nemo@rochester.UUCP (Wolfe) (01/25/85)
A friend and I are currently reading through the Bible, and we started with the book of Job. There are several passages that I am having trouble with, and the overall message seems a bit puzzling. Is the point that God is not understandable? If any of you feel more comfor- table with Job, please mail me your understanding of the book. There are also some interesting questions raised by Job's buddies. Thanks in advance, Nemo
hedrick@topaz.ARPA (Chuck Hedrick) (01/30/85)
> A friend and I are currently reading through the Bible, and we started > with the book of Job. There are several passages that I am having > trouble with, and the overall message seems a bit puzzling. You really ask simple questions, don't you? Explain all of Job in a net news message, already. I suggest that you find a local University library and browse through some commentaries. If you want something very brief, take a look at the Oxford Annotated Bible. Briefly, much of Job is an attack on people who give "easy" answers to difficult religious questions. The major question is Job is the Problem of Evil (Why does God allow evil and suffering in the world, if he is so good and loving?), so the easy answers dealt with are mostly related to that question. The most common one is that if you are suffering you must have committed some sin, i.e. that suffering is a punishment for Sin. Job is also written in opposition to people who are sure that they know God's inmost thoughts, as several of his "friends" seem to think they do. I confess that I am not sure quite how to characterize the "answer" that Job is finally given. One thing is clear: It seems that God prefers someone who honestly grapples with him than someone who gives glib defenses. But the rest is not so obvious. It also seems likely that the author of Job did not believe that the "answer" to the problem of Evil was a purely intellectual one. God did not come down and give a philosophical answer. Rather, he confronted Job "man to man". One possible interpretation of this is that the only real answer to the question is to come to know God well enough that we trust him. Christian commentators tend to say something like "well, we know this isn't a completely satisfactory answer, but it is the best they could do before they knew Christ". I think that is a cop-out. Although Christians do have some new perspectives on the issue, it isn't as if a great solution suddenly becomes obvious once you become a Christian. If you are interested in the issue itself, one of the best discussions for the layman is C.S. Lewis' book (hmmm... the title escapes me: something fairly obvious with pain or suffering in the title). However this book includes some of the justifications that Job's friends used... By the way, one apparent problem with Job is probably not serious. Some people wonder how God could play games with Satan with men's lives at stake. Sounds like a bad science fiction. Unless you are a fundamentalist, you should probably think of the first and last sections of the book as a folk tale that was floating around at the time, and the majority of the book as sort of a meditation that was sparked by that story.
nemo@rochester.UUCP (Wolfe) (01/31/85)
> You really ask simple questions, don't you? Explain all of Job in a net > news message, already. So what is net.religion for? Flames about Ubizmo? I am not asking for a teatise on the subject, just a glimmer of insight. The typical commentary I have seen tends to sound a lot like Job's friends.... > Briefly, much of Job is an > attack on people who give "easy" answers to difficult religious questions. Agreed. > ... (easy answer a la friends is) suffering is a punishment for Sin. Right. Job (justifiably) claims that God is unfair. > Job is also written in opposition to > people who are sure that they know God's inmost thoughts, as several of his > "friends" seem to think they do. Is it not Job who is chastised by God in the form of asking him how or why God does what He does? Of course, the friends are reprimanded as windbags. > I confess that I am not sure quite how to characterize the "answer" that Job > is finally given. One thing is clear: It seems that God prefers someone who > honestly grapples with him than someone who gives glib defenses. > God did not come down and give a philosophical answer. Rather, he > confronted Job "man to man". Rather, He essentially called Job a presumptuous whippersnapper and put him in his place. It seems to me that God was saying that man doesn't stand a chance of knowing what He is up to, and that he should trust in God. Since Job repents his accusations of God, he is forgiven. > One possible interpretation of this is that > the only real answer to the question is to come to know God well enough that > we trust him. Christian commentators tend to say something like "well, we > know this isn't a completely satisfactory answer, but it is the best they > could do before they knew Christ". I think that is a cop-out. Me too. "The ways of the Lord are mysterious" isn't much different. > Christians do have some new perspectives on the issue, it isn't as if a > great solution suddenly becomes obvious once you become a Christian. Yeah, except with the afterlife looming on the horizon, it's a lot easier to bear earthly injustice and misery when you know the bad guys are going to fry in hell. > If you are interested in the issue itself, one of the best discussions > for the layman is C.S. Lewis' book (hmmm... the title escapes me: something > fairly obvious with pain or suffering in the title). However this book > includes some of the justifications that Job's friends used... I'll check it out. > By the way, one apparent problem with Job is probably not serious. Some > people wonder how God could play games with Satan with men's lives at stake. As put in the Good Book, it sure seems like Job has good reason to do what he did. > Sounds like a bad science fiction. Unless you are a fundamentalist, you > should probably think of the first and last sections of the book as a folk > tale that was floating around at the time, and the majority of the book as > sort of a meditation that was sparked by that story. Thanks for the pointers. I hope that you didn't take this as yet another silly net question. I certainly don't expect to get the Word on Job from the net, but I do hope to get a few new perspectives on this most difficult book (at least for me). The question at the beginning (what is net.rel for) is sincere, and I for one would prefer to see more discussions of religions' answers (that's not really the word I want) of the fundamental questions that religion is supposed to answer. At least, I would prefer fewer of the cross-referenced flames and semantics discussions and more substance. As a side issue, I see few references to religions outside of Judaism and Christianity (obviously most of the people on the net are most familiar with these, but still...) on the net, but it seems that the discussions could benefit from comparitive religion studies. Thanks for the reply, Nemo
