# Job an allegory



## reformedman (Apr 27, 2007)

I remember back in college, my literature 'teacher' was stating emphatically that the book of Job was all figurative language.

Today, on another forum, this came up again. I am wholeheartedly against this notion, I believe the book of Job to be an historic book of fact. 

And I believe that if there is possibility for it to be possibly figurative or historic, in other words, no one is sure of which but that there is proof for the possibility of both, that I would chose to believe it to be historic unless unquestionable proof of it to be figurative.

Are there any thoughts or proofs on the figurative side, that you guys may know of? Are there any proofs of it being literally historic so I can show this aquaintance?


----------



## A5pointer (Apr 27, 2007)

Do you mean fable or parable rather than allegory? It see it to be historical however I do not feel threatened to take it as fable or parable, it teaches what it teaches.


----------



## Dwimble (Apr 27, 2007)

A5pointer said:


> Do you mean fable or parable rather than allegory? It see it to be historical however I do not feel threatened to take it as fable or parable, it teaches what it teaches.


I agree. I like the way you phrased that: "I do not feel threatened..." I have a similar reaction to the dogmatic six literal creation days vs. six figurative creation days debate. Sounds literal, but I'm not in any way threatened by the days being figurative. The result is the same, the gospel is the same, God is the same, and the truth is the same regardless of whether it is figurative or literally six 24 hour periods.


----------



## A5pointer (Apr 27, 2007)

Dwimble said:


> I agree. I like the way you phrased that: "I do not feel threatened..." I have a similar reaction to the dogmatic six literal creation days vs. six figurative creation days debate. Sounds literal, but I'm not in any way threatened by the days being figurative. The result is the same, the gospel is the same, God is the same, and the truth is the same regardless of whether it is figurative or literally six 24 hour periods.



Yikes brother can't believe you said that. I happen to see the days as not literal due to the structure and other incongruents if the account is taken word for word literal. But many are locked into a view that there is a inherent threat to the bible if we see some texts as "not literal". An idea can be literal without every word being literal. As for the creation account I believe God has created from nothing and rules over his creation in contrast to the other gods of other cultures who are seen as recreating and always struggling with the creation. That is the main point. Not meant be a scientific blow by blow. I have no opinion as to whether it was actually created in less or more than 6 days. This freaks some people out. I also know of scholars who see Jonah as a fable which doesn't bother me at all. Sorry if this highjacks the thread but the issue seems to be literallness of texts.


----------



## Contra Marcion (Apr 27, 2007)

It seems to me that _God_ takes Job to be a literal, historical person. In Ezekiel 14:13-14, within the context of the impending destruction of Jerusalem in 586 B.C. (while, remember, Daniel was very much alive and well-known), God says this: 
_ "Son of man, when a land sins against me by acting faithlessly, and I stretch out my hand against it and break its supply* of bread and send famine upon it, and cut off from it man and beast, even if these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they would deliver but their own lives by their righteousness, declares the Lord GOD." *_* - ESV, emphasis mine.

How could God refer to an obviously historical person (Daniel) alongside an allegorical one? Job was, it seems, just as real as Daniel.*


----------



## MW (Apr 27, 2007)

A5pointer said:


> Sorry if this highjacks the thread but the issue seems to be literallness of texts.



Actually, the issue is verbal trustworthiness of the Word of God. The Bible is to be interpreted literally from cover to cover. It is only by understanding the literal import of a figure of speech that the figure conveys meaning. It is only by literally interpreting a text that it can be discerned the text is employing figures of speech. There must be literal markers within the text which indicate figures and metaphors are being used. Else the intepreter has no warrant to argue for a figurative meaning to the words. In Gen 1, Job and Jonah no such markers exist. The passages make perfect sense understood literally.


----------



## Theoretical (Apr 27, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Actually, the issue is verbal trustworthiness of the Word of God. The Bible is to be interpreted literally from cover to cover. It is only by understanding the literal import of a figure of speech that the figure conveys meaning. It is only by literally interpreting a text that it can be discerned the text is employing figures of speech. There must be literal markers within the text which indicate figures and metaphors are being used. Else the intepreter has no warrant to argue for a figurative meaning to the words. In Gen 1, Job and Jonah no such markers exist. The passages make perfect sense understood literally.





Contra Marcion said:


> It seems to me that _God_ takes Job to be a literal, historical person. In Ezekiel 14:13-14, within the context of the impending destruction of Jerusalem in 586 B.C. (while, remember, Daniel was very much alive and well-known), God says this:
> _ "Son of man, when a land sins against me by acting faithlessly, and I stretch out my hand against it and break its supply* of bread and send famine upon it, and cut off from it man and beast, even if these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they would deliver but their own lives by their righteousness, declares the Lord GOD." *_* - ESV, emphasis mine.
> 
> How could God refer to an obviously historical person (Daniel) alongside an allegorical one? Job was, it seems, just as real as Daniel.*


*

 If it reads like history, is written like history, and all of that, why do we constantly want to allegorize this or that? This falls into the "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it's almost certainly a duck" category.

Oh, and as to Genesis, what ultimately turned me 6-day is that little factoid that a bodily Resurrection is also scientifically impossible and yet I thoroughly accept it as being a testimony to the Universe being an open system and not a Newtonian Closed System, and I also realized that how one analyzes the scientific evidence is extremely presuppositional in nature.*


----------



## A5pointer (Apr 27, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Actually, the issue is verbal trustworthiness of the Word of God. The Bible is to be interpreted literally from cover to cover. It is only by understanding the literal import of a figure of speech that the figure conveys meaning. It is only by literally interpreting a text that it can be discerned the text is employing figures of speech. There must be literal markers within the text which indicate figures and metaphors are being used. Else the intepreter has no warrant to argue for a figurative meaning to the words. In Gen 1, Job and Jonah no such markers exist. The passages make perfect sense understood literally.



Thats the whole point, one man's "perfect sense", "figures of speech" and "literal markers"(new concept to me) are not neccessarily another man's. This is the hermaneutic challenge, bridging the historical,cultural and occasional gap to find the author's and hearer's "perfect sense". Some see literal horses in Revelation some do not.


----------



## Brett McKinley (Apr 28, 2007)

Jacob's point above maintains the Biblical hermeneutic of having Scripture interpret Scripture. 

Also, we must consider James 5:11 "...you have heard of the patience of Job and have seen the outcome of the Lord's dealings, that the Lord is full of compassion and is merciful." 

And back to the book of Job, 1:1 "a man in the land of Uz" v.3 "that man was the greatest of all the men of the east." These words proclaim a historical figure, not a figurative one.


----------



## reformedman (Apr 28, 2007)

Thank you all for the replies, very good points by each of you.


----------



## Sydnorphyn (May 14, 2007)

Contra Marcion said:


> It seems to me that _God_ takes Job to be a literal, historical person. In Ezekiel 14:13-14, within the context of the impending destruction of Jerusalem in 586 B.C. (while, remember, Daniel was very much alive and well-known), God says this:
> _ "Son of man, when a land sins against me by acting faithlessly, and I stretch out my hand against it and break its supply* of bread and send famine upon it, and cut off from it man and beast, even if these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they would deliver but their own lives by their righteousness, declares the Lord GOD." *_* - ESV, emphasis mine.
> 
> How could God refer to an obviously historical person (Daniel) alongside an allegorical one? Job was, it seems, just as real as Daniel.*


*
It is very possible that Daniel in Ezekiel is not the Daniel of the book of Daniel, at least many commentators see it this was. Was Ezekiel referring to the book or the character as his story was passed on orally.

Concerning Job: Consider it an illustration (parabolic if you like - which by definition means there must be something in reality for it to be compared to) of the theology of the "righteous being swept away with the wicked". 

Consider the following as a possibility:
Job (who is a Gentile) is presented as faithful Israel (faithful remnant) who experiences "exile" like conditions who is restored in the end - two fold (cf. Job 42 with Isaiah 40.1-2.*


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (May 15, 2007)

Among *liberal* commentators that view of Daniel may be prevalent, but not orthodox, believing ones. A little further in Ezekiel, 28:3, there is a clear reference to the historical prophet, Daniel. The Lord Jesus also referred to this same person (Mt 24:15; Mk 13:14). Many unbelieving commentators have strange views of Daniel, because he, by the Spirit of God, foretold events centuries before they happened, and they don't buy that.

Quite likely Job is a Gentile (of the line of Ishmael?), yet that he is an actual person is maintained by the Lord, witness His attestation through the apostle James and prophet Ezekiel.

The enemies of the supernatural, i.e., of a God who acts within human history, oppose the accounts of His men in Scripture. Do not be taken by them.

Steve


----------



## 2 Tim 4:2 (Aug 19, 2007)

There is no real reason to not take the creation account and Job literally unless you have some issue to hang on to. Usually there is a pay off. Descriptive allegorical language in scripture is always obvious. Which isn't the case in Genesis or Job.


----------



## weinhold (Aug 19, 2007)

Unfortunately, I only have time for a quick note tonight, but I'd like to contribute more to this conversation if it continues. Job can be a problematic book for reasons that I believe are deeper than whether Job was a historical person or not. At face value, I see no reason why Job could not be a historical person, but that really isn't the point. _Job_ is trying to teach us something about God, and it is a lesson that I find unsettling. As just a quick example, consider Job's children, who die as part of God's wager with Satan. At the end of the book, God "replaces" them with additional children as a part of Job's restoration. Such an understanding of one's children as essentially expendable seems problematic, even more so if one reads _Job_ as a historical account.


----------



## bookslover (Aug 20, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> The Bible is to be interpreted literally from cover to cover. It is only by understanding the literal import of a figure of speech that the figure conveys meaning. It is only by literally interpreting a text that it can be discerned the text is employing figures of speech. There must be literal markers within the text which indicate figures and metaphors are being used. Else the intepreter has no warrant to argue for a figurative meaning to the words.



If more people understood this basic hermeneutical principle, Matthew, there would be more historic premils in the world.


----------



## MW (Aug 20, 2007)

bookslover said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > The Bible is to be interpreted literally from cover to cover. It is only by understanding the literal import of a figure of speech that the figure conveys meaning. It is only by literally interpreting a text that it can be discerned the text is employing figures of speech. There must be literal markers within the text which indicate figures and metaphors are being used. Else the intepreter has no warrant to argue for a figurative meaning to the words.
> ...



 All amils are historic premils when reading the OT from the pre-incarnational perspective.


----------



## Ginny Dohms (Aug 20, 2007)

weinhold said:


> As just a quick example, consider Job's children, who die as part of God's wager with Satan. At the end of the book, God "replaces" them with additional children as a part of Job's restoration. Such an understanding of one's children as essentially expendable seems problematic, even more so if one reads _Job_ as a historical account.



I always have been so blessed by the fact that Job 42:10 says that 'the LORD gave Job twice as much as he had before" yet he only gave him the exact number of children than he had had previously; indicating that God was not replacing twofold the ones he had like he did with the cattle and camels, but simply doubling his blessing. The original children were still his, or as Matthew Henry put it - 'the children that were dead were not lost, but gone before to a better world'. So the passage is saying the exact opposite as you indicated - the children were not expendable, and they were not replaced. He was simply given an additional 10 children to double his first blessing.

And not to allow this thread to get sidetracked off the OP, I agree with the posters who showed from other passage of Scripture (Ez 14: 14, 20, James 5:11) that God referred to Job as a real man alongside all the other real men of the Bible, therefore, we have no reason to interpret it any other way than the book being an historical book of real people.


----------



## weinhold (Aug 20, 2007)

Folks, I hesitate to post my response since it really is tangential to the issue of _Job's_ historicity. That reservation aside, I think that what we are discussing here is more central to the message of _Job_ itself. Moderators, feel free to relocate these posts if you find that more expedient.

As prolegomena to what I am about to write, please recognize that I am no Hebrew scholar, nor do I consider my opinions about _Job_ solidified in any way. I have simply offered a reading that I believe makes sense, although I continue to have reservations about its coherence.

I suppose that I should begin first by noting that in my reading of _Job_, an essential element of the reader's interaction with the story must be an elicited reaction of indignation. It seems at least plausible that the _Job_ author(s) intended the reader to sympathize with Job's righteous suffering and to question, as Job does, the justice of God. One who fails to approach the text in this fashion, it seems to me, does not fully engage the text. That being said, my reading also affirms God's vindication of Himself, recognizing that such vindication seems to operate despite the evidence against Him (i.e. Job's suffering), not because of it. Such a reading, I think, enters into Job's suffering, experiences it fully, but continues to uphold the justice of God, although it remains beyond the understanding of the _Job_ author(s).

Let's look at a few responses to my admittedly hasty original remarks:



> God's wager? There was nothing uncertain of the outcome.
> 
> Also, I don't think God replaced the children. He simply doubled Job's seed, as he'd doubled everything else that was taken. And, if we believe that God is right, holy, good, and just in all that He does, then we wouldn't say He was treating Job's children as expendable.



And also:



> I always have been so blessed by the fact that Job 42:10 says that 'the LORD gave Job twice as much as he had before" yet he only gave him the exact number of children than he had had previously; indicating that God was not replacing twofold the ones he had like he did with the cattle and camels, but simply doubling his blessing. The original children were still his, or as Matthew Henry put it - 'the children that were dead were not lost, but gone before to a better world'. So the passage is saying the exact opposite as you indicated - the children were not expendable, and they were not replaced. He was simply given an additional 10 children to double his first blessing.


.

In both responses, Joshua and Ginny quibble with my terminology -- fair enough. Joshua quibbles with "wager," "replaces," and "expendable," while Ginny quibbles only with "expendable" and "replaces." What has probably happened in our conversation is that certain connotative meanings with "wager" and "expendable" have caused a miscommunication. That's bad rhetoric on my part; allow me to clarify. At the risk of even worse rhetoric, I will hazard the loss of your attention by quoting a lengthy reference from the OED, with abridged examples:



> [a. AF. wageure (= F. gageure), f. wager WAGE
> 
> I. 1. A solemn pledge or undertaking. Obs.
> 
> ...



Right away, we can certainly eliminate definitions 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 3d, 3e, and 4 on the grounds of Joshua's objection. Money was not at stake between God and Satan, nor was there "chance" of the sort that exists in horse-racing. In other words, there was no "bet" between God and Satan. We are then left with definitions 1, 3c, 5a, 5b, and, if qualified, 6. My reading of _Job_, then, understands God's "wager" with Satan as His defense of His own worthiness to be worshipped. This is what lies at stake in Job's response to the affliction of Satan. Will he continue to worship, despite injustice?

Now let's take a look at "expendable," again from the OED: 



> Also expendible. [f. prec. + -ABLE.] That may be expended; considered as not worth preserving or salvaging; normally consumed in use; spec. of military personnel: that may be allowed to be sacrificed to achieve a military objective. Hence as n., an expendable person or object.
> 
> 1805 W. TAYLOR in Ann. Rev. III. 240 That property should be dividable, transferrable, and *expendable*. 1942 W. L. WHITE They were *Expendable* 7 In a war anything can be *expendable* money or gasoline or equipment or most usually men. 1942 Reader's Digest Oct. 40/1 They would be considered in part as *expendable* ammunition much as the Navy considers its PT boats. 1942 Topeka Jrnl. 9 Nov. 4/4 When an army is retreating, a small force is left behind to cover the retreat and be sacrificed to the enemy. They are ‘*expendables*’. 1956 A. TOYNBEE Historian's Approach to Religion xix. 266 The true purpose of an institution is simply to serve as a means for promoting the welfare of human beings. In truth it is not sacrosanct but is ‘*expendible*’. 1966 D. HOLBROOK Flesh Wounds 81 We're *expendable*, see, so you want to watch out. 1966 Aviation Week & Space Technol. 5 Dec. 22/2 With five years of supplies and all the *expendables*, including a crew.



However unsettling the connotations of "expendable" may be, I think the definition fits. The pedagogical objective of Job's suffering into truth and God's vindication of His worthiness to be worshipped both seem to allow the sacrifice of Job's children. They are consumed in God's use. They are considered not worth preserving or salvaging. As for the hope of resurrection, it may be worth considering whether we can derive such a notion from _Job_, and whether there is evidence that Job himself had any notion of it. Such an investigation is outside my discipline, but Job 14 seems to be an indication: 



> 14:1 “Man who is born of a woman
> is few of days and full of trouble.
> 2 He comes out like a flower and withers;
> he flees like a shadow and continues not.
> ...



As for my use of "replaced," I am happy to accept your qualification without even consulting the dictionary. God does indeed provide Job with the exact number of children he had lost, not double as with his property. As Christians, we salve the trauma of our reading _Job_ with our understanding of the resurrection. The question remains, however, whether we can gain such perspective from _Job_ itself, and further, whether Job himself benefited from such consolation.

I conclude with the words of Daniel Russ, whose essay on _Job_ I highly recommend:



> Like Lazarus being raised from the dead, Job's restoration is a mixed blessing, for he cannot know that he will not lose everything again. He must live the rest of his live, one hundred and forty years, knowing what it is to lose everything. Yes, he knows as never before that he can trust God, even if God kills him. But he also knows that the love of God does not preclude untold suffering. Perhaps the final mystery is that the love of God is both the source and the abyss into which Job fell in his affliction.
> 
> "Job and the Tragedy of Divine Love" in _The Epic Cosmos_


----------



## Ginny Dohms (Aug 21, 2007)

Just a few comments to your post:



weinhold said:


> As for the hope of resurrection, it may be worth considering whether we can derive such a notion from _Job_, and whether there is evidence that Job himself had any notion of it. Such an investigation is outside my discipline, but Job 14 seems to be an indication: [/I]



I think Job 19:25-27 is clear about what Job understood in regard to the resurrection:

"For I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me."



weinhold said:


> The pedagogical objective of Job's suffering into truth and God's vindication of His worthiness to be worshipped both seem to allow the sacrifice of Job's children. They are consumed in God's use. They are considered not worth preserving or salvaging.[/I]



I think you are placing far too much emphasis on the physical aspect of our life, rather than the eternal. Physical death is not a curse, nor a punishment for the children of God, but rather a blessing. God was ultimately, and immediately, preserving Job's children for all eternity, by removing them from this temporal earth. Read how our reformed forefathers viewed death. If we were to see it thus, we would realize that death for Job's first 10 children was not a discarding of their lives as things unworthy of salvaging, but a blessing, and a reward

In 1665, Thomas Brooks wrote

"Our life in this world is made up . . .
of troubles and trials,
of calamities and miseries,
of crosses and losses,
of reproaches and disgraces.

Death frees the Christian from all these things.
It wipes away all tears from his eyes, it turns . . .
his miseries into mercies,
his crosses into crowns, and
his earthly hell into a glorious heaven!
When a godly man dies--he shall never more 
be haunted, tempted and buffeted by Satan!

"Death," says one, "which was before the devil's 
sergeant to drag us to hell; has now become the 
Lord's gentle usher to conduct us to heaven!" 

For a saint to die, is for a saint to be eternally happy. 
Death is but the entrance into glorious life. That is not 
death but life--which joins the dying man to Christ!
Death will blow the bud of grace into the flower of 
glory! 

Death is not the death of the man--but the death of 
his sin. When a believer dies--his sin dies with him. 
As death came in by sin--so sin goes out by death. 
Death kills sin--which bred it..... 

Death does for a godly person, that which all ordinances 
could never do, and which all their duties could never do, 
and which all their graces could never do. It immediately 
frees them from . . .
all their sins, 
all their sorrows, 
all their tears,
all their temptations,
all their oppressions,
all their oppositions,
all their vexations!"


