In this chapter, Job responds to Bildad by asking who could judge between him and God.
This chapter really encapsulates all of Job’s most important arguments for the rest of the book. The basic tension is that Job simply does not believe that he has done anything deserving such punishment. However, Job also doesn’t believe that he has the power or the wisdom to dispute God’s judgment. Job believes that he is being punished by God without good reason, yet because God has all power in the universe, there is nobody to whom Job may appeal for help. There is no greater authority who can call God to account, to question God’s actions or judgments.
The flip side is that, even though Job says he has done nothing wrong, he also says “how can a man be in the right before God”? (v. 2) The idea is that on the one hand, Job says he has done nothing wrong (v. 20-23). On the other hand, Job admits that no person is righteous before God; God is so holy and righteous that in comparison to him, nobody on the earth is righteous by God’s standard. It seems like a contradiction, but I think this is a fair representation of Job’s mentality (both that Job thinks he is innocent, while acknowledging that nobody is innocent before God).
This chapter continues the legal/justice theme we have seen in the book of Job so far. From Job’s perspective, we see that Job views himself as having a dispute with God. In Job’s mind, God has “ruled” that he should be punished, and Job thinks this ruling was incorrect or unfair. However, God has infinite power and cannot be called to account by anyone (v. 19). Job does not have any recourse for “appealing” God’s judgment or an independent third party to judge between them (v. 32-33).
From this perspective, it seems that Job actually views God in the same way as his three friends. Even though they disagree with one another on some things, Job and his friends actually have a lot in common. They all view God as an arbiter of justice who punishes the wicked and strengthens the righteous. They all see God as relatively distant, not particularly friendly to anyone. To them God is like a judge or government official.
However, where they disagree is that Job does not perceive himself as wicked, while his friends do not believe that God is unfair. This is causing Job to question God’s fairness, while it causes his friends to question Job’s righteousness. The surprising conclusion of this book is that they are both wrong; Job is indeed righteous, and yet God remains just and fair. Understanding and resolving this tension is what Job is all about. This is the mystery of why bad things happen to good people, while living in a world governed by a just God.
In the next chapter, Job continues speaking.
Tuesday, July 31, 2018
Monday, July 30, 2018
Bible Commentary - Job 8
In this chapter, Job’s second friend speaks, rebuking Job for his harsh words against God and promising him future restoration.
Technically Bildad is a separate person from Eliphaz, and so we might imagine that they would have distinct personalities and attitudes towards life. However, what we observe here (and throughout the rest of this book) is that Job’s three friends are indistinguishable for all practical purposes.
Both Eliphaz and Bildad show the exact same attitude and perspective on Job’s suffering, and they are equally unhelpful to Job in the midst of his sorrow and pain. The basic message in Bildad’s speech is that God is just, punishes the wicked, and restores the righteous, but that sinners hope in vain and can only expect to be overthrown. The basic idea is that the wicked may flourish for a time (like a papyrus), but that in the same way they sprout up, they will also wither. The implication is that Job’s sons must have sinned to incur punishment, and perhaps Job has also sinned. Like Eliphaz, Bildad is calling for Job to repent, at which point we could expect God to restore Job and make his future even better than his past.
This is all pretty much the same as what Eliphaz said in chapter 5. They both have tremendous confidence that the “godless” or those “who forget God” (v. 13) will suffer disaster because they trust in their own cunning or shrewdness to bring success in life, and this trust is fragile, like a spider’s web.
Both Bildad and Eliphaz also tell Job that he should make an appeal to God, “implore the compassion of the Almighty” (v. 5). Every time I read this I find myself wondering what they think about God. More specifically, who do they think God is? As a general rule, most descriptions of God are analogies based on earthly relationships. For instance, God is called a “king” because we can imagine him as some kind of authority figure. In other places God is called “father” or “savior”, which we can understand because everyone has a physical father, and many people have been “saved” from something at one time or another.
Every one of these description terms implies some kind of relationship. In the case of a king, it is an authority figure, distant but powerful. In the case of a father, it is still an authority but usually much closer, and if you have a good father it is usually much warmer, supportive and friendly.
To return to my original question, when Bildad tells Job that he should “implore the compassion of the Almighty”, what kind of relationship is he imagining? Is Go a beneficent king to them, or a judge, or what? From the text, it seems like Bildad’s primary emphasis is on the notion of justice (v. 3). In particular, Bildad sees destruction as the natural consequence of sin (v. 4) and prosperity the consequence of righteousness. God’s role is to uphold this system of justice by punishing the wicked and preserving the righteous. In my opinion, I think Bildad sees this as “the way things should be” and that God is just precisely because he brings about the deserved consequences to all people, both good and bad.
In other places in the bible, we see God as a friend or father. In this book, God is a judge, an impersonal arbiter of justice. Job’s friends insist that God is fair, but nowhere do any of them say that God is friendly. In the next chapter we will see Job place his relationship with God into a legal framework, and from that point of view there is actually a lot of similarity between how Job views God and how his friends view God. In fact, I would say that the principle dispute in this book is whether God is fair; I’ll talk about it more when we get there.
In the meantime, Bildad thinks that God is fair and if only Job were to repent and turn to God, then God would restore him.
In the next chapter, Job answers.
Technically Bildad is a separate person from Eliphaz, and so we might imagine that they would have distinct personalities and attitudes towards life. However, what we observe here (and throughout the rest of this book) is that Job’s three friends are indistinguishable for all practical purposes.
Both Eliphaz and Bildad show the exact same attitude and perspective on Job’s suffering, and they are equally unhelpful to Job in the midst of his sorrow and pain. The basic message in Bildad’s speech is that God is just, punishes the wicked, and restores the righteous, but that sinners hope in vain and can only expect to be overthrown. The basic idea is that the wicked may flourish for a time (like a papyrus), but that in the same way they sprout up, they will also wither. The implication is that Job’s sons must have sinned to incur punishment, and perhaps Job has also sinned. Like Eliphaz, Bildad is calling for Job to repent, at which point we could expect God to restore Job and make his future even better than his past.
This is all pretty much the same as what Eliphaz said in chapter 5. They both have tremendous confidence that the “godless” or those “who forget God” (v. 13) will suffer disaster because they trust in their own cunning or shrewdness to bring success in life, and this trust is fragile, like a spider’s web.
