In article , Robert Sutherland
says...

>It might be helpful to understand Job's Oath of Innocence.

Certainly. And this is something many are loath to do, since it goes to
vioelntly against their preconceived notions.

>  I think a
>proper resolution of the moral problem in the Book of Job lies in the
>distinction between causal responsibility and moral blameworthiness
>found in the enforcement mechanism of that oath.

This sounds good...;

>  It opens up room for
>a moral and legal defense for God.  Although God is the author of
>undeserved evil

but then what is THIS?

> (Job 1:1; 2:3, 10; 42:11),

I do NOT see "God is the author of evil (undeserved or any other) in these
verses. I do see the innocence and even very great righteousness of Job in them.
I even see the undeserved evil. But NOT "God the author". It was
Satan who was
the _author_ of the evils Job suffered.

[snip]

>"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)

But let's not forget where these words are placed in the book: they are placed
immediately after Job's own defence of himself against the unjust accusations of
Bildad, who has arrogantly made himself a 'helper' to the Almighty, on the false
grounds that it is the Almighty who is attacking Job with these sufferings.

So the real function of these words in this place is to deny the false
accusations of Bildad -- accusations that were false both in regard to Job (who
is innocent) and in regard to God (who is also innocent).

>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.

Yet Job _refuses_ to use the word 'wronged' or even an unambiguous synonym.
Instead, we have "taken away my judgement", which is
_maddeningly_ ambiguous.

>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.

Absolutely. But claiming that God is Himself the _author_ of this evil would NOT
be an act of great faith.

>(2) 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)

The nobility of Job's defence here of God's righteousness is breathtaking: but
only if one understands that this _is_ a defence of His righteousness.

>Job is clearly putting 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".

Does it really now? Then why did neither the near native speakers of Hebrew who
did the LXX, nor the Hebrew scholars who did the JPS translate it this way? Both
use far milder expressions, such as:

   Far be it from me that I should justify you;
   till I die I will not put away mine integrity from me.(Job 27:5 JPS)

and:
   MH MOI EIH DIKAIOYS YMAS APOFHNAI, EWS AN APOQANW. OY GAR
   APOLLAXW MOY THN AKAKIAN (Job 27:5 LXX)

>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."

It is FAR from clear that that is what he is saying. Rather, it seems to me (and
to many before me) that he is saying something _more_ like "I'll be damned if I
ever agree with you, Bildad, that God inflicted these sufferings on me for some
secret, unconfessed sin".

[snip]

>In Job's mouth, this hymn to wisdom becomes a poetic style of cause. 
>It identifies the wrongdoer God as the object of the lawsuit.  Only
>God has the answer.  And only God can give it.  Job "fears God and
>turns from evil". (Job 1:1,8; 2:3)  This wise and understanding
>servant demands an answer from his master.

And did you notice the difference between this 'demand' and the 'demand' of a
lawsuit? Job is not demanding tha God make right a wrong; he is _only_ demanding
that God answer the question, "why are you doing this to me"? The
difference is
very important.

[snip]

>Job will be declared by God to have spoken rightly about
>God. (Job 42:7-8)  The Hebrew word "kuwn" there means "established
>with certainty".

Why, oh why, are you so certain of this? I see nothing in either Strong's or BDB
that backs you up here.

Now of course, I realize that Strong's is quite dated, but BDB is quite
up-to-date. Yet neither will back you in this claim. So _where_ does your
information come from?

>It will be established that Job has a right to know
>the reason behind evil and God is the author of undeserved evil..

How can you _say_ this? Certainly the _reader_ of Job never sees this "right to
know" in the book, because even after reading it, we _still_ don't know. Nor do
we see it revealed to Job, either. Instead, Job hears God say something quite
different. Yet Job is more than content with teh answer he received.

[snip]

>Job's three friends are left speechless.  It is a formal indictment of
>God for crimes against humanity.

No, it is no such thing.

[snip]

>"If I have sinned in thought, word or deed, then let me be cursed
>forever.  But if I have not sinned in thought, word or deed, then I
>reserve to myself the right to curse my enemy for what he has done to
>me."


No, that is what YOU would be thinking if YOU had said the words. But Job did no
such thing. Why, even modern readers do not all think the same as you when they
read those words. So why should Job think the same as you?

[snip]

>Perhaps, the most interesting passage is Job's denial that he has
>"concealed transgressions as others do." (Job 31:34)  The actual
>Hebrew text reads "as Adam did".

No, that is NOT how it reads. The word 'Adam' in the Hebrew text is NOT always
the proper name. As in Proverbs 3:13, it often means simply 'man'.

> This is clearly a reference to original sin.

Possible, but certainly _not_ so clear.

[snip]


-- 
---------------------------
Subudcat se sibi ut haereat Deo
quidquid boni habet, tribuat illi a quo factus est.
(St. Augustine, Ser. 96)

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group.  All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
(((   Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post.   )))


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/20/05 1:24:42 AM ---