The Response to Job's Suffering

Job has long been one of the more "troubling" books of the bible. Often ignored by pastors or teachers, it sometimes doesn't seem to fit within our perceived paradigm of scriptural usage. It's an awkward piece due, in part, to its format. While pastors will agree that it deals with the interaction of God in human affairs, it has a seeming lack of concise verses concerning this; instead adopting a drawn out narrative format. Alan Cooper argues that for centuries, Christians have been trying to force the book of Job into a context concerning the relationship between man's suffering and God's providence. When, in reality, it is better interpreted as an example of man's futile attempts at understanding God, and how his attempts will guide him towards righteous works, or evil ones. Cooper summarizes previous interpretive traditions well, and  organizes his arguments clearly, but I believe his alternate explanations for the interpretation of Job are misguided; under a closer examination each one falls short.

Cooper begins his piece by summarizing the most popular historical view on Job, a view which continues today. He appeals to two prominent supporters of this view: Norman Hebel and Maimonides. Norman Hebel has divided Job into three primary sections or "movements". The first is "God Afflicts the Hero-The Hidden Conflict", the second "The Hero Confronts God-The Conflict Explored", and the third "God Challenges the Hero-The Conflict Resolved". Cooper argues that Maimonides' interpretation follows this model, as well as exemplifying the "divine providence vs. innocent suffering" interpretation of Job, which fits into his belief that man's ultimate goal on earth is to attain knowledge of God. He states, "When Job comes to know God . . . he ceases to be troubled with the loss of his health, wealth and children; things that he had only imagined to be sources of happiness" (229). Cooper takes issue with this, arguing that such a view is only satisfying to a philosopher. He questions whether a heightened knowledge of God, or the knowledge that divine providence is inexplicable and beyond understanding, will ever really comfort the sufferer.

Cooper follows this by laying out his critique of the "divine providence and suffering of the innocent" interpretation of Job in three parts. The first is that God has nothing to say on the topic. Rather, what he does say is "disconcerting". Job's suffering is apparently meaningless and without reason, the Hebrew word used to describe Job's suffering means literally "without reason or just cause". It appears that God had no motive other than some sort of game with Satan. His second issue with this view is that those who adhere to it inevitably interpret Job as an archetype for the "Everyman": a man to whom we can all relate, whose suffering we can relate to our own, but the author of the book goes to painstaking lengths to portray Job in an un-relatable light. He isn't an Israelite, he's impressively rich, and also perfect. He is, by all definitions, the most uncommon of examples possible. His final disagreement comes in the form of a critique of Job's friends. The common view is to see the five friends of Job as representing the traditional view of suffering: Job is not innocent, therefore his suffering is justified. Job and his friends spend the majority of the book traveling in circles, due to Job's unusual circumstances this model fails. In reality, Cooper argues, both Job and his friends represent human ignorance about the ways of God. He quotes James Conant as saying that the lesson of the Book of Job "is a denial of the assumption that the universe is explicable in human terms; it is a corrective to the presumption of human beings in applying their standards of value to the cosmos."

Cooper's interpretation, while it takes into account many of the unusual and troubling aspects of Job, I would argue, fails to fully consider the potential impact of such portions. The aforementioned problems in the book end up becoming strong evidence for the "divine providence vs. innocent human suffering" narrative, rather than against. The first example is his treatment of Maimonides' views. Cooper finds the idea that we could transcend suffering through a higher knowledge of God unsatisfying. He asks whether realizing that God's providence exists, yet is unknowable really comforts the sufferer. I would argue, however, that what else should alleviate our suffering? If, as Maimonides thinks, knowledge of God is our ultimate goal, then such knowledge is the ultimate peace-bringer. Human suffering pales in comparison to an understanding of God. Human attempts at explanation of innocent suffering can find meaning, not through a simplistic, colloquial answer, but through a transcendent knowledge of God.

