John Pople - Class 1: To Speak Well of the Lord

Automatically transcribed. Accuracy is good but not perfect, and words are sometimes wrong. Trust the audio over the text.

1. 0:00

   Good morning. After the Lord had said these things to Job, he said to Eliphaz the Temanite, I am angry with you and your two friends because you have not spoken of me what is right as my servant Job has. And we're going to find that the idea of speaking that which is right of the Lord is a very central theme in the book of Job, perhaps more central than might be firstly apparent. But before we get to that, let's try and see if we should address a very fundamental question, which is, is the book of Job actually real? Is this a real story? Was he a real historical character? Or is this, I don't want to say merely, is this a play? Or is this a parable that God or another man has devised or been inspired to write? And you might say, well, or maybe you don't even mind either way. You'll say, well, surely the lessons are the same either which way, whether Job really lived or whether he did not, surely the lessons that derive from the text are the same. And I have a few opinions on that matter, and I thought maybe we could start there as to see whether or not the book of Job should be considered a drama, an actual history, or of course, merely dramatic history, or actually both.

2. 1:22

   Let's look then at some of the considerations of that suggestion. This guy is going to play. He doesn't want to play anymore. There we go. So in favor of poetic interpretation, we notice a couple of things about the book of Job. First of all, there's a very high degree of structure in the dialogue going on. You've probably noticed that, right? Friend number one speaks, Job replies. Friend number two speaks, Job replies. Friend number three speaks, Job replies. And they go in sequence, round and round, three times. Each of the three friends speaks three times. Well, the pattern is just broken at the end, but pretty much that's the case. And so it's not really a normal conversation like you and I might have in a group of four or five people where people speak just sort of in and out of turn. It's almost, it is very indicative of a piece of text which is written as a play that each person comes in in turn and presents a particular case. So there's no doubt it appears written as a play. The events are seemingly highly unlikely. I'm too far away from that guy, aren't I? For example, you note when the messengers come with the bad news, a messenger came to Job and said, some terrible thing has happened, all the flocks have been lost, and I'm the only one who's escaped from all of the servants looking after them to tell you. And yet, while he was still speaking, another messenger came and said, here is another disaster that has occurred. All of the herds have gone, the Sabeans have come raiding, or whatever, and I am the

3. 2:54

   only one who has escaped alive to tell you. And while he is yet speaking, why a third messenger arrives, and so forth. And these events are seemingly extremely unlikely to have happened in an actual practical way. And the speeches are certainly themselves of poetic rather than prose form. You only have to look at one of the speeches, and you can see that they're not written as a form of normal conversational speech. Okay? So there's a fair number of suggestions to us that are powerful that suggests that this is actually written as a play, rather than a real piece of history. Nevertheless, let's also consider the rebuttals that we need to raise to those arguments and see whether we can actually accept them. Well, to say events are unlikely is somewhat of a foolish comment, perhaps, in the presence of an almighty God who can do whatever he likes. For example, the events that happen in Job are no more unlikely, for example, than the parting of the Red Sea, which must be considered an extremely unlikely event, even if God uses natural forces to bring it about, that a million Israelites are fleeing Egypt and arrive at the coastline at just the right moment for the waters to part before them, and them to be led across on dry land, and the waters to subsequently close over their pursuing enemies. So we're not really meeting anything in Job, which is any more unlikely than many other miraculous passages of Scripture. Additionally, the formality of the culture may account for the apparent coincidences we find in all those messengers arriving at the same time.

4. 4:36

   Because we tend to think in our own Western culture, in the sort of 21st century frame, which says that if I have a message to bring to your house, well, I just arrive and I knock on the front door and you answer the door and I say, well, terribly sorry, I've got some bad news, but...

5. 4:50

   And that's not necessarily how messages are delivered or how business is conducted in the Middle East, even today, never mind centuries ago. For example, if you want to conduct business in India, it's inappropriate to talk about business transactions until after the evening meal. So you'll normally go around at some time in the early afternoon, and you'll meet the family, which is usually huge and extensive, and you'll talk for a while, and you'll get to know each other.

