Why Did God Allow Job to Suffer?

from Google Images

Let’s return to the prologue, vis-à-vis to chapters one and two of the Book of Job once more. Here we find that God addresses a being called the satan. Meaning ‘the enemy’ or ‘the adversary.’ Folks can believe whatever they wish about this being, but I do not recognize him as a spirit being who rebelled against God either before or after the creation of mankind. None of the references to satan, the devil or the serpent show that he is an evil angel. That said, and for the purpose of this study, I’ll hereafter refer to him as the adversary. So, let’s look at what took place between him and the Lord. God spoke with the adversary and pointed to Job, asking if he had considered how Job behaved. God claimed Job was the Lord’s servant, and said he was the most righteous man on earth (Job 1:8). That, in itself, says a great deal about Job, and what we’ve studied about him thus far. Nevertheless, the adversary painted a different picture.

 

Who Do You Think You Are?

from Google Images

Peer pressure can be helpful, when it is properly experienced. For example, if the group wishes to excel in a certain matter, such as good governance, a young politician is likely to desire to govern righteously. A young journalist is often inspired by the excellence of those whose labor had changed the course of history or defended a just cause, which inspired society to behave honorably. Nevertheless, peer pressure, which is always established by the group, may also be a hindrance and a great threat to progress in many things. If truth isn’t important to the group, righteous government would be an unattainable jewel, kept out of reach for the aspiring young politician, as would also be the case of a young journalist, as that pertains to an informed society.

 

Is God the Judge of a Kangaroo Court?[1]

from Google Images

Job was a man who sat in the gate of the city and acted as a judge between the innocent and those who had power to take advantage of their plight, because the innocent often had no power to resist (Job 29:7-17). He, therefore, struggled with his own troubles, which he believed he didn’t deserve. Nevertheless, God is God, and Job is not. God is the Creator and has the right to do as he pleases with the vessels he creates. Job understands this, but has trouble seeing the Lord’s point, if his judgment is always right or just. More than the suffering Job was forced to endure, he wants to understand the perspective of a just God, who would permit the calamities that have overwhelmed Job. Whether it was directly caused by God or permitted to take place through the efforts of evil men, Job wondered: where was the right in it all?

 

Who Is Responsible for Jesus’ Crucifixion?

from Google Images

After Pilate thought to use pity as a tool to gain popular support for his effort to release Jesus and put down the chief priests’ demand for his execution, which was rapidly formulating into an insurrection, the Jewish authorities expressed no appearance of conceding, but cried out all the more: “Crucify him!” and apparently the people echoed their demands, but why? How could the very same folks who praised Jesus and eagerly embraced him as their Messiah only a few days prior to this, suddenly remove their support in favor of Jesus’ enemies?

 

When Authorities Clash!

from Google Images

When the Jewish authorities beheld the man, who had been made whole, carry his bed mat, they reminded him it was the Sabbath day (John 5:10), implying a demanded explanation for his disobedience. The man’s reply is interesting. He didn’t claim ignorance of breaking the Sabbath law; he simply said: “He that made me whole, the same told me: ‘Take up your bed and walk!’” (John 5:11). The reply assumes a man (Jesus) was able to cure something incurable[1] and, therefore, sent by God. In the context of being sent by God, Jesus’ command for the man-made-whole to take up his bed and walk couldn’t have been breaking the Sabbath law. The fact that the man was unable to identify or describe Jesus to the authorities is understandable, since Jesus didn’t remain in that place once the healing had occurred. Moreover, there was also a great multitude there, and the man couldn’t see, where his healer had gone (John 4:13).

 

Healing the Nobleman’s Son

from Google Images

According to the fourth Gospel narrative, after Jesus left Samaria and word got to Capernaum that he was in Cana of Galilee, a certain nobleman, whom we have identified as Chuza (Luke 8:3) and Manaen (Acts 13:1) left his son at Capernaum to travel to Cana and request that Jesus come with him and heal his dying son (John 4:46-47).

 

The Word of Life!

from Google Images

In the study of the prologue of the Gospel of John (John 1:1-18), we have come to the place where it says of the Word: “All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being” (John 1:3). While it is true that the Word, together with the Father (cp. Colossians 1:16) is the Creator of all that exists (John 1:3), the text isn’t speaking of the physical creation, as is normally understood by Biblical scholars. As I mentioned in my previous three studies, I believe the writer of the Gospel of John has covenants in mind, specifically the Old Covenant, at John 1:1-2, for the Old Covenant was his creation according to Hebrews 9:11, and together, both the Word and the God, have taken responsibility for that covenant or creation. In this context, then, the all things that have come into being (or were created; cp. John 1:3) refer to the things of the Old Covenant.

 

Is the Word Merely an Ambassador?

from Google Images

If all that is important is to show the Word is eternal, then we’ve missed the point of the first few verses of the fourth Gospel narrative. If all that is important is that the One who became Jesus is eternal, what is there in the text that would show he is anything more than an ambassador from the Father? Doesn’t an ambassador have authority in that he represents or images the real authority? Later in this narrative, Jesus would say of men ye are gods (John 10:34) in reference to men who are in authority over other men (Psalm 82:6; cp. Psalm 82:1-4, 7). Therefore, if in the beginning refers to the beginning of time (making the Word eternal by saying he preexisted the beginning of time), then there is nothing in John 1:1 that would prove the Word is anything more than an uncreated ambassador in John 1:14 sent by and with the authority of **the** God (the Father)!