My second point of disagreement with Cooper lies in his treatment of the roles of God and Job throughout the book. His argument is that God's distance and strange behavior throughout the book is indicative of its attempts at painting God as incomprehensible. While I agree with this premise, I draw a different conclusion. I believe the author's intent may have well been to paint God as incomprehensible, I believe he did not leave it that, as Cooper argues. He did so in order to present an astute example of innocent human suffering. Not only was it innocent suffering, it was innocent suffering without reason. True to the books parabolic and narrative structure, it's not meant to be indicative of God's true nature, it's meant to magnify the circumstances, to present exceptionally difficult circumstances of innocent suffering. Should the reader assume the literality of God's role in the book, problems concerning his omnibenevolence arise. Finally, I agree most with Cooper's last point, again however, with a different conclusion. I would argue that the failing of Job and his friends at understanding God and his intent again indicate the exceptional circumstances of Job's suffering. Each friend accuses Job according to their preconceived paradigm of human and divine interaction. They cannot make sense of his suffering, so they accuse him according to what they think they know of God. This serves a twofold purpose: firstly, it portrays added suffering; as if Job's circumstances weren't enough, his friends turn against him. Secondly, it portrays ignorance of God's true nature and providential workings, which perfectly lays the premise for the conclusion of the book;  an overwhelming display of God's power, bringing him a higher knowledge of God, by which Job's questions are answered and suffering relieved.

The book of Job, rather than painting an un-relatable situation of suffering,  makes a universally relatable situation. No matter how bad your situation, it can't be as bad as Job's. His was not only underserved, it was also without reason, or explanation. It is the most powerful kind of explanation of providence and human suffering. When we try and make sense of God's providence by forcing it into our conventions of what is "just" we inevitably fail. Ultimately, the only answer is God's resounding announcement of his power and sovereignty. The book shouts the fact that we cannot understand God or his providential hand in human affairs, yet it does exist. That is Job's answer, and he finds peace with it.

Redemption and Holiness in a Fallen World

Growing up I was taught about the importance of holiness; striving to be more like the God who redeems us. What holiness is and how it's carried out, however, is something often left vague. Dietrich Boenhoffer, towards the end of his life, was imprisoned in a Nazi concentration camp. From prison he wrote many letters and papers, which were sent to his friends and family; earlier in life he'd written "The Cost of Discipleship" as a young theologian. In one of his last letters he wrote home on the fact that he'd written the book while at a place in life where he strove for holiness by living a moral life and removing himself from the world. In contrast he now realized that, while partially correct, he was incomplete in his Christian practice. He'd come to realize that it is only by living wholly in the world that a Christian can come to true holiness. He still believed in personal purity, but it was a purity born of actively doing the will of God, rather than personal moral restriction.

Is holiness a personal sense of purity and separation from the world (a negative process), or is it actively working towards the betterment of mankind in the name of Christ (a positive process)? the one side believes that Holiness is separation from the world. Christians have the task set before them of keeping themselves pure as the bride of Christ while also reaching hurting souls. The other, that holiness was striving to be more like God. And what was the nature of God? God's nature is of love and truth and justice. Holiness, then, is acting out these attributes of the divine in the temporal realm. It doesn't take long to see the apparent discrepancy between the two opinions. While not mutually exclusive, they certainly make for different attitudes and actions towards the world.

How then should I live? What both sides agreed on is that the redemption which is foundational to the gospel is inexorably linked with holiness. The redemption of earthly things is a common biblical motif; that which is fallen and corrupted in the world finds its true fulfillment and expression in the redemption of Christ. This process is not limited to the nature of man, although that is its apex. Throughout scripture the process of redemption by Christ's sacrifice is applied to the entire world (Romans 8). There is no thing on earth that cannot be redeemed by his blood. Whether you believe that the Kingdom of Heaven is carried out by believers, or that Christ will supernaturally set it up after his return, we believe in Christ's role in the redemption of creation. Paul, as well as Isaiah comment on the fact that there is nothing earthly which is innately evil (Isaiah 44), (Romans 14). Things that were once good have been corrupted. The beauty of Christ's sacrifice is that it covers a multitude of sins, including sin's effects on creation.

The problem I find with the first view of holiness, and often the acompanying view of redemption, is that it views the only (or at least the only important) redeemable thing on earth to be human souls. This views adherents evangelizes and has a heart for them, and very well should, if they are the apex of redemption. They even disciple converts to do the same, but I believe they've left out a major element of Christianity. They redeem the world through only one mode of action. Instead, let us mirror the redemption of our souls in creation. Let us shower our neighbors and our earth with the redeeming nature of Christ.

The arts, philosophy, history, music, ecology, politics, sociology, psychology, let it all be employed for the betterment of mankind in the name of Christ. Of course, all these things can be used for the betterment of mankind without giving honor where honor is due. It is entirely possible to employ these without relating them to the redemption which is through Christ. This is where Christianity shines. Christians do the will of God in sharing the gospel when they employ whatever means to the expression of Christ's love towards a needy world. This is the second approach to redemption. Holiness is achieved only when we forget about ourselves and work in every human sphere possible to spread Christ's love.