6. 5:14

   And I imagine in centuries ago, your horse or your camel or whatever would also need to be taken away and tended, and you would be tended, and you'd have a wash, and then you'd all sit down, have a meal, and share together, and then you'd begin to bring your message or your business transaction. So that's the culture in which Job was at. So in other words, I think to deliver these messages would probably be a full day's proceedings. And so when it says, you know, while the message is being delivered, I think all we're being told is these messengers arrived on the same day, not that they arrived within the same 15 seconds to arrive on Job's doorstep and ring the doorbell and deliver a five-second message, as we might do today. In the same way, I think when we look at the friend's words, we're going to see that they are speeches prepared beforehand. This is not a dialogue in a normal conversational sense. Job is obviously a man of great import in the city where he is, in the land of Uz, and I think that the events are conducted in Job's house, as we'll see, and I think he has formal convocations and meetings. We know that there's an audience to all of the speeches, and so I think the speeches are all prepared beforehand, and so may be quite poetic in form even before they are actually delivered. I don't think this is a normal dialogue in the sense. We'll see later on why I think the book actually lasts for a few months, and so probably each of these speeches are delivered at regular intervals, perhaps every Sabbath day, in fact.

7. 6:34

   When they are not working, they convene at Job's house to hear the next episode. And finally, I read it, many scholars seem to suggest that because the language is poetic, this is a genuine suggestion for why the book of Job should not be considered a real history. But to me, that seems an extraordinary suggestion, for real elements of history have inspired countless poems. In fact, poems are quite often based off real pieces of history. I take just one random example. Think about the charge of the Light Brigade. Sorry, that's a little bit of a British skew, as I am.

8. 7:10

   In October 1854, it's one of the greatest military debacles of all time, the British decided that a real good and intelligent way to attack the Russian and Cossack cannon was simply to gallop towards them from the front end. Yeah, not the smartest idea. Ten years later, 1864, Alfred Lord Tennyson writes a very inspiring and dramatic poem about it. But how crazy it would be if someone reads the poem of the charge of the Light Brigade and said, well, this is poetic language, so presumably it never happened.

9. 7:38

   No, the whole point is, because it was a dramatic part of history that really did happen, that's why a poem was written about it. So I tend to find that the suggestion of a poetic interpretation of Job is these suggestions are easily rebutted. But are there any arguments specifically in favor of considering Job actual literal history, as I do? And here are some of the arguments that we should present, and I present for your consideration, to why I'd put it to you that Job really did happen. He was a real character. This is not just a play or a story. First of all, it's the appropriate biblical default. It's not really our place to go picking characters from Scripture and say, yeah, well, I believe that one lived, but not that one, and that one, and not that one.

10. 8:20

    Our default behavior should say, I believe it's all true unless I've got very good reason to believe otherwise. If Jesus says, I'm going to tell you the parable of the prodigal son, well, fair enough. Then that's labeled as a story by Scripture. That's fine. But the appropriate biblical default is to believe something is literal and true unless we have good reason from Scripture to believe otherwise.

11. 8:40

    Secondly, as we've seen, the arguments suggesting that Job is merely a play have been largely rebutted. Perhaps more importantly than that, look at the context of a mention of Job that actually shows up in the book of Ezekiel. And this is very interesting. Here it is in Ezekiel 14. God is despairing of Israel at this time, and He says, I stretch out My hand against Israel.

12. 9:03

    Why, even if these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job were in it, they could save only themselves by their righteousness, declares the Sovereign Lord. And so look, Job is mentioned in the context of Noah and Daniel. And we believe that Noah was a real character who really lived, and likewise Daniel. Would you actually prepare an argument that used two actual historical figures and a legendary figure from a play?

13. 9:31

    That's not a natural context to form. If I'm making an argument, I'm not going to make reference to George Bush and Tony Blair and Santa Claus as a support for my argument. That doesn't mean I won't necessarily refer to any one of them at any particular time, but it would be a very bizarre context for me to mix two real characters with George Bush, who's just a legend, right?

14. 9:57

    Here's perhaps one of the most important reasons why we should really consider Job as literal history. And that's because if Job's suffering was not real and didn't really happen, then how can it present solace or comfort to anyone of us who really exist and really do suffer from time to time? What consolation is it to me if I feel beset by terrors or horrors at some particular point and read the book of Job and then say to myself or if someone says to me, yeah, sure, but that never really happened.

15. 10:34

    That's just a story. There's just some principles in there. If you remove the reality of the book of Job, then you remove the solace and the comfort that it is potentially able to bring to anyone who's looking to be comforted by it. You can hear the cry of Job and the emotion and the intensity of Job's troubles are greatly reduced if it's simply a play devised in the mind of man or even in the mind of God.

16. 10:59

    If only my anguish could be weighed, it would surely outweigh the sand of the seas. The night drags on and I toss till dawn. My body is clothed with worms and scabs. My skin is broken and festering. My breath is offensive to my wife. I am loathsome to my own brothers and perhaps outweighing even these afflictions, the idea that he has also been spiritually abandoned as it seems to him.