----------



## weinhold (Aug 21, 2007)

I'm afraid I must disagree with Ginny's statement:



> I think Job 19:25-27 is clear about what Job understood in regard to the resurrection:



Even if one grants that the poem clearly points to a resurrection, which I am not prepared to grant, the passage is hardly conclusive regarding Job's understanding of the afterlife. At best, the passage could only qualify Job's words in chapter 14.

But my reading understands Job's statements as a demand for justice in this life. Let's consider chapter 19 again, this time the full chapter:



> 1 Then Job answered and said:
> 
> 2 “How long will you torment me
> and break me in pieces with words?
> ...



It seems at least plausible that the two highlighted passages represent different directions of thought for Job. In the first, Job wishes that a record of God's injustice be kept so that even when he dies, his reputation might be upheld by a coming redeemer. I see no reason why Job should have had Christ in mind when he made such a statement, nor why he would not have been imagining that he could convince one of his friends to take on the task. In the second, Job wishes to contend with God in the flesh, despite the destruction of his flesh -- meaning sores from 2:7-8, not a death-and-resurrection. Another key contextual point is that Job wishes to see God in order to bring charges against Him. But again, even if one disagrees with my reading of the above passages, and interprets them instead as a hope for resurrection, such an interpretation must stand alongside what I think is overwhelming evidence from the rest of _Job_. 

I'm afraid I must also quibble over Ginny's citation of Thomas Brooks. The 1665 piece does, indeed, demonstrate that Thomas Brooks believed in the resurrection, and may well serve to indicate that Christianity in the 17th century held a firm belief in the afterlife. This is all well and good, but it would be anachronistic to say that any of it has significance for Job, who, of course, knew nothing of Thomas Brooks. 

For example, consider the verses (in addition to those from my previous post in Chapter 14) found from my own casual perusal of _Job_, which is certainly not authoritative or scholarly in any way:



> "As the cloud fades and vanishes, so he who goes down to Sheol does not come up." 7:9
> 
> "Remember that my life is a breath; my eye will never again see good." 7:7
> 
> "I loathe my life; I would not live forever. Leave me alone, for my days are a breath." 7:16




So now I hope that readers will understand why I find _Job_ so disturbing, and why I think we do ourselves a disservice when we neither recognize the full extent of Job's suffering nor sympathize with his complaint against God. To the extent that we engage in such readings, we rob _Job_ of its power and importance.


----------



## caddy (Aug 21, 2007)

Nicely phrased ! 



armourbearer said:


> All amils are historic premils when reading the OT from the pre-incarnational perspective.


----------



## Ginny Dohms (Aug 21, 2007)

weinhold said:


> I'm afraid I must disagree with Ginny's statement:





> I think Job 19:25-27 is clear about what Job understood in regard to the resurrection:



This is not only my statement but the statements of our reformed forefathers, too. Read what some of them said regarding this passage:

The Westminster Annotation and Commentary on the Whole Bible written by some of the Westminster Divines and other Puritans says in Vol 2 on Job 19:25:

'For I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: I have appealed to men present and to come: but if they should all prove corrupt, and take your part against me, yet I know there is a general judgment to come in which I shall be cleared. He sets out the doctrine of the Resurrection largely 1. By the excellent qualities of his Saviour and Judge, that He is living and shall abide, when others are in the dust, and shall be the Judge in the last and solemn judgment, in this verse. 2. From the effects of death, which brings a man very low, and consumes his skin, and pierces through his flesh, yet Christ will raise him again, v 16. 3. From the effects of the Resurrection, which will restore his own flesh to him again, and those eyes he now hath, to look on Christ at the last day, though for a time he lie in the grave, as one swallowed up by death, v 27.. The sum of this verse is as if he had said, "Lest haply ye imagine that because I have no hope of this life, that therefore I have none of the life to come neither; I tell you that I know that he by whom I shall be redeeemed is immortal, who as he was before this dust, as being the creator of it, so shall he not be dissolved with it, but remain after it is dissolved, and brought to nothing.'....

Jamison, Fausset and Brown says of this passage: 

25. redeemer--UMBREIT and others understand this and Job 19:26, of God appearing as Job's avenger before his death, when his body would be wasted to a skeleton. But Job uniformly despairs of restoration and vindication of his cause in this life (Job 17:15, 16). One hope alone was left, which the Spirit revealed--a vindication in a future life: it would be no full vindication if his soul alone were to be happy without the body, as some explain (Job 19:26) "out of the flesh." It was his body that had chiefly suffered: the resurrection of his body, therefore, alone could vindicate his cause: to see God with his own eyes, and in a renovated body (Job 19:27), would disprove the imputation of guilt cast on him because of the sufferings of his present body. That this truth is not further dwelt on by Job, or noticed by his friends, only shows that it was with him a bright passing glimpse of Old Testament hope, rather than the steady light of Gospel assurance; with us this passage has a definite clearness, which it had not in his mind (see on Job 21:30). The idea in "redeemer" with Job is Vindicator (Job 16:19; Nu 35:27), redressing his wrongs; also including at least with us, and probably with him, the idea of the predicted Bruiser of the serpent's head. Tradition would inform him of the prediction. FOSTER shows that the fall by the serpent is represented perfectly on the temple of Osiris at Philæ; and the resurrection on the tomb of the Egyptian Mycerinus, dating four thousand years back. Job's sacrifices imply sense of sin and need of atonement. Satan was the injurer of Job's body; Jesus Christ his Vindicator, the Living One who giveth life (Joh 5:21, 26). 

Matthew Henry says:

In all the conferences between Job and his friends we do not find any more weighty and considerable lines than these; would one have expected it? Here is much both of Christ and heaven in these verses: and he that said such things as these declared plainly that he sought the better country, that is, the heavenly; as the patriarchs of that age did, Heb. xi. 14. We have here Job's creed, or confession of faith. His belief in God the Father Almighty, the Maker of heaven and earth, and the principles of natural religion, he had often professed: but here we find him no stranger to revealed religion; though the revelation of the promised Seed, and the promised inheritance, was then discerned only like the dawning of the day, yet Job was taught of God to believe in a living Redeemer, and to look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come, for of these, doubtless, he must be understood to speak. These were the things he comforted himself with the expectation of, and not a deliverance from his trouble or a revival of his happiness in this world, as some would understand him; for besides that the expressions he here uses, of the Redeemer's standing at the latter day upon the earth, of his seeing God, and seeing him for himself, are wretchedly forced if they be understood of any temporal deliverance, it is very plain that he had no expectation at all of his return to a prosperous condition in this world. He had just now said that his way was fenced up, (v. 8) and his hope removed like a tree, v. 10. Nay, and after this he expressed his despair of any comfort in this life, ch. xxiii. 8, 9; xxx. 23. So that we must necessarily understand him of the redemption of his soul from the power of the grave, and his reception to glory, which is spoken of, Ps. xlix. 15. We have reason to think that Job was just now under an extraordinary impulse of the blessed Spirit, which raised him above himself, gave him light, and gave him utterance, even to his own surprise. And some observe that, after this, we do not find Job's discourses such passionate, peevish, unbecoming, complaints of God and his providence as we have before met with: this hope quieted his spirit, stilled the storm and, having here cast anchor within the veil, his mind was kept steady from this time forward......

(To read more from Matthew Henry's lengthy commentary on this passage go to..... http://www.ccel.org/ccel/henry/mhc3.Job.xx.html)

And I could provide more, but will leave the commentaries at that, as you can look them up and read them for yourself if you are interested....



> "I'm afraid I must also quibble over Ginny's citation of Thomas Brooks. The 1665 piece does, indeed, demonstrate that Thomas Brooks believed in the resurrection, and may well serve to indicate that Christianity in the 17th century held a firm belief in the afterlife. This is all well and good, but it would be anachronistic to say that any of it has significance for Job, who, of course, knew nothing of Thomas Brooks.



I did not include Thomas Brooks' quote to prove anything about Job's view of death, but to to try to show to 'you' that death is not the casting away of that which God deems to be unworthy of salvaging or preserving. In the case of the martyrs who have died for the cause of Christ in the past generations; do you think they were considered unworthy of preserving as to the reason God allowed them to be taken, or was it a glorious way of transferring them from this temporal life, directly into His presence? Was it a blessing, or a punishment? My Mom passed away in June, and I have spent much time contemplating death and the afterlife this summer, and I cannot see death in any way less than an ushering into the presence of God out of this sinfully corrupted world in which we live. As saddened as I am of losing her presence with me on earth, I rejoice that she is now free from all the trials and pains of this life, and is reunited with all her family that has gone on before, but most importantly with her Lord where she is rejoicing uninhibited around the throne of her God and Saviour. Death to me has no sting, but to me is a gain, as Paul spoke of in Philippians:

Php 1:21 For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.

I just felt your terms of 'unsalvagable', and 'unworthy of preserving' in regards to the death of Job's children to being offensive when speaking of the those whom God has chosen to take to be with him, rather than allow to remain on earth. I think your view of Job would change if you did not see death as a punishment and a curse, but rather as a mercy, and a blessing. That is the reason I included Thomas Brooks' quote in my previous email, not for any relation to Job per se.



> "So now I hope that readers will understand why I find _Job_ so disturbing, and why I think we do ourselves a disservice when we neither recognize the full extent of Job's suffering nor sympathize with his complaint against God. To the extent that we engage in such readings, we rob _Job_ of its power and importance.



Forgive me if I have come across as indicating that I believe Job's sufferings were not of some of the highest level known to man. It is for this reason that I believe his trials and his patience has been spoken of through all the generations since his time. However, having said that, I do not believe that Job was left without a hope of a resurrection, of a vindication of his sufferings, nor do I believe that he continued his complaint against God once God spoke with Him and put everything into perspective for him. We would do well to follow the example of Job, and learn to sit in the presence of God when we face dire trials and temptations rather than railing at the providences that He has dealt upon us - and I am speaking to myself here more than to anyone else.

Job 42:1-6 1 ¶ Then Job answered the LORD, and said, I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee. Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge? therefore have I uttered that I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not. Hear, I beseech thee, and I will speak: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me. I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee. Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.

Job had stopped complaining and was no longer pleading that his afflictions were too hard to bear. He was repenting, and abhoring himself for his attitude. I believe we have to take the entire book in context and read the progress of where Job started at, and where he ended, not just single out the middle parts where he complains against the trials that were exceedingly hard to bear.

We would do well to put our hands over our mouth as Job did in ch 40:

1 ¶ Moreover the LORD answered Job, and said, 2 Shall he that contendeth with the Almighty instruct him? he that reproveth God, let him answer it. 3 Then Job answered the LORD, and said, 4 Behold, I am vile; what shall I answer thee? I will lay mine hand upon my mouth. 5 Once have I spoken; but I will not answer: yea, twice; but I will proceed no further.

May God give us grace to learn the exceedingly hard, and painful, yet valuable lessons that are in the book of Job for our edification.


----------



## weinhold (Aug 21, 2007)

Ginny,

Let me begin by expressing my sincere condolences regarding the death of your Mother, and by assuring you that we stand in solidarity regarding her fate and the fate of all Christians. Surely as you quoted the apostle's eloquent assertion, "To live is Christ, and to die is gain."

Regarding _Job_, however, I hope you will allow me a brief explanation. It is precisely the hope of resurrection, which we have, that I think Job did not have. At the very least, I do not see abundant evidence of such hope in _Job_. To find such hope for Job in _Job_ requires specious hermeneutical tactics, which read resurrection figures into the text. Perhaps such language is present typologically, but I doubt that Job had any awareness of this. This, I think, is where our readings differ, and I am prepared to let the difference lie precisely there.

As for the citations of "reformed forefathers," I respectfully disagree with much of what they have to say regarding Job 19:25 on the grounds that their readings engage in the kind of typological anachronisms spoken about above. I was surprised, though, to find in your citation from Jamison, Fausset, and Brown the very thing that I have been discussing, namely Job's ignorance of the resurrection:



> That this truth is not further dwelt on by Job, or noticed by his friends, only shows that it was with him a bright passing glimpse of Old Testament hope, rather than the steady light of Gospel assurance; with us this passage has a definite clearness, which it had not in his mind (see on Job 21:30).


----------



## Ginny Dohms (Aug 21, 2007)

weinhold said:


> Ginny,
> 
> Let me begin by expressing my sincere condolences regarding the death of your Mother, and by assuring you that we stand in solidarity regarding her fate and the fate of all Christians. Surely as you quoted the apostle's eloquent assertion, "To live is Christ, and to die is gain."



Thank you very much. I appreciate your words of condolences.



> As for the citations of "reformed forefathers," I respectfully disagree with much of what they have to say regarding Job 19:25 on the grounds that their readings engage in the kind of typological anachronisms spoken about above. I was surprised, though, to find in your citation from Jamison, Fausset, and Brown the very thing that I have been discussing, namely Job's ignorance of the resurrection:



I think all would agree that Job did not have a 'full' and 'detailed' understanding of who this Redeemer was, and what the resurrection would entail, but Jamison, Fausset and Brown refers to it as a 'bright passing glimpse', not a complete 'ignorance of the resurrection'. Job 19:25, in my opinion embraces his confession of faith and it was a source of encouragement and hope for him, even if it was not one he could see in all its fullness. I see it as similar to what Isaiah wrote of in Is 53. Did he fully understand what he wrote when he spoke of the suffering of our Lord, or was he given a prophetic glimpse into our Redeemer's sacrifice? Just a thought.

However, I tend to think we have reached an impasse in coming to an agreement on this, so I will bow out of the discussion and let you carry on with the others here, though I have enjoyed our discussion.

Take care....


----------



## k.seymore (Aug 22, 2007)

When I was reading the book of Job around a year or so ago it also appeared to me that Job didn't seem to know much if anything about an afterlife, which is something I hadn't noticed before. I thought that if anything, the passage about having a Redeemer after death at least showed that he knew something. But when I got to it I read it differently which at the time seemed to make more sense in the book as a whole. Maybe I'm completely off, but here's how I read it:

We are told at the beginning that God allowed Job's skin to be destroyed, but that his life must be spared. Job is experiencing this even though his interpretation of it is a bit off:

"God has put me in the wrong... there is no justice.... He has kindled his wrath against me and counts me as his adversary... My bones stick to my skin and to my flesh, and I have escaped by the skin of my teeth."

What is he talking about above? The fact that God is destroying his flesh. The very thing God allowed to happen at the beginning of the book. And Job is experiencing what Satan demanded: "Skin for skin!" Yet Job's life has barely been spared: "I have escaped." Which is in fulfillment of what God also said to at the beginning of the book: "Spare his life." So then Job, right after speaking about his body being destroyed but being spared his life, says this:

"I know that my Redeemer lives, and at the last he will stand upon the earth. And after my skin has been thus destroyed, yet in my flesh I shall see God, whom I shall see for myself, and my eyes shall behold, and not another."

In the context of the greater story, and in light of what he says a few verses previously, doesn't it seem life Job is saying that though his _skin_ is being destroyed, a Redeemer will ransom him from God's hand _before_ he dies? There's more: Look at Elihu's response below as he describes a "hypothetical" man. How does he seem to interpret what Job says above?

"His flesh is so wasted away that it cannot be seen, and his bones that were not seen stick out. His soul draws near the pit, and his life to those who bring death. If there be for him an angel, a mediator, one of the thousand, to declare to man what is right for him, and he is merciful to him, and says [to God], ‘Deliver him from going down into the pit; I have found a _ransom_; let his flesh become fresh with youth; let him return to the days of his youthful vigor’; then man prays to God, and he accepts him... He sings before men and says: '...He has _redeemed_ my soul from going down into the pit, and my life shall look upon the light.’"


----------



## weinhold (Aug 22, 2007)

Yes, I think that your reading of Job 19:25 is definitely plausible, perhaps the most plausible reading available. At most, the passage only offers a vague understanding of afterlife, and must be read in conversation with the rest of the book.

Two follow-up questions for anyone to answer:

1) Does anyone have any textual evidence from the original language to validate either claim for 19:25?

2) Given my fairly bleak reading of _Job_, what is its function in the biblical canon?


----------



## caddy (Aug 22, 2007)

^

Similiar is Ecclesiastes. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are no allusions to the afterlife here either. Only book in the Bible in which God is totally silent. Some say it is the Bible's most powerfully concentrated expression of what Christ is: A Christ shaped vaccum.

Nothing more meaningless than an answer without its question.


----------



## weinhold (Aug 22, 2007)

Steven, I'm not quite sure what you mean. Could you please clarify? I am particularly puzzled by: 



> Some say it is the Bible's most powerfully concentrated expression of what Christ is: A Christ shaped vaccum.



and



> Nothing more meaningless than an answer without its question.


----------



## Wannabee (Aug 22, 2007)

weinhold said:


> Unfortunately, I only have time for a quick note tonight, but I'd like to contribute more to this conversation if it continues. Job can be a problematic book for reasons that I believe are deeper than whether Job was a historical person or not. At face value, I see no reason why Job could not be a historical person, but that really isn't the point. _Job_ is trying to teach us something about God, and it is a lesson that I find unsettling. As just a quick example, consider Job's children, who die as part of God's wager with Satan. At the end of the book, God "replaces" them with additional children as a part of Job's restoration. Such an understanding of one's children as essentially expendable seems problematic, even more so if one reads _Job_ as a historical account.


I don't want to be harsh friend, but this needs to be exposed. God did not "wager" anything. God used Satan, His lackey, to accomplish His purposes. And we're all expendable - counted as sheep for the slaughter. Anything other than immediate death and eternal damnation is grace. To judge God based on such limited understanding of depravity is arrogant at best.
This is incredibly dangerous ground. It matters not whether someone finds it "unsettling" or not. I find it unsettling that men will endure God's wrath in hell for eternity, yet it's a fact we must face. Man has no place judging God's Word. Either we accept it to be what it claims, and to say what it says, or we pack up and search for truth elsewhere. Once we sit in judgment over it to this level we have no basis on which to declare anything truth. And be careful to note that Joshua and Ginny are not "quibbling." They are standing up for the veracity of God's Word.
Regarding further comments - Job's Author is ultimately God. 
Russ' comments are incredibly shallow and pessimistic. To live is Christ.
Ginny's referent to Job's confidence in the resurrection was right on, and showed a clear example of the hermeneutical principle of letting God's Word speak.
Job deals with suffering in light of God's sovereignty. 1 Corinthians 10:13 immediately comes to mind, because we can know that our circumstances, though they have unique nuances, are not unique to us, but common to man. And God has provided for us so that we can grow through our circumstances, regardless of the straights we find ourselves in. Furthermore, Job reveals the folly of man defending himself against God and attempting to sit in judgment over God. What foolishness it is for the pot to judge the potter! 
Spend some time meditating on Job, read 2 Cor 1, 1 and 2 Peter and do a thorough study of suffering in the NT and you'll come away with a new appreciation for Job and suffering in general. In addition to that, live for a while. As you grow older God will show you more and more what suffering is about, and Job will become more real to you with each passing year.



bookslover said:


> If more people understood this basic hermeneutical principle, Matthew, there would be more historic premils in the world.


I love this statement!


----------



## caddy (Aug 22, 2007)

God is silent in Ecclesiastes. Christ is nowhere alluded to. Unlike all the other books of the Bible, it has no faith _flashbulb attached _to its camera to reveal the inner depths or hidden meanings of life. It uses only the _available light under the sun._

I think we would agree that there is nothing more meaningless than an answer without it's question. That is why we need Ecclesiastes. The ulitmate questions like--why are we here, what is the meaning of life, where are we from, where are we going--bring us pause as they should from reading this book. Now, we have all the answers in Christ, but in Ecclesiastes all we can know is that _all is vanity._ The author appeals to no divine revelation, only to natural human reason and sense observation. 

