Does Job reveal how God builds a man?

[ZNPaaneah]

In our recent discussion on Psalms there has been a dispute as to whether the sentiments expressed are "non Christian" and portrays a vengeful God that is contrary to the God who loved the world and gave His son for our salvation. It seems that Witness Lee held to this feeling, teaching that some Psalms were spiritual and some were the natural concept of the writer.
Igzy made a valid point that the issue isn't the writer. As Aron pointed out the Psalms portray our journey. He quoted Psalm 119:67 "Before I was afflicted I went astray, but now I obey your word." Showing how our journey includes failure, affliction, repentance, restoration, and obedience. It is through these experiences that we come to appreciate the word of the Bible more. For example, we can look at our experience with the LRC in this way.
So then, it seems the real issue should be addressed in the book of Job. This book, more than any other, gets to the heart of whether God is a righteous and loving God that is portrayed in the NT. Once again, Witness Lee fails to see "the divine revelation" in this book of the Bible. "In the divine unveilings to Job, there was nothing concerning the purpose of God in dealing with Job. Thus, the adequate knowledge of this matter is not found in this book. The revelation regarding the purpose of God's dealing with Job had to wait until Christ came and until the apostle Paul was produced." (chapter 29, Sect 3, Life Study of Job). To be fair to Witness Lee I thought his ministry on the epistles of Paul and also on the Pentateuch were very good. However, I also felt he mangled Psalms, Job, Proverbs and James. Reading his ministry on these books you get the impression of a blind man fumbling around in the dark. For example, this quote that I just gave of Witness Lee refers directly to these verses:
Job 38:3 Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.
38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
38:5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
38:6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

This is the first question God asks Job and it succinctly covers the entire book to this point. God is saying that He is "building a man", job is complaining about how He is doing it, so God presents his credentials saying He built the Earth. Since Job has found all these "errors" in what God is doing in building a man God wants to see if he understands anything about how He built the Earth. Where were you when I laid the foundation? Do you understand?

Likewise I think this goes straight to the heart of the recent discussion. Is the OT God different from the NT God, or is this the God who is laying the foundation for the one new man? It it is the latter then the book of Job clearly did reveal "the purpose of God" which puts a very big question mark on Witness Lee as a Bible expositor.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Is the OT God different from the NT God

Yes but if I explain how I'll get kicked off this website again.

[UntoHim]

zeek, my man, you don't believe in the God of the OT or the NT....so what's it to you either way? There are TONS of forums out there for guys like you. I can guaranty you that you won't have a problem over at one of those forums. Why come here and have to expend so much energy whining and crying about being moderated? Heck, if you're so hell bent on duking it out with LCers then you know that your welcome over at the Bereans forum. Plus there is the extra benefit of you being able to whine and cry about being moderated over here.... it's a win-win for you my man!

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

zeek, my man, you don't believe in the God of the OT or the NT....so what's it to you either way? There are TONS of forums out there for guys like you. I can guaranty you that you won't have a problem over at one of those forums. Why come here and have to expend so much energy whining and crying about being moderated? Heck, if you're so hell bent on duking it out with LCers then you know that your welcome over at the Bereans forum. Plus there is the extra benefit of you being able to whine and cry about being moderated over here.... it's a win-win for you my man!

You don't know what I believe and you don't want to know. It might shake up your complacent little world. I come here because the site claims to be a for ex-local churchers and I was in the Local Church for 13 years. I'm not whining and crying, I'm stating facts. You can't handle the truth.

[OBW]

zeek,

Quite a disingenuous reply.

The forum is for ex LCers . . . and for others. But that is not the definition of the purpose of the forum. It is for the discussion of the LRC and also its problems.

And when Unto and Igzy point out that it is not for the determination that the OT is about a different God, or inconsistent with the NT, or something else, they are entirely correct.

There is an accepted premise that this is a discussion within Christian thinking about the problems with a group that is inside of Christian thinking (well, mostly inside). The purpose is not to decide that accepting the God of the OT is problematic or questionable. There are probably places elsewhere to discuss that.

