In Job 21:7 Job asks the question: why do the wicked prosper (free translation). However, I think we need to first ask what is evil and where does it come from, before we can answer the question: why do the wicked prosper. Keep in mind that, originally, Job had complained that he was being unjustifiably punished by God. Nothing made sense to him, and, because it didn’t, he wanted to die. There isn’t much theology in that! Nevertheless, the friends were all about making a theological point and defending their position. Why? Did Job challenge them? Did he try to begin a debate about the wicked? If he did, I don’t see it. The friends seem to be challenged merely by the fact that Job, whom they presumed to be righteous, was suffering at the hand of God, and they drew from that fact that Job must really be wicked! In other words, God punishes the wicked, but rewards the righteous. They simply didn’t see any gray area there! Well, most folks believe that would be true in a “perfect” world. Right? Not really, because isn’t that also a presumption. What, exactly, would a “perfect” world look like?
Would a “perfect” world be a world without evil, a world without wicked folks? If so, would that mean it would be a world without the freedom to commit sin, a world without free will? If folks couldn’t sin, what would forgiveness look like? If there were no violence, where could gentleness or meekness be found? If there were no such thing as oppression, who would be strong and who would be weak, and how would one tell? Moreover, what would mercy look like in such a world? If God were to create folks who would image him (Genesis 1:27), vis-à-vis folks who would resemble the Lord in their character (Hebrews 1:3), he must allow for the existence of evil, if the good or righteousness could be perceived. God says in Genesis 1:31 that he looked over all he created, that is, he looked at all the violence in the animal kingdom, the pecking order, the fear and the peace, the gentleness and the abrasive, the show of responsibility and the lack thereof – all of it, and he pronounced it very good – vis-à-vis a perfect world!
When God created man, the first thing he did was place him in a garden, which the Lord had created (Genesis 2:8). We are also told that the Lord caused all sorts of trees to grow there, trees that were good for food, and two of those trees were the tree of life and the other was the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Obviously, these trees are metaphors for something other than what we find in nature (cp. Psalm 1:3; Jeremiah 17:8; Matthew 15:13; John 15:2). Only God can give eternal life (Romans 6:23; Titus 1:2; 1John 1:2; 5:11), which the tree of life seems to promise. Therefore, since Adam already had life, the tree of life must promise a different kind of life. if he would partake of it (cp. Genesis 3:22). On the other hand, the scriptures testify that it is Jesus who gives us eternal life (John 6:54; 10:28; 17:2). So, if eternal life comes through Jesus and/or the tree of life, does this mean the tree of life in the garden of God is Jesus? If not, how should we put these scriptures together, so they don’t contradict (cp. John 10:35)?
What about the tree of knowledge of good and evil? Didn’t God want man to know the difference between good and evil? I believe he did, and this was one of the reasons behind the Lord’s command that Adam study and name the animals (Genesis 2:19). It is from this study that Adam was able to know what death looked like, and he could understand the difference between the strong and the weak, the violent or the fierce and the gentle and the peaceful. He would have been able to consider such behavior and understand and apply its good in his own life, which brings us to the other trees in the garden.
What kind of trees were they? Were they apple, plum, cherry, orange or nut trees, or were they metaphors, as well? It seems to me that these trees were also metaphors. They stood for behavior characteristics, reflecting the two sides of every decision one makes, for good or for evil. For example, Adam didn’t tell Eve the truth. He lied to her (Genesis 2:16-17; cp. 3:2-3). The Lord never told Adam not to touch the tree. So, did Adam set Eve up for the fall?[1] Nevertheless, all of this, the lying and the conspiracy to commit murder, didn’t get Adam expelled from the garden. It wasn’t sinning, per se, that separated him from God. It was rebellion!
The wicked deny God the privilege of teaching man the difference between good and evil. Rather, they have decided for themselves what is good for them, and what would be evil (foolish) for them. What profit, therefore, would there be in prayer, if the wicked excluded God in all they do. Such a thing, if done, would be nothing more than a façade. This was the choice Adam and Eve made, when ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. It was a desire for independence. It was their wish to decide for themselves what good was and what evil was, without the Lord’s input. God wasn’t welcome in their knowledge of the affairs of life (Romans 1:21, 28). This is wickedness/rebellion, and it is this that is behind Job’s question: Why do the wicked prosper (Job 21:7), and we’ll try to answer this in our next study.
________________________________________________
[1] God hates lies (Proverbs 6:16-19), but are all lies evil? For example, if you protected Jews in your home during Nazi Germany, would you lie, if asked whether there were Jews in your home, or would you turn them over to the Nazis for extermination? Abraham sought to deceive Pharoah concerning Sarah, saying she was his sister (Genesis 12:13), and the Lord blessed Abraham’s deception. Later, the Lord told Samuel to deceive Saul (1Samuel 16:1-2), so are all lies, per se, sinful or wicked?
Smoodock's Blog 