Job

I. Introduction

            The story of Job is one of the most puzzling stories in the Bible and has caused great consternation among scholars In fact, a reading of the Book of Job forms the centerpiece of Maimonides’ discussion of providence in Guide for the Perplexed in helping followrs of the Law unsettled by questions raised by philosophical study to preserve in faith and in philosophical inquiry. It forms the basis for studies in for theodicy ((a vindication of the divine attributes, particularly holiness and justice, in establishing or allowing the existence of physical and moral evil). The book of Job has offered a voice for those confronting loss and pain in the midst of life as well as for the pariah, the scapegoat and the heretic. The book of Job speaks to and for the broken, it speaks of hope even in the depths of despair. It has formed the basis of art (see, for example, The Illustrations of the Book of Job by William Blake). Is Job patient or is he impatient? Is God evil or is God impotent to prevent evil? Is God self-confident? Is God a bully? Or does God doubt Himself and His power over His creation? Either way, one begins to question God based on the story of Job. What about the shifts in mood? What about the sarcasm and irony? How should the language of Aramaisms and Arabisms be handled? Why does the text shift between prose and poetry and back again? What about the uncertain state of the text which jumps between corruption of words and puzzling sequences of verses? – to name just a few issues. Furthermore, it seems to show God acting in unreasonable and inexplicable ways which cause an innocent and pious man extreme suffering. It even kills the family – who have nothing to do with the issue. The story of Job is often cited alongside the greatest stories in the Bible. There must be something in the story to warrant such acclaim. The story of Job can also be read as showing who God is, who we are, and the nature of the relationship between God and man, the nature of evil and its place in our universe, and an exploration of human understanding of God and devine justice. The story of Job can also be read as demonstrating aspects of the great themes of the Hebrew Bible: the meaning of innocent suffering, monotheism; repentance; forgiveness; assimilation; the purpose of life, the moral order of the cosmos, and the natures of providence, the nature of wisdom, the meaning of justice, the nature of God, humanity’s place in creation, as well as the limits and conditions of the partnership between God and man. In its unfinalizability, it offers a shared project for sufferers and witnesses, and an outline of a community of care.

As such, the story of Job can be one of the deepest, complex and most rewarding stories in the Bible. It is for this reason that the actual format of the story might be complex: the issues it deals with are complex. This essay explores those issues through the lens of suffering for no apparent reason.

II. The story[1]

            We are initially introduced to Job. He is an inhabitant of the land of Uz, in the northern part of Arabia; he is a prince or an Emir; he is honored and respected by all; he is a man of large property, whose life has been one of almost unexampled prosperity; he is surrounded by a large and interesting family. Job, himself, is a man of eminent holiness: he performs with faithfulness duties of a pious father; evinces the deepest concern that his children should not sin; and is declared to be a perfect and upright man – a man whose character would bear the severest scrutiny. He is honored and admired by all who know him. He has ten children all of whom love him and he performed good works all his life. He has large flocks of camels, sheep and cattle.

            In this state of things, the scene is opened in heaven. The tribunal of God appears: an assembling of the Sons of God occurs; and the celestial spirits are summoned before God. Among those who come is Satan, a questioner, an accuser, a being who is represented as having no confidence in human integrity, and who says that he has been through the earth to look on its affairs. However, it should be remembered that the term “Satan” as used in Biblical Times meant “opposer[2] as an adversary whose job was to roam the earth and expose human wrongdoing[3] and really had no evil connotations as we know them today[4]. Identifying Satan as merely being an opposer changes some of the meaning of this story to place more of the blame for Job’s unwarranted sufferings on God Himself. Being asked about the character of this good man, he insinuates that all his religion is mere selfishness: that he could not be otherwise than a devout worshiper of God in the circumstances in which God has placed him; but that if his circumstances were changed, it would soon be apparent that all his professions were false and hollow[5]. God grants permission to Satan to make the trial, with the single reservation that the person of Job was to be untouched. This meeting in heaven seems to be the first time God encounters Satan (Satan does not appear in the Second Creation Story, it was the serpent, which as discussed in the essay “An Alternate View of the Garden of Eden Story,” was an alarm placed there by God to alert Him when man had evolved sufficiently to have an imagination). During this meeting, God boasts to the heavenly hosts about Job. Satan has goaded God by saying that Job is only good because he has been blessed by God thus questioning the disinterested nature of Job’s piety. Then, Satan has goaded God into allowing Satan to test Job’s faith in God.

            Upon receiving this permission from God, Satan immediately leaves the heavenly council and, in a single day, causes Job to be stripped of his children and all of his possessions. By the instrumentality of robbers and whirlwinds and storms, everything Job had is stripped away and messenger after messenger comes to him in rapid succession acquainting him with these calamities. Still the integrity of Job remains. He sits down patient and resigned. Not a word of murmuring escapes from his lips, not a complaining thought seems to have been in his heart. The trial is thus far complete; the insinuation of Satan is shown to be unfounded, and Job’s piety is triumphant[6].

            Satan appears at another celestial session. Foiled in his first attempt, he now insinuates that the trial had not been fair; that there could be no real, thorough trial of the character of a man unless he is made to physically suffer, and his life placed in jeopardy. If a man is spared to enjoy health, it will not be known with certainty what his true character is, for he might still be selfish.

Satan argued that if a man is made physically suffer, far from maintaining his integrity, he will curse God to his face. God allows Himself to be further goaded and grants Satan permission to make this trial also, with the single reservation that Job’s life was to be spared. Satan again goes forth and visits the most painful and loathsome form of disease on Job, which falls just short of killing him. The results are the same: the integrity of Job is preserved. Satan is thus far foiled and appears no more in the story. The best man on the earth is made the most miserable; the man that has most prospered is reduced to the lowest stage of poverty and wretchedness. But his virtue has survived it all and it is seen that fidelity to God can be maintained in the most sudden reverses and in the deepest distresses which the body can be made to endure short of death all for no reason that is apparent to Job.

            Three friends, Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar, come to comfort Job. At first, for one week, they all remain silent and, apparently, immersed in their own thoughts[7].

            Job speaks first thereby breaking the silent contemplation phase of the story. After Job breaks the silence, each of the friends speaks his mind after respectfully waiting for the previous speaker to finish. There are two rounds of conversations, first the friend speaks, then Job replies, then the next friend speaks and Job replies, then the third friend speaks and Job replies. This occurs for two full rounds. However, during the third round, after the first friend speaks and Job replies, the conversations end. The friends make the same point every time they speak: “you, Job, are suffering because you made some error and God is punishing you for that error, yet humans may not be wise enough to discern this error,[8] the happiness of a repentant human (which implies that a transgression has been made, an implication that Job rejects) and praise of God (which Job is dubious of at this point). The friends can only envision one aspect of suffering: deserved suffering. However, Job envisions other aspects of suffering in addition to deserved suffering, Job can envision undeserved suffering and accidental suffering. Job wishes to explore all aspects of suffering so he can identify the cause of his particular suffering and act or adjust his future actions accordingly. Job understands that the true path to wisdom is to identify the cause of current suffering and learn from that knowledge so future actions can be taken. However, without knowing the cause of his suffering, Job cannot take such action.

            Being a righteous man, Job truly wishes to gain knowledge so he can live a proper life as he has before. However, Job can think of no error, either an error of commission or an error of omission, which he committed and demands a hearing so he can understand why he is suffering. After the conversations with his friends comes to a stalemate, another character enters the story, Elihu, who makes the same argument that Job’s friends made. At last, God, himself enters the story in a whirlwind, and gives Job the hearing he has requested. In the next seventy verses, God grills Job: “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Have you commanded the morning since your days began and caused the dawn to know its place? Have the gates of death been revealed to you, or have you seen the gates of deep darkness?” God questions Job about creation, etc[9]. Job replies, “Behold, I am of small account, what shall I answer thee? I lay my hand on my mouth. I have spoken once, and I will not answer, twice, but I will proceed no further.” Job further replies,

            “I know that thou can do all things, and that no purpose of thine can be thwarted….Therefore, I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know. I heard of thee by hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees thee; therefore, I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes.”