Both Bildad and Eliphaz also tell Job that he should make an appeal to God, “implore the compassion of the Almighty” (v. 5). Every time I read this I find myself wondering what they think about God. More specifically, who do they think God is? As a general rule, most descriptions of God are analogies based on earthly relationships. For instance, God is called a “king” because we can imagine him as some kind of authority figure. In other places God is called “father” or “savior”, which we can understand because everyone has a physical father, and many people have been “saved” from something at one time or another.
Every one of these description terms implies some kind of relationship. In the case of a king, it is an authority figure, distant but powerful. In the case of a father, it is still an authority but usually much closer, and if you have a good father it is usually much warmer, supportive and friendly.
To return to my original question, when Bildad tells Job that he should “implore the compassion of the Almighty”, what kind of relationship is he imagining? Is Go a beneficent king to them, or a judge, or what? From the text, it seems like Bildad’s primary emphasis is on the notion of justice (v. 3). In particular, Bildad sees destruction as the natural consequence of sin (v. 4) and prosperity the consequence of righteousness. God’s role is to uphold this system of justice by punishing the wicked and preserving the righteous. In my opinion, I think Bildad sees this as “the way things should be” and that God is just precisely because he brings about the deserved consequences to all people, both good and bad.
In other places in the bible, we see God as a friend or father. In this book, God is a judge, an impersonal arbiter of justice. Job’s friends insist that God is fair, but nowhere do any of them say that God is friendly. In the next chapter we will see Job place his relationship with God into a legal framework, and from that point of view there is actually a lot of similarity between how Job views God and how his friends view God. In fact, I would say that the principle dispute in this book is whether God is fair; I’ll talk about it more when we get there.
In the meantime, Bildad thinks that God is fair and if only Job were to repent and turn to God, then God would restore him.
In the next chapter, Job answers.
Sunday, July 29, 2018
Bible Commentary - Job 7
In this chapter, Job finishes his response to Eliphaz by recounting again his suffering.
This chapter is a continuation of the previous one. In the previous chapter, Job assailed his friends as being like a “false hope”, where he expected to find encouragement and comfort and instead only found criticism. In this chapter, Job does not directly address his friends again, but instead it seems like he goes back to his original topic which is complaining and speaking from his grief.
Breaking this chapter into three main sections, in verses 1-6 Job compares himself to a hired person waiting for his wages. In the same way, Job views himself as waiting for some kind of relief but without receiving it. Like a person in the night waiting for the morning, Job is waiting for relief, but not finding it.
Instead, he finds his life quickly vanishing, never to return (v. 7-10). This is the second, short section.
Lastly, in verses 11-21, Job addresses God directly (even though at first it might appear like Job is addressing his friends, this is clearly aimed at the LORD). Job wants to know why God is scrutinizing him, guarding him, or paying attention to mankind at all, and it seems like Job really is just asking for the LORD to leave him alone. Job believes that God is treating him like some kind of monster or wild animal that needs to be closely guarded, and that God’s hand is placed upon him like a heavy burden.
Taken as a whole, Job’s speech conveys the adversarial nature that he perceives between himself and God, while in the previous chapter he explained how his friends had become adversarial to him as well. Job isn’t even asking for restoration in his relationship with God because as far as I can tell, Job has never claimed or implied any kind of friendship with God. Job’s view is that God is some kind of distant power, like a king, who has the power to interfere in anyone’s life and for some reason, has singled out Job for abuse and punishment. Like I mentioned before, Job isn’t asking for God’s blessing or even his friendship, but simply to be left alone so he could live out his own life in privacy and peace.
In the next chapter, Job’s second friend Bildad takes his turn rebuking Job.
This chapter is a continuation of the previous one. In the previous chapter, Job assailed his friends as being like a “false hope”, where he expected to find encouragement and comfort and instead only found criticism. In this chapter, Job does not directly address his friends again, but instead it seems like he goes back to his original topic which is complaining and speaking from his grief.
Breaking this chapter into three main sections, in verses 1-6 Job compares himself to a hired person waiting for his wages. In the same way, Job views himself as waiting for some kind of relief but without receiving it. Like a person in the night waiting for the morning, Job is waiting for relief, but not finding it.
Instead, he finds his life quickly vanishing, never to return (v. 7-10). This is the second, short section.
Lastly, in verses 11-21, Job addresses God directly (even though at first it might appear like Job is addressing his friends, this is clearly aimed at the LORD). Job wants to know why God is scrutinizing him, guarding him, or paying attention to mankind at all, and it seems like Job really is just asking for the LORD to leave him alone. Job believes that God is treating him like some kind of monster or wild animal that needs to be closely guarded, and that God’s hand is placed upon him like a heavy burden.
Taken as a whole, Job’s speech conveys the adversarial nature that he perceives between himself and God, while in the previous chapter he explained how his friends had become adversarial to him as well. Job isn’t even asking for restoration in his relationship with God because as far as I can tell, Job has never claimed or implied any kind of friendship with God. Job’s view is that God is some kind of distant power, like a king, who has the power to interfere in anyone’s life and for some reason, has singled out Job for abuse and punishment. Like I mentioned before, Job isn’t asking for God’s blessing or even his friendship, but simply to be left alone so he could live out his own life in privacy and peace.
In the next chapter, Job’s second friend Bildad takes his turn rebuking Job.
Saturday, July 28, 2018
Bible Commentary - Job 6
In this chapter, Job replies to Eliphaz.
This chapter, like many other chapters in the book, uses a lot of flowery and evocative imagery for what is at essence a relatively simple point. I’ll do my best to try to unpack this chapter and explain the underlying points but I personally think this is a relatively simple chapter, and expect my commentary to be fairly short.
It seems like Job has just two or three main points in this chapter. His first point is that he calls his own complaint (from chapter 3, earlier) “rash” and that his words “belong to the wind”. The basic idea is that Job says he is speaking out of his emotions and pain, and that nobody should have treated him as though he were making a calm, rational argument about his own righteousness or broad theological topics. Job’s second point is that his friends were “deceptive” because he thought they would provide him comfort, and instead Eliphaz (and soon the other two) have been adversarial, challenging him as if they were in some sort of debate.
