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

[Wuffy]

How long did Hiob (Job) suffer?

[jimwalton]

There are no time markers like that in the book. The book of Job isn't really about Job, but rather about God. It’s not about suffering, but about God’s character and policies. The book is more about the reasons for righteousness than about the reasons for suffering. The length of time encompassed by the book is irrelevant and not given.

[Baloney]

As someone who suffers every day from a deformed skeleton, let me tell you it is not the case that “it’s not about suffering, but about God’s character and policies.”

Job is “about” many things, and suffering is definitely one of them.

People who want to lay everything at God’s feet like to ignore that Satan makes an appearance in the book. They ignore that Satan is real. They ignore that Satan has no problem accusing Job, just as John says Satan stands before the throne accusing the saints night and day. They ignore that it was Satan’s idea to cause Job to suffer — first by removing everything from his life but his wife (who was probably allowed to remain because she nagged him to “curse God and die”); and then by afflicting his body with painful disease. Jesus tells those in the synagogue that disapproved of his healing a woman that Satan had afflicted for 18 years that they ought to have been pleased he healed her and set her free.

Evil is real, and we are to learn from Job that we don’t always know the cause of our suffering, just as Job might never have learned of it. (We are unsure of the author.) What we do know is that God allowed Satan to do those things, just as God allowed Satan to sift the disciples when he asked if he could. Jesus prayed for Peter that after he was sifted, he might strengthen the other disciples, and he did.

God allows Job to suffer even more from three friends who won’t stop telling him he did something sinful, so that’s why he’s suffering. Job knows that can’t be true, because he was careful to keep short accounts between him and God, and even interceded for his children in that regard. But as time goes by, Job starts to accuse God. Elihu comes on the scene and warns Job not to do that, just as prophets often come on the scene and give warning before God acts. When Elihu finishes, God decisively enters the scene. He lets Job know he is in ultimate authority. Satan cannot do anything without God’s permission. We are frequently dismayed by what God allows him to do, but we need to seek God when we encounter evil and desire it to stop. We should seek Him as the one who loves us, rather than accuse him as one who allows us to be afflicted. This can take a lifetime to learn, but that’s part of why Job was written for us to learn from.

After setting Job straight about who’s in charge, God tells his three friends they’re in trouble and they need to go ask Job to intercede for them. Elihu is never mentioned because he didn’t displease God; only the three did. After Job prays for his three friends, God restores his fortunes and allows him to have ten more children.

If you are suffering from anything, this book is helpful. Peter reminds us that Jesus entrusted himself to Him who judges justly rather than engage in retaliation of any kind. “Entrust” is an action verb, my friends. He’s not talking about passively taking it on the chin. You have to make a lot of decisions about trust and surrender and submission when you put yourself in God’s hands and consider what he might allow to happen to you. People might act like Job’s three friends, and might tell you you’ve sinned to bring on your suffering, when you haven’t. Maybe you’ll try to bite the hand that feeds you and God will send an Elihu to try to steer you to abide in Him instead of lashing out at Him.

The book is about Job. The book is about God. The book is about Satan. The book is about suffering. The book is about people who act like the three friends. The book is about people like Elihu who warn us not to justify ourselves at God’s expense. The book is about intercession and righteousness. The book is about behaving responsibly with wealth. The book is for you. Read it and ask God to help you pay attention to what you need to learn from it.

[jimwalton]

I'm very sorry to hear about your debilitating physical condition. It must be just very difficult for you to function in life, and for that I feel for your situation and am truly sorry you have to experience that.

It doesn't change what the book of Job is about, however. Job is primarily about the ancient perspective on the retribution principle—that good people get rewarded in this life and that sinful people have problems. Job is explicitly about "Does Job fear God for nothing?" (Job 1.9). As Walton comments, "This is a key to the book. The question centers on Job’s motivation for serving God and suggests that God’s treatment of the righteous is the incentive for righteous conduct. It’s known as the Retribution Principle: The righteous prosper and the wicked suffer. If it’s true, then the motives of all righteous people come under scrutiny, since we could be corrupted so easily by the lure of prosperity, and if we prosper just because we’re good, then true righteousness becomes illusionary and elusive. So rewarding the righteous actually subverts true righteousness. We turn into 'What’s in it for me?' Satan proposes that it's counterproductive for God to reward goodness, because it makes us all less-than-good. 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.

