God, Job and Protection

[_Paidion]

thanks allyn--

but i am wondering why the KJV/NKJV says "limited." isnt that a possibly correct interpretation?

I think not. According to lexicons, the Hebrew word "tavah" means:
to pain, wound, trouble, cause pain

We don't know whether this was the original Hebrew word used, as all Old Testaments were translated from the Masoretic text, copied in the period from the seventh to the tenth century.

The Septuagint translation from Hebrew to Greek was done in the third century B.C. It uses a word which means:
to irritate, provoke, arouse to anger, exasperate

In the New Testament, that word is found in Acts 17:6 and I Cor 13:5.

As to the subject at hand, it is my understanding that the chief way in which God created man in his image, was to give man a free will. Possessing a free will does not imply that we are capable of doing anything we wish. Obviously, we cannot flap our arms and fly no matter how much we might want to do so. However, it does mean that when we are faced with two or more possibilities of action, we may choose to do anyone of them without our action being coerced. Even if our action is coerced in the sense that we are threatened with adverse consequences if we don't perform it, we may still choose not to perform it. For example, a thief may point a gun at us and order us to give him our money. In such cases, some people chose not to do so, even if they are likely to die. Hundreds of early Christians refused to worship the emperor of Rome or worship the gods of Rome even though the consequence of not doing so would mean death.

Since we have been created free will agents, God normally doesn't intervene with the exercise of that free will. As Steve pointed out, God obviously does sometimes. I believe that most of the time he doesn't , not because he "has a deeper purpose" for not doing so, but because to do so will somehow upset the stability of the universe. That stabililty is so complex that we probably cannot explain why God's intevention would upset it. Only he knows when he can intervene without destabilizing the universe. So people who step off a cliff, seldom float harmlessly to the ground.

It is a comforting thought to think God has a deeper purpose for the rape of the little girl, or the theft of Steve's stereo. But I think it is seldom, if ever, the case. The little girl was raped because of the evil choice of a man --- the same with the theft of the stereo. And God did not prevent that choice from being carried out, not because of a deeper purpose, but because he does not force his will upon people. Sometime he influences people's thoughts or orchestrates circumstances which influence the choices people make, but I think it is safe to affirm that he never forces those choices.

If God did "allow" Sam's little girl to be raped in order to fulfill a deeper purpose, why didn't he reveal that deeper purpose to Sam so that he could learn what God wanted him to learn. Instead Sam became angry and resentful, blaming God, learning nothing from it at all, and wanting nothing more to do with God. This consequence is far less likely to happen, if someone had effectively explained to Sam that God didn't cause his little girl to be raped in order to fulfill a "deeper" purpose.

God's not acting to save people from horrible pain is not a matter of God's "lack of power". We all know that he is omnipotent. It is a matter of his respect for free will, and his being a God of order, and thus operating a stable universe.

I highly recommend Gregory Boyd's book:

Is God to Blame? Beyond pat answers to the problem of suffering.

TK, you had some good questions concerning the common saying, "God allowed this to happen." Phrasing it in this manner can be misleading. For the word "allowed" is ambiguous. One meaning is simply that God did nothing to prevent it from happening. But there is another meaning. Joe may not allow his teenage daughter Jodi, to stay out after 11 P.M. But she may choose to do so anyway. Joe may take no steps to prevent her from doing so. Yet he didn't allow it (in the sense that the act was in accordance with family rules).

[_Steve]

Those are good points, though I stand by my position. I think some may find helpful, in Hannah Whital Smith's book, "The Christian's Secret of a Happy Life," a chapter entitled, "Is God In Everything" (as I recall, I do not have the book before me).

[Guest]

Paidion, what do you make of the passages/examples that Steve cited? I've actually debated a little with Greg Boyd on this matter. He makes a very good emotional case but Steve makes a more biblical case... I think. Why are we told to trust in God's protection (psalm 91, 34; Mt 7) if "whatever happens will happen." Knowing that God sometimes, but rarely, intervenes to help his servents is not exactly reassuring.