From this, I think we can establish a fairly strong point about grief counseling. If someone is pouring out his or her heart to you, and talking about the hardships they have gone through recently, you should not tell them about how it’s their fault even if it’s true. Even if “you told them so” and had warned them about the behavior that resulted in their present catastrophe. If someone is going through a hardship, 99% of the time they will be smart enough and aware enough that they will figure out for themselves why things turned out badly. That 1% of the time when they don’t, they almost definitely won’t want to hear about it from you. The sole exception is if the person specifically asks for advice about what they might have done wrong or how they should change their behavior; upon being asked for advice, feel free to offer it (but with compassion and empathy). If not asked for advice, do not provide it, because the suffering person almost definitely doesn’t want it.
Overall, I think our high level conclusion here is that Job’s friends seem to want to adhere to their theology rather than be, like, actually good friends. I think Job is right, his friends are not comforting him which is really what being a friend is about in these kinds of situations. There are times when a friend needs to be a harsh voice of truth, but this is not that time.
Lastly, as a somewhat smaller point, Job continues to claim his righteousness as he has not “denied the words of the Holy One” and has refused to curse God like his wife suggested to him. This is the basis of Job’s continued self-defense, that he does not feel like he has done anything wrong, and as long as he says it, his friends will continue to attack him.
In the next chapter, Job continues sharing his emotional grief.
This chapter, like many other chapters in the book, uses a lot of flowery and evocative imagery for what is at essence a relatively simple point. I’ll do my best to try to unpack this chapter and explain the underlying points but I personally think this is a relatively simple chapter, and expect my commentary to be fairly short.
It seems like Job has just two or three main points in this chapter. His first point is that he calls his own complaint (from chapter 3, earlier) “rash” and that his words “belong to the wind”. The basic idea is that Job says he is speaking out of his emotions and pain, and that nobody should have treated him as though he were making a calm, rational argument about his own righteousness or broad theological topics. Job’s second point is that his friends were “deceptive” because he thought they would provide him comfort, and instead Eliphaz (and soon the other two) have been adversarial, challenging him as if they were in some sort of debate.
From this, I think we can establish a fairly strong point about grief counseling. If someone is pouring out his or her heart to you, and talking about the hardships they have gone through recently, you should not tell them about how it’s their fault even if it’s true. Even if “you told them so” and had warned them about the behavior that resulted in their present catastrophe. If someone is going through a hardship, 99% of the time they will be smart enough and aware enough that they will figure out for themselves why things turned out badly. That 1% of the time when they don’t, they almost definitely won’t want to hear about it from you. The sole exception is if the person specifically asks for advice about what they might have done wrong or how they should change their behavior; upon being asked for advice, feel free to offer it (but with compassion and empathy). If not asked for advice, do not provide it, because the suffering person almost definitely doesn’t want it.
Overall, I think our high level conclusion here is that Job’s friends seem to want to adhere to their theology rather than be, like, actually good friends. I think Job is right, his friends are not comforting him which is really what being a friend is about in these kinds of situations. There are times when a friend needs to be a harsh voice of truth, but this is not that time.
Lastly, as a somewhat smaller point, Job continues to claim his righteousness as he has not “denied the words of the Holy One” and has refused to curse God like his wife suggested to him. This is the basis of Job’s continued self-defense, that he does not feel like he has done anything wrong, and as long as he says it, his friends will continue to attack him.
In the next chapter, Job continues sharing his emotional grief.
Tuesday, July 24, 2018
Bible Commentary - Job 5
In this chapter, Eliphaz proclaims the power of God and tells Job to seek God for his healing.
Eliphaz’s discourse is hard to understand. This whole book uses a poetic form that is filled with symbolism and metaphors and even with careful review it is hard for me (and a lot of other people) to understand exactly what is intended. That said, I’ll do my best to break down Eliphaz’s speech into a set of discrete points and unify them to the extent that I am able.
In verses 2-7, Eliphaz is basically asserting that disasters are the result of sin. He basically said the same thing in the previous chapter, so this is mostly redundant in content, though the phrasing is different. Verses 2-5 are pretty clear, but in verses 6-7 there is a somewhat more confusing expression when Eliphaz says that “affliction does not come from the dust, nor does trouble sprout from the ground, for man is born for trouble.” In light of the previous passage, what I think he is saying here is that trouble and affliction don’t come up from our circumstances or the environment (i.e. the ground) but rather flow out of human sins like anger and jealousy (v. 2). His whole point in v. 2-5 is that Eliphaz has “seen” the affliction of wicked people as a result of their sins, and I believe that v. 6-7 is another way of asserting that point. Trouble doesn’t emerge from nothing (sprout from the ground) but arises from human wickedness.
Now if we take this point into its broader context, it is another way of saying that Job’s suffering is a result of his sin. Verse 8 then is Eliphaz trying to advise Job to “place his cause before God” and seek God’s deliverance from his affliction. In essence, this is a call for Job to repent of his sins and seek God to be delivered from his troubles.
Verses 9-27 is basically a paean to God’s glory and power. Eliphaz seems to have two core points in this section. First, in v. 9-16, Eliphaz emphasizes how God brings various kinds of reversals of fortune (conceptually similar to the reversal theme in Esther). The lowly are placed on high, the poor are saved, the helpless has hope, and the crafty and shrewd people are trapped by their own plots and brought down. In other words, those who are on the bottom (poor, helpless, etc) will be raised up, and the lofty and proud will be brought down.
Second, in v. 17-27, Eliphaz is trying to establish that “the man whom God reproves” will be blessed and protected from all kinds of disasters, will be full of confidence and have a happy and prosperous life.
Both of these points seem much more generalized and less directed at Job himself. It’s perhaps somewhat relevant in the sense that Job is now “lowly” and suffering, and that he should trust God to heal him. “[God] inflicts pain, and gives relief; He wounds and His hands also heal”. Job has been “wounded” by God and should now turn to God and look for relief and healing, and then he can expect a reversal of his fortune from suffering back into blessing.
In the next chapter, Job will respond to Eliphaz’s monologue with his own perspective on suffering. As we can imagine, Job has a much different take on his own situation.
