Putting God on Trial: The Biblical Book of Job

[Robert Sutherland]

In the ancient biblical Book of Job, I think Job puts God on trial as the author of some undeserved evil in the world and refuses to acquit him.

What are your thoughts?

[I, Brian]

Doesn't Job staunchly defend God? cf "The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away".

When I last read that book, I actually found myself agreeing with some of the other commentators in the work.

I note that is it often taken by some to be a eral and historical series of events, though I take it something more like an essay - exploring the intricacies of faith, rather than a narrative account of "real" events.

PS: Moved to "Monotheism" for comment.

[Mus Zibii]

The book of Job is my favorite. I always thought it was horrible that a God would do that to a faithful follower. But Job's take on it smacks more of reality than the synopsis would suggest. He doesn't take his suffering lightly, but his overall outlook is, 'the Lord giveth, taketh'. Christians and Muslims moan about the story of Job, because God is made to look irrational and limited, but can anyone deny the truth that bad things just simply happen to good people without obvious meaning?

[Robert Sutherland]

I actually think Job's refusal to acquit God is consistent with a deep moral integrity and a nuanced submission.


Widely praised as one of the greatest books ever written, The Book of Job is a theodicy, an attempt to morally justify the ways of God to man. It is a most provocative theodicy for it is the story of the most righteous man on earth putting God on trial for crimes against humanity and refusing to acquit him.


To the question of why there is evil in the world, The Book of Job offers a non-traditional answer.

(a) God created a world of undeserved and unremitted suffering in order the make the highest form of human love possible: a completely selfless love of man for God. Selfishness corrupts selfless love. If human beings know with certainty that God rewards those who love him, then they will serve God for what they can get from him. Undeserved evil is morally necessary in order to bring the existence of God into doubt and to sever any connection between righteousness and reward.


(b) God cannot reveal this explanation for evil in this life without defeating his own purpose in the creation of the world and the creation of man.


(c) God expects man to challenge him for the creation of such a world. Prima facie, it is an act of injustice to impose evil for reasons other than punishment or character development. The undeserved evil God sends is more punishment than any man deserves. And the undeserved evil God sends destroys character more often than not. Human beings have a moral duty to challenge God for such evil. They have a natural need to know and a natural right to receive the explanation for evil in world. God expects human beings to stand up to him. They sin if they either prematurely condemn or prematurely acquit God for sending evil into the world. They must wait for the answer that only God can give.


(d) God will reveal that answer on the Day of the Final Judgment. At that time, God will resurrect all human beings to give them that answer. God will grant all human beings a special grace to understand the necessity and sufficiency of undeserved evil. God is causally responsible for the evil in the world, but not morally blameworthy for it. At that time, all will know and understand God’s purpose in the creation of a world of undeserved and unremitted suffering. And God will then judge all human beings on the selflessness of their love for God.

This Hegelian theodicy in The Book of Job has two real advantages over the traditional Augustinian and Irenean theodices which draw heavily on The Book of Genesis and The Epistles of Paul.

(a) It offers an explanation for existence of undeserved evil in the world. Augustinian theodicies strain and break in their attempt to attribute all the natural and moral evils of the world to the act of a single man. Irenean theodicies strain and break in the face of evil that is so great it destroys character more often than not.

(b) And it offers an explanation for God’s general practice of non-intervention in the world to prevent evil. Augustinian and Irenean theodices correctly posit the importance of freewill, but serious stumple over the fact that the existence of freewill is consistent with a knowledge of God and God’s intervention in the world. Free-will itself does not require God’s non-intervention. However, a particular form of free-will, a completely selfless love of man for God, probably does require God’s non-intervention.

The Book of Job presents a new and engaging perspective based entirely on the existence of undeserved evil and a moral requirement that God not intervene to disclose the reason for evil in this world.


The Book of Job presents that philosophical answer in poetry and prose through the vehicle of drama. As drama, The Book of Job is understandably a legal drama. The moral issues of theodicy are easily translated into a legal framework of duties and rights. In fact, The Book of Job consists of a number of overlapping and interlocking trials. God puts Job on trial. Satan puts God on trial. God puts Job on trial a second time. Job’s friends put Job on trial. Job puts his friends on trial. Everything builds to the climactic moment when Job puts God himself on trial and refuses to acquit him.

(continued on next post)

[Robert Sutherland]

Many scholars find the legal metaphor of an Oath of Innocence inappropriate, though for different reasons.

