Job 22

Eliphaz restates (though with more force and specific detail) his original criticism of Job: he must have deserved what he got.

The specific criticism is no light weight stuff considering the nature of God's character:

"Is not your evil abundant?
For you have exacted pledges of your brothers for nothing
and stripped the naked of their clothing.
You have given no water to the weary to drink,
and you have withheld bread from the hungry.
The man with power possessed the land,
and the favored man lives in it.
You have sent widows away empty,
and the arms of the fatherless were crushed."

This is the kind of stuff God takes very seriously. Of course most times the prophets warned against God's judgment for these sort of behaviors they were warning people but rarely (if ever) telling weeping people in the street "I told you so."

There are two problems with Eliphaz's criticism:

1. We the audience know that they are inaccurate. Now if the book of Job were a history of a king or noble we might consider chapters 1-2 as fluff written under the guidance of mighty hands but Job is written less as a history and more as a parable or drama. It may well have been historical but that has nothing to do with how it was written. So as an audience we can not think of Eliphaz's criticism as accurate or even sincere because god has described Job as a just and righteous man and Eliphaz has enough knowledge of Job's life to know it. Eliphaz knew what sort of life Job lived and would know that he was not such a wicked oppressor. This makes Eliphaz seem a vicious, vicious mocker.
2. But suppose that we take Eliphaz's statements as more humanitarian finger pointing rather than malicious lies one would wonder what sort of life Eliphaz lives. If he correct that any person who lives a comfortable or rich life is counted wicked while there are still poor people then who is counted innocent at all? Who could escape Job's fate? Certainly not Eliphaz, he was a peer of Job. If he was not as rich as Job he most certainly was in his neighborhood. Eliphaz ought not have been judging Job but quaking in fear.

My application of Job is starting to materialize:
Do not be like Eliphaz, Bildad or Zophar
I live a sweet, sweet, sweet life. It is filled with all kinds of comforts and confidences that mostly began around the time of my conversion. Most of the stuff I am praised for was not true before I was a Christian. There is this tendency to think how lucky (if not smart) I was to be a Christian and to make the solution to other people's woes: be more like me. "Are you poor and struggling? Be more like me!" "Are you depressed and suffer from low self esteem? Be more like me!" "You want God's blessing? Be more like me!"

Though I hope this sort of thinking is rare but it is a danger. The truth is that even though I have received a crap load of blessing from God and have found great joy in following God but God does not love me more than those who suffer, I have not earned my blessing and God is worthy of praise without these many blessings I have received.

And there is an important remembrance: the greatest joy of my conversion was at day one. It was knowing that God loved me. I like having some financial security, good looks and respect but I would give all of that up in favor of knowing God's love. Or put another way I can imagine living poor and ugly and disliked... but I would never go back to my life without Jesus Christ, not for all of the gifts this life could offer.

This is not a great statement about my character but a simple observation: the poverty in God's family is richer than the wealth in the world.

So don't be so judgmental, Mikey.

Job 21

Here Job finally answers, for himself though probably not his critics, the question of instant karma. His critics have been saying that he must have sinned against God to have such horrible things happen to him because "that is just how it works" (paraphrase). With powerful language Job answers them:

"How often is it that the lamp of the wicked put out?
That their calamity comes upon them?
That god distributes pain in his anger?
That they are like straw before the wind.
and like chaff that the storm carries away?
You say, 'God stores up their iniquity for their children,'
Let him pay it out to them, that they may know it"

Job spends most of the chapter talking about how pleasant their life is, their children singing and dancing, their calves born healthy and the weather so nice... with dinner parties and egg salad though they say to God 'Depart from us! We do not desire the knowledge of your ways." If they are so wicked as to hate God then why are they not destroyed like Job has been?

