The problem is that the natural conclusion to what I said is that bad things happen to bad people (that was my point -- there are no good people) as a response to their being bad. That is, unpleasant things in life are clearly a judgment from God.
Job's friends thought so. Job lost his wealth, his family, and his health. He must really be a bad person. God informed his "friends" that they were barking up the wrong tree (Job 42:7). While I would still argue that Job was not a good person, neither would I argue that the things that happened to Job were judgment for sin. Jesus's disciples leaped to the same conclusion.
As He passed by, He saw a man blind from birth. And His disciples asked Him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" Jesus answered, "It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him" (John 9:1-3).Easy mistake. If 1) there are no good people, and 2) something bad happens, it is an easy conclusion that bad things happen to bad people because they're bad. The conclusion is further bolstered because sometimes it is true. In Luke 13 some people told Jesus about some Galileans who were killed by Pilate. Jesus's reply was not what they expected:
"Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish" (Luke 13:2-5).Jesus didn't deny that it was judgment. He simply confirmed that they would likely suffer worse if they didn't repent.
Stuff happens. Bad stuff. Sometimes it may be temporal judgment. Sometimes it may be godly discipline. (See, for instance, Heb. 12:5-12.) Sometimes it may be none of the above. In the case of the man born blind, he was designed to suffer blindness for a time "that the works of God might be displayed in him."
In other words, I have an answer for "Why do bad things happen to good people?" My answer is "There are no good people." It's a generalized answer. If you want to get to specifics -- "Why did this happen to me?" -- I'm afraid I won't be much help. I'm not good at guessing at those things and not foolish enough to assume "It's the judgment of God!" (said, of course, in a booming, self-righteous voice).
I still hold that there are no good people. I still hold that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. I still hold that every single man, woman, and child stands guilty, rightly deserving judgment. But don't confuse that with "bad things". I am not drawing a direct cause-and-effect line here. I'm simply pointing out that most of us have no proper notion of either "good people" or the depths of depravity of the human heart -- our hearts. We, in our own estimation, are just not that bad, you see? Of course, God's viewpoint tends to differ.
Here's what Paul would say. You ask, essentially, why God would be unfair to good people. You're asking the wrong question. The real question is "Why would God show mercy to vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?" (Rom. 9:22-23). Why would a single good thing happen to us? Why would there even be the possibility of salvation for the rebels we are? And are you sure you want ask God for "fair"? Much tougher questions if you ask me.
9 comments:
"While I would still argue that Job was not a good person, neither would I argue that the things that happened to Job were judgment for sin."
-Stan
Wait! Wait! The story goes out of its way to tell us how sinless and blameless Job is, yet you contest this still? Do you really believe the Bible is God's word? I think you'd be guilty of eisegesis then!
Plus the Jewish writers of Job would not have the revealed knowledge of salvation through Christ Jesus yet. So it is possible to say that Job was good, as the story does, yet say that Jesus was better as Jesus was God-incarnate.
Your annoying, yet hopefully not berating Anglican friend...
You see, that's because you're operating from a different Bible than I am. Oh, okay, not a different Bible; just a different source. My Bible is a unity breathed by God. He already knew about what He was going to have Paul write in Rom. 3:23. He didn't inspire the author of Job to write a contradictory perspective. So this is what I meant when I said that you and I view the Bible differently. You call it "eisegesis". If reading the Bible into the Bible is eisegesis, then I'm guilty. I, on the other hand, haven't found any contradictory concepts in the Bible, so I don't need "progressive revelation" in the sense that they were given false or contradictory information by God earlier and later got the truth. In fact, if Job was "sinless", then why was he offering sacrifices for sins and, more importantly, what in the world was he talking about in Job 42:6 when he said, "I repent in dust and ashes"? How could he repent if he was without sin? Sin is missing the mark. How could he not miss the mark and then change directions?
I submit that Job did sin (which would correlate with the rest of the Bible) but was considered "blameless" not because he was without sin, but because he took care of all the sin he committed with proper actions of repentance and sacrifices. (The notion, by the way, of "Original Sin" -- that all humans are sinful -- did not originate in Romans 5. It was as early as Psalms and as certain as Genesis. In fact, another person called "righteous" is introduced right after Genesis says, "The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" (Gen. 6:5). And at the end of the Flood, God says, "The intent of man's heart is evil from his youth" (Gen. 8:21). It is those kinds of things that I am "reading into" Job -- things consistent with the book I believe to be God-breathed and, therefore, consistent with itself.
the hebrew word for ""blameless" is the same one used for "sinless" btw. But now I see how you and I view the Bible differently. I understand and respect that and your opinion is logically backed up and coherent. That's all I can ask for.
