“It is a good rule, after reading a new book, never to allow yourself another new one until you have read an old one in between.” No book is written in a vacuum. When we read books, if understanding the maximum amount of the information is important, then it is similarly important to understand why the book was written. The ideological assumptions of this particular author are summed up in the Torah. The Torah was the basis for all Christian thought at this time.
When most people hear the word Torah, they probably have no idea what it means. But when most Jeopardy contestants hear it, they immediately associate it with Pentateuch, and many would say that it is a synonym with the word "law." As a graduate of law school, I have a very unique relationship with the law, but I think it is fair to say that almost all scholars do not view the Hebrew law in the same way they view the statutes of the United States government.
Whether you are Dispensational, and view that the law does not apply today, or Covenantal, and view that laws pointed to Christ and are not necessary in the same way, almost all scholars look at this "law" as though it is no longer followed or enforced in the same way. One thing that is undeniable is that these laws are good, wholesome, and from God. So, if someone you for a word to describe things that aren't enforced as law, but are a nice way to live, a great word would be wisdom.
As we are looking at the wisdom of the Torah, Solomon clearly uses it as the basis point of where wisdom comes from. Solomon is proposing that this is the secret to Israel's success. He paints a picture, where two women are vying for our attention throughout Proverbs with worship connotations. Both of these ladies offer a path to wisdom through the allegory of food.
Lady folly is enticing sinners through the means of an adulteress. We know that adultery is evil, but this would be adultery from the groom of the Torah - God himself. And being unfaithful to him is not missing a word from a memory verse. The effect of the Torah is where it changes your life. While I am committed to Scripture Memorization, it is quite evident that the ratio of application to number of verse learned is not a mathematical constant. Some people may as well just memorize Shakespeare.
Similarly, making a singular mistake may make you guilty of the whole law, but it does not disqualify you from a life of following the Torah. When one's life is living out the Torah, that person shows an ability to live out a life of wisdom. This is why, Dr. Sam Horn once said, "The opposite of wisdom is not ignorance. It is wickedness." Someone who does not live and apply the Torah is, in fact, wicked.
Thursday, March 12, 2020
Wednesday, March 11, 2020
The Nature of a Proverb
Every culture has discovered truths with varying degrees of profundity. In an effort to impart these truths, simple and profound statements have been given. A proverb is a concise and memorable statement expressing an insight, observation, or piece of advice. A portable saying in a memorable form expressing a general observation about life in a particular culture.
Proverbs is a unique book of the Bible. It appears to me that no other book of the Bible is as quotable to non-Christians as Proverbs. The nature of it being portable, quotable, and wisdom-filled make it useful to even the most anti-God intellectual. I have heard many quote Scripture without knowing from whence the wisdom came. This is consistent with the nature of a proverb.
On the other hand, I have heard some of those same people who attempt to discredit God. In their attempt to justify using Proverbs, they reduce the authority of the book of Proverbs to African proverbs, Irish proverbs, Yiddish proverbs, folk proverbs, or any other of your favorite cultural proverbs. To me, this is akin to a scientist who incredibly knows the ins and outs of how the earth works but he remains an atheist, believing that the very science he studied came about due to total chance.
A biblical proverb is going to give you an insight from God's vantage point. Because of the nature of a proverb, it would seem obvious that in today's world, we cannot get every facet of the proverb that would have been understood by a Hebrew in the time that these Proverbs were first disseminated. However, these observation of life have been filtered through biblical revelation.
Hebrew poetry tends to be more terse and concise, which often means we are not seeing things like articles or conjunctions. There is also the use of satire, which uses humor to penetrate our mind, mocking certain behaviors. These create aphorisms, where sometimes the whole truth cannot be easily conveyed. This is why I like to think of much of the wisdom of proverbs being like golf clubs.
When you are on a putt-putt course, there is no choice of golf club, but when you become the seasoned golfer with a bag full of clubs, he has to apply the wisdom of what is the correct shot to determine which club to use. Knowing proverbs is one thing, but being able to correctly apply them is where the real wisdom is shown. Pulling out the correct proverb at the correct time is the correct application.
Dr. Sam Horn once said, "The opposite of wisdom is not ignorance. It is wickedness." Those who would speak negatively about Proverbs are mostly doing so, not because they ignorant, but rather because they refuse to see the true source of Wisdom. "In [Christ] are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge! (Col. 2:3)"
Proverbs is a unique book of the Bible. It appears to me that no other book of the Bible is as quotable to non-Christians as Proverbs. The nature of it being portable, quotable, and wisdom-filled make it useful to even the most anti-God intellectual. I have heard many quote Scripture without knowing from whence the wisdom came. This is consistent with the nature of a proverb.