Eliphaz’s discourse is hard to understand. This whole book uses a poetic form that is filled with symbolism and metaphors and even with careful review it is hard for me (and a lot of other people) to understand exactly what is intended. That said, I’ll do my best to break down Eliphaz’s speech into a set of discrete points and unify them to the extent that I am able.
In verses 2-7, Eliphaz is basically asserting that disasters are the result of sin. He basically said the same thing in the previous chapter, so this is mostly redundant in content, though the phrasing is different. Verses 2-5 are pretty clear, but in verses 6-7 there is a somewhat more confusing expression when Eliphaz says that “affliction does not come from the dust, nor does trouble sprout from the ground, for man is born for trouble.” In light of the previous passage, what I think he is saying here is that trouble and affliction don’t come up from our circumstances or the environment (i.e. the ground) but rather flow out of human sins like anger and jealousy (v. 2). His whole point in v. 2-5 is that Eliphaz has “seen” the affliction of wicked people as a result of their sins, and I believe that v. 6-7 is another way of asserting that point. Trouble doesn’t emerge from nothing (sprout from the ground) but arises from human wickedness.
Now if we take this point into its broader context, it is another way of saying that Job’s suffering is a result of his sin. Verse 8 then is Eliphaz trying to advise Job to “place his cause before God” and seek God’s deliverance from his affliction. In essence, this is a call for Job to repent of his sins and seek God to be delivered from his troubles.
Verses 9-27 is basically a paean to God’s glory and power. Eliphaz seems to have two core points in this section. First, in v. 9-16, Eliphaz emphasizes how God brings various kinds of reversals of fortune (conceptually similar to the reversal theme in Esther). The lowly are placed on high, the poor are saved, the helpless has hope, and the crafty and shrewd people are trapped by their own plots and brought down. In other words, those who are on the bottom (poor, helpless, etc) will be raised up, and the lofty and proud will be brought down.
Second, in v. 17-27, Eliphaz is trying to establish that “the man whom God reproves” will be blessed and protected from all kinds of disasters, will be full of confidence and have a happy and prosperous life.
Both of these points seem much more generalized and less directed at Job himself. It’s perhaps somewhat relevant in the sense that Job is now “lowly” and suffering, and that he should trust God to heal him. “[God] inflicts pain, and gives relief; He wounds and His hands also heal”. Job has been “wounded” by God and should now turn to God and look for relief and healing, and then he can expect a reversal of his fortune from suffering back into blessing.
In the next chapter, Job will respond to Eliphaz’s monologue with his own perspective on suffering. As we can imagine, Job has a much different take on his own situation.
Monday, July 23, 2018
Bible Commentary - Job 4
In this chapter, Eliphaz implies that Job is suffering because of sins he has committed.
In my opinion, the heart of this chapter is verses 6-7. In these two verses, Eliphaz expresses two closely related ideas. The first, in verse 6, is that Job, who has “strengthened feeble knees”, should place his own confidence in his righteousness and innocence, and that the innocent never “perish”.
In the first point, Eliphaz is charging Job with a bit of hypocrisy. Job, as a righteous man, has strengthened many others, with both his words and his deeds, when they were facing hardships or suffering. Now that Job himself is suffering, Eliphaz is giving Job the “doctor, heal thyself” routine, implying that Job should encourage himself the same way he encouraged others.
In the second idea, Eliphaz is laying out the idea that, quite simply, God punishes the guilty and not the innocent, and therefore Job’s punishment must be a result of his sin. I can tell you right now that this is a pretty good summary of the rest of the book. Eliphaz and Job’s other friends believe that bad things only come to sinners, and therefore Job’s tragedy must be a result of some kind of hidden sin in Job’s life. If Job repents and appeals for mercy, changes his ways, then God will restore him.
In a somewhat contradictory turn, Eliphaz extends in verse 17 that there is no such thing as a just or innocent man, and that basically everyone alive is a sinner in some way or other. I say this is contradictory because the previous statement was based on a dichotomy between the innocent and the guilty: God protects the innocent, but punishes and destroys the guilty. If everyone is guilty, then it stands to reason that everyone would be subjected to punishment or destruction in some way. What is even the point of saying “who ever perished being innocent” if nobody is innocent? It is pointless to even say. Furthermore, if it were true that everyone is guilty then it renders Job’s punishment all the more arbitrary, because God should just as well have punished Eliphaz as punish Job. There isn’t any difference between them that makes one good and the other bad if everyone is guilty in God’s sight.
Ignoring those contradictions, Eliphaz’s point is clear: he is asserting that Job is wrong to call himself innocent. Everyone is guilty, and in this case “everyone” means “Job”. Eliphaz simply refuses to accept Job’s proclamation of innocence, thinks that Job has some kind of secret sin, and that is the reason for his suffering. The implication that Eliphaz himself must be a sinner and deserves punishment is ignored.
In the next chapter, Eliphaz asserts that Job should turn to God for his restoration.
In my opinion, the heart of this chapter is verses 6-7. In these two verses, Eliphaz expresses two closely related ideas. The first, in verse 6, is that Job, who has “strengthened feeble knees”, should place his own confidence in his righteousness and innocence, and that the innocent never “perish”.
In the first point, Eliphaz is charging Job with a bit of hypocrisy. Job, as a righteous man, has strengthened many others, with both his words and his deeds, when they were facing hardships or suffering. Now that Job himself is suffering, Eliphaz is giving Job the “doctor, heal thyself” routine, implying that Job should encourage himself the same way he encouraged others.
In the second idea, Eliphaz is laying out the idea that, quite simply, God punishes the guilty and not the innocent, and therefore Job’s punishment must be a result of his sin. I can tell you right now that this is a pretty good summary of the rest of the book. Eliphaz and Job’s other friends believe that bad things only come to sinners, and therefore Job’s tragedy must be a result of some kind of hidden sin in Job’s life. If Job repents and appeals for mercy, changes his ways, then God will restore him.
In a somewhat contradictory turn, Eliphaz extends in verse 17 that there is no such thing as a just or innocent man, and that basically everyone alive is a sinner in some way or other. I say this is contradictory because the previous statement was based on a dichotomy between the innocent and the guilty: God protects the innocent, but punishes and destroys the guilty. If everyone is guilty, then it stands to reason that everyone would be subjected to punishment or destruction in some way. What is even the point of saying “who ever perished being innocent” if nobody is innocent? It is pointless to even say. Furthermore, if it were true that everyone is guilty then it renders Job’s punishment all the more arbitrary, because God should just as well have punished Eliphaz as punish Job. There isn’t any difference between them that makes one good and the other bad if everyone is guilty in God’s sight.
