Piper On Job

In the previous posting "Defending Job," I mentioned how many commentators teach that Job suffered his evils because he had sinned, the thing Satan and Job's friends also affirmed. I mentioned Dr. Piper as being one of those who do so. In this follow up posting I want to cite some of the things Dr. Piper said about Job and about Elihu, the fourth counselor to Job, and the youngest.

Said Dr. Piper under the heading "Job's Wavering Faith and Complaints to God" (here - emphasis mine): 

"At first Job bore these calamities with amazing submission: "The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away, blessed be the name of the Lord. . .Shall we receive good at the hand of the Lord, and shall we not receive evil?" But as the misery drug out over the months, Job wavered in his confidence that God was for him. In defending himself against the bad theology of Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar, he said things about God that were not true. He began to insist on his own righteousness at the expense of God's justice."

That is a total misinterpretation of the story of Job! It is unbecoming such a good interpreter as Dr. Piper. He says that Job "at first" was righteous, without fault, bearing his "calamities with amazing submission." But, he says that Job did not continue in such a blessed condition for his sufferings "got the best of him," and so he succumbed, and then began to sin by saying "things about God that were not true" and to "insist on his own righteousness at the expense of God's justice." 

What contradiction! What a misinterpretation of the story of Job! God says that all Job said about him was right, and yet Piper says that God is wrong, that Job said many things that were not right! (Job 42: 7-8) 

I deny that Job said anything about God that was wrong! Job was a prophet and spoke the truth. Well might we say of other prophets that they also said things that were not right! 

Did Job insist on his own righteousness? Well, yes and no. No, in the sense of salvation or justification from the guilt of sin. This is clear in Job's confessions. He always trusted in the righteousness of his Redeemer, in the Messiah, to which he bore testimony. Yes, however, in the sense that he knew that he was not guilty of such sin as warranted his extreme sufferings. 

Job knew that he lived righteously, and he knew that his evils were not a result of sin. This is not to say that Job thought that he never sinned, but he was not guilty of any grave sin. Job was a righteous man, as Noah, Enoch, and the other prophets of God. Job no doubt observed that other sinners were far more unrighteous and law breaking than he and yet they did not receive from God the same evils as he. God's distributive justice was at stake. If Job suffered his many evils because he was not living righteously, then each of us should expect far more evils than Job suffered because he far outdoes us in regard to righteous living. Why should God punish Job to such a degree, and not us? But, more on this shortly.

Job did not understand why God had brought the evils of his sufferings upon him. He could see no sin in his life that warranted it, for others lived ungodly and yet did not suffer as he. He did not know why God was doing what he was doing, in regard to his sufferings, and yet, he trusted God to have his good reasons even though he could not discern the reason. 

He knew as well as did the younger Elihu that God "does not give account of any of his matters." (Job 33: 13) It was an insult to Job the elder for Elihu the younger to think that righteous Job did not understand this fact. The fact is, in respect to Job's case, no one had the right answer in each of their own attempts to "give account" for the "matter" of why God had allowed Job to suffer such great evils. At the end of the story of Job God does give an account of the matter of Job's sufferings and his accounting does not indict Job, nor charge that he had committed a crime that justified God in sending such evils. 

The reason, as the narrative shows, was in order to prove the Devil wrong about Job. But, if Job, midway in his sufferings, begins to speak against God (which is sin or blasphemy), and to say things that were not correct, then such an explanation (accounting) is counter to what God's own testimony was on the "matter." Piper's view gives credibility to the Devil who predicted that Job would fall. But, Satan was wrong and so is Piper. Job did not charge God foolishly, did not say that God was unjust, did not say that God had no right to do with him as seems good to him.

Was the view of Piper correct, then God would have said of Job, at the end of the story - "Job spoke correctly of me and acted righteously at the start of his sufferings but later he did not do so." But, God did not say that, but rather said that Job spoke correctly of him with no exceptions. Further, God did not say of the three friends (who gave bad counsel) - "they have not spoken of me correctly as my servant Elihu has," which is what Piper believes, affirming that Elihu corrected Job. No, the record is "as my servant Job has." Job spoke for God but the other four did not.

