Today’s post is by Lucas Ward.  To read parts 1 and 2, click on “Guest Writers” on the right sidebar and scroll down.

Job 28 is an ode to wisdom. It is beautiful and compelling. It ends with verse 28: "And he [God] said to man, 'Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom, and to turn away from evil is understanding.'" It is often pointed out that this description of wisdom is the same description made of Job in 1:1 and 1:8. Essentially, this tells us that Job was wise. But this is not all it does. It also defines wisdom for us.

"The fear of the Lord, that is wisdom." Solomon reinforces this in several places in Proverbs, the first being in Prov. 1:7 "The fear of Jehovah is the beginning of knowledge;" Have you ever heard new Christians say they are afraid of Hell? They often express guilt that this is their main motivation, but there is no reason for them to feel that way: the fear of the Lord is wisdom. If we aren't afraid of being thrown in Hell, then we are fools! And if we aren't living lives of faithful service to Him, God will send us to Hell, however much that saddens Him (2 Peter 3:9). So it is wise, and the beginning of knowledge, to fear the Lord. It is only the beginning of knowledge, and as we grow in knowledge of the Lord, our motivations should mature (love for Him, hope of glory, etc.). However, it never stops being wise to fear the Lord.

"To turn away from evil is understanding". So those who don't turn away from evil lack understanding, right? So what about me? Do I turn away from evil? Or do I give in to the same temptation every time it comes up? Is it to the point that an impartial observer might conclude that I don't even try to turn away from those temptations/evils? Do I go looking for it, rather than turning away? Do I see how closely I can sidle up to it without giving in? Do I have any understanding at all? Or am I like an uncomprehending beast of the field, ruled solely by my passions?

"Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom, and to turn away from evil is understanding."

Am I wise?

Do I understand anything at all?

Lucas Ward

Today's post is by guest writer Keith Ward

A few questions:

Why did Jesus so often say, “Thy sins be forgiven thee” instead of, “Your disease be healed?”   Why did he not heal everyone?  Not only did he leave many for the apostles to heal, there is no indication they cleaned up all the rest, even in Judea.

Of course, one of the reasons he said “sins…forgiven” was to emphasize to the scribes and Pharisees that if he could heal, he could forgive.  Certainly, since he healed one leper, he had the power with a word to heal all lepers, or to heal all the blind.  The power was there.  The compassion that moved him to heal had to also tug at his heart in relation to all the un-healed lame and sick.

The questions bring our focus to the simple truth that sickness/infirmity was not the problem; sin was.  The compassion was moved within him to bypass these small things and focus on healing the root, the cause of all the misery that comes on man.  Healing the few he did was a pledge toward the healing of sin.

Sickness is really a part of death.  Healing is life triumphant, but Lazarus, the blind man, the 10 lepers, all still died.  Because Jesus is the great physician, death is destroyed (1 Cor 15:50ff) and we are all healed of death, not merely of a symptom like disease, and we will all be raised.

So, the last question:  What occupies the bulk of your prayer time?  A list of sick church members and friends?  Or, a list of sins and sin-sick souls?  I think my answer leaves me on the wrong side here.

Yes, I know the prayer of faith will heal the sick and I am by no means suggesting that any of us diminish that part of our prayer life.  I am thinking that I am going to greatly increase the part of mine that focuses on sin and the healing of sin and death.

Notice how great a portion of Jesus’ last prayer for the disciples was in relation to their spiritual safety and triumph:

I am praying for them.  I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours.  All mine are yours, and yours are mine, and I am glorified in them.  And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you.  Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one.  While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.  But now I am coming to you, and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves.  I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world.  I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one. (Jn 17:9-15).

Keithh Ward

Today’s post is by guest writer Lucas Ward.  If you missed part 1, check out the May 11, 2015 post in the archives on the right sidebar.

The discussions between Job and his friends were the last place I expected to find expressions of hope from Job. He has lost everything, despite his righteousness. His friends are accusing him of sins and refusing to listen to anything he says. Even his wife is encouraging him to turn from God. And yet, a major theme of Job's speeches in the second cycle of arguments is hope. It comes up at least four times: Job 13:15, 14:14-17, 17:13-16, and 19:25-27.

Now, before a theologian or linguist attacks, let me say I know that the Hebrew is unclear in Job 13 and that the expressions of hope in Job 14 and 17 are open to some differing interpretations. However, each cycle of speeches contains its own themes. Job develops his ideas throughout each cycle and then moves on in the next. With a clear expression of great hope in the second cycle's penultimate speech and a 50/50 expression in the first speech, the definite possibilities of expressed hope in the middle speeches should be at least considered.