Referring back to Job, because God speaks, Job has everything even though he has nothing--just like us. Because God is silent, the "Pundit" of Ecclesiastes has nothing even though he has everything.

In God's providence he has arranged for this one book of mere rational philosophy to be included in the canon of scripture. It too is divine revelation. In this book God reveals to us exactly what life is when God does not reveal to us what life is.

Does that make sense? Maybe I'm just blowing in the wind here myself. 




weinhold said:


> Steven, I'm not quite sure what you mean. Could you please clarify? I am particularly puzzled by:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## weinhold (Aug 23, 2007)

Joe, thanks for your response. Hopefully we can engage in a fruitful dialogue here that will exhibit both Christian charity and strident faithfulness to the text. In other words, I appreciate your willingness to refute my argument, and look forward to a friendly sparring session with you here. 

That said, our basic disagreement seems to center upon two issues: 1) Joe asserts humanity's basic expendability, meaning that the deaths of Job's children were nothing out of the ordinary. Alternatively, I assert humanity's basic worth as the reason why the deaths of Job's children strike me as so disturbing. Humans, I believe, should not be treated as if they are expendable. 2) Joe seeks to contextualize _Job_ by incorporating passages from the New Testament into his interpretation. On the other hand, I seek after Job's reading of _Job_. As I have stated before, reading the New Testament into _Job_ appears to be a problematic hermeneutical principle. How would Job have known of these interpretations?

All other stated disagreements, to me at least, seem ancillary and distract from these main issues. Allow me now to interact with one of Joe's statements:



> Ginny's referent to Job's confidence in the resurrection was right on, and showed a clear example of the hermeneutical principle of letting God's Word speak.



I hope Joe will expand upon this statement. It seems evident from it that he believes Job 19:25 mandates Job's confidence of a resurrection with such clarity that alternate readings do not allow God's Word to speak. I welcome textual evidence from _Job_ that speaks with Joe's degree of certainty, especially evidence from the original language.


----------



## weinhold (Aug 23, 2007)

caddy said:


> God is silent in Ecclesiastes. Christ is nowhere alluded to. Unlike all the other books of the Bible, it has no faith _flashbulb attached _to its camera to reveal the inner depths or hidden meanings of life. It uses only the _available light under the sun._
> 
> I think we would agree that there is nothing more meaningless than an answer without it's question. That is why we need Ecclesiastes. The ulitmate questions like--why are we here, what is the meaning of life, where are we from, where are we going--bring us pause as they should from reading this book. Now, we have all the answers in Christ, but in Ecclesiastes all we can know is that _all is vanity._ The author appeals to no divine revelation, only to natural human reason and sense observation.
> 
> ...



Sorry, Steven, I must be dense. I think you may be pointing to the difference between general and special revelation, but I'm not sure where you are going with it in reference to _Ecclesiastes_ and _Job_.


----------



## caddy (Aug 23, 2007)

...and I'm not sure how to be any clearer, so I'll leave it at that. 



weinhold said:


> caddy said:
> 
> 
> > God is silent in Ecclesiastes. Christ is nowhere alluded to. Unlike all the other books of the Bible, it has no faith _flashbulb attached _to its camera to reveal the inner depths or hidden meanings of life. It uses only the _available light under the sun._
> ...


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Aug 23, 2007)

> Posted by Paul Weinhold:
> 
> Job can be a problematic book for reasons that I believe are deeper than whether Job was a historical person or not. At face value, I see no reason why Job could not be a historical person, but that really isn't the point.



Can there be a deeper issue than the reality of Job as an actual person? Otherwise we are but talking of interpreting a mere moral tale. Yet Paul is right in that this [_true_] tale is problematic and has profound depth.

William Henry Green, in his little volume, _Conflict and Triumph: The Argument of the Book of Job Unfolded_, has an appendix, “The Doctrine of Immortality in the Old Testament”. There are other studies on this topic, but as this is close to hand I am gleaning from it (sometimes verbatim) to make some points, one of them being the repository of faith Job had access to.

In the Garden obedience was to be rewarded with life and disobedience with death, and after the Fall there was a promise of redemption from the damage of the Fall. In the “proto-evangelion” a Redeemer was promised.

That there would be a life after death – or apart from death – was made clear by the translation of Enoch (and later, Elijah). The expressions, “gathered to his people” (Gen 25:8) and “gathered to their fathers” (Judg 2:10), refer to other than burial, rather their joining those who had gone before them, in the world of spirits. 

The promises given to Abraham and Jacob, “For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed forever” (Gen 13:15; 35:12), “This pledged to them a personal share in the actual possession of that land, or at least of what was typified and represented by it. They as well as their seed, have the assurance of a part in the ultimate accomplishment; so that the representation made in Hebrews 11:13-16, of the faith of the patriarchs, is amply sustained.

“When further the LORD calls Himself (Exod 3:6) ‘the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’, this establishes or recognizes a relation, which, as our Saviour expounds (Matt 22:32), and as all must have felt, could not be limited to this life, but must have spread itself over the entire future of their being.” (_Conflict and Triumph_, pp. 174, 175)

Let me lastly aver the pre-Christian faith of Daniel, where he says in 12:2,3: “And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and contempt. And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.” True, this was perhaps a millennium after Job’s life, but it was still part of the repository of the OT saints’ faith, and did not commence with Daniel.

Who was Job? Tony Maalouf, in his, _Arabs in the Shadow of Israel: The Unfolding of God’s Prophetic Plan for Ishmael’s Line_, makes a good case for Job arising from the line of Ishmael during the period the Israelites were in Egypt. His chapter 6, “Job, Son of the Arabian Desert”, presents a well-documented hypothesis. Job knows the God of Abraham, but evidently not the Law of Moses. Where else in the world, save in the line of Jacob, was there knowledge of God? The one exception would be Ishmael, who spent his youth in the love and instruction of his father, Abraham. And I believe in Gen 16 and 21, it is clear his mother, Hagar, met the LORD.

Note, please, that all this pertains to the historicity of Job in the context of the faith of God’s people.

Strangely, Paul, commentator Francis Anderson, in his _Job_ commentary in the Tyndale OT series, sees in Job 14:13-17, a prelude of hope which finds a fuller expression in 19:23-27:

What Job said [earlier] is carried further here. Even if God kills him (before his vindication?) he will _wait_ in hope. His readiness to go down into death in faith transforms his ideas of Sheol from those expressed in chapter 3, in 7:6-10, and in 10:20-22. It is now seen as a temporary hiding-place (13), answering the plea of 13:20….Even if silent now, God will be heard then (15a), answering the prayer of 13:22 (using exactly the same words). The basis of Job’s expectation is a belief that God will _long for the work of_ his _hands_ (15b), because of the point already made in 10:8-13. The scrutiny of God, which seemed sinister in 13:27, sounds kindly as God now keeps an eye on Job in Sheol (16). Best of all, Job’s troublesome sins will be disposed of once for all (17). The imagery of the last verse is elusive, but Pope has written a lengthy note (pp. 109f.) connecting verse 17a with ancient methods of accounting. Even if God has a full tally of Job’s “rebellions” (collective or plural should be read for RSV _transgression_), the tenderness of God’s attitude makes it difficult to believe that they will be produced later to harm Job. The idea that the sins are _sealed up_ to hide them, rather than to keep them for a time of reckoning, is supported by the parallelism of verse 17b. God will _cover over_ Job’s iniquity, a job which his friends have botched (same root as ‘plasterers’ in 13:4). 

All Job’s hopes are summed up in the belief that God will _remember_ him (13)….(pp. 172, 173)​
All this to note that there are readings of chapter 14 which _support rather then deny_ a hope in a life to come, and which we find in a clearer expression in 19:25-27. Perhaps I should even say, “a prophetic expression,” for is it not by the Spirit of God Job could say such a thing?

For interactions, Paul, with the Hebrew language of these texts, I suggest going through some commentaries. I don’t have many here where I am (only a few, such as Roy Zuck’s book of essays [he the editor, and occasional contributor], _Sitting with Job_, and the work of Anderson quoted above, and a few others). In North America you should have easy access to a good many more.

Steve


----------



## Wannabee (Aug 23, 2007)

Paul,

I'll make a couple of observations, then let it rest. My main reason for responding was to point out the problem in your hermeneutics so that others would see it, and in hopes that you would consider the slippery slope I see in your handling of Scripture. With this in mind, I'll address a couple of your challenges. And rest assured, friend, that these are made in charity, if not unity. Unfortunately, tone does not convey in forums.

It is understood that men are totally depraved and therefore deserve immediate judgment. It is also clear that every one of us can die at any moment and the world will go on turning. Will God be glorified in our life and death is the question. Either we are counted as sheep for the slaughter (not entirely a NT concept - Ps 44:22) or not. This point is asserted by Jesus in the tower of Siloam account (Luke 13:4).
Does the NT shed light on the OT or not? Yes, our first step on exegesis with any passage must begin with that passage. But as our understanding grows the analogy of faith is a valid hermeneutical principle. Furthermore, you will be extremely hard pressed to find me reading any NT passages _into_ Job. Yes, I refer to them to help with understanding, but there is no imposition. Don't make statements like this lightly. 
Job 19:25-27 makes it clear that Job believes in a resurrection (as does Ps 17:15 for David). It does not make it clear that he understands the nature of the resurrection. Since Job is a righteous man he obviously has an undestanding of God. Without willing to argue about it, I would also think that he understands that to see the face of God is to die. This knowledge would have bearing on his confidence that he would see God face to face after his flesh is cut off. Furthermore, Steve's comments above shed additional light on Job's confidence in a resurrection.

Again, to not take Scripture at face value is dangerous ground. If one _decides_ that a certain writing is allegorical, symbolic, etc., then one must have clear hermeneutical principles that define both the reason why and the perameters that will limit his use of these principles. Otherwise any portion of Scripture can say anything we want to impose upon it. Wherever one chooses to depart from the clear and simple meaning of the text one needs to give clear pinciples that allow, mandate, guide and restrict such an interpretation. What I perceive in your hermeneutics is a willingness to impose your _preferences_ and _feelings_ upon the text (using such words as "unsettling" and the ill advised statement of God making a "wager" are two examples). Will man judge that which God has provided to judge him?

Matt's observations earlier are helpful.


armourbearer said:


> Actually, the issue is verbal trustworthiness of the Word of God. The Bible is to be interpreted literally from cover to cover. It is only by understanding the literal import of a figure of speech that the figure conveys meaning. It is only by literally interpreting a text that it can be discerned the text is employing figures of speech. There must be literal markers within the text which indicate figures and metaphors are being used. Else the intepreter has no warrant to argue for a figurative meaning to the words. In Gen 1, Job and Jonah no such markers exist. The passages make perfect sense understood literally.


Finally, Paul, I am not interested in sparring. You seem to think this is some sort of game. I do not. Both Josh and Ginny stood up for what they perceived was an improper handling of God's Word, as did I. Please consider the implications. This isn't simply sparring over theological nuances. This particular discussion is foundational to how we view God's Word and whether or not we are submissive to it.

Respectfully and sincerely,
For our King
Joe


----------



## caddy (Aug 23, 2007)

Well said Joe 



Wannabee said:


> Paul,
> 
> I'll make a couple of observations, then let it rest. My main reason for responding was to point out the problem in your hermeneutics so that others would see it, and in hopes that you would consider the slippery slope I see in your handling of Scripture. With this in mind, I'll address a couple of your challenges. And rest assured, friend, that these are made in charity, if not unity. Unfortunately, tone does not convey in forums.
> 
> ...


----------



## weinhold (Aug 23, 2007)

Steve, thanks for your response. I'm glad we agree that _Job_ is both problematic and profound, and that you took the time to research the points of 1) Job's historicity; and 2) Job's understanding of immortality.

Regarding the first, we agree. I can think of no way to prove Job's historicity conclusively, but neither do I see any overwhelming evidence in the text that suggests Job was not a historical person. Hence, I have no problem with understanding Job as an actual person, which, as I've stated below, only exacerbates _Job's_ disturbing qualities.

Regarding the second, I am happy to allow for readings of _Job_ other than my own, since I am certainly no Hebrew scholar. I found the quotation of Francis Anderson particularly interesting, though I do not agree. Instead, I read Job 14:13 and following as an impossible wish followed by a series of contrary-to-fact conditions. At least Anderson attempts to interact with Job in its own right, however, a laudable hermeneutic even though I disagree.


----------



## weinhold (Aug 23, 2007)

Joe, I have to run at the moment, but I wanted you to know that I do plan to respond. Looking forward to it! - PW


----------



## weinhold (Aug 23, 2007)

In response to Joe's comments, let me begin by assuring readers of these posts that I take Scripture very seriously, and that my hermeneutical approach to _Job_ seeks faithfulness to the text. Intimating that such is not the case is either misguided or disingenuous. Where my readings of _Job_ are in error, I request that those errors be made known with textual evidence from _Job_. Refutation of my argument requires textual evidence from _Job_ for two reasons. First, immediate context should be our guiding hermeneutical strategy for reading any text. Second, Job certainly did not have access to the New Testament, and may not have even had access to any other book of Scripture. To claim that Job knew of the resurrection because of subsequent writings in either the New or Old Testaments is the definition of anachronism. I sincerely hope that evidence from _Job_ will emerge that refutes my argument about Job's ignorance of the resurrection (especially from the original language.) Unfortunately, the alternative readings offered thus far fall into one of two camps: 1) Possible readings based upon a particular approach to the text of _Job_; and 2) Valiant assertions that either lack textual evidence from _Job_ or evidence altogether. I prefer the former, which by the way is exactly what my reading is. It is a possible (I think probable) reading of _Job_ that approaches the text by seeking to understand how Job read his own suffering. 

Though I cannot say categorically that Job had no knowledge of the resurrection (which we so often read into 19:25), I also do not see any likely readings of _Job_ that refute such an assertion. Hence, I find Job's suffering highly disturbing, since Job would have understood the death of his children as their final end. My distress is a reaction that I think the text purposefully elicits in its readership, and I am interested in explicating the reasons why such a text was included in our canon.


----------



## jtbdad (Aug 23, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> A5pointer said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry if this highjacks the thread but the issue seems to be literallness of texts.
> ...




This has always been my method. Unless it states in some way that the portion is not literal such as Jesus speaking in Parables, then it is to be taken literally.


----------



## weinhold (Aug 24, 2007)

That's exactly right, Joshua. It is because I believe that _Job_ is canonical that I need to grapple with it. Otherwise, I could just cast it aside. Thanks for helping me clarify that point.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Aug 24, 2007)

I'm not engaging right now as I need to prepare a sermon. I anticipate being back after that priority is fulfilled.


----------



## weinhold (Aug 24, 2007)

I look forward to hearing from you, Steve. Blessings as you prepare to preach. --PW


----------



## etexas (Aug 24, 2007)

reformedman said:


> I remember back in college, my literature 'teacher' was stating emphatically that the book of Job was all figurative language.
> 
> Today, on another forum, this came up again. I am wholeheartedly against this notion, I believe the book of Job to be an historic book of fact.
> 
> ...


I have proof! I saw Steve Jobs in an interview about a month ago! He was real I tell ya!


----------



## k.seymore (Aug 24, 2007)

> Weinhold said: "As just a quick example, consider Job's children, who die as part of God's wager with Satan. At the end of the book, God "replaces" them with additional children as a part of Job's restoration. Such an understanding of one's children as essentially expendable seems problematic, even more so if one reads Job as a historical account."



I think the answer to this maybe cultural differences between us and Job. The greatest blessing of children to them may have been that their name continued on "forever" since they themselves were dying off (no knowledge of the afterlife)... so the book's focus on that main blessing instead of on the individual children. The book ends this way: Job sees 4 generations of descendants, then dies. His name continues past death. This makes way more sense if one reads the whole book thinking that Job doesn't know about life after death. But since he (in my opinion) doesn't, we hear about his children living on after death. They are the Job's afterlife. And what is said about his children sounds disturbing because... well... we have more info and recognize there is an afterlife. Here is another example. Perhaps Isaiah knows about an afterlife, but the common people don't seem to all know this. Look at how God speaks to the eunuchs through Isaiah:

"let not the eunuch say,
'Behold, I am a dry tree.'
For thus says the LORD:
'To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths,
who choose the things that please me
and hold fast my covenant,
I will give in my house and within my walls
a monument and a name
better than sons and daughters;
I will give them an everlasting name
that shall not be cut off.'" (Is 56:3-5)

Notice that sons and daughters are equated with their name continuing past death, and that a monument with their name on it is far greater than children!!?! If God were talking to eunuchs in our day he would have probably said that they would continue forever among God's people with him in heaven and on a renewed earth. But these eunuchs don't appear to know about an afterlife, so God says a tomb or monument will be erected in their honor within the city after their death so that they may continue forever among his people even though they are dry trees and don't have any children to be their "afterlife."



> ginney said: "I think Job 19:25-27 is clear about what Job understood in regard to the resurrection"
> 
> Wannabee said: "Ginny's referent to Job's confidence in the resurrection was right on, and showed a clear example of the hermeneutical principle of letting God's Word speak."



I'm curious at how you would show my earlier post regarding my reading of this passage to be wrong. I admit it may be wrong, but I'm just not sure of what the problem with it is. It seems to make more sense in light of the whole book, but I realize that doesn't necessarily make it right.



> Armourbearer said: "There must be literal markers within the text which indicate figures and metaphors are being used. Else the intepreter has no warrant to argue for a figurative meaning to the words."



Without right now taking into account the way Job is referred to in other places in scripture, it would seem that the nature of the book in of itself is not clear (to me). You mentioned looking for literal markers and figures at the beginning of the story. Well what does it say? It says this:

There was a man names Job who had:
10 children (7+3)
10,000 sheep & camels (7,000 + 3,000)
1,000 yoke of oxen and donkeys (500+500)

then afterward he has twice as many:

20,000 sheep & camels (2x 7000 sheep & 2x 3000 camels)
2,000 oxen and donkeys (2x500 + 2x500)

In between these two bookends is a story told in poetry. And the different characters usually speak in the same style. This would seem to make the book, considered in of itself, unclear as to its exact historicity. But then the book ends with his grandchildren who's aunt was actually "aunt Jemimah." Even as a child I never thought she was a literal person as I was eating my pancakes, but maybe she was.


----------



## weinhold (Aug 24, 2007)

> I think the answer to this maybe cultural differences between us and Job. The greatest blessing of children to them may have been that their name continued on "forever" since they themselves were dying off (no knowledge of the afterlife)... so the book's focus on that main blessing instead of on the individual children. The book ends this way: Job sees 4 generations of descendants, then dies. His name continues past death. This makes way more sense if one reads the whole book thinking that Job doesn't know about life after death. But since he (in my opinion) doesn't, we hear about his children living on after death. They are the Job's afterlife. And what is said about his children sounds disturbing because... well... we have more info and recognize there is an afterlife



Yours is an interesting reading of _Job_ that I had not considered. But doesn't your reading "replace" (a term contested earlier) Job's dead children with new ones, and make their purpose perpetuating his line? How would you deal with their loss from the perspective of their intrinsic value as human beings?


----------



## k.seymore (Aug 24, 2007)

weinhold said:


> Yours is an interesting reading of _Job_ that I had not considered. But doesn't your reading "replace" (a term contested earlier) Job's dead children with new ones, and make their purpose perpetuating his line? How would you deal with their loss from the perspective of their intrinsic value as human beings?



Job's pain after their death is where the story deals with their loss as human beings, the beginning and the end of the story are considering the loss of the children from the perspective of being Job's seed. They are something about of Job that continues after Job dies. Job's seed continues after his death even though for a brief time it looked like his name would be forgotten forever. Looking at it from this perspective it does not matter who his children are. The book doesn't tell us what the children were each personally like, it isn't interested in telling their story but Job's.