17. 11:25

    I cry out to you, O God, but you just don't answer me. And I think these words become very weak and flimsy if they're simply part of a cunningly devised play. Perhaps there's just one more reason why we should definitely consider Job to be real history. Because God speaks, right? If this is a play, who was it who devised the words of God?

18. 11:53

    Who was it who gave him that dialogue? Has this been muted through the mind of a man? This is, I think, another powerful reason why we should believe that this is a real historical text that we're looking at. So I want to lay that foundation. God himself speaks. Even if God inspired the playwright to construct the book of Job, how much weaker are the words of God if they were not delivered in a real powerful situation to change the hearts and minds of men, but rather simply part of a literary construct?

19. 12:27

    So that's, I think, enough on that particular subject. It's a necessary introduction, I think. My conclusion is that Job is an historical account. It is real living history. The man lived, the man walked, the man breathed, the man suffered. It may well be that there is some poetic recapitulation of the human speeches that were delivered, but this is real history.

20. 12:50

    This really happened. Those are my arguments to make that point. So, having made that point, I think we're enabled to really approach the book of Job, and today we'll be just thinking kind of in sort of broad-stroke terms of the philosophical implications of the book. We won't hit, you know, hard-line sort of scriptural exposition until tomorrow.

21. 13:11

    So today you've got kind of a nice lead-in just to think about it in big-picture view. Think about some of the challenges, for example, that the book of Job throws up. And as I said in the intro last night, I think one of the things that it really brings before us is the reality of the interface between theology and experience.

22. 13:29

    That which you know to be good and right, and that which happens in front of your eyes, and sometimes even behind your eyes, don't always match very harmoniously. And so we are in a world which is very challenging to interpret, sometimes in the face of there being a loving father. And the Bible assists us with that, and perhaps no book more so than the book of Job in addressing that interface.

23. 13:53

    One chapter where Job is speaking, chapter 24, here, for example, is Job's experience, and to some extent our own. Why does the Almighty not set times for judgment? Why must those who know Him look in vain for such days? When daylight is gone, the murderer rises up and kills the poor and needy.

24. 14:12

    In the night he steals forth like a thief. The groans of the dying rise from the city, and the souls of the wounded cry out for help. But God charges no one with wrongdoing. There is Job's experience. And contrastingly, yet from exactly the same chapter, because Job knows these things come head to head with each other, is Job's theology.

25. 14:36

    God drags away the mighty by His power. For a little while they are exalted, and then they are gone. They are brought low and gathered up like all others. They are cut off like heads of grain. If this is not so, who can prove me false and reduce my words to nothing? So Job is well aware of this mismatch and the pain that it causes him.

26. 14:58

    And so let's see if we can explore this a little bit. Can we locate the problem of why theology and experience sometimes meet head to head and clash very horribly and give us a lot of problems to deal with? And I think the first thing we have to take on board is that the goodness of God, or even for some, the existence of God, probably not debated in this room, but the goodness of God or the existence of God cannot be a function of circumstantial luxury or contentment.

27. 15:26

    It cannot be that good things happening in my life are the proof of the existence of God, or that bad things are happening in my life are the proof of the non-existence of God. For example, a good thing happens, and we see this a lot, not just outside of our community, but also within it.

28. 15:44

    A good thing happens and someone says, Well, I've got a pay rise. God is good. And you might think, Well, that's nice. It's nice that when that good thing happened, this brother or this sister acknowledged God. But there's actually a danger there, if that's the time when we acknowledge God, when some circumstantial luxury arises.

29. 16:02

    If those are the times when we speak about God, we could end up going down a very dangerous road, as we'll see. Because, of course, the contrast will be, Well, then how shall I speak about God when some disaster happens? What if, God forbid, my child should die? Shall I then say there is no God?

30. 16:19

    And this is commonly spoken. We have to know that a global analysis of circumstance proves that the existence or goodness of God cannot be testified by the events in our lives. Why? Because on the same day that you got your pay rise is the same day that my child died. Right? We know that horrors and luxuries are coincident all over the world.

31. 16:46

    And so on the same day, even today. And therefore, how can it be that there is proof that God is good and existent and proof that he is uncaring or non-existent on the same day, from two coincident events? It cannot be that these events can be back extrapolated to tell us of the character of God.

32. 17:06

    That's the first thing we have to let go of. But what is the root of why this happens? Why do we end up falling into this form of behavior? We try to speak about God as much as we can, so we do make commentary about God throughout our life, and that is right and proper.