On the other hand, I have heard some of those same people who attempt to discredit God. In their attempt to justify using Proverbs, they reduce the authority of the book of Proverbs to African proverbs, Irish proverbs, Yiddish proverbs, folk proverbs, or any other of your favorite cultural proverbs. To me, this is akin to a scientist who incredibly knows the ins and outs of how the earth works but he remains an atheist, believing that the very science he studied came about due to total chance.
A biblical proverb is going to give you an insight from God's vantage point. Because of the nature of a proverb, it would seem obvious that in today's world, we cannot get every facet of the proverb that would have been understood by a Hebrew in the time that these Proverbs were first disseminated. However, these observation of life have been filtered through biblical revelation.
Hebrew poetry tends to be more terse and concise, which often means we are not seeing things like articles or conjunctions. There is also the use of satire, which uses humor to penetrate our mind, mocking certain behaviors. These create aphorisms, where sometimes the whole truth cannot be easily conveyed. This is why I like to think of much of the wisdom of proverbs being like golf clubs.
When you are on a putt-putt course, there is no choice of golf club, but when you become the seasoned golfer with a bag full of clubs, he has to apply the wisdom of what is the correct shot to determine which club to use. Knowing proverbs is one thing, but being able to correctly apply them is where the real wisdom is shown. Pulling out the correct proverb at the correct time is the correct application.
Dr. Sam Horn once said, "The opposite of wisdom is not ignorance. It is wickedness." Those who would speak negatively about Proverbs are mostly doing so, not because they ignorant, but rather because they refuse to see the true source of Wisdom. "In [Christ] are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge! (Col. 2:3)"
Tuesday, March 10, 2020
The Theological Message of Song of Solomon
Living in a post-Sexual Revolution culture, it is not typical within this culture to have any kind of sexual ethic. Perhaps because of this, many conservative camps seem to have a lockdown on discussion of these things at all. Yet God, in his Providence, gives a series of poems that tend to make us uncomfortable in church.
These love poems tell us something about the nature of God that is important enough to be included in the canon. By its very inclusion in the Canon, it reminds us of a love that is purer than our own. It speaks of the potential purity of human love. There are four major, historical ways that this book has been interpreted. While each of these four methods may have several sub-methods, I will briefly discuss each method.
The first method of interpretation is Typological. Typology is a doctrine concerning the relationship of the Old Testament to the New Testament. Events, persons, or statements in the Old Testament are types pre-figuring or superseded by antitypes, events, or aspects of Christ or His revelation described in the New Testament. To me, the problem with interpreting it this way is that we don't seem to have a New Testament roadmap for this. Without a roadmap, I think this method of interpretation is missing a very important element.
The second method of interpretation is Allegorical. An allegory is a figure of speech in which abstract ideas and principles are described in terms of characters, figures, and events. It can be employed in prose and poetry to tell a story, with a purpose of teaching or explaining an idea or a principle. The objective of its use is to teach a moral lesson. I think this method works best when there are obvious allegorical interpretations, which I think are lacking in this case.
The third method of interpretation is Dramatic. This method suggests that this was intended to be performed (some views seem to think there are two major characters, while others have a third character). I find less fault with this, as I think it could be performed as a dramatic production. As Solomon had the best in so many categories, it is also quite possible that he would have the best dramas. Nevertheless, I don't believe this is essential to its interpretation. I just don't think this method of interpretation, if anything changes with it, is the way to go.
The final method of interpretation is Literal. This method says that these Human Love Poems are to be taken at face value. One of the basic principles of hermeneutics is that for any passage the plain, normal meaning should be chosen unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. This is the method to which I subscribe.
Could it be that God intend for us to experience expressions of romantic and sexual bliss in marriage unapologetically? Could it be that as we have been scared away from speaking with sexual bluntness, we are creating a sub-culture where we make it more taboo (and potentially more difficult to guiltlessly enjoy, even when approached properly)? Could it be that there should be, at least in some situations, a frankness of discussion, like Song of Solomon, on the subject of sexual love within our churches?
I'm not sure which came first and which is the over-reaction, but I think both the normative cultural position and the position to which I have mostly been exposed are both too extreme. At the same time, Song of Solomon seems to communicate a lesson on marital love that goes even deeper. Hence the Song of Solomon is instructive as well as literal poetry.
