PART I, ARTICLE V: THE HOLY USE OF A CONFESSION OF FAITH, SECTION III

Moving on, now, from the doctrine of election, to that of sovereignty particularly. The order still is: Misters Taylor, McClurkin, and Mackay (X); Scripture (Y); The Westminster Confession of Faith (Z.)  

(X) “Calvin exalts the sovereignty of God, and this is right, but he errs in placing his root-idea of God in sovereign will rather than in love. Love is subordinated to sovereignty, instead of sovereignty to love.”

(Y) “The LORD hath made all for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil” (Proverbs 16.4.) “Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardeneth…Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?” (Romans 9.18, 21.)

(Z) “God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass…By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.”

Again, obviously and glaringly, as well as embarrassingly and shamefully, Misters X are all alone (with Dr. James Orr, whose inversion it is they chose for support), while Scripture and the Confession are close enough to kiss each other. If God makes everything for himself, ‘even the wicked for the day of evil,’ is love not subordinated to sovereignty, as Scripture, Calvin, and the Confession teach? And is this idea not reiterated in Romans 9 where it says that God ‘hath mercy on whom he will’? If the root-idea of God is love, would the Bible not say that God has mercy on all, or at least on whomever his love compels him to have mercy on? God is not just love; he is also holy, eternal, omnipresent, and omniscient. Are these not ‘root-ideas’? But as far as actions are concerned, the root-idea of God is his will, which is another way of saying, his sovereignty, or his sovereign will. To be sovereign is to have the right and power to do what you will. Indiscriminate love is not the deciding factor in who gets saved; discriminating will, is. If God chooses from eternity to have mercy, as Scripture teaches, then a sovereign choice lies behind his love, even if the Bible says that ‘God is love.’ If he chooses not to extend saving love, as Scripture also teaches, then a sovereign choice governs, and even rules over, his mercy. Sovereignty is never subordinate to love, grace, or mercy. Mercy may rejoice against judgment when the elect are saved by grace and gathered in; but sovereignty has already ruled over all. Someone might say, How is the Lord ‘not willing that any should perish,’ then? (2 Peter 3.9.) The answer is that we accept the statement, as we do all others in the Bible, on the authority of the Bible. We accept it, rejoice in it, and preach it, along with sovereignty. It may be, though, that only elect Christians are referred to in that verse, for it says there that the Lord is ‘longsuffering to us-ward’; that is, to the persons being addressed in the letter. If the whole world is alluded to by the statement, that is to say, every single sinner (which is doubtful considering the context), we leave the problem in the secret counsel of God’s will where it belongs. The word of God is clear, regardless, that God wills whatever will cause him the most glory; thus, he wills to meet out mercy to this person and not to that person. Is this an offensive thought? “What if God, willing to shew wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction” (Romans 9.22.) If God wills that no one perish, this will, or desire, does not override the fact that God wills to glorify himself through the manifestation of his wrath. That might not be a soothing thought. But the word of God is abrasive sometimes; it is not all balm. He accomplishes the glorification of himself by a demonstration of his fearsome holiness; and he accomplishes this through a sovereign choice from eternity to predestinate negatively as well as positively. Moreover, God is patient toward vessels of wrath—those who are fitted for ultimate destruction, “that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory” (verse 23.) Why be ashamed or embarrassed by the fact that God will show the magnificence of his mercy by contrasting it with the fearsomeness of his wrath?  The following phrase from the Confession, ‘foreordained to everlasting death,’ is not objectionable. God has the right to do it, and he does it in order to magnify his attributes, which is to say, in order to glorify himself. So if love, not sovereignty, is at the bottom of who God is, it is self-directing love: love among the members of the Trinity. His love and his will are consistent with each other. What we know for sure—because we know it explicitly from Scripture—is that where love toward creatures is concerned, sovereign will lies at the bottom. If a shepherd has two herds of sheep running blindly toward a cliff, and he has decided beforehand to divert one herd but not the other, that is his right. Having chosen to divert one herd alone, he has ordained both: each to a different end. Whether God’s decree is active or passive, it is a decree nonetheless. That some souls are ‘foreordained to everlasting death’ may not be a pleasant thought. But this death is via guilt for sin. God punishes the guilty. It sounds good that God is bound to will mercy and that mercy must govern every decision that he makes. It is a consoling assumption. It reassures the idolatrous tendency in our sinful selves. We want the potter to have merciful power over the clay, and this is good. But if we would take away his right to withhold mercy if we could, this is evil. It is best to let God be God, lest we find ourselves on the wrong end of his power for not consenting to his word. God does not have mercy on sinners because he has to, because we want him to, or even because of faith, but because he wills to—sovereignty is the cause of mercy. Sovereign will is like an inscrutably directed river from parts unknown. Mercy comes down the river. Who gets to drink mercy from the river depends on who has been determined to be in the way as mercy winds its way through history. Or, it depends on who is made thirsty to drink. “And let him that is athirst come” (Revelation 22.17.) We would like to decide the question of mercy. We would choose it for both our sons. But what did Isaac do? His choice was caught in the stream of what God had chosen, for what is written? “And Isaac answered and said unto Esau, behold, I have made him [Jacob] thy lord” (Genesis 27.37.) Isaac’s unintended choice in time ends up being God’s discriminating choice from eternity, for what choice did God make? He chose one, not both; Jacob, but not Esau. “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated” (Romans 9.13.) The odds are that if you pick up a modern commentary, maybe even an old one, and turn to the page dealing with this verse, you will find its meaning diminished. If the verse will be explained away, so must that part of Malachi 1 from where the statement comes. How much of the Bible must we be cunningly crafty with before we get the god that our flesh would rather have? Do we believe that unbelievers will come to faith if we can show them how nice God is? Is our faith in God that weak? Can’t we trust God to save whomever he has decided to set his mercy on? God does not want to appear nice. If he did, Romans 9 would be a romance instead of a revelation, Jacob and Esau would be identical twins on equal footing, and Pharaoh’s heart would have been softened. Romans chapter 9 is true to life. There are Jacobs and Esaus in our families, and sometimes a Pharaoh. No one can comprehend the divine, eternal will, and why one person is chosen to a good end while the other is not. God’s love for his creatures is not the arbiter of his decrees; if it were, his decrees would end in happiness for every one of his creatures, even the fallen angels; a sovereign God could make that happen. The kind of God that we want, and the kind of God that we find most agreeable, is not the kind of God that we have. The God of the Bible is a sovereign, holy, just, loving God who does what he pleases with what he has created. A Confession will protect us from creating a god in our image instead. It will protect us from views that are designed to cushion the Almighty blow of who God really is. And after we have accepted what the word of God teaches about God, we are on our way to becoming more comfortable with that than we were formerly comfortable with falsehoods and lies.   

The notion that love determines what God will do is a denigration of his power, for if God wills to be merciful to all, yet all will not receive his mercy, then God is powerless to overcome his own creatures—powerless to regenerate or even soften hearts. Therefore, in that case, it must be man, and man alone, who decides to populate God’s kingdom. God’s mercy goes out as an uncertain offer, then. Some resist; some don’t; all can. God has no say in it. But the Scripture assures us that that is all wrong, for ‘who hath resisted his will?’ (Romans 9.19.) The Confession is true to that: “God, the great Creator of all things, doth uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least.” Love over sovereignty means that God is so controlled by that one attribute that he can do no other but what we wish him to do. And if God is powerless to save everyone, why should we believe that he has power to judge anyone? If sinners can resist his grace, why can’t guilty parties defy his judgment? How can his will be powerless one way (to save every sinner) and powerful in another (to judge every rebel?) Can he have power one way but not the other? Can he be like that and still be God? If he can’t put everyone into heaven, neither can he consign anyone to hell. But the Bible is clear that many sinners do go to hell, and that multitudes are in hell already. If we are not content with God’s will as it is written in Scripture, we end up with a God who might save, can’t judge, and does not rule. He does not know (for he has never determined it) who will be saved and how many.  We avoid inevitable reductions of divinity by coming to terms with a Confession of Faith. Love over sovereignty is a slippery slope that can take us over many a precipice. We need a good Confession.

