|
PUTTING GOD ON TRIAL:
The Biblical Book of Job A literary, legal and philosophical
study- Robert Sutherland. 1. Dr. David Clines, author
of Job 1-20 (Word Biblical
Commentary) “I found the work very
impressive, personal and authoritative. I am sure he is right about the
centrality of the lawsuit metaphor, and who better than he to explore
that.” 2. Dr.
Norman Habel, author of Job (Old Testament Library) “The text is extremely well written, provocative and should grab the interest of many educated folk. The court metaphor is indeed central to The Book of Job. God as the source of evil will shock some. I like the direction of this argument. His forceful focus on the Oath of Innocence is great. I agree that at the end Job does not sin or confess sin or repent of sin. Nor does God really answer the charge of unwarranted suffering. Yet Job is declared innocent implying, as he says, that God is the cause of this suffering.” 3. Dr.
Gerald Janzen, author of Job (Interpretation) “I am impressed with his achievement. His work in ancient Near Eastern sources is apt, and his attention to other studies on Job, by biblical scholars and others, is exemplary. Many, of course, have worked on issues of law and trial in Job; but few bring the expertise to it that his own training and experience as a lawyer furnish him. Regardless of whether one is in agreement with its various details or overall thrust, one will want to take seriously into account the perspective and analysis he provides.” 4. Dr. James
Crenshaw, author of Old Testament Wisdom and “Job” Anchor Bible Dictionary: Volume 3 “An engaging book, one that sustained my interest
even when I disagreed with the argument.” 5. Dr. Edwin Good, author of In Turns of Tempest: A Reading of Job with Translation “He certainly makes the case that the image of the
trial is absolutely central to the book.” 6. Rev. Dr. Don Thompson, General
Secretary, Colleges and Universities of the Anglican Communion Association of
Episcopal Colleges
7. Alice M. Sinnott,
In this first volume of a promised
trilogy, Sutherland proposes that the primary task for the reader of the book
of Job is to interpret the existing text and integrate seemingly disparate
elements rather than abandon the literary challenge and blame the difficulty
on a clumsy redaction of preexisting texts. He is more concerned about what
has been said than with how it came to be said and reads the received text as
a unity, seeing it as a classic text in its present form. Sutherland bases
his thesis on the notion that a lawsuit metaphor is central to the book and
claims that Job offers a nontraditional answer to the question of why there
is evil in the world. This answer is posited on four pivotal claims about
God: God created a world of unremitting and undeserved suffering in order to make
the highest form of love possible; God cannot reveal this explanation for
evil; God expects human beings to challenge the creation of such a world; God
will reveal the answer on the day of the final judgment. Asserting that Job is ‘one of the
greatest books ever written’, Sutherland reads it as a provocative
theodicy, an attempt to justify the ways of God to human beings. It is, he claims,
the story of the most righteous human being on earth putting God on trial for
crimes against humanity and refusing to acquit God. Yet its startling
resolution preserves the moral integrity of God and of Job and suggests an
even fuller resolution beyond its pages. He concludes that traditional
attempts to justify the ways of God have proven inadequate because of their
inability to deal with the dilemma of gratuitous evil and the problem of
God’s nonintervention. Sutherland outlines what he sees as a
lawsuit drama, a philosophical answer in poetry and prose put into words
through the vehicle of a legal drama. He proposes that the moral issues of
theodicy are easily translated into a legal framework of duties and rights.
Thus, Job portrays a series 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, and Job puts the friends on trial.
Finally, everything builds to the climactic moment when Job puts God on trial
and refuses to acquit God. In a series of five speeches, all of
which Sutherland claims are delivered on the Day of Atonement, Job demands to
know why there is evil in the world. Though an oath of innocence, Job embarks
on formal legal proceedings against God in order to provoke an answer. To his
friends the oath of innocence is blasphemy, but in the eyes of God this oath
is the pinnacle of righteousness. Finally, to the surprise of all, God
appears to Job but does not give him any direct answers. God places before
Job and all humanity a single question: Will they condemn God so that they
themselves may be justified? Job chooses not to condemn God but does not retract
his lawsuit. Sutherland claims that Job is .the perfect embodiment of the
selfless love and moral integrity for which the world was created.. He argues forcefully and coherently against those he
calls liberal and conservative scholars who find the legal metaphor of an
oath of innocence inappropriate. He opts for a new middle course in which he
seeks to present a single comprehensive and coherent interpretation that
preserves the moral integrity of both God and Job. Sutherland alleges that
interpretations calling Job’s integrity into question, or those questioning
the propriety of Job’s question, must be ruled out as illegitimate.
