Lee Harmon's Blog, page 87
July 26, 2012
Mark 6:8-9, Should We Carry a Staff?
He commanded them to take nothing for the journey except a staff--no bag, no bread, no copper in their money belts, but to wear sandals, and not to put on two tunics.
//So Mark’s Gospel explicitly commands evangelists to carry a staff. But here is Matthew’s version:
"Provide neither gold nor silver nor copper in your money belts, nor bag for your journey, nor two tunics, nor sandals, nor staffs; for a worker is worthy of his food.” –Matthew 10:10
The two Gospels thus stand as polar opposites. Matthew expressly forbids a staff, Mark commands one. So which did Jesus say? Carry a staff or not? We may be tempted to go with the earliest version—Mark’s—and assume Matthew amended Mark’s Gospel for his own purpose. But the analysis turns more complex when we read Luke:
And He said to them, "Take nothing for the journey, neither staffs nor bag nor bread nor money; and do not have two tunics apiece.—Luke 9:3
Of course, Luke is also written after Mark, and like Matthew, written with a copy of Mark in front of the author. But most scholars consider Luke and Matthew to be independent sources, not dependent upon one another. So, what are the odds that they would BOTH change the Gospel of Mark, in precisely the same location, with a direct contradiction?
Answer: Either Mark was inadvertently changed later, or Matthew and Luke must have had another common source besides Mark … perhaps the Q Gospel. This, of course, means the source instructing evangelists to not carry a staff precedes the instruction to carry a staff, and becomes the original desire of Jesus.
Leave your staff home, guys.
//So Mark’s Gospel explicitly commands evangelists to carry a staff. But here is Matthew’s version:
"Provide neither gold nor silver nor copper in your money belts, nor bag for your journey, nor two tunics, nor sandals, nor staffs; for a worker is worthy of his food.” –Matthew 10:10
The two Gospels thus stand as polar opposites. Matthew expressly forbids a staff, Mark commands one. So which did Jesus say? Carry a staff or not? We may be tempted to go with the earliest version—Mark’s—and assume Matthew amended Mark’s Gospel for his own purpose. But the analysis turns more complex when we read Luke:
And He said to them, "Take nothing for the journey, neither staffs nor bag nor bread nor money; and do not have two tunics apiece.—Luke 9:3
Of course, Luke is also written after Mark, and like Matthew, written with a copy of Mark in front of the author. But most scholars consider Luke and Matthew to be independent sources, not dependent upon one another. So, what are the odds that they would BOTH change the Gospel of Mark, in precisely the same location, with a direct contradiction?
Answer: Either Mark was inadvertently changed later, or Matthew and Luke must have had another common source besides Mark … perhaps the Q Gospel. This, of course, means the source instructing evangelists to not carry a staff precedes the instruction to carry a staff, and becomes the original desire of Jesus.
Leave your staff home, guys.
July 25, 2012
Genesis 2:9, How many trees in the Garden of Eden?
And out of the ground the LORD God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
//Lots of trees in the garden, but two were special, the two that were planted in the middle of the garden … or was it just a single tree? God refers to only one as he instructs Adam:
And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." –Genesis 2:16-17
Later, the serpent tempts Eve, asking her what she is allowed to eat. She mentions only the one “in the middle of the garden”:
The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.'" –Genesis 3:2-3
Could the two trees have been one and the same? When Revelation is penned promising a new Eden, why is there only one great tree there? Is the tree of life also the tree of knowledge? After all, what did Adam and Eve learn to do with their new knowledge? They made life.
Adam lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. –Genesis 4:1
//Lots of trees in the garden, but two were special, the two that were planted in the middle of the garden … or was it just a single tree? God refers to only one as he instructs Adam:
And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." –Genesis 2:16-17
Later, the serpent tempts Eve, asking her what she is allowed to eat. She mentions only the one “in the middle of the garden”:
The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.'" –Genesis 3:2-3
Could the two trees have been one and the same? When Revelation is penned promising a new Eden, why is there only one great tree there? Is the tree of life also the tree of knowledge? After all, what did Adam and Eve learn to do with their new knowledge? They made life.
