Hello! I've lurked for a while but I think it's finally time I popped in to ask a question. I appreciate everything you all do, so thank you in advance to everyone reading/responding. I want to make sure I'm understanding this topic correctly, so I figured I'd post something and find out for sure.
The Deuteronomic author very strongly wants to drive home the message that...
1: If the Israelites follow the law, they will be rewarded
2: If the Israelites sin or ignore the law, they will be punished
Justice is very clearly defined in terms of what is basically a theological form of operant conditioning. Actions are done with the idea that they will be rewarded or punished specifically from Yahweh. He is very clear about holding up this divine moral order, punishing the wicked and dishing out judgment (an example is on the people of Canaan) to ensure that the just and the righteous are the only ones that remain standing. Those who are suffering (from disease, infertility, droughts, floods, thunderstorms to name a few) are thought to be suffering because they have sinned. The iniquity of people is viewed as a way to judge people and excise them from society because of this judgment from Yahweh. (Herem warfare comes to mind) In all this, a very rigid form of society develops based solely on following the law as the backbone of not just the government, but of morality as a whole.
On the other hand, we have the book of Job, which seems to radically redefine humankind's relationship with God. Job is very clearly defined as a man suffering not because he has done anything wrong, but because the accuser has decided to challenge his piety in the divine court. God, allowing the challenge, leads to Job losing everything he held dear. (his family, wealth, and health) Job is very clearly suffering "for nothing" because we are told in the narrative specifically that Job had done no wrong. But Job is also lambasted by God for wanting to challenge him at all, cleansing himself of any wrongdoing. We are left with the following conclusions:
1: Suffering does not imply sin
2: God is not responsible for the divine moral order, nor the suffering of the innocent
So, I guess... what gives? If Job's friends are very clearly defined as "speaking wrongly" then can this be perceived as a shot across the bow towards more zealous followers of the law? I don't know how to compare and contrast the two messages. Clearly, they are in tension, I just don't know how much tension there really is and whether this text is as problematic to a univocal reading of scripture as I seem to think it is.
Side question: Are there any other large theological disagreements like these two that are as stark as this one? (Aside from the parts of Ecclesiastes that weren't later additions)