When Apologetics Incur God’s Wrath

Theodic discourse, that is, pious justification of evil and suffering, provokes God’s anger in the book of Job. In the book of Job, it is the sufferer, the one who screams bloody murder from a location within God’s jaws; it is the screaming sufferer who unlocks those jaws. Accusatory Job encounters divine favor, and is commended by God for having spoken rightly and sincerely about God.

It’s not what you say. It’s who you say it to, in what context. God, it appears, can take whatever *%#! we throw at him.

It’s right there in Job 42:7-8. Below the jump, text, translation, and commentary.

The sufferer, the one who inveighs against God from the viscera of her suffering, she alone is in a position to pray on behalf of those who only know how to say nice things about God. The opposite is inconceivable. 

The key lines that attest to these conclusions are found in Job 42:7-8:

וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל־אֱלִיפַז הַתֵּימָנִי

חָרָה אַפִּי בְךָ וּבִשְׁנֵי רֵעֶיךָ

כִּי לֹא דִבַּרְתֶּם אֵלַי נְכוֹנָה

כְּעַבְדִּי אִיּוֹב׃ .   .  .

 

וְאִיּוֹב עַבְדִּי יִתְפַּלֵּל עֲלֵיכֶם

כִּי אִם־פָּנָיו אֶשָּׂא

לְבִלְתִּי עֲשׂוֹת עִמָּכֶם נְבָלָה

כִּי לֹא דִבַּרְתֶּם אֵלַי נְכוֹנָה

כְּעַבְדִּי אִיּוֹב׃

Yhwh said to Eliphaz of Teman:
I am incensed at you and your two friends
because you did not speak about me sincerely
as did my servant Job. . . .

And let Job my servant pray on your behalf
that I may favor him
by not treating you like fools
because you did not speak about me sincerely
as did my servant Job.

The translation I offer differs to some degree from other translations. The words of most interest, the repeated ones, are rendered as follows elsewhere:

Gordis: for you have not spoken the truth about Me as has My servant Job.
NJPSV: for you have not spoken the truth about Me as did My servant Job.
NLTSE: for you have not spoken accurately about me, as my servant Job has.
(T)NIV: because you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has.
ESV: for you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has.
NRSV: for you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has done.

I could be wrong – the people of Better Bibles are welcome to help out here – but I think that all the cited translations use “biblical” rather than vernacular diction.

In terms of syntax, in the sense that all cited translations except (T)NIV make use of “for” in a way that is less and less idiomatic with each day that passes. Yet “for” is darn good Biblish. It’s used all over the place in most Bible translations. Not so much everywhere else.

In terms of phraseology, in the sense that all cited translations except Gordis, NJPSV, and NLTSE make “what is right” the direct object of a verb of speaking. Let’s face it: “what is right” is an ugly duckling of a phrase. It is meant, one must suppose, as an improvement on KJV:

KJV: for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath.

“The thing that is right” and “what is right” are murky translations of a relatively clear source text. Still, I am not completely convinced by any of the cited translations.

Yes, it can be said that Job spoke the truth about God, and that he spoke accurately, whereas his friends did not. NLTSB’s comment is pertinent:

Unlike his three friends (cp. 13:7-10), Job had spoken accurately about God. Job’s blunt questions were better suited to arriving at the truth about God than the friends’ superficial orthodox doctrine.

But I don’t think that accuracy or truth is at issue. It is Job’s sincerity that sets him apart from his friends. That's why Job's discourse is full of questions, even tormented accusations. The relevant word in Hebrew - נכונה  - has the nuance of sincerity in Ps 5:10.  

NJPSV: for there is no sincerity (נכונה) on their lips

Because Job is sincere, he is also truthful. At the very least, he succeeds in articulating the truth as he understands it before God. This is more than Job’s friends do, who like to talk about God, whereas Job prefers to talk with God, even if that means confronting God.

