Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Ethics, etc. > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 10/7/2002 3:07 PM (GMT -6)

Doc

quote:

Brandi: Didn't God use Job's calamities for a greater good?

As I read it, the "greater good" was that God’s method of running the universe would be proven right – to the reader and to the "sons of God" gathered at the council meeting – over against satan’s accusation that God runs a Machievellian universe.

Iconoclast

I just read a good book called “The Story of Job’s Beginning”. It is an exegetical analysis by Meir Weiss written in 1983 and published by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. It only focuses on the prologue – Job 1-2. It acknowledges that it is likely that this was an addition to the original story yet argues persuasively that it is an “organic” addition by a skilled author.

As much as I would like to I won’t go into the full analysis but I will say that a key component was the determination of the meaning and role of “ha-satan” (the adversary) in the text. The author’s conclusion is that “ha-satan” is a rhetorical device used by the author in order to NOT ascribe doubt to an all-knowing God. He argues that this is similar to Zachariah where “ha-satan” is used to show God as only being an agent of mercy versus “ha-satan” being focused on justice like a prosecuting attorney. Again, a rhetorical device related to theological concerns.

To do this the author goes through a comprehensive analysis of the use of this word (“ha-satan” = Satan) in its various forms throughout the Bible. He categorizes three basic usages:

One) An attitude of opposition, occasional and transient, caused by a specific, temporary situation. One interesting example of this is in Numbers 22:22, 32 where the angel of the Lord says to Balaam, “It is I who came out “ha-satan” (as an adversary) …” The author says, “From this usage we can also determine that the behavior indicated by the word ‘ha-satan’ is not in itself objectively evil.”

Two) A permanent office like a prosecutor. This is when the definite article is associated with it. This is a common noun and is the usage in both Job and in Zachariah 3:1-2.

Three) A proper noun denoting the heavenly being who incites and tempts human beings to sin so that God will punish them.

Interestingly enough, the author deals with the passages in I Chronicles 21:1 and II Samuel 24:1 in passing to show how “ha-satan” is being used as a proper noun. He also touches on the meaning of the connection but that is for a later post…

A key aspect of the structure of the story that the author shows is the parallel between what is going on in Heaven and what is going on in Earth. He shows that the stories are actually parallels of each other – the only difference being the introduction of Satan into the “Heaven” view. Where Job has doubt about his children’s righteousness the parallel doubt of Job’s righteousness is relegated to Satan. Again the author argues persuasively that the meaning of the story is that God is the one who has doubt about Job’s righteousness and that Satan was introduced as a theological consideration because an all-knowing God cannot have doubt.

The KEY ISSUE of the story is DOUBT.

In Heaven the question is: does true fear of God for its own sake exist or not?

On Earth the question is: is there an ethical basis to God’s behavior or not?

Before looking at this further I will make a claim:

This story is fundamentally another creation story like Adam and Eve designed to communicate the deep truths related to the dichotomy between the nature of Love and the Knowledge of Good and Evil. But whereas the Adam and Eve story is primarily from the perspective of God the story of Job is primarily from the perspective of us humans.

Job is a perfectly righteous and upstanding man who fears God and follows Him in all His ways. Even Job’s children are perfect. Job is completely and totally blessed by God. In essence one could say that Job is living in the Garden of Eden. But it is a Garden that brings forth its fruit based on the doctrine of “Wisdom”.

The doctrine of “Wisdom” (the author’s term) is basically the doctrine that the righteous are given rewards commensurate with their righteousness and the wicked are punished commensurate with their wickedness. It is quite simply the very best of human Ethics – which is nothing but the knowledge of good and evil.

The KEY ISSUE to understanding this story is to see that the WHOLE story is from the perspective of human kind. Again, as in the “lying spirit” story, the heavenly scenes in Job in NO WAY constitute a “meta-story” of the story of Job. Rather these scenes are an integral part of the overall meaning.

Thus it is NOT that God REALLY doubts whether Job is righteous or not and therefore must torture him to see if he is really faithful. This is a major mis-reading of the story.

It is also NOT that God is trying to prove to some REAL adversary that Job really IS righteous and loves God. This is also a major mis-reading of the story.

What the story is conveying is that THIS is the very best that the doctrine of “Wisdom” can come up with from ITS perspective. In other words THIS is the human perspective of how we seek to justify God. And, YES, it has all the holes that Mephi constantly hammers on – as can be seen in the story. But the purpose of the WHOLE story is to blow away this very perspective by DENYING in TOTAL the doctrine of “Wisdom” while at the same time showing the absolute and incomprehensible goodness of God. Or, at least, incomprehensible to the doctrine of “Wisdom”. And why is it incomprehensible to the DOCTRINE of Wisdom? Because it is a DOCTRINE. It has as its foundation the stolen knowledge of good and evil.

First let me try to show this by looking at the Heavenly question – the Heavenly DOUBT. The heavenly question is: does true fear of God for its own sake exist or not?

But first notice that this question cannot possibly be uttered by the omnipotent God who created the universe. It is absurd on the face of it. It can only be attributed to Him by US in an attempt to understand what is going on. But since we know that He could never have uttered it we MUST invent a DOUBTER, an ADVERSARY as the one who uttered it.

From the perspective of one caught in the knowledge of good and evil THIS is the powerfully insightful question that leads us in the right direction. However this question can never be answered from this perspective. It can only be answered from the place where the knowledge of good and evil is already overcome. It can only be answered in Christ.

In Christ we can see that this question is pointing NOT to God’s doubt but rather to God’s desire and God’s design. In Christ we know that Love is the goal. Love is God’s desire and we learn that free-will is God’s design for we know that Love can ONLY be chosen. It is quite simply orthogonal to the doctrine of “Wisdom”. And thus the doctrine of “Wisdom” can only point in its direction while being totally mystified in being able to comprehend it.

Thus the Heavenly scenes in Job are the doctrine of “Wisdom’s” best view into the reality of God’s love. And yet this view misses the essential feature entirely – it misses His total and complete Love and Goodness.

Let me quote the final conclusion of the author:

Meir Weiss

There is thus a debate in heaven: does true fear of God for its own sake exist or not? In order to resolve this heavenly debate, Satan, on God’s authority destroys the logical, harmonious, ethical world of “the Land of Uz”, which, being a speculative construction, the creation of the “wise” over-sophisticated man in his own image, has no basis in reality. This imaginary world is destroyed, but only for Job. His friends continue to believe that it exists, as real as ever.

