Gog's endtime construction?

[RandyPNW]

Well, I won't make this disagreement too long. I think the "Why" in Job's book is explained as Satan's challenge to God

Then why doesn't God tell Job this? Probably because it isn't an answer at all. How can this truly be the reason? Job suffers the loss of his family, his loved ones, everything he owns- because Satan challenged God? That's why Job suffers? It's not an answer at all.

Don't agree.

A couple of years ago I met a Christian convert to Judaism. He came from a family of pastors and was studying to become one himself. Rather interesting fellow. In a discussion that we had, he made a rather cutting observation of Christianity. He said that Christianity is not an intellectual religion. Sure there were great Christian thinkers, but the religion itself is more about feeling than about thinking. I must be honest, I didn't agree with him at the time. But some of the discussions that I have had here lately are making me reflect on what he said. A couple of posters here have flat out ignored biblical verses I've posted, or like you, have claimed that the plain text doesn't mean what it says. And I can't help but wonder if it's because the verses don't "feel right" to a Christian, even if the plain meaning isn't opposed to Christian theology or dogma per se.

Just something to think about.

Yes, as much as I'd like to say Christianity is entirely rational, I must admit the "feeling" part. It is intuitive because it applies to the heart and to the conscience. That is something that it intuitive, much like trying to explain the love of music, or the love of art. Some things just aren't easily explained.

I would contrast this with irrational religions, such as cults and religions that deny reality. I don't find that Christianity, in its more sublime forms, denies reality. The Catholic leadership, in the time of Copernicus and Galileo, was not at its finer moments. It denied reality, or at least didn't want to face reality.

I don't find solid Christian thinkers, such as Francis Schaeffer, denying reality. At the same time, he is criticized for relying on "revelation" as much as on "rational argument." Schaeffer would not deny the application of "faith" as something that is as much intuition as it is rational. At least that's what I think.

Your charge that I deny the message of Job is, I think, a matter of personal judgment. My position does not deny that certain things are not said. Rather, I believe that the account itself recommends certain conclusions be drawn, even if not explicitly stated.

What is explicitly explained is that this is a celestial argument between God and Satan. And man is let in on this by virtue of the story being told. Clearly, Job did not fully understand while he was being tested. He was to remain godly in the midst of confusion. But ultimately, we can see purpose in it.

I understand the Jewish and the Christian experiences--suffering abuses en masse, which seems to have little rational purpose. But to deny who you are and to deny your moral standards is not something that is always affected by the circumstances. Ultimately, the hope is to understand when the trial is over.

[RandyPNW]

He said that Christianity is not an intellectual religion.

It depends where you look. The modern Western Christian church? It's easy to encounter an air of suspicion concerning anything intellectual. I wish I were joking, but I still remember one time I walked into a local church a few minutes late, and the first thing I heard the pastor say was, 'intellectuals are ruining the church!' (I mean, I guess he'd think he was right if he knew me now). But there are still the Moorelands, Plantingas, Craigs, Kreefts, Fesers, et al, to name a modern few.

I'd wager that Christianity has a deep intellectual history that has very much succumbed to the feels.

And you're right. God never tells Job why; what we would regard as the trivially petty reason his world was disregarded with horrific abandon. "I allowed your life to be ruined including the murder of multiple people to prove to Satan just how faithful you were, be happy okay?" It's absurd. Maybe it's satirical. Of course, God is going to give him the talk. The truth of the text as presented is ridiculous.

You're rejecting the book of Job as a Christian? I'm personally happy with the explanation given in the book that bad things happen to good people due to a celestial battle over the souls of fallen men.

[Athanasius]

You're rejecting the book of Job as a Christian? I'm personally happy with the explanation given in the book that bad things happen to good people due to a celestial battle over the souls of fallen men.

No, I'm not rejecting Job? "Bad things happen to good people due to a celestial battle" is not what Job teaches (there was no 'battle'), and if you take the book of Job at Westernised face value, we either have to conclude that (1) Job suffered because God bragged about him to Satan, or (2) Job suffered and we have no idea why. I'm inclined towards (2). But I'm also not convinced that Job is anything other than a theological/philosophical thought experiment; it's a theodicy and a good one at that. This is a minority view as far as I'm aware.

Just imagine if you were brought to ruin, and God's explanation was: 'yeah, so the reason why is because Satan said you only had faith because I blessed you, so I wanted to demonstrate to Satan that he was wrong, so I let him murder your entire family, and destroy your wealth, and take away your health'. Like, wow, what purpose. What a privilege. That's not a why.

Job 1:

8  Then the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil.”
9 “Does Job fear God for nothing?” Satan replied.
10 “Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land.
11 But now stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face.”
12 The Lord said to Satan, “Very well, then, everything he has is in your power, but on the man himself do not lay a finger.”