Job shows himself the better man by his affirming that he did not know why God had allowed his evils, though he knew it was not because of any heinous sin against the law of the Lord. Job expressed this when he said "though he slay me yet will I trust him." (Job 13: 15) He also knew that God was testing him. He said: "But He knows the way that I take; When He has tested me, I shall come forth as gold." (Job 23: 10) He knew that God was testing him. He did not know why God was testing him. That revelation would come to him later by God's appearing to him. Did Job think that he would not pass the test? Did he fail the test as Piper and others affirm? Absolutely not! 

The patience, the perseverance, of Job, the servant of God, is held up by James as noteworthy (James 5: 11) But, if he backslid, as Piper affirms, then he did not persevere and endure, did not pass the test. But, the scriptures declare that he passed the test "with flying colors."

Job said:

"All the while my breath is in me, and the spirit of God is in my nostrils; My lips shall not speak wickedness, nor my tongue utter deceit. God forbid that I should justify you: till I die I will not remove mine integrity from me. My righteousness I hold fast, and will not let it go: my heart shall not reproach me so long as I live." (Job 27: 3-6)

This is not self righteousness! Suppose I stand before a judge, being accused of a crime, and I say "I am not guilty, I am righteous," do I mean that I have no sin? No, it means I am not guilty of the particular crime, not that I am perfect and without fault. In such a case we too would hold fast to our innocence, to our law abiding status. Job knew that he was righteous because he was righteous. Job is affirming that he is not guilty of any sin that makes his evils just, distributively speaking. He knew that others who lived lawlessly were not suffering such evils. By this fact alone Job knew that his sufferings were not because of transgression but because God was testing him. If what Job says in the above cited words are all incorrect, then why does God say at the end that Job only spoke what was correct? Further, Job did not act unrighteously at any time during his ordeal. Notice what he says:

"Because 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 put on righteousness, and it clothed me: my judgment was as a robe and a diadem. 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." (29: 12-17)

Job says that his life demonstrates and proves that he is righteous in his conduct. He even invites his inquisitor friends to point out the sin in his life. He is willing to confess and turn from any sin. But, he does not see any sin that would warrant God to do to him as he has done. Do the counselors of Job present any evidence of immorality in Job? No. On these words Dr. John Gill wrote the following in his commentary:

"I put on righteousness, and it clothed me - Not the righteousness of his living Redeemer, the robe of righteousness and garment of salvation he had from him; though he had put on that by faith, and it was his clothing in the sight of God, which covered his person, and covered all his sins from the avenging eye of divine justice; and in which he was presented before God unblamable and irreprovable in his sight, and with which he was adorned and beautified, being made perfectly comely through it, and completely justified by it; but legal righteousness in the administration of his office as a magistrate; he put it on, that is, he exercised it, and he exercised it constantly from morning to night, and day after day; as a man puts on his clothes in a morning, and keeps them on all the day, and which he is always repeating; and it was as visible in him, and to be seen and observed by all, as the clothes on his back; and it covered him all over as a garment does; no blemish was to be seen in him, or blame to be cast upon him, throughout the whole course of his administration; and this was a fence unto him against all calumny and reproach, as garments are against the inclemency of the weather; see (1 Samuel 12:3-5); so a godly conversation in the exercise of graces and virtues, and in the performance of duties both to God and man, is sometimes expressed by a putting them on, as garments are put on; see (Ephesians 4:24; (Colossians 3:10; Colossians 3:12; Colossians 3:14); and these are an outward clothing to appear in before men, and should be shown forth with meekness and wisdom, so as to be beheld by men; and should be continually exercised and constantly performed; and then they are a covering with respect to men, and they appear harmless, blameless, and without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation; and thus, by well doing, put to silence the ignorance of foolish men, and such to the blush, those who falsely accuse their good conversation: and this in every sense was Job's case."

