The Justice of Job

Jason Peterson
(Copyright 2004)

The Justice of Job

The book of Job has earned a grave importance in literature history, far extending from the fact that it is in the Christian bible. This tale goes far beyond a mere anecdote or lesson in the Christian Doctrine as it raises significantly more questions about faith and morality than any answers it may be interpreted as revealing. It is a story of a good man’s struggle to understand God, and to contemplate the acceptance of the possibility of God having erred while trying to maintain complete trust and faith in Him. It becomes so important in that the questions addressed here are relative to all religions relying on a “higher power” and whatever conclusions that are drawn from a personal standpoint necessarily effect the form and direction of our understanding about life, morality, and faith.

When the abrupt devastation of Job’s land, animals, servants, and children comes at a time when Job is practicing what he believes to be a truly respectful, good, and holy lifestyle, Job is brought to his knees in what might be considered a thanks to God for the time that he was allowed to have with these gifts of livelihood. He believes that God is entirely responsible for these happenings and that it is justifiably fair as he states, “The lord giveth and the Lord taketh away.” This initial response gives evidence of Job’s unquestionable faith in his Lord. At this point he does seem to hold a level of understanding that God should not be questioned. If this were the end of the story, it would better serve as a lesson in faith, but as it continues it begins to degrade what lesson may have been roped here.

Later, when Job is spontaneously cursed with painful boils about his entire body, again, he believes it to be the work of God, if not directly, then in God’s allowance of such an act. Still, he tries to maintain a pure following and instead of cursing God for this he exclaims his wish for having never been born. This can be interpreted as alluding to the Christian idea that we are born with sin, so is it not better to be unborn entirely then to withhold blame and endure our comeuppance? This secondary response includes his self-argument; how can he question God’s ways when it can be taken as indignant, disrespectful, and untrustworthy to do so, for these are qualities that do not represent a strong faith, and having lived his whole life for the sake of faith it is not for him to think in this manner.

As the nights go on and Job has been given ample time to dwell on the matter while he is in too much pain to sleep, he goes through another stage of reaction. I call this his confrontational response. He maintains here, and emphasizes even more so, that God is in fact fully responsible for everything that has been happening to him when he states, “Who knoweth not in all these that the hand of the Lord hath wrought this?” Also, upon arguing with his companions who have been insinuating that he must’ve done something to deserve this treatment from God, Job defends his just lifestyle and warns them of assuming and asserting the righteousness of God in order to gain personal favor. “Will you speak wickedly for God?… He will surely reprove you, if ye do secretly accept persons.” He then admits that he desires to reason with God, that he will trust in God but that he requires an explanation in turn. At this point I believe Job has come to the conclusion that an honest question of the Lord, with intent to understand, not to prove faulty, should not be considered a sin, but more an aid for building a man’s trust and faith in his Lord. This seems to be the only way to calm his growing aggravation.

Job’s companions play a minor role in this story, representing counter arguments, which although may be poignant in other circumstances, knowing what the reader knows about the situation at this point, they really only serve to give Job a chance to better explain his views on the subject.

Eliphaz’s argument is divided into two parts. He first explains a vision that came to him in a dream who is quoted to say, “Shall man be more just than God? Shall a man be more pure than his maker? Behold, he put no trust in his servants; and his angels he charged with folly: How much less in them that dwell in houses of clay, whose foundation is in the dust?” This can be taken two ways. First, that if God is not just enough to make servants, angels, and mortals who will maintain this justice, than maybe it is possible for humans to be equally as just as He. However, following the theme of Eliphaz’s point, it is more accurately interpreted to mean that if even God’s servants and angels can not equal His justice and purity, than surely we short-lived mortals have no chance of reaching His level. The second half of Eliphaz’s argument states, “Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth.” More precisely, that it is a blessing to go through any of God’s trials, for afterwards one becomes invincible to the effects of those circumstances; knowledge is power, experience is growth, pain makes us stronger. All in all, this only really tells Job that he is wrong in questioning God’s justice and that he should appreciate the hardships he endures. Job has already gone through this train of logic in his head and was ultimately unsatisfied with it.

Bildad’s argument is more of the assertion that Job has done something to deserve his ill treatment, as he states, “…if thou wert pure and upright; surely now he (God) would awake for thee, and make the habitation of thy righteousness prosperous.” However, Job cannot accept this assertion on account of his certainty that he has done nothing to deserve his misfortunes.

