Even at 51 years of age and many years in the ministry I still find myself with days leaving the company of someone kicking myself and crying against myself, "Why didn't you just shut up?"

"Satan approaches God for permission to test Job."

that's strange my bible says it was God's idea [job 1:8]

maybe we're reading different bibles

Wow Christopher. Seriously. Wow. Thanks for sharing this reminder today

While I love the spirit of what you're saying, Christopher, I do want to tweak a couple minor things:

1. You suggest that God objects to their assumptions of "a god defined by God’s relationship with Israel." I don't think that's quite accurate. The Book of Job was likely written long before Israel was born. Your point about them assuming God was primarily a source of earthly blessing for the faithful is accurate--but not exactly for Israel.

2. You suggest that "if at any point we presume to think that those we interact with are not created, and therefore loved, by God, then we fall into the danger of treating people as a means to an end, rather than an end unto themselves." While I agree that people are created and therefore loved by God, human beings are not "an end unto themselves." Talk about vainglory! People are created for a purpose larger than themselves.

And it's only as we submit our presumptions about our own glory for God's greater glory that we begin to understand what the Book of Job is all about.

I struggle with this. I agree - we shouldn't speak for God, we should speak about God. If we try to speak for God, we come dangerously close to taking God's name in vain. HOWEVER, while it is one thing to put our hands over our mouths, is it (or when is it) appropriate to stand up against those who do great damage in the name of God, such as the Fred Phelpses of the world? When is it (or is it) ever appropriate to speak out against heresies or heretics? Perhaps I just answered my own question - we can speak out against heresies but not against the heretics. I'm very interested in how you all would respond to this question. Thanks.

Thank you very much for your response sheerahkahn. I appreciate your thoughtful words and that helps me put things in perspective.

Thank you all for generosity and considering Job more carefully.

Jarrod, as for people being an end in and of themselves, I think you are right that all of creation is called to a greater purpose, but my point here was that there is a danger if we begin to treat people differently because they are a means to end. In other words, if we are more concerned about churches meeting budgets then we are about preaching the Gospel, then there is a problem.

Sheerahkahn, I really like how you are careful to call upon G-d. And I appreciate your commitment to a communal consensus in discerning wisdom. My point in referring to the G-d of Israel is mark that G-d is fully known in Jesus, the Son of G-d, the Second person of the Triune G-d. And since Job is a part of Sacred Scripture, the book reveals more of G-d to Israel.

Alison, I am cautious to call a person a heretic because I think there is something impatient about making that kind of judgment. Like you, I think I am more willing to consider a line of thought in history as heretical. As for people doing damage in the name of God, I don't know. I pray. I try to listen. I ask for forgiveness when I find myself in error. And I try to forgive whenever possible. More often than not, I think I'm the one doing the damage. But that could be because I'm korean.

Thank you again for your comments.

Guilty as charged.

This also reminded me of my prayer life. We often presume to know what God's will is in a matter. I hesitate to make that presumption any longer. My simple prayer is that God be glorified. Period (or pretty much so). The only thing I'm willing to do otherwise is to tell God what I want, like Bartimaeus, whom Jesus asked, "What do you want me to do for you?" How he answers my request, however, is completely up to Him.

Christopher, really good thoughts! I hope more pastors (those officially appointed and all the rest of us self-appointed would-be counselors--myself included) can also take this message from Job to heart.

Though not part of your point here, it has also always struck me that the answer God gave to Job's questions, was not an "answer" in the sense of us most of us are conditioned to consider proper answers to such questions. We tend to think answers to God's presumed inquisitors require straightforward logical conclusions based on syllogisms using certain ideological presuppositions about God stemming from some variation of a traditional reading of the surface facts of the narratives found in the Scriptures. There are many levels of depth in which to understand the Scriptures--it is not wrong perhaps to want to affirm the verity of the surface facts, but it is an error istm when we stop too close the surface in our understanding and explanation of the import of those narratives and expect that to satisfy the kind of questions that come out of the deepest depths of human suffering! But if I am reading Job correctly, that is not how God responds to His creature's suffering and the questions that arise from it in the Satanic ravages of a fallen world. He responds by a revelation of Himself in a living encounter with the human being--in other words, (unspeakable mercy!) He shows up! What is the Incarnation of Jesus Christ if not this very "showing up" in all its fullness? In all the events of His Incarnation from His conception in the womb of the Virgin to His Ascension to the right hand of the Father, the Orthodox perspective is that this showing up was a showing up for once and for all to stay with us (even when were are in the very depths of Hades! Ps. 139:7-12). By the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and the establishment of His Church, He is now and forever, continually Present with us and accessible to us in all His fullness.

