John Cleese as a British judge - you're welcome.
(If you don't know who John Cleese is, shame on you. Look it up. Then watch Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Many times. And also the Dead Parrot skit. And the Ministry of Silly Walks sketch. Over and over and over again.
Respond to one of the recent oral papers on Samuel, Psalms, and/or Job with either a thumbs up (agree with the thesis) or thumbs down (disagree with the thesis - but not rendering judgment on the presenter or the paper itself; they were both likely quite awesome).
You must provide THREE supporting pieces of evidence for your viewpoint. In other words, offer three additional textual observations in support of the thesis OR three textual observations in opposition to the thesis (they can be entirely new pieces of evidence or new observations of evidence already submitted for consideration).
As always (ho hum - you've heard it before) be concise, articulate, and substantive. There is no room in a blog post for meandering, yammering, wandering, or ummming/ermmmming.
No need to wear a British judge wig while writing - but bravo if you attempt it.
POSTS ARE DUE WEDNESDAY 8 NOVEMBER BY MIDNIGHT. (Put in on your calendar. Set an alarm. Write yourself a note.)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAs Sam said, Job can be seen as being a “Debby downer” if one only reads his narratives alone, however I would say that his friends do not give a good representation of him either. Chapter 19 verse 29 says “you should fear punishment yourselves for your attitude deserves punishment. Then you will know that is indeed a judgment.” This falsely represents Job, as we know he is still blameless and does not deserve punishment. Chapter 34 verse 7-8 says “Tell me, has there ever been a man like Job, with his thirst for irreverent talk? He chooses evil people as companies. He spends his time with wicked men.” This could lead the reader to believe that Job is not blameless. Another verse that could misrepresent Job solely based on his friend’s dialog is chapter 36 verse 27, “Be on guard! Turn back from evil, for God sent this suffering to keep you from a life of evil.” We know that Job never gave into evil, but his friends are accusing him of not being blameless. If one were to try to understand Job based off of his friend’s dialog, they would get the wrong impression of him.
ReplyDeleteThe oral paper that I will be discussing is Zach's. I believe that his argument is well though out, and I specifically appreciated his comparison of Job and Jesus. In his paper, he mentioned that both men were righteous and suffered because of pain. I will be analyzing the story of Job and Jesus to find some additional reasons that they are similar/different.
ReplyDeleteIn comparison:
1.) Jesus is also betrayed by friends throughout his life, much like Job. This can be seen in Pilate and Judas.
2.) Both have God's favor.
3.) Both reflect their love for Christ throughout their life, with their actions and patience.
In contrast:
1.) Jesus suffered at the end of his life, and did so willingly; whereas Job suffered throughout his life, and did not do so willingly. However, Job did accept his trials and learn for them.
I want to talk about Zach's Oral paper. I love his idea of the different roles the characters play in the story. However I want to move around the roles (I would like to argue a different set of roles for each character).
ReplyDeleteZach argued that God is the defendant and Job is the witness for the defense. However, I would like to argue that God is the judge and Job is the defendant. However, this will primarily be focusing on God being the judge more so than Job being the defendant
1) One thing I noticed is that there is no Judge in the argument - which is essential for the story if we are going to use the metaphor of a court case. We know that the Judge is the facilitator, controller, and person who is in charge of everything going on. Though God seems reserved for most of the book, he is the one who allows the Accuser to try to prove if Job is faithful. The judge is the one with the power and ability to allow things to happen. In Job 1:12 "All right, you may test him" is spoken by God himself. A clear indicator of him allowing this to happen. This also shows us that Job is the one who is being tested or "put on trial" -The entire book Job is trying to defend himself, and who allowed this to happen - the judge of the story, God.
2) Another argument that makes me think that God is the Judge is that in any court case, the Judge has the final say in what happens. They make the final statements, and have the final remarks. Throughout a court case, judges are primarily listening to the comments and points made by both sides and are not supposed to give their opinions until the end. This is exactly what God is doing throughout the whole book. And we see his response to the issue at the END of the book in Job 38:1 "THEN the Lord answer Job from the whirlwind". This whole time God has been patient in waiting to respond, and finally he gets to say something. I am sure that judges today have thoughts that come to mind, but they are not supposed to decide or respond until everyone else has said what they wanted to say. God plays the role of a judge in that way.