            God then admonishes Job’s friends and Job intercedes on their behalf and God relents. God then restores to Job his family, his flocks, his wealth and his good standing in the community.

III.Job’s position

            Before taking any stance, Job spends an entire week in contemplation. He is a thoughtful and careful man. However, he can discern no error of either commission or omission that he committed which would warrant punishment, let alone punishment of this magnitude. As stated above, Job is a truly righteous man who genuinely wishes to live a proper life. He understands that in order to do that, while some mistakes may be made, the truly righteous person learns from those mistakes and does not repeat them.

            Job listens[10] carefully to his friends and tries to see their viewpoint that clearly if he is being punished, especially in this manner, he must have done something to deserve it. However, the friends can identify no such error. Nor can Job identify such an error.

            Job is at a critical stage for his faith: he must have faith in God’s goodness and righteousness and that God will consistently obey the Ground Rules (discussed in another essay) by which man is also required to live in order to have faith in God; however, how can he have such faith and still have known that God would punish an innocent for no reason? Job chooses to retain his faith and not believe, on faith, that God would punish him for no reason. Therefore, Job steadfastly demands a hearing with God before he makes a final decision. The friends can offer no reason for the punishment except to take it on faith, and Job is not ready for such an incongruous stance. Thus, the discussions with the friends go nowhere.

            The story would end with no conclusion at this point. Of course, God appears and the answer is presented as will be understood from the following discussion.

            It should be pointed out that Job’s conclusion regarding the cause of his suffering occurred after, and only after, a thorough and brutal soul searching and after a thorough and brutal period of intense questioning by others. While some suffering may be undeserved, one should only reach a conclusion that the suffering is undeserved after, and only after, a full, thorough and brutally honest evaluation and soul searching and self evaluation.

            It should also be noted that Job confronts God directly without the mediation or support or guidance of a priest, prophet or other religious entity or the rituals associated with such mediation. One wonders how this got into the story and what the religious leaders thought (think) of this direct communication.

IV. God’s position

    A. This is more difficult. However, there may be a plausible explanation for God’s actions in the story of Job.

    B. This is God’s first encounter with Satan.

            As discussed in the essay “Another Interpretation of the Garden of Eden Story,” the serpent in the Garden of Eden could be viewed as being an agent of God sent to alert God when Adam and Eve had evolved sufficiently to survive on their own and fulfill their destiny. Also, God did not interact with the serpent, only Adam and Eve. Still further, there is no mention of Satan in the story, so we cannot assume that Satan was behind the serpent. As reported in the Bible, God had not encountered a challenge to His omnipotence or His judgment with respect to man. Consequently, He did not know how to handle it (as discussed in other essays, such as “Partners,” God does not know the outcome with respect to man), and allowed Himself to be goaded into making a mistake with respect to man. Because God did not know the outcome, God did not foresee the consequences of His actions toward Job. In fact, in verse 41, God may actually be admitting that He is not perfect because “any hope of capturing him [Leviathan] must be disappointed; One is prostrated by the very sight of him…” Job 41:1 and even God cannot capture him.

            The mistake was allowing Job to be at the mercy of Satan. God allowed a man to suffer for no reason and for no greater or overriding purpose. This was a mistake, for which Job suffered. Since man, who is God’s creation, suffers, God will suffer. As was discussed in other essays, suffering leads to wisdom via repentance since, through suffering for a mistake we will learn not to repeat that mistake.

            God learned from this episode and will not repeat the mistake.

    C. Man has arrogantly misjudged his place in the world

            God’s dissertation in Chapters 38 and 39 to Job recounts His actions after first reminding men that he has no knowledge of God’s mind (v.2). God s recount of His actions is quite similar to Genesis 1: God created light, divided the land from the sea, created the stars, created all the creatures ….but in this dissertation God does not name man. In response to Job’s equivocal reply in 40:3 that he is of small worth and that he simply cannot answer (which can mean that he is powerless to answer, not that he admits he is wrong), God then ups the ante in Chapters 40 and 41 by detailing fantastic creatures which are easily within His power, but are far beyond anything that man can even imagine. Again, no mention of man is made .This omission is significant. In Genesis, man was the pinnacle and objective; his omission in this dissertation along with the charge that man has no knowledge (v. 2) and that there are things in God’s universe that are beyond the comprehension of man clearly says that it is the height of hubris – and wrong – for men to (a) question God; and/or (b) to believe they know what God has in mind or what God wants.

            Based on this, it is clear that Satan has, in fact, succeed in exposing human wrongdoing. But not in Job. The wrongdoing is exposed when Job’s friends believe and contend that they speak for God when they claim that they know the source of Job’s suffering. These friends contend that the source of Job’s suffering is because he committed some transgression against God. They are clearly wrong, and the assertion that they know what is in God’s mind (see, e.g., chapter 22) is clearly of the type of wrongdoing Satan seeks to expose. Satan was successful in his task.

D.

Redemption

            If one takes the position that God made a mistake in allowing Satan to bait Him into wagering on Job’s basic goodness, could it be said that Job redeemed God? That is, it was Job who was the redeemer, not God.

           In much the same way that Posthumus engaged in a wager with Iachimo about how virtuous, wise, chaste, constant, qualified Imogene is in Shakespeare’s play “Cymbeline,” and the subsequent testing of Imogene. Imogene passes and her perseverance in virtue, her constance, her goodness and her chastity confounds Iachimo’s thesis and rescues Posthumus from his worst self. Shakespeare often had the ostensible hero be responsible for his fall, and Posthumus fits this pattern. Would this pattern fit the Job story with God, like Posthumus in his wager with Iachimo being responsible for His “fall” when Job’s perseverance in virtue his faith, rescued God from His own failure in allowing Himself to be baited into a bet such as this?

V. Repentance

    A. Job’s actions

            Since repentance requires knowledge of a mistake which has caused current suffering, Job’s position that he had no such knowledge is consistent with his demand to be told why he was suffering so he could repent and gain wisdom and not repeat the mistake. It should be remembered that Job was a good and righteous man, and a sincere desire to repent for any transgression would be entirely consistent with this man. Since Job’s friends could not identify any error, either an error of commission or an error of omission, and Job could not identify such an error, Job’s only recourse was to ask God Himself.

    B. God’s actions

            It seems that God never apologized to Job, nor did God express remorse to Job, nor did He accept responsibility, nor did he ever acknowledge that He was sorry, nor did He try to identify what caused Him to make the error[11]. This raises a question regarding whether or not God should be or is subject to repentance. There are those that believe repentance was created before the world and that repentance is so powerful that it might even overrule God[12].  In the Job situation, God clearly transgressed the Ground Rule in which man is given free will. God clearly interfered with, or at least sanctioned the interference with, Job’s free will and for no apparent reason. Hence, God’s act clearly transgressed a Ground Rule, and had severe consequences for Job. Job was not re-instated to his original condition as his children were replaced, not restored. Therefore, it appears the God made a mistake, and transgressed against man with significant consequences for not only the man involved, but for the God/Man partnership because man must now doubt whether God will interfere with the exercise of his free will and man must worry that he may be punished even though he is innocent. This goes to the very fabric of the God/Man partnership and would seem to be a perfect episode for repentance on the part of the transgressor….in this case, God.