Adam lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. –Genesis 4:1
July 24, 2012
Book review: Clear Faith
by Susan Stover
★★★★
Did Jesus rise bodily from the dead? Yes. No. Maybe. This event, the central tenet of Christianity, is a faith-reinforcer for some and a stumbling block for others. It needn’t be the latter, nor do any of the unbelievable stories of our faith tradition need to get in the way. Imagine a simple faith that looks beyond even the Resurrection, finding the ambiguity in even its message acceptable.
Do you find some of the stories and explanations in the Bible a bit extreme? Take heart. Clear Faith doesn’t need atonement. It doesn’t need an afterlife reward. It doesn’t need an understanding of the Trinity, or even a Jesus any bigger than the one uncovered by Historical Jesus scholars. Clear Faith is just an unassuming, uncomplicated, uncluttered trust in God.
Which God? Is there even a real God outside our brains? We just don’t know. Stover insists that believing in God is a personal choice, and explains: “To me, God is appropriately regarded as a mystery. Hope. Infinite possibility. Compassion—oneness with all that is. Pure, unlimited surrounding LOVE. God surrounds and dwells within us, and I choose to cherish that belief and let it shape my way of living and being.”
Don’t buy this book looking for originality or deep, theological probing. It’s short and sweet, to the point, and reliant upon the deeper research of other scholars. Stover liberally quotes the writings of Marcus Borg, Karen Armstrong, and Robin R. Meyers, so if your favorite Liberal Christian is among this list, you’re in good hands.
This book will resonate with many, many people. It’s possible that some will find it comforting to read, simply to reinforce that they are not alone in their “spiritual-but-not-religious” mindset, but in my opinion the book’s greatest value is as a way for progressive/liberal/SBNR Christians to share their journey with their conservative family. Stover’s approach is not at all heavy-handed but gentle and explanatory, so it’s a simple way of communicating what so many of us feel.
★★★★
Did Jesus rise bodily from the dead? Yes. No. Maybe. This event, the central tenet of Christianity, is a faith-reinforcer for some and a stumbling block for others. It needn’t be the latter, nor do any of the unbelievable stories of our faith tradition need to get in the way. Imagine a simple faith that looks beyond even the Resurrection, finding the ambiguity in even its message acceptable.
Do you find some of the stories and explanations in the Bible a bit extreme? Take heart. Clear Faith doesn’t need atonement. It doesn’t need an afterlife reward. It doesn’t need an understanding of the Trinity, or even a Jesus any bigger than the one uncovered by Historical Jesus scholars. Clear Faith is just an unassuming, uncomplicated, uncluttered trust in God.
Which God? Is there even a real God outside our brains? We just don’t know. Stover insists that believing in God is a personal choice, and explains: “To me, God is appropriately regarded as a mystery. Hope. Infinite possibility. Compassion—oneness with all that is. Pure, unlimited surrounding LOVE. God surrounds and dwells within us, and I choose to cherish that belief and let it shape my way of living and being.”
Don’t buy this book looking for originality or deep, theological probing. It’s short and sweet, to the point, and reliant upon the deeper research of other scholars. Stover liberally quotes the writings of Marcus Borg, Karen Armstrong, and Robin R. Meyers, so if your favorite Liberal Christian is among this list, you’re in good hands.
This book will resonate with many, many people. It’s possible that some will find it comforting to read, simply to reinforce that they are not alone in their “spiritual-but-not-religious” mindset, but in my opinion the book’s greatest value is as a way for progressive/liberal/SBNR Christians to share their journey with their conservative family. Stover’s approach is not at all heavy-handed but gentle and explanatory, so it’s a simple way of communicating what so many of us feel.
July 23, 2012
Jeremiah 32:27, God can do anything! Except this...
"I am the LORD, the God of all mankind. Is anything too hard for me?"
//Omni-everything is our God! Matthew 19:26 says all things are possible with God. Luke 1:37 promises nothing is impossible with God. In today's verse, God himself makes the claim. Well, actually God poses a rhetorical question. He doesn't actually say he can do anything.
Because it turns out one thing is too tough for even God to handle: Chariots of iron in battle.
And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron (Judges 1:19).
//Omni-everything is our God! Matthew 19:26 says all things are possible with God. Luke 1:37 promises nothing is impossible with God. In today's verse, God himself makes the claim. Well, actually God poses a rhetorical question. He doesn't actually say he can do anything.