As for "Original Sin": While the Old Testament and the New, which frequently speak of the sinfulness of humans, do not contain the terms "original sin" and "ancestral sin", the doctrine expressed by these terms is claimed to be based on the teaching of Paul the Apostle in Romans 5:12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15:22. Some see the doctrine, which is not found in Jewish theology, as implied in Old Testament passages such as Psalm 51:5 and Psalm 58:3...
I don't view Paul as part of the Bible. I'm the least Pauline person you'll meet. I believe everything upto Acts is totally God-breathed progressively. Even Jesus doesn't treat the Torah law as you do. In Matt 5:28 Jesus changes the Torah law of adultry from just a woman-related sin to a man-related sin and you don't even have to do it! Just think about it and you're sinning! Jesus takes the God-breathed law, and UPS the stakes!
Hence progressive revelation.
But since you don't believe in that, i hope you're not eating shrimp, wearing mixed fibers, cutting the corners of your beard or engaging on male-on-male sexual relations because all of those are Abominations. ;-)
Plus with progressive revelation, we can see contradictions in scripture and understand the full ponit: There are two orders of events given which are contradictory. The earlier version appears in Genesis 1:1 – 2:3 and key items follow this order of creation:
plants;
marine animals, birds;
land animals;
humans (man and woman together) (Genesis 1:20 – 27).
The second account begins with Genesis 2:4 wherein key items of creation appear in this order:
man (not woman);
plants;
land animals and birds (marine animals are omitted but omission is not a contradiction and the order of birds and beasts is not stated as being on separate days unlike chapter 1);
and, when no “help mate for him” is found, woman (Genesis 2:7, 9, 18 – 22).
I guess I must say that I think the Bible works in two ways... It's God-breathed in the writing progressively... yet knowing humans some errors have crept in through poor scholarship and the devil working against us... But I believe has Karl Barth stated that the Bible is also God-breathed in the reading as well! So we can then get meaing from both passages without having to resort to appologetics.
Of course, this is what I tried to say before. You and I are reading different Bibles. I have a Bible that is God-breathed for 66 whole books. It isn't progressive in the sense that it has changed over time, corrected itself, modified the facts. (It is, of course, undeniably progressive in the sense that it expands on itself over time.) My Bible even includes Paul. Your Bible is different. (To avoid any misunderstanding, I won't try to describe your view of the Bible. I think that we agree that it's different than mine.) So it would stand to reason that your understanding of Job would differ from mine. (There is nothing here that was intended to be insulting, so if you picked something up like that, please put it back down.)
As for "eating shrimp is an Abomination", you do recognize that you're playing fast and loose with it, don't you? (Hint #1: When it speaks of eating things without fins or scales, it speaks of "abomination to you". When it speaks of a male with a male as with a female, it is an abomination to God. Hint #2: When it speaks of the first "abomination", the result is "uncleanness". When it speaks of the latter, the result is death. These are not the same thing.)
Anyway, it should be fundamentally clear that when we start with different premises on exactly what the Bible is that we would come to radically differing conclusions about what it means. In fact, it kind of tends to undercut the possibility of coming to an agreement on much here, doesn't it? Ah, well, too bad.
Sorry, I've been away for a bit... I guess we're using the Bible differently on the base level. I'm really unclear as what to make it. I think I'm only saying that I think it's God-breathed or infallible because that's what I've been taught and I'm afraid not to.
I read your blog and then this guy in seminary in PA and you both come from different places on things, I'm wondering what you make of: http://toothface.blogspot.com/2008/07/grammar.html
and http://toothface.blogspot.com/2008/02/new-testament-class.html
I see that our understanding of Job is vastly different. But I do like how you noted that Job offered burnt offerings which means he was still inherently sinful... however the story does say he was blameless, and I don't think you're willing to wrestle with that fully yet.
Yes, we have a fundamentally different perspective on the Bible that would, necessarily, produce a different result when we read it.
I have, however, spent time wrestling with "blameless". How I wrestle, however, is based on a presumption I have that the Bible is consistent. If I didn't have that presumption, then I could end up anywhere. "Yeah, sure, Job had no sin whatsoever ... and all have sinned. No problem. Contradictions are fine." And, I suppose, many people go there. If I did, I'd have to discard the Bible as an authoritative book and leave it as a "nice-to-have" book. So, when I start from the premise that the Bible is consistent with itself, then I eliminate immediately the possibility that Job was sinless. (I add confirmation to that by pointing out that he offered sacrifices ... not something a person without sin needs to do.) Then I ask, "If 'blameless' does not mean 'without any sin', what does it mean?"