So you can stop with the simplistic declaration that (in so many words says) "the forum is for ex-LCers, I am an ex-LCer, so I can talk about anything I #$&@-well please." That has never been the truth.

And it is entirely fine (even really good) that it is not simply the Wild-West.

That is some truth that you need to handle.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

zeek,

Quite a disingenuous reply.

The forum is for ex LCers . . . and for others. But that is not the definition of the purpose of the forum. It is for the discussion of the LRC and also its problems.

And when Unto and Igzy point out that it is not for the determination that the OT is about a different God, or inconsistent with the NT, or something else, they are entirely correct.

There is an accepted premise that this is a discussion within Christian thinking about the problems with a group that is inside of Christian thinking (well, mostly inside). The purpose is not to decide that accepting the God of the OT is problematic or questionable.

I didn't raise the question ZNP did. He asked, "Is the OT God different from the NT God, or is this the God who is laying the foundation for the one new man?" So, you have misdirected your rebuke toward me.

So you can stop with the simplistic declaration that (in so many words says) "the forum is for ex-LCers, I am an ex-LCer, so I can talk about anything I #$&@-well please." That has never been the truth.

Here you intentionally misquote me. Anyone can read my post and see that I did not say that. Why did you find it necessary to change my words to make your point? Was that a righteous thing to do?

I am aware that this is a strictly moderated site where I am not free to talk about anything I please. It is out of respect for the rules of the forum that I refrained from saying more about how God seems to change from the OT to the NT.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This is the first question God asks Job and it succinctly covers the entire book to this point. God is saying that He is "building a man", Job is complaining about how He is doing it, so God presents his credentials saying He built the Earth.

I am constantly baffled by the starting point of some threads. We read the opening verses from Chapter 38 — the first place that God speaks to Job — and he talks about what he did in forming the earth. He is challenging the four men sitting and speaking (including Job).

There is nothing in this about "building a man." Maybe it is somewhere else. But right here, it says no such thing. To make a point about "building a man," you need to find a passage that speaks about building a man.

When I read this particular passage, its seems clear to me that God is challenging the empty suppositions of Job and his companions about what God is thinking/doing concerning either inflicting Job or allowing it to happen. He makes it clear that whatever he is doing or allowing is entirely his prerogative. He made it all in all of its glory. His reasons are beyond their petty complaints or imaginations.

But where is "building a man" defined as the question God is asking? At least through the verses you quote . . . and on through the next chapter and into chapter 40. You just put it out there as if it is obviously so. And then move on as if it is settled.

It is not. It is the question that you asked. If you want to move on as if it is simply true, then why start a thread?

[awareness]

Don't get me on the book of Job. I'll just get my tit in the wringer again.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Don't get me on the book of Job. I'll just get my tit in the wringer again.

Gird up your loins like a man (and your man boobs) and answer the question.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Gird up your loins like a man (and your man boobs) and answer the question.

But if I gird up to my boobs my loins will be exposed.

The short and sweet answer to, "Does Job reveal how God builds a man?" is :

NO!

But Witness Lee could show from Genesis to Revelation that, the "Building" was the eternal purpose of God.

So sounds like something Witness Lee would claim.

But to me it sounds like an extreme attempt to wrap the Bible around a premise that's a presupposition.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

I am constantly baffled by the starting point of some threads. We read the opening verses from Chapter 38 — the first place that God speaks to Job — and he talks about what he did in forming the earth. He is challenging the four men sitting and speaking (including Job).

There is nothing in this about "building a man." Maybe it is somewhere else. But right here, it says no such thing. To make a point about "building a man," you need to find a passage that speaks about building a man.

When I read this particular passage, its seems clear to me that God is challenging the empty suppositions of Job and his companions about what God is thinking/doing concerning either inflicting Job or allowing it to happen. He makes it clear that whatever he is doing or allowing is entirely his prerogative. He made it all in all of its glory. His reasons are beyond their petty complaints or imaginations.