            One of the essential steps of repentance is apologizing to those who were harmed by your mistake. Since God did not apologize to Job[13], did He complete repentance? Of course, if one believes that God is infallible and does not make mistakes, then whether or not God is subject to repentance is irrelevant. However, if God can make mistakes, what then? Did God ever apologize to those harmed by the Nephilim who were God’s creations which He destroyed because He “regretted creating Man” (an admission of an error on God’s part)[14]? If God is a partner with man in creating this world, then God, like man, must learn from His mistakes. Repentance ensures that one learns and grows from one’s mistakes whereby the mistakes will not be repeated. If God does not learn and grow from His mistakes, can we expect the mistakes to be repeated? Could the Holocaust be attributed to God not learning from His mistakes with Job or even with the Nephilim? While it may seem like the height of hubris bordering on blasphemy,  perhaps men  should also insist that God undergo repentance before requiring men to undergo repentance.

            Another step in repentance is restoring the injured party to his original position. Under normal circumstances, murder cannot be reversed; however, we are talking about God here. Certainly, God could restore dead people (if He cannot, the entire concept of resurrection is cast in doubt). Yet God chose to replace Job’s children, not restore them. Again, it appears that God did not complete repentance in the Job episode. It thus appears that it can be concluded that repentance is only for men. Could that imply that repentance is a man-made concept? If it is a man-made concept, its mystical implications (such as the Lurianic kabbalah thought that correlates repentance with the idea of tikkun), as well as many other implications are cast into doubt as well as its religious implications[15]. However, from a practical viewpoint of making progress, even if repentance is a man-made concept, it appears to be efficacious in the process of progress and human growth. As such, repentance is an important concept whether it is man-made or God-made.

VI. Monotheism

    A. Introduction

            The actions of God in the story of Job can be read as supporting the concept of monotheism and exploring various aspects of a God worthy of monotheistic worship. The God of Job was not all-powerful and all-knowing, but was more than merely superhuman.

    B. God does not have human characteristics

            (1) Since God does not appear to have remorse for His actions in the Job episode, it seems to imply that God does not have the human emotion of remorse. This leads to the question of what other human emotions are lacking in God.

            (2) Is God capable of emotions such as anger, love, forgiveness, retribution, which are human emotions[16]?

            Such emotions often shape and influence the actions of humans; would they not shape and influence the actions of God as well?  Why would the transcendental being be subject to such human emotions? And, if He is subject to such emotions, how would He react to such emotions? Why would we believe that God would react to such emotions in the same manner as man? What gives us the right to attribute such emotions and reactions to God? How do we know how God will react to any stimulus, or if He would react at all?  Is this not also some form of blasphemy?

            Maybe by ascribing such actions, reactions and emotions to God, we are violating the Commandment not to take God’s name in vain. By attributing human traits to God, we are, in essence, defining God in our terms, and perhaps even erecting an idol. Does this not violate the commandment that we shall have no God in place of the One God? Still further, do we even want God to have human emotions? Since what angers us as humans changes (for example, slavery in Biblical times did not anger people; whereas, slavery today would anger us), what angers God would thus change. Does this not make God changeable? If He can change as to what angers Him, then He could change on anything and everything else as well. Thus, God could change His allegiance from one people to another, from one Nation to another, and the like. Do we really want such a changeable God? Still further, many times, what angers people is defined by a small number of leaders and activists rather than the vast majority of people and certainly not all the people. That is for example, a single clergyman can influence his entire congregation into becoming angered over something that the clergyman saw and how he interpreted it. That clergyman might even be able to persuade people that his view is correct even though the majority of people in the congregation may have a different opinion. At least, the clergyman would act as a spokesman for that congregation. Unless someone in the congregation spoke up, then the will of the congregation would be expressed in the words of the single activist or clergymen. Thus, in essence, we would have that single clergyman telling God what to be angry about and, again in essence, raising that single clergyman to a level if not totally co-equal to the level of God, then quite high and certainly higher than the rest of the congregation. This is patently wrong and clearly unpredictable. The essence of the God/man partnership is predictability and God certainly would not want man to be in a quandary about what God wants of man, certainly not due to the element of unpredictability. Attributing human emotions to God undermines, if not totally destroys, predictability.

            On the other hand, however, we need some means of defining rules and consequences for breaking those rules. That is why the “anger” of God or the “blessing” of God works because it helps us define limits and consequences for our actions. However, we should not attribute emotions to God, especially human emotions which are changeable and not totally predictable. The better solution can be found in simply applying God’s Ground Rules. These rules can be applied in a manner that is appropriate for the time without worrying about causing the transcendent entity of the universe to be inconsistent or unpredictable[17]. Applying these rules, per se, is consistent and predictable.

            Perhaps the episode of Job is a cautionary tale for the classical prophets and those who follow the teachings of the classical prophets as well as those who anthropomorphize God.

            The punishment of Job’s friends is meant to remind us that we should not ascribe human attributes to God and that God is not, and should not be, subject to or constrained by human attributes or beliefs. Even though many people believe that such anthropomorphism is merely metaphorical and is used to help people grasp the otherwise indescribable accounts of how God is involved in history, caution should be used in such attribution.

    C. The Punishment of Job’s friends

            God’s admonishing Job’s friends raises other interesting questions. They may have had the best intentions, plus they were the only ones not to shun Job. Why would such loyal men be admonished and threatened? The answer may lie in their arguments. Their argument is that if you are being punished, you must have done something wrong. This implies that if you do nothing wrong, you will be rewarded[18]. However, according to these arguments, “wrong” is defined by men. This is clearly a human ego-centric view which may be considered as placing man’s judgment above, or at least in place of, God’s. These arguments clearly require that man is the judge of what is wrong and what is right, and that if he does what he believes is right, God will follow with blessings. This is clearly trying to control God: we do what we think is right, and God must bless us. This clearly steps over the boundaries of the partnership. We, as men, have no business trying to control God. This is why God admonished the friends. When God stated, “Where were you when the world was created…”, He was basically saying: “Who are you to tell Me what to do? Just who do you think you are? Know your place.” This seems to echo the story of Nebuchadnezzar’s madness in the story of Daniel in which Nebuchadnezzar’s madness is used to show that God can humble even the greatest power on earth and cause it not to recover unless it confesses God’s divinity. Furthermore, as discussed in the essay on “Partners,” once Abraham passed the final test as related in the Akedah, man became a full partner with God in the shaping of events of this world. God sent an angel to stop the sacrifice. By not being there at the elevation of Abraham to full partnership, God seemed to be saying that the partnership was divided into areas: God had His area of responsibility and Man had his area of responsibility, and the partners should stay out of the other’s area of responsibility. By stating to Job, “Where were you when the world was created…?” God seemed to be reminding Job that man had no business questioning how God ran His portion of the partnership, and man should mind his own business.

            The arguments propounded by Job’s friends appear to be quite similar to the arguments made by the prophets when they were admonishing Israel. The classical prophets conceived the idea of the primacy of morality over ritual. That is, the prophets stated that Israel was responsible for its participation in social corruption, perversion of justice, robbery of the poor, taking bribes, exploitation of the poor, debauchery, and the like. The classical prophets stated that God would recompense man according to his moral condition. Idolatry was, of course, the main religious sin, but now morality was added. The prophets were teaching and propounding that since the people were engaged in such moral sins, God would destroy them, and leave only a remnant. This implies that if the people lived a moral life, that is a life that is moral according to the definitions set out by the prophets, God would, if not reward them, at least not destroy them. This seems to me to be exactly what Job’s friends are advocating. Job must have done something wrong in order to receive this punishment. As discussed above, this seems to be expecting or even forcing God to act according to man’s bidding: if man acts morally, as defined by man, then God is bound to reward, or at least not punish, man. God is thus being constrained and defined by man. How can man justify thinking he can make, or at least induce, God into acting or not acting because man has acting in a way man thought to be right? This seems to be close to blasphemy[19].

    D. Is God all-knowing and all-powerful?

            The story of Job appears to say, “no”, at least to the all-knowing portion of the characterization.