33. 17:20

    But why is it that we could end up in this disastrous circumstance and therefore vulnerable to tragedy? Tragedy is then able to kill our faith if we end up in this state. I suggest to you that one of the reasons this happens is because mankind, doubtless accidentally, and not with malice aforethought, replaces or substitutes God with happiness.

34. 17:45

    And that's what happens. Our happiness becomes our God. Okay? So to look back at the previous cases, if some circumstantial luxury arrives, instead of saying, God is great, what we're really feeling is, I'm very happy. And we've translated, I'm very happy, into, God is great. You see? And then when disaster strikes, instead of saying what we should say, which is, happiness is gone.

35. 18:15

    I have no happiness. Which is an entirely appropriate response. Because we've accidentally made our happiness our God, we are saying, there's something wrong with God. Because this disaster has occurred, there must be something wrong with God. No, there's not something wrong with God, there's something wrong with our happiness. That's been reduced. That's been taken away.

36. 18:34

    And I think that's what mankind, whoever looks to satisfy himself, that's the theology that he naturally develops. My happiness is my God. I don't think anyone would accept that, you know, would accept that they've done that in those terms. But in the world at least, I think that's exactly what's happened. And therefore, when happiness is reduced, faith is reduced.

37. 18:55

    Well, that's not faith, is it? That's simply the oscillations of happiness, which are bound to happen with experience. And there are three direct consequences of this type of theology, and we do see them. And that is, the proof, such as it is, or evidence that is offered that there is no God, or that God is uncaring, or that God is unjust, will invariably be things that dissatisfy the observer.

38. 19:18

    So we'll see something that greatly dissatisfies us, and say, there you go, I told you there was no God, I told you he didn't care about us, now look. Why is that evidence that there is no God? That is simply an event that is shocking or horrifying to the observer. My appropriate response would be, I am shocked.

39. 19:38

    I am horrified. This is a terrible thing. My happiness has gone. But this is not teaching me about the existence or character of God, unless I've made my happiness my God. That's the first consequence. Secondly, these people are very vulnerable. Their faith can be absolutely destroyed. And a tragedy in my life, will cause me to give up my religion, if my religion has developed, or even been influenced.

40. 20:08

    Because we're all influenced by the world, every single one of us, myself included. And so we are influenced with the potential theology, of making our happiness our God. And that means, our entire religion can crash, in the presence of disaster. Whereas it can't and it won't, in other cases. And finally, notice what that makes God.

41. 20:28

    God is reduced to a cosmic maid service. My child can't die. If my child dies, I don't believe that there's a God. Therefore, God, pay attention to that. And this can't happen. So God, make sure that doesn't. And God, get over there and deal with that. Then I'll be happy. Then I'll believe in you.

42. 20:46

    Then my faith will remain secure. God is reduced, then, to something we direct. That is not who God is. That is not what a God is. God is by his nature, unconstrained. And it also raises what I call the challenge of meaningless theology. What I mean by that is, given the previous possibilities, we could end up with this, I challenge you with this statement.

43. 21:08

    If I cannot speak well of my God, when my circumstances are painful, does it really count for anything at all, if I can speak well of him, at any other time? That is the direct consequence of making your happiness your God. If I'm unhappy, and that makes me speak poorly of my God, frankly, I don't have a God.

44. 21:31

    I just have happiness. And it comes, and it goes. That's what I call it. In other words, to say it in cheap terms, I say to myself, any fool can sail a ship in calm water. That is no test or proof of seamanship. That is the challenge that the book of Job raises, as we'll see, as we go through it.

45. 21:52

    And I realize we're doing a lot of philosophy here, and not very much scripture. That will change come tomorrow. Because one of the things it raises, the book of Job raises, and Habakkuk as well, is the central philosophy of injustice. See, one of the things that Job is suffering from is not only his physical afflictions, he's suffering from his faith.

46. 22:15

    Do you understand what I mean by that? He's suffering from his faith. That is, if he were an atheist, it probably wouldn't seem so bad. Things would still hurt, but his problem is, he's got all of these experiences, and he believes that there's a God who's supposed to care for him. And that augments his suffering, because it's that sense of injustice which is added as an extra burden upon everything else that he's trying to bear.

47. 22:38

    Realize, it's important for us to realize, before we open the book of Job, that the whole concept of justice and injustice only exists in a preconceived ideology. If you don't have any preconceptions of how the world should be, it simply is how it is. And there is nothing in the natural world that happens, horrors included, that leads us to suggest that any of the animals have any functions in their brain that suggest there's a form of injustice.