Job 2:

3 Then the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil. And he still maintains his integrity, though you incited me against him to ruin him without any reason.”
4 “Skin for skin!” Satan replied. “A man will give all he has for his own life.
5 But now stretch out your hand and strike his flesh and bones, and he will surely curse you to your face.”
6 The Lord said to Satan, “Very well, then, he is in your hands; but you must spare his life.”

Contrast that with Job 38, Alyosha. If this is concrete history, then we only think we understand because the words are so ordered. But really? God's Socrates to Satan's Thrasymachus, with immediate real-life stakes, not just political theory. This is what Job and his friends differed over: justice, God's justice. Isn't it interesting that God sides with Job, who seeks to accuse God of being unjust (cf. Job 40:8 ff)?

I'm not rejecting Job. In reading the book I agree with what Job has to say throughout chapters 9 - 10 and following, in arguing against his friends that he has not sinned. But I don't know, this reads like a solid theodicy written by a gifted philosophical theologian. That ending especially, beginning at 42:10. God restores Job's fortunes doubly so, but too bad about all the other people who died in the process, I guess.

[RandyPNW]

You're rejecting the book of Job as a Christian? I'm personally happy with the explanation given in the book that bad things happen to good people due to a celestial battle over the souls of fallen men.

No, I'm not rejecting Job? "Bad things happen to good people due to a celestial battle" is not what Job teaches (there was no 'battle'), and if you take the book of Job at Westernised face value, we either have to conclude that (1) Job suffered because God bragged about him to Satan, or (2) Job suffered and we have no idea why. I'm inclined towards (2). But I'm also not convinced that Job is anything other than a theological/philosophical thought experiment; it's a theodicy and a good one at that. This is a minority view as far as I'm aware.

Just imagine if you were brought to ruin, and God's explanation was: 'yeah, so the reason why is because Satan said you only had faith because I blessed you, so I wanted to demonstrate to Satan that he was wrong, so I let him murder your entire family, and destroy your wealth, and take away your health'. Like, wow, what purpose. What a privilege. That's not a why.

Well, to be honest I've wondered how Job could have such a phonographic memory of each argument from each of his detractors? Does sound like a treatise of some kind.

But I've chosen to believe that he understood the arguments against him, and decided to deliver it later, after consulting with his friends, who by then had repented. They probably worked up the story, and remembered in consultation with each other.

These were pretty memorable arguments, so maybe it stuck easier in their memories? Anyway, it sounds literal because the Bible is a serious set of books, all of which are looked to as real history, and not mythical, symbolic history like fables, legends, and embellished stories.

I certainly don't see Satan in a less than serious way. If God created us, warts and all, He certainly created angels, with the capability of falling. And what we see in human history can only be explained as something much deeper than even evil people can conceive of. Really, would man really set about destroying himself?

The story is another allusion to Christ, who gave up his life on Calvary. Can't you see that? It isn't in the least a silly description of God arguing with Satan to prove how much Job can give up. It is completely against Job's will, and he has to go on loving the One who is letting it happen for an unknown reason.

In the end Job does find out Why. And it is indeed a celestial battle--I use "battle" metaphorically, because there is no real contest between God and Satan. And yet, even the battle of Armageddon is described as a contest. So, I can only conclude it's real. My view....

[Athanasius]

Well, to be honest I've wondered how Job could have such a phonographic memory of each argument from each of his detractors? Does sound like a treatise of some kind.

Maybe the same way Plato remembered all those Socratic dialogues?

Anyway, it sounds literal because the Bible is a serious set of books, all of which are looked to as real history, and not mythical, symbolic history like fables, legends, and embellished stories.

While this isn't the argument I'm making, a book or set of books is no less serious if it's not real history. I alluded to The Brothers Karamazov earlier, and that's quite the serious book.

Really, would man really set about destroying himself?

Yes.

The story is another allusion to Christ, who gave up his life on Calvary. Can't you see that? It isn't in the least a silly description of God arguing with Satan to prove how much Job can give up. It is completely against Job's will, and he has to go on loving the One who is letting it happen for an unknown reason.

Where did I say God arguing with Satan was silly? And no, I don't understand the book of Job to be an allusion to Christ, Calvary, and so forth. I see it as an ancient theodicy that examines the idea of a just God and what exactly is God's justice. Hence, Socrates and Thrasymachus in the Republic. Or Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra... Well, maybe not that last one.

In the end Job does find out Why.

He doesn't. God spends Job 38 - 41 putting Job in his place, against Job's intent to accuse God of being unjust because he's suffered while being blameless. God doesn't tell Job why he suffered, He tells Job that He is so great and transcendent that Job couldn't possibly understand why. Job understands this in 42:3. In Kierkegaardian terms, we have to engage in a teleological suspension of the ethical. Job never learns what the opening chapters reveal to us. We never learn why God entertained the Satanic accusations in the first place. Neither Job nor the reader get a why.