            If God were all-knowing, He would not need to test Job to determine if Job’s piety was disinterested or was prompted by the bounties he had, the same could be said about Abraham, he would not need to be tested, especially with regards to the Akedah, if God were all-knowing. However, with regard to God’s relationship with man, that has already been answered in that with respect to the direction of the partnership, God does not know the outcome of events. As discussed in the essay “Who Were the Nephilim?” God is fallible and is not omnipotent and is not future-omniscient; otherwise men would not have free will. And as discussed in the essay “God’s Ground Rules,” one of the Ground Rules is that men will have free will. Therefore, the story of Job does no harm to the assumption that God does not know the outcome of events concerning the God/Man partnership, and, in fact, appears to support it[20].

            If one accepts the concept that God might make a mistake, or is not all-knowing and all-powerful, one must question the concept of teshuvah. The concept of getting right with God portion of teshuvah relies on the idea that God is capable of accounting for every single action taken by every single individual (and community) at every single instant in time and space and keep accurate records of such observations and accounting. This accounting must include not only the errors of commission but also the errors of omission, the errors committed knowingly as well as the transgressions committed unknowingly. This must be Quintillions (maybe even Sextillions or even Septillions of data bits – how many angels would it take on Jacob’s ladder to carry all this information back and forth between heaven and earth?). What if God erroneously recorded a transgression against a person who did not, in fact, commit such an act? Would God then punish that person for not repenting? On the other hand, what if God accidentally overlooked a transgression and the transgressor never repented, what of the transgression? Must this overlooked transgressor/ transgression complete teshuvah? What would God think of someone completing teshuvah for an act that He did not note? While the Torah requires personal accountability (even if it might be possible that God did not take note of the transgression) might there be someone, somewhere, that would take the possibility that God would not notice his transgression into the calculus of his possible outcomes when making a decision? This situation might be analogous to the situation where God intervened in the natural and expected connection between action and outcome as predicted by the laws of probability to change a predicted outcome (such as in answer to a personal prayer or the like, see the essay on “Forgiveness” as well as other essays which argue that by intervening in such a way, God introduces chaos because people will not be able to predict the range of possible outcomes based on the laws of probability). Perhaps teshuvah is truly faith based.

    E. Does God have free will?

            (1) Introduction

            The story of Job can be read as raising the question of whether God has free will.

            The story of Job seems to answer this question in the affirmative. The concept of God’s free will is intertwined with the concepts of God being all-powerful and/or all-knowing. Therefore, this section of the essay will slightly overlap with the previous section.

            (2) Free will and a plurality of choices and outcomes

            As discussed in the essay on “God’s Ground Rules,” for any given situation there will be a number of choices with each choice having its own consequences; and there will be some consequences that are more desirable than others. If one is all-knowing, then one will know the outcome of any choice and will always select the choice leading to the most favorable outcome. On the other hand, if one is all-powerful, then he can adjust the outcome to his desires. In either case, there would be no unknown consequences. Without unknown consequences, the concept of free will is rendered meaningless. There is no such thing as free will if there is no choice and there is no choice if you know the outcome. Since God did not adjust the consequences for Job, it appears that God did not have the power to control the outcome and thus could be viewed as not being all-powerful. It seems logical that God would choose not to adjust the outcome, at least after Job initially proved himself faithful. What purpose would Job’s further suffering have at this point? Hence it appears that the story of Job shows that God has free will. Furthermore, since the story of Job shows God making a choice to allow Satan to test Job, it could be said that God made a mistake. As shown in the flood story, God can make a mistake. In fact, in the flood story, God actually admitted making a mistake in creating man. If God can make one mistake, He is not infallible and all-knowing. If God can make a mistake that implies He has, or at least had, more than one choice, which, in turn, implies that God has free will since there is more than one choice, each of which has its own consequences. If God knew the outcome, why did He allow Satan to cause such suffering for Job? If He knew what would happen, there would be no need for Him to show Satan. If God knew the outcome, yet still allowed Satan to test Job, then it could be said that God was not self-confident enough to ignore Satan’s goading, and thus not all-powerful. A fully self-confident entity has no need to prove anything to anyone. God’s power does not seem to be in issue in this story. Furthermore, since it has been assumed that God possessed imagination because that is the trait of Himself that He gave to man in Genesis so man would have dominion over the other creatures described in Genesis since those other creatures do not have imaginations[21], and it has been concluded that imagination without free will is useless, it can be concluded that God has free will as God would not have a trait that was useless.

            (3) Conclusion

            It seems that the more comfortable answer is that God is not all-knowing, all-powerful and has free will with regard to the God/man partnership and He simply made a mistake. If God can make a mistake, He is not all-knowing and all-powerful. If God is not all-knowing and not all-powerful but can act and make decisions, then it can be said that God has free will. Thus, the story of Job can be used to prove that God has free will, at least with respect to man and His relationship with man.

    F. God’s power over other “gods”.

            The story of Job might be used to illustrate to the readers of the time that demons might be present that would wreak havoc on people and their lives, but that God still was in control. Thus, even if someone believed in demons, God was still there to act in their behalf. Still further, the story of Job can be read as illustrating God’s power over all other “dieties,” including those who might reside in heaven. This easily translates into God having power and control over any “god” that might be worshiped by humans.

    G. Can God forgive?

            This issue is plainly stated by Job’s friend Eliphaz in 4:17: ”Can mortals be acquitted by God? Can man be cleared by his Maker?” The issue is also raised by Eliphaz the Temanite in 22:3 “Does Shaddai gain if you are righteous? Does He profit if your conduct is blameless?”

            As discussed in the essay “Forgiveness,” God cannot forgive transgressions of one human against another; however, as also discussed in this essay, God cannot even forgive transgressions against God. Forgiveness of a human’s transgression against God would create chaos as humans could not predict which transgressions would be punished and which would be forgiven. The next friend, Bildad the Shuhite seems to provide support for this position when he asks in 4:8 “Will God pervert the right? Will the Almighty pervert justice?” By forgiving one transgression against Him, it would seem that God is perverting all justice (this seems to be Jonah’s complaint as well, see the essay “Jonah”). That is why the argument of Eliphaz in 22:3 states that God does not gain by man’s righteousness or his iniquity: if it is iniquitous toward other men, God cannot intervene, and if the iniquitousness is toward God, God cannot forgive. Thus, God does not gain or lose according to the righteousness of men[22].

            Job clearly affirms the proposition that God cannot forgive when he states in chapter 9 that “Man cannot win a suit against God” (v. 2) “He would not answer one charge in a thousand” (v. 3), and “I know that You will not acquit me” (v. 28).

            A corollary to this concept is the fact that God answered Job. If God answers one prayer (or charge) which defies the normal and expected chain of events (normally, we should not expect God to reply to us), then chaos will result as we could not count on the normal chain of events. However, Job’s was a special case because Job was innocent and God mistakenly punished him. The story of Job thus seems to say that God is not infallible, but He can admit a mistake (see the essay “Who Were the Nephilim?”). Thus, it would appear that normalcy is not disturbed by God answering Job: normally there will be no response, but in the case where God has made a mistake, He will answer the charge (as shown in the story of Job, we may not like or be satisfied by the answer, but an answer will be given).

VII. Partnership between God and man

1.  Does God act like a partner in the story?

            When God does appear to Job, it seems that God has realized that He made a mistake. However, God does not admit His mistake or apologize for it. Instead, God asserts His position of the First Cause of our world. Why is that? Further, Job had been insisting all along that he wanted an explanation, yet he received no explanation from God yet Job accepted it. Again, why is that?