"In summary, then, Job explores God’s policies about suffering in the world, especially by both innocent and good people. Ultimately, it shifts our attention from justice to wisdom.

"The book wants to transform how we think about God’s work in the world and about our responses in times of suffering. Most people look at it and think it’s about why righteous people suffering. Instead, the book sets out the question as, 'Is there such a thing as disinterested righteousness?' In this sense the book is about the nature of righteousness, not the nature of suffering."

> Satan makes an appearance in the book.

Every time the term is used in the book, it is used with the definite article "the," meaning that it's not a proper name but more like a title or role: "The Accuser." The book is setup somewhat like a court case. Job is arguing his case before God. Job is not on trial; God is. The accuser (the satan) is like a court prosecutor. He's not bad as such, nor does he oppose God or act as leader of demonic forces. He acts mostly like a watchdog agency to raise questions of accountability. God's policies are the focus of his prosecution.

> If you are suffering from anything, this book is helpful.

Oh, I agree. I'm not saying the book isn't helpful for people who are suffering.

> Read it and ask God to help you pay attention to what you need to learn from it.

I've read it several times and studied it deeply.

[Baloney]

Please.

Highly educated “theologians” can say whatever they wish, but if they’re not declaring the truth of the word of God, then they’re no better than the scribes and Pharisees that studied it continually and yet did not know Him. They can come up with all kinds of terms and other gobbledygook. Doesn’t matter.

Read through Romans 3 to get a better grasp on righteousness and the law. You’re not understanding the gospel, and it doesn’t matter that Job is from the OT. Job is said to be a righteous man, but even he understands that it is a temporary state, and external to himself — this is why he says, “I put on righteousness like a robe.” He understands it stems from the temporary state of forgiveness from his regular sacrifices he offers for himself and his family. He strives to do what is right in God’s eyes, and yet can’t stop sinning. Isaiah similarly describes righteousness as an outward adornment like the way a bride and groom decorate themselves for their wedding. (Sound familiar? Jesus telling people not properly dressed for the wedding supper they get thrown into outer darkness? How about the robes washed white in his blood?). Jeremiah has a few verses that echo this as well, with the Lord being the righteousness of his people. (Jeremiah 33:16; 23:6)

For sure, the book of Job is NOT about the nature of righteousness, unless you want to consider the imperfect sacrifices Job offered to receive forgiveness for sins.

When they asked Jesus which was the greatest commandment, he had an answer for them. He is to be our first love, all highest devotion and loyalty belong to Him. It is Satan who suggests that the only reason Job fears God is because he has a nice life. It is Satan who posits there is only a transactional nature to Job’s relationship to God.

God in effect tells Satan, “Go ahead. See for yourself if that’s really all there is to it.” At no point ever does “Satan propose that it is counterproductive for God to reward goodness, because it makes us all less-than-good.” Is that your fantasy? Or that of your Mr. Walton? Satan has no part in ever offering wise counsel to God. He never makes proposals about goodness or how to achieve it, or suggests what is productive or counterproductive for God to be doing. In your fantasy about Satan being some watchdog-court prosecutor-entity, you imagine him being an actual advisor to God. This is anathema. He is the evil one, his native language is lying, and he comes only to steal, kill and destroy. The lake of fire is being prepared for him.

The book of Job is not an examination of some “retribution principle, where if we prosper because we’re good, then true righteousness becomes illusory and elusive.” That sentence has zero place in Christendom, never mind as a description of Job. Righteousness is never attainable for us by the law, because we are all lawbreakers. We must attain the righteousness of God, which is possible only through “putting on Jesus,” as Paul said. People prosper when they’re good, and they prosper when they’re bad. All it takes is a cursory reading through the psalms to see the observation of this truism and the effect upon the psalmists. Job is not a trial of God that God set up for himself so we could see that He won’t necessarily reward good people, so we better find a better motivation for seeking out righteousness than getting a cushy career.

