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

[Dobo Dude]

We all know the story. Satan gambles with God that Job will lose his faith if he loses his blessings (his family, wealth, etc). God says go ahead, only don't kill Job and then Satan muders Job's family and servants and property, as well as afflicting him with illness. Job doesn't lose his faith and God restores his family snd fortune.

However this is literally one of THE most immoral things I have ever seen or heard of. Could ypu fathom ruining a friend's life over a bet? And God didn't revive Job's family, but gave him a new one. If someone killed your kids and gave you new ones, would you be "hey man it's cool?" I sure hope not. If this doesn't show God to be immoral I don't know what will.

[jimwalton]

The key to the answer to your question is a proper understanding of the book of Job. The story of Job is not 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?

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.

Therefore your conclusion that "this is literally one of THE most immoral things I have ever seen or heard of" is not only premature but also incorrect.

The challenge posed against God is not a wager but a legal case—a prosecution against God's policies. The Challenger is questioning God's blueprint for divine-human relations—the validity of a moral order in which the righteous unfailingly prosper. The test of true righteousness would be fear of God without the promise of reward or the threat of punishment. The Challenger has no evidence for accusing Job of acting righteously only for reward. His point is that, given the system that YHWH has set up, one cannot tell. (Notice all the 2nd person subjects in Job 1.10, showing the God's policies are the target of the accusations.) Prospering the righteous, in the Challenger's view, is a questionable policy because it fosters corrupt motives. By pointing out all that YHWH has done to bless and prosper Job, he raises the point that Job's motives are open to question: Is he truly righteous or just acting that way to get the benefits? God recognizes the legitimacy of the challenge and authorizes the action against Job. It is important for God to clarify his character and the way he runs the world.

That's what the book is about. It's a courtroom drama, not a casino setting.