The book of Job

[tttallison]

Yes, we agree Job had not sinned against God prior to the first test. Also, neither had Job sinned prior to the second test either. God states Job's suffering is "without cause" (Job 2:3) --- meaning Job had not committed any sin to incur his suffering. So if he had not sinned prior to the first test --- and he passed --- then neither had he sinned prior to the second test.


God calls Job blameless and upright, one who fears God and shuns evil in Job 1:8 (as does the author of the book, by the way, in Job 1:1) prior to the first test. Then in Job 2:3 God describes Job's character in this same way again prior to the second test. Yes, in Job 2:3 God references Job's response after the first test --- but the context in which God says it is as a precursor to the second test, not strictly as a review of Job's reaction post his first test.

So unless there was a third test or another scene in heaven, it follows there would be no commentary from God about Job's response. That's how the story is written. It seems you are trying to use the absence of God speaking here at this point as some kind of proof Job had failed, but it literarily and logically makes no sense. It's like a bizarre bending of the story to achieve a preconceived conclusion.


Yes, Job did pass the second test. How do we know? Because Job did not curse God to His face as satan falsely predicted.

The overall point of these recent exchanges here in this chat was in response to your reference to Elihu's words in Job 33:23-28. The whole argument between Job and his 3 friends was about Job having sinned or not to incur his suffering. So when Elihu comes into the conversation, his assessment is effectively the same thing, as we find in the verses you mentioned. Here they are again:

Job 33:25-28
25 His flesh shall be fresher than a child's: he shall return to the days of his youth:
26 He shall pray unto God, and he will be favourable unto him: and he shall see his face with joy: for he will render unto man his righteousness.
27 He looketh upon men, and if any say, I have sinned, and perverted that which was right, and it profited me not;
28 He will deliver his soul from going into the pit, and his life shall see the light.

Elihu's viewpoint --- like Job's 3 friends --- is that Job had sinned to incur his suffering and that Job should confess his sin. We know Job's 3 friends were wrong, and we also know by his statement here, for example, that Elihu is also wrong. Just because Elihu says things that sound right does not mean his ideas are being applied correctly to Job and Job's ordeal.

The story is not about whether or not you believe Job sinned after the tests. The premise of the arguments in the story are regarding if Job had sinned prior to his suffering.

Elihu believes that Job has sinned from the outset. It is a foregone conclusion for him. Elihu does not even consider the fact that Job had not sinned. Elihu trying to coerce Job then to confess his "sin" is an attempt to manipulate Job into committing an error and forsake his integrity. If Job were to confess he had sinned (when he had not) would itself be a sin. This appears to be Elihu's goal, and likely why Job rightfully ignores him.

You have based your entire understanding of the book of Job on two phrases. One being Job was blameless, and the other that he was upright. What is the real meaning of these two phrases?

You previously made this statement----("Yeah, you've made this point before, comparing Job to Saul. However, Saul was actively responsible for murdering Christians. Did you forget that part? Not exactly "blameless and upright" was he?")

I would contend that Saul/Paul was blameless in the eyes of God, for Paul was ignorant and without knowledge, just as Job was without knowledge.

Paul said, Phl 3:6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.

Paul said that he desired Israel to be saved, and though they had a zeal for God it was without knowledge, and in going about to establish their own righteousness had not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God. (Paul like Israel was without knowledge, and Paul was thus held not accountable to God, even though he had Jews murdered for accepting Christ, but he was required to repent.

Act 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: (Paul was saying the Greeks were not being held accountable for worshiping false Gods, but they needed to repent, just as Job did in the end.)

If you came to realize that one could be called blameless and upright, even while doing things we would consider entirely evil, then you would no longer have to force the book of Job to fit your theology.

You would no longer have to make excuses for Job condemning God. You would no longer have to say that God would give six entire chapters of the bible to a liar. You would no longer have to say that the three friends lied about Job. You would no longer have to say the spirit that spoke to Eliphaz was a lying spirit. You would then understand why God said Job was striving with God. You would then understand what God meant when he said to Job, "Will you condemn me that you might be righteous?" You would then understand why Job said he was vile and abhorred himself.

 

[JayWalker]

I would contend that Saul/Paul was blameless in the eyes of God

Only after he got born again.

Before he got born again he knew the command "thou shalt not do murder" so he knew killing people in cold blood was sinful.

There's no way he did not know murdering Christians was wrong before the Lord.

Paul said, Phl 3:6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.

Yes, in his own opinion of himself.

This does not excuse him from murdering people.