3) Lastly, the judge decides the fate of the Defendant. In this case, after God responds to the cries of Job, he doesn't necessarily answer Job's questions the way he wanted to do, but provides for him sheep, cattle, and restores all that he had lost. The judge has the power to grant certain wishes and God does exactly that in Job 42:12 "so the Lord blessed Job in the second half of his life even more than in the beginning"
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI am choosing to agree with Sarah’s thesis that David purposely chooses dual-meaning metaphors in his psalms to demonstrate that God is helpful and trustworthy, while also establishing that he is to be feared and respected. Other characters I have found similar to David who have this understanding and intimidation of God’s dichotomic character to supplement Sarah claims are:
ReplyDelete- Elihu in Job. Particularly in 32:8, “But there is a spirit within people, the breath of the Almighty within them, that makes them intelligent.” Elihu recognizes that God is a powerful entity who provides the privilege of substance and knowledge, but also knows the consequences that come with using his breadth incorrectly, like with Job’s “outsmarting” of God..
- Isaiah in Isaiah 64:8. “But now, O Lord, You are our Father, We are the clay, and You our potter; And all of us are the work of Your hand.” The narrator uses this dual metaphor to acknowledge the hierarchy between humans and God by appreciating the power of God’s hand to create while also being cognizant of the opposite ability to destroy his creations.
- Jesus in John 8:12, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.” Jesus uses light to speak of his ability through God to provide guidance and warmth, yet he presents himself as a Prometheus-type character. If this power is abused or disregarded, it also has the ability to harm and destroy.
Like David, these other characters realize that God is a multifaceted being, otherwise they would have just naively chosen descriptions that are positively monolithic. I agree that God’s character is not static or uninvolved at all, and that God is clearly just as commanding as he is loving.
I disagree with the thesis that the story of David and Goliath is just a prequel to the story of Jesus and the devil in Luke 4.
ReplyDeleteOne important distinction between the two stories is that David goes to the battlefield, with many witnesses, and then goes out to fight Goliath. However, in Luke 4, it says that Jesus "was led by the Spirit into the wilderness for forty days, being tempted by the devil" (v.2). Whereas David actively went out to confront Goliath in front of the armies by his own accord (though empowered by his trust in God), Jesus seems to be led away from people so that the devil can approach him.
Secondly, the way in which Goliath speaks to David is much different than the way the devil speaks to Jesus. Goliath challenges and taunts David by saying, "Am I a dog, that you come to me with sticks?" (1 Sam. 17:43) and "come to me, and I will give your flesh to the birds of the air and to the beasts of the field" (v. 44). The devil, on the other hand, tries to seduce Jesus with his speech rather than directly challenge him (although there is definitely an implicit challenge to authority). The devil tries to seduce Jesus into showing his divine power in verse 3 - "if you are the son of God, command this stone to become bread". And again he tries to seduce him with riches and glory in verse 6 - "to you I will give all this authority and their glory...if you, then, will worship me, then it will be all yours." This clear distinction in speech patterns indicates that the stories are not meant to be direct parallels.
Lastly, David sees decisive and final victory over Goliath (1 Sam. 17:50-51), yet Jesus's final victory over the devil does not come until much later in Luke. Goliath is dead and the victory is apparent for David and Israel. But the Luke 4 story ends with, "And when the devil had ended every temptation, he departed from him until an opportune time" (v. 13). The victory is not complete yet, the adversary is still seeking a time to attack and tempt.
These three distinctions show that whatever parallels you might draw between the two stories, it is far-fetched that David and Goliath is merely a prequel to Jesus and the devil.
I agree with Sarah’s thesis, that the metaphors can be used literally and spiritually. These metaphors show that God is reliable and trustworthy. Some other examples of metaphors used throughout the Bible are:
ReplyDelete“If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.” -John 7:37. This shows that God will provide water to those who are actually thirsty and will also provide guidance to those who are thirsty for help.
“I am the vine; you are my branches.” -John 15:5. Obviously God is not a vine and we are not branches, but it shows that we can not grow without him.
“The teaching of wise is a fountain of life.” -
Proverbs 13:14. There is no actual fountain of life, but a trend we see today is that people go to fountains for goodluck. They throw coins in there in return for a granted wish. God uses the fountain of life to help those grow wiser.
There are several dual meaning metaphors in the Bible, these are only a few. I enjoyed how Sarah found the way the rock was used to kill Goliath. I had never thought of that before.