On earth the debate still rages: is there an ethical basis to God’s behavior or not? Is the doctrine of “Wisdom” true or not? Eliphaz believes that God’s behavior is based on justice, and that Job’s situation proves this since he had taken pledges from his brother “for nought”. But Job no longer sees in this world of “Wisdom” anything more than the blind and deaf chaos of God’s arbitrary dealing: Job’s situation proves this, for God “multiplies his wounds – without cause”. Yet he refuses to accept what he sees, and he cannot accept what his friends say. He therefore searches and beseeches god, demanding to be shown the whole truth, the world’s eternal truth. In order to settle the controversy on earth, God will appear to Job and will show him the world in all its stark reality. On the surface it is illogical, disharmonious, unethical. Yet the heart will comprehend that all the details of the world complement each other, forming one unified whole, each and every detail “good” in itself, and in its entirety “very good”, complete, perfect, and, as a creation of God, as incomprehensible as its Creator.

Iconoclast

“The Land of Uz” is the new, totally imaginary, Garden of Eden that the stolen knowledge of good and evil seeks to construct. For God (Satan is really an aspect of God in this story) to destroy this land is metaphorical language AND it is from the “land of Uz’s” perspective.

The meaning of this is that God in his mercy destroys this fantasy construct of ours BECAUSE it is our ETERNAL DEATH. We are dead in this “Land of Uz”. He frees us from this “Land of Uz”.

Of course this is also metaphorical from OUR perspective. From GOD’S perspective love requires free will – it must be chosen. Thus in order to ALLOW us to participate in His triune love He provides us a reality that is in each and every detail “good” in itself and in its entirety “very good”. We only need to live in His reality with Him as our source of life. This is the TRUE Garden of Eden. It is US who through our rebellion and our insistence on seeking life on our own fall into the doctrine of “Wisdom” and thus FRAGMENT the whole which is good into parts which we seek to bind to US as our own new center of life. It is as though we tear asunder the whole into fragmentary parts in order to reassemble them in alignment with ourselves as the center. We are thus surrounded by a cloud of fragmentary parts and we are desperately seeking to piece them together using the very best of our ethical thinking, using the very best of our knowledge of good and evil to put them into an order that is good. Our heart knows what “good” is but our knowledge of good and evil cannot order the fragments into anything resembling this “good”. It is an impossible and unneccessary task. For we only have to die to our own knowledge of good and evil to realize that we are creating all the fragments in the first place. When we see directly with our heart we see that the fragments are really part of a whole. We see that the whole is good and that once the fragments are reintegrated with the whole that they are good as well – but only insofar as they are part of THE whole and NOT torn asunder as a THING in and of themselves that we want to label as good or bad.

Burton Watson on Chuang Tzu (from the introduction to “Chuang Tzu – Basic Writings”)

If man would once forsake his habit of labeling things good or bad, desirable or undesirable, then the man-made ills, which are the product of man’s purposeful and value-ridden actions, would disappear and the natural ills that remain would no longer be seen as ills, but as an inevitable part of the course of life. Thus, in Chuang Tzu’s eyes, man is the author of his own suffering and bondage, and all his fears spring from the web of values created by himself alone.

Iconoclast

“The Land of Uz” itself creates all the calamities that befall Job. It is itself a delusion created by the man who has lost his origin and now lives in the knowledge of good and evil.

God the merciful creator does not allow this delusion to completely take hold (thereby assigning us to Eternal Death) but upholds the reality of His creation and thus allows His love to break through calling us to die to this doctrine of “Wisdom” and thus see with our “heart” the wholeness and goodness and Love of His creation and thus of the Creator.

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 10/13/2002 3:38 PM (GMT -6)

Thanks for the insightful and provocative post Icono. I’ve never read Weiss’ work on Job, but you’ve stimulated me to do so. I have in the last several years become somewhat addicted to the book of Job and have come to believe that Job is the single most profound book ever written.

There is a great dealin your post with which I agree (over and against the traditional reading of this book). But I don’t think I concur with Weiss’ over-all conclusion. As you record it, Wiess says:

"Job’s situation proves this [the limitations of the Wisdom tradition] , for God "multiplies his wounds – without cause". Yet he refuses to accept what he sees, and he cannot accept what his friends say. He therefore searches and beseeches god, demanding to be shown the whole truth, the world’s eternal truth. In order to settle the controversy on earth, God will appear to Job and will show him the world in all its stark reality. On the surface it is illogical, disharmonious, unethical. Yet the heart will comprehend that all the details of the world complement each other, forming one unified whole, each and every detail "good" in itself, and in its entirety "very good", complete, perfect, and, as a creation of God, as incomprehensible as its Creator."

I simply don’t get this from Yahweh’s response to Job. Where in chs. 38-42 does God say THIS? Is Weiss really suggesting that Job’s horrendous experience is part of an over all "good"? Is he suggesting that the killing of Job's children, the loss of all his possessions, and the tormenting state of his health actually "complemented" others aspects of creation and helped form "one unified whole" which was " in its entirety 'very good', complete, perfect" and was the direction " creation of God"? Frankly, THIS sounds very close to the Calvinistic reading that ALL THINGS are ordained by God for the "greater good" of the whole. (I'm suspecting that I'm misinterpreting you and/or Weiss here).

AS I read it, Icono, what Yahweh does in his response to Job is a) show the incomprehensible complexity of creation (38-39) and b) remind Job of the cosmic forces of chaos he has to contend with (Leviathan and Behemoth, chs. 40-41). The point, as I read it, is to expose our VAST IGNORANCE of the creation and the warfare that engulfs it.

I am in complete sympathy with the Weiss’ point that this book exposes the limitations of the Wisdom Tradition, and thus of our knowledge of good and evil. I love the way you connect the "land of Uz" with "the garden of Eden." I want to explore this more deeply. But, as I read it, what transcends our stolen knowledge of good and evil is not a quasi-mystical experience of the heart that perceives the goodness of the whole of reality AS IT IS, but the awareness that we humans don’t know much at all about the complexity of creation and the forces of evil that engulf it.