            An explanation for both questions might lie in the partnership view of man and God. When God appeared to Job, He asserted His duties in the partnership and reminded Job of his duties. God had the responsibility of maintaining the viability and continuity of the overall experiment that began in Genesis 1:1 while Job’s (and hence man’s) responsibility was to exercise dominion over the entities mentioned in Genesis. By reminding Job of these responsibilities, God, in essence, told Job that He had erred in allowing another power (Satan) to interfere in the partnership. When God does not identify any specific mistake made by Job, Job understood that he (Job) made no error. But his faith in God’s righteousness allows him to conclude that the only plausible explanation for his suffering in this instance was that God made a mistake in allowing him to suffer. Job understood that God was telling him He made a mistake and not Job and accepted the explanation without further discussion. It was two partners  discussing a situation that harmed one of them through an error made by the other. The erring partner is stating that He will henceforth remain in his sphere of responsibility and the injured partner says that he understands. It is then both partners agreeing to move forward from where they are. Good partners need not apologize to each other, they understand each other without words.

            God learned from His mistake, and Job need not have worried about a repeat of the incident. Furthermore, God will not repeat the mistake of forsaking an otherwise good man in this manner. In the Noah story, God provided a visible monument to His promise (the rainbow) not to destroy the world again; however, in this situation, no such visible or tangible monument was provided. No visible or tangible monument was provided to re-assure men that God would not forsake them in this way again because by the time of this story, the God/man partnership had matured to the level where promises, even unspoken promises, are accepted by both partners without the need for visible or tangible proof.

    B. Satan’s role

            If the story did not include the scene between God and Satan, the story of Job might be viewed as showing that God will do what He wants with man, regardless of what man does. In such a view, God’s actions toward Job would be inexplicable. This could be interpreted to mean that there was no real partnership between man and God. Applying this approach, if there had been no disagreement between God and Satan, God would have been the one to bring down the suffering on Job without any inducement and then had God merely stated, by way of explanation, “Where were you when the world was created…?” God would have been showing who was “boss.” However, due to the inclusion of Satan, it can be concluded that the story shows that there is a partnership between God and man.

    C. Can humans influence God as a partner?

            As stated in this essay, the punishment of Job’s friends can be viewed from several angles: the power and mystery of God and/or the partnership between God and mankind. If God is so powerful, how can we have the hubris to believe that what we do matters or can matter to Him in His decisions and judgments? This is the ant telling the elephant that if he, the ant, sits in a certain location, then the elephant cannot step on him. Hubris, chutzpah, you name it. Where do we get off believing that we can define what is good and bad, and then practice what we say is good, then God will reward us, or punish us if we practice what we have defined as “bad”? It seems that by defining what God rewards and what He punishes, men are attempting to control His actions and thus, men are the ones actually defining God. By definition, men cannot define such an entity.

            On the other hand, if God is a partner, as is discussed in other essays, then we might influence His judgment, but not require it. That is, the God of Abraham that allowed Abraham to negotiate with Him regarding Sodom and Gomorrah if ten good men could be found is a partner with us and might be influenced as such. However, being partners, neither partner can tell the other what he can or cannot do. Partners can only negotiate with each other and then each makes his decision on his own. Both partners are bound by common ground rules. Beyond that, man has no standing to tell God what He should do, and certainly no standing to tell God what He has to do either directly or through his actions.

            If we accept that God is not all-knowing and all-powerful, we will have to learn to rely on ourselves more and be more willing to accept that some consequences are the result of our own actions. We will not be able to fob off some consequences as being acts of God. Accepting such responsibility will make us better. As long as we can remain confident that God will consistently do His part, we can move forward. In this partnership, if man does not try to overstep his bounds and have faith that God will not overstep His bounds, the God/man partnership should flourish.

VIII. Assimilation

            The story of Job is about a man who is totally pious but who is punished for no apparent reason. This man could easily have blamed his god (as Naomi did in the story of Ruth) and forsake that god. However, Job did not. First he looked to himself for fault, then he demanded an explanation directly from God. It would have been far easier for him to simply forsake his god and adopt the gods of the society in which he lived. This is an easy picture for the biblical audience to relate to. They were living in societies having different gods and many times they were living in difficult situations through no fault of their own. They could easily blame their god and adopt the gods of those around them and live an easier life. Forsaking one’s god in favor of the gods of those among whom they are living is the first step toward assimilation. Job did not do this and thus serves as an example for not taking the easy path and moving toward assimilation.

IX. The Suffering of Innocents

            A question can be raised: if God learned from His mistake with Job and would not repeat it, why do apparently good people still suffer[23]?

            If, as discussed in this essay, God learned from His mistake of allowing suffering to befall a righteous man due to His dealing with Satan, how can we explain suffering of the innocent subsequent to the Job episode? If we believe that God did not learn from his mistake with regard to Job, how can he believe that God is God or believe that God is benevolent towards us? If an entity continues to make the same mistake, how can that entity be considered as being a god? Thus, if we are to believe that our god is God and is benevolent towards us, we have to have another explanation for the suffering of innocents. This issue will not be discussed in depth in this essay as it has engaged thinkers and writers forever without true resolution and is discussed in the essay “Good and Evil”.

            Some of the solutions even appear in the story of Job: from the Talmud: “when evil befalls the just, it is because they are not completely just, while when good befalls the wicked, it is because they are not completely wicked” (Ber. 7a). Perhaps, following this line of reasoning, it could be that Job was an idealized individual in that he was completely free from sin; whereas, the rest of us do have something in our past that we could be punished for, and God would not repeat the mistake of punishing a completely innocent and righteous individual, and someone who is suffering may, indeed, unlike Job, have something in their past for which they deserve punishment. Or, as discussed in the essay “Good and Evil,” they may be suffering for another reason. Unlike Job, none of us would be willing to actually face and confront God with the belief that we had not committed some sort of transgression, which tends to prove that Job is an idealized individual whereas we are real.

            The answer to the question of why innocents continue to suffer after the Job episode has many facets. First, the lesson learned by God in the story of Job, under one interpretation, is not to interfere with man’s side of the partnership or violate the Ground Rules. One of the Ground Rules is that God will not interfere with man’s exercise of his free will. The lesson of the Job story is not that after the Job episode, God will refrain from causing innocent people to suffer, but that God will not take actions that will either violate the Ground Rules or will interfere with man’s carrying out his duties and responsibilities of the partnership. However, the lesson learned is that, after the Job episode, God will not directly and intentionally cause innocents to suffer. But this does not mean that God will prevent innocent suffering, it only means that God will not directly cause suffering of an innocent.  As discussed in the essay “Good and Evil,” innocent suffering will likely come from other sources: man’s exercise of his free will may cause suffering of another man; mere chance may cause some innocents to be at the “wrong place at the wrong time” and suffer due to a natural occurrence, such as an earthquake, a tornado, a volcano, or the like; and humans often suffer as they die and God cannot interfere with humans dying. In particular, the instance of man’s exercise of free will, under the Ground Rules, God cannot interfere.

            In the instance of natural occurrences, again God cannot interfere. The natural occurrences were part of God’s basic creation. If God interfered to save man from the effects of a natural occurrence, that would require God to choose among His creations which would place Him on a slippery slope. If God could choose between a natural occurrence, which He created in the first place, and man, which He also created, what is to stop God from interfering between man and man, which would likely require God to interfere with man’s exercise of his free will? Thus, God cannot interfere, or intervene, between man and the effects of a natural occurrence. Thus, it may appear that some innocents will suffer from the effects of a natural occurrence. If an innocent is in the wrong place at the wrong time, it is likely to be due to mere blind chance and probability. Again, since, as discussed in the essay on God’s Ground Rules, God created the law of probability to balance predestination with free will, God will not interfere with the operation of the laws of chance and probability in the same manner that He will not interfere with the effects of a natural occurrence.

            As discussed in the essay “Good and Evil”, another source of suffering is the Ground Rule that all humans must die. Again, God cannot interfere with the operation of this Ground Rule; therefore, death may be another source of suffering for an otherwise innocent person.

            Given the above, it can be concluded that God did learn from His mistake with regard to Job, and will not again directly cause an innocent to suffer. This conclusion seems to be supported in the stories of the Akedah (where God did not allow an innocent Isaac to suffer) and in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (where God promised Abram to spare the cities if He could locate ten innocent men). Thus, the god of Job can be considered as being a monotheistic god who is worthy of our worship as well.

