1)  Kung magising ka isang umaga at alam mong walang Diyos, magbabago ba ang buhay mo?  Ano ang sinasabi nito tungkol sa iyong "larawan", "mukha", "kahulugan" sa "Diyos"?  2) Tunay na pananampalataya ba ang karanasan ni Yossel Rakover?  3) Maiiwasan ba ang idolatriya sa "pagpapangalan" sa Diyos?  4)  Sa abot-tanaw ng mga pagmumuni-muni ni Ricoeur at ng mga napag-usapan sa klase, ano kaya ang ibig sabihin ng "atheismo"?  5) Paano ba maaring makatulong ang pagmumuni-muni ni Jean-Louis Chrétien tungkol sa "phenomenolohiya ng pagdarasal" sa pag-uunawa natin sa balangkas ng karanasang relihiyoso?

Criteriaclaritycomprehensivenesscoherencestructure and flow – careful of transition words

*ano ibig sabihin ng phenomenolohiya at epistemolohiko?1. kahulugan ng lahat ay nasa huli lamang

Diyos bilang ibatunay na paniniwalahermeneutic circlerelihiyon na nagpapakahulugan ng buhayano ba ang mga larawan ng Diyosobediencepersonal stuff?

2. pananampalataya at atheismopanalanginhermeneutic circlelarawan ng Diyostawag-tugon, obedientia

3. pagpapangalan sa DiyosDiyos bilang ganap na ibakonsepto ng Diyos

4. pananampalatayaobedientiadiyos bilang ganap na ibakonsepto ng diyoscredere in deumaletheiahabang tumutubo, nagbabago (2nd circle)

5.

PAMIMILOSOPIYA, KAHULUGAN NG MGA BAGAY-BAGAYSa simula, makitid ang pananaw natin. Ngunit habang tumatagal, nakikita natin ang kaugnayan ng mga karanasan natin sa isa't-isa. Lumilitaw ang kahulugan at ang kanilang mgga kahalagahan sapagkat nakikita ko ang mga pangyayari ayon sa isang na kabuuan. Mas higit ang pag-uunawa sa karanasan kapag mas maraming pangyayari ang naiugnay dito. Ikanga, ang pinakamalalim na pag-uunawa ay ang maintindihan ang layunin ng isang bagay, kung paano ito bumabagay sa mas malaking abot-tanaw.Ang kabuuan ay binubuo ng arche at ng telos, ng ugat at ng kaganapan, ng perpeksiyon nito.*kabuuan bilang meron, infini, katotohanan, hen panta (isa na lahat), realidadAng kabuuan ay kung saan may lugar ang pagkakaiba. Ito ay bukas at tumutubbo, ayon nga kay Teilhard ay may pumapaypay na dinamiko.Ang pagkakakilala sa kabuuan ay hindi pagkatiklop s sa sarili. Ito ay isang gulat na pagmumulat sa iba – the other. Ito ay isang pagkamulat sa pagkakaiba.

RELIHIYON, ISANG PAGBIBIGAY KAHULUGAN SA BUHAY, PANINIWALAAng relihiyon ay isang pagbasa sa karanasan ng ko tao, ito ang paghanap ng kahulugan, pagbasa sa kabuuan. Ito ay isang tangkang harapin at sagutin ang mga tanong tungkol sa kamatayan. Ang kawalan ng relihiyon ay isa ring paraan ng pagsagot dito.Para makita ang kahulugan ng isang kuwento, kailangang makita ko kung paano nagtatapos. Ang wakas ang nagbibigay kahulugan, kung kailan nahuhulog ang mga bagay sa kanilang tamang lugar. Ang tao ay dasein, isang nilalang na tumutungo sa kamatayan, ito lamang ang pinakatiyak na posibilidad niya. Dito lamang magkakaroon ng kabuuan ang lahat.Ano ang kahulugan ng buhay ko sa harap ng kamatayan? Ano ang kahulugan ng pagmamahal ko sa harap ng kamatayan ko at ng aking minamahal?Isang posibilidad ay na lahat tayo ay tumutungo lamang sa kawalan.Ngunit sinasabi ng relihiyon na hindi ang kamatayan nag huling salita, na may kahalagahan sa ibayo. Ang pagkakaroon ng relihiyon ay isang pagsang-ayon sa halaga.Ang relihiyon ay isang tangkang basahin ang buhay ng tao sa harap ng kamatayan. Ito ay pagbasa ng aking buhay at ng buhay ng aking minamahal na hindi hiwalay sa akin. Ito ay pagbasa sa buhay kung saan ako nakatali (subjectum). Dahil sa relihiyon, nagkakaroon ng pagbabago sa pananaw at kahulugan. Saan ba ako nakatali ang aking buhay? Sa kamatayan o sa ibayo?Ang paniniwala ay isang pagpili. Tayo ay maraming set of givens, marami tayong hindi pinipili – thrownness (Heidegger), facticity (Merleau-Ponty). Ngunit tayo ang magbibigay-kahulugan sa lahat. AT ANG KAHULUGAN NA BINIBIGAY NATIN ANG NAG-IIBA SA LAHAT. Isinilang tayong nakatali sa isang konteksto: wika, konteksto, kultura, estado, ekonomiya. At dahil tayo ay nakatali, humihigit ang kalayaan natin na magbibigay-kahulugan. Pumipili tayo, higit sa lahat, sa pamamagitan ng pamumuhay natin.Ang relihiyon ay isang pagbasa (creed, doctrine), pagtali (cult,worship, paano pinapalalim at pinatitibay), at isang pagpili (code, morals). Sa harap ng kamatayan,

relegere (interpretasyon/pagbibigay kahulugan, religare (paagka-ugat/pagkakabit ng buhay ng tao sa realidad, religere (muling pagpili).Ang pagkakaiba ng pilosopiya ng relihiyon ay tinitingnan nito ang mga bagay sa abot-tanaw ng kalahatan.

KAHIRAPANMga kahirapan sa pamimilosopiya tungkol sa relihiyon. PHENOMENOLOHIYA(1) Ang phenomenolohiya ay paghanap ng logos o diwa. Ayon kay Husserl, ito ay paghanap ng eidos o panloob na kahulugan o istruktura, na para naman kay Hopkins ay inscope. Isa itong paglalarawan. Bago pa itanong kung meron ba, kailangan munang malaman kung ano nga ba ito.Sa relihiyon, bago itanong kung meron nga bang Diyos, itanong muna kung ano nga ba nga ang ibig sabihin ng isanasaad na Diyos at anong ibig sabihin ng maniwala.Ang phenomenolohiya ay isang pangalawang repleksiyon, ang pagbalik sa kabuuan at konkretong karanasan. (Husserl – transcendental reduction, Teilhard – seeing, pagtanaw)Kailangan dito ng isang pagbubukas-loob, hospitality. Kung hindi man nagkaroon ng sariling relihiyosong karanasan, maaring gamitin ang karanasan ng ibang tao upang maintindihan ang pinag-uusapan. (epoche – suspension of judgement) Kailangan ng isang pakikinig kung wala tayo ng ganoong karanasan. (sympathy – Ricoeur) Kahit hindi ko makita, makinig ako sa mga karanasan ng mga taong nakakita nito, ngunit hindi ibig sabihin na tinanggap mo na ng tunay ang karanasan na ito, sa antas lamang ng paglalarawan.ANG DIYOS BILANG GANAP NA IBA(2) Ang relihiyon ay umiikot sa tinatawag na Diyos. Ngunit kung ang pinag-uusapan natin ay Diyos talaga, siya nga ay ganap na iba, siya ay nasa ibayo, nasa kabila (transcendent), to apo kaleptoh, incomprehensibilis. Ibig sabihin, hindi siya talaga kailanman mauunawaan. Dahil ba hindi na mauunawaan, hindi na rin mapag-uusapan?Siya ay mysterium tremendum – nakayayanig, nakatatakot. Fascinosum – pagkakaakit. Absoluto – walang kaugnayan, ganap na iba, hiwalay sa atin, putol, ganap na dayuhan – nakakatakot ngunit nakakaakit. Pambihira.Ang Diyos malabo o malayo sa ating karanasan, may iba't-ibang aspekto o mukha, samakatuwid hindi na siya mapag-usapan. Kahit anong sabihin natin, hindi Siya iyon. Mahirap siyang mapag-usapan at isipin. Siya ay sobrang totoo na hindi na mailagay sa salita.Dahil ang pilosopiya ay isa ring usapan (logos-salita), mahirap mamilosopiya tungkol sa Diyos. Paano mapag-uusapan ang hindi mapag-usapan, paano maiuwi sa salita ang ganap na iba, paano maintindihan ang incomprehensibilis. Sabi nga ni San Agustin, “Si comprehendes, non est Deus.” Kapag siya ay ng nahahawakan o napapaligiran mo na, hindi na siya ang Diyos. Sabi rin ni Levinas na hindi niya makita ang mukha ng Diyos, ang kaniyang mga bakas lamang. Ang Diyos ay laging nakawala, nakalampas, nakaibayo na bago pa natin siya maabutan pa. Ngunit sa pamamagitan ng mga bakas na ito, may bahagi pa rin tayo ng kabuuan ng Diyos. Ngunit kailangan pa ring mag-ingat sa pag-uunawa ng kaugnayan ng Diyos sa mga tanda niya, ng relasyon ng sign sa signified. Ang Diyos ay ineffable (inefabilis), hindi maipahayag.