If I were to say the following I would not speaking directly about all the intrinsic value of lost individual human beings:
"My city's population sharply decreased last year because of a mysterious illness to the point where there not enough people to fill all of the jobs that were needed to keep the whole city going. But now there has been an influx of brave souls who have come in from other cities and the city is prospering"
If one reads what I said above thinking I'm referring to someone's brother and mother and friend who died, they might think I'm saying their loved ones have replacements. But that simply isn't what is meant. 
I don't know if that helps.


----------



## VictorBravo (Aug 25, 2007)

k.seymore said:


> Job's pain after their death is where the story deals with their loss as human beings, the beginning and the end of the story are considering the loss of the children from the perspective of being Job's seed. They are something about of Job that continues after Job dies. Job's seed continues after his death even though for a brief time it looked like his name would be forgotten forever. Looking at it from this perspective it does not matter who his children are. The book doesn't tell us what the children were each personally like, it isn't interested in telling their story but Job's.
> 
> If I were to say the following I would not speaking directly about all the intrinsic value of lost individual human beings:
> "My city's population sharply decreased last year because of a mysterious illness to the point where there not enough people to fill all of the jobs that were needed to keep the whole city going. But now there has been an influx of brave souls who have come in from other cities and the city is prospering"
> ...



Having spent a fair amount of time among Bedouins in the desert, I think your observation is pretty good. There is, even now, a strong desire for posterity among the near-east orientals. Even among university educated Arabs, for instance, the most important thing a man can be called is "Abu" or father.

Paul, I'd really like to address your questions about the Hebrew, but I'm pressed for time. Let me give a thumbnail view here. I think neither Job nor the writer of Job discounted the intrinsic value of human life. Rather, the view seems more akin to "what's done is done, may God be blessed." This is a common cultural view among the ancient mid-easterners, and I'd suggest it stems from an acknowledgment that God is sovereign over all things. The view permeates Genesis, and I think the men of Job's period had the same world-view.

When reading the Hebrew, try to imagine hearing the words around a desert campfire, spoken by the elder herdsman who actually knew the man who knew Job. (I'm speculating, of course, and I know the Holy Spirit preserved it). It might give a sense of the strange romance of the era. It isn't a matter of whether Job understood the resurrection or not, rather, he understood that he was facing a mystery. His statement that he will see his redeemer is not black and white and he knows it. It is a manifestation of eastern world-view that we westerners haven't seen first hand.

This is a ramble, I know, but I'm trying to say that the old bedouins think both literally and figuratively at the same time. Their tradition views experience as already-not-yet without being conscious of it. I think the same thing was happening with Job.


----------



## weinhold (Aug 25, 2007)

Folks, below is an interesting blog link. It offers a reading of _Job_ that may qualify my point about Job's ignorance of the resurrection. 

Click here to read it.


----------



## weinhold (Aug 25, 2007)

> Job's pain after their death is where the story deals with their loss as human beings, the beginning and the end of the story are considering the loss of the children from the perspective of being Job's seed. They are something about of Job that continues after Job dies. Job's seed continues after his death even though for a brief time it looked like his name would be forgotten forever. Looking at it from this perspective it does not matter who his children are. The book doesn't tell us what the children were each personally like, it isn't interested in telling their story but Job's.



This is an interesting reading, which seeks to explain my distress over Job's children as a cultural disconnect. It seems rather implausible, however, that a righteous man like Job, who cared enough for his children to rise early in the morning and make sacrifices "just in case," would view them only as the guarantors of his bloodline's continuance. Your thoughts?


----------



## weinhold (Aug 25, 2007)

> Paul, I'd really like to address your questions about the Hebrew, but I'm pressed for time. Let me give a thumbnail view here. I think neither Job nor the writer of Job discounted the intrinsic value of human life. Rather, the view seems more akin to "what's done is done, may God be blessed." This is a common cultural view among the ancient mid-easterners, and I'd suggest it stems from an acknowledgment that God is sovereign over all things. The view permeates Genesis, and I think the men of Job's period had the same world-view.



I'd love to hear your perspective on the Hebrew text whenever you get a chance. Regarding the thumbnail sketch, isn't this "common cultural view" one that _Job_ itself challenges? In other words, Job doesn't just say "what's done is done," but challenges God when he perceives injustice.


----------



## k.seymore (Aug 25, 2007)

weinhold said:


> This is an interesting reading, which seeks to explain my distress over Job's children as a cultural disconnect. It seems rather implausible, however, that a righteous man like Job, who cared enough for his children to rise early in the morning and make sacrifices "just in case," would view them only as the guarantors of his bloodline's continuance. Your thoughts?



Maybe I wasn't clear... Job wasn't considering them "only" as his seed. He obviously isn't. His pain after their death to the point of wanting to bring God to court probably include his children's value as human beings. What father would view his children only as his seed? You have to separate Job's mind from the author's mind. Job, in the book, cares for his children, but the book itself isn't about his children. It isn't a book about children or fathers. It is about a person who is suffering for, as God says in the book, "no reason." And it is about that person and his friends trying to force their prosperity-type theology into contorted ways that explain the suffering, and both sides failing with flying colors but in opposite ways. They are looking for the reason. Then God shows them how they were actually forcing himself into their theology and that was the actual problem.


----------



## weinhold (Aug 27, 2007)

k.seymore said:


> Maybe I wasn't clear... Job wasn't considering them "only" as his seed. He obviously isn't. His pain after their death to the point of wanting to bring God to court probably include his children's value as human beings. What father would view his children only as his seed? You have to separate Job's mind from the author's mind. Job, in the book, cares for his children, but the book itself isn't about his children. It isn't a book about children or fathers. It is about a person who is suffering for, as God says in the book, "no reason." And it is about that person and his friends trying to force their prosperity-type theology into contorted ways that explain the suffering, and both sides failing with flying colors but in opposite ways. They are looking for the reason. Then God shows them how they were actually forcing himself into their theology and that was the actual problem.



I find it interesting how our conversation on this board has revealed the different layers "reading" in _Job_. Job reads his own suffering. The _Job_ author reads Job's suffering. Captive Israel reads _Job_. The New Testament authors read _Job_. Each reading is a discrete interpretation of the events. So here's a thought: What is the significance of Job's own interpretation of his suffering? I indicate in my earlier comments that I believe Job's perspective to be of utmost importance. It seems from other comments, however, that many take the opposite stance, that Job's reading of his own suffering is perhaps the least important because of later readings (i.e. Job author, OT Israel, NT Christians, etc). But is that a reliable hermeneutic for approaching a text?


----------



## weinhold (Aug 27, 2007)

Here is an article from byFaith, the web magazine of the PCA, regarding dignity and intrinsic value of human beings. This was a topic discussed earlier regarding Job's children, but I thought some might enjoy the article:

Click Here to Read It.


----------



## reformedman (Aug 27, 2007)

k.seymore said:


> weinhold said:
> 
> 
> > This is an interesting reading, which seeks to explain my distress over Job's children as a cultural disconnect. It seems rather implausible, however, that a righteous man like Job, who cared enough for his children to rise early in the morning and make sacrifices "just in case," would view them only as the guarantors of his bloodline's continuance. Your thoughts?
> ...



I believe it is about the power of imputed faith. That left to man, he would fall and give-in to sufferings, but by God's sustaining a man, he can go through any suffering, trial, temptation, testing, anything! soli-deo-gloria.


----------



## caddy (Aug 27, 2007)

To draw from my present reading of Romans, I believe we have no right to complain against God and when we do we expose ourselves as disobedient. I think the scriptures allude time and time again that God is under no obligatioin to give us an intellectually satisfying answer to Jobs' problems or our own. God's sovereignty is not to be questioned in connection with the problem of evil; it is rather to be underscored. Oh, for sure, we'll go there out of our sinful nature and our youthful ignorance, but in hasty reply we have the words of Job in Chapters 38-40. So, I disagree with your statement that Job's perspective to be of the utmost importance. 

*Job 38:1-3 *ESV *Job 38:1* Then the LORD aanswered Job out of the whirlwind and said: 2 "Who is this that adarkens counsel by words bwithout knowledge? 3 aDress for action1 like a man; I will question you, and you make it known to me. 

The very nature of faith is to persevere despite unanswered questions. Thus does God's word encourage sufferers to hold on tightly to God's promises and not to be overcome with doubt. God's word is truth and altogether reliable. He is holy, just and good. Job is but a man and we are reminded from the book itself that it is not what Job says that is important, nor his _perspective_, but What God has to say about the matter.


----------



## k.seymore (Aug 27, 2007)

weinhold said:


> I find it interesting how our conversation on this board has revealed the different layers "reading" in _Job_. Job reads his own suffering. The _Job_ author reads Job's suffering. Captive Israel reads _Job_. The New Testament authors read _Job_. Each reading is a discrete interpretation of the events. So here's a thought: What is the significance of Job's own interpretation of his suffering? I indicate in my earlier comments that I believe Job's perspective to be of utmost importance. It seems from other comments, however, that many take the opposite stance, that Job's reading of his own suffering is perhaps the least important because of later readings (i.e. Job author, OT Israel, NT Christians, etc). But is that a reliable hermeneutic for approaching a text?



Well I think it it usually customary to try and understand what an author is saying because you are hearing the story from them and they aren't telling it to you for no reason. They are interpreting the events and their intention is that you understand something of what thy are trying to say. The author has a big picture interpretation of the minds/actions of the characters in the book. In this case the author begins by making the reader privy to information about God's mind and Satan's mind that the other characters in the book never find out about and so are ignorant throughout the entire book. The author is giving us an overhead view. Then the story tells us how those characters reasoned in their minds to make up for their ignorance and turned their own ignorance into self-deception. We see their ignorance through the story because through the introduction, the author made us less ignorant than those in the story. 

In the intro, the author makes it clear to us that Job's sinning began after he was already suffering, and the suffering was not punishment for sin: In all of this Job did not sin with his lips..." which is preparing us for Job sinning with his lips afterward so that we will not think Job is suffering because he is charging God with wrong later (he isn't being punished for something before he did it). God says (certainly in the context of their theology) that Job was suffering "for no reason."

The author reveals what is going on in Job's mind: Job knows he did not commit a sin that deserved this (or no unforgiven sin that deserved this), so Job knows something his friends don't. He tries to reconcile this knowledge with his theology, and fill the ignorance in his mind with "truth." That "truth" ends up being "Since people suffer like this as judgment for sin, and since I did not sin to deserve this, God is being unjust." _Job justifies himself at God's expense._

The author also reveals what is going on in the minds of Job's friends. They are ignorant of Job's actions, whether he has unforgiven sin or not. So when they try to fit Job into their theology they come to the conclusion, "Job is suffering for sin that he committed." _They justify God at Job's expense._

_Both sides were wrong._

Their theology + a finite mind is a box too small to contain the God they think it is fully describing. Humans, no matter if they are as righteous as Job, should recognize that their own reasoning abilities are no match for their own ignorance. 

_God is more than we think._


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Aug 28, 2007)

Paul,

You had written earlier (post 24),



weinhold said:


> Ginny,
> 
> I was surprised, though, to find in your citation from Jamison, Fausset, and Brown the very thing that I have been discussing, namely Job's ignorance of the resurrection:
> 
> ...



Would I be amiss saying that “a bright passing glimpse of Old Testament hope” is _far_ from “ignorance”? I think we all can affirm that, compared to the steady glory of the New Testament revelation, what was seen in the OT times was dim, and with Job perhaps only a bright passing glimpse. But men have been known to live and die on the surety of such glimpses!

In post 48 you made a statement about our “intrinsic value as human beings”. Interesting concept. What _is_ our intrinsic value? When I say intrinsic I do not mean that which is bestowed upon us by the favor of God, but in and of ourselves? We are His who made us, to do with as He wishes. And whatever He does, we know “His work is perfect: for all His ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is He” (Deut 32:4), “and holy in all His works” (Ps 145:17).

A correction in post 19; was not Daniel Russ’ essay “Job and the Tragedy of Divine Love" in _The Tragic Abyss_? Not that I have it, although it (and _The Epic Cosmos_) both sound like great reads!

In Zuck’s earlier-mentioned book, I was reading Albert Barnes’ essay expositing Job 19:25-29 by a word-for-word examination of the Hebrew, and unfortunately (for me!) he takes your view! He does a nice job, but it left me thinking, when we have experts who differ in their takes of the text, what are we left with? For I can list as many (likely far more) who support the traditional view – and translation of the Hebrew – than the view you take, though I know that does not necessarily prove anything. 

I was also reading Gleason Archer’s little book on Job, and he exposits the same Hebrew text as Barnes and holds to the reading that Job was talking of the resurrection and the Redeemer. I should mention I do not think there are many Hebrew scholars today who can hold candles to the learning and godliness of the scholars who translated the Masoretic Hebrew into the King James Old Testament. I do trust their learning, or perhaps I should say I trust the Sovereign who ordained that they should have been born and schooled to just such a task (and I do not mean James!).

I think the AV’s OT is sound both as to its text and its translation. I do value the endeavors of exegetes and Hebrew experts in unpacking the text, but not when they would supplant the Ecclesiastical Text. I know it may seem I am begging the question here, but rather it is my presupposition showing.

If all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, who is to say that Job’s “bright passing glimpse of Old Testament hope” was not as Peter said regarding such OT Scripture,

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (1:21)​
I’m sure you can appreciate the view that men were not left to their own devices in seeking understanding of spiritual truths, but often were quickened by the Spirit of God to see far beyond what their own knowledge and abilities would allow.

Given what I said above in post 35, I would continue in that vein to say Job did indeed transcend his own understanding – although the OT saints were not bereft of knowledge of a coming Redeemer, and a life beyond the one they lived on the earth – to utter what has become a classic expression of faith from an OT seer, those differing in their views of it notwithstanding.

I do appreciate your seeking a depth understanding, unencumbered by mere tradition, of one of the profounder explorations of suffering and evil that the people of God have. I think you have enriched us all by your tenacious stand and our resultant re-evaluation of the text and its meanings.

Good to interact with you, Paul.


----------



## weinhold (Aug 31, 2007)

Folks, sorry it's taken me so long to respond. Hopefully the conversation hasn't died completely. While I've been away, however, I have had time to re-read _Job_ and converse with a few friends about my reading of it. So before interacting with comments from Steve and C. Gorsuch, I'd like to offer a few new thoughts of my own.

1) After reading _Job_ again, I am even more convinced that Job had no knowledge of the resurrection. What I am less sure about, however, is whether Job's angst stems from the loss of his children. Instead, Job's main concern is vindicating his own righteousness.

2) I found it fascinating that God rebukes Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar and yet He does not rebuke Elihu, the young man who chastises Job _just prior to God's appearance from the whirlwind_. At the same time, I'm not sure what the real difference was between Elihu's advice and the others'. 

3) When I spoke to a friend of mine about my reading of _Job_, he used a hermeneutic from Augustine (sorry I don't have a citation). Here's an example from Theopedia, a reading of the word "Jerusalem":

- Literal: The historical city
- Allegorical: The Church 
- Moral: Human Soul
- Anagogical: Heaven

According to such a hermeneutic, all four of these "readings" can simultaneously coexist within a text of scripture. None are subordinated to another. Perhaps my reading weighs heavily on the side of "Literal" while others tend toward the anagogical or Moral?


Ok, now to interact with C. Gorsuch:



> In the intro, the author makes it clear to us that Job's sinning began after he was already suffering, and the suffering was not punishment for sin: In all of this Job did not sin with his lips..." which is preparing us for Job sinning with his lips afterward so that we will not think Job is suffering because he is charging God with wrong later (he isn't being punished for something before he did it). God says (certainly in the context of their theology) that Job was suffering "for no reason."



I am particularly interested in the first line of the above quote. How did Job sin? By demanding justice? 

Now Steve, a few bullet points:

- Perhaps I should have said "virtual ignorance," but I think the effect is the same. At best, Job has a murky understanding that an afterlife exists, and that it is not pleasant. 

- As human beings created _imago dei_ we have intrinsic value. I really think we agree here. 

- Yes, Russ' essay is in _The Epic Cosmos_

- I'm glad you discovered Zuck's interpretation, although it certainly is not conclusive since (as you mention) other expositors disagree.



> I should mention I do not think there are many Hebrew scholars today who can hold candles to the learning and godliness of the scholars who translated the Masoretic Hebrew into the King James Old Testament.



I found this quote interesting. Why would today's Hebrew scholars be any less capable in their translation? To me, the opposite would seem to be the case.


----------



## k.seymore (Sep 4, 2007)

> Weinhold said, "I am particularly interested in the first line of the above quote. How did Job sin? By demanding justice?"




Job's argument implies that God is being unrighteous. God is a sinner. God is unjust.
Job condemns God because of his suffering. Job wishes there was someone who could stand between him and God as a mediator to prove his own righteousness so that God can see it clearly and reverse his actions. This is what I meant earlier about Job justifying himself at God's expense (while Job's friends justified God as Job's expense).

Maybe I'll work backwards to try and explain what I'm seeing. Look at how God interprets Job's argument:

"And the LORD said to Job:
“Shall a *faultfinder* contend with the Almighty?
He who argues with God, let him answer it...
Will you even *put me in the wrong*?
Will you *condemn m*e that *you may be in the right*?" (Job 40:1-8)

So God says Job was accusing him as being at fault, as arguing against God's actions, as putting God in the wrong, and as condemning God. There are so many verses I could list of Job doing this, so instead I'll just try to explain how I think the author intends us to be interpreting what Job is saying. Once one sees that, suddenly Job's sin sticks out clearly in so many verses that one can see why his friends argued the way they did and were so upset. But then Job's friend's sin sicks out as well, and one can also see why Job was arguing the way he did and why he was so upset at his friends. Both groups' sin sticks out to us because we are privy to the knowledge of what is happening behind the scenes (the intro) but they were not. They lacked this knowledge, and both sides sinned based on this lack of knowledge.

Fact 1: We, as did Job and his friends, understand the following saying to be from God and to be explaning facts: "Can mortal man be in the right before God? Can a man be pure before his Maker?" 

Fact 2: Job is suffering

Now, presupposing there are no uninterpreted facts, how do the characters in the book interpret the above facts?

Job's friends: One of Job's friends explains how God spoke to him through an angel and said, "Can mortal man be in the right before God? Can a man be pure before his Maker?" (Job 4:17). This friend trusts the statement as fact, and he can see the fact that Job is suffering, but he interprets those facts together as meaning Job and his children are in the wrong because of sin. This same friend later reveals his thoughts more freely: "Is it for your fear of him that he reproves you and enters into judgment with you? Is not your evil abundant? There is no end to your iniquities." (Job 22:4-5). Another friend interprets the 2 facts similarly: "How then can man be in the right before God? How can he who is born of woman be pure?" (Job 25:4). And another friend: "you say, ‘...I am clean in God’s eyes.’ But... God exacts of you less than your guilt deserves" (Job 11:4-6). These friends did not know what we do: this particular suffering was not coming on Job because of his sin. It came on Job because of his righteousness. These friends justify God at Job's expense. 

Fact 3: This suffering is not coming on Job as punishment for sin.

