Finally, Job turned from speaking with his friends to speaking with the Lord. While the text doesn’t come out and say he turned to speak to God, the fact that he did is clearly understood in the question he asks: “What is man, that you should magnify him? and that you should set your heart upon him? And that you should visit him every morning, and try him every moment” (Job 7:17-18)?
David asked God a similar question:
“What is man, that you are mindful of him? and the son of man, that you visit him? For you have made him a little lower than the angels, and have crowned him with glory and honor. You made him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; and you have put all things under his feet” (Psalm 8:4-6)?
At this point I’m reminded of a quote from an American writer and lecturer, Dale Carnegie, who is credited with saying: “Two men looked out through prison bars. One saw mud, the other saw stars!” If we consider our lives to be that prison, we can conclude that David looked upon the positive, while Job expressed life’s events in the negative. Both interpret the truth of life from the perspective of their circumstances: David was king, while Job was in constant pain and misery. Nevertheless, whether king or a man who is destitute and suffering each moment of his life, they express a question that we need to address. Why is God so mindful of man?
While God cares for other creatures, their habits and violent behavior don’t seem to bother him in the least. So, why does God take a special interest in man’s behavior? Moreover, to Job’s point, why would God inflect so much pain on an individual he created, and it doesn’t matter that he may not have done so directly, because God visits him each morning, yet he doesn’t lift a finger to alleviate his pain. He grants no intermission, no moment of comfort, but simply inflects pain (whether directly or indirectly) and isn’t moved to intervene and alleviate that pain, even for a moment (Job 7:18), not even for the time it requires to swallow one’s saliva or to draw a single breath (Job 7:19). Why?
Indeed, Job admits to being a sinner in Job 7:20. However, his admission of being a sinner is offered in the context of his question: “What is man that you should magnify him?” (Job 7:17). In other words, of all your creatures, which you have created, and considering which you bear no special interest in their behavior, why is my behavior of such importance to you? What have I done to **you** that you should magnify my sins and punish me so severely? In other words, Job is asking God why he had set a mark on him and nit-picks his behavior, as though Job was a burden to God, and God expected some restitution. However, what is man able to do to repay God for anything, whether it is a blessing given to man or an offense committed by man (Job 7:20)? What could man possibly offer God in thanksgiving for a blessing or in restitution for an offense?
Finally, Job asks God why he simply won’t pardon his transgression. Paraphrased: “God! Why don’t you just forgive me? What can I possibly do to remedy the situation that has arisen between you and me? What gift could I offer, or what punishment could I endure that would suffice, and cause you to take away your hand that is ever present upon me? I am ready to die, and tomorrow morning you may come to seek me, and I won’t be found. Why don’t you simply forgive me?” (Job 7:21).
Many folks may ask these or similar questions, when their lot is to endure constant pain. They seem to echo in the wind, and go unanswered throughout the victim’s predicament. Nevertheless, God has yet to speak, and he will do so later in this book. While he doesn’t reply directly to any of Job’s questions, the Lord does reply sufficiently enough that Job seems to be satisfied with the answer he received, and, perhaps, this would be good enough for others, as well.
Smoodock's Blog 
15 responses to “Why Won’t God Just Forgive Everyone?”
QUESTON: Job 1:1 states, “There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job; and that man was blameless, upright, fearing God and turning away from evil.” However, Romans 3:23 states that all have fallen short of God’s moral perfection.
RESPONSE: Job himself didn’t believe that he could stand before God based on his own righteousness (Job. 9:1). He wasn’t blameless before God; he was blameless before man. Job “was righteous in his own eyes” (Job 32:1). He was a relatively righteous compared to the others in his day and age. Job himself admits that he does have transgression (8:21; 38; 42:6), but he is still considered righteous. Today, we might speak of the “righteous party” in a divorce settlement. By this, we do not mean that the spouse was sinless, but that they were relatively righteous by comparison.
To be the true seed of Abraham and heir of the promises, you had to be born as Issac was, not as Ishamel was through the flesh. This is why Paul could say, all in Adam die, all in Christ are made righteous. Paul said everything was corporate, not a sliding scale.
Proof of this is that Job was not born as Issac was. Paul said that Sarah had no children from the time of Issac to the time of Christ because Paul quotes Isaiah 54:1 and says “now we brethren (the first fruits) are born as Issac was and heir of the promise. The meaning here is clear: only by soverign choice and power of God could you be saved. All were dead in Adam and could do nothing of themselves. Would God throw me in the lake of fire if I missed it by 1%. Is anyone perfect?
Greetings Donald. Are you taking issue with the fact that Job is said to be blameless? You seem to be doing that with your quote of Romans 3:23. I take the position of both scriptures being correct. By doing that I must find a way that they don’t contradict, but still be meaningful in themselves, for we are told that scripture cannot be made to contradict (cp. John 10:35). So, Job is blameless, but he does not ascend to the moral character of God. He is perfect and upright, and there was none like him as to his moral character (Job 1:8). In other words, God, himself, couldn’t expect greater moral integrity from an imperfect human being. At least, in as much as I can tell, this is what the word of God tells us.