As I read it, the prologue (which I with the majority of scholars grant is a literary fiction) is intended to convey that there are things that go on in the heavenly realm (viz. the satan’s accusation against Yahweh’s mode of providence) that affect our lives, about which we know nothing (Job and his friends are never told about this challenge!). The reader is given access to this heavenly challenge to give them a vantage point the characters in the narrative do not have. And THAT is central to the point of the narrative. WE ARE IGNORANT. (This is why I don’t find arguments suggesting the prologue was added later very persuasive). But I simply am not persuaded that if we were to transcend the wisdom tradition – our knowledge of good and evil – we would see the satan’s challenge as an unreality. As I read it, I think the book is teaching us that we should accept our ignorance about the strucdture and complexity of creation and about the forces that resist God, and thus not accuse God (as Job does) or accuse each other (as Job’s friends do) when evil befalls us.

How fundamental is my disagreement with Weiss? It seems pretty fundamental.

Doc

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 10/17/2002 1:02 PM (GMT -6)

testing... tap tap... tap... testing? yo joey... dis ting work'n?
number 9. number 9. number 9... tap tap... hello?

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 10/17/2002 8:16 PM (GMT -6)

Doc

Weiss:

quote:

Yet the heart will comprehend that all the details of the world complement each other, forming one unified whole, each and every detail "good" in itself, and in its entirety "very good", complete, perfect, and, as a creation of God, as incomprehensible as its Creator."

I simply don’t get this from Yahweh’s response to Job. Where in chs. 38-42 does God say THIS? Is Weiss really suggesting that Job’s horrendous experience is part of an over all "good"? Is he suggesting that the killing of Job's children, the loss of all his possessions, and the tormenting state of his health actually "complemented" others aspects of creation and helped form "one unified whole" which was " in its entirety 'very good', complete, perfect" and was the direction " creation of God"? Frankly, THIS sounds very close to the Calvinistic reading that ALL THINGS are ordained by God for the "greater good" of the whole. (I'm suspecting that I'm misinterpreting you and/or Weiss here).

Iconoclast

I think I see your objection. I am not sure how to answer it directly except to say that this is certainly not how I understand it.

Doc

I simply don’t get this from Yahweh’s response to Job. Where in chs. 38-42 does God say THIS?
…
AS I read it, Icono, what Yahweh does in his response to Job is a) show the incomprehensible complexity of creation (38-39) and b) remind Job of the cosmic forces of chaos he has to contend with (Leviathan and Behemoth, chs. 40-41). The point, as I read it, is to expose our VAST IGNORANCE of the creation and the warfare that engulfs it.

Iconoclast

I don’t read it like this. In my view Leviathan is a crocodile and Behemoth is a hippopotamus. I see God talking about them as amazing and wonderful creatures – powerful, majestic and without fear.

I see this language as a parallel to Job trying to take on God. It is all about man in his pride thinking he can gain and hold creation for himself (the fragment thing) – and the folly thereof.

Job 40:6-14

Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind: “Gird up your loins like a man; I will question you, and you declare to me. Will you even put me in the wrong? Will you condemn me that you may be justified? Have you an arm like God, and can you thunder with a voice like his? Deck yourself with majesty and dignity; clothe yourself with glory and splendor. Pour out the overflowings of your anger, and look on all who are proud, and abase them. Look on all who are proud, and bring them low; tread down the wicked where they stand. Hide them all in the dust together; bind their faces in the world below. Then I will also acknowledge to you that your own right hand can give you victory.”

God is challenging Job’s fragmentary notion of the “good”. He is challenging Job to look at a wider perspective. The very next passages are about behemoth and leviathan. I see God speaking about them to make the very same point to Job. What is happening here is that God is switching from the very largest perspective (God Himself) to now make His point very concretely with a couple of His mightiest animals. He shows that Job dare not in his pride even take on leviathan lest the consequences be severe.

Job 41:1-2

“Can you draw our Leviathan with a fishhook, or press down its tongue with a cord? Can you put a rope in its nose, or pierce its jaw with a hook?”

Job 41:7-10

“Can you fill its skin with harpoons, or its head with fishing spears? Lay hands on it; think of the battle; you will not do it again! Any hope of capturing it will be disappointed; were not even the gods overwhelmed at the sight of it? No one is so fierce as to dare to stir it up. Who then can stand before me?”

Right after this passage about leviathan Job answers God.

Job 42:1-5

Then Job answered the LORD: “I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted. ‘Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?’ Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know. ‘Hear, and I will speak; I will question you, and you declare to me.’ I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you.

Job’s response is one of a new POSITIVE understanding. He now sees the overall order and that it is “too wonderful for me, which I knew not.”

Job does not show any indication of an “intellectual” response where he understands that it is all just too complex for him to really understand and that He will just have to trust that it will be all Ok in the end. Job is actually left feeling “filled”. His “eye seeth thee.”

Job actually overcomes his fragmentary notion of the “good” and “seeth” with his full “perception” the overall order – and that it was “good” – “too wonderful”.

There are two poles of activity in the mind: “intelligence” and “thought”. David Bohm here again.

Mr. Bohm from “On Creativity” in the sub-chapter titled “The parallelism between intelligence and the process of thought”:

In my view, the clearest way of considering the overall operation of the mind is through inquiry into the distinction between intelligence and thought. I propose that the word “intelligence” commonly signifies a kind of mental alertness which is in essence a sort of perception. In the primary act of insight, which, for example, takes place in a flash of understanding, we see (though, evidently, not through the senses) a whole range of differences, similarities, connections, disconnections, totalities of universal and particular ratio or proportion, and so forth. This insight, which is of the essential quality of intelligence, cannot ultimately be a mere product of memory and training, because in each case it has to be seen anew. Rather, it is an act of perception though the mind (essentially what was called “nous” by the ancient Greeks). As such, it is a particular case of perception as a whole. This latter includes not only perception through the mind, but also sense perception, aesthetic perception, and emotional perception (perception through feelings).

It seems clear that the totality of perception cannot appropriately be analyzed further, or traced back to some yet more fundamental faculty. Rather, this perception is itself a primary act. Of course, we can analyze certain details concerning how the organs of perception (e.g. the eye) work, and how the nerves connect these organs to various functions in the brain. But this is in no sense an analysis of perception itself. Rather, before we can even make such an analysis we have to take for granted the operation of intelligence or perception through the mind. Without this. Such an analysis would have no meaning. For how can the intelligence needed to perceive the meaning of this analysis be itself perceived and compared with what is implied by the analysis?