Zophar’s argument is much like Bildad’s. He also asserts that Job must’ve done something to deserve his plight. He then goes on to say that it is impossible for a human to comprehend or understand the justice of God, for our mortal minds are too limited in capacity, and that if God were to help Job understand, it would be a blessing to be proved wrong by such authority; maybe Job does not deserve an explanation. Job assumes that if anyone is worthy of an explanation, it is himself, so he wishes even more so to consult with God.

The reasoning behind this whole story is perhaps the most controversial component. Satan is visiting God’s realm and appears to have no apparent intentions, but God asks of him to consider Job. Is God trying to justify here why He should be the ruling God, because people are faithful to him by choice of their own will? Satan then claims that even God’s most faithful follower is only loyal because of the favors it wins him. So God puts an end to Job’s external wealth and fortune to prove Satan wrong. Satan then claims that any man will give up his possessions to save his own skin, and asks permission to poison Job’s skin as a new test of faith. God allows this, again, to prove Satan wrong. Is it just and moral to torture an innocent being just to prove a point? If God cannot prove this point, will he lose the throne? God is being manipulated and almost used by Satan here just because his pride is challenged, it would seem. Is this what a just and all-powerful God would do?

The story is wrapped up in a way that is near equally controversial. Job is given a chance to ask God why he has done these things, and God replies with what logicians refer to as a red-herring technique. God doesn’t answer Job’s question but instead reminds him rather pompously that He is all-powerful and responsible for creating everything, including Job’s ability to understand the little amount that he does, and Job has no right to question the decisions of someone so powerful. God changes the subject, and Job is too scared to point it out so he only apologizes for doubting. Then, as if to shut Job up and keep him happy, God gives him all his wealth and health back, plus more. This appears to me to be a deceitful and cowardly way of smoothing over the effects of the egotistical debate between Satan and Himself. If Job is not more just than this, than certainly one can say that he at least has more compassion than his Lord.

The biggest issue that appears to be raised here is a question of arbitrary morality, or moreover the nature of justice itself. As a basis, allow me integrate some readings from Genesis in order to get a better sense of God’s character. 1.22 says God made man in his image, and He saw that it was good; a judgment call. But in 6.7 God says that humans were not good as He saw before, and that He is sorry for creating them. Did God make a mistake? Is it possible for God to err? On the note of honesty, in 2.15 God says to Adam, “If you eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, you will surely die.” Then in 3.4, the serpent as portrayed as Satan says, “You will not die…” Adam did not die when he ate the fruit, is Satan more honest than God? In 3.22 God says, “See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil…” Is God admitting that humans have the capability to become like Him, at least in some aspects, and if so, then why not in the form of Justice? Jumping ahead to 11.6, God seems to be afraid that if the people gain a common language, there will be nothing they cannot accomplish, so He destroys their tower. If He is all powerful, what is His motivation in doing so, and is it just to punish people for attempting to civilize themselves? But the most bothersome comparison from Genesis, is that of God’s dealing with Abraham in regards to Sodom. In 18.23, understanding that God is about to do away with the citizens of the town, Abraham says to Him, “Will you indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked?… Far be that from you! Shall not the Judge of all the Earth be just?” After hearing this, God compromises six times in a row to appeal to Abraham’s sense of justice. Why then does God refuse to even discuss His justice with Job? This brings up the said question of the nature of justice. As Socrates asks in Euthyphro, “Is what God commands right because he commands it, or is it right for some other reason than that he commands it?” If justice is a concept apart from God, than it would be attainable to the same extent by God and mortals. If justice is defined by God’s actions, than anything that opposes His methods is ultimately unjust. If the latter is true, then certainly Job cannot be as just as God. However, if this is the case, than justice and morality are indeed arbitrary, for what is just would change whenever God changed his mind; it would have no value other than to please God, so there would be nothing truly just about it.

Based on these arguments, it is in my opinion that Job is indeed just and had every reason to question God‘s will, and that God’s reason for testing Job, and his response to Job’s questioning both supply evidence that, in this story, God is less than just and should not be seen as the authority on the matter.

---

Works Cited:

Norton Anthology of World Literature Volume A: Beginnings to A.D.100. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2002.

Holy Bible: Newly Revised Standard Version. Nashville: Graded Press/Cokesbury Publishing, 1990.

Garlikov, Rick. The Significance of the Bible’s Book of Job. Http://www.garlikov.com/Job.html June 21st, 2000.