X. Other aspects of the Job story

    A. The story of Job and the story of Abraham

            Another aspect of the Job story involves its resonance with the testing of Abraham. As discussed, since God does not know the outcome, God had to test Abraham to be sure that Abraham was not merely an opportunist seeking to be the head of a great nation without truly believing. One of the tests was the threatened destruction of Abraham’s children. First, God instructed Abraham to drive Ishmael away, and then God instructed Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. This would have totally destroyed Abraham’s children. In the Job story, Job’s children were destroyed during a test of the belief of Job. Was Job merely an opportunist who benefitted economically from his righteousness, or was he truly righteous and deserving of such gifts? He obviously passed the test. However, the destruction of Job’s children would not end the experiment God began with regard to Jews as there were other Jews; however, the destruction of Isaac would have ended the experiment as there were no other children (only Ishmael who was not the one God wanted to carry on the covenant).

    B. Job’s free will

            It should also be noted that the story of Job does not involve God interfering with man’s free will as there were no choices facing Job. Since there were no choices, there was no exercise of free will, and hence no interference by God with Job’s, and man’s, exercise of free will. However, there was clearly an interference by God with the natural order, which, in turn, would affect man’s free will. So, this leads back to the above discussion which is answered by viewing God’s action in the Job story as being a mistake, which would not be repeated.

    C. Could God exist without Satan?

            Yet another question that is raised by the story of Job is: could we have God without Satan? Does God need Satan in order for God to exist? Does Satan complete God? Are they opposite ends of a continuum (see the essay “Good and Evil” ) without which the continuum has no meaning? Would God exist without Satan? Without evil can we have good since each seems to be the absence of the other or measured relative to the other? If all is good, then we will not have choices to make, and hence free will is meaningless. If it is assumed that God placed the serpent in the Garden of Eden so that there would be choices available to man whereby he can exercise his judgment, hence his imagination, hence his free will, then it appears that in order to be who we are, and to fulfill our destiny, we must have Satan, or some form of evil, in our lives so there are choices which must be made. Maybe, under this assumption, the serpent was invented for the Second Creation Story so we could have God. In fact, there is some thought that there was no concept of a demonic figure in Israeli thought during the period when some trace the Garden of Eden story to have been written. That could be due to an error in the tracing or it could mean that the authors had to invent a figure that provides a choice for man in order for God of the Garden of Eden Story to exist. This is especially true if the concept of free will and imagination is considered as being the subject of the Second Creation Story (the Garden of Eden story). Adopting this view could be interpreted to mean that God did not exist without a counter choice, or until a choice which is counter to what we believe to be desired by God existed. We have used the shorthand identification “Satan” to represent the choice which is counter to what we believe God wants. It might be observed that the Garden of Eden Story has God creating man before it mentions the serpent. However, this sequence of events is merely logical from a literary view and does not mean that, under this assumption, God or man existed before evil. In fact, the term “Satan” means questioner or doubter. Doubt implies that there are choices. Without doubt there is no choice, without choice then there is no need for imagination. Without imagination, free will is instinct at best and meaningless at worst. Hence, it would seem that bot God and man need some form of evil in this world to exist as God and man as we know them. If “Satan” is a shorthand description of such a concept, then we need “Satan” to be who we are and who we believe God to be.

1. Reading the story of Job as a warning

This story was written for a Biblical audience who believed in an all-powerful God. If one believes that God is all-powerful and controls everything that goes on in our universe, then we are all servants of God and no human owns any property, wealth, family etc. All of the entities created in Genesis, including man, is a gift from God to be held in trust for God. As such, God can take back anything from us or from our universe anytime He wishes. The story of Job illustrates this when God takes back everything possessed by Job (Job “owns” nothing, he only has temporary trust of his possessions) at any time He wishes. This story is thus a warning to all to obey God’s laws (as interpreted by the priests).

2. Alternative readings

        (1) Conflict between Blind Acceptance and Questioning

The story of Job is generally read as offering some solace to those suffering for no apparent reason, i.e., the suffering of innocents. In this context, the story basically says “God’s ways are inscrutable to humans and God has His own plan to which we are not and cannot be privy to; God has His plan and we must accept whatever God decides. Therefore, if an innocent suffers it is because God has His own plan which includes that suffering.

However, could this story be read as a contest between two views (by humans) of how God operates: the way of viewing God and His plan for our universe in which God is a total, unquestioned, and complete ruler in the manner of a tyrant whose actions with respect to us and our universe are to be accepted without question, and the way of viewing our place in God’s universe as having the right to question God and His actions? Perhaps the ambiguous ending of the story is on purpose because this contest had not been decided when the story was written: do we have to blindly accept all that happens to us as being part of God’s plan for us, or can we question what happens and perhaps even change the situation ourselves?

        (2) God’s fall from Innocence

        Another possible reading of the story of Job could seem blasphemous. God was innocent when He allowed Himself to be baited into a wager with Satan, and then fell from innocence when He saw what was happening to Job and then was redeemed when Job remained faithful and true at the end in spite of the terrible things that had happened to him. These themes occur again and again in the Bible (and elsewhere in literature): innocence, fall from innocence, conflict and consequences, and finally redemption. Redemption generally occurs because the entity falling from innocence realizes their mistake and takes steps to correct it and makes amends and changes so that the mistake does not happen again. It would be too presumptious of us to assume that God redeemed Himself in this manner, which is why the story of Job ends so ambiguously. Those in the first category of believing that we cannot know God’s workings can continue to believe that we are totally at the mercy of God’s will and whims and those in the second category who believe we are given the right to question what happens to us and have some power to change what happens to us can also continue to believe that we can question and change our fate.

