Book Review: Radical by David Platt Part II

In the course of examining the first couple chapters of the Book Radical by David Platt, I’ve realized that more needs to be touched upon.  This is part 2 of a multipart analysis of this book.

I should note that, so far, through 5 chapters I’ve not read anything I believe to be heretical or unorthodox.  While I strongly disagree with the hyper-evangelical bent of the book and the pharisaical creation of a new commandment (and no we’re not talking about John’s admonition to love one another) to evangelize the world – I find that the sentiments of Pastor Platt fall relatively in line with what most churches in America today believe regardless of whether they practice the same.  However, I believe most churches in America today to be wrong on this point.

On page 58, Pastor Platt makes reference to a so called Great Commission.  Wherein does this Great Commission lie?  Matthew 28:16-20 is a commission given by Jesus to eleven disciples – those who would be called Apostles because of this very commission.  Mark 16:14-20 is of doubtful authority, but even if admitted is again directed only to the eleven.  Luke 24:44-49 contains an allusion to a commission which admits easily an interpretation of a specific commission to the eleven, as only the eleven were present.  Acts 1:4-8 contains a direct commission to the eleven as well.  There is no general commission to other believers here, and there were certainly more than the eleven, as can be seen by the upper room happenings a few weeks later.  Additionally, you have the problem that no women were ever present for the so-called great commission.  John 20:19-22 also notes that only the Apostles were present for the commission.  There were clearly other believers.  Why does Jesus limit his commission to the Apostles?

I believe the answer is found in Paul’s testimony.  In Romans 1 Paul sets himself up as an Apostle – one called by God personally.  There were already 11 (or 12) Apostles throughout the church and certainly some objection would have been made had the commission given to Paul been a general commission applicable to all.  However, I don’t believe that to have been the understanding of either the other eleven Apostles or the general Christian community.  That Paul was called by God to be a witness – called personally by Christ – (Galations 1:1) not as a result of his calling by the Holy Spirit through the elders of the church at Antioch – was proof sufficient for the first century believers and the other eleven Apostles.  Indeed, the word Apostle means one called by God.  While we are all in a sense called by God, the twelve were specifically called (commissioned) by God for the purpose of taking the Gospel to all nations.  While we have the privilege of continuing that endeavor, it is not our commission to seize upon.

I argue that it is this commission specifically that makes the Apostles the Apostles.  If everyone is commissioned, then everyone is an apostle.  The fact that we call it a “commission” is instructive.  A commission is simply put; the authority to perform a task or certain duties. The task is to take the Gospel to the ends of the world; the duty is to be a witness for Jesus.  This task and duty was a grave and serious duty which commanded the submission of the church general. 

The idea that the commission was great is not found prior to the 17th century in Christian writings.  Common usage of the term was not ubiquitous until the 20th century.  I can find no use of the term in the writings of Luther, Calvin, Edwards et al.  The first usage of the term that I can find is in the 19th century among the contemporaries and likes of Charles Finney.  Indeed, John Calvin seems to note in his commentary that the commission was limited to the original eleven Apostles as it was given directly to them.

This is not to say that a non-great commission person doesn’t believe in missions.  John Calvin and others certainly believed in, participated in, and devoted their lives to evangelism and missions.  The difference is the purpose of the Christian.  It’s subtle I grant, but important.  If I live my life to be pure and holy unto God, loving my brother whom I see and with an eye to the perfection of my faith, I will certainly evangelize and pronounce the gospel.  However, the same cannot be said in reverse.  If I live my life to evangelize, it does not follow that I will focus my will and heart towards obeying God in all matters of heart and body and spirit and mind.  It does not follow that I will love my brother whom I see – rather, if my primary goal is missions, I will instead love the stranger over the brother – the heathen over the Church. 

The great fallacy and error of hyper-evangelism is not that it seeks to evangelize the world with the Gospel of Jesus, but that it attempts to supplant the purpose of the Church – to glorify the Father and Son with another purpose – to convert the world.  Does evangelism glorify God?  Certainly it almost always glorifies God.  But that is not the only means of glorifying God, and if an unrepentant man convinces his soul that it need not concern itself with the mortification (killing) of sin in his heart because his principal goal is the ministry of evangelism then that man cannot be said to glorify God even while evangelizing. 

Pastor Platt’s devotion to missionary work above sanctification can be shown in the following quotes:

From page 16: “While Christians choose to spend their lives fulfilling the American dream instead of giving their lives to proclaiming the kingdom of God”

From page 17: “Consider the cost when Christians ignore Jesus’ commands to sell their possessions and give to the poor”

“The cost of believers not taking Jesus seriously is vast for those who don’t know Christ and devastating for those who are starving and suffering around the world”

From page 18: “For the sake of more than a billion people today who have yet to even hear the gospel, I want to risk it all. For the sake of twenty-six thousand children who will die today of starvation or a preventable disease, I want to risk it all”

From page 21: “We will discover that our meaning is found in community and our life is found in giving ourselves for the sake of others in the church, among the lost, and among the poor”

From page 49: “Meanwhile, Jesus commands us to go. He has created each of us to take the gospel to the ends of the earth, and I propose that anything less than radical devotion to this purpose is unbiblical Christianity”

From page 52: “It’s a foundational truth: God creates, blesses, and saves each of us for a radically global purpose”

From page 54: “But where in the Bible is missions ever identified as an optional program in the church? We have just seen that we were all created by God, saved from our sins, and blessed by God to make his glory known in all the world”

“In this way we choose to send off other people to carry out the global purpose of Christianity while the rest of us sit back because we’re “just not called to that”

“[ ] each follower of Christ in the New Testament, regardless of his or her calling, was intended to take up the mantle of proclaiming the gospel to the ends of the earth. That’s the reason why he gave each of them his Spirit and why he gave them all the same plan: make disciples of all nations”

From page 55: “Every saved person this side of heaven owes the gospel to every lost person this side of hell”

“But what if we don’t need to sit back and wait for a call to foreign missions? What if the very reason we have breath is because we have been saved for a global mission? And what if anything less than passionate involvement in global mission is actually selling God short by frustrating the very purpose for which he created us”

From page 56: “When we say we have a heart for the city we live in, we confess that we have less than 1 percent of God’s heart”

“In all this missions talk, you may begin to think, Well, surely you’re not suggesting that we’re all supposed to move overseas. That is certainly not what I’m suggesting (though I’m not completely ruling it out)”

“Meanwhile, flying right in the face of this idea is Scripture’s claim that regardless of where we live—here or overseas—our hearts should be consumed with making the glory of God known in all nations”

“[ ] from cover to cover the Bible teaches that all the church—not just select individuals, but all the church—is created to reflect all the glory of God to all the world. Because every single man, woman, and child in the church I pastor is intended to impact nations [ …] there is a God-designed way for us to live our lives here, and do church here, for the sake of people around the world who don’t know Christ”

I could go on and on throughout this book, but I believe the number of quotes above makes it indisputable that Pastor Platt believes the principal purpose of man is to glorify God through the act of evangelism.  One wonders what the purpose of man will be after Revelations 22.  Indeed, the purpose of the church and everything the church does is for the sake of the unsaved – never mind glorifying Jesus or ministering to Jesus (see “to the extent that you’ve done it to the least of these my brethren, you’ve done it unto me”).  Pastor Platt would convict us that if we don’t subscribe whole-heartedly to his understanding of missions, we’re practicing an unbiblical Christianity – more that if we’re not radically committed to world missions we’re practicing an unbiblical Christianity.

Really Pastor Platt?  Really?  If I’m saved while fighting drug addiction, I should set aside that fight against the flesh and take up missions?  If I’m saved while having several immediate family members still unsaved, I should put foreign missions above my own family and immediate sphere of influence?  If I’m saved, I should put foreign missions above personal sanctification and holiness?  Really Pastor Platt?  You really have a large church of people redeemed from the bondage of sin who believe this too?

