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
www.dwimble.com

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
Reformation Orthodox Presbyterian Church
Olympia, WA
Student, Reformed Theological Seminary (Virtual)
Lieutenant, U.S. Navy
Husband to April; Daddy to Wesley, Cyrus, FaithMarie and SarahAnn.

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 - Faith OPC

"It is not what a lawyer tells me I may do; but what humanity, reason, and justice tell me I ought to do." - Edmund Burke

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)

Blog: A Great and Terrible Love

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

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.alexandermaclaren.wordpress.com
www.reiterations.wordpress.com
www.spurgeonswords.wordpress.com

Devout souls do not take offence at the depths and difficulties of God's Word, but are, thereby, drawn to intenser contemplation of them. - Alexander Maclaren (1826-1910)

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 Dad
Christ Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church, RPCGA
Facebook - The Calvinist Vent
Board Rules - Signature Rules - Suggestion Box

It is God that multiplies our sorrows.... God, as a righteous Judge, does it, which ought to silence us under all our sorrows; as many as they are, we have deserved them all, and more: nay, God, as a tender Father, does it for our necessary correction, that we may be humbled for sin, and weaned from the world by all our sorrows; and the good we get by them, with the comfort we have under them, will abundantly balance our sorrows, how greatly soever they are multiplied. - Matthew Henry

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 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."

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!"

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

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:

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:


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.

Nicely phrased !

__________________
~ Steven Bradford ~
Member Covenant Presbyterian, Chattanooga, TN

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 judgement, 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 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.

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.

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:

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

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....

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.’"

__________________
C. Gorsuch
Glencullen Baptist
Portland, Oregon

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?

^

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.

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

and

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.

I love this statement!

__________________
For the Glory of our King,
Joe Johnson
Slave of Christ, husband, father, Preacherboy at Cornerstone Community Church, Escanaba, MI. and TMS graduate. Personal website - SoundLife.org

I do not know, and I do not say, that a person cannot believe in Revelation and in evolution, too, for a man may believe that which is infinitely wise and also that which is only asinine. ~ CHS

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.

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:

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.

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.

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

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

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.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

Well said Joe

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.

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

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.