Was Job sinless according to scripture?

[ElCid]

Do the following verses prove that Job is sinless according to scripture? Wouldn’t this be an exception to Rom 3:23 that all have sinned?

1 In the land of Uz there lived a man whose name was Job. This man was blameless and upright; he feared God and shunned evil. Job 1:1

8 Then the LORD said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil.” Job 1:8

'I am pure and without sin; I am clean and free from guilt. Job 33:9

I would like to hear the Catholic perspective on this. Thank you.

 

[Todd_Easton]

On Job 33:9, A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, edited by Dom Bernard Orchard M.A., published by Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1953, on page 437, says:
9 is not a quotation of Job’s words. The same accusation had been made against him by Sophar (11:4). He had admitted ordinary human sinfulness (7:21; 13:26). He denies wickedness which would merit his sufferings (9:20; 10:7; 13:18; 16:18).

 

[Contarini]

Do the following verses prove that Job is sinless according to scripture? Wouldn’t this be an exception to Rom 3:23 that all have sinned?.

First of all, I see no reason to think that Job was intended as a work of history. I think it’s a work of literature building on a hypothetical–what if a wholly righteous person existed.

In the second place, I’m not sure that Job 1 really says that Job never committed any sin. Contrary to what many evangelicals will claim, it is quite possible for a person to be righteous and “blameless” even though they have committed some sins.

In the third place, I believe in entire sanctification. Catholics believe (and I see no reason to oppose them adamantly on this one, since there are some Scriptural passages that seem to speak of this) that this can happen in the womb through the sovereign grace of God. This could have happened to Job–or he could have been sanctified as soon as he reached the age of accountability–or he might have become entirely sanctified by the time described in the book.

I think the first two explanations are both quite plausible, so the third is not really necessary. But it’s also possible.

Finally, I agree that Job 33:9 is inconclusive because it’s an accusation placed in the mouth of one of Job’s accusers.

Edwin

 

[123rock]

First of all, I see no reason to think that Job was intended as a work of history. I think it’s a work of literature building on a hypothetical–what if a wholly righteous person existed.

This is becoming more and more likely. If Job could be attributed to Moses it would be amongst the earliest theodicies in the world. The Talmud assigns it to Moses, and there are elements in the text that demand that the writer had at one point been in Egypt. For one thing, the behemoth in Job 40:15-24 is a hippopotamus, native of only Egypt, Job 40:21-22. Also, the crocodile in 41:1-10 is a crocodile. The hippo disappeared in Palestine before Job could have been written.

If one is to ascribe a historical purpose in Job, then there’s needed an explanation as to why God mentions animals that would be completely unknown to him and company such as the hippo and crocodile in the area of Uz. Uz would have been located somewhere to the south-east of Jericho.

Nevertheless, this doesn’t prove Mosaic authorship just because the writer seems to be familiar with Egypt. There have been Jewish communities as late as 407 BC in and around Egypt (Elephantine papyri), so Job is really one big mystery with minor indeterminable clues.