I some how doubt Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar will acknowledge Job's point. Jesus however certainly agreed with Job here pointing out "God causes the rain to fall on the just and the unjust" and when a tower collapsed killing the workers people said it was because of some sin Jesus said "Be careful or something worse could happen to you." But my favorite would be in the Gospel of John when his disciples asked Jesus why this man was born blind, "For his sins or the sins of his parents?" Jesus does more than refute the instant karma argument which says if you do evil, evil will come to you, he answers why God who is all powerful, all knowing and all loving would not just allow but perhaps even to causes someone to be born blind. Jesus says "It was not for this man's sins or his parents' sins that he was born blind but so that God's power could be shown through him." God allows suffering so that He can reveal His character by comforting and healing that suffering.

Of course, the counter argument from the peanut gallery is "Wouldn't it have been better if God had simply never allowed any suffering to enter the world? Wouldn't the man still have an argument against God for the first 30 something years spent blind." My only answer is that we can not answer that question for other people. It is insufficient to answer this question "in theory" for someone else.

Now the cured blind man in John could have perhaps said "God you were wrong to have made me blind." But theoretical philosophers, such as myself, cannot say with justice if God's healing was worth the suffering endured. We can only answer for ourselves.

For myself... I have suffered a fair share of undeserved calamity, most of it in the first ten years of my life. I don't know how you can say "it could have been worse" fairly but certainly I have met people who have endured much worse. Still the result of what I did suffer caused great despair and my old motto "my world is cold and without hope" was not melodramatic but a common sense (almost bored) assessment of my life up to that point.

I can say for me who has suffered that God's healing extended through time and made the whole of my life a blessing rather than a curse and I praise Him and His wisdom in allowing what has happened in my life.

Job 20

Yesterday Job seemed to have made a breakthrough of sorts... and I peeked ahead to see that in chapter 21 he is going to make even more progress... but today I was stuck with Zophar's non-response.

I say it is a non-response because it does not address anything Job actually has said. But the interesting thing about this chapter is that out of context it is not at all contradictory with the main thrust of the Bible. The chapter is a lengthy description of how short the time of the wicked is and that in the day of the Lord's wrath they will lose everything.

In context of Job the unstated point is that Job's situation mirrors the situation of the destiny of the wicked so he must be one of the wicked. Zophar's way of thinking might be described as ideological. It has an idea of how the universe works and insists that evidence meet that idea rather than wrestle with the occasions of contradictions.

This kind of thinking is human (all too human) but completely unfair to Job.

...
In unrelated Biblical news I have heard an interpretation of the Pearl of Great Value and the Hidden Treasure from Matthew 13 that I like. The pastor said "The common interpretation of this parable is that we Christians are the person finding the pearl or treasure which is faith in Jesus..." and the funny thing was a soon as he said that I immediately knew and agreed with what he was supposed to say... because OF COURSE we aren't the ones winning the kingdom of God by being so wise and self-sacrificing.

The Christian does grow in knowledge of God's supreme value and imitates Christ in sacrifice but not even the best of us was so wise to seek or know God... but rather we were sought after by Him and purchased by Him through Jesus Christ (who is God). In the parable we are the treasure, the pearl and Jesus is the one who finds us and gives all He has to purchase us. There are other contextual signs which strengthen this interpretation and though they are valid really it is in knowing my relationship with God which informs this interpretation.

Some might say that imagining myself the treasure Jesus would give everything to purchase seems more egotistical than imagining myself wise enough to know and seek God... but I am not saying I am worth the cost. I am saying Jesus believes I (and those saved) are worth the cost and He proved it by accepting a death on the cross.

Job 19

Exciting developments in Job today!

Job actually answers his friends' arguments. Up to this point since Job has been smited by the Enemy (with the Lord's permission) the book has been a back and forth of Job lamenting his situation and his frenemies blaming him for his situation. Neither side would listen or respond to the other but would restate their original position with greater passion. It was sort of life an abortion debate.

But then in this chapter for what seems to be for no reason Job answers his Bildad. His answer is not super righteous but it ends even more surprisingly. His answer is something like "Well MAYBE God is punishing me for some sin" which had been Bildad and Eliphaz's argument " BUT He is the one who put me in this situation to begin with." Job then goes on to list all that God has done to him and then degrades back into lamenting how horrible his situation is and how horrible his friends are to criticize him.