Satan doesn’t love God. He essentially accuses Job before God of not loving the LORD either, and falsely says Job only fears him because he gets good stuff in life from God. Rather than telling Satan he can see the truth in Job’s heart and that’s not the case, and then sending Satan packing, God allows Satan to put Job through terrible things so he and the rest of us can actually see for ourselves if Job will “curse God and die” once his wealth, children, and health are taken from him. We are to learn many things from what unfolds. Job gets mad at God for what he allows to happen to him, and as he continues his lament, he increasingly justifies himself, and portrays God as unfair. This is what God addresses, because he is never unfair or unjust, and Job (and the rest of us) must learn that God’s omniscience and wisdom mean that if he decides to allow Satan to afflict Job rather than send him packing, or if he allows Satan to sift the disciples, etc., then that is the most just response, given all the factors we in our humanity are neither privy to nor capable of weighing.

The fact that there is a particle in front of “Satan” does nothing to diminish his personhood, just as the particle “the” does nothing to diminish the personhood of God the Holy Spirit. HaSatan could even be argued to be a reflection of the depths of his iniquity. He no longer is allowed to be referred to with the name he had before iniquity was found in him, but forever after only gets referred to by the personification of a sinful act. The Accuser. The blood of Jesus speaks a better word than the blood of Abel, and the mouth of Satan speaks no good word at all.

Do you really think when Satan went after Jesus in the desert, Satan was just “a watchdog agency”, some obscure entity who goes by “the accuser” and who “isn’t bad”? Do you really think some “watchdog agency” was crippling that woman in the synagogue? Do you really think the boy in Mark 9 was thrown into flames by some “court prosecutor”?

You’re performing a lot of mental gymnastics to avoid the reality of the evil one. This is actually a major “first world problem.” People who suffer greatly in other parts of the world are much more ready to acknowledge the reality of the evil one and evil spirits, even when they have no access to the truth from the word of God. It is an embarrassment when the opportunities of education only result in a pride that attempts to intellectualize away reality revealed to us in Scripture.

[jimwalton]

I'm not avoiding the reality of the Evil One at all. He is very real. The NT tells us much about him. He is not to be feared, for God is both sovereign and victorious over him. His days are numbered, and his time of exalting himself will come to an inglorious end as prophesied in the Bible.

What I'm saying, instead, is that the Old Testament has no theology of Satan. Everything we know about him we know from the NT. They (OT) know of no being named Satan. We do, but they didn't.

[Baloney]

And yet there he is, with the same name, appearing in the book of Job. And there is the satanic Prince of Persia, fighting against the angel Michael in the book of Daniel. And there are the evil spirits tormenting Saul, while David drives them away with his worship music and lyre. And there is the King of Tyre, whom Ezekiel tells us was in Eden the garden of God, and who was present with God from the time of his creation until iniquity was found in him and he was driven in disgrace from God’s presence.

Nice try.

There is no “theology” of Satan, except by satanists, because they are the only ones who worship him outright, while others in the world do so de facto. The word “theology” never applies to Satan because he is not divine. If what you meant to say was that people before the birth of Jesus had no understanding of the evil one and the kingdom of darkness, you’re willfully deceived. See above.

People who were suffering from demonization were brought to Jesus because they saw his authority over evil they had seen others suffer from all their lives. As I pointed out in my previous comment, the reality of demons and spiritual darkness is recognized by people groups all over the world who have never even heard of Jesus. When a people like that hear the gospel and learn of Jesus’ authority over evil, they rejoice and their communities are often transformed. It was the same for Israel during Jesus’ day. The demons and the evil one had been around for millennia, but here was the Holy One of God to whom they must submit and obey. Or do you subscribe to some false belief that demons only entered the world the same time as Jesus?

[jimwalton]

> yet there he is, with the same name, appearing in the book of Job.

As I've told you, "Satan" is not a proper name in the book of Job. It's "the satan," as in, "the accuser."

> And there is the satanic Prince of Persia, fighting against the angel Michael in the book of Daniel.

The Prince of Persia is never identified as satanic in the book of Daniel. He is never associated with Satan or with demons.

> And there are the evil spirits tormenting Saul

The evil spirits are never associated with Satan or with demons. As a matter of fact, they are said to come from God.