Marriage points to an intended greater love. Song of Solomon not only celebrates the dignity and purity of human love, pointing us to the greater love of Christ. This love comes amid a world of sin. In our culture, lust and passion are everywhere. We are inundated with media bombarding us with temptations. Many go astray by the fierce temptations that assail us, attempting to deter us from the God-given standard of marriage. This is certainly not limited to our day, as even Solomon himself was a product of such a fall. His greatest of all Songs reminds us, in particularly beautiful fashion, how pure and noble true love is.
These love poems tell us something about the nature of God that is important enough to be included in the canon. By its very inclusion in the Canon, it reminds us of a love that is purer than our own. It speaks of the potential purity of human love. There are four major, historical ways that this book has been interpreted. While each of these four methods may have several sub-methods, I will briefly discuss each method.
The first method of interpretation is Typological. Typology is a doctrine concerning the relationship of the Old Testament to the New Testament. Events, persons, or statements in the Old Testament are types pre-figuring or superseded by antitypes, events, or aspects of Christ or His revelation described in the New Testament. To me, the problem with interpreting it this way is that we don't seem to have a New Testament roadmap for this. Without a roadmap, I think this method of interpretation is missing a very important element.
The second method of interpretation is Allegorical. An allegory is a figure of speech in which abstract ideas and principles are described in terms of characters, figures, and events. It can be employed in prose and poetry to tell a story, with a purpose of teaching or explaining an idea or a principle. The objective of its use is to teach a moral lesson. I think this method works best when there are obvious allegorical interpretations, which I think are lacking in this case.
The third method of interpretation is Dramatic. This method suggests that this was intended to be performed (some views seem to think there are two major characters, while others have a third character). I find less fault with this, as I think it could be performed as a dramatic production. As Solomon had the best in so many categories, it is also quite possible that he would have the best dramas. Nevertheless, I don't believe this is essential to its interpretation. I just don't think this method of interpretation, if anything changes with it, is the way to go.
The final method of interpretation is Literal. This method says that these Human Love Poems are to be taken at face value. One of the basic principles of hermeneutics is that for any passage the plain, normal meaning should be chosen unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. This is the method to which I subscribe.
Could it be that God intend for us to experience expressions of romantic and sexual bliss in marriage unapologetically? Could it be that as we have been scared away from speaking with sexual bluntness, we are creating a sub-culture where we make it more taboo (and potentially more difficult to guiltlessly enjoy, even when approached properly)? Could it be that there should be, at least in some situations, a frankness of discussion, like Song of Solomon, on the subject of sexual love within our churches?
I'm not sure which came first and which is the over-reaction, but I think both the normative cultural position and the position to which I have mostly been exposed are both too extreme. At the same time, Song of Solomon seems to communicate a lesson on marital love that goes even deeper. Hence the Song of Solomon is instructive as well as literal poetry.
Marriage points to an intended greater love. Song of Solomon not only celebrates the dignity and purity of human love, pointing us to the greater love of Christ. This love comes amid a world of sin. In our culture, lust and passion are everywhere. We are inundated with media bombarding us with temptations. Many go astray by the fierce temptations that assail us, attempting to deter us from the God-given standard of marriage. This is certainly not limited to our day, as even Solomon himself was a product of such a fall. His greatest of all Songs reminds us, in particularly beautiful fashion, how pure and noble true love is.
Thursday, February 13, 2020
The Structure of Ecclesiastes
Is life worth living? To the casual reader of Ecclesiastes it seems that the answer would be, "Yes, if you are successful." Honestly, to a reader with American sensibilities, this seems super harsh. While most of the Old Testament is written to God's people corporately, Ecclesiastes (like other Wisdom literature) is written to the individual. To a reader with American sensibilities, this seems more appropriate or desirable
The structure proper is very simple. A prologue, followed by a lengthy lecture, some may call a diatribe, but I prefer sermon, followed by an epilogue. Everything centers around this lecture by "The Preacher." So, what are the elements of this diatribe? He refers to a series of items as "vanity." These things blatantly include wisdom, self-indulgence, living wisely, toil, wealth and honor, attempting to know God's Way, Life, and Youth or vigor. If we read between the lines, that list would be much longer.
Many fights have been waged over this word that the King James translates "vanity." I used to work with Dr. Dan Fredericks, who was on a translation committee for wisdom books of multiple versions that have come out in the 50 years before our time together. His opinion ("temporary" as the correct word) was the minority opinion in each of those translations. I do believe that as I read the book, that word leads me to the best conclusions of the text therein.
