Shuan,
I don't agree that Job dismisses the idea or concept of an afterlife,
or immortality. He in fact questions it, and does not anywhere
completely deny it. Through most of the chapter he is lamenting the
sense of mortal existence, which, to all physical appearances, does
indicate the expiration of life upon death. Yet there is no actual
denial of immortality, no matter which version of the bible you use.
True, there is no affirmation of immortality, but likewise, there is
no complete denial, merely wonder and speculation on both counts.
When he says we will not wake from sleep, does this not indicate that
he believes that the state of existence is suspended, as in a dream,
after death. If so, then he must believe that consciousness
continues, although in a dream like state. He suggests that the total
sum of existence may end first, before this dream state ends, but
does he actually believe there is a final end to all existence. I
don't think so, I think he is merely expressing!
th
e wholly human terror of the complete cessation of existence, but it
is only speculation on his part, I don't think he is actually
confirming that this is the way it will be, only voicing his fears,
which are quite humanly normal. But he doesn't stop with that fear,
instead, Job actually voices the hope that there is an afterlife in
the next few verses. In verse 13, Job is expressing the hope that God
will spare him upon death, and appoint a time for his remembrance, or
salvation, so to speak. In the next verse, 14, he asks quite plainly,
is there life after death? Then he says he will wait for the change
(of death?) to find out. I think this clearly indicates that Job
indeed does have some hope of an afterlife.
As for a CS theology, I think that Job expresses it pretty plainly,
that even when we despair the most for our lives, yet there is still
hope of salvation, and in this case, of immortality and full
spiritual exoneration. And this hope comes from God, for God 'is' our
life, and He (Life) wants nothing more than to sustain us through
'the valley of the shadow of death'. I think this is what Job refers
to in verse 15, that he believes that God will perform that
salvation, because that is His desire and divine plan for us. (Also,
the 'shadow of death' is from Psalms, as you know, yet it is an
earlier writing than Daniel or Macabees, and plainly declares an
afterlife).
In Psalms, the 'shadow' is a declaration that death is not final and
is only made terrifying by our fear of it, for the shadow is nothing
more than the fear of death, and the worry of the cessation of
existence, ie, it is the thought, only, of the painful wrenching away
of life out of the mortal coil, a human concept and fear, which Job
earlier expressed. Yet the Psalmist shows death to be nothing more
than a fleeting shadow which God delivers us from, through faith and
reliance in Him. In CS, Life is revealed to be God, which is eternal
and always spiritual and divine, and we know that we can rely on God,
or divine Life, to deliver us from the sense of death, for Life is
the eternal reality of being, and death is nothing more than a mortal
illusion, stemming from the belief that we have a seperate life apart
from God. But God 'is' our Life, always has been, and always will be,
'for in Him we live, and move, and have our being'.
When we put God first, as is directed by the First Commandment, then
He becomes 'our Shepherd', never leading to death, or pain, but
instead delivering us from this painful sense into unlimited harmony,
for pain and death is nothing more than an illusion, or painful sense
of seperation from our heavenly Father, or divine source of being,
which is ever present and ready to deliver us as we turn
wholeheartedly to Him. This is what is affirmed when Christ rose from
the dead, and continued to be affirmed by the raising of the dead by
the apostles, and history bears that this feat has been attained
since then as well. Christian Science only declares that there must
be a scientific explanation for this phenomenon, and other
'miracles', and proceeds to give a wholly satisfying explanation,
which is not only scientific, it is demonstrable.
Stuart K.