hedrick@topaz.ARPA (Chuck Hedrick) (01/31/85)
I'm terribly sorry. In my attempt to be brief, I was misleading. Normally I try to avoid replying to answers, except in private communications to the sender. But I made enough mistakes in this one that I had better make an exception. First, I certainly agree that it makes sense to discuss major issues. I, too, am getting tired of certain exchanges on this list. I thought my tongue was obviously enough in my cheek that I did not need )%$, or whatever the symbol is. Second, I obviously did not say quite enough about what I believe the final confrontation between Job and God means. I think you take it that God was putting Job down. I don't see it that way. Job asked for God to come down and fight like a man. God did that. Of course he overawed Job, and left Job in the dust, but one would expect that any direct encounter with God would do that. Consider the positive aspects: - Job asked for his day in court. He got it. God takes him seriously enough to answer him. - Job's friends claimed that if God ever confronted Job, it would turn out that Job was guilty of terrible sins, and so there would be a negative judgement. While God impressed Job with his power and all that, he did not bring all of Job's sins home to him and condemn him. While there is some strong language used, Job is nowhere actually condemned. - the only actual judgement is that Job spoke the truth about God, whereas his friends did not. In 42:2-6, I consider the crucial part to be vs. 5. Job's answer is that he is allowed to see God face to face. I do not take v. 6 so seriously. I understand why Job is overawed by God and considers that he is a worthless thing by comparison. But that is just his reaction. In vs 7, God does not share that negative judgement. Again, I don't claim to have the message tied up nice and neat. I don't think that is possible. I don't think the author of Job thought it was possible. But I think the answer involves Job coming to realize that it is more important for him to come to know and trust God than to get an intellectual answer to suffering. I claim it is in Chap 42 that Job shows that he realizes that. From the section on Job in the Interpreter's One-Volume Commentary: "In the outcome, through the dark night of anxiety and despair, Job has encountered the answer to his predicament. The answer Job finds is no theoretical or philosophical or moralistic solution to his problem, but an experience. The vision spoken of is not, of course, the actual sight of ... God ... What is meant is that for him hearsay has now been transformed into firsthand personal confrontation with the God who, on the last frontier of Job's existence, bestows on him a new power in a new way. (I strongly recommend that you look at the Interpreter's Commentary (*not* the Interpreter's Bible) for more detail on this interpretation of Job.)" Third, the thing that Christianity adds is not that the bad guys roast in hell. For one thing, Christianity didn't add it. It was there in first century Judaism (though it was not a majority view there). For another, it doesn't really answer the question of why God would allow Evil. The thing that Christianity adds is that God came down to suffer with us. This may not impress people who want an intellectually satisfying answer to the problem of Evil, but it is very important to the way Christians actually deal with suffering. From Paul on down through Christian history, Christians consider their suffering to be their sharing in Christ's carrying of the whole world's suffering. There is a considerable similarity between Job (at least my view of Job) and what Christians think happened in Christ. How did Christ's coming deal with the problem of sin, i.e. with the broken relationship between us and God, due to our failures? He did it by involving himself in the human condition. My view of the Atonement is that Christ's actions benefit us to a large extent by the simple fact that it involves God directly in the world. Sin causes a problem because God is holy, and so when we become unholy we separate ourselves from him. In Christ, God has come down into the muck to join us. Not that he himself sinned, of course, but he put himself voluntarily into the same position that sinners find themselves. So not even our sin separates us from him any more. Job is consistent with this in the sense that it also has as its main point restoring a relationship with God. The other major aspect of the atonment is vicariousness. Christians believe that Christ actually bore the consequences of our sin. Charles Williams has the most intriguing set of ideas on this subject. they are best presented in his novel Descent into Hell. In it, he claims that the laws of the universe include some components that many people do not see, one of them being that people can actually carry each other's pain and suffering. He believes that this is something to which all Christians are called, and which Christ only initiated. His novel is is quite disturbing and thought-provoking. Of course this doesn't get rid of the philosophical question as to how a good God can allow suffering. I still think that question is worth pursuing, but I am going to avoid commenting on it. It is outside my area of (even amateur) expertise. There is a good summary of the alternatives, as currently held by various Christians thinkers. Much to my chagrin, I can't put my hand on it. I have a dim recollection that it was edited by John Hicks. If anyone out there is knowlegable in the philosophy of religion, I would be interested to watch a discussion on this point. I would not like to start yet another series of flames, however.