48. 23:04

    There's no anger or rage ever seen in animals that they are being treated unjustly, no matter how badly they may be treated, no matter what sticky ends they may come to. We have to realize that injustice is at the root of this. Our sense of injustice, which is our only ideology, is actually the very factor that introduces the concept of suffering and blessing.

49. 23:25

    How can I be suffering or being blessed unless I've got a concept of what it is that I should get? Because if I get more than I should get, why then I've been blessed. If I get less than I should get, why then I'm suffering. But suffering and blessing are simply experiences. It's my sense of putting a line in the middle and saying there is the line of justice.

50. 23:48

    There's the line of what I actually deserve. Anything on the left is suffering. Anything on the right, why that's blessing. We realize, therefore, that even the concepts of suffering and blessing are somewhat artificial because they're based on what we understand as justice. Suffering and blessing are subjective from our average experience. When you say, oh, I had a bad day today, sure, but what you're saying is I had experiences today which are below the average of enjoyment that I often get.

51. 24:17

    It's not necessarily bad, it's just below average. We have a whole distribution curve of experiences. But at what point does it become justifiable to put a line down the middle and say anything that happens on the left, why, that's just unjust. It's not unjust, it's below average. Suffering and blessing are byproducts of our preconceived sense of justice.

52. 24:38

    They're also based on our assumption of functionality. You say, look at that poor guy, he's blind. Why is he a poor guy? His eyes don't work. Are you sure? Well, he can't see. Well, I realize that. Can a blind man's eyes not give glory to God? If our function, if the understanding of our function is to give glory to God, then it's not necessarily our place to determine when or how eyes are working.

53. 25:05

    If I should lose control of one of my limbs, what shall I do? Shall I pray at night and give thanks to God simply for the other three? Thank you, Lord, for the three limbs that work the way that I want them to work. We'll not worry about the other one. We won't talk about that one right now.

54. 25:21

    It's our sense or our assumption of what forms functionality that leads us also to this concept of injustice which leads to the concept of suffering. And we need to at least understand these things before we can usefully approach the book of Job.

55. 25:38

    In other words, we need to learn this is not necessarily an anthropocentric universe. To say it more simply, it's not all about us. It's about God. Don't panic because if he loves us, it will be a pleasant experience. But it is about God. It is not about us. There's a famous philosophical question which has some merit in some senses.

56. 26:03

    And it's this. You've heard it before, I'm sure. If a tree falls in the forest when there's no one to hear it, does it make a sound? And perhaps by exploring some of the things we've explored, we're now equipped to answer this question. And we can answer it by saying, what species would be so stupid and so arrogant as to ask that question?

57. 26:23

    Because what that's saying is, if a tree falls in the forest when there aren't any human ears to hear it, is it even worth making a noise? Right? That is the definition of an anthropocentric, a man-centered universe if ever I heard one. We know there's plenty of ears around, there'll be birds and squirrels and goodness knows what.

58. 26:43

    I mean, imagine another species said that. Imagine a squirrel were to say to his friends, you know what? If a tree falls down in the forest, there aren't any squirrels there, you know, just birds, deer, and a few humans, would it bother to make a noise? And you're laughing because what species would be so dumb as to pose that question?

59. 27:01

    Oops. Yeah, it's us. We pose those questions because we have this heavenly ingrained sense that the universe must be centered around our own species. And yet I think that's one of the points where the speeches of God become very helpful. He points out in this quote and others, he says, you know what?

60. 27:21

    I even make flowers bloom in the desert where you can't see them. How pointless do you think that is? It's for my pleasure. It's for my purpose. That flower blooms, you never see it. There's no one living there. I water a desolate land to satisfy a desolate wasteland and make it sprout with grass and you don't see it.

61. 27:43

    I am working my will and I am enjoying my beautiful creation which I have created for my pleasure and for my honor. Please do not think, says God, that you live in a universe centered around you. In fact, to extend that idea, God's justification is not even dependent upon our mortal survival. We don't need to survive a particular scenario in order for God to be justified.

62. 28:08

    It is about God's justification and not our own. We don't need that. But the affliction, there's no doubt affliction, I'm not trying to suggest to you that affliction or emotional or physical pain does not exist. That clearly would be a stupid comment and I'm not making that comment. Clearly, affliction exists. And affliction also, we realize, makes a very energized situation.

63. 28:30

    You know, it's very difficult to comfort someone who's bereaved and if someone is bereaved and angry, which happens, it's a very emotionally charged situation. So, affliction keenly energizes the afflicted one and it also keenly energizes the one who wants to defend God in the presence of affliction and one of the ironies of the book of Job is that that's Job in both cases.