But where is "building a man" defined as the question God is asking? At least through the verses you quote . . . and on through the next chapter and into chapter 40. You just put it out there as if it is obviously so. And then move on as if it is settled.

It is not. It is the question that you asked. If you want to move on as if it is simply true, then why start a thread?

"Where were you when I laid the foundation of the Earth" is about building the Earth. No one can dispute that. So then, what does that question have to do with the preceding 37 chapters and why isn't it a non sequitor? Because it is very clear from the context that Job feels it is relevant and he has no way to answer.

Now the previous 37 chapters did not seem to be a geological treatise on the creation, but rather a complaint and various justifications for how God was treating a man, Job.

I feel that this directly relates to what has gone before because God is saying that He is the one that built the Earth, and therefore He knows how to build a man. Since Man is made of Earth this is a reasonable analogy. This interpretation is also much more in line with the Bible which is concerned with God getting the One New Man.

The question that I am asking is "Does Job reveal how God builds a man?" I am making a very clear claim that it does. This is a basic argumentative style essay, you state the question, you make a claim. The thread was started because it is clear from previous discussion that many disagree and feel that Job (the OT) reveals something very different.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

"Where were you when I laid the foundation of the Earth" is about building the Earth. No one can dispute that. So then, what does that question have to do with the preceding 37 chapters and why isn't it a non sequitor? Because it is very clear from the context that Job feels it is relevant and he has no way to answer.

Now the previous 37 chapters did not seem to be a geological treatise on the creation, but rather a complaint and various justifications for how God was treating a man, Job.

God's response in chapter 38 and following is not viewed as a non sequitur just because Job did not talk about the creation of the earth. To suggest that it is indicates someone with no understanding.

But just because Job is complaining about how he has been treated — whether his complaint should be directed at God, Satan, or the "luck of the draw" — it was about how it is justified. He paints himself as unworthy of receiving what he got. And his friends question whether he did deserve it.

God says their sense of why is irrelevant. They have no right to question the one that put everything in place, including their very lives.

While it might make a decent sermon to suggest that all things build character (and that this time of suffering helped to strengthen Job's) the evidence as of the time that God appears to answer them all does not suggest that he was improving in character in any way. We are not presented with a "new and improved" Job. Just one who was granted more than he had before — something very different that a change on the inside.

To the very end of the book, God speaks about the things of creation and not of building man, or developing him. There is nothing that points to "building a man." And the most common understanding of this book is that "life happens" and you can't always figure it out or blame someone else.

Another novel view from another non-theologian is hard to accept on an "it is so" basis. You say that 'God is saying that He is "building a man" ' yet you supply nothing that suggests that is the case other than your declaration. It is so because you say it is and that this the thing we are going to look into? You could at least have provided something that hints at the premise besides your own words.

If that is your premise, then the response is "nonsense." If you can build a relevant premise to think about, I will give it more consideration.

I will be reading here to find a renewed basis for the discussion. Mere griping about my complaint will be ignored.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

God's response in chapter 38 and following is not viewed as a non sequitur just because Job did not talk about the creation of the earth. To suggest that it is indicates someone with no understanding.

I did not say it was, what I said is that any understanding of God's response is going to have to present it in context and not as a non sequitor.

Originally Posted by OBW

But just because Job is complaining about how he has been treated — whether his complaint should be directed at God, Satan, or the "luck of the draw" — it was about how it is justified. He paints himself as unworthy of receiving what he got. And his friends question whether he did deserve it.

God says their sense of why is irrelevant. They have no right to question the one that put everything in place, including their very lives.

Yes, I must have missed that part. Remind me again the verse where God says their complaints are irrelevant and that they have no right to question.

Originally Posted by OBW

While it might make a decent sermon to suggest that all things build character (and that this time of suffering helped to strengthen Job's) the evidence as of the time that God appears to answer them all does not suggest that he was improving in character in any way. We are not presented with a "new and improved" Job. Just one who was granted more than he had before — something very different that a change on the inside.

Sure we are. We are presented with a Job who has a new and improved revelation of God, since we walk by faith and His faith is improved, so is his walk and expression.