[Guest]

TK, you had some good questions concerning the common saying, "God allowed this to happen." Phrasing it in this manner can be misleading. For the word "allowed" is ambiguous. One meaning is simply that God did nothing to prevent it from happening. But there is another meaning. Joe may not allow his teenage daughter Jodi, to stay out after 11 P.M. But she may choose to do so anyway. Joe may take no steps to prevent her from doing so. Yet he didn't allow it (in the sense that the act was in accordance with family rules).

You make a good point Paidion. Perhaps the parable of the Prodigal Son is analogous to your scenario. It is clear that the father of the Prodigal Son did not cause his son to sin, though he permitted him to leave. Even though the father permitted his son to leave, he was in no way responsible for his son’s sinful deeds. So, could we rightly conclude that just because God permits something, doesn't necessarily equate Him causing, approving, and condoning such a thing?

[Guest]

I was thinking that since I was the one who called in and asked Steve about this passage, and since JC and Paidion have mentioned him, perhaps I should post his comments on Job 1:21. I asked JC if he thought I should, since I don't want to be copying and pasting things a whole lot, and he thought I should. So, here is what Greg Boyd notes about God giving and taking away:

Greg Boyd's Commentary on specific passages

Job 1:21
“...the Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord.”

This passage is often quoted as the proper attitude pious people should assume in the face of tragedy, with the implication that all tragedy is the Lord’s doing. This teaching lands hard on the ears of parents who have had their children abducted.

Compatibilists often soften its harshness by saying that God “allows” tragedies such as Job suffered for a greater good. But as Calvin and others have admitted, if God indeed ordains all things, speaking in terms of what God “allows” or “permits” is an equivocation.* Certainly if Job 1:21 is used in support of compatiblism, we must admit that the Lord himself “takes away” children when they are abducted just as he “gives” children when they are conceived.

In my estimation, this usage of Job 1:21 (as well as other compatiblistic sounding texts in Job, e.g. 14:5–6) is fundamentally misguided. The most interesting thing about the all-determinative theology that Job expresses in 1:21 and through his dialogues with his friend is that there is nothing that suggests that the author of Job was condoning this theology.

True, the narrator acknowledges the unblemished character of Job after he utters this statement (1:22), and Yahweh commends Job for speaking truth from his heart, in contrast to his friends (42:7). But this is not the same as endorsing Job’s theology.

Much of the theology that Job expresses throughout his dialogue with his “friends” is clearly not theology that the author of Job is advocating. Indeed, often Job’s expressed view of God is that of a cruel tyrant who controls everything in an arbitrary fashion. “When disaster brings sudden death,” Job exclaims,

[God] mocks at the calamity
of the innocent.
The earth is given into the hand of the wicked;
He covers the eyes of its judges—
If it is not he, who then is it? (Job 9:23–24,
cf. 21:17–26, 30–32; 24:1–12)

And again,

Why are times not kept by the Almighty?
and why do those who know him
never see his days? (Job 24:1)

From the city the dying groan,
and the throat of the wounded
cries for help;
yet God pays no attention to their prayer.
(Job 24:12)

Would anyone recommend this opinion as the proper attitude of pious people? Clearly not. Yet it is in line with Job’s sentiment that the Lord simply gives and takes away, regardless of a person’s moral stature. Job’s depiction of God is even harsher when he considers the injustice of his own state. For example, to the Lord Job cries out,

Your hands fashioned and made me;
and now you turn and destroy me (10:8 ).

Bold as a lion you hunt me;
you repeat your exploits against me...
Let me alone; that I might find
a little comfort. (10:16, 20)

You have turned cruel to me;
with the might of your hand you
persecute me. (30:21)

And to his “friends” Job claims,

...God has worn me out;
he has made desolate all my company.
And he has shriveled me up...

