Uh-huh. "The narrator doesn't get into what view. . ." that's why he sort of randomly attributed it to "the LORD."




Well that's it, then. Who you gonna believe? Robert, or the text?

"So Saul died for his unfaithfulness; he was unfaithful to the Lord in that he did not keep the command of the Lord, and also consulted a medium, seeking guidance, and did not seek guidance from the Lord. Therefore the Lord killed him, and turned the kingdom over to David the son of Jesse." [1 Chronicles 10:13-14]

When you say take the Bible just as it reads, well, you get into problems. That's because the Bible cannot be understood using human wisdom.

I believe that most of you are so steeped in tradition that you wouldn't know truth if it was looking at you squarely in the eyes. Of course, that's my opinion! :)

Rob

Blameless Job repents:

”Then Job answered the Lord and said: Behold, I am vile; what shall I answer You? I lay my hand over my mouth [i.e., no more "I am blameless"].”“I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know....Therefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.”

What was it that Job had not understood? He had not understood that his self-righteousness was mere filthy rags in God' sight. But when he came face to face with his self-righteous condition, he abhorred himself and repented....

Repentance from self-righteousness is terribly painful because we have to swallow our pride - our spiritual pride. The things we have looked to as evidences of our goodness, we have to see as monuments to self......

God didn't enjoy putting Job through this crisis, but Job had a lesson to learn, and this drastic method was the only way to teach him. When the lesson was complete and Job was fully converted, God was able to bless him....He restored his health, his possessions and his children.

Apparently this is your opinion, too :



since it is contradicted by the Bible itself:



Not a strong recommendation for your opinions.

OK. However, remember what Jack Sequeira himself says: that the only way we can tell the difference between works of law and works of faith is (1) by origin and (2) by motivation.

That being the case, how can you prove that the origin of Job's works were not of faith? Do you know the origin or motivation of his obedience to God?

I believe that both the origin and motivation show that Job's works (life) was one of simple trust in God and a desire to please God and do what's right out of love for God. That is proven by the fact that he obeyed God even when it did not appear that there was anything in it for Job's advantage. Job was not out to use God. Job was out to be used by God even if it meant his own death. That's love.

"Job didn’t turn his back on God. He was righteous person. But this is the crucial question: Was his righteousness the righteousness of faith, or was it the righteousness of works? We need to look closely at his experience in order to determine the answer to this question, because I believe we will find in Job’s story similarities to your own situation as Laodicea." [Jack]

Again I will ask ... Was Job the only one who had this issue of Righteousness of Works?

So, "the LORD" was unable to tell the difference?

tough sell

I'll let Jack answer this:

By the time we reach chapter 10, Job is defending his righteousness to God Himself. “I will say to God, ‘Do not condemn me; show me why You contend with me….You know that I am not wicked.’” Actually, Job is quite confident that his righteousness is perfect. “God,” Job says, “these friends of mine are accusing me of some secret sin. Show me where I am wrong. I would really like to know what my sin is.” Of course, Job was convinced of his righteousness; he didn’t think he was guilty of sin.

Was there some secrete sin in Job’s life that was the cause of his suffering? No. But did Job have a problem? Yes.

Job continues to insist on his own righteousness and to defend himself against the accusations of his friends. They keep saying, “Job, you must have some secret sin in your life; look how you’re suffering.”

And Job argues back, “No, I have not sinned. I have kept God’s commandments; I have held to my integrity.” Notice what he says in chapter 23. “My foot has held fast to His steps; I have kept His way and not turned aside. I have not departed from the commandment of His lips; I have treasured the words of His mouth more than my necessary food’” (verses 11,12 NKJV)

Does this sound like a man who has been justified by faith? Or does it sound like a man who is confident of his own righteousness, who is self-righteous?

By chapter 31, Job is strongly defending his own righteousness. He calls upon God to judge him. ”Let me be weighed in a just balance, that God may know my integrity.” (Verse 9, NKJV). He goes onto list the good works he has habitually done – fed the hungry, clothed the naked, cared for orphans and widows, and opened his home to the homeless. This chapter is Job's final argument against the accusations of his three friends. “So these three men ceased answering Job, because he was righteous in his own eyes” (Job 32:1, NKJV).

This was Job’s problem – he was righteous in his own eyes. He was sincere; he was honest. But he had a problem he didn’t recognize.

Now Ellen White:

What greater deception can come upon human minds than confidence that they are right when they are all wrong! The message of the True Witness finds the people of God in a sad deception, yet honest in that deception. They know not that their condition is deplorable in the sight of God. While those addressed are flattering themselves that they are in an exalted spiritual condition, the message of the True Witness breaks their security by the startling denunciation of their true condition of spiritual blindness, poverty, and wretchedness. The testimony, so cutting and severe, cannot be a mistake, for it is the True Witness who speaks, and His testimony must be correct. [3T, 252]

How is Job 1: 1 not a view of the narrator?

If I begin a story by saying, "I am going to tell you a true story about a man who was blameless and upright, one who honored God and kept away from evil," am I not telling you the viewpoint of the narrator, that the story is about a blameless man?

Or am I telling you about a man who merely thought he was blameless?

If the narrator tells you that the man the story is about is blameless, yet he is not-- then the narrator can't be depended on to tell the truth, and it really changes the whole story.

This is what happens in books like The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and Catcher in the Rye. (I know that by mentioning these books I am possibly ruining all possibility of your paying attention to my main point here, but I think the illustrations are important to understand the type of narration we are dealing with in Job. In Job, we are dealing with a completely trustworthy, dependable narrator, wouldn't you agree?)

I think both you and Jack Sequeira need to deal with this question of the significance and meaning of Job 1:1 and other similar verses, because this simple fact alone undercuts what you and he are trying to say about Job.