Nor is it appropriate to try to identify perception in its totality with some particular faculty, such as imagination or reason. For, after all, the meaning of the word “imagination” must ultimately be restricted in some way by its implicit reference to the power to make mental images. And the meaning of the word “reason” is similarly restricted in some way by its reference to the power to develop discursive displays of “ratio” or rational thought. In my view, both Coleridge and Hegel tend to put something rather limited in its implications, such as imagination or reason, into the place for the primary source of creation and origination in the human being as a whole. I would rather suggest that the act of perception, considered as a totality which is not yet differentiated, is closer to this source. For the origin of this act must evidently be intrinsically unknown and indefinable, not capable of being attributed to some particular faculty that may be involved in perception. (This means, of course, that perception in its totality could not ultimately be explained or accounted for in terms of any theory, scientific or otherwise, because each theory is itself a form of insight, and therefore merely a particular and special kind of perception.)

The other side of the operation of mind is indicated by the word “thought.” Considering that this word now refers to what in Coleridge’s terms would be called “the pole of mental process opposite to intelligence,” we note that, in thought, the aspects of recurrence, repetition, identity, and stability are what is given a primary emphasis. The roots of thought are indeed indicated by all the uses of the prefix “re,” which means “to turn around” and “to come back again.” Thus, the eternal recurrence of day and night, or of the seasons, must make a deep impression on the mind of man. Long before he could consciously think of the subject, the whole operation of the mind must have become stable attuned to this recurrence, so that, for example, the expectation of the following of day and night on each other became a fixed feature of his mental processes. Similarly, when men continually repeated certain operations, conscious or otherwise, these became fixed in their minds as habitual reactions. Indeed even the most abstract operations carried out today, such as those used in mathematics, soon result in a similar reaction, so that a skilled mathematician has a great deal of his knowledge “at his fingertips” in a form that requires little or no conscious attention. So, in all these ways, man’s thinking process slowly came into being and formed itself into what may be called reactive thought.

Reactive thought works quite well as long as experience does not go too far outside the context in which such thought developed. But, sooner or later, something is bound to happen with which the existing pattern of reactive thought cannot deal adequately.
…
From the above it is clear that as we approach the extreme in which reactive thought is the principal factor in mental operation, the process will tend to become mainly mechanical.
…
It is thus clear that reactive thought is in essence a mechanical process.
…
Nevertheless, unless there is an opportunity for reflective thought to respond beyond the framework of such a mechanical mode of operation, thought as a whole will inevitably entangle itself in a growing mass of problems and difficulties that it cannot resolve.
…
So when reflective thought is dominated by the attempt to find a solution that would fit in with the background of already existent reactive thought, it inevitably commits itself to imitating these crude and gross patterns of response. The main way in which it does this is overemphasizing the hard and fast definition of logical categories.
…
How, then, can thought respond to a problem or a difficulty without being dominated by an irrelevant, confusing, and generally destructive mechanical pattern of reaction? Evidently, what is needed for this is a quality of insight going beyond any particular form of reaction and associated reflective thought. This insight must be free of conditioning to previously existing patterns, otherwise it will, of course, ultimately be just an extension of mechanical reaction. Rather, it has to be fresh and new, creative and original.

As indicated earlier, insight of this kind is a form of perception through the mind, which is the essence of what is most deeply meant by the word “intelligence.”
…
It cannot be too strongly emphasized that what is being suggested here is that intelligence does not thus arise primarily out of thought. Rather, as pointed out earlier, the deep source of intelligence is the unknown and indefinable totality from which all perception originates.

Clearly, then, intelligence is not to be regarded as a result of accumulated knowledge which could be learned, for example, as a science or as a technique. Rather, it can perhaps best be regarded as an art – the art of perception through the mind. Such an art requires great insight and skill. When these are absent, thought quickly gets lost in confusion.

There can be no system or specifiable method for avoiding the tendency for thought to fall into such confusion. Rather, what is required is a general alertness which makes us aware, from moment to moment, of how the process of thought is getting caught in fixed sets of categories. However, even such alertness does not provide for perfect harmony in this unceasing movement. Nevertheless, with the right quality of mental energy, insight, and skill, the art of intelligent perception will enable us sooner or later to meet whatever difficulties may arise, without getting lost in the fixity of categories that leads to irresolvable confusion. And so it may perhaps be said that it is just in such creative perception of disharmony in the process of thought, that man may come upon the deepest harmony that is open to him.

End of Bohm quote.

Iconoclast

Job’s reactive, mechanical, fragmentary thought, - his “notion of the ‘good’” – was shown to be such by God. God called Job to use his “perception” – using what was already right in front of him (behemoth and leviathan) – to “see” and therefore gain a new insight about the nature of God and His creation. This left Job, I contend, deeply satisfied and to me “fits” with what Weiss says:

quote:

Yet the heart will comprehend that all the details of the world complement each other, forming one unified whole, each and every detail "good" in itself, and in its entirety "very good", complete, perfect, and, as a creation of God, as incomprehensible as its Creator."

To me, this still leaves room for fragmentary orders that are torn asunder from creation and within which evil occurs, against God’s will. Yet even these fragments that are torn asunder are embraced by God and the overall creational order in order that they are brought back to Him. And THIS is a key part of what it means for the creation in its “entirety” to be “very good.”

Thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Edited by - Iconoclast on 10/18/2002 01:39:12 AM

BJS
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587

Posted 10/18/2002 4:39 AM (GMT -6)

I share Doc's concern about Weiss' following statement:

quote:
Yet the heart will comprehend that all the details of the world complement each other, forming one unified whole, each and every detail “good” in itself, and in its entirety “very good”, complete, perfect, and, as a creation of God, as incomprehensible as its Creator.

How can this be consistent with the reality of spiritual warfare? What exactly are we fighting against if "all the details of the world complement each other?" Doc's point that this sounds eerily similar to Calvinism is a strong one. Weiss' thesis also sounds very much like the yin-yang theory of much Eastern religious thought.

In process,

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 10/18/2002 11:53 AM (GMT -6)

BJS

How can this be consistent with the reality of spiritual warfare? What exactly are we fighting against if "all the details of the world complement each other?"

Iconoclast

We are fighting against our own tendency to hold to our own notion of the "good" as a fragment that is over and against the whole.

We have found the enemy. And it is us.

BJS

Doc's point that this sounds eerily similar to Calvinism is a strong one.

Iconoclast

This is radically different from Calvinism in that Calvinism would have to say that for me to hold to my own notion of the "good" as an absolute is really God's will. This view clearly states that this is NOT God's will and that to do so is sin which leads to evil which is NOT God's will.

