Paul,
You had written earlier (post 24),
Quote:
Originally Posted by weinhold  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: Quote: |
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).
| |
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.