Some liberal scholars opt for an aesthetic, not a moral, resolution of the question of evil in the world. They find a sublime beauty in God’s review of the animal and physical worlds, Behemoth and Leviathan. And it is certainly there. But that is all they find. They find no suggestions of a moral purpose in God’s creation and control of evil. Indeed, they feel none could be forthcoming. God is beyond good and evil so no moral resolution is possible. Since no moral resolution is possible, a legal metaphor such as a lawsuit dramatizing the moral question is inappropriate. They interpret Job to understand that position. And they interpret him to retract the lawsuit in its entirety. They interpret the lawsuit metaphor to be inappropriate because there are no answers to the moral question of evil in the world. To the extent there is a scholarly consensus on The Book of Job and there probably is not such a consensus, this is the majority reading.


This author feels such liberal scholars miss a moral resolution for five reasons.


(a) First, they fail to give adequate weight to Satan’s first speech in heaven setting out the moral solution. Selfless love is the reason God chooses to create a world of undeserved and unremitted suffering for Job and by implication, for us. This sets the entire plot in motion. Their resolution however leaves this important point hanging such that the beginning and ending are completely disjointed.

(b) Second, they misinterpret Job’s struggle with God to be a request for a restoration of his former position, rather than a request to know the reason behind evil in the world. As such, they see the moral issue Job raises to be nothing more than a retributive version of justice whereby righteousness is rewarded. This is not the moral right Job raises in his Oath of Innocence. The moral right is the right to know the reason behind evil in the world.

(c) Third, they fail to appreciate the moral restrictions under which God has to operate. God cannot reveal any moral answers directly without defeating his very purpose in the creation and control of evil. As a result, they miss the suggestions of moral purpose in God’s two speeches and the inferences God would have Job draw.


(d) Fourth, they fail to fully appreciate the legal dynamics of the enforcement mechanism of Job’s Oath of Innocence. In particular, they fail to appreciate the distinction between causal responsibility and moral blameworthiness. Thus, they do not understand God’s comments concerning vindication and condemnation in his first speech to Job. And they do not understand Job’s hesitation to proceed beyond his own vindication to a condemnation of God in Job’s first speech to God. Ultimately, they fail to see Job’s adjournment and continuation of his Oath of Innocence implied by the allusion to the story of Abraham and Sodom and Gomorrah in Job’s final speech.

(e) Finally, they fail to give full expression to God’s ultimate judgment on Job. Job and only Job spoke rightly about God. In the face of such a judgment, there is no room to deny the ultimate propriety of the moral and legal question as a way of framing man’s encounter with God.

Some conservative scholars opt for a moral resolution of the question of evil in the world, but their resolution is equally unsatisfying. They interpret Job’s so-called excessive words in his speeches preceding the Oath of Innocence to be morally wrong. They interpret Job’s raising of the Oath of Innocence to be a sin of presumption. While they accept God’s two judgments on Job in heaven, they feel subsequent events show Job sinning. While God is not beyond good and evil, God is under no moral obligation to reveal any reason for sending evil into the world. Thus they would have Job retract his lawsuit in its entirety and repent morally for either his so-called excessive words, his raising of the lawsuit or both. They feel the legal metaphor is inappropriate because while there is an answer to the moral question of evil in the world, no human being has a right to that answer and God is under no duty to give that answer. To the extent there is a scholarly consensus on The Book of Job and there probably is not such a consensus, this is the minority reading.

This author feels such conservative scholars miss a satisfactory moral resolution for three reasons.

(a) First, they fail to understand the depth of Satan’s challenge to God. It is not merely that Job will curse God. It is that God is wrong in his judgment on Job’s goodness. God has missed sin in Job’s life. Such scholars think their moral resolution is possible, because although Job sins, Job does not actually curse God. The problem they have is that their resolution actually makes Satan right in his challenge of God. Satan claimed Job was a sinner and they feel Job sinned. Thus Satan is in the right in his lawsuit with God and God should step down from his throne and destroy mankind.

(b) Second, they fail to give proper weight to Job’s blamelessness and integrity. The raising of the Oath of Innocence is an expression of that blamelessness and integrity. It is what God expects of Job, though he cannot tell him that directly. If Job sins in raising the lawsuit against God, then the sin is blasphemy and God is seriously mistaken in his judgment of Job’s blamelessness and integrity.

(c) Finally, they fail to give full expression to God’s ultimate judgment on Job. Job and only Job spoke rightly about God. In the face of such a judgment, there is no room to attribute sin or wrongdoing to Job for either his so-called excessive words or for his Oath of Innocence. In the face of such a judgment, there is no room to deny the ultimate propriety of the moral and legal question as a way of framing man’s encounter with God.