That is why the Orthodox priest, though certainly also a pastor to his flock, is not understood only as pastor, but as priest, whose role as a priest under Christ's HIgh Priesthood is to help us to the altar and leave us there in the Presence of God (the only place where our healing can begin and continue to completion). He does this by his prayers for us and administration of the "Mysterion" (the sacraments) of the Church. (As a bit of an aside: This is also why we Orthodox believe that if Christ-God does not, in fact, actually "show up" in the humble form of the consecrated bread and wine of Communion, that our partaking is without the full meaning of the Incarnation and what it means to be in Christ and, consequently, lacking in spiritual power.) This is also how we all as members of a Holy Priesthood by virtue of our Baptism into Christ should understand our role in the world and with those to whom God calls us to minister in His Name. We are called not mainly to give the confused and deceived and the suffering an alternate and superior ideology, but to lead fellow bearers of God's image who like us have been wounded by the devil and scarred by sin, by the help of God's grace and by our prayer, into His very Presence.

Forgive the long-windedness in this and other comments of mine (and, obviously, all are free to disregard or challenge whatever is unhelpful in my comments or seems to miss the mark or distract!). This is a subject that moves me deeply and to which I have given a lot of thought.

In the story what Elihu says actually introduces what God has to say. I don't think he is someone to disparage in the story. He is the only character to not be rebuked by God.
I agree with your principle about being careful to not be overzealous and to watch what we say on behalf of God, but I don't think you can use Elihu to support that argument.

David, regarding Elihu, there is another way to look at this. Not only does God not rebuke Elihu, He does not attempt to speak to him at all! The only persons worth rebuking are those capable of responding to correction. St. Gregory the Great (one of the Fathers of the Church) says with regard to Elihu that he is "puffed up with arrogance." I think his arrogance and insensitivity surpass that of Job's other three friends by quite a bit. Possibly this the result of his youth. Usually it takes quite a few years of the hard blows of life experience to knock some sense (and a little humility & compassion) into most of us.

Karen,
I completely disagree. The content of what he says mimics what God will say to Job later on, which ultimately led Job to repentance. God had harsher words to say to Job than any of the comforters - Job was led to repentance and to say that he "despised himself". Elihu pointed towards God's grandeur and majesty and isn't rebuked because he didn't say things that were theologically wrong like "you are suffering because you are bad" which is an oversimplification of what the other three friends say.
Being young does not automatically make someone arrogant in what they say. I think the story may actually be implying the opposite - that wisdom does not always come with age.

David, You may be right, though I hesitate to dicker with someone of the Christian stature and depth of St. Gregory. :-) St. John Chrysostom does agree with you in part--he sees something positive in Elihu in that at least Elihu says he would like to prove Job righteous and doesn't (directly) accuse him of unrighteousness as the other three do. It is my understanding that St. John says this, though, in a larger context where he otherwise agrees with the gist of St. Gregory's assessment of Elihu. These men did also read the Scriptures in their original language (in the case of the OT, the Septuagint, as you probably know, an early translation into Greek in use during the time of Jesus, and the one most often quoted in the NT), but more important for this discussion, perhaps, they were men that can be seen to have truly loved God and his word and to have lived the Scriptures in a remarkable way in their own time and cultural context.

Another thing I am considering is that the Scripture explicitly says in many places that Job was righteous and blameless (and this is the context in which we are to understand God's "rebuke" of him). It says absolutely nothing of Elihu's character. That what Elihu said is true about God and is echoed in God's speeches later doesn't really reveal Elihu's character or motivations (as a line in a C. S. Lewis poem reads, "A scholar's parrot may talk Greek.") I have many times caught myself quoting Scripture or asserting some biblical principle only to realize later (sometimes much later!) to my chagrin that I had no idea of the full implications of that Scripture, or I wouldn't have pulled it out at the point in time and in that context! Elihu makes many claims for himself of what he "knows," which for me has an echo in 1 Cor. 8:1-3.

Despite all that, I can certainly understand how you might see what you do considering just the words of the text from your own vantage point. Of course, youth in and of itself, is not an obstacle to wisdom. There is Timothy in the NT as an example of wisdom in youth and Daniel and others in the Old as well, so, of course, yours, too, is a reasonable conclusion. Thanks for your thoughts.

I love the story of Job and I really enjoyed this entry. I feel that it very important to watch what we say and to remain humble about what the Lord has shown us. Job felt as though he was not qualified to teach and tell others about his story. But the Lord called him and showed him that He was going to use Job's story to teach others. God called him to love those around him. What if we don't know enough love? So many people around us will never feel the love of Christ....

I can't decide if it's ironic, bizarre or lame that in an article aimed at being Biblically truthful, the author demonstrates consistent inablity to be true to the intentions of Scripture. IMHO, the author of this article needs to read his Bible more .. and believe what he reads.

> God pushes back not on Job, but on the four accusers.

Can you help me see where you got that? My Bible says that God answered Job out of the whirlwind and told him to 'step up to the mike' (Job 38:1)

> But shouldn’t we preach the truth above all other things?

