2.7 Job as Natural Scientist

The Gods Must Be Crazy

We begin in a highly modern city, Capetown probably, where the skyline is dominated by office towers and the frenetic pace of modern life. One scene shows our heroine commuter on a weekend, hopping in her car, driving down the 30 foot driveway to the mailbox, emptying it, and driving back into the garage. We cut quickly to the empty Kalahari desert, where we are shown the life of the Junt-wasi bushmen. Although they live in a harsh environment where foraging for life sustaining food and water consume most of their time, yet they are presented as dwelling in a peaceful paradise, content and at harmony with nature and themselves. The point seems clear, that although science and technology have made great progress in satisfying our physical needs, yet our emotional and spiritual needs remain unsatisfied.

So the heroine decides to teach school in a remote village north of the Kalahari, during which the airline pilot, flying over the desert, discards an empty Coca-Cola bottle out of the cockpit window. The bottle is observed by the Junt-wasi who regard it as a gift of the gods. Immediately it is put to use as a rolling pin, a musical instrument, a digging tool, a superior pestle... Until, unheard of in this idealized culture, fighting breaks out over possession of this miracle tool. After much discussion the elders decide that they are incapable of owning such a contentious gift, that the "gods must be crazy" to have given it to them. Thus they appoint one man to return it to the gods by walking to the edge of the world and throwing it off.

The remaining 90% of the movie follow the path of this man, his arrest for hunting a goat, his rescue by a micro-biologist, the capture of the schoolteacher by rebels, her rescue by the bushman, and finally his arrival at the edge of the world, where he disposes of his white man's burden. (Two more critiques: humorist and Taoist)

The message I heard those many years ago was a nostalgia for the simpler life. But today I sense a different message: a nausea for all things technological and scientific. The coke bottle represents more than mere commercialization of science, but an emblem of all that is wrong with today's world, a symbol of the spiritual emptiness in the glass and steel of Capetown. And the only salvation held up for us is a complete rejection of technology and science, with the unstated but concurrent embrace of a religious panacea, yet significantly one without a Judaeo-Christian heritage.

The Post-Modern, Post-Scientific Man

Am I reading too much into this movie? Perhaps, but in the decade and a half following this movie I have heard this conclusion repeated with greater and greater frequency. Only today I read in the "forum" section of a renowned science journal a pro/con discussion of the Kyoto world summit on Global Warming. In the "con" article, a scientist argues with ample justification that "global warming" is a theory with insufficient scientific proof, that the computer models that predict it fail to describe the present observed climate as well. Which is not to say that the theory is wrong, only that it is unsubstantiated by current scientific knowledge. The "pro" article begins by arguing that the debate is no longer about the validity of the science, but about the ethics and politics of global warming.

I was stunned. I gather from this that scientific truth is no longer an important part of the debate, or perhaps that scientific truth must be modified by political and ethical truth. And this argument was made by a scientist! Let me try an analogy. Suppose that in the fourth century when the bishops held a global council to hammer out the doctrine of Trinity in the face of the rising Arian heresy, that the emperor showed up. He was worried about the political impact of declaring so many churches heretical, so he told them that this was no longer a merely theological issue, but a political and ethical one, and if they couldn't make a compromise amenable to both parties, he would have them all beheaded. Now I ask you, what would be your judgment on those bishops had they acceded to the demands of the emperor, and what would have been the future of the Christian church?

The Broken Trinity

The whole concept of "natural science", the study of nature, as a process separate from "philosophy", the love of knowledge, or "theology", the wisdom of God, is a rather modern distinction. This separation has occurred only since the Renaissance, for it is not just the wise men arriving in Bethlehem 2000 years ago who were experts in all three, but from the time of the Sumerian astrologers to Galileo the wise of three millennia were expected to be conversant in all areas of human wisdom.

Knowledge

But today can anyone really expect to be conversant in even the subsubdisciplines of a subdiscipline, such as organic chemistry, or neurosurgery? Of course not, for knowledge has been growing at least exponentially, if only because the human population has been growing exponentially. Even if there were no books, or all books were outdated, still the information contained in living brains would outweigh all the knowledge now lying in moldering tombs. There are simply more people alive and breathing this instant than have ever been buried since the beginning of time. And that will continue to be true for the foreseeable future barring world-wide plague or disaster, for that is the nature of exponential growth.

Has this always been true? No, this is entirely the product of modern science and health. Unless parents can produce at least two children who grow to adulthood, then the population will inevitably decline. In the past, entire populations teetered on the brink of extinction; weather, disease, war, famine all these were enough to push a nation over the edge, never to be heard from again. In those harsher times, knowledge and wisdom were weapons in the battle against annihilation, a bastion against the wild beasts of ignorance. A wise king by definition ruled a nation whose people prospered. This last century has seen exponential growth simply because the wisdom of the West has been inordinately successful in conquering disease and mortality.

Which is not to say that the West will continue to be successful, for in this decade alone AIDS, a disease that has resisted the most expensive campaign in history, has reduced the average life expectancy in some areas of Africa from 65 years to a scant 31 years. Nor is this the last of the modern plagues, wars or famines that will test the West, for as assuredly as death and taxes marches the mutation of pathogenic organisms, the wild swings of climate, and the political aspirations of men. I do not say this because I am a doomsayer, I say it because of history, history recorded on clay tablets with a reed, on sheepskin with a quill, or in the layers of snow falling quietly in the eternal winter of Antarctica. World summits notwithstanding, the West is as vulnerable to climate swings as the Anasazi, the vanished nation of cliff dwellers of the American Southwest. In this world of historical uncertainty and change, in this world of exponential growth, how can knowledge be kept a stronghold in the 21st century?

Wisdom

In exactly the same manner as the ancients, by keeping knowledge focussed on an overarching goal, a unifying theme, a philosophy of knowledge. This is not merely epistemology (the study of knowledge) or even metaphysics (the bases of being), but also ethics and psychology. For example, it is not enough to know how to build an atom bomb, or the nature of the nuclear force that holds the atom together, but one must also understand the ethics of using an atom bomb, and the effects of living in a world with atom bombs. This is not to say that one must have a working knowledge of all aspects of bomb design and theory to be a wise man, rather one must have an approach to such knowledge that unifies the subatomic quark with the community of nations.

But what is this unifying theme, what is the character of this wisdom that will protect the West from the onslaughts of the 21st century? Alas, the philosophers themselves disagree. Clearly the philosophy of the Prussian Immanuel Kant, the ethics of the "universal good" was applied differently to the Aryan race than to the Semitic. Likewise, there is little profit to be made in the West by making malaria vaccines for the poor third world. Some would even argue that enforced sterilization of the third world is for their greater good. Machiavelli saw in the inherent selfishness of men the seeds of strife planted in the fertile fields of Western success. As the specters of disease and famine fade, new demons of war and disaster rise to take their place. As the world population grows exponentially, we move from tactical to strategic warfare for survival, from hand-to-hand combat with death to organized battalions, from individual to community ethos. The community will decide how food is distributed, how medical care is made available, how war is conducted. This is the inevitable consequence of Western science, the explosion of humanity on a shrinking planet. Now if we call an individual's worldview his philosophy, then can we not call this community enforced worldview a religion?

Faith

But all religions are not created equal. Certainly the paranoia of a Jim Jones or Branch Davidians is not a religion that survives, much less a religion that advances science. The choice of a religion affects profoundly both one's philosophical outlook and the scientific method. We must be prepared to analyze religions, to understand absolutes, to uncover the knowledge of the God who made this awesome creation we call our world.


Thus in our long march of progress we have come full circle on this shrinking globe, the natural sciences are not relevant without the direction of wisdom, and wisdom not complete without the knowledge of God. Once again we must wed the sciences with philosophy and religion if we are to find enduring answers to the threats of war, famine and plague. If I am permitted to generalize, the spectacular success of the West in this century is a result of the trinity of Judaeo-Christian values, Lockeian liberalism and the scientific method. Is this trinity robust enough to survive its own success? Will it endure the rigors of the 21st century? Or are the cracks observed today indicative of a rotten core?

God and Philosophy

In one sense this section really belongs in the next chapter, where we approach the book of Job as a Philosophy text. However we don't have the luxury of hearing from God His own views, instead we are given cryptic questions that sound more like biology exam questions than a well thought out philosophy. Thus we must empirically determine and inductively ascertain some generalizations from these peculiar particulars. That is, we must treat God's discourse as a natural science, testing hypotheses for those that make the most sense to us, which is the exact opposite of Systematic Theology, where we deduce applications from accepted universal truths. As I see it, it is the only approach that can make sense of chapters 38-41, while giving a probable explanation for such an obtuse discourse.

Epistemology

I have spoken extensively about epistemology in the chapter on Existentialism. Summarizing the discussion, I argued that the knowledge of truth required 3 steps in its transmission from God to man: intention, execution, and comprehension. I then discussed the error of rational determinism made by the friends, and the three solutions available by negating one of these 3 steps. Then I tried to show how God rebuilt the chain of truth while simultaneously replacing it. I ended the Existentialism chapter at the point where God supercedes determinism by declaring truth personal. It is because truth is personal that we can be humanly rational, that we can seek a human understanding of truth without usurping God's divinity. We do not demand that God obey our truth, but rather that God be consistent with Himself. One way to grasp this epistemology is to see the truth as a friend, not as object to be owned. We cannot possess a friend, we cannot control a friend or even define a friend in a few pithy sentences. Rather we must be loyal to our friends, keep in touch with them, and maintain a relationship with them. So it is with truth, our attitude towards the truth is as important as our knowledge of the truth.

Thus I am greatly concerned for the future of the West, not so much that it has thrown away its knowledge of the truth, but that it is treating the truth with such contempt. When the relationship with truth is destroyed, when the people no longer worship at the temple of Wisdom, what idols will take its place? Spiritism, materialism, power, and greed are all crowding at the step, ready to lead astray the blind, the orphans, the widows of the West when once the door is opened. In the face of disaster and plague, riots and unrest, will the truth prevail over bread and circuses?

Reality Check

Can we confirm this personal view of truth by our experiences? Or conversely, is there any evidence that an abstract, deterministic view contradicts experience? I believe both answers are "Yes!"

As we discussed in our introduction, there is growing dissatisfaction among even the movie-going public with a rational, deterministic view of life. An accelerating trend of the 1990's is "spiritualism" in all its manifestations. Could one have forecast even 10 years ago that a new age book, "The Celestine Prophecy" would remain on the best seller list for over a year, or that the prime time TV show with the highest Nielson rating would be about angels? One perhaps cannot turn anecdotes into incontrovertible proof, but it should give one pause that a mere 20 years after that zenith of scientific and rational achievement--Neil Armstrong taking "one small step" on the Moon--that scientific discoveries are being routinely ignored for stories involving, say, extraterrestrial aliens in Rothwell, New Mexico.

Such views, however, are nothing new to mankind, indeed, one might as well argue that the atheistic rationalism of this century is an aberration in the history of human thought. As we argued early in this study, the most important section of Job is the poetry of chapters 3-41, and poetry is the language of the heart. Job's complaint to his friends was that they were "miserable comforters", and that their deterministic philosophy were "defenses of clay". The abstract truth they championed, the propositional statements they made provided no comfort, no answer to adverse experiences. It is one thing to philosophize about a brother's difficulties, but quite another to find a solace for one's own. In direct contrast, Job's views on truth supplied him with enough comfort that he could say, "Oh that my words were written...with an iron tool in lead, or engraven in the rock forever. For I know that my Redeemer lives..." These are not the words of a man hypothesizing about truth, nor the words of a man straining for the unobtainable, but a declaration of faith in the reality of personal truth.

Ethics

The greatest puzzle or surprise in the entire Book of Job, is the apparent contradiction of "normative ethics". The Biblical norm might be summed up in the phrase, Whatsoever a man sows, that shall he also reap. If one sows wild oats, one reaps them. Now Job has ostensibly sown pedigreed, high quality, pure wheat seed, why then does he reap sorrow and anguish? To make the dilemma unavoidable, Job is given antagonists who state in unambiguous terms this normative ethic standard, even recounting that Job has espoused such ethics in the past.

Can the writer weasel out of this apparent dilemma by making fine distinctions? For example, one might say that normative ethics applies to run-of-the-mill sinners but Job is a special case. Or my personal favorite weasel, one might say that Job sinned between the time that God declared him blameless and his restoration, so that his afflictions were given for future sin. Such tactics might give the appearance of resolving this dilemma, but fail to generalize to all of human experience; they solve Job's problem by making it irrelevant for the rest of us. I consider this trivialization of Scripture to be a far greater sin than Job's purported one.

Reality Check

What then are we to do? In the natural sciences, when an experiment invalidates a theory, we attempt to a) repeat the experiment b) explore how far off we are c) construct a new theory. Now we know Job is not a special case because we can find other examples of blameless men in Scripture who suffer (Psalm 22, Isaiah 53). Furthermore, Job makes the point that not only do the righteous suffer, but the wicked prosper, demonstrating that normative ethics, whatever else we might say about it, is inconsistent with experience. Thus we are confronted by a real discrepancy for which we need a new theory that must explain seemingly opposite facts: normally we get what we deserve, but sometimes we don't. If we cannot distinguish the first from the second category, then not only have we removed the ethical imperative, but we are in danger of pragmatic atheism, which is an accusation Job's friends level against him.

God

Job solves the problem of atheism and the problem of confused categories by going for the jugular. He tells his accusers that their definition of normative ethics is bankrupt when divorced from the interaction with a personal God. When ethics are used as a proxy for God, then naturally a breakdown in the ethical imperative produces atheism. But ethics are NOT what God follows, they are what God DOES. Therefore when our calculations are off, when the righteous suffer and the wicked prosper, we must immediately turn to God to find out why. This personal view elevates ethics from both a deterministic decimation as well as an atheistic relativism. But take notice that it is this brutal honesty on Job's part that enables him to advance far beyond the simplistic aphorisms of his friends. It tells us that philosophy, like science, must not content itself with mere "self-consistency", but must strive for "life-consistency", it must work not only for sinners, but for the righteous as well, it must function not just in principle, but in practice.

Metaphysics

We can follow similar lines of reasoning concerning metaphysics. Here Job's friends present a view of God that is transcendent, distant, unknowable, and incommunicable. Such a view of God generally includes determinism, a sense in which God must respond in a fixed way consistent with metaphysical absolutes (see the previous chapter). Since God is so powerful but so distant, one must have a proxy, a law that operates in his absence. The best we can say for such a view is that it is consistent with their "normative ethics". The worst that we can say about such a view is that it is self-inflicted self-damnation.

Job, in contrast, believes that God is immanent, present, knowable and communicable. This is not to say that Job is a pantheist or animist, on the contrary, Job acknowledges the power and perfection of God, the sole sovereignty of God over his creation. He even agonizes over the difficulty of human-divine discourse without the gracious approval by God. It is a high view of God demanding an even higher standard from man. Still it is no less and no more consistent a view than the friends, we cannot a priori tell if Job or his friends are correct in their portrayal of God.

Reality Check

By all expectations, Job's view of God is much harder to defend than his friends, just as Elijah's stand on Mt. Carmel was far riskier than the political pragmatism then in vogue. Like Elijah, Job pits his metaphysics directly against the friends in order that there can be no mistaking the outcome. God is either personal or impersonal, immanent or transcendent, compassionate or judgmental. For the metaphysics of Job's friends was independent of any manifestation of deity, it barely required God's actual existence. It was pragmatic, hypothetical, and philosophical, it could hardly be proven either true or false. Job's metaphysics, in contrast, required the active involvement of a terrifying God, it required fire and smoke, awe and devastation, it could easily be shown false and only with difficulty proven true.

So it is that chapters 38-41 stand above the dialogue like Mt. Carmel or Mt. Sinai: massive, brooding, dark with storm. For God's appearance bursts like lightning, and His speech like thunder upon a wasteland of unbelief.

God and Meteorology

Despite living in a cosmopolitan environment, possibly even an urban one, Job like other rich landowners, lived off the land. This meant that Job was very aware of weather and climate, it foretold the difference between feast and famine. We find many weather-related metaphors in the speech of Job and his friends. Living in a semi-arid environment, wind was used to describe things that were without benefit, dangerous, desiccating and empty (6:26; 8:2; 15:2 37:17). Wind was also judgment, sweeping away chaff, trash, and empty notions (21:18; 27:21; 30:15; 30:22 37:9). Clouds brought hope (26:8; 36:28; 37:11; 38:37), though often proved ephemeral (7:9; 30:15; 37:13). It was rain, however, that brought relief, comfort and blessing (5:10; 29:23). Just as storm clouds brought lightning and judgment (3:5; 26:9; 36:32; 37:3), so also rain could be judgment (12:15; 24:8).

Weather and Climate

In this weather conscious culture, it was important to know who or what controlled the rain and wind. A modernist might suppose that the primitive cultures of the middle east, which found themselves dependent on fickle weather patterns, would fall back on superstition as a way of explaining the weather. One doesn't invoke deities to explain the law of gravity--it is taken for granted just because it is so dependable--rather it is the random or semi-random events that provoke guessing, second-guessing and superstition. It is not surprising then that the worship of local deities (the Baals) focussed on their ability to bring rain or withhold it. So it is highly significant that wind destroyed the house that killed Job's children. It is just such inexplicable random acts of nature that force the question "Who is in charge of weather?"

Reality Check

There are at least three possible answers to this sort of question: no one; some ones; God. The modernist would say "no one", for given enough measurements, weather can be predicted. The animist/polytheist would say "many spirit beings" have the ability to influence weather. The theist would say "God" is ultimately in charge of weather. Implicit in an animist view is a sort of pantheism, that we can manipulate the spirit beings to do our will, thereby becoming equal with them. Clearly the polytheist view and the worship of Baals is rejected by Job and his friends. The decision then appears to be between the extreme options. If no one is in charge, then the death of Job's children is a meaningless loss, but if God is in charge, then these deaths are an incomprehensible judgment. Which is to be feared the most?

As we examine Job's response, we see that this modern dilemma is a false dichotomy, much like asking "Do you walk to school or carry your lunch?" Since Kant, we have thought that science and faith were poles apart, but this is not the view expressed here. Both Job and his friends are in agreement that God controls the weather, (5:10; 9:7; 28:20-28; 28:25), yet their knowledge of causative agents and the hydrologic cycle is very modern (36:32-37:6,15-18; 36:27). They see no conflict in combining the wisdom of science with the knowledge of God. It is God, however, who forces the question.

God

Have you entered the storehouses of the snow or seen the storehouses of the hail, which I reserve for times of trouble, for days of war and battle? What is the way to the place where the lightning is dispersed, or the place where the east winds are scattered over the earth? Who cuts a channel for the torrents of rain, and a path for the thunderstorm, to water a land where no man lives, a desert with no one in it, to satisfy a desolate wasteland and make it sprout with grass? Does the rain have a father? Who fathers the drops of dew? From whose womb comes the ice? Who gives birth to the frost from the heavens when the waters become hard as stone, when the surface of the deep is frozen? (38:22-30 NIV)

Why should God ask meteorology questions, didn't the speakers just finish saying that weather was His domain? Perhaps then his questions were meant for us, who know so much more on the subject. Yet here we are, at the end of the 20th century and unable to agree if the globe is warming or cooling. Vigorous debates go on about the origins of atmospheric electricity, in fact, a new class of lightning was discovered only a few years ago (blue jets and red sprites) that flashes upward from the thundercloud. The inter-relation between atmospheric electricity and rain droplet formation is still being debated. The paths of thunderstorms, or meso-storm scales is an additional area of intense research. And I just drove through 14 inches of a Boston snowstorm that was predicted to be "1-2 inches of snow ending in rain"--evidently a novel cold front inversion that didn't exist in any of the weather models. In summary, we might be a lot more sophisticated in our reply, but we certainly cannot answer God's questions any more completely than Job.

A further limitation of meteorology models is their incredible sensitivity to initial conditions such that a butterfly's flapping wings might set off computer tornadoes. For it was in meteorology that the new scientific field of "chaotic systems" was born, systems so sensitive that we can never predict them. These models prove the old adage true that "prediction is difficult, especially of the future". So it is that meteorology with all its gigabytes is inherently unable to explain variability because it fails in principle, not just in practice. This hasn't stopped the old school of atheistic positivists, for the same people that sold us a philosophy of determinism are now attempting to sell us a water-cooled Volkswagen, a philosophy of indeterminism. Do we have any other options?

It is time to proclaim loudly that the Emperor has no clothes. If science falls back on irreducible complexity to explain its failures, can we not find in that complexity the fingerprint of God, the personality of Truth? If Truth is a person, it must necessarily be complex and to some extent unknowable. One cannot possess the Truth, one becomes familiar with it. In just such a way, the ancients blended science and wisdom with a deep respect for the causative agent behind both. Would it be unfair to refer to the study of unpredictably complex systems as theology?

But we must equally reject the view of the friends that this calamity was the work of a judgmental God. This is the exact same error of determinism now applied to God. The book of Job is here to tell us that even in theological matters there are mysteries we are inherently unable to comprehend. Nor should we exchange judgmentalism for the irrational indeterminism of the existentialist. Rather we must see in the intrinsic failure of both abstract theology and science to explain Job's suffering the crying need for a personal God.

So when lightning killled his flocks (1:16) and a wind from the desert destroyed Job's family (1:19), it was not a meaningless act of random meteorological variables, nor was it a totally incomprehensible act of a distant deity, rather it was the misunderstood action of a close personal friend of Job's, from whom Job rightly demands an explanation.

God and Astronomy

If the vagaries of meteorology have always been the hobby of the gods, surely astronomy has been the hobby of the wise in every millenia: the constant circling of the stars around Polaris, the incessant march of the seasons, solstice and equinox, full moon and new. Surely here it should be possible to separate the Parthenon from the Atheneum, the domain of the gods from the range of science. It should prove very interesting to contrast the clockwork regularity of the heavens with the chaos of the earth. How are astronomical observations handled in the book of Job?

The Harmony of the Spheres (& The Disharmony of the World)

The astronomical word that appears most often in the book of Job is "heavens", a word defined in Strong's Concordance as,
shamayim: 1) to be lofty; 2) the sky (as aloft; the dual [plural] perhaps alluding to the visible arch in which the clouds move, as well as to the higher ether where the celestial bodies revolve): 2a) air; 2b) heaven.

One should be careful, of course, in drawing great conclusions from the usage of a word in translation, however, I think we are safe to remark on the use of this word as three types of place. The usage "birds of the air" (12:7; 28:21; 35:11) forms the volume closest to the earth. The usage "skies" (1:16; 26:13; 35:5; 37:3, 18, 21; 38:29, 37) encloses a volume that incorporates the clouds and the rain. The remaining usage appears to extend from above the clouds to beyond the stars. After removing the verses that emphasize "loftiness", and so are ambiguous between sky and space, (9:8; 11:8; 20:6; 26:11) we are left with a collection of verses which appear to tell us about astronomy. The heavens are nearly eternal (14:12) in contrast to man. They are less pure than God (15:15) but far more than man (20:27). They are a place of God's dwelling that is both high and vast (16:19; 22:12, 14) in contrast to small and finite Earth (28:24; 41:11). They have strict laws under God's dominion (25:2) which is constrasted with Earth (38:33).

In these verses we see a fundamental difference between Western science today and the science of Mesopatamia circa 1000 BC. Rather than viewing order and predictability of the heavens as a characteristic of natural laws empirically ascertained by science, the ancients viewed the order of the heavens as a perfection unattainable on earth, and therefore the domain of God. This Platonic view of the purity of the heavenly spheres and corruption of the earthly sphere appears to predate Plato and perhaps even the Greeks. Again we see in the subject of astronomy the combination of science and theology. Yes the planets and the stars are much more predictable than weather, even more so because they obey God's commands more perfectly. From Job's response (31:26-28) it is clear that celestial bodies obey God, and are not gods themselves. Even more amazing in comparison to contemporary religions or science, is Job's understanding that the corrupt sphere of the earth does not depend on other created beings for support, it cannot blame its position on anyone else, but "He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing."(26:7). This appears to presage Newton and Copernicus by 2000 years!

What is left then of the view that religion arises as a way for man to make order out of chaos, when it seems clear that Job sees man as making chaos out of God's order? Can modern science bring order to the heavens, can astrophysics and cosmology circumscribe the spheres? This is the same question God asks.

God (38:4-7,31-33)

We find ourselves in the awkward situation of claiming this territory for science and therefore directly in the line of fire of God's questions. Perhaps this oral exam will fare better than the last.

Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand.

Earth's foundation? (Yes! I know this one cold.) The formation of the Earth, right? Well, sir, that occurred during the coalescence of planetesimals during the planet building stage of the solar nebula, approximately 1.1 billion...Excuse me? You want to know where I was? Well, sir, I don't know why that is relevant. Yes, I do understand the foundation of the Earth, but of course I wasn't born yet, the human race hadn't appeared yet either. No, it would take a billion years of evolution before intellect developed. Yes, I guess you might call it a potential existence. No, sir, I can't be any more specific than that. (What is he driving at, I thought I had this one in the bag?)

Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it?

Dimensions, sir? Yes, life was potentially possible only with G-type solitary stars in on small rocky planets with sufficient gravity to contain an atmosphere and in the orbital range between 80-100 million miles. Oh, and with a massive Jupiter type planet to terminate the planet building stage...Excuse me? Who planned these dimensions? I don't know sir, they're requirements for life to develop, otherwise we wouldn't be here... I'm sorry, I was speaking for myself, and a lot of my colleagues, I might add. (What's the matter with him, can't he accept the anthropic principle?)

On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone--while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?

Footings, cornerstone? Poetic license no doubt, I'm sure every field of science would put itself as a cornerstone. If you will allow me my bias, I would say the molten iron core is a cornerstone of the Earth, since it gives rise to the magnetic field that repels the solar wind and maintains the atmosphere, while simultaneously protecting the surface from life-threatening ionizing particles. How? Well one might argue that iron naturally would accrete in planetesimals closer to the sun...No, sir, I don't really know how it happened at the Earth and not at Mars or Venus. Yes, I suppose it had to occur early. No sir, I have no theories about angels, I had just assumed...Pardon me? Well of course, everyone has to make assumptions, that is, if they don't have direct evidence. (I hope he won't start asking those interminable Philosophy questions!)

Can you bind the beautiful Pleiades?

Astrophysics? I would be happy to. The Pleiades are a grouping of 500+ stars bound together by gravity, much like globular clusters. No sir, they aren't exactly a globular cluster since their kinetic energy is greater than the gravitational potential energy, they are an open cluster. What keeps them together? Well, nothing, though they are generally believed to have been born together. No, sir, I don't know the probability of multiple star births. I suppose if it were very low, then it suggests an underlying mechanism, generally taken to be a burst of star formation in a nebula. Well no, if the cluster isn't gravitationally bound, then I suppose the nebula isn't gravitationally bound either. No sir, I can't explain the recent origin of a non-gravitationally bound nebula. (Whew, that was a close one!)

Can you loose the cords of Orion?

Cords of Orion? Can you be more specific sir, are you referring to the Orion nebulae or the constellation as a whole or some aspect of stellar structure illustrated by Rigel, Betelgeuse or Sirius? No sir, there is nothing holding these stars together, they are an accidental constellation only visible from Earth's perspective. No, I would prefer not to speculate on the accident. (I still don't know what he's driving at.)

Can you bring forth the constellations in their seasons or lead out the Bear with its cubs?

Constellations, zodiac? Of course, sir, that's elementary. You see the Earth revolves around the sun, so that the sun appears to move against the fixed sphere of the stars. Yes, I know it isn't really fixed, it moves with the precession of the poles, the spin axis of the Earth, which is why astrology charts from 1000 years ago don't line up. Yes, that's right, the constellations wouldn't line up with their historical seasons. No, I can't possibly change the spin axis of the Earth, why not just adjust the seasons to agree with the constellations? Fudging? Absolutely not! That's when one doesn't know the reason, this is scientific, this is fitting. Well, no, I don't know all the reasons the poles precess, it has to do with angular momentum and ice sheets and continental drift and all, rather complicated you know. (This exam is on astronomy, after all!)

Do you know the laws of the heavens? Can you set up God's dominion over the earth?

Yes sir. I hope I have convinced you that the heavens obey simple and deterministic laws which we scientists have ascertained through observation and deep analysis. No sir, we don't make the rules, we merely observe them. No sir, these are invariable rules, it wouldn't make sense to say a rule was variable. Thank you, sir, it was a pleasure to explain the triumphs of astronomy to such a perceptive audience.

God and Economics

Symptoms: Rich man suffers. Diagnosis: Moral decay caused by wealth. An open-and-shut case, opine Job's friends. Is the story of Job about a man who was morally deficient because of his great wealth, as his friends implied? What is the relationship between God and money, between religion and economics?

It may seem strange to argue that there is a religious dimension to economics, for religion rarely enters into the debates about taxation, social security, deficit spending, to name a few. However a closer examination of those who propound these views finds persistent patterns of religious belief. Indeed, economic theories and theological views have been historically very much intertwined: Feudalism and Catholicism/ Confucianism; the middle class Bourgoisie and Protestantism; Marxism and Atheism. Without too much difficulty one could associate an economic theory with Puritans, Amish, Jim Jones or Moslem fundamentalists. Or conversely, one might easily stereotype the religious beliefs of Capitalists, Socialists, Fascists or Communists. So it should not be too surprising for us to find that wealth and piety are important issues for Job and his friends.


Wealth and Riches

Is Wealth bad? As I argued earlier, the success of the West in conquering disease and mortality lay not only in its scientific accomplishments, but also in the growth of personal and national wealth that could afford the investment in science. Generally speaking, wealth is a good thing. Well then, is it the uneven distribution of wealth that is bad? Are wealthier men by definition immoral?

It is difficult to answer this question without bringing in some stereotypes. Very few people identify with the wealthy, perhaps because one can never be wealthy enough. One can, however, make the discussion quantitative by statistics that reveal the average separation between the rich and the poor. Then we can ask questions such as "does the attainment of personal wealth lead to a better or worse standard of living for everyone when compared with the equal distribution of corporate benefits?" That is, should humans act as individuals maximizing the chances of their own survival or as an altruistic group that sacrifices individual gains for collective success? Without doing the analysis suggested above, we might still draw some conclusions from the macro-economics of nations that have implemented one or the other view.

It is entirely natural that a high view of human behavior might emphasize the benefits of a collective, altruistic approach, whereas a low view of human behavior might emphasize an individualistic approach. Communism would value altruism, whereas capitalism would be deeply suspicious; communism would favor large corporations, whereas capitalism would enact anti-trust legislation. A priori either/neither view is justifiable. One can just as well argue the superiority of the N. Vietnamese government over the corrupt S. Vietnamese as the economic superiority of semi-capitalist Taiwan over communist mainland China. There appear to be extenuating factors in every comparison that make blanket statements suspect. What one really would like is a historical perspective that averages over the inherent variability of leaders and famines. In this way Job gives a truly far-reaching perspective, since the book sums up 1000-2000 years of Mesopotamian cultural history, without the baggage, so to speak, of the Mosaic Law. How does Job view human behavior and wealth?



Reality Check

The crudest analysis is guilt by association--how many times are nasty people associated with words like "wealth", "riches", "gold", versus nice people? The numbers look in impressive: 17 bad associations, 4 neutral, and only 3 good. However one of those three is 22:25 which compares gold and silver to God. In another, Job compares his purity to gold (23:10), and in the third, (28:15) wisdom is compared to riches. If wealth were an unmitigated evil, these verses would require a very peculiar interpretation.

Closer examination of the nasty associations show that no one is wishing wealth on wicked people, rather they are wishing the removal of wealth from the wicked. (5:5, 15:29, 20:10, 20:15, 22:20, 22:24, 27:16-17) Indeed, only a very few verses suggest that wealth can subvert the righteous, (31:24, 36:18-19) And even in these, it appears that wealth is not an inherent evil, but a distraction or diversion; that morality lies in the attitude toward wealth. This would suggest that wealth, though often associated with the wicked, would otherwise be a blessing. That is, the wicked are not morally bankrupt because they have wealth, but in spite of it. This is a key point so let me repeat it, wickedness is associated with people independent of their wealth.


Poverty and Want

If then wealth is morally neutral, perhaps we should ask, "Is Poverty bad or likewise neutral? What if, like the stock market, it is a "necessary correction"? Should insurance, or governments or individuals provide safety nets? Is the investment in a safety net counter-productive for a stable society? For example, suppose a single-peaked wealth distribution is "better" than a two-peaked wealth distribution. Would not "fiscal disasters" act to tranform a 2-peak into a 1-peak distribution, would depending on acts of God produce a more level playing field? And if we allow insurance, doesn't it protect the wealthy more than the poor? Or if we set an artificial poverty line below which the government will subsidize the poor, do we not paradoxically produce a 2-peaked distribution?

These issues are likewise addressed in the book of Job. Poverty is somehow deeply related to theology. To quote Abraham Lincoln, "God must love poor people, because he made so many of them!" So Job's life is analyzed by the four friends, to detect any sign of immoral use of wealth that might explain his poverty as a "necessary correction". What is Job's theology of poverty?


Reality Check

The poor are often equated with the powerless ( 29:12), which is not to say that they are valueless as a Social Darwinist might say, rather human value, like a silver certificate, arises from its representation of the genuine article. God makes it clear that power and wealth have absolutely no effect on value (34:19). Thus the powerless require a Defender to prevent a devaluation of the currency, a defender who is ultimately God, though often working through human agents. The poor then, are caught in the middle of a struggle between the evil and the good, between Satan and God. They are a weathervane of the righteous, a Rosetta stone of the crafty. By observing how someone treats the poor and the powerless, one can discern the operational value system (which might be quite different from the self-stated value system). Simultaneously, by observing how God delivers the powerless, one can discern God's protection and active participation in His creation.

So we have examples of discerning the wicked by their treatment of the poor: (20:19, 24:4, 24:9, 24:14). And likewise discerning the righteous by their defence of the poor, (29:12 30:25 31:16 34:28). Therefore the poor have hope, and God's oversight is praised ( 5:15-16). Thus we see that both wealth and poverty are value neutral in themselves but prove to be extremely powerful amplifiers of the hidden value systems of the rich and powerful. We cannot, therefore, associate evil or piety with the amount or lack of wealth, however we can discern righteousness from the actions and attitudes taken toward wealth and poverty. Job appears to have maintained a healthy attitude toward both the rich and the poor and toward both his "undeserved" wealth and his "undeserved" poverty. In this way Job's roller coaster ride from riches to rags and back again reveal his inner strength and consistent holiness. In the end, Job is justified by God, and his friends show their true loyalty by providing Job's insurance policy 42:11. Their critical evaluation is confirmed in the resulting increase in Job's second career.

God

Something happened at the end of this story, and only its familiarity protects us from shocked incredulity. We have the story of a rich man who loses his wealth in a series of disasters that we could only wish on our worst enemies. Job's friends put two and two together, and having connected wealth with blessing, poverty with cursing, attempt to discover the source of his curse. In the dialogue we are presented with all the inherent dangers of great wealth, many innuendoes and finally outright accusations of a previously wealthy man. And why not, powerless wealthy men are fair game in all seasons. But suddenly a great transformation occurs, the hat is passed and everyone chips in to get him on his feet again. Not only is he able to recover his great wealth from this modest welfare, but he is even wealthier than before! It's hard to decide which is the more incredible: the change in his friends or the change in his fortunes. What happened?



42:11 (NIV) All his brothers and sisters and everyone who had known him before came and ate with him in his house. They comforted and consoled him over all the trouble the LORD had brought upon him, and each one gave him a piece of silver and a gold ring.

Let us first dismiss from our minds that this is in any sense the ordinary outcome of conscience-stricken well-meaning persons. If one could become wealthy by collecting coppers at a street corner then beggars would ride. Nor does the observation of great poverty inspire many people to acts of kindness, quite the reverse. Job's lament records the rejection he receives from everyone, kind or otherwise. No, what we see in this last chapter is vindication, pure and simple vindication. It is as if we have lived this argument of economics in two dimensions and suddenly we find the solution in a third. For the seemingly endless debate about wealth and poverty, selfishness and altruism is terminated, as it always is, by divine vindication.

God and Biology

Within this century we have seen the almost complete triumph of Darwin over Biology. Since the victor rewrites the history books, we have been led to believe that the modern age of biological science began with this victory. Forgetting of course, not only the millenia of domestication and breeding that preceded our eyeblink era, but the life work of an Austrian monk, Gregor Mendel, whose patient work with peas produced the revolution appropriated by secular science. Yet it is not the ill-defined theory of evolution that marks this age, rather it is the meta-theory of evolution, the secularization of nature, the Kantian filter of atheist phenomena which so characterizes the modern Biologist. It is precisely on this point that the book of Job has so much to contribute, for in this book not only do mortals interpret biological observations but God himself. Recall that in answer to Job and his friends, God gives a long lecture on natural science and especially biology, interspersed with unanswerable questions. Why should God reply to a philosophical debate with natural science? Could it be that the meta-theory of biology is really a philosophy of life? Could it be that God relies on empirical observations to refute inconsistent philosophies? If so, then we should make every effort to understand the biological meta-theories argued here.


Nature Red in Tooth and Claw

As Darwin and his followers would state, the observation of wanton destruction in the animal kingdom would indicate that "Nature" (Darwinspeak for God) is completely indifferent to the residents of its ecosystem, rather, ecosystems reach their own "equilibria" of birth and death. Man, of course, changes this equilibrium tremendously, which leads to an ethical paradox for a Darwinist. For unlike the other creatures, Man is self-aware, Man observes and controls his environment, not merely reacting to it. This ability to pro-act carries with it the choice of a future, and that choice implies an ethical "should". So out of ethical non-existence arises ex nihilo the demands of the Green police. To be self-consistent we must either remove the ethical mandate or remove the indifferent god. Does an ethical mandate exist? Does God care about His creation? How do Job and his contempories view nature?



Reality Check

The first and most obvious lesson that Job and his friends find in nature, is that life is brief (9:26), as ephemeral as a moth (4:19-20) or a flower (14:2); susceptible to every danger found in nature (10:16, 20:16). And unlike a tree, which can send up shoots from a stump, there is no second chance for us fragile animals who must breathe every minute of every day in order to live (14:7-9). Nor does a man's death leave any everlasting imprint behind him (8:16-19), houses and pharaohs notwithstanding (27:18). It is not even certain that his biological posterity will survive (15:32-33). So at first blush it appears that nature is not just indifferent to man, but potentially hostile.

Yet there is a second theme interwoven in our observation of nature, a theme of equilibrium, of limits. Despite being at the top of the food chain, the roaring lion finds itself powerless, and its progeny unprotected, destroyed "at the breath of God" (4:9-11). Even the dreaded deep sea monster has God-given limits it cannot pass (7:12). Power does not inevitably flow to the powerful, nor do the powerless become prey. Rather the life of every living thing (animals, birds and fish) lies cupped in the palm of God's hand (12:7-10). Job himself makes this observation in the exasperated tone of an expert being lectured in the basics. Not only does Job refute Darwin, but he uses a tone of complete condescension. For the evidence is obvious, Job states, God does care for His creation.


The Nature of Man

There is a second meta-theory implicit in the Darwinian worldview: Man holds no special position or property within creation; he is no more and no less than animal, a naked ape. Thus, for example, larger brain size usually has evolutionary advantages, but it is smaller now than in the extinct Cro-Magnon man. And those things unique to Man--language, arts, religion--are all viewed as merely exaggerations of successful traits evolved from rudimentary forms observed in nature. There is nothing in the human being or culture that sets apart man as Man, there is nothing that could not arise anew in apes given time and evolutionary pressure. Study carefully this meta-theory, for it observes a singular event, Man, and categorically states "This is not unique." Such a claim must be presupposition, for it is unfalsifiable.



Reality Check

Certainly Job acknowledges that Man and animals alike hold life as a breath. Their behavior is in many respects equally predictable (6:5). But the similarities end there. The laws of genetics are used to support the view that Man is a category distinct from animals (11:12). There are human actions that show no parallel with the animal kingdom, mining, for example (28:1-11). And when men are forced to behave like animals, it is to their own degradation (15:23, 24:5, 30:1).

However the Darwinist might reply that these "proofs" are all circumstantial evidence. One could, for example, make the same arguments as to why 19th century Europeans were superior to Eskimos. The Darwinist might argue that Evolution was a new paradigm, a new discovery that reinterprets all these hoary cliches. Job knows this as well, and so reserves his strongest argument for last. The best proof that Man is unique is not to look into Man to discover some unusual physiology, but to look outside. Job asked the question, "where does Wisdom come from?" (28:12-28). It cannot be bought (e.g., independent existence), it is not found in any living thing (e.g., evolved), it is not found by negation (e.g., abstraction by denial of the opposite), where is it from? (Lewis)

Job does not leave us in suspense, he answers the question by calling on something outside Man himself. 28:28 (NIV) And [God] said to Man, 'The fear of the Lord--that is wisdom, and to shun evil is understanding.' Note the interplay of ethics, metaphysics and religion in his answer, which he supports not with Man's own wisdom (which would clearly be inconsistent) but with direct revelation! The beauty of his solution lies in its razor-sharp simplicity and self-consistency. Elihu adds the comment later on that because of their arrogance, wicked men do not recognize that God gives wisdom to Man rather than animals (35:9-12).


So we find a gauntlet laid at the end of this meta-theory road: Indifferent versus compassionate Death, arrogant versus fearful Life, modern versus archaic worldviews, Darwin's versus Job's word. These are not easy choices, and Job never meant them to be. How do we choose?

God

The problem we face when arbitrating this debate, is that neither the claims of the ancients nor the claims of the moderns are falsifiable. They both have this disturbing sense of justifying one's own position in complete denial of the observations. There are many fine psychological reasons for this selective blindness, not the least is man's desire to find solutions. "To the man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail." Observations that don't fit into the final solution are routinely ignored. This selective blindness produces extremely convoluted arguments as both sides explain to the other what they did not see. The frustration both sides feel about this debate explains, perhaps, the demagoguery practiced by both, as they collapse into fiat declarations when defending a point.

Yet this same reliance on inductive proof, on empirical evidence, provides a ray of hope that can penetrate this darkness. For our dependence on something outside ourselves allows something truly new, something truly unexpected to illuminate our dungeon with brave new light. Thus Job's God avoids easy dismissal by directing our attention toward observation of the natural kingdom, observations that may not fit comfortably within our worldview. Our task then, lies in identifying the implicit assumption, the unconscious blindness over which God's question dangles like a magnesium flare.


Job 38:39-41 (Food: providence) Do you hunt the prey for the lioness and satisfy the hunger of the lions when they crouch in their dens or lie in wait in a thicket? Who provides food for the raven when its young cry out to God and wander about for lack of food?

The two questions focus on Man's inability versus God's ability to provide. This observation shows that nature is not man-centered, nor particularly vegetarian. Perhaps directed against those who would deify nature, and indirectly, man.

Job 39:1-4 (Fertility) Do you know when the mountain goats give birth? Do you watch when the doe bears her fawn? Do you count the months till they bear? Do you know the time they give birth? They crouch down and bring forth their young; their labor pains are ended. Their young thrive and grow strong in the wilds; they leave and do not return.

An observation of fertility in the wild but not the attribution of fertility to any being. All the questions focus on Man's lack of knowledge. Fertility cults which attribute fertility to the gods have long been popular in the middle east, assigning deities for birth and spring rains. This observation of Man's ignorance invalidates both ancient fertility cults and their modern death cult equivalents.

Job 39:5-8 (Freedom: wilding) Who let the wild donkey go free? Who untied his ropes? I gave him the wasteland as his home, the salt flats as his habitat. He laughs at the commotion in the town; he does not hear a driver's shout. He ranges the hills for his pasture and searches for any green thing.

The donkey had been domesticated from very early times. Yet despite intense breeding, the donkey can never be "owned" by Man; despite the longest eugenics program on record, Man's control over biology is tenuous at best, and is easily undone by God himself.

Job 39:9-12 (Control: domestication) Will the wild ox consent to serve you? Will he stay by your manger at night? Can you hold him to the furrow with a harness? Will he till the valleys behind you? Will you rely on him for his great strength? Will you leave your heavy work to him? Can you trust him to bring in your grain and gather it to your threshing floor?

Here we have an animal that did not trace its lineage to domesticated livestock. The behavior of this animal is contrasted with the more docile version. His unreliability shows that Man's control over nature is limited, at best, to a few domesticated species and fails to extend even to related species. The questions focus on Man's lack of control even over a "dumb" beast.

Job 39:13-18 (Foolishness: instinct) The wings of the ostrich flap joyfully, but they cannot compare with the pinions and feathers of the stork. She lays her eggs on the ground and lets them warm in the sand, unmindful that a foot may crush them, that some wild animal may trample them. She treats her young harshly, as if they were not hers; she cares not that her labor was in vain, for God did not endow her with wisdom or give her a share of good sense. Yet when she spreads her feathers to run, she laughs at horse and rider.

This section has no questions, and hence greater ambiguity. However it interprets the behavior of ostriches as due to a lack of inherent brains but plenty of inherent brawn. Taken at face value, the anthropomorphic treatment of Darwin creates conflicting "stories" of how parental behavior evolves, whereas this book attributes such paradoxical behavior to God. The key message appears to be that God alone grants wisdom or lack thereof.

Job 39:19-25 (Fearlessness: breeding) Do you give the horse his strength or clothe his neck with a flowing mane? Do you make him leap like a locust, striking terror with his proud snorting? He paws fiercely, rejoicing in his strength, and charges into the fray. He laughs at fear, afraid of nothing; he does not shy away from the sword. The quiver rattles against his side, along with the flashing spear and lance. In frenzied excitement he eats up the ground; he cannot stand still when the trumpet sounds. At the blast of the trumpet he snorts, 'Aha!' He catches the scent of battle from afar, the shout of commanders and the battle cry.

After making the point that ostrich brains are attributable to God, we turn to the pride of the defense research programme, the war-horse. The questions refer to equine strength and beauty, clearly the object of most breeding programs. Why then would God draw attention to the one success of human genetic manipulation? I can take it both ways: either the question expects a "No" answer, implying that Man may never take ultimate credit for any breeding programme; or the question expects a "Yes" answer, and then goes on to sarcastically show that a horse can be bred to have finer qualities than the average trained infantryman. Either way, we are awed by the interplay of mind and muscle, brains and brawn, over which Man's "improvements" are purely cosmetic.

Job 39:26-30 (Flight: wisdom) Does the hawk take flight by your wisdom and spread his wings toward the south? Does the eagle soar at your command and build his nest on high? He dwells on a cliff and stays there at night; a rocky crag is his stronghold. From there he seeks out his food; his eyes detect it from afar. His young ones feast on blood, and where the slain are, there is he.

Finally, after showing Man's inability to control nature, deify nature, anthropomorphize nature, or even understand nature, the message focusses on that most divine of natural characteristics, wisdom itself. We are asked if we even understand winged flight at all, much less control, imitate or explain it. For if Man's observations lead inexorably to his humiliation before natural wisdom, how much more so that wisdom which is from God.


Darwin would replace God with Man, simultaneously demoting the creator and deifying the creation. This "ansatz" is defended through genetics and anthropomorphized "just-so stories" not noted for their compelling logic. In this passage, God shows the limitations of both to explain nature. Even more profoundly, Darwinism founders on the same rock as solipsism or behaviorism: if Darwinism is true, then it declares itself irrelevant. Using the animals as object lessons, God shows that wisdom derives from something outside ourselves, from God himself, thereby imbuing biology with a holy relevance.

Summary

Wind: Whose?
• 1:19 when suddenly a mighty wind swept in from the desert and struck the four corners of the house. It collapsed on them and they are dead, and I am the only one who has escaped to tell you!"
• 28:25 When he established the force of the wind and measured out the waters,

Wind: Empty
• 6:26 Do you mean to correct what I say, and treat the words of a despairing man as wind?
• 8:2 "How long will you say such things? Your words are a blustering wind.
• 15:2 "Would a wise man answer with empty notions or fill his belly with the hot east wind?
• 37:17 You who swelter in your clothes when the land lies hushed under the south wind,

Wind: Judgment
• 21:18 How often are they like straw before the wind, like chaff swept away by a gale?
• 27:21 The east wind carries him off, and he is gone; it sweeps him out of his place.
• 30:15 Terrors overwhelm me; my dignity is driven away as by the wind, my safety vanishes like a cloud.
• 30:22 You snatch me up and drive me before the wind; you toss me about in the storm.
• 37:9 The tempest comes out from its chamber, the cold from the driving winds.

Clouds: Hope
• 26:8 He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight.
• 36:28 the clouds pour down their moisture and abundant showers fall on mankind.
• 37:11 He loads the clouds with moisture; he scatters his lightning through them.
• 38:37 Who has the wisdom to count the clouds? Who can tip over the water jars of the heavens

Clouds: Ephemeral
• 7:9 As a cloud vanishes and is gone, so he who goes down to the grave does not return.
• 30:15 Terrors overwhelm me; my dignity is driven away as by the wind, my safety vanishes
• 37:13 He brings the clouds to punish men, or to water his earth and show his love.

Clouds & Storm & Lightning
• 1:16 While he was still speaking, another messenger came and said, "The fire of God fell from the sky and burned up the sheep and the servants, and I am the only one who has escaped to tell you!"
• 3:5 May darkness and deep shadow claim it once more; may a cloud settle over it; may blackness overwhelm its light.
• 26:9 He covers the face of the full moon, spreading his clouds over it.
• 36:28 the clouds pour down their moisture and abundant showers fall on mankind. 29 Who can understand how he spreads out the clouds, how he thunders from his pavilion? 30 See how he scatters his lightning about him, bathing the depths of the sea.
• 36:32He fills his hands with lightning and commands it to strike its mark.
• 37:3 He unleashes his lightning beneath the whole heaven and sends it to the ends of the earth.
• 37:15 Do you know how God controls the clouds and makes his lightning flash? 16 Do you know how the clouds hang poised, those wonders of him who is perfect in knowledge?

Where then does wisdom come from? Where does understanding dwell? It is hidden from the eyes of every living thing, concealed even from the birds of the air. Destruction and Death say, 'Only a rumor of it has reached our ears.' God understands the way to it and he alone knows where it dwells, for he views the ends of the earth and sees everything under the heavens. When he established the force of the wind and measured out the waters, when he made a decree for the rain and a path for the thunderstorm, then he looked at wisdom and appraised it; he confirmed it and tested it. And he said to man, 'The fear of the Lord--that is wisdom, and to shun evil is understanding.' (28:20-28 NIV)

How great is God--beyond our understanding! The number of his years is past finding out.He draws up the drops of water, which distill as rain to the streams; the clouds pour down their moisture and abundant showers fall on mankind. Who can understand how he spreads out the clouds, how he thunders from his pavilion? See how he scatters his lightning about him, bathing the depths of the sea. This is the way he governs the nations and provides food in abundance. He fills his hands with lightning and commands it to strike its mark. His thunder announces the coming storm; even the cattle make known its approach. At this my heart pounds and leaps from its place. Listen! Listen to the roar of his voice, to the rumbling that comes from his mouth. He unleashes his lightning beneath the whole heaven and sends it to the ends of the earth. After that comes the sound of his roar; he thunders with his majestic voice. When his voice resounds, he holds nothing back. God's voice thunders in marvelous ways; he does great things beyond our understanding. He says to the snow, 'Fall on the earth,' and to the rain shower, 'Be a mighty downpour.' So that all men he has made may know his work, he stops every man from his labor...Do you know how God controls the clouds and makes his lightning flash? Do you know how the clouds hang poised, those wonders of him who is perfect in knowledge? You who swelter in your clothes when the land lies hushed under the south wind, can you join him in spreading out the skies, hard as a mirror of cast bronze? (36:26-37:6,15-18 NIV)

Heat & Drought
• 6:16 when darkened by thawing ice and swollen with melting snow,
• 6:17 but that cease to flow in the dry season, and in the heat vanish from their channels.
• 24:19 As heat and drought snatch away the melted snow, so the grave snatches away those who have sinned.

Rain: Comfort
• 5:10 He bestows rain on the earth; he sends water upon the countryside.
• 29:23 They waited for me as for showers and drank in my words as the spring rain.

Rain: Judgment
• 12:15 If he holds back the waters, there is drought; if he lets them loose, they devastate the land.
• 24:8 They are drenched by mountain rains and hug the rocks for lack of shelter.

Rain: Order
• 28:26 when he made a decree for the rain and a path for the thunderstorm,
• 36:27 "He draws up the drops of water, which distill as rain to the streams ;
• 37:6 He says to the snow, 'Fall on the earth,' and to the rain shower, 'Be a mighty downpour.'

Heavens: Contrast
• Eternal 14:12 so man lies down and does not rise; till the heavens are no more, men will not awake or be roused from their sleep.
• Pure 15:15 If God places no trust in his holy ones, if even the heavens are not pure in his eyes,
• Pure20:27 The heavens will expose his guilt; the earth will rise up against him.
• Observer 28:24 for he views the ends of the earth and sees everything under the heavens.
• Order 38:33 Do you know the laws of the heavens? Can you set up God's dominion over the earth?
• Owner 41:11 Who has a claim against me that I must pay? Everything under heaven belongs to me.

Heavens: Dwelling
• High 16:19 Even now my witness is in heaven; my advocate is on high.
• High 22:12 "Is not God in the heights of heaven? And see how lofty are the highest stars!
• High 22:14 Thick clouds veil him, so he does not see us as he goes about in the vaulted heavens.'
• Order 25:2 "Dominion and awe belong to God; he establishes order in the heights of heaven.

Heavens: Lofty
• 9:8 He alone stretches out the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea.
• 11:8 They are higher than the heavens--what can you do? They are deeper than the depths of the grave --what can you know?
• 20:6 Though his pride reaches to the heavens and his head touches the clouds,
• 26:11 The pillars of the heavens quake, aghast at his rebuke.

Heavens: Air
• 12:7 "But ask the animals, and they will teach you, or the birds of the air, and they will tell you;
• 28:21 It is hidden from the eyes of every living thing, concealed even from the birds of the air.
• 35:11 who teaches more to us than to the beasts of the earth and makes us wiser than the birds of the air?'

Heavens: Sky
• 1:16 While he was still speaking, another messenger came and said, "The fire of God fell from the sky and burned up the sheep and the servants, and I am the only one who has escaped to tell you!"
• 26:13 By his breath the skies became fair; his hand pierced the gliding serpent.
• 35:5 Look up at the heavens and see; gaze at the clouds so high above you.
• 37:3 He unleashes his lightning beneath the whole heaven and sends it to the ends of the earth.
• 37:18 can you join him in spreading out the skies, hard as a mirror of cast bronze?
• 38:37 Who has the wisdom to count the clouds? Who can tip over the water jars of the heavens
• 38:29 From whose womb comes the ice? Who gives birth to the frost from the heavens

Stars
• 3:9 May its morning stars become dark; may it wait for daylight in vain and not see the first rays of dawn,
• 9:7 He speaks to the sun and it does not shine; he seals off the light of the stars.
• 25:5 If even the moon is not bright and the stars are not pure in his eyes,
• 22:12 "Is not God in the heights of heaven? And see how lofty are the highest stars!
• 38:7 while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?
• 38:31 "Can you bind the beautiful Pleiades? Can you loose the cords of Orion?
• 38:32 Can you bring forth the constellations in their seasons or lead out the Bear with its cubs?

Moon & Sun
• 26:9 He covers the face of the full moon, spreading his clouds over it.
• 31:26 if I have regarded the sun in its radiance or the moon moving in splendor,
• 37:21 Now no one can look at the sun, bright as it is in the skies after the wind has swept them clean.

Bad Wealth
• 3:15 with rulers who had gold, who filled their houses with silver.
• 5:5 The hungry consume his harvest, taking it even from among thorns, and the thirsty pant after his wealth.
• 6:22 Have I ever said, 'Give something on my behalf, pay a ransom for me from your wealth,
• 15:29 He will no longer be rich and his wealth will not endure, nor will his possessions spread over the land.
• 20:10 His children must make amends to the poor; his own hands must give back his wealth.
• 20:15 He will spit out the riches he swallowed; God will make his stomach vomit them up.
• 20:19 For he has oppressed the poor and left them destitute; he has seized houses he did not build.
• 21:24 his body well nourished, his bones rich with marrow.
• 22:20 'Surely our foes are destroyed, and fire devours their wealth.'
• 22:24 and assign your nuggets to the dust, your gold of Ophir to the rocks in the ravines,
• 27:16 Though he heaps up silver like dust and clothes like piles of clay,
• 27:17 what he lays up the righteous will wear, and the innocent will divide his silver.
• 31:24 "If I have put my trust in gold or said to pure gold, 'You are my security,' if I have rejoiced over my great wealth, the fortune my hands had gained,
• 34:19 who shows no partiality to princes and does not favor the rich over the poor, for they are all the work of his hands?
• 36:18 Be careful that no one entices you by riches; do not let a large bribe turn you aside.
• 36:19 Would your wealth or even all your mighty efforts sustain you so you would not be in distress?

Good Wealth
• 22:25 then the Almighty will be your gold, the choicest silver for you.
• 23:10 But he knows the way that I take; when he has tested me, I will come forth as gold.
• 28:15 It cannot be bought with the finest gold, nor can its price be weighed in silver. It cannot be bought with the gold of Ophir, with precious onyx or sapphires. Neither gold nor crystal can compare with it, nor can it be had for jewels of gold. The topaz of Cush cannot compare with it; it cannot be bought with pure gold.
• 28:1 "There is a mine for silver and a place where gold is refined.
• 28:6 sapphires come from its rocks, and its dust contains nuggets of gold.

Bad Treatment of the Poor
• 24:4-5 They thrust the needy from the path and force all the poor of the land into hiding. Like wild donkeys in the desert, the poor go about their labor of foraging food; the wasteland provides food for their children.
• 24:9 The fatherless child is snatched from the breast; the infant of the poor is seized for a debt.
• 24:14 When daylight is gone, the murderer rises up and kills the poor and needy; in the night he steals forth like a thief.

Good Treatment of the Poor
• 5:15-16 He saves the needy from the sword in their mouth; he saves them from the clutches of the powerful. So the poor have hope, and injustice shuts its mouth.
• 29:12 because I rescued the poor who cried for help, and the fatherless who had none to assist him.
• 30:25 Have I not wept for those in trouble? Has not my soul grieved for the poor?
• 31:16 "If I have denied the desires of the poor or let the eyes of the widow grow weary,
• 34:28 They caused the cry of the poor to come before him, so that he heard the cry of the needy.
• 42:11 All his brothers and sisters and everyone who had known him before came and ate with him in his house. They comforted and consoled him over all the trouble the LORD had brought upon him, and each one gave him a piece of silver and a gold ring.

Life is ephemeral
• 4:19-20 how much more those who live in houses of clay, whose foundations are in the dust, who are crushed more readily than a moth! Between dawn and dusk they are broken to pieces; unnoticed, they perish forever.
• 8:16-19 He is like a well-watered plant in the sunshine, spreading its shoots over the garden; it entwines its roots around a pile of rocks and looks for a place among the stones. But when it is torn from its spot, that place disowns it and says, 'I never saw you.' Surely its life withers away, and from the soil other plants grow.
• 9:26 They skim past like boats of papyrus, like eagles swooping down on their prey.
• 10:16 If I hold my head high, you stalk me like a lion and again display your awesome power against me.
• 14:2 He springs up like a flower and withers away; like a fleeting shadow, he does not endure. 14:7-9 At least there is hope for a tree: If it is cut down, it will sprout again, and its new shoots will not fail. Its roots may grow old in the ground and its stump die in the soil, yet at the scent of water it will bud and put forth shoots like a plant.
• 15:32-33 Before his time he will be paid in full, and his branches will not flourish. He will be like a vine stripped of its unripe grapes, like an olive tree shedding its blossoms.
• 20:16 He will suck the poison of serpents; the fangs of an adder will kill him.
• 27:18The house he builds is like a moth's cocoon, like a hut made by a watchman.

Life is regulated
• 4:9-11 At the breath of God they are destroyed; at the blast of his anger they perish. The lions may roar and growl, yet the teeth of the great lions are broken. The lion perishes for lack of prey, and the cubs of the lioness are scattered.
• 7:12 Am I the sea, or the monster of the deep, that you put me under guard?
• 12:7-10 But ask the animals, and they will teach you, or the birds of the air, and they will tell you; or speak to the earth, and it will teach you, or let the fish of the sea inform you. Which of all these does not know that the hand of the LORD has done this? In his hand is the life of every creature and the breath of all mankind.

The Nature of Man
• 6:5 Does a wild donkey bray when it has grass, or an ox bellow when it has fodder?
• 11:12 But a witless man can no more become wise than a wild donkey's colt can be born a man.
• 15:23 He wanders about--food for vultures ; he knows the day of darkness is at hand.
• 24:5 Like wild donkeys in the desert, the poor go about their labor of foraging food; the wasteland provides food for their children.
• 30:1 But now they mock me, men younger than I, whose fathers I would have disdained to put with my sheep dogs.
• 28:1-10 There is a mine for silver and a place where gold is refined. Iron is taken from the earth, and copper is smelted from ore. Man puts an end to the darkness; he searches the farthest recesses for ore in the blackest darkness. Far from where people dwell he cuts a shaft, in places forgotten by the foot of man; far from men he dangles and sways. The earth, from which food comes, is transformed below as by fire; sapphires come from its rocks, and its dust contains nuggets of gold. No bird of prey knows that hidden path, no falcon's eye has seen it. Proud beasts do not set foot on it, and no lion prowls there. Man's hand assaults the flinty rock and lays bare the roots of the mountains. He tunnels through the rock; his eyes see all its treasures. He searches the sources of the rivers and brings hidden things to light.

Rationality
• C.S. Lewis makes a very similar argument on the origin of "Rationality" in his proof of God's existence. The argument contends that "rational" behavior cannot arise from irrational causes. Thus for Man to be rational, there must be something from which he inherits rationality, i.e., God.
• 28:12-28 But where can wisdom be found? Where does understanding dwell? Man does not comprehend its worth; it cannot be found in the land of the living. The deep says, 'It is not in me'; the sea says, 'It is not with me. It cannot be bought with the finest gold, nor can its price be weighed in silver. It cannot be bought with the gold of Ophir, with precious onyx or sapphires. Neither gold nor crystal can compare with it, nor can it be had for jewels of gold. Coral and jasper are not worthy of mention; the price of wisdom is beyond rubies. The topaz of Cush cannot compare with it; it cannot be bought with pure gold.
• "Where then does wisdom come from? Where does understanding dwell? It is hidden from the eyes of every living thing, concealed even from the birds of the air. Destruction and Death say, 'Only a rumor of it has reached our ears.' God understands the way to it and he alone knows where it dwells, for he views the ends of the earth and sees everything under the heavens. When he established the force of the wind and measured out the waters, when he made a decree for the rain and a path for the thunderstorm, then he looked at wisdom and appraised it; he confirmed it and tested it. And he said to man, 'The fear of the Lord--that is wisdom, and to shun evil is understanding.'"
• 35:9-12 Men cry out under a load of oppression; they plead for relief from the arm of the powerful. But no one says, 'Where is God my Maker, who gives songs in the night, who teaches more to us than to the beasts of the earth and makes us wiser than the birds of the air?' He does not answer when men cry out because of the arrogance of the wicked.

Copyright © 1998 Rob Sheldon