My personal interpretation charts a new middle course between these two-fold horrors: a liberal Scylla which places God beyond good and evil and a conservative Charybdis which attributes sin to Job, either for his so-called excessive words, his Oath of Innocence or both. I reject both streams of conventional scholarly interpretation, because they fail to integrate all the elements in The Book of Job. God has a moral reason for sending evil. Man has a need and a right to know that reason. But God need not provide that reason here and now. An adjournment of God’s trial to the Day of the Final Judgment and its continuation then is strongly implied. It is implied through the allusion to Abraham. It is implied through the allusion to a Redeemer who stands up in court at the Final Judgment to plead Job’s cause. It is implied through the allusion to the apocalyptic destruction of Leviathan at the Messianic banquet and the explanation of all things that follows. The legal metaphor is highly appropriate. A satisfactory moral solution is only possible because of the distinction between casual responsibility and moral blameworthiness embedded in Job’s Oath of Innocence. That distinction is central to the criminal law defense of justification or necessity. God may be causally responsible for the evil in the world, but not morally blameworthy for it. He has a necessary and sufficient reason for the evil and will ultimately give it. Job grants him that time without denying his need to know and without withdrawing his right to know. In this work, my intention is to present a single comprehensive and coherent interpretation of The Book of Job that preserves the moral integrity of both God and man.

[Robert Sutherland]

Does Job sin in the Book of Job?

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Robert,


thank you for the post.

when you say "Widely praised as one of the greatest books ever written, The Book of Job"

i'm curious... who says this? this is the first time that i've heard this.. perhaps, i'm not all that versed on OT books

[Robert Sutherland]

Daniel Webster wrote: "The Book of Job taken as a mere work of literary genius is one of the most wonderful productions of any age or of any language.

Thomas Carlyle wrote: "There is nothing written, I think, in the Bible or out of it, of equal literary merit."

Lord Alfred Tennyson wrote: "The greatest poem, whether of ancient or modern literature"

Victor Hugo wrote: "Tomorrow, if all literature was to be destroyed and it was left to me to retain one work only, I should save Job."

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Robert,

thank you for the post.

i presume you are replying to my query?

Originally Posted by Robert Sutherland

Daniel Webster wrote: "The Book of Job taken as a mere work of literary genius is one of the most wonderful productions of any age or of any language.

Thomas Carlyle wrote: "There is nothing written, I think, in the Bible or out of it, of equal literary merit."

Lord Alfred Tennyson wrote: "The greatest poem, whether of ancient or modern literature"

Victor Hugo wrote: "Tomorrow, if all literature was to be destroyed and it was left to me to retain one work only, I should save Job."

one wonders how much ancient literature that these folks have read

in any case, thank you for the response.

[Robert Sutherland]

Vajradhara:

To my knowledge, Webster, Hugo, Tennyson and Carlyle all had a standard classical education which would have exposed them to Homer, Virgil, Dante and Milton. Yet they all seem to rank the poet of the Book of Job at the top of that class.

I speculate from your name that your background may be Indian. If so, then you may be interested to know that some scholars have thought there was an Indian Job.

The majority of such references are to the legend of the pious king Haricandra; and the fullest accounts of this legend in recent literature may be seen in English in S. Terrien's commentary in The Interpreter's Bible (ed. G.A. Buttrick), vol. 3 (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1954), p. 879 and Theodor H. Gaster's Myth, Legend, and Custom in the Old Testament, vol. 2 (London: Harper & Row, 1975), pp. 785, 858 Most of these reports of the Indian tale are derivative from that given by Adolphe Lods both in his article 'Recherches récentes sur le livre de Job', RHPR 14 (1934), pp. 501-33 (527-28), (cited by Hölscher) and in his manual Histoire de la littérature hébraïque et juive depuis les origines jusqu'à la ruine de l'état juif (135 apres J.-C.) (Paris: J. Gabalda, 1950), pp. 691-92 (cited by Kuhl, Fohrer, Terrien).

