Quid Pro Quo?

Then Satan answered the ^[f]Lord, “Does Job fear God for nothing?  Job 1:9  NASB

For nothing – How many times have you been tempted to make a deal with God?  Your theology tells you that God isn’t amenable to bargaining, but that doesn’t stop the semi-emotional push to win His favor.  After all, doesn’t a good God like to reward good behavior?  So, if I promise to be good, shouldn’t I expect His reward?  That’s the idea behind the clever accusation of haśśāṭān.  Knowing that God rewards the faithful, we obey not out of pure love but out of ego motivation.  Just in case you don’t think you’re susceptible to such crass exploitation, ask yourself this: “If there were no heaven or hell, would I still push myself to serve Him?”  In one rather scandalous sense, the Christian evangelical message that conversion will be rewarded by an entry pass to Heaven is simply a variation of the haśśāṭān argument.  The real motivation isn’t serving God.  It’s serving me because I want the reward, namely, going to Heaven.  In another example, the contemporary “prosperity gospel” crowd in right in line with haśśāṭān’s argument.

What about Job?  Is his righteousness also a function of his ego?  Does he serve God purely from the yetzer ha’tov, or is there a bit of the yetzer ha’ra involved?  All that wealth, all that status, all those benefits—don’t they play a role in his righteousness?  That question sparks the contest.  God seems convinced that Job’s motivation is pure.  The accuser raises the possibility that it isn’t.  And therefore, God accepts the challenge—on Job’s unknowing behalf, we might add.

But this seems quite strange.  God is omniscient, right?  Doesn’t that imply that God absolutely knows what Job’s real motivation is?  And if God absolutely knows that Job is in fact righteously pure, why would He engage in the contest?  Why not simply reprimand haśśāṭān for even making such a suggestion?  Behind the acceptance of the contest lies another disturbing conclusion: God doesn’t know for sure how the contest will end.  Omniscience seems not to apply to the variations possible in future human behavior.  This implication is actually supported by other biblical texts despite the traditional theological doctrine of omniscience.  In fact, as I have argued in my book, God, Time, and the Limits of Omniscience, the future free-will acts of independent agents are unknowable as actualities.  They can be known as possibilities, of course, but until a possibility become an actual choice, it cannot be known as if it is reality.  And this is haśśāṭān’s argument.  God might believe that Job serves Him from a pure heart, and all the present evidence might suggest that is the case, but until the rubber meets the road, no one, not even God, can know for sure.  You might recall God’s statement to Abraham, “Now I know that you fear Me” (Genesis 22:12).

Why should we care about such theological intricacies?  What difference does it make if haśśāṭān’s accusation is fallacious or potentially real?  Let’s apply the lesson to ourselves.  Does this mean that our relationship with God is in a constant state of tension?  That our choices can derail it?  That God’s grace toward us depends on our purity toward Him?  Is it really possible to lose your salvation?  haśśāṭān suggests that Job serves God ultimately for ego reasons.  What about us?  Are we subject to the same accusation?

Before you jump off the cliff over the possibility that one could lose salvation, remember this:  God’s action toward us doesn’t change even if our actions toward Him do.  That’s the lesson of defiant Israel.  But we also need to keep Paul’s warning in mind: “work out your salvation with fear and trembling.”  There is risk here.  The past is not a guarantee of the future.

Maybe Job’s trials are equally important to God.

Topical Index: ego, omniscience, haśśāṭān, Job 1:9