In article , Robert Sutherland
says...

>Mr.Felts:
>
>1. The problem with that interpretation is that it fails to do justice
>to two central portions of the Book of Job.

I have tried pointing this out to Mr. Felts before. I wish you better luck than
I had:-(

>(a) Job does put God on trial. (Job 27:1-31:33)

Job does _call_ for God to be put on trial, yes. But it is all too easy to
pretend that that call fell on deaf ears, and ignore the difficulty of
explaining God's appearance at the end of the book, or rationalize it away as
something _other_ than the answer to the summons.

In particular, it is too easy to believe that  Job spoke boastfully in 21:1-6 in
defense of his own righteousness. After all, we have heard such words from
others all too often -- and in their case, it really _was_ boastfullness.

But this is why it is SO important to understand what God really means when He
calls Job PERFECT. Yet many are blinded by the false definition of 'perfect'
that allows Job to be considered perfect by 'declaratory righteousness', i.e.,
he was perfect only because God said so, NOT because he obeyed all
righteousness.

>He claims God is the
>author of undeserved evil in the world and must explain himself.

Your reference to such a large section, Job 27:1-31:33, leaves it unclear why
you think that Job made this specific complaint: others have read it as
something rather different, that Job was demanding specifically why God had
allowed _Job_ himself to be so smitten. The rest of 27:1-31:33 was explaining
why Job felt he had the right to make this demand.

>(b) God ultimately indicates Job was ‘right' in what he said about
>God. (Job 42:7-8)  The Hebrew for "right" there is
"kuwn" which means
>"to establish as right or true".[1]   "The root meaning
is to bring
>something into being with the consequence that its existence is a
>certainty."[2]

Although I did not go into this much detail on the word KUN (H3559) as you did,
I have reminded people of this often in this NG. Again, I wish you better luck
than I had.

>It does not carry with it any nuance of "sincerity"
>such that God might be understood to be excusing Job for speaking
>"sincerely", but "incorrectly".[3]

But did anyone claim this in this thread? Why do you mention it here?

>God is saying Job spoke "correctly".

Yes! And this is exactly what the mindless spokesmen for "conventional
piety"
and "arbitrary righteousness" cannot bear to recognize!

>God declares Job's three friends have spoken "folly". 
>The Hebrew word behind "folly" is "nebalah" which
means "a senseless,
>impious, disgraceful disregard for moral and spiritual claims" [4]

Which word is in 42:8. And it is interesting to note that the LXX translates it
even more forcefully, "if not for him [Job], I would destroy you [pl.]".

> The
>moral and spiritual claim which they have senselessly and
>disgracefully dismissed is Job's claim, his demand that God give an
>answer to the question of why there is evil in the world.  That is the
>judgment of God.
>
>2. Hence there has to be a framework within which such rights and
>duties exist.  One simple way to understand that framework is in terms
>of covenant.

That, as you say, is "one simple way", but why would we believe
it is the right
way here? What 'covenant' existed between Arameans like Job and God?

>(a) 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.

Certainly. But Deut 28:15-45 concerns a covenant between Israel and God. Job was
not an Israelite. He was from Uz, which appears NOT to have been part of Israel,
never a party to the Deuteronomic covenants.

This too is a significant aspect of the book: Job was NOT a beneficiary of the
Law, or of the teaching of the Patriarchs, yet he was PERFECT. How amazing!

[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} 2/13/05 10:44:27 PM ---