An ultimatum is a form of bargain as well, just one with very simple terms and no room for negotiation.
This doesn’t make any sense. If one side has no say in the arrangement, then it’s not a bargain. “Take it or leave it” is not a bargain. It’s simply the way things are.
In the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Talmud there are lots of stories of covenants, bargains with God, and God turning authority over to humans.
It’s not a single unified document, spoken with one voice from one point of view. There texts were written by various people at various times and then assembled. There is in fact quite bit of controversy over the true text of Job. I’ve given my interpretation by rejecting the ending, where Job gets it all back. Others would disagree, and that changes the nature of the story.
Of course it’s not a single unified document, which is why the individual stories are still worth considering on their own, I agree. But it has an overall approach that Job mostly doesn’t fit, which is also interesting in its own right. I also find the textual evolution interesting and very relevant, and I’m glad you posted about it.
“If one side has no say in the arrangement, then it’s not a bargain.”
I disagree. In your post you talk about both bargains and contracts, AFAICT interchangeably. For any possible negotiation, for each party, there is some set of possible contracts they would agree to, and some set they would not. Making offers from among possible contracts until there is one they both agree to is bargaining. Why should it be a special case if, for one of the parties, the first set contains only one element? Why should it depend on which party speaks first? And is it a special case only if there is literally zero room for negotiation, or is there some finite threshold before it can be considered bargaining?
If an ultimatum cannot be a bargain or contract, which (morally, at least) binds both sides, then that has some pretty serious implications for many transactions and interactions within the human world, without bringing God into it at all.
Or maybe I’m missing the point and it’s about enforcement power, where humans have no ability to compel God’s actions even if God makes a promise and later breaks it? This would seem to align well with the part where God talks about all the things he can do that humans can’t. But again, that’s a difference in degree rather than a difference in kind from contracts and bargains that happen in the human world all the time. And if it ever becomes known that God doesn’t keep his promises, then unless God explains and defends Himself, he loses all credibility, and humans no longer have reason to accede to His ultimatums. Which, he might not care about that, but then why issue them at all? So that leaves, I think, a trilemma: Either God doesn’t care what humans do, and therefore humans have no reason to obey God; or God does care, and so is willing to negotiate and bind Himself and changes His behavior based on human actions; or God does care, but due to his omniscience and omnipotence is already in complete control of all outcomes from all supposed bargains and therefore is solely responsible for all human actions.
This doesn’t make any sense. If one side has no say in the arrangement, then it’s not a bargain. “Take it or leave it” is not a bargain. It’s simply the way things are.
It’s not a single unified document, spoken with one voice from one point of view. There texts were written by various people at various times and then assembled. There is in fact quite bit of controversy over the true text of Job. I’ve given my interpretation by rejecting the ending, where Job gets it all back. Others would disagree, and that changes the nature of the story.
Of course it’s not a single unified document, which is why the individual stories are still worth considering on their own, I agree. But it has an overall approach that Job mostly doesn’t fit, which is also interesting in its own right. I also find the textual evolution interesting and very relevant, and I’m glad you posted about it.
I disagree. In your post you talk about both bargains and contracts, AFAICT interchangeably. For any possible negotiation, for each party, there is some set of possible contracts they would agree to, and some set they would not. Making offers from among possible contracts until there is one they both agree to is bargaining. Why should it be a special case if, for one of the parties, the first set contains only one element? Why should it depend on which party speaks first? And is it a special case only if there is literally zero room for negotiation, or is there some finite threshold before it can be considered bargaining?
If an ultimatum cannot be a bargain or contract, which (morally, at least) binds both sides, then that has some pretty serious implications for many transactions and interactions within the human world, without bringing God into it at all.
Or maybe I’m missing the point and it’s about enforcement power, where humans have no ability to compel God’s actions even if God makes a promise and later breaks it? This would seem to align well with the part where God talks about all the things he can do that humans can’t. But again, that’s a difference in degree rather than a difference in kind from contracts and bargains that happen in the human world all the time. And if it ever becomes known that God doesn’t keep his promises, then unless God explains and defends Himself, he loses all credibility, and humans no longer have reason to accede to His ultimatums. Which, he might not care about that, but then why issue them at all? So that leaves, I think, a trilemma: Either God doesn’t care what humans do, and therefore humans have no reason to obey God; or God does care, and so is willing to negotiate and bind Himself and changes His behavior based on human actions; or God does care, but due to his omniscience and omnipotence is already in complete control of all outcomes from all supposed bargains and therefore is solely responsible for all human actions.