Friday September 16<\/b><\/p>\n
2 Kings 25: Jerusalem continued to be rebellious to Babylon. Or, more exactly, it courted favor with Egypt, where the XXVIth Dynasty was still trying to challenge Babylon\u2019s hegemony over the western half of the Fertile Crescent. This was certainly Jeremiah\u2019s reading of the political situation, and he fell into strong official unpopularity by speaking against it. The pharaoh at that time was Apries, or Hophra, 589-570.<\/p>\n
Within a decade, Nebuchadnezzar became weary of it all. He once again laid siege to Jerusalem, this time for 19 months. This lengthy siege probably means he needed most of his army to keep the Egyptians at bay (cf. Jeremiah 37:5). The king\u2019s flight from Jerusalem during the famine was the first sign the city was soon to fall. He was captured and forced to witness the execution of his sons before his eyes were put out. Jerusalem fell a month later.<\/p>\n
Solomon\u2019s Temple was not destroyed in battle. It was deliberately razed, rather, when the fighting was all over. This destruction came from a cool decision and represented Babylon\u2019s determination that Judah would no longer be even a little power on the earth. The treasures of the Temple were carried away to Babylon, as well, and Judah\u2019s official leaders were duly executed. Over the region Nebuchadnezzar appointed a governor, Gedaliah, who befriended Jeremiah. After the departure of the Babylonian forces, this governor was assassinated by revolutionaries, who abducted Jeremiah to Egypt; these details are related at great length in Jeremiah 40.<\/p>\n
The author of Kings, who wrote much later, knew that the fall of Jerusalem was not the real end of the story, even though it marked the end of the period of the kings. This writer knew that Jerusalem was restored in the next generation; he knew also of the fall of Babylon itself in 539. Although these later events lay outside of the scope of the present book, the author of Kings was well aware of them.<\/p>\n
It is hardly surprising, then, that he chose to end Kings on a somewhat more positive note. He records that King Jehoiakin, deposed a decade earlier and currently in captivity in Babylon, was liberated from prison and permitted to spend the rest of his life at the Babylonian court, along with other captured kings who owed their very lives to the throne in that court. In that court he finally became somebody<\/i>. Indeed, when we recall that poor Jehoiakin had reigned, in fact, for a bare three months, there is something distinctly pathetic in learning that, in the latter part of his life, he received \u201ca seat above the seats of the kings who were with him in Babylon.\u201d Inscribed on clay tablets in the palace at Babylon, the actual figures of Jehoiakin\u2019s regular \u201callowance\u201d are still preserved, along with other receipts and inventory lists of the time.<\/p>\n
Jehoikin\u2019s change in fortune came in 561 as a kind gesture from the new Babylonian Emperor, Evilmerodach, or Awil-Marduk, who was assassinated the next year. Nebuchadnezzar was, in fact, the last of Babylon\u2019s significant kings. Evilmerodach was succeed by Neriglissar (559-556), and he by Nabonidus (555-539). This last attempted a religious reform; favoring the moon god, Sin, over the sun god, Marduk, Nabonidus alienated the populace and especially the priests of Marduk. He fled to Arabia, leaving his son, Belshazzar on the throne to read the handwriting on the wall (Daniel 5) and to face the advance of Cyrus and his Persians.<\/p>\n
Saturday, September 17<\/b><\/p>\n
Job 18: Bildad contends that he and his two companions have been sharing with Job the rock-solid truth on which the moral life is founded. Job, however, has insisted on moving this rock (18:4). Does Job believe that the eternal principles of the moral order should be adjusted to suit his own case?<\/p>\n
Bildad goes on to elaborate the punishments that wicked men, such as Job, must expect (18:5\u201311). His references to darkness (18:5\u20136, 18) appear especially severe when we bear in mind how desperately Job has sought enlightenment in his plight.<\/p>\n
Bildad\u2019s second speech is particularly cruel in its judgment of Job, listing each of his afflictions in turn as evidence of his guilt. For example, Job has just spoken of the approaching darkness of the grave (17:12\u201314). Now Bildad takes up that very theme against him (18:5\u20136, 18). Job has just mentioned his failing strength (17:7, 18), and Bildad turns it into sarcastic obloquy (18:7, 12\u201313). Job lamented that onlookers were shocked at his condition (17:6, 8), and Bildad makes the point a matter of further reproach (18:20). The grave that Job described as his future home (17:13\u201316) is evidence to Bildad that he is \u201ca man who does not know God\u201d (18:21). In short, Job shows every symptom of a man whom God has rightly abandoned, and Bildad makes even his sufferings a reproach to him.<\/p>\n
Bildad, in this second speech, thus abandons even the scant sympathy expressed in his first. He further rehearses, rather, his simplistic and illogical claim that all human suffering can be reduced to the inevitable consequence of the sins of the man who suffers. This impersonal, even mechanical theory of moral retribution more closely resembles the Hindu \u201claw of karma\u201d and the Buddhist \u201cchain of causation\u201d than it does anything taught in Holy Scripture.<\/p>\n
Moreover, in its emphatic denial of this mechanical and impersonal theory of sin and retribution, the teaching of the Book of Job on the mystery (sod<\/i>) of human suffering, especially the suffering of the innocent and the just, prepares the believing mind for the ampler doctrine of the Cross, whereon an innocent and just Man suffered and died for the sake of the guilty and the unjust. The trial of Job was preparatory to the trial of Jesus. It is ultimately the Cross that vindicates Job\u2019s cause.<\/p>\n
This vindication by the Cross especially pertains to Job\u2019s preoccupation with death and corruption. The Just Man who died on the Cross, tormented by the bystanders as a person rejected by God (Matthew 27:39\u201343), is identical with the Holy One who was not suffered to see corruption (Acts 2:27).<\/p>\n
Sunday, September 18<\/b><\/p>\n
2 Corinthians 1:15—2:11: 2 Corinthians 1:15-24: Paul begins to correct a misunderstanding. He had disappointed some of the Corinthians by failing to visit them at a time when he was expected. Indeed, he had announced plans for such a visit (1 Corinthians 16:5). In fact, he changed his plans more than once. Recently he had planned to stop for visits twice at Corinth, once going to Macedonia and once coming back (verses 15-16). Even these plans had been changed, to the chagrin of some of the folks at Corinth, who thought the Apostle a bit fickle and irresolute (verse 17).<\/p>\n
St. Paul defends himself, insisting that these changes of travel plans did not indicate a deeper spiritual problem. In his proclamation of the Gospel to the Corinthians he was not fickle or irresolute (verse 18). His readers, therefore, should not interpret his recent behavior as a sign of irresolution.<\/p>\n
Paul uses this occasion to teach a lesson. Steadfastness of purpose, he says, is what characterizes the word that God speaks to us in Christ. It is an enduring affirmation, indicated by the perfect tense of the verb (gegonen<\/i>–verse 19). That word is the same as when Paul and his companions had first preached it among the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 15:11), because God\u2019s promises are not subject to changes of plans (verse 20). They are always \u201cAmen,\u201d the same word that Christians speak back to God at the close of their prayers in Jesus\u2019 name.<\/p>\n
In fact, God has already sealed these promises in the hearts of the Corinthians at the time of their baptism (verses 21-22). This sealing is already a down payment or \u201cearnest money\u201d (arrabon<\/i>) of their eternal inheritance (cf. 5:5; Romans 8:23).<\/p>\n
Paul then returns to his disputed travel plans, saying that it was for the good of the Corinthians themselves that he had failed to show up when they expected him (verse 23; compare 13:2). Things were not yet right at Corinth.<\/p>\n
Paul saw no value in returning yet again to Corinth while feeling distressed at the situation there. Such a visit, he felt, would only have made things worse (verses 1-2). He sent them a letter instead, the \u201cletter of tears\u201d which seems not to have survived (verse 3). Paul\u2019s decision not to go to Corinth had at least not added further grief to those with whom he ought to share a common joy, and his letter had manifested his love and concern for the Corinthians (verse 4).<\/p>\n
These references to their shared distress point to some troublemaker whom Paul had encountered in Corinth on a previous visit (verse 5). The Apostle here presumes his readers\u2019 familiarity with the case, the particulars of which are, of course, unknown to us. Paul is confident that the Corinthians have adequately dealt with the problem (verse 6), inspired by his \u201cletter of tears\u201d and a recent visit by Titus (cf. 7:6-7).<\/p>\n
Indeed, Paul has now become concerned for the offender, with whom the congregation had dealt somewhat severely (verses 7-8). In any case, the Corinthians have properly met the trial posed by the troublemaker (verse 9), and now it is time to move on (verses 10-11).<\/p>\n
Job 20: Through the various soliloquies, prayers, and discourses of Job we may observe a distinct development and maturing of his thought. The critical observations of his friends, even their insults and obloquy, force him to examine his own ideas and perceptions more critically, to try fresh paths of reflection, to probe his problem anew from previously untried perspectives. Job\u2019s mind is not monochrome; it actually changes and grows richer throughout the course of the book.<\/p>\n With Job\u2019s three friends, the very opposite is true. In the eight responses that they make to him, the reader observes that the thought-content, if it can be said to alter at all, rather grandly declines. Job grows, that is to say, while his friends diminish.<\/p>\n The first speaker was Eliphaz, who largely based his argument against Job on his personal experience, his religious vision, insight, or veda. Although the thought of Eliphaz is certainly found wanting<\/i> in the full context of the Book of Job, his first discourse did represent, in fact, a solid nucleus of profound insight. Eliphaz was, so to speak, an eyewitness. He represented a living contact with genuine religious experience. Whole civilizations could be constructed on the teachings of Eliphaz.<\/p>\n Next came Bildad, however, whose argument against Job appealed, not to any religious or metaphysical experience of his own, but to the inherited and established teaching of his elders. Bildad represents, as it were, the next generation of thinkers, and in the transition from Eliphaz to Bildad we observed insight declining into theory. Bildad was no eyewitness, but more of a character witness. He represented a tradition rather than an insight. Bildad\u2019s ideas, compared with those of Eliphaz, were not vibrant. Indeed, they were somewhat stale.<\/p>\n Finally, when we came to Zophar\u2019s contribution, there was neither insight nor theory, but mere opinion and prejudice. Moving through the arguments of these three men, we perceived a decline of insight into tradition, and tradition into bias. The respective arguments of Job\u2019s friends, that is to say, followed a downward path.<\/p>\n Now, as these same three speakers take their second turns to speak, their arguments have become even worse, because each man can do no more than repeat what he said before, only this time in a much louder and more strident voice: \u201cWhat?! Didn\u2019t you hear me the first time?!\u201d<\/p>\n The loudest and harshest of these is Zophar, who had neither insight nor theory even to start with. Zophar never possessed any argument stronger than a prejudice, and his second attempt is simply a more obstreperous version of the first.<\/p>\n Zophar\u2019s speech here in chapter 20 and Bildad\u2019s in chapter 18 serve as two sides to frame Job\u2019s great profession of faith in chapter 19. The contrast between Job\u2019s inspiring, living profession and the moldy, repeated vituperations of these two men could not be starker. The present chapter is Zophar\u2019s perverted fantasy about what an evil man Job must be and what a terrible divine judgment awaits him. It sounds all the more ridiculous and improbable because it so closely follows on the grandeur of Job\u2019s aspirations in the previous chapter.<\/p>\n Tuesday, September 20<\/b><\/p>\n 2 Corinthians 3:7—4:6: Paul them proceeds to contrast the Gospel ministry–the ministry of the Spirit–with the ministry of the Mosaic Law, a theme that runs through the rest of this chapter. Because \u201cthe letter kills\u201d (verse 6), he calls the Mosaic ministry \u201ca ministry of death\u201d (verse 7). For someone that spent all his previous life in the study of the Torah, this is a very strong assertion.<\/p>\n The Apostle also introduces now the expression \u201cglory,\u201d which as a noun or a verb (\u201cglorify\u201d) appears thirteen times in the remainder of this chapter. Even the ministry of the Law, he says, was possessed of glory. How much more the ministry of the Spirit? (verses 8-9. Compare the same form of argument in Romans 8:32).<\/p>\n Paul felt the \u201cboldness\u201d (parresia<\/i>) displayed in what he had just written with respect to the Mosaic Law. After all, he had just referred to the dispensation of the Torah–the ministry of Moses himself–as \u201cthe ministry of death\u201d and \u201cthe ministry of condemnation.\u201d This was certainly bold speech for a rabbi who had spent his whole life in the study of the Torah!<\/p>\n Nor do these words of Paul convey the entire truth. Indeed, Paul was still working his way through this subject when he wrote 2 Corinthians. A year or so later he would give a more developed, nuanced treatment of this matter in his dialectical argument in Romans 9\u201411.<\/p>\n This boldness in speech Paul contrasts with Moses, who veiled his face so that the Israelites could not behold the fading glory of his countenance (verse 13; Exodus 34:30-35). In this context, in which the word \u201cveil\u201d (k\u00e1lymma<\/i>) appears four times (verses 13-16), the \u201cunveiled face\u201d serves as a metaphor for boldness.<\/p>\n The expression eis to telos<\/i> (verse 13) should not be understood as expressing purpose (\u201cin order that\u201d) but as expressing effect (\u201cwith the result that\u201d). Otherwise Paul would be accusing Moses of deceiving the people.<\/p>\n The fault, however, was not of Moses but of the Israelites (verse 14). Here Paul has in mind less the Israelites of Moses\u2019 time than the Israelites of his own day, those from whose synagogues, all over the Mediterranean basin, he and his companions had been expelled. These were the Israelites to whom the true face of Moses remained veiled. Satan, \u201cthe god of this world\u201d (4:4), continued to harden their thoughts (noemata<\/i>–verse 14). This veil has become, in Paul\u2019s argument, an internal covering of the mind, which prevents the correct understanding of \u201cthe Old Testament.\u201d This is the only place in the Bible, we may note, that uses this last expression.<\/p>\n The \u201cabolishing\u201d (katargeitai<\/i>) of which Paul speaks here refers to the veil, not the Old Testament. This is clear in verse 16, where Paul refers to the removal of the veil from the heart (verse 15). No part of God\u2019s Word is ever abolished or \u201cout of date\u201d (Matthew 5:17; Romans 3:31).<\/p>\n The Septuagint text of Exodus 34:34 throws light on this removal of the veil. It speaks of Moses taking the veil from his face when he \u201cwent in before the Lord to speak to Him.\u201d It was in turning to the Lord that Moses\u2019 veil was removed. Thus, says St. Paul, as soon as a man turns to the Lord, the veil is removed (verse 16). This interpretation is important as it indicates Paul understood Jesus to be \u201cthe Lord\u201d to whom Moses went in to speak. The Lordship of Jesus is, in fact, at the base of all Paul\u2019s reflections here (cf. 4:5).<\/p>\n To speak of Christ, however, is concretely to speak of the Holy Spirit. We do not get the One without the Other (verse 17). They are necessarily, or at least practically, concomitant. It is as though a foreign diplomat were to say, \u201cWashington is<\/i> the United States,\u201d or as if an epicure should remark, \u201cBaltimore is<\/i> crab cakes,\u201d meaning that the one implies the other. With Christ comes the Holy Spirit; when a man turns to Christ, he receives the Holy Spirit. (Indeed, even this affirmation is oversimplified, because a man cannot even turn to Christ except through the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit.)<\/p>\n Contrasted with the veiled Israelites are the unveiled Christians, beholding and being transformed by the glory of the Lord (verse 18). Like Moses in God\u2019s presence, their faces are uncovered, because there is freedom in the new covenant (verse 17). To Christians, then, it is given to share in the doxological transformation accorded to Moses, as they are transformed progressively into the image of Christ.<\/p>\n Paul\u2019s comments are partly biographical, of course; he is implicitly remembering his own experience of conversion to Christ and the glory on the road to Damascus, the experience that led to his radical reassessment of the Torah. This is why he shifts to the \u201capostolic we\u201d in the next verse (4:1). It is this \u201cwe\u201d that proclaims the Lordship of Jesus (4:5). The apostolic preaching is the means by which others contemplate the revelation of God\u2019s glory on the face of Christ (4:6).<\/p>\n Wednesday, September 21<\/b><\/p>\n Luke 8:11-15: The parable of the sower is one of the very few parables of we are told that Jesus provided an explanation. This he did but rarely, it appears. Jesus provided no explanation, for example, of the parable of the vine growers, even though that parable, too, was allegorical.<\/p>\n In the parable\u2019s explanation three features call for particular attention. First, there is the sheer prodigality of the one who sows the seed. He does not play favorites; he sows the seed everywhere. His goodness and mercy are boundless. He does not preach only to the predestined; he seeks the salvation of all men. The seed of his Word is sown everywhere, because he desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. He desires that the earth be full of the knowledge of God, as the sea with water. His arms, fully extended on the Cross, reach to out to all men, because God so loved the world that He wanted everyone to be brought to salvation. And when the Son of Man is lifted up, he draws all to himself.<\/p>\n The true sower of God\u2019s Word, then, is Christ the Savior, who loves even those described today as those who have no root, but who believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away. He shows his concern even for those choked with cares, riches, and pleasures of life, and bring no fruit to maturity. He manifests his compassion even to those of whom the Gospel says, \u201cthe devil comes and takes away the word out of their hearts.\u201d<\/p>\n Second, there is the expectation of the fruit. You know, Holy Scripture insists that God wants human beings to have fruitful<\/i> lives. Jesus said this to the Church on the night before he died, \u201cI chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain\u201d (John 15:16).<\/p>\n What sort of fruit does God expect of His servants? We are not obliged to guess about this, because Holy Scripture describes it: \u201c But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control\u201d (Galatians 5:22-23).<\/p>\n The nine species of fruit are probably not meant to be a complete list, but they represent a good start. Love, joy, and peace are precious things to have in this life; they stand in contrast to the state of those of whom Jesus declares, \u201csome fell by the wayside; and it was trampled down, and the birds of the air devoured it.\u201d<\/p>\n And what should we say of patience, kindness, and goodness? A person who is patient, kind, and good in this world is in a vastly better state than the man of whom Jesus says, \u201cSome fell on rock; and as soon as it sprang up, it withered away because it lacked moisture.\u201d<\/p>\n The fruit of the Spirit also includes faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. These qualities—faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control—indicate the very opposite of the seed that \u201cfell among thorns, and the thorns sprang up with it and choked it.\u201d<\/p>\n Third, what shall we say of the \u201cheart,\u201d which is a matter of particular concern in Luke\u2019s version of the parable? Luke\u2019s account speaks of the patience of the heart: \u201cBut the ones that fell on the good ground are those who, having heard the word with a noble and good heart, keep it and bear fruit with patience.\u201d<\/p>\n Luke is the only evangelist to speak of patience in respect to this parable. Indeed, Luke\u2019s is the only gospel in which the word \u201cpatience\u201d—hypomone<\/i>—is found. The present context indicates that the heart is purified and perfected by patience.<\/p>\n Patience is supremely the mark of the good farmer, the man who cultivates the soil and sows the seed. He does not gather fruit until it is ripe. When does the farmer cultivate his ground? Every waking hour and year round, he must work and wait. It is an occupation of ongoing patience.<\/p>\n In Paul\u2019s list of the species of the fruit of the Spirit, which we considered a few minutes ago, patience was listed fourth, between peace and kindness. Patience is a great good in itself, because it makes us like Christ our Lord. In addition to this, patience is indispensable to the possession of one\u2019s soul, and hardly anything in this life is more important than the possession of one\u2019s soul. Later in the Gospel of Luke, Jesus declares, \u201cIn your patience you will possess your souls\u201d (21:19).<\/p>\n If anything is obvious in this world, it is the evidence of how many men do not possess their souls. The possession of one\u2019s soul comes at a price, and that price is self-control. And self-control, we recall, is listed by St. Paul as the ninth species of the fruit of the Spirit.<\/p>\n The fruitful life, as the Gospel understands it, involves the possession of one\u2019s soul, and I suggest to you that hardly any message is more difficult for men of this world to hear. Outside of the Church, I cannot think of any institution in the modern world which insists that men control their souls. Apart from the proclamation of the Gospel, I am familiar with no modern educational forum in which the possession of one\u2019s soul is held up for emulation.<\/p>\n On the contrary, every possible device is now available for men to indulge every transient whim, to pamper their every passion, to dissipate their time in frivolities and pointless entertainment—to abandon, in short, the possession of their souls.<\/p>\n Thursday, September 22<\/b><\/p>\n Job 23: Having listened to Eliphaz\u2019s third discourse, Job apparently feels, \u201cWhy bother?\u201d Consequently, in this chapter he limits his rebuttal of Eliphaz to a brief and entirely oblique repudiation of the latter\u2019s slanders against him (verses 11\u201312).<\/p>\n As Job was entirely argumentative in chapter 21, so in these next two chapters he becomes entirely meditative. The tone of these two chapters is deeply sad, notwithstanding Job\u2019s high assertion of faith in chapter 19. His mood is more somber now, as he reflects on God\u2019s inaccessibility. If chapter 18 represented Job\u2019s pillar of fire, the present discourse is his pillar of cloud, and both experiences are integral to his testing. Now he longs for a God that he cannot reach: \u201cOh, that I knew where I might find Him\u201d (verse 3).<\/p>\n In verses 8\u201310 Job describes his sense of God\u2019s absence in terms reminiscent of the psalmist\u2019s description of God\u2019s presence (cf. Psalm 139[138]). A comparison of these two texts is instructive. The Psalmist found God in whatever direction he turned: \u201cYou have hedged me behind and before, \/ And laid Your hand upon me\u201d (Psalm 139:5). God, that is to say, is in front and in back of him. God is also on either side of him: \u201cEven there Your hand shall lead me, \/ And Your right hand hold me\u201d (139:10). In short, the Psalmist finds that he can go nowhere and escape the presence of God: \u201cWhere can I go from Your Spirit? \/ Or where can I flee from Your presence?\u201d (139:7).<\/p>\n Like the Psalmist, Job seeks God in every direction: \u201cI go forward, but He is not there, \/ And backward, but I cannot perceive Him; \/ When He works on the left hand, I cannot behold Him; \/ When He turns to the right hand, I cannot see Him\u201d (verses 8\u20139). In short, Job\u2019s experience seems, at first, to be the opposite of that in Psalm 139. Whereas the Psalmist found God everywhere, Job finds Him nowhere. As Eric Voegelin observed when commenting on this text of Job, \u201cthe search in space no longer reveals a divine presence\u201d (Israel and Revelation<\/i> [Volume 14 of Order and History<\/i>], page 76).<\/p>\n It must be said, nonetheless, that this contrast between Job and the Psalmist is more apparent than real. Job is no skeptic about the divine presence. Indeed, he is overpowered by it: \u201cTherefore I am terrified at His presence; \/ When I consider this, I am afraid of Him. \/ For God made my heart weak, \/ And the Almighty terrifies me\u201d (verses 15\u201316).<\/p>\n In each case, moreover, there is the profound sense of being known by God. Thus, the Psalmist began his meditation, \u201cO LORD, You have searched me and known me (vatteda\u2018<\/i>) . . . . You comprehend my path . . . And are acquainted with all my ways (derakai<\/i>)\u201d (Psalm 139:1, 3). Job, for his part, affirms no less: \u201cBut He knows the way (yada\u2018 derek<\/i>) that I take; \/ When He has tested me, I shall come forth as gold\u201d (verse 10).<\/p>\n The Psalmist does, in fact, finish his meditation with sentiments that we easily associate with the soul of Job: \u201cSearch me, O God, and know my heart; \/ Try me, and know my anxieties; \/ And see if there is any wicked way in me, \/ And lead me in the way everlasting\u201d (Psalm 139:23\u201324).<\/p>\n Friday, September 23<\/b><\/p>\n Job 24: In this, his seventh response to his critics, Job leaves the limiting confines of his own experience to reflect more generally on man\u2019s miserable estate. This reflection continues the startling challenge that Job had made in chapter 21, offering further evidence to dispute the \u201cmoral universe\u201d idea defended by his three friends.<\/p>\n To these men, who have been consistently asserting that those who suffer deserve to suffer, Job raises the spectacle of those who clearly suffer unjustly. God sees all such suffering (verse 1), but He does not intervene, says Job. Thus Job demolishes the theory that suffering is solely the lot of the wicked. Those who would defend the justice of God must do so in a way that takes seriously these sad facts of life.<\/p>\n And if the evidence shows that the just must sometimes endure injustice, is it not also true that the unjust go unpunished? Is it so obvious that God invariably chastises the sinner? Does God, for instance, invariably bring retribution on the murderer (verse 14)? Is it always the case that the adulterer is reproved (verse 15)? Does it never happen that the thief goes unpunished (verse 16)? Those who glibly contend that the world is founded on divine justice, says Job, had better take a closer look at such evidence!<\/p>\n Job is not arguing that God is unjust, of course, nor is he denying that justice itself is rooted in the structure of created existence. He is simply asserting that the evidence is complex and not easy to grasp. Job is taking seriously the classical problem of theodicy: How do we reconcile the existence of an all-wise, all-just, and all-knowing God with the simultaneous existence of evil?<\/p>\n Against his own accusers, Job is arguing that goodness and good fortune are not invariably and in every instance entwined. The simplest observations of well-known facts prove this not to be true.<\/p>\n This manifest separability of goodness from good fortune, a separability so often characteristic of life in this world, later prompted Emmanuel Kant to affirm the existence of a just God and a retributive afterlife as \u201cmoral postulates\u201d demanded by the very structure of reason. Man\u2019s innate sense that goodness and good fortune should<\/i> go together, Kant reasoned, is an instinct that demands some future adjudication.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Friday September 16 2 Kings 25: Jerusalem continued to be rebellious to Babylon. Or, more exactly, it courted favor with Egypt, where the XXVIth Dynasty was still trying to challenge Babylon\u2019s hegemony over the western half of the Fertile Crescent. This was certainly Jeremiah\u2019s reading of the political situation, and he fell into strong official … Continue reading September 16 – September 23, 2022<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.touchstonemag.com\/daily_reflections\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1904"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.touchstonemag.com\/daily_reflections\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.touchstonemag.com\/daily_reflections\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.touchstonemag.com\/daily_reflections\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.touchstonemag.com\/daily_reflections\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1904"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.touchstonemag.com\/daily_reflections\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1904\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1905,"href":"https:\/\/www.touchstonemag.com\/daily_reflections\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1904\/revisions\/1905"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.touchstonemag.com\/daily_reflections\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1904"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.touchstonemag.com\/daily_reflections\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1904"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.touchstonemag.com\/daily_reflections\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1904"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\nThus, men are obliged to endure the theft of their property (verses 2\u20134). They must bear with homelessness and exposure (verses 7\u20138). They have to sustain injustice and oppression (verses 9, 12). Hunger presses upon them (verse 10). Those thus oppressed do not deserve such things. But does God put a stop to all these moral outrages (verse 12)? Manifestly He does not.<\/p>\n