Greeks were not being held accountable for worshiping false Gods, but they needed to repent, just as Job did in the end

If they were not being held accountable then there would be no need for them to repent

 

[christophernyc]

You have based your entire understanding of the book of Job on two phrases. One being Job was blameless, and the other that he was upright. What is the real meaning of these two phrases?

No. Not sure what your calculus is for determining how other people understand things, but your perception of mine is incorrect. There are many things to inform my understanding of the book of Job, not just two phrases. The reason these phrases may have been emphasized is because other commentators seem to try and skirt these points and conduct some kind of work-around of them in their interpretation. Then I've seen these same commentators insert things into the story which do not exist in the text while ignoring things that are in the text as if they do not matter.

You previously made this statement----("Yeah, you've made this point before, comparing Job to Saul. However, Saul was actively responsible for murdering Christians. Did you forget that part? Not exactly "blameless and upright" was he?")

I would contend that Saul/Paul was blameless in the eyes of God, for Paul was ignorant and without knowledge, just as Job was without knowledge. Paul said, Phl 3:6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.

You think that Saul was blameless in the eyes of God?? Please tell me you're not serious. So you believe Saul was unaware of the commandment "thou shall not kill"? Really??

Also, as pointed out before, when Saul is acclaimed to be "blameless" it is something that comes from his own mouth. It does not come from the mouth of God, like it does with Job. Completely and utterly different.

I think this is now (at least) the third time when we read a redirection in your response away from the topic at hand. The argument was clearly laid out how Elihu was wrong about the premise of Job's ordeal, and for some reason you have not acknowledged that reality. Instead, what we find is a change of topic and a retreat into and repeat of entrenched talking points. I'm guessing then that you have no response to the substance of the last post? Do you see how Elihu is wrong?

Look, I know you are committed to your ideas, but what I found helpful for me when studying this book, was digging into the details of what is actually written in it. When Elihu gets things wrong --- like he does in Job 33:27-28, for example --- it should give the reader pause. He has other errors like this one as well.

Would love to address the other points in your post, but it can be very difficult if the focus shifts and there are sudden redirects to other topics without settling the one at hand. Kinda like trying to nail jello to the wall.

 

[reneweddaybyday]

The overall point of these recent exchanges here in this chat was in response to your reference to Elihu's words in Job 33:23-28. The whole argument between Job and his 3 friends was about Job having sinned or not to incur his suffering. So when Elihu comes into the conversation, his assessment is effectively the same thing

this is true ... all of them (Job included) believed Job had sinned and needed to repent. Job asked God to tell him what sin he had committed so that he could repent and have his fellowship with God restored.

Job was an upright man (Job 1:8; Job 2:3). Job would have repented if God would have told him he needed to repent.

.

 

[tttallison]

Only after he got born again.

Before he got born again he knew the command "thou shalt not do murder" so he knew killing people in cold blood was sinful.

There's no way he did not know murdering Christians was wrong before the Lord.


Yes, in his own opinion of himself.

This does not excuse him from murdering people.


If they were not being held accountable then there would be no need for them to repent

Blameless and justification are two different things.

Paul did not murder anyone according to the law, and in fact Saul/Paul was keeping the law by having followers of Christ killed.

Deu 13:6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;

Deu 13:7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;

Deu 13:8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:

Deu 13:9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

Deu 13:10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.

Act 22:3 I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.

Remember that God told the Jews over and over again to keep the commandments. Paul understood that there was one God, as did all Jews. There is only one verse in the bible, that I know of, that refers to the Messiah as being God, and that is Isaiah 9:6..

Paul was extremely fervent for the law, having sat under Gamaliel, the top professor of his time, in the study of the law. Paul was so devout that he was declared blameless.

If you get to pick and choose which words of Paul are true, then it would seem obvious that you don't believe the bible to be inspired by God.

 

[tttallison]

No. Not sure what your calculus is for determining how other people understand things, but your perception of mine is incorrect. There are many things to inform my understanding of the book of Job, not just two phrases. The reason these phrases may have been emphasized is because other commentators seem to try and skirt these points and conduct some kind of work-around of them in their interpretation. Then I've seen these same commentators insert things into the story which do not exist in the text while ignoring things that are in the text as if they do not matter.


You think that Saul was blameless in the eyes of God?? Please tell me you're not serious. So you believe Saul was unaware of the commandment "thou shall not kill"? Really??

Also, as pointed out before, when Saul is acclaimed to be "blameless" it is something that comes from his own mouth. It does not come from the mouth of God, like it does with Job. Completely and utterly different.

