Job (OT Daily Study Bible Series)

Rating:
Summary: GREAT at some parts, HORRIBLE at others
Review: This is a difficult review to write because of the wide range of emotion I experienced while reading John Gibson's commentary on "Job." It was like reading a book that was actually Dr. Jeckyl AND Mr. Hyde, switching between a feeling of great admiration for the author and becoming violently angry at him.

I'll begin with the good: Putting the conversations of Job and his three friends (who try to comfort him and do a terrible job) into perspective. I've read the Bible's "Job" a number of times and the poetry-style narration made my eyes glaze over as I read. I understood the meaning of the sentences, but didn't understand the raw emotions being displayed. Gibson points out that very emotion! He points out when Job is dancing on the brink of blasphomy--he yells at God asking, "so what if I've sinned against you? How does that harm you?" He taunts God and accuses Him of acting like a bully towards Job. But Job isn't the only person in this book that made me shake my head in disbelief. Job's three "friends" repeatedly try to convince a violently sick man on his deathbead (Job himself) that God's letting him have this horrible disease because Job is a rotten, no-good, dirty sinner. With friends like them, who needs enemies? Gibson does a fantastic job of pointing these exchanges out, giving me new respect for the Book of Job.

Now, to where I get angry with Gibson. Our differences are theological, the worst kind of difference. First, we disagree concerning when the story of Job actually took place. I say somewhere between the times of Noah and Jacob; Gibson says after the Israelites left Egypt. No big deal there. Where we seem to have our big differences is our trust in the Holy Scripture as God's infallable word. Gibson insults the beginning chapters of the book by calling the story of Job's downfall a "folk tale," implying that it was a silly, happy prologue to the meat of the story: the debates. He has a habit of pointing out the author's "mistakes" (the author is the Holy Spirit. He don't make mistakes) and even goes so far as to REMOVE chapters of the book (because they don't really belong in the Bible) and make them an appendix! The Holy Spirit doesn't need an editor!

I believe that the Holy Bible (the entire thing) is the inspired word of God; that the dot over every "i" and the cross of every "T" is supposed to be there. God would not let his message to us be corrupted, either by the addition of verses that "aren't supposed to be there" or by the removal of stuff that God wants us to read. God is more powerful than us. He'll keep out the stuff that's not supposed to be there and doesn't need Dr. Gibson to help him out. Furthermore, Dr. Gibson sets a serious precedent for theologians: when mere, sinful people start trying to decide on their own what parts of the Bible are Holy and what parts are not Holy, it reduces the Good Book to yet another "what's right for me isn't necesarilly right for you" idea. As for me, I'll let God decide and just view the entire book as Holy as it is--even the parts I don't like.

In sum, the parts that Dr. Gibson has respect for and treats seriously are excellent and emotion enducing. It's just too bad such a gifted commentator doesn't have respect for the entire book of Job.