He has torn me in his wrath, and hated me;
he has gnashed his teeth at me;
my adversary sharpens his eyes
against me. (16:7–9, cf. 11–17)

With violence he seizes my garment;
he grasps me by the collar of
my tunic... (30:18 )

Are we to believe that these are sentiments the author of this work is recommending to his readers? Doesn’t the god Job describes in these passages sound more like “a roaring lion... looking for someone to devour”—in other words, “your adversary the devil” (1 Pet. 5:8 )? Far from condoning this impious theology, I submit that the point of this work is to expose its inadequacies. When Yahweh appears at the end of this work to set the record straight, he corrects the thinking of both Job and his friends (ch. 38–41). The Lord doesn’t acknowledge that he was the one behind Job’s sufferings, as Job claimed, or that he was justly punishing Job, as his “friends” claimed. Rather, God silences both Job and his “friends” by revealing how little they (or any human) know about the cosmos he has created.

They know nothing of the vastness of creation (ch. 38–39) and cannot contend with cosmic forces such as Behemoth (ch. 40) and Leviathan (ch. 41). Nor do they know anything of what transpires in the heavenly realm (chs. 1–2). In the end, the reason why suffering is meted out in what seems like an arbitrary fashion remains a mystery to humans. God does not give Job an answer. But the mystery attaches to the vastness, complexity, and warfare state of creation, not to God’s character. This is why Job acknowledged that he “uttered what [he] did not understand” after his confrontation with God (42:3). His “friends” were wrong in reducing the complexity of creation, and therefore the mystery of evil, down to one variable: Job’s character. But Job was also wrong in reducing the complexity of creation and the mystery of evil down to one variable: God’s character. The truth is that the complexity of creation, and therefore the arbitrariness of suffering, cannot be reduced to any level that we humans can understand.

In the light of all this, I suggest that we ought not to take Job’s sentiment that “the Lord gives and the Lord takes away” (1:21) any more authoritatively than we take his sentiment that “God pays no attention to [the] prayer” of wounded victims (24:12). Job was admirably expressing the truth of his pain, but in his pain he was not consistently expressing truth. To discover the proper attitude that believers should take in the face of unjust suffering, we need to center our attention on the person and work of Christ. He never encouraged accepting evil as coming from God. Instead, he taught us to revolt against it as coming (ultimately) from Satan.

Note

* Calvin writes, “why shall we say ‘permission’ unless God so wills?...I shall not hesitate, then, simply to confess with Augustine that ‘the will of God is the necessity of things,’ and that what he has willed will of necessity come to pass...” Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. J. T. McNeill, tran. F. L. Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960) 3.23.8.

[Guest]

If God purposely brings harm to someone for some "greater good," why did not Jesus do so? I mean, if putting cancer on someone can teach them a good lesson, why do we have no examples of the Lord making somebody sick? No, every time Jesus healed people.

Jesus gave them this answer: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does. John 5:19:20

It seems, from what Jesus did, that God does not inflict evil on people for "some greater purpose." of course, God can bring good out of bad circumstances, which is stating something decidely different.

TK

[Guest]

If God purposely brings harm to someone for some "greater good," why did not Jesus do so? I mean, if putting cancer on someone can teach them a good lesson, why do we have no examples of the Lord making somebody sick? No, every time Jesus healed people.

Jesus gave them this answer: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does. John 5:19:20


It seems, from what Jesus did, that God does not inflict evil on people for "some greater purpose." of course, God can bring good out of bad circumstances, which is stating something decidely different.

TK,
In response to this, advocates of meticulous sovereignty or the blueprint model will bring up John 9:1-5.

John 9:1-5 ESV
1 As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth. 2 And his disciples asked him, Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind? 3 Jesus answered, It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him. 4 We must work the works of him who sent me while it is day; night is coming, when no one can work. 5 As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.

The NIV renders vs. 3 as "but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life."

The NASB renders vs. 3 as " but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him

The NRSV renders vs. 3 as "he was born blind so that God's works might be revealed in him."

According to these translations, it appears that God indeed decreed that the man be born blind for a higher purpose. i.e. that the work/s of God might be displayed in his life.