Because it turns out one thing is too tough for even God to handle: Chariots of iron in battle.
And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron (Judges 1:19).
July 22, 2012
John 17:3, What is eternal life?
And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
//The Greek word aionios appears seventeen times in John’s Gospel, always translated in the King James Version to either “eternal” or “everlasting.” It's a key theme to the Gospel. But what does it really mean?
What it doesn't mean is life in heaven. It's unfortunate that the word John uses over and over has been translated as it has, because the words “eternal” and “everlasting” don’t manage to convey the bliss intended. In actuality, the word speaks not of the quantity of life, but the quality. It means, specifically, “the life in the age to come.” Bible scholars typically retranslate "eternal life" as "life in abundance" or "fullness of life."
This does not mean John denies an afterlife up in heaven, it just means his focus is elsewhere. John never mentions living up in heaven. His concern is that, by knowing God, we will share a richer life on earth.
With that in mind … we’ve just completed the editing stage on my book about John’s Gospel, and we’ll soon be looking for media willing to review! Anybody interested? http://thewayithappened.com/john.shtml
//The Greek word aionios appears seventeen times in John’s Gospel, always translated in the King James Version to either “eternal” or “everlasting.” It's a key theme to the Gospel. But what does it really mean?
What it doesn't mean is life in heaven. It's unfortunate that the word John uses over and over has been translated as it has, because the words “eternal” and “everlasting” don’t manage to convey the bliss intended. In actuality, the word speaks not of the quantity of life, but the quality. It means, specifically, “the life in the age to come.” Bible scholars typically retranslate "eternal life" as "life in abundance" or "fullness of life."
This does not mean John denies an afterlife up in heaven, it just means his focus is elsewhere. John never mentions living up in heaven. His concern is that, by knowing God, we will share a richer life on earth.
With that in mind … we’ve just completed the editing stage on my book about John’s Gospel, and we’ll soon be looking for media willing to review! Anybody interested? http://thewayithappened.com/john.shtml
July 21, 2012
Book review: Faith in the Public Square
by Robert Cornwall
★★★★★
From the introduction: Nearly three decades ago Richard John Neuhaus wrote a book with an arresting title—The Naked Public Square. Neuhaus’ argument was simple—religion is in danger of losing its traditional place in the public square, or rather the public square was in danger of losing the leavening agency of religion.
The title of Cornwall’s new book intrigued me, and the writing didn’t disappoint. How is it that religion remains a constant presence in our public lives, yet is disappearing from public conversation? Robert helps out with this collection of short, two-page essays written for publication in the Lompoc Record (Lompoc, California). I can picture the Record lying open to his column on a Lompoc park bench, two men holding it down between them against the brisk wind. They are reading and discussing the day in 2007 when Congress convened, witnessing several American religious firsts, including the seating of two Buddhists and a Muslim as congressional representatives. Does this mean we’re witnessing the realization of America’s promise as a land of freedom for people of every religious background?
Cornwall’s passions seem to be religion and politics, and he loves writing about where the two overlap (whether beneficially or not), but the topics aren’t limited to this. Toward the end of the collection he strays to other controversial issues such as stem cell research, the source of sexual preference, and “enhanced interrogation techniques” (torture). Cornwall’s writing is piercing, yet engrossing because it’s both intelligent and balanced. Of religious differences, he is respectful, sharing his own beliefs without elaboration or evangelism.
I really enjoyed this one. But hopefully I’m allowed one complaint: Guys, when you put together an anthology of writings like this, could you please date each one? Our world is changing so fast, and I’m one of those readers who begins every book by noting the publication date, so I can match the writing to the atmosphere and knowledge of the day.
★★★★★
From the introduction: Nearly three decades ago Richard John Neuhaus wrote a book with an arresting title—The Naked Public Square. Neuhaus’ argument was simple—religion is in danger of losing its traditional place in the public square, or rather the public square was in danger of losing the leavening agency of religion.
