This is a conversation concerning the book of Job that I am having with the great Mr. Andrew Garnett. Andrew, I had to put my response on here for you because I think it was too long for Facebook to handle haha. I will post my initial comment, Andrew's comments first and then my response just for clarity and the sake of anyone else that might like to participate.Job's greatest mistake: "I will give free utterance to my complaint; I will speak in the bitterness of my soul." ~Job 10:1...And the tongue is a fire, a world of unrighteousness. The tongue is set among our members, staining the whole body, setting on fire the entire course of life, and set on fire by hell. ~James 3:6
I think this is the same sort of thing you see in the Psalms, where the authors question God all the time. They complain against God, and sometimes they get answers. It's the same thing in Habakkuk (which is a great little book), where the prophet makes two complaints against God and as a result gets to have a conversation with God about his problems.
To me, the story of Job shows that God gets more angry when people won't ask questions. What God dislikes there is people who are too scared to venture out of what they think that they "know" about God. What do you think?
Andrew, I apologize for taking so long to respond to your comment. I appreciate your comments. There are a few points you made that I would like to address.
1.) "Job's honest questions and doubt make him the one who speaks well about God."
2.) “To me, the story of Job shows that God gets more angry when people won't ask questions.”
3.) “What God dislikes there is people who are too scared to venture out of what they think that they "know" about God.
If you look at the verse couple of verses of chapter 10, you see Job setting up what he is going to say for the rest of the chapter. He basically introduces this monologue of sorts by basically saying "I'm about to vent." Matthew Henry states it likes this:
"Job, being weary of his life and having ease no other way, resolves to complain, resolves to speak. He will not give vent to his soul by violent hands, but he will give vent to the bitterness of his soul by violent words."
First, I believe that in order to read the book of Job with the correct hermeneutic you have to begin with the correct doctrine of God's character and man's ultimate purpose in creation. I could right scores of essays discussing the character of God in depth. For the purpose of this discussion I will just briefly say that I am referring to the truths that God is holy, just, good, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, loving, etc. Now, concerning man's ultimate purpose we see Scripture address that:
a) For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen. ~Rom. 11:36
b) "Worthy are you, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created." ~Rev. 4:11
c) "If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love. These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full." ~John 15:10-11
So we are able to conclude from assembling Scriptures such as these that the purpose of man is to "glorify God and enjoy Him forever." As you probably know from the
Something important to see about Job is that he knew the character of God and walked with God, fulfilling his purpose. So in chapter 10 we see him wrestling with what God is doing because it seems out of God's character, which he understand later that it wasn't. So what I would submit to you is that it was not Job's questioning God and doubting Him that caused him to speak rightly of God as God says he did in Job 42. It was Job's correct knowledge of the character of God that caused him to speak rightly of Him.
Therefore, what I think Scripture as a whole teaches is that it is not man's virtue to doubt or question God. Giving full vent to anger is seen throughout Scripture as foolish and destructive, but a temperament that is slow to anger and trusting in the Lord is virtuous and blessed (James 1:26; James 3:1-10; Psa. 37:3; Psa 37:5; Psa 91:2; Prov. 3:5; Isa 26:4; Jer. 17:7). Now, you are correct that later in the story it does appear that Job's questioning and venting was God's will to bring about the result of Job's increased knowledge of God and revelation of God that Job had not previously known intimately. However, I do not think this teaches us that venting at God and questioning God should be a temperament that a follower of Christ should have. The teaching of Scripture seems to be to the contrary. We see that when God first addresses Job He says, "Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?" (Job 38:2). Then God proceeds to give Job a revelation of Himself that how complex God's wisdom and His actions are because if you notice He never tells Job about the discourse with Satan or the purpose for his suffering. So I do agree with you that out of Job's questioning and doubting came the gift of God's revelation concerning His vast complexity and Job's inability to understand the answer to the questions he was asking; however, we do see God's revelation to Job coupled with a rebuke as well.
