Reflecting the Beauty of God through Art

C. S. Lewis once said, “[An] author should never conceive of himself as bringing into existence beauty or wisdom that did not exist before, but simply and solely as trying to embody in terms of his own art some reflection of eternal Beauty and Wisdom.”

Jerram Barrs has also said, “Our work in any field of the arts will be imitative. We will be thinking God’s thoughts after Him — painting with His colors; speaking with His gift of language; exploring and expressing His sounds and harmonies; working with His creation in all its glory, diversity, and in-built inventiveness. In addition, we will find ourselves longing to make known the beauty of life as it once was in Paradise, the tragedy of its present marring, and the hope of our final redemption. All great art will contain this element of being an echo of Eden: Eden in its original glory, Eden that is lost to us, and Eden restored.”

There was a time within Western culture that the vast majority of the visual arts were done by those within the church. Even those that did not claim to be Christian were often commissioned by the church and used overtly religious content. With the Reformation came a desire to live holy lives and with this renewed fear of idolatry came a renewed fear of the visual arts. Also, the visual arts were a way of teaching Scripture to those who could not read. A major component of Protestantism was teaching people to read the Bible for themselves. As such, Protestantism especially has removed a major form of emotional expression of the Gospel in favor of pragmatism and sometimes legalism.

From the standpoint of convenience, art may very well not appear to be a time-productive, but a lack of literally seeing the beauty and emotional outpouring of the Gospel message very often creates feelings of irrelevance and emotional barrenness towards Christianity. While producing visual arts may very well keep one isolated for lengthy periods of time, the visual arts can also be an expression of thought and emotion that cannot be carried out in words alone. Just as the Divine Creator develops awe-inspiring beauty within his creation, humanity too has been given creative tendencies which can be used to produce awe towards the Divine Creator himself. To refute these tendencies would be to nullify gifts that He has given His people.

As far as art form a moral standpoint, there very well can be a danger to it and it brings up many questions. Scripture states that the followers of God must not contain the invisible God within an image. Does this include Jesus as well? Scripture never gives an explicit, answer but the church has found a basis for visually depicting Jesus within His incarnation. Jesus is the image of the invisible God and thus this image is shown in reality and can be shown in art. So long as this artwork is not worshiped by either the artist or the viewer then it is not to be considered idolatry. An idol is thus something that takes the place of God, not a statue or painting. Art should also never be used in such a way that it detracts from the written and spoken word.

As a whole, the visual arts can very well be beneficial to expressing the Christian faith, but it does come with certain dangers, as does everything else. Every good thing can be twisted in such a way that it either hinders the message of the Gospel or it becomes corrupt in its nature. This corruption is especially seen within the current art culture. There is far less religious works and admiration for God’s creation and an increase in corrupt depictions of what is unholy. Rather than having a painting that expresses one’s desperate call toward God, a typical work of art shows one’s desperate need for sanctification due to a wealth of lustful passions, vulgarity, and violence within the content of the works. Visually, the modern art world has some great works of art but from a moral standpoint, much of it has become corrupted.

Being that Christians are to be a repentant and sanctified people, those who consider themselves artists should seek to redeem this art world. Very rarely is there any great works of art being displayed that teach Christian truth outside of the “Christian culture.” Right now there is much talk within Christian life about needing to become missional, that is, entering into the world with the intention of sharing the Gospel and redeeming that world as opposed to simply waiting for unbelievers to come to the church. This same missional stance should also be taken by Christian artists. Enter into the secular art culture and display the glory of God through the visual arts!

Christocentrism in Sermon and Scripture

A major type or style of preaching that has been very popular recently is called narrative preaching.  The essential idea is that through the telling of stories, you teach concepts in Scripture.  There may be some good things about this type but often it teaches very little doctrine and is not as applicable as some other types.

Christocentric preaching takes this style of preaching and adapts it.  Instead of simply preaching the David and Goliath story with the idea that “you too can defeat your giants,” christocentric preaching instead would say, “Like David against impossible odds gained victory over Goliath, Jesus against impossible odds gained victory over death.”

This christocentric preaching style seeks to compare Old Testament narratives to the Grand Narrative.  Essentially, show how one event in the Old Testament is a foreshadowing of something to come. This way of going about teaching the Scriptures does essentially what Jesus did in Luke 24:27, “And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.”  Such preaching is designed to “open the Scriptures” as verse 32 later says.  Luke 24:45 says that in this event, “He [Jesus] opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.”  From Jesus’ perspective, they knew the Scriptures but never grasped the essential character of that text, himself!

In Matthew 5:17 Jesus states, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”  In many ways, it seems as though many preachers do just that; they either refuse to acknowledge these fulfillments when preaching or they refuse to acknowledge the Scriptures fulfill anything.  I wonder how many times I’ve listened to a pastor preach an Old Testament text and never once mention how the New Testament speaks of that exact passage. The text is about Jesus!

As an example, how could we ever preach Isaiah 6 without mentioning Jesus? A portion of that text (6:1-6) states, “In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of his robe filled the temple. Above him were seraphs, each with six wings: With two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying.  And they were calling to one another: ‘Holy, holy, holy is the LORD Almighty; the whole earth is full of his glory.’ At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook and the temple was filled with smoke. ‘Woe to me!’ I cried. ‘I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the LORD Almighty.’”

Many pastors will preach this text and speak of how holy God is, how great and awesome he is, etc. but why do we never mention Jesus here?  In John 12 immediately after Jesus quoted another section of Isaiah 6, he states in verse 41, “Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus’ glory and spoke about him.”  This text is about Jesus!  In fact, all of Scripture is about the glorious holiness of Jesus Christ.

So many “religious people” study Scripture earnestly seeking to find God’s grace through it, but we often forget that it is through Jesus Christ as spoken of in that word that we are saved. John 5:39 states, “You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me.”  It is not through our own works, our rituals, or even our beliefs that Scripture is true that we gain salvation but purely the grace of Jesus Christ.  He alone gives salvation and He alone can change our hearts, minds, and attitudes.

How sad it is that I so often seeing people claiming that they are Christians and yet believe they are right with God simply because they do the right stuff.  They believe that through a high moral standard, becoming holy, reading Scripture, going to church, doing ministry, and telling people about Jesus that they are saved.  No, as Ephesians 2:8-9 states, “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.”  Not by our vain attempts do we become right with God but solely through repenting before Jesus Christ – of our sin and of our pride.  All Scripture attests to the miraculous work of Jesus and only through Jesus do we gain salvation.

Humility of the Creator

Over years of debating religious matters with non-Christians one of the most common questions is the following, “If there is a God, He would never attempt to even acknowledge our existence due to our own insignificance.  When examining the God and Creator of the universe who is infinite in every characteristic that He possesses and examining humanity’s own insignificance in the comparison to the grand scheme of all reality, why would He even bother with us?”

Just think about this concept a while, let it rattle through your mind.  The infinite, all-knowing, all-powerful God of the universe humbles himself to work in the lives of people who have no significance in relation to Himself.  In fact, these people are fallen depraved creatures who have rejected their Creator and often reject His various existence.  Why would such an almighty God do such a thing?  He had no need for us.  We can do nothing for Him or provide something for Him that He does not already possess.