I am in some ways critical of Job's reasoning here, but am forgiving because he is in the middle of a terrible, terrible tragedy. All of his kids have been killed, his livelihood destroyed and his body is falling apart... it would be weird if his arguments were sound and logical. Suffering does not work this way and those cool, logical commentators on their own tragedy seem more damaged than those pulling out their hair, tearing their clothes and pouring ashes on their head.

But the end of the chapter is even more illogical. If I wrote it myself people would (perhaps correctly) that the change in character was too abrupt and did not make sense. But suddenly Job says despite the fact that he is wrongly accused, and unjustly punished and better off dead that some day, even after his flesh is destroyed, he will see God with his own eyes and his Redeemer lives.

It is the most quoted part of Job in the Evangelical circles (Amy Grant I think does a song which samples from Job and the chorus is the line "And I know my Redeemer lives") but what hit me this reading is how out of character it is for Job and for the stage in religious development at the time.

Job one of the least Jewish/Israeli books of the Old Testament. From the text itself it is pretty hard to tell exactly when it was set, really anywhere in between Judges and the Exile would make sense but I haven't seen anything in the text to say it could not have been set in the days of Abraham or Maccabees.

But that Job would suddenly say "I know I will see God with my own flesh... even if my flesh has been destroyed" seems totally unlike so much of the Old Testament. I would wonder where the idea would even come from.

Secular scholars would have their own nice, little answers but their method presupposes that the universe operates according to secular rules. Though they rarely state it at the beginning of their answers; everything they say interpreting religious texts could begin "Since God does not act in the universe we suppose...." That is fine for secular thinkers but however well developed their answers it is all based on a philosophical position which I do not accept.

So for me, believing the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob has, does and will act in this universe see the question of how Job comes up with this surprising resurrection idea is a little different. Of course the secular answer: "Job probably heard it from some Egyptian or Babylonian religion" is not impossible but I would tend disregard it because after Moses foreign religious ideas would make one the worst form of blasphemer. If Job was influenced by Egyptian or Babylonian religions then the original audience of Job would see him as a sinner and all of Eliphaz's and Bildad's criticism of him would be valid. The lesson of the story would be "Believe in Ba'al leads to destruction" but so from a purely literary standpoint it would be essential that Job does not go to other gods for comfort, though he rail against the Lord God.

This is too long so I am going to stop.

Job 18

What a jerk that Bildad is! But at the same time, I don't think there is a single condemnation he brings before Job which is not ultimately accurate. Those who love wickedness and hate God will be destroyed and nothing will be left of them... but what Bildad says nothing about (perhaps knows nothing about) is God's mercy.

On Judgment Day it won't be the good guys who were awesome, smart and strong enough to love God who remain. It will be those who received mercy.

What makes mercy, mercy is that the person who receives it does not deserve it. I mean if my sins were all just a big misunderstanding which were not really my fault then salvation would be justice not mercy. To receive mercy means, by definition, to not deserve it.

Now to know you are saved by mercy rather than justice actually can put you in a rather awkward situation. You know you don't deserve God's love, to enter into his presence, you are unfit to untie His sandal. But at the same time you are compelled to enter into God's presence, to know Him personally, to be received by Him.

As far as I understand the basic Islamic position this is where you end up, not worthy to know God but accepted as a servant/slave. And it is logical, it makes sense. It is mercy enough of God to not smite you and it is pretentious to imagine you could have any sort of relationship with such a holy one beyond that of tolerated worker.

The only way a sinful human could even in theory move beyond this status (which is in itself undeserved grace) would be if God Himself demanded otherwise. What makes a Christian able to call God Almighty "Father" is that this is what He names Himself.

And so a Christian is like a beggar sitting at the outer gates of the Temple who is sent for, washed, clothed and brought past the hall of Gentiles, the hall for the women, past the hall for men, past where only priests may enter and into the Holy of Holies where only the High Priest could enter (once a year with the sanctifying blood still fresh) and presented to God Himself as a Son.