Now, whether you choose to believe that the pockets of applied wisdom come from things being vanity, meaningless, futility, soap bubbles, or even temporary may not matter. So long as we grasp that those pockets of wisdom are pointing us to the right way of living. I'm not sure I agree with The Byrds take that we should turn, but even the oldie Rock band understood that application in a sermon comes after setting forth observations.
While Job gains wisdom through his loss of everything, the Preacher is learning his Wisdom through having it all and realizing the folly of trying to gain peace through acquiring things. This is why this book can speak so directly to our American sensibilities, where hedonism reigns in our capitalistic society. More than most books in the Bible, Ecclesiastes deals with the reality of the Fall on our every day lives.
GK Chesterton said that he was once better and worse than all of creation, but then God changed him. After this, he realized that Christians are not made for this world alone. The Preacher reconciles the futility of our life in the Fall. However, I believe the overlooked (and essential) part to this Ecclesiastical concept of life is the phrase "under the sun." This is why we, as Christians, live our life on this earth as homesick. A biblical balance of recognizing the good of creation, the awfulness of the Fall, and the hope we have in being recreated all working together helps us see the place of Ecclesiastes.
We can trust this Preacher because he is living in a world, which we see so much like our own, that feel-good optimism is not the ultimate achievement, but rather that the temporary nature of our life is not final. "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil." It is that World that we long for!
The structure proper is very simple. A prologue, followed by a lengthy lecture, some may call a diatribe, but I prefer sermon, followed by an epilogue. Everything centers around this lecture by "The Preacher." So, what are the elements of this diatribe? He refers to a series of items as "vanity." These things blatantly include wisdom, self-indulgence, living wisely, toil, wealth and honor, attempting to know God's Way, Life, and Youth or vigor. If we read between the lines, that list would be much longer.
Many fights have been waged over this word that the King James translates "vanity." I used to work with Dr. Dan Fredericks, who was on a translation committee for wisdom books of multiple versions that have come out in the 50 years before our time together. His opinion ("temporary" as the correct word) was the minority opinion in each of those translations. I do believe that as I read the book, that word leads me to the best conclusions of the text therein.
Now, whether you choose to believe that the pockets of applied wisdom come from things being vanity, meaningless, futility, soap bubbles, or even temporary may not matter. So long as we grasp that those pockets of wisdom are pointing us to the right way of living. I'm not sure I agree with The Byrds take that we should turn, but even the oldie Rock band understood that application in a sermon comes after setting forth observations.
While Job gains wisdom through his loss of everything, the Preacher is learning his Wisdom through having it all and realizing the folly of trying to gain peace through acquiring things. This is why this book can speak so directly to our American sensibilities, where hedonism reigns in our capitalistic society. More than most books in the Bible, Ecclesiastes deals with the reality of the Fall on our every day lives.
GK Chesterton said that he was once better and worse than all of creation, but then God changed him. After this, he realized that Christians are not made for this world alone. The Preacher reconciles the futility of our life in the Fall. However, I believe the overlooked (and essential) part to this Ecclesiastical concept of life is the phrase "under the sun." This is why we, as Christians, live our life on this earth as homesick. A biblical balance of recognizing the good of creation, the awfulness of the Fall, and the hope we have in being recreated all working together helps us see the place of Ecclesiastes.
We can trust this Preacher because he is living in a world, which we see so much like our own, that feel-good optimism is not the ultimate achievement, but rather that the temporary nature of our life is not final. "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil." It is that World that we long for!
Tuesday, February 11, 2020
The Nature of Biblical Wisdom
A lot of people think that wisdom is a good idea, but not an essential attribute for proper Christian living. Almost like the idea that LeBron James would benefit from being able to shoot like Stephen Curry, but he doesn't need to do that in order to be great. This couldn't be further from the truth. We are literally commanded to be wise, just like we are commanded to obey and to be honest. This indicates that this is something that is attainable by all Christians, and when we don't attain it, we are disobeying God.
Dr. Sam Horn once said, "The opposite of wisdom is not ignorance. It is wickedness." The fact that this is so striking to us indicates that we have tremendously discounted what wisdom is in our culture. We like to think that wisdom is merely what is gained by living for a long time. While it is undeniable that wisdom ordinarily accompanies old age, that also makes wisdom much like physical deterioration or cancer. This obviously sells it short, but even those who supposedly value wisdom, treat wisdom with much less reverence than does the Bible. As a culture, we have flattened wisdom to knowledge.
