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?

__________________
Frank
member/Reformed Baptist Church, NJ
1689 BCF
Technician in NewYork
Titus 2:13
...looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus...

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.

__________________
Bruce
PCUSA
Ocean City NJ

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.

__________________
Michael Mason (a.k.a. Dwimble)
Fort Worth PCA
Fort Worth, Texas

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.

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[b] 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.

__________________
Jacob Mearse
Racine Christian Reformed Church
Student, Reformed Theological Seminary (Virtual)
Lieutenant, U.S. Navy
Husband to April; Daddy to Wesley, Cyrus, and FaithMarie.

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.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

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.

__________________
Scott
Dallas, Texas
PCA

"I believe that pluralistic secularism, in the long run, is a more deadly poison than straightforward persecution." - Francis Schaeffer

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.

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.

__________________
Brett McKinley
Member, Pilgrim Bible Church (1689 LBC)
Steilacoom, Washington.

Charles Bridges on Proverbs 16:21a, "There is either a superstitious scrupulousness, or a reckless indifference; sometimes conscience about everything, sometimes about nothing. Prudent wisdom gives consistency to the whole system."

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

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.

__________________
John
Evangelical Free Church, no offices held
Langhorne, PA

[B]δός δοξαν τῳ θεῳ.[/B]
[B]ιδου ποιω τα εσχατα ως τα πρωτα.
הבל הבלים[/B]

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

__________________
Steve Rafalsky
Elder, International Evangelical Church (Reformed)
Limassol, Cyprus

"I am set for the defense of the gospel" (Philippians 1:17)

"Strengthened with all might, according to His glorious
power, unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness..." (Colossians 1:11)

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.

__________________
Pastor Mark A. Mitchell
Senior Pastor/ Second Chance Baptist Church
SBC Affiliated
Wauchula Florida
www.pastormarkmitchell.org
www.2ndchc.org

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.

__________________
Paul Weinhold, Colleyville Presbyterian Church

Currently Reading: Critical Theory Since Plato, Poetry by John Donne, Solon of Athens, and Wallace Stevens

1 Corinthians 8:2-3 "If anyone imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know. But if anyone loves God, he is known by God."

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

__________________
Richard T. Zuelch, M.Div
Ruling Elder, OPC (not currently serving)
Westminster Presbyterian Church, CA (OPC)
www.reiterations.wordpress.com
www.foft.wordpress.com

Talking to oneself is, I believe, considered a sign of lunacy. Thinking to oneself is most certainly a sign of it. - G. K. Chesterton (1874-1936), in January, 1906

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

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.

__________________
Josh Hicks, Chloë's Daddy
Member of TRBC. My Blog
The Puritan Pub (Team Blog)
Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

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.

__________________
Ginny Dohms
Puritan Reformed Church
RPNA (GM)
Canada

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:

And also:

.

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:

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:

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:

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:

Just a few comments to your post:

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 t