Within his own parameters of interpretation, he elects to address four
issues: Satan’s speech; Job’s oath of innocence; God’s two
speeches to Job; Job’s two responses to God. A proper handling of
these, he maintains, will unlock the treasures Job. Chapter 2, ‘A New Look at Genesis’
is an argument from a canonical perspective that the author of Job reworks
Genesis with Job as a new Adam. In a series of dramatic scenes, Sutherland
outlines the drama that moves from earth to heaven, back to earth, and back
to heaven, where God confesses to causal responsibility for the evil Satan
inflicted on Job and then back to earth for Job’s response. Chapter 3 introduces what Sutherland
proposes is the second act of the drama, which addresses ‘The Truth
about God that No One Wanted to Hear’, that is, that God is the author of
evil in the world. Here we enter a wasteland to hear Job’s three friends
and a discussion of the three cycles of speeches. Central to this chapter is
the presentation of Job’s oath of innocence involving the statement,
proof, and enforcement of his claim. Elihu, who is
perceived as speaking for God, receives brief mention toward the end of the chapter. Chapter 4 presents the third act in the
Joban drama, which involves ‘Putting God on Trial’. Arguing from
a canonical perspective, Sutherland claims that this section of Job is a
reworking of the Revelation story when the oath of innocence trumpets a final
judgment on God just before God appears in the whirlwind. Proposing the
Babylonian myth of creation as the mythological background for this scene,
the whirlwind as the powerful mythological symbol for the divine control of evil,
Sutherland claims that the author of Job is rewriting the Babylonian myth and
Genesis on two points. God creates evil. Evil is in the world before the fall
of humanity. Chapter 5, ‘A Philosophical
Analysis’, argues that Job is a myth in which the characters of God,
Satan, and Job dramatize aspects of the final cause of evil in the world.
Job, Sutherland suggests, exemplifies the potential for moral integrity that
all human beings possess. He advances this analysis by proposing, developing,
and examining ten ‘truth claims’ that describe the human
condition particularly as represented in Job. Sutherland concludes his book
with a reflection on Job as an attempt by the author to address the problem
of evil and its role in the world. Moving into theological mode, he advocates
being as patient as Job by enduring suffering that is not understood; being
as honest as Job by refusing pat answers; being as devout as Job by
exercising faith in the midst of pain. He concludes this advice with the
assurance that God will answer all questions in eternity. This assurance
appears to be at odds with the text of Job, which never speaks of an
afterlife for human beings. This volume contains two very helpful
appendices: ‘Appendix A: The Babylonian Myth of Creation’, and ‘Appendix
B: The Canaanite Myth of Re-creation’. The selected bibliography
reveals what is evident throughout the book: that Sutherland is familiar and conversant
with research on Job. The endnotes are detailed and unobtrusive. An index would
have been very helpful in this volume. Many scholars have examined issues of law
and trial in Job, but few bring to it the perspective provided by Sutherland
with his legal training and expertise. Regardless of whether one is in
agreement with his argument as a whole or in part, his perspectives and analyses
must be taken into consideration in any study of the book of Job.
