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.

__________________
Imagine something clever here!

John Beaver
The Episcopal Church (formerly ECUSA)
St. Matthew's Episcopal Church
Westerville, OH.
I affirm the 39 Articles of Religion

Just for the purpose of clarifcation, you do not doubt the canonicity of Job, right? By the above statement you're just meaning that you want to know how to expound the book of Job thoroughly and accurately (as you understand it) to yourself and others, right? Note: I'm not implying anything, just asking a genuine question that might arise from someone's interpretation (or possibly misinterpretation) of you sentence above. Thanks.

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

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.

__________________
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."

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

__________________
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)

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

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

__________________
~etexas~

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."

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.

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.

__________________
C. Gorsuch
Glencullen Baptist
Portland, Oregon

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.

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.

__________________
R.Vic Bottomly
Providence Reformed Baptist Church, Tacoma, WA

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.

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'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.

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?

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.

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.

__________________
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...

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.

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

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.

Paul,

You had written earlier (post 24),

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.

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:

I am particularly intere