Braincleaned said-
Yes, the story is indeed just that, a story.
One must wonder how this is any less egregious of a story... and what is it supposed to say about God.
Yup, and here's the Cliff Notes version:
Robert Sutherland is a Canadian lawyer/Bible scholar.
'Oath of Innocence' is the legal procedure upon which the Book of Job is based. This ancient legal defense was used in various ancient cultures (Hebrews, Egyptian, Mesopotamian) where if someone who was accused of a crime, they could take the "Oath of Innocence" in the presence of their deity and declare, "So help me God, I'm innocent of these charges!" and be exonerated. The idea was that if they were GUILTY, God would strike them dead on the spot or amplify their suffering thereafter; but if they were INNOCENT, they would be set free (and instead even rewarded for any damages they suffered). The last step was that if the person who took the oath KNEW who the guilty party actually was, they could in turn name and curse the person, and THAT PERSON'S trial and judgment would commence immediately, EVEN IF the accused wasn't even aware of the legal proceedings and thus given the opportunity to defend themselves.
What's that? You don't remember reading about anything like that in the OT, you say?
Recall God’s words in Deuteronomy 1:17:
You must not be partial in judging: hear out the small and the great alike; you shall not be intimidated by anyone, for the judgment is God’s. Any case that is too hard for you, bring to me, and I will hear it.”
Also, Solomon refers to the Oath of Innocence while praying after the temple is completed, in 1 Kings 8:31-32:
“If someone sins against a neighbor and is given an oath to swear, and comes and swears before your altar in this house, 32 then hear in heaven, and act, and judge your servants, condemning the guilty by bringing their conduct on their own head, and vindicating the righteous by rewarding them according to their righteousness."
Sure enough, there it was in black-and-white, and you probably didn't understand it!
So, how does this legal principle fit into the story of Job?
Job's 'friends' accused him of having committed some unknown sin, since Job OBVIOUSLY must have been punished for some unknown sin due to the massive misfortunes he experienced (where EVERYTHING, both good and bad, was attributed to acts of God). However, Job KNEW he was innocent (and God even admitted Job was righteous in the narrative in the prologue), so Job demanded to declare his oath of innocence in God's presence, thus in effect accusing Jehovah of being the author (or at least, the authorizer) of undeserved evil. Job demanded an answer, and found a way to force God to explain why bad things happened to good people (Job was trying to seek an answer to the old theodicy question).
In the prologue, God actually admitted Job WAS innocent, and of course the reader has the Heavens-eye view to see that Job WAS innocent, too, and his plight basically resulted from an idle bar-bet between God and Satan in the prologue, with God bragging about Job was his faithful servant and bringing his name up in the first place. Satan is seen as being on Team Jehovah, serving more in the Hebraic role of God's appointed District Attorney, and appears not so much as the personification of evil, but the source of temptation coming FROM God's agent to test humankind's loyalty to God. Satan is God's henchmen, doing his bidding under his direction.
Surprisingly, God hears Job's prayers demanding to take an Oath of Innocence, and appears in a whirlwind to let Job plead his innocence in His presence!
Job pleads, but God verbally strips Job down (with His "where were YOU?" speech instead of answering the question).
At that point, Job decides it's wiser NOT to take the next step and curse God (as Satan had predicted Job would); supposedly if Job HAD cursed God, Jehovah would be forced to punish the actually-guilty party (awkward, since in this case it was God!), which is what the "Oath of Innocence" process would require. Since Job didn't do so, God decides to reward Job with blessings: Job is given twice as many offspring and riches to set everything right. The End.
(Oh, and don't worry: all of Job's children who were killed were merely considered as Job's property, hence as easily replaceable as any other lost commodity for which one might take out an insurance policy for their insured value. It's not like Job actually LOVED the children who died, or anything like that! Hey, God gave him back TWICE as many children, so that should pretty much make up for the loss of the original ones, right?)
So the story of Job is one of daring to turn the tables on God, which is lost on most modern readers. It's a clever tale, but ultimately shows the wrinkles and liver spots of the Bible since it reflects the morality of an ancient culture.
But it's a nice heart-warming tale of God-given justice, eh?
Adam
EDIT:
Cofty said-
Adam - I trust you are not recommending Sutherland's trite theodicy. Shudder. Brings back memories of smug, self-satisfied, middle-class pastors talking about suffering.
No, that's just the icing on the cake: Sutherland appears to be a true believer, someone who can see the Book of Job as being based on an ancient barbaric impractical legal practice of the Ancient Near East which was common to many other cultures, but still cling to his beliefs. That level of denial is mind-boggling....
Although in his defense, it's good he had the courage to tell the story, in the first place; no doubt he'd be shunned from his church as the guy who threw God under the bus unless he profusely prostrated himself in the conclusion as he did.
Adam