TAWAG-TUGON(3) Sa pag-uunawa sa Diyos, ang iba ay nagsisimula sa religious feelings or sentiments o kaya religious attitudes na nasasakop ng pangkalahatang kategorya ng dasal.Ngunit ang istruktura ng relihiyon ay hindi sagot-tanong, hindi isang epistemolohikong paglapit na may kinalaman sa kaalaman. Ang istruktura ay parang sa isang tugon-tawag.*Walang isang relihiyon lamang, maraming relihiyon na parang mga pulo ng isang arkipelago. At laging may namamagitan.

May diyalekto sa pagitan ng salita at ng kasulatan. Sa pagitan ng interpretasyon o pagpapaliwanag at ng confession o pag-amin.Isang punto ng existential circle:accident – choice – destinyhasard – choix – destin nagkataon – pinili – tadhana/biyaya

*semper maior – laging nakahihigitMULTO, NASA IBAYOSabi ni San Augustine sa kaniyang confessions, kung mahal ko ang aking Diyos, ano ang aking minamahal? Maaring multo lamang ng mahal natin ang ating minamahal. Sa pagkagising sa katotohanang ito, kailangang pumili muli: kakapit ba ako sa larawan/multo o magkakaroon ba ng mas malalim at panibagong pagtataya?*kapwa at sarili – mysteriong hiwaga, fascinosum mystero tremendum

Laging nasa ibayo ang inaasahan at iniisip at ito ay isang katotohanan. May mga resources ang phenomenolohiya na tutulong sa atin, hindi ito ang kahirapan. Ang religious feelings ay laging patungo sa ibayo.

ISTRUKTURANG TANONG-SAGOTMay paghingi ng bagong kaalaman o mas malalim na pag-uunawa. Ang epistemolohikong paglapit (episteme – tiyak na kaalaman) ay parang sa agham at pilosopiya. Ngunit dapat ba na ito ang pangunahing paraan ng paglapit natin sa relihiyon? Na ang hindi masagot ng agham at pilosopiya ay siyang ibibigay sa relihiyon upang makahanap ng kasagutan sa mga ito. Ang relihiyon ba ay isang panakip-butas sa mga hindi natin maintindihan – faith begins where reason ends. Sa lapit na ito, ang tao ang sentro, kailangang umayon ang sagot sa tanong. Hindi relihiyon ang sagot.

ISTRUKTURANG TAWAG-TUGON (obedientia, credere, eligere,etc.)Ang salitang obedientia ay nangangahulugan na pagtalima o pagsunod galing sa ab-audire (pakikinig). Ang pakikinig sa Diyos ay ang pag-ako na hindi tao ang may hawak. Hinihingi ng Diyos ang pagtalima ng pananampalataya, obedience of faith, kung saan ang tawag ay semper maior, laging nakahihigit. Dahil dito, dapat ang tugon din ay magis, laging may pagsisikap na humigit. Maaring itulad ang relasyon natin sa Diyos sa relasyon sa pagitan ng dalawang tao: habang tumutubo at lumalalim ang relasyon, humihigit at humihigit din ang tawag at ekspektasiyon.CREDERE

Ano ba ang ibig sabihin ng naniniwala ako, fiat? Sabi ni Santo Tomas, may tatlong nibel na credere o paniniwala. Ang una ay credere deum kung saan sinasabi ng tao na naniniwala siya sa katotohanan na may Diyos, gaya siguro sa paniniwala niya na may New York. Ang pangalawa naman ay credere deo kung saan sinasabi ng tao na naniniwala siya sa mga sinasabi ng Diyos. Ang naunang dalawang ito ay hindi raw tunay na paniniwala.Ang huli ay credere in deum: obedience of faith. Dito mayroong ganap na pag-aalay ng sarili. Sa lubos na pagtitiwala sa Diyos, ipinagkakatiwala niya na ang kaniyang buong buhay sa Kaniya. “Mangyari sa akin ayon sa sinasabi mo, Kunin at tanggapin mo.” Walang escape claus o fire exit dahil kapag mayroon nito, hindi ganap ang pag-aalay, hindi mo binabasa, tinatali, iniintindi.Sa tawag-tugon, ang pananampalataya ay isinasagawa (faith in action). Ang pagtalima o obedience ay hindi maihihiwalay sa pag-asa at pag-ibig. Ang tunay na relihiyosong tugon (credere in deum) ay hindi maihihiwalay sa pag-aalay ng sarili.Sa pag-aalay ng sarili, mayroong pag-aalay ng katawan sapagkat lahat ay isinasakatawan, ako ang aking katawan. Mayroon ding pag-aalay ng panahon, lahat ay limitado kaya kailangang magpasiya. Ang priorities natin at ang schedule natin ang nagpapakita kung ano nga ang mahal natin.So ano ang ibig sabihin ng naniniwala ako sa Diyos? Nagkakaroon ba ito ng katawan sa aking sarili? Pumapasok ba ako sa ikatlong bilog ng hermeneutiko?

KONSEPTO NG DIYOSMay iba't-ibang mukha ang Diyos sa atin: laging nakabantay o nakatingin o Diyos bilang pulis, hadlang sa kalayaan (Sartre: kung may Diyos, hindi ako tunay na malaya, siya ay hadlang sa aking pagpapakatao), lahat ay objectum (nakatapon sa harap) sa Diyos, Diyos na nagbibigay ng batas (legislator), dakilang accountant (merits and demerits), pinanggagalingan ng katiyakan at katotohanan kaya siya ang kakapitan, pinanggagalingan ng saya, tulong, comfort (enervon, great consoler), paliwanag o garantiya, mata na nakatitig.Kung naniniwala ka sa Diyos, mas lalong hindi ka tiyak. Nawawala ang mga landas. Maaring sa pamamagitan ng relihiyosong karanasan, mawasak ang larawan ng Diyos sa atin, hindi pala siya ganoon.Larawan Greek: eidolon, idolotriya o pagsamba sa larawan. Maari bang sambahin ang Diyos na hindi idolotriya? May larawan o imahen ang Diyos sa akin. Paano ako makikitungo sa Diyos na hindi ko siya maiuuwi sa aking comprehension? Maari bang mangyari ito? Baka hindi siya mysterium, ganap na iba, incomprehensibilis.Marami tayong larawan ng Diyos. (refer above) Life to the fullest, ano nga ba ang ibig sabihin nito, buhay na tao sa kaniyang kaganapan? Paano kapag nasira, o naglaho ang isang larawan? Maaring magsimula ng pagtuklas sa Kaniyang totoong mukha (pero wala nga siyang isang mukha) Ang pagsira ay isang pagkakataon na makita ang kaniyang mukha? MULTOSa pagkawasak ng mukha, isang buong mundo, isang kaayusan ang nawasak. Isang pagakakataon din na magtanong kung siya nga ba talaga iyon o isa lamang na larawan. Ang ibig sabihin ng aletheia ay pagladlad, paglabas ng nakatago, tinanggal ang kubli o takip.Ano ba ang ibig sabihin na maniwala sa Diyos?

Sinasabi natin na mayroon siyang kinalaman sa ating kinabukasan at mayroon di siyang kamay sa ating nakaraan (credere in) ngunit sino nga ba itong Diyos na pinaniniwalaan ko?Saan nanggaling ang mga larawan ko ng Diyos? Kung nilikha lamang ito ng tao, nananatili pa rin ba siyang ganap na iba? Kapag nawasak na ang larawan at bigo na ako, may natitira pa ba? O nauuwi ba ang lahat sa isang larawan? Maari bang lumitaw ang tunay na mukha?

SAGOTNasasagot ito hindi sa mga teoretikang sagot ngunit sa pamamagitan ng isang pasiya. Ang mismong pagguho at pagkabigo ay pagkakataon sa isang pasiya, pasiya ng pananampalataya.Istruktura ng tanong/sagot. Kailangan ba talagang patunayan ng Diyos ang sarili niya kung siya nga ang Diyos? Iba't-ibang larawan ng Diyos ang paradima natin. Ie stop-gap God. Kung mawala na ang mga butas, so wala nang Diyos? Kapag may nakagawa na ng time machine, wala nang Diyos o ang nakagawa ng time machine ang Diyos?Ang pasiya ay isang tugon sa isang paunang tawag. Egology – alam kong nandiyan siya dahil tumawag siya. Hindi ko ito tawag, siya ang tumawag. Isang pagtitiwala. Isang personal na pasiya ngunit hindi lang nakasalalay sa akin.AB AUDRESa pilosopiya, ang pangunahing pandama ay pagtingin. (Ie ferriols, greeks) Ngunit sa Bibliya, ang pandinig ang pangunahing pandama. Iba ang center of gravity ng dalawa. Mas malakas ang impact kasi nasa labas ko at mahirap hindi makinig. Kahit hindi ako nakikinig, maririnig ko pa rin, mas mabigat ang obhetibo.ad audre – obedientia

RICOEURHindi ang kahirapan ang phainomenon, kundi na ang relihiyon ay pinamamagitanan. Maari itong tingnan bilang hadlang o tulong. Ang wika bilang pamagitan ay ipinahahayag ang karanasan. Ngunit hindi rin buo, hindi ganap at dalisay ang karanasan dahil dito. Sabay dilim at liwanag.Ang lahat ng karanasang relihiyoso ay dumadaan sa mediations, ito ang problematiko.Dapat isama ang mga karanasan na naisakatawan sa mediations, hindi lamang ang karanasan sa kaniyang dalisay na porma. Walang dalisay na karanasan.Ang consequence nito ay walang unibersal na karanasan na hindi naisakatawan sa tradisyong relihiyoso. Maaring may unibersal na pag-uunawa ngunit walang unibersal na karanasan. Maraming relihiyosong tradisyon.Ang mediations ay maaring sa pamamagitan ng tradisyong relihiyoso. (traditio – tradere, ipamana, isalin, ipasa) Ang tradisyon ay maaring dala ng mga tauhan (ie pari), gawain/ritwal, o mga kasulatan.Dahil ang phenomenolohiya ay dumadaan sa wika, kultura, at kasaysayan, therefore mediated, kailangan ng hermeneutika. Ang hermeneutika ay isang bagong dimension ng phenomenolohiya, pagpapaliwanag ng mga teksto.*hermeneutical wager: ang teksto ay ipinapahayag ang istruktura ng karanasang relihiyoso mismo