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 10/28/2002 5:16 PM (GMT -6)

Intriguing ideas. Bohm is always intriguing. I like the insight about reactive thought verses intelligence. But I wonder if its here being pressed too far, and I'm not convinced it squares with the book of Job.

a) With others, I have trouble envisaging Job seeing the loss of his family as in any sense "good." I have trouble seeing the loss of any family "good." I may be locked into my limited reactive thinking, but this is how I see it. If I am limited, I nevertheless feel in good company, for it seems to me that Jesus shared this perception. As I see it, Jesus diagnosed the illnesses, deformities, etc... of the people he confronted as evil, due to the floggings of the devil or demons, and not in any sense a natural part of creation. If I'm understanding Bohm correctly, and/or Icon correctly, these should not be so diagnosed, for they are part of the TOTAL WHOLE.

b) Sorry Icon, I can't go with you in interpreting Leviathan and Behomoth as natural creatures. Seems to me that Yahweh is depicting -- in typical ancient near eastern images -- evil forces that threaten creation. Behemoth "makes its tail stiff like a cedar;
the sinews of its thighs are knit together" (40:17). " Its bones are tubes of bronze, its limbs like bars of iron (vs 18). “It is the first of the great acts of God— only its Maker can approach it with the sword (vs 19). This doesn't sound like a natural creature to me.

Leviathan seems even more supernatural. God asks, "Can you fill its skin with harpoons, or its head with fishing spears?
(41:17). If Leviathan were a hypopodamous, the answer would be yes. Yahweh says, "Any hope of capturing it will be disappointed" (41:9), something that couldn't be said of a natural creature. Even more to the point, he says, "even the gods overwhelmed at the sight of it." (42:9)/ " No one is so fierce as to dare to stir it up. Who can stand before it? Who can confront it and be safe? —under the whole heaven, who?" (42:10-11). Could any of this be said of a natural creature.

But the description gets even more "cosmic" as Yahweh proceeds. " Who can open the doors of its face? There is terror all around its teeth. Its back is made of shields in rows, shut up closely as with a seal" (42:16-17). And even more terrifying, "Its sneezes flash forth light, and its eyes are like the eyelids of the dawn" (viz. the rising sun, vs.18). " From its mouth go flaming torches; sparks of fire leap out. Out of its nostrils comes smoke,
as from a boiling pot and burning rushes. Its breath kindles coals, and a flame comes out of its mouth." (19-21). Surely this is no creature the earth has ever known. But the Lord is not done.

" When it raises itself up the gods are afraid; at the crashing they are beside themselves " (vs. 25). " Though the sword reaches it, it does not avail, nor does the spear, the dart, or the javelin "(26). "It counts iron as straw, and bronze as rotten wood (27). "The arrow cannot make it flee; slingstones, for it, are turned to chaff" (28). "Clubs are counted as chaff; it laughs at the rattle of javelins" (29). " It makes the deep boil like a pot; it makes the sea like a pot of ointment "(31). "On earth it has no equal, a creature without fear" (33). "It surveys everything that is lofty; it is king over all that are proud.” (34)

Given how similar this description is to the typical cosmic monsters of the ancient near east, which people believed inhabited the waters encircling the earth and which always posed a threat to the world, I cannot help but conclude that the author of Job has cosmic monsters in mind.

Yet, even if one were to grant that these ARE cosmic monsters, you could still hold to the Weiss/Bohm reading... for in this view ALL of creation is good, so long as it is seen in its interrelated complexity. If one is unable to accept that even the cosmic forces of evil are part of the good of the whole, then they are unable to accept the Weiss/Bohm reading.

And this is the situation I find myself in.

For what its worth,
and thanks for the intriguing proposal.

Doc

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 10/28/2002 6:07 PM (GMT -6)

Ahhhh, HERE'S the discussion of Job. I started somethin' else, but this is good. Be back later; gotta go walk my morning walk.

Peace,
Tom

"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 10/28/2002 6:46 PM (GMT -6)

Doc, what do you make of the New Living Translation translating Leviathan as "crocodile" and Behemoth as "hippopotamus"?

Job 42:1-5

Then Job answered the LORD: “I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted. ‘Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?’ Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know. ‘Hear, and I will speak; I will question you, and you declare to me.’ I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you.

Also, what is your interpretation of Job saying that God uttered "things too wonderful for me" right after God tells him about Leviathan and Behemoth? If Job interprets God as having to contend with enormous evil forces that are the true cause of all Job's suffering why would Job say that it is something "too wonderful for me" and not something like "wow - I never knew it was so difficult for you God - I guess I should just quit whining about my problems because they are nowhere near as big as yours"? Do you also see Job being "filled" by God's answer versus just realizing that he needs to "suck-it-up" because life is hard and evil is bad?

Doc

If one is unable to accept that even the cosmic forces of evil are part of the good of the whole, then they are unable to accept the Weiss/Bohm reading.

Iconoclast

I would say that evil arises ONLY out of the good of the whole but that it is a distortion of the good. Thus it is both part of the good of the whole and it is at the same time NOT good because it is the good that is fragmented from the whole. It is thoroughly evil precisely because it is a fragment of the whole that is torn asunder from the whole - and in that sense it is now no longer part of the whole. Thus I can accept that evil is NOT part of the good of the whole and yet accept the Weiss/Bohm reading. I can accept that Job's family being killed is NOT part of the good of the whole - it is a fragment torn asunder - it is evil - while at the same time affirming that part of the meaning of the good of the whole is that the whole allows itself to be fragmented thusly in order that the fragment may itself come to life and thus "newly" participate in the good of the whole.

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 10/30/2002 4:31 PM (GMT -6)

Icon: Doc, what do you make of the New Living Translation translating Leviathan as "crocodile" and Behemoth as "hippopotamus"?

Doc: Our resident Hebrew expert TGB should weigh in here, but as I understand it, the word Leviathan literally means something like "coiled one" and Behemoth means something like "beast par excellence." The NLT is INTERPRETING, not translating, the terms. For reasons given above (e.g. blowing fire out of the mouth) I think it is a poor interpretation.

Icon: …what is your interpretation of Job saying that God uttered "things too wonderful for me" right after God tells him about Leviathan and Behemoth? If Job interprets God as having to contend with enormous evil forces that are the true cause of all Job's suffering why would Job say that it is something "too wonderful for me" and not something like "wow - I never knew it was so difficult for you God…

Doc. As I read it, the point of God’s monologue was to show Job that he knew next to nothing about creation and could do nothing to tame forces of evil. The word "wonderful" (pala) does not necessarily entail "good, beautiful" but "awe-inspiring," "exalted," and even "difficult." (Speak up TGB. I had four years of Hebrew, but that was 25 years ago). The point, as I interprete it, is not the beauty of creation, but the mind-boggling awesomeness of creation.