That is a dire sign of how backslidden Christendom is, and of how thoughtless and man-centered our churches are, when the sovereignty of God is no longer regarded as the preeminent characteristic of God’s person. Men think to have been so kind by raising his love to such a degree that even God’s sovereign will hangs from it; but the switch has changed our faultless Creator from being and doing what his word says he is and does, to being characterized by the desires, decisions, and whims of his sinful creatures. If God’s will is subordinate to any attribute, he is not sovereign. If sovereignty exists, it must, by definition, overtop all. ‘Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will’ cannot be unless the sovereignty of God decides the matter. The statement means that he extends mercy according to his will; it does not mean that he must be mercifully willing. The crowning jewel of The Westminster Confession is how God is correctly and respectfully represented. He is absolutely sovereign, and man is entirely responsible, no matter if God has chosen or not, to have mercy on impotent man. The Assembly of the Westminster Confession was right to allow the full weight of both Sovereignty and Responsibility, without trying to solve the mystery. The Sacred is left alone when finite man is told to abstain from things too wonderful. That is meeker than trying to peer into a secret book that even angels do not get to open. That is more humble than attempting to explain something that an apostle passed over in silence, wiser than trying to unravel a scroll that an archangel wouldn’t dare touch, safer than jamming a puzzle together that only God is qualified to assemble. That vain effort of ours to figure out what we are told to leave alone leads to our running down one line of truth for the sake of another, by which unholy act we distort both, resulting in a quarrel with the LORD of hosts that will be settled on Judgment Day. “The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care,” the Confession says. An author should be especially watchful and reserved wherever great men have confessed great difficulty. When Solomon wrote that a threefold cord is not quickly broken, he was not prophesying of Taylor, McClurkin, and Mackay, apparently. Their flimsy cord is quickly broken by the holy use of a Confession of Faith. By their anxiety to answer the unanswerable—by their attempt to unravel a sealed scroll—they end up face to face against  Almighty God for erasing his election from ‘before the foundation of the world.’ They end up asserting that God’s will must be to have mercy on all, when the Bible so clearly tells us that he will have mercy on whomever he wills, or has willed, to have mercy on. Mr. Mackay says this in his conclusion: “For many years now, I have sought to shepherd the flock of God, and in my pastoral ministry I have stood with hundreds of individuals and families in ‘the valley of the shadow’ as they have reeled in grief and bewilderment under the blows of stunning adversity and bereavement. I could not, and I did not, tell them that this inexplicable sorrow, this ghastly tragedy, this sudden bereavement, had been decreed in Eternity past by their loving, Heavenly Father.” That would have been safer to do, though—safer than having to stand before God one Day to explain to him why sinners were solaced at the expense of the Will, Nature, and Providence of God! By thinking to be able to fathom the unfathomable—by approaching the unapproachable to try and solve the unsolvable—these three men have traded the ‘high mystery’ of God’s decrees for an irrational view that evacuates the essential meanings of sovereignty, predestination, and election. Isaiah would say that they ‘have eaten up the vineyard’ (3.14.) Their view is as irreverent as it is irrational, for if God loves all men alike, he must be powerless to save them all, since multitudes end up in hell; and if he is powerless to save everyone he loves, he must be powerless to judge the wicked, which means that sinners cannot and will not be held responsible for their evil deeds. That God favors the elect with a predestined love is the only way out of this heap of heresies. Let’s hear Jesus Christ preach it: “I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine” (John 17.9.) Jesus Christ discriminates in favor of the elect; he will also judge all sinners who have not been given to him: those who are not foreordained to life everlasting. Where does Calvinism spring from except Jesus Christ? 

In light of the significance of what must be rewritten after extenuating the subject matter of Romans 9, should we not warn that there might be hell to pay for trying to untwist knots that God has chosen to leave tied up? Discreet preachers are content to work on either side of the knot, and to preach the full force of each disclosure and leave the problem alone. But along come these wise-guys who must think they are more informed than an apostle! They will explain away the paradoxical by effacing doctrines! And they will rail at someone like Calvin, misrepresent him, and discourage everyone they can from reading his godly books! For the welfare of our souls, we would be wise to trade the tiny teachers of the 20th century for the masters of bygone ages, and let a blasphemous book like Biblical Balance on Election & Free Will politely slip from our fingers and into a garbage can. We need a Confession of Faith for our protection—and should read the works of men who drew the Westminster Confession up, books by William Bridge, Thomas Goodwin, and Jeremiah Burroughs. By this we may avoid being cheated of our inheritance: the august doctrines of the Bible by which we may get to know what God is truly like and what he really does. That is a marvelous thing to meditate on: why God wills to have mercy on this person and not that person, from a decision made in eternity, without basing his decision on anything that will take place in the world. It is a marvelous thing to think about and to get lost in the reflection of—if we accept it. If we do not accept it, some of the most awesome truths of revelation are just a vexation to us, and we are left tormented with wanting God Almighty to be someone that he is not. Humble men do not demand answers after God interjects with, “Who art thou that repliest against God?”  And they are blessed by glorying in the fact that God is sovereign to do as he pleases with his creatures. The men of the Confession were not only able, but able because they were abased.

There are some marvels of divinity that we have no business knowing. The secret that connects man’s responsibility with God’s predestination is only one of many that are none of our business. When ‘caught up into paradise,’ the apostle Paul ‘heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter’ (2 Corinthians 12.4.) The apostle John, at the ready to write what the seven thunders uttered, was told to ‘write them not’ (Revelation 10.4.) The KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS has a name known only to himself (Revelation 19.12.) Persons who insist on an answer as to how God can find fault with souls who have no predestined mercy are dealt with right in the passage where both man’s responsibility and the sovereignty of God are asserted. They stupidly put themselves in the crosshairs of God’s lecture: “Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, why hast thou made me thus?” (Romans 9.20.)

It is essential to follow a Confession of Faith because errors are popular in our churches and because we are not as wise as we think we are to detect them. As Patrick Simpson informed parliament in 1606: “Remember, that spiritual darkness, flowing from a very small beginning, doth insinuate and thrust itself into the house of God, as men can hardly discern by what secret means the light was dimmed, and darkness creeping in, got the upper hand; and in the end, at unawares, all was involved in a misty cloud of horrible apostacy” (John Howie, The Scots Worthies, p 105.) We need a Confession of Faith for our helper. Indeed, why not use more than one? I mostly recommend The Westminster triad, The Belgic Confession, The Heidelberg Catechism, and The Canons of Dort. I use these the most; and I would be willing to swear, under oath, that God, in a remarkable way, led me, seemingly against my will, to use those few in particular. These Confessions contain no major differences of opinion among them. For the sake of accuracy on major doctrines like the person of the Lord and election, an emphasis on a lesser matter like the baptism of infants can be tolerated. By the use of a reliable Confession, we will find, moreover, with the passage of time, that some things that we once hated have become precious and that some things that once irked us we now barely disagree with. Some of us will always take issue with the baptism of infants—and we should—but we should not overreact any more than Spurgeon did. The Prince of Preachers got believer-baptized as a teenager, against the wishes of his father; but he was wise to retain his respect for the Westminster triad, even to the point of placing a copy of the Westminster Shorter Catechism under the foundation stone of his church years later. If it was not this Catechism, it was the Baptist Confession of Faith from 1689, which is essentially the same. He did not throw the whole away for the sake of one minor irritant. About the Westminster Shorter Catechism, he said this in a speech before the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland in 1866: 

“We have a sort of catechetical seminary connected with our church, in which we teach a little book that is known by you all, your Shorter Catechism with Proofs, in which, of course, I have made a slight alteration in regard to baptism. Now, the fashion across the border is to laugh at this book, and say it is out of date, and so on. Well, I should like to see someone write a better summary of Scripture doctrine. Until somebody gives us a better book, we’ll stick to it” (C. H. Spurgeon, Speeches at Home and Abroad, p. 60.) 

We have wandered away from the compendiums of our Christian Faith. Pastors, with good intention, but on the basis of indoctrination and/or because of prejudice, dismiss them, and tell their brethren that they all should get back to the Bible instead. In spite of such remarks, though, pastors read the Bible alongside poorly executed theses from modern book stores, incorporating into their system a variety of opinions that are unbiblical and heretical; then these harmful ideas are propagated in the sermons they deliver. It is discouraging and humiliating to think that our favorite contemporary authors are so often weak and wrong when compared with scholars in divinity of centuries ago. But the Christian who cares enough to look into it will see that this is the case. A Christian author who is both dependable and alive is an endangered species.

PART I, ARTICLE V: THE HOLY USE OF A CONFESSION OF FAITH, SECTION II

Separation from Error 

A Confession of Faith is a summary of God’s most vital truth to man. It deflects major falsehoods, be they straightforward or sophisticated. A falsehood that I was burdened to separate from some time ago, which I did with help from a Confession or two, is a major one. The inevitable concessions that follow from that falsehood are surprisingly serious. These concessions follow from trying to reconcile the irreconcilable—a foolish endeavor that was attempted by three men whose anxiety about what the Bible says overcame their reverence for God. The following verses contain the two lines of truth that they undertook to harmonize:

“Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?” (Romans 9. 18-21.)

The two pillars alluded to here are the Sovereignty of God and the Responsibility of Man. Both are true to the fullest extent that can be derived from what it means to be sovereign and responsible. God is totally sovereign. Man is utterly responsible. God hardens a man’s heart. But he still finds fault with this man for not repenting. Sovereignty is a word that we use to describe the right and exercise of supreme authority. We have that in, “Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will.” Man’s reply is the problem, “Why doth he yet find fault?” And the answer to this impetuous objection is the rhetorical question, “O man, who art thou that repliest against God?” In other words, “Never mind, for God does as he pleases.” There is no reply allowed in the face of what God does. And therefore man is simply responsible to God, even if God has not chosen him to a merciful end. Man’s mouth should be stopped right here, as it will certainly be on Judgment Day. That God is sovereign is the only answer to, “Why doth he yet find fault?” There is no conflict or friction between Sovereignty and Responsibility unless we ask that question. “Why doth he yet find fault?” Since God has mercy on whomever he chooses to have mercy on, why does he yet find fault with persons he has not chosen to be merciful toward? Try to settle that question (with some other answer than ‘God is Sovereign’) in order to satisfy your overcurious mind, and you will distort the doctrines of Sovereignty and Responsibility both. You will have to undervalue one line of truth in your effort to bring the two together; and while you are busy belittling the one, the other will become a monster behind your back. The temptation is to say that God is unfair and that man is not responsible to him, unless God chooses, or has chosen, to have mercy on all, and that it is the sinner’s prerogative to conform to, or else frustrate, the divine will by either believing or not believing. The revelation is that God is sovereign to not choose every person to a good end—to pass by a segment of sinners, whose destiny, determined from eternity, is everlasting misery. Who are we to question his sovereign decrees? God’s answer to our questioning is, “Nay, but O man, who art thou that repliest against God?” Before examining and criticizing the error of persisting against God’s answer concerning his right over his creatures, here is a brief commentary by C. H. Spurgeon on the issue in question:    

“The system of truth is not one straight line, but two. No man will ever get a right view of the gospel until he knows how to look at the two lines at once…Now, if I were to declare that man was so free to act, that there is no presidence of God over his actions, I should be driven very near to Atheism; and if, on the other hand, I declare that God so overrules all things, as that man is not free to be responsible, I am driven at once to Antinomianism or fatalism. That God predestinates, and that man is responsible, are two things that few can see. They are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory; but they are not…These two truths, I do not believe, can ever be welded into one upon any human anvil, but one they shall be in eternity: they are two lines that are so nearly parallel, that the mind that shall pursue them farthest, will never discover that they converge; but they do converge, and they will meet somewhere in eternity, close to the throne of God, whence all truth doth spring” (C. H. Spurgeon, Sovereign Grace and Man’s Responsibility.)

