New Lessons from the Old Testament: Job--help me understand?

Today's New Lessons from the Old Testament is me not knowing what to say about it.  Because I struggle with today's topic.  Yesterday, I finished Esther, which is one of my favorite Old Testament stories, but it's hard as well.  Because as anyone familiar with the books of the bible knows, after Esther comes Job.  And Job is a hard story for me.

Why? Because the way that it is written, Satan gets under the skin of God.  It seems like God is always saying, "See?  Job loves me."  And then Satan says, "He love you now.  Take x away and he'll stop being good." And every time, God gives gets self-conscious and experiments with Satan's words.  And I know that's a wrong interpretation.   Because God doesn't get self-conscious.  And God doesn't give in to Satan.

But I don't know what the right interpretation is.  Help?

Comments

Amanda said…
There are a couple theories. The standard academic theory is that it shows the gods interacting with each other. While I think this is a slightly flawed interpretation, I think it has religious merit for Mormons.

My opinion is...We have a very cosmic idea of God, Satan, Heavens, etc. and Job does a good job of demonstrating the balancing act of a human soul. Does that make sense?
August 14, 2014 at 10:14 PM
p said…
Prior to Babylonian capture, the Hebrew view of Satan was more that of a prosecuting attorney. His job was to point out the flaws and failures of the person to God for proper judgement. Thus the use of the term Adversary, which is the same usage as in our adversarial justice system. And is in many ways the point of the book, divine justice in the face of evil and suffering in this life.

This is largely Satan's role in this book though some poetic license is surely taken as well in the writing thereof.

There are schools of thought of Job as a parable and so mythic rather than literal which merits some discussion imho.

Doctrinally, Job is considered a literal figure of history though I think there is room for interpretation in the account of Job with more parable oriented views. Consider the omniscient viewpoint of the book showing the dealings of God and Satan which are outside the experience of Job.

Also consider that giving Job back riches and progeny is not really justice but is more of simplified portrayal of justice. It's too pat and mathematic. Humans are unique and the loss of one's child is not made up in other children for example. Humans are not interchangeable that way.

I find the structure and portrayal of Job then that of a parable in the telling rather than a literal and exact biography. Which events are literal and which embellished is an exercise for the reader.
August 15, 2014 at 12:51 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Over-analyzing Disney Movies: The Little Mermaid--Why Eric is White.

Image
I have recently noticed a trend of just purely over-analyzing Disney movies.  In this category, I also include the fascination with photoshopping Disney characters to swap genders, races, or eras, as well as making princesses have "realistic" body shapes (which is something I could write a whole other post about, and it wouldn't be pretty.  Spoiler alert:  I find it to be one of the most unempowering trends of recent years).  However, I sometimes wonder at how much people are reading into Disney movies.  Today, I'm going to over-analyze their over-analysis. I recently read that the fact that Eric is a white prince is a representation of how we white-wash racial expectations for our children.  I'm not even sure what that sentence means.  It seems to have a lot of buzz words.  But I'm going to show you today, using evidence from the film, why Prince Eric is, in fact, the correct color. (I will, however, say that Eric is the only Disney prince who legitimatel
Read more

Derevaun Seraun! Derevaun Seraun!

James Joyce is my kind of guy. He made puzzles that I like to think are just for me. He was a great lover of languages, and he is sometimes called the father of a literary technique called polyglotism. This is when you insert other languages in there. Just 'cuz. So, in James Joyce's wonderful story, "Eveline" there is a phrase that nobody knows what it is. Even to this day. "Derevaun Seraun! Derevaun Seraun!" Many people believe it to be corrupted Irish Gaelic. Needing a break from homework, I have approached this by taking the words and then transliterating them into Irish Gaelic, trying to create Irish Gaelic that would be spoken by someone of this status in this time in Ireland. Nationalist, but not educated enough to actually understand all the ins and outs of the language. I came up with two possible phrases that I find very probable. And I'm not pretending to solve the mystery. If Joyce experts over the years have not discovered the mean
Read more

What does it mean to be a Russell?

Image
As many know, most European families (not all, but most) have a coat of arms, a crest, a motto, all that good stuff. So, I decided to look a bit into what being a Russell means. And maybe I'll do the same for Hatches, because I am a Hatch too. The last name Russell is Scottish and means "Red-headed" and derives from the Norman name of Roussel. The Russells are a well-respected Highland Scot clan, complete with Scottish crest and tartan: The motto on the crest "virtus sine macula" means "Virtue without blemish." As Scotland incorporated more and more into England, the Russells became nobility in that world as well, and were thus presented with a coat of arms: And yes, the motto written on that one is "che sara sara." You've got to admit, that's pretty gosh-darn cool. It really does mean "Whatever will be, will be." And in honor of that:
Read more