The divine verdict of Job 42:7-8 is of a piece with the entire biblical discourse. Wherever one looks in the Bible, the incriminating words of a sufferer are acceptable in God’s sight. If anything, the book of Job shies away from a blank-check acceptance thereof by means of the deity’s cross-examination of Job out of the whirlwind. The psalms of lament in the Psalter, per contra, are a witness to full acceptance. Were it not so, God would not reply to the incriminations of the sufferer with favor and mercy. The note of thanksgiving on which many psalms of grievance end, psalms that are highly accusatory in the face of divine mistreatment, psalms that do not in God’s name accuse the supplicant in turn, such psalms are an enduring witness to the experience of God as an anthropodic, not a theodic, being. They document that, in concrete acts of self-expression, Yhwh is a deity who takes up humanity’s cause. In taking up suffering humanity’s cause, it might be said, he takes up his own. The book of Job does not break the mold of the grievance psalms. It follows their suit and complicates their plot.

Apologetics incur God’s wrath more often than is sometimes realized. In particular, one must be very careful about justifying the ways of God to men. That’s what Job’s friends did. But God, according to the book of Job, was of the opinion that with friends like these, neither he nor Job needed enemies.

Comments

[Bob MacDonald]

John what do you think of the gloss: or you have not spoken of me what is prepared as has my servant Job

Job is the only one who prays in the whole epic and what he intimates repeatedly in his speeches is exactly what we need of our God.

[Bob MacDonald]

whoops - I dropped an 'f' For you have not ... I agree with 'For'. It is a very useful preposition.

[Bob MacDonald]

I see also that in the use of this root, I have been discordant in my translation - establish adds an interesting aspect here - you have not spoken what has been established. In this usage, Job is seen as affirming the view of God that is established in contrast to his sufferings which mimic the curses of Deuteronomy.

[JohnFH]

Hi Bob,

"What is prepared" for נכונה is a new one on me. I don't think it's likely that the text's author had such a meaning in mind. The narrative here is not cryptic in style, whereas נכונה = "what is prepared" would be.

[Martin Shields]

Hi John. A thought-provoking post, as usual! In light of your observation that Job speaks with God, you might be interested to read Andrew Barry's suggestion here (cf. my comments).

[JohnFH]

Hi Martin,

Thanks for the links. I like Barry's homiletical points but not his translation proposal.

I find it excellent that you dismiss statistics as a guide to deciding the best option in terms of text interpretation. Statistics have wonderful uses, but that is not one of them.

אל in the sense of "concerning, in consideration of" with verba dicendi is firmly attested - note Gen 20:2 and 2 Sam 1:24 - and fits the context of Job 42 better than the alternatives.

[Bob MacDonald]

Hi John - that verb is used 15 times in Job - I wonder if it has a thematic purpose. Bildad encourages Job to 'establish the findings of their fathers'. Zophar tells him to 'establish his heart'. Job mocks these two using the word for himself as 'prepared for those whose feet are slipping'. Eliphaz uses it twice in chapter 15 : he knows that prepared in his hand is the day of darkness, and their belly prepares deceit. Bildad again of the wicked "famished is his vigor, a burden prepared for his rib". Job (21:8) again of the wicked - their seed is established before them... In chapter 27 it is hard to tell who is shouting at whom - the word is used twice. In chapter 28, it is God who 'prepares' the place for wisdom. Job frames his confession with the word - 29:7 and 31:15. Yhwh uses it of the raven's food. There is too much of a possibility of a 'sounds like' theme here to suddenly switch to 'getting it right' as a trope.

[Martin Shields]

John,

I quite agree that אל ought to be understood in the sense of "concerning" in Job 42:7. Thanks for highlighting the additional examples (I'd only chosen instances with דבר).

However, having thought about it a little while out running, I'm not so sure about "sincerely." I think I know where you're coming from (although I may be deceiving myself!) — Job's speech was more profound, more heartfelt, and in that sense more sincere. But the problem is I think Job's friends were also sincere in that they were themselves profoundly convicted as to the truth of their assertions about God. What distinguished them from Job was, firstly, the certitude with which they held their convictions whereas Job's circumstances had forced him to question the doctrine the friends held so dear. Secondly, they were clearly wrong about their analysis of Job's circumstances.