In conclusion, if you look at Job in light of Scripture as a whole you see a predominant theme in regards to suffering. You do not see it clearly taught that we are entitled to answers for our suffering, and I don't think you are encouraged to question God and doubt Him. I think Scripture views such a temperament as negative, possibly due to little faith (when the disciples questioned Jesus when their boat was caught in the storm He corrected them for their lack of faith). So I think asking "why?" in the midst of suffering like Job is not the virtuous question that God would have us ask. We know from Romans 8:28-30 that everything God does in the life of a child of God is for the purpose of making them more conformed to the image of Christ. That's why all things work together for good for children of God. The "good" there is the conformity to the image of Christ, whether that be through abundance or suffering. Both are ultimately good because they achieve that purpose. In light of this principle, I think the question that God would have us ask in the midst of suffering is "how?" "How can I suffer through this and become more like Christ and trust in God through this." Job knew God was just and good so I think what Job's more correct response should have been was to trust in the truthful character of God that he knew, knowing that God would never act outside of His character.
Posts
10 comments:
1. You're not going to like this one, but I think scripture just has some tensions about whether or not questioning God is a good thing. You mentioned several times that you don't think it is humanity's role to question God, but I think your only scriptural example of that was Jesus calming the storm and rebuking the disciples in Matthew 8/Mark4/Luke 8. We could both probably find plenty of examples that support our view, where people question God and its OK and where people question God and it's not OK. That seems kind of pointless to me to line up opposing Bible verses, so I'll just reiterate the examples from my earlier post—there are times where people question God and it is perfectly fine.
Habakkuk—This book can be outlined like this: 1. Habakkuk says, “God, why are things so unfair? Everything is broken.” 2. God says, “Just wait...I'm sending the Babylonians, and they're going to punish all the evil in your country.” 3. Habakkuk says, “Wait a second...that's not very fair either! The Babylonians are evil people too, so we still haven't escaped the problem of an unfair world.” 4. God says, “Oh, don't worry...I'm going to punish them eventually as well.” 5. Habakkuk says, “OK...cool.” Then he sings a praise song and the book ends. Here, questioning God turns out to be a very good thing. The prophet gets an answer.
Psalms—Songs of lament are the most common form of psalm, and frequently they consist of complaining against God. Psalm 13 is a good example... “How long, O Lord? Will you forget me forever?” And it goes on like that for a while, and there's a nice ending about how God has remembered the Psalmist. In almost all of these songs of lament, there is no indication that questioning is a bad thing. I don't think these songs and poems would have been canonized if people had seen anything wrong with them. That's what makes the psalms a beautiful and powerful book; whereas a lot of the Bible is God talking to people, the psalms are people talking to God—openly and honestly, whether happy or sad or joyful or angry or confused.
Again, there are other examples of people questioning God, but I don't think there's any point in listing lots of verses because you can find plenty of examples for your view as well.
2. I'm not sure if I understand your explanation of the end of the Job story. As I understand it, you take 42:7 (“Job spoke well”) to refer to the things that happened way back in chapters 1 & 2. Job had a correct understanding of God before the whole thing started, and that's what God is talking about in 42:7. The problem with that understanding, for me, is that it leaves out most of the book. The book of Job is about this big conversation concerning suffering. You've got Job on the one hand saying, “I haven't done anything wrong and I'm suffering unjustly.” On the other hand you've got his friends offering various solutions in the theology of the day about how Job has done something wrong or deserves his suffering. The heart of the book is a conversation (35 chapters of Job & friends talking, and 5 chapters at beginning and end of narrative description and God talking). I think it's really a stretch to say that God's comments in 42:7 about speaking are not actually about the speaking in the book—the conversation in the middle. I think it's much more logical to say that that God commending Job's speaking and condemning the friend' speaking is about the time when they were all speaking together. Thus God is essentially vindicating Job's questions for the main conversation of the book.
Moreover, your view (if I understand it correctly) doesn't account for the fact that God seems please with Job and angry with the friends at the end of the story. God says that Job has gotten out of line with some of his questions, and Job also agrees that he has spoken too harshly in some of his statements, but God isn't really angry in the end. Job is still righteous in all that he has done. That's why he has to pray for his friends and offer sacrifices for them so God won't kick their tails. If God thought Job had really screwed up too badly, he would tell Job to sacrifice as well so that God didn't smite him too. In spite of all the questioning that has gone on, Job is still God's “servant.” Job handled himself well in the whole affair, and he's rewarded with more than he had before he questioned God.