I think this is now (at least) the third time when we read a redirection in your response away from the topic at hand. The argument was clearly laid out how Elihu was wrong about the premise of Job's ordeal, and for some reason you have not acknowledged that reality. Instead, what we find is a change of topic and a retreat into and repeat of entrenched talking points. I'm guessing then that you have no response to the substance of the last post? Do you see how Elihu is wrong?

Look, I know you are committed to your ideas, but what I found helpful for me when studying this book, was digging into the details of what is actually written in it. When Elihu gets things wrong --- like he does in Job 33:27-28, for example --- it should give the reader pause. He has other errors like this one as well.

Would love to address the other points in your post, but it can be very difficult if the focus shifts and there are sudden redirects to other topics without settling the one at hand. Kinda like trying to nail jello to the wall.

What did Elihu have wrong in Job 33:27-28?

 

[reneweddaybyday]

Paul did not murder anyone according to the law, and in fact Saul/Paul was keeping the law by having followers of Christ killed.

Acts 9:1-2 And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest, And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, thatif he found any of this way, whether they were men or women,he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.

The word "slaughter" is translated from the Greek word phónos which means murder (intentional, unjustified homicide) – HELPS Word-studies.

Matthew 15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders [Greek = phónos], adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies

Mark 15:7 And there was one named Barabbas, which lay bound with them that had made insurrection with him, who had committed murder [Greek = phónos] in the insurrection.

Romans 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder [Greek = phónos], debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers

Galatians 5:21 Envyings, murders [Greek = phónos], drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Revelation 9:21 Neither repented they of their murders [Greek = phónos], nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts.

Thankfully, Paul repented (Rev 9:21) so he will inherit the kingdom of God (Gal 5:21).

.

 

[christophernyc]

What did Elihu have wrong in Job 33:27-28?

I wrote several posts in response to yours explaining it. Did you read them?

 

[tttallison]

I wrote several posts in response to yours explaining it. Did you read them?

All you did was bring us back to "Job was blameless and upright", and I have responded that blameless and upright does not equate to justification. Paul was blameless and upright, but he did not have knowledge of God, the same as Job did not have knowledge of God.

Job said, Job 9:24 The earth is given into the hand of the wicked: he covereth the faces of the judges thereof; if not, where, and who is he? In this verse Job charges God with being unjust, and questions who God is.

I also presented Ezekiel 3:20, which says when a righteous man sins he is no longer righteous, and he shall die in his sins.

You must believe that reproving God is not a sin.

You have refrained from responding to how God could give a man six chapters of God's bible to write lies. If God would do that in the book of Job, how many other books and chapters in the bible are full of lies?

 

[tttallison]

this is true ... all of them (Job included) believed Job had sinned and needed to repent. Job asked God to tell him what sin he had committed so that he could repent and have his fellowship with God restored.

Job was an upright man (Job 1:8; Job 2:3). Job would have repented if God would have told him he needed to repent.

.

God had told Job, for God spoke to Job in visions in the night.

 

[christophernyc]

All you did was bring us back to "Job was blameless and upright", and I have responded that blameless and upright does not equate to justification. Paul was blameless and upright, but he did not have knowledge of God, the same as Job did not have knowledge of God.

Job said, Job 9:24 The earth is given into the hand of the wicked: he covereth the faces of the judges thereof; if not, where, and who is he? In this verse Job charges God with being unjust, and questions who God is.

I also presented Ezekiel 3:20, which says when a righteous man sins he is no longer righteous, and he shall die in his sins.

You must believe that reproving God is not a sin.

You have refrained from responding to how God could give a man six chapters of God's bible to write lies. If God would do that in the book of Job, how many other books and chapters in the bible are full of lies?

No I addressed the verses you first referenced in Job 33:23-28. You have not responded to those explanations at all and instead keep redirecting to other points.

Sorry, mischaracterizing what I have written (which anyone can read) comes across to me as very dishonest.

So after multiple attempts to address the substance of these recent posts, specifically what was addressed in Job 33:23-28, I can only conclude you cannot address it or you simply will not address it because it proves Elihu is wrong. Whether you agree with that or not doesn't really matter because you've already helped to prove that point. Thank you.

 

[tttallison]

No I addressed the verses you first referenced in Job 33:23-28. You have not responded to those explanations at all and instead keep redirecting to other points.

Sorry, mischaracterizing what I have written (which anyone can read) comes across to me as very dishonest.

So after multiple attempts to address the substance of these recent posts, specifically what was addressed in Job 33:23-28, I can only conclude you cannot address it or you simply will not address it because it proves Elihu is wrong. Whether you agree with that or not doesn't really matter because you've already helped to prove that point. Thank you.