HERMENEUTIC CIRCLES May mga bagay na may diyalekto sa isa't-isa. Nagtatalaban sila, ang isa ay bahagi ng isa, at hindi magkasalungat.May diyalekto sa pagitan ng Salita at ng mga Kasulatan. Ang mga Kasulatan ay nagsimula sapagkat ang Diyos ay nagsalita at nagpahiwatig ng Kaniyang sarili. Hindi lamang na ang tao ay naghahanap ng katotohanan sa kaniyang sarili ngunit ang Diyos mismo ang nagpakilala. REVELATION. Ngunit ang Salita ay hindi lamang abstraktong logos ngunit ito ay ating nalaman sa pamamagitan ng mga Kasulatan. Ito ay ipinasa sa pamamagitan ng tradisyon. Ang mga Kasulatan ay nagsasabi ng katotohanan dahil ipinahihiwatig nila ang Salita ng Diyos.Nagtatalaban ang dalawang ito. Ang isa ay walang halaga kung wala ang isa, nagbibigayaang-halaga ang dalawa. Ang mga sinasabi kay Isaias ay maari nating marinig ng sinuman sinasabi rin sa kaniya.Ang tao ay hinahanap ang Diyos, ang Diyos ay hinahanap din ang tao. Nauna pa nga siyang magpakilala sa tao. Ito ang buod ng dinamismo ng relihiyo. Taliwas ito sa tao pagiging sentro ng pilosopiya.

Ang salita-kasulatan ay nakikipagtalaban naman sa pagpapaliwanag ng isang pagtitipon/ ecclesia/komunidad at ang pag-amin ng komunidad nito. Kristiyano ako dahil tinatanggap ko ang mga Ebanghelyo bilang Banal na Kasulatan. Ang pag-amin naman ay may kalakip na pagpapaliwanag, at sa pagpapaliwanag ay may diyalekto ng katapatan (fidelity) at pagkamalikhain (creativity). Mayroong pag-amin hindi galing sa akin ang mga salitang iti ngunit dahil dinamiko ang buhay at laging nagbabago, naiaayon ko ang Salita sa aking konkretong sitwasyon. Pagtanggap/pag-amin: inaamin/tinatanggap ang katotohanan na ang Kasulatan ay Salita ng Diyos, na siya ay nagpapahayag sa pamamagitan ng Salita/Kasulatan. Ang komunidad ay nagkakaroonng identidad sa pagtanggap ng Word-Scripture. Simultaneous prioritizing: may access ako sa rebelasyon sa pamamagitan ng komunidad ngunit naging komunidad ang isang grupo dahil may pag-amin sa rebelasyon.Ngunit hindi lamang tinatanggap, kailangan ding ipaliwanag. Sa pagpapaliwanag, may pag-amin na kasaysayan ko ang bumubuo sa identidad ko, na ang pinagdaanan ng aking lahi ang siyang dahilan kung bakit ako ganito. Sa pagpapaliwanag, sinasagot ko ang tanong na kung sino ako. Ngunit mula pa rin sa isang komunidad ang pagpapakahulugan ng mga salita at ritwal.Isang corollary ng pagpapaliwanag ang relasyon sa katapatan (fidelite) sa tektso, ang pagkatutok sa sinasabi sa teksto at ang pagkamalikhain (creativite). Habang nagbabago, mas nagiging totoo sa sarili. Para sa isang hindi-buhay, para manatiling siya, kailangang hindi magbago. Kabaliktaran nito ang katotohanan tungkol sa tao. Siya ay tumutubo at nagbabago (paradox). Sa pagiging malikhain, kailangang makita ko kung ano ang sinasabi sa akin ng mga Kasulatan sa aking konkretong sitwasyon sa buhay.Scripture, cum legentibus crescit. Habang binabasa ang teksto, lalong yumayaman ang kahulugan (ie brothers karamazov) Habang tumatanda, nagkakaroon ng mas maraming perspektibo. May diyalekto sa pagitan ng karanasan at ng repleksiyon. Galing sa karanasan ang repleksiyon, ngunit mas pinapaliwanag at binabago din nito ang ating karanasan. Ito ay nangyayari hindi lamang sa indibidwal kundi sa komunidad din. Yumayaman ang karanasan ng isang komunidad sapagkat may mga aspekto ng karanasan

na nagpapalalim at nagpapalawak ng pag-uunawa ng teksto. Hindi naman mali ang mga unang interpretasyon. At hindi rin tayo mas matalino sa naunang henerasyon, tayo lamang ay nakatungtong sa balikat nila kaya tayo ay nagkakaroon ng pagkakataong iexplore at palawakin ang iba pang aspeto ng teksto.Halimbawa: Griyego-Hebraiko, Athens-Jerusalem. Nagkakaroon ng impluwensiya hindi lamang ang wika kundi ang kultura rin.Ang pag-amin ay pagiging receptive at ang pagpapaliwanag ay mas aktibo.

Sa isa pang dulo ng existential circle ay ang mga sitwasyon ng pagkakataon, pagpili, at tadhana/biyaya. Hindi isang buhay na bilog kung mananatiling isang cultural heritage lamang ang relihiyon. Kailangang may pagpili upang maging mas malalim ang pag-alay ng sarili. Ngunit kailangan ding malaman na hindi ito isang free initiative ngunit isa itong biyaya sapagkat ang pagpili ay isang tugon sa isang tawag na nauna na.Pati ang Christianity ay nakaugat sa isang contingency: pagkasilang ni Jesus.Sa pamamagitan ng paulit-ulit na pasiya, napatitibay ang nagkataon na magmumukha nang itinadhana. Tila biyaya na ang mga pangyayari sa ating buhay sapagkat wala naman tayong ginawa para maging karapat-dapat dito.*hindi buo kung walang pasiyaPaano makakapasok sa kabuuan ng existential circle? Sa pamamagitan ng pananampalataya, act of faith na hindi mahihiwalay sa obedience, at sa credere in deo.

ARTICLE NI RICOEURHindi maari ang isang analogizing transfer sa abot-tanaw ng isang unibersal na relihiyon sapagkat walang karanasan ng world in general. Lahat ng karanasan ko ay laging sa loob ng aking abot-tanaw. Walang isang pananaw na masasakop ang kabuuan, ang kalahatan. Mayroon tayong isa lamang na abot-tanaw ngunit hindi ito obheto.I.Presuppositionthat the text is (1) meaningful, (2) worthy of consideration (3) examining it will accompany the transfer from text to life, kung unawain ay may kinalaman ito sa buhay ko.Lagi tayong may bagahe na bahagi ng ating historicity, pagkaugat sa isang komunidad.Nakaugat sa contingency ang lahat kaya kailangan kong makinig sa mga taong nagsasabi na mayroon silang relihiyosong karanasan. Ang mga testimonies ay ang pagbibigay saksi ng mga tao na nagsasabing naniniwala sila sa Diyos. Ang mas malalim na pag-uunawa ay nakakabit sa testimonies. Ang mga testimonies na ito ay maaring ipasa sa pamamagitan ng contingency: tradisyon o sa pamamagitan ng ibang tao. Ngunit ang presupposition ay may halaga ang mga ito, presupposition sapagkat walang paraan upang patunayan ito ngunit ang pusta ay may ibig sabihin ito at magkakaroon ng mas malalim na pag-uunawa.II. Text1. Ang pagkakilala sa Diyos ay hindi nagsisimula sa wala. Mayroon tayong mga minanang larawan, pangalan ng Diyos, kontektso (atheism/agnostism). Naroon ang mga kasulatan ngunit ang aking paniniwala, credere in ay lampas sa anumang hermeneutic.Ang limit ng hermeneutics ay ang hiwaga ng isang pasiya. Pasiya na nagmula sa isang chance at nagiging biyaya (ie Cheska and Ryan). Ito ay magiging origin of all interpretation: hindi maipaliwanag ngunit ito ang magpapaliwanag sa lahat.

Ang lahat ng pagpapangalan, pagpapaliwanag sa Diyos ay nanggagaling sa teksto. Hindi ito binuo ng isang taong mag-isa o kaya naman sa pamamagitan ng onto-theological illusion kung saan lahat ay galing sa kalikasan. Lahat ng ito ay mediated sa pamamagitan ng teksto. Paradox sapagkat nagiging immediate ito sa pamamagitan ng teksto (mediated immediacy) dahil nandun mismo sa teksto ang sinasabi (si Enzo na ang binabasa sa loveletter).

