Re: [asa] On Job

*Do we believe God would go to the trouble of transmuting all the elements
of her body just because of an inappropriate glance? Not I. What would be
the point, other than generating a memorable Sunday school story forever
after?*

But this seems even more troubling to me than invoking "Alice" just because
the story seems factually implausible. It's one thing to say the "pillar of
salt" is a way of describing poetically something that happened to Lot's
wife -- e.g., she was killed in a dust storm or some such thing when she
refused to leave Sodom willingly -- and that the salt formations you refer
to later came to symbolize that event and the Biblical account accomodates
that popularization of the story. But to suggest the story belongs in
Wonderland because we are morally or culturally shocked by it raises deeper
problems.

Who are we to question God's judgments? Surely there's more to the conduct
of Lot's wife than an innocent backward glance at her home. I think that
glance has long been understood as representing a deeper rebelliousness, a
rejection of God's deliverance from that corrupt city, a siding with the
sinfullnes of Sodom rather than choosing a covenant relationship with God.
But an important point of the story -- and of the story of Elijah and the
priests of Baal, and of many other such violent OT stories -- is that God is
not a big teddy bear. God really does judge sin, and His judgments really
are terrible. If we start sanitizing the Bible based on our discomfort with
God's "dangerous" nature, *that's* a trip down the slippery slope.

On 10/5/06, Don Winterstein <dfwinterstein@msn.com> wrote:
>
> My emphasis (admittedly hidden from view) was on what I took to be the
> "Alice" aspect: That is, do you look with skepticism on historicity if the
> events described seem far-fetched?
>
> Job is clearly written more like a play than a history. Jonah is not
> written like a play, but the usual historical details, such as the name of
> the king of Nineveh, are missing; so it's a good candidate for allegory.
> But there's nothing in the text that can really make the case. Elijah
> appears in a book that's clearly history. But the "Alice" aspect is strong
> in all three cases.
>
> Whether or not the book is history, what should we take literally? That's
> the question. The later chapters of Genesis clearly seem to be history, but
> who among us can take the reported fate of Lot's wife as fact? Do we
> believe God would go to the trouble of transmuting all the elements of her
> body just because of an inappropriate glance? Not I. What would be the
> point, other than generating a memorable Sunday school story forever after?
> This story is readily explained by elaborations on subsequent observations
> of a salt feature in the Dead Sea area. And when Elijah had 100 innocent
> soldiers killed by fire from heaven, doesn't this seem like gratuitous
> violence that may have been embellished considerably in the retelling? What
> would we have observed if we'd been on the scene at the time?
>
> But if we are skeptical because of the "Alice" aspect, how much do we wind
> up believing in the end? That's the slippery slope. Obviously many
> theologians and clergy have slipped a long way down that slope.
>
> Don
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Don Nield <d.nield@auckland.ac.nz>
> *To:* Don Winterstein <dfwinterstein@msn.com>
> *Cc:* asa@calvin.edu ; Carol or John Burgeson <burgytwo@juno.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 04, 2006 1:46 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] On Job
>
>
> Don W has introduced a "slippery slope" argument. I consider such
> arguments to be fallacious. Each passage in the Bible should be treated
> on its merits --- and that means determining the genre of the passage
> before one proceeds further with intepretation. If that means hard work
> for the reader of the Bible, so be it.
> Don N.
>
>
> Don Winterstein wrote:
>
> > Would you assign Jonah similar status? Then, how about Elijah calling
> > down fire on the captains of fifty? Once we get started, how do we
> > know where to stop?
> >
> > Don
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > *From:* Carol or John Burgeson <mailto:burgytwo@juno.com<burgytwo@juno.com>
> >
> > *To:* asa@calvin.edu <mailto:asa@calvin.edu <asa@calvin.edu>>
> > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 04, 2006 6:37 AM
> > *Subject:* [asa] On Job
> >
> > Vernon commented: "Can such passages as Job 1:6-12 =
> > and 2:1-7 be 'interpreted' to mean something different from their =
> > account of actual meetings, actual discussions and actual
> > consequences?
> > =
> > And if, in your view they must be accepted as real events, what
> > might we
> > =
> > usefully glean from them?"
> >
> > The most reasonable interpretation of Job is that it is a morality
> > play.
> > To consider it as sober factual history is ludicrous. Sort of like
> > believing ALICE IN WONDERLAND.
> >
> > Burgy
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu
> > <mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu <majordomo@calvin.edu>> with
> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> >
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Oct 5 10:45:04 2006