The title of Cornwall’s new book intrigued me, and the writing didn’t disappoint. How is it that religion remains a constant presence in our public lives, yet is disappearing from public conversation? Robert helps out with this collection of short, two-page essays written for publication in the Lompoc Record (Lompoc, California). I can picture the Record lying open to his column on a Lompoc park bench, two men holding it down between them against the brisk wind. They are reading and discussing the day in 2007 when Congress convened, witnessing several American religious firsts, including the seating of two Buddhists and a Muslim as congressional representatives. Does this mean we’re witnessing the realization of America’s promise as a land of freedom for people of every religious background?
Cornwall’s passions seem to be religion and politics, and he loves writing about where the two overlap (whether beneficially or not), but the topics aren’t limited to this. Toward the end of the collection he strays to other controversial issues such as stem cell research, the source of sexual preference, and “enhanced interrogation techniques” (torture). Cornwall’s writing is piercing, yet engrossing because it’s both intelligent and balanced. Of religious differences, he is respectful, sharing his own beliefs without elaboration or evangelism.
I really enjoyed this one. But hopefully I’m allowed one complaint: Guys, when you put together an anthology of writings like this, could you please date each one? Our world is changing so fast, and I’m one of those readers who begins every book by noting the publication date, so I can match the writing to the atmosphere and knowledge of the day.
July 20, 2012
Philippians 2:5-11, The Divine Christ Hymn
Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus,
who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,
but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.
And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.
Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name,
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth,
and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
//What I've just quoted was written by Paul, in a book which is universally considered authentic ... that is, penned by Paul's own hand. He appears to be quoting a hymn of some sort, and in so doing, claiming Jesus' divinity "in the form of God." Some translations even present it as a direct claim: "Though he was God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to." - NLT.
But did Paul really think of Jesus in these terms, as God Himself coming down to earth? Or even as a pre-existing, divine being? This is a hotly debated topic; critical scholars are nearly unified in believing that the idea that Jesus was God developed later in Christianity, so how should we interpret this hymn? What does it mean about early Christian beliefs? Earlier even than Paul, who quoted an already-existing source expecting it to be recognized.
There are some problems with the "Jesus is God" interpretation. The text is actually quite clear that Jesus was in the form of God, not God himself. And it is God who exalts Jesus, apparently exalting him higher than he was before ... meaning, Jesus wasn't God beforehand. So what was he? The scholarly opinions are legion.
Many scholars do not think it means Christ existed before birth. They think it is talking about Christ as the "second Adam," who was like the first man, Adam, but who acted very differently.
The first Adam is made in the image of God (compare to "in the form of God"), and so is the second Adam. The first Adam wanted to be "equal with God," and reached for the fruit of the tree of knowledge that would make him like God. The second Adam, by contrast, denied himself that status, humbly submitting even to death. Therefore, God exalted him to a higher status than before.
who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,
but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.
And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.
Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name,
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth,
and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
//What I've just quoted was written by Paul, in a book which is universally considered authentic ... that is, penned by Paul's own hand. He appears to be quoting a hymn of some sort, and in so doing, claiming Jesus' divinity "in the form of God." Some translations even present it as a direct claim: "Though he was God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to." - NLT.
But did Paul really think of Jesus in these terms, as God Himself coming down to earth? Or even as a pre-existing, divine being? This is a hotly debated topic; critical scholars are nearly unified in believing that the idea that Jesus was God developed later in Christianity, so how should we interpret this hymn? What does it mean about early Christian beliefs? Earlier even than Paul, who quoted an already-existing source expecting it to be recognized.
There are some problems with the "Jesus is God" interpretation. The text is actually quite clear that Jesus was in the form of God, not God himself. And it is God who exalts Jesus, apparently exalting him higher than he was before ... meaning, Jesus wasn't God beforehand. So what was he? The scholarly opinions are legion.
Many scholars do not think it means Christ existed before birth. They think it is talking about Christ as the "second Adam," who was like the first man, Adam, but who acted very differently.
The first Adam is made in the image of God (compare to "in the form of God"), and so is the second Adam. The first Adam wanted to be "equal with God," and reached for the fruit of the tree of knowledge that would make him like God. The second Adam, by contrast, denied himself that status, humbly submitting even to death. Therefore, God exalted him to a higher status than before.
July 19, 2012
Ezekiel 45:18-19, Ezekiel Changes the Law
This is what the Sovereign LORD says: In the first month on the first day you are to take a young bull without defect and purify the sanctuary. The priest is to take some of the blood of the sin offering and put it on the doorposts of the temple, on the four corners of the upper ledge of the altar and on the gateposts of the inner court.