--On Tue, 25 Jun 2002 15:01:52 Shuan Rose wrote: > >Actually, Job 14:7-12 is even stronger in Job's denial of an after life. >This is from the NET Bible translation: > > >14:7 "But there is hope for18 a tree:19 > If it is cut down, it will sprout again, > and its new shoots will not fail. > 14:8 Although its roots may grow old20 in the ground > and its stump begins to die21 in the soil,22 > 14:9 at the scent23 of water it will flourish24and put forth25 shoots >like a new plant. > 14:10 But man26 dies and is powerless;27 > he expires--and where is he?28 > 14:11 As29 water disappears from the sea,30 > or a river drains away and dries up, > 14:12 so man lies down and does not rise; > until the heavens are no more,31 > they32 will not awake > nor arise from their sleep. > >It is well known among scholars that for most of OT times the Hebrews do >not have a well developed concept of the afterlife. Neither God nor Job's >friends, for example, say that Job will be rewarded in the afterlife. And >after the suffering is over, Job is rewarded in this life.Deuteronomy >promises many blessings for obeying the law, including a long life-NOT life >after death.Acording to Brown, the dueterocanonical book, Ecclestiacus, AKA >Sirach, also explicitly denies an afterlife, and this book is dated on >internal evidence to 180 B.C. > >It is only in late OT times, that there begins to be talk of an afterlife >(II Macabees and Daniel, both written during the times of the Maccabean >wars[175-134 B.C.], are the first to talk of the afterlife). >I don't know where Christian Science theolgy is on this, but the scholarly >consensus on the OT is quite firm about this. > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On >Behalf Of Stuart d Kirkley >Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 7:45 PM >To: asa@calvin.edu >Subject: Re: The Bible: human word of the almighty God.doc > > > An interesting post, except that I fail to see how Job 14:13-22 is >any denial of an afterlife. There really doesn't seem to be any >explicit, implicit, or even any allusion to the denial of an >afterlife. Maybe i'm wrong, but I read it through several times and >the whole chapter as well, and I don't see it. What it says to me is >that Job is simply bemoaning the frailty of mortal existence, and >that is all. There really doesn't seem to be any reference to the >immortal soul, or I should say, the denial of it. There might be >something in verses 10-12 which refers to this , but again I think >Job is referring to mortal existence, not immortal life, he even says >that they shall not be raised out of their sleep. If their is no >afterlife, then how can they even be asleep, no afterlife means no >life whatsoever, ie: the complete obliteration of existence, yet Job >never says this at all. He is simply lamenting the suffering sense of >mortal existence, I really don't see any denial of i! >mmo >rtality here. I'm afraid you will have to prove me wrong if you >maintain there is such denial. If Brown maintains this, then I have >to consider his work and premise as being suspect. Error results not >from the truth which is contained in the scriptures, but by the human >reading of them, or should I say, misreading of them. > >Stuart K. > >On Sun, 23 Jun 2002 16:31:26 > Shuan Rose wrote: >> >> >> >>This is a two-part post on the important issue of how we should view the >>Bible. The title of this post is taken from chapter one of the book ¦The >>Critical Meaning of the Bible" by the late Raymond E. Brown, S. S. Brown >was >>a Catholic New Testament scholar who spent a substantial portion of his >life >>advocating for the validity of a modern reading of the Bible. By "modern >>reading" Mr. Brown meant a reading informed by biblical criticism, which he >>defined as "an analysis such as one would use for determining the meaning >of >>other ancient literature." He argues that such an analysis is needed >>because "no 20th-century church" is the same as a church or churches of new >>Testament Times, and that inevitably 20th-century Christians have a >>worldview different from that of first century Christians". A lot of people >>may object that a Roman Catholic scholar who espouses the >>historical-critical method has nothing to say to a (mostly) Protestant >list >>of scientists who are suspicious of such an approach to Scriptural >>interpretation. However, I am convinced that the recipients of this list >>would profit by at least considering what he has to say. >> >>Brown asks the question, "What does it mean when we call the Bible the word >>of God"? He asks, "Does God speak?" Since most would agree that God does >>not speak in terms of emitting sound waves, then any revelation from God >>necessarily comes through human mediation. ¦If God does not actually speak >>words (external or internal) one must admit clearly and firmly that every >>word pertaining to God in the history of the human race including the >>biblical period is a time conditioned word, affected by the limitations of >>human insight and problems. The attribution of a word to God, Jesus, or >the >>church would