He needs no fellowship that desire is made complete in His Trinitarian nature, not to mention the heavenly hosts of beings which worship Him.  Nothing we do puts Him in our dept, nothing we can ever do would mean God would require anything from us.  He is God.

Examining His greatness and our inferiority, it is not wonder that many non-Christians reject such a God.  Such a God that would humble Himself defies all human logic.  God has no need for us, why even acknowledge us?

While many might find this concept to be a stumbling block, the Christian finds this concept as a cause for rejoicing!  The almighty God and Creator of the universe humbled Himself to not only care for us but to become one of us!  God entered human existence by humbling himself to become a man, be born of a virgin, live the sinless life, be rejected by men, die on the cross, raise from the grave, ascend into heaven, and be glorified in all grandeur at the right hand of the Father – all according to the Scriptures.

Oh what a cause for rejoicing! Our Emmanuel, God with us, has come and brings salvation to all who believe and accept Him as Lord!

Philippians 2:5-11 states, “Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.  And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross!  Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

Preaching Fit – Prayer and God’s Will

I recently had one of my “preaching fits.” For those of you who have no idea what I’m talking about, there are times that when I am in an attitude of prayer that I preach to myself. That may sound odd to some but these “spiritual experiences” happen when I am in a truly repentent and humble attitude before God willing to hear anything He would have to say. I end up getting the chills and begin preaching to myself. During these times I end up saying things and bringing out points in Scripture that I have never even thought about before. Recently I have been trying to record some of these points. I thought I’d share my most recent experience with you all:

Very often in our lives we do not pray to God not because we do not have time but because we know exactly what He will tell us. We fear that when we come before the Holy Father He will tell us exactly what we fear to hear. We fear that we will have to turn from sin, forgive our brother, or live out the life that He has called us to live.

We all know and have been taught that prayer is supposed to change things. We thus often come before God with our requests in hope that He will change our circumstances in life. However, the thing that we most often overlook is the fact that the number one thing that prayer changes is us! We forget that prayer is how we communicate with God. In other words, we can easily remember that we can speak to God but we forget that He is supposed to speak with us. Instead of praying that God would change His will, why do we not pray that God would change our own will? 1 Thessalonians 5:17 simply states, “pray constantly.” We are thus required to not only be asking God for what we want but we should be constantly seeking the will of God in our lives.

Renewed Interest in Blogging

I write this post in hopes that it will be the first of many to come.  I have neglected my blogging for an extended time now, and I wish to renew my vigor in this method of broadcasting thoughts.  This renewal comes in part because I need to organize my thoughts.  With that need, why should I hide such thoughts from the rest of the world?

From this point, I will not only put my thoughts for theological ideas but my life … which is still largely theological ideas and practicing such ideas.  A major emphasis I now wish to have is the functioning of the corporate church and church planting.  You ask, what is the point?  As I wish to one day start my own church, why not use this method to gather my thoughts?

Well today’s blog deals with three things: church planting, a mission trip, and seminary.

I have for some time now been greatly interested in the possibility of doing church planting; that is, starting my own church.  There are so ma ny components about church planting that I absolutely love and other components that I absolutely fear.  The fear is not a bad thing however.  This fear is something that is motivating me more than anything in such a way that I have been preparing for the possibility of doing such a ministry.

Because church planting is considered by some to be quite possibly the hardest ministry of them all and the one which requires God’s provision the most, I want to make certain that my call is indeed from God.  In order to make sure I do indeed wish to do this, I am going on a mission trip in October to New York City to help with a new church plant in that area.

This mission trip will actually be the first one I’ve ever attended.  The reason for this is that I’ve seen many people go on mission trips more for bragging rights, a vacation, etc. than seeking to truly serve people and to bring glory to God.  If my intentions were not for His glory rather than my own, I wanted no part of it.  Now I think I am finally doing a mission trip for the right reason.  I’ve always wanted to go to New York City, but I’m actually more excited about serving the church and learning from the experience.  Now I just need the money for the trip and am hoping I will receive the help needed for such a trip.  Hopefully I will receive enough money from individuals and my church to pay for it.   Whatever happens I know that God will provide if it is meant for me to go.

[insert awkward transition into new topic]  Well now I am officially a Masters student at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary.  Today I spent several hours at Starbucks simply drinking coffee and reading a book for class.  Reading this book is partially what motivated me to write my blog tonight.  How, I’m not sure.  What I was reading in a nutshell was that churches in need of revitalization are in need of good leadership with strong vision.  I wrote notes about some of my thoughts regarding this topic which made me decide to enter those thoughts into a blog.  I will enter those thoughts at a later time.

Reading this book has made me excited about the next several years I will be in seminary.  The text was very motivating for me and renewed my zeal for being a new ministry student.  May God be glorified during my next several years of study in school, may I learn much which will enable me to further His kingdom, and may God truly grow me in such a way spiritually that others seek to praise His name!

Visual Arts Within Worship

Taking a quick glance across churches the world, one can immediately notice a striking change in not only theology but the use of the visual arts. Why is there such a huge change across denominations in the use of images? Artists across history have created many masterpieces of work in the name of God but are these images biblical? Would it be morally wrong to display Jesus or God in the form of a sculpture? Can the Word of God be taught not only by means of words but pictures? Is artwork able to help someone worship God? Is the use of imagery within the church nothing more than idolatry? These questions are just a few that might come up in regards to the use of images in the church setting.

The purpose of this paper is to take a historical, theological, and biblical look at the use of the visual arts in the worship setting and find the practical application to the conclusions in an effort to better equip the reader for Christian ministry. This process will first take place by looking at the church’s relationship with imagery across history. A theological summary will also illustrate what many theologians have thought about said subject. Also, what the Bible states about imagery and its use must be assessed and understood. Finally, a practical application will be given in order to find out how to apply what has been learned in a manner that is effective and biblical.

Historical Summary

From the time of Christ to the reign of Constantine the early church had mixed reactions in regards to the use of images. Images were already a controversial subject in the early church due to a fear of breaking the second commandment. Despite this fear of committing idolatry and Christianity facing harsh persecution, some artwork can be found from this time period. According to some sources the vast majority of Christian images were invisible to the eyes of nonbelievers as they were hidden in catacombs and burial places before about A.D. 200 [1]. Other historians have argued no Christian art existed before this time due to the art being indiscernible from the surrounding pagan artwork [2].

At the conversion of Constantine in 312 Christianity celebrated its triumph with a dramatic use of imagery and architecture [3]. The use of the visual arts rose tremendously as the faith itself spread across the land. In 396 Augustine argued God could use temporal things to show the eternal reality for which the human soul hungers [4]. Medieval Pope Gregory the Great (590-604) insisted that “icons are for the unlettered what the Sacred Scriptures are for the lettered” [5].

The use of the visual arts during this time of the church had tremendous use in not only decoration but in convicting the heart to respond and act, teaching Scripture to those who could not read, and opening “windows to the meaning of the event being depicted” [6]. Christians began using religious pictures of Jesus Christ, Mary, or a saint referred to as icons in communion and intercessory prayer. Art convicted the heart and connected the heart of the individual with the event depicted very much like the relics of martyrs.

The Eastern Orthodox Church had more emphasis on the use of icons and images than the Western churches. Due to the questionable and what many considered abusive use of Eastern Orthodox imagery, the Iconoclast Controversies began in 726, and most of the conflict centered around Constantinople [7]. The Emperor Leo II (717-741) himself initiated the controversy in part because of Islamic influence. His son Emperor Constantine V (741-745) showed an even greater hatred for images as seen from his Iconoclastic Council of 754 which stated [8]:

“Supported by the Holy Scriptures and the Fathers, we declare unanimously in the name of the Holy Trinity that there shall be rejected and removed and cursed out of the Christian Church every likeness which is made out of any material whatever by the evil art of painters. Whoever in the future dares to make such a thing or venerate it, or set it up in a church or in a private house, or possess it in secret, shall, if bishop, priest, or deacon, be deposed, if monk or layman, anathematized and become liable to be tried by the secular lays as an adversary of God and an enemy of the doctrines handed down by the Fathers” [9].

The Second Council of Nicaea of 787 proclaimed images to be right, proper, and even necessary for worship. The Iconoclast Controversy finally ended in 842. The Eastern Orthodox Church won the dispute, and it as well as the Catholic Church today both still hold to the Council of Nicaea’s conclusion [10].

The use of images remained unchanged until the time of the Reformation. During this time period came another iconoclast movement though not as intensive in an effort to teach with Scripture as opposed to what many perceived to be idolatrous imagery. The Reformation witnessed the general condemnation of the image and the rise concentrating on the Scriptures alone. Frescoes and paintings in Catholic churches were whitewashed. Books replaced icons. The result was not doing away with all imagery but all imagery within the Protestant church setting. Every since has existed an uneasy relationship between artwork and Protestant thought and a belief that art should exist only outside the worship setting.

Theological Summary

Many theological views have clearly existed throughout the history of images within the church. Of the views present, the most extreme views are present within the opposing sides of the Iconoclast Controversy: the iconoclasts against images and iconodules for images. The debate largely dealt with whether or not images should be considered to be idolatry.

“In the life, liturgy, and history of Orthodoxy, the icon is not simply sacred art or church decoration; it is above all things theology in color” [11]. Art and theology were and still are inseparable with the Eastern Orthodox Church. Iconodules John of Damascus and Theodore the Studite defended their theological reasoning for what at least appears to be worshiping images. They clearly stated their intent was to worship the Creator rather than the creation. What had appeared to be worship was to them a form of honoring the patron or matron represented within the icon. Also rooted in their defense was the incarnation of Jesus Christ. John and Theodore made clear the blasphemous implications of putting God in the form of an image, but because God gave an icon of himself in Christ, He sanctioned the use of such imaging. Also, just as Jesus is the image of God, so is man according to Genesis 1:26. They thus argue, if one image of God can be made into an image then why not another [12]?

The iconoclasts on the other hand argued that no difference exists between pagan idolatry and Christian iconography. The reason came in part through their understanding of the deity of Christ. Emperor Constantine V said an image is of the exact same nature or essence as its prototype, even as Christ the image of God is the same essence as the Father (2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15) [13]. Any images of Jesus must therefore be considered blasphemous before God. The veneration of icons was never mentioned in the early church which gave the iconoclasts a historical basis for their argument.

“While the East wanted to see the Word in images, the West insisted on hearing it in the spoken word” [14] Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ullrich Zwingli each shared a passion for spoken word, but each had their own views of Scripture. Luther was more open to the use of images in worship and in private devotion, based on his emphasis on justification by faith. Luther argued that once a person is justified he is free to use images if they are helpful; on the other had, if he does not believe, no image will help [15].

John Calvin stated in his commentary on the second commandment (Exod. 20:4-6), “The words simply express that it is wrong for men to seek the presence of God in any visible image, because He cannot be represented to our eyes” [16]. Calvin goes farther when he states, “images cannot stand in the place of books” [17]. He took this farther by even stating that only in preaching the Word can God’s true majesty be grasped, “Even if the use of images contained nothing evil, it still has no value for teaching” [18]. As a result, all images were to be taken out of the church.

Zwingli was sternly opposed to images and other forms of ceremonial piety for the following reasons: “First, the principle of scriptural authority relativized all extrabiblical practices” [19]. Basically, Zwingli has tended to eliminate what is not expressly commanded in Scripture. Second, images held demonic power to the extent that “images of holy women were shaped so attractively, so smooth and colorful that they were able to entice men to lust” [20].

What largely contributed to the nonuse of images by some of the Reformation leaders was an emphasis of the heart of the individual, divinity of God, and the idea of Sola scriptura. They believed salvation to be expressed through the heart and not any type of representation or emotional release through art. Though one could learn about God through creation (Ps. 19:1; Rom. 1:18-20), one could not gain knowledge about God through another person’s limited imagination. How could one comprehend all of God and put it in the form of an image [21]? The image also had less of a need and took second place to the teaching and reading of Scripture. No longer was the truth of the gospel to be taught by the visual arts but by educating people to read the Scriptures for themselves.

Very different from the Reformation leaders is the view largely held by the Emergent church of the current generation. Emergent church leader Dan Kimball states in his book Emerging Worship: Creating Worship Gatherings for New Generations:

“Multisensory worship involves seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, touching, and experiencing. This means our worship of God can involve singing, silence, preaching, and art, and move into a much greater spectrum of expression. . . . We move past merely listening and singing to a whole new level of ways to participate in worship through all our senses” [22].

Biblical and Theological Analysis

As seen clearly, many theologians, denominations, and church leaders have taken a wide variety of views upon the subject of whether or not the visual arts are permissible in the worship setting, but what does the Bible say about the matter? Is the subject stated clearly within Scripture or is it an unclear issue? Anytime within Scripture the term image is referenced it is either mentioning a false image which should not be worshiped or the image of God which we should become. The question then arises if images can be made in worshiping the one and true God from a biblical standpoint.

First, one needs to understand the second commandment from Exodus 20:4-5a, “You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God.” Some have taken this passage to mean that one cannot make an image of anything for any purpose while others believe it to mean one is commanded not to worship a manmade image. Is it the act of making an image that is forbidden or the act of worshiping the image created?

Peter Enns has argued that the second commandment is to be understood within the framework of the first commandment, “You shall have no other gods before me” (Exod. 20:3). The second expands the first as if to say, “The Israelites are not to worship other gods, therefore, they are not to make any idol of any kind” [23]. Calvin argued, “The words simply express that it is wrong for men to seek the presence of God in any visible image, because He cannot be represented to our eyes” [24].

Images in and of themselves are not condemned in this commandment but the worship of images even if they are of God himself. Identifying God with any created thing is one step from thinking of God in terms of that image. Not to mention God cannot justifiably be formed into an image as mentioned by Paul in Acts 17:29 which states one “should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone-an image made by man’s design and skill.” What image could be comparable to God himself (Isa. 40:18)?

Within the context of the rest of Scripture, each time images are forbidden God seems to attribute His condemnation to the fact that He is the one worthy of worship, not an idol or creation by man (Duet. 4:14-25; 5:8-10; 27:15). Thus, if an image, whether it is a painting or a human being, becomes an idol then it is being worshiped instead of God – just what the second commandment condemned.

If having an image of God is blasphemous then what of having an image of Jesus Christ? The foundation for having permission to ascribe Jesus into an image is based on two arguments: the incarnation of Jesus Christ and both man and Jesus being created in the image of God (2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15). Because of the incarnation, the immaterial God can be represented with the material image; to say otherwise is to deny that the Word became flesh (John 1:14).

In Genesis 1:26-27 God created man in the image of God and men are to shape themselves into the image of God, Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 3:18; Col. 3:10; Rom. 8:29). As Jesus Christ is considered by Scripture to be the image of God, to say Jesus cannot be made into an image is therefore to say humanity cannot.

Has God himself supported the function of images within worship? Scripture itself has commanded and/or approved the making of certain images of created things, even for use in worship. For instance, the tabernacle and the temple were filled with images: lampstands that looked like flowering almond trees (Exod. 25:31-40); a huge basin resting on the backs of oxen (Jer. 52:20); pomegranates on the clothes of the priests (Exod. 28:33); angels on the Ark of the Covenant (Exod. 25:18-22), the curtains (Exod. 26:1,31), and spanning the Holy of Holies (1 Kings 6:23-38); and a variety of images on the doors to the sanctuary (1 Kings 6:32,36).

Within Exodus 31:1-11 God appoints Bezale and Oholiab to use their Spirit-inspired artistic abilities for the purpose of glorifying God. Something which would be considered complete blasphemy for the iconoclasts was the Israelites looking to the bronze serpent to be healed while in the wilderness (Numbers 21:4-9). These God appointed images could be used in a manner which in the very least be used as decoration if not for use in worship and teaching.

Practical Implications

With a biblical view of imagery understood, how is this view to be carried out in a practical manner? The visual arts can bridge the gap between the physical world and the spiritual world. Artwork can be aids to attention; therefore, artwork can help keep the attention upon God. Objects within the works of art are symbols, useful in worship because they represent certain facts, ideas, or feelings. The visual arts can also be just as effective as hindering the Word of God as ministering the Word of God.

Teaching and worship tools can consist of many types and variations of art: painting, sculpting, drawing, photography, PowerPoint, video, etc. Each of these tools can be used in a variety of ways as not only decoration but tools which can be used in teaching and expression of thought. One personal account of using the visual arts within the worship setting was an occasion while preaching. With each point, I used a piece of simple artwork to reinforce the message taught. This method helps in not only helping visually minded individuals remember the material but can cause the viewer to contemplate the message and symbols used.

A drawing can show a person the world in which a biblical person once lived. A painting is able to cause an individual to contemplate the complexities of life. A photograph is able to convict a person’s heart to the lost in order to proclaim the Gospel. Learning, contemplating, and convicting are what the visual arts can do for the glory of God.

Not only can the visual arts be a ministry for the viewers but for the artist himself. Just like music and poetry, the arts can be an excellent way to express emotion within an individual. If an artist feels like Job after his horrible loss and the artist expresses this feeling through a painting, would not the expression of emotion be of healing release? What about those who share the same feelings and emotions? Would the painting not link the two before God within their agony coming together as one?

Not only does artwork express emotion but the awe of the individual toward God. David proclaimed in Psalms 19:1, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.” In just the same manner, the artist can stand in awe at the beauty of God’s work and creation, expressing this awe in the form of visual works of art.

With some of the benefits of the visual arts now known, the warnings that come along with the arts must be reviewed. First, an image can only be a tool in worship, not the object of the worship. God alone is the one worthy of worship and He should never have to compete with a man-made object. If the arts become a contest instead of an expression of thought and emotion, it becomes the object of the worship. Second, the arts should never come in place of the Word of God. Indeed the arts can be used to express the Bible’s teachings but never take its place. Third, once symbols lose their meaning, they tend to become superstitions useless tradition. Using them as mere decoration is unworthy of the Christian faith. One must know the meaning being taught within the images for this reason. Fourth, symbols may be entirely detached from personal fellowship with God. One may become absorbed in symbolic meanings without having an experience or personal relation to God.

The real value of symbols depends on the individual person. The mind of the worshiper must be filled with the right Christian content in order to make the proper use of symbols in Christian worship. A constant danger exists that false concepts may creep into the mind of the worshiper. Teaching of the Word of God must therefore never be neglected. Putting a visual facade over a false message never makes the content correct, just more appealing from a glance.

Conclusion

The use of the visual arts within the worship setting has been extremely controversial over church history. The Iconoclast Controversy and the abuse of images by the Eastern Orthodox show the most extreme sides of the argument. The balance of those two views seems to display the most biblical use of how images should and should not be used within worship. A historical, theological, biblical analysis of images in the worship setting and the practical application to those findings has been given. Hopefully this knowledge will better equip the reader for knowing how to handle the visual arts within Christian ministry.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Franklin M. Segler, Christian Worship, (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1996), 156.

2. Paul Corby Finney, The Invisible God: The Earliest Christians and Art (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 130.

3. William A. Dyrness, Visual Faith: Art, Theology, and Worship in Dialogue (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 27.

4. Ibid, 33.

5. Daniel B. Clendenin, Eastern Orthodox Christianity: A Western Perspective, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 77.

6. Diane Apostolos-Cappadona, “Icon,” Dictionary of Christian Art (New York: Continuum, 1995), 165.

7. Ibid.

8. Clendenin, 84.

9. Ibid, 71.

10. C. C.Berkouwer, Man: The Image of God, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962), 108-109.

11. Clendenim, 80.

12. Clendenim, 87, 93. Heidi J. Hornik and Mikeal C. Parsons ed., Interpreting Christian Art: Reflections on Christian Art (Macon, GA: Mercer University, 2003), 3. Jams Stamoolis ed., Three Views on Eastern Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan 2004), 240.

13. Clendenim, 86, 92.

14. Ibid, 77.

15. Dyrness, 51.

16. John Calvin, Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses, vol. 1, trans. Charles William Bingham (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 107.

17. Clendenim, 78.

18. Dyrness, 53.

19. Timothy George, Theology of the Reformers, (Nashville: Broadman, 1988), 132.

20. Ibid.

21. Dyrness, 53.

22. Dan Kimball, Emerging Worship: Creating Worship Gatherings for New Generations, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), 81-82.

23. Peter Enns, The NIV Application Commentary: Genesis, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 415.

24. Calvin, 107.

Often times.

Something I’ve recently noticed in just observing others in regarding seeking God is acting as if God needs to fill out a job application. When God does not fit our requirements we either seek another God or we mold God into the image we wish him to be. If God is indeed God then would our desires actually change his character or affiliations?

Often times we want God to be all love and mercy forgetting mercy is to those who do not deserve it. If one deserved mercy then mercy would then cease being mercy.

Often times we want God to be a wishing well for our desires. If our desires do not come true then apparently we are not worshiping the correct God. Would not a true God enact his own desires as he wills?

Often times we want God to leave us alone yet we want him to be sovereign. We want God to take control of situations we do not like yet we do not want him to take control of the things we like.

Often times we want God to be a loving Father, but we do not want to be obedient children. We think that if we cry and scream loud enough God will actually do what we want.

Often times we want God to speak and yet we do not listen to his words. If we are actually expecting God to speak to us then why do we not listen to him when in prayer and when reading his Word… assuming we pray and read.

Often times we expect God to do what we want him to do because we supposedly deserve his blessings. We seem to think that if we do what we are supposed to do (pray, read the Bible, be a good person, etc.) that God is supposedly now in our dept and owes us something.

Abortion

Why is it people should be against the idea of abortion? Why is it Christians should be in the forefront of the pro-life movement? What is wrong with abortion in the first place? What is more important, personal convenience or the life of an unborn child? What does scripture have to say about unborn life? If abortion is banned, what next? What about women who have had abortions? Is abortion that big of a deal? These are some questions I hope to answer in this note. I seek to answer these as not only a reference for other people but for myself. I do not only want to give religious answers (though I am obviously biased in this situation) but secular answers which would influence the non-believer.

Is abortion really that big of a problem? Yes. Many people in our culture seem to be unaware of just how prevalent abortion is within our nation and the world. One source states nearly half of all pregnancies to American women are unintended; four in 10 of these end in abortion. About half of American women have experienced an unintended pregnancy, and at current rates more than one-third (35%) will have had an abortion by age 45. 67% have never married and sadly 78% report a religious affiliation. 18% of all abortions are performed on women who identify themselves as “Born-again/Evangelical”.

Another source states 1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient). These statistics means the vast majority of abortions are merely done out of convenience rather than medical need.

Nauseous yet? Here are more statistics. In 2004, the highest number of reported legal induced abortions occurred in Florida (91,710), NYC (91,673), and Texas (74,801). Twenty-two percent of all U.S. pregnancies end in abortion. 47% of women who have abortions had at least one previous abortion. 40% of minors having an abortion report that neither of their parents knew about the abortion.

Ok, that just states there a lot of abortions but that doesn’t mean it is wrong. Let me give a scriptural reason for abortion being morally wrong. According to Abort 73, “There are a number of examples where Scripture uses the exact same words to describe babies before birth and babies after birth. In Genesis 25:22 we read, ‘The children struggled together within her,’ speaking of the twins in Rebekah’s womb. The word children is the ordinary word used for children (or sons) outside the womb. Luke 1:41 tells us that “when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb”. This is the same word for babe (brephos) that is used in Luke 2:12 and 16 for the baby Jesus and in Luke 18:15 for infants. Even more significant than the word usage is the description of what this unborn child did. John the Baptist, still in the womb, leapt for joy in recognition of the presence of Christ, who was also still in the womb. This is an in-utero prophecy of the arrival of Christ, and that is an astounding reality. “

Isaiah 49:1b states, “Before I was born the LORD called me; from my birth he has made mention of my name.” God has a plan for our lives before we are born, does that not mean we are important from the moment of conception? Not enough scriptural evidence of God loving us before birth? Jeremiah 1:5a says, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart.”

God is the creator of life and is the only one who should be allowed to end life (capital punishment excluded, topic for another day ). Isaiah 139:13 says, “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.” These are only a few passages pertaining to the issue of abortion and just these few gets the point across.

John Piper once said, “To attack the human being in the womb and kill him or her is to assault God. God is making the child. God is weaving a unique image of his divine glory with the purpose of imaging forth that glory in the world. Killing the child is an attack on God’s glory and is treason against the Ruler of the universe. So, fundamentally and most importantly, abortion is about God because children are made by God in the image of God for the glory of God.”

Piper also once said abortion “is the sacrificing of our sons and daughters to demons. And someday we will see this. And we will be as amazed that it could have endured so long as we are that the enslavement of Africans lasted as long as it did. The issue is just as clear as that one was. And we are just as blind today as they were then. The big difference is that the babies can’t run away. The underground railroad is entirely dependent on you, not them.”

One of the 10 commandments is that of you shall not murder as mentioned in Exodus 20:13. Murder here includes the life of an unborn child. Some who are “pro-choice” as they like to be called say this is not really a child in the womb but simply a piece of unintelligible meat no different than an animal. This is completely untrue not only biblically as already mentioned but biologically.

Here is a great source which shows just how unique the child is even at the moment of conception. One excerpt states, “Conception: Of the 200,000,000 sperm that try to penetrate the mother’s egg cell, only one succeeds. At that very moment, a new and unique individual is formed. All of the inherited features of this new person are already set – whether it’s a boy or girl, the color of the eyes, the color of the hair, the dimples of the cheeks and the cleft of the chin. He or she is smaller than a grain of sugar, but the instructions are present for all that this person will ever become. The first cell soon divides in two. Each of these new cells divides again and again as they travel toward the womb in search of a protected place to grow.” I considered showing pictures of undeveloped aborted children to stress this point further but I can’t bare to even see them. Also, I prefer to not have emotion be the basis for my arguments against abortion.

Even those who are naturalistic in their beliefs believe in survival of the fittest. Abortion simply does not make sense in that regards either as wouldn’t the purpose for a species be to preserve itself? If that is the case then wouldn’t the moral right be to continue the lives of humanity? Abortion is the opposite of that and is wrong according to evolutionary beliefs.

Biblical and biological reasons for abortion being wrong have been presented so now for legal reasons. Why is it that it is okay for a mother to kill her unborn child but if she is killed, it is considered a double homicide? Or how about if a person hits a pregnant woman that is also considered murder in the eyes of the court system? Why is it a mother and doctor can kill the child without legal consequences? Is there not a contradiction here? Why is it naturalistic beliefs such as this contradict one another?

Many women have also lost their children by natural means before birth. If the unborn is not human like abortionists say then why should the mother be upset about this? It’s not like she can’t have another after all. Maybe a fetus is something more than an animal. A fetus is a child in the making and should not be executed prematurely.

Is abortion just a convenience for people? According to the statistics listed in the beginning, apparently so for the vast majority. One of the reasons people have abortions at such a high rate is simply because many do not want to take responsibility for their actions. With every action there is a reaction. This statement works not only in science but every day life. If one thinks themselves not mature enough to raise children then that individual must realize the consequences of sexual promiscuity and not run from those consequences. If one does not like the possible consequences then do not cause them, in other words practice abstinence (which Christians should be practicing anyway…).

Abortion is a huge issue but there is one thing that would significantly decrease the number of abortions, decrease in non-marital sexual activity. Very evident is this logic but sadly many people will not sacrifice their pleasure for what is morally right (both abstinence and being pro-life). Even more fundamental to the problem with abortion is the fallen nature of humanity. Humanists, many naturalists, and others with disagree with the depravity of man argument, but this is indeed the overarching issue at hand.

What can a person do to help the pro-life movement? A major way is to adopt children. If a woman is unable to care for a child then adoption needs to be a choice. Abortion shouldn’t be the only option a woman has. Not only does this help minister to the suffering women in these situations but it gives couples the opportunity raise a child of their own if they are unable. Even couples who are able to have children of their own should adopt if only to minister to these hurting women.

Many people are all supportive of the pro-life movement but they forget about the women hurting in these situations. They need help from the church and anyone who will give that help. They need love. This love and help for these women can never be forgotten as the child is not the only one who suffers. Churches and secular organizations need to do everything in their power to help these women who have had abortions and those who decide to raise these children. My heart breaks for those who have ever had to make this decision, whatever path they have chosen.

I will leave you with this passage from Psalm 82:3-4, “Give justice to the weak and the fatherless; maintain the rights of the afflicted and the destitute. Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.”

Isaiah 6:1-8

(1) In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of his robe filled the temple. (2) Above him were seraphs, each with six wings: With two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying. (3) And they were calling to one another:

“Holy, holy, holy is the LORD Almighty; the whole earth is full of his glory.”

(4) At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook and the temple was filled with smoke.

(5) “Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the LORD Almighty.”

(6) Then one of the seraphs flew to me with a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with tongs from the altar. (7) With it he touched my mouth and said, “See, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away and your sin atoned for.”

(8 ) Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”

And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

1 – Some may look at this passage and not see everything in it when in reality, it is one of my favorite passages and shows the glory of God in comparison to who we are.  We first see Isaiah, who is writing, showing when this event happened, “In the year that King Uzziah died.”  This statement dealing with time shows that this is an event that happened within Isaiah’s life, it’s not just a story he created.

“I saw the Lord seated on a throne.”  A theophany is when a person physically sees God the Father.  Due to God’s holiness, we will be killed from seeing God as stated when Moses in on Mount Sinai.  The physical manifestation of God is Jesus Christ and it is he who sits on the throne of glory (c.f. Rev. 4).  So then, is it a Christophany depicted within this passage?  Possibly and likely so.

“…high and exalted, and the train of his robe filled the temple.” It is God alone who is high and exalted, his name is above every name.  He is YHWH, he is the great I AM.  The train of the robe is also of importance.  The length of the train depicts the greatness of the individual both in that age and many other ages.  The robe of God is one which doesn’t flow behind him, his robe fills the entire temple!

One thing which needs to be noted is the imagery of the temple.  1 Corinthians 6:19 speaks of the body being the temple of God.  Corinthians state, “Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you.” The Spirit indwells in those who follow Christ and therefore, the glory of God radiates from the hearts and lives of those who call Christ Lord!

2 – “Above him were seraphs, each with six wings: With two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying.”  Here we see the heavenly hosts.  Within heaven there are multitudes of angels who constantly praise the name of God.  This seraphs, these angels, are flying above proclaiming the name of God but were only using but two of their six wings to do so.  Four of their wings were used entirely for relating to God!  What does that say about our lives?  Do we spend more time seeking to gain God’s favor than we do seeking to have a relationship with him?

3 – “And they were calling to one another: ‘Holy, holy, holy is the LORD Almighty; the whole earth is full of his glory.’” These seraphs were praising God.  The only discription of God every written more than two times in a row is that of holy.  Does this signify that God is holy above everything else?  Is it his holiness that all of his other characteristics pore out from?  I personally think so.  The love of God comes from his holiness.  The mercy of God.  The greatness of God.  The sovereignty of God.  The Word of God.  The justice of God.  The wrath of God.  All of these radiate from his holiness.

Not only is God holy but his glory radiates from his creation.  Everything from a sunset, a rainbow, the rocks of the earth, the sand on the seashore, declare the glory of God.  We must also seek to declare the glory of God with our lives by living holy lives.

4 – “At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook and the temple was filled with smoke.”  These angels were not merely chanting softly to themselves, they were shouting the praises to God. They were not ashamed, they were not holding back.  We must also not be ashamed, we must also not hold back.

5 – “Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the LORD Almighty.” I love this verse.  After Isaiah saw the holiness and glory of God, he realized in humility himself in comparison.  We are we to think we compare to the majesty of the Lord most high?  Isaiah realized his own faults in light of God’s strength.  He realized he did not compare.  After Isaiah realized who God was, Isaiah realized who he was.  This realization is something we must face in our lives if we ever want to call ourselves followers of Christ.

Some, especially unbelievers, may think this is a horrible passage, instead of God lifting up Isaiah he brought him down.  This passage isn’t about Isaiah, it is about God.  It is God who is most high and due to that, Isaiah made a breakthrough in his life as we will see next.

6-7 – Then one of the seraphs flew to me with a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with tongs from the altar. With it he touched my mouth and said, “See, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away and your sin atoned for.”  After Isaiah proclaimed his own failures in light of God’s greatness, a seraph flew to him and took away his sin.  A sin is when we miss the mark, when we do not live to the potential that God has set for us.  God takes it away and makes Isaiah a new creation (John 3).

Isaiah then has the righteousness of Christ himself as it is his Holy Spirit which dwells within him. Through God’s forgiveness, Isaiah is redeemed from his sin, his failure.  We too can realized who we are in light of God’s glory and find salvation.  We too can live with the Spirit of God indwelling within us.

8 – “Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, ‘Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?’ And I said, ‘Here am I. Send me!’”  After Isaiah received the redemption of God which can only be obtained through Christ Jesus, Isaiah sought to serve God.  Isaiah’s heart had been broken and changed into a new heart, one which sought to serve God with his live.  God asks the same thing of us, “Whom shall I send?”  Are we begging God for the ability to serve him?  Are we seeking to serve God out of thanksgiving for the wondrous blessings he has bestowed upon our lives?

Responding to Suffering

A proverb is a saying which states a general truth.  One such example is a man will reap what he sows.  Does that not imply a righteous man will gain good fortune for his good deeds?  This good harvest is often what comes about but what about when the generalization is not met?  What about the times when a righteous man suffers undeservingly?

The person of Job is one good example of this undeserved suffering.  The book of Job shows how all of this came about as well as the end result.  What this paper intends to do is take a detailed look at Job’s immediate responses to his afflictions in a manner that one may have an example of how a blameless and upright man should confront suffering.  This will be accomplished by taking a look at the blameless and upright aspect of Job, the heavenly scenes, the afflictions of Job, and then the detailed look at his responses.  Looking at his reactions within the historical and especially literary context should give more understanding to his responses.  Whether these responses by Job are to be admired and emulated will be determined by this study.

HISTORICAL-CULTURAL CONTEXT

The authorship of Job is unknown and unlike other books where the author is left anonymous, there are not even any candidates to attribute the authorship.  Speculation is Job may have been written by multiple people over an extended period of time after a possibly period of oral tradition. [1]

The time of writing is also another complicated situation and has two parts.  Due to the context of the book, it seems as if Job quite possibly lived during the time of the Patriarchs as evidenced by living such a long life, and his life was one that is real opposed to fiction. [2]  If he had not existed, the book would still be able to teach its real to life principles.  As for the writing down of the book itself, it could have been written anytime from Moses to the intertestamental period.  As stated previously, many may have played a part in the writing of Job over a period of time.  Biblical evidence does not state otherwise. [3]

As for where the book of Job was written and where Job lived, it is stated within Job 1:1 that he lived in the land of Uz.  Other mentions of Uz within the Bible show it was east of Palestine.  The specifics of that area are less known though Job did live near a town or village as mentioned in places such as Job 28:7.  Also, the language used in the book of Job has an Aramaic influence which further narrows down the possible locations of the writer(s) and/or Job. [4]

LITERARY CONTEXT

The book of Job begins by introducing Job and his character.  Verse 1:1 begins by showing how he “was blameless and upright, one who feared God and turned away from evil.”  Several verses later in verse 8, God quotes this statement again which shows again just how godly of a character Job had.  Not only did he seek to live a righteous life but he wanted his family to also live a righteous life.  There was nothing to fault about Job, at least not enough to warrant his oncoming affliction.

Not only was Job rich in character but he was rich in possessions.  He had the ideal number of children and as well as a large number of livestock.  Between Job’s immense character and personal fortune, “this man was the greatest of all the people of the east.”

The text continues by showing the first of two heavenly scenes featuring God, Satan, and the heavenly beings.  Satan arrived after roaming the earth seeking to find one to accuse (1 Peter 5:8).  He wished to destroy Job and accused him of seeking after God only because of the blessings bestowed upon him.

Some argue that it is Satan who later afflicts Job but in reality, none of it would have happened without God’s permission for God had “put a hedge of protection around him and his house and all that he” had (1:10). It is God who is in control here as God has the power to bind Satan anytime he desires, and he does it for a thousand years in the book of Revelation (20:12).  “Satan is on a leash, one held firmly by God’s sovereign hand.” [5]

God grants Satan’s wish of stretching out his hand toward Job as a means to see whether or not Job will bless God or curse God (1:11).  This opportunity is giving Job a chance to either bring glory to God or turn from him.  Satan’s accusation is that Job will turn against God.  God lets Satan do as he pleases but with the disclaimer that he must not directly harm Job physically.

The first affliction of Job is an attack upon the great possessions of Job.  Job’s oxen and donkeys were taken by the Sabeans and the servants tending to them were killed.  The fire of God killed his sheep and the servants guarding them.  More servants were killed and his camels taken by the Chaldeans.  Lastly, a strong wind came by and struck the house of his oldest son with the rest of his children inside.  All of Job’s children were killed in the collapse (1:13-19).  Here is where Job gives his first reaction to his afflictions (1:20-22).  The exegesis will go into detail as to what all this encompasses.

Chapter two of Job continues with the second heavenly scene.  The scene is very much like the previous one in that Satan is still accusing Job of having the wrong motivation and of wrongdoing.  This time instead of attacking what Job owns, Satan wants God to attack Job’s health.  God grants this request with the disclaimer that Job’s life must be preserved (2:1-6).

Job as a result is given sores across his body.  He then proceeds to scrape the sores as a result of the tremendous itch (2:7-8).  Other places throughout Job give further description of what illness fell upon Job but it clearly was a skin disease.  Not enough descriptions are given to determine just what Job had but whatever it may have been, it was torturous for him. [6]

Job’s wife then responds to his illness and Job responds to her reaction to Job’s infirmities (2:9).  The second section of the exegesis goes into further detail regarding Job’s second response.

EXEGESIS

As seen previously, Job had two separate onslaughts of affliction set upon him.  The following exegesis looks at each one of these passages and compares them when necessary.  A simple reading of the verse beforehand will be of help though most of the verse is typically mentioned within the text.

First Response of Job

1:20) Job begins his response to his first attack not with words but with action.  “Job arose and tore his robe and shaved his head and fell on the ground and worshiped.”  The very first thing Job did was rise to his feet.  As was the custom in many Middle Eastern societies, men would sit while receiving visitors. [7]

After rising to his feet, Job proceeded to rip his robes as was another custom of that day for men of stature.  This tearing of the robes is seen in other passages of scripture like Gen. 37:29; Josh. 7:6; 2 Sam. 13:19; and Lev. 10:6.  Another mourning ritual in the area of Mesopotamia and Canaan was to shave the mourner’s head.  There are also other examples of shaving one’s head out of mourning within scripture (cf. Isa. 15:2; Jer. 7:29; Ezek 7:18; Amos 8:10; Mic. 1:16).  Clearly seen is the loss of Job’s possessions, servants, and children greatly affected him.  The coming of this news was of deep anguish to him and could not have come easily. [8]

Not only did Job show signs of deep pain but he went to God in his pain.  Job fell to the ground and worshiped.  This worshiping clearly had God as the object of the worship.  Thinking of this being worship no doubt gives new light into how one can worship.  Not only in times of blessing did he worship but in times of sorrow.  Out of Job’s deepest possible pain Job went to God and continued to praise his name.  The worship given to God through this action is also done out of deep humility as seen from Job falling to the ground.

Instead of Job responding to the bad news by means of vengeance towards God, Job responded in the way that glorified God.  Earlier in the chapter Satan sought to prove that Job would curse the name of God.  His accusation of Job was him cursing God at the loss of his blessings.  For Job to continue to worship God shows his strength of character and faith.  There is no surprise that God said of Job, “there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil” (1:8).  Job lived up to his description in every situation.

Job was not the only person within scripture who responded in a very similar manner to bad news and loss.  King Hezekiah in 2 Kings 19:1 responds in very much the same way as Job when he “tore his clothes and covered himself with sackcloth and went into the house of the LORD.”  David also responds in a likewise manner in 2 Samuel 12:20 which states, ”Then David arose from the earth and washed and anointed himself and changed his clothes.  And he went into the house of the LORD and worshiped.”

1:21) Job continues his response to his afflictions with words and a praise to God.  The first part of his words are that of “Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return.” Job states that he came naked from his mother’s womb.  This nakedness is merely stating that he had no possessions when entering into this world.  He then continues to say he will return to his mother’s womb naked.  He will not return to his mother’s womb literally or to mother earth’s womb but he simply means he will die with no more than how much he had in the beginning.

Job continues by saying, “The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away.”  Job acknowledges his blessings coming from God and therefore he has the right as the giver of blessings to take them away.  He acknowledges who God is and the simple fact that he can do as he chooses.  In these words Job also used the personal name of God.  Job is praising the great I AM, the great YHWH, the covenant giving God for who he is and what he can do.  Job might very well have not known the personal name of God not being a Hebrew living during the time of the Patriarchs, but the author of Job wants the reader to understand that it is the very same God that Job is speaking. [9]

Against the assumptions made by Satan, Job did not curse God but instead blessed God by praising, “blessed be the name of the LORD.”  Job not only praised God through the times of blessing but he also praised God through times of pain and suffering.  Job did just as God would have him do, to bring glory to his name.  In reference to this whole verse, “The well-balanced poem that Job speaks in his grief is a model of submissive piety and obedient surrender to God whose ways are not our ways and whose thoughts are not our thoughts.” [10]

Through all of these praises, Job knows it is God who gave his blessings and misfortunes.  This awareness does not mean Job was aware of the heavenly meetings however.  The author of Job is conscious of the meetings and makes a connection between the two.  The Hebrew word that Job used here for bless was brk.  This same word is also used in verses 1:11, 2:5, and 2:9 as an euphemism with the opposite meaning when Satan said Job would curse God.  Each time the word is used towards God it was translated bless possibly out of respect and reverence toward God. [11]  The author of Job seems to have been making a connection between these two verses and the expected reaction by Satan. [12]

1:22) The end of Job’s response a short description of how Job handled the situation.  Even though Satan accused Job of cursing the name of God “Job did not sin or charge God with wrong.”  Job’s deep faith does not seem to have relieved his agony but possibly added to it.  As Job loved God, Job had the same good opinion of God even when things went wrong.  “Because Job sees nothing but the Lord’s hand in everything, how can he escape the horrible thought that God has done something bad?” [13] Saying “Praise the Lord” is much more difficult during times of pain than it is when God blesses.  “Job assumed no inherent right to his possessions.  In sorrow as well as blessing he praised God’s name.” [14]  Job continuing to praise God even during this time shows Job’s strong faith.