Finally, it's hard to logically see how Job is too off the mark in his comments, and I think that's a further reason for God to commend his speech and questions. Now sure, Job gets carried away at times in the things he says about God. But his core statement is correct, that he hasn't done anything wrong and is suffering for no reason. That's the point of the story...God and Satan have a gambling contest to see whether Job's faith is really disinterested. Job is right in that he didn't do anything wrong or bring on his suffering by sinning. That's the core of his argument, and God can't condemn him for that because Job is correct in that.
3. You said, “You do not see it clearly taught that we are entitled to answers for our suffering, and I don't think you are encouraged to question God and doubt Him.” I think the example from Habakkuk shows us a different picture. Here, the prophet questions God and gets an answer for his suffering. He complains about how things are unfair, and God tells him how the injustice will be set right. Honestly, I think the book of Habakkuk is a little troubling in that regard, because it gives us such a simple answer to such a HUGE question. But, the fact remains that the prophet questions God and gets an answer about injustice. Again, I could cite other examples of people questioning God but I'm trying to avoid bringing up anything that hasn't been brought up already.
4. You said, “So I think asking "why?" in the midst of suffering like Job is not the virtuous question that God would have us ask...I think the question that God would have us ask in the midst of suffering is "how?" "How can I suffer through this and become more like Christ and trust in God through this."”
Sorry to beat a dead horse, but as I read the Bible there are plenty of times that people that people ask why...Habakkuk asks why and gets and answer. Jesus on the cross asks why he has been abandoned in the midst of the world's greatest instance of suffering.
But more than that, what I'd really like to say in response to this thought is that I think it is dangerous. This is just my opinion, but I think it is really, really, really dangerous. I mean inexpressibly dangerous. To tell people that they cannot ask God why something terrible is happening can only cause problems. This can be hard for people like you and me to understand, because we've never experienced any suffering that is truly heinous and horrific. But it is out there. It doesn't matter how much you read Romans 8:28-30, or how many times you tell people to believe it. It may even be true that God works everything for good in the lives of Christians (and personally, I think it's true). But that doesn't change the fact that people experience things that are indescribably horrible. And if they don't want to believe Romans 8:28-30 in that moment—if they want to ask “why”--then it is not your place or mine to tell them that they can't. Any psychologist or counselor would agree that asking “why” in a time of suffering is a perfectly natural reaction. To deny people the freedom to do that, the freedom to honestly be themselves, is the kind of thing that makes people abandon their faith and leave the church. Questions in hard times are a sign that people want to believe; they show that someone isn't going to accept any simple, trite answers about something...they want to honestly own their faith, to believe it with every last fiber of their being without any reservation. They want to understand to the fullest God's activity in their lives. When we tell them that we can't ask “why,” we're telling them that they can't own their own faith. They have to accept the answer's that we're handing out or else they have to go somewhere else.
What do you think about some of that? I'm also sorry that my answer was so long. I'm glad that we can have these kinds of conversations; I definitely enjoy them!
Hey bro. Sorry it took me so long to respond.
I think I may have not clearly expressed where I was coming from on this. I do agree, after reading all the way through Job after I replied to your first comment, that Job had a right view of God all the way through. When I say a right view of God I mean that He expressed God's character correctly, and He was rewarded for that.
Now, where I want to be clear is regarding the topic of your last paragraph where you said, "To tell people that they cannot ask God why something terrible is happening can only cause problems." As you did, I won't bring up a plethora of Scripture references to argue against yours because all of the Bible is true and that's why that would be silly. First, I would never tell someone that it is wrong or a sin to ask God why something terrible is happening. I apologize if I misrepresented that aspect. I agree that it is a natural response. However, I do believe it is something that should be done with caution and reverence. Habakkuk did receive his answer and Job received his reward. In the examples you used, however, the Bible is not clear that they were rewarded BECAUSE of their questioning. In His sovereignty, God clearly wanted to teach Habakkuk and Job something about Himself so that they could know Him more intimately and worship Him. My point I was making about that is that Scripture is much more clear in prescriptive and direct language in the form of commands that as children of God we are to TRUST in the Lord. You never see a direct command to QUESTION the Lord. Now, Job and Habakkuk were not destroyed for questioning God, but that doesn't mean their reactions were preferable. In a more extreme example, David was not destroyed for having Uriah killed after committing adultery with Bathsheba. In fact, the prophet Nathan comes and rebukes Him and tells him he is forgiven. The favor He received from the Lord was obviously not due to His adultery.