JOB

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

1. Why would God allow Satan to goad Him into treating Job in this manner?
2. Was Job correct to demand a personal meeting with God? Why would Job be entitled to such a meeting when no one else is?
3. Based on the story, God never repented. Is it ok for God to demand repentance from us but not be willing to repent Himself?
4. The essay discusses human-type characteristics for God. Is this a case of projecting our characteristics on God and thus creating God in our image?
5. Even if we take the view that God made a mistake in Job’s case, what is to prevent Him from making another mistake?
6. What is your view of God based on this story? How would you view God change had God denied Satan’s request to make Job suffer in order to prove his point?
7. Compare Job’s god to Abraham’s god? To Jacob’s god. To Moses’s god. To the god during the Holocaust. To our god.
8. How does the book of Job compare to the concept of “original sin”?
9. Does Job’s God violate His own canons of justice? If so, why and what does that mean for humans and for the human/God partnership? Based on what happened to Job, can we trust God? Does God have a double-standard of justice?
10. How does Job’s view of God differ from his friends’ view of God? How does that affect their arguments? Job may have viewed himself as abandoned by a tyrannical and capricioius God; whereas, his friends may have viewed God as committed to the Law. What about Elihu’s view?
11. Do you think Job’s God was a tyrant?
12. What do you think Job’s reaction was when he saw his replacement children? If they were not the same as the ones that he lost, what do you think he thought and felt? If they were the same, what do you think he thought (was this a first case of resurrection)?
13. Could Satan be considered a hero? After all, Satan was the only one to question God, all the others apparently are “yes men”. If Satan was a rebel, does that make Job a rebel (after all, he severly criticizes God and demands to dispute Him)?
14. Can you see a parallel between Satan and Job? Each was initially in God’s good graces, and each fell from those good graces and suffered for such a fall. Could it be that each is being punished for not being a “yes man” and questioning God and His actions?
15. Don’t you think Jews in general have standing to question God in view of catastrophes such as the Holocaust?
16. The essay discusses the concept of forgiveness. Do you think Job can, or did, forgive God?
17. Could the story of Job be a metaphor for the Jewish Nation in general?
18. Why would God treat someone this way? It simply was not fair, especially since Job was so pious. If God is not fair in the Job situation, how can we trust Him to be fair in judging us on Yom Kippur? This is an especially troubling question since most of us are not as pious as Job. If God can treat a man as pious as Job this way, what will He do to us who are far less pious than Job?
19. The essay discusses the issue of anthropomorphism, and the error of attributing human features to God. If this is so, why does God, Himself, apparently make such an attribution in Deuteronomy 31:17-18 when He speaks of hiding his face from the Israelites? Doesn’t having a face imply human features?
20. What does the name “Job” mean?
21. Who do you think authored this story? When?
22. Why does the story shift from prose to poetry in Chapter 3? And why does it shift back to prose for the final chapter?
23. Beginning in the first cycle of his discourse with his friends and continuing into the second cycle, Job seems to be asking for a law which governs both he and God. Does this sound like Job is asking for something similar to the “Ground Rules” discussed in the essay titled “God’s Ground Rules”?
24. Do you think it is possible to simply love God for God’s own sake, or is such love always compromised by self-interest, even unconscious self-interest?
25. What does it mean to “fear God”? Must one “fear God” in order to be wise? See Chapter 28 of the story of Job.
26. In 3:1-10, Job appears to be cursing the day of his birth. But, in the Bible, one’s birth is generally thought to be a gift from God (see Hannah, Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel). Therefore, is Job cursing God? If Job is cursing God, does this not prove Satan’s case? If not, how close does he come?
27. In the essay “Partners,” it is argued that when God and man finally agreed to become partners in developing the world that God created in Genesis, it was agreed that each partner had his defined area of duties (man was charged with the duty of exercising dominion over the entities created in Genesis, and God was charged with the duty of ensuring the safety and continuation of the overall experiment (such as preventing the total destruction of mankind or of those humans charged with the duty of keeping God in the physical universe) and neither partner would step over the boundary into the area of responsibility of the other. Do you think that Job feels that God is too close to him for him to achieve any sense of perspective regarding his situation? That is, is Job questioning why God is intervening in the affairs of humans, i.e, overstepping the boundaries of the God/human partnership?
28. A legal-like trial (which Job seems to request in 9:1-3) requires an independent and unbiased arbiter (e.g., a judge). Could such an arbiter be found when God is one of the litigants? We often visualize God as the prosecutor, judge and jury as well as the entity that enforces the final judgement. Who could fill the role of arbiter for such a trial? Could Elihu be such an arbiter? See, The Trial of God, by Elie Wiesel.
29. What do you think of the discussion between Job and his friends? Was it friendly? Did it lead to mutual discoveries and appreciations? Did it breakdown? How did it progress from friendly discussion to the angry disputations reported in the story?
30. In Job 38-41, God speaks. What is God saying in this section? Is God responding to Job’s attempts to subject Him to a trial? Is God trying to attack Job’s arrogance and pride? Is God responding to Job’s previous arguments or is He avoiding or even ignoring them? If not, why does God not respond to Job’s charges and questions?
31. Job does not accept the pro-forma, dogmatic answers shaped by the tradition received by his friends that there cannot be anything such as “innocent” suffering; action inevitably receives its due: good will be rewarded and evil punished. If Job is suffering, he must have sinned in some way: Job suffers, therefore he must be guilty. However, Job protested that his own experience denies this dogma. Do you believe that personal experience is crucial to a critique of received tradition?
32. Do you think the Book of Job answers the question of why there is innocent suffering? Or do you think it establishes the fact that there is, indeed, innocent suffering? If so, how would you justify innocent suffering (see the essay “Good and Evil” and the subsection of that essay titled “Consideration of the categories of evil”)?
33. Do you think the book of Job was based on other stories (see the Dead Sea Scrolls and/or the apocryphal work called the Testament of Job)?
34. Do you think the book of Job belongs in the Bible? What were the stories on which this story was based? How and why did this story get into the biblical canon?
35. Do you think there is any parallel story or reference in the New Testament? Could one compare Jesus to Job?
36. Do you think there are any parallels in other literature (such as Sophocles’ Antigone)? See, William Blake’s Illustrations of the Book of Job made Job’s wife his most steadfast friend.
37. Do you think there could be a female Job? See The story of Griselda in Boccaccio’s Decameron which tells of a prince named Walter who takes a poor woman named Griselda as his wife and puts her through great ordeals to test her obedience to him. Imogene is the innocent victim of a wager between her husband, Posthumus, and Iachimo regarding her fidelitly to Posthumus in Shakespeare’s Cymbeline.
38. Do you think it was fair to punish Job’s wife and children to test Job? What did they do to deserve such treatment? Why would God allow such treatment of people peripheral to the “test” Satan proposed? Is suffering of these people necessary at all? Is God callous or duped or careless or is there some other reason God would allow such treatment of people not being tested and who are not responsible in any way for the conduct being tested? What do you think of a God who would allow this?
39. Do you think that God causing Job and his family to suffer was the best way for God to “win” His bet with Satan? Was God goaded into allowing the suffering when there might have been another way?
40. What does the Book of Job tell you about God’s character?
41. Could it be that God could not prevent the evil done to Job? If so, why do we believe that God is all-powerful?
42. What does the Book of Job say about Divine justice? What does the book say about human understanding of divine providence?
43. The essay “Good and Evil” explores the question of how “evil” can exist in a universe created by God who is seen as good and benevolent. How does the story of Job fit into this inquiry?
44. Could the Book of Job be viewed as a satire? A parable? Many parables? Is parable the best way to know God? An epic? A poem? An allegory? A folk story? A complicated composite?
45. What do you think of Elihu’s speeches? Do you think they were inserted into the text at a later time?
46. Do you think God’s speeches were inserted into the text at a later time?