You said:
That is not what the word of God says. Jesus, the Word of God (John 1:1), “became” flesh (John 1:14). Born of God, yes, but he became flesh. There is nothing wrong with our flesh. Isaac was not born according to law, natural law (Sarah’s dead womb) or human law (Code of Hammurabi which permitted Ishmael’s birth), neither was Jesus born according to the Law (of Moses), vis-à-vis from Joseph’s loins, but both Isaac and Jesus were flesh, and Jesus’ body of flesh, physically descended from Isaac through David (cp. Acts 2:30; Romans 1:3; Hebrews 7:14). The physical line from Abraham to Jesus is important.
Moreover, your analogy seems incorrect to me. The birth of Isaac, although miraculous, was due to what both Abraham and Sarah did together. This is not so with Jesus. Yes, he had a human mother, from whom he obtained a body of flesh, but he was a living Being prior to his exchange of bodies (Philippians 2:6-7).
As for death, both you and I shall die, just as Adam died, because we were both born into his race, but Christ gives us a gate out of Adam to eternal life, rather than eternal death. Finally, if you are drawing from Galatians 4:27 for your proof, that has nothing to do with Isaac’s birth. Paul is comparing the Old and New Covenants in that verse.
Lord bless you, Donald.
If what you said about Job was a fact without any other intepretation you might have a point. The reason I posted the question and answer is to prove that itis not conclusive and there is another interpretation. We have to look elsewhere.
What Paul said is conclusive. Paul said, “Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. This creates 2 groups, those born of the flesh and those that receive the promise. The meaning is obivious, only those born as Issac was, soley by the choice and power of God as Issac was, would inherit the promise. This takes human works completely out of the picture. In Adam we were all dead in sin: By one man sin entered the world and passed to all men. Only God could save us.
This is what Paul meant when he said, now we are born as Issac was. He was speaking of the first fruits and if they were holy the whole batch was holy. Taht was the point. All humans fell short of the Glory of God no amount of works could change that. Only through God’s soverign choice and miraclous power could we be saved. Jesus did not die for what we did, he died for who we are. In the flesh, We all fall short of the Glory of God and there is nothing we could do to get out of it.
Paul was a member of the first fruits elected by God. He said he was Hebrew of Hebrews and perfect as to the law. But he said I am sold under sin. Who can save me. He said for by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God Not of works, lest any man should boast. For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh. Your making salvation dependent on us. There is none righteous, no not one. God has assigned all to disobedience.
In the first Adam all die, in the last Adam all are made alive. In my opinion this is the story of the Bible.
Greeting Donald, and thank you for this discussion. I don’t know how much further we can go in this, because I try to be certain in what I say, but I am ever aware that we know only in part, and, although in times past, I’ve gone further in things, even too far at times, I fear that too much satisfaction in what I know leads to self-deception (1Corinthians 3:18), so I don’t wish to go beyond what is written in stating with I believe the text means (1Corinthians 4:6). Whenever Jesus’ disciples went ahead of him, they failed and had to be told to return and follow him. So, I try (sometimes failing) to remain in the teaching of Christ, when I speak and write (cp. 2John 1:9). Therefore, I am uncertain how much further I will be able to discuss this subject matter with you. I hope you understand.
This is fine, as long as both the scripture we use to “interpret” doesn’t take away the meaning of the scripture in question.
I believe we are in agreement here.
Although I wouldn’t phrase what I believe quite as you have, I think we are in agreement here.
We are not in agreement here. The scriptures tell us that Christ died for our sins (1Corinthians 15:3; cp. Matthew 26:28; Romans 3:25; 4:25). He didn’t die for who we are, because he saved us because of who we are. We are the image of God (Genesis 1:27), but we rebelled and pushed God out of our thinking (Romans 1:28). Because of our rebellion and the sins that this produced, Christ died. Of this I am certain.
I believe we are in agreement here.
I thought we were in agreement that “all are saved”? If “all are saved,” how can salvation depend on what I do? Christ saves; that’s his work. But I am called to work the works of God (Ephesians 2:10), which he called me to do. Being faithful to my calling brings reward, but the reward is not salvation; that’s the work of Christ. If I build upon that foundation, I have a reward, but if I build on another foundation, my works will be destroyed, and I’ll have no reward, but I’ll still be saved (1Corinthians 3:11-15).
Lord bless you, Donald
I appreciate your taking the time. I feel lucky to have a chance to challenge my beliefs with someone as knowledgable as you. That is how we learn.
It’s apparent now that I misunderstood you about salvation. I thought you were trying to include works as part of salvation in some way. However, I would still differ on works for rewards if you mean after you die you will get a reward. The blood of Christ cleasnes us from all sin.
My view is that rewards only applied to the first fruit Jews (144,000) during the transition period becasue they were elected to service. Thier only judgement would be that they could be blotted out of the book of life and have to endure the wrath of God if they did not endure to the end. But that did not affect thier salvation since in the end “all Israel would be saved”.