> And there is the King of Tyre, whom Ezekiel tells us was in Eden the garden of God, and who was present with God from the time of his creation until iniquity was found in him and he was driven in disgrace from God’s presence.

There is no association of the King of Tyre with Satan or with demons. No such connection is ever made.

> People who were suffering from demonization were brought to Jesus because they saw his authority

Agreed. No argument there.

> As I pointed out in my previous comment, the reality of demons and spiritual darkness is recognized by people groups all over the world who have never even heard of Jesus.

I also recognize the reality of demons and of spiritual darkness, though the Bible never relates the two. The demons in the Bible are never associate with Satan or sin.

> Or do you subscribe to some false belief that demons only entered the world the same time as Jesus?

No, I do not subscribe to this false belief. Demons, I presume, have always been around, though the OT never mentions them. They never make an appearance in the OT, and the ancient saints knew nothing about them. There is no demonology in the OT. Everything we know about demons is from the NT.

[Baloney]

I’m just about done here. You’re being obtuse.

Satan is also referred to as “the accuser” in Greek in Revelation. That’s what “Satan” means in Hebrew. Put an article in front of it, or don’t. It’s the evil one.

Do you really imagine that the prince of Persia was anything but a member of the powers, rulers, and authorities of darkness that Paul refers to? What do you tell yourself when you read that passage? That the One who appeared to Daniel was just having tea with him in the spiritual realm? What do you think Michael was helping him with? Setting up the tea? Daniel was waiting for an answer to prayer. The One who appeared to him was bringing his answer from God. He was prevented from doing so because of opposition from the Prince of Persia, and Michael, an angel, had to help him. This is a description of something that happened in the spiritual realm. The prince of Persia is not an earthly person. Earthly persons cannot detain servants of God traveling from heaven. Michael is an angel. He was fighting against the prince of Persia that the answer should come to Daniel. The prince of Persia is definitely associated with opposing God and His ways, and detaining the answer to Daniel. That is the definition of an entity from the kingdom of darkness. Or are you pretending that angels that serve God oppose His purposes?

As I pointed out before, Satan and demons cannot do anything without God’s permission. Saul gave Satan a foothold, the way Paul warns against in Ephesians. His behavior was evil. God allowed evil spirits to torment him because of this. There is no inconsistency with saying they were “come from God” in this sense. And you are engaging in a HUGE amount of cognitive dissonance by saying evil spirits are not associated with Satan.

But you really have no business ever saying “no connection is ever made with the King of Tyre and Satan.”

The King of Tyre is not a human any more than the prince of Persia is a human. Just as the Prince of Persia had an influence over the human ruler of Persia, so does the King of Tyre have an influence over the human ruler of Tyre spoken of in Ezekiel 28: 1-10. The ruler of Tyre is clearly identified as a man. The King of Tyre has a different title, and is clearly not a man. In verses 11- 19 he is identified as having been anointed as a cherub when he was first created. This is an angel. No human is ever identified as a cherub by God. He is identified as having been in Eden. No man was there besides Adam. He was thrown to the earth, which coincides with Jesus saying he saw when Satan fell like lightning at his expulsion. Ezekiel 28: 11-19 is very clearly a description of a spiritual creature who was created a cherub, and was banished from God’s presence when iniquity was found in him, and he will be destroyed forever by fire. Could it be...Satan? Yes, it is. This is a description of no man.

[jimwalton]

> Satan is also referred to as “the accuser” in Greek in Revelation. That’s what “Satan” means in Hebrew.

Correct.

> Put an article in front of it, or don’t. It’s the evil one.

Incorrect. Its normal usage was as an indefinite noun. It was a common term in their judiciary system.

> Do you really imagine that the prince of Persia was anything but a member of the powers, rulers, and authorities of darkness that Paul refers to?

The ruler of Persia (מַלְכוּת פָּרַס) in Daniel 10.13 is never identified or defined for us. We come to conclusions only carefully. Here's what we can decipher:

1. He had some relation to the actual historical kingdom of Persia.
2. He must have been more than human (and therefore supernatural in some sense) to be able to resist Michael the archangel who was sent by God.
3. He was resisting God's messenger/warrior.

That's what we have.