However

The ASV renders vs. 3 as "but that the works of God should be made manifest in him."

The RSV renders vs. 3 as "but that the works of God might be made manifest in him."

The NKJV renders vs. 3 as "but that the works of God should be revealed in him."

The former translations do appear to support the view of God ordaining such things like being born blind for a higher purpose. On the other hand, however, the latter translations do not appear to unambiguously present such a view. Instead, it is in essence saying, It's not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that (let) the works of God be made manifested and revealed. In the book "God at War" by Greg Boyd, there are two pages devoted to this story with five points to demonstrate that this verse does not teach that God ordained the man to be born blind for his glory, which is equated to be a higher good purpose.

[Guest]

Thanks for that, Troy.

Similarly, before jesus raised Lazarus he SEEMED to say that he was struck down so that God would be glorified (John 11:4). rather, I believe that Jesus was using words to counteract a situation that was an attack of Satan (john 10:10) and change the situation into something that would bring glory to God.

I certainly do not believe that God chooses certain people to be born with birth defects for some "higher purpose." God just isn't like that. People are born that way because we live in a cursed world. God can, however, get glory from these situations. Perhaps he expects us to do something, to bring him that much deserved glory.

TK

[_Paidion]

Paidion, what do you make of the passages/examples that Steve cited?

What passages and examples? Are you referring to the following? If so, I can only say that I agree.

The Bible is explicit about the fact that God will do whatever He has determined to do and that no power can stay His hand, when He intends to do some work (Ps.115:3; 135:6/ Isa.43:13; 46:10; Dan.4:35). But we must distinguish between the things God determines to do and the things He assigns men to do. God often does not intervene in such a manner as to guarantee that we do what we have been told to do.

The fact that God intends to do things, and that no power can stay his hand, doesn't imply that every thing that happens is the work of God. Steve's final sentence quoted above seems to indicate what I have just affirmed.

It is for this reason that prophecies sometimes do not come about. People, having free will, often do the unexpected. God looks at their hearts, reads their minds, and on this basis predicts what they are likely to do. Usually God's predictions turn out to be true --- but sometimes they don't, because man decides on a course of action which one would not expect, not even God. Because of the free will of man, his future choices cannot be known in principle. That is why God sometimes thinks his servants will do one thing and they do exactly the opposite. That is why God is sometimes disappointed in his servants choices.

Some people affirm that by making these claims, I am suggesting that God makes mistakes. This is not the case. Based on all the information that God has (and that's total information concerning every person and his thoughts and intentions), it would be totally rational to predict what God has predicted. It would be a mistake to predict otherwise. But man, having been created in God's image with free will, may choose to do the unexpected. So his choices may not totally conform to God's precictions.

Sometimes God decided to do a certain thing toward a nation based on their past behaviour, and his knowledge of their thoughts. But then, when they chose to do the unexpected, God changed his mind, and didn't carry out his original intention.

There are other things God has decided to do regardless of man's choices. He will carry them out no matter what choices man makes.

It is important to distinguish between the two, but not to assume that because God carries out some of his intentions regardless of man's choices, that he carries out all of his intentions regardless of man's choices.

[_Steve]

Quote:

"I certainly do not believe that God chooses certain people to be born with birth defects for some 'higher purpose.' God just isn't like that. "

Why would we say God is not like that? I would not raise such a libel against such a faithful Father.

Is He not at least as good as a caring earthly father? If there is some ultimate good needed by His children, but which cannot be accomplished without their going through suffering, is He not sufficiently committed to our well-being to take us through the necessary steps?

My son broke his arm skating, a few months ago. By the time the emergency room could see him, it was necessary to re-break his arm to reset it properly. The doctor asked my permission to do this. It was going to inflict further pain upon my son, which I was loath to allow, but I gave my approval—not because I am either cruel or callous to my son's suffering, but because I don't want his arm to be deformed for the rest of his life.