//In these verses, Ezekiel describes the new Temple in God’s glorious new age (which he expects to occur as soon as the Jews are released from captivity in Babylon and allowed to return to Judea), and explains how a young bull is to be sacrificed as a sin offering in the first month of the year (Springtime, on the Jewish calendar). The odd thing about this is that this atonement sacrifice is supposed to be made in the Fall, during the Day of Atonement. Instead, Ezekiel moves the sacrifice to around the time of the Passover celebration. It is as if he merges the Fall and Spring festivals into one, with Passover absorbing the Day of Atonement.
Scholars argue about the reason for Ezekiel’s change of instructions. Some feel it illustrates nothing more than Ezekiel feeling free to creatively describe multiple Old Testament rituals with a single brush stroke. Others note that the instructions for applying the blood of the bull to the “upper ledge” and “gateposts” sounds an awful lot like the instructions God gave Israel for the blood of the lamb at Passover time.
I see the same thing in John’s Gospel. John doesn’t write chronologically, but purposefully tells the story of Jesus’ arrival at Jerusalem over and over, under the banner of different festival themes: The Feast of Booths, Hanukkah, Passover. It’s as if all of the feasts have been merged into one. Why?
Perhaps because nearly every feast has at the core of its tradition an expectation of the Messiah’s arrival. A dream of the Messiah arriving during that feast. But Jesus can’t come during them all, can he? He can only come once.
So, John, and Ezekiel before him, combine the major feasts into one.
//In these verses, Ezekiel describes the new Temple in God’s glorious new age (which he expects to occur as soon as the Jews are released from captivity in Babylon and allowed to return to Judea), and explains how a young bull is to be sacrificed as a sin offering in the first month of the year (Springtime, on the Jewish calendar). The odd thing about this is that this atonement sacrifice is supposed to be made in the Fall, during the Day of Atonement. Instead, Ezekiel moves the sacrifice to around the time of the Passover celebration. It is as if he merges the Fall and Spring festivals into one, with Passover absorbing the Day of Atonement.
Scholars argue about the reason for Ezekiel’s change of instructions. Some feel it illustrates nothing more than Ezekiel feeling free to creatively describe multiple Old Testament rituals with a single brush stroke. Others note that the instructions for applying the blood of the bull to the “upper ledge” and “gateposts” sounds an awful lot like the instructions God gave Israel for the blood of the lamb at Passover time.
I see the same thing in John’s Gospel. John doesn’t write chronologically, but purposefully tells the story of Jesus’ arrival at Jerusalem over and over, under the banner of different festival themes: The Feast of Booths, Hanukkah, Passover. It’s as if all of the feasts have been merged into one. Why?
Perhaps because nearly every feast has at the core of its tradition an expectation of the Messiah’s arrival. A dream of the Messiah arriving during that feast. But Jesus can’t come during them all, can he? He can only come once.
So, John, and Ezekiel before him, combine the major feasts into one.
July 18, 2012
Book review: The Time is at Hand
by Jay E. Adams
★★★★
This book is sort of a “recent classic,” first copyrighted in 1966 and reprinted four times since then. It’s a discussion of Bible chronology, leaning heavily upon a historical analysis of the book of Revelation.
Adams is a “realized millennialist,” meaning he believes the 1000-year millennium spoken of in Revelation (an “age” not necessarily meaning precisely 1000 years) has already arrived. It began in early New Testament times, and continues till the present. This is the period in which Satan is bound in chains. “Binding” doesn’t mean total inability, of course, for then one could hardly believe Jesus when he claimed to bind the strong man (Satan).
Now, since Adams is also a post-millennialist, meaning he believes Jesus will arrive after the millennium, he is able to reconcile the fact that Revelation’s horrors mimic precisely the age in which its author lived (the first century) and still look forward to Christ’s second coming. The “real” golden age, with eternal life, is just around the corner. The time is at hand.
I applaud the way Adams takes seriously the references in Revelation to the first century and the urgency of its message. Still, this interpretation always feels to me a little like having your cake and eating it too.