BUHAY NA TEKSTO. Isa pang relasyon? Ang mga teksto ay namamagitan ngunit sila rin ang naglalarawan at nagsasakonkreto ng karanasan natin sa Diyos. At kapag binabasa ang Bibliya, nagiging buhay itong salita. Sa mapagdasal na pagbasa, ginagawang buhay ang isang ugnayan. Sinisikapan kong makitungo, makiugnay, at kausapin ang Diyos. Ang kasulatan na buhay ay tumatalab sa aking buhay. Kung walang personal na kahulugan o wala sa konteksto na ang nagbabasa, umiiba rin ang pagbasa sa teksto.Hindi ako nagsisimula sa isang vacuum. Mayroon nang pagkaugat. Kaya mahalaga ang 3 hermeneutic circles: ang nakikinig at tumatanggap na isang komunidad.Kulang ang modelong ako-ikaw. Nagaganap ang diyalogo sa konteksto ng teksto na nagiging buhay na salita. Ang realidad ng isang teksto ay nasa performance. Katulad ng isang sayaw o awit, walang saysay ito kung titingnan lamang bilang mga titik na nakasulat sa papel. Hindi ang libro ang buhay na salita ngunit ang tekstong binabasa, ipinapahayag, at isinasakatawan.Mayroong triple independence ang isang teksto. Hindi na natin malalaman ang orihinal na pakay at pagpapakahulugan ng manunulat sa kaniyang teksto. Ngunit hindi ibig sabihin nito na hindi na natin malalaman ang kahulugan ng teksto. Hindi tayo limitado sa kahulugan na sinadya ng nagsulat. Maaring may bagong kahulugan. Ngunit kailangan pa ring laging bumalik sa teksto. FIDELITY AND CREATIVITY. Ang buong kasaysayan ng teksto ay napapaloob na rin sa kahulugan nito, kasama na sa kahulugan nito ang kasaysayan ng lahat ng nagbasa nito. Kailangang magbago ang ibig sabihin ng teksto upang magkakaroon ng pagtubo o paglago (communicative chain?). Kung hindi, isa itong patay na kasulatan.May intertextuality and Bibliya, nagtatalaban ang mga libro dito. Ngunit ang Bibliya ang nagpapaliwanag sa sarili nito. Hindi mauuwi ang kahulugan ng teksto sa kahulugan ng mga sources nito (literary o historical). Ang kahulugan ng teksto ay nasa kaniyang sarili.Malikhaing pag-uulit: sa teksto, may ugnayan at discontinuity. (ie Ryan and Lilibeth)*kahit ang pinakpersonal na galaw at damdamin ay laging nasa konteksto ng isang komunidad.

SENSE AND REFERENCEAnalogy in sentenceIbig sabihin/kahulugan, sense, sinn – meaning, grammar VS tinutukoy, reference, bedenturg – extra linguistic reality. Ang kahulugan ay umaapaw sa wika, dapat tingnan nag mundo.Unwelt (kapaligiran) – objective (name, course, etc.) being in the world

pagkaugat sa hen panta, meronbeing in the situation

bago maghiwalay ang subject at predicatevelt (daigdig)

Rebelasyon ay may ipinakikita tungkol sa mundo ngunit hindi descriptive.

ARTICLEDalawang paraan ng paglalahad ng katotohanan: truth as adequation and truth as manifestation. The world of our originary rootedness – refer to pambungad sa metapisika, pagkaugat ni Heideggergelanseheit – hayaang magpakita ang nagpapakita

Gumagalaw tayo sa daigdig na ito bago mahiwalay ang subhetibo sa obhetibo.poetic – secondary reflection

Biblical Polyphonyabsolute subject – kung saan ako ay nakatungtong sa sarili ko lamang

Ang originary discourse ang pangunahing pagpapakahulugan sa Diyos. Hindi ang God as supreme being o God exists. Hindi ito ang original presupposition, kung saan nagsisimula ang lahat. May mas nauna pang karanasan sa Diyos. Nakaugat ito sa karanasan ngunit mediated. Ito ay ipinapahayag sa mga teksto, sa Banal na Kasulatan.Ito ang nais balikan ni Ricouer, kung paano pinag-uusapan ang Diyos sa mga teksto at hindi sa pilosopiya o teolohiya (secondary reflection).Example of originary discourse: for love: love letters/poems, not philosophy of love.

Hermeneutikong bilog: ang una at pangalawang bilog ay pinapatibay ang ikatlong bilog. Kailangang tanggapin at unawain kahit hindi saiyo ang mga karanasan. Kailangan ng pagbubukas-loob, hospitality, sympathy upang maunawaan ang mga tao sa ikatlong hermeneutic circle, ngunit hindi kailangang pumasok sa bilog ng pagpapasiya.

Walang pure originary, lahat ng ating karanasan ay may kahalo na. Lahat ay may bigat ng kultura at ng dating karanasan. (ie God exists – consider pre-socratic philo onwards)

Paano mo nalalaman na loveletter ang isang loveletter? Dahil tayo ay gumagalaw sa isang uniberso ng diskurso, isang komunidad na may conventions. There is no text in itself, no text that is not part of the communicative chain, that is seperated from a community.

Paano nararanasan at binibigyang paliwanag ang Diyos sa mga teksto? Ang mismong pagdanas at pagpapaliwanag ay sabay at iisa (dinidiin ni Ricoeur). Ang karanasan ay hindi mahihiwalay sa wika. Ang wika ang katawan at hindi lamang damit ng karanasan.

Hindi ako ang pamantayan. Ako man ay nagpapasiya, hindi pa rin ako ang nagsasabi kung sino siya. (Sino si Ryan? For me...)

Sa rebelasyon nagpapakita ang Diyos sa pamamagitan ng mga Kasulatan. Ano ang sinasabi niya sa kaniyang pagpapakita?

Torah: narrative, legislative/prescriptiveProphetsOther narratives: wisdom, hymns

May larawan ng Diyos na lumilitaw ngunit may larawan din ng tao na lumilitaw.

Sa naratibo, ang Diyos ang nagpapapagalaw, the Great Actant. Siya ang pangunahing tauhan, sa kaniya umiikot. Isinasalaysay nito ang kasaysayan ng Israel.(1 in reading) Mayroong pagtatalaban ng subhetibo (pananampalataya, pagtatalima, dulo ng tao mismo, pag-angkin) at ng obhetibo (pagpapakita, rebelasyon. salita ng Diyos). Hindi nakapako ang pananampalataya, ito ay bukas na intentionality.(2) Obhetibo: Ang Diyos ang gumagalaw, pumapasok at nakikialam sa kasaysayan. Ano ang ginagawa niya? Nagtatag ng isang komunidad. community of interpretation: Israel.Ang sino ay hindi maiuuwi sa ano dahil hiwaga, mysterio ito. Sino ka ba? Ano ang pinakabukod-tangi sa isang tao? Ilahad ang buhay niya. Ang mga pinakimportanteng bahagi ay ang mga pangyayari kung saan may pagmumulat kung sino ako, pagtatag ng sarili, founding events, dito ka binubuo, nagkakaroon ng bagong hugis ang pagkatao.May mga givens at mga pangyayaring wala tayong kontrol ngunit may sariling pasiya tayo kung paano bibigyan ng kahulugan ang mga ito. Kung sino ako ay hindi mga katangian (moral o pisikal) kung hindi mga pangyayari. Founding events din ang nagbibigay-larawan sa Diyos. Ang mga founding events ay higit sa mga karaniwang pangyayari: may pagbabago at pagbubuo ng sarili, pagtatag sa sagot sa sino ba ako. Kung walang founding events, may sinasabi pa rin ito.Ano ang aking Genesis, Exodus, Samuel? Ano ang mukha ng Diyos sa aking buhay at ang kasaysayan sa likod nito? Sa aking buhay ganito din ba? Sinasalamin din ba ng buhay ko ang naratibo?(3) Ang tanong na sino ang Diyos ay sinasagot sa kuwento, identity in narrative.Iisang mukha ngunit iba-iba: Diyos ni Abraham, Isaac, etc. Diyos sa Lucas, etc. May continuity ngunit may discontinuity. Polyphonic: iba't-ibang mukha.(4) Ang Diyos na nagsasalita ngunit nagsasalita sa akin.Naranasan ko na ba ito? Kung saan may sinasabi ang Diyos sa akin at may katiyakan sa sandali ng pagtawag. Ang pagtawag ay may sapat na lakas upang maiwanan ko ang lahat.Hosea called upon by God to love Gomer to show God's love for His people. Siya ang naging mukha, katawan n ibang-iba, buhay niya ang naging mysterio.(4) Legislative ay nasa konteksto ng naratibo. Ang mga prescription ay nasa konteksto ng pagpapalaya mula sa Ehipto at patungo sa pinangakong lupa. Ang mga batas na ito ay umaakay sa kanila mula sa Ehipto, upang mas palayain sila, patungo sa kaligayahan – canaan. Naranasan ko na ba ang mga batas ng Diyos bilang mapagpalaya? Baka hindi kasi natin nararanasan ang mga kautusan sa konteksto ng pagpapalaya.(5) batas na reward and punishment(6) The promulgation of the law is organically linked to liberation. Kung ihihiwalay ito sa kasaysayan ng pagpapalaya, prophetic discourse, ito ay mabubulok.

Sistema lang ba ng reward and punishment ang tingin ko sa mga batas ng Diyos, hadlang sa aking kalayaan.(7) Ano ang kahulugan ng buhay lalo na sa harap ng kamatayan? Ano ang ibig sabihin ngg pagdurusa ng mga mabubuting tao, mga walang kasalanan? Si Job ay isang pagano. Ang proverbs ay hindi uniquely Jewish. Binubukas ang revelation sa pangkalahatan, para sa lahat ng tao.Ngunit ang Diyos ay nagtatago. Sa Song of Songs, hindi binanggit nag pangalan ng Diyos, sa Ecclesiastes, dalawang beses lamang.(8) May kahulugan na ang Diyos sa originary discourse – convergence of all kinds of experiences.

III. Bago pa anumang pasiya o pagpili, nariyan na. Hindi ako nagsisimula sa wala. Bago pa tayo magkuwento, nagsimula na ang kuwento. Tayo ay itinapon sa gitna ng lahat. Hindi tayo ang bumuo ng katawan natin at sinimulan na ng magulang natin ang pagsusulat ng buhay natin. Tulad din ito na pagpapangalan sa Diyos. Siya ay nariyan na sa mga teksto bago pa man siya pag-usapan.