Sutherland’s work is unusual, self-assured, and a noteworthy treatment
of a biblical text that continues to puzzle and intrigue. His work on Near
Eastern sources is significant, and his attention to studies on Job by
biblical scholars and others is admirable. This book is a thorough and rigorous
presentation of the legal arguments of Job, to which the author has added a breadth
of information set in the contexts of Canaanite and Egyptian legal
frameworks, with Job’s oath of innocence as the pivot. Sutherland
explains clearly the philosophical basis for his argument and articulates his
case carefully. His commentary and conclusions make eminent sense if one
accepts his starting points. The proofreader failed to notice several
printing or typographical errors, such as, page 99, ‘in’. for ‘its’; ’whether’ for
‘where’; page 105, ‘shutter’ for
‘shudder’; page 106, ‘pseudi-epigraphical’
for ‘pseudepigrapha’. The consistent
use of ‘he’ throughout for God and the use of ‘man’
throughout this text may be perceived as offensive and exclusive by many
readers in a time when inclusive language is generally expected. A number of
headings are separated from the text to which they relate, as in page 31,
.Trial By Ordeal.; page 40, .A Whirlwind Of Righteous Indignation.; pp 44,
.Job’s Road to an Oath of Innocence.; page 88, .God’s Second
Speech.; page 90, .The Mythological Worlds. Although some of his assertions and conclusions
may need to be tempered, Sutherland’s main thesis is arresting and
challenging. In this clearly written, thought-provoking text, Sutherland
successfully defends his proposal that the court metaphor is central to the book
of Job. His portrayal of God as the source of evil will shock some readers,
but his persuasive concentration on and development of his theory of the oath
of innocence is impressive. Through sustained legal reasoning, Sutherland
effectively proves that at the end Job does not sin, confess sin, or repent
of sin, and in the same way he persuades the reader that God never really
answers the charge of unwarranted suffering. By following this line of
reasoning, he demonstrates that Job is innocent and implies that God is the cause
of Job’s suffering. Reading Putting God on Trial may demand reconsideration of beliefs
and understandings of God and the text of Job. 8. Tim Perry,
In this book Robert
Sutherland, a Canadian lawyer and senior fellow at the Mortimer J. Adler
Centre for the Study of the Great Ideas, integrates biblical exegesis and
theological analysis in the service of theodicy: ‘an attempt to morally
justify the ways of God to man” (10) The results are mixed. As exegesis,
‘Putting God on Trial’ is closely argued, aware of the relevant
critical studies, and familiar with comparable ancient literature. Although I
am a non-specialist, I believe Sutherland demonstrates his theses. Namely,
(1) that an ancient form of law suit, known as the Oath of Innocence, is the
central motif in the book; (2) that through it, Job puts God on trial; (3)
that although God turns up to answer Job, God fails to address the charges
directly; and as a result, (4) that Job’s Oath proves his innocence
which his friends’ rush to defend God is, in the end, sinful. This
small book provides much grist for the mills of those involved in teaching
and pastoral work. Theologically,
however, some issues need further work. First, it is unclear that Job is a
theodicy or should be used to construct one. As Sutherland himself argues,
Job ends with a description of creation, a call to trust in God, and
Job’s complaint unanswered. It
deliberately has not justified the ways of God to human beings. Second, it is also unclear that
Sutherland’s exegesis demands a wholesale reconsideration of Christian
theodicy, as implied on pages 10-11. In the end, the theodicy offered is a
version of the ‘greater good defence’
that is at least as old as Augustine, who spoke of the ‘Happy
Fall’ that initiated the plan for human salvation. Of course, to address those matters,
Sutherland will need to write another book.
I for one would welcome it. 9. Peter Fergus-Moore, book reviewer for The
Chronicle-Journal, published in “The author brings formidable credentials to his task. His language is clear and, with some effort, his reasoning is understandable- it is rather like listening to a scholar presenting a logical case to a colleague, while being aware that lay people are listening in. Sutherland takes the time and trouble to explain the philosophical basis for his argument and articulates his case so carefully that, by the time the reader finishes the final chapter, his commentary and conclusions make eminent sense if one accepts his starting points. My starting points [as a Unitarian] are very different from Robert Sutherland’s and so therefore are my conclusions. Even so, any reader- myself included- will owe him a debt of gratitude for this book. Even a cursory reading of Putting God on Trial will bring all but diehard biblical literalists to reconsider their beliefs and understandings of God and the scriptures, and this is no small or bad thing. A careful reading yields much treasure, and can be a starting point in itself for spiritual growth. This book will be on my library shelf.” |