Ignoring those contradictions, Eliphaz’s point is clear: he is asserting that Job is wrong to call himself innocent. Everyone is guilty, and in this case “everyone” means “Job”. Eliphaz simply refuses to accept Job’s proclamation of innocence, thinks that Job has some kind of secret sin, and that is the reason for his suffering. The implication that Eliphaz himself must be a sinner and deserves punishment is ignored.
In the next chapter, Eliphaz asserts that Job should turn to God for his restoration.
Sunday, July 22, 2018
Bible Commentary - Job 3
In this chapter, Job curses the day of his birth, with deep emotions.
This chapter basically ends the “introduction” to Job and drastically changes the narrative. Up until this point, most of the book has been a back-and-forth between God and Satan. From this point onward, Satan does not appear in the story again even once. It’s like the first two chapters are giving us a peek behind the heavenly curtains, to see what is happening in God’s kingdom, but now we are back on earth with Job struggling to understand why this happened to him, without the benefit of seeing the earlier exchange between God and his angels.
I think we can tell a lot about the story by looking at who’s involved in the three stages of the book: first, it is God and Satan debating with each other about Job. This presents Job as the object of a heavenly argument. Job is not really a participant in the conversation so he is much is the object of it. Job is represented as the passive recipient of good or bad things without the power to choose his own destiny. Job lives with righteousness and fears God but ultimately his fate (both good and bad) is largely determined by forces outside of his control. Job is similarly fatalistic when he asserts that “the LORD gave and he has taken away”, presenting both blessings and tragedy as the product of God’s inscrutable will.
In this second phase, we see Job and his three friends debating with each other. At this point Satan, and even God, are no longer represented in the conversation. This is the human part of the story, with both Job and his friends struggling to comprehend events outside of their understanding and outside of their control. While there may be a heavenly debate or heavenly battle happening behind the scenes, Job and his friends reframe the conversation significantly; rather than view tragedy as the result of “fate” or God’s will, they view tragedy as the result of human sin, which renders suffering both explanable and preventable (if you suffer, it’s because you sinned; you can avoid suffering by not sinning). We will study this in more detail later. Importantly, Satan’s role as the “accuser” of Job disappears entirely; from now on, suffering exists purely within the context of God punishing mankind, whether justly or unjustly.
The third and last phase is towards the end of the book when God speaks to Job. Job’s three friends fall silent and it is only God and Job left to speak to each other (mostly God speaking and Job listening). Job and his three friends spend most of the book discussing whether God is punishing Job fairly, i.e. whether Job is innocent or a sinner. While they spend a lot of time talking about God, the end of the book is the only time when Job is talking to God. This is the most important part of the book because it turns out that suffering was never really about a battle between God and Satan; God doesn’t need to prove anything to Satan and I’m doubtful that God really cares what Satan thinks. Ultimately this is a story about Job and the LORD, how they relate to each other and what is the LORD’s role in Job’s life. What I find interesting about this is how Job’s role shifts from being the object of the conversation to being a participant in the conversation.
Beginning in this chapter, we are now in the second phase when the narrative shifts from the ethereal, heavenly debate to a much more earthly debate about why Job is suffering.
Job opens the discussion indirectly. Consistent with what he said previously, Job does not blame God. Instead, if I could summarize this chapter in a single sentence, Job wishes that he was never born (or died at birth) so that he would be at peace and have never seen the troubles that have now come upon him. To him it is better to be dead than to live in suffering and pain.
Again, I think this is basically consistent with what he said before. Job is not trying to blame God or anyone in particular for what happened, this strikes me as a simply emotional response to what has happened, and I think it is both deeply human and understandable. Job is expressing his feelings about what happened and I don’t think anyone could really criticize him about it.
In the next chapter, we’ll see that criticizing Job for his feelings is exactly what his friends want to do.
This chapter basically ends the “introduction” to Job and drastically changes the narrative. Up until this point, most of the book has been a back-and-forth between God and Satan. From this point onward, Satan does not appear in the story again even once. It’s like the first two chapters are giving us a peek behind the heavenly curtains, to see what is happening in God’s kingdom, but now we are back on earth with Job struggling to understand why this happened to him, without the benefit of seeing the earlier exchange between God and his angels.
I think we can tell a lot about the story by looking at who’s involved in the three stages of the book: first, it is God and Satan debating with each other about Job. This presents Job as the object of a heavenly argument. Job is not really a participant in the conversation so he is much is the object of it. Job is represented as the passive recipient of good or bad things without the power to choose his own destiny. Job lives with righteousness and fears God but ultimately his fate (both good and bad) is largely determined by forces outside of his control. Job is similarly fatalistic when he asserts that “the LORD gave and he has taken away”, presenting both blessings and tragedy as the product of God’s inscrutable will.
In this second phase, we see Job and his three friends debating with each other. At this point Satan, and even God, are no longer represented in the conversation. This is the human part of the story, with both Job and his friends struggling to comprehend events outside of their understanding and outside of their control. While there may be a heavenly debate or heavenly battle happening behind the scenes, Job and his friends reframe the conversation significantly; rather than view tragedy as the result of “fate” or God’s will, they view tragedy as the result of human sin, which renders suffering both explanable and preventable (if you suffer, it’s because you sinned; you can avoid suffering by not sinning). We will study this in more detail later. Importantly, Satan’s role as the “accuser” of Job disappears entirely; from now on, suffering exists purely within the context of God punishing mankind, whether justly or unjustly.
The third and last phase is towards the end of the book when God speaks to Job. Job’s three friends fall silent and it is only God and Job left to speak to each other (mostly God speaking and Job listening). Job and his three friends spend most of the book discussing whether God is punishing Job fairly, i.e. whether Job is innocent or a sinner. While they spend a lot of time talking about God, the end of the book is the only time when Job is talking to God. This is the most important part of the book because it turns out that suffering was never really about a battle between God and Satan; God doesn’t need to prove anything to Satan and I’m doubtful that God really cares what Satan thinks. Ultimately this is a story about Job and the LORD, how they relate to each other and what is the LORD’s role in Job’s life. What I find interesting about this is how Job’s role shifts from being the object of the conversation to being a participant in the conversation.