not enable that word to escape that limitation." This is >>Raymond Brown's thesis. >> >>He considers and rejects liberal approaches to the question, which claim >>that the Bible is simply the word of man. He also rejects a conservative >>approach exemplified by Carl HenryÃs statement, "the Bible is a >>propositional revelation of the unchanging truth of God." He argues that >>this collapses inspiration into revelation. The traditional view is that >>the whole Bible is inspired but only some parts transmit revelation. Brown >>argues that some authors believe that they received divine communications >>(St. Paul, Amos), whereas others (for example the writer of Ecclesiastes) >>make no such claim. >> >>Even when we turn to the law and prophets, where the writers are conscious >>of having received a divine revelation, we find different ways of >expressing >>the word of God received by them. There is a poetic and prose form of the >>same oracle (compare Jeremiah 7 with Jeremiah 26). Prophetic oracles >appear >>to conflict (Isaiah 2:1;compare Joel 3:10 RSV). There are also two >versions >>of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20: 1217; Deuteronomy 5: 6-21). According >>to Brown, the biblical critic would be inclined to say that message is from >>God but the words are from particular human authors, and are a >>¦reformulation of an unspecified divine revelation". He argues that even >in >>the words of Jesus it is dubious that one encounters an unconditional, >>timeless word from God. ¦The Son of God who speaks in the... gospels is a >>Jew of the first third of the first century, who thinks in the images of >his >>time, speaks the idiom of his time, and shares much of the worldview of his >>time." >> >>Brown discusses the problem of inerrancy. He argues that attempts to >>explain away errors and inconsistencies in scripture often do more harm >than >>good. He says that there is indisputable evidence of not only scientific, >>but also historical errors in the Bible. (He cites DanielÃs mistakes about >>the timing of various Babylonian interventions). He goes on to state that >>there are even theological errors. For instance, Job 14: 13 -22 denies the >>possibility of an afterlife. >> >>He argues that there are two approaches that one can take. You can decide a >>priori that there can be no errors in the Bible, and that the writer does >>not mean what he appears to state. He describes the approach as ¦an >>unmitigated disaster resulting in the acceptance of numerous >>implausibilities and turning exegesis into apologetics." Another >approach >>is ¦to realize that there is a kenosis involved in God communicating his >>message in human words... if one discovers (errors), one does not seek to >>explain them away; one recognizes that God is willing to work with human >>beings and other limitations, and each contribution is only part of a >larger >>presentation of biblical truth." >> >>The human author of Job was wrong in denying an afterlife. However, his >>book is now part of a canonical collection that includes later parts of the >>Old Testament, which speak of an afterlife (Isaiah 26; Daniel 12), and a >New >>Testament that unanimously affirms an afterlife, and so "the author's >>rejection of an afterlife" can be seen in the context of the "gradual >>perception of a larger truth." >> >>How then can the Bible be regarded as inerrant? (BTW, I know of no >biblical >>writer who claims that he, or the Bible, is without error). Brown cites a >>statement by the Pontifical Bible Commission that "the books of scripture >>must be acknowledged as teaching firmly, faithfully, and without error the >>truth with God wanted to put into the sacred writings for the sake of our >>salvation." In other words, "everything in scripture is inerrant to the >>extent to which it conforms to the salvific purpose of God." >> >>Brown concludes by stating "the fact that the word of the Bible is time >>conditioned and human makes it no less ‘of Godà ". He argues that just as >>Jesus is fully human and fully divine, so is God‘s written word. A believer >>in revelation and inspiration can nonetheless hold that the inspired >>Scripture is human, time-conditioned, and subject to error, precisely >>because the Bible is the "human word of God ¦ just as "the word of the >>eternal Father having taken the himself the weak flesh of humanity, became >>like other human beings." >> >>FURTHER READING >> >>Raymond Brown, ¦Critical Meaning of the Bible" >>Raymond Brown, ¦Biblical Exegesis and Church Doctrine" >>J.L. McKenzie, ¦The Old Testament Without Illusion" >> >> >> > > >____________________________________________________________ >Win a first-class trip to New Orleans and vacation Elvis Style!. >Enter NOW! >http://r.lycos.com/r/sagel_mail/http://www.elvis.lycos.com/sweepstakes/ > >
____________________________________________________________ Win a first-class trip to New Orleans and vacation Elvis Style!. Enter NOW! http://r.lycos.com/r/sagel_mail/http://www.elvis.lycos.com/sweepstakes/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jun 25 2002 - 23:33:43 EDT