C. H. Spurgeon is an authority whose ministry was authenticated by the Holy Ghost. His judgment on a matter like this should not be taken lightly. He would have looked into it; he would have meditated on it; he would have prayed about it; and he often did preach and write about it. God chooses whom to have mercy on; but he finds fault with the souls that he has not chosen to a merciful end. The Bible’s answer to the apparent unfairness of that is to never mind: “Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?” So man should leave the puzzle alone, and continue to preach: “Whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins” (Acts 10.43.) It is not for us to find out why man is responsible to come to God even if he cannot—even if he’s not among the elect. We simply accept that man’s willingness to believe and repent depends on God’s choice: “And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved” (Acts 2.47.) In other words, God grants the increase (1 Corinthians 3.6.) But along come these minor scholars. Imagine their stubborn arrogance. They are going to appease the apparent contradiction between Sovereignty and Responsibility—something that the greatest theologians do not attempt, not even the apostle Paul, and they will do it in a booklet, in 63 small pages of script! Yet they are not ashamed to say, “This is a matter that cannot be approached in a spirit of nonchalance.” I may not be charged with doing the same in this article, for I am not attempting the impossible and forbidden, only exposing the folly of three men who tried. From the back cover, their objective is: 

“The authors of this book on Election and Free Will have attempted to find the balance between two lines of truth which may seem to be contradictory. Their desire is to help some believers who have been confused by too much emphasis on either” (Franklin Taylor, Harold Mackay, Robert McClurkin, Biblical Balance on Election & Free Will.) 

Election involves Sovereignty; the Will of man, whether free or not, involves Responsibility. These three men will transform the apparent clash existing between these concepts into a dovetail! Serious repercussions result from the indiscretion of trying to understand how God is sovereign to choose, while man is responsible to a God who does not choose him—how God can choose to withhold mercy, and how man must be responsible to repent anyway. The negative deductions could be easily avoided by simply resting satisfied in God being sovereign. I will line up some of what these men say in their less than precious booklet, and place the sayings beside my Westminster Confession in order to show what document agrees most with Scripture. First, I will line up statements about Election, and comment a little; then I will line up statements on Sovereignty in particular, and comment on that. The order will be: Misters Taylor, McClurkin, and Mackay (X); Scripture (Y); The Westminster Confession of Faith (Z.) 

(X) “Individuals are not in the church because they are elect. They are elect because they are in the Church…As each individual believer trusts Christ, he is put ‘into Christ’ and is therefore part of God’s elect…Take destiny out of the doctrine of election and most difficulties would fade away…Keep in mind then that election is ‘IN CHRIST.’ We are not among the elect until we come into Christ by repentance and faith.”

(Y) “Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 1.2.) “According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world” (Ephesians 1.4.) “God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation” (2 Thessalonians 2.13.)

(Z) “Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory.”

‘Chosen’ and ‘elected’ are synonymous terms, which the three men denominated by the letter X, aver. Now compare what is said by X: ‘we are not among the elect until…repentance and faith’; compare this, I say, with what is said by Y?—: ‘chosen in him before the foundation of the world…from the beginning chosen to salvation.’ And then observe that the idea in Y is repeated by Z, almost word for word: ‘predestinated unto life…before the foundation of the world was laid.’ Yea, observe that ‘predestinated unto life’ is just another way of saying ‘chosen…before the foundation of the world’ (Ephesians 1.4.) From the full statement of X, it is obvious that by ‘we are not among the elect until’ is meant: not elect until faith, not elect until faith in Christ, not elect until we are in the Church. Scripture and the Confession (Y and Z) are in agreement against that. Y: ‘chosen…before the foundation of the world’; Z: ‘predestinated unto life…before the foundation of the world was laid.’ Whatever it means to be chosen ‘IN CHRIST’—whether by Christ, because of Christ, for Christ, or even ‘in Christ,’ we are bound to interpret that in light of the phrase, ‘before the foundation of the world.’ A decision was made, a choice, an election, ‘before the foundation of the world.’ Certain persons, the elect, were never outside of Christ in some sense. They were ‘in him [Christ] before the foundation of the world’ (Ephesians 1.4.) The elect were always elect in God’s mind, before they were born, before they were created—before they became members of the Church by repenting and believing. By ‘take destiny out of the doctrine of election,’ Misters X mean to erase election from eternity past and to make it to begin in time. By capitalizing ‘IN CHRIST,’ they mean to deemphasize the eternality of election, as if Jesus Christ has nothing to do with eternity. This is the ‘sleight of men’ and ‘cunning craftiness’ that we are warned of in Ephesians 4. By this move, they make faith the basis of election. Mr. McClurkin does that very plainly on page 30 of his booklet. If election is merely the result of faith, as they say, then that can be no election ‘before the foundation of the world,’ as the Bible says. We can be certain of this because faith happens in the world. Faith happens in the world; but election happens ‘before the foundation of the world.’ If destiny (by which is meant ‘eternality’) is taken out of election, it is impossible and untrue that God has chosen any person at all ‘before the foundation of the world,’ like the Scripture says. By trying to put something together that God has warned to leave apart—by trying to reconcile the seeming disharmony between the doctrines of Sovereignty and Responsibility, these men wind up squared off against the word of God and God himself. Why did they handle the doctrine of election like this? They handled it like this because they believe that God is guilty if he has determined ‘before the foundation of the world’ to have mercy on certain persons but not others. They put election after faith in order to avoid the fact that God’s election is an eternal choice to have mercy on a select portion of humanity. It must be God’s will to have mercy on all—that is their doctrine, which is contrary to, ‘hath he mercy on whom he will,’ (Romans 9.18), which statement implies that it is God’s will to have mercy on select persons before the actual mercy is granted in the world. God must have elected it so to be, only for some, before faith; this is the truth. 

The answer to, “Why doth he yet find fault?” (Romans 9.19) is, “O man, who art thou that repliest against God” (verse 20.) These men will not accept that, but persist with, “Why doth he yet find fault?” Their sinful persistence is the reason their booklet was written. They stand in for the hypothetical stubborn man of that verse; they personify him. On page 40, Mr. McClurkin says, “Pharaoh hardened his own heart first before it is said that God hardened his heart.” But then he contradicts himself further down when he says, “Hardness follows when God withholds his softening grace.” If hardness ‘follows’ the withholding of grace, how could Pharaoh have hardened his heart ‘first’? Any heart will harden, without effort, when God withholds grace. And a graceless heart is the definition of a hard heart, if anything is; that heart is hard which has not grace. Pharaoh had no grace. Therefore, his heart was hard already, was hardened by God’s continued withholding, and was hardened the more by Pharaoh’s disobedience. From eternity God purposed to withhold his mercy in the case of Pharaoh. “Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up,” says God, “that I might shew my power in thee” (Romans 9.17.) In other words, God raised him up in order to show his sovereign power and right over his creature by exercising wrath instead of mercy. The problem of how Pharaoh’s heart was hardened, if it is even a problem, is easily addressed by Stephen Charnock:

“If hardness follows upon God’s withholding his softening grace, it is not by any positive act of God, but from the natural hardness of man. If you put fire near to wax or rosin, both will melt; but when that fire is removed, they return to their natural quality of hardness and brittleness; the positive act of the fire is to melt and soften, and the softness of the rosin is to be ascribed to that; but the hardness is from the rosin itself, wherein the fire hath no influence, but only a negative act by a removal of it: so, when God hardens a man, he only leaves him to that stony heart which he derived from Adam, and brought with him into the world” (Stephen Charnock, The Existence and Attributes of God.)