64. 28:51

    He's the one who's afflicted and he's the one who wants to defend God. And so, he gets this double dose of energy which is very difficult for him to wrestle with. And as we said before, the irony is that part of his problem is that his belief in a loving God is what's hurting him as well as the physical afflictions.

65. 29:10

    The idea that he has to go through what he goes through and still defend to almost apostate friends the idea that God is good and that God is loving. We hear his cry, let God weigh me in honest scales and he will know that I am blameless. If my steps have turned from the path, if my heart has been led by my eyes or if my hands have been defiled, then may others eat what I have sown and may my crops be uprooted.

66. 29:35

    But we're also seeing something interesting because there in those words and many others, we see that Job too has been a little bit poisoned by this doctrine of retribution, by this sense of justice. why else would he mention his innocence? There's no point in mentioning your innocence during affliction unless you believe that affliction only belongs to the guilty.

67. 30:02

    And there you have that dangerous sense of justice again. So even Job has something that he needs to be purified of that we're going to see and probably we do too without doubt. And that is the sense of justice, this doctrine of retribution that's the sort of scholarly term that's thrown around. The idea that behavior is constantly rewarded by God's intervention.

68. 30:24

    Habakkuk raises the same point. Why do you make me look at injustice? Why do you tolerate wrong? Destruction and violence are before me. There's strife and conflict abounds. Therefore the law is paralyzed and justice never prevails. The wicked hem in the righteous so that justice is perverted. But we realize what's really at conflict here it's this theology of retribution which is at odds with our experience.

69. 30:49

    Not a true belief that there is a God. And it's only if we inherit this that we end up with all those sparks and all that friction at the interface between our theology and between our experience. And Job has evidently fallen victim at least partially to this idea. Otherwise he wouldn't mention his innocence.

70. 31:09

    His innocence shouldn't be a factor in determining whether or not good or bad things happen to him in the normal running of life. So faith becomes a necessary solution. The idea that believing in something for which there is not necessarily physical evidence in front of your eyes becomes essential. We must develop a sense of love which is independent of local contemporary blessing.

71. 31:33

    And is that perhaps also not essentially recapitulating Hebrews to give a definition of faith? Even Habakkuk interestingly comes to that same conclusion. You know what? The righteous will live by his faith. He kind of has to at certain times. In a true theology our depth of faith won't simply equal our depth of need.

72. 31:52

    Okay? That I think is what we really need to get over. So with that we can learn to live with questions. We can learn to live in trust with God despite sometimes our experience. And in fact I think there's a clue given to us by the very name that God has. His name is I am.

73. 32:14

    Okay? Now what if I were to say to you I am? What would you think? You'd probably think I don't think he's finished his sentence yet. Right? You'd be waiting for me to complete that. I am what? I am an Englishman? I am a scientist? I am an idiot? What are you waiting for me to finish the sentence?

74. 32:34

    And God has finished. The very definition of that is that there's no constraint because it's that third part that constrains what I am. And that is why I think God has given us that name I am. There is no constraint upon that term. He is that he is. And so that's another point I think that his speeches will come to present.

75. 32:58

    He talks about the wildness of creation. He talks about the fact that creation cannot be constrained by the hand of man. Can you raise your voice to the clouds and cover yourself with a flood of water? Do you send the lightning bolts on the way? Do they report to you? Here we are.

76. 33:14

    He talks about wild beasts throughout. And so I think one of the messages he's saying is Job, you can't even control the things that I have made. And the things that I have made are a reflection and extension of me. If you cannot tether even my creation, why would you develop a theology that attempts to tether me?

77. 33:36

    Doesn't the creation itself teach you of my character? It is out of man's control. And so what is our reaction to this truth? We might say, oh great, fine, that's nice, isn't it? Okay, so we're out of control. Well, we better sit back and just see what happens. Well, bear in mind, an uncontrollable God is not equal to an uncaring God.

78. 34:00

    It is a mistake to assume that. Just because humans have a great desire to be in control of things, right? You all know at least one person, usually a guy that couldn't possibly let anyone else drive. It can't be a passenger, it's a disaster. It has to be in control, right? We all suffer from that to a small extent.

79. 34:19

    The God that cannot be controlled to us is not a God who does not care about us. In fact, this then gives an idea that if God has provided this entire universe for us, then any comment on divine justice, if we feel that we're ever in an authoritative position to say that, must be viewed in the context that the entire world exists as an extension of divine love.

