"war in heaven" - real or metaphorical?

[John317]

Quote:

Robert: God is presenting Job to Satan as Job views himself.

Quote:

Richard Holbrook: Where does it say that in the Bible?

Quote:

ROBERT: You get this by reading the whole of the book of Job; not just a verse here or there.....Do you need help?

Can you give the verse where the book of Job teaches that God is presenting Job to Satan as Job views himself. I mean, where do you get that idea? I've read Jack Sequiera's book where he refers to this, but he never shows any particular verse that expresses that idea directly.

While you're at it, please also give the verse that says the narrator is wrong in the very first verse of the book. That would mean that we have an unreliable-- i.e., dishonest-- narrator. In literary terms, that would put him in the same league with Huckleberry Finn and Holden Caulfield, the narrator of The Catcher In the Rye. It means you can't always know right off the bat when they're telling the truth and when they ain't. I doubt anyone wants to do that with the book of Job, yet that is exactly what happens if we say the narrator says things about Job that we can't depend on. But a primary reason we know this is NOT the case is that the book of Job is written in an objective style, whereas stories from the viewpoint of unrelaible narrators-- such as those referred to above-- are told in a subjective style from the point of view of the protaganist.

[Guest]

If it were in the book of Job, wouldn't it be in the Bible? How was Job before God corrected him? Where exactly in the book of Job, does God correct him?

[Robert]

No, I don't put the blame on God.

[Guest]

I see you're back on the Ellen White bandwagon. I wish you would make up your mind.

[Robert]

I see you're back on the Ellen White bandwagon. I wish you would make up your mind.

I'm doing what John does....Bible and EGW....Now read it because I've given you evidence....

[John317]

Quote:

Richard Holbrook: In other words, it isn't in the Bible.

Quote:

ROBERT: No, I said it is in the book of Job...all of it and not that one little quote. You guys can't or don't want to see this because you are much like Job before God corrected him.

OK, I understand that it's a thesis that you find in different places in Job. Can you give the main lines or verses that support what you're saying?

I have no doubt that Job learned from his experience, but the question is, did Job learn that he had indeed committed a sin for which God was punishing him? Or did Job learn that he was not "blameless" or "upright" after all? If so, where do we find evidence of it?

[Robert]

let God weigh me in honest scales and he will know that I am blameless --

32:1 So these three men stopped answering Job, because he was righteous in his own eyes. 2 But Elihu son of Barakel the Buzite, of the family of Ram, became very angry with Job for justifying himself rather than God.

Okay, Job viewed himself as blameless....Very clear....This is self-justification.

God, at the beginning said, "he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil."

Tell me, after reading the context, is God talking about His view of Job or Job's view of Himself?

The latter....

Why?

Because God had no time to justify Job through Himself because Job was too busy justifying himself before God.

Now, after Elihu and God talked with Job, what happens to Job's self-confidence...his cockiness?

First thing he does is he covers his mouth with his hands....

Next Job views himself as vile...then he repents of claims to righteousness.

Would you like this old boy to give you those exact quote are will you guys keep your hands over your eyes?

[Robert]

So because of Job's view of God (He will kill you if you get out of line) Job naturally became legalistic.

The two go hand in hand....

[Robert]

[God, speaking for Job in front of Satan] Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and shunneth evil?

[Job to God and his 3 friends] let God weigh me [Job] in honest scales and he will know that I am blameless

[Job's 3 friends were satisfied] So these three men stopped answering Job, because he was righteous in his own eyes.

[Elihu points to Job's problem] But Elihu son of Barakel the Buzite, of the family of Ram, became very angry with Job for justifying himself rather than God.

[Job has a change of heart] "Behold, I am vile. What shall I answer Thee? I will lay mine hand upon my mouth.

[Job was self-deceived] I uttered that which I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not.

[Job repents of his self-righteous attitude] I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now my eye seeth thee. Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.

[Guest]

Poppycock (in my best english accent)

[Guest]

Tommyrot

[Robert]

Two similarities that Job had before God changed him:

1] self-righteousness

2] And he believed that God wipes out families...

[pnattmbtc]

Job holds fast to his integrity even though he doesn't understand what happened. He trusts God no matter what. That must be our attitude, too, instead of saying that if God actively destroys the wicked, we won't worship Him.

[John317]

Quote:

Robert: Yes, he can't figure it out, but his trust is more in his righteousness than in God. He is becoming Pharisaical. He is deceived by his own self-righteousness.

EGW:

When Job heard the voice of the Lord out of the whirlwind, he exclaimed: “I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.” Job 42:6….There can be no self-exaltation, no boastful claim to freedom from sin, on the part of those who walk in the shadow of Calvary’s cross. [GC11, 471]

What did Job repent from? His boastful claims.

But your quote from Ellen White makes it look like she's saying Job was exalting himself or claiming freedom from sin, and this is not the case. It becomes clear she is not saying this, if you read the entire paragraph.

It's true that Job repented and abhored himself after he got a good view of God, but that had nothing to do with his claim of being innocent. He never claimed to be without sin. He was defending himself against their accusations that he deserved God's judgment because of some secret sin.

In Job 42: 6, Job recants what he said about God in 13: 23, 24; 19: 6-11; 21: 4. Job had spoken these complaints out of his great pain. But he knows now that God wasn't punishing him for anything. He had been right all along, that God wasn't punishing him for his sins. His friends had been wrong to say that He had been. You will notice, significantly, that Job doesn't say he'd been wrong to say he was innocent.

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17:

The words of God, "you incited Me against him, to destroy him [Heb. 'swallow him up'] without cause" (Job 2: 3),means, "you're trying to provoke me into ruining him for no reason," or "you were trying to influence me to wipe him out for nothing."

Quote:

pnattmbtc: No they don't. They mean, "You incited me to permit you to attack Job."

Explain how that means something different from what I said.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

JOHN3:17:

The words of God, "you incited Me against him, to destroy him [Heb. 'swallow him up'] without cause" (Job 2: 3),means, "you're trying to provoke me into ruining him for no reason," or "you were trying to influence me to wipe him out for nothing."

Quote:

pnattmbtc: No they don't. They mean, "You incited me to permit you to attack Job."

Explain how that means something different from what I said.

I did, in the post you responded to.

Your words speak of something God would yet do, as opposed to something God had already done.

The point is that God presents Himself as doing that which He permits.

[John317]

Quote:

John317:Job holds fast to his integrity even though he doesn't understand what happened. He trusts God no matter what. That must be our attitude, too, instead of saying that if God actively destroys the wicked, we won't worship Him.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: God's actively destroying the wicked would be one thing; His actively torturing them is another. "Destruction" and "torture" are two different things. It's the torture which is particularly objectionable. If God actively destroyed the wicked in some merciful way, such as with fire from heaven that instantly destroyed them, that could be defended on moral grounds. There would still be some problems with the idea (such as making sin to be innocuous, and using methods developed by and only found by the enemy, to name two), but it would avoid the problem of having God being a torturer.

I don't agree that the concept of God's active punishment of the wicked leads to the view that sin is innocuous. It just means that suffering the natural consequences of sin does not satisfy the demands of justice or meet the full penalty of the law.

It seems to me you are willing for God to actively destroy the wicked, but what you aren't willing to do is allow God to destroy them as the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy portray it. Ellen White clearly says that some will be destroyed as in a moment, while many others will suffer many days.

Are you saying that you believe it would be wrong, or immoral, of God to make Satan's punishment far greater than anyone else's?

How can the full penalty of the law be visited on the wicked if all the wicked suffer the same punishment-- meaning they all die instantly?

[Guest]

Amen John!

You're just going to confuse em with facts and common sense.

[pnattmbtc]

pnattmbtc: God's actively destroying the wicked would be one thing; His actively torturing them is another. "Destruction" and "torture" are two different things. It's the torture which is particularly objectionable. If God actively destroyed the wicked in some merciful way, such as with fire from heaven that instantly destroyed them, that could be defended on moral grounds. There would still be some problems with the idea (such as making sin to be innocuous, and using methods developed by and only found by the enemy, to name two), but it would avoid the problem of having God being a torturer.

J:I don't agree that the concept of God's active punishment of the wicked leads to the view that sin is innocuous. It just means that suffering the natural consequences of sin does not satisfy the demands of justice or meet the full penalty of the law.

[Robert]

your quote from Ellen White makes it look like she's saying Job was exalting himself or claiming freedom from sin, and this is not the case.

Sure it is....Job was a Holy Joe caught up in his own self-righteousness. This was directly related to his view of God as a killer....

[Robert]

the full penalty of the law

Show me using your Bible that the law demands suffering. I can show you that "the wages of sin is death", but I can't show you that it promotes suffering....

[Robert]

Poppycock (in my best english accent)

Paul before he encountered Christ:

"With respect to the righteousness which is by the law, blameless." Phil 3:6

After his encounter:

"I count all things [all the things he listed in Phil 3:5-6] loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them to be dung...."

I can show you the same with Job....Before and after....

[skyblue888]

"Indeed we count them blessed who endured. You have heard of the patience of Job and seen the end intended by the Lord, that the Lord is very compassionate and merciful." James 5:11.

"Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in the land, they would deliver only themselves by their righteousness, says the Lord." Ezekiel 14:14.

Paraphrased, this verse is saying, Though Noah, Daniel, and Job stood before Me, yet My mind could not be favorable toward this people. Cast them out of My sight and let them go forth. See Jeremiah 15:1.

These passages are clearly saying that these men were righteous and that their righteousness was from the Lord as it is written, "Their righteousness is from Me, saith the Lord." Isaiah 54:17.

Speaking of the brothers of Christ, we read, "They could understand the mystery of Christ's mission no more than the friends of Job could understand his humiliation and suffering." Desire of Ages, p.88.

It was the same with Job's "professed" friends.

"Job's professed friends were miserable comforters, making his case more bitter and unbearable, and Job was not guilty as they suppposed." Testimonies to Ministers, p.350.

Now there came a time in the life of Job when it was necessary to justify himself (self-justification) to withstand the condemnation of his friends but it was not necessary toward God. No sooner does Job hear the divine voice, "Gird up now your loins like a man," that his soul is bowed down with a sense of his sinfulness (not sins but sinfulness) and he says to God, "I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes." See Testimonies, Vol.3, p.509.

This should be obvious for the Lord Himself had declared him to be a perfect and upright man at the beginning of the book.

"There is wickedness in our world, but all the suffering is not the result of a perverted course of life. Job is brought distinctly before us as a man whom the Lord allowed Satan to afflict. The enemy stripped him of all he possessed; his family ties were broken; his children were taken from him. For a time his body was covered with loathsome sores, and he suffered greatly. His friends came to comfort him, but they tried to make him see that he was responsible, by his sinful course, for his afflictions. But he defended himself, and denied the charge, declaring, Miserable comforters are ye all. By seeking to make him guilty before God, and deserving of His punishments, they brought a grievous test upon him, and represented God in a false light; but Job did not swerve from his loyalty, and God rewarded His faithful servant." MS 22,1898; Bible Commentary, Vol.3, p.1140.

When Job said, "The Lord has given and the Lord has taken," it did not necessarily mean that he saw God as some may think these words would suggest, that God was responsible for his suffering. Job was in subjection to whatever God would allow to happen in his life. On the other hand Job may not have had the full light on the character of God, the nature of His government, and the principles of His dealing with sin, anymore than the prophets of the Old Testament did including John the Baptist and the disciples of Christ. See D.A.215 and 487.

That being the case the Lord did blink at this ignorance until the light of His character of love would become available.

sky

[skyblue888]

God's actively destroying the wicked would be one thing; His actively torturing them is another. "Destruction" and "torture" are two different things. It's the torture which is particularly objectionable. If God actively destroyed the wicked in some merciful way, such as with fire from heaven that instantly destroyed them, that could be defended on moral grounds. There would still be some problems with the idea (such as making sin to be innocuous, and using methods developed by and only found by the enemy, to name two), but it would avoid the problem of having God being a torturer.

Quote:

That's really declaring that we think our own reasoning is able to determine what God should do in His dealings with His subjects.

We were made in God's image, as moral creatures, able to judge morality. God invites us to reason together with Him, and lays open His government for investigation. He has nothing to hide. God has given us the ability to determine that He shouldn't torture His subjects (because of the moral issue involved, torture being cruel and cruelty being Satanic), and also that He wouldn't (because of His character).

Quote:

The words of God, "you incited Me against him, to destroy him [Heb. 'swallow him up''] without cause" (Job 2: 3),means, "you're trying to provoke me into ruining him for no reason," or "you were trying to influence me to wipe him out for nothing."

No they don't. They mean, "You incited me to permit you to attack Job." This is clear from chapter one:

Quote:

9 So Satan answered the LORD and said, “Does Job fear God for nothing? 10 Have You not made a hedge around him, around his household, and around all that he has on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land. 11 But now, stretch out Your hand and touch all that he has, and he will surely curse You to Your face!”

12 And the LORD said to Satan, “Behold, all that he has is in your power; only do not lay a hand on his person.”

God told Satan, "Behold, all that he had is in your power." He represented this as He Himself acting upon Satan in saying, "you incited Me against him, to destroy him without cause," which is simply one of many examples of God's representing Himself as doing that which He permits.

For example:

1."But I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go." (Ex. 4:21; EGW comments "(God) might have prevented it...but this He did not choose to do (5T 119-120)).

2.And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, "Send men to spy out the land of Canaan, ... (Numbers 21:6; EGW Comments "Here it was proposed by the people that spies be sent up to survey the country. The matter was presented before the Lord by Moses, and permission was granted" (PP 387).

3.The anger of the Lord was aroused against Israel and He moved David against them to say, "Go, number Israel and Judah (2 Sam. 24:1; 1 Chron. 21:1 says, "Now Satan stood up against Israel and moved David to number Israel).

4.1 Chron. 10:13, 14 says God killed Saul, whereas 1 Chron. 10:4 says "Saul took a sword and fell on it.

5.God said, "I ... create evil." (Isa. 45:7; EGW comments, "God did not create evil. He only made the good ... Evil, sin, and death were not created by God; they are the result of disobedience, which originated in Satan" (5T 503).

6.Scripture says that God destroyed Jerusalem, but EGW says Satan did this, and conceals his own work by representing that God did this.

7.Scripture relates God saying, "I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbor" (2 Sam. 12:11, 12. EGW comments, "Not that God prompted these acts of wickedness, but because of David's sin He did not exercise His power to prevent them (PP 739)).

Since 7 is a nice number, I'll stop here. These are examples of God presenting Himself through inspiration as doing that which He permits. This demonstrates that language alone is not enough to determine whether or not God is acting directly or passively. Other factors must be taken into consideration (such as, God's character. We know, for example, that God did not literally send lying spirits to Ahab because this is contrary to His character).

Here's a particularly interesting statement from the SOP:

Quote:

The Canaanites had filled up the measure of their iniquity, and the Lord would no longer bear with them. His defense being removed from them, they would fall easy prey to the Hebrews" (4T 151)

God was protecting the Canaanites from the Hebrews!

___________________________________________________

Excellent post pnatt.

The Lord be praised.

sky

[Robert]

These passages are clearly saying that these men were righteous and that their righteousness was from the Lord...

This is speaking of Job after his experience with Elihu and God.....