The reason the three amigos give for taking up their fool’s errand is to save the preaching ministry. They suppose that while the two concepts of Sovereignty and Responsibility remain apparently discrepant there can be no motive to preach. They are stuck on that question, “Why doth he yet find fault with sinners that he wills not to have mercy on?” In their booklet (though not in so many words) they repeatedly ask this question. That is what they do by trying to force these two lines of truth into visible harmony. They ask, “Why doth he yet find fault?” Then they force an answer—an answer that is more satisfying to them than the assertion that God is sovereign to make vessels according to his will, whether unto honor or dishonor. They need an answer, you see, because if the question of whether or not there will be mercy for a sinner depends on God having chosen him or not, this means, to them, that God is unfair, and that the sinner can’t be held responsible. “It takes away the guilt of sin,” they say, “and lifts the blame of hell from the souls of men and lays it at the feet of God.” (And therefore we can’t preach anymore.) The answer, “O man, who art thou that repliest against God?”—in other words, the sovereign God will do as he pleases—that is not good enough for this trio. Their desire that Scripture be more palatable is the very attitude that is reproved in Romans 9. Their attempt to come up with another answer than the one that is given is rebellion. And their booklet is the teaching of rebellion against the LORD, even though it may be unintentionally done. The same thing that the prophet Jeremiah said to Hananiah should be said to them: “The LORD hath not sent thee; but thou makest this people to trust in a lie” (Jeremiah 28.15.) These men want a different answer than ‘who art thou that repliest against God?’—even if it means that they must bend the Scriptures to their will. They do not like man to be dependent on God’s choice to show mercy or not.  It must be man who must choose the merciful God because if it is God’s choice to save some persons and not others, God is guilty and man is blameless. This is their view. It is not a biblical view, but a psychological complaint. Their scheme is blasphemous in that it cannot be executed without canceling out glorious doctrines such as predestination, election, and even sovereignty. The lesser sin is that Calvinism must be misrepresented in the process, and stated as ‘a theology which totally eliminates human choice.’ They call men who believe like Spurgeon on this issue ‘extreme Calvinists’ and ‘hyper-Calvinists,’ and count on the reader being too ignorant to know better. They pretend that Calvinism imputes guilt to God, then say, “Did God cause sin? No!” They further pretend that Calvinists offer the gospel only to select people, then say, “This gospel message excluded no one.” They pretend that Calvinists do not believe the Sacrifice of Christ is of infinite worth, and that Calvinism ‘robs humanity of all morality and all responsibility.’ They state that Calvin’s doctrine ‘is an absolute perversion of the Scriptural teaching regarding predestination.’ Anyone acquainted with Calvinism knows that every one of these accusations is false. God is sovereign and just; man is responsible and guilty; the gospel should be extended to all; the sacrifice of Christ is sufficient to cleanse every sin that has ever been committed; and predestination is accepted according to Scripture—that is Calvinism. It is not hyper, extreme, or profane; it is not a perversion of Scripture, but an honest exposition of what the richest pockets of revelation contain. Without a Confession to turn to, it is easy to be deceived by pseudo-scholars, which deception may cause us to be too proud to accept who God is, and then coerced into becoming as slanderous as these three men are toward some of the most honorable names in the history of Christendom. These angry, spiteful writers turn the better men that they disagree with into wild-eyed extremists; and the uneducated members of churches who are given their material will believe that they have done well to defend the holy, the good, and the true. The doctrines of God are transfigured into the teachings of man, and readers will not even notice. The slander in this booklet would be hard to rebut without a historical knowledge of theology. Without such knowledge, the reader will not know that the authors of it slant and spin the works of those they dislike, and his guard would be down. Once it is known, however, that they falsify the religious beliefs of others, a righteous rage is born. Competent scholars do not have to lie and defame in order to defend truth and to convince people to believe what is right. Most of our righteous indignation, though, should come from noticing that these Christian men do not like who God is.

Acts 4.27, 28: “For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.” The predetermining counsel of God in choosing Christ to suffer is here put side by side with responsibility on the part of the persons who put Jesus to death. God’s predetermination, even for the greatest evil deed in the history of the world to be done, does not negate responsibility in them who did the evil deed. We know this because the persons who crucified Jesus, their deed having been determined beforehand by God to be done, are stated as having done it ‘by wicked hands’ (Acts 2.23.) Since God predetermined the death of his only begotten Son, for which deed men are nevertheless held responsible, why question the responsibility of sinners on the ground that God, from eternity, has not chosen them for salvation? God’s choice from eternity, whether for Jesus to be crucified, or for mercy to be withheld from certain sinners, involves responsibility on both counts: as pertains to Jesus’ murderers, and as pertains to hardened sinners. The doctrine of a discriminate election from eternity does not, as misters Taylor, McClurkin, and Mackay allege, “take away the guilt of sin and lift the blame of hell from the souls of men and lay it at the feet of God.” It does not take away guilt for sin or lay blame on God any more than Jesus’ crucifers are cleared of guilt or any more than God can be held guilty for predetermining that his only begotten Son be crucified.      

It is idolatry to make the infinite God into an image that our finite minds can be at ease with. It is wickedness to limit the sovereign God to what we believe ‘God is love’ means. ‘I am that I am’ will do what he will. Would it not be more honorable to reject him than to convince men that he is different from what his word says he is? “It will not be denied that God has commanded mankind not to kill. Yet, in putting our Saviour to death, the Jews did no more than God had determined, before, should be done. He determined, therefore, that his law should be broken” (Josiah Hopkins, The Doctrine of Decrees Essential to the Divine Character.) Are we going to blame God? Or will we accept who he is and what he does? The answers to some questions are as forbidden to us as ‘the fruit of the tree…in the midst of the garden’ (Genesis 3.3) was forbidden to Adam and Eve. “Whence it strictly follows that if these questioners could be gratified by giving them a religion without a mystery, verily they ‘should be as gods’” (R. L. Dabney, Discussions, Volume 3, p. 347.)

PART I, ARTICLE V: THE HOLY USE OF A CONFESSION OF FAITH, SECTION I

Even a man who is both holy and good can, because of undue trust in a denomination, lead us astray in a capital matter. This happened to me through my spiritual mentor by the use of a Brethren pamphlet that he gave me to read. Thankfully, the false teachings in this pamphlet were soon overruled by Creeds that the Holy Spirit conspicuously led me to adopt for my protection. 

“God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth” (John. 4.24.)

To be holy has much to do with being separate—set apart from what is untrue and impure. As God is far removed from sin and error of every kind, he would have his worshippers abstain from the same, and to worship him in spirit and in truth. A pure God can be pleased only by what is pure. He who is Spirit must be approached in the right spirit. He who is truth is adored only through truth. To bring purity of spirit to the worship of a pure Spirit is the obvious necessity and aim in religious exercise; and this purity of spirit is either more or less, depending on our knowledge and acceptance of who God really is and what God really does. The affections are drawn to God through the mind. The more the mind has a right view of God, the more purely the affections may ascend to him, though for solemn reasons God may withdraw from persons who apprehend him most properly, as, for a season, he did from Job. We are stimulated to worship God by apprehending the character of his person and the workings of his providence. If we misunderstand truth, we think falsely of God, since truth is about God, and God is truth. 

Our worship is graciously accepted through faith in Jesus Christ; we worship the Father through the Son, whose righteousness is ours through this faith. Salvation is worked into us by the Holy Ghost in regeneration; this begins our sanctification, or progress in our faith. Then we are called to ‘work salvation out with fear and trembling’ (Philippians 2.12.) In other words, the Christian who is sanctified by God by being renewed in regeneration must then sanctify himself by progressive obedience. To make progress in obedience, we must learn what to obey and who this God is to whom we owe obedience. So, is our worship as sanctified as it could be when we think that God is such a person that he is not, or when we suppose that God did this or that when he didn’t? Our worship then is mixed with lies about God. We tell people that he is this way when he isn’t, and that he does this and that when he doesn’t. More than anything else, we need to be right about the character of God. We need wisdom and understanding in proportion to the zeal with which they should be sought: “Get wisdom, get understanding: forget it not; neither decline from the words of my mouth” (Proverbs 4.5.) Communion between us and God is undermined by untruth. It is the same between all partners in relationship. Cold religion comes by thinking that God is who he is not, and that he does what he does not. He will draw closer when we impute to him no lies. 

“But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him” (John 4.23.) The hour for true worship has come, Jesus says. It ‘now is.’ If it could be said to be ‘now is’ in Jesus’ day, how much more in ours, twenty centuries later? Has the hour for true worship come for us personally? Are we enjoying this hour? The Father wants true worshippers. He wants us to worship him ‘in spirit and in truth.’

But why bring a Confession of Faith into this, and have that come between us and God, and between us and God’s truth, the Bible? Why not go straight to the Bible to know God, and never mind other avenues? This objection is more often emotional than thoughtful, and is a popular one among Dispensationalists and Fundamentalists; that is, among most pastors and Christian writers of the 20th century. There is nothing wrong with a passion for the infallible truth and nothing but. A person might do well who reads only his Bible. William Tiptaft (b. 1803) did that: “His studie was on litel but the Bible” (J. H. Philpot, The Seceders, p. 15.) William Tiptaft is piously remembered for having lived on this unmixed diet, notwithstanding that his partner in secession from the Church of England, J. C. Philpot, is probably more piously remembered, though he imbibed a little theology on the side. I have no doubt that a Christian with just his Bible, if he will be led by the Spirit in humble submission to his Lord, should do as much good as anyone, and be more holy than the average pastor or seminary professor. But a Christian typically attends church. And what church has no ‘Statement of Faith,’ which is nothing else than a term for ‘Confession of Faith’ or ‘Creed.’ And where is the Christian who reads only his Bible? And who can or should, neglect Christian history? If, in addition to reading the Bible, a Christian reads religious books, or if he listens to the sermons of his pastor, this extracurricular material, whether he has subscribed to it or not, is, to some degree, his Confession of Faith. We adopt the opinions and interpretations of others, almost without our notice or consent. The adoption of a Confession will offset and override what we unwittingly absorb. If what we read or hear does not come through men who are tethered to a good Confession, we are likely being led astray. Writers of Confessions were well-instructed scholars, even masters in the word of God. They were learned men; they were good men; they were praying men; they were holy men. Their works are what the Bible would call ‘bulwarks’: defensive structures built to resist assaults. 

What follows from the use of a Confession for self-defense is circumspection. To be circumspect is ‘to be watchful on all sides’; this exercise is for the purpose of standing fast against winds of false doctrine. Circumspection leads to confidence concerning one’s beliefs; this, in turn, leads to ability and positive influence. Christians who are remembered for the impact that they have had, were usually catechized through the use of a Confession. They were effective Christians because they were circumspect and confident, which fitness had much to do with the Confession that they were catechized with. To worship in spirit and in truth, contrary winds need to be withstood. There is a biblical warrant for the use of a Confession. Here it is:

“And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: that we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; but speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ” (Ephesians 4.11-15.)

Apostles and prophets are not with us anymore. Most of us will be agreed on that. But evangelists, pastors, and teachers are still being given to the Church. They are still given, “for the perfecting of the saints…till we all come in the unity of the faith…that we henceforth be no more children…carried about with every wind of doctrine.” This is the object of a Confession of Faith—to grow us up in the unity of our faith and to separate us from error. We might even say that the object of a Confession is to grow us up in the unity of our faith by separating us from error, or, ‘for the establishing of consent touching true religion,’ which amounts to the same thing (William Cunningham, The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation, p. 166.) And this is why teachers and pastors have composed these Confessions. It is always the business of church leaders and fathers of families to lead the effort toward unity of faith; and they would do well to use faithful, well-formulated Confessions to do it. As a Christian becomes acquainted with Protestant history, he cannot but recognize that the pastors of our day do not compare well for excellence beside the men who drew up the old Creeds, Catechisms, Canons, and Confessions. Such articles cannot be surpassed nor equaled for concise, correct theology, especially as they deal with doctrinal matters of the utmost gravity. Reliable Confessions of Faith require the precision and caution that can be executed only by Assemblies of the soberest heads and warmest hearts. Where one man is weak, another is strong, and the whole together form a vanguard and a rereward to defend what is most holy. Together they are bands of critics and judges, making sure that nothing indispensable is missed; that nothing secondary supersedes; that nothing superfluous is allowed; that no pet dogmas are trumpeted; and that falsehoods are marked, disproved, and then routed by properly interpreted Scripture proofs. All that we do as Christians should be to the purpose of securing and maintaining close communion with God. Whichever doctrines are indispensable to this connection between God and man, the Reformed Confessions are excellent on. If a Christian knows these truths and meditates on them, he will experience better relations with God by such knowledge and exercise than by all the new Bible-study workbooks together: those popular fads (like the Alpha course) that are continuously being pressed upon churches by enthusiastic, though ignorant, pastors. To get the understanding that Solomon recommends in Proverbs, we need to know what to reach for. By gathering with others to apprehend something of the essentials of our faith, a bond of love may happen that is sweeter than average Christian unity, just as John was loved by Jesus in a special way. And this is best accomplished through the use of our Bible, with a reliable Confession to assist. 

I come now to my intention in this article. Separation from—this is what I mean to emphasize as the way to holiness by the use of a Confession. There are three huge clogs to worship that a Confession may help to separate us from: Error, Uncertainty, and Inability. In the first head I aim to show how, by the use of a Confession, error is beaten down and cast aside.

PART I, ARTICLE IV: FOUR CIRCUMSTANCES AGAINST JOB, SECTION VI

Conclusion 

Tribulation begets perseverance; perseverance begets blessing. Job did not persevere in vain. It is better to persevere out of gratitude to God for grace received, not because we seek a reward. God will distribute treasures in heaven for works done in faith; and the greatest work of faith is to persevere in tribulation. What did it profit Job to persevere? One, his good character was improved, and he grew in his knowledge of the LORD.  Two, his request, as unusual as it was notable, was granted: “Oh that my words were now written!  oh that they were printed in a book!  That they were graven with an iron pen and lead in the rock for ever!” (Job 19.23, 24.) Now Job’s words are engraved forever as part of Holy Scripture. We should imitate Job, and ask as uncommonly and stupendously as he did. Three, the LORD accepted Job and set him up as a mediator for his three friends. After they were told to offer sacrifices to God, they were directed to reckon Job’s prayers as their means of mediation: “for him will I accept: lest I deal with you after your folly, in that ye have not spoken of me the thing which is right, like my servant Job” (42.8.)  It is hard to know whether the LORD was referring, by ‘the thing which is right,’ to Job’s confession, or to his confession and his lines of dialogue.  Due to Job’s confession, the LORD might have disregarded Job’s hard words that are found in the dialogue.  Regardless, Job’s role as intercessor at the end befits his sacrificial worship at the start. Job was a high priest outside and before, the institution of the Mosaic Law for Israel. He was singled out as blameless by God, chosen to suffer, tempted by the devil directly, obliged to defend his honor, ordained to intercede, and blessed in his latter end; and therefore it is difficult to resist the deduction that he is a type of Christ. Not many men are thus distinguished. And four, not only was Job completely restored, he was given double the measure of his lost fortune and as many children as he had lost.  Indeed, “the LORD gave Job twice as much as he had before…He had also seven sons and three daughters” (42.10, 13.) As if that were not enough, “In all the land were no women found so fair as the daughters of Job” (verse 15.) And Job “saw his sons, and his sons’ sons, even four generations” (verse 16.) We may assume that Job was physically restored as well. “So Job died, being old and full of days” (verse 17.) Is this not the happiest close to the story of a man’s life in all of literature? In getting a double portion of what he had lost, Job is a type of each and every saint. To become a good type is the best that a person can do for his fellow man. The ‘hundred and forty years’ (42.16) that were added to Job’s life amounts to a second life, and should remind us of life everlasting for those who persevere in faith until the end. “And I will restore to you the years that the locust hath eaten, the cankerworm, and the caterpillar, and the palmerworm, my great army which I sent among you” (Joel 2.25.) Job’s devouring insects were the Sabeans, wind and fire from the sky, and the Chaldeans: the army of Satan appointed by God. We all have insects appointed to our hurt, for our own good: an army assigned by God to vex us onward.  

Job was separated from his family, his belongings, and his popularity in order to separate him from the worst in himself. And this is the purpose of tribulation. As R. C. Trench points out in his Study of Words, the word ‘tribulation’ is derived from the Latin word, ‘tribulum,’ a thrashing instrument used to separate corn from husks. The book of Job might well be called, The Tribulation of Job or even The Thrashing of Job. “In the world ye shall have tribulation” (John 16.33.) In the world, we must undergo some thrashing.    

Like in the trying life of Job, our circumstances are overcome by perseverance in the LORD.  Perseverance is never in vain. “Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord” (1 Corinthians 15.58.) Our stories are not written into Revelation as a book in the canon. That distinction is Job’s to enjoy. But each Christian is written in the book of life alongside the ‘yokefellows’ and ‘fellowlabourers’ of the Lord (Philippians 4.3) and each one can have an assurance of that by the Holy Ghost on this side of the grave. This assurance happened one time in a Brethren study group that I was in. While we were discussing ‘how wonderful to be one of the persons mentioned in Romans 16’ in the list that is given there, the Spirit came gently down upon us as if to say: “Romans 16 is just a shortlist; I ‘salute’ you with ‘an holy kiss.’” 

The life that is gained through Christ is as far above what is mortal as his sacrifice is greater than our death; our death is made stingless by his. While Job may be a type of Christ, Christ is the way of life, for his obedience unto death has merited heaven for appropriators of his blood.

PART I, ARTICLE IV: FOUR CIRCUMSTANCES AGAINST JOB, SECTION V

Circumstance Four: Satan’s Assaults

Job was assaulted by Satan twice. The first time, Satan used storms and marauders; and through this Job lost his belongings and his family, save his wife. The second time, Satan broke his health. Twice when Satan presented himself before God, he came, “From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it” (Job 1.7; 2.2.)  This action agrees with what the New Testament warns us of: the “adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour” (1 Peter 5.8.) There was nobody on earth that Satan wanted more to devour than Job, the servant of the LORD, because Job served the LORD the best. He was the holiest man on earth in his day, and for this reason was approved by God in the very face of Satan. And this laid the trap for God to make Satan a righteous mockery of through the holy strength of Job.  God used his servant to put the devil down, and he used the hand of Satan upon his servant to do it.  Job was not aware of any of this. And, depending on who wrote the book of Job, it may be that he never found out until his entry into Paradise. We must learn a lesson from that. We might not, in this life, find out what afflicts us and why the affliction is allowed. If our drama may be likened to a paint-by-number canvas, Job’s was painted in plenty of spots, but ours is colored in to reveal a fuller picture. Who among us, notwithstanding, has more than weak faith when compared to the faith of Job? Do we know enough to resist the devil so that he will, according to God’s word, flee from us?