80. 34:42

    See, our sense of justice put a line down the middle of our experiences. We said anything on the upside is blessing and anything on the downside is suffering. But our entire universe in which we live is already far removed from nothing because God made it all. Made it all. And it's all blessing.

81. 35:02

    And it's only our sense of justice that ever intends to redefine that. And that's important. We come to the idea that it is, again, the doctrine of retribution is necessarily a hindrance to speaking well of God. Because that's where we're going to finish off this first class. The idea of speaking well of God.

82. 35:20

    It's not our experiences that hinder us from speaking well of God. It's our sense of justice that hinders from speaking well of God. Because otherwise you'd say, well, you know, even the blessing that Job receives at the end, after Job had prayed for his friends, the Lord made him prosperous again and gave him twice as much as he had before.

83. 35:39

    The Lord blessed the latter part of Job's life more than the first. Sure. But in our sense of the doctrine of retribution or that which should be, this is a proper and appropriate Hollywood ending. And we can say, yes, that's proper. That's as it should have been. Well, how can we speak well of God if God has only done what he should have done?

84. 36:02

    We have that little tethered God again being sent out on his rope to do that which he should. And that is a complete hindrance to us speaking well of God. Our sense of justice is our hindrance of speaking well of God. And we cannot even regard this as a wonderful blessing as long as we cling to that theology.

85. 36:21

    Indeed, we might say, and we know all things work together for good to them that love God, but that's not because of rewards that are to come. It's because as we love God, we get to be more like him. So we get to be more resonant with the things that he is doing and there is less friction in our experience and in our mind and in our heart as life unfolds regardless of what it brings us because we take on more the character of God and we are more resonant with the way that he is working in this world.

86. 36:49

    It works together for good for us and so that now enables us to begin to speak well of God. And so, time, belatedly, for our last few minutes to open the Bible. And this is the verse we started with. God speaks, I am angry with you and your two friends. You have not spoken of me what is right as my servant Job has.

87. 37:12

    That's a very important phrase because you notice God even takes the trouble to repeat it. You have not spoken of me what is right as my servant Job has. Famous words, no doubt. You've known them for years. I guess what was only became apparent to me very recently, and I didn't realize this, this is the last spoken quote in the book of Job.

88. 37:32

    I'm sure you know that. I didn't realize until recently that the very first spoken quote in the book of Job is on the same theme. Did you know that? I didn't. So that was a surprise. Let's look at the very first words spoken in the book of Job. Chapter 1, fairly obviously, and verse 5.

89. 37:49

    Early in the morning, Job would sacrifice a burnt offering for each of his children, thinking, perhaps my children have sinned and cursed God in their hearts. This was Job's regular custom. So let me paraphrase that. Perhaps, thinks Job, my children have sinned and not spoken of God that which is right, even in their hearts, never mind allowed.

90. 38:13

    How fascinating. So the first and last quote in the book of Job is on the same theme. Can you speak of God, that which is right? And interestingly, in fact, and maybe this will help solve a little conundrum, the only, the very famous, only quote ever spoken by Job's wife is also on exactly the same theme.

91. 38:34

    Job's wife said to Job, are you still holding on to your integrity? Speak ill of God and die. And you always think, you know, Job's wife doesn't get a very good press, well that's her only quote, you can understand how that happened, but you think, is she really, is she really that evil a woman?

92. 38:52

    It seems inconceivable that a righteous man like Job would ever have chosen a partner who could have her whole life characterized that way. I think it's merely the fact that, for one thing, it's not an anthropocentric universe, so the book of Job isn't designed about representing every human character as they might best want to be seen, it's about God.

93. 39:12

    And this is the one and only comment she makes that is on the subject of speaking about God. So I don't believe she was an exceptionally evil woman by any means, but I think this was her one commentary on the central theme of the book, and so that was recorded as her epitaph.

94. 39:28

    But there's an excitational point in there, isn't there? I'm sure many in this room are parents, because the excitational point that comes to us is, this is Job's thought when he wakes up in the morning. How do my children speak about my God? And I wonder, for those of us who are natural parents and have natural children, or even who are spiritual parents and have brought new people into our community, is it the first thing on my mind to wake up in the morning and think, how do my children speak about my God?

95. 40:02

    I must confess, it's more normal for my morning prayers or evening prayers to be somewhat me-centered. And I'd like this, and ooh, that would be nice, and I'll get rid of that, for goodness sake, it's really annoying me, et cetera, right? Do your prayers sound the same? Can you really say, because Job is chosen as a blameless and righteous man, and this is the definition that God wants to give us of a man who is righteous and blameless, someone who wakes up in the morning and thinks, how do my children speak about my God?