Iconoclast: I would say that evil arises ONLY out of the good of the whole but that it is a distortion of the good. Thus it is both part of the good of the whole and it is at the same time NOT good because it is the good that is fragmented from the whole…I can accept that Job's family being killed is NOT part of the good of the whole - it is a fragment torn asunder - it is evil - while at the same time affirming that part of the meaning of the good of the whole is that the whole allows itself to be fragmented thusly in order that the fragment may itself come to life and thus "newly" participate in the good of the whole.

Doc: I’m not sure I’m following you here Icon. If the whole IS good, and if this is the awareness Job came to, then it seems that it is only in Job’s (and our) limited perceptions – our reactive mind – that evil is evil. Some things are evil considered in their particularity but are good considered in their relationship to the whole .

Whatever else may be said about this view of evil (if it is indeed the one you are espousing), it is the Augustinian view of evil to a tee. Hence, Augustine argues (in the Confessions) that for God there is no evil since he always beholds the whole (though Augustine adds, God decrees the whole, which you [insightfully I must say] deny).

I have to frankly confess to having little affinity for this aspect of Augustine. Here’s a question: you say "the good of the whole is that the whole allows itself to be fragmented thusly in order that the fragment may itself come to life and thus "newly" participate in the good of the whole." How does the death of Job’s family participate in the good of the whole? Or the torture of Zosia?

Blessings in your reflections

Doc

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 10/31/2002 2:29 AM (GMT -6)

I only had three years of Hebrew, dude, so YOU'RE the expert now! But Arabic is VERY similar to Hebrew and has kept me from totally forgetting everything!

"Wonderful" (pala) doesn't seem too difficult. It's used different ways. Here are some examples:

Ex. 3:20 "So I will stretch out my hand and strike the Egyptians with all the wonders that I will perform among them. After that, he will let you go," and Micah 7:15 "As in the days when you came out of Egypt, I will show them my wonders." God does "wonders" in Ex. 15.11; 34.10; Jos 3.5 and all through the Psalms, e.g., "Tell of his
wonders!"

But in Dan. 8.24 it's "astonishing [viz., "wonderful"] devastation" that God will bring about. And Lam. 1:9 has, "Her uncleanness was in her skirts; she took no thought of her doom; therefore her fall is terrible ("wonderful"), she has no comforter."

David grieves for Jonathan, "Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women." Interesting.

Then on to Job:

Jb 5.9 and 9.10 "...who does great things and unsearchable, marvelous things without number."

Jb: 10.16, "And if I lift myself up, thou dost hunt me like a lion, and again work wonders against me." (Again, like Dan. 8.24 and Lam. 1.9, where "wonders" are not "wonderfully good" things.)

Jb 37.5, "God's voice thunders in marvelous ways; he does great things beyond our understanding.

Jb 37.14, "Hear this, O Job; stop and consider the wondrous works of God."

Jb 42.3, "...'Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?' Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know."

Given Hebrew parallelism in general, I'd say that in 42.3 "pala" is parallel to "not understanding" and "not knowing" = incomprehensible. Same thin in Jb 37.5, where "marvelous" ("wonderful") ways = "great things beyond our understanding" and Jb. 5.9 and 9.10 where "wonderful" = "unsearchable."

In 43.2 Job's just admitting, "Hey, I didn't know what I was talking about!" not to be understood that all he said was in fact wrong; just that what he said was incomplete--there's more to it all than what he said. Doesn't look like "wonderful" is intended to ascribe "value" (either good or bad) to what he's talking about.

Tom

Edited by - TGB on 10/31/2002 07:37:31 AM

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 10/31/2002 2:44 AM (GMT -6)

Hi-

Wanna post this here. Took it from the thread “Book of Job” and thought it made better sense to keep Job discussion here:

---------------------------------

I don't have his permission to quote his stuff here, but a friend of mine is writing a commentary on Job. I thought I'd float out four theological truths he discerns from the prologue:

(1) Satan wants to undermine our faith/commitment.
(2) God grants Satan limited power to operate in our lives.
(3) Satan’s work is ultimately the work of God.
(4) God aims to sustain and strengthen commitment, and so magnify his worth in our lives.

Comments?
Tom
------------------------------

Here were some of my thoughts on this that I sent my friend:

"I’ll be interested in seeing how you unpack these. Satan wants to undermine our faith and commitment (1), while God wants to sustain our faith and commitment (4). But Satan’s work (1) is ultimately the work of God (3). Isn’t this the same as saying that Satan’s efforts to undermine our faith and commitment are ultimately the work of God? (If not, how is it not the same?) And doesn’t this also end up meaning that though God wants to sustain our faith and commitment (4), he ultimately works to undermine that faith and commitment (3)? How does this avoid giving us a picture of a God who is conflicted within himself? How do your four theological truths not lead to this conclusion? Equally important, in counseling people in how to deal with suffering in life, how does one make existential sense of (3)? How does one demonstrate in everyday life (in opposing evil, in alleviating human suffering, etc.) the belief that all the evil Satan works in the world is 'ultimately God’s work'?"

Truth is, Job really challenges me. I'm struggling to understand it. Doc, does not the prologue challenge a main point of your SPE, namely, that "God always does all God can do to minimize evil" (or was that not a main point of SPE)?

God obviously minimizing the evil Satan is able to bring against Job (with respect to his health, his financial security, and his posterity--children, etc.). God has erected a wall of protection around Job. GOD removes that protection and does LESS than God could do (less than he was doing) to minimize evil. Was God free to engage or not engage in this face-off with Satan over Job? I assume so. So the claim that God always does all God can do to minimize evil is out.

So we add to "all God can do to minimize evil" the qualification "...given the kind of world God has created." OK. This works because it locates the complexities in creation (where you argue they belong) and not in God.

Then we have the thread on--what is it?--"Love and Torture"? I'll have to review it. I remember leaving that thread (because of my schedule) with the thought being put forward that the qualification "...given the kind of world God has created" be enlarged to include, "...given whatever unseen purposes God might want to fulfill." In the end I felt like we had qualified omnibenevolence so much that it was not very recognizable.