Here's the verse: "There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job, and that man was blameless and upright, one who feared God and turned away from evil" (Job 1:1). What words are used? "Blameless", "upright", and "turned away from evil". (Note that you cannot "turn away from evil" if you were never there.) The underlying Hebrew suggests "complete, morally pious" for "blameless", "equitable" or "straight" (amusing, isn't it?) for "upright", and "call back" or "turn off" for "turned away from evil". (Again, the latter suggests "He was there -- in evil -- and then left it.")
It seems to me that 1) eliminating "sinless" as the proper concept, 2) the language doesn't require "sinless". In English, for instance, a person is "blameless" not necessarily when they have never been blamed for anything, but when they are not culpable for anything. In other words, if he sinned and then performed the required processes of repentance and sacrifice to atone for that sin, he would no longer be culpable; he would be "blameless".
Thus, Job sinned but always kept "up to date" on atonement, was upright in his dealings with people, and withdrew from evil on the occasions that he found himself there, he would meet all the requirements of that description ... and he wouldn't violate the rest of the biblical description of Man as being a sinful creature.
As for Toothface, the suggestion is that no one has the ability to read and understand Greek or Hebrew, which doesn't make sense. They didn't have our punctuation. That doesn't require that their language was without clues as to the actual meaning. I think Toothface is possibly making a mountain out of a mole hill.
I emailed Toothface to see what he would have to say, as wisdom literature is his focus in seminary. Here's what he had to say:
thanks for writing! job is one of my fav. books in the bible because it really considers some heavy questions. the main question has to do with the pentateuchal doctrine of retribution (PDR), which states that if you sin, you'll be punished and if you're good you'll be rewarded. the story goes out of it's way to remind us that Job is blameless... blameless is not sinless, as you've indicated that you think in your message... instead blameless means that Job is a sinner, but he's up-to-date on his atonement and is mindful of God in all he does. so what happens to him is completely undeserved and literally flies in the face of the PDR.
Job maintains his innocence while his friends come along and give the arguments the PDR followers would have. Job finally askes God to answer his plea, and God does! but God does something tricky here. God doesn't answer his question of "why me" but states "who are you to question me?" God states that Job is right and his friends are wrong thus negating in words the PDR... but then God rewards Job double of all he lost, thus supporting the PDR in action.
it's a hard story and the interpretation is wide open here. those who want a complete bible will state that Job is a sinner and deserved it. those who think the bible is inspired but not "God-breathed", say that this is an argument against the Torah. far better scholars than i have given their opinion, so i'll only state that Job's a heavy book and point you to the work of Jenn Williams, Rene Girard, Rudolph E. Honsey, Charles Melchert and the online commentary of Robert Sutherland which can be found at http://www.bookofjob.org/
thanks for emailing and hope you'll visit the blog every tuesday and thursday for updates!
+++++++++++++++++++++
So he took both of our sides I guess. I'm still up in the air about what the Bible means, but I think that puncation matters to the meaning as those are some vast differences in meaning just based on where one puts a comma. I'm starting to think that the Bible isn't as you say. I'll have to study and read more, and suggestions of where to start?
Thanks for the info.
Toothface says what I said ... that "blameless" does not mean "sinless", but "up-to date on his atonement". That was my position. Further, as I said before, I have not and do not suggest that Job suffered as retribution. That is, I'm not saying that bad things happen to people because they're bad. I argued that there is not one good person.
All humans are sinners and deserve justice, not mercy. The remarkable thing is not that bad things happen, but that they sometimes don't.
As for punctuation, it is a characteristic of English that is part of our language, not necessarily others. To understand English, you definitely need to understand punctuation -- it is important. And when we translate a text into English, how we punctuate it is part of that translation. I wasn't suggesting punctuation didn't count. I was suggesting that other languages don't use it and they need to be understood as they are rather than through English understanding.
One of Toothface's examples is from Luke 23:43. "'Verily, I say unto thee, this day thou shalt be with me in Paradise.' vs.
'Verily I say unto thee this day, thou shalt be with me in Paradise.'" The English punctuation makes a difference, to be sure. But ... is there total ambiguity? I don't think so. If you hunt it down, you'll find reasons that people think that one or the other is true, but if you examine it closely, you'll find that the only ones that care are the ones with a prior agenda. That is, the difference makes no difference to orthodox Christian doctrine; it only matters to those who argue that dead saints are asleep, not alive.
I think you'll find that punctuation makes little difference when it comes to doctrinal issues.
Post a Comment