The story as given by Lods obviously exhibits several close correspondences with the biblical narrative. It will be convenient to cite it in the form given to it by S. Terrien, a pupil of Lods, in the introduction to his commentary in The Interpreter's Bible:

The gods and goddesses were assembled with the seven Menus [ascetics] in the heaven of Indra. The question was asked whether a single human prince could be found who would be without stain or blemish. Most of the members of the divine assembly were of the opinion that there was none, but Vasishta insisted that a certain Atschandira (Haricandra) was perfect. Shiva Rutren ('the destroyer') offered to prove the contrary if the prince were delivered into his power. Vasishta accepted the challenge, and it was agreed that, depending upon the issue of the wager, one would yield to the other all merits acquired in a long series of penance. Shiva Rutren thereupon submitted Atschandira to all sorts of trials, deprived him of his wealth, kingdom, wife, and only son, but the prince persisted in his virtue. The gods rewarded him with munificence and returned to him his previous estate. Shiva Rutren gave his own merits to Vasishta, who passed them on to the hero (p. 879).

The features that are special to this account and reminiscent of Job are: (i) the narrative opens in a divine assembly; (ii) the question of human perfection is raised; (iii) one human being is singled out as a test case; (iv) there is a conflict, specifically a wager, between two members of the heavenly assembly; (v) the man loses his possessions (including his family), but ultimately has them restored.

The consensus however seems to be that there was no Indian Job. Can you assist?

[Mus Zibii]

It is a good poem. At least in the victorian english.

Let the day perish wherein I was born, and the night in which it was said, There is a man child conceived. Let that day be darkness; let not God regard it from above, neither let the light shine upon it. Let darkness and the shadow of death stain it; let a cloud dwell upon it; let the blackness of the day terrify it. As for that night, let darkness seize upon it; let it not be joined unto the days of the year, let it not come into the number of the months. Lo, let that night be solitary, let no joyful voice come therein. Let them curse it that curse the day, who are ready to raise up their mourning. Let the stars of the twilight thereof be dark; let it look for light, but have none; neither let it see the dawning of the day: Because it shut not up the doors of my mother's womb, nor hid sorrow from mine eyes. Why died I not from the womb? why did I not give up the ghost when I came out of the belly? Why did the knees prevent me? or why the breasts that I should suck? For now should I have lain still and been quiet, I should have slept: then had I been at rest, With kings and counsellors of the earth, which build desolate places for themselves; Or with princes that had gold, who filled their houses with silver: Or as an hidden untimely birth I had not been; as infants which never saw light. There the wicked cease from troubling; and there the weary be at rest. There the prisoners rest together; they hear not the voice of the oppressor. The small and great are there; and the servant is free from his master. Wherefore is light given to him that is in misery, and life unto the bitter in soul; Which long for death, but it cometh not; and dig for it more than for hid treasures; Which rejoice exceedingly, and are glad, when they can find the grave?
Why is light given to a man whose way is hid, and whom God hath hedged in?

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Robert,

thank you for the post.

Vajardhara is a Tibetan name... not Indian, per se, though there is often a great deal of overlap in these cases.

nevertheless, in the SantanaDharma of India, which we call Hinduism now.. MahaBrahma IS everything, thus, for the sake of argument, an Indian Job would be, essentially, MahaBrahma arguing with Himself. the

in fact... everything IS MahaBrahma... it's not that MahaBrahma is IN everything, ie. emmenant in things.. He IS those things, in all their various forms.

yes, this is what i thought you were referring to... a "western" classical education. what can i say expect that there are other cultural "classical" educations

Originally Posted by Robert Sutherland

Vajradhara:

To my knowledge, Webster, Hugo, Tennyson and Carlyle all had a standard classical education which would have exposed them to Homer, Virgil, Dante and Milton. Yet they all seem to rank the poet of the Book of Job at the top of that class.

I speculate from your name that your background may be Indian. If so, then you may be interested to know that some scholars have thought there was an Indian Job.

The majority of such references are to the legend of the pious king Haricandra; and the fullest accounts of this legend in recent literature may be seen in English in S. Terrien's commentary in The Interpreter's Bible (ed. G.A. Buttrick), vol. 3 (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1954), p. 879 and Theodor H. Gaster's Myth, Legend, and Custom in the Old Testament, vol. 2 (London: Harper & Row, 1975), pp. 785, 858 Most of these reports of the Indian tale are derivative from that given by Adolphe Lods both in his article 'Recherches récentes sur le livre de Job', RHPR 14 (1934), pp. 501-33 (527-28), (cited by Hölscher) and in his manual Histoire de la littérature hébraïque et juive depuis les origines jusqu'à la ruine de l'état juif (135 apres J.-C.) (Paris: J. Gabalda, 1950), pp. 691-92 (cited by Kuhl, Fohrer, Terrien).