Even though Job attributes his pain to God he never blames God for his struggle.  Job neither attributes his affliction to deserved punishment in his life.  He never gets a true understanding of why God puts this struggle in his life until the end of the book of Job.  Despite Job’s lack of knowledge of why he is facing struggle, he still praised God.  Job “refuses in his agony to accuse god of having done anything remiss or out of character.” [15]  This is as if to say Job is saying, “Lord, I do not know why this is happening to me but I will praise you and serve you Lord despite the situations in my life.”

Second Response of Job

After Job’s first response came the second heavenly scene, another set of afflictions upon Job, and finally Job’s second response.  This second attack upon Job was upon his body as opposed to his possessions like previously in the form of sores covering his entire body.

2:9) After seeing all the misery Job was going through, Job’s wife makes her first and only appearance by saying to Job, “Do you still hold fast your integrity? Curse God and die.” This statement by Job’s wife draws up many questions with only a few that can be answered.  If Job cursed God then he would die and end his suffering?  Job’s wife may have believed this as many seemed to hold to the Principle of Retribution within the book of Job.  This principle states that those who do good will receive the blessings of God while those who curse the name of God by their actions and words will receive curses in return.  Could she have believed Job cursing God would cause him to die?  Did she believe he deserved this punishment?

Was Job’s wife acting out of hatred in her telling him to die or was it out of sympathy?  Was she mad at Job as she too received much of Job’s own affliction?  Or was her telling Job to do this out of love for her husband?  What can be seen in this statement is that she saw how Job believed himself to be blameless.  Her asking whether he still held that belief signifies her own belief in the absolute nature of the Principle of Retribution.

One may not be able to find out whether or not Job’s wife had good intentions in her questioning and statement but regardless of her intentions, it was not the most godly response she could have made.  Her telling Job to do this would mean Job would have to curse God.  Job cursing God would therefore show a weakness in Job’s faith and therefore Satan would have been correct in his accusations toward Job which is repeated in Job 2:5.

Though Job’s wife is never mentioned directly, she is implied within Job 42:12-17 as Job later has more children.  Either the two of them made their peace with one another if she indeed did not have good intentions for her husband or Job is married to another woman.  Perhaps the best assumption is that he is indeed married to the same woman. [16]

2:10) Job’s second response to his afflictions are instead of being a praise toward God, it is a rebuttal against his wife.  Job’s first sentence towards his wife is, “You speak as one of the foolish women would speak.”  This statement seems to in part signify that what she told Job was outside of her typical character.  He seems to be very aware that cursing God would be the foolish thing for him to do.

Job continues to say to her, “Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?”  Job states their willingness to take the blessings from God and notes they must also be willing to take the evil.  “But Job speaks only of blessing and its opposite, deprivation of blessing, or harm.” [17] Job does not question the goodness of God here but only addresses human’s response toward God.  Job expects the attitude of man to be “God being God, we are bound to have whatever he chooses to give us, good or bad; protest is therefore idle, resignation the only reasonable response.” [18]

Even after saying all these things the last part of the verse says of Job, “In all this Job did not sin with his lips.”  In just the same way as “Job did not sin or charge God with wrong” in 1:22, Job also responded in a manner that would most bring glory to God.  Despite Job’s inability to understand why God put harm in his life as is especially more apparent in later texts, Job continued to glorify God and praise his name.

Yet again the accusations of Satan were false against Job.  Job continued to be “blameless and upright, one who feared God and turned away from evil” (1:1).  Job may not have always understood what was going on but he continued to trust his Lord through each circumstance.

APPLICATION

Throughout this study of the responses of Job to his suffering and pain his righteous behavior is easily apparent in his actions, words, and description of himself.  Seeing as he behaved in a manner which brought glory to God, an emulation of his actions should be lived out in the lives of God’s followers.  In just the same way as Satan accused Job, he will do the same thing to us.  We must be strong in our faith and our walk when we too face pain and suffering as to not curse the name of God but give glory to him.

As Job did not always know why he was facing these trials but still remained faithful, we too must also remain faithful despite our inability to truly understand everything occurring. We too must ask ourselves, “Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?”  Do we seek to please God because of the blessings he’s put in our lives or because we want him to be gloried with our lives despite our circumstances?

Job also never blamed or accused God of doing wrongdoing when he was under the fire of God.  Job never claimed he deserved any of it but claimed his innocence.  Often times we may indeed not be innocent, but we must not attribute a specific burden in our lives to a specific sin unless we have revelation of such or it’s blatantly obvious.  Suffering is not always the byproduct of our own specific sin but simply living in a fallen world.  No matter whether we feel we deserve suffering or not we must realize who God is to be in our lives.

CONCLUSION

What this paper intended was to take a detailed look at Job’s immediate responses to his afflictions so that one may have an example of how a blameless and upright man should face suffering.  Satan’s accusation of Job stated he would curse the name of God if Job himself received torments.  Despite these accusations, Job lived up to the righteous description given to him by God.  Job continued to glorify God despite the situation and his motivations were tested.

Continuing to glorify God and praise his name is how this righteous man handled his afflictions.  One who seeks to live the righteous life like that of Job must also seek to handle his or her own situations in the same way.  Job had God as his priority instead of himself.

Works Cited

1. Robert L. Alden, The New American Commentary: Job, vol. 11 (Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1993), 28.

2. Walter A. Elwell and Robert W. Yarbrough, Encountering the New Testament: A Historical and Theological Survey (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1998), 298.

3. Alden, 25.

4. Ibid, 29.

5. Normon Geisler, Systematic Theology, vol. 2 (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2002), 541.

6. John H. Walton, Victor H. Matthews, and Mark W. Chavalas, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament, (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 2000), 496.

7. David J. A. Clines, Word Bible Commentary: Job 1-20, vol. 17 (Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1989), 34.

8. Francis I. Andersen, Job: An Introduction and Commentary  (Downders Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1976), 87.

9. Frank E. Gaebelein, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol 4 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1988), 882-83.

10. Alden, 62.

11. John R. Kohlenberger and James A. Swanson, The Hebrew English Concordance to the Old Testament: With New International Version, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998), 675.

12. Joseph S. Exell, The Biblical Illustrator: Job (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1973), 44.

13. Andersen, 89.

14. John E. Hartley, The Book of Job (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988), 78.

15. John C. L. Gibson, The Daily Study Bible Series: Job (Philadelphia, PN: Westminster Press, 1985), 19.

16. Michael C. Legaspi, “Job’s Wives in the Testament of Job: A Note on the Syntheses of Two Traditions,” Journal of Biblical Literature, 127 (2008): 71.

17. Clines, 54.

18. Ibid.