There was no unrighteousness in Job. He was perfect. Nothing he did merited the sufferings he endured. Let Piper and those who denounce Job's moral integrity point out his sins. He can say that Job spoke wrongly about God, but where? He can say that Job spoke against God, but where? He can say that Job did not hold on his way, but where? He can say that Job acted unrighteously, but where? I affirm that there is no text in Job that says such things. God has nothing but good to say of Job.

Piper said:

"For example, in 13:23–24 he said, "Make me know my transgression and my sin. Why dost thou hide thy face, and count me as thy enemy?" Job could only think that God was ignoring his faithfulness and treating him as an enemy."

No, Job thought no such thing! To read that into the words is bewildering. Further, the words of Job are not addressed to God but to his three friends and their bad counsel. No, Job was asking his friends to tell him what his great sin is which they think has brought on his calamities. Do they present the evidence of his immorality? No. Further, since the words are addressed to the friends, and not to God, it may be said that Job thought that they were ignoring him, ignoring his faithfulness and righteous living (a fact they could not dispute), and that they, his supposed friends, were treating him as an enemy. He is not saying that God is treating him as an enemy, although in some respects that is true. 

Piper said:

"He did reach the point where he confessed (in 19:25–27) that after death he would see God as his Redeemer. But for now God was treating him as an enemy, not a friend or a child—so Job thought."

He did reach that point where he confessed? No, he already had confessed that before his trials began, and when they began, and all the way through his trials. Again, Piper misreads the passage and thinks Job is addressing God when he is rather addressing his friends. No, Job did not think that God judged him to be his enemy! God forbid that we would think this of this holy prophet. God may, in Job's thinking, be treating him like an enemy even though he is not an enemy, for reasons only God knew. 

Piper said:

"And so he complains to God: "Oh, that I knew where I might find him, that I might come even to his seat! I would lay my case before him and fill my mouth with arguments. . .Why are not times of judgment kept by the Almighty, and why do those who know him never see his days?" (23:3–4; 24:1; cf. 13:23–24)."

That is a "complaint" against God? Is it evil speaking? Blasphemy? God forbid. Rather than being a "complaint," it is rather a plea, is it not? What is wrong with his plea? What was wrong with his desire to know, from God's own mouth, the reason for God's willing his calamities? Nothing! Further, by "filling his mouth with arguments," he simply means that he would express his thoughts to God. The Hebrew word for "arguments" means "reasons," or "reasoning." It also carries the idea that Job wished that he could get a chance to plead with God as respects his faithfulness and hear God's response. It is the language of one who wants to talk to God and to know the reason for his sufferings. Good Lord, what is wrong with that?

Piper said:

"In chapters 32–37 the younger friend Elihu rebukes both Job and his three friends. The three friends of Job had not been able to account for the suffering of this good man with their theology. And Job had said rash and presumptuous things about God in order to justify himself."

Elihu, who Piper thinks speaks most correctly, even more than Job, rebukes the prophet Job, the one whom God said spoke what was right! Piper agrees with Elihu in his condemnation of Job, affirming that Job spoke "rash and presumptuous things about God." Well, I'll take what God said about Job's words rather than Elihu or Piper. Further, Job did want to "justify himself," but not in the sense of eternal salvation from punishment in Hell. He did want to justify himself against the charge that he was most wicked and therefore suffered extreme punishments for it. Further, God himself agreed with Job's purpose of justifying himself against the charges of Elihu and the three friends for he himself justified Job! When they accused Job of being a really bad immoral man, he denied it and "justified himself" against those accusations. He is not justifying himself against any accusation from God! No, he is justifying himself against the accusations of his wicked advisors. 

Piper said:

"Elihu's point of view is that Job is a righteous man, though not perfect, and that he is loved by God. God is not treating him as his enemy but as his child and friend."

That is not the point of view of Elihu. Elihu's view is not much different than the three elder friends of Job. He did not believe Job was righteous. Piper is wrong on that. Said Elihu:

"Behold, in this you are not just" (33: 12).

"What man is like Job, who drinks up scorning like water? Which goes in company with the workers of iniquity, and walks with wicked men." (44: 7-8)

That was Elihu's assessment and it was as wrong as was the assessment of Job's elder three friends. For Piper to agree with Elihu's assessment of Job is to make Job to be unrighteous when the testimony of God was that he was righteous, more so than any man living at that time.