What wisdom actually is, on the other hand, is the intersection of knowledge and zeal, turning right understanding into right action. According to Bruce Waltke's interpretation of Proverbs 1 , Wisdom includes knowledge, understanding, subtilty, discretion, learning, and understanding. While I'm tempted to merely regurgitate TS Eliot's Pyramid of Organisational Knowledge, I am persuaded that even it is flawed. Because true wisdom requires not just knowledge (or any of the other virtues in Proverbs 1), but it must also include the acknowledgement from whence it came (Col 2:3). Consider, a person with tremendous worldly "wisdom" who does not accept that true wisdom comes from Christ. I believe I Corinthians 1 gives an answer for this.
It is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe."
There is certainly worldly wisdom available to those who are not redeemed, but much like the Heidelberg Catechism definition of good mandates that real good can only be attained by and through a saving faith in Jesus Christ, real wisdom is only available in the same circumstance. The Bible references a wisdom generally meaning "masterful understanding" and "skill." Wisdom is used of technical and artistic skills (Exo 28:3; 31:6), of the arts of magic (Exo 7:11; Isa 3:3), government (Ecc 4:13; Jer. 50:35), diplomacy (1 Kings 5:7) and war (Isa 10:3). One also rules a nation by the ability to judge (1 Kings 3:28; Isa. 11:1-6) and to separate the guilty from the community (Prov. 20:26) and, through cleverness, to master people and situations (2 Sam. 14:2; Job 39:15,17).
While knowledge must be present within wisdom, it is a tremendous disservice to equate it to mere knowledge (incidentally, TS Eliot warns in the same hymn us against flattened knowledge to information, but that is a discussion for a different paper). Fools hate knowledge (Prov 1:22,29), and it is easy to see that life without it is much tougher. Wisdom allows a wide swath of people (of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues) to achieve what the world would say is impossible. Proverbs compares wisdom to an ant (Proverbs 6:6-8). Then, in Proverbs 30, big animals (lion, greyhound, and goat) as well as small animals (conies, locusts, and spiders) are added to the ant as exhibiting wisdom. In short, this book of Proverbs transforms a term that our culture neutralizes, wisdom, into the virtue that is the culmination of all other virtues.
Dr. Sam Horn once said, "The opposite of wisdom is not ignorance. It is wickedness." The fact that this is so striking to us indicates that we have tremendously discounted what wisdom is in our culture. We like to think that wisdom is merely what is gained by living for a long time. While it is undeniable that wisdom ordinarily accompanies old age, that also makes wisdom much like physical deterioration or cancer. This obviously sells it short, but even those who supposedly value wisdom, treat wisdom with much less reverence than does the Bible. As a culture, we have flattened wisdom to knowledge.
What wisdom actually is, on the other hand, is the intersection of knowledge and zeal, turning right understanding into right action. According to Bruce Waltke's interpretation of Proverbs 1 , Wisdom includes knowledge, understanding, subtilty, discretion, learning, and understanding. While I'm tempted to merely regurgitate TS Eliot's Pyramid of Organisational Knowledge, I am persuaded that even it is flawed. Because true wisdom requires not just knowledge (or any of the other virtues in Proverbs 1), but it must also include the acknowledgement from whence it came (Col 2:3). Consider, a person with tremendous worldly "wisdom" who does not accept that true wisdom comes from Christ. I believe I Corinthians 1 gives an answer for this.
It is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe."
There is certainly worldly wisdom available to those who are not redeemed, but much like the Heidelberg Catechism definition of good mandates that real good can only be attained by and through a saving faith in Jesus Christ, real wisdom is only available in the same circumstance. The Bible references a wisdom generally meaning "masterful understanding" and "skill." Wisdom is used of technical and artistic skills (Exo 28:3; 31:6), of the arts of magic (Exo 7:11; Isa 3:3), government (Ecc 4:13; Jer. 50:35), diplomacy (1 Kings 5:7) and war (Isa 10:3). One also rules a nation by the ability to judge (1 Kings 3:28; Isa. 11:1-6) and to separate the guilty from the community (Prov. 20:26) and, through cleverness, to master people and situations (2 Sam. 14:2; Job 39:15,17).
