What is the Message of the Book of Job?

[yoda89]

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Stop whining ...

... and go to post #75 and tell me if this is the plaint of a person who "goes through perils but never gives up because of his determination."

I never said Job didn't get discouraged. That's not the point of the story. The book of Job shows that even the most pious and righteous of people can be broken down when everything they value is taken away. While I disagree with the guy's statement, I don't see the need to be a prick about it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I never said Job didn't get discouraged.

I was unclear. The reference was to the following exchange ...

Throughout the book the main character Job goes through perils but never gives up because of his determination. ...

Just what comic book are you reading?

By the start of chapter 3 (the beginning of the Job poetry) we read ...

Afterward, Job opened his mouth and cursed his day. And Job spoke up and said:

Annul the day that I was born

and the night that said, "A man is conceived."​

That day, let it be darkness.

Let God above not seek it out,

nor brightness shine upon it.​

Let darkness, death's shadow, foul it,

let a cloud-mass rest upon it,

let day gloom dismiss it.​

That night, let murk overtake it.

Let it not join in the days of the year,

let it not enter the number of months.​

Oh, let that night be barren,

let it have no song of joy.​

Let the day-cursers hex it,

those ready to rouse Leviathan.​

Let its twilight stars go dark.

Let it hope for day in vain,

and let it not see the eyelids of dawn.​

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

... and my "condescending superior attitude" is, rather, frustration and contempt for intellectually irresponsible intransigence in the face of readily available evidence.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I thought the message was always ish happens, don't complain about it cause you don't know why.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The message is more than the answer.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

The message is more than the answer.

Could it be looked at as a rebuttal to the culture of the time? There have been people who argue that the rise of monotheism in Israel was due to that when they lost wars the Israelites would not look at it as their God being weak but them being flawed and they would turn internally to see what they did wrong.

In Job though it seems to indicate that there wasn't anything wrong that he had done persay. But just that things happen and it's all under gods control

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Could it be looked at as a rebuttal to the culture of the time?

Or ...

Job is a brilliant parable that clearly challenged the core theology found in books such as Amos, Hosea, and Lamentations. That it would be included in our biblical anthology - the Tanakh - demonstrates remarkable intellectual integrity.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Or ...

​

So why it would it be included? For instance some have take James to he a rebuttal to Paul's epistles but why include it, if it challenges the common thought?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The Talmud is awash in counterposed positions. We have the traditions of Hillel and Shammai, of Akiva and Ishmael. We consider it a strength.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

The Talmud is awash in counterposed positions. We have the traditions of Hillel and Shammai, of Akiva and Ishmael. We consider it a strength.

So how would it help one get closer to God? I ask because many see holy texts or divine text as Gods word and infallible in every sense. From you posts I can see you don't necessarily believe that, but how do others who follow Judaism view it?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

That is an extremely good question but one which is, in my opinion, not relevant to this this thread.

 

[Awoon]

You do not understand. Job serves, in great part, as a polemic against a theology that suggests that disaster is a reflection of God's punishment.

<rant>

Why the hell don't people read the damn book ...

and think ...

before presuming to explain it?
​

</rant>

Best explanation for Job.:yes:

 

[Thief]

I understand Job believed it was God's prerogative to cause disaster. Where does he finally admit it was punishment? Please.

In the constant retort....the Lord gives the Lord takes away.

When all is lost Job turns to prayer asking why.

In believing that God is the source of all action he would believe it would be his Lord,
doing all of the taking.

Recent postings indicate a loss of focus.
It was not Job proving himself.
It was not God testing His servant.

It was the devil attempting to present himself....greater than Job.
(see preamble of the text)

 

[Muffled]

If God had not restored Job's prosperity and life in the end, would the meaning of the story to you be significantly changed?

I believe He would have received his reward in the next life.

 

[Muffled]

I thught it was really sweet when God replaced the kids Satan had taken from him.

I believe it isn't so great that He left him with the same wife, lol.

 

[Muffled]

That was the role that God had given Satan, even in the end God takes credit for these things happening. It's amazing how people have twisted what was once a servant of God inclusive to Gods will into some deity who holds contempt for God. There is nothing in the book of Job that shows that Satan's role is what we now consider it.

I see Job as a book that allows humans to ask questions. While Job did not curse God and Die, he did as why, and God gave him a response.

I believe the response was basicly if you don't know what you are talking about you should shut up.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

How do you interpret Job?

Karma.

When asked why Job had to suffer, the answer is 'nor reason'.

In the beginning of the story Job makes an animal sacrifice just in case one of his children sins.
So essentially the animal is sacrificed for 'no reason'.
Thus all of Job's sacrifices are also for no reason.
Job brings on his suffering through his own overzealous actions.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Job is a brilliant parable that clearly challenged the core theology found in books such as Amos, Hosea, and Lamentations. That it would be included in our biblical anthology - the Tanakh - demonstrates remarkable intellectual integrity.

I am now looking at this to find contrasts to glimpse this challenge to core theology you've mentioned. Lamentations appears to be in tune with Hosea and Amos overall. I venture to guess that they are all in agreement on the core theology, and Job is the one that is different from them.

Looking at Hosea 4:6 "...my people are destroyed for lack of knowledge..." whereas Job learns a lesson that seems contrary: "Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know..." (Job 42:3) That does appear contrary. Job experiences disaster despite his excellent behavior, while Hosea describes disaster as a result of bad behavior. So Hosea is suggesting that bad behavior brings about disaster, but Job is suggesting that disaster comes and goes without any explanation.

Amos says that nothing happens that the prophets don't see coming first (Amos 3:7), but contrarily Job's problems come without warning. Amos believes strongly in reciprocity for his nation's failings. Job's friends believe this, but they are set straight at the end of the book Job and made to take back their statements.

 

[Muffled]

Karma.

When asked why Job had to suffer, the answer is 'nor reason'.

In the beginning of the story Job makes an animal sacrifice just in case one of his children sins.
So essentially the animal is sacrificed for 'no reason'.
Thus all of Job's sacrifices are also for no reason.
Job brings on his suffering through his own overzealous actions.

I believe that has a decent rationale but I would venture that the sin is by sacrificing Job is trying to preempt God's judgement. God doesn't like to have people trying to replace Him.

 

[Muffled]

I am now looking at this to find contrasts to glimpse this challenge to core theology you've mentioned. Lamentations appears to be in tune with Hosea and Amos overall. I venture to guess that they are all in agreement on the core theology, and Job is the one that is different from them.

Looking at Hosea 4:6 "...my people are destroyed for lack of knowledge..." whereas Job learns a lesson that seems contrary: "Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know..." (Job 42:3) That does appear contrary. Job experiences disaster despite his excellent behavior, while Hosea describes disaster as a result of bad behavior. So Hosea is suggesting that bad behavior brings about disaster, but Job is suggesting that disaster comes and goes without any explanation.

Amos says that nothing happens that the prophets don't see coming first (Amos 3:7), but contrarily Job's problems come without warning. Amos believes strongly in reciprocity for his nation's failings. Job's friends believe this, but they are set straight at the end of the book Job and made to take back their statements.

I believe I don't agree. I believe what it is saying is that in Job's case there was another explanation and that was that evil pursued Job no matter how well he acted and perhaps even because he acted well. This is true in the world. I have had people try to drag me down to their level of degradation.

I believe this is false reasoning. A general statement does not necessarily lead to a particular instance. I believe the nothing that Job is talking about is distinctive and not general ie it represents what God is doing that a prophet can hear God say that He is doing it. So if there is no prophet around that does not mean God isn't acting only that He isn't communicating with His people.