Job continues in his defense against the accusations of the friends. They had accused him of trusting in his own wealth and power instead of the Lord (Job 4:5-6; 15:13). They claimed he had secretly accumulated his wealth at the expense of the poor and those too weak to oppose him (Job 4:8, 11; 20:5-10, 18-19; 22:6-9). The mere mention of such charges implies such behavior was, indeed, the course many wealthy men of Job’s day had taken to enrich themselves. Certainly, this is a common characteristic of those who amass wealth in own time, and it seems to have been a common method to accumulate wealth throughout history.
Accusations of poor wages and unbearable working conditions had undoubtedly contributed to the rise of labor unions and the initiation of child labor laws. Thus, if known history is any indication of what life was like in Job’s age, the friends’ accusations against Job reveal a common understanding of how wealth was gained by men with no scruples. Therefore, they assumed Job’s calamity was an indication of the Lord’s sentence upon him for his presumed wicked behavior. Nevertheless, Job objected to their charges, saying he had not made gold his hope nor rejoiced in his wealth for its own sake (Job 31:24-25).
Concerning the wealthy, if their gold isn’t their servant, it is their master, and this is behind the friends’ accusation of Job’s heart. It was an assault against his character. They believed the desire for wealth had so characterized Job’s heart and attitude toward life, that he embraced his gold as his best and only hope (cp. Luke 12:16-21). Trusting in riches is opposed to trusting God. In fact, one cannot walk with God and be guided by one’s wealth at the same time, vis-à-vis what’s good for the bottom line (cp. Matthew 19:3; Mark 10:24; Deuteronomy 4:19; 8:12-17). Therefore, Job denied their charge that prosperity had corrupted him (Job 31:26), or making the work of his hands his god and master (Job 31:27; cp. 1Kings 19:18; Hosea 13:2). The fact is, Job considered such behavior moral depravity, and he judged such conduct as denying the Lord above (Job 31:28).
Not only had Job not abused others who were weaker than himself, but he didn’t rejoice in the calamities of those, his enemies, who were his equal in power and wealth (cp. Proverbs 24:17-18). In other words, he didn’t consider powerful, unscrupulous men a threat to his wealth, whether they were his competitors or folks who simply sought to destroy him (cp. Job 1:13-20). The attitude toward the wicked, who saw him as a threat, simply didn’t affect Job’s behavior as a magistrate (Job 31:29-30). The righteousness of the righteous simply is not governed by the wickedness of the wicked. The one is opposed to the other, in that neither is inspired or driven by the other.
The fact is, even when Job’s own servants saw opportunity to destroy Job’s enemies, Job neither encouraged their attitude nor permitted them to take advantage of such an opportunity, when it presented itself (Job 31:31; cp. 1Samuel 24:4; 26:8; 2Samuel 16:9).
So, Job not only treated those weaker than himself with kindness and mercy, but he also extended that same kindness and mercy even to his enemies who were powerful and wealthy enough to hurt him. If this wasn’t enough, Job was also kind and merciful to strangers or traveling merchants, offering them the hospitality of food and shelter, as they journeyed from their cities and countries to where he lived (Job 31:32). Truly, neither Job’s righteousness nor the accumulation of his wealth was dependent upon what others did or did not do. Rather, his righteousness determined how he managed his wealth, in that his righteousness was totally dependent upon his understanding of and his submission to the ways of God
Smoodock's Blog 
15 responses to “Job’s Grace Was Extended to All”
I see you are trying to be clever. The problem is that I often miss the point of a “clever” response. I’m not a clever person, so communicating with one who is, often ends in misunderstanding. Please rephrase your point here, and pretend I am a child. What’s your point?
I believe Job actually existed, so I disagree with your Talmud. I can see the point of the meaning being in exile, however. Nevertheless, I disagree that this is the main point of the book. According to the first two chapters of Job, he was innocent and God destroyed him for no reason as far as Job’s sin is concerned. Therefore, the Jew’s exile couldn’t be the point of the book, because the Jews were exiled for a good reason. The Lord sent prophets to warn them of sin and judgment and they refused to listen. So, the exile!