nemo@rochester.UUCP (Wolfe) (01/31/85)
> I think you take it that God was > putting Job down. I don't see it that way. Job asked for God to come down > and fight like a man. God did that. Of course he overawed Job, and left > Job in the dust, but one would expect that any direct encounter with God > would do that. Consider the positive aspects: > - Job asked for his day in court. He got it. God takes him seriously > enough to answer him. Yes, you're right here. I don't really God as putting Job down so much as challenging his ability to comprehend the workings of God. Job had been complaining about God as though He was a judge or the government, ie: like a man. God seems to remind Job that He is not. > - Job's friends claimed that if God ever confronted Job, it would > turn out that Job was guilty of terrible sins, and so there > would be a negative judgement. While God impressed Job > with his power and all that, he did not bring all of Job's > sins home to him and condemn him. While there is some > strong language used, Job is nowhere actually condemned. > - the only actual judgement is that Job spoke the truth about God, > whereas his friends did not. Agree. > In 42:2-6, I consider the crucial part to be vs. 5. Job's answer is that he > is allowed to see God face to face. I do not take v. 6 so seriously. I > understand why Job is overawed by God and considers that he is a worthless > thing by comparison. But that is just his reaction. In vs 7, God does not > share that negative judgement. Agree again. > But I think the answer involves Job > coming to realize that it is more important for him to come to know and > trust God than to get an intellectual answer to suffering. I claim it is in > Chap 42 that Job shows that he realizes that. From the section on Job in > the Interpreter's One-Volume Commentary: "In the outcome, through the > dark night of anxiety and despair, Job has encountered the answer to his > predicament. The answer Job finds is *no* *theoretical* or *philosophical* > or *moralistic* *solution* to his problem, but an experience. Excellent point. (*'s mine) > (for Job) hearsay has now been transformed into firsthand > personal confrontation with the God who, on the last frontier of Job's > existence, bestows on him a new power in a new way. (I strongly > recommend that you look at the Interpreter's Commentary (*not* the > Interpreter's Bible) for more detail on this interpretation of Job.)" OK. > Third, the thing that Christianity adds is not that the bad guys roast in > hell. For one thing, Christianity didn't add it. It was there in first > century Judaism (though it was not a majority view there). Hmmm. I didn't know that. > For another, it > doesn't really answer the question of why God would allow Evil. True. > The thing > that Christianity adds is that God came down to suffer with us. This may > not impress people who want an intellectually satisfying answer to the > problem of Evil, but it is very important to the way Christians actually > deal with suffering. From Paul on down through Christian history, > Christians consider their suffering to be their sharing in Christ's carrying > of the whole world's suffering. There is a considerable similarity between > Job (at least my view of Job) and what Christians think happened in Christ. Even to the point of Christ's (and Job's) despair. > How did Christ's coming deal with the problem of sin, i.e. with the broken > relationship between us and God, due to our failures? He did it by > involving himself in the human condition. My view of the Atonement is that > Christ's actions benefit us to a large extent by the simple fact that it > involves God directly in the world. Sin causes a problem because God is > holy, and so when we become unholy we separate ourselves from him. Sin as a denial of God (and in some sense, the inner self) is fundamental to several systems of belief, including mine. > In Christ, God has come down into the muck to join us. So not even our sin > separates us from him any more. Job is consistent with this in the sense > that it also has as its main point restoring a relationship with God. Good point, which I had forgotten. > Charles Williams has the most intriguing set of > ideas on this subject. they are best presented in his novel Descent into > Hell. In it, he claims that the laws of the universe include some > components that many people do not see, one of them being that people can > actually carry each other's pain and suffering. He believes that this is > something to which all Christians are called, and which Christ only > initiated. His novel is is quite disturbing and thought-provoking. Interesting - I'll have to check this out also. > Of course this doesn't get rid of the philosophical question as to how a > good God can allow suffering. I still think that question is worth > pursuing, but I am going to avoid commenting on it. It is outside my area > of (even amateur) expertise. Mine, too, but then, that has never held anyone back on the net :-) > If anyone out there is knowlegable in the philosophy of > religion, I would be interested to watch a discussion on this point. Me, too. I would like to see the approaches taken by other religions/ philosophies on this question as well. For instance, isn't there a saying from Buddhism that says that anyone can call good good, but the enlightened call bad good? > I would not like to start yet another series of flames, however. Second the motion. I hope you didn't take my previous comments a a flame. Thanks for taking the time to make a thoughtful reply. Nemo