I agree with Georgia Green's Thesis statement about the predetermined fall of Saul as a king.
ReplyDeleteSupporting Evidences: In 1-samuel 2vs31-34, the predetermined death of Elis's two sons.
Secondly, Genesis 6VS 21-4, The predetermined death of all Mortal at the ripe age of 120years, as the Son of God had encounters with women of the earth, God was disgusted about it.
Lastly, the death of Moses foretold because he smashed the Holy commandments in Deut. 32vs48-52 and chapter 34 vs1-5.
All of this evidences involved people who were either chosen by God to lead the Israelites as in the case of Moses, the Sons of God chosen to lead but instead sought after women of their choice and have babies with or in the case where the people of Israelites requested such as the case of Saul.
Although the story of David and Goliath (1 Samuel 17) and the story of Jesus and the devil (Luke 4) have many similarities, I do not agree that David's story is a prequel to the latter because these two stories are fundamentally different, and David's story does not provide related details or backgrounds for the latter.
ReplyDeleteFirst, the nature of the scene is different between the two stories. David is the proactive character, whereas Jesus is in a passive stand. In 1 Samuel 17:32, David told Saul, "I'll go fight him!" David proactively sought for the battlefield. The sentences used to describe David's actions are all in active tense, for example, 1 Samuel 17: 40 says "he started across the valley to fight the Philistine", and 17:48 says, "David quickly ran out to meet him." However, in Luke 4, Jesus is the passive and protective party. Luke 4:2 describes, "where he was tempted by the devil for forty days", and 4:5 says, "the devil took him up and revealed to him..." Unlike David who actively pursued the battlefield, Jesus did not seek out temptations. In His story, the devil was the active party, and actively attempted Jesus.
Second, Jesus' weapon was not viewed weak and He himself was not underestimated by the evil. I agree that Goliath was much stronger than David and David had an unlikely weapon, but this is not true in the Luke 4, and the evidence is the enemies' reactions toward the protagonists. In 1 Samuel 17:42-43, Goliath sneers "in contempt at this ruddy-faced boy. 'Am I a dog.' he roared at David, 'that you come at me with a stick?'... " It's obvious that David is just an insignificant boy in Goliath's eyes and Goliath doubts the Power of David's weapon. However, in Luke 4, the devil recognizes Jesus as the Son of God, and recognizes the significance of the Scripture since even the devil himself uses the Scripture as a "weapon". In Luke 4:9, the devil says, "if you are the Son of God, jump off! For the Scriptures say, ..."
Lastly, I don't agree that the angles were watching the scene in Matthew 4:11, because it says, "then the devil went away, and angels came and took care of Jesus." I think we have a reason to believe that Jesus was alone with the devil, and the angels came after the devil left.
I agree with Sarah Montgomery's thesis statement and oral paper. Below I have found textual evidence to support her thesis using other metaphors found in different parts of the Psalms.
ReplyDeleteIn Psalm 34:7 it says, "For the angel of the Lord is a guard; he surrounds and defends all who fear him." This can mean both that God orchestrates things that we cannot control and helps us in that way, as well as meaning He is what keeps David in line. In verse 6 he says that the Lord "saved me from all of my troubles."
The next metaphor in Psalms 54:4-5. It says here, "But God is my helper. The Lord keeps me alive." I think that this can mean God is the helper to David that literally makes things happen in order to keep him alive, but it can also mean that God is his right hand man and the one he goes to when he needs assistance.
The last textual reference that I am going to discuss that David writes is from Psalm 142:5 where he writes, "You are my place of refuge, you are all I really want in life." This can be seen as God being a physical place (a temple maybe) where David goes to take refuge. It can also be taken as a person where David can seek refuge with his soul.