I believe the main point of the Book of Job goes to one’s worldview/understanding of God. Job and the friends begin with the same worldview, but Job **knows** he is innocent of wrongdoing. So, why does God punish him. His world/understanding is in chaos and would rather die, if this is how God treats his servants. Nothing makes sense. The point is that Job changed his worldview by going through the suffering and isolation that he was forced to walk through. He grew in understanding, but the friends didn’t. They had to be physically told by God. Whether or not they repented is another story. The Jews were told they were wicked, but they didn’t repent as a nation. Therefore, they are still in exile as a nation. The Jews have no king and no Covenant with the Lord. I’m not trying to be a bigot, and I could say the same thing about the whole world. the world has been in exile since Genesis 11. Abraham was brought out of exile, but when his descendants repeatedly turned away from God, they were exiled. The only way out of exile is to repent.
mosckerr, just so you know, your latest **comment** — 633 words and two pages in my word document has been trashed. It does not address my blog-post nor does it address anything we discussed in our comments. It is, therefore, not a true comment, and we did discuss this kind of thing earlier.
[[[Xtianity jabbers about ‘grace’. Religious rhetoric sucks. What distinguishes between mercy and long suffering from grace? Undefined terms compare to naked women dancing from a pole. “Eye Candy” but as useless as tits on a boar hog.]]]
Xtianity stands on its soap box and preaches “Saved by Grace” nonsense. Grace the 5th Attribute of the Oral Torah revelation at Horev which the church abomination denies.
Undefined terms: love for example, disgusting religious rhetoric. Pie in the Sky fancy terms – with on clear definition. What you call “being clever”.
The church hates the Talmud and attempted through book burnings to destroy it – but these war crimes only inspired Hitler and Nazi fanatism.
T’NaCH commands mussar. The church revisionist history preaches “imaginary history”/the coming or return of JeZeus an imaginary Harry Potter fictional character.
Job a work of fiction. 1/4th of the Talmud aggadic in nature. Aggadatah commands prophetic mussar NOT actual historical events. Job as “fiction” as simple story which distinguishes between Moshe’s Torah blessing or curse life or death – choose.
Xtian replacement theology – this tumah avoda zarah replaces the 2nd Sinai commandment not to worship other Gods with ‘SIN’. A key example of its worthless revisionist history which promotes “Original Sin” and the need to believe in JeZeus.
G’lut/exile a key theme of the Torah. Starting with the expulsion of Adam from the Garden, to the exile of Noach to his Ark, to the promise made to childless Avram that his future born seed would endure harsh slavery exile/g’lut in a foreign land. Hence the aggadic Book of Job fits nicely with the mussar of the Torah.
The later Books of the NaCH, they serve as בנין אב\precedents for Torah common law. A precedent compares a different but similar case to a current case which a common law courtroom debates.
The style of the whole of the (Talmud/Gemara) “Difficulty/Answer” methodology, models the Prosecutor/Defense arguments before a common law courtroom!
The Framers of the Talmud (which means learning) sought this scholarship to serve as the model of Jewish common law courtrooms when Jews reconquered the Homeland as did Zionist Jews in 1948.
Church replacement theology despises the pursuit of justice through common law courtrooms!!! It demands through theological decrees what a Man must believe rather than strives to define justice as the fair judicial restitution of damages imposed upon the guilty/wicked to compensate the victim/innocent.
Just as the Court of Par’o utterly corrupt so too the Courts in Xtian European lands. No court ever forced the Catholic inquisitioners to stand before the Bar for war crimes!
Torah common law NOT a belief system. Personal beliefs merit no respect. Torah common law stands upon Case/Rule precedents. The Book of Job serves like the Gemara does to the Mishna as a commentary to deeper understand the Books of Prophetic mussar.
A gross fundamental error – to divorce the Holy Writings commentary made on the Books of the Prophets. The church abomination perverted the T’NaCH (Torah, Prophets, Holy Writings) into their vile corrupt Old Testament.
Aggadic Mussar as told in the fictional story of the Book of Job requires making a drosh (a case comparison to a prophetic earlier work). Making a literal reading of a fictional story just as brain dead stupid as believing Sherlock Holmes or Nancy Drew or Harry Potter historical human beings!
The language מלך/king as drosh metaphor. The church abomination translated the word מלך literally, Just as do those brain dead fools believe that some God created the world in 6 days and rested on the 7th.
Sorry, but I still don’t see your point. I get the hypocrisy of the Church preaching “Saved by Grace” but not following through (which is an argument in itself), but what does that have to do with what the Oral Torah claims?
What is your point about **love** not being clearly defined? Do you have a good definition? If so, let’s hear it. On the other hand, anyone, no matter what the language, religion or nation, is able to understand **love** when he sees it in action.
Cleverness is often misunderstood for being wise. This is not necessarily so. A clever person is usually very intelligent and has a sharp, often biting, wit. He is a shrewd debater, often in an amusing fashion, making his opponent seem ill witted, even when that is not true. He’s a winner, even if his premise is wrong, because he can argue falsehood, as well as he can argue the truth. He is a gifted person, but this doesn’t necessarily mean he will use his gifts for the sake of truth.