PRAYERAng panalangin ay isang relihiyosong karanasan.? Dito mo nararanasan ang Diyos?Prayer as core of religious experience, where you encounter God and stand before Him

Classificcation between mental and vocal prayer will veil the phenomenon instead of conforming themselves to it. -- difficultyThe addressee is thorougly existential. One cannot describe prayer without describe the power to whom it is addressed. -- difficulty

Prayer will only be treated as a speech act. The guiding question will be that of the voice in this act.

First description of prayer can situate it in an act of presence to the invisible. It is the act by which the man praying stands in the presence of a being in which he believes but does not see and manifests himself to it. If it corresponds to a theophany, it is first of all an anthrophany. The act of presence puts man thoroughly at stake, in all dimensions of his being. Prayer is embodied. The being before God of the one praying is an active self-manifestation to God. We speak ourselves to another and by addressing ourselves to another and by turning ourselves toward him, but it is we who are taught by this word, and it is on us that it acts.To ask is to actually acknowledge not being the origin of every good and every gift, and it is actually acknowledge him whom we address for what he is.That is why God wanted us not only to pray mentally but also to pray verbally to arouse our affection through words and to gather our thoughts through through the meaning of these words. The movement of the word is like that of the breath drawn in and blown out.When therefore we confess with our own voice that the God and Lord of the universe is our Father, we profess that we have been in fact been admitted from our servile condition

into an adopted sonship. We do indeed affirm something about God and something about ourselves.To stick with prayer to the one God, he who addresses himself to God always does so de profundis, from the depths of his manifest or hidden distress, from the depths of his sin.But it belongs to prayer itself that in it alone does the praying man learn that he does not know how to pray. One can be turned to God only in praying, and one can pray only be being turned toward God. Only a leap makes us enter into this circle. Prayer is a gift from God. -- accident, choice, blessingIn its own eyes, prayer appears to be always surpasses and preceded by the one to whom it is addressed. It does not begin, it responds, and this alone is what, in the very uncertainty where its uprightness puts it, gives it confidence. The circle is not an absurd circle: it refers to the event of an encounter. For the obstacles to speech dissipate only in speech...Force himself to prayer when he has not spiritual prayer; and thus, God, beholding him thus striving and compelling himself by force, in spite of an unwilling heart gives him the true prayer of the Spirit.To be on intimate terms with the absolute, to say “you” to it, would be to make its distance unduly near, to the point that its proximity would be no longer its own, to the point of subsituting for it a mythical image that I would have forged for myself. - idolatriyaThus the dialogue with God, far from being the place where I find him bu finding myself, that is to say, by being first unstuck from myself, would be in contrast be the place where I lose him by veiling “the abyss of transcendence” that escapes all address. - laging nakaalis naPrayer is prey to its addressee. In measuring itself by God, prayer is a speech that has always transgressed all measure, exceeded any ability to measure itself and know itself completely. - magis?The man praying speaks for a hearing that has already come before his speech.When does prayer sleep? When desire languishes.The response is in the call. You would not seek me if you had not already found me. - atheism the opposite?Aspects of vocal prayer. The vocal prayer puts an end to the disorder of the interior babble, and thus is attention to the one to whom we address ourselves. The voice is not an instrument for itself. The second aspect of vocal prayer is its public nature.wounded

Ano ang aking kuwento kung saan pinapangalan ang Diyos?Natanggap ko na ba ang singularity at plurality ng relihiyon para sa tao bilang tao?Natapik na ba ako ng Diyos?Nakikita ko ba ang mga batas bilang mapagpalaya?Ano ang implikasyon nito sa pakikipag-usap ko sa Diyos? Sa libro ng mga propeta, ang Diyos bilang Ako ay kinakausap ang tao.Sa Karunungan, may pagnanasang bigyang-kahulugan ang pagdurusa at mayroong pagbubukas sa lahat, pangkalahatan ang pananampalataya.Sa Awit, ang Diyos ay kinakausap ng tao bilang Ikaw.

Ang ganap na pagpapakilala ng Diyos para sa synoptics ay ang pagkabuhay. Para kay Juan naman, hindi mahihiwalay ang pagdurusa ni Jesus sa kamatayan niya. Ang pagtaas kay Hesus na binabanggit sa aklat ni Juan ay tumutukoy sa pagkapako niya sa krus.Ang presensiya ni Hesus ay laging isang pagdaan. Sa kuwento ng pagkabuhay, tuwing Siya ay nakikilala, Siya ay nawawala na. Ang paglapit ay isa ring pag-urong. Isa itong paradoksa na ang presensiya ng Diyos ay nasa kaniyang pagkawala.

(1) Ang kahulugan ng relihiyosong karanasan ay hindi lamang sa tumatawag din. Kung ang tumatawag ay may iba't-ibang mukha, ang tumutugon ay polycentric din.*Mga pangyayaring nagtatag: Jews – exodus. Christians – Paschal mystery. Dito nabuo ang pagkasarili ng komunidad.

Sa Markos at Mateo, binigyang-diin ang partikularidad, na ang Kristiyanismo ay para muna sa mga Hudeo. Ngunit sa Juan at Lukas, nalamnpasan ito. Totoo na sinasabi sa Lukas na sa Israel nagmumula ang kaligtasan pero sa kamatayan ni Hesus, ang pananampalataya ay binukas sa lahat.

Grounded identity: Bahagi ba ang Diyos sa pagsagot ko sa tanong na sino ba ako? Siya ba ay bahagi ng ground o Siya ba ang mismong ground? O bubuuin ko muna ang pagkasarili ko pagkatapos ay idagdag ko na lamang ang Diyos? Ang pagsagot dito ay may sinasabi sa kung paano ko pinapangalanan ang Diyos.

Threatened identity: hindi sigurado sa sarili. Sino ba talaga ako? Sino ba ako kung wala ang Diyos? May repercussions ba?At once singularized and universalized: totoong may for me moment ngunit dapat totoo rin para sa iba. Sa katotohanan ko tungkol sa Diyos may singularity ba at universality?*ang ginawa sa klase: 1st and 2nd hermeneutic circle. ang kailangang gawin: 3rd circle.

Kung ang Diyos ay isang tumpak na sagot sa lahat, hindi Siya ang Diyos, siya na ay isang idolo. Si incomprehensibilis, non est Deus. Stop-gap God lamang ba siya? Kung may pansagot na sa isang bagay, wala na bang Diyos? Maaring naghahanap lang tayo ng paliwanag o comfort at pag nalutas na ito, hindi na kailangan ang Diyos?

Dahil siya ay incomprehensibilis, hindi siya maiuuwi sa isang pangalan lamang.Theoretical tactics laban sa tukso ng idolatriya.1. Gumagamit tayo ng maraming pangalan tulad ng Creator, Redeemer, mabuting pastol, araw, kaibigan.2. Karamihan sa mga pangalan na ito ay talinghaga lamang, sinasabi na ang Diyos ay parang ganito at hindi sinsabi na ganito talaga ang Diyos. Ngunit hindi lamang ito metapora sapagkat may pinapakita talaga ang mga ito na aspeto ng Diyos.3. Gumagamit dinj tayo ng kabalintunaan kung saan nagtatalaban an dalawang magkasalungat na metapora. Ang Diyos ay coincidentia oppositorum.4. Gumagamit din tayo ng hyperbole upang isaad na Siya aay higit sa lahat at na ang pag-ibig natin sa kaniya ay semper maior.*ang retorika ng pag-ibig ay ganito rin.

Sa katapusan, ang Diyos ay hindi mabibigyan ng pangalan (punto ng white ecstasy). Kung naranasan ko ang ganap na kahiwagaan, ang bakas na walang hanggan (Levinas) kung saan laging umuurong ang Diyos na nasa ibayo, hindi ko talaga siya maiuuwi sa isang pangalan. Ang pinakamahalaga ay ang hindi masasabi. Kapag mas nakikilala natin ang Diyos, mag nagiging hiwaga siya sa atin. Ang Diyos bilang laging umuurong – buod ng religious experience.*kapag hindi ko pa kilala ang isang tao, mas marami akong masasabi tungkol sa kaniya, mas madaling ikahon siya.

THE BOOK OF JOB"

Introduction

The Book of Job has long been praised as a masterpiece of literature.Consider these quotes:

"Tomorrow, if all literature was to be destroyed and it was left to me to retain one work only, I should save Job." (Victor Hugo)

"...the greatest poem, whether of ancient or modern literature." (Tennyson)

"The Book of Job taken as a mere work of literary genius, is one of the most wonderful productions of any age or of any language." (Daniel Webster)

What is it about the book that prompts such praise? Most Christians Iknow don't feel that way about the Book of Job. Perhaps it is becausemany tend to neglect the Old Testament altogether. Yet Paul wrote ofthe value of the Old Testament scriptures:

For whatever things were written before were written for our learning, that we through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope. (Ro 15:4)

Note that the Old Testament was written for our learning, that itprovides patience and comfort, and as such can be a source of hope.This is especially true with the story of Job, to whom James referredwhen seeking to instill patience (cf. Ja 5:10-11). Because the Book ofJob is so often neglected, yet presents a valuable lesson and is sohighly praised by even people of the world, Christians should certainlytake the time to study this portion of God's Word!

THE PLACE OF JOB IN THE OLD TESTAMENT: Job is the first of five bookscommonly referred to as "The Books Of Poetry". These include Job,Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon. Called suchbecause they are written in poetic style in contrast to the narrativestyle of most other books, they are also often referred to as "WisdomLiterature" (especially Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes). OswaldChambers (1874-1917) offered this concise summary of the five books:

* Job - How to suffer

* Psalms - How to pray

* Proverbs - How to act

* Ecclesiastes - How to enjoy

* Song of Solomon - How to love

Now let's take a look at the Book of Job in particular...

AUTHOR AND DATE OF WRITING: Who wrote the book, and when? No onereally knows. Jewish tradition attributes the book to Moses, and otherauthors have been suggested (Job, Elihu, Solomon, Isaiah, Hezekiah, andBaruch, Jeremiah's scribe). "All that can be said with certainty isthat the author was a loyal Hebrew who was not strictly bound by thepopular creed that assumed suffering was always the direct result ofsin" (Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown). Because the author is unknown,it's date has been hotly debated among scholars. Some think it waswritten before Moses (pre 1500 B.C.). Others put it at the time ofSolomon (ca. 900 B.C.), and some even as late as the Babylonian Exileor later (post 600 B.C.).

The uncertainty of author and date does not nullify the book's

inspiration, for it is affirmed in the New Testament. Paul quotes fromit on several occasions in his writings (cf. 1 Co 3:19 with Job 5:13;and Ro 11:35 with Job 41:11). For the Christian who accepts theinspiration of the New Testament, such evidence is sufficient.

THE HISTORICITY OF THE BOOK: Even though inspired, are we to take theevents described in it as historically true? There are several reasonsfor believing that they are:

* The style of the opening and close of the book certainly conform to other Biblical narratives that are historical (cf. 1:1 with 1 Sam 1:1 and Lk 1:5).

* In Ezekiel 14:14, Job is mentioned along with Noah and Daniel, two other figures of history.

* James, the Lord's brother, refers to Job as an example of perseverance (Ja 5:11).

THE SETTING OF THE BOOK: The historical events appear to be set inthe "Patriarchal" period (i.e., sometime between Noah and Moses). Thereare no allusions to the Law of Moses in the book, but there is amention of a flood (22:16). Job functions as a priest in offeringsacrifices for his family (1:5), similar to what we find with Abraham(cf. Gen 12:7). His longevity is typical of the patriarchs (42:16;cf. Gen 11:22-26,32). For such reasons I would place him somewhatcontemporary with Abraham (i.e., ca 2000 B.C.).

THE PURPOSE OF THE BOOK: It is common to suggest that the purpose ofthe book is to answer the age-old question, "Why does God allow therighteous to suffer?" That is certainly the question Job raises, butit is worthy to note that he himself never receives a direct answer.Nor is one given by the author, other than to answer Satan's challenge,"Does Job fear God for nothing?". We are privileged to know of thechallenge of Satan, and that God allows Job to suffer in answer to thatchallenge, but Job is never told of this. Therefore, I suggest thatthe purpose of the book is:

To answer the question, "How should the righteous suffer?"

While Job's questions and complaints often come close to charging Godwith wrong, he never crosses the line and humbly submits to God whentold that the answers to his questions are beyond his ability tounderstand. Thus the book shows us how the righteous should bear upunder suffering ("You have heard of the perseverance of Job" - Ja 5:11)

SOME LESSONS FROM THE BOOK: In his study on the book (The Book OfJob, Quality Pub.), Wayne Jackson offers the following lessons to begleaned:

* The book defends the absolute glory and perfection of God - It sets forth the theme echoed in Ps 18:3 ("I will call upon the Lord, who is worthy to be praised"). God is deserving of our praise simply on the basis of who He is, apart from the blessings

He bestows. Satan denied this (1:9-11), but Job proved him wrong (1:20-22; 2:10).

* The question of suffering is addressed - Why do we suffer? Who or what causes it? Why doesn't God do something? Not all questions are answered, but some important points are made:

- Man is unable to subject the painful experiences of human existence to a meaningful analysis - God's workings are beyond man's ability to fathom. Man simply cannot tie all the "loose ends" of the Lord's purposes together. We must learn to trust in God, no matter the circumstances.

- Suffering is not always the result of personal sin - The erroneous conclusion drawn by Job's friends is that suffering is always a consequence of sin. Job proves this is not the case.

- Suffering may be allowed as a compliment to one's spirituality - God allowed Job to suffer to prove to Satan what kind of man he really was. What confidence God had in Job!

* The book paints a beautiful picture of "patience" - The Greek word is "hupomone", which describes the trait of one who is able to abide under the weight of trials. From the "patience of Job", we learn that it means to maintain fidelity to God, even under great trials in which we do not understand what is happening.

* The book also prepares the way for the coming of Jesus Christ! - His coming is anticipated in several ways. Job longs for a mediator between him and God (9:33; 33:23), and Jesus is one (1 Ti 2:5). Job confessed his faith in a Redeemer who would one day come (19:25); Christ is that Redeemer (Ep 1:7)!

BRIEF OUTLINE (adapted from Warren Wiersbe)

I. JOB'S DISTRESS (1-3)

A. HIS PROSPERITY (1:1-5)

B. HIS ADVERSITY (1:6-2:13)

C. HIS PERPLEXITY (3)

II. JOB'S DEFENSE (4-37)

A. THE FIRST ROUND (4-14) 1. Eliphaz (4-5)_Job's reply (6-7) 2. Bildad (8)_Job's reply (9-10) 3. Zophar (11)_Job's reply (12-14)

B. THE SECOND ROUND (15-21) 1. Eliphaz (15)_Job's reply (16-17) 2. Bildad (18)_Job's reply (19) 3. Zophar (20)_Job's reply (21)

C. THE THIRD ROUND (22-37) 1. Eliphaz (22)_Job's reply (23-24) 2. Bildad (25)_Job's reply (26-31)

D. YOUNG ELIHU SPEAKS (32-37) 1. Contradicting Job's friends (32) 2. Contradicting Job himself (33) 3. Proclaiming God's justice, goodness, and majesty (34-37)

III. JOB'S DELIVERANCE (38-42)

A. GOD HUMBLES JOB (38:1-42:6) 1. Through questions too great to answer (38:1-41:34) 2. Job acknowledges his inability to understand (42:1-6)

B. GOD HONORS JOB (42:7-17) 1. God rebukes his critics (42:7-10) 2. God restores his wealth (42:11-17)

REVIEW QUESTIONS FOR THE INTRODUCTION

1) What are Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon, often called? - Books of Poetry - Wisdom Literature

2) Who wrote the book, and when? - We do not know

3) What evidence is there that this book describes an event that actually occurred? - It both starts and ends like other books of history in the Old Testament - Job is included with Noah and Daniel, as figures of history, in Ezek 14:14 - James refers to the example of Job in teaching on perseverance (Ja 5:11)

4) In what historical time frame is the story of Job possibly set? - During the period of the patriarchs, perhaps contemporary with Abraham

5) What is the purpose of this book, as suggested in the introduction? - To answer the question, "How should the righteous suffer?"

6) According to the outline suggested above, what are the three main divisions of the book? - Job's Distress (1-3) - Job's Defense (4-37) - Job's Deliverance (38-42)

Prologue - Job Is Tested (1-2)

OBJECTIVES IN STUDYING THIS SECTION

1) To see the stage set for the "great controversy" that will occur between Job and his friends

2) To consider the challenge that Satan made concerning Job; would God have as much confidence in our faithfulness?

3) To appreciate the integrity of Job in the midst of his great suffering

SUMMARY

The first two chapters set the stage for the great controversy thatwill take place between Job and his friends, which is precipitated by acontroversy between God and Satan. We are first introduced to Job inthe land of Uz (likely Edom, SE of the Dead Sea, cf. Jer 25:20-21; Lam4:21). A man of remarkable character, he was blessed with a largefamily and many possessions. As an example of his piety, mention ismade of his sacrifices in behalf of his children (1:1-5).

We then learn of the controversy between God and Satan concerning Job.On an occasion when Satan came before the Lord, God asked him whether he had considered His faithful servant, Job. Satan responded with an attack on Job's character, that his fear of God was only because Godblessed him. Satan then said that Job would curse God if everything hehad was taken away. In response, God put all that Job had in Satan'spower, with the exception of Job himself (1:6-12).

In one day, then, Job lost all his material possessions through variouscalamities. His sons and daughters, also, were killed when a greattornado destroyed the house in which they were partying. Though deeplygrieved, Job worships God and does not charge Him with wrong (1:13-22).

When Satan appeared before God again, the Lord asked whether he hadconsidered how Job had remained faithful despite his losses. Satanthen made another challenge, saying that Job would curse God if hehimself were harmed. God then allowed Satan power over Job, but onlyup to the point of actually taking his life. With such power, Satanstrikes Job with painful boils (cf. 2:7-8; 7:5; 30:30) over his entirebody. Job's wife lost what faith she might have had, and told him tocurse God and die. Job, however, refuses to sin with his lips(2:1-10).

At this point, three of Job's friends (Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar)come to mourn and try to comfort him. However, they are shocked whenthey see Job (whom they did not recognize because of the boils), andsit dumbfounded for seven days and nights without a word in reaction tothe magnitude of his grief (2:11-13).

Prologue - Job Is Tested (1-2)

OBJECTIVES IN STUDYING THIS SECTION

1) To see the stage set for the "great controversy" that will occur

between Job and his friends

2) To consider the challenge that Satan made concerning Job; would God have as much confidence in our faithfulness?

3) To appreciate the integrity of Job in the midst of his great suffering

SUMMARY

The first two chapters set the stage for the great controversy thatwill take place between Job and his friends, which is precipitated by acontroversy between God and Satan. We are first introduced to Job inthe land of Uz (likely Edom, SE of the Dead Sea, cf. Jer 25:20-21; Lam4:21). A man of remarkable character, he was blessed with a largefamily and many possessions. As an example of his piety, mention ismade of his sacrifices in behalf of his children (1:1-5).