The only explanation that I understand you to put forth, in regards to Elihu and Job 33:23-28, was that Job was blameless and upright, and I addressed that.

It would seem you have accomplished what you are accusing me of having done, which is not responding to your points. You have never responded to why God would give 6 chapters of the book of Job to a liar, and if God did give six chapters to Elihu to write what ever he desired to write, how that would affect the rest of the writers of the various books, and of the sincerity and honesty of the entire Bible.

 

[tttallison]

this is true ... all of them (Job included) believed Job had sinned and needed to repent. Job asked God to tell him what sin he had committed so that he could repent and have his fellowship with God restored.

Job was an upright man (Job 1:8; Job 2:3). Job would have repented if God would have told him he needed to repent.

.

I don't believe I adequately responded to this post.

God told Job in Job chapter 41 what Job's sin was. God told Job his sin was pride, when God asked Job if he was going to make a permanent contract with the king over all the children of pride.

Job 41:4 Will he make a covenant with thee? wilt thou take him for a servant for ever?
Job 41:34 He beholdeth all high things: he is a king over all the children of pride.

And yes, Job did repent afterwards.

 

[reneweddaybyday]

God had told Job, for God spoke to Job in visions in the night.

chapter and verse please.

.

 

[reneweddaybyday]

God told Job in Job chapter 41 what Job's sin was. God told Job his sin was pride, when God asked Job if he was going to make a permanent contract with the king over all the children of pride.

Job 41:4 Will he make a covenant with thee? wilt thou take him for a servant for ever?
Job 41:34 He beholdeth all high things: he is a king over all the children of pride.

And yes, Job did repent afterwards.

In Job 41, God described leviathan ... a great and mighty creature.

In vs 4, God asked "will he (leviathan) make a covenant with thee (Job)?"

Can you make covenant with a wild creature, tttallison? We have domesticated animals as pets, but they still react according to their instincts in certain circumstances. As much as we love our pets (dogs or cats, etc.), they will still react as animals when threatened.

Job could not covenant with leviathan to the point where leviathan would serve Job. leviathan could never be trained like his oxen plowing his fields (Job 1:14).


In vs 34, God is still speaking of leviathan ... not Job. You and I are not in agreement on this point.

.

 

[tttallison]

chapter and verse please.

.

Job 7:14Then thou scarest me with dreams, and terrifiest me through visions:

Job 33:14-16 For God speaketh once, yea twice, yet man perceiveth it not. In a dream, in a vision of the night, when deep sleep falleth upon men, in slumberings upon the bed; Then he openeth the ears of men, and sealeth their instruction,

Gen 46:2 And God spake unto Israel in the visions of the night, and said, Jacob, Jacob. And he said, Here am I.

 

[tttallison]

In Job 41, God described leviathan ... a great and mighty creature.

In vs 4, God asked "will he (leviathan) make a covenant with thee (Job)?"

Can you make covenant with a wild creature, tttallison? We have domesticated animals as pets, but they still react according to their instincts in certain circumstances. As much as we love our pets (dogs or cats, etc.), they will still react as animals when threatened.

Job could not covenant with leviathan to the point where leviathan would serve Job. leviathan could never be trained like his oxen plowing his fields (Job 1:14).


In vs 34, God is still speaking of leviathan ... not Job. You and I are not in agreement on this point.

.

My understanding of Job in chapter 41 is That God (First person) is speaking to Job (Second person) about leviathan (Third person) for all 34 verses. Is this your understanding as well?

Is the serpent in the garden of Eden Satan?

Isa 27:1 In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea.

 

[christophernyc]

The only explanation that I understand you to put forth, in regards to Elihu and Job 33:23-28, was that Job was blameless and upright, and I addressed that.

Job 33:25-28
25 His flesh shall be fresher than a child's: he shall return to the days of his youth:
26 He shall pray unto God, and he will be favourable unto him: and he shall see his face with joy: for he will render unto man his righteousness.
27 He looketh upon men, and if any say, I have sinned, and perverted that which was right, and it profited me not;
28 He will deliver his soul from going into the pit, and his life shall see the light.

The arguments between Job and his friends regard them believing Job sinned to incur his suffering. That is the crux of their arguments. Then Elihu barges in and bases his accusations against Job with this same reasoning, as exemplified here in the verses you referenced.

Every single reader knows chapters 1 & 2 lay out exactly why Job is suffering --- and it's not due to him having committed any sin.

Job's friends were wrong and were rebuked by God for it. For the same reason, Elihu is also wrong. Do you see?