I don't think this undermines the point you make about apologetics. My feeling is that often apologists make overly simplistic claims about doctrine of all sorts and, in doing so, misrepresent the truth. The Book of Job well reflects the complexity of God's universe, a complexity which Job begins to appreciate but which his friends fail to comprehend.

[David Ker]

"Theodic discourse, that is, pious justification of evil and suffering"

Is that the normal definition of "theodic"? I've understood it to be the insistence on God's goodness rather than justification of evil, etc.

[JohnFH]

Happy New Year, everyone.

Bob,

I never thought to read נכונה in light of the use of the cognate verb in the book of Job. It's worth taking a look at.

Martin,

If I understand you correctly, you support the exegesis of Gordis and NJPSV, which sees truth at stake, not sincerity. I prefer this analysis from a subjective point of view, but find it hard to square, objectively, with God's reproof of Job in his tirades from the whirlwind.

I'm glad to see that we agree about the meaning of the preposition in this passage. BTW, I think Gordis is quite wrong to suggest that el-al confusion is going on. No, el simply has distinct and context-dependent uses some of which can only be disambiguated at the macrosemantic level. Like the use of prepositions in every language I know.

David,

The trouble is, insisting on God's goodness in some situations amounts to justifying evil and suffering.

For example, an Italian woman who spent much of her life in an iron lung and wrote about her life in a way that many found helpful tells the story of a nun who comes to visit her and says, "it must be wonderful to share in the sufferings of Christ as you are doing." She tartly replied, "You are welcome to take my place at any time."

The "greater good" defense is an insincere and blasphemous initiative when undertaken by a person who munches on popcorn snuggled up with his kiddies vis-a-vis someone who has lost everything he holds dear.

[David Ker]

Gotcha. That makes sense.

I haven't given much thought to Job since our wonderful exchanges in 2007. I'm making resolutions for Bible reading at the moment. Maybe that needs to be included.

[Woofin]

Hi John,

Is "authenticity" the concept you are looking for? Or is that too anachronistic?

I find it interesting that the book of Job pays so much sustained attention to nature -- or Nature -- in something like our modern Romantic/scientific sense. I don't recall any other book of the Bible where this is so, not even Genesis.

[Woofin]

Hmmm, poorly worded, that last bit about nature, I'm sure. I feel as if there's an important point just beyond my grasp here, but I lack the technical background to follow up and latch onto it.

[JohnFH]

Hi Woofin,

You are definitely onto something. Alan Mittleman’s essay, “The Job of Judaism and the Job of Kant,” HTR 102 (2009)25-50, deals with the issues you are grappling with, and many more. You should have no difficulty downloading this article online.

[Rich Rhodes]

Since my undergraduate days, I've always had a jaundiced view of theology. This is because I had a roommate whose church split over pre-trib/mid-trib rapture, and it was incredibly ugly. I always took Titus 3:9 as being about this.

But I had always had trouble as well with people putting God in a neat theological box, as Job shows. I talk about this in terms that boil down to sincerity, so it's nice to hear that there is textual support for that kind of language.

If this were Facebook I'd "like" this post.

[JohnFH]

Maybe it works like this: that God takes care of truth (a kinetic more than a noetic reality), whether we get it or not noetically.

Sincerity is what he asks of us. Sincerity is still an ethical concept, whereas authenticity too often becomes a justification for all manner of unethical behavior.

[Edward T. Babinski]

SPEAKING OF CHRISTIAN APOLOGISTS AND LESSONS FROM JOB:

One of C. S. Lewis' close Inkling friends, Charles Williams, thought little of Lewis' apologetic work, The Problem of Pain, because as Williams pointed out, in the BOOK OF JOB God's displeasure was reserved for Job's "comforters" who were busy giving Job every "reason" for why he was suffering:

The weight of the divine displeasure had been reserved for the 'comforters', the self-appointed advocates on God's side, the people who tried to show that all was well--'the sort of people', he said, immeasurably dropping his lower jaw and fixing me with his eyes--'the sort of people who wrote books on the Problem of Pain'. [What Charles Williams told Anscombe] http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2005/10/theodicists-and-jobs-comforters.html

P.S., Please note, when you are reading the Problem of Pain where Lewis claims he has very little difficulty imagining an eternal hell for human beings that may also function as an eternal heaven for mosquitoes. I wonder why Lewis stopped there? Why not add, "...and an eternal heaven for sharks, and every bacterial pathogen?"

