Why was Job chosen?

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

The context of the book of Job is an attempt to answer the question of why the righteous or good people suffer.

Wow, how terrible. So God let's Satan at the "righteous" for no other reason then to prove Himself right about if that person will maintain his belief in Him? That doesn't sound like the God I know.

You got it wrong! It was to prove Satan wrong! It was Satan who put forth the premise that:

1. People serve God merely for the "goodies" they receive.

2. Take away what is near & dear to them and they will desert you, especially if you make them suffer.

[John317]

So we can't assume that when people suffer, it is because of their sins.

Originally Posted By: Sonny

I agree with that. God didn't cause Job's suffering, Job did. Yes, God allowed it because essentially Job didn't need the righteousness of God - that's because he was in need of nothing. He was righteous in his own eyes even to the point of justifying his so-called righteousness before God.

OK, but by saying this, you are concluding that God allowed Job to suffer because of Job's sin of self-righteousness. And that's the same thing as saying that Job was suffering on account of his sins, right? I don't see the difference. It seems to me to amount to the same thing.

[Sonny]

But the problem with your reasoning here is that the narrator says-- and in the very first verse-- that Job is indeed a "blameless and upright" man who reverences God and "shuns [turns away from] evil."

Yes, but what's his motive? Is it based in agape or was it based on the flesh? If on the flesh then everything Job did was based in iniquity - his bent to himself.

Doing the right thing outward for selfish motives is filthy rags. Job's problem is that he thought he was doing good and nothing could break of his delusion until finally God backed out of his life.

Job, like Saul (before he became Paul), was "blameless" in his performance, but again was his performance based on the ingredient of God's agape love or was it based on his own effort? The latter....

So both God and the narrator are right, Job was a righteous man outwardly, but it wasn't based on agape. In the end Job saw his error. He repented....

Keep these in mind:

Paul says that as “touching the righteousness which is in the law”—as far as outward acts were concerned --he was “blameless” (Philippians 3:6); but when the spiritual character of the law was discerned, he saw himself a sinner. Judged by the letter of the law as men apply it to the outward life, he had abstained from sin; but when he looked into the depths of its holy precepts, and saw himself as God saw him, he bowed in humiliation and confessed his guilt. [sC 29]

[Sonny]

You got it wrong! It was to prove Satan wrong!

That doesn't make sense. Satan might be reading this...and what if he goes to God and says the same of you as he did Job? Are you ready to have your family and wealth vanish?

If not, why not? I mean it's just to prove Satan wrong. How would you feel - maybe like being a pawn? I don't think God works that way....If so, be careful...you might get to experience your version of Job.

[Sonny]

OK, but by saying this, you are concluding that God allowed Job to suffer because of Job's sin of self-righteousness. And that's the same thing as saying that Job was suffering on account of his sins, right? I don't see the difference. It seems to me to amount to the same thing.

As you've said, "sin is the transgression of the law". But what if you are keeping the law, but without agape?

Let me quote Ellen:

We may have flattered ourselves, as did Nicodemus, that our life has been upright, that our moral character is correct, and think that we need not humble the heart before God, like the common sinner: but when the light from Christ shines into our souls, we shall see how impure we are; we shall discern the selfishness of motive, the enmity against God, that has defiled every act of life. [sC 28]

You see the law can only be kept if you have that ingredient that comes from God's Spirit - agape. We can't manufacturer it!!! We can only experience it as we give up on the idea that anything we do is actually righteous. All that we do is polluted with selfishness. We do the right thing outwardly for our gain. That's our bent to self....It's iniquity...the essence of all sin.

How do you convince a person he is sinning when he's doing all the right things outwardly? That's why the Jews rejected Christ. They had the law and according to the law they were keeping it. They didn't need a Savior.

So yes, self-righteousness is sin, but not in the way we typically think. It's the flesh acting like it's good. It's like a drug. It's delusional and sometimes God has do to drastic things to break this delusion.

He did it with the Jews, but it didn't work. They stuck to their righteousness. He did it with Paul and Job and it worked. He did it with me and it worked. Thank God I didn't have to experience Job's loss.