The argument concerning the involvement of the believer in secular arenas comes from many different corners of Christian thought. From my own background I hear things like "Study academics in order to be better able to evangelize!" But it's usually followed by a word of caution: "knowledge for knowledge's sake is pointless, it leads to arrogance". I would argue that this is a cleverly disguised false dichotomy. On the one hand we have learning solely for the pursuit of conversions; on the other we have the dangers of learning for the sake of nothing but gaining more knowledge. The problem is that the quest for more knowledge is everywhere commended in scripture, without the justification of evangelical applicability. And even if one attempts to gain knowledge for no particular purpose, it is inevitable that the knowledge gained will be employed to some use. Therefore admonishing someone against the quest for knowledge as a goal of its own is rather redundant. Everyone learns for some reason. What statements like this often reflect is simply an anti-intellectual sentiment. The other side of the dichotomy is that academics as a means to an end of evangelism is not so limited as those making such statements would like to think. Preaching, sharing the gift of justification, witnessing, all are well and good. But if our intellectual pursuits are limited to those modes of action it's like gaining all the knowledge about architecture, construction, geology, ecology and plumbing the world has to offer in order to only build the foundation for a house. If, as Christians, we are to build a vibrant, comprehensive and convincing faith, we must employ knowledge and its expression from every corner of the earth. We should do it because we love the expressions of Christ we find therein; we should do it because all mankind benefits from it; we should do it because we are commanded; that is true evangelism.

The apparent conflict between the two views also appears to stem from how they each define "the world". Growing up in the first position led me to believe that the world was everything that distracts us from the great commission; any concern with the temporal and unregenerate. I would now argue that the world is something once good, now fallen. In the first case the world is to be avoided, in the second the world becomes a stage upon which the narrative of redemption takes place.

So how then are we to be holy? "In the world but not of the world"? If redemption is the process of taking that which is fallen and making it good again then it is not so far off from sanctification; becoming holy. And again we arrive at Boenhoffer, who said that "being a Christian is less about cautiously avoiding sin than about courageously and actively doing God's will.” The man found that it was only when he executed God's redemption in a suffering world that he truly found holiness. It was for the expression of this gospel that he was executed. Shortly before his death he wrote, “I discovered later, and I'm still discovering right up to this moment, that is it only by living completely in this world that one learns to have faith. By this worldliness I mean living unreservedly in life's duties, problems, successes and failures. In so doing we throw ourselves completely into the arms of God, taking seriously, not our own sufferings, but those of God in the world. That, I think, is faith.” Go then into all the earth and preach the gospel to every living creature.

Life Changes

I'm moving tomorrow.  This place I've lived for the past 16 years is no longer my base of operations.  That is moving to a 16x13 room at George Fox University, in Newburg.  I'm ready for it, a change is welcome.  Not that I don't like it here, or that it has worn it's welcome thin, but it's part of a natural process, which I'm happy to take part in!  Plus amazing classes, which I can't wait to start.

God's Sovereignty and Man's Will

         Lately I've been really interested in the interplay between God's sovereignty and man's free will. The majority of the time a topic like this arises, it becomes focused on Armenianism versus Calvinism. I want to go beyond that subject, important as it may be. As a friend recently mentioned, what we often understand theologically appears as a mystery when worked out in practical life. I think sometimes starting with a particular ideology in mind we lose valuable information. Holding to any particular "isms" too strictly can often stifle any new revelation that we initially think may cause conflict with our presuppositions.

         What sparked my recent interest was something mentioned in a recent sermon by my father. He mentioned we should be grateful to the saints that came before us who passed the gospel down, through generations and seasons of persecution, to us. This is very true, and I began to think it may be important to specify what we are thankful for. Too often it is easy to suppose the implication is that we should be grateful to them for our salvation. That when we stand in heaven, we will approach these people with thankfulness that they brought us salvation, that because of them we are saved. Intentionally or not, I have seen this taken by people as though we should be grateful towards them for bringing us our salvation. 