As we pursue maturity in Christ I do not think it is a mark of growth to question God. We see men rewarded and spared in light of their questioning, but I would say that that is most likely due to God's merciful and gracious character upon them. Sinful men deserve no reward from God for anything. The glorious truth of the Gospel is that God gives favor because He chooses to. So even in using the word "reward" is probably a misuse. If God purposed to increase Job's prosperity it was because He chose to before the saga of Job even began. It was a gift moreso than a reward. I do think it's clear that Job had a right view of God and that's why the sacrifice had to be for Job's friends because of their ignorance of God's character. However, we do not see Job directly commended for His questioning but what he DECLARED about God's character.
In summary, I do not think asking God why is wrong, and I would not sternly rebuke someone for their questioning as an act of sin by any means. However, I think it could stifle a person's walk of faith to encourage them to question because the mark of a mature faith is one that trusts in the Lord's providence regardless of how horrible the circumstance. It's a trust that God is good and will do justly and preserve the soul of the man who is afflicted. I think that leads a man to a deeper experience of the joy and satisfaction He has in Christ as He sees Christ's presence filling Him with peace even in the most severe of situations. In Job 19, he refers to a truth that he wants to be engraved and preserved somewhere forever. He saw it as that important, and it was not a question of God.
"For I know that my Redeemer lives, and at the last he will stand upon the earth. And after my skin has been thus destroyed, yet in my flesh I shall see God, whom I shall see for myself, and my eyes shall behold, and not another. My heart faints within me!"
This is a picture of a deep trust and joy in God in the midst of intense suffering. The ultimate desire of Job's heart that drives him is his desire to be with God. He loves Him. Other than the end of Job, I would say that this is a moment of spiritual clarity for Job where he briefly enters the eye of the storm and finds peace with God as he reflects on his ultimate hope. Even if there are deep questions that arise and are offered up I believe we should encourage someone in such a situation towards the kind of sentiment we see in Job 19:25-27. I believe that trust makes for a true man of God.
Sorry again, bro for the long delay. Look forward to hearing back from ya! God bless!
3) This may be something that you don't like, but I think we should get it on the table because it influences my views in this discussion a lot. I'm pretty sure that underlying this discussion is a disagreement we have over what constitutes mature faith. I don't want to mischaracterize you, but I think your understanding of mature faith is probably captured in this sentence: “As we pursue maturity in Christ I do not think it is a mark of growth to question God.” I disagree completely. I think questioning is the only path to true maturity.
The standard theory of faith development (the one you learn about when you take a Christian education or faith development class in most schools, whether conservative or liberal) is one developed by James Fowler, who was a professor at Emory University. It combines psychology, sociology, scientific studies of people's faith, etc, to create a rough outline of what appropriate faith looks like across a person's lifespan. According to this theory, a period of questioning is essential to developing a more mature form of faith. People have to deconstruct what they have believed, question it, and rebuild their faith again. An unquestioned faith is not as strong as one that has been questioned and critically examined.
So I'm coming a lot from this standpoint. I think about the theory every day in my interactions with people, and it helps me tremendously to understand people and why the act out their faith in the way that they do. It has explained 99% percent of the situations and people I've encountered, so I give a lot of weight to it. Faith development theory is REALLY useful for anyone thinking about vocational ministry, so if you're ever interested in learning more about it I'd be happy to recommend a few books.
So thanks again for the response...this has been a super-interesting conversation for me. Any other thoughts of these three thoughts?