We then learn of the controversy between God and Satan concerning Job.On an occasion when Satan came before the Lord, God asked him whether he had considered His faithful servant, Job. Satan responded with an attack on Job's character, that his fear of God was only because Godblessed him. Satan then said that Job would curse God if everything hehad was taken away. In response, God put all that Job had in Satan'spower, with the exception of Job himself (1:6-12).

In one day, then, Job lost all his material possessions through variouscalamities. His sons and daughters, also, were killed when a greattornado destroyed the house in which they were partying. Though deeplygrieved, Job worships God and does not charge Him with wrong (1:13-22).

When Satan appeared before God again, the Lord asked whether he hadconsidered how Job had remained faithful despite his losses. Satanthen made another challenge, saying that Job would curse God if hehimself were harmed. God then allowed Satan power over Job, but onlyup to the point of actually taking his life. With such power, Satanstrikes Job with painful boils (cf. 2:7-8; 7:5; 30:30) over his entirebody. Job's wife lost what faith she might have had, and told him tocurse God and die. Job, however, refuses to sin with his lips(2:1-10).

At this point, three of Job's friends (Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar)come to mourn and try to comfort him. However, they are shocked whenthey see Job (whom they did not recognize because of the boils), andsit dumbfounded for seven days and nights without a word in reaction tothe magnitude of his grief (2:11-13).

"THE BOOK OF JOB"

The Great Debate: First Cycle Of Speeches (4-14)

OBJECTIVES IN STUDYING THIS SECTION

1) To examine the counsel of Job's friends, what their observations

were, and upon what they based their conclusions regarding Job's suffering

2) To consider Job's response to his friends, how he took their "advice", and how he continued to vent his complaint over his suffering

SUMMARY

Following Job's outburst in which he cursed the day of his birth andwondered why those who long for death continue to live, his three friends begin offering their counsel. Eliphaz the Temanite starts withexpressing his view that the innocent don't suffer, the wicked do. Assupport for his position, he refers to a vision that he had.Chastening Job, Eliphaz then directs Job to seek God's forgiveness,reminding him of the blessings that would come if Job repented(4:1-5:22). Job defends his rash words as being prompted by his grief,and again expresses his desire for death. Reproaching his friends asbeing a "deceitful brook", he challenges them to show him where he hassinned. He then resumes his complaint, asking God a multitude of questions (6:1-7:21).

Bildad the Shuhite now steps in and rebukes Job for his strong words. Maintaining that God is just, he implies that Job's sons died becauseof their own transgressions, and if Job were only pure and upright hewould be blessed by God. Appealing to wisdom of the ancients, he contends the wicked are without support, and that God will not cast away the blameless. If Job would only repent, God would fill him onceagain with laughter and rejoicing (8:1-22). Job basically agrees, butwonders who can really be righteous in God's sight in view of His wisdom and strength. He then complains of God's inaccessibility, and maintains his own integrity while concluding that God destroys the blameless along with the wicked. Feeling hopeless, Job bemoans the lack of a mediator between him and God. Once again, he gives free course to his complaint as he lashes out with more questions directedtoward God (9:1-10:22).

Finally, Zophar the Naamathite enters the dialogue with his own rebukeof Job for his rash words. Indicating that Job has actually receivedless suffering than he deserves, he reproaches Job trying to search outthe deep things of God. Instead, Job should be putting away iniquity and wickedness, for then he would abide in brightness, security and hope (11:1-20). In response, Job chides his friends for their attemptto impart wisdom but succeeding only in mocking him. Affirming thewisdom of God, Job says the advice of his friends has been of littlehelp. He calls them "forgers of lies" and "worthless physicians" whohave only given him "proverbs of ashes" and "defenses of clay".Confident of his own integrity, Job again expresses his desire to speakwith God to ask Him what he has done to deserve such suffering. Once again despairing of hope, he longs for death (12:1-14:22).

"THE BOOK OF JOB"

The Great Debate: Second Cycle Of Speeches (15-21)

OBJECTIVES IN STUDYING THIS SECTION

1) To observe the progress of the "great debate", in which Job's friends are unable to convince Job that he is some great sinner who deserves his suffering

2) To note how Job continues to vent his complaint, and while losing hope for anything in this life, he does reveal his faith in a Redeemer and in seeing God after death

SUMMARY

The second cycle of speeches continue in the same format, with thethree friends speaking and Job responding to each one in turn. Thespeeches are shorter, and it appears their tempers are becoming shortas well. Eliphaz begins with an attack on Job, ridiculing his wisdom.Like Bildad, he too appeals to the wisdom of others as he repeats hismain thesis: suffering comes to the wicked, therefore Job must be wicked (15:1-35). Job's response to Eliphaz begins with a reproach ofhis friends as "miserable comforters". Job continues to view hissuffering as an attack by God for reasons unknown to him. Wishingthere was someone who could plead for him, he cries out for relief ashe resumes his complaint. With no wisdom from his friends, he is losing hope for anything in this life but death (16:1-17:16).

Bildad angrily wonders "how long" will Job keep speaking this way, andwhy does he regard his friends as beasts and stupid? In what appears as an attempt to get Job to confess he is a sinner, Bildad provides a lengthy description of the suffering of the wicked (18:1-21). Jobresponds by asking "how long" would they continue to torment him? While they accuse him of being a great sinner, they have yet to pointout his errors. As Job resumes directing his complaint to God, he bewails his loneliness and abandonment by friends and family. And yet,while Job feels God is treating him as an enemy, he affirms his faithin a Redeemer who would one day stand on the earth and in seeing God after his death (19:1-29).

Zophar speaks in what will be his last contribution to this "greatdebate". While he offers little that is really new to the discussion,he does describe the short-lived triumph of the wicked, to whom the sweetness of sin becomes a bitter curse and whom God will sweep away into darkness. The only problem is that like his friends, he assumes that such is always the case in this life (20:1-29). Job's rebuttalprovides examples in which some wicked do prosper in this life, and diean easy death. Therefore his friends' words have proven to be emptyand without comfort (21:1-34).

"THE BOOK OF JOB"

The Great Debate: Third Cycle Of Speeches (22-31)

OBJECTIVES IN STUDYING THIS SECTION

1) To examine the conclusion of the "great debate", and the feeble

efforts of Job's friends to convince him that he is deserving of his great suffering

2) To observe how Job maintains his claim to innocence while stating his complaint that God is not hearing him

SUMMARY

Eliphaz once again takes the initiative, rebuking Job for his claims ofinnocence. Accusing Job of great wickedness, for the first time hespecifies sins of which he believes Job must be guilty to have sufferedso greatly. Charging Job of cherishing wicked ways and trusting thatGod doesn't see it, Eliphaz ends with another appeal for Job to returnto God that he might enjoy renewed prosperity (22:1-30). Job'sresponse is to once again express his longing to find God so he canpresent his side. While maintaining his claims of integrity and how hehas treasured God's words, he admits he is awed by God's dealings. Hewonders why the wicked often sin with impunity, but then says what hethinks should and will eventually happen to them. He concludes hisresponse to Eliphaz with a challenge to show him where he has spokenfalsely (23:1-24:25).

Bildad's third speech is short, adding little. Speaking briefly ofGod's greatness, he posits how anyone can be righteous before God(25:1-6). Job replies with questions which imply that he considersBildad's counsel to have been of no help. Perhaps to illustrate howthey have not been much help, Job demonstrates his own ability todescribe God's greatness (26:1-14).

Zophar remains silent in this third cycle of speeches, so Job continueswith his discourse. Though he feels that God has taken away hisjustice and made his soul bitter, he refuses to accept his friends'counsel and maintains his innocence. He accuses them of nonsense anddescribes what God will do with the wicked (27:1-23). Job then sayswhere true wisdom is to be found, that it comes from God Who hasrevealed it to man (28:1-28). As his words draw near to their end, Jobrecounts how it was in the past when he blessed by God and respected bymen (29:1-25). In contrast, the present finds him being mocked by others, suffering in pain, with God not answering his plea to be heard(30:1-31). He concludes by listing various sins, which if he had committed them, he agrees he would have been guilty of punishment. Inthis way he again maintains his claim to innocence and not deserving his great suffering (31:1-40). For Job and his three friends, this ends the "Great Debate".

"THE BOOK OF JOB"

Young Elihu Speaks (32-37)

OBJECTIVES IN STUDYING THIS SECTION

1) To examine Elihu's perspective in the debate regarding Job's suffering

2) To notice how Elihu appears to prepare Job for what the Lord will

have to say

SUMMARY

We are now introduced to a new voice in this discussion. Havingremained silent up to this point because of his youth, Elihu now speaks. Angry with Job justifying himself rather than God, and by theinability of Job's friends to provide an answer, Elihu feels compelledto speak (32:1-33:7). He takes issue with Job's claim of innocencewhile charging God with counting him as His enemy. He proposes thatGod often uses various means to keep man from death ("the Pit"), including chastening with pain. Therefore Job should be looking at suffering as a disciplinary measure from a loving God, not as a punitive measure from one's enemy (33:8-33).

The bulk of Elihu's speech then focuses on the justice of God, whichElihu feels Job has maligned. Elihu charges Job with adding to his sinby multiplying words against God without knowledge (34:1-35:36). Heconcludes his speech with an effort to speak on God's behalf and byascribing righteousness to the Almighty. This he does by reviewingGod's justice and majesty. The former as seen in His dealings with man, the latter as seen in His dealings in nature. With an admonition for Job to stand still and consider the wondrous works of God, Elihu seems to be preparing Job for what is about to follow (36:1-37:24).