Job knows the above three facts, so he is slightly less in the dark than his friends. Job knows this third fact. As God had originally said, Job is "a blameless and upright man" (Job 1:8) and Job says of himself, in relation to the suffering he was enduring, that he was "a just and blameless man" (Job 12:4) and "I am in the right... I am blameless" (Job 9:20). I'm reading these as being in relative to the suffering, not his argument. And as God had also said in the intro that Job was suffering "for no reason" so too Job says he is suffering: "without cause" (Job 9:17). So now how does Job interpret fact 1 in light of fact 2 & 3? Well, first off Job agrees that the fact is true. "Truly I know that it is so: But how can a man be in the right before God?" (Job 9:2). But notice how he interprets that fact in light of the others. He interprets it 180 degrees from what his friends understand it to mean (and both interpret it incorrectly in light of, say, Paul's understanding of what God means). Job interprets the fact as meaning no one can argue his actual innocence before a person who is both the accuser and the judge and the most powerful–there is no mediation at all and so Job's cause is, in that sense, hopeless:

"Truly I know that it is so:
But how can a man be in the right before God? _[how can the innocent be right before the highest judge when that judge accuses them]_
If one wished to contend with him, [_assert his innocence in court]_
one could not answer him once in a thousand times... _[because the one being accused is the judge who renders the verdict]_
Who will say to him, ‘What are you doing?’ _[there is neither higher authority nor peer to receive accusations]_
...How then can I answer him,
choosing my words with him?
Though I am in the right, I cannot answer him; _[I am innocent, but he is judge and accuser and there is no one to mediate.]_
I must appeal for mercy to my accuser._ [Although innocent, I'm left with only one option because of his power and position: appeal for mercy]_
If I summoned him _[to court] _and he answered me,
I would not believe that he was listening to my voice. _[because he is my accuser and judge and has already condemned me]_
For he crushes me with a tempest _[he has already issued his verdict and condemned me]_
and multiplies my wounds without cause... _[this is actually true: God said Job was suffering "for no reason" but it doesn't fit into Job's theology, so Job's interpretation is that God must be unjust]_
For he is not a man, as I am, that I might answer him,
that we should come to trial together. _[with a judge or peer between us]_
There is no arbiter between us, _[no one to mediate]_
who might lay his hand on us both. _[God the "unjust" judge could powerfully overcome any mediator]_
Let him take his rod away from me, _[he must stop asserting his strength for Job to accuse him]_
and let not dread of him terrify me. _[Job is too scared by his power to accuse him directly without a mediator]_
Then I would speak without fear of him,
for I am not so in myself." (Job 9:2-35)

God's words to Job again:

"And the LORD said to Job:
“Shall a *faultfinder* contend with the Almighty?
He who argues with God, let him answer it...
Will you even *put me in the wrong*?
Will you *condemn me* that *you may be in the right*?" (Job 40:1-8)

Now, with this interpretation of Job's arguments and his friends arguments, I think you'll find that if you reread many of the other things Job says, his sin will stick out like a sore thumb. Hopefully this answers your question, "How did Job sin?"


----------



## weinhold (Sep 11, 2007)

C. Gorsuch, thanks for your comments in the above post, and I'm sorry it has taken me so long to respond.

You make a strong argument that Job actually sins in demanding justice, though I'm not sure I would label his words and actions as sinful. I think the strongest proof in favor of such a view comes from God's speech in Job 40, which you mention above. I also found your commentary on Job 9 quite interesting. The view of God that Job articulates in both Book 9 and 40, however, impresses me as more like Aeschylus' Zeus than, say, St. John's "God is Love":

"Zeus has led us on to know,
the Helmsman lays it down as law
that we must suffer, suffer into truth.
We cannot sleep, and drop by drop at the heart 
the pain of pain remembered comes again,
and we resist, but ripeness comes as well.
From the gods enthroned on the awesome rowing-bench
there comes a violent love." - _Agamemnon_

Such allusions aside, I wonder at the display God makes when He appears in the whirlwind, and at the fact that Job is satisfied with God's answer. Does God prove the justice of His actions to Job? I'm not sure; He certainly displays might. Is Job sinful in demanding that he be treated according to the principles of the religion he so meticulously followed? I think not, but as we have seen, interpretations vary on the issue. Either way, I am positive that readers of Job are not meant to feel certain about this God that we worship. He doesn't play by our rules, and we are to feel slightly to extremely uneasy about that fact. In the end then, perhaps readers of Job are left as Job himself must have been left: with unanswered questions, awed, confused, suffering loss but gaining new riches, righteous, repentant, vindicated, and rebuked.


----------



## Sydnorphyn (Sep 11, 2007)

*Concerning Ezekiel 14*



Contra Marcion said:


> It seems to me that _God_ takes Job to be a literal, historical person. In Ezekiel 14:13-14, within the context of the impending destruction of Jerusalem in 586 B.C. (while, remember, Daniel was very much alive and well-known), God says this:
> _ "Son of man, when a land sins against me by acting faithlessly, and I stretch out my hand against it and break its supply* of bread and send famine upon it, and cut off from it man and beast, even if these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they would deliver but their own lives by their righteousness, declares the Lord GOD." *_* - ESV, emphasis mine.
> 
> How could God refer to an obviously historical person (Daniel) alongside an allegorical one? Job was, it seems, just as real as Daniel.*


*

Good day:
FYI: The Daniel in Ezekiel is viewed by many (most critical scholars) as not the Daniel of the exile. 

John*


----------



## caddy (Sep 11, 2007)

I thought this was good on 3rdMill:

Reformed Answers: Development of Afterlife Doctrine

*Development of Afterlife Doctrine*

*Question*


When in the history of the church did God's people develop an understanding of the afterlife? Did the Israelites have a sense of conversion unto eternal life in heaven, or did they just see God's promises as coming to fruition when their people reached the land of milk and honey? 
*Answer*

This is a difficult question to answer because it pertains to what the people believed and at what time they believed it. It is much easier to say what the Bible teaches and what the people should have believed! 

Certainly by the time of the New Testament many Israelites believed in a resurrection unto eternal life. The resurrection was affirmed by the Pharisees, but denied by the Sadducees (Acts 23:6-8). Of course, the resurrection unto eternal life was taught in the Old Testament, which is why the Pharisees affirmed it. 

Jesus himself argued with the Sadducees on this point, teaching that the resurrection is proven by the fact that the Old Testament refers to the dead as still serving God (Matt. 22:23-32). In Matthew 22:32, Jesus based this argument on Exodus 3:6. (He did this because the Sadducees recognized the authority of the books of Moses, but rejected most others.) So, according to Jesus, at least Moses believed in an afterlife. Whether or not Moses’ followers also believed it, they should have believed it based on Moses’ teachings.

To go back a bit farther, we find Abraham’s faith that God could restore Isaac from the dead (Gen. 22 w/ Heb. 11:17-19), which would seem to imply that Abraham believed Isaac still existed somewhere after death. And even before this, we have the biblical example of the primeval father Enoch in Genesis 5:24, who was taken into heaven (Heb. 11:5).

Even at the very beginning, Moses recorded that Abel’s blood cried to God from the ground. This may not look like a direct reference to an afterlife, but I think it is. We find such confirmation of this idea in Hebrews 11:4, where the author says that Abel still speaks. Also, Revelation 6:9-10 suggests the way that Abel’s blood cried out to God when it describes the petitions of the slain saints in heaven.

Besides these, Job expressed a belief in a physical afterlife (Job 19:25) as well as a belief in the existence of departed spirits (Job 26:5). Isaiah 14:9; 26:14-19 and Psalm 88:10 also speak of departed spirits. Many other passages suggest similar ideas.

So, it seems to me that biblical books from a wide range of ages – from the oldest on down – speak of an afterlife. And the Mosaic texts suggest that the ideas as old as mankind. A number of texts also speak of a resurrection from the dead, and many more imply it. At least some people in Israel and Judah, then, actually believed in these things, and all of them should have believed in them. How many actually did believe them? It’s hard to say before the time of the Pharisees.

[SIZE=-1]Answer by Ra McLaughlin[/SIZE]


----------



## k.seymore (Sep 11, 2007)

> Weinhold said, "You make a strong argument that Job actually sins in demanding justice, though I'm not sure I would label his words and actions as sinful."



I noticed with this and one of your previous replied you seem to want to assert Job's innocence in what he is saying (I myself argued that he is innocent before the extended argument). But I can't understand why you think he is not sinning in the argument he is making. I agree that if Job were simply demanding justice he would not be sinning. But I can't read what Job is arguing and not see him accusing God of what he interprets as "injustice". How is this not calling God unjust? But not only that, doesn't God tell Job that this is what Job is doing? Let me know what it is that you are seeing because I'm not yet seeing the book with that perspective.

I know I'm repeating much of what I've already said, but notice in this quick outline how I think Job's sin fits into the book so well:

1) Through the introductory heavenly scene we are privy to the behind-the-scenes info those in the story aren't: we don't lack this knowledge.
2) Job and his friends make judgments based on what little info they know: Friends justfy God at Job's expense, Job justifies himself at God's.
3) Their judgments faith because their reasoning does not fully take into account this lack of knowledge (that we have, #1 above).
4) Job wants to bring God to court and explain his accusations against him that he came up with based on information he doesn't have but thinks he knows (behind the scenes God is doing something unjust: #1 again).
5) God appears and says, "Oh, so I'm at fault, condemned by you so you can justify yourself?"
6) God asks Job questions he can't possibly know the answers to.
7) Job realizes his suffering is a question he can't possibly know the answer to (lack of knowledge of #1 above).
8) Job repents (of his _sin_) by answering God's accusations against him with "I have uttered what I did not understand." Which is an admission of guilt.
9) So Job has now come full circle and reached the beginning of the story where we are sitting with knowledge that he doen't have. Except for now Job knows he doesn't have this knowledge.

Thus the story resolves nicely. 
And is incredibly practical. After hearing this story, we will think twice about charging people with wrong based on suffering they are enduring: "Hey Jesus... who sinned so that this man is blind? Him or his parents?" But most of all, after hearing this story we can't charge God with wrong when we are suffering. Someone far greater than us couldn't. As much as it ever appears that God is being unjust, we kow the answer: we simply lack knowledge. We will always lack knowledge, we are finite. God is just–end of story. 



> Caddy quoted 3rdMill, "Besides these, Job expressed a belief in a physical afterlife (Job 19:25) as well as a belief in the existence of departed spirits (Job 26:5)."



Thanks for posting the 3rdMill article... I was probably using the wrong language earlier when I kept saying Job didn't appear to believe in an "afterlife." I probably should have said It doesn't seem to me that he belives in resurrection-type life. He does believe there are spirits in the watery abyss, sheol etc. I just don't yet see evidence that he thinks people come back.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## weinhold (Sep 16, 2007)

C. Gorsuch, my apologies for the delayed response. Your point is well taken, and my quibbling over the word "sin" is probably too pedantic. If one simply defines sin as ἁμαρτία, "missing the mark," then I think we agree. But it seems to me that our English "sin" connotes a great deal more than that, and so I want to be careful about how I evaluate Job's moral state. I suppose that on one level such evaluation is a fruitless exercise in things we cannot know, i.e. the heart of a man. On the other hand, we can know Job by his actions: Here was a man who perfectly obeyed every aspect of his religion, and yet God afflicted him. I would argue that Job's demand for justice was only the next logical step that everything in his religion led him toward. I, for one, can hardly blame him, and so calling his actions sinful seems a bit strong. It seems to be the wrong word in English. Such pedantry aside, however, I think we do agree that Job's sufferings are a πάθη μάθος, a tragic "suffering into truth" that leads him (and hence us) toward a new paradigm for understanding his relationship with God. 

As a corollary, our examination of _Job_ segues nicely into a medieval scholastic debate: Are God's deeds just because they are God's deeds, or because they correspond to a "law of justice"? If the former, then anything God does to Job is automatically just; if the latter, then Job can appeal to the "law of justice." See William of Ockham.


----------



## ReformationArt (Nov 30, 2007)

I have been working through Job for a little while now, and am currently working on sermon #49 (I'm currently in chapter 38). 

Job does understand that there is life after death, although he does not have as full an understanding of it as we do, because of his early point in the history of redemption. It is remarkable that though this is likely the earliest book written in Scripture, Job does grapple with the concept of the resurrection. 

Job is ultimately a book about Christ. Job suffered because he was God's finest servant, who feared God and turned from evil (true wisdom). However, once you get to chapter 3, it is obvious that Job is not sinless. He does not curse God, however he does complain against God and curses the day of his birth and night of his conception. 

However, Christ is the sinless servant who suffers hell to redeem His people. He is ultimate wisdom, in Him are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, and he suffered more than Job could ever imagine. Job suffered greatly in the body, but in Christ was freed from damnation. 

It is clear from the text that Job is a historical figure. Though the familial and geographical designations are debated today regarding the main characters in the book, it is clear that the divinely inspired author included them to make clear to the readers who these men were, from where they came, and their familial relations.

The issue isn't why did Job suffer. The answer to that is easy, he suffered for God's glory, and ultimately God used the suffering for Job's good. Job's misconceptions (and those of his friends) were corrected by God during this trial. Job learned more of who God is and what it means to be his servant. When Job was Coram Deo, all anamosity, all questions, all discontentment fled away. He says in Job 42:3 "Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know. "

That Job should suffer is no great mystery to us. Rather it is that Christ should suffer that is truly amazing!

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## weinhold (Dec 2, 2007)

Andrew,

Thanks for your reply. Given your extensive studies in _Job_ (indicated by your link), I would be interested to know what specific textual evidence you employ to substantiate your reading. I realize that sounds like some sort of challenge, but it really isn't meant to be. I'd just like to hear from someone who's obviously spent hours of time carefully researching (probably in Hebrew given your education) this particular book, and you are that guy! So I consider it a tremendous opportunity to converse with you about my own quandaries. 

- What is the qualitative difference between Elihu's advice and Job's other friends? i.e. Why does God praise him while the others are rebuked?

- Where (if at all) in _Job_ do you see textual evidence of Job's proto-knowledge of the resurrection, evidence which exceeds the vagueness of Sheol? i.e. How do you see him grappling with the concept of the resurrection, as you put it? Is he grappling because the concept is absent from his religious tradition, but he nevertheless knows it must be true because of the many contradictions in his life? Like Camus' Absurd Man?

- I found it highly interesting that you notice a shift in chapter 3, where Job begins sinning. What textual evidence do you find that causes you to place the turning point in chapter 3, and where exactly in the chapter do you think that shift occurs?

Thanks, Andrew. I look forward to continuing the conversation, and Lord's blessings as you preach through this very important book. 

PW


----------



## ReformationArt (Dec 5, 2007)

> - What is the qualitative difference between Elihu's advice and Job's other friends? i.e. Why does God praise him while the others are rebuked?



One simple definition of wisdom is "knowledge applied." As has already been stated previously in this thread, Job's three friends had a great deal of knowledge. They had "truths." For instance, they believed that God punishes the wicked. However, they misapplied their true knowledge. They improperly reasoned backwards. They thought as follows: God punishes the wicked and causes them to suffer. Job is suffering greatly by God's hand. Therefore Job must be wicked.

The three friends employed an early version of the "health and wealth" gospel that has become quite popular (just watch TBN for 5 minutes). They believed that if you are righteous then you will receive material blessings. This is main theme that reoccurs throughout the speeches of the 3 friends. This especially comes out in chapter 11, which is why my sermon title for that chapter is "TBN 2000 BC". 

Elihu, on the other hand does not mishandle the truth. He rebukes Job for seeking to justify himself rather than God (33:2) the three friends for bringing unsubstantiated accusations against Job (33:3). Both of these are correct. Job was interested only in vindication, in his good name, in his own restoration. He was not seeking God's glory in his suffering. In fact he took to making false accusations against God. The friends are concerned with condemning Job, and Job is concerned with defending himself. Elihu is jealous for God's glory, and points out Job's error directly in 33:8-13. He follows this with a description of great suffering and in v.29-30 shows the positive redemptive purposes of suffering. He reiterates this in 36:15-16, which is followed by a warning to flee from sin, from bringing accusations against God and charging him with wrongdoing 36:21-23, followed by a number of awesome statements of God's power and glory, that are foreshadowing God's own words in chapter 38. A striking statement that directly contradicts the assumptions of the 3 friends is found in 37:13, "Whether for correction or for his land or for love, he causes it to happen." Elihu sees manifold purposes for suffering. As Elihu is speaking he is heralding the coming of the king. He speaks of the loud thunderings approaching and flashes of lightning as the Lord approaches from the distance, riding on the wings of the storm. The sky grows black with the storm, and the Lord arrives in 38:1 in the force of a tornado. 

Interestingly the Lord makes no mention of Elihu, which is why some liberal commentators have wrongly thought that his speech is a later edition to the book. However, God's speeches in 38-41 repeat much of what Elihu says about God's power and glory revealed in his creation in 36-37. This shows ultimately that Elihu is God's messenger, sent much like John the Baptist to prepare for the coming of the Lord. He speaks the word of the Lord given to him, which is exactly what he says in 36:2-4, "I have yet something to say on God's behalf. I will get my knowledge from afar and ascribe righteousness to my Maker. For truly my words are not false; one who is perfect in knowledge is with you." Elihu isn't claiming perfection, however the Lord is present, God is the one who is perfect knowledge that Elihu refers to. So Elihu arrives suddenly in chapter 32, and disappears after chapter 37 and is never mentioned again. He has fulfilled his roll, he has spoken God's Word, and so he receives neither rebuke nor salutation.



> - Where (if at all) in _Job_ do you see textual evidence of Job's proto-knowledge of the resurrection, evidence which exceeds the vagueness of Sheol? i.e. How do you see him grappling with the concept of the resurrection, as you put it? Is he grappling because the concept is absent from his religious tradition, but he nevertheless knows it must be true because of the many contradictions in his life? Like Camus' Absurd Man?



Although Job speaks of death in a number of places, I will address specifically 14:7-17. Job is desperately seeking vindication, and yet he believes he will soon die. In fact, satan has beaten him to within an inch of his life, having received permission to cause him ultimate physical suffering, however given the command to keep him alive. So Job wonders how he can be vindicated if he dies soon and the Lord does not come, and in this pondering he hits directly upon the truth of the resurrection. He speaks of a tree that is cut down (killed), and yet sprouts up again at a later date. He envies the resurrection of the tree because it has the future hope (14:7-9). However Job has never seen a man come back to life. He says in v.12 "so a man lies down and rises not again; till the heavens are no more he will not awake or be roused out of his sleep." He then makes a remarkable request of God. To hide him in sheol (death) for a time, and then appoint a time at a later date to remember Job and bring about his renewal (v.14). Job is asking to be raised from death to new life! Job is praying for what God has already ordained to give! Job is begging for what is clearly the gift of God in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15.

However, this glimmer of hope quickly fades, and Job returns to his pessimistic ranting in 14:18-22. Job goes back and forth between hope and despair, he is wrestling with who God is in light of his own great suffering. However, God will settle those questions without a doubt in 38-42. 



> I found it highly interesting that you notice a shift in chapter 3, where Job begins sinning. What textual evidence do you find that causes you to place the turning point in chapter 3, and where exactly in the chapter do you think that shift occurs?



