Jerusalem Blade said:
"When you say, 'As far as whether or not the book of Job is a literally true story….I don’t know,' you fly alien colors, meaning you do not take clear statements of Scripture meant as fact as fact. And what you say from thence on I consider as possibly suspect. It is odd to me that on a conservative Reformed board I find myself defending the historicity of Biblical characters deemed by both the Scripture’s self-attestation and the considered judgment of the believing church as historic personages."
Wow, first of all, thank you for such a detailed response! Perhaps if I have gone too far, thinking over the things you have said will reign my thinking in. Sorry if this ends up being extra long, yours was pretty long so I know my response will be longer.
If you'll notice, what I said was
the book of Job, I didn't say Job wasn't a "historic personage." I said elsewhere that I believed a figure could be historical but could be written about in a different genre which isn't the genre of history. I compared this to apocalyptic literature which is a genre I do not consider literal but that can parallel true history. If Job is written in a genre other than history, we might question whether all the details are historical or scientific. Here is what I actually said which you quoted so disapprovingly above: "As far as whether or not the book of Job is a literally true story or not, I don’t know. But if it isn’t historically or scientifically true in all its details... I wouldn’t say it then necessarily followed that God is a liar." This is in response to Danmpem, who had wondered if the proof that Job wasn't an allegory might be found in the fact that if God, through the author of Job, says God does something that he really doesn't do, wouldn't that make God a liar? Now if God is a liar, that would cause us to doubt. We wouldn't be able to trust him. There may very well be ways to prove that Job is not written in a genre other than straight history, but is Danpem's proof one of them? I tested it in my brain. Forget the book of Job, I tested this: if God says he does something he doesn't actually do, does that make God a liar? Is that a valid way to prove God is a liar and should be doubted? To know why I answered the way I did, I have to jump back in my own history.
What was my first experience with God saying something that doesn't appear to actually be true? When did I first struggle with this? What passage in scripture was hard to face? As a child, on one of my first attempts to read through scripture from beginning to end, I very quickly came upon this verse: "And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart" (Gen 6:6). I don't know if you can remember the first time you read that verse or not, but for someone who has learned a bit about God and the Bible in sunday school, It first hits you like a school bully punching you in the face on a cold winter day and trying to take your lunch money.
Many years later, theology comes to the rescue. The Westminster Confession says:
"Chapter Two. Of God and the Holy Trinity. SECTION I. There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable..."
And A. A. Hodge's commentary on the Confession tells me what that means:
"When the Scriptures, in condescension to our weakness, express the fact that God hears by saying that he has an ear, or that he exerts power by attributing to him a hand, they evidently speak metaphorically, because in the case of men spiritual faculties are exercised through bodily organs. And when they speak of his repenting, of his being grieved, or jealous, they use metaphorical language also, teaching us that he acts toward us as a man would when agitated by such passions."
Ahhhh! Reformed theologians to the rescue. I dug out my childhood question and began to realize that scripture can say God can do things that God doesn't actually do, and I don't then have to doubt the scripture. The Westminster tells me God is: "without body, parts [the heart mentioned in Gen 6], or passions [The grieving and sorrow mentioned in Gen 6]; immutable... [the changing of God's mind in Gen 6]"
I can't express the amount of relief this brought me, it explains so many difficult passages of scripture. I got into reading Calvin and he uses this thinking all the time, and it is so helpful to me, explaining things so simply:
"God is described to us humanly... Because our weakness cannot reach his height, any description which we receive of him must be lowered to our capacity in order to be intelligible. And
the mode of lowering is to represent him not as he really is, but as we conceive of him. Though he is incapable of every feeling of perturbