I received a question about last week’s “Column”: “Are all natural disasters judgements? If not, how do we know which ones are?” To answer this we need to move from “Sitting with Jeremiah” to “Sitting with Job”.
Job sits, like Jeremiah, in the midst of catastrophe. He sits covered in the most painful boils, and he has lost his children, buried under the ruins of a house which collapsed in a freak storm. All his flocks have been driven away by marauding bands, his servants killed. He is ruined and in great pain. His affliction appears to have all the hallmarks of judgement.
Four men are also sitting with Job to comfort him. For a whole week they can say nothing, so great is Job’s distress. Eventually Job speaks and curses the day he was born. Job’s bitterness provokes them to respond. The gist of their replies is clear: God prospers the righteous and judges those who sin. Job, therefore, is under judgement. Job, however, protests to God the fundamental uprightness of his life. He has no idolatry to confess, no adultery, no robbing of the poor, no neglect of God. The more he protests, the more his comforters accuse and condemn him for what they see as sinful rebellion; his catastrophe must be a judgement.
Finally God breaks in and rebukes the comforters; “You have not spoken of me what is right, as Job has”. Their insistence on sin and judgement is inappropriate in Job’s situation. God tells Job that he is involved in something way beyond Job’s understanding, something for which God could not be reproached. The opening chapters give us some account of what that was: Job was caught up in a conflict that was taking place in heavenly realms. He was being attacked by Satan, attacked because he was righteous, not because he had done wrong. Job’s integrity through the trial and eventual restoration would be to the glory of God. Job would be chastened and enlightened.
The lesson from this is that we cannot automatically connect catastrophe with judgement. Sitting with Job was radically different from sitting with Jeremiah, though on the surface they were both looking at catastrophe. It was the context that was different – an upright man (Job) contrasts with a godless city (Jerusalem). It is the context that is always critical for true discernment and appropriate response. Neither can we get away from the more subjective fact that there is always a spiritual and revelationary element in discerning an act of judgement. It’s the latter element that characterizes the prophets.
Job sits, like Jeremiah, in the midst of catastrophe. He sits covered in the most painful boils, and he has lost his children, buried under the ruins of a house which collapsed in a freak storm. All his flocks have been driven away by marauding bands, his servants killed. He is ruined and in great pain. His affliction appears to have all the hallmarks of judgement.
Four men are also sitting with Job to comfort him. For a whole week they can say nothing, so great is Job’s distress. Eventually Job speaks and curses the day he was born. Job’s bitterness provokes them to respond. The gist of their replies is clear: God prospers the righteous and judges those who sin. Job, therefore, is under judgement. Job, however, protests to God the fundamental uprightness of his life. He has no idolatry to confess, no adultery, no robbing of the poor, no neglect of God. The more he protests, the more his comforters accuse and condemn him for what they see as sinful rebellion; his catastrophe must be a judgement.
Finally God breaks in and rebukes the comforters; “You have not spoken of me what is right, as Job has”. Their insistence on sin and judgement is inappropriate in Job’s situation. God tells Job that he is involved in something way beyond Job’s understanding, something for which God could not be reproached. The opening chapters give us some account of what that was: Job was caught up in a conflict that was taking place in heavenly realms. He was being attacked by Satan, attacked because he was righteous, not because he had done wrong. Job’s integrity through the trial and eventual restoration would be to the glory of God. Job would be chastened and enlightened.
The lesson from this is that we cannot automatically connect catastrophe with judgement. Sitting with Job was radically different from sitting with Jeremiah, though on the surface they were both looking at catastrophe. It was the context that was different – an upright man (Job) contrasts with a godless city (Jerusalem). It is the context that is always critical for true discernment and appropriate response. Neither can we get away from the more subjective fact that there is always a spiritual and revelationary element in discerning an act of judgement. It’s the latter element that characterizes the prophets.
Bob
To make a comment: click on word "comments" below, write comment in white box and add your name and e mail (if you wish), click on "select profile", click "anonymous" and continue.
Posts