On page 18 Pastor Platt equates the needs of a spiritually dead person with a child suffering from starvation or a preventable disease.  This is the hidden error that most grieves my heart.  While we can all have a heart for suffering, it is Christianity alone that provides enough glimpse at the holiness of God wherein we find the alarm over a person’s bondage to sin and eternal damnation to so outweigh the present needs of our bodies that we turn away from everything to gain that propitiation that alone can buy peace between us and God.  Comparing a lost soul to starvation and disease is like comparing a single grass hopper to a swarm of deadly locusts.  One can harm a little – the other kills you.  Starvation and disease can kill your body, but sin kills you eternally.

Think about that Pastor Platt and all those who would put social needs on the same par as spiritual needs.  If I feed someone with food today, I’ve met a temporal needs that they will forget forever after 30 seconds in hell.  In fact, if I feed them today and tomorrow and for the rest of their lives, if I give them money for college, if I teach them a foreign language, if I introduce them to the spouse of their dreams, if I bless them with 110 years of productive happy life – all of that will be forgotten eternally within the first 30 seconds of hell.

But let us go further.  Let me turn it on myself.  If I spend my life feeding the poor, and evangelizing the lost and spend not enough time on personal sanctification and holiness – if I enter heaven with less personal holiness because I was out evangelizing – I will regret it for eternity!  For no one will ever be in heaven because I was out evangelizing.  God saves by His will, not mine.  No trick of my mind or intellect can grant someone faith.  I will certainly have the honor and treasure left for doing the will of God, but even that is in peril if I didn’t do it for the right reason.  If I evangelize because I imagine it’s my personal calling when it isn’t..  if I evangelize because I deceive myself into thinking I can change the eternal destiny of someone.. If I evangelize for any other reason than to give glory to God, that reward is lost eternally.

Our works will be tried by fire and many good works built of straw, hay, stubble and sticks will be consumed.  The man who is committed whole heartedly to eradicating sin from his heart brings immensely more glory to God than evangelizing ten thousand souls and leaving his own stained with sin.  For what power is their in salvation if we continue to live in sin?  What does Christ accomplish at the cross if we simply become a Christian and move right to evangelism as the principal aim without first understanding that above all, our obligation is personal holiness?

Pastor Platt asserts that the Holy Spirit is given principally for missions.  I don’t find that in Scripture however.  Instead I find the Holy Spirit given for many reasons, not the least of which is the sanctification of the believer.  To put one reason above another is to pretend to know the mind of God where God has not revealed it.  I don’t doubt but that some are given the Spirit to powerfully pronounce the gospel, and I hope that I and my son are among those.  However, I also know that the Spirit is given to everyone to kill sin in our lives and I know that my son and I are called to do this.  In the words of John Owen, “Be killing sin, or sin will be killing you.”

More on Chapters 6 et seq to follow.

Book Review: "Radical" by David Platt Part I

I've been recently asked to review the book Radical, Taking Back Your Faith from the American Dream, by David Platt and feel that posting a simple blog entry might be more helpful than trying to give my thoughts in the interrupted and disjointed context of a conversation. It's not that I don't wish to hear feedback on my feedback - rather, I'd like to have the advantage of hearing a response to the whole of my understanding and opinion rather than piecemeal understandings of what I might have just said. The art of conversation is lost in our generation because we're too impatient to have a long enough conversation to warrant listening.  By the way, it is entirely a fair criticism that I am writing a review before I'm finished reading the book.  This is a chronilogical review and should be understood as such.  To the extent that any errors I note are corrected in later chapters shame on me.  To the extent I misunderstand something that is made more clear in later chapters, again - shame on me.


This book, Radical, is now selling well - according to the New York Times and therefore warrants a bit of discussion and criticism. I don't mean criticism in the usually understood negative connotation, but rather, criticism in the sense of thinking critically about what the authors says.

So, here we go - first chapter. If the sense and gist of a book can be captured from its first chapter, then this is a book about feeding the poor. Pastor Platt begins by - literally - by noting his status as the youngest pastor of a mega-church in history. I don't believe he does this in pride, although it is brought up so often that one wearies of hearing it, rather, Pastor Platt seems to be stating his purpose in writing as a personal crisis of faith subsequent to becoming pastor of a mega-church. The irony here is not lost on me. "My biggest fear, even now, is that I will hear Jesus’ words and walk away, content to settle for less than radical obedience to him." And herein, we see the genesis of the title. It is hard to criticize someone who writes about being radically obedient to Jesus. From the onset, Pastor Platt has preemptively dissuaded any real critical examination of his argument because, after all, who wants to argue against radically obeying Jesus.

As I noted, this first chapter is about feeding the poor. Lest I be misunderstood, I am not saying the book is about feeding the poor. I am simply noting what the conclusion of this first chapter is. Before we get there, I would like to note a few fallacies of logic and clear thinking. Pastor Platt begins with a few unspoken assumptions that are put forth as axiomatic, but which I would suggest are not only suspect, but far from logical. The first is his discussion of a small nuclear group of pastors in an Asian country who meet in an environment hostile to the corporate practice of Christianity. In this context Pastor Platt makes the following assumptions - 1. these Christians are being persecuted for their faith, 2. these Christians are more spiritual/devout because of their willingness to be a Christian when the consequences for corporate practice are severe, and 3. these Christians are to be commended for their authentic emotional expressions and simplicity of faith.

This morning I had a discussion with a friend who noted that there are some who believe that Christians under persecution act differently than Christians who aren't being persecuted. However, it is my opinion and observation from Scripture that all Christians are persecuted and being persecuted. Jesus does not say "the world will hate some of you" or "the world will hate many of you." We, all of us, as followers of Christ and those who have faith in him for the atonement of our sins, are now being persecuted by this world. Many in the West have been deceived into believing that because our mortal lives are not being attacked, that we're safe. I would posit, however, that we in the West are as much under attack as any other church at any other time. The enemy of Christ is rarely so foolish as to believe that the most effective means of combating Christianity is a head on attack on the lives of the faithful. The lesson was learned more than 3000 years ago in the life of Job. The lesson was re-learned during the Roman persecutions. There are times when the enemy is effective using the threat of life, but most often, the more effective threat is not against mortal life, but against Spiritual life. We are never so much hampered in our realization of our faith than when we are deceived about our faith. In this, while Pastor Platt makes what I believe are erroneous assumptions, we both agree on the conclusion - there is something wrong about Christianity in America. We agree our faith, has been altered into something un-Christ like. Pastor Platt incorrectly assumes a purity in a church that is being mortally threatened. There is little in Scripture, if anything, to suggest that believes who are being mortally threatened, are somehow better off spiritually, or more spiritual, or more holy or more anything. To criticize comfort for comfort is to naively understand the grace of God. To some are granted mortal peril, to others spiritual peril. But the world will and does hate God and those who follow God. If we deceive ourselves into thinking that we are not being persecuted, then the enemy has already won a great battle. We are a steer who still thinks he is a bull.

The first assumption, that these Asian Christians are being persecuted for their faith is wrong. I'm not saying that they are not being persecuted for their faith - I am saying that we cannot presume they are. The fact is they cannot meet corporately to practice their corporate Christianity without threat of mortal peril. Granted. However, we would need to know more. In many countries it is permissible to meet corporately under license of the government and this restriction is imposed against all religions. In this context worshippers are not persecuted for their faith, they're persecuted for having any faith - Islam, Buddhist, Christianity, Jew... it matters not. You can hardly say someone in such a country is persecuted because they follow Jesus - they're persecuted because they follow anyone. Also, it denies the fact that all Christians everywhere and at all times have been and will be persecuted by the ruler of this world. It makes artificial classes of Christians - those who are persecuted and those who are not. Lastly, there is nothing to suggest that the mere proclamation of faith in Christ is what is being denied. What we are told is that to meet corporately is what occasions peril. Fellowship is a key and integral part of the Body of Christ - to be denied fellowship is a harsh measure of Grace. And there are those Christians who will risk their lives to gain fellowship - but that is different than risking your life to proclaim your faith in Christ. It is also different from risking your life to evangelize. Each persecution is real and harsh Grace, but each occasions different responses. We are all going to be persecuted and the mode of that persecution is largely not our choice - rather it is a Grace of God. It is, therefore, simply not logical to assume that because one person or group is prevented from congregating that their ideas of Christianity, that their expression of Christianity, that their understanding or Christianity is more pure, more holy, or better in any facet or quality than anyone else' Christianity. Pastor Platt makes a grievous error in making the first and second assumptions.

The last assumption, the deference and honor given to these Believer's expressions of worship due to their hardships falls quickly when we note the fallacy of the first two assumptions. In reality, there is no measure of the Holy Spirit given to various Believers on account of their situation. All true Believers worship God in truth, all Believers struggle with sin, all Believers proclaim their faith. All are members of the same body, and to suggest that those under mortal peril are somehow "eyes" while those who live in relative mortal safety are somehow "dishonorable parts" is to deceive ourselves about the body and the Head and the Grace of God. Pastor Platt begins his book with three insupportable assumptions which form the basis of a great deal of erroneous thinking later on as we shall see.

While illogical argument is bad, there are worse things. Perhaps Pastor Platt will remedy this in the chapters that follow, but it cannot be excused until such time and there is always a lack of responsibility in teaching an incomplete doctrine hoping that the reader will hang around for the correct completion. I am of course referring to Pastor Platt's teaching on the Rich Young Ruler.

Pastor Platt completely and inexcusably omits the first communications between Jesus and the Rich Young Ruler (RYR). He skips to the "sell everything you have" language and makes that the focal point and purpose of this dialogue. Never mind that no where in any other Scripture do we have a command to sell everything and give to the poor. Pastor Platt fails in his adherence to the discipline that Scripture interprets Scripture. There is no context given to these words. I take this opportunity to correct an older brother in the faith, hopefully in meekness and humility. Pastor Platt - Jesus first words to the RYR are most alarming - "Keep the commandments." You note how much Jesus fails in his salvation message with "sell everything" but you fail in your understanding of Jesus' salvation message by omitting, intentionally or negligently, Jesus primary teaching - "Keep the commandments." The command of Jesus for that RYR to sell everything is a response to the RYR's arrogant, self-delusional and false proclamation that he had indeed kept the commandments. Jesus was illustrating that man's heart. It is not fair to suggest that Jesus is giving a general command to all believers at all times to sell everything and give to the poor, or that Jesus is teaching the rich to do this. How do we know this? For one, Jesus, nor any other prophet or writer in Scripture, ever commands anyone else to do this. Secondly, the righteous and/or wise are blessed by God with riches (see Job and Proverbs, and Abraham, and Solomon). Thirdly, we see examples of the rich worshipping God without feeling compelled to give everything they have to the poor - Mary's vial of perfume which she poured on Jesus was worth a years' wages. Who has that kind of money? Judas, the false disciple, complained that the perfume should have been sold and the money given to the poor. I wonder if Pastor Platt realizes how much his teaching echo Judas instead of Jesus with regard to selling everything and giving to the poor.

Before I am blasted by those who don't know me; let me state for the record my beliefs about the poor and giving. Proverbs alone teaches more than any other book about the poor. In this book God reveals his heart for the poor. We are taught that to despise the poor is to despise his maker. There is everything commendable about giving to the poor, about having a heart for the poor. It is a mark of a heart for God that one has a heart for the poor. And to the extent that Pastor Platt condemns American greed and commercialism/materialism because we do not have a heart for the poor he couldn't be more right. But to confuse one moment in Jesus' life, one conversation, one teaching on the law and our depravity and our ability to keep the law, as a general teaching to eradicate poverty, as a church-purpose to alleviate poverty in the world, is simply indefensible from the Scripture.

This chapter is so full of errors that it may take as many words to rebut them as Pastor Platt has used, and for that I apologize. Let me assure you that Pastor Platt's second chapter is one to be commended as one of the most elegant pronouncements of the Gospel that I have ever read. But we are not there yet, we are still dealing with the errors of Chapter 1.

Pastor Platt has, in my opinion, a distorted view of Jesus' calling of sacrifice. He confuses both the scope and the actuality of the sacrifice called for. Jesus' requirement is everything - agreed. We are commanded to give our very lives so we can hardly have right to complain should our property or relationships or security be imposed upon by God's Grace. However, the realization - the actuality of the sacrifice is not the same in every instance. While all are called to give their lives to Christ, very few will die a martyr's death. Pastor Platt apparently conceives this in that he is not admonishing everyone to die a martyr's death. However, Pastor Platt fails to understand that while we are all called to give our lives to Christ, few are required to give every possession to the poor. Nowhere in Scripture, the example of the RYR notwithstanding, are we called to poverty in material goods. We are called to be impoverished in our own righteousness. Ananias and Saphira as noted examples. The Holy Spirit does not kill them because they fail to give everything to the poor. Indeed, it is noted that while it was theirs it was theirs to do as they wish. Is the Holy Spirit through Peter contradicting Jesus?

One last example from this chapter illustrates the inconsistent and immature logic of Pastor Platt. Lest I be unfair I'll give the exact quote and admit that (hopefully) he is trying to make a point by being extreme. "A Jesus who would not expect us to forsake our closest relationships so that he receives all our affection." In this quote Pastor Platt attempts to describe what Jesus requires - and he notes that if we disagree we are idolaters, molding Jesus into our own image and worshipping ourselves. However, Pastor Platt has committed the same error he cautions against. The easiest refutation against this teaching is regarding marriage. Nowhere are we called to forsake marriage so that Jesus receives all of our affection. In fact, husbands are called to love their wives as Christ loves the Church. If a husband is to so love Christ that his love for his wife looks like hate, then how can he at the same time love his wife as Christ loves the Church. This is an example of immature reading of Scripture. I am not meaning to suggest that Pastor Platt is an immature person or lacks responsibility in his pastorate or personal life. I am suggesting that when we approach Scripture, we are to understand these are the thoughts of God. Some of them are hard to understand, and we should not approach Scripture with a simplistic "it means what it says" while restricting ourselves to one verse only. Scripture interprets Scripture because only God knows the mind of God.

This first chapter is so replete with poor logic, bad eisegesis, and inflammatory statements that it is hard to even take it seriously. Perhaps I spend too much time reading scholarly works that I cannot see this for what it is. It may be that Pastor Platt has intentionally written a provocative and inflammatory chapter to hook the reader into reading more. I can certainly understand why the social gospel proponents are chomping at the bit after reading this chapter. Pastor Platt has become their new poster child. Honestly, it was hard to keep reading at this point and I would have stopped if not for the promise I made a couple friends to provide feedback. I am glad I did because Chapter 2 is one of the best chapters I have read from any Christian author in the past 10 years.

Chapter 2 is an eloquent, informative, accurate, concise and beautiful expression of the Gospel. Pastor Platt covers Scripture from the Fall in Genesis to the Atonement on the Cross to the ultimate glorification in heaven. Pastor Platt recognizes accurately God's role in salvation and man's role. His teaching reveals the sovereignty of God in salvation and is bound to make more than a few northern liberals uncomfortable in his pronouncement of depravity and grace. I wish I could excerpt this chapter alone, and I hope that Pastor Platt has many more thoughts on pronouncing the Gospel.

In reading chapter 3 and quickly realizing that Chapter 2 was a brief respite from the chaotic thinking - it does occur to me that Pastor Platt has at least one thing in so many writers who are confusing Christians today. He fails completely to understand the principal will of God in a believer's life.

Pastor Platt's hobby horse is evangelism and he has fallen into the error of extremism I refer to as hyper-evangelicalism; that is, believing the entire purpose and will of God for a believer's life is evangelism to the entire world. However, his error is but one of many who fail to understand God's will for our lives. In seeking to replace God's will, men will grasp onto anything they can and particularly those things that bring them personal comfort. Some see that thing as health, wealth and prosperity. Some see it as peace between the nations; some see it as being some sort of protestant Mother Theresa. And some like the late Bill Bright, Billy Graham or Pastor Platt as evangelism.

Again, I have to realize that someone may read this who doesn't know me. Allow me to explain. I am a strong proponent of evangelism. I've personally witnessed to hundreds of unbelievers in my life. I have crafted my elevator speech/2 minute personal testimony. I've practiced mass evangelism, one on one evangelism, written evangelism and defensive/apologetic evangelism. There is without a doubt, a commission given by Jesus just before He ascends to His Father. The Church is to be made of all peoples in all nations and tongues. There is no Jew or Greek, no male or female, no black or white in the Church. We are all of us, redeemed sinners saved by grace through faith in the atoning work of Christ. Evangelism is the highest calling.

However, it is just that. Not all are called to be evangelists. Not my words. If Pastor Platt doesn't like it, I'm sorry, but the Scriptures clearly teach that not all are called to be evangelists. Pastor Platt tries to get around this by suggesting that we are all called to be personally involved in evangelism.

Regardless of whether Pastor Platt is right or wrong - he fails to recognize the singular most important thing a Christian can ever be doing. In his distortion of the traditional statement of the purpose of man - he makes it the singular purpose of the church and man to witness. His words are "enjoy his grace and extend his glory" This is a subtle change in the traditional understanding "glorify God and enjoy him forever." The subtle change is "extend"

It would take paragraphs and paragraphs to fully explain the purpose of man and why it is not to "extend the glory of God." However, I think it sufficient to mention a few things. First, the singular activity which Jesus, over and over again requires, which every single NT author requires, is NOT and is NEVER evangelism or witnessing. It is ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE the eradication of sin in the believer's life - the mortification of sin in our hearts and minds, the sanctification of the believer. The commission Jesus gives is to make disciples - a sanctification procedure above all. But Jesus teaches that we do not love God if we don't keep his commandments. Note that Jesus, and Paul and John do not teach that we don't love God if we don't evangelize. That is only one commandment given at one time to one group of believers. The so-called "Great Commission" (I laugh that Pastor Platt capitalizes it as if it were a name of God) is given to one group of believers. Jesus is not found teaching this to everyone. No where in the NT do we find any other teacher giving this commandment to another group of believers. If we as Americans have failed to understand Jesus' principal teaching as "go forth into OTHER nations and witness" then so has Paul, Peter, John, James and Jude.

The commission is a commandment - given to one group of believers. And many other believers are commanded to go forth through the ministry of the Holy Spirit; see for example Paul's commission at Antioch - indeed on the road to Damascus. However, not every Christian is so called and Pastor Platt's attempt to read this into Scripture is simply bad eisegesis. You cannot make a theology by capitalizing something.

Every Christian is called to live a holy life. We read this in almost every book of the NT. Why does God give us this commandment, often and everywhere - but hide the commandment to go into all nations in one teaching to one group of believers? Is God obtuse? Is God's will hidden? The entire purpose and error of this book so far is revealed in a quote from Chapter 4:

Meanwhile, Jesus commands us to go. He has created each of us to take the gospel to the ends of the earth, and I propose that anything less than radical devotion to this purpose is unbiblical Christianity.

Wow. Really? Does Pastor Platt really believe he has adequately supported this from Scripture? Based on one teaching from Jesus to one group of believers? If I don't have a radical devotion to taking the gospel to the ends of the earth, I'm an unbiblical Christian. Never mind that I spend hours in prayer fighting sin in my life and working towards holiness. Never mind that I recognize my first and primary mission field is my family and those God has brought into my immediate sphere of influence. Never mind that I am called to server and love the brethren first and foremost. Never mind that I am trying to learn the mind of God by studying Scripture. If I don't have a "radical devotion" to world evangelism then my Christianity is unbiblical. Really Pastor Platt?

Throughout this book Pastor Platt continually gets so many things right. He accurately teaches the Gospel, he accurately denounces the American Dream as unbiblical. He accurately condemns a biblical understanding/gospel that puts us at the center of the Gospel instead of Christ. But he also fails completely to understand the nature and purpose of sanctification. We bring glory to God first and foremost by repentance and the fight against sin. Angels can pronounce the Gospel and they will one day. Only man can glorify God through the abandonment of sin and the turning to Grace. Only men can glorify God through faith in Christ. Our purpose is to be sanctified and live according to God's will. For many, that will includes evangelism - for me it does. But for many it simply does not. Children are called to be sanctified - they don't have to wait. They are not called to be missionaries or to have a heart for missions. We simply see no evidence of a so-called Great Commission in Scripture. If it is "great" because it comes from Jesus, then we deny the work of the Holy Spirit in the Inspiration of Scripture and might as well only live the red letters. If it is great because it is the last commandment, then we deny the continuing Lordship of Christ and the many commands he has given the Church since the ascension. It is only "great" because some rightly or wrongly have a great heart for missions and mistakenly project that ministry onto every one else. Simply because the Gospel will go to all nations and tribes and tongues, does not mean that every Christian is responsible to make it happen. It's bad logic, it's bad exegesis, and it's bad theology.

Job's Friends Part 5 

From the book of Job, Chapter 1 verse 5 we read:

Job 1:5

And when the days of the feast had run their course, Job would send and consecrate them, and he would rise early in the morning and offer burnt offerings according to the number of them all. For Job said, “It may be that my children have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts.” Thus Job did continually.

If you read my last installment, you will be familiar with my understanding that the children were not partying every day, but rather were feasting on particular set celebratory occasions, such as a birthday or a set day for each son.  Here is further proof which supports my understanding. Apparently, each feast would last more than one day.  And when these days were done, that is, the feast was concluded, Job would step in.  Herein is order.  The feast had run its course, there was design about the festivities.  And herein is wisdom.  Job as the patriarch recognizes that when there is wine and food and celebration, occasionally there are things said or done that a more sober mind would have avoided.

Job enters the pictures as a spiritual janitor - a priest to his family.  He would "send and consecrate them."  I appreciate the blanket treatment here.  Job is not acting as inquisitor and judge.  Rather, as a loving father, he send and consecrates all his children.  There is no indication that the children resent this, or rebel against it or avoid it.  After order and wisdom follows obedience.  

The word used by the English Standard Version is "consecrate."  It is not a word we use daily in our lives, and therefore bears a closer scrutiny.  To consecrate something is to dedicate it.  The Wikipedia project defines consecration as "the solemn dedication to a special purpose or service" of a thing or person.  In this sense, Job is dedicating his children, each of them, to a special purpose or service.  I wonder what purpose Job intended for his children.  As we will see, that purpose will not be fulfilled, as God has another plan for Job and his family.  Nevertheless, Job does not know that and he is busy preparing his family for God.

Righteousness does not happen accidentally.  Consecration is not haphazard.  We often hear the words "prayer changes things" when in fact, it is most often not simply prayer, but effectual prayer, prayers of a righteous man, much prayer and fasting, that changes things.  I'll leave for another day the discussion of whether God responds to our prayers in such a way that makes us the ultimate arbiter of our fates and destiny, or whether our prayers when instructed by the Holy Spirit conform themselves to the will of God such that we begin to desire what will be God's will in any case.  For today, it is enough to remark that Job was not satisfied with the baby dedication.  Indeed, he consecrated his children often and regularly and routinely.  This was his habit and his method.  This is reinforced by the last phrase "[t]hus Job did continually."

And what was the result of Job's continual intercession for his children?  As I pointed out in the last installment, his family were still together, they expressed both filial and brotherly love.  There was order and hospitality.  There was responsibility and importantly, there was no outward cause for rebuke.  Remember, Job thought "it may be ... in their hearts."  Job is uncertain as to the spiritual state, at that moment, of his children.  For while he had nothing for which to accuse them, Job was still concerned about the circumstances - as a wise father is.  Even when his children are doing very well, Job is thinking ahead, out of the box, and in protective mode.

How is it that Job consecrated them?  Sin is a brutal matter.  It separates us from God, from the love of God and exposes us to his wrath.  Romans 1:18  This wrath is more intense than anything in all of creation.  God is not put off by sin.  God is not inconvenienced by sin.  God is not saddened by sin.  God is angry, wrathful and furious.  Hell fire was created because of sin.  And the only atonement that will appease the wrath and purchase peace is the blood of Christ - a perfect sacrifice capable of carrying the sins of the world.  Genesis 3:15, 3:21, and 4:3.  Job believes this.  He sacrifices burnt offerings to the Lord in faith that God will relent any anger and hold fast to his own covenant established with Adam, that one day his seed would crush Satan and sin and death.

It is possible to do a burnt offering without killing anything.  One could offer as a burnt offering a prized possession or food or money.  Indeed, the grain offering of Leviticus 2 was a burnt offering.  However, the grain offering usually accompanied an animal sacrifice and the atonement for sin offering was an animal sacrifice.  Job is concerned about sin here and I believe he was killing his livestock here.

This bears noting.  When Job made a sacrifice, it was not an investment in missions or a building or the salary of a pastor.  When Job made a sacrifice - it was simply gone.  The only reason to make such a sacrifice would have been if you earnestly believed in your heart that God was watching, directing and approving of your actions AND that there was an agreement between God and man that would hold God to the relenting of his anger.  This was true sacrifice.  I wonder what it would look like in my life were I to sacrifice something.  Perhaps not an animal.. the family cat is safe.  But what about something that means a lot to me?  What about a dream that means a lot to me?  

It should be noted that the sacrifice Job made was not of something that shouldn't have been in his life anyway.  Giving up television is not that much of a sacrifice.  For while it may be difficult, the denial of television will improve your overall quality of life in any regard.  Similarly, giving up fattening foods or shopping binges will not be much of a sacrifice either, as God will see that you're improving your life through the sacrifice and we will always wonder what our primary motivation for the sacrifice was.  A sacrifice of a healthy productive animal to a farmer is the equivalent of sacrificing a good modern laptop to a computer technician; sacrificing a your best power tools to one in construction; sacrificing your best suit to a minister.  You see, the animal was the rancher's livelihood - not only was it an animal, it was his income.  When Job sacrificed the animal, he realized an immediate poverty of sorts.  There was no remuneration for the animal.  He was not allowed to choose sickly animals.  He also lost the potential within that animal, for it was most likely able to produce offspring for Job as well.

Lastly, I note that the sacrifice was completely unto God.  It was not a sacrifice to God and given to others.  Now, before those of you who may ever read this complain to me about the Levitical rights of the priests, I understand how many sacrifices in Israel were meant to provide sustenance to the priests as well as honor God or appease his anger.  However, many of the sacrifices were whole burnt offerings, as is suggested here.  The text certainly allows that Job sacrificed part of the animal, but the question remains, which part?  He would still have been deprived of the benefit of offspring from that animal.  He would still have been deprived of whatever part was burnt, and a quick read of Leviticus suggests that the best parts were burnt.  God still took the best.  This was a true sacrifice set apart unto God and no other.

Now contrast that with what most of us call sacrifices today.  Giving money to the church is no sacrifice.  It may be a tithe, it may be a gift, but it is certainly no sacrifice, because it is not given to God alone.  Certainly, the widow's mite seems to approach that quality as in her heart the money was lost to who knows what cause and it would never benefit her, a widow.  But how many times have I said in my heart: I don't want to give to this ministry because I'm not happy with what they would do with the money?  Job isn't asking how God is going to use his burnt offering.  The sacrifice is complete when we lose control of the item we are sacrificing.

Finally, before leaving this verse, it is important to my heart to acknowledge the picture of Christ our Intercessory Priest here.  As Job's children were living, Job was interceding.  The allusion is to the intercessory role Christ plays on our behalf.  While Job's sacrifices were animals and continual, Christ's sacrifice was his own body and blood and was once for all.  We see the father's love for his children just as we see our Heavenly Father love us so much that His only son is given upon an instrument of torture and death.  This is what makes Job the kind of man of whom God boasts "[h]ave you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil?" Job 1:8

Oh to have my Lord boast over me!  What more can glory afford?  Today my challenge is to continually intercede for my son.  While I no longer make sacrifices to atone for his sin, I can still make intercession for him by calling upon our Great Interceder, our Lord who makes peace between God and man, appeasing and atoning the wrath of God against all ungodliness and unrighteousness.  Fathers, is there something else that more warrants our time and energy?  Note that Job did this early in the morning, before doing anything else.  Before shaving, before brushing our teeth, before working out, before breakfast: the most important thing we can do during our day is to be on our knees before God interceding for our children, turning away from evil, and worshiping God.

Job's Friends Part 4 

From the book of Job, Chapter 1 verse 4 we read:

Job 1:4

His sons used to go and hold a feast in the house of each one on his day, and they would send and invite their three sisters to eat and drink with them.

Of the verses that we have examined thus far, this one is perhaps the most interesting and difficult to understand.  But we will take it word for word, idea for idea and I hope to make out the understanding of what the Holy Spirit is communicating to us.

The verse begins with "his sons" referring back of course to Job.  Job had seven such sons and apparently they were all at home.  In today's culture such a phenomenon is unheard of in itself.  To have so many children is one thing, for them all to remain at home is almost ethnic in that it is a stranger to normal American experience.  Today children grow up and move far away, they leave the nest, they move on.  Can one imagine what Thanksgiving would be like in Job's day?  The roads would be abandoned!  Unlike today's world, there would be almost no holiday traffic, as all the children would still be home.

There is something to be said for staying home.  While I can hardly speak to the virtue, having moved more than a thousand miles from my homeland, I can attest to the warmth, comfort and security of having family near-by and the loneliness and solidarity of being separated from those who love you most.  We should not misunderstand the culture of Job's day - not everyone stayed home to live with their parents.  Proverbs teaches us that a neighbor close by is preferred in the day of calamity than a brother far off in another land.  Abram left his kin in Ur.  Jacob and Esau lived in different parts of the world.  Paul left Tarsus.  Jacob went down to Egypt.  Joseph was no longer living in Bethlehem.  While the world was much smaller than it is today, apparently people still moved and traveled and were separated from family.

However, in Job's family - everyone was still there.  And that says a lot, in my opinion, about Job's patriarchal provision.  His children were not confined to the family estate, rather, they chose the family estate.  And apparently, from the next few words, we find them happy to be at the family estate.  As a father I can think of no greater blessing than the idea that my son would find my patriarchal provision sufficient that he would be able to be distinct and protected at the same time.

That last idea bears exploration.  Many children leave fine homes because they feel the need to spread their own wings.  While they are in the nest they live under a shadow of their parents that represses their own individuality and personality and dignity.  They don't dislike home, they just need room to be themselves.  What I find surprising, is that Job among all his other talents and righteousness, knew how to protect his family and at the same time give them freedom to be themselves.  They remained home because Dad didn't suffocate them.  Dad didn't impose himself on them.  In short, Dad didn't exacerbate them.

His sons used to go and hold a feast in the house of each one on his day.  There are no momma's boys here.  See this young men?  None of these sons still live under the same roof as Mom.  We have no clue as to whether they are married or not, Scripture does not tell us.  But each had his own house.  One of the secrets to the harmony of this family, I believe, is without a doubt the ability to sustain a household by each one of the sons.  They, each of them, understood the economics of maintaining a home.  They, each of them, understood the mechanics and stewardship of owning a home.  How many young women would do well to consider this when considering a husband.  Does he maintain his own home?

This is especially important in the matter of bachelors.  I have owned a home as a bachelor and as a married man and they are two very different things.  As a married man, you have someone there who has a vested interest in the home - in fact, often the woman has a superior position in the home.  This is not to say that she usurps her role as God ordained, rather, that her husband wisely understands this role is as a steward, not as a servant.  As a steward, she has more control than the master.  As a servant, she has less control.  A servant does what the master says.  A steward determines what is best for the master.  In any case, a bachelor has no steward, no partner, no one who is at least as interested in the home as he is, if not more.  A bachelor who owns a home exercises something many men don't find attractive - home economics.  Many men I know, if single, and while single, would prefer to rent an apartment.  We simply don't nest well.  

However, Job's sons all had their own homes.  However it was that they came about them, we know them to be responsible, independent home owners - of sufficient sized homes that any of those homes could house a party of 10 with spouses and children and friends and servants.  We find out later that, indeed, servants were present in these homes.  

Our friend Job is a father among fathers.  His sons are not just independent, but full of brotherly love - love for their siblings.  And these boys are gentlemen too!  Did you catch it?  They invited their three sisters too.  This is not stag night.  This is not boy's night out.  These children don't believe in gender based fun.  There were no crude jokes, inappropriate humor, or sexists comments.  

So what do we have here?  Riotous partying?  Maybe.  Excessive libations, indulgences and entertainments?  Perhaps.  Permissive diversions and distractions?  Doubtful in mixed company.  The worst that could be said were that the children were accustomed to excess and wealth on a level that few ever enjoy.  It is not a sin to be wealthy.  It is no sin to party.  However, we will see later, that such endeavors do expose us to the risk of sin.

The confusing part of this verse, the part that is obscure to me, is the frequency of the parties. Scripture does not tell us that anything inappropriate happened at these parties.  We can freely assume the best of these children knowing the Godly nature of their parents.

When I first read this verse I assumed that there was a party on every day of the week - for there are seven sons, and there are seven days.  But is that what the verse says?

"each one on his day" does not necessarily mean Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday...  Does it?  The NET bible says "each one in turn".  The New Living Translation says "when Job's sons had birthdays".  The NIV says "His sons used to take turns."  As I've noted before, I'm no master of Hebrew and I won't attempt an analysis of the original language.  But I will point out that the translators considered most credible and qualified for those translations did not translate the verse to read that the sons were partying it up every day of the week, rather that they had parties, they shared the responsibility of hosting and like good hosts, they made sure their sisters, who may or may not have had a home of their own, would be invited and included.  This looks to me like a healthy, loving, Godly family.  Who wouldn't want to be one of those brothers and sisters?

I think there is something here beyond family harmony though.  There is provision, there is security, there is love, and there is a resource for all of this.  These sons grew up to be like their father.  Job cared for his family and servants, and here we see his sons doing likewise.  My respect and admiration for the man grows every day.  And I can hardly imagine the pain and loss that we're coming to eventually.  In fact, this is the happy part of the story, the part we don't want to end.  For those fans of "Lord of the Rings" this is the picnic celebrating Bilbo's 111th birthday in the Shire.  For fans of "War and Peace" this is Anna Pavlovna's soirée.  For those fans of "The Titanic", this is the party in the lower quarters.  It is difficult to even read further, as one wants this picturesque landscape of family harmony as God designed it to last forever.  God blessed Job, and here we see the deepest blessing, one we may all envy with equal desire.

Job's Friends Part 3

From the book of Job, chapter 1 verses 3 and 10:

Job 1:3

He possessed 7,000 sheep, 3,000 camels, 500 yoke of oxen, and 500 female donkeys, and very many servants, so that this man was the greatest of all the people of the east.

Job 1:10

Have you not put a hedge around him and his house and all that he has, on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land.

It is not my intent to bounce around Job cherry picking nuggets of wisdom; much less to continue mixing my metaphors.  My point in skipping ahead and including verse 10 is because I believe it gives context and meaning to verse 3.  For we see that Job is a rich man.  Yesterday I was speaking with one of my best friends, a man whom I'm proud to call friend, a farmer who was explaining to me that even today a man who owned so many animals would be a great man indeed.

And herein lies a problem for me personally.  I struggle against those who would preach a prosperity gospel, but here we read about a God fearing man who avoid evil and who is blessed by God in very material ways.  This has got to set free prosperity gospel preachers and give wings to their delights.  I can just hear preachers excusing mansions and mega churches with these two verses.  Indeed, how can we see it otherwise without looking to other Scripture?

Numbers

Is there any significance to the numbers 7,000, 3,000 and 500?  Again, I think those who see numerology within everything would have a field-day here.  Seven is often the number of perfection.  Three is identified with the triune Godhead.  And I'm tempted to point out that there are five fingers on a hand which allows us to grasp and work.  But is the Holy Spirit trying to teach us anything from these numbers, or are they there just to say simply that Job was a very rich man?  

Sheep are sustenance.  They provide no labor, they consume resources and labor; however, they provide sustenance in the form of wool and food.  In that regard they are God's provision for us.  His provision to Job is marked out by the number 7,000.  Job's sustenance was large indeed.  One might say it was figuratively perfect.  If we believe Satan's representation in verse 10, and it is important to recognize that God did not correct him, then indeed the numbers were determined by God himself and not by chance or fortune.  In any regard, God has blessed Job with a great number of sheep.

Camels can be both sustenance and labor.  Camel hair is of generally fine quality and can be used in the production of felt and other clothes.  Additionally, Job's camels were the ATVs of the day, the farm truck and 4 Wheeler combined into one.  Unlike the relatively smaller herds of sheep that I saw while I was in the area of Northern Arabia and Western Iraq, where presumably Job lived, Job had vast herds which could not be managed by shepherd boys on foot.  Water was scarce so camels were particularly valuable in that climate.  Job had 3,000 camels.  One wonders, how did he feed so many camels?  The sheep would subsist on the grass in that part of the land.  The camels would be able to eat the grass as well, but Job's family would need grain in addition to the meat their stock provided.

In addition to the animals, Job was responsible for a great many servants.  These are people who are, like Job's family, dependent upon Job for their very lives.  One cannot help but remember the story of the prodigal son, who in desperation and fear for his life when starving thought to return to his father's house as a servant when he remembered how his father cared for his servants.  It is entirely reasonable to understand that Job was just as righteous in his dealings with his servants.  It is not only reasonable, but expected that Job's servants were well cared for, that Job loved them and prayed for them and considered their welfare and that of their families.  In this regard Job was more than a family man and a farmer, he was a business man capable of managing the affairs of many.

I suspect that Job was more than a herdsman; that in addition to livestock he also had fields of grain that are not mentioned but which are implied.  How are they implied?  Why else would Job need 500 oxen?  Sure, oxen are a food source as well.  But they require a lot more grass than the desert would provide.  It is uncertain what the climate was like in that part of the land.  Indeed, it is even disputed where exactly in northern Arabia or western Iraq Job lived.  But there are rivers there now and there were rivers there in Job's time.  It is possible that Job lived near enough water to grow crops to support the oxen and supplement the diet of the sheep, camels, donkeys and his own family and servants.  Indeed, I believe it is more than possible, but implied by the numbers themselves.

Better than implications, however, is the notice we are given in verse 14 where a servant tells Job that "the oxen were plowing and the donkeys were feeding beside them."  I am impressed by the diversity of Job's farm operation here.  He is practically self reliant in that his operation provides grain, wool, meat and other food stuffs.  Job is not to be taken lightly.  I imagine if we were to meet Job today, he'd have a Masters of Science degree from Penn State University in Animal Husbandry and Farm Operations.  These are not simple folk from a bygone era, rather, Job is a sophisticated businessman capable of understanding diversification, human resource management, farm management, production capacities, resource management, building design, farm implements, textile production, risk management, and other skills necessary for such a large operation.

This observation is necessary as we will eventually be analyzing Job's arguments and philosophies in light of his intelligence and education.  I believe we will be wise to understand Job as a renaissance man.  

And this renaissance man was the greatest of all the people in the East.  That is quite an observation.  Was it Job's wealth that made him great?  Is the Holy Spirit here stooping to modern valuations of man which look only at the pocket book?  I don't believe that in light of all that we have seen about how Job came about his wealth and the remarkable diligence and skills that were necessary to produce and maintain that wealth.  I have known rich people who came about their wealth with ease producing things of little lasting worth.  I have also known rich people who came about their wealth through diligence and hard work with an ever lasting interest in those whom God has put in their charge, who have a generous nature and a kind disposition but who are intensely interested in being the best steward of what God has given them.  I believe Job was the latter kind.  Job was the kind of man that despised gambling in all forms, who appreciated life and human dignity.  Job was the kind of man who was generous and who looked out for the best interests of others - as we shall see in a few verses.  Job was a righteous man who saw himself for what he was - a steward of God's property.

My last observation on verse 3 is that all that Job had was from God.  Verse 10 teaches us that God blessed the work of Job's hands and his possessions increased accordingly.  Job worked.  He was not a lazy man, or a man given to idleness or trivial entertainment.  When others were playing, Job was working; and then when they were sleeping Job was offering sacrifices.  But hard work alone does not provide anything.  That is what a servant of God is expected to do.  The increase in Job's wealth was entirely from God.  God saw fit to give, and later he sees fit to take away.  In chapter 2 verse 10 we see that Job understands the source of all his wealth to be from God.  And so, that Job was wealthy and powerful and influential were all blessings from God.

Is this prosperity Gospel?  Satan certainly thought so, as we shall see in a few verses.  However, we will suspend our analysis of that question till then.  In the meantime I will pray that God blesses me with a proper understanding of these verses and the question of whether God does or does not bless righteousness with material wealth and power.

Job's Friends Part 2

Job's Friends Part 2 

From Job, chapter 1 verse 2:

"There were born to him seven sons and three daughters."

Scriptures remind us that a blessed man has a full quiver.  Children are a blessing from the Lord, as any new parent can attest.  I wouldn't recommend asking too many parents of teenagers though.  In any case, the first pronouncement of Job's wealth, status and blessing from God begins with a list of his children.  He had seven son and three daughters.

In this age and time it is likely that Job would have had to pay to marry off his daughters, what would later be called a dowry.  However, it is also possible that someone would have to pay him for his daughters, cf. Jacob and Leah/Rachel.  In any case, there is an immediate pecuniary benefit to having seven sons.  We know that Job was an agrarian; a farmer.  In this trade a son would work all day and not require labor wages.  That is to say, there was no out-of-pocket expenditure for his day of labor.  Additionally, the son would be trusted more than a day laborer or hired hand.  I'm of the opinion that private capital leads to better management of resources.  This is certainly not a universally held position, but the Bible supports private ownership and here we see private ownership as a blessing from God.

Having seven sons to help on the family farm, Job had seven captains, if you will, to manage the servants and hired hands.  Instead of having to personally care for everyone, he could delegate and spend his time investing in the education, training and care of seven who would then train and manage others.  In this manner Job was able to have a sizeable farm by any age.  There are farmers today who make a living on fewer livestock than Job had with better technology.

There is an interesting ratio here as well.  In most societies women outnumber men.  They out-live men but are more prone to disease.  However, in most cultures there are more female babies born than male babies and for all of humanity, cultures have embraced males while slighting the female children.  The males were educated, given an inheritance, put in positions of honor.  And other men would judge a man by the number of boys he sired.  Science would later affirm that indeed, it is the father who determines the sex of the child.  It's just human nature.  And this passage is a recognition of Job's masculinity of sorts.

But Job's home wasn't without the grace and beauty of femininity.  He had three daughters to compliment his wife.  Job's wife is not portrayed completely in Scripture.  We know little to nothing of their love, of their commitment to one another, of their fidelity and spirituality.  We know that in extreme hardship - the kind none of us will ever experience - Job's wife doesn't give the best advice.  But neither do his friends, nor does Job hold fast to the best positions and ideals.

It may be that Job's wife was ungodly.  It may be that like all other aspects of Job's life, his wife was a blessing too.  We simply don't know.  In any case, she has borne Job ten children and that much alone is more than any other Godly man I can recollect from Scripture.  Job was blessed.

A family is a precious gift.  We receive it from God and hope that He lets us enjoy them for the entirety of our lives.  I had a sister when I was a child.  God's grace was such that he allowed me to enjoy her for 15 years.  And in God's Providence she is now home with the Lord Jesus Christ and I am left here to carry on.  I had a wife when I was younger.  God's grace was such that he gave me a wife for 8 years.  God has allowed a divorce and broken our family.  So that when I read about Job's family, I know the blessing of family.  I know the heartache of loss.  I don't know these things on the same scale as Job, but the flavor is in my mouth and I can recollect the memories of having a sister and having a wife.  I have a son and he is still a blessing in my life.  I know the love of a son and I know the love of a father.  

Job is not an abstract.  Job does not exist in a vacuum.  His righteousness and humanity is not given to us in parable form, rather it is demonstrated through relationships - real relationships with people who have names and loves and hurts.  His children aren't named for us, as his friends are, but we see something of them and their relationship to their father in the next few verses.  What I find here though is enough for some deep thought.

Job had ten children, seven sons and three daughters.  Job knew the fear that a father knows regarding the safety of his children. Job knew the hopes and dreams of any parent.  Job knew the delight in a daughter or son bouncing on his knee.  Job had a family.  And he was blessed.

This is an appropriate place to start.  I need to remember that Job had a family.  For everything else that I will read about his arguments has to be placed in perspective.  He had a loving family who played together, who worshiped together, who were his very own.  When that family is taken away there is going to be some serious pain.  I think those of us who have lost greatly can empathize with Job; indeed we may be able to sympathize with Job.  I know I can.  After seeing this part of Job's family scrap-book, I am hesitant to condemn anything Job says after he loses his family.  After all, who wouldn't give Job grace upon grace at that time.  Who knows his pain?

We all know the end of the story.  Job loses these children but gets more in the end.  That tells me more about Job's wife - they're in a healthy sexual relationship which produces a lot of offspring.  But he memories will last with him for a life-time.  I have new brothers and sisters today - in the form of my former brothers and sisters-in-law.  But the pain of loss of my little sister, now gone home almost 28 years ago, will never go away completely.

And the two shall become one...  It is interesting to note that Job does not lose his wife.  It may also be instructive that Satan doesn't ask for this either.  Perhaps it is because Satan felt he could use Job's wife against him?  Perhaps it is because the two had become one and God had already said that Satan would not be able to take his life.  If it is the latter, consider the reality of the two flesh becoming one.

When Job married his young bride, they became one flesh.  When one would die, a very real part of the other would die as well.  God sees them as one.  He joins them together, not a preacher, not the State.  God joins them together, he ordains the relationship and it is unique among all others.  They become one in a way that is different.  When God tells Satan that he may not harm Job's body, that includes his wife's body.  When he tells Satan not to kill Job; that includes Job's wife (or at least that is a possible understanding of the prohibition if not an absolute necessary understanding).

Job doesn't get a new wife.  And I believe Job doesn't need a new wife.  Trials come and trials go.  One thing we learn from Job and the trials God allows in his life is this:  Children are not the end-all of families; rather, marriage is.  He lost his children and God gave him new children.  But God never allowed Satan to take away his wife.  Let no man divide or separate what God has joined together - not even Satan.  

Today we are tempted to worship our children, and even to put them in front of our marriages.  I cannot help but see a spiritual truth here in Job though - Job's children were expendable.  Job's marriage was not.  Job's children were a blessing - Job's marriage is a covenant between God and man not to be broken by any man.

Please don't misunderstand me to say that divorce is always wrong; for it is.  But while wrong, it is sometimes allowed - particularly in the case of marital infidelity or sexual immorality.  But marriage is so sacrosanct that God would not allow Satan to severe the marriage so that it could be used against Job in the most severe test of man ever recorded.  For God instituted marriage. He does not break it - even to make a point.  He keeps his promises.

Men, we should treat marriage no less seriously.  Nothing is more important than our marriages.  No career, no child, no personal need is more important than our marriage.  No ministry is more important than our marriage.  When it comes down to it - all else other than the worship of God takes second stage to our marriages.  If we, as men, would do this and honor it, how would it change marriage today?  I'm not suggesting that there would be no divorce.  For women are sinners before God too.  But we have the power men, to at least change 50 percent of the problems in marriage today.

I have lost a spouse.  It hurts more than the loss of a sibling.  It hurts more than the loss of practically anything I can imagine.  And it doesn't stop hurting with time alone.  God's grace is sufficient and He heals all hearts of all hurts in His Providential timing.  I believe God is a God of reconciliation and restoration; but I also believe He is a God of repentance and holiness.  Sometimes he allows reconciliation and restoration - sometimes He does not.  In any case, we are to work for, to aspire for, to yearn for, to long for God's best.  My job is to repent.  My job is to be the best servant of God that I can be - in all my relationships.

Job didn't have ten children in an unhappy home.  There's no indication of an unhappy home here.  My admiration of Job continues to grow.  And we're only two verses into the book.