★★★★
This book is sort of a “recent classic,” first copyrighted in 1966 and reprinted four times since then. It’s a discussion of Bible chronology, leaning heavily upon a historical analysis of the book of Revelation.
Adams is a “realized millennialist,” meaning he believes the 1000-year millennium spoken of in Revelation (an “age” not necessarily meaning precisely 1000 years) has already arrived. It began in early New Testament times, and continues till the present. This is the period in which Satan is bound in chains. “Binding” doesn’t mean total inability, of course, for then one could hardly believe Jesus when he claimed to bind the strong man (Satan).
Now, since Adams is also a post-millennialist, meaning he believes Jesus will arrive after the millennium, he is able to reconcile the fact that Revelation’s horrors mimic precisely the age in which its author lived (the first century) and still look forward to Christ’s second coming. The “real” golden age, with eternal life, is just around the corner. The time is at hand.
I applaud the way Adams takes seriously the references in Revelation to the first century and the urgency of its message. Still, this interpretation always feels to me a little like having your cake and eating it too.
July 16, 2012
Job 5:17, The Advice of Job's Friends
Behold, happy is the man whom God corrects; Therefore do not despise the chastening of the Almighty.
//Yesterday, I pointed out that the richest, holiest man on earth was not an Israelite but a hated Edomite. His name was Job.
But what about Job’s friends? They arrive to comfort Job in his suffering.
So they sat down with him on the ground seven days and seven nights, and no one spoke a word to him, for they saw that his grief was very great. –Job 2:13
When they feel it’s appropriate to speak, they tell Job that if he will only recognize his sin and repent of it, God will surely forgive him. Round and round they go for many long chapters as they explore Job’s apparent sin as the reason for his misfortune, while Job insists he has done nothing wrong.
The friends are, in John Dominic Crossan’s words, “Deuteronomic fundamentalists.”* Their certainty about Job’s sin comes direct from the Torah, the law of God:
But it shall come to pass, if you do not obey the voice of the LORD your God … Cursed shall be the fruit of your body and the produce of your land, the increase of your cattle and the offspring of your flocks … The LORD will send on you cursing, confusion, and rebuke in all that you set your hand to do, until you are destroyed and until you perish quickly, because of the wickedness of your doings in which you have forsaken Me. –Excerpts from Deuteronomy 28
The friends are by-the-book Deuteronomists who believe that God rewards virtue and punishes evil. Job must have sinned; that is why God killed Job’s cattle, his family, his servants.
Of course, we know differently from the story. It turns out the friends are wrong, Deuteronomy is wrong, and though Job is never told the reason for his suffering, everything is restored. Job, the anti-Jew, is in the right.
What is this book doing in our Bible??
[*] see The Power of Parable, by John Dominic Crossan
//Yesterday, I pointed out that the richest, holiest man on earth was not an Israelite but a hated Edomite. His name was Job.
But what about Job’s friends? They arrive to comfort Job in his suffering.
So they sat down with him on the ground seven days and seven nights, and no one spoke a word to him, for they saw that his grief was very great. –Job 2:13
When they feel it’s appropriate to speak, they tell Job that if he will only recognize his sin and repent of it, God will surely forgive him. Round and round they go for many long chapters as they explore Job’s apparent sin as the reason for his misfortune, while Job insists he has done nothing wrong.
The friends are, in John Dominic Crossan’s words, “Deuteronomic fundamentalists.”* Their certainty about Job’s sin comes direct from the Torah, the law of God:
But it shall come to pass, if you do not obey the voice of the LORD your God … Cursed shall be the fruit of your body and the produce of your land, the increase of your cattle and the offspring of your flocks … The LORD will send on you cursing, confusion, and rebuke in all that you set your hand to do, until you are destroyed and until you perish quickly, because of the wickedness of your doings in which you have forsaken Me. –Excerpts from Deuteronomy 28
The friends are by-the-book Deuteronomists who believe that God rewards virtue and punishes evil. Job must have sinned; that is why God killed Job’s cattle, his family, his servants.
Of course, we know differently from the story. It turns out the friends are wrong, Deuteronomy is wrong, and though Job is never told the reason for his suffering, everything is restored. Job, the anti-Jew, is in the right.
What is this book doing in our Bible??
[*] see The Power of Parable, by John Dominic Crossan