I agree with Georgia's statement about the fall of King Saul, and that it was essentially premeditated. We see this in the implication that God shows to Samuel in 1 Samuel 8:6-9, "Samuel was displeased with their request and went to the Lord for guidance. "Do everything they tell you," the Lord replied, "for they are rejecting me, not you. They don't want me to be their king any longer. Every since I brought them from Egypt they have continually abandoned me and followed other gods. And now they are giving you the same treatment. Do as they ask, but solemnly warn them about the way a king will reign over them." This shows the possibility of a king reigning hard over people, controlling them, and that they won't like it, thus wanting to overthrow that king. We see it again in 1 Samuel 8:10-18, where Samuel explains how the king will reign over them, drafting sons and assigning them to chariots, some generals and some farm plowers. The king will also take and force daughters to live with him, making him perfumes and cook for him. They will beg God to take them back and to overthrow the future king [eventually King Saul], but God won't help them. This sets up Saul's nefarious reign, in which eventually he falls from such prestige. And this is all before Samuel even meets Saul. After Samuel does meet Saul, we see that Saul breaks the oath with Samuel, after Samuel tells him to wait for him for 7 days to sacrifice and give peace offerings. Saul takes it upon himself once he assumes that Samuel wasn't going to come, and does the peace offerings and sacrifices himself. Once Samuel realizes this, he rebukes Saul, and says, in 13:13-14, "How foolish! You have no kept the command the Lord your God gave you. Had you kept it, the Lord would have established your kingdom over Israel forever. But now your kingdom must end, for the Lord has sought out a man after his own heart. The Lord has already appointed him to be the leader of his people, because you have not kept the Lord's command." This verse shows that God had already chosen a person that looks over his own heart, who is selfish, and thus, already knows that Saul's kingdom will end. And that passage proves that God already knew that Saul was going to be it, and that he was going to fall because of his own greedy selfishness.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI found Georgia Green's presentation to be very well thought out and organized for the class to grasp the narrative progression that is examined in her thesis. One example that I would add to the argument is incorporating David's Lament as confirmation of Georgia's viewpoint, in particular 1.19 in 2 Samuel (ESV). Here, David's words echo how Saul's character development did change over time and had strong ramifications not only for Saul but for everyone else that looked to him as a ruler at one point or another. Another example that indicates that a change for the worse has happened with Saul's choices as king occurs in 1 Samuel 28.5-11(ESV). The fact that God didn't answer Saul at a critical time confirms Georgia's argument that the Lord no longer was in covenant with him. The fact that Georgia shows in her presentation that it is the repetition of Saul disobeying God through his choices is also represented here with the medium questioning why he would come to meet her knowing what Samuel thought about her practices in contrast to their religious beliefs and customs; and Saul goes through with asking her to call upon Samuel anyway. Lastly, the emotions of Saul being described also shift throughout his narrative from moments like in 1 Samuel 11.15, which shows Saul rejoicing as compared to 1 Samuel 18.8 which shows how anger has begun to dominate a lot of the emotion initiating his decisions rather than being a result of them(ESV). The emotional aspect of Saul's shift in character is something that I would have liked to see her expand upon if she had a bit more time to present. Overall, I think that Georgia did a great job of creating an engaging argument that explored a variety of topics considering it revolved heavily around a major character; which could have made it hard to create a clear argument and not present one that was too vague.
ReplyDeleteToday I will be arguing against Samuel Adams’ thesis. The contention that a reader can divulge more information about Job from the dialogue of other characters (such as Satan, the Lord, and Jobs’ friends) as opposed to what the character in question says is a complete fallacy. I mean, sure, you can probably interpret a quote or two in a way that might lend itself to this thesis. But that’s because picking and choosing various pieces of dialogue out of any story makes it easy to paint a picture that best suites the reader’s agenda. In fact, this is the very premise of many arguments both FOR and AGAINST the church. Just think- looking at certain quotes from the Bible, it may appear that we have a hateful God. But after studying more stories and putting everything into perspective, it likely may appear that this is not the case after all. Interesting how that works, right? Context is key. You cannot just drop quotes and say that it means something that it doesn’t. Additionally, this thesis functions on the assumption that the reader just views Job’s dialogue by itself. If anyone actually did that, then they weren’t successful at the whole reading thing in the first place. Also- Job’s dialogue was revealing and lengthy. IF they had read that alone, they would still have a decent grasp on his sufferings and his character. Either way, I feel that you learn everything you need to from the combination that was laid out before us in the form of context and dialogue (both from Job himself and others). Overall, I did not find the thesis to hold up literarily or otherwise.
ReplyDeleteThe paper I will comment on is Kirk’s. I like how Kirk looked for parallels between the old and new testament. There are many of them throughout the bible. The story of David and Goliath and Jesus in the desert is an awesome comparison. David and Jesus vs. Goliath and Satan. David had to fight goliath with only a slingshot and Jesus had to fight the temptation of Jesus with only his will to abstain evil. It was a thoughtful comparison and I enjoyed listening to it. I think Kirk could strengthen his argument a bit more by giving some more examples of exact text.