A direct attack from Satan must be devastating, if anything is.  Satan is the most ancient, most persistent, most experienced persecutor. Having taken away Job’s possessions, his servants, and his sons and daughters, Satan wanted more because as long as Job remained faithful to God, the devil remained unsatisfied and defeated. Satan took all that he could, by the permission of God, get. So, accepting whatever grant that God would give, he took Job’s health.  He would have taken Job’s life, but God forbad him.  God gave Satan the power to take nearly everything from Job.  But the old serpent is cunning.  He did not kill all of Job’s servants; neither did he kill Job’s wife. His plan was to use the remaining servants to make Job’s life as miserable as possible and to use the wife to tempt him to curse God (Job 19.16; 2.9.) Though Satan accused Job to God, he did not ask God for anything—at least the narrative does not tell us that he did. Rather, God goaded the devil with the story of Job’s uprightness; and, in turn, the devil goaded God to stretch out his hand against Job. The devil wants nothing more than to set God against his saints.  

Job was unaware of Satan’s involvement.  He attributed his sufferings to the hand of God: “Have pity upon me, have pity upon me, O ye my friends; for the hand of God hath touched me” (Job 19.21.) And he did not see this as the sovereign hand merely, but a punishing hand: “Thou art become cruel to me: with thy strong hand thou opposeth thyself against me” (30.21.) He wished for God to go all the way and ‘loose his hand’; that is, kill him (6.9.) Though Job believed that the hand of God had struck him, and he sometimes wanted God to finish him off, he vacillated. He was unable to figure out what God was doing and why he was doing it: “Only do not two things unto me: then will I not hide myself from thee. Withdraw thine hand far from me: and let not thy dread make me afraid” (13.20, 21.) Job was made to feel irredeemably condemned, even though his treatment was filtered through grace. 

God was behind the miseries that Job endured, for he had given Satan permission to lay his hand on Job. That is to say, Job’s hardships did not come from God directly.  Satan urged God to lay his own hand on Job, for he would have enjoyed watching God strike down his most faithful servant.  The adversary looked for a reason to accuse God of wrong. Failing this, he would try to get Job to curse God.

Satan is not mentioned after chapter two. He did not present himself before God in the epilogue because that is where Job gets the victory and where God gives the blessing. Why didn’t Job and his friends mention Satan as a possible cause of all that Job endured?  It may be that the subject of Satan had come to neglect in that region in Job’s day. This is quite possible because that is what happens to doctrines throughout history.  When certain doctrines are emphasized, others suffer neglect.  The supremacy of God was so emphasized that the arch-demon wasn’t even thought of.  On the face of it, this seems regrettable because if the devil had been considered, Job’s losses would have been easier to bear.  But this ignorance was the plan of God because it elevated Job’s example of perseverance.  Job was attacked by Satan, he thought it was all of God, and yet he still persevered.  He continued to trust an afflicting God. Incidentally, it is a much better situation when events are traced up to God than up to Satan, even if Satan is entirely out of view. The authors of the Bible, under the Spirit’s leading, do not leave the ordering of things to the devil—not even the wicked act of putting Jesus on a cross. Even the worst act of wickedness that was ever committed is traced up to God. It is true that wicked men ‘took counsel together for to put him [Jesus] to death’ (John 11.53.) But it is also true, and more fundamentally true, that Jesus was ‘delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God’ (Acts 2.23.) Since foreknowledge is knowledge, not possibility, this foreknowledge amounts to predestination. Had the doctrine of divine sovereignty been neglected in Job’s day in place of that of Satan, it had been more difficult to persevere, and less likely that he would have done so. Though it is tormenting to think that God may be chastising us or might even have turned against us, yet we feel hopeful because of our belief that he is behind it all. Thinking the devil is in charge engenders hopelessness because, unlike God, he has no history of being merciful. The devil has no mercy to grant, and no desire to extend any.    

To be directly attacked by the great adversary is an ominous circumstance. It is something that few of us would, or could, endure.  While we must never discount the possibility of such an attack, it is unlikely that many of us have had the displeasure of drawing that much attention.  Only the most pious saints who pay great reverence to God are able to make the devil take particular notice.  Moreover, even the chief of fallen spirits is not able to be everywhere at once. He does not know our thoughts. And his power is limited to what God allows him to exert. He is not omnipresent; he is not omniscient; he is not omnipotent. It is apparent from the first chapter, however, that he observes the characters, actions, and situations of men.  He had studied Job before God pointed him out. We know this because of his rhetorical question: “Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side?” (Job 1.10.) 

The devil’s demons, the remnants of sin, and the worldly culture are sufficient creatures for the average Christian to be oppressed by and disturbed with.  We are blessed not to encounter the devil as directly as Job did. Maybe it should be said that we are not so blessed because in the end, Job was greatly blessed to have been chosen by God to exemplify perseverance through attacks by the devil. He was blessed to have been so sorely tempted.

How much we suffer depends a lot on the circumstances involved.  These four circumstances, then, make Job’s sufferings more than compete against our own: he was more upright, he lost more, he had less revelation to go on, and his afflictions came straight from the devil.  Our circumstances are unique, but are they as dreadful? They are not nearly as dreadful. We must be shored up by this.  Job was dedicated to holiness and righteousness before he was singled out for testing. We must learn from that.

Job did, at times, lose hope for his life on earth; but he continued to trust. When he finally got to speak to the LORD, he wisely spoke briefly and regretfully, repenting in dust and ashes.  He did not dare ask any of his own questions, having been humbled by his inability to answer the ones posed to him by the LORD.

Early on, Job came close to defining his trial as a test, though he may not have been aware of how near he was to the truth: “What is man, that thou shouldest magnify him? and that thou shouldest set thine heart upon him? And that thou shouldest visit him every morning, and try him every moment?” (Job 7.17, 18.) The love of God and the blessing of God come with trials from God. Job also predicted the outcome of his test: “But he knoweth the way that I take: when he hath tried me, I shall come forth as gold” (23.10.)

Though the central theme in the book of Job is the question of suffering, the lesson is perseverance.  The thrust of perseverance is unmistakable when the book is looked at as a whole.  Job repeatedly persevered to honor the LORD during his lamentations.  To sum up, God glorified himself, made a righteous mockery of Satan, made a better man of Job, humiliated his critical friends, and teaches us perseverance—all through suffering.

PART I, ARTICLE IV: FOUR CIRCUMSTANCES AGAINST JOB, SECTION IV

Circumstance Three: Restricted Revelation

The revelation that we call Scripture was not available to Job.  This is a great distinction. It is a circumstance that we do not face. We will see how this restriction affected him. But first, what revelation was available to, and acknowledged by, Job?

Job had, for his instruction and benefit, the revelation of creation, the revelation of power, and the revelation of conscience.  These forms of revelation are available to all men, as Romans 1 and 2 amply demonstrate. The revelation of conscience is particularly noticeable in view of the fact that the debate between Job and his friends bubbled up from their perception of moral right and wrong. There were also revelations through dreams and visions in those days (Job 33.15.) And Job and his friends had the benefit of oral knowledge passed down through antecedent generations—divine knowledge possessed by Adam, and passed down to the postdiluvian world through Noah and his descendents.   

Here is some of what Job knew. He knew enough to be able to say that he had received ‘the words of the Holy One’ and the ‘commandment of his lips’ (Job 6.10; 23.12.) How could this reception be, since the word of God had not been written yet? It is probable that certain commandments mentioned in Genesis were passed down from Adam to Noah, and then down from Noah to men living in the days of Job. For example, the eating of blood is proscribed in Noah’s day in Genesis 9.4, and capital punishment is instated for the crime of murder two verses later. Job attributed the existence of the universe to God, and he knew some astronomical details: “Which maketh Arcturus, Orion, and Pleiades, and the chambers of the south” (Job 9.9.) He attributed earthquakes and perhaps even eclipses to God (9.6, 7.)  It is evident that Job and his four friends were God-centered about everything that happens to man, whether good or bad.  Job believed that he was created by God and he knew that he was a carbon-based life form and that God was the Preserver of his spirit (10.8, 9, 12.) He anticipated a Redeemer and he believed in a future resurrection (19.25, 26.) Job knew about Adam (31.33.)  Since Job knew about Adam, it is likely that he knew about Satan. The devil, though, is never mentioned, neither by Job nor his four friends, though Eliphaz does mention rebellious angels (4.18.)

There might not have been rampant faith in a saving God in the centuries leading up to God’s revelation to Moses. But the book of Job discloses the existence of, not atheism, but theism and polytheism during this time, the latter of which was nascent. Theism preceded irreligion and polytheism, not vice versa. This has been confirmed in research of peoples and tribes throughout the world. What has been discovered is that the theological subjects that are discussed in the book of Job engaged people generally in these ancient times. Maybe the best extra-biblical example of this is the content of The Epic of Gilgamesh. The epic is a mixture of biography, history, superstition, and theology, roughly in that order with respect to coverage. The epic’s principal character lived at such at time as to believe that a survivor of the Flood still walked the earth, which would be roughly akin to when Job is believed to have lived. Like in the book of Job, the subjects discussed include, not only misery and blessing, but sin, sacrifice, immortality, and judgment. Gilgamesh, like Job, sought a wise mediator in his desire to defy death, which was the reason for his quest to find Uta-napishti, the survivor of the Deluge. Given the subject matter that both the books of Job and Gilgamesh contain, it is improbable that men lived like wild animals during this time, as the editor of my edition of the epic suggests. No matter how far back into history we reach, we are likely to discover civilization as much as anything else. “Now, in Egypt, it is notorious that there is no indication of any early period of savagery or barbarism” (George Rawlinson, The Origin of Nations, p. 13.)                 

