external monologue

please forward this message to ben horner,

as i'm newly engaged certain necessities are arrising to plan a wedding. one such thing are the making and distribution of wedding invitations. so, myself and ruth were wondering if we could possibly employ you to help us design the invitation (of which isaac said he could print them out). if you are willing and able (we would prefer not to over burden you) this would be greatly appreciated. please email me back. thank you.

-tom galpin

Great photo, Andy. How come neither Andy nor Angelica look any different? How does that happen?

Anyway, I agree with you about the Job comparison. Job is not a model for the suffering that humanity in general undergoes in a fallen, cursed world. It is interesting, and somewhat encouraging, though, to have someone arguing exegetically in such a public forum. It's almost as if the Word of God can be used as a basis for argument and interpretation regardless of what your audience thinks about it. ;-)

i love this picture!

So, if "Job is not a model for the suffering that humanity in general undergoes in a fallen, cursed world," what do you think it is, Phil? Are you just concerned with the "in general" distinction, or don't think it's about *human* suffering at all? And, perhaps more crucially, what Biblical passages *are* useful for comprehending suffering? (Please read these questions as posed in a quizzical tone, with an eyebrow raised skeptically.)

Stunning sometimes how expressive a new baby's face can be. You nailed it here. I love this shot.

Loving the baby pictures generally. More!

lol! Thanks for adding the tone, Mesh.

The thing that makes Job unique is that it is a book about a wrestling match between God and Satan. Obviously, Job suffers, and in that sense it is a book about human suffering at some level. What I'd meant to say is that the book isn't a generic paradigm for suffering, nor is it presenting a model for humanity in general to deal with suffering. It's a classic, ancient near-Eastern story of the struggle between powers and trial by ordeal.

I'm not sure the Bible has much to say about human suffering *in general* other than to explain its source - the Fall and resulting curse, setting Man at odds with his ultimate enemy, Death.

However, the Bible has much to say about Christian suffering and how to deal with it/the perspective we should have on it. The NT is filled with passages that point out our union with Christ means that we will suffer, just as He suffered. But just as He could endure the cross because of the glory held out before Him, we endure the cross because of the glory held out before us. I Peter has a lot of emphasis on this topic, for instance.

All I'm saying is that I don't think you can take the story of Job and then tell mankind in general that Job sets up the paradigm for understanding suffering in the world and how to deal with it. Job, the person, is a battleground. He is the arena of a fight God specifically picks with Satan. The main issue at stake is God's vindication. If I were comforting a Christian in suffering, I would probably only use Job as a secondary reference at best, especially since the NT is full of material that directly speaks to the issue. If I were comforting somebody else in suffering -- well, I don't know what I'd say right off the top of my head, to be honest, but I don't think I'd tell them to be like Job.

(Please read those statements in a "I think this is right, but I still have a lot to think about and would like to hear what others have to say" tone)

phil (and mesh) -- i think you're both right. (grin!) phil, i think that 1 Peter is a much better example of exactly what to do with suffering, and specifically as a christian. but i think that, though the main point of Job is placed within the context of a struggle between God and Satan, the fact that he is "a battleground" has overtones of a theodicy, doesn't it?

i don't think that saifre reading Job as a theodicy is the problem. it is more that, though seeing the thundering power of God's reply, he does not acknowledge God's right and authority in that power. and, even more so, that he misreads God's point in that response, and sees God as more concerned with maintaining nature than even with Job's suffering! (much less with the struggle that you mention). it was still great, as andy said, to see Job being addressed in the NYT, though!

Phil and Becki,

I like Becki's middle ground, to whatever small extent I can get my mind around the text. It's probably not a terrific idea to read any scripture as a paradigm, unless the author explicitly tells us to. (As Paul does constantly, or as Christ does in the beatitudes, to use obvious examples.) And I would agree with you, Phil, that the epistles are filled with encouragement for suffering believers, very clear instruction for how to approach pain with humility and heavenly-mindedness.

But for those of us who struggle with (or engage, whichever you prefer) earthly-mindedness, Job is wonderful for its raw, screaming questions. (The Psalms are the same way, as are Eccesiastes and Lamentations -- these are, as you might imagine, my most personal books.) Where I find Safire's piece compelling is in its acknowledgement that Job confronts the apparent capriousness of his suffering, with not so much grace as we might like, and is not destroyed by God for doing so. I find that comforting.

Where I disagree with Safire -- strongly -- is in his reading of god as "coming off badly." Maybe I read that speech differently because I do, for all my doubts, trust in God's goodness. But I also think I'm reading the book from an entirely different framework: I don't see it as a theodicy, precisely, so much as a story hinging on Job's righteousness, with the chief question being whether Job has the right to question, to feel frustrated. And it seems like the answer is no, and then yes. God displays his complete power, humbles Job with his mystery. But he does not destroy him for his questions. He displays his love by allowing Job to wonder. And I think that's why I love the book: because it gives a blessing to investigation and uncertainty, it suggests that God's character is both unfathomable and possible to pursue. The only greater story is the incarnation itself, when God became man to feel frustrated and afraid with us.

