None of the witnesses accuse the Christian god of wrongdoing.

> Job's character is the test case at hand.

Job's character tests God? Oh please. If God's test of his own character is what he sees in us then he must be wracked with self-hatred.

> The conclusion that this character is whom we call Satan is invalid.

And you accuse me of twisting the scriptures? Satan didn't conclude anything. He predicted that Job would curse the Christian god to his face. That is all.

>Back to Genesis 3. This chapter does not refer explicitly to Satan; that connection is never made here.

The great dragon was hurled down--that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him. (Rev 12:9)

> Therefore we must avoid importing into the OT texts the idea that Satan was to be equated with the serpent.

If you're going to avoid importing the NT into the OT then you need to renounce Christianity. Because that is what the religion is all about.

[jimwalton]

The story of Job is wisdom literature, not historical literature. There are no claims of historicity; the stuff never happened to a guy named Job. The book poses a philosophical scenario to address a theological question: What kind of person is God? The book explores God's policies about suffering in the world, whether righteousness earns a person blessings, and whether or not evil people ever get what's coming to them. The Adversary proposes that it's counterproductive for God to reward goodness, because it makes us all less-than-good (we are good just for the prize). But then we find out that it's counterproductive for good people to suffer, too. It seems that God is caught in the middle: he gets criticized for blessing, and he gets criticized for allowing suffering. This is what the book is going to sort out. Suggesting that the book is a story of how a good man suffered because of a bet between God and Satan misses the point ENTIRELY.

In the book, The Adversary acts like an accuser—a court prosecutor. He is not bad as such, nor does he opposed God or act as a leader of demonic forces. He's a courtroom prosecutor in the hypothetical scenario that is built. We can observe several truths:

1.God's policies are the focus of the challenge, and Job's character is the text case.
2. The Adversary is functioning sort of as a watchdog agency meant to raise questions of God's accountability.
3. There is no emotion in the text. Neither God nor the Adversary are portrayed as getting any pleasure or pain because of Job's condition. In the courtroom, it's just the philosophical/theological issue on the table and God who is on trial.

[Archaeoculus]

We cannot avoid equating the serpent, satan and devil together. John clearly states they are all the same. Are you Jewish? No? Then we must contain all context, from Revelation to Genesis. You can't separate those passages in Romans and Revelation—they rewrite Genesis.

[jimwalton]

This is a great and perceptive comment. Thank you for it. In ways you are correct, and in ways you're not. WE must contain all context, from Gen. to Rev. Absolutely so. WE can't separate the passages in Romans and Revelation. Absolutely so. The later revelation of the NT does interpret and define for us.

But if we want to decipher the mindset of the ancients, and understand the text as they understand it, then we cannot take into account (anachronistically) what the ancients knew nothing of. THEY did not consider The Prosecutor to be whom we call Satan. THEY did not understand the serpent of Genesis 3 as the devil whom we call Satan. The story of Job is NOT a conversation, even with NT enlightenment, of God vs. Satan. It is still a courtroom scene with a Prosecutor ("The Adversary", the Hebrew word for which is *hassatan*) and a defendant, YHWH.

[The King]

You claim the story of Job is wisdom literature, not historical literature.

So, in James 5, we are told to believe the Christian god is merciful and compassionate because he is depicted as being merciful and compassionate towards a fictional character.

You have heard of the patience of Job, and you have seen the end of the Lord, that the Lord is merciful and compassionate. (James 5:11)

Then there is Ezekiel 14:14...
And if these three men, Noe, Daniel, and Job, shall be in it: they shall deliver their own souls by their justice, saith the Lord of hosts. (Ezekiel 14:14)

That's odd. Why would Ezekiel mention a fictional character along with two historical characters as though all three were historical?

"There are no claims of historicity;"

"Catholic commentators, however, almost without exception, hold Job to have actually existed and his personality to have been preserved by popular tradition. Nothing in the text makes it necessary to doubt his historical existence. The Scriptures seem repeatedly to take this for granted (cf. Ezekiel 14:14; James 5:11; Tobit 2:12-15, according to the Vulgate — in the Greek text of Tobias there is no mention of Job). All the Fathers considered Job an historical person; some of their testimonies may be found in Knabenbauer, "Zu Job" (Paris, 1886), 12-13. The Martyrology of the Latin Church mentions Job on 10 May, that of the Greek Church on 6 May (cf. Acta SS.' II, May, 494)."

[jimwalton]

Ezekiel 14.14 and James 5.11 are possible reasons to believe Job was historical, but such references could just as easily be made to a literary figure: "As Frodo once said, '...' " You'll notice that the verse in Ezekiel is hypothetical, as all three of the characters mentioned are renowned for righteousness. And as far as James, whether or not Job is historical, he is certainly still an example of patience under suffering.

There are MANY reasons to believe, however, that Job is not historical.
- There is nothing in the book that demands or even indicates it. There are no historical references, just a few geographic ones.
- We are confronted with hyperbole: the maximum amount of righteousness, the maximum amount of loss, the maximum amount of suffering, and then a restoration greater than the loss (exactly twice as many kids??). It is not written as if historical.
- The setting is in a foreign land of unspecified locale.
- The exact repetition in dialogue speaks of literature, not history.
- Almost the entire book is direct talking. Was a stenographer there? Not likely.
- The symmetrical arrangement of the speeches, and in poetry nonetheless!
- The complete literary idealization of the protagonist
- No historical setting is presented
- The theological issues under discussion don't require a historical reference point

Sure, the possibility exists that it could have happened, but the question is irrelevant. The concept of Biblical authority does not require it to be historical because it doesn’t present itself as such. The weight of evidence is strongly in favor of non-historicity.