Absolutely (Deut 18; John 4:24; John 14:6). This is your best statement in the whole article. Jesus Himself *never* accepted less-than-Truth, nor did the Apostles, nor should we. Truth is never to take a back seat to Love. But don't take my word for it: Jesus often went on the offensive when Truth was at stake, calling His detractors names like 'fools', 'generation of vipers', 'dull and slow of heart', 'adulterers', 'satan', 'sons of satan' and more! (imho, people need to stop asking 'WWJD?' and read what Jesus *did* do) If these examples are to be followed (note that Peter, Paul, James, Jude, etc followed His example), then why on *earth* would we discourage aiming this sentiment at those who would distort/abuse/injure the Word of God?? Would we presume to rebuke Paul for unleashing violence at Elymas? (Acts 13:10) Or would we do the *right* thing and call people of his ilk "sons of the devil" (note that Paul was full of the Holy Spirit when he unleashed this fury at Elymas). If we can't side with Paul on this point, then we are rejecting the Holy Spirit's position! We need to mourn that this notion is so completely lost on Western Christianity! Respectfully, this article thoroughly misses this point.

(Part 2)

> But God speaks for Godself.

I think you mean "God speaks for Himself". God always(!) speaks of Himself using male pronouns, and so should we. To do differently is the worst kind of pride and arrogance. ...unless you somehow know better about how to refer to God than He does. If you or others don't like it, find another god and godspeed to you – you’ll need it. Job 42 demonstrates that He will be angry at us for presuming to know more about Him than He tells us.

> treating people as a means to an end, rather than an end unto themselves.

Sorry, but the Bible consistently says that people are created as a means to an end, namely, that everything (wicked people included) are made by Him for His glory. Rom 9:17-18. or better still, Prov 16:4. If you can find a different way to translate this verse, I'm all ears. Until then, if we intend to teach Biblically, we are compelled to teach that people are made as a means to an end: God's glorious end. Even Job understood the nature of God's self-directed glory: Job 1:21

> It is not our place to judge or to condemn.

Huh?? Paul says exactly the opposite of this in 1 Cor 5:1-5. If you are unfamiliar with this passage/concept, read all of 1 Cor 5 and 6 and you'll see it's consistent with Jesus' teachings both in Matt 18:15-17 and Matthew 7:1-6. (Yes, v6 is part of the passage)

> We need to be careful not to hold on to our towers of superiority or criticize people we think are wrong, or are sinning, or are corrupting our society.

Right. And when they are clearly violating Scripture, we need to follow Jesus' clear example and rise up to stop the oppression. (Is 1:16-17) Or mark the heretics and "have nothing to do with them" (Matt 18:17; 1Cor 5:9-11; 2Thess 3:6; 2Thess 3:14; 1Tim 6:3-5; 2Tim 3:5; Titus 3:10; 2John 1:10; 2John 1:11)

TIM, I appreciate your desire to remain true to Scripture, but I think your understanding of Scripture is perhaps a bit skewed. ISTM you take much of Christopher's statements and also the Scriptures themselves out of their full context, and thus what you understand by what Christopher says as well as the "truth" of the Scriptures is a actually distortion of the truth. ISTM "God pushes back on Job's three friends" is a fair interpretation of the fact that God tells Job (note: He takes His servant Job into His confidence, not Job's friends) that He is ANGRY with Job's friends because they have not spoken correctly about Him, and He requires Job to make sacrifice and pray for their forgiveness, i.e., Job is given the privilege of acting as a type of Christ in a priestly role on behalf of his friends. "Gird up yourself like a man" is literally God's invitation/encouragement to Job to take courage and speak with Him directly. There are many parallels to Job's encounter with God Who is speaking to Job in a direct manner (one might also say "face to face") from the whirlwind and that of Moses on Mt. Sinai where Moses also was invited to speak with God face to face and was in the midst a manifestation of God's presence in cloud and storm--this is not accidental and it is in keeping with God's explicit proclamation of Job's blameless status in the beginning of the book. I'm not saying that God doesn't in fact rebuke Job, but it does, I hope, color our understanding of the nature and purpose of God's rebuke of Job. In the context of the entire book of Job, I understand God's rebuke of Job, not as expressing anger or displeasure in him, but as a means of reminding Job of God's surpassing greatness and wisdom that are beyond human comprehension and to keep Job humble in view of the privilege of experiencing this very direct and great manifestation of God's presence and realistic in his expectations of being able to comprehend God's ways (see also 2 Corinthians 12:1-7).

You say: "Truth is never to take a back seat to Love." I would argue that you have a very anemic understanding of the nature and power of "Love" as it pertains to the Godhead if you think that it can take a "back seat" to "Truth," without compromising our understanding of the nature of both God's Love and His Truth. Both are words we use to describe the nature of God and His activities in the world, but the Orthodox understanding is that we really need to look at Jesus and everything He is, says, and does in their own contexts to properly understand what either Truth or Love really means (actually, more properly, an Orthodox would say that you have to have a real experiential ongoing relationship and encounter with Christ in order to have this true understanding). I leave you with 1 John 3:16-17 as one of the Evangelist's own summaries of Christ's Person and work.