Job's Friends 

In course of my current path of repentance, I'm studying the book of Job.  It is not that I see my life as a trial, or that I have experienced any particular hardship.  Rather, what I find is that Job suffered for two chapters and for the next forty chapters we learn nothing more about the trials and suffering of Job.  It is difficult for me to believe that the book of Job is about suffering when I see that forty chapters of the book recount nothing about his suffering, but rather are a collection of arguments about suffering, the nature of God, the nature of man and assorted other topics.  At first blush, there seems to be a lot one could garner from the book of Job about counseling; particularly Christian counseling.  For, if I remember correctly, Job's three friends are that helpful in their well intended efforts to assist their wounded friend.

Accordingly, what I endeavor to do now is to examine the arguments of the book of Job, in turn and with an eye to applying them in my own life.  I am not a counselor, but I am a friend, and a son, and a father.  Perhaps there is something to be learned from these in-artful counselors of one of the most famous biblical characters.

The color of submission suggests that Scripture presents itself in a form which was designed by God.  Thus, I submit myself to Scripture and begin at the beginning, rather than what I wish to do - which is to jump to chapter four and begin with Eliphaz's arguments.

Chapter 1:1

There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job; and that man was blameless, upright, fearing God and turning away from evil. NASB

Introductions in the Bible are various and curious.  We're introduced to Paul - Saul at the time, as a footnote during the stoning of Stephen, the main character.  We're introduced to David in 1 Samuel 16 as the least of his brothers out taking care of sheep whom the Lord had not yet filled with his spirit.  We're introduced to Abraham as one called from Ur.  And here we're introduced to one of the most famous men of all time, for Muslims, Hindus, Christians, Jews and Atheists all know the name of Job.  In introducing Job, the writer tells us that Job was in he land of Uz.  No one knows for sure, but many suggest that the land of Uz was located to the East of Israel and south of Edom.  Today this is a desolate place, but history also suggests that this was not always so.  If this is the patriarchal time, then the date would be between 1400 BC and earlier.  

And so we meet a man not living in Canaan, who was blameless.  And we was turning away from evil.  The juxtaposition of these two statements about Job encourages me.  For Job was not perfect in being, but perfect in direction.  His life isn't blameless in every account, but rather the author is accounting for Job's life with a static forward/present looking perspective.  It is not that Job has lived perfectly, but rather, that Job is turning away from evil.  The NET and ESV versions translate the Hebrew as "turned away from evil."  The NIV reports that Job "shunned evil" and the NLT says that Job "stayed away from evil."  I am illiterate in Hebrew and rely upon the translators to provide an accurate meaning.  The idea that Job repented, and turned away from evil is realistic in experience; consistent with Scripture - all men must repent.  Job is not blameless because he has lived a perfect life.  Rather, just as Abram had to obey God through faith and leave behind the worship of the moon; just as Moses had to repent of murder; just as David had to repent of adultery and murder; just as Paul had to repent of murder and hate - so we now find Job repenting.

He shuns evil, he hides from evil, he is turning away from evil.  Proverbs 22:3 teaches us that the wise man, the prudent man sees danger and hides himself from it.  A wise man anticipates trouble.  The heart of trouble begins with temptation.

Addicts are taught to recognize their own frailty by examining themselves and learning their own nature.  The acronym H.A.L.T. is helpful.  Hungry - Angry - Lonely - Tired.  A man who senses that he is hungry knows that his body is weak, his constitution compromised, his mind distracted, his defenses down.  A wise man sees that hunger and anticipates trouble, he anticipates temptation.  Further, a wise man treats the hunger, in an appropriate way, so as to defeat the enemy before even experiencing the temptation.  If he is angry, he knows that his heart is troubled, his emotions stirred and turbulent, his rationality diminished.  He humbly recognizes the weakened state and shores up his defenses by addressing the anger in an appropriate way.  If a man is lonely or tired, he will again have his defenses compromised.  And a wise man anticipates this and responds accordingly.  Job hid himself from evil.  Job turns away from evil.

Job was both a wise man, and a repentant man.  This makes for an "upright" man.  Almost all translations use the term "upright" here.  The NLT says Job was a man of "complete integrity" and the MSG interprets the Scripture to say that Job was "totally devoted to God."  When I hear the term "upright" I cannot but help think of the evolution charts I saw constantly as a child in school.  You see the monkey to man chart and all but the last one are bent over.  They are not upright.  I also think about tent poles.  Having camped a lot in my life, more than almost anyone I've ever met, I know a few things about tent poles.  I know, for example, that if the tent pole isn't upright - you're going to have problems.  A tent pole at any angle creates imbalance and instability.  They are difficult to stabilize with lines.  They are practically useless.

So, when I think of a man who is not upright, the image in my imagination is that of a monkey - or a creature who is less than man - an instable, imbalanced creature.  I don't believe in the theory of evolution and find the idea remarkable on any level.  So, these are images that are fantastic.  But even in art we see the devious portrayed by the one hunched over.  We imagine the criminal mind hunched over his papers scheming and hiding.  

Recently I had occasion to meet two young boys of 15 and 16 years old.  They each wanted to date one of my friend's daughters and each left a distinct impression upon me by their stature.  The older was taller than the other, but his height was diminished by his stature, for his was shifty, sneaky and devious in presentation.  He did not look you in the eye and if you were successful in soliciting a handshake, it was one of those limp feminine handshakes without eye contact.  In contrast, the younger boy approached me, made an introduction which while presumptive was bold and strong.  He shook my hand heartedly with good eye contact.  The impression was made and will not be easily undone.  The one is upright - the other less than upright.  And less than upright is not good.

Job is an upright man.  We get the sense that he's direct, forthright, honest, able to look anyone in the eye because he has dealt fairly with all men.  He walks straight and tall because he has nothing to be ashamed of, he is hiding nothing.  What he has done wrong, he has already repented of, and he's familiar with his fellow man - he knows what is in the heart of man and knows that no one is perfect.  Having repented he can walk straight.

But walking upright and repenting doesn't occur in a vacuum.  There is within this one verse a raison d'étre.  For Job is not an upright man if he does not fear God.  Job does not repent if he does not fear God.  Job is not blameless if he does not fear God.  In fact, all that Job is, is due to his fear of God.

The Hebrew word here (yare') means to fear, revere, be afraid, stand in awe of, be awed, honour, respect, be dreadful, to cause astonishment and awe, be held in awe, to inspire reverence or godly fear or awe.  I've heard teachers suggest that God is not someone we should fear, but rather revere with honor and respect.  Certainly, the word allows such a limited interpretation.  I believe, however, that when we see how people respond to being in the presence of God - or hearing God call them to account - we will see that the word is more accurately held to mean awe and fear.  One cannot be in the presence of the divine and not be unchanged.  And Scripture teaches us that the most common response of people from Adam to the Apostle John - from Genesis to Revelation - is that a man is overcome with his own sin and want to hide his face.  No one in this world rushes into the presence of the Father like a 2 year old and hops in his lap.  That's just not Scriptural reality.  We are encouraged to call upon the Father with a Daddy like name - Abba Father.  We are encouraged to see his love and his tenderheartedness.  We are pointed to his mercy and his grace.  But these all exist within the power and the being of the most High, the most powerful, the only pure, the only righteous God.  Those teachers can rush into his lap - I'm probably cognizant of my sin enough to hide.

I'm not suggesting that those teachers are wrong - I just believe it to be a super-human ability to know all of our sin - to see his righteousness, justice and power - to see Jesus' propitiation and still stand on our feet, much less hop into his lap.  John the Apostle fell before an Angel!  I agree that we have the right - because of Jesus' propitiation to enter the throne room of God and call upon him as Abba Father, but I also recognize that until such time as my sin is done away with completely in whole in perfect sanctification here on Earth - I'll hide, I'll fear, I'll stand in awe of God.  Rather, hopefully I'll do these things.  If God grants me repentance; if God grants me fear; then I will be blameless too.  Then I will walk upright.

Job is not Superman.  Job is not a movie super hero.  He's a man, chosen by God, to walk in righteousness.  He is what any Christian can be, and what all Christians are called to be.  When I read Job 1:1 I am reminded that I should be able to write in my journal for my son:

There was a man in the land of Pennsylvania whose name was Kevin; and that man was blameless, upright, fearing God and turning away from evil. JoK (Journal of Kevin)

Later we will examine Job 1:2.