Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Job DID charge God foolishly? | Job 1:22 | Baptistbred | 45479 | ||
Will someone please help reconcile Job 1:22 and 2:10 with Job 9:22-24? All my many commentaries often quote 1:22 in commendation of Job, but never fully explain the verses in chapter 9, or explain why God rebuked Job in the latter chapters of the book if Job sinned not with His lips or charged God foolishly. | ||||||
2 | Job DID charge God foolishly? | Job 1:22 | Emmaus | 46840 | ||
Baptistbred, Coincidental to this thread, I received today a brief commnetary on Job from a daily service I subscribe to called "A Word of Encouragement." You may find it of interest. Job! ----- Job 42:7 After the LORD had spoken these words to Job, the LORD said to Eliphaz the Temanite: "My wrath is kindled against you and against your two friends; for you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has." -------------------- "This is an odd thing for God to say about Job, considering that Job has just spent 40 chapters griping at God while Eliphaz and his buddies have just spent 40 chapters telling Job that God never does anything bad and urging him to speak more respectfully to the Almighty. But that's because we think God is interested in manners when he's really interested in us. Job spoke to God from the heart. His friends never spoke to God at all. They were too busy proving syllogisms about him and chewing out Job to ever actually speak to God or reveal their hearts to him. Job's heart was on his sleeve the whole time, even there was a fist sticking out of it and shaking at God. If it's a choice between being polite but distant with God and being a grouch but right there with him, God appears to prefer the latter. Today, be real with God." |
||||||
3 | Job DID charge God foolishly? | Job 1:22 | Lionstrong | 47213 | ||
Dear Emmaus, I think the author of your article was confusing truth with sincerity. Sincerity neither makes an affirmation true nor necessarily acceptable to God. What Job said about God was right, but not because he was sincere in his pain, but because what he said was right. Contrary-wise, Job's friends saying what was not right about God had nothing to do with their sincerity. In fact, insincerity cannot be proved for either party on either side of the debate. What Job’s friends said about God was not insincere. It simply was not right. They said God orders suffering only for the wicked, and Job's suffering was ordered by God for some great wickedness on Job's part. Job's error was not what he said about God, but what he maintained about himself. He was righteous in his own eyes. Job 32:1 The Protestant or Reformed believer sees no righteousness in himself, but by faith hopes in the sufficiency of the finished work of Christ on the cross to cover all his unrighteousness and to cover him with a perfect righteousness that is totally alien to himself. So that they might say with Paul, "and [that I] may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith." Phil 3:9 The article also exults emotion over reason, a fatal an anti-biblical error. Peace, |
||||||
4 | Job DID charge God foolishly? | Job 1:22 | Emmaus | 47227 | ||
Lionstrong, Obviously Job was not of the Protestant or Reformed tradition or the Catholic Tradition for that matter. It is not even clear that he was a Hebrew. Nor do I think the Protestant or Reformed tradition has the corner on faith in the saving sufficiency of Christ's work on the Cross and in the Resurrection. I don't think the commentary I passed on was even attempting to address that point. The article wasn't long enough to exalt emotion over reason. It did admire and commend the passion of Job's relationship with God in prayer. Whatever else Job's faults may have been,he was not lukewarm to be spit out. Other than that your analysis may be as valid as any other. I was merely passing on the commentary with the thought that Baptistbred might find it of interest. Emmaus |
||||||