Further, Job was "perfect"! That is stated clearly in the book of Job. Any sin of Job was minor, not gross, and of such kind that all holy men of God are guilty. 

Elihu also often misquotes Job, and takes him out of context, as did the three friends. He makes Job to say what he did not say, putting words into his mouth, a thing that Job pointed out to them all.

Piper said:

"God originally allowed Job's sufferings to commence in order to show Satan and the armies of heaven that Job cherished the worth of God more than his possessions and his family and his health. But after Job showed that he did in fact love God more than all else in the world, there was another purpose that God sought to achieve by letting his suffering drag on for several months."

To show Satan what? That Job would remain righteous, that he would not curse God, that he would not charge God foolishly. Well, by Piper's standard, Job did not prove God right! He says that he was guilty of not remaining holy and right as his sufferings progressed! Well, then Satan was right! Take away from Job all that is good and he will curse God, charge God with injustice, will backslide. This was the prediction of Satan. If Job did that, and Piper thinks he did, then Piper agrees with Satan, and thus Satan was proven right about Job. But, if as I contend, Satan was wrong, then Job did not say anything amiss to God or about God. Remember the record is "in all this Job sinned not nor charged God foolishly" (Job 1: 22) and Job spoke of God what was right (Job 42: 7). 

Piper said:

"That purpose, according to Elihu, was to purge out of Job's life a residue of pride that had lain quietly at the bottom of his life. When Job was shaken by suffering long enough, the sediment of pride was stirred up into his life and showed itself when Job tried to justify himself at God's expense."

Well, if that was God's purpose in Job's sufferings and losses, did it work? Did's God's purpose fail? According to Piper, he must say yes, for he says that Job, in the middle of his sufferings, began to be self righteous, to justify himself and condemn God, to speak theological error, etc. If the outcome of Job's sufferings was that Job ended up "justifying himself at God's expense," then how did his the sufferings achieve their purpose? 

There was no "pride that had lain quietly at the bottom of his life." What a thing to say about this holy prophet of God! Quite the contrary. Job was a humble man, as much as he was patient. Also, again, I repeat, Job did justify himself as respects the accusations of immoral conduct made by his counselors. 

Piper said:

"So the words of God in chapters 38–41 are not a rebuke of Elihu. Nowhere does God rebuke or criticize Elihu. Elihu had been right. Job listens in silent agreement. And when Elihu is finished, God speaks to Job and not to Elihu. And so now we want to know what more God has to say to Job. Let's look and see."

Here Dr. Piper is arguing from the silence of God in respect to Elihu. His argument is that God approved of what Elihu said, affirming that he was more right than Job. But, I say again, God did not say that none spoke correctly "as my servant Elihu has," but "as my servant Job has." Why did God ignore Elihu? Why did he say nothing condemnatory of him? Is it for the reason Piper states? Or, for some other reason? For some other reason no doubt. If Elihu was so right, why do we not find God saying so? Why is he ignored? Could it possibly be because God was more angry at his speeches against his servant Job as compared to the speeches of the three elder friends of Job? Could it be that he was swept away by the whirlwind? Why did God not ask Job to pray for Elihu, and offer sacrifices for him, as he did the others? Did Elihu need no prayers? 

Dr. Piper wants to make Elihu the perfect man, the one more righteous and correct than Job. What a misreading of the story!

Piper said:

"Who is on trial in the story of Job? Well, several characters in the story. God is on trial (justifying the ways of God to men - SG). Satan is on trial. Job is on trial. Job's three friends are on trial. So too is Elihu."

And, who, according to Dr. Piper, passes the test? Not God, for he is proven wrong. God told Satan that Job would not turn on him through his trials. Satan said he would. Piper says Satan was right. Job did begin to speak foolishly of God at some point in his sufferings. Piper believes that Job did not pass the test. The only ones to pass the test, according to Piper, are Satan and Elihu! 

In the next posting I will look at other things Dr. Piper has said about the story of Job.