96. 40:30

    That's central to my day. And that's really very interesting. I wonder whether that is our primary concern. What did Job say about God that was right? Well, for one thing, he remembered blessing in the time of suffering, even given everything we've said about the somewhat arbitrary definition of those two terms. He says, even in the time of suffering, naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked shall I return there.

97. 40:58

    The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away, blessed be the name of the Lord. And so he hasn't forgotten about even those things he defines as blessing during those times he receives suffering. But perhaps even more important than that, he knows to speak about God as one who is unfathomable and unsearchable.

98. 41:19

    And that's important. Why is that important? Because if God is unfathomable, then he cannot be called to account for misbehavior. It is only when you understand what someone should be doing can you ever say to them, you have not been doing what you should have been doing. And it's easy to, and God is frequently in the world charged that way.

99. 41:40

    It is a presumption that you know someone's purpose and task before you can say you're offline. And Job is well aware, we do not know the rails upon which God might choose to run. Therefore, we cannot call when he is out of line. He says God is unsearchable. If I go to the east, he's not there.

100. 41:59

     If I go to the west, I do not find him. I catch no glimpse of him. But he knows the way that I take. When he has tested me, I will come forth as gold. So he says I trust that he loves me and will accept me in the way that I am trying to serve him.

101. 42:15

     And that's very different from the three friends of Job who talk about God in a very different way. And perhaps this is truly the heart of what they spoke that was wrong about God. They talk about God in a very reducible and predictable way. Eliphaz says, I myself have seen a fool taking root, but suddenly his house was cursed.

102. 42:34

     Well, that's interesting, isn't it? Because that fits the circumstances of Job very exactly. So that's a very judgmental comment. His children are far from safety, crushed. Oh, the fool's children get crushed, says Eliphaz, to a man who's just had his children crushed by a house roof falling on. We have examined this. Says Eliphaz.

103. 42:54

     He says, I am qualified. I am qualified in this declaration. We have examined this and it is true. So hear it and apply it to yourself. He says, the ways of God are known. They are reducible. You can work them out. Put your experiences into this template and it will tell you whether you're good or bad.

104. 43:12

     Bildad says much the same thing. Does God pervert justice? So he says, I know what justice is. I know the line that it follows. Does the Almighty pervert what is right? That when your children sinned against him, he gave them over to the penalty of their sin. And Zophar the same. Oh, how I wish that God would speak.

105. 43:30

     Why does Zophar wish that God would speak? Zophar wishes that God would speak because he expects that God will ratify. Yeah, you should listen to this guy, Zophar. He really knows what he's saying. That's why he wishes. He has presumed that God already approves of his words. And therefore, if God speaks, he will simply underscore what Zophar says.

106. 43:49

     How I wish that God would speak. That he would open his lips against you, Job. Know this. God has even forgotten some of your sin. Surely he recognizes deceitful men. And when he sees evil, does he not take note?

107. 44:05

     And yet, the last point I want to make is that even though God is unfathomable and God is unsearchable, and therefore God is unaccountable and not to be accused, that doesn't mean he's looking for clueless disciples. He's not looking for people who say, well, I guess I just don't know anything, do I?

108. 44:21

     I'll just hang around and watch what happens. You notice Nicodemus is condemned for that sort of thing. How can this be, says Nicodemus, when Jesus is talking of being born again? You are Israel's teacher, said Jesus, and you do not understand these things? We are called to understand. And you might say, well, thanks, you've just contradicted yourself.

109. 44:39

     You've just said God is unsearchable, and now you've just said we're called to understand. Could you please clarify what you're talking about? And there is a clarity that can be brought to that. And that is, we are called to understand our role before God. We are not to presume that we understand God's role either toward us or toward anything else.

110. 45:00

     Trees that fall in the forest, squirrels, whatever. Right? God is working His will. But we are to understand where our part is. So look, this is what Jesus says. The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, my disciples, but not to others. That is what we are called to understand.

111. 45:21

     But we should not extend that into presuming to speak about what God should be up to. How unsearchable are God's judgments, His paths beyond tracing out. Who has known the mind of the Lord? Who has been His counselor? And that gives us a nice distinction between the things that we should be striving to understand and the things that we should leave alone and trust in faith that is God's path only to know.

112. 45:49

     And that sets us up now to enter the book of Job. So from tomorrow onwards, we'll be heavily based in the book of Job and there won't be all this hand waving philosophy going on. And we're going to meet one of the central characters in the book of Job and that is Satan.

113. 46:03

     So Satan will enter tomorrow and we shall meet him. be okay with him.