        This is where the interplay between God's sovereignty amd man's will comes in. When we think about it in light of scripture, we see that no man is responsible for our salvation. It's not brought about by works. God's grace is responsible. If that saint, or missionary had not brought the gospel to us, God's grace would have found another way. Romans 1 speaks of God's revelation of His nature through the natural world, Genesis 14 of Melchizedek, not a Jew, but a High Priest of God, Acts 10 of Cornelius, a devout servant of God, though having never been told of Him, and Acts 16, of the Macedonian Man, crying out to God for someone to reach them. This is often called Natural Theology, those who are saved by Christ's grace, which they have come upon without the use of scripture. To be fair, we should specify between salvation through grace and the total gospel. Because it is also said in Romans 10 "how can they be saved unless someone is sent"? Many theologians interpret this passage as referring to the whole and complete gospel, as given by Special Theology, through scripture. These examples prove that God's grace can find its way to anyone, whether or not they are reached by a Christian.

         I feel no need to be grateful towards any saint for bringing me knowledge of God's grace. If they had not, scripture demonstrates Grace would have found its way to me despite. What I do feel grateful for is that they were willing to bring the full gospel, which many would not know, as it comes specifically through scripture, thus fulfilling the biblical mandate. In the next life, I will not thank them saying, "because of your willingness I was saved!" It is because of God's grace I was saved. What I would say is, "thank you for your willingness, despite knowing my salvation didn't depend on you." 

         Now, let's bring it to the modern day, in our practical lives. It's been implied, through sermons and casual conversation, that when we feel the Spirit's influence to witness, and do not, that might have been their only chance. "They could die today, and you didn't share the gospel!" When I don't witness to someone, I don't feel guilty because of the implication that "because of my fear I'd risk letting someone spend eternity in hell." I feel guilty for disobeying God's conviction, for not allowing myself to be used by Him. I think it's a misguided concept that they could spend eternity in hell because you or I didn't witness to them. That person's salvation isn't determined by my obedience to God's commands, it's determined by God's grace and will, and their receptiveness to His Spirit. 

          To prove my point, if the evangelized's salvation were determinate by our obedience, God would be leaving people's salvation up to a third party's works, something that would cause a theological conflict. Salvation is between one man and God. There are numerous examples both in scripture and in our experience when someone is given numerous chances to change their ways and come to Him. He doesn't give up. He is faithful when we are unfaithful. How can their salvation, given without merit, be determined by your or my (a third party's) obedience to God's commands? If it was, it would paint a picture of a very petty, small God, who would withhold his grace to another, if His followers didn't do their duty. A picture of a God who is unable to reach someone unless we do it for Him. Luckily, salvation is determined by two things, grace and a willingness to follow Christ, and it's between the person and Christ, not a third party's obedience.

        In the end, the distinction of what we are grateful for makes it all the more beautiful. Those saints and missionaries before me went, despite the fact that they didn't have to. My salvation did not rest in their hands, yet they were willing to be God's vessels. And contrary to what may be thought, it doesn't make it easier to neglect our duty. It doesn't make light of disobedience, it just places the honor where it is due; on God. If the love of Christ compels me to share and do not, I've done wrong. But we mustn't take one person's neglect to an illogical extent, which then condemns another.  I think of the Macedonian man, crying out for someone to come to them. Natural Revelation of the truth had been given him, and yet he longed and cried out for more. The clarity and joy of the full gospel of Christ is such that it's behooves us to share such beauty with the world.

All My Previous Posts

Just now coming back to the blog, I moved all the posts from years ago to a new blog, Earliest Writings, which can be found at http://iansearliest.blogspot.com/.

Old Testament & New Testament Contrast

         One of the most common arguments one hears when discussing scripture with its critics is the attempt at using scripture against the Christian. It's a common and effective form of rhetoric; take your opponents own argument, and use them against him/her. In order to do so, however, one must fully understand said arguments. The problem arises when the critics often don't fully understand Biblical interpretation, as well as historical and cultural context. The most common example is citing the fact that the Bible forbids wearing clothing woven of several different fabrics, shaving the corners of your beard, and eating meat out of a dish which once contained milk as a valid argument against other Christian moral mandates. Or, when saying that God is merciful, and giving scriptures as support, the critic will cite examples of Israelite brutality "at the command of God". Here I want to look at the historical context of Old Testament vows, blessings, and contracts.  