While knowledge must be present within wisdom, it is a tremendous disservice to equate it to mere knowledge (incidentally, TS Eliot warns in the same hymn us against flattened knowledge to information, but that is a discussion for a different paper). Fools hate knowledge (Prov 1:22,29), and it is easy to see that life without it is much tougher. Wisdom allows a wide swath of people (of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues) to achieve what the world would say is impossible. Proverbs compares wisdom to an ant (Proverbs 6:6-8). Then, in Proverbs 30, big animals (lion, greyhound, and goat) as well as small animals (conies, locusts, and spiders) are added to the ant as exhibiting wisdom. In short, this book of Proverbs transforms a term that our culture neutralizes, wisdom, into the virtue that is the culmination of all other virtues.
Monday, February 10, 2020
The Purpose of Job
As I am crossing over to the phase of life where most of my anecdotes are from the perspective of a parent, rather than the perspective of a child, I often find myself giving the answer that drove me crazy as a child, "Because I said so."
The answer seems so arbitrary as a child. It seems so inferior in its presentation. It seems as though we are being left out of the decision-making for our own destiny, and we don't like it. As a parent, it is exasperating to have more wisdom and have that wisdom questioned. It is frustrating to have someone whose decisions clearly lead to devastation and despair attempt to engage you in an argument that his decision is better.
So, much like a dog chasing a mechanical rabbit, I delve into the book of Job, and I see that God is the ultimate parent. God sees things that we don't. I'm even willing to guess that there is still much to the story of Job that we, even if we've read the text twice in the last couple weeks, still don't know.
I also come into the reading with two truths behind me (hopefully I know more truths than two, but there are two specific things that I think I must accept before reading Job, and let's call them Isaiah 55:8-9 and Romans 8:28-29). While I am tempted to ignore the bulk of the book completely and just comment on the parts at the beginning and the end where we see the Sovereignty of God more clearly on display, I fear that would make me just as error-filled as Job's "comforters." To completely neglect the majority of the book would require me to inject my own thoughts about incomplete data.
Job had three friends that we hear from quite a bit—Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite, and Zophar the Naamathite. According to Maimonides, each of Job's friends represents a different position on divine providence: "Eliphaz represents the biblical or rabbinic tradition—Job is being punished for his sins; Bildad expresses the view of the Mutazillites—Job is being tested to receive a greater reward; and Zophar presents the view of the Asharites—Job suffers because of God's arbitrary will."
The answer seems so arbitrary as a child. It seems so inferior in its presentation. It seems as though we are being left out of the decision-making for our own destiny, and we don't like it. As a parent, it is exasperating to have more wisdom and have that wisdom questioned. It is frustrating to have someone whose decisions clearly lead to devastation and despair attempt to engage you in an argument that his decision is better.
So, much like a dog chasing a mechanical rabbit, I delve into the book of Job, and I see that God is the ultimate parent. God sees things that we don't. I'm even willing to guess that there is still much to the story of Job that we, even if we've read the text twice in the last couple weeks, still don't know.
I also come into the reading with two truths behind me (hopefully I know more truths than two, but there are two specific things that I think I must accept before reading Job, and let's call them Isaiah 55:8-9 and Romans 8:28-29). While I am tempted to ignore the bulk of the book completely and just comment on the parts at the beginning and the end where we see the Sovereignty of God more clearly on display, I fear that would make me just as error-filled as Job's "comforters." To completely neglect the majority of the book would require me to inject my own thoughts about incomplete data.
Job had three friends that we hear from quite a bit—Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite, and Zophar the Naamathite. According to Maimonides, each of Job's friends represents a different position on divine providence: "Eliphaz represents the biblical or rabbinic tradition—Job is being punished for his sins; Bildad expresses the view of the Mutazillites—Job is being tested to receive a greater reward; and Zophar presents the view of the Asharites—Job suffers because of God's arbitrary will."
Now, I cannot speak for what the Jews, Mutazillites, and Asharites believed in the Middle Ages (or before), but I can clearly see that the general populace often looks for an explanation for God doing things. Many people look for the easiest answer to explain a God that is too complex for them to understand or simply doesn't fit with what they want to believe about God.
This is the underlying purpose of Job. God is not made in our image. God is not bound by our definition of fairness. As we view God, sometimes we, like a child, think we know best. We believe that our lives would be better if we did not lose family, friends, or finances. We, however, see through the story of Job that God worked in this situation not to achieve the blessing of the creation, but rather, as the Creator, he had an inherent knowledge that surpassed Job's knowledge.
The certain reaction to this firm grasp of the obvious is to worship. To begin to fathom the greatness of God, the very God who created a world so fantastic that we are but a speck in it, is to understand that this God must be worshiped. When combined with the rest of Scripture, we can appreciate much more about God, but those are potentially discussions for another topic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)