[John317]

Anyone can see Job had a problem, yet you guys keep pushing the ignore button. You don't want to see Job's problem because it just might reflect on your own life. Maybe that's the real problem? Only God knows.

I'm not denying that Job had a problem. I'm saying his problem had nothing to do with the reason for his suffereing.

I think you mistake Job's claim to innocence as being a claim to being totally without sin and absolutely perfect, but there's evidence in the book that that is not what Job is saying.

Job's real "problem" is not self-righteousness but the result of his pain and agony because he allows it to cause him to speak foolishly and without real knowledge. But God knows that Job spoke out of ignorance, not out of an evil heart or because of bad motives. That is why God does not find fault with Job, and it's why God commends Job but condemns Job's three friends. Job was right in what he said about God.

Elihu is neither condemed or commended by God, so we can't know for sure how God feels about him. But we know two facts about Elihu which could well account for the difference: 1) He was younger and therefore less "wise" or experienced; and 2) at least Elihu did not repeat the errors of the other 3 friends, and he tried to defend God against the accusations of the other men.

[Sonny]

Elihu is neither condemed or commended by God, so we can't know for sure how God feels about him.

That really doesn't mean anything.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Elihu is neither condemed or commended by God, so we can't know for sure how God feels about him.

That really doesn't mean anything.

It means Elihu's speeches are ignored by God, so we have no way of knowing God's estimation of them, as we do of His estimation of Job and his three friends.

[Tallmark]

I don't believe that God and Satan were placing bets on Job's life. God is love. I believe that it was a hypothetical story demonstrating the battle of good and evil.

[Sonny]

It means Elihu's speeches are ignored by God, so we have no way of knowing God's estimation of them, as we do of His estimation of Job and his three friends.

God never faulted Elihu for what he stated. He did Job and his other three friends. God's silence on Elihu speaks volumes. Listen....

[Sonny]

I don't believe that God and Satan were placing bets on Job's life. God is love.

[Sonny]

You see the law can only be kept if you have that ingredient that comes from God's Spirit - agape. We can't manufacturer it!!!

Romans 13: Love doesn't harm his neighbor. Love [Greek: "agape"] therefore fulfills the law.

In other words agape is the ingredient by which the law can be kept. Without it our law keeping is in reality keeping sin.

Think it out. When someone wants something from you so that he/she might gain, does that person act moral or immoral? Right, moral. Why? So that you might buy into what he or she is presenting. So they outwardly do good things, why? to be rewarded. That's self-righteousness. Agape is empty of self-centered desires. It lives for others with no thought of getting something back.

See Luke 6:32 "If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' do that. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' lend to 'sinners,' expecting to be repaid in full. 35 But love [agape] your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back.

1 Cor 13:3 If I give all I possess to the poor..., but have not love [agape], it is meaningless. [why?] 4 Love [agape] ... is not self-seeking...

[Gerr]

I don't believe that God and Satan were placing bets on Job's life. God is love. I believe that it was a hypothetical story demonstrating the battle of good and evil.

Anything else that is "hypothetical" in the Bible?

ESV | Eze 14:14 even if these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they would deliver but their own lives by their righteousness, declares the Lord GOD.

ESV | Eze 14:20 even if Noah, Daniel, and Job were in it, as I live, declares the Lord GOD, they would deliver neither son nor daughter. They would deliver but their own lives by their righteousness.

[Sonny]

ESV | Eze 14:14 even if these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they would deliver but their own lives by their righteousness, declares the Lord GOD

1] In what?

2] Their righteousness? Our righteousness is filthy rags, right?

Eze, not Paul, is hard to understand.

[Woody]

Why did God choose Job to be so tested by Satan.

And does the reason still apply to how people are tested/tempted today?

There has been a lot of chatter. But little of it answers my question of this thread. Can people just start giving me their answer one by one without any proof. I just want the opinions. Then once everyone has done that ... then you can return to your chatter and I will retire.

[Sonny]

Well, God didn't test Job. Job, through his self-righteous spirit placed himself outside God's protection.