1. What is the book of Job about? Patience? Testing? God’s mistake? God being fooled by Satan? Faith? Self-confidence? Steadfastness? Endurance? Persistence? How would you classify the genre of the book? Epic? Tragedy? Comedy (the resolution is happy)?
2. Was Job Jewish? Who was he? What is his geneology? When was this story supposed to be taking place? Is it important that we do or do not know? If he was not Jewish, there is a problem with the description in the story that there were none as rightwous and upright as Job (Job 1:1).
3. Was Job affected by the covenant or sacred law?
4. Who was Job’s second wife?
5. How many different ways can we use the Book of Job? Self-help? Consolation? Liturgy?
6. Do you think the Book of Job would be a good play?
7. Do you think Franz Kafka was influenced by the book of Job? What about his story “Metamorphosis”? Kafka’s characthers often seek for the law that might explain and redeem existence and restor humanity. Could that be Job?
8. Can you find any parallel between Job and the Jews during the Holocaust? Elie Wiesel certainly did. God was silent in both cases.An innocent suffered in both cases. Can the book of Job help you understand the Holocaust? Could you envision Hitler, like Satan, as God’s tool to test the Jews’ faith? Who were the nations during the Holocaust that parallel Job’s friends? Job challenged God directly; whom did the Jews challenge during and after the Holocaust? God? In the story of Job, many whom Job had helped turned their backs on him. Is there a parallel with nations in the Holocaust? Could Zionism’s wish to leave the old world and start a new nation be similar to Job’s wish to have never been born?
9. Is the story of Job still pertinent today? How do you think people in other ages (uch as the Middle Ages) reacted to this story?
10. Can you place yourself in Job’s position? How would you react? Can you place yourself in the position of Job’s friends? How would you react?
11. Do you think Job’s friends were trying to help? Or were they practicing schandenfreude? Can the story of Job teach us to have compassion for others and to help others who may be suffering? Can the book of Job help us to understand others better? Can the book teach us to be better friends? Can the book of Job teach us to listen better?
12. Are you put off by Job’s God? By Job’s friends? By Job?
13. Do you think Job was ever close to rebelling and disowning God?
14. How can you reconcile the many inconsistencies in the Book of Job: Job helps God win His wager with Satan by not cursing Him, but comes very close to cursing God; after being challenged by God for speaking without knowledge, Job is vindicated by God for having spoken rightly; the final outcome of the story is much like Job’s friends predicted (recant and you will be restored) but for which they were condemned; Job shows wisdom when he complains about the unattainability of wisdom.
15. Can you compare Job to Abraham? Both argued with God. Was Job as righteous and upright and faithful as Abraham? Compare Abraham’s relationship with God to Job’s. Do you think Job was right to argue with God? Or should he have passively accepted his fate as “God’s will”? Could Job be considered a “prophet” (a prophet spoke to the people for God and vice versa). Cmpare Job to Moses, again, both argued with God.
16. In the end, God grants Job double what he lost. Do you think this is an admission by God that He was wrong for what He did to Job? A sort of “payoff”? Do you think God suffered at any time during or after Job’s ordeal? If so, what did He suffer? Do you think God learned anything from this episode? Did God grow?
17. What if Job’s complaints were actually questions about the justice of God?
18. Does the Book of Job answer the question “Is there a God”?
19. Does the book of Job imply that the existence of evil (hence suffering) proves that God exists?
20. Do you think the Book of Job provides an adequate exploration of God’s relation to humans and of the human understanding of God?
21. Can the book of Job be understood as proving the statement: “What God gives, God can take away”?
22. Do you think the book of Job makes rational sense?
23. Do you think God was vindicated in the book of Job? Is God clearer or more mysterious based on the book of Job?
24. Do you think the book of Job made a solid basis for theodicy ((a vindication of the divine attributes, particularly holiness and justice, in establishing or allowing the existence of physical and moral evil)?
25. Which of Job’s words were the result of thought and which words were the result of his grief and pain? What would be the difference in their meaning and what they revealed about Job? If you are suffering from extreme grief and pain, do you really mean what you say? Could it be the pain speaking? Is it okay to think evil thoughts if you do not speak them?
26. Why do you think there were so many rounds of arguments and counter-arguments? A disputation has a question posed, and before an argument is given for what will be a “right” answer, the strongest objections are critically analyzed; after the best objections have been heard, the correct answer to the question is presented; it is often introduced by an appeal to an authority. But the appeal to authority is often a mere formality, the disputation is won or lost on the basis of argumentation, not authority (but the authority may be reveal a truth hujman beings could not discover of validate on their own). Could the book of Job be a disputation? If so, what is the question? The providence of God? Or something else?
27. During the discussions with his friends, to whom was Job speaking? To his friends or to God?
28. Was Job right in disputing God and protesting? Or should he have simply accepted his suffering (per John Calvin)? What do you think of God’s arguments? Would they be accepted if made by a mere mortal? Or were they arguments which might have been made by a bully?
29. Do you think the world makes sense to Job? Before this episode and then afterwards?
30. Does Job believe in an afterlife? How would a belief in afterlife affect how Job reacts to and understands this episode? Do his friends believe in an afterlife?
31. What did Job learn? What did his friends learn? What did you learn?
32. Do you think God in the book of Job is a tyrant? Could you have faith in Job’s god? Could you worship Job’s god? Do you believe in Job’s god? Can you separate your god from Job’s god? If you can’t, what does that say about your belief in God? If you can, what does that say about your belief in God? Could the story of Job make someone into an atheist? How can one maintain their faith in God after reading the story of Job? How about faith in a benevolent god?
33. What would Job have done if he found God’s answer and ways unjustifiable and unacceptable? Did Job have a choice?
34. As between critics of religion and defenders of religion, which group does the book of Job legitimize?
35. Why was Job never informed of the wager between God and Satan? What do you think his relslponse would have been? Would his actions have changed had he known of the wager? What about the advice of his friends? Would the book of Job have the same impact had Job been aware of the wager?
36. Based on your understanding of the book of Job, what is your definition of “evil”?
37. What is the effect does modern science have on the story of Job?
38. How does the story of Job affect your concept of the meaning of life? Or the purpose of the universe.
39. Do you think Jesus could have mediated between Job and God? If so, what would he have said? Do you think Jesus could have settled the dispute between God and Satan without testing Job?
40. Was Job a moral person? If so, how could he justify blaming God in the way he did?
41. How could the story of Job have occurred without the existence of either God or Satan? How does the story of Job prove the existence of God?
42. Do you think the story of Job can be cited as proving that we are not entitled to happiness and success? Or that we somehow deserve happiness and success?
43. After reading the book of Job, do you think God has a purpose? If so, what is His purpose? If so, is His purpose worth all of the sacrifices made in His name?
44. Does the book of Job tell you more about God or humans?
45. Could the book of Job be read as a trial of God?
46. How has the concept of evil changed from the time the book of Job was written to today? How do you think the Biblical audience would react to today’s readings of the book?
47. How has the understanding of the entire book of Job changed from Biblical times to now? Is it at all meaningful to today’s audience?
48. How was the book of Job affected by edititing? Could it have been the product of several authors? Poets and authors? Authors with different agendas? Schools of thought? Authors from different eras?
49. Could the book of Job be read as anti-Jewish?
50. Based on the book of Job, do you think human experience is meaningless?

1. Do you think Job is patient (unable and unwilling to call God and tradition to account for the injustice and meaninglessness of his experience) or impatient (the opposite of patient)? Does your conclusion rest on which part of the text you read: the poetry or the prose?
2. Do you think Job should given in at the end? Are you satisfied with the ending? How about Job continuing to challenge God? Continuing to protest the killing of his wife and children? Challenging God’s answers? Do you think Job’s meekness and God’s non-answer answer were deliberately placed in the story to disturb the audience and generate thought and discussion by the audience?
3. Maybe the unsatifying ending is meant to spur us to pose the questions to God that Job did not[24].
4. Do you think Job mourned the loss of his first family? If so, how do you think he accommodated that mourning with God’s answers?

101. Can Job be an inspiration? How one can go on after suffering great loss. Can you find a basis for hope in the book of Job?

102. Do you think Job’s relationship with God was restored?

      103. Does the meaning of the book of Job change depending on the reader (victim, third party to a disaster, survivor, historian)?

       104. Do you think the story of Job is applicable to non-Christian or non-Jewish  people, such as in the Congo?

      105. Do you think there is any overarching interpretation for the story of Job?

      106. What advice would you give Job?

      107. Do you think Job’s story has ended?

---

^[1] The story of Job is taken from Barnes’ Notes On The Old & New Testaments edited by Robert Frew (Grand Rapids, MI, Baker Book House, 1980 hardback)). See the painting “Job” by James Daugherty.

^[2] It may be that the evil nature attributed to Satan as we now know him came from the King James Bible.

^[3] As will be shown below, Satan was successful in this endeavor.

[4] The Hebrew Bible has very few descriptions of Satan. Probably in the late 3rd century B.C.E., the Book of the Watchers (now part of

[the Apocryphal book of 1 Enoch) describes evil angels who descended to earth
to mate with human women, and here we find such later infamous names as Azazel.
These are clearly associated with the coming of evil to the earth, a curse
cured by the Great Flood. Also in the late 3rd century, the Book of Tobit
features the evil and destructive angel Asmodeus, who was defeated by one of
God’s own archangels, Raphael. Tobit is somewhat similar to Job in that he
suffers, but the Book of Tobit differs from the Book of Job in that in the Book
of Job, it is an individual who suffers; whereas, in the Book of Tobit, more
than one individual suffers (Tobit is blinded and his distant relative, Sarah,
is the victim of an evil demon). A few decades later, the Enochian mythology
also appears in the Book of Jubilees, where Mastema (Hostility) fills a role
very close to that of the later Satan. Mastema, in fact, is a transitional
figure between the divine servant found in Job and the cosmic adversary of the
Christian Bible.