Why, God, did you even entertain Satan? Why did you point out Job to Satan in the first place? That seems... not just.

“Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct him? Let him who accuses God answer him!”

Why do we suffer? It doesn't matter, we're still called to faithfulness. As much as we want to know why, we still have that duty before us.

And it is indeed a celestial battle--I use "battle" metaphorically, because there is no real contest between God and Satan. And yet, even the battle of Armageddon is described as a contest. So, I can only conclude it's real. My view....

It's not even a metaphorical battle. God brags about Job to Satan and Satan does what he wants with Job because God lets him (and doesn't do what God doesn't let him do). Job pulls through because God knows Job's character. If anything, it's God rubbing Job in Satan's face. A battle just isn't there.

[IMINXTC]

Seems like an essential, age-old yet timely treatise or warning against presumptuous religion which defines suffering as punishment.
Also a strong rebuke of those who would contemplate and assess the mind of God, whom they don't actually know.
A lesson worth elaborating imo.

[RandyPNW]

While this isn't the argument I'm making, a book or set of books is no less serious if it's not real history...

We have NT reference to Job. Sounds like James viewed Job's life as *real history.*

James 5.11 As you know, we count as blessed those who have persevered. You have heard of Job’s perseverance and have seen what the Lord finally brought about. The Lord is full of compassion and mercy.

Where did I say God arguing with Satan was silly?

You may not think it was silly, but that's how many would delegitimize biblical history, by denying the supernatural as a silly fabricated moral lesson.

And no, I don't understand the book of Job to be an allusion to Christ, Calvary, and so forth. I see it as an ancient theodicy that examines the idea of a just God and what exactly is God's justice.

Well, you're wrong. Jesus in effect said *all* of the Scriptures were fulfilled in him.

John 5.39 You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me.

Luke 24.27
And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

He doesn't. God spends Job 38 - 41 putting Job in his place, against Job's intent to accuse God of being unjust because he's suffered while being blameless. God doesn't tell Job why he suffered...

Again, the book starts out explaining why Job suffered. It was to prove Satan wrong. I would agree that Job did not understand Why as he went through his trial. He was supposed to suffer without having to know Why.

John 20.29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

He tells job that He is so great and transcendent that Job couldn't possibly understand why. Job understands this in 42:3. In Kierkegaardian terms, we have to engage in a teleological suspension of the ethical. Job never learns what the opening chapters reveal to us. We never learn why God entertained the Satanic accusations in the first place. Neither Job nor the reader get a why.

I do find Kierkegaard very interesting. There is definitely something beyond appearances that tell us what is good and what is not. You do have to suspend judgment at times, so as to not judge by appearances. It is the inner voice of God, speaking to the human conscience, that tell us: "don't judge."

But none of this means we cannot see and judge, when God's voice confirms our judgment. It is a rational world. We simply must wait until all the facts come in, and the picture becomes clearer.

It's not even a metaphorical battle. God brags about Job to Satan and Satan does what he wants with Job because God lets him (and doesn't do what God doesn't let him do). Job pulls through because God knows Job's character. If anything, it's God rubbing Job in Satan's face. A battle just isn't there.

I'm not sure you understand how I'm using "battle," or "celestial warfare." This is a  contest between God and Satan to prove that Job will hold up under extenuating circumstances. God wins. That's the battle.

It's not a battle to see how much pain Job can suffer. Rather, it's a battle over loyalty to the conscience, over loyalty to faith in God that He is good above all.

[RandyPNW]

Seems like an essential, age-old yet timely treatise or warning against presumptuous religion which defines suffering as punishment.
Also a strong rebuke of those who would contemplate and assess the mind of God, whom they don't actually know.
A lesson worth elaborating imo.

I would agree with you at least in part. When we don't know what God is doing with us, and it appears to be unfair, then perhaps it can be said that we don't know the mind of God? In the end, though, we can know what the mind of God had been.

Sometimes when you're riding down the rapids, you're not sure what will happen next, and don't have time to be philosophical about anything. But when the ride is done, and you survived, then you know that the purpose was simply to get from A to B.

I like how you explained this as presumptuous judgment. I do think that's a big part of the lesson of Job, who actually presumed to judge God over something that was true.

It was true that Job was an innocent man, not deserving what he was going through. But God was not unjust to let it happen to him.

Mankind had let sin into the Garden to begin with, and it is in the heart of God, and therefore in our heart, to forgive other men. It is in our created nature to keep our love even when others have determined to go the wrong way, and it costs us.