ReplyDeleteI thought that the idea Zach presented on Job being a court case. This story beforehand didn’t make much sense to me before, but after this presentation it brought about a whole new wave of understanding and questions for me. I mostly agree with this, because otherwise Job sounds like a story that defines God as more merciless than we originally thought before. But in the NLT, Job 1:12 it states, “All right, you may test him,” the LORD said to Satan. “Do whatever you want with everything he possesses, but do not harm him physically.” If God was the one on trial, why would the LORD have said this to the accuser? This makes it seem as if it is indeed Job who is on trial. Also, it is said not to harm Job physically, but what about the family that he loses? That is an emotional trauma, along with allowing physical harm to come unto someone else to prove a point. This part doesn’t add up in the idea that God is actually the one on trial.
ReplyDeleteSomething that was written on the handout sheet was that “God is just and fair. In the end, God restores Job’s life, and the friends must recognize their errors. The part that is hard for me to wrap my mind around is the just and fair part. The LORD allowed the accuser to take away his family. In Job 1:20 it says that he tore his robe in grief and shaved his head. Of course he still praises the LORD, but this is an emotional turmoil for him. We discredit this by saying the LORD replaces everything in the end twice over, but can we really say this is totally replaced? The way I think about it is in modern times. If a mother had a child that died and had two more kids after that, you wouldn’t say to her that the child has been replaced. It is in bad taste. It is terribly hard to outlive your child and have to live with that grief. Another child does not replace another, just as no one can truly replace your mother or father. Another example of this is a divorce situation. To a child, you would not say that their mother has been replaced with this new person or their father has been replaced. No one can take the roles of someone you love (assuming that you do, indeed, love these people.) How can it be said that his life was restored?
In 42:12 it says that Job was blessed more than he was in the beginning—which I think is a statement that is more suitable. He is given more, but not replacing what he had. Also, I don’t think that anyone would come away from this situation unscathed so saying that his life is restored seems a little superfluous. I do agree however that the accuser is calling God out in Job 1:9-11. The accuser is speaking of everything that the LORD has done for Job and it really doesn’t have all that much to do with Job other than it says that he is blameless. This story could have very likely have been told with another blameless character in the forefront. It is about God and how he has provided and the nature of man in general and how Job deviates from what the reader expects and what the accuser expects. For me it seems as if the story is about if God gives a bad hand, is he still worth worshipping? And Job answers that question with yes. There are several take aways from the story that I am getting here: 1. That the LORD is good and will provide for you if you have faith and 2. That Job is not the one being attacked here, it is God’s character and actions. Some questions that I have though are why does God need to prove anything to Satan? If the accuser is apart of the heavenly court, then why are they protesting against the lord? Why is the LORD willing to play with Job’s life? Job is not on trial, but why does he have to suffer, because it is said many times that he was blameless. That is why it is hard to say that God is the only one on trial here. I don’t think it is Job, but I think it is the nature of mankind as well. There are two factors for this idea of God being on trial to work: God dealing a bad hand and the people responding to it. If the people didn’t respond we wouldn’t have a story and if God didn’t allow Job to be tested we wouldn’t have a story either. I think that the accuser wants to see if God’s actions will shift the behavior in Job but also follow up on their own ideas of what humanity is like. I think it is fair to say that God is the one on trial here but human nature is also being tested. I really enjoyed this presentation and it really cleared up some confusion for me!
ReplyDeleteI agree with the thesis proposed by Zach that stated that God is on trial for his character in the book of Job. However, I would like to argue that Job was not always the witness for the defense in this court case, but rather he was a member of the jury that had to make a decision about God’s character. Job’s jury vote would not be a choice of “guilty vs. innocent,” but rather, “good vs. bad.”
ReplyDeleteIn the beginning of Job’s story as we know it, God allows Satan to take away all of Job’s riches and blessings and leaves him with nothing. At this point in the story, I would say that Job would have voted “bad” in regards to God’s character. This can be shown in Job chapter 3 when Job wishes he was dead and he curses the day of his birth.
“Let that day be darkness! May God above not seek it, nor light shine upon it,” (3:4).
“For the arrows of the Almighty are in me; my spirit drinks their poison; the terrors of God are arrayed against me,” (6:4).