Now, the prologue of Job seems to me to rule out gratuitous evil. Why posit gratuitous evil if God permits evil in the course (for the purpose) of settling a cosmic score with Satan, proving to the angelic assembly that his way of running the universe is right? We could simply dump all otherwise inexplicable evil right here in this category, e.g., something's going on in heaven between God and Satan. Now, this may seem to be the same as you GAW thesis, except that Job seems to encourage us to concede that some evil takes place because God expressly and purposefully permits it for his own reasons. The reason in Job is NOT that God permits some lesser evil to avoid a greater evil. The evil God permits in chs. 1 and 2 is not designed to avoid a greater evil. It's permitted to demonstrate a greater good.

1. What need is there for gratuitous evil now?
2. If God does not always do all God can to minimize evil, then have we not abandoned (or significantly redefined) omnibenevolence [formerly and incorrectly posted as "omniscience"]?
3. I don't know what 3 is.

Tom
------------------------------------

There were a few responses there. Check ‘em out if you want. This might or might not relate to what Iconoclast is up to here. Sorry Iconoclast if it’s not. Let it slide by if it’s not germane. But I’m interested in Job right now.

Tom

"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde

Edited by - TGB on 10/31/2002 07:47:06 AM

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 11/1/2002 6:35 PM (GMT -6)

Thanks for the clarification on pala TGB. I think it shows that Job need not be saying "how wonderfully good" all is, but "how terrifying above me is all this stuff". Hence he repents.

Now, about the prologue. Here's a few reflections:
* In my view, its a typical (but inspired) fictional prologue to an epic poem. We should be careful about reading too much into it, just as in the parables (for example).
* Satan wasn't invited to hte heavenly council. He just shows up. He is clearly not one of God's helpers, since God has to ask where he's been. He just says, "oh, running too and fro."
* the fact that a HEDGE was already in place around Job -- indeed, this was Satan's complaint -- shows that Satan was regarded as working at cross purposes with God. He WANTED Job, even before this meeting. This was NOT a "divinely orchestrated appointment."
* The challenge from Satan is whether or not God runs a Machievellian universe... do people worship God freely, or are they manipulated by the "benefits and rewards "theology. There's only one way for God to be vindicated (at least in the context of this literary work), and that is by putting it to a test. A straight refusal would have left all the angels -- and readers -- wondering if Satan actually had a point.
* the central point of the prologue -- which is, I believe, the only point we can theologically read from it -- is that things happen in the heavenlies that affect us. The readers know what Job and his friends never find out... and THIS is the point.
* In any event, nothing warrants the conclusion that the prologue of Job sets the universal norm for how Satan has to always operate. The book isn't meant to explain that Satan gets special permission for each and every thing he does. (As in, "God, may I now influence this dismembering of a little child. " "Why yes you may Satan." )
* The evil that happened to Job is GRATUITOUS in that there was no overarching reason why Satan showed up or issued the challenge. He got caught in a capricious wager!
* It may show, however, that sometimes the reason why evil happens to particular people has to do with cosmic purposes that are simply beyond us -- Mephi's point. In this case, a book about the mystery of suffering had to be written... so Job suffers. Even here, however, we have every reason to suppose that God would have wished Job didn't have to suffer. if satan hadn't fallen, and if the world wasn't so freaking screwed up, etc... this never would have happened.
* finally, the prologue needs to be read in the light of the monologue of Yahweh. God here appeals to the complexity of the universe and the cosmic beasts he's up against -- not to his RIGHT to directly or indirectly treat people like &^((@!% and call it "good." He disagrees with BOTH Job AND his friends.

What d'ya think TGB?

Doc

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 11/6/2002 12:22 AM (GMT -6)

Doc-

Sorry to take so long in replying. I was off in the precreational inner-Trinitarian life trying to figure out whether or not there was any “time” there.

I agree that the Prologue offers readers the key, interpretive key, to the book. About the prologue you mentioned that a) it’s fictional (but inspired), b) it’s theological point is “things happen in the heavenlies that affect us,” and c) it should be read in the light of the monologue of Yahweh (where God appeals to the complexity of the universe and the cosmic beasts he's up against and not to his RIGHT to directly or indirectly treat people like *$^#!@ and call it “good.”

I like (c) very much. (b) seems clear enough. Does (1) entail the denial that Job is unhistorical? He’s just a literary creation?

Satan’s “showing up” uninvited at the heavenly council and the “hedge” around Job presuppose some kind of “warfare” worldview. As you say, Satan is working at cross purposes with God. OK.

That Satan’s main beef is with GOD and not with Job (or creation, per say), namely, that God runs a Machiavellian universe (= Do people worship God freely, or are they manipulated by the "benefits and rewards "theology”) is cool.

Then there’s…

Doc: There's only one way for God to be vindicated (at least in the context of this literary work), and that is by putting it to a test. A straight refusal would have left all the angels -- and readers -- wondering if Satan actually had a point.

Tom: But God brought up Job in the first place, right? God challenged Satan. He egged him on, “Have you seen Job? Check him out?” What did God expect Satan’s response to be? This suggests that the test is more God’s initiative than God’s response to Satan’s challenge. God wanted this test to play out. Doesn’t this throw a slightly different light on the whole deal? Doesn’t it involve God (indirectly) in the evils of the test?

Doc: In any event, nothing warrants the conclusion that the prologue of Job sets the universal norm for how Satan has to always operate. The book isn't meant to explain that Satan gets special permission for each and every thing he does.

Tom: I suppose we need to balance Job then with those passages that clearly show Satan acting in ways God has not permitted. Job doesn’t tell the whole story.

Doc: The evil that happened to Job is GRATUITOUS in that there was no overarching reason why Satan showed up or issued the challenge. He got caught in a capricious wager!

Tom: But it’s a wager it seems God COULD have avoided had he not brought Job into the discussion at all, which is what we’d expect if it’s true that God always minimizes evil. Does God freely initiate a course of action he KNOWS will lead to this wager? If so, God WANTS the wager. Why? To prove to the heavenly council that his purposes for creating us in the first place (freely chosen love as opposed to a “Machiavellian” love) were what...were ‘right’? were ‘justified’ were ‘achievable’ (“Here’s Job; Job is an example of what I set out to achieve”)? I guess I’m just asking myself, “Is this a good reason for God’s permitting evil in this case?” Does God doubt that his reasons for creating were right or good? Certainly not. Something ELSE is going on here and the prologue doesn’t explain it! Arrghhh. Why write the stupid prologue if you’re not gonna clear up things! Sheesh.

