Talk:1 Kgs 20:1-2 Kgs 1:18

On Job, deceit, and feeling the tension

Robert, you knew you couldn't get away without some response on this one, right?

I think I want to localize my response in the Job situation. Does God merely allow Satan (probably better translated accuser in the book of Job--not to be understood as Satan himself) to tempt Job? God Himself brings up Job as a possibility, in a sort of gamble or wager. (Isn't this what Goethe saw in the Book of Job?) Perhaps more significant is the discussion between Job and God at the close of the book (Janzen's commentary on this is superb!): the whole experience (of temptation, etc.) is precisely for the purpose of forcing Job beyond his over-simplifying piety. The temptation is one that aims at allowing Job to press beyond being "just a good person." (I think the mystic quality of the last few watercolors/engravings--whichever one prefers--by Blake make this same point on Job.) The thrust, also, of the Testament of Job (in vol. 1 of Charlesworth's Pseudepigrapha) seems to suggest much the same.

In the end, the whole story is a question of God's (albeit odd) invitation beyond facile servitude (from servant to son). Perhaps this should all be connected with the first eight verses or so of Ex 21. Only through pain (and a pain we could never--*shudder*--attribute to God) does one become adopted: if so be that we suffer with Him.

So, shouldn't we feel the tension? And isn't this just a plug for the final reading I offered of Isa 6:9-10? The prophetic duty is to preach in such a way that those who hear are forced to make a very radical decision, a "forced either/or" (with the full weight, perhaps, of Kierkegaard's thinking here). But the point is that the "either/or" doesn't arise until the temptation is a reality. A thought, anyway. --Joe Spencer 16:09, 14 Aug 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Joe, I'm glad you didn't miss your cue here! I think I'm in very much in agreement with you. I have a tendency to first study and summarize how others have approached these questions without really interjecting my own thoughts too much, and sometimes without forcing myself to generate my own thoughts.

I like the view you're suggesting with Job and the implications for the related passages. I have a few follow-up questions on Isa 6:10 for you which I'll ask there. I think this "obdurating theme" (as Craig Evans calls it in discussing Mark 4:12) is very common throughout the scriptures and I'm anxious to study it out more. I think LDS scriptures have a lot of unique light to shed on this issue (e.g. comparing Zenos's allegory to Paul's in Romans with this issue in mind...). I'm less confident in understanding the Romans chapters, so any help there would be greatly appreciated (I wonder how long before Jim F. publishes his next Romans commentary installment...). This is a question I've been thinking about for a long time: why did God seem to favor Israel over its enemies so much? Did Israel's enemies have the same opportunities to hear the gospel? We live in such an egalitarian-focused culture, that I think many of these issues are difficult to understand (if Israel is the chosen people, what does that make everyone else?) and are often dismissed away with an apologetic effort rather than an effort to grasp what the text really has to teach. By egalitarian, I'm thinking in terms of "equal chance" to hear the gospel, or "equal chance" to live and learn in mortality (e.g. the problem of evil here, infant deaths, people born in 3rd world adversity vs. 1st world opportunities, etc.). I think you're right to insist that we not dismiss these kind of tensions in the scriptures without really confronting any tension we can identify....

(By the way, if you were hoping I'd put up a fight with your view on Job, here's a post at the FPR blog that presents a view I'm sure you take issue with!) --RobertC 23:03, 14 Aug 2006 (UTC)

I'm interested in this question of what it means to be chosen. Is it the same as to be set apart? Is it related to the concept of favorite? Is it something akin to special treatment for children of friends? I think the story of Jonah is a great one for telling us what it doesn't mean to be set apart. It doesn't mean you are more righteous than others. --Matthew Faulconer 03:41, 15 Aug 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite -- Aug 14

I rewrote. Please feel free to rewrite more. It may be that I misunderstood some of what I removed. Note specifically, I removed:

• the reference to Job.
• the reference to Isa 55:8-9
• the paragraph on the more reverent approach may be to not question. Feel free to defend this paragraph and we can put it back.

--Matthew Faulconer 06:21, 15 Aug 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for improving the writing. I can think of philosophical ways to defend the idea that not questioning is more reverent, but it's harder to think of direct scriptural support. Perhaps fleshing out what it means to "wrest the scriptures"? Job is probably a better place to work on this issue since God seems—to many readers—to be capricious in that book. I'd also be interesting exploring more carefully what the scriptures say themselves about how we should read the scriptures.... --RobertC 18:54, 15 Aug 2006 (UTC)

See my note on 2 Pet 3:16. I'd be interested in understanding more the relationship you are thinking of between wresting the scripture and what you call not questioning them. --Matthew Faulconer 06:17, 16 Aug 2006 (UTC)

I'm very interested in these same topics. I do think Job is the best place to look at such an issue in detail, but there might be good places elsewhere to study it. I might suggest we pick up with Job. --Joe Spencer 15:06, 16 Aug 2006 (UTC)