[Woody]

Well, God didn't test Job. Job, through his self-righteous spirit placed himself outside God's protection.

So the lesson to be learned is that whenever I am self righteous ... that God will not protect me? I am not so sure I can go along with that. It sounds a little to works oriented to me. R U by any chance a legalist Rob ? HA HA HA !!!

[Sonny]

Originally Posted By: Sonny

Well, God didn't test Job. Job, through his self-righteous spirit placed himself outside God's protection.

So the lesson to be learned is that whenever I am self righteous ... that God will not protect me? I am not so sure I can go along with that.

No....It takes persistent self-righteousness, in the face of truth, to get God to remove Himself....

Matt 23:37 "Jerusalem, Jerusalem!....How many times I wanted to put my arms around all your people, just as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you would not let me! 38 And so your Temple will be abandoned and empty.

Matt 9:13 Go and learn what this means: I desire mercy and not sacrifice. For I didn't come to call the righteous, but sinners."

Since there is none righteous, Jesus was speaking of the self-righteous. With the self-righteous, Jesus is not needed. Where Christ is persistently rejected He removes Himself.

[teresaq]

Well, God didn't test Job. Job, through his self-righteous spirit placed himself outside God's protection.

doesn't that conclusion deny the bible?

Job 1:1There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil... 8And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?

[whatisthis]

Oh dear, where does it say God chose Job to be tempted? It looks to me like God chose Job to praise. Looks to me like Satan chose him to be tempted. I know for sure God didn't tempt Job. Satan did. Insurance people (who would have called all this "acts of God",) and Job's friends, both call what God allows, what God causes. This was an attack on God the Creator, because it was attacking God's best friend! If I allow you to punch me in the stomach without punching back, did I cause you to do it? Some would say so, I suppose. If I allow you to punch me and my best friend, did I cause that?

I have read that book again and again, and the more I read it, the more it looks to me like Satan hit where it would hurt God worst. Satan had made a claim to be the god of this world, and it seems to me like he sure tried to push that to the limit here! It's the god of this world that is a cruel tempter. But that god is definitely crazy and out to get us. I believe the only thing Job had to repent for was that momentarily he kind of thought God had gone crazy! But it seems to me that when he realized the whole deal he repented of that thought--because he'd loved God all through it, he just couldn't understand why God had quit loving back, but he hung in there, even though there wasn't a thing to be gained by it, just out of love. And God knew that if he knew, Job would have wanted to show that he loved unshakably. Well, that's the way I'm coming to see this story, anyway! There is such depth in this story, so many stories within a story here, so much philosophy...

But in Heaven, where people all know God's glory they would love to give God a gift -- but nobody can. They are alight with glory and love, but have nothing to give that God didn't give them. The greatest privilege in the universe would be to show God love when there was nothing to gain at all by showing it. I don't know how Job got through that, but I'm so glad he did. I'm also feeling that the same God that gave Job each breath, that kept him alive, kept him going too. I think Job did this IN God, showing God's terrrible sacrifice struggle for us. He tasted God's sorrows.

[teresaq]

We are studying the book of Job in our prayer meetings at church and your thoughts would be most welcome! :)

[Woody]

Shoot. I dunnno. Did God choose Job for Satan to tempt or not. I honestly am not the best interpreter of scripture. But then what is this referring to:

Quote:

Job 1:8 "And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job"

[Gerr]

Oh dear, where does it say God chose Job to be tempted?

KJV 1900 | Ge 22:1 And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.

If God could do this to Abraham, He surely could do this to Job. But then -

KJV 1900 | Jas 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

Which of these statements shall we believe? Is the Bible contradicting itself.

Actually, both statements are correct. The Hebrew & Greek word for "temp" can be used in two senses: 1) to assay, test, or prove 2) bad sense, i.e. to induce to do something bad.

[Sonny]

"And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job"

Again, God loved Job, but Job's persistent self-righteous attitude did him in.

[Gerr]

Hmmmm. Still palming off an erroneous notion as though fact, eh?