         The Old Testament approach  to vows, blessings, commandments and contracts is different than those practiced today. When Isaac blessed Jacob, having been deceived to think he was Esau, he did not retract the blessing and inheritance upon realizing his err. In modern legal terms, or more broadly in terms of "justice" he would have every right to retract. A vow made upon a false premise, one brought about by deception, can validly be seen as no vow at all. Another example is the man who gives thanks God, saying "As a thanksgiving offering I will sacrifice to you the first thing that walks out of my door". Well duh retard, it's your favorite daughter. Who or what else will walk out of a persons house? He made an incredibly foolish vow. Doesn't matter, has to kill his daughter, despite the fact that God hates human sacrifice. By today's standard of justice it would be determined that since the daughter did nothing wrong, she couldn't be held accountable with her life for her fathers foolishness.

         Think however, of the biblical account describing where the Hebrews became established as a people and received God's law. They've just left Egypt, where they have lived for 400 years. Egypt: a land where an all-powerful pharaoh rules the land completely. His word is law, and punishment is harsh. They've been slaves without rights for hundreds of years. As an example, fast forward thousands of years to the American Reconstruction after the Civil War. Men like Booker T. Washington and George Washington Carver recognized that after hundreds of years of slavery, newly freed African slaves had no idea how to function in society. They didn't know how to care for themselves, they didn't know how to work without being forced, they didn't know how to educate themselves etc. Let's call it's PTSSD. Post Traumatic Slavery Stress Distorter.

        I believe the same thing happened with the Hebrews as the new African-Americans: they whined to Moses, wanted to return to slavery for the protection and food, they cried for food, they cried for water, they cried for meat. So God gives them Mosaic law. An incredibly complex, detailed series of commands covering nearly every aspect of social, religious, governmental, and everyday health. There was no room for individual practice. There was no room for Romans 14. There was no room for individual influence under the Holy Spirit. How would they have been able to handle it? The freedom of the New Testament covenant would have been squandered and abused!  It is reminiscent for them of that which they understand; authority. To us, it looks binding, oppressive and violent. It's no coincidence that the majority of the scriptures cited by Biblical critics as evidence of "contradiction", "brutality", and "oppression" come from Mosaic Law.

          For hundreds of years God used this model, and we know that the nature of God never changes. He is the same "yesterday, today and forever". Yet the New Testament, which i the model and covenant for modern day Christians, is completely different. One of me main themes is the supremacy of grace through Christ over the law, given through Moses. It emphasizes freedom of the believer, rather than the oppression of the law. (Remember that when speaking of the law, I refer to Mosaic law).  Paul explains that grace allows for a much wider level of variety in practice than the law. Romans 14 famously illustrates this. One man may eat anything, since his faith is strong. Another, who's faith is weak eats only vegetables. Whatever you do, do it in love with consideration for your brother, that you might not cause him to stumble. In most of Paul's epistles, there is a list of sins repeated. The list is very similar every time. It covers everything from murder, adultery, drunkenness, greed etc. If you've read the epistles, you no doubt can recall this list, it's the same moral code of conduct Paul chooses to give to every church. The rest of the New Testament, however, concerns itself with the individual problems of each church, most of which comes down to a disagreement between believers over how one should practice Christianity, and how one should mix with culture. Every time a subject such as this arises, Paul's answer is grace. Contrast this with the inability to eat meat from an animal with cloven hooves, wear clothes made of different materials at once, or using the same bowl to cook meat, or contain milk.

          Another contrast is that we're told in the New Testament to test the spirits to see if they are of God. In order to do this, we're to question them according to scripture, to see if they speak truthfully. This practice doesn't exist in the Old Testament. People obey the word of God or an angel, without question, even when those commands seem sometimes contradictory to Gods nature, or word. Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac is a perfect example. God would later make commandments to the Jewish people forbidding human sacrifices. If He is the same yesterday, today, and forever, then he didn't change his mind after the Abraham event. In the New Testament, God speaks directly to men very little. Instead, the Holy Spirit acts as man's guide or Godly influence. What we see isn't a change in God's nature, but his methods towards man. God recognizes the ever changing norms and social status of humans, and while his nature of love, holiness, redemption and justice hasn't changed, his methods have evolved accordingly. Hence the sharp difference between redemption in the Old Testament, and New. Hence the ever changing covenants with His people. Hence the different methods of communication between God and man over the ages.

      I dont claim this to be an answer to all the dioemmas presented by the shocking accounts of conquest and genocide of the conquest of Canaan. Nevertheless,it is still usefull.This helps clarify two theological, and practical problems. One, the seeming disparity in nature and conduct of God and His people in the Old Testament and New. And two, how we are to live as Christians in an ever evolving culture. The message of the New Testament would seem to imply that theological essentials should never be compromised, along with basic moral truths, but it treats culture rather liberally.