[Edward T. Babinski]

There's a book that discusses how and why the tradition of "protesting against God" died out in the Hebrew tradition from Job to the O.T. and intertestamental works:

Protest Against God: The Eclipse of a Biblical Tradition. 2006. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press.

[JohnFH]

Edward,

Thanks for your comments. Lewis, of course, was a moving target. Part of his greatness lies in his ability to learn from new experiences. His own attitude to suffering was transformed almost without remainder and is chronicled in part, if I remember correctly, in A Grief Observed.

Grievance prayer did not die out in Jewish tradition, even if the focus shifts to penitential prayer. Prayer of complaint, I' convinced, was alive and well in personal prayer. Just think of Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane or from the cross (Psalm 22).

Many of the sages were troubled by Job's rhetoric of complaint, but they found room for it in other ways, for example, in the Kinot tradition associated with Tisha be'Av.

The existence of things as horrifying as hell is not in doubt. The question has to be posed seriously: which is worse, a new heavens and a new earth in which those who have committed the most heinous of crimes get what is coming to them, or are forgiven?

Ivan in the Brothers Karamazov argues that the non-existence of punishment for certain categories of evildoers would be totally unacceptable. I can't recall hearing a decent comeback to Ivan's arguments from universalists.

[Ed Babinski]

John, "Totally unacceptable to whom?" Someone with eternal vengeance on their mind that's who. I always thought God could get His revenge in less time, or that "God is love." George MacDonald pointed out: "I believe that justice and mercy are simply one and the same thing… That… hell will… help the just mercy of God to redeem his children… Such is the mercy of God that he will hold his children in the consuming fire of his distance until they pay the uttermost farthing, until they drop the purse of selfishness with all the dross that is in it, and rush home to the Father and the Son, and the many brethren, rush inside the center of the life-giving fire whose outer circles burn."

George MacDonald (19th-century universalist Christian), excerpts from “I Believe,” Unspoken Sermons

[Ed Babinski]

Love is patient… it keeps no record of wrongs…. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails…. These three remain: faith, hope and love (oh, and punishment by a jealous wrathful God for all eternity.)

1 Corinthians 13:4,7,8,13 (NIV translation with amended ending so it accords with creedal Christianity)

[Ed Babinski]

A teacher of autistic children wrote this, and she added the George MacDonald quotation too:

HELL’S FINAL ENIGMA… A SECOND OPINION
A Christian brother told me that when we are in heaven we will have no concern for those who will be burning in what he believed to be eternal hell. But if we are to “love our neighbors as ourselves,” how can this be true? God has said that He will have “all” come to Him. Is any heart so dark (and without the slightest flaw or crack) such that the light of Christ could never penetrate it? Does not emptiness abhor a vacuum, and what could be more vacuous than a heart trying to keep itself pumped up with lies and deceit which have no substance of and by themselves. Surely such vacuous hearts cannot avoid being eventually filled with the only solid and substantial Truth that is, was or ever will be?

Something written by the 19th-century univeralist Christian, George MacDonald, recently encouraged my own heart… Jesus said for us to love even our enemies. We were His enemies at one time and He came down into our hell.

“And what shall we say of the man Christ Jesus? Who, that loves his brother, would not, upheld by the love of Christ, and with a dim hope that in the far-off time there might be some help for him, arise from the company of the blessed, and walk down into the dismal regions of despair, to sit with the last, the only unredeemed, the Judas of his race, and be himself more blessed in the pains of hell, than in the glories of heaven? Who, in the midst of the golden harps and the white wings, knowing that one of his kind, one miserable brother in the old-world-time when men were taught to love their neighbor as themselves, was howling unheeded far below in the vaults of the creation, who, I say, would not feel that he must arise, that he had no choice, that, awful as it was, he must gird his loins, and go down into the smoke and the darkness and the fire, traveling the weary and fearful road into the far country to find his brother?--who, I mean, that had the mind of Christ, that had the love of the Father?”

