S
Sean77
Guest
He is justified the way we always have been: by faith.
- Status
G
Gorgias
Guest
Hmm. He literally converses with God, challenging His justice, and then backs off when God reminds him “I’m God and you’re not.” I think I would characterize that as “by overwhelming force of argument” more than simply “faith.”
W
wkj_123
Guest
S
Sean77
Guest
The beginning of the book shows Job even offering sacrifices to cover his children if that had perhaps cursed God in their hearts. Satan challenges God that if he removes his blessing from Job, Job would curse him to his face. After the great calamity even Job’s wife told him to curse God that his suffering might be ended by his death. Yet Job never does so. He questions why God has removed his blessing asking God to bring charges against him if he is guilty, saying he will bear the penalty, but he doesn’t curse God. Job, even while questioning God, maintains his faith and is vindicated by God. And when God answers out of the storm showing his great wisdom through the various points of creation, Job wisely accepts that God is right in his actions. So yes, I think there is ample evidence for his justification by faith in this book.
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
You mentioned something earlier in the thread about Job and the “sacrificial system”, to which I didn’t respond. In light of this week’s Gospel, I wanted to add that sacrifices aren’t what God requires of all the world – in the time of Job, only the Hebrews were “His chosen people”, and so, it would seem, it wouldn’t matter if a non-Jew offered sacrifice. So, I’m not sure that Job’s sacrifices – viewed within the constraints of the original, intended audience – would have been considered sufficient to render him ‘righteous’. It’s an interesting discussion, though…!
Right. After all, the moral system of the day went something like this: “if you do good, God will reward you. If you do evil, God will punish you. So, if you’re being punished, then that means…”
That’s an interesting assertion! The notion of ‘vindication’ is the notion of having a ‘savior’ – that is, a goel – a redeemer who saves you from unjust oppression and slavery.
Now, in 21st century English-language context, ‘vindication’ speaks to restoration from injustice, but in the original context of the culture of the time of Job, it really just speaks to rescue. We really can’t get too deep into the assertion of rescue from injustice, can we? After all, in the context of Job, that would mean that God is rescuing Job from God’s injustice to him! (This is doubly poignant, given that Job accuses God of treating him poorly when he is truly innocent!)
Tellingly, God never addresses Job’s assertions of causal relationships between human action and (seemingly divinely ordained) negative experiences on earth. Rather, God just points out to Job that he doesn’t see the whole picture in the way that God does.
So, how do we understand the conclusion of the Book of Job? Job isn’t rewarded because he is just… but because God is just. Job has questioned God’s justice, but not cursed Him, and as a result, God’s judgment – as revealed by Him to Satan at the beginning of the book – is seen to be true: the people of God are called to love Him, regardless of the experiences of this life on earth.
Job isn’t ‘vindicated’ by God – since that would mean that he’s redeemed by God against injustice by God! – but he is loved by God. Job isn’t ‘righteous’, per se – after all, who can be said to be righteous when he claims that God unjustly punishes him!!! – but Job is loved and given the reward God gives His people. This fits well within the context of Catholic doctrine – even those who are not explicitly members of God’s people (as Job, who is not Hebrew, is not!), may receive God’s mercy and ultimately, salvation!
K
kainosktisis
Guest
Hard as it is for our moderns - who seem to think that there are no consequences to their actions, sin has consequences - not just for the individual, but also for the community. David thought he could conceal the sins of adultery, fathering a child out of wedlock from an adulterous relationship - AND - he had Uriah (Bathsheba’s husband) murdered, Bathsheba’s husband to hide his sins. By his own words, he deserved great punishment - personal loss & exposure of his sins. AND - he would suffer from seeing the chaos unleashed upon his family from more sinful behavior that was to come.
W
wkj_123
Guest
What are you talking about? You think it’s right for God to torture and kill a baby because it’s dad did bad things? What a terrible outlook. How is making a kid suffer and die a “consequence” of David’s sin? A god that does that isn’t worthy of worship in my opinion. You have to take the moral high road and not worship a god like that.
Last edited:
G
guanophore
Guest
This is true, but it does not negate the fact that people do suffer because of their own sins, and the sins of their ancestors.
If this were true, the OT would not clearly state that each person suffers because of their own sins.
This seems to reflect an attitude about God that He is vindictive and punitive.
God is our Creator, so He gets to have the say in our life, and our death.
The truth is that you do not have all the information about why this innocent soul had to suffer, and it was not “all because his dad did bad things”, though you are right, his dad did do bad things.
Sickness and death of human beings is the result of the Fall, not because God “tortures and kills babies” . You seem to have a very warped perception of God.
A
Arkansan
Guest
Where does it say that?
G
guanophore
Guest
K
kainosktisis
Guest
Do you think that it was right for King David - who knew & was to uphold the moral law - to flout it - to do as he pleased - to try to hide all he’d done - first by trying to get Uriah to sleep with his wife to try to hide her pregnancy by adultery with him - & then when Uriah didn’t - had him bumped off & took his pregnant widow for himself?
Last edited:
K
kainosktisis
Guest
I think perhaps the poster may be referring to the verses regarding individual sin vs generational sins cited here:
W
wkj_123
Guest
Absolutely not. David did a terrible thing. God also did a terrible thing. Both of them were in the wrong.
K
kainosktisis
Guest
How do you figure God did any wrong?
W
wkj_123
Guest
He murdered an infant. Not only killed the baby but made sure it suffered first. He killed this baby because the baby’s dad did something wrong. I’m not sure where you live but in the U.S. we frown upon torturing and murdering the infant children of criminals. That’s not God’s only crime eithier. I can show you many times if needed where God has ordered the wholesale slaughter of men women and children. He is definitely good at the murdering women and children thing, it’s just not my cup of tea I guess.
K
kainosktisis
Guest
We here in the US are observably a schizophrenic nation then in that while many will say this act is morally corrupt to do such a thing to a child, yet this same crowd would not have a problem tearing out & ripping children to pieces by the millions out of their mothers’ wombs. But this only diverts us from the topic on hand.
Do you believe yourself to be morally superior to God, Who is eternal, omniscient, omnipresent, Holy, righteous, just, merciful, etc.?
Do you believe yourself to be morally superior to God, Who is eternal, omniscient, omnipresent, Holy, righteous, just, merciful, etc.?
A
angel12
Guest
But your profile says you’re an atheist. If you don’t believe God exists, then you can’t accuse Him of doing anything at all.
W
wkj_123
Guest
You keep pointing out everyone else’s wrongs but avoiding God’s. Yes abortion is evil I agree. What does that have to do with God killing David’s baby?
To the God described in the Bible? Yes absolutely. I’m sure you are morally superior to the God in the Bible as well, you just would never admit it. God does many things in the Bible I don’t think I would ever do.
W
wkj_123
Guest
I’m speaking in the framework of if he did exist.
W
wkj_123
Guest
And these are definitely not accusations. God has freely confessed to his killings.
- Status