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

D. F. Siemens, Jr. wrote:
> 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
>
Not "smarter", of course, but just given much (all of us) by way of
God's Word in Scripture AND in Jesus. From those given much, much will
be expected. If God sees fit to reveal to mankind what we find
written in the New and Old Testaments, then I feel obliged to study it
(ALL of it) and not dismiss parts of it as of no value -- though as a
practical matter some parts get more attention than others. So even
if Elihu was spouting foolishness along with the other three friends,
the writer saw fit to publish their discourses in all their many
chaptered glory for us to learn from. I hope you don't presume to
correct the Almighty regarding what is appropriate for our reading and
study? Of course, you probably aren't trying to say it is of no value,
but that we should be careful to keep it in its context (i.e. an example
of foolishness according to God himself) -- and of course, what can we
do but agree. That is why I get a little worried when I hear so many
Christians today (and myself) sounding a bit like Job's friends --- and
why I find those discourses so intriguing.

--merv

> On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 22:01:49 -0500 Merv <mrb22667@kansas.net
> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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 07:38:34 2006