Ferguson and Collins think it was an angel who was the spiritual guide for Persia. Scofield, Wood, and Keil & Delitzch think it was a demon. In Scripture this term "resisted me" (literally, "Stood in front of; stand before") always has an angel for a subject. And it never refers to combat, constraint, resistance, or harassment. It always means to stand before someone to speak to them. Without any other information, this ruler of Persia is in conversation with Michael. Our most accurate way of understanding it is an explanation of why there was a delay in the answer to Daniel's prayer. The Prince is identified only by his title (prince) and “Persia,” not as evil or opposed to God.

> Saul gave Satan a foothold

There is no connection in the Saul narrative that this "evil spirit from the Lord" is Satan.

> The King of Tyre

Ezekiel makes clear from the onset that he is going to use royal and divine imagery to describe the king of Tyre (Ezk. 28.2). When, in v. 2, the king says "I am a god (El)," the king is claiming divinity and divine authority, a common stance in the ancient Near East (ANE).

Verse 12, then, starts a lament against this king. While these words are sometimes dragged to the side and said to refer to Satan, that is unnecessary in the text. "You were the seal of perfection" is a common Assyrian claim. Assyrian royal epithets included “perfect man” and “perfect king” among the titles that were claimed. "Perfect in beauty" echoes 27.3, Tyre's boast.

Moshe Greenberg (The Anchor Bible commentary), says of v. 13: "The text is evocative of Genesis 1-3, and the Genesis story serves as the model of the fatal results of human hubris. Cf. Ps. 82. The real mortal is metaphorized in a superhuman figure who was demoted from divinity to mortality. Taking his departure from the self-apotheosis of Tyre’s king—the quintessence of pride induced by invincibility and prosperity—Ezekiel metaphorized him in allusions to traditional superhuman figures located in traditional sites of splendid isolation and sanctity. Utilizing whatever components of tradition would add color, he tells a simple story of pride or sin going before a fall. Ezekiel drew on a full range of literary material to suit the rhetorical needs of the moment."

Dr. John Walton says, " In contrast to Isaiah 14, this passage has more obvious references to a primeval situation. Although it refers contextually to the king of Tyre, mentions of the garden of God (13) and the cherub (14) have given interpreters sufficient basis to move beyond the stated context. Admittedly, it is within the function of metaphor to point to something outside itself, yet the interpreter must still ask what the author intends the metaphor to relate to in this particular context."

Commentators have traditionally stated three reasons to support their claim that the king of Tyre should be understood as Satan:

1. The king is in the garden. And yet there is no indication in the OT that the Israelites believed Satan was in the Garden of Eden. No OT passage equates or relates the serpent and Satan. For this to work as a metaphor, however, it must make reference to well-known information. There is no evidence that Israel would have known that the serpent in Gn. 3 was a tool or representation of Satan. That being the case, they would not have placed Satan in the garden.

2. The king is identified as the cherub. And yet Scripture never suggests that Satan was ever a cherub. The cherubim are a special class of supernatural beings with specific functions. There is no basis for the speculation that Satan was once among their number, and certainly no reason to suggest that the Israelite audience would have recognized such a metaphorical allusion.

3. The passage alludes to a fall from a blameless condition. And yet the OT nowhere portrays Satan as a fallen being. Therefore, the fact that Ezk. 28 refers to a fall would not suggest to the Israelite reader that the author was metaphorically invoking the fall of Satan for comparison to the fate of the king of Tyre.

"As we examine each of these in light of OT theology, however, the interpretation of this being as Satan becomes increasingly difficult to maintain. There is close parallelism in the text (12b-13 vs. 14-15a), suggesting two parallel metaphors (rather than a single one), and that the metaphors don’t extend to the fall, but only refer to the high station of the individual. The king of Tyre enjoyed a lofty status because of all that was entrusted to him; he was the guardian of extensive natural resources, just as the individuals in the two metaphors were. Unfortunately, he was corrupted by them and was found to be treacherous and irresponsible. The metaphor ends where the parallelism ends, and from vv. 15b-19 the king’s conduct and punishment are addressed (though the end of v. 16 refers back to the metaphor). Thus there is no reason to reach beyond the context and its metaphors for a sensible interpretation of the passage."

> This is a description of no man.

I disagree. See above.