Job and his friends discussed many of the chief subjects that we find in Scripture, such as righteousness, wickedness, death, and immortality. But it is without question that none of what Job knew came from Scripture and that Job had no written Revelation to guide him, to encourage him, and to comfort him. The epoch during which Job lived is proof enough of this assertion, while Job’s great age is proof enough of what epoch he lived in. Job lived 140 years after his fortunes were restored (Job 42.16.) Before he was afflicted he had grown children (1.18.) To account for these many years and for some time for Job to go through his trial, he had to have lived to the age of 180 at least. This lifespan is comparable to the lifespan of men in Abraham’s day or before, but not comparable to the lifespan of men in Moses’ day, when the Pentateuch was written (Exodus 6.) The lapse of time between the life of Abraham and the life of Moses amounts to several hundred years. It is unlikely, then, that Job had any written record from God for his instruction and comfort. 

Job had no written Revelation to cling to during his sufferings, while we have sixty-six portions of God’s word.  The encouragement that may be derived from the study of this word has never been fully experienced. And yet with this inexhaustible resource of strength we still do not measure up to the patience of a man who persevered without it.  Because of Scripture we have, literally at our fingertips, the answers to the greatest philosophical questions; we have all the heroes in the Holy Bible to pull us along; we have their sins recorded to show us that ordinary persons may become religious heroes; and we have centuries of meticulous expository treatment to turn to whenever we please.  Because of Scripture we can understand, and thus take courage from, the lives and trials of missionaries and martyrs who persevered and died for the Truth.  We rejoice to read about the ‘little people of God’ who supported them.  Because of Scripture we know that angels work to assist us in our pilgrimage (Hebrews 1.14.)  We know that there is a spiritual battle going on for the souls of men (Ephesians 6.12.) Knowledge of this fact alone, no doubt, would have prevented Job from murmuring. We know that our trials are for the testing of our faith (James 1.2, 3.) We know that we have Jesus praying for us and God the Holy Spirit to console us and that through these Divine Agents we may be enabled to abide in God (John 14.16, 17; 1 John 4.13.) We look back on the completed mission of Jesus Christ, the Mediator between God and men (Timothy 2.5.) We look forward to the promise of eternal life that has been both described and ratified.  What a joyous expectation we have!  We have the Holy Spirit to impress the revelation of Jesus Christ on us via the written word, Jesus being the moral image of the Father that Job craved a meeting with. Compared with us, assuming that we know what the Bible contains, Job was largely in the dark. He yearned for the instruction that is now contained in the written word of God: “Oh that one would hear me! behold, my desire is, that the Almighty would answer me, and that mine adversary had written a book.  Surely I would carry it upon my shoulder, and bind it as a crown to me” (Job 31.35, 36.)

Job’s only hero was God his Saviour; and he knew much less about God than what is revealed to us in the Bible.  Yet he was so God-centered that he was certain that his tribulations came from God exclusively and directly, in spite of the report that marauders had plundered his possessions.  Job did not know that the LORD was testing him through the temptations of Satan.  I say that Job’s ignorance on this matter was the determining factor in the torment that he endured.  Because of this ignorance, Job kept coming back to the idea that he must, for some reason, have become the enemy of God: “Wherefore hidest thou thy face, and holdest me for thine enemy?...For the arrows of the Almighty are within me…Then thou scarest me with dreams, and terrifiest me through visions” (Job 13.24; 6.4; 7.14.)

Feeling deserted by God, it was understandable for Job to desire a Mediator: “For he [God] is not a man, as I am, that I should answer him, and we should come together in judgment.  Neither is there any daysman betwixt us, that might lay his hand upon us both.” (Job 9.32, 33.) Compare this verse to a verse in the New Testament: “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2.5.)  Job wanted the mediation that we, through faith in the person, obedience, and sacrifice of Christ, have.  Job wanted from a mediator what Jesus Christ accomplished for us; that is, peace with God: “Let him [God] take his rod away from me, and let not his fear terrify me” (Job 9.34.)  Interestingly, because of his integrity and perseverance, Job later became a mediator between his friends and the LORD.  I think the point of the book would have been lost if Job had had Scripture and knowledge about Jesus Christ for his abutment.  The point was for Job to trust God ‘in the dark,’ as we say.  The lesson of the book is clearly perseverance, or patience.  The book of Job might fittingly be called, The Perseverance of Job.

Job was thrust into harsh tribulation with no written Revelation to rely on in order to become a ground-breaking hero in Revelation for us.  Job had so little; we have so much.  Nearly all of us today are aware of, and have access to, the Old and New Testaments: God’s written Revelation to man.

The Revelation that Job wished for may be summed up as the Revelation of Jesus Christ because that is what Scripture is (Revelation 1.1.) We have the revelation of Jesus Christ prophetically and historically, by types and ceremonies, by allegory and plain speech, and by the words of Jesus himself. Jesus Christ is the very Word of God (John 1; Revelation 19.13.)  So it follows that the whole Bible is the Revelation of Jesus Christ. It is obvious that the New Testament is about Jesus Christ. But so is the Old Testament, for Jesus asserted as much when he spoke of the Old Testament as that which testifies of him (John 5.39.) Jesus Christ is both foreshadowed and revealed in the word of God; Jesus Christ is the word of God; and the word of God goes out from his mouth (Revelation 19.13, 15.) The sword that proceeds from the mouth of Jesus Christ (Revelation 19.15) is the word of God (Ephesians 6.17.) This sword is the ‘revelation of the righteous judgment of God’ (Romans 2.5.) It may be that Zophar alluded to this judgment in the words, ‘day of his wrath’ (Job 20.28), which would be the day that Jesus Christ will judge (2 Timothy 4.1.) Jesus Christ is involved in all of God’s Revelation, including the general revelation of God in nature (Colossians 1.16.) 

The tension that Job felt toward God would have been relieved by the revelation that, because of Job’s faith, there was, in fact, a Mediator between him and his Maker, not only at some distance in the future, but effectual even in Job’s day because this Mediator is from the eternal past. The ‘blood of the everlasting covenant’ (Hebrews 13.20)—the covenant of grace—was made before the foundation of the world, is effectual for every sinner who comes under grace through faith, and covered Job even though he lived so many centuries before Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled the stipulations of it. A covenant was made in the Garden of Eden; that one was made in time and it was broken. The covenant of grace was made before that, and could not fail because God himself, in the person of Jesus Christ, contracted to fulfill it. Job did not know all of this, nor could he have. We should know all of this; and what a comfort it is if we do. If we do not know it; that is to say, if we face the circumstance of restricted revelation, this ignorance is our own fault; it is a needless restriction, which restriction may be a sufferer’s undoing. Ignorance of God’s written Revelation is one reason—maybe the chief reason—for all our murmuring when our schemes are knocked askew.

PART I, ARTICLE IV: FOUR CIRCUMSTANCES AGAINST JOB, SECTION III

 Circumstance Two: Conscientious Character

Job was blameless and upright.  His character was endorsed by God, which is the highest commendation that mortal man can receive. “There is none like him in the earth” (Job 1.8.) Job offered sacrifices regularly on behalf of the members of his family just in case they might have sinned and cursed God in their hearts. That speaks of piety. He had made a covenant, even with his eyes: that he should think upon no maid; that is, with lust (31.1.) That speaks of purity, not to mention the practice of the spirit of the law that wasn’t even written yet (Exodus 20.14; Matthew 5.28.) What man is as watchful in worship as he was? What man can live up to the covenant that he made with his eyes? Job was not only blameless and upright, but he was like that in spite of being the wealthiest man in the East.  Since wealth, upright conduct, and godliness are so seldom allied, we should take some time to examine this marvel. 

We know from history that most people cannot maintain prosperity and rectitude together, much less prosperity and godliness. Empires are made of men; and they fall on account of vices that men of means can afford to debase themselves with. The Roman Empire is the quintessential example of this. But each Testament furnishes examples too. This prophecy against Tyre has been fulfilled: “And they shall make a spoil of thy riches, and make a prey of thy merchandise: and they shall break down thy walls, and destroy thy pleasant houses: and they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy dust in the midst of the water” (Ezekiel 26.12.) It is the norm for merchants of the earth, after they have become rich, to commit whoredoms and to go in the way of Babylon: “Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird” (Revelation 18.2.) If nations and empires were made of men like Job, however, their hard times would be for purifying their faith instead of setting their world ablaze through unbelief.        

Job was blameless and upright during uncommon prosperity.  This is outstanding because even wise men and humble men go astray after they prosper.  We may instance King Solomon, and before that, his father David.  Prosperity can seduce the wise man; prosperity can seduce the humble man, even the one after God’s own heart.  Spiritually, Solomon fared better during the early years of his reign, before he settled in.  It was likewise with David, though he did much better generally than did his son. Failure to handle power and prosperity cut David down more than once. And he would have avoided committing the wickedness of adultery and murder if he had made a covenant with his eyes.  The accusation that Satan brought before God against Job was that Job was blameless and upright only because God had blessed the work of his hands.  The truth, however, is that Job was blameless and upright in spite of having been greatly blessed.  Not only was Job wealthy, he was blessed with a large household, the adult members of which were rich enough to feast and to make merry on their own. His great wealth was helping to spawn him a dynasty. But Job did not fall into grievous sin like Kings David and Solomon would later do. He was neither incontinent nor idolatrous. And he did not become a hedonist; neither did he become a miser; he succumbed to neither extreme. 