Job 3:1, "After this Job opened his mouth and cursed the day of his birth."
This is a decisive turning point from the first two chapters. (My sermon on it is here if you're interested).The narrator has painting Job as an image of faithfulness, and God himself says to Satan, "there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil." (2:3) 

Job responds with grace and faithfulness to losing all of his wealth, the death of his children, his body being pummeled by disease, and even his wife being used as a tool of the devil to tempt him (what satan predicts Job will do, his wife commands him to do, that is to curse God). However, after Job's initial response of faith, time is allowed to pass. There has been time for the word of this great disaster to spread throughout the surrounding lands, time for the message to reach the three friends in their lands, time for them to correspond with each other, to plan the journey, and then to come to see Job. Then they arrive and sit with him in silence for 7 days. Job is now living in torment. His own testimony of his suffering is given in 30:27-31 "27 My inward parts are in turmoil and never still; days of affliction come to meet me. 28 I go about darkened, but not by the sun; I stand up in the assembly and cry for help. 29 I am a brother of jackals and a companion of ostriches. 30 My skin turns black and falls from me, and my bones burn with heat. 31 My lyre is turned to mourning, and my pipe to the voice of those who weep. "

So, when he finally opens his mouth after a good deal of time has passed (we don't know how long exactly, but maybe several months), the first thing he utters is not a blessing as was the case in 1:21-22, "And he said, Naked I cam from my mother's womb, and naked shall I return. The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; blessed by the name of the LORD. In all this Job did not sin or charge God with wrong." We're told at this point that he did not sin. However, in 3:1, instead of blessing he utters a horrific curse.

Satan's claim in this trial are that Job will curse God to his face. Up until now Satan has failed miserably in his efforts to make this happen. However, Job now comes dangerously close to failure. He does sin as he curses God's providence in his life. He knows that God has brought him forth from the womb, and now he curses the day on which he was born and the night on which he was conceived in his mother's womb. Take the time to read the curse line by line and see the absolute loathing he has for his life. He wants to die, he wishes that had never been born. He says that he longs for death and digs for it more than for hidden treasures (3:21).

These aren't small nuances being pulled out from the text, but I believe these are all self-evident in the text if you take the time to study it with care. 

I highly suggest you begin your further studies of Job by reading Conflict and Triumph by William Henry Green.

Unfortunately, I do not have a great deal of time to spend writing posts, and I've already spent over an hour on this one. So my answers in any future dialog will need to be much more brief, as my primary duties are to the body I've been called to here. 

Grace and Peace,
Andrew


----------



## k.seymore (Dec 5, 2007)

> Although Job speaks of death in a number of places, I will address specifically 14:7-17. Job is desperately seeking vindication, and yet he believes he will soon die. In fact, satan has beaten him to within an inch of his life, having received permission to cause him ultimate physical suffering, however given the command to keep him alive. So Job wonders how he can be vindicated if he dies soon and the Lord does not come, and in this pondering he hits directly upon the truth of the resurrection. He speaks of a tree that is cut down (killed), and yet sprouts up again at a later date. He envies the resurrection of the tree because it has the future hope (14:7-9). However Job has never seen a man come back to life. He says in v.12 "so a man lies down and rises not again; till the heavens are no more he will not awake or be roused out of his sleep." He then makes a remarkable request of God. To hide him in sheol (death) for a time, and then appoint a time at a later date to remember Job and bring about his renewal (v.14). Job is asking to be raised from death to new life! Job is praying for what God has already ordained to give! Job is begging for what is clearly the gift of God in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15.



Thanks for your interpretation of this passage in chapter 14. I think what you are saying makes sense, and I think this is definitely the best passage to make an argument for the idea of resurrection being present in the book. I appreciate your restraint–not saying Job believes in resurrection, but that he wishes something like it was true. I like your wording: He "envies" the idea. He has no "hope" for a resurrection, but the very fact that he would point out the contrast between the fact that humans have no hope but a tree does:

"He comes out like a flower and withers; he flees like a shadow and continues not... Since his days are determined... and you have appointed his limits that he cannot pass, look away from him and leave him alone, that he may enjoy, like a hired hand, his day. For _there is hope for a tree_... But a man dies... a man lies down and rises not again... till the heavens are no more he will not awake or be roused out of his sleep." 

I think presenting it in the way you have accounts for all the talk in the book implying there being no resurrection, yet that is contrasted in this passage where Job wishes he could be like a tree. He has no hope in the resurrection but he longs for this idea that came to him while looking at nature.

Although I think that Job's argument is actually meant to "point out" to God that since humans are not raised, God needs to vindicate him before death. But along that road Job hits on something even better for a brief time.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jan 11, 2008)

From Spurgeon’s _Morning and Evening_, January 10, evening

"In my flesh shall I see God."—Job 19:26.

MARK the subject of Job's devout anticipation "I shall see God." He does not say, "I shall see the saints"—though doubtless that will be untold felicity—but, "I shall see God." It is not—"I shall see the pearly gates, I shall behold the walls of jasper, I shall gaze upon the crowns of gold," but "I shall see God." This is the sum and substance of heaven, this is the joyful hope of all believers. It is their delight to see Him now in the ordinances by faith. They love to behold Him in communion and in prayer; but there in heaven they shall have an open and unclouded vision, and thus seeing "Him as He is," shall be made completely like Him. _Likeness to God_—what can we wish for more? And _a sight of God_—what can we desire better? Some read the passage, "Yet, I shall see God in my flesh," and find here an allusion to Christ, as the "Word made flesh," and that glorious beholding of Him which shall be the splendour of the latter days. Whether so or not it is certain that Christ shall be the object of our eternal vision; nor shall we ever want any joy beyond that of seeing Him. Think not that this will be a narrow sphere for the mind to dwell in. It is but one source of delight, but that source is infinite. All His attributes shall be subjects for contemplation, and as He is infinite under each aspect, there is no fear of exhaustion. His works, His gifts, His love to us, and His glory in all His purposes, and in all His actions, these shall make a theme which will be ever new. The patriarch looked forward to this sight of God as a personal enjoyment. "Whom mine eye shall behold, and not another." Take realizing views of heaven's bliss; think what it will be _to you_. "_Thine eyes_ shall see the King in His beauty." All earthly brightness fades and darkens as we gaze upon it, but here is a brightness which can never dim, a glory which can never fade—_"I shall see God."_

Meditation for This Evening by C. H. Spurgeon


----------



## k.seymore (Jan 11, 2008)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> MARK the subject of Job's devout anticipation "I shall see God." ...This is the sum and substance of heaven... there in heaven they shall have an open and unclouded vision, and thus seeing "Him as He is," shall be made completely like Him. _Likeness to God_—what can we wish for more? And _a sight of God_—what can we desire better?



I enjoy what Spurgeon says there, but I still don’t think that is what is meant by the verse in context. It appears to me to mean Job, at that particular point, believes that even though God’s vindication of him is delayed, and his skin is being destroyed, yet still God will vindicate him before he dies (as God told Satan: you can destroy his skin, but can’t take his life). That is what I think Job means by “see God.” I think he means he will see vindication by the supreme judge before he dies ("yet in my flesh") even though it is delayed. Look at what Job says later:

"Why are not times of judgment kept by the Almighty,
and why do those who know him_ never see his days?_" (Job 24:1)

Which links seeing with judgment, and look at the criticism of Job later, which also links Job’s seeing of God with the fact that he has laid a case before God the judge who Job believes isn’t coming to the bench in a timely fashion:

"How much less when you say that _you do not see him,_
that the case is before him, and you are waiting for him!" (Job 35:14)

And, interpreted in this way, Job really does see God, in "his flesh," before death. He is vindicated in the eyes of his friends at the end of the book.


----------



## danmpem (Jan 14, 2008)

If the Book of Job is an allegory, and the author writes that God said something, and God did not really say it, doesn't that make what the writer writes a _lie_, thus the Book of Job a lie?


----------



## k.seymore (Jan 14, 2008)

danmpem said:


> If the Book of Job is an allegory, and the author writes that God said something, and God did not really say it, doesn't that make what the writer writes a _lie_, thus the Book of Job a lie?



If it is always a lie for an author of scripture to say God did something that he didn’t actually do, then we would have a hard time with a number of things in scripture. For instance, Genesis presents God reasoning like a human and speaking to himself a number of times in ways that we commonly say are not actually true:

"And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. So the LORD said, ‘I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.’" (Gen 6:6-7)

Was God actually sorry and did he actually resolve _because of being sorry_ to destroy his creation like the passage says? Or how about the following, where God _smells_ something good and tells himself _in his heart_ that he won’t curse the ground for humans again:

"when the LORD smelled the pleasing aroma, the LORD said in his heart, ‘I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth.’” (Gen 8:21)

Calvin here says, “nothing can be more absurd... Moses here, according to his manner, invests God with a human character for the purpose of accommodating himself to the capacity of an ignorant people.”

Here’s another example: "in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.’ ”" (Ex 31:17) Was God really _refreshed_ after resting on the seventh day?

Or here is another example. The Ancient Near Easterners believed that the sky/heaven was a huge solid dome that kept the rain above heaven from destroying the earth and returning it to chaos. You can find this in Enuma Elish, Gilgamesh, etc.. This imagery is also used in a number of places in scripture, for instance in the book of Job: "Can you, like him, spread out the skies, hard as a cast metal mirror?" (Job 37:18). This hard metal thing was thought to be a firmament, which means “hammered out thing” which is imagery taken from how a human spreads out a sheet of metal. Above these hard heavens was thought to be water. In Genesis 1, God creates a firmament to keep that water off the earth. Then he called the hammered-out thing that was below that water “Heaven.” "God called the firmament Heaven" (Gen 1:7-8). This is necessary in their perception because of the water that was believed to be up there: "Praise him, all his angels; praise him, all his hosts! Praise him, sun and moon, praise him, all you shining stars! Praise him, you highest heavens, and you waters above the heavens!" (Psa 148:2-4). Here’s what Calvin says in Genesis 1 about the ancient idea that there was water above heaven:

"It appears opposed to common sense, and quite incredible, that there should be waters above the heaven... to my mind, this is a certain principle, that nothing is here treated of but the visible form of the world. He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. Here the Spirit of God would teach all men without exception... it is the book of the unlearned. The things, therefore, which he relates, serve as the garniture of that theater which he places before our eyes. Whence I conclude, that the waters here meant are such as the rude and unlearned may perceive. The assertion of some, that they embrace by faith what they have read concerning the waters above the heavens, notwithstanding their ignorance respecting them, is not in accordance with the design of Moses... We know, indeed that the rain is naturally produced."

So Calvin explains Moses as accommodating his language into an understanding of nature that the ignorant have. And I know Calvin doesn’t take this to mean God is therefore a liar.

As far as whether or not the book of Job is a literally true story or not, I don’t know. But if it isn’t historically or scientifically true in all its details (for instance, everyone speaking to each other in poetry. Or the same book stating that the sky is as “hard as cast metal”) I wouldn’t say it then necessarily followed that God is a liar, as you stated.


----------



## danmpem (Jan 15, 2008)

k.seymore said:


> As far as whether or not the book of Job is a literally true story or not, I don’t know. But if it isn’t historically or scientifically true in all its details (for instance, everyone speaking to each other in poetry. Or the same book stating that the sky is as “hard as cast metal”) I wouldn’t say it then necessarily followed that God is a liar, as you stated.



I apologize for sounding like I meant that God would be a liar; I will be more aware with my choice of words in future - and thank you for being patient with me. 

I guess I was thinking aloud. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me that God would tell someone that he said something when in fact he did not. If someone wrote down that God said something, when God did not, doesn't that indicate that we have a problem somewhere along the line of transmission?

I'm not trying logistisize my theology; I'm just expressing my thoughts on this.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jan 18, 2008)

The faith of the church up through the ages, and the clear statements of Scripture, affirm the historicity of Job.

Regarding the meaning of the texts, I prefer, again, the faith of the _believing_ church over that of doubting critics.

The encroachments of doubt are insidious, worming their way into our minds and hearts. Jesus' words, "Take heed that no man deceive you," (Matt 24:4) have a wider application than only to false Christs.


----------



## k.seymore (Jan 18, 2008)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> The faith of the church up through the ages, and the clear statements of Scripture, affirm the historicity of Job.
> 
> Regarding the meaning of the texts, I prefer, again, the faith of the _believing_ church over that of doubting critics.
> 
> The encroachments of doubt are insidious, worming their way into our minds and hearts. Jesus' words, "Take heed that no man deceive you," (Matt 24:4) have a wider application than only to false Christs.



Yes, but saying Job is a historical character and saying he went through these events is different that saying the poetic conversations in the book of Job which tell us this story are historical. Maybe I’m wrong to question whether these are the exact words historically used, but do they sound like anyone you’ve ever heard? Have you ever heard anyone actually have conversations in poetry before? I would assume not. But you’ve certainly read conversations in poetry before. That of course doesn’t prove these conversations didn’t happen in those exact words, but it does bring up at least the question of whether they happened in those words. I’d rather say I don’t know, and point out reasons I don’t know, than say I do know and be wrong.

The style of writing in Job is amazing, and helps draw us in and present the story in a way that is memorable, etc. God knows us, his children, and he knows the best ways to present his truth. Whether that is presenting true future evens using the style of apocalyptic imagery, or telling past events in poetry as the book of Psalms does or as the book of Job may be doing, the way of telling these events have their God-intended effect. When I tell my children Bible stories, the characters often didn’t literally say things in the way I say them. But I know my children, and I know how to speak in a way they understand. And the genre of “Children's Bible Story” involves interpretation of history and simplification. My elders at church also know their congregation, and they do the same thing. They will often preface what they are saying with “And then Moses said,” but the “quote” of Moses is actually an interpretation of the things Moses was saying. Nobody bats an eye, everyone naturally understands the genre of a sermon. God also knows his children, and he can present the book of Job in poetry if that is the best genre to convey the truth he is conveying.

You mentioned,


Jerusalem Blade said:


> Regarding the meaning of the texts, I prefer, again, the faith of the _believing_ church over that of doubting critics.




I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that you are referring to the fact that you posted a quote of Spurgeon who interprets certain passages as referring to the resurrection, and many other believers have historically interpreted these passages in Job the same way. I used to understand these passages in the same way as well. And I totally agree that we should be careful when we read a passage in a way that goes against a traditional interpretation of that passage. But: in the Reformed tradition we also understand that if the Bible interprets a passage for us in ways that go against our tradition, the tradition is what gets scrapped, not scripture. If this Reformed tradition of _breaking with tradition_ didn’t exist, we’d probably be Roman Catholics. In response to your Spurgeon quote, I quoted passages of scripture within the same book which seemed to interpret what Job says in a way that goes against how tradition interprets it. Maybe I’m wrong and these passage are not speaking of the same thing. If so, respond by showing me how these are not examples of scripture interpreting scripture. It was hard to come to the point where I believed scripture went against my tradition in this area.



danmpem said:


> I guess I was thinking aloud. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me that God would tell someone that he said something when in fact he did not. If someone wrote down that God said something, when God did not, doesn't that indicate that we have a problem somewhere along the line of transmission?



Well here’s an extreme example: when we read of future events which are written in the style of apocalyptic literature we see God and others doing and saying things that we know will be true historically one day, yet we don’t assume way the things are not all told literally as they will really happen. Or in many cases, many of those events have happened, but we don’t now doubt the apocalyptic passages are historically true just because comparing passages with historical fulfillment we find that a apocalyptic passage doesn’t match the genre of written history. If Job is written in the genre of poetry, Job can still be historical without the conversations being forced into the genre of written history.


----------



## ReformationArt (Jan 18, 2008)

The Bible's wisdom literature presents these issues. However, in the same way that the Psalms are inspired poetry as David recounts historical events in his life and the proverbs are Spirit inspired, even if some might be adapted from the broader culture, so the book of Job in its poetic form is an inspired account of true events.

The poetry involved does not in any way detract from the voracity of the events. It does, however, add majestic beauty that in my opinion is unparalleled elsewhere in all literature.

The Lord delights in beauty, he delights in poetry, which is why he gave it to us! He did not give us the entirety of Scripture in the same form. Compare the history of Numbers to that of Job. It is not cause for doubt, but it is definitely cause for praise and glory!


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jan 21, 2008)

k.seymore,

When you say, “As far as whether or not the book of Job is a literally true story….I don’t know,” you fly alien colors, meaning you do not take clear statements of Scripture meant as fact as fact. And what you say from thence on I consider as possibly suspect. It is odd to me that on a conservative Reformed board I find myself defending the historicity of Biblical characters deemed by both the Scripture’s self-attestation and the considered judgment of the believing church as historic personages.

I also think that at times the anthropomorphisms we attribute to God are a bit far-fetched. For instance, God being sorry (“repenteth” KJV) that He made man, and grieved at his wickedness. Can He not have feelings such as these? From these came His decree to destroy the most of mankind.

When He, in Gen 8:21, “smelled [the] sweet savour” of Noah’s sacrifice, yes, this may possibly be figurative of the “fragrance” of Noah’s godly motive, and also the prototypical Sacrifice foreshadowed by Noah’s, and, as Calvin says (a little further in the passage), “this piety breathed a good and sweet odour before God…” What Calvin found “absurd” was “that God should have been appeased by the filthy smoke of entrails, and of flesh.” This sacrifice was a type or symbol of something else.

You object as not literal or true that God after the six days of creation could rest, and be refreshed (Exod 31:17). Of course the Omnipotent One is ever fresh and vigorous (to speak in human terms), but what if His “refreshment” was in delight at His creation, and “rest” simply being the cessation of that labor?

Regarding your remarks on the imagery in Job 37:18, I shall simply bring a pertinent quote from Francis Andersen’s little (Tyndale) commentary on that book, 

Since the sky seems firm and solid to a viewer on earth, the poetic comparison with a _molten mirror_ should not be spoilt by introducing quarrels about its ‘scientific’ accuracy. The Hebrews were fully aware that the structure of the heavens was much more complex than that of an ‘inverted bowl’. (p. 267)​
We are often told that God does not have a body, and thus not an “ear” or “arm” or “eye” etc, that these are simply anthropomorphisms. I know that the Lord Jesus said “God is a Spirit” (John 4:24), and yet we see – in visions of the great Throne – in Daniel 7:9 and 13:

I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire…

I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.​
In Revelation 4 and 5 we see again One seated on the throne, and giving to the Lamb the book sealed with seven seals – after whose image and likeness we, humankind, were created. These are not mere anthropomorphic “images” meant for us dense humans, but indicate some kind of reality. Yes, there are mysteries concerning the Godhead in these things we cannot in our present states comprehend, but I think you (and many others) go too far.

Addressing (once again – and I bring this in to show the view of the believing church) Job 19:26; I quote from Gleason Archer’s, _A Survey of Old Testament Introduction_ (1994, Moody):

A final word should be said concerning the divergent interpretations of Job 19:26. The KJV seems to indicate that Job entertained a hope of the resurrection of the body. There are, however, many critics who insist that the correct interpretation of the original Hebrew indicates no more than a vindication of the soul after death in a perfectly disembodied state; thus the RSV, “And after my skin has been thus destroyed, then _without_ my flesh I shall see God.” (This is to be contrasted with the KJV: “Yet _in_ my flesh I shall see God.”) Here the interpretation hinges upon the meaning of the preposition _min_, which sometimes does signify “without”; yet it is fair to say that in connection with the verb _to see_, (_haza_) _min_ in its usage elsewhere almost always indicates the vantage point from which the observer looks. It is fair to conclude that a Hebrew listener would have understood this statement to mean, “and from the vantage point of my flesh, I shall see God.” (pp. 514, 515)​
I appreciate the Reformed approach to tradition, but to seek to move me from the traditional exegesis of this passage in the name of “Reformed hermeneutics” I find sophistical (though I do not believe this is intentional on your part). Tradition is this instance is sound.

You say – retreating a bit, it seems to me – “…saying Job is a historical character and saying he went through these events is different that saying the poetic conversations in the book of Job which tell us this story are historical....Have you ever heard anyone actually have conversations in poetry before? I would assume not.”

You err, actually. First, poetry in Hebrew is not to be confused with poetry in Western languages; they are very different. (Let me say at the outset, I do not know Hebrew, and my knowledge of its poetry is not firsthand.) I quote again from Francis Andersen’s commentary: 

The rhymes and rhythms of the Hebrew original cannot be discussed in a commentary on an English translation, but fortunately the main features of Hebrew prosody are preserved in other versions. The structure of Hebrew verse survives translation (the more literal the better) because it depends mainly on the juxtaposition of ideas, on the balancing of one thought with another….The real interest in Hebrew poetry is found more in the ideas than in the sounds. (pp. 37, 38, 39)​
So we need not seek to liken the poetry in the speeches of Job and the others to what we think of as poetry in other languages. Second, and I speak as a poet, I have indeed heard conversations in poetry before, though perhaps not poetry as you may think of it. A book I had written quite some years ago, _A Fire In The Lake_, had in it a number of conversations _literally recorded_ as part of the Poem (it was a short epic, comprised of sequences of small lyric poems*). I will not display examples of it here as it is mostly destroyed, and wouldn’t even if it weren’t, as it was a love story, with the conversations often containing erotic elements. (That part of my life is now dead.) My point, however, is that dramatic poetry can incorporate true speech which is actually spoken. I shall post a poem, of the “concrete” (or “visual”) school, as in some of the poems of Guillaume Apollinaire.

* Such as M.L. Rosenthal and Sally M. Gall talked of and examined in their work, _The Modern Poetic Sequence: The Genius of Modern Poetry_ (Oxford Univ. Press, 1983).




```
Poetry
                                                                              






                   plain



                              as lightning

                         illuminates subtlety of reality
                   
                            ever so fine
                            as fine can be.

                            The human voice
                            in its essence
                            is, oh, poetry.
```


Whether this poem works for you or not (it is hard to duplicate its typography using vB code), there is a quality of speech that is so pure and essential it can fall into that category of language art called poetry, regardless of its being rhymed or not.

The poetry of the speeches in Job in the original Hebrew, therefore, may very well be exactly as it was spoken. I should add that in ancient, predominantly oral cultures, the speech of men was sometimes very carefully composed.

What you say of the apocalyptic genre is sound; we do not expect symbolic language to be literally true; however, I do not accept that Job – or the poetic speeches therein – constitute the genre of poetry and thus are not to be taken literally. Because they are poetry does not mean they were not spoken so, as I have endeavored to show above.

I appreciate your wanting to apply discerning literary judgment to this book that is unique in all the Bible, and comprised of many different genres and forms. It is that I must protest the unwarranted assumptions of a critical school that seeks to deconstruct the hermeneutical approach held to by the believing church. Remember what I said about the flag you flew concerning the historicity of Job himself; it indicates to me you have sailed in from alien territory. I do not believe there may not be a skull and crossbones hidden somewhere, perhaps even unknown to you. You know, of course, there is a warfare on. At times we may be enlisted on the wrong side, and not even know it.

I am sorry if I offend you with this, but at times – such as when the veracity of Scripture is impugned – it is not appropriate to keep one's sword sheathed.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jan 23, 2008)

k.seymore,

Just a little more on what you have written. I have already touched upon the poetic imagery of the “hard metal thing” you spoke of; but after which you said,

Above these hard heavens was thought to be water. In Genesis 1, God creates a firmament to keep that water off the earth. Then he called the hammered-out thing that was below that water “Heaven.” "God called the firmament Heaven" (Gen 1:7-8). This is necessary in their perception because of the water that was believed to be up there: "Praise him, all his angels; praise him, all his hosts! Praise him, sun and moon, praise him, all you shining stars! Praise him, you highest heavens, and you waters above the heavens!" (Psa 148:2-4).​
You then quote Calvin as concluding, “…that the waters here meant are such as the rude and unlearned may perceive.”

A few comments: as regards Psalm 148:4, Derek Kidner in his little (Tyndale) commentary says, “The _waters above the heavens_ are a poetic or popular term for the rain clouds; _cf_. Genesis 1:6-8.” (p.487, 488). In his commentary on the Genesis verses just mentioned, he says, “…we should speak probably of the enveloping vapours being raised clear of the ocean-surface…” (p…47).

Back to Genesis then; these “vapours” have given rise to much theorizing about what is meant by “…the waters which were above the firmament” (Gen 1:7). It is an ill turn of mind, to my view, which seeks _regularly_ to posit, if not error, then “an understanding of nature that the ignorant have” if the Genesis account be taken literally. Yes, Calvin does it here, but not _regularly_, as you seem to.

Although Calvin, even these hundreds of years later, is still one of the finest expositors, he does occasionally flub, as I venture to say he does in this matter.

In their, _The Genesis Flood_, John Whitcomb and Henry Morris disagree that the amount of water in the Deluge could have come from rain alone:

A global rain continuing for forty days, as described in the Bible, would have required a completely different mechanism for its production than is available at the present day. If all the water in our present atmosphere were suddenly precipitated, it would only suffice to cover the ground to an average of less than two inches.* The process of evaporation could not have been effective during the rain, of course, since the atmosphere immediately above the earth was already at saturation level. The normal hydrologic cycle would, therefore, have been incapable of supplying the tremendous amounts of rain the Bible record describes. The implication seems to be that the antediluvian climatology and meteorology were much different from the present. There seems to have been an atmospheric source of water of an entirely different type and order of magnitude than now exists. (p. 121)

* C.S. Fox: _Water_ (New York, Philosophical Library, 1952), p. xx. Recent measurements indicate the water in the atmosphere over the United States averages only ¾ inches. (Clayton H. Reitan: “Distribution of Precipitable Water Vapor over the Continental United States,” _Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society_, Vol. 41, February 1960, p. 86).​
Elsewhere they posit the hypothesis that these _waters above the heavens_ are a “vapor canopy”, and this gave a “greenhouse effect” which produced a lush and life-friendly climate, which accounted for the longevity and superior physical vitality of those living beings and plants in the antediluvian world. Many creation scientists agree with this theory, although Douglas F. Kelly, in his, _Creation And Change: Genesis 1.1—2.4 in the Light of Changing Scientific Paradigms_ (Mentor, 1997) ISBN: 1857922832, brings other Bible-based scientific studies to bear which seem to refute the “canopy” hypothesis, and offer others (see pp. 181-185). I have not seen the response to this critique yet.

My point is, there are other approaches – taken by responsible science-oriented believers – than the knee-jerk skepticism which _assumes_ the Bible cannot possibly be accurate if taken literally. To repeat, there are figures of speech which _are_ clearly meant to be but figures and not taken literally, but to cast _all_ difficult passages into this mold is neither accurate nor responsible exegesis.

E.J. Young, in one of his books on Genesis, _In The Beginning: Genesis 1-3 and the Authority of Scripture_ (BOT, 1976), writes,



> _*Is Genesis Poetry or Myth?*_
> 
> To escape from the plain factual statements of Genesis some Evangelicals are saying that the early chapters of Genesis are poetry or myth, by which they mean that they are not to be taken as straightforward accounts, and that the acceptance of such a view removes the difficulties. Some are prepared to say that the difficulties about the resurrection of Christ are removed at once if you say that the writers of the Gospels do not mean us to understand that a miracle occurred, and that they are simply giving us a poetic account to show that Christ lives on. To adopt such a view, they say, removes all troubles with modern science. But the truth is that, if you accept such beliefs and methods, you are abandoning the Christian faith. If you act thus with Genesis you are not facing up to the facts, and that is a cowardly thing for Evangelicals to do. Genesis is not poetry. There are poetical accounts of creation in the Bible—Psalm 104, and certain chapters in Job—and they differ completely from the first chapter of Genesis. Hebrew poetry has certain characteristics, and they are not found in the first chapter of Genesis. So the claim that Genesis one is poetry is no solution to the question. The man who says, ‘I believe that Genesis purports to be a historical account, but I do not believe that account’, is a far better interpreter of the Bible than the man who says, ‘I believe that Genesis is profoundly true, but it is poetry’. That latter has nothing to commend it at all. I disagree with the first man, but he is a better exegete, he is a better interpreter, because he is facing up to the facts. (pp. 18, 19)



It might be asked, why am I coming on so strong over matters such as these? Because I have seen subtle (and no-so-subtle) attacks on the veracity of Scripture – lately here in Job and in the creation account of Genesis – which may be powerfully destructive to young and formative spiritual minds. To wit:

“The relatively recent obsession with historical accuracy in _Genesis_ among evangelicals is needless and ultimately unhelpful….Neither was I (or any human being) present at the historical event of creation, making it seem rather silly to demand historical accuracy of _Genesis_.”​
Under the guise of literary acumen and spiritual sophistication, doubt is being introduced into the record of God’s word to humankind. It should be clear what Jude meant when he said,

Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write to you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. (verse 3)​
And Paul in like manner speaks of this contending:

For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: 

(For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds,) 

Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ… (2 Cor 10:3-5)​


----------



## BJClark (Jan 23, 2008)

weinhold;




> At face value, I see no reason why Job could not be a historical person, but that really isn't the point. _Job_ is trying to teach us something about God, and it is a lesson that I find unsettling. As just a quick example, consider Job's children, who die as part of God's wager with Satan. At the end of the book, God "replaces" them with additional children as a part of Job's restoration. Such an understanding of one's children as essentially expendable seems problematic, even more so if one reads _Job_ as a historical account.



Well, in reality, they are expendable, as they BELONG to God for HIS Use. He is the potter and we are the clay..the potter can use the clay for whatever He desires. 

If it was to create them only to have them destroyed, then we should be looking at what God wants US to learn about Him, and even in not, we should still look to what God teaches us about Him through them.

When I read Job, I see that even my own life and the lives of my children are in His hands, and I have no control over when or how any of us will die..or what God desires us to go through while in this world, conforming us to His image. 

We are not our own, and our children our not our possession's, they are blessings from God, for us to raise up on His behalf, training them in His way's, 
so that they too can go out into this world He placed them and be prepared for their own calling and a witness for Himself..

But that's just a few things I get out of reading it..


----------



## BJClark (Jan 23, 2008)

Jerusalem Blade;




> Under the guise of literary acumen and spiritual sophistication, doubt is being introduced into the record of God’s word to humankind.



Which is exactly what the serpent did in the Garden..he cast doubt on God's word, so even today, we can see He has NOT changed his tactics.


----------



## k.seymore (Jan 24, 2008)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> "When you say, 'As far as whether or not the book of Job is a literally true story….I don’t know,' you fly alien colors, meaning you do not take clear statements of Scripture meant as fact as fact. And what you say from thence on I consider as possibly suspect. It is odd to me that on a conservative Reformed board I find myself defending the historicity of Biblical characters deemed by both the Scripture’s self-attestation and the considered judgment of the believing church as historic personages."



Wow, first of all, thank you for such a detailed response! Perhaps if I have gone too far, thinking over the things you have said will reign my thinking in. Sorry if this ends up being extra long, yours was pretty long so I know my response will be longer.

If you'll notice, what I said was _the book_ of Job, I didn't say Job wasn't a "historic personage." I said elsewhere that I believed a figure could be historical but could be written about in a different genre which isn't the genre of history. I compared this to apocalyptic literature which is a genre I do not consider literal but that can parallel true history. If Job is written in a genre other than history, we might question whether all the details are historical or scientific. Here is what I actually said which you quoted so disapprovingly above: "As far as whether or not the book of Job is a literally true story or not, I don’t know. But if it isn’t historically or scientifically true in all its details... I wouldn’t say it then necessarily followed that God is a liar." This is in response to Danmpem, who had wondered if the proof that Job wasn't an allegory might be found in the fact that if God, through the author of Job, says God does something that he really doesn't do, wouldn't that make God a liar? Now if God is a liar, that would cause us to doubt. We wouldn't be able to trust him. There may very well be ways to prove that Job is not written in a genre other than straight history, but is Danpem's proof one of them? I tested it in my brain. Forget the book of Job, I tested this: if God says he does something he doesn't actually do, does that make God a liar? Is that a valid way to prove God is a liar and should be doubted? To know why I answered the way I did, I have to jump back in my own history.

What was my first experience with God saying something that doesn't appear to actually be true? When did I first struggle with this? What passage in scripture was hard to face? As a child, on one of my first attempts to read through scripture from beginning to end, I very quickly came upon this verse: "And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart" (Gen 6:6). I don't know if you can remember the first time you read that verse or not, but for someone who has learned a bit about God and the Bible in sunday school, It first hits you like a school bully punching you in the face on a cold winter day and trying to take your lunch money.

Many years later, theology comes to the rescue. The Westminster Confession says:

"Chapter Two. Of God and the Holy Trinity. SECTION I. There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable..."

And A. A. Hodge's commentary on the Confession tells me what that means:

"When the Scriptures, in condescension to our weakness, express the fact that God hears by saying that he has an ear, or that he exerts power by attributing to him a hand, they evidently speak metaphorically, because in the case of men spiritual faculties are exercised through bodily organs. And when they speak of his repenting, of his being grieved, or jealous, they use metaphorical language also, teaching us that he acts toward us as a man would when agitated by such passions."

Ahhhh! Reformed theologians to the rescue. I dug out my childhood question and began to realize that scripture can say God can do things that God doesn't actually do, and I don't then have to doubt the scripture. The Westminster tells me God is: "without body, parts [the heart mentioned in Gen 6], or passions [The grieving and sorrow mentioned in Gen 6]; immutable... [the changing of God's mind in Gen 6]"

I can't express the amount of relief this brought me, it explains so many difficult passages of scripture. I got into reading Calvin and he uses this thinking all the time, and it is so helpful to me, explaining things so simply:

"God is described to us humanly... Because our weakness cannot reach his height, any description which we receive of him must be lowered to our capacity in order to be intelligible. And *the mode of lowering is to represent him not as he really is, but as we conceive of him.* Though he is incapable of every feeling of perturbation, he declares that he is angry with the wicked. Wherefore, as when we hear that God is angry, we ought not to imagine that there is any emotion in him, but ought rather to consider the mode of speech accommodated to our sense, God appearing to us like one inflamed and irritated..." [Institutes]

"If the will of God be one, it does not hence follow that he does not accommodate himself to men, *and put on a character foreign to himself*, as much as a regard for our salvation will bear or require... 'I will not execute the fury of my wrath': by which figurative mode of speaking he sets forth the punishment which was suitable to the sins of men. For it must ever be remembered, that God is exempt from every passion. But if no anger is to be supposed by us to be in God, what does he mean by the fury of his wrath? Even the relation between his nature and our innate or natural sins. But why does Scripture say that God is angry? Even because we imagine him to be so according to the perception of the flesh" [Commentaries Hos 11:8-9]

You are right when you used the image of pirates to explain people who terrorize believers with doubt, but I am not willing to give up freedoms I have in order to combat terrorists. The freedom Reformed Theology brought me in the examples above are freedoms I will not give up to combat the terrorism of unbelievers. So when Denmpen wondered whether the "truth" that God can't say he does something that he doesn't actually do would prove that the book of Job is not allegorical, my childhood pops into mind. Although the book of Job may very well be actual literal history and the conversations may be word for word as you said, I don't think the proof he was wondering about would be the way to prove it. I think if we tried to do that we would be giving up something: the Bible does, as Calvin, Hodge, and the Confession says above, say God does things that he doesn't actually do.

You yourself are willing to say–because I answered Danmpem as I did–I may be a pirate in disgise terrorizing believers:



Jerusalem Blade said:


> "you have sailed in from alien territory. I do not believe there may not be a skull and crossbones hidden somewhere, perhaps even unknown to you. You know, of course, there is a warfare on. At times we may be enlisted on the wrong side, and not even know it."



Now I'll jump back to your first argument in your post criticizing what I said:



Jerusalem Blade said:


> "I also think that at times the anthropomorphisms we attribute to God are a bit far-fetched. For instance, God being sorry (“repenteth” KJV) that He made man, and grieved at his wickedness. Can He not have feelings such as these? From these came His decree to destroy the most of mankind."



Though I am not willing to give up what Calvin and the Confessions say to combat the terroism you spoke of, do you see how it sounds like you are taking an exception to the Westminster Confession here and giving up doctrines to respond to the quotes of Calvin I had posted in order to combat what you perceive as terrorism? Do you see how, if I were to give up these doctrines I would be back were I started when I first was faced with some of the hard ways scripture talks about God? If you take exception to the Westminster Confession on 2.1 regarding the impassibility of God, that is fine. I must say I too have occasionally questioned this myself in the past, but I always come back around to agreeing with it (and enjoying the benefits of that understanding as I posted above). If you've been convinced that this is a Reformed tradition that is in error, I understand that you went through a hard process to come to that disagreement. But I don't think stating your break with tradition would be useful in a defense against someone else's break with tradition about the literary genre of the book of Job (mine). We may very well both be wrong, but I don't think I have said anything in this thread that goes against the Confession. Perhaps I have and didn't notice it, but from what I can tell, my problem appears to be that I said "I don't know." I don't know if the book of Job is in the literary genre of written history. You say you know that it is, but the first thing you state when you begin to make your case against me is to state a disagreement you have with the Confession!?

If I would have said "Yes, that does prove it" in regard to the question Danmpem asked, but then lets say someone read that "proof" and thought it an unassailable argument, and then later came to the conclusion that scripture does speak of God doing things that it elsewhere says he doesn't do, couldn't that also cause doubt if one formerly believed that this would prove God a liar (which is the way I had understood Denmpen's question)? I was raised Dispensational, son of a Dispensational Pastor and I know how much of a struggle people have when they begin to find out that, say, the apocalyptic genre is not necessarily literal, yet it is still true, and can parallel historical events. I knew people who thought salvation hinged on pretrib belief in what they also called "clear statements of scripture" that were "meant as fact." When one starts discovering, through scripture, that some of those beliefs don't hold up, there can easily be doubt until some understanding comes in to fill the place of those previous beliefs. Often discovering the beautiful genre of Apocalyptic writing fills in the place of the earlier wooden literalism.

I know that you said, "I do not accept that Job – or the poetic speeches therein – constitute the genre of poetry" but to me the book is not so clear as to genre. I may come to your conclusion some day, but for now I still have to say "I don't know." For instance, the Reformation Study Bible says of its genre, "Compositions similar to the Book of Job appear in Mesopotamian and Egyptian sources from Old Testament times. One, 'A Dialogue About Human Misery' is about a counselor who criticizes a sufferer for his impiety while the sufferer struggles over the character of the gods. The literary format of Job is not unique among the documents of the ancient Near East, consisting of a prose prologue, a poetic dialog, and finally a prose epilogue." And, "God used a skillful poet from the covenant community to write this book." The Reformation Study Bible is, on the other hand, also careful to say Job was historical and there is a chance the poet who wrote the book had some original sources: "The probability is that the poet used sources from patriarchal time, including some from Job himself, in composing the book." But it also understands the influence the poet would have within the genre, for instance: "3:1-27:23 In three cycles of speeches, the writer explores human perspectives on Job's suffering" and "28:1-28 The new form of ch. 28 indicates that the disputation or dialog is over. Now a new type of wisdom literature is presented: the standard wisdom like that of the Book of Proverbs. The author of Job reflects on the lack of wisdom displayed so far in the dialog... the poem ends with the answer to the question asked in the refrain, 'Where can wisdom be found?'" and "30:1-15 ...These verses are a good example of the discursive style of the poet."

Another thing regarding genre: I looked up the beginning of Job in a number of reformed commentaries that I had here, and each of them begin by asking whether Job was a historical figure or not. Then they went outside the Book of Job to other passages of scripture to prove that Job was a historical person. Why do they do this? Isn't it paritally because everyone recognizes that the book has qualities which make it hard to tell exactly what genre it is?