 

[christophernyc]

It would seem you have accomplished what you are accusing me of having done, which is not responding to your points. You have never responded to why God would give 6 chapters of the book of Job to a liar, and if God did give six chapters to Elihu to write what ever he desired to write, how that would affect the rest of the writers of the various books, and of the sincerity and honesty of the entire Bible.

We can move on to your other points, gladly. It must be pointed out that it did not seem to me there was an adequate explanation from you regarding Job 33:23-28, only assertions.

Anyway, regarding your God giving 6 chapters to Elihu point. This has been addressed by me (for you specifically) in other threads, but here it is again since I know this is one of your talking points.

First of all, you do not believe this logic. How do I know? Because you have consistently condemned Job for his words. Yes, Elihu speaks for 6 chapters, but guess what? Job speaks for 20 chapters. So by your own reasoning, you do not believe this position.

At any rate, what I have explained (specifically to you) before is that the amount of words is not the issue --- it's the substance and the context of those words that matter.

Additionally, this book is written quite differently than most other books of the Bible. The overwhelming majority of the text is dialogue --- entities speaking to each other --- for most of the 42 chapters. So the amount of speeches for everyone is measurably higher than other books of the Bible.

Have you ever heard this saying? It's easier to deceive someone than it is to convince someone they've been deceived?

Do you remember when Jesus was tempted in the wilderness?

Matthew 4:5-7
5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple, 6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. 7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

Notice anything? The devil is quoting Scripture --- and he's quoting it accurately. By your reasoning then, you might be inclined to say the devil is promoting the Gospel or something. But here is the point: it's not about the words only --- it's about the substance and the context in which the words are said.

Now apply that to Elihu.

This is at least the second or third time I've made this same exact point for you, so if you insist again it's not been addressed, then it comes across as nothing but crazy-making.

 

[tttallison]

Job 33:25-28
25 His flesh shall be fresher than a child's: he shall return to the days of his youth:
26 He shall pray unto God, and he will be favourable unto him: and he shall see his face with joy: for he will render unto man his righteousness.
27 He looketh upon men, and if any say, I have sinned, and perverted that which was right, and it profited me not;
28 He will deliver his soul from going into the pit, and his life shall see the light.

The arguments between Job and his friends regard them believing Job sinned to incur his suffering. That is the crux of their arguments. Then Elihu barges in and bases his accusations against Job with this same reasoning, as exemplified here in the verses you referenced.

Every single reader knows chapters 1 & 2 lay out exactly why Job is suffering --- and it's not due to him having committed any sin.

Job's friends were wrong and were rebuked by God for it. For the same reason, Elihu is also wrong. Do you see?

My point has been that your complete defense for stating that Elihu was a liar is based on your mis-interpretation of God's statement that Job was blameless and upright. You did not consider that Job had requested Elihu the mediator twice, and that God answered that request, and that Elihu stated he was the mediator that Job requested, and that he stood in the place of God. Job had stated that God would not be a fair mediator, and that was the reason for Job's request for a man such as Elihu. A man that Job would not be afraid of.

The definition for blameless was that God was not holding Job accountable for the sin he did in ignorance because he was without knowledge. An example would be how the law interprets ignorance. It did not mean that he hadn't done terrible sins.

Num 15:28 And the priest shall make an atonement for the soul that sinneth ignorantly, when he sinneth by ignorance before the LORD, to make an atonement for him; and it shall be forgiven him. (Notice that only the sins done in ignorance are atoned for. Also, I recognize that Job was not under Jewish law, for Job was not a Jew.)

1Pe 1:14 As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance: (Job's former sins were done in ignorance.)

Sins such as Eliphaz presented. Job 22:9 Thou hast sent widows away empty, and the arms of the fatherless have been broken. (God did not hold Job accountable for this since it was done in ignorance. This is an example of blameless.

We see in the above verse how upright could be defined. Job had said, Job 29:14 I put on righteousness, and it clothed me: my judgment was as a robe and a diadem. Job had said, he sat chief and dwelt as a king. Job was applying his own justice, his own righteousness. Job had probably judged those widows to not be worthy. But here is the problem, it wasn't God's justice that Job was applying, but rather his own justice. God had said to Job, Job 40:8 Will you also disannul my judgment? will you condemn me, that you may be righteous?

You are mis-stating what God had said about the three friends. God had never said that the three friends had said anything wrong about Job. God had said, they had not spoken what was right about God. In other words they were to repent and confess their sins. This is what Elihu said when he made the following statement, Job 32:3 Also against his three friends was his wrath kindled, because they had found no answer, and yet had condemned Job. The answer was that Job had to repent and confess his sins, which is exactly what he did, before God accepted him.