Still, even while Job is unsure of God’s reasoning for giving him such hardship, and while he is (arguably) unsure of God’s character, he does not feel strongly enough to let go of his personally positive feelings and opinions about God and believe his friends (whom I argue were also members of the jury).
“He is wise in heart and mighty in strength – who has hardened himself against him, and succeeded?” (9:4).
Lastly, after Job realizes how stupid and silly he was to challenge God’s good character, he repents and promises to trust in God’s wisdom. I argue that Job’s final vote on the jury of God’s character was “good.”
“Behold, I am of small account; what shall I answer you? I lay my hand on my mouth,” (40:4).
“I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted,” (42:2).
I agree with Georgia's thesis in that Samuel 1 follows the rise and fall of Saul and that when anointed kings reject God their impulses would disappate their power. I however would propose that Samuel 1 is not only about rejecting the Lord but also a display of the long known belief that "power corrupts". I thought that some of her quotes even showed this belief and God's understanding of basic human nature. Samuel 1 8:9 not only foreshadows Saul's downfall but also warns Samuel about the new level of power that a king would have over their previous government style (judges). This shows that God not only explained the nature of a monarchy but also that the power that the king would have may lead to poor leadership and treatment of the subjects because he has reached a new level of untouchability. 14:24 is an example of how Saul's new level of power puts his desires above the common right. This is an example of the selfishness and hypocrisy prevalent in those that have nobody to check them. The chant in 18:7 and how it effects Saul shows how hard it is to change a system that is corrupted,because once there has been a taste for power the biggest fear is to lose it. In closing, I think that Samuel 1 is rather complex and serves as a warning about leaving a spiritual leadership system and entering a political leadership system.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kirk's thesis which says there are a lot of parallels between the story of David and Goliath and the story of Jesus being tempted by the devil. In addition to the evidence Kirk provided in his paper, here are three other similarities I've found between the two stories:
ReplyDelete1. Goliath challenged the Israelites for 40 days (1 Sam. 17:16) while Satan tempted Jesus for 40 days as well (Luke 4:2). 40 days passed in both of the stories before a resolution was revealed.
2. Both David and Jesus take their opponents words and use them as a rebuke. Goliath says he will "give [David's] flesh to the birds" (17:44) and later David replies by saying, "I will give the carcasses of the Philistine army to the birds" (17:46). Similarly, when the devil tells Jesus to turn the stone into bread, Jesus uses the devils own words as a rebuke when he says, "Man shall not live on bread alone" (Luke 4:4).
3. Both events were "becoming of men" events. David defeated Goliath as a small guy. Before this battle, he was unknown to Saul. Only after Goliath's defeat did the king know who David was (17:55). Similarly, Jesus being tempted was the final thing he did before he started his ministry. Both events were turning points in the stories of David and Jesus.
I think that Sarah's presentation was well thought out, and required a lot of insight to construct. I agree with her claims. Something that was noteworthy to me was when she mentioned that God is described as a shield. I have heard this before, but I have never really thought of a shield being used as a weapon too. This definitely shows both God's power and love at the same time.
ReplyDeleteThere are several other things God is compared to. In Psalms 7:1, God is the protecter/rescuer. While a protecter is loving to the one in trouble, they are fierce and powerful to the oppressor.In John 1:1, God is The Word. We all know that words can do as much damage as good. In Psalm 47:7, God is King. A king has to win the hearts of his people, while at the same time let them know who is in charge.
This idea that Sarah came up with about the dual nature of metaphors is brilliant, and I agree.
My response to the Samuel, Psalms and Job papers will focus on the oral report that Zach gave. I agree that we can learn a lot about the character of God by reading Job, and I agree that we can view the book of Job as God being on trial, the accuser as the prosecution and Job being the witness. Throughout the entire book of Job we see the Accuser given the ability to “question” the witness (Job). In verse 8 of chapter 1, God asks Satan if he had noticed his servant Job. Baiting Satan into him asking and wanting to take part in making Job suffer. God knows the outcome of what will happen when his faithful and righteous servant is tested. We learn through Job’s suffering, losing of everything he has in the first two chapters of Job that God sometimes does put us through more than we can handle. If He didn’t, then why would we need him in the first place. God’s gracious and loving character trait is revealed at the end of the book when he rewards Job’s faithfulness and rewards his never ceasing obedience by giving him more than he ever had in chapter 42.
ReplyDelete