2) So back to Job: I don't think something needs to be explicitly commended or condemned in the Bible for us to know how to treat the passage. There are many different examples of things that are bad to do, even when it's not explicitly stated. An example of this is Judges 18, Jephthah sacrificing his daughter after making a rash vow to God. That's not condemned in the text, but you'd be nuts to think that this is a story we're supposed to follow just because God doesn't tell us not to. Likewise, the Bible is a book filled with many diverse models of faith. There are many different examples of faith for us to emulate. They don't have to be explicitly approved of for them to be worthwhile models of how to follow God. Lamentations I think is an example of this. It's a picture of unspeakable sadness and hurt after the destruction of Jerusalem. Nowhere does Lamentations say “This is the appropriate response to our suffering. This is how God would have us act when we experience terrible death and destruction.” But we know it's an OK way to act, because it's in the canon. Jews and Christians found it useful and true so they held onto it and kept reading it. If they had seen something wrong with these expressions of anger and cries to God, it would have been dropped from the canon. I heard a professor say once that Lamentations was one of the most therapeutic books in scripture, because it doesn't just give us permission to get angry at God; it also gives us the words to do so. And we know that's OK, without having to be explicitly told that in the text.
Given all this, I still think that the Job example is one in which questioning God is approved of. I think the distinction you're making between what is OK and what is actually desirable is not the most straightforward way to read the book of Job. God never says anything about that in the book. He says that Job was a little carried away at times but but essentially correct, and the friends were incorrect. If Job is correct and spoke well of God, then he's correct and spoke well of God. It seems a little forced to me to say “Well, he's correct but not really correct...that wasn't the ideal thing for him to do.” If God commended him, without saying that all the questioning Job did was wrong, then I think we can assume that Job's questioning was perfectly fine with God. Going back to the above paragraph, I don't think the Bible has to explicitly say something for us to see its rightness or wrongness. Job is part of the canon, so I think we can assume that the main thrust of the book—a man questioning and searching for answers and justice in a difficult time, after which he is commended by God—is an acceptable model of faith.
Now, you may well find this unconvincing, and we may just legitimately disagree over how to read Job. So here's an example of a time that someone is directly told to question God: during the Syro-Ephraimite Crisis, King Pekah of Israel and King Rezin of Syria are trying to force King Ahaz of Judah into a potentially disastrous alliance against the Assyrians. Ahaz is uncertain about what to do, and Isaiah is telling him not to do anything. Isaiah says that they just need to trust God and wait out the crisis. So after Isaiah tells Ahaz all this in chapter 7, in verse 11 Isaiah tells Ahaz to ask God for a sign to prove that Isaiah's advice is correct. Ahaz refuses and says he shouldn't question God like that, and Isaiah then gives him a sign anyway—the sign of Immanuel. I can see this as nothing other than an explicit command to test God. I think the implication of verses like this is clear...God is big enough to handle questions, God is not threatened by questions, and in Isaiah's case at least God dares Ahaz to be man enough to ask a question. Ahaz is just too much of a coward to do it. He doesn't want to ask God any questions, because he's scared that God is right. He'd rather just play it safe by “not putting God to the test.”
Thanks for the response. A couple of thoughts:
1) A preface before we get back to the main topic: I think you're coming to the Bible with the presupposition that God can't be questioned, and then finding that in the text. I think you're right that there are more direct commands to trust God. However, I think that there are significant dissenting voices in the canon which tell us that questioning is OK. You're reading the Bible through a framework which ignores these examples. I think this is something that we all do; we all come to the Bible with our own agenda/preconceived ideas/whatever, and we read the Bible through that lens. I do it, and everyone that I've ever met does it to at least some extent. It's something that we have to try to rid ourselves of, but it's always going to be a problem for us.
This is in no way dodging any of what you just said, but I would like to ask you this question first.
What do you think is the reason that God rebukes Job and says in Job 38:2, "Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?"
I assume that is God telling Job that he got a little out of line. As I think I've said before, I think God's verdict on Job by the end of the book is "You got a little carried away in some of your accusations, but you were basically right." I think that's the best way to explain the combination of 38:2 and 42:7.
I remember from several commentaries/classes that some people think 38:2 is incompatible with 42:7. Because a lot of people think that the book came together in stages or was gradually expanded over time, they think that these two parts of the story are by different authors and are contradictory. I don't know if the book came together in stages or not, but it's part of the canon in the form we have it now so it doesn't really matter. So maybe these two verses are incompatible, but I think it's useless to try to explain them based on some hypothetical past stages of the book. If we have to try to make some sense of them in the book which is part of the Bible, I think what works best is "You were generally correct, Job, but you got out of hand in some of the things you said."
Post a Comment