The story as given by Lods obviously exhibits several close correspondences with the biblical narrative. It will be convenient to cite it in the form given to it by S. Terrien, a pupil of Lods, in the introduction to his commentary in The Interpreter's Bible:

The gods and goddesses were assembled with the seven Menus [ascetics] in the heaven of Indra. The question was asked whether a single human prince could be found who would be without stain or blemish. Most of the members of the divine assembly were of the opinion that there was none, but Vasishta insisted that a certain Atschandira (Haricandra) was perfect. Shiva Rutren ('the destroyer') offered to prove the contrary if the prince were delivered into his power. Vasishta accepted the challenge, and it was agreed that, depending upon the issue of the wager, one would yield to the other all merits acquired in a long series of penance. Shiva Rutren thereupon submitted Atschandira to all sorts of trials, deprived him of his wealth, kingdom, wife, and only son, but the prince persisted in his virtue. The gods rewarded him with munificence and returned to him his previous estate. Shiva Rutren gave his own merits to Vasishta, who passed them on to the hero (p. 879).

The features that are special to this account and reminiscent of Job are: (i) the narrative opens in a divine assembly; (ii) the question of human perfection is raised; (iii) one human being is singled out as a test case; (iv) there is a conflict, specifically a wager, between two members of the heavenly assembly; (v) the man loses his possessions (including his family), but ultimately has them restored.

The consensus however seems to be that there was no Indian Job. Can you assist?

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by Robert Sutherland

In the ancient biblical Book of Job, I think Job puts God on trial as the author of some undeserved evil in the world and refuses to acquit him.

What are your thoughts?

He tries to - just as we all do. The conclusion in Chapters 40-42 (minus the lame happy ending added later) is the heart of the teaching of this brilliant book:

JOB 40

1 The LORD said to Job:

2 "Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct him?
Let him who accuses God answer him!"

3 Then Job answered the LORD :

4 "I am unworthy-how can I reply to you?
I put my hand over my mouth.
5 I spoke once, but I have no answer-
twice, but I will say no more."

6 Then the LORD spoke to Job out of the storm:

7 "Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.

8 "Would you discredit my justice?
Would you condemn me to justify yourself?
9 Do you have an arm like God's,
and can your voice thunder like his?
10 Then adorn yourself with glory and splendor,
and clothe yourself in honor and majesty.
11 Unleash the fury of your wrath,
look at every proud man and bring him low,
12 look at every proud man and humble him,
crush the wicked where they stand.
13 Bury them all in the dust together;
shroud their faces in the grave.
14 Then I myself will admit to you
that your own right hand can save you . . .

JOB 42

1 Then Job replied to the LORD :

2 "I know that you can do all things;
no plan of yours can be thwarted.
3 You asked, 'Who is this that obscures my counsel without knowledge?'
Surely I spoke of things I did not understand,
things too wonderful for me to know.

4 "You said, 'Listen now, and I will speak;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.'
5 My ears had heard of you
but now my eyes have seen you.
6 Therefore I despise myself
and repent in dust and ashes."


Abodago del Diablo

[Robert Sutherland]

Abadago del Diablio:

1. Why do you think the author used "naham", a Hebrew word meaning "change course" (a word normally used to describe God's so-called repentances) rather than "shub", the normal Hebrew word for a confession of wrongdoing? (Job 42:6)

2. If Job sinned, what was his sin in light of God's comment that Job spoke rightly? (Job 42:7)

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by Robert Sutherland

Abadago del Diablio:

1. Why do you think the author used "naham", a Hebrew word meaning "change course" (a word normally used to describe God's so-called repentances) rather than "shub", the normal Hebrew word for a confession of wrongdoing? (Job 42:6)

2. If Job sinned, what was his sin in light of God's comment that Job spoke rightly? (Job 42:7)

For me, the point of Job is that there is no truth to justifying or judging by anyone - whether it is Job accusing God or his friends accusing Job or his friends justifying God or Job perceiving himself as having sinned and requiring a confession of wrongdoing as would be implied by "shub."

However, there isn't a "right speaking" either, as indicated by Job's "retraction" (ma'as) of his accusations. The NIV translation I quoted from I don't think captures the meaning ("I despise myself" instead of "I retract") Although ma'as could be translater as either "retract" or "despise", "retract" is more consisent with the use of naham (rather than shub) later in Job's final "retracting" sentence. Both words imply a change without an admission of guilt or wrongdoing.

If Job glimpses the perfection of God and the emptiness of his judgments, how could he perpetuate those judgments by turning them upon himself and judging himiself a wrongdoer or sinner for having thought thought or said them?

As for your second question, Job didn't sin.