42:1 Then Job answered the LORD, and said,
42:2 I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee.
42:3 Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge? therefore have I uttered that I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not.
42:4 Hear, I beseech thee, and I will speak: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me.
42:5 I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee.
42:6 Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.

and this book began with God saying 1:8 "And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?" God asked Satan to consider Job, hence all the calamities. When all is said and done Job has a deeper and richer revelation of God and a stronger faith.

Originally Posted by OBW

To the very end of the book, God speaks about the things of creation and not of building man, or developing him. There is nothing that points to "building a man."

Sure there is.

40:9 Hast thou an arm like God? or canst thou thunder with a voice like him?
40:10 Deck thyself now with majesty and excellency; and array thyself with glory and beauty.
40:11 Cast abroad the rage of thy wrath: and behold every one that is proud, and abase him.
40:12 Look on every one that is proud, and bring him low; and tread down the wicked in their place.
40:13 Hide them in the dust together; and bind their faces in secret.
40:14 Then will I also confess unto thee that thine own right hand can save thee.

Man is made in the image of God and with His likeness. Therefore, to say that a man in God's image would have an arm like God or a voice like God is in line with the divine revelation. Since Jesus was such a man with an arm like God and a voice like God it stands to reason that this book is revealing Jesus. Since it was necessary for Jesus to be crucified before ascending to the throne it also stands to reason the cross as a foundation for such a life is necessary.

The book begins with God asking Satan to "consider" His servant Job (1:8). Satan then tears down everything Job has built (1:13-19). The book ends with Job being completely rebuilt so that he was more blessed in the latter end (42:12).

Originally Posted by OBW

And the most common understanding of this book is that "life happens" and you can't always figure it out or blame someone else.

There is nothing "common" about our God, a Holy God is an uncommon God. How is the "most common" understanding relevant to the discussion. The common understanding is that "three" kings gave presents to the new born Jesus, and that Eve ate an apple which resulted in the fall.

Originally Posted by OBW

Another novel view from another non-theologian is hard to accept on an "it is so" basis. You say that 'God is saying that He is "building a man" ' yet you supply nothing that suggests that is the case other than your declaration. It is so because you say it is and that this the thing we are going to look into? You could at least have provided something that hints at the premise besides your own words.

If that is your premise, then the response is "nonsense." If you can build a relevant premise to think about, I will give it more consideration.

I will be reading here to find a renewed basis for the discussion. Mere griping about my complaint will be ignored.

Excellent reasoning. You provided no verses to support your premise, hence by your own admission they are nonsense. I on the other hand have provided a Biblical basis for all of my claims, as requested.

[OBW]

I will acknowledge that God mentions the creation of man in his rather lengthy description of the creation of all things, from earth to beasts of magnificence, and including man. But it does not make the book about "building a man." A verse or two buried in chapters does not "wag the dog."

Same thing for the character of Job. Job was already described as righteous and fearing God. two verses are not very revelatory concerning some significant change in that character.

Then there is this particular little jab.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Excellent reasoning. You provided no verses to support your premise, hence by your own admission they are nonsense. I on the other hand have provided a Biblical basis for all of my claims, as requested.

Response?

Poor reasoning on your part.

You seem to conclude that if you throw enough numbers separated by colons onto the page, you have a "Biblical basis." The obvious lack of actual scriptural support for a claim of major purpose is not made right by attaching a list of verses that do not support that claim. And seeing through the ruse does not require a verse. To suggest otherwise is something that only the very weak-minded would accept as reasonable.

Last. I have never said that God did not build a man. Or that Job was not changed in character. Rather, that the account provided in the 42 chapters that is the book of Job is not seen as providing support for such a major premise. Now, if you meant that God created man, then God clearly said that in Job. But it was not his primary statement. It was one of many describing the totality of his creation. But when you say "God builds a man" you are making a statement in the lexicon of LRC usage which would be referring to something more like the "one new man." God is clearly building that. But it isn't found in Job. Some might take liberty to argue that it typifies the one new man, but it wouldn't be based on the primary thrust of the book.