Doc: It may show, however, that sometimes the reason why evil happens to particular people has to do with cosmic purposes that are simply beyond us -- Mephi's point.

Tom: “Cosmic purposes”—but the purposes, per the warfare worldview I think, are to minimize/destroy evil. Here the purpose is to prove a point VIA evil. No?

Try this--Perhaps what we’re saying in effect is: The evil involved in this test NOT happening was (cosmically) greater than the evil involved in the test. Whatever evils Satan was permitted to bring against Job’s family and health were LESS than the evil that would have prevailed (or probably would have prevailed) had the test not been permitted. That greater evil would have been what? The heavenly assembly being “tempted” by Satan to doubt God? Another rebellion of angelic forces? Given Yahweh’s dialogue later in the book this seems altogether plausible.

So what we have in the wager, in God’s removing the “hedge,” and in the suffering that follows IS God doing all God can do to minimize evil. All of this IS the sacrificing of a pawn. Job’s sufferings are needed to thwart a greater evil (that being a contest for the wills of further angelic beings). You still have the incomprehensible complexity of creation, but the fundamental theological assurance that God always does all God can do to minimize evil overarches. If this is something like true, then one could argue that in mentioning Job FIRST God is NOT initiating the challenge. Satan’s showing up IS the challenge. God mentions Job in response to Satan’s presence.

What d’ya think?

Tom

"Kind of like donut holes--no one's ever eaten a donut hole because they don't exist." Starkman

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 11/7/2002 10:26 AM (GMT -6)

I'm trying to get this written down as I'm thinking it through. This thread has prompted me to think through what's been sitting on my back burner as a theological issue for sometime. Pardon the erraticness of it.

If we consider Job with the rest of Scripture and the heart and passion of God after relationship with mankind, I think there's something more fully explained in our lives, as Christians (and OT Israel), then would otherwise have been.

Without Job, it seems that the Bible's account of man's cruelty toward each other and Satan's afflictions upon mankind (with what little is given about Satan in regard to the matter) is left still with something dangling in the air: what is to drive a person's belief that suffering is more complicated and theologically deeper than just pain in and of itself? What is it that would explain more than just "why?" but give something of meaning to suffering?

But let me deviate for a minute . . .

Paul is an example of suffering in the NT. He explaines that he fills up in his body those afflictions lacking in the body of Christ; he is saying something to the effect that what Christ has accomplished has still left suffering to be filled up. There is an incompleteness with regard the subject of suffering; Paul was filling up that which was incomplete.

Now, my wisdom and revelation of this passage is about nill, but I know that it correlates with something of the glory of others--"I ask you, therefore, not to be discouraged because of my sufferings for you, which are your glory" (Eph 3:13). Peter adds to this recipe: "But rejoice that you participate in the sufferings of Christ, so that you may be over-joyed when his glory is revealed" (I Pe4:13).

This kind of theological approach, however, isn't directly taught in the OT, at least not that I can think of off the top of my head, except with the exception of Job. There's a lot of suffering, there's a lot of meloncholy, but it's kind of in this unexplained vortext which too easily leaves us with the impression that suffering is merely a result of the fall of man. Well, in one sense it is, but what encompasses it and how God uses it, I believe, is more fully explained in Job than anywhere else.

Now, whether we ascribe the Job prologue as fiction or not, or whether Leviathan is a dinosaur, existing animal, or a cosmic beast (whoa!), the theology and purpose of the book emerges with global implication and meaning. Job doesn't speak to us about the "ways" God uses evil here (though we see God doing so) as much as what we are to do with God even having entered the realm of evil--the account of the conversation between Satan and God and the results thereof; the heavenlies pour out, the earth (Job specifically) fills up. For aimless reasons? Hardly not.

Job becomes (for the reader) the Paul of his time. He fills up what is lacking in man's knowledge of God's glory and in the glory that is to be revealed. As Job suffers, he is left without explanation, but WE are not. We at least know that God, who is loving and gracious, is not a sadist (or is that masechist? You know, the guy that likes to inflict pain. Gads, my memory!) There must be a reason, therefore, why God's allowing this evil to come upon Job, but it is the reader--millions upon millions--who really reap the reward, not Job. Job, for all tense and purposes, is still left in the dark after all is said and done, but he knows one thing: God loves Him and God is in much more control than Job can fathom. But what about us, the read?

Job becomes a monument in that he "fills up what was lacking", he is the vessel who receives the outpouring cup of affliction that others may drink of the glory that is revealed from this outpouring. Without Job, we would be left (in the OT) without the bigger picture of how suffering never transcends the God who allows it, but rather, as Paul experienced, becomes both opportunity for glory to be revealed in others, and opportunity for the glory of God to be revealed.

What an OT reader of the days before Christ (and after, of course) could reflect upon after reading Job would be the immensity of broadness that encompasses the suffering of man. Man is more than fallen; he has entered an arena where suffering is now major surgery in the work towards the defeat of the fall. The reader can enter himself into this suffering with Job. He can relate to more than just "well, bad things happen"; he can rejoice that it isn't the bad things that happen, but the glory revealed which transends and is exalted above the suffering.

Where as Paul is aware that his sufferings are the glory of others (man, that's deep); Job is not aware of this. Peter is aware that suffering opens the door for the glory which will be revealed; Job is not aware of this. The theology is the same from the heavenlies.

I believe this plays something heavy into the reading of Job, but I'm not able to grab it any better than this at the moment.

Got to go,

Starkman

Edited by - Starkman on 11/07/2002 3:29:49 PM

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 1/7/2003 3:36 AM (GMT -6)

Doc-

I dug this up rummaging through old files. Hey, since Job is your favorite book, what do you make of the last two paragraphs in my last post above (just before Starkman’s)?

Tom

Love never ends

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 1/7/2003 3:59 PM (GMT -6)

I agree that "something like this" is true. Given the genre we're dealing with, I'm not confident we can say what this "something" is, metaphysically. On the level of the literary narrative, it seems to be that the integrity of God's providence would be called into question among all the heavenly hosts were the challenge to be left unanswered. But the main point is that things go on in the heavenlies that are beyond our purview, but which significant affect us... and it has nothing to do with how righteous or unrighteous we are." Job is a divinely inspired, poignant way of God saying, "stuff happens" -- and you WON'T UNDERSTAND IT. But it happens because of the dynamics of creation, not the opaqueness of God's character or purposes.

We is on the same page buddy.

Blessings

Greg

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:49 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual