Before Jerusalem Fell, pt. 1

The following begins a chapter-by-chapter summarization of Before Jerusalem Fell by Kenneth Gentry. There are five sections to the book, and each entry here will cover one section. Note: quotations are being taken from a pdf copy of the book, therefore page references may not match exactly with hard copies.

Section 1: Preliminary Considerations
Chapter 1: Revelation Studies

The first chapter is divided into two subheadings that introduce the reader to both the general and the particular interests of the study. Ancient and modern interest in Revelation has been remarkable. It was one of the most widely distributed and recognized works of the New Testament Canon during the apostolic era. Following this era its interpretation and canonical status came under scrutiny.

Gentry identifies two reasons why the modern era has maintained interest in Revelation. First, the book is God's inerrant, infallible, and all-sufficient Word and as such deserves attention in all of its parts, including Revelation. Second, Gentry recognizes a moral and psychological draw to Revelation in that humanity is naturally inquisitive of the future and in that one's view of the future impact of one's principles and practices determines their moral validity.

A corollary to the second reason of interest in the modern era is the rise of prophetic interest in Revelation, marked by Gentry in the popularity of Hal Lindsey's book The Late Great Planet Earth, which was remarkably popular during the 70's and 80's and represents a premillennial, dispensational interpretation of Revelation.

The main difficulty for any study of Revelation given the amount of interest it has garnered throughout history is the immense body of secondary literature that has commented upon it. Gentry sees in much of this popularity (in particular its modern dispensational popularity) a devaluation of the major theme of Revelation and a diminished reverence in describing its content and meaning. Scholarly and lay interest alike have produced a wealth of differing interpretations.

Gentry cites a host of sources attesting to the difficulty of interpreting Revelation, and he emphasizes the necessity of scholarly trepidation in drawing one's conclusions. He then identifies three major difficulties that arise in interpreting its content:

1. A lack of knowledge concerning Revelation's literary style. Apocalyptic imagery appears throughout the Bible, but nowhere more conspicuously and copiously than in Revelation.

2. A lack of attention to the relevance of Revelation for its original audience. One of the principles of grammatical-historical interpretation (a method employed by all conservative interpreters of Scripture) is that the original audience and the author's intention are the primary checks upon what meaning can be drawn from the content of the message. In other words, the principle can be employed in a two-fold way: negatively, any interpretation that would not make sense to the original author and audience are suspect; and positively, the interpret should seek that interpretation which would make the most sense to the original author and audience.

3. A misconstrual of the of the original intention of Revelation. Direct quotation is pertinent here:

In the first place, it was designed to steel the first century Church against the gathering storm of persecution, which was reaching an unnerving crescendo of theretofore unknown proportions and intensity. (15)

In the second place, it was to brace the Church for a major and fundamental re-orientation in the course of redemptive history, a re-orientation necessitating the destruction of Jerusalem (the center not only of Old Covenant Israel, but of Apostolic Christianity [cp. Acts 1:8; 2:lff; 15:2] and the Temple [cp. Matt. 24:1-34 with Rev. 11]). (16)

Chapter 2: Approach to the Question of Dating

Gentry begins the discussion of the importance of dating with a comparison between the book of Daniel and of Revelation:

In several respects Revelation is reminiscent of the Old Testament book of Daniel: (1) Each is a prophetic work. (2) Each was written by a devout, God-fearing Jew in times of the author’s personal exile and national Jewish distress. (3) Each shares a frequent and very obvious stylistic similarity. (4) Revelation frequently draws from Daniel. (17)

Internal similarities are not the only things shared: so too has scholarly literature divided the dating of these books into two opposing views of composition--late and early. For Revelation, the pertinent numbers for the early and late divisions are pre-A.D. 70 and A.D. 95. Though many variations upon these two numbers is evident, the purpose of Gentry's book, obvious from its title, is to document and defend an early date of Revelation against late date arguments.

The importance of dating the book of Revelation bears directly upon its interpretation. The following events represent the key historical issues at stake between early and late arguments:

Those events include most prominently: (1) the beginnings of the Roman persecution of Christianity (A.D. 64-68); (2) the Jewish Revolt and the destruction of the Temple (A.D. 67-70); and (3) the Roman Civil War of A.D. 68-69. (18-19(

All of these events are of major historical, political, and theological significance. Gentry emphasizes the necessity of historical accuracy for hermeneutics, a principle that is not without controversy among modern interpretations of Scripture that emphasize ahistorical, existential conclusions. Scholars committed to an historical and objective meaning of Scripture recognize the significance of accurately dating the book of Revelation. Gentry's following quote summarizes the matter well:

If the book was written two and one-half decades after the destruction of the Temple, however, then the prophecies are necessarily open to an extrapolation into the most distant future, and to the exclusion of the important events of A.D. 67-70. Hence, the whole bearing of Revelation on New Testament eschatology may well be altered by the determination of the matter before us. (21)

Gentry then proceeds to address certain assumptions that his position takes in addressing the date of Revelation. These are:

1. Canonicity. Despite tumultuous debate in the early church about the canonical status of Revelation, it is well accepted today. The presupposition of canonicity entails that Revelation bears the inerrant, infallible, and sufficient character of God's Divine Word to humanity. The canonical status of Revelation also entails its covenantal bearing upon Christians. As such it has authority over the Christian's belief and conduct, and must be approach with reverence that puts the interpreter in submission to, rather than authority over, the text and its meaning. Gentry rightly notes that this presupposition gives priority to the internal evidence of Revelation over and above any external evidence: the witness of Scripture stands in authority over the witnesses from history and tradition.

2. Authorship. Revelation does not specifically designate the Apostle John, son of Zebedee, disciple of Christ as its author, but Gentry aligns himself with capable conservative consensus that the Apostle John is indeed the author of Revelation. Gentry properly footnotes scholars who oppose this view as well as scholars who support it. He importantly notes that apostleship is not the sole, nor most important determination of canonicity.

3. Unity. Gentry assumes that Revelation is the unified message of John the Apostle and not an edited message or message compiled from several documents of differing dates of composition. The intention for omitting the rather large debate on this issue is best explained by the author himself:

The primary reason for its exclusion is due to the obvious difficulty of maintaining the composite and discordant nature of Revelation while defending its canonicity and its revelational quality. How can we maintain a coherent theory of Revelation’s inspiration if it has gone through several editions under several different hands? The problem is virtually the same with the more familiar questions related to such books as the Pentateuch and Isaiah, for instance. This is why almost invariably those who have argued for its composite nature are of the liberal school of thought. A secondary reason is due to the intention of the present writer. This treatise is written with an eye not to the liberal theologian, but to the conservative. The plea for a hearing in this research project is toward conservative theologians who stand with the author on the fundamental theological issues, such as the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture. The debate engaged is an “intramural” debate among evangelicals. (24)

Finally, Gentry provides a brief survey of scholarly opinion on the dating of Revelation. Although the consensus view is that Revelation was written after the Fall of Jerusalem, most likely during the A.D. 90's Gentry notes that several well-respected classical (i.e. Greek and Roman period of history) scholars hold the early date viewpoint. Also, Gentry admits that several evangelical scholars denigrate the early date view because it is held by many liberal scholars. Additionally, some late date scholars are giving new credence to early date arguments. Gentry briefly chronicles the shifting positions of scholarly consensus over the past 200 years, including both conservative and scholarly opinions. While conservatives have consistently viewed the entire New Testament to have been completed between A.D. 50-100, and that in the late 19th century a pre-A.D. 70 view of Revelation's composition was the majority position among conservative scholars. Gentry's presumed purpose in detailing this chronology and following it with a list of early-date advocates is to show that despite contemporary confidence regarding the late-date of Revelation, a broader view of scholarship reveals that the early date view ought not to be easily dismissed. The reader is encouraged to remember that consensus of any kind, including scholarly consensus, is not the standard of truth for any argument--a statement that is imperative in our current age when intersubjective agreement (whether the populous, the scholarly community, or even the scientific consensus) is frequently taken to be the only truth possible.

Education

Novalis once wrote:

32. We are on a mission. We are summoned to educate the earth. If a spirit were to appear to us, we would make ourselves master of our own spirituality at once ? we would be inspired, both by ourselves and by the spirit. Without inspiration, no apparition. Inspiration is both appearance and appearance given in return, both appropriation and communication.

Bernstein, Jay M.(Editor). Classic and Romantic German Aesthetics.
West Nyack, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press, 2002. p 208.

I am interested in what others might draw from the thought expressed here, without the context in which it was uttered.

Your thoughts?

Why I am a Christian

Aside from the fact that God has graciously saved me from the path of destruction through His loving election, there are a great many things in my every day living that confirm in my mind the Truth of God's glory and energize my will to pursue Him fully.

Here are a few that have been on my mind in recent days:

The majesty of God and the Truth of His glory has been revealed to me through the local assembly of Wesminster Presbyterian Church in Bryan, Texas. The church is by no means a perfect body, and in many ways we fall short both in our duties to one another and our duties to the community in which God has placed us, but these are areas for God's grace to grow us. What has been evident is the love of Christ in the midst of suffering. In the three plus years that I have been attending WPC, we have had a surprising amount of death and suffering for a congregation of little more than 300 people. The most recent include two fatal car crashes--one of a sweet older lady in our church and one of a local high school coach at the Christian school where several of our children attend. In the past year we have seen the miracle of two premature babies whose life hung on a thread for many months be delivered from death by God, to our great joy. Only four months ago our family pastor lost his 18 month old son in a tragic accident. Our church continues to grieve for Knox and I would encourage you to visit our website and listen to the sermon from Knox's funeral service. I have never witnessed how much God can be glorified in the death of a loved one until I was witness to Knox's death and the ongoing ministry of His saints even now.

Knox has been a continual influence upon me in these last few months. His mother keeps a blog devoted to memories of him. I hardly knew Knox before his death, but the love for this little boy has made his life in heaven as much a joy in my life as his life on earth was for those closest to him. That may sound like an odd statement, but it is less odd when you consider how often we are impacted by the lives of saints and missionaries. The odd thing is that Knox's "deeds" in this life were not characteristic of those we find inspiring in martyrs and defenders of the faith; nor of missionaries and preachers of the Gospel. The testimony of Knox's life is that he was a boy who loved and a boy who was loved by many saints in our midst. It would be easy for Knox's family to keep their grief to themselves, to hide in the solace of each other and keep others in our church at a distance. But instead this loving family has opened their lives to allow others to partake in their grief. Brothers and sisters this is the love of Christ. How else could it be possible for those whose hearts are broken to actually minister to those whose hearts are broken for them? And in opening their lives to others they have also been filled with the love of Christ through the works of His people who have cared for them in a host of ways--from the very practical and simple to the very deep and complex--and all in proportion to what gifts God has given and what relationship they have to the family of Knox.

The love of Christ in the midst of grieving is a local story that will spread into the world through the lives of believers who go on from WPC into other places, and those who stay and touch the lives of others in our community here (as we continue learn that it is also good to open our lives to those who are not yet of our assembly willingly, but whom God has prepared for us to find for His sake). But in the past year I have also been witness to a host of global stories through the various missionaries that we support, and in particular through the life of our former RUF minister who took his entire family to Peru last year to minister in a burgeoning project of growth that is truly a model of Christ's Kingdom. John and his wife Heather were a big part of my life here in College Station and continue to be a part of my life though they are at a distance. John is currently teaching apologetics to young and eager Peruvians who will tomorrow become the men who pastor parish churches that will serve entire communities in Trujillo and elsewhere. John is also preparing the beginnings of a college ministry (RUF) in Trujillo that will influence the thousands of Peruvians students who attend the several universities in the area. Peruvian Christians do not share the same culture as we do, and though they face their own spiritual depravity, they are outspoken and eager to make disciples of their fellow countrymen. The parish model combined with the training of indigenous ministers is an approach that takes seriously the commission of God to transform culture by the Gospel of Christ, and to ensure that most of what is translated is the Truth of God's Word and not the culture of white westerners. Peruvians know best what the ills are that choke their people, and they are also the most equipped to bring the light into their corner of the world. John, his family, and the other families (Peru mission is growing greatly!) are carving out parish communities, a seminary, and college mission that will eventually overtake the syncretistic, secularized Catholicism in Peru. The government is so happy that Peru Mission is willing to start Church-Hospital-School facilities that they have give over a dozen pieces of land them for free! God-willing the Gospel will spread broadly and deeply into Peru.

Brothers and sisters, I believe Augustine was more right than he was wrong. We, the City of God, are traveling side-by-side with the City of this World and though many seek to live on the border, or even to rent space in our city while holding allegiance to the world, I am convinced that God is not willing that His City should fail. It is His Church, His people, the inheritance of His Son, the One whom He loves and for whom His glory was manifest in us by the power of His redeeming love. There are many who look into the pages of Scripture and they see reflections of this present world in its pages--shades of deceit, colors of apostasy, the pallor of a people living in ungodliness. But what is too often overlooked is Christ. Not the Christ who saves us from our sinful state, who has become our righteousness and our intercessor--for that Christ is on all of our hearts and lips who sense our own sin and need of salvation. No, the Christ who is overlooked is Christ the King, Christ the heir of God, Christ the God of all Creation. We speak of Him, yet as though He were far off. We long for Him, as though He has not yet come to us fully. We pray for His power, yet we do not expect it to accomplish much until the consummation of all things. We have let the hope of the perfection of glory yet to come overshadow the work of Christ in us that is ushering that perfection in! The King does not work as an individual, but expends His power through those who are loyal and obedient to His rule and reign. We are His Church, we are His Body, we are His Hands and Feet in this world. We are building the City of God, but unlike the Israelites under the watchful eye of Ezra we are not working with a will to win, but we are like the Israel of Habakkuk, waiting for some miracle to occur, when God has equipped us with all of His power in the person of the Holy Spirit and the full revelation of Christ.

Brothers and sisters we lose sight of Christ if we bemoan our situation to satisfy our self-righteousness. If you see a problem in the world then find the place in your part of the Kingdom where you can stamp it out! The overarching problems we face are also the problems right in front of us.

Brothers and sister we lose sight of Christ's calling if we pretend that victory is at hand. The good we experience is but a taste of the glory yet to come. We are not working hard enough yet, nor will we ever work hard enough until Sabbath comes. Six days we shall work, and we know not yet which day we are in, so rest not yet for the hope of tomorrow, for the Jubilee shall come when the Kingdom has been flushed of its iniquity. The King's call has gone out, but who will answer it?

Brothers and sisters we have all of Christ in our presence. We are lifted up to Heaven each time we partake of His body and blood, the spiritual sustenance for the battles of the week. We are given our battle orders each time the Gospel is preached to our hearts. We are comforted in our afflictions when our fellow soldiers stoop to pick us up from the wounds of sin.

We have so much, so very much, more than all this world can fathom. Let us not squander it in ignorance and self-satisfaction.

Poiesis

I wrote some lyrics on my other blog and thought I'd share them here. The title and inspiration for the lyrics come from a short story by Nathaniel Hawthorne.

"Y. G. B."

Youngster stern of conscience cold,
Once you felt for Faith's embrace,
Flying her train forthwith to heaven,
Till tarrying took its toll on you,
And lower thoughts became your leaven.

Rising in the dark, dark night fell,
Fell father's son, son of perdition,
Tradition marks your race,
Kept apace now graces gone,
Lost for good with a parting kiss.

See you now your idols wrought,
Bought in secret whispers soft,
Their own sins you see,
But not with eyes to see,
Not with hopes to flee,
Idols they at last shall be.

Rising in the day, day light falls,
Falling grand, father's son still,
Guilty vision colors your face,
Kept in disgrace now graces gone,
Lost for good in your dream's remiss.

Goodman gone without a word,
Unmarked stone stays the heart,
Pining away for fearful opining,
Your heart, like stone, hardened,
Unpardoned in its seething silence.

Rising in the sound, sound advice to all,
All who would heed, he'd speak out still,
Guilty goodmen can yet find grace,
Kept in goody Faith's embrace,
Found fastened with pink ribbon lace.

Existential Sensibility - Ethics - Job and Jonah.

Reader, please bear with me in this most recent edition. It has been too long since last I posted and there are many thoughts tossing around in the torrential sea of my mind. Sapience may not be meet with my words, but maybe, just maybe, my sea will turn and teeter from torrents into tremulous waters. Our skiff shall cut its swath through these waters with what skill as I am able to wrangle from the many and competing worldviews I am trying to hold together in this rumination.

(Translation: I am going to attempt to draw together several different pieces of writing, which I have been reading recently. The difficulty in doing this is that each piece of writing is difficult to relate because of their own ambiguity and by their divergent perspectives on the questions: who are we and what are we doing here?)

My aim is to reflect upon several contrastive writings, hoping to exposit a thought for your personal reflection as well as mine. The texts are as follows:

1. The Plague by Albert Camus
2. "Kierkegaard and Nietzsche," an excerpt of Existenzphilosophie by Karl Jaspers appearing in Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre
3. "'Turning' Backward", an essay by John J. McDermott in The Drama of Possibility
4. The books of Job and Jonah from the Holy Scriptures.

If this selection seems too vast or disparate (or even, unfamiliar) I will try to do my best to make it recognizable.

Part I: Existential Sensibility and Ethics

The Plague
Camus's book is written as an historical narrative of one who experienced first-hand a terrible plague in the city of Oran. Without spoiling the story, the narrator is one of the main characters of the story and this colors the presentation of the story, appropriately displaying a worldview that is best called "Existential Sensibility." Throughout the narrative we find the juxtaposition of the inevitable, capricious, destruction of the plague and the efforts of the populous to make sense of what seems an otherwise senseless ravaging. The story is draining, but its lighter moments come in the form of philosophical reflections and the portrayal of an ethics of life in the face of utter biological corruption. There are contrasting viewpoints offered: the religious, which is presented in dogmatic form throughout, but which is also strikingly altered in the face of the corruption; the atheist, which takes various forms, but which boils down to a indefatigable humanism that pursues one of two ends: sainthood or health. Since the religious presentation is already critically deconstructed I will leave it be, for it is the two existential viewpoints of atheism that matter for us at present.

The saint seeks salvation of the self, not by an ultimate deliverance from the corruption of the world, but more like an achievement within the corruption of the world. It is not a rising above, but a passing through. Nor does the corruption become incorruptible in the passage (if it can make it through), but it is somehow mitigated without self-deception, bad faith, or a denial of all of corruption's devastation.

The physician seeks a less romantic, but nonetheless as difficult an aim--to heal the corruption where its effects are most severely felt. There is no passage through into peace, but is rather like a boat that floats on the tide of the ocean--now upon the crest of the wave looking down over the world with an uncomfortable calm; now down in the shadow of the implacable force of the sea (of existence) that threatens to demolish all in its crash. All eventually sink into death, swallowed by the undulating appetite of nature, but the physician, whose thirst for life is only quench in keeping as many afloat as he can, pursues what measure of amelioration his efforts are able to effect.

Both of these atheists embody the existential sensibility, which is ultimately an ethics of humanistic relief: do what one can to alleviate suffering and foster growth of the individual in whatever way is possible. This ethic is situational insofar as it views every instance as unique, but it does not seek for changing principles to meet this unique moment, since every moment is connected to every other so that some measure of consistency is maintained. Whatever this consistency is for the existentialist, it determines how he will respond to the unique moment. Reflection is there, but may come before hand, during, or after the moment. Subsequent moments are conditioned by reflection in such a way as to purify the ethics of superficiality (whether moral, experiential, intellectual, and so on).

The saint seems closest to the ethics of Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, the physician seems closer to the existentialists who live in the malaise of the 20th century in the midst of WWII.

Kierkegaard and Nietzsche
Only a few brief comments are required on this piece of writing to further develop the existential sensibility I am trying to portray. Jaspers focuses on the contributions to philosophy that Kierkegaard and Nietzsche have accomplished more than their particular ethics or existential sensibility. Still, he says a few things that further expose what existential sensibility can be understood to be.

First, the questioning of reason and exposing the limitations of rationality. Both are irrational, but not the kind of emotional irrationality that we see in the temper tantrums of toddlers or in those grieving or enraged. Their irrationality is calm, considerate, and disconcerted by the ineffectual efforts of the "Enlightenment" to answer the needs of humanity. For all the pristine abstract systems that philosophy can and has built over the course of history, systems are incapable of nourishing the human being in his present existence (and existing) in the world.

Second, this ineffectuality of reason leads to a profound loneliness for both K. and N., which is only addressed through reflection. Reflection has been mentioned above, and it is key to existential sensibility because it is what enables human being to escape from the self-deception by which we seek to escape the reality of the human situation. The human situation is characterized by inescapable ambiguity in our "knowledge" of the world, the horrifying expression of humanity's destructive nature, and the ultimate death of all things and resulting nothingness which lies beyond death's pale.

Third, and where existential sensibility links up with Christian ethics (an odd pairing to be sure, but all things come back to Christianity at some point): a desire for what is most basic. Both K. and N. seek to remove all the edifices that human rationality has build upon what is truly basic. For K. the basic is found in the New Testament Christianity and for N. the basic is found in pre-Socratic Hellenism. In response to the ease and slumber afforded by "system" both K. and N. are radical in their explication of the basic. K.'s exegesis of New Testament Christianity is eros toward the absurd and concomitant martyrdom for the its sake. N.'s exegesis of pre-Socratic being is eros toward will to power and concomitant exile from the herd for its sake. Restated simply, K.'s ethics require one to pursue the plain morality statements of the New Testament (particular of Christ) with the most literal and complete rigor: forsaking all else for simple (but the most difficult) obedience. For N. there is no moral statements for one to obey, but rather than tossing up our hands or following blind passions we are to bravely choose our own way accepting all consequences (including those that systems of morality would consider evil) with joy.

Fourth, and naturally following from K.'s and N.'s explication of the most basic, existential sensibility sees human choice as the most excruciating and troublesome fact of existence, but also as its most inevitable and liberating possibility of existence. To be self-determining in the face of inescapable determinism is the contradiction which all existentialists must face, embrace, and walk hand-in-hand with into the ever-dawning day of death and the void that lies beyond it.

"Turning" Backward
Professor McDermott is a professor at Texas A&M and is my teacher for the course in Existentialism that I am presently taking. His essay is self-coined as a "jeremiad," which is a style, taken from the prophet Jeremiah of the Old Testament, that pronounces the present and impending doom, which we have brought upon ourselves and calls for a subsequent actions to resolve things before they become inescapably worse.

The important consideration of Dr. McDermott's essay, which completes my presentation of existential sensibility is the idea of a "turning." He takes the idea of a "turn" from the etymology of the Hebrew verb, teshuvah, "to recover" or as being "in recovery." He says explicitly:

It is a turn of the heart, not simply of the mind, even if there be such a phenomenon of the mind, on its own. A teshuvah is not primarily an enlightenment, as when John Dewey first read The Principles of Psychology by William James. Nor is it akin to the "dream" of Descartes, or to the separate, but equivalent, intellectually shattering discovery of Kant's Prolegomena by Nicholas Berdyaev and Martin Buber. We come closer if we think of the tolle lege ["take up and read"] episode in Augustine's life, or Kierkegaard's decision to "make trouble" as his Point of View.

Thus, a turn or a turning in the existential sensibility is a recognition of ("I was blind but now I see") and repentance from ("go and sin no more") what could be called the "sins" of: self-deception and bad faith. Self-deception is akin to those blind spots of the mind/heart and the will where we willfully or ignorant believe what is not really true. Bad faith are those willing actions against the truth that we know or suspect beneath what we are willing to admit. Thus, the turn is essential to any "ethics" of the existential sensibility because it exposes our deficiencies in such a way that we pursue a course of courage away from self-deception and bad faith--corrupting as they are in a corrupt existence.

Summary
Existential Sensibility can be summed up in the following expressions:
1. Sainthood/Healing: the aim of ethics is to pass through corruption into something purer or to heal corruption in a way that makes purity possible without the boldness to exclaim: holy!
2. Reason is incomplete to the task of living because no overarching system really answers our needs.
3. The inadequacy of reason leaves us "ontologically" lonely (that is, always lonely from the beginning and without escape).
4. Loneliness leads us to seek out what is truly basic to our existence in the hope of something real can be found in the fundamental.
5. What is basic is indeterminate apart from human choosing. You must be brave to choose for yourself what is basic and face without fear (and with joy) what necessarily must follow.
6. Essential to this choosing is experiencing a turning, which draws us out of self-deception and away from bad faith and into a less corrupting becoming in the world that must end in death and the nothing beyond.

Part II: Ethics, Job and Jonah

Introductory word
There are many places in the Holy Scriptures where one can turn to find ethical commands and principles. I take as my starting points two narratives, which have been taken by liberal theologians to be non-historical morality tales. While I do not share this conclusion with liberal theologians, I do think that this recognition represents a place of connection for unbelievers and for skeptics of the Bible and its supremacy and sufficiency for life and faith. In the stories of Job and Jonah we find exemplary ethical figures: exemplary not for their faith, but for their dogmatism. If this claim piques your interest and raises eyebrows, all the better. Because beside the exemplary ethical figures of Job and Jonah we find the defining ethical figure: God Himself. While I am no existentialist, I believe that the present world seems assured of the inscrutability of our existence in an increasingly globalized and yet fragmented world. In order to face these fears, we must as Christians own up to our own, true version of inscrutability: God's Hidden Will. Our certainty and the certainty of our ethics does not rest in our reason or its ability to formulate a comprehensive system of accounts for each and every jot and tittle of existence. Nor does it rest in our existential sensibilities. What it does rest in is our ability to humble ourselves before the revealed character of God and finding in Him our source of love, which is the only impetus for ethical action that does not founder in abstraction or fizzle in the feeble choices of men.

Job
Contrary to what many believe, the central figure in Job is not the man Job, but the God who is Just and is Judge. Job the righteous is made a mockery by the malicious will of Satan, but by the superintending will of God Job is made an example of what it means to be humble before the only righteous One: God very God. Though with his lips Job did not sin against God in the immediate aftermath of Satan's attack upon all he owned and was, Job surely spoke without knowledge when he subsequently appeals to Heaven for God to act as Vindicator of Job. Job thought himself righteous, rather, Job KNEW himself righteous because of his impeccable obedience to God's law, and not just in a pharisaical fashion of creating man-made rules, but in the true spirit of serving the poor and widows and judging the unrighteous according to righteous principles. Job was the epitome of the Godly Christian, to use an anachronism. But in his obedience Job did not recognize the plight of humanity, he could not see the corruption that is ontological to our existence. In looking at his own holiness, Job could not see the incomparable holiness of God. But Job was made to see when God confronted him at the end of the narrative. God did not vindicate Job, nor did He gives Job the reasons after which Job sought. Rather, God gave Job a lesson in His character. Job could not see that his questions impugned faith. Not because they were foreign to his situation, for indeed they are the questions that all human beings would desire to ask in the face of immense loss and suffering. No, Job's questions impugned faith because he could not (until the end) relinquish his own righteousness before God to the Sovereign righteousness of God and His superior Will. In the end God restored to Job all that he had lost and more and Job's righteousness remained intact throughout, but now with a humility that would submit itself in faith to the inscrutable Will of God in bringing about His purposes in every detail, whether horrific to us or magnificent.

But lest we risk faltering upon an ill-proportioned picture of God's character that would only take account of His Justice and Judgment, let us turn to the figure who encountered the Mercy and Grace of God in an equally inscrutable fashion.

Jonah
The story of Jonah is read on the highest holy day of the Jewish calendar. It is recognized as the perfect picture of God's grace and mercy upon humanity whose sinfulness, though bleak, is not irredeemable in God's eyes. The significance of Jonah in discussing ethics is not apparent upon a superficial reading of the narrative. The unfolding of the tale reserves important facts until after the events have been relayed to the reader. Why did Jonah disobey? It was not out of fear. It was not out of cowardice. It was out of a strong sense of two things. Jonah revered God's law so much that he was willing to flee God's command so that he could see God's just judgment called down upon the unrighteous people of Ninevah. But Jonah also knew that God's grace and mercy extended beyond the people of Israel, to the unrighteousness of all men who would repent of their sins before Him. Jonah knew that if Ninevah repented at his word from God that God would relent of His judgment and allow these unrighteous men to live without paying the full penalty for their sins. But God's grace and mercy is also extended to Jonah, as it was to Job, because God desired Jonah to understand the fulness of His character, and not pick and choose for himself what God would be. God uses the qiqqayon (plant) to show Jonah that God is at liberty to have compassion upon what is His own creation. Jonah did not work to cultivate the qiqqayon, but he enjoyed its work enough to be angry when it was destroyed by the worm. Jonah had compassion on the plant for which he did not labor or cultivate, but he was willing to have God destroy the Ninevites (and their animals) whom God had created and caused to flourish upon the earth. God, despite the utter disregard of the Ninevites for His character and law, would see them spared from their sin because of His great mercy and grace. It is inscrutable to Jonah why God would spare these sinners, especially when compared to the destruction that God enables Satan to wreak in the life of Job the righteous.

Conclusion
What are we to make of Christian ethics? Is there a Christian Sensibility that can respond to Existential Sensibility, which has long since grown cold to abstract explanations, but still clings to some kind of truth and authenticity in this existence? There are systematic theological answers to the questions raised by the stories of Job and Jonah. There are also responses that we are supposed to have in our own person to the presentation of God's character in these two God-breathed accounts. It is not enough to know that God works all things for good, that He is Sovereign, that He is Just and Holy and Gracious and Merciful. These characteristics are true and in the abstract they give us a system of understanding that allows us to give reasonable answers to those who seek to use logic against God and Christianity. But if we do not find the existential (in the sense of embodied living in the world with other human beings and time-bound circumstances) response to God's character, we end up looking like Job and like Jonah who were blinded by the certainty of their own self-righteousness. Acknowledging the inscrutability of God's Will does not impugn the veracity of the knowledge we can and do possess about His character and the ethics which He has clearly given us in His Word. God's Law is not tossed aside because we do not understand all that He is doing in bringing about His own glory. Nevertheless, we ought not to pretend that our attempts to explain God to those who suffer in this sinful world will approach humility and love if we do not recognize how little we really know about the particularities of God's Sovereign acting in every circumstance. We must, like the Job of the end of his story say:

"I know that Thou canst do all things, and that no purpose of Thine can be thwarted. Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge? Therefore I have declared that which I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know. Hear now, and I will speak; I will ask Thee, and do Thou instruct me. I have heard of Thee by the hearing of the ear; but now my eye sees Thee; therefore I retract, and I repent in dust and ashes." Job 42:2-6

What we know we must speak with boldness. But we ought to be circumspect about knowledge and what it is we really know. If pretend to know more than Christ and Him crucified we risk our own self-deception and words spoken and deed done bad faith. Let what angels will dance on the head of a pin to our silent awe, and let what is clear be preached from our lips to the praise of God's glory and not our own self-righteousness.