Anyway, that's my take at the moment, but it could easily be all wrong, and I'd love to hear more of both your thoughts. (Said eagerly, if a bit confused.)

Phil, your comments re: Job are much appreciated.

Mesh and Becki,

Great thoughts, and I don't have any real objections to any of that except maybe a matter of textual emphasis and priority.

To Becki - I think the book of Job is a theodicy in the sense that God's superiority over His naysayers is demonstrated. God rules, everybody else drools. In fact, I think this is the main point of the book of Job. I don't know that it's a theodicy in the sense of defending God from the problem of evil. God doesn't present any justification for Job's suffering; He maintains His sovereignty and His right to do whatever He wills, and in doing so, defeats Satan in a struggle, using Job as the arena of their combat. Also, God rewards Job at the end of his suffering, maintaing an OT shadow of the suffering - glory pattern. There's a lot to unfold here. Job unwittingly becomes God's champion in this combat, His faithfulness is a key instrument in the overall victory, etc. Anyway, I'm just not sure where the theodicy a la Safire comes in, but maybe I don't really understand his argument.

To Mesh - I think we differ on a matter of emphasis. The personal points you describe, I don't believe are the main points of Job, although ultimately we might derive some of them from Job. Having a personal copy of the Scriptures is a relatively modern luxury; the books that you mention (Psalms, Ecc., Job) weren't read by individuals on a personal basis for millennia - they were read by Israel in corporate worship. The Psalms, for example, were written for a group of people to sing together about the corporate experience of the people of God, even though the language can be very individualistic (this has a specific NT fulfillment purpose, imho). (I always wonder how David felt when that song about Bathsheba rolled around in the hymn rotation)

So, although I sympathize as I have also drawn personal comfort from those very books you mentioned, we want to be careful about *beginning* with ourselves and defining the book by those contours. We want to start with the corporate and Christological, then from that basis draw out implications for individual believers (which, I would say, are actually just individual applications of the corporate meaning virtually all of the time). I'm hesitant to say that the main point of Job is that I, as an individual believer, can be frustrated with suffering and God won't punish me for it, although, as I said, we might derive that secondarily (or tertiarilly) depending on what passage we're interpreting.

Phil,

Don't know that we even disagree on this particular matter of emphasis. I have developed a tendency to personalize my theological remarks, mainly because I'm deathly frightened of universalization, having in my short life abused it so. I often sound like I'm talking of personal experience, even when I'm trying for grander pronouncements.

I'm not sure that I'd describe Job's thesis as, "I, as an individual believer, can be frustrated with suffering and God won't punish me for it," although I may have suggested that by my tone. My description would sit closer to, "God's character is both unfathomable and possible to pursue." That is to say that the Church, in its corporate and individual tone, serves a God who we do not entirely understand, and whom we are asked to seek with all our hearts. Most books of the Bible emphasize the pursuit; I think Job emphasizes the mystery.

Yeah, Phil, I think you've got a good distinction there for theodicy and how its used in Job. I have frequently heard Job referred to in more secular circles as a judeo-christian answer to the problem of evil, and I read that into safire's article, whether or not it was actually present.
You are right that the emphasis of the book is on God's superiority -- and I am glad that you, Mesh, and I all agree that this is the main point. I find that to be comforting, precisely because its purpose isn't to comfort ME, but to point me to Him. SDG

Mesh,

Agreed, although like you say, we were probably agreed from the get-go, just expressing ourselves and various facets differently.

Yes, Job certainly does make a lot of the inscrutability of God. This isn't surprising, considering it is most likely the oldest written book of the Bible. The author probably didn't have the luxury of the exhaustively-defined God we have, today. ;-)

Beck,

Now that you mention it, I may have read that into Safire's article as well. I should probably take a more careful look.

How I love this photo. I keep coming back to look at it.

You might be interested in this website and companion book:"Putting God on Trial: The Biblical Book of Job" (Trafford, Victoria, 2004)(http://www.bookofjob.org) The entire commentary is online.

The book was highly praised by leading Job scholars: Clines, Habel, Janzen and by the Review of Biblical Literature. The entire commentary is online.

It was written by a Anglican Canadian criminal defense lawyer who argues the Book of Job presents a Hegelian theodicy, where God is causally responsible for the undeserved evil that befalls Job (and by implication us), but not morally blameworthy for it. Such undeserved evil is morally necessary to bring the existence of God as a God of goodness into doubt and sever any necessary connection between righteousness and reward. Only in such a world is the existence of a truely selfless love of men and women for God possible.

Robert Sutherland

Omg thats right! Please come see me and my friends! ;)

Omg thats right! Please come see me and my friends! ;)