Jesus came to seek and save the lost. Will He not continue to seek out and save all of the lost? Will we have the love of Christ in heaven? MacDonald’s words were a blessing for me to read.

Shana (First-Grade Teacher, Therapist for Autistic Children, and creator of a universalist Christian website) [Three sentences were edited by E.T.B.] http://www.webspawner.com/users/nicky0/index.html

[Ed Babinski]

An article in Christianity Today (“Hell’s Final Enigma,” April 22, 2002) by Rev. J. I. Packer (professor of theology at Regent College in Vancouver and executive director of the aforementioned magazine) addressed the question, “How might those in heaven feel about those in hell?” The people in hell will include fellow human beings with similar joys, fears, and life stories to those in heaven, and Christians have been taught they ought to love others with an “unconditional love” and “forgive seventy-times-seven times.” So how can heaven truly be bliss for Christians if people whom they have grown to know and love (and care for) on earth are burning in hell?

Reverend Packer replied that heaven’s occupants would be busy loving each other and praising God. (I wondered if he meant that in the same sense as “winning teammates patting each other on the back for eternity?”) He added that their attention would be focused on heavenly glories. (I wondered if he meant that in the same sense as children so immersed in playing an entrancingly beautiful video game that they cannot be distracted by any actions or thoughts outside of the game?) Then, after having described how heaven’s occupants would feel about God, heaven, and each other, Reverend Packer finally replied to the original question of “How might heaven’s occupants feel about those in hell?” The Reverend’s reply consisted of ten words: “Love and pity for hell’s occupants will not enter our hearts.”

But doesn’t such a reply beg the question? What kind of “heart” could find neither “love nor pity” entering it, knowing that the greater portion of mankind, including former wives, children, and friends, were all suffering in hell?

Perhaps Rev. Packer’s next column should be about how to reconcile the following two statements, the first one being his own:

“Love and pity for hell’s occupants will not enter our hearts”

[Ed Babinski]

The second quotation of which is:

Love is patient… it keeps no record of wrongs…. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails…. These three remain: faith, hope and love.

1 Corinthians 13:4,7,8,13 (NIV)

[JohnFH]

Thanks, Ed, for your comments here. I remain convinced - though I am a fan of George MacDonald - that you do away with hell with suspicious ease.

You might take a look at this post:

http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com/ancient_hebrew_poetry/2010/04/is-hell-making-a-comeback.html

In particular, you may find the symposium the Christian Century put together, and to which I link, of interest. It is not the same old same old.

[credayhyday]

UdsXlp The Slack sac pliage longchamps slip up on!
GjoDdv PujCtq montres Michael Kors Controlsac longchamp pas cher YuaQjs achat sac longchamp EejObe sac guess solde NrqZts Definately longchamps pas cher IawEir isabel marant solde join forces VeuByv
Function and fashion are the most important features of a good bag. longchamp pliage The materials used for fabricating hand bags, shoulder bags, saddle bags or any type of bags are various. Isabel marant sneakers The most appreciated fabrication material is leather. Leather saddle bags and leather shoulder bags can be found in various styles sacs ¨¤ main guess When you purchase leather shoulder bags and leather saddle bags you will benefit from a fashionable product Isabel Marant Pas Cher There are three main categories of leather saddle bags and leather shoulder bags longchamp sac ¨¤ main
it is still important to look out at a reputable store cheap Burberry Every woman love to wear trendy handbags which suit their dress Longchamp pliage Bags we manufacture our bags by keeping one think in mind that your choice and latest trend should be there in genuine rates Sacs Michael Kors generally woman wear an handbags which complimenting with their dress Sac longchamp You have an opportunity to get an handbag for every occasion like for parties Sac Guess
HjsKfk PlcYxh longchamp soldes RclBrb MyjFm sacs a main guess sKgsAic KknHr Isabel Marant France KilPjv PzmKfw longchamp pliage