Beginning in this chapter, we are now in the second phase when the narrative shifts from the ethereal, heavenly debate to a much more earthly debate about why Job is suffering.
Job opens the discussion indirectly. Consistent with what he said previously, Job does not blame God. Instead, if I could summarize this chapter in a single sentence, Job wishes that he was never born (or died at birth) so that he would be at peace and have never seen the troubles that have now come upon him. To him it is better to be dead than to live in suffering and pain.
Again, I think this is basically consistent with what he said before. Job is not trying to blame God or anyone in particular for what happened, this strikes me as a simply emotional response to what has happened, and I think it is both deeply human and understandable. Job is expressing his feelings about what happened and I don’t think anyone could really criticize him about it.
In the next chapter, we’ll see that criticizing Job for his feelings is exactly what his friends want to do.
Friday, July 20, 2018
Bible Commentary - Job 2
In this chapter, Job is stricken with a painful, chronic disease.
This chapter begins in much the same way as the previous chapter. There is an angel convention in some heavenly conference center, and Satan once again appears before the LORD for his holy performance review (I am paraphrasing a little). They repeat their earlier conversation with little variation: God asks Satan where he came from, and after Satan’s response God once again calls attention to the righteous man Job. The one deviation here is in v. 3 God adds that Job has held onto his “integrity” and that Satan caused God to “ruin him without cause”.
Satan repeats his ploy from the earlier day, again insisting that with the right pressure, Job would reveal his true self and curse God. This time, rather than take away his children and material possessions, Satan wants to take away Job’s physical health, and once again permits him to do so. In both the previous chapter and this chapter, it’s interesting to note that while God grants Satan’s request, God also places a limitation on the harm that Satan is allowed to inflict. In Job 1:12, God says that Satan could destroy “all that [Job] has”, but could not touch his body (i.e. physical health). In v. 6, God similarly permits Satan to harm Job’s body, but not take his life. This reinforces the power dynamic between God and Satan, where God is the clear authority and Satan is only allowed to act within the parameters that God sets for him.
In verse 10, we see Job’s attitude towards adversity. He says that if we accept good from the LORD, we must also be willing to accept adversity. This is very similar to Job’s attitude in the previous chapter where he said “The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away. Blessed be the name of the LORD.” (v. 21) Essentially his attitude is that the LORD is the source of all good things, and if the LORD chooses to place hardships in our lives, then it is hypocritical for us to refuse to take the bad with the good. More to the point, if God brings a good thing into your life, it is his right to take it away if he wants to. We enter life naked, possessing nothing. There is nothing that God can take away that he did not first give to us, which means that anything God takes away was never really ours in the first place.
In this attitude, I think Job is substantially correct. Everything we have does come from God, and it belongs to God. This is why the bible twice asserts that Job did not sin in what he said (1:22, 2:10), because his perspective is true at a basic level. Of course, it would be pretty boring if the story stopped here with “Job suffers a bunch but he has the right attitude”. Indeed, the story goes on quite a bit longer, and we see the setup for the rest of the book when Job’s three friends joined together to meet with Job at an appointed time to “sympathize with him and comfort him.”
The three friends say nothing, but in the next chapter Job will break the silence by lamenting the day of his birth.
This chapter begins in much the same way as the previous chapter. There is an angel convention in some heavenly conference center, and Satan once again appears before the LORD for his holy performance review (I am paraphrasing a little). They repeat their earlier conversation with little variation: God asks Satan where he came from, and after Satan’s response God once again calls attention to the righteous man Job. The one deviation here is in v. 3 God adds that Job has held onto his “integrity” and that Satan caused God to “ruin him without cause”.
Satan repeats his ploy from the earlier day, again insisting that with the right pressure, Job would reveal his true self and curse God. This time, rather than take away his children and material possessions, Satan wants to take away Job’s physical health, and once again permits him to do so. In both the previous chapter and this chapter, it’s interesting to note that while God grants Satan’s request, God also places a limitation on the harm that Satan is allowed to inflict. In Job 1:12, God says that Satan could destroy “all that [Job] has”, but could not touch his body (i.e. physical health). In v. 6, God similarly permits Satan to harm Job’s body, but not take his life. This reinforces the power dynamic between God and Satan, where God is the clear authority and Satan is only allowed to act within the parameters that God sets for him.
In verse 10, we see Job’s attitude towards adversity. He says that if we accept good from the LORD, we must also be willing to accept adversity. This is very similar to Job’s attitude in the previous chapter where he said “The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away. Blessed be the name of the LORD.” (v. 21) Essentially his attitude is that the LORD is the source of all good things, and if the LORD chooses to place hardships in our lives, then it is hypocritical for us to refuse to take the bad with the good. More to the point, if God brings a good thing into your life, it is his right to take it away if he wants to. We enter life naked, possessing nothing. There is nothing that God can take away that he did not first give to us, which means that anything God takes away was never really ours in the first place.
In this attitude, I think Job is substantially correct. Everything we have does come from God, and it belongs to God. This is why the bible twice asserts that Job did not sin in what he said (1:22, 2:10), because his perspective is true at a basic level. Of course, it would be pretty boring if the story stopped here with “Job suffers a bunch but he has the right attitude”. Indeed, the story goes on quite a bit longer, and we see the setup for the rest of the book when Job’s three friends joined together to meet with Job at an appointed time to “sympathize with him and comfort him.”
The three friends say nothing, but in the next chapter Job will break the silence by lamenting the day of his birth.
Thursday, July 19, 2018
Bible Commentary - Job 1
In this chapter, God permits Satan to assail Job with terrible destruction, destroying his property and killing his children.
There are few chapters in the bible more commonly used by atheists to demonstrate that God is evil than this one. The logic is simple: Job is a righteous person (v. 1 establishes this point clearly), and God permits Satan to inflict suffering upon him (v. 12). If God lets bad things happen to good people, it is immoral and demonstrates that God himself is evil. I’m glad this is something people feel strongly about because that shows Job is actually quite relevant to modern life and that the basic question (why do bad things happen to good people) is something that people still struggle with even in the modern world.