Let's start at the end and work back. Chapter 19 is Job's summation of how alone he feels. He begins by pleading with his friends to stop tormenting him. He then details how God has seemingly turned against him and will no longer listen (vs. 6-12). Vs. 13-19 tell how the people he would normally have relied on in times of trouble have forsaken him: brothers, relatives, house guests, servants, wife, intimate friends, even the children in the street back talk him now. Then, in verse 20, his body itself has turned against him. His friends torment him, his God has punished him unjustly (he thinks), his friends and family have forsaken him, his body fails him, and in the midst of all that he then says: "For I know that my Redeemer lives, and at the last he will stand upon the earth. And after my skin has been thus destroyed, yet in my flesh I shall see God," Job 19:25-26. Yes, I know, the Hebrew here is especially garbled. We don't know whether it should be "in my flesh I shall see God" or "without my flesh I shall see God". Several of the phrases here and in the next verse have up to a dozen different possible translations. But what is clear in this passage is Job's statements "For I know that my Redeemer lives" and "I shall see God". We can argue about the rest of it until we are all blue in the face and IT DOESN'T MATTER ONE BIT to the interpretation of Job's speech. His life is falling apart. Everything he would normally rely upon has been taken away. Even God seems to be against him. And in all that turmoil, in the cyclone that has become his life, Job says "I know that my Redeemer lives" and "I shall see God." Despite everything, Job holds fast to the hope that God would redeem him. His hope remained firmly attached to God even when his senses told him that God was against him. Amazing faith. This is clear from chapter 19. If this is not some extraordinary one-time statement, but rather the concluding statement of a theme that runs through the second cycle of speeches, then how does that affect the interpretation of other passages?

Job 13:15a "Though he slay me, I will hope in him;" Another possible interpretation is "he will slay me, I have no hope". If you ask 100 scholars their opinion 40 will vote for the first option, 40 will vote for the second, and 20 will be honest enough to say "I don't know". Apparently, the Hebrew is very unclear. However, this is the first mention of hope in any context and it is at the beginning of the cycle which contains Job's monumental expression of hope just six chapters later. I am unqualified to argue the linguistics (I am barely qualified to spell linguistics) but I can understand themes in writing and this seems like the beginning of a thread that culminates in chapter 19. Based on that, I will argue for the first interpretation "Though he slay me, I will hope in him;"

Then we have Job 14:13-17 "Oh that you would hide me in Sheol, that you would conceal me until your wrath be past, that you would appoint me a set time, and remember me! If a man dies, shall he live again? All the days of my service I would wait, till my renewal should come. You would call, and I would answer you; you would long for the work of your hands. For then you would number my steps; you would not keep watch over my sin; my transgression would be sealed up in a bag, and you would cover over my iniquity." Job is willing to hide in the grave (Sheol) until God's wrath is past? Sure! He expresses confidence that God would remember him. If a man dies, shall he live again? Sure! Job is positive that his renewal will come. God would long for Job and call for him. What is involved in that renewal? God would seal up Job's transgressions in a bag and cover his iniquity. Tell me, is this anything other than hope? And don't be confused because immediately after this passage Job seems to fall back into despair. There was a form of argument in ancient times in which the speaker would surround his conclusion with two ideas considered but rejected. This is exactly what we see in Job 14, with this wonderful expression of hope surrounded by passages of despair. It is confusing to us only because we went to Western schools instead of learning rhetoric in the Near East of a few millennia ago.

Job 17:13-16 is usually considered a downer of a passage, but I think it is exactly the opposite. Its "if-then" nature demands a conclusion and only one conclusion is rational. "If I hope for Sheol as my house, if I make my bed in darkness, if I say to the pit, 'You are my father,' and to the worm, 'My mother,' or 'My sister,' where then is my hope? Who will see my hope? Will it go down to the bars of Sheol? Shall we descend together into the dust?"" If I hope for the grave, then where is my hope? Who will see it? This is not despair, but rather a rejection of despair! The contrast is between hoping in the grave and Job's previous expressions of hope, especially in chapter 14. 'Will it [my hope] go down to the bars of Sheol? Shall we descend together into the dust?' That is a description of despair, and it is described in question form. In the Bible when these question forms are used, they are almost always rhetorical questions whose implied answer is "No!" This is not Job giving up, but rather Job declaring that he won't give up, that he won't stop hoping in God.

So what do we have? Job saying that even if he dies he will not stop hoping in God. Job declaring a clear hope for a renewal with God, being clean from sin, after the grave. Job refusing to despair, but clinging to hope. Job declaring that despite the turmoil in his life, despite being forsaken and rejected by his friends, family, and wife, and despite God's apparent temporary enmity that he knows that his Redeemer lives and that he will one day see God.

My only remaining question is, if Job can express such wonderful hope despite his overwhelming troubles, what do I have to feel depressed about?

Lucas Ward