Re: [asa] Re: asa-digest V1 #6228

I think the first matter to note is that one cannot cite any of the four
speeches as scripture, as I have found it done. Second, Elihu was the
worst of the lot, totally dismissed, but the three needed to repent of
what they had charged Job. Third, Job was the one in trouble, and God
addressed him. The message was primarily that he didn't have a basis to
understand God's doing. This also applied to the three. Of course, we're
so much smarter that we from time to time can correct the Almighty. ;-)
Dave

On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 22:01:49 -0500 Merv <mrb22667@kansas.net> writes:
D. F. Siemens, Jr. wrote:
Did you note that God butted into Elihu's speech with a very strong
condemnation: "Who is this darkening counsel speaking without knowledge?"
(Job 38:2) If God called him a fool, why are we trying to make sense of
his lengthy declamation (32:6-37:34)?
Dave
I guess I always assumed Elihu was finished and that God was finally
"butting in" on everybody -- especially Job. After all it does say in
the next verse: "Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind and
said, ..." Perhaps God's criticism of foolishness includes Elihu along
with all the others here, but if it does why does God only speak of the
first three friends in 42:7 as needing to offer sacrifices of repentance?
   

Also, even if all four of Job's friends are spouting foolishness, isn't
it interesting that their foolishness sounds so much like us? Take any
of their passages out of context and stick them in the psalms and we
would be happily reading them as correct praise for the Creator.
They're especially interesting precisely AS the apparently negative
example they are held to be.

I think Wayne touches well on some of this below. (further comments to
that at the end)

On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 21:59:00 EDT Dawsonzhu@aol.com writes:

 
(B.T.W. this may have been addressed in another thread I've forgotten,
but does
anyone know why Elihu alone among Job's friends was not singled out for
repentance? If we put Elihu's exhortations next to those of Bildad,
Eliphaz &
Co., could anyone tell the difference?)

Elihu's argument seems to center on the righteousness of God
33:12-13
[12] But I tell you, in this you are not right, for God is greater than
man.
[13] Why do you complain to him that he answers none of man's words?

34:10-13
[10] So listen to me, you men of understanding, Far be it from God to do
evil, from the Almighty to do wrong.
[11] He repays a man for what he has done; he brings upon him what his
conduct deserves
[12] It is unthinkable that God would do wrong, that the almighty would
pervert justice.
[13] Who appointed him over the earth? Why put him in charge of the whole
world?

I tended to read verse 34:11 as though Elihu is repeating the same
refrain as his friends, but in context, Elihu does imply that he will not

raise the same assertions (32:12- "...but not one of you has proved
Job wrong; none of you has answered his arguments."). So
maybe the way to read this is something like the following.

(1) A general statement about God's judgment, not aimed directly
at Job himself.
(2) God's ultimate judgment at the end of the age when everything
is laid out, whereupon Job will receive his reward.

This sounds reasonable. I have heard it speculated that the last verses
in Job (48:10 to the end where his fortunes are restored double) were
tacked on later by editors who wanted to paste a "happy ending" on a
profound but tragic story. Is there anything to this from scholarly
circles? I have always thought the ending to be a syrupy disappointing
ending to an otherwise profound book. Perhaps the original audience
(who had little concept of any afterlife -- Job 7:7-10) couldn't bear to
have the dangling ending. Like us they wanted the episode wrapped up,
bad guys in Jail, good guys celebrating (complete with new replacement
family!). Anyway, if Job's reward did wait until judgment day, as you
speculate, that would have been much more profoundly realistic, I think.
But I don't think the readers of that time would agree with us on that.
(Sorry to those of you who think Job was a literal history in which case
all this talk of "realism" would be nonsense. I'm obviously operating
under the assumption that it is a morality play. -- to think of God
actually making playful wagers with Satan does indeed endorse Dawkin's
snarling epithets about God. Personally, I don't think Dawkins or any
other fundamentalists are even scratching the surface of God's Word.)

--merv

The main issue is that Job was tending toward trying to
condemn God to justify himself.

by Grace we proceed,
Wayne

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Oct 19 00:15:30 2006