Jerusalem Blade said:


> Regarding your remarks on the imagery in Job 37:18, I shall simply bring a pertinent quote from Francis Andersen’s little (Tyndale) commentary on that book,
> "Since the sky seems firm and solid to a viewer on earth, the poetic comparison with a molten mirror should not be spoilt by introducing quarrels about its ‘scientific’ accuracy. The Hebrews were fully aware that the structure of the heavens was much more complex than that of an ‘inverted bowl’. (p. 267)"



Yes. As I had quoted Calvin on Genesis 1 regarding the water above heaven (remember heaven is what God names the "firm"ament, and what Job here calls hard as metal), the descriptions of nature here in Job also are not necessarily scientific. And Francis Anderson explains this as being due to the fact that the genre here isn't scientific writing... Anderson in the quote you used explains that the genre in the passage is poetry. He recognizes that it is referring to the belief of the ancients in the hard inverted bowl, but he explains this non-scientific view as being due to the genre of the passage.

You later brought up the Water Canopy Hypothesis which seems odd to me since you already used the quote from Francis Andersen who appears to know that the ancients thought the sky was hard and dome shaped and explained Job saying the sky was hard isn't scientific. Yet the Water Canopy Hypothesis is an alternate way of explaining passages in scripture that speak of water above the firmament. And you also quoted Derek Kidner who has another theory different than the Water Canopy which explains the waters above the firmament as simply a poetic way of referring to rain clouds. To insinuate that I might cause doubt in others on this particular issue seems strange to me when 1) I was quoting Calvin 2) What I said agrees with Andersen which you yourself quoted, 3) I love reading translations of Ancient Near Eastern texts and the ancients around Israel really did think the sky was hard and kept the water from pouring down on the earth 4) that the ancients spoke of the sky as being hard and keeping the water from destroying it is not a hypothesis 5) to get around scripture using language like the people around them, you quote three contradictory interpretations of the same thing in scripture, including a hypothesis, etc. Instead of getting on to me about saying "I don't know" regarding the book of Job, and then giving three different explanations for a certain type of language in scripture, why don't you yourself just say, "I don't know" what the passages in scripture which seem to speak of the heavens as being hard with water over them are referring to? Like I said about the book of Job.

Oddly enough, let's say someone read your words about the Water Canopy and took this Hypothesis as truth. I certainly did as a child. I remember watching a video at church speaking of the Water Canopy and I bought it. I told many of my friends it was proof of the truth of the scriptures. There was evidence of it, as the video said. There was proof! Scriptures are true! But later creationists started rejecting the Water Canopy, and even now Answers in Genesis has the Water Canopy on their "Arguments That We Think Creationists Should Not Use" under the "Arguments are _doubtful,_ hence, inadvisable to use" section. Now which do you think would cause more doubt about scripture with my friends: 1) Me telling them there was proof for a Water Canopy which later is called a "doubtful" interpretation. or 2) simply telling them it is proven that many of the ancients spoke of the sky as being hard with water above it paritally because of the seemingly unending supply of rain that they experienced, similar to how we experience the sun as rising, even though that is merely in our perception and not scientific. The ancient used language like we do. I think telling them #2 is less _doubtful_ than #1. I wish I had never told my friends that the evidence for the water canopy proved the scriptures. I wish I had never seen that video. It should have tipped me off to this questionable intperpretation when I read that scripture speaks of the heaven as hard and having windows in it which God can open to let the water down through heaven! Even if they really thought of the firmament as not actually being hard, why would they figuratively speak of it as needing windows? Perhaps they would if they also figuratively spoke of it as being hard like metal that was hammered out!

On other passages of scripture we all have no problem with saying, "oh, that's just how the ancients talked about these things, they aren't saying these things are literal truth." For instance in Job 55:7 says "the sons of Resheph fly upward" (in the Hebrew) to prove that "man is born to trouble." The Reformation Study Bible here says, "Resheph was the God of pestilence, lightning and destruction." So here the hebrew is using the language of mythology to speak of natural things, again having no problem not using the language of science. In Job 7:12 the Reformation Study Bible also says Job is referring to the god Yam: "This is poetic language for the god Yam (Sea)." Yam is the Sea "dragon" which is the somewhat equivalent to the sea monster in Enuma Elish which is the waters over the heavens which the god Marduk kills, uses part of its body as a dome-like firmament to keep its waters out, then sets up guards to watch the water. Another version of this is Job 19:13, where the Reformation Study Bible says "Rahab is the Semitic sea monster." Or in Job 18:14 the Reformation Study Bible explains why one of Job's friends speaks of death as he does because "The Canaanites understood death as a god whose one lip touched the earth and the other the heavens..." When Job describes God creating the world, the Reformation Study Bible that this doesn't teach "the science of space or weather" and explains that it also refers to God ruling "the supposed dominion of Yamm" and also refers to the "mystical Canaanite monster." Job here speaks of the heavens (that he speaks of as being a hard firmament) and the waters over them using the mythical language similar to Marduk slaying the dragon to create the hard bowl that is the heavens: "By his wind the heavens were made fair; his hand pierced the fleeing serpent." (Job 26:13)" In Enuma Elish, the god Marduk blows air into the water dragon's mouth and fills it up like a balloon, then he pierces it dividing it in half. The inside of it's body is described as hard like a seashell, and is the heavens (firmament), within which Marduk places the stars and the sun. The waters are above the heavens, beyond the stars. I could go on, but I don't have to. I'm sure you would agree that these not being used literally, but why, when scripture uses the same type of language elsewhere, why should there be literal scientific explanations sought out? Ones that might be refered to as doubtful? 

Anyways, all that to simply point out that scripture really does say God did things that he didn't actually do. And the book of Job, in poetic language, speaks of God doing things he didn't actually do, but use mythology and poetry, etc.. So I hope this proves to you that what Danmpem thought of, that if the book of Job says God does things he didn't actually do that would make God a liar, is false. 

Now on to what you said about whether or not Job believes in the Resurrection...




Jerusalem Blade said:


> Addressing (once again – and I bring this in to show the view of the believing church) Job 19:26; I quote from Gleason Archer’s, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (1994, Moody):
> A final word should be said concerning the divergent interpretations of Job 19:26. The KJV seems to indicate that Job entertained a hope of the resurrection of the body. There are, however, many critics who insist that the correct interpretation of the original Hebrew indicates no more than a vindication of the soul after death in a perfectly disembodied state; thus the RSV, “And after my skin has been thus destroyed, then without my flesh I shall see God.” (This is to be contrasted with the KJV: “Yet in my flesh I shall see God.”) Here the interpretation hinges upon the meaning of the preposition min, which sometimes does signify “without”; yet it is fair to say that in connection with the verb to see, (haza) min in its usage elsewhere almost always indicates the vantage point from which the observer looks. It is fair to conclude that a Hebrew listener would have understood this statement to mean, “and from the vantage point of my flesh, I shall see God.” (pp. 514, 515)
> I appreciate the Reformed approach to tradition, but to seek to move me from the traditional exegesis of this passage in the name of “Reformed hermeneutics” I find sophistical (though I do not believe this is intentional on your part). Tradition is this instance is sound.



If you will notice, I too was understanding the passage to mean Job would see God in his flesh, as Gleason translated it. Translating it as "without" would totally go against how I was reading it, and the way I was reading it (the traditional "in my flesh") makes much more sense to me in the context of the book. The way I read it seems to make sense of many of the other thing that are said through the book, and leads right into a perfect resolution of the Job's story at the end. And one note, when I say that I think Job didn't seem to know about the resurrection, all I mean is that that hadn't been revealed to him, he simply didn't have that knowledge.

In the beginning we are told that God has allowed Satan to destroy Job's skin, but Job's life must be spared. So the "loathsome sores" come, and Job longs for death. Except for there is one problem. God doesn't appear to want him to die quite yet for some reason, and Job recognizes it. God still gives him the "light" of life: "Why is light given to him who is in misery, and life to the bitter in soul, who long for death, but it comes not?" (Job 3:20-21). Job knows he will eventually die, but at times he wishes it would come sooner rather than later. And within the things that Job believes about death, we find out that he doesn't seem to believe in a resurrection. The light of life becomes the darkness of death from which Job believes no one ever returns:

"Are not my days few? Then cease, and leave me alone, that I may find a little cheer before_ I go—and I shall not return_—to the land of darkness... where light is as thick darkness" (Job 10:20-22).

Job explains what he means, and longs that, since he believes that humans have no hope because they don't return from death, God would open his eyes and vindicate him before he dies and leave him alone to enjoy the days he has left:

"Man who is born of a woman is few of days... And do you open your eyes on such a one and bring me into judgment with you? ...Since his days are determined... look away from him and leave him alone, that he may enjoy, like a hired hand, his day."

Job continues by emphasizing the hopelessness that he believes that humans have by contrasting it with the hope that a tree has. Job emphasizes this so that God will leave him alone, because humans don't have the hope a tree does:

“For there is hope for a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that its shoots will not cease. Though its root grow old in the earth, and its stump die in the soil, yet at the scent of water it will bud and put out branches like a young plant. 

But a man dies and is laid low; man breathes his last, and where is he? As waters fail from a lake and a river wastes away and dries up, so a _man lies down and rises not again;_ till the heavens are no more he will not awake or be roused out of his sleep" (Job 14:1-12).

Job wishes he could have the same hope that a tree does, and be resurrected with life, but he says he doesn't. He believes that even till "the heavens are no more" this will never happen. So he hopes God will vindicate him before death and let him live out the last of his days in peace. He goes on again to long for God, the judge, to quickly vindicate him before his dies and never returns:

"my eye pours out tears to God, that he would argue the case of a man with God, as a son of man does with his neighbor. For when a few years have come I shall go the way from which _I shall not return_." (Job 16:20-22)

So Job believes that once he can argue his case with God, then God will stop tormenting him with suffering, and he will be able to live the rest of his life in peace. Above can see that he recognizes that God is not killing him and he believes he is going to live out the rest of the years of his life, "for when a few years have come, I shall..." And as with the earlier context, Job emphasizes how short life is so that God will vindicate him sooner rather than later. So Job recognizes through his experience a little bit of the prologue of the book. He knows God is allowing his exterior to waste away, but he knows God is keeping him alive.

So then we get to chapter 19. Job seems to repeat his current understanding that he is escaping death, but God is allowing part of him to waste away: "My bones stick to my skin and to my flesh, and I have escaped by the skin of my teeth!" (job 19) That is, Job is experiencing what Satan demanded: "Skin for skin!" Yet Job's life has been spared, as God demanded: "I have escaped," Job says. So then right after saying that he is wasting away but his life is being spared, Job says, 

"I know that my Redeemer lives, and at the last he will stand upon the earth. And after my skin has been thus destroyed, yet in my flesh I shall see God, whom I shall see for myself, and my eyes shall behold, and not another."

Now in the context of what comes earlier, it sounds to me like Job is saying he believes that once the destruction of his skin is finished, but before he dies, someone will stand up for him before God the judge, God will relent, and Job will live out the rest of his days in peace. And this is exactly how the book resolves! But don't take my word for this interpretation of Job 19. One of Job's friends will later interpret what Job says for us.

Shortly after Job says that he will see God in the verse above, he tells us he longs to see God soon. And what does he mean by that? He means he wants God to come soon as righteous Judge, he doesn't know why it is taking so long:

"Why are not times of judgment kept by the Almighty, and why do those who know him never_ see his days_?" (Job 24:1).

Shortly thereafter, Elihu pops us with a speech for Job, and he also understands Job as referring to God the judge's coming to judge when Job speaks about seeing God: "you say that you do not _see him,_ that the case is before him, and you are waiting for him!" (Job 35:14). 

But that is nothing compared to Elihu, in the same speech, interpreting what Job meant by "my Redeemer lives, and at the last he will stand upon the earth. And after my skin has been thus destroyed, yet in my flesh I shall see God." And here is Elihu's interpretation. As Elihu speaks of a "hypothetical" man, How does he seem to interpret what Job says above? "His flesh is so wasted away that it cannot be seen, and his bones that were not seen stick out. His soul draws near the pit, and his life to those who bring death. If there be for him an angel, a mediator, one of the thousand, to declare to man what is right for him, and he is merciful to him, and says [to God], ‘Deliver him from going down into the pit; I have found a ransom; let his flesh become fresh with youth; let him return to the days of his youthful vigor’; then man prays to God, and he accepts him... He sings before men and says: '...He has redeemed my soul from going down into the pit, and my life shall look upon the light.’" 

To "redeem from death" in the book of Job means, as can be seen above as well as at a number of other places in the book (for instance 5:20), to deliver someone from dying, not deliver someone who is dead. It means to deliver someone whose "soul draws near the pit" and from "those who bring death." It means, as the passage above shows, "deliver him from going down to the pit" not deliver someone who is in the pit already by resurrecting them. And then Job could cry out what Elihu also said, "He has redeemed my soul from going down into the pit, and my life shall look upon the light." Notice that– "light" again. We've come full circle to Job's statements in his first speech when he longed for death and looked to "darkness" instead of the "light" of "life" but God wouldn't give it. Knowing he wouldn't die, Job longed to be delivered. And now we see, exactly as Job said, in the end of the book, after Job's skin had been destroyed, but while Job was still in the flesh, God the judge really does come. 

Now after God the judge appears, here's what Job says: "now my eye sees you" (Job 42:5). And then God proceeds to vindicate him in the eyes of his friends. And then, in an ironic twist on the "my redeemer lives," Job, the very one that had just been redeemed from his suffering, is told to be a mediator for his friends (like the angel redeemer Elihu had mentioned) or else they will not be forgiven:

"Go to my servant Job and offer up a burnt offering for yourselves. And my servant Job shall pray for you, for I will accept his prayer not to deal with you according to your folly" (Job 42:8).

I know that, as you said, this is not the traditional way of reading the passage about a "redeemer". But it seems to me that the book interprets the passage for us. If God's intended meaning of the passage really is what Elihu interprets the passage as, then you aren't just telling me I am wrong. You are also saying Elihu is wrong. And the author is wrong, etc.. 

Scripture is very clear that Christ was raised, and clear that we will be too. The new testament makes this particlarily clear. But if, in light of this fact of resurrection, Christians have searched the Old Testament for _other_ proofs of resurrection and have occasionally wrenched verses out of their context to use as proof texts, I feel we should always carefully read the context and correct ourselves when necessary. If resurrection was not God's intended meaning in the passage in Job, then forcing scripture to say something it doesn't really say to make a case for resurrection to someone using that passage could easily lead to doubt when they find out that it isn't true. It is using false evidence. It makes one a false witness. And it could easily cause doubt. But, hey, I may be wrong in my interpretation, and if so, please show me.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jan 25, 2008)

k.seymore,

I owe you an apology – no, I ask your forgiveness – for saying you come from an “alien” place and fly “alien colors” with perhaps a “skull and crossbones” hid somewhere. I have wronged you in this, and I am sorry. These things I have said of you are not true!

In my “zeal” I have taken your doubts about the literalness of the _account_ of Job (with its poetry and figures) for the historicity of _his person_.

And I have overstepped myself in another area as well: regarding anthropomorphisms. You quote Calvin (in Hosea) as saying, “For it must ever be remembered, that God is exempt from every passion.” It almost sounds as if it is being said He is without feelings, and this cannot be. Packer in _Knowing God_ says this, “God has no _passions_ – this does not mean He is unfeeling (impassive), or that there is nothing in Him that corresponds to emotions and affections in us…”, but that whereas human passions are often involuntary and unstable, “the corresponding attitudes in God have the nature of deliberate, voluntary choices, and therefore are not of the same order as human passions at all.” Of course the omniscient One does not change His mind, but He changes His modes of dealing with us, and, as you say, says it in ways we can comprehend. 

If we say that His wrath or His love or His compassion are but _likened_ unto passions we humans feel, but that in truth He does not have these feelings, I do not accept that. And yet….

I have spent the afternoon with Stephen Charnock, and I now see that my remarks about the images of God on His throne in Daniel 7 and Revelation 4 & 5 are not sound or true. I confess to speaking ignorantly. If God – the invisible, infinite Spirit – has chosen to make Himself apparent to humans, this does not mean that He has a body or form of any kind (including a spiritual body or form), save in His condescending to reveal Himself to us. The Westminster Confession you quoted is true, and I false.

You are no pirate, k.seymore, and I have been tilting at windmills! You have shown yourself much more gracious and in accord with the Spirit of our Lord than I, and I appreciate your graciousness in your response to me!

Regarding the “vapor canopy,” I quoted that and other approaches to show there were other approaches than discounting the statement of “waters above” in Genesis 1. The quote from _The Genesis Flood_ about the rain still shows that “antediluvian climatology and meteorology were much different from the present.” To show differing approaches to an unsettled matter gives no cause for doubt. If I had not given a caveat regarding the canopy and it was refuted, then I might have caused doubt.

I perceive you know the Book of Job better than I do. That does not mean I agree with your view of Job and resurrection; it means I have to study more. I have been shown wrong in other areas; I need to know when to shut my mouth. Perhaps I will get back to you on this when I have learned more.

But I do thank you for your gentleness in the face of my boorishness. Love edifies.

I will be traveling out of the country soon (going to the U.S.), and need to prepare, so I won’t be very active here at PB for a while, and in light of the above it is good I take a break.


----------



## k.seymore (Jan 25, 2008)

> I owe you an apology – no, I ask your forgiveness – for saying you come from an “alien” place and fly “alien colors” with perhaps a “skull and crossbones” hid somewhere. I have wronged you in this, and I am sorry. These things I have said of you are not true!
> 
> I have spent the afternoon with Stephen Charnock, and I now see that my remarks about the images of God on His throne in Daniel 7 and Revelation 4 & 5 are not sound or true. I confess to speaking ignorantly. If God – the invisible, infinite Spirit – has chosen to make Himself apparent to humans, this does not mean that He has a body or form of any kind (including a spiritual body or form), save in His condescending to reveal Himself to us. The Westminster Confession you quoted is true, and I false.
> 
> You are no pirate, k.seymore, and I have been tilting at windmills! You have shown yourself much more gracious and in accord with the Spirit of our Lord than I, and I appreciate your graciousness in your response to me!




You are far too kind, I realize I may still be wrong. But no need to apologize, I realize your cannons were aimed at true unbelief, I just happened to be standing in the line of fire. My post was just me jumping out of the way to avoid being hit.




> In my “zeal” I have taken your doubts about the literalness of the account of Job (with its poetry and figures) for the historicity of his person.
> 
> And I have overstepped myself in another area as well: regarding anthropomorphisms. You quote Calvin (in Hosea) as saying, “For it must ever be remembered, that God is exempt from every passion.” It almost sounds as if it is being said He is without feelings, and this cannot be. Packer in Knowing God says this, “God has no passions – this does not mean He is unfeeling (impassive), or that there is nothing in Him that corresponds to emotions and affections in us…”, but that whereas human passions are often involuntary and unstable, “the corresponding attitudes in God have the nature of deliberate, voluntary choices, and therefore are not of the same order as human passions at all.” Of course the omniscient One does not change His mind, but He changes His modes of dealing with us, and, as you say, says it in ways we can comprehend.
> 
> If we say that His wrath or His love or His compassion are but likened unto passions we humans feel, but that in truth He does not have these feelings, I do not accept that. And yet….




I have a hard time using a word so bound to sensory perception to _literally_ discribe it ("feelings"). But that said, I do believe that feelings in humans are analogous to the very things in God that scripture uses this language to explain. So we truly are, by scriptural example, free to discribe God as God describes himself. I was careful to use a quote of Calvin where he mentioned this. When he spoke of God's "wrath" and said, "if no anger is to be supposed by us to be in God, what does he mean by the fury of his wrath? _Even the relation between his nature and our innate or natural sins._" So although I might word it a little differently, I think I agree with what you are getting at.

God Bless


----------