UTLINE

I. ELIHU EXPRESSES HIS DESIRE TO SPEAK (32:1-33:7)

A. FOR HE IS ANGRY (32:1-5) 1. When Job's three friends are silent, Elihu's wrath is aroused (32:1-2a) a. They ceased answering Job because he still considered himself righteous b. Elihu, son of Barachel the Buzite, of the family of Ram (cf. Gen 22:20-21), is now ready to speak 2. He is angry at both Job and his three friends (32:2b-5) a. At Job, because he justified himself rather than God b. At his friends, because they provided no real answer and yet condemned Job c. He had waited to speak because of his youth, but the silence from the three men made him angry

B. FOR WISDOM IS NOT LIMITED TO THE AGED (32:6-14) 1. He held off speaking earlier, because of his youth (32:6-7) a. The age difference had made him afraid to speak b. He believed that age should speak, for it should teach wisdom 2. But aged men are not always wise (32:8-9) a. The breath of the Almighty (i.e., the Spirit) also gives man understanding b. Age alone does not guarantee wisdom and understanding of justice 3. Therefore he will declare his own opinion (32:10-14)

a. For he has carefully listened to their reasoning b. Yet they have not convinced Job or answered his words

C. FOR HE IS COMPELLED (32:15-22) 1. By their silence (32:15-17) a. They are dismayed, and words escape them b. He has waited because they did not speak c. Therefore he will have his say 2. By the spirit within him (32:18-20) a. His belly is like wine ready to burst the wineskins b. He must speak to find relief 3. By his desire to be impartial (32:21-22) a. His prayer is to show partiality to no one b. He does not know how to flatter, for fear that his Maker would take him away

D. FOR HE BELIEVES HE CAN HELP JOB (33:1-7) 1. He speaks pure knowledge from an upright heart (33:1-3) a. He pleads with Job to listen to what he says b. His words are sincere, and his knowledge is pure 2. He can be as Job's spokesman before God (33:4-7; cf. 13:20-22) a. He was created by the Spirit of God, let Job see if he can answer him b. Job does not need to fear him, for he too has been formed out of clay

II. ELIHU'S RESPONSE TO JOB (33:8-37:24)

A. GOD IS GRACIOUS (33:8-33) 1. Job, you are wrong in charging God as your enemy (33:8-13) a. Elihu has heard Job profess his innocence while counting God as his enemy b. This is not right, for God is greater than man and not accountable to man 2. God uses various ways to speak to man (33:14-28) a. Even though man may not heed what God is saying b. Such as dreams or visions, to turn man back c. Such as chastening him with pain d. Such as special messengers 1) Sent to deliver him from the Pit 2) Sent to restore him back to God 3. God's purpose is disciplinary, not simply punitive (33:29-33) a. Done to direct man away from the Pit b. Done to enlighten man with the light of life c. Therefore Job should listen to one as Elihu to teach him wisdom

B. GOD IS JUST (34:1-35:16) 1. Elihu proclaims God's justice (34:1-37) a. He calls upon Job and his friends to listen to him b. He rebukes Job 1) For charging God of taking away his justice 2) For saying that it does not profit man to delight in God c. He proclaims that God is righteous and just in His dealings with man

1) Far be it from God to do wickedness or pervert justice 2) In His power God shows no partiality, but repays man according to his works d. He charges Job with sinning by how he spoken against God 2. Elihu condemns Job's reasoning (35:1-16) a. He reproves Job for thinking righteousness does not profit one b. He claims that God is too great to be manipulated by man's little deeds c. He contends that God may not respond to cries for help because of man's pride d. He counsels Job to be patient and wait for God's justice, for Job has been speaking prematurely and foolishly

C. GOD IS GREAT (36:1-37:24) 1. Elihu proclaims God's goodness (36:1-23) a. Asking Job to bear with him as he ascribes righteousness to God b. Claiming that God may use affliction to draw the righteous to Himself c. Job needs to take heed, for he has begun to act like the hypocrites 2. Elihu proclaims God's majesty (36:24-37:24) a. God's greatness is beyond comprehension, as seen in the rain cycle b. God's greatness is seen in the thunder, snow, and rain c. In view of such greatness, what can man teach God?

REVIEW QUESTIONS FOR THIS SECTION

1) Why had Job's three friends stop speaking? (32:1) - Because Job was righteous in his own eyes

2) Who now begins to speak? (32:2) - Elihu, son of Barachel the Buzite, of the family of Ram

3) Why was Elihu angry with Job? (32:2) - Because Job justified himself rather than God

4) Why was Elihu angry with Job's three friends? (32:3) - Because they had provided no real solution, yet condemned Job

5) Why had Elihu held off speaking until now? (32:4) - Because he was much younger

6) According to the outline above, what four reasons are given for why Elihu now speaks? - He is angry (32:1-5) - Wisdom is not limited to the aged (32:6-14) - He is compelled (32:15-22) - He believes he can help Job (33:1-7)

7) With what statements of Job does Elihu take issue? (33:8-12) - "I am innocent, and there is no iniquity in me." - "Yet He (God) finds occasion against me, He counts me as His

enemy"

8) What examples does Elihu provide of God's effort to save man from death? (33:14-30) - Dreams or visions in the night - Chastening with pain - Sending messengers

9) How then does Elihu view the reason for Job's suffering? - As disciplinary, from a gracious God; not punitive, as from an enemy

10) What two statements of Job does Elihu respond to next? (34:5-9) - "I am righteous, but God has taken away my justice." - "It profits a man nothing that he should delight in God."

11) What is Elihu's response? (34:10,12) - "Far be it from God to do wickedness, and from the Almighty to commit iniquity." - "Surely God will never do wickedly, nor will the Almighty pervert justice."

12) What does Elihu then go on to describe? (34:16-30) - The impartial justice of God

13) Of what sin does Elihu charge Job? (34:37) - Rebellion; multiplying his words against God

14) How does Elihu answer Job's complaint that it profits a man nothing to delight in God? (35:4-7) - God is not manipulated by man's actions

15) What reason does Elihu give for why God might not answer the cries of men? (35:12) - Because of their pride

16) Maintaining that God is just, what does Elihu counsel Job? (35:14) - To wait for Him

17) What does Elihu feel that Job has done? (35:16) - Opened his mouth in vain, multiplying words without knowledge

18) At this point, what does Elihu presume to do? (36:2-3) - To speak on God's behalf, and to ascribe righteousness to his Maker

19) What does he first proclaim concerning God? (36:5-23) - God's goodness and justice, as shown toward the righteous and wicked

20) What does he then proclaim concerning God? (36:24-37:24) - God's majesty and greatness, as seen in His dealings with nature

21) What does Elihu counsel Job to therefore do? (37:14) - Stand still and consider the wondrous works of God

22) What are Elihu's closing words? (37:23-24) - As for the Almighty, we cannot find Him; He is excellent in power, in judgment and abundant justice; He does not oppress - Therefore men fear Him; He shows no partiality to any who are wise of heart

"THE BOOK OF JOB"

God Speaks To Job (38:1-42:6)

OBJECTIVES IN STUDYING THIS SECTION

1) To examine God's response to Job

2) To consider the charges God makes against Job, and Job's repentance

SUMMARY

At last, Job is finally given his desire to have an audience with God.It is not what he expected. Speaking from a whirlwind, the Lordcharges Job with darkening counsel by words without knowledge. Achallenge is then made for Job to answer questions posed to him. Aseries of questions follow in rapid succession regarding the creationand nature that certainly contrast God's great power and wisdom withJob's limited ability and understanding. God ends His first discoursethen with a repeated challenge for the one (i.e., Job) who contendswith the Almighty and who rebukes God to answer these questions.Overwhelmed, Job admits his unworthiness and inability to answer. Headmits he has spoken before, but will do so no more (38:1-40:5).

The Lord is not through with Job, however. A second discourse beginswith another challenge for Job to answer God's questions. Job is askedwhether he truly thinks he can annul God's judgment, or condemn Him sothat he can be justified (cf. Elihu's charges, 32:2; 33:8-13). If Jobcan thunder with a voice like God's, adorn himself with majesty,splendor, glory and beauty, bring the proud down low, then God wouldconfess that Job could save himself. To once more illustrate the powerand wisdom of God, Job is asked to consider two great creatures, thebehemoth and Leviathan. If man is fearful before them, how then couldone stand against God (40:6-41:34)?

Job's final response is to humbly acknowledge God's ability to doeverything, and that no purpose of His can be withheld from Him. Healso confesses that he has spoken of things he did not understand, andbeyond his ability to comprehend. Having now heard and seen God, Jobabhors himself and repents (42:1-6).

"THE BOOK OF JOB"

Epilogue - Job Is Blessed (42:7-17)

OBJECTIVES IN STUDYING THIS SECTION

1) To review the conclusion of this book, and how Job is blessed in his latter days

2) To see what is said about Job's three friends, and how they were forgiven

3) To note how the author of the book speaks of "the adversity that the LORD had brought upon" Job, even though Satan was the immediate cause of Job's suffering

SUMMARY

With Job admitting he had spoken of things he did not understand andhaving repented, the Lord now addresses Eliphaz as the representativeof Job's three friends. They angered the Lord by saying things thatwere not right about God. They are therefore instructed to offer sevenbulls and seven rams, with Job praying in their behalf (42:7-9).

When Job has prayed for his friends, the Lord begins to restore hislosses. Job is comforted by his family and friends for the adversitythe Lord has brought upon him. The Lord then blesses Job by giving himtwice the number of livestock he had in the beginning. He is alsoblessed with seven sons and three daughters, the latter being named anddescribed as the most beautiful in the land, even receiving an inheritance along with their brothers. The book of Job closes with a mention of how Job lived another 140 years, seeing his descendants to the fourth generation before finally dying (42:10-17).