Anyway, I’m going to skip over the first couple verses that are introducing Job and his family, and get right to where the story goes a bit crazy.
In verse 6, “the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them.” This part of the story is a bit surreal. First, a minor point: “sons of God” is a common figure of speech that refers to angels. The general idea of this verse is like there is a convocation where all the angels are filing into some big conference center, and Satan is also attending. We are not specifically told who or what Satan is, but in English the Hebrew word Satan means “accuser” and in this context, it appears that Satan is one of the angels who is part of this big assembly. The prosecuting angel attorney, perhaps.
Most people think of Satan as a fallen angel and also the leader and captain of all the fallen angels who rebelled against God. Pop culture often presents Satan as an equal and opposite adversary to God, battling with each other to win dominion over people’s souls and perhaps the Earth itself. This understanding is not meaningfully presented in Job. First of all, there is no evidence in Job that Satan has any followers. Second, Satan is not presented in Job as God’s equal, but rather his subordinate, much like the other angels in this grand convention. Third, there is no direct conflict between God and Satan. However, there are hints of an indirect conflict between Satan and God. We see this conflict in three respects.
First, we see their conflict in God’s first question. God asks Satan “Where are you coming from?” I hope my readers understand that if God asks you a question, it’s not because he wants to know the answer; it’s because he wants you to know the answer. God already knows where Satan came from, so he’s not asking the question because he wants the information. God is asking because if Satan came from where God wanted him to be, then God would not have needed to ask. The question is designed to emphasis the disconnection that exists between Satan and God, like if a mother asks her children where they have been all day; if the kids had been where the mother told them to go, then she wouldn’t need to ask. In very similar terms, the first question in the bible is Genesis 3:9 when God asks Adam where he is hiding. The reason why God asks is because Adam and Eve are not where they are supposed to be, they are deliberately hiding from God and more fundamentally, man’s sin had already begun to break the previously close relationship between man and God. If Adam were in the place God wanted him, then God wouldn’t have had to ask. In the same way, if Satan were in the place and doing the things that God wanted him to, God would not have to ask Satan where Satan was coming from.
We see similar dynamics when God asked Elijah, “What are you doing here?” (1 Kings 19:9). Again, God is not asking Elijah because God doesn’t know the answer, he is asking the question so that Elijah himself thinks about it. God never told Elijah to go there, and it was never part of God’s plan for Elijah to run off into the desert and hide. The question itself indicates that Elijah had drifted out of God’s will, and God was trying to call his attention to it so that he could be brought back in. We can reasonably infer it is the same here with Satan living outside of God’s will and plan for him.
Second, we see their conflict in Satan’s answer. Satan replies that he is roaming back and forth on the earth. This is a subtle but also relatively simple point: Satan is not in heaven. God is in heaven and Satan, most likely an angel of God, is dwelling on the earth except for this one moment, and he departs from the presence of the LORD at the end of this conversation. Although other angels visit the earth in the bible, it seems unusual that an angel would dwell there so consistently. Furthermore, I think the notion of “roaming back and forth” gives Satan a restless and frantic dimension that is different from the usual attitude of God’s messengers. To me, this exchange conveys a subtle tension.
Third, we see their conflict in their different opinions about Job. God asserts that Job is a righteous man, and Satan immediately challenges him, insisting that Job’s worship is driven by pragmatism and material considerations. In essence, Satan is claiming that Job’s worship is insincere; if God were not blessing Job and filling his life with prosperity then Job would turn and “curse you to your face”. God thinks that Job is righteous and Satan believes that Job is secretly just using God, with the implication that Job is not truly righteous for that reason.
I think this is a really interesting point because the bible is replete with promises of material blessings for obeying the LORD. They go hand-in-hand nearly everywhere, especially in the Old Testament. But more than that, I think it’s interesting that God never contradicts Satan’s basic assumption. While Satan and God disagree about whether Job *in particular* has ulterior motives, they evidently agree that disingenuous worship is not true worship at all. This has deep implications. According to the logic of this chapter, worship cannot be an exchange, it can’t be a trade, it cannot be a service provided for compensation. By its nature and definition, worship must be something given without return. We must “fear God for nothing” (v. 9), which is a remarkable concept because of how deeply blessings (both material and spiritual) are interwoven with worship and God’s covenant. Even just untangling those motives and figuring out for ourselves what drives our worship seems like a daunting task.
Except, of course, in the midst of a crisis. In the middle of a crisis, we can finally understand what is driving our worship. This is the first lesson of the book of Job. I don’t want to say this is the only reason why bad things happen to good people, life is more complicated than that, but I think we can learn from Job that it’s sometimes one of the reasons. Satan and God disagreed about Job’s righteousness, and Satan proposed a test: in the midst of a crisis when everything Job possessed was taken away, they would all see what heart and attitude lay within Job this whole time. It was a moment of revealing. Not only to God and Satan, but Job’s wife, friends and ultimately Job himself get to see that too.
To put it in different terms, even nasty people can pretend to be nice if they are happy and things are going well. But if things are going badly then only truly good people will continue to be nice and kind to others. As it reflects on others, we can use disasters or crises as a spiritual magnifying glass to peer into the soul of others and learn what are their true values. As it reflects on ourselves, every crisis is an opportunity to understand ourselves better, and ultimately that becomes an opportunity to grow and to fix bad attitudes. One of the worst things we can do is waste a crisis by refusing to learn from it, which people most often do by externalizing blame and responsibility onto others. This leaves one’s own mistakes uninspected, undisturbed and intact, thereby guaranteeing future crises.
This chapter concludes with a statement that “Job did not sin or blame God”. Again it has a relatively clear implication: if Job had indeed “cursed God to his face” that would have been a sin. In a very clear sense, this passage (v. 20-22) confirms that Job is righteous like God originally claimed. In the midst of tragedy, Job maintained his honor and worshiped God with sincerity; he remains blameless.
In the next chapter, things get even worse as Job is struck with a second, more personal disaster.