A rich man who is praised by God for his character must, of necessity, be also a generous man.  Job shared his wealth: “I delivered the poor that cried, and the fatherless, and him that had none to help him. The blessing of him that was ready to perish came upon me: and I caused the widow’s heart to sing for joy…I was eyes to the blind, and feet was I to the lame.  I was a father to the poor: and the cause which I knew not I searched out. And I brake the jaws of the wicked, and plucked the spoil out of his teeth” (Job 29.12, 13, 15-17.)  These verses show that Job acted the part of a righteous magistrate as well. He was practicing Old Testament statutes centuries before Moses was born and raised to give them.  He practiced the moral religion that the Israelites would soon fail to live up to: “Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow” (Isaiah 1.17.) This, in effect, was the religion of Job. It is, as far as deeds go, the religion of James in the New Testament: “Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world” (James 1.27.) Because he adored God, Job loved his neighbor. The sacrifices that he offered were not merely formal; they were sin offerings that bore witness to vital religion. His oblations were based on a sense of obligation and inability—a religion that stood on the ground of a perception of depravity. He loved God with his heart and his neighbor as himself in the way that a stellar Christian does: on the strength supplied by God through faith. His religion was of a degree, though, that perhaps has never met its match among fallen men. To be conscientious is to be guided by a sense of right and wrong. The conscience that is most sensitive to God is the one that does the most good and the least evil.       

Job’s character is summarized in verse fourteen of chapter twenty-nine: “I put on righteousness, and it clothed me: my judgment was as a robe and a diadem.” This was not merely Job’s opinion. God affirmed Job’s character: “Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?”  (Job 1.8.)  After his great wealth is taken away, after his servants fall victim to fire and sword, and after his children are all killed in a violent storm, his character goes on display in word and action: “Then Job arose, and rent his mantle, and shaved his head, and fell down upon the ground, and worshiped, and said, naked came I out of my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return thither: the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD” (1.20, 21.) This is a spectacle of eminent holiness. Religion of this degree is so exceptional as to seem mythical. Not one of us can point to a man this mortified. It’s as if Job’s ‘old man’ was crucified in the Pauline sense in the book of Romans (chapter 6.) In the person of Job, we have New Testament religion before the Old Testament was written. In him, we have the demonstration of faith, without and before, the law as a pedagogue to bring us unto Christ (Galatians 3.24.) To worship God aright after losing all that Job lost is, for almost any man on earth at any given time, undoable and unthinkable. Job’s piety was such that he worshipped God when it was hardest to do so; and he did it immediately and instinctively. This was a man for whom religion was life. When Job uttered his ‘blessed be the name of the Lord’ on the heels of his great losses, he showed that the sacrificial system that he practiced was more than a routine of rites. He therefore rendered the sacrifice of praise to God: the calves of his lips (Hosea 14.2), when almost everyone else would have cursed. His character was corroborated through calamity. After praising God for taking his belongings and his family, Job was stricken with boils and tempted by his wife to curse God. What answer did he give? “But he said unto her, thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh.  What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?  In all this did not Job sin with his lips” (Job 2.10.) How different is this from the conduct of Adam after Eve committed her sin? Job did not go along with his wayward wife. He reproved her with a rhetorical question that stamped the word ‘fool’ on her forehead. To her everlasting mercy, her name is nowhere mentioned. Job’s response to his wife, as compared with Adam’s joining Eve in sin, shows that reformed religion is better than original religion; that the religion of grace is better than the religion of innocence; that man as fallen and saved is better than unfallen man. 

When Job lived, presumably around 2000 B. C., there were not many saints on the earth. Soon after the dispersal at the tower of Babel a few hundred years prior, the knowledge of God became more obscured and misunderstood than ever before since the time of the Flood. Widespread ignorance led to wholesale idolatry, from which milieu Abraham was eventually called out to give birth to a nation through whom the revelation of God’s word would come. When piety seems nearly extinct, a holy man appears here and there, as in the times of Noah and of Daniel. “Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the LORD God” (Ezekiel 14.14.)       

Job was blameless and upright in both his prosperity and adversity, worshipping God through it all. His moral strength helped him to suffer through. But it is just as certain that the man’s goodness made his trials seem unfair. His conscientiousness was a circumstance that made his tribulations intolerable. Job’s character aggravated his misfortunes because he knew that he was a good man who feared God. His calamity therefore bewildered and angered him:  “I have sinned; what shall I do unto thee, O thou preserver of men?  why hast thou set me as a mark against thee, so that I am a burden to myself?  And why dost thou not pardon my transgression, and take away my iniquity? for now shall I sleep in the dust; and thou shalt seek me in the morning, but I shall not be…I will say unto God, do not condemn me; shew me wherefore thou contendest with me.  Is it good unto thee that thou shouldest oppress, that thou shouldest despise the work of thine hands, and shine upon the counsel of the wicked?”  (Job 7.20, 21; 10.2, 3.) Has God become Job’s enemy? Why? And why do Job’s pleas for pardon fall on deaf ears? Why is there no forgiveness and return to favor? The poor man is beside himself trying to figure out what God has to do with how things have lately turned out. It’s as if he’s been found guilty of idolatry: “If I have made gold my hope, or have said to the fine gold, thou art my confidence; if I rejoiced because my wealth was great, and because mine hand had gotten much; if I beheld the sun when it shines, or the moon walking in brightness; and my heart hath been secretly enticed, or my mouth hath kissed my hand: this also were an iniquity to be punished by the judge: for I would have denied the God that is above”  (31.24-28.) Similar statements cover the whole of this lengthy chapter. He thinks back; he searches himself; and he cannot find that he has been guilty of idol worship. The worship of the sun was the first form that idolatry took. It was carried out, first as the worship of the true God through the sun as his image. After this the sun became an idol unto itself, as in the following words in Egypt’s Ritual of the Dead: “…Hail! O Sun, Creator! self-created!...Glory to thee, shining in the firmament….” (W. R. Cooper, The Serpent Myths of Ancient Egypt, pp. 4, 35.) That shining orbs in the sky had been placed there by God ‘to rule over the day and over the night’ (Genesis 1.18) was knowledge passed down to Noah, from whom it passed down orally to subsequent generations: “Remnant knowledge of the creation of the sun and moon to rule the day and night” was “deeply embedded in the human consciousness” (John Owen, Biblical Theology, p. 264.) It was natural that the first form idolatry took was the worship of lights in the sky. Greeting the sun as a god with a kiss to one’s hand was no doubt customary in Job’s day, which custom was carried along even to the advent of Jesus Christ: “In our adoration,” said Pliny the Elder in the first century, “we bring up the right hand to the mouth, as we turn our whole bodies around” (Pliny the Elder, Natural History, Book 28, chapter 2.) This is the sort of worship that Job, in his part of the dialogue, denies having done. In an interesting but digressive book called An Essay Towards a Natural History of Serpents, Charles Owen tracks the primitive worship of the sun practically around the world. It has been practiced by the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Phoenicians, and Ammonites, for example, and in such diverse regions as Persia, Spain, China, Peru, and the Philippines. This form of idolatry was, without a doubt, the norm in Uz in Job’s day. And, incidentally, was it not against this form of idolatry that these inspired words were written down in Psalm 2.12?—: “Kiss the Son, lest he be angry.” Instead of blowing kisses at the sun, Job kissed the Son of God by proper worship; and he did it no matter what his fellows were doing. Imagine living in a world of practicing Roman Catholics. What character would it take to resist the peer pressure to make the sign of the cross beside everyone else doing it! Job’s inner strength was on that level. Not only did Job have faith, he possessed that strength of faith which stands while everyone else bows down to the popular god. Was it not for this distinction that he was criticized and scorned when his life of plenty was leveled?             

Though chapter 31 is Job’s rebuttal to his friends’ accusations, he weaves into it his vindication by self-examination. He searches through every facet of his conduct prior to his calamity in order to prove himself.  Search as he might, he cannot find any reason for being so sharply treated. And at least once, in chapter 23, his anger nears the borders of irreverence. He longs to speak to God because he is desperate to present his case: “Will he plead against me with his great power?  No; but he would put strength in me” (Job 23.6.) His character haunts him. He wonders what he might have done to deserve such punishment. He examines and reexamines himself. He defends himself. Like a person gone mad, he craves an actual meeting with Almighty God.  His frustration becomes so unbearable that he comes close to accusing God of blame.  

Job’s goodness increased his torment significantly.  Who today could lay claim to such character as he had?  How confounding to be the most upright man on earth and to be treated as the most wicked! What is it like to be as upright as he was but to be treated like an ungodly man deserving punishment?  This is a circumstance that none of us face because not one of us is as distinguished as Job was for character. Maybe we might find a man who worshipped God immediately after his house burned down. Maybe we might find someone who worshipped God immediately after being diagnosed with cancer. But where is the man who worshipped God right after losing his millions, his family, his health, his looks, the bracing of his wife, and his reputation and good standing? Can we discover a man who acted half as patiently as Job did after losing the half of what Job lost?