Is God any less concerned about our broken condition? Is He not prepared to authorize further breaking in order that our souls not be deformed for eternity? I think He is every bit as committed to His children as I am to mine, so I would be shocked to hear that He would not be loving enough to allow temporal suffering in order to achieve permanent benefit. I have a higher view of the love and kindness of God than many seem to have—mine is just less sentimental.

If Jesus said that a man, in some cases, would be better off entering into life having one hand or one eye, than to have two of each and be cast into Gehenna, is it contrary to His character to arrange, in some cases, the very circumstances that He says would be "more profitable to you" (Matt.5:30)?

I think we need to be wary of the temptation to reduce the real God to an emotionally manageable being, who dutifully stays within the box of our sentimental theology. I don't believe the universe contains a one-dimensional god.

The real God crippled Jacob permanently (Gen.32:25, 31). Was this not for some greater good? Which God was it that said to Moses, "Who has made man's mouth? Or who makes the mute, the deaf, the seeing, or the blind? Have not I, the LORD?" (Exod.4:11)? Since God plainly does such things, is it not best to recognize that His doing so is for the greater good, though His reasons may not be obvious to us?

To which God was Joseph referring, when he told his brothers, "God sent me before you to preserve life"(Gen.45:5)? "Sent me?" Is this anything but a euphemism for "caused me to be betrayed, rejected, enslaved, falsely accused by a seductress and unjustly jailed for 13 years"? Is it not possible that the God who subjected Joseph to all this (and who could have as easily delivered him from it) felt that preserving life is a greater good?

It was God who sent Judah into captivity for 70 years, which seemed to be done, not vindictively, but to cure them from idolatry—a greater good.

And what shall we make of His treatment of His most beloved Son? Did it not "please the Lord to bruise Him?" (Isa.53:10)? Why? Was it not for some greater good?

If there is a teaching of scripture plainer than this, that God uses suffering to bring about glory to Himself and to His children (Job 23:10/ John 11:4/ Rom.5:3-4; 8:18/ 2 Cor.4:17/ Phil.1:12/ Col.1:24/ Heb.12:5-11/ James 1:2-4/ 1 Pet.1:7; 4:12-14), then I do not know what it could be.

Most of us here believe that Calvinism is flawed. Therefore, we may be tempted to discard all of the biblical proofs of the sovereignty of God, because Calvinists happen to be so fond of them. It is an unthinking reaction to say, "We must not let these verses speak plainly, but we must explain them away, because, as they stand, they may encourage Calvinism." Our theology must never be reactive. Doing good theology does not mean finding out what someone believes wrongly and then assuming that the polar opposite position must be correct. If this were the case, then the answer to legalism must be antinomianism—and vice versa.

In the case of the man born blind (John 9), certain things can not be explained away (and we should have no incentive to do so). First, Jesus said that the man's condition had nothing to do with anyone's sin, so we can rule out the suggestion that his disability is the result of anybody poorly exercising their free will. Second, Jesus healed the man, proving that the condition was not beyond God's ability to heal (nor, presumably, to have prevented in the first place). Third, that God healed him at this particular time suggests that God could have done so at any previous time, had He wished—meaning that the man was in that condition (i.e., not yet healed) for many years for no other reason than that God did not choose for it to be otherwise. Fourth, if we should ask why God did not choose to heal him prior to this incident—and even prior to his birth, so that he would not have been born blind—we have a direct answer from Jesus: "That the works of God might be revealed in him" (which God, presumably, saw as a "greater good" than would have been the absence of the disability from the man's birth.

If our theology knows no God who is capable of healing and protecting His people from every danger, and who has no angels capable of delivering His children from any harm from which He desires them to be exempt, then, in my opinion, our God is way too small. On the other hand, if our God is too sentimental to allow temporal suffering in His children's lives, in order to achieve an eternal benefit, then our God is too wimpy and uncaring—far less caring, in fact, than the average earthly parent. Given these options, I will most happily keep the God that I have now.