There are few chapters in the bible more commonly used by atheists to demonstrate that God is evil than this one. The logic is simple: Job is a righteous person (v. 1 establishes this point clearly), and God permits Satan to inflict suffering upon him (v. 12). If God lets bad things happen to good people, it is immoral and demonstrates that God himself is evil. I’m glad this is something people feel strongly about because that shows Job is actually quite relevant to modern life and that the basic question (why do bad things happen to good people) is something that people still struggle with even in the modern world.
Anyway, I’m going to skip over the first couple verses that are introducing Job and his family, and get right to where the story goes a bit crazy.
In verse 6, “the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them.” This part of the story is a bit surreal. First, a minor point: “sons of God” is a common figure of speech that refers to angels. The general idea of this verse is like there is a convocation where all the angels are filing into some big conference center, and Satan is also attending. We are not specifically told who or what Satan is, but in English the Hebrew word Satan means “accuser” and in this context, it appears that Satan is one of the angels who is part of this big assembly. The prosecuting angel attorney, perhaps.
Most people think of Satan as a fallen angel and also the leader and captain of all the fallen angels who rebelled against God. Pop culture often presents Satan as an equal and opposite adversary to God, battling with each other to win dominion over people’s souls and perhaps the Earth itself. This understanding is not meaningfully presented in Job. First of all, there is no evidence in Job that Satan has any followers. Second, Satan is not presented in Job as God’s equal, but rather his subordinate, much like the other angels in this grand convention. Third, there is no direct conflict between God and Satan. However, there are hints of an indirect conflict between Satan and God. We see this conflict in three respects.
First, we see their conflict in God’s first question. God asks Satan “Where are you coming from?” I hope my readers understand that if God asks you a question, it’s not because he wants to know the answer; it’s because he wants you to know the answer. God already knows where Satan came from, so he’s not asking the question because he wants the information. God is asking because if Satan came from where God wanted him to be, then God would not have needed to ask. The question is designed to emphasis the disconnection that exists between Satan and God, like if a mother asks her children where they have been all day; if the kids had been where the mother told them to go, then she wouldn’t need to ask. In very similar terms, the first question in the bible is Genesis 3:9 when God asks Adam where he is hiding. The reason why God asks is because Adam and Eve are not where they are supposed to be, they are deliberately hiding from God and more fundamentally, man’s sin had already begun to break the previously close relationship between man and God. If Adam were in the place God wanted him, then God wouldn’t have had to ask. In the same way, if Satan were in the place and doing the things that God wanted him to, God would not have to ask Satan where Satan was coming from.
We see similar dynamics when God asked Elijah, “What are you doing here?” (1 Kings 19:9). Again, God is not asking Elijah because God doesn’t know the answer, he is asking the question so that Elijah himself thinks about it. God never told Elijah to go there, and it was never part of God’s plan for Elijah to run off into the desert and hide. The question itself indicates that Elijah had drifted out of God’s will, and God was trying to call his attention to it so that he could be brought back in. We can reasonably infer it is the same here with Satan living outside of God’s will and plan for him.
Second, we see their conflict in Satan’s answer. Satan replies that he is roaming back and forth on the earth. This is a subtle but also relatively simple point: Satan is not in heaven. God is in heaven and Satan, most likely an angel of God, is dwelling on the earth except for this one moment, and he departs from the presence of the LORD at the end of this conversation. Although other angels visit the earth in the bible, it seems unusual that an angel would dwell there so consistently. Furthermore, I think the notion of “roaming back and forth” gives Satan a restless and frantic dimension that is different from the usual attitude of God’s messengers. To me, this exchange conveys a subtle tension.
Third, we see their conflict in their different opinions about Job. God asserts that Job is a righteous man, and Satan immediately challenges him, insisting that Job’s worship is driven by pragmatism and material considerations. In essence, Satan is claiming that Job’s worship is insincere; if God were not blessing Job and filling his life with prosperity then Job would turn and “curse you to your face”. God thinks that Job is righteous and Satan believes that Job is secretly just using God, with the implication that Job is not truly righteous for that reason.
I think this is a really interesting point because the bible is replete with promises of material blessings for obeying the LORD. They go hand-in-hand nearly everywhere, especially in the Old Testament. But more than that, I think it’s interesting that God never contradicts Satan’s basic assumption. While Satan and God disagree about whether Job *in particular* has ulterior motives, they evidently agree that disingenuous worship is not true worship at all. This has deep implications. According to the logic of this chapter, worship cannot be an exchange, it can’t be a trade, it cannot be a service provided for compensation. By its nature and definition, worship must be something given without return. We must “fear God for nothing” (v. 9), which is a remarkable concept because of how deeply blessings (both material and spiritual) are interwoven with worship and God’s covenant. Even just untangling those motives and figuring out for ourselves what drives our worship seems like a daunting task.
Except, of course, in the midst of a crisis. In the middle of a crisis, we can finally understand what is driving our worship. This is the first lesson of the book of Job. I don’t want to say this is the only reason why bad things happen to good people, life is more complicated than that, but I think we can learn from Job that it’s sometimes one of the reasons. Satan and God disagreed about Job’s righteousness, and Satan proposed a test: in the midst of a crisis when everything Job possessed was taken away, they would all see what heart and attitude lay within Job this whole time. It was a moment of revealing. Not only to God and Satan, but Job’s wife, friends and ultimately Job himself get to see that too.
To put it in different terms, even nasty people can pretend to be nice if they are happy and things are going well. But if things are going badly then only truly good people will continue to be nice and kind to others. As it reflects on others, we can use disasters or crises as a spiritual magnifying glass to peer into the soul of others and learn what are their true values. As it reflects on ourselves, every crisis is an opportunity to understand ourselves better, and ultimately that becomes an opportunity to grow and to fix bad attitudes. One of the worst things we can do is waste a crisis by refusing to learn from it, which people most often do by externalizing blame and responsibility onto others. This leaves one’s own mistakes uninspected, undisturbed and intact, thereby guaranteeing future crises.
This chapter concludes with a statement that “Job did not sin or blame God”. Again it has a relatively clear implication: if Job had indeed “cursed God to his face” that would have been a sin. In a very clear sense, this passage (v. 20-22) confirms that Job is righteous like God originally claimed. In the midst of tragedy, Job maintained his honor and worshiped God with sincerity; he remains blameless.
In the next chapter, things get even worse as Job is struck with a second, more personal disaster.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)