 

In the Beginning Was the Word…

from Google Images

The Gospel of John begins with: “In the beginning…” but what is meant by that phrase? Is the author of the Gospel of John referring to Genesis 1:1? The word of God mentions several beginnings. For example, we are told about the beginning of the Gospel (Mark 1:1; Philippians 4:15; Hebrews 2:3). There is also the beginning of the miracles of Jesus (John 2:11), and the beginning or the first principles of the oracles of God (Hebrews 5:12). Even Jesus, himself, is referred to as the Beginning (Colossians 1:18; Revelation 3:14). So, what does the Gospel writer mean by: in the beginning? The Greek word arche (G746) means the “beginning” or the “origin” of something; it is the first of something, meaning its leader or its head. The term often refers to those in authority (Luke 12:11; 20:20; Romans 13:3 and Titus 3:1). Therefore, if we are to understand the beginning of the Gospel of John, we must first come to understand what he means by the phrase in the beginning.

 

Enduring the Season of an Oppressive King

from Google Images

It would be ludicrous to demand a man who is powerful enough to do whatever he pleases to give an account of his activities (Ecclesiastes 8:4; cp. verse-3). This is the kind of power mentioned in scripture that belongs to God (Job 9:12; Isaiah 45:9). Nevertheless, as the shadow is to the reality it represents, so the king is, at least in a limited fashion, with respect to God’s almighty power (Daniel 8:4; 11:3, 16, 36). Although the words: “what doest thou?” are applied only to God in the Bible (Job 9:12; Ezekiel 12:9; Daniel 4:35), the words would have no real meaning, unless the question was also inappropriate concerning a powerful human being. The king (Job 34:18), like the land owner, has unquestioned authority over what belongs to him and those subject to his authority (cp. Matthew 20:15).

 

Submitting Regardless of Consequences

from Google Images

Scholars are divided over the identity of the king mentioned in the text of Ecclesiastes 8:2. Is he a human king, or is he the Lord, the God of the Bible? Some say one, while others say the other, but clouded as his identity may be, I believe, if we consider how the chapter develops, the context demands a human king. Moreover, the Teacher seems to anticipate a wicked king. He contrasts the power of the king with that of the wise man, showing similarities but, more importantly, how one should act. Just as the wise are seen to be the image of God, as that pertains to the power of the wise man’s understanding, so the king is the image of God in his almighty power, taken only in its political context. In other words, the king’s sovereign authority is felt over an entire nation (Ecclesiastes 8:2-4). The Teacher tells us that the wise man is able to change the face of others, vis-à-vis the king, from sternness to contentment or peace (cp. Ecclesiastes 8:1), so the power of either affects the other.

 

Reality Isn’t Always What It Appears to Be

In the previous chapter we were left with the idea that wickedness prevailed in positions of power (Ecclesiastes 3:16). Yet, the Teacher concluded that there was nothing better for man than to enjoy the moment and take pleasure in his labor, because this was his portion (Ecclesiastes 3:22) or gift from God (Ecclesiastes 3:13). However, the Teacher also claimed that the Lord is the final Judge in the end, and nothing done in wickedness would go unpunished (Ecclesiastes 3:17). In other words, God is the ultimate comforter of the oppressed (Ecclesiastes 4:1), but how this transpires is the subject of the current study in chapter four.

 

Who Is the Son of David?

Mark records that no one had the courage to publicly ask Jesus any questions after this series of inquiries (Mark 12:34), but while Matthew essentially says the same thing, he places the remark after Jesus questioned his opponents (cp. Matthew 22:46). What occurred was the reigning authorities, the Sadducees and the Pharisees, had sought to either discredit Jesus in the eyes of the people or to so trap him in his words that would cause the governor to arrest him for provoking the people to rebel against Rome. Not only did their efforts fail, but Jesus emerged from the contest even more powerful with the public than before his enemies approached him (cp. Matthew 22:33).

 

A Matter of Authority

from Google Images

Keep in mind that this is now the third time Jesus entered Jerusalem in four days (he spent the Sabbath at Bethany), and each time he did so he also entered the Temple compound and cast out the moneychangers and them that sold and bought animals for sacrifices. The first time was from Jericho (Matthew 21:12-13), second from Bethany (Mark 11:12-16) and now the third time was from the Mount of Olives, where he had been staying overnight (Luke 19:41, 45-46; cp. 21:37). No doubt, by the third cleansing the Jewish authorities could no longer contain themselves, and they approached him to question his authority for doing all these things (Mark 11:27-28).

 

Having Authority Over a False Worldview

from Google Images

It seems that James and John, if, indeed, they sought to be inconspicuous, failed to keep their ambitious behavior from becoming known to the other Apostles (Mark 10:41), and the others were not amused! Surely, the brothers realized their desires couldn’t be kept secret for long. Were they so convinced that Jesus would grant their request that any opposition from the others would have been futile? How does one know his good idea isn’t as good as it seems? I believe, if one hides his good idea from others in a hope of attaining one’s desires, it should be somewhat clear that something is wrong. Either, deep down, one knows the idea, itself, is a bad idea, or one assumes the folks who might oppose it are evil. At least in the case of the Apostles, I think the former must be true, but worldly ambition both veils reality and drives good people to do wrong things.