It would be unthinkable if it were the will of anyone other than God.

Job 16-17

I'm continuing my exploration of Job and now Job answers the rebuke of Eliphaz. Eliphaz had been continuing his original position (16 chapters later) that God must have a reason to punish Job so it must be Job's fault. Job now continues his original position (16 chapters later): my comforters are lousy, I'm dieing in despair and have no one to comfort me despite my innocence.

What really struck me was the end of Job's speech: "If I hope for the grave as my house, if I make my bed the darkness, if I say to the pit 'You are my father,' and to the worm, 'My mother,' or 'My sister,' where then is my hope? Who will see my hope? Will it go down to the bars of the grave? Shall we descend together into the dust?" (17:13-16)

Before I knew Christ's love I wasn't too different from Job. I certainly imagined myself innocent, and perhaps I was like Job in having no role in the calamity that befell my life. But what really pained me and brought me to despair was not what actually happened in my life. That was bad sure, but that wasn't my problem. It was this sense that I was completely alone and without any hope. The general trend of all life seemed like a steady downward spiral, perhaps I could find some comfort that the descent was slow or steady but it was all leading to a big, dark drain from which there was no escape.

I had had plenty of comforters who told me (perhaps correctly) that my life wasn't that bad. "Just be happy" Liz Cassidy would always say. But these Eliphaz and Bildad's failed to recognize was that the problem was that life did not have a recognizable hope.

Maybe if I had read Sartre I could have made up my own hope but in so far as life has actual reality that would only been a comfort before the abyss swallowed me up.

The only real comfort, is the comfort Job sought: to know God as a father rather than judge. That can make sense of our comfort and wipe away all tears in the way nothing else can. That is the hope I proclaim, found through Jesus Christ, trust worthy and true.

Job 15

My Bible studies have been sort of lax the last year and so I am hoping to give it some structure by posting my post-thoughts on a blog. I don't believe in magic bullets in spiritual exercises where "If you do x,y,z you will be blessed..." but at the same time I do think that there is intrinsic merit in studying the Bible, sharing your thoughts and doing this with regularity (practiced).

Job 15 is a continuation of a back and forth argument between Job and three of his friends about whether or not God was fair to Job. In the first few chapters we learned why Job's life so suddenly fell apart but the characters in the book only know that all of the sudden Job has lost everything.

The discussion starts reasonably polite where Job is in pain and asking why God has done this to Him and his friends saying that God is fair and Job must have done something to deserve it. That dialog has gone back and forth several times and each time it gets a little more tense and hostile.

By chapter 15 one of the friends, Eliphaz, says God is so holy that nothing can insist upon any goodness in His sight... "how much less one who is abominable and corrupt, a man who drinks injustice like water!" (v. 16)

Now verses 1-15 I agree with completely... but at 16 where Eliphaz suggests that his friend, who he has shared bread with, is a wicked, wicked man shows a real disconnect. I don't know why he thinks Job is so horrible all of the sudden but I think it is because Job has suffered. He believes, as was not uncommon in the ancient world, that God only allowed the wicked to suffer but never the innocent. I had heard the same sort of argument used to justify the cruelty in the Hindhu caste system: "they deserve to be untouchables because of what they did in their last life."

This is of course a logical error: "God punishes sinners with suffering, you are suffering THEREFORE you must be a sinner." is the same sort of statement as "When it rains the street is wet, the street is wet THEREFORE it must have rained."

But for me even if it were not such a classic logical fallacy it would still be wrong... because Eliphaz knows (as only Eliphaz could) that even if he were a better person than Job... he wasn't that much better. If Eliphaz really thought God was punishing Job it should have scared the heck out of him because he could (should) be next.

The Bible is pretty clear that though God does judge the wicked and the just with punishments and rewards in this life there is still a lot of rewards for the wicked and punishments for the just. Early in Job there is one answer as to why this happens but that is not interesting to me right now. It is enough to know that even if I lived a life more justly than Job I could still expect a fair share of tragedy. Much of the Bible would suggest that this just living would result in greater tragedy here and now.