We all suffer from the decisions others have made. Instead of being filled with hatred, we can choose to follow our conscience and keep a gracious attitude towards all others, in the hope that they start making good choices.

[Athanasius]

We have NT reference to Job. Sounds like James viewed Job's life as *real history.*

James 5.11 As you know, we count as blessed those who have persevered. You have heard of Job’s perseverance and have seen what the Lord finally brought about. The Lord is full of compassion and mercy.

What does this have to do with the seriousness of a work?

I noted earlier that my view isn't the majority view, and I'm fine with that. If Job is historical then I think we really do have legitimate questions to ask about God's justice. Chapter 38 ff doesn't cut it, if chapters 1 and 2 are part of the why.

For what it's worth if someone doesn't catch my "I'm not convinced the book of Job is historical" then they're going to think I think Job is a historical figure too because that's the nature of language.

You may not think it was silly, but that's how many would delegitimize biblical history, by denying the supernatural as a silly fabricated moral lesson.

No one who reads Job seriously is going to do that, and the person who does do this would do it regardless. It's not as if such a person is going to enjoy Esther, think the book of Job is silly fabrication, then launch into the Psalms wholeheartedly.

Well, you're wrong. Jesus in effect said *all* of the Scriptures were fulfilled in him.

John 5.39 You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me.

Luke 24.27
And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

This doesn't mean what you think it means, but I appreciate the misguided confidence.

Again, the book starts out explaining why Job suffered. It was to prove Satan wrong. I would agree that Job did not understand Why as he went through his trial. He was supposed to suffer without having to know Why.

John 20.29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

It doesn't answer why God entertained Satan at all. That's the foundational why, and we don't have an answer for it.

I'm not sure you understand how I'm using "battle," or "celestial warfare." This is a  contest between God and Satan to prove that Job will hold up under extenuating circumstances. God wins. That's the battle.

It's not a battle to see how much pain Job can suffer. Rather, it's a battle over loyalty to the conscience, over loyalty to faith in God that He is good above all.

I understand battle, celestial, warfare, and contest the way they're meant to be understood. If there is a battle somewhere then it's between Job, his friends, and his relation to God.

[RandyPNW]

I understand your arguments because I've thought of them myself. Some things just depend on our own presuppositions and on our own personal experience. I really don't have much more I can say about it. Thanks for your thoughts.

[Fenris]

God doesn't tell Job why he suffered, He tells job that He is so great and transcendent that Job couldn't possibly understand why.

Yes. Yes! This is exactly how Jews understand the book. I could not put it better myself.

[RabbiKnife]

I never realized that anyone interpreted a job any other way…

[RandyPNW]

I never realized that anyone interpreted a job any other way…

RK, that wasn't precise enough to show the disagreement. Fenris is apparently speaking for all Jews, right or wrong, when he says that Job expresses the unknowable mind of God, the "Why" of Job's suffering.

On the other hand, I'm arguing that even though God is transcendent (we all agree on that), the book of Job is an actual explanation as to "Why" God subjected Job to his suffering. It was due to a conversation between God and Satan in which Satan refused to believe that faith in God is any deeper than physical suffering. The moment one suffers, he will choose against God and for his own pleasure and health.

Satan was wrong. And though Job did not understand the "Why" during his trial, he proved that faith in God was more important to him than letting his suffering disrupt him from his righteousness. He did not have to know "Why" he was suffering to choose righteousness. But God gave Job the reason Why after the trial was over.

Some might think it's insufficient to just say one suffered to prove Satan wrong about our motive for choosing righteousness. But I believe that is the basis of our justification, that we choose Christ even though we suffer the repercussions of human sin in our fallen world.

[IMINXTC]

I'm slightly amused, but not in a good way, that of all books, Job is not to be read, understood and comprehended literally, whether or not historicity is a factor (not a factor, imo).

I've read the positions of several modern theologians in recent years who have complained of an "intellectually unsatisfying summation to the morale of the book, an argument I find ludicrous at best.
 
If, as God states, there exists a proactive discussion or even a contest between Himself and Satan, and even if God's faithful become subjected to suffering as a direct result, then there is a dimension to reality we can barely ponder in the here and now - one that reveals a depth to the tragic relationship between God and this fallen angel.

[RabbiKnife]

Most modern"Christians" have no appreciation of the metaphysical, and in particular, of the intense nature of warfare in the heavenlies.  Daniel was shocked to learn that the angel bringing an answer to his prayer was delayed by 3 weeks of battle with the demonic Prince of Persia, and that only the combined power of that angel (who may have been Gabriel) and Michael -- an archangel -- were able to get the messenger free to get through to Daniel.

I know, sadly, that some see a demon behind every shadow and completely over-Peretti the issue, but for we humans to assume that the cosmic war between God and Satan doesn't include us is such huberis.