Hate is one of those **undefined** terms, is it not? Hate can be emotional and turn to bigotry. On the other hand, hate in biblical terms is choosing one thing/person over another. God loved Jacob but **hated** Esau. How do you define your use of this term? Should the Church accept the Talmud, which rejects Christ? The Talmud is for Jews; it expresses Jewish thought. The Talmud is as much for Christianity as Christianity is for the betrayal of Jesus to the Romans.
Already you are accusing Christianity to be in agreement with Nazi fanatism! Interesting!
If the Tanach commands mussar, how does this answer the Church preaching false doctrine? Just as there are many factions in Judaism, which cannot come to an agreement with what the Tanach says, so there are many things concerning Jesus in the Bible that cannot be agreed upon by the many factions within the Christian movement.
According to you: “Job is fiction” – I’ve already addressed this, and you’ve brought nothing to the table that would move me to change what has already been said.
Idols come in many forms, some of stone, some of thought/tradition. Jews and gentiles are idolators. “Original sin” is a false idea. The term should be, in as much as I can tell, rebellion. Adam sinned by lying to the woman, but this didn’t get them exiled from the Garden. It was ‘rebellion’ eating of the forbidden fruit – casting God out of their thought process/decision-making. Jesus returns us to the Garden, out of exile.
Your comparison between the Church and the Talmud seems to demand that I adopt your vocabulary or you adopt mine – In other words, because we have a different vocabulary we are at odds. This may be true is some cases, but not in all.
Concerning injustice, I admit the Church history is very blurry as far as kindness, mercy, justice and brotherly love is concerned. Our problem (yours and mine) seems to be that you believe you (the Jews) are innocent of any of these crimes in your own history. Jews… Christians we are sinners, often wicked.
Why would it be wrong for the Church to separate between the Tanach and the Talmud (its interpretation), when the Church doesn’t even accept its own commentary upon scripture – Old or New Covenants – on the same level as the scripture it interprets?
Grace the 5th of the 13 attributes of Oral Torah logic. The Xtian abomination turns to the Greeks agapi to define a Hebrew term. LOL Proof that the gospel counterfeit comes from Greek sources rather than Jewish sources. The gospel metaphor “father” refers to Zeus. Its replacement theology replaces JeZeus with the chosen first born “cohen” seed of Avram cut through the sworn alliance/brit known as the brit cut between the pieces.
The church repeated errors of reading the T’NaCH literally compares to the morality of a whore in church.
Hate: defined through (By their fruits you shall know them – the definition of false prophets according to your imaginary man/God.)
My family 7 generations of lawyers and judges in secular courtrooms. Dad told me: “You do not understand a subject UNLESS your can argue persuasively the opposing sides to that argument.
You know nothing of Oral Torah logic and therefore you equally know nothing of Oral Torah claims. Truth the 8th attribute of the Oral Torah logic system which the church for 2000+ years has denied. Can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Nazi hate of the Jews defined through the systematic murder of 75% of European Jewry in less than 3 years. This blood guilt of hate on the heads of the Xtian church like the blood that cried from the ground of Abel which denounced Church Cain.
Paul said goyim not under the law. Can’t have your cake and eat it too. The Torah commandment of Moshiach part of the law which Goyim not under. Hence new testament revisionist history does not determine the Torah commandment of Moshiach.
The Nazis based their genocide upon Xtian precedents. That’s as clear as the Sun in the Sky on a cloudless day.
The church abomination knows nothing of prophetic mussar. It stands on its soapbox and condemns sinners!! Tits on a boar hog nonsense.
I brought Rava, a late Amoraim scholar of the Talmud. Goyim despise the Oral Torah codification – the Talmud.
Idols a false translation of avoda zarah. Limiting the reality of the Gods to 3 physical dimensions qualifies as idolatry. The church abomination must have a physical historical JeZeus.
The church abomination of avoda zarah – that way from day one till today. Oh false prophet – by their fruits you shall know them. The 2nd Sinai commandment makes no mention of SIN. Church replacement theology an utter abomination. Small wonder that priest rape little boys, steal Jewish children and baptize them – like the Poop did early in the 20th Century. Blood libels pogrom illegal ghetto imprisonment, violent racism etc etc etc the Xtian religion a faith of tumah avoda zarah.
The Talmud not an interpretation of the T’NaCH but rather a continuation of Oral Torah common law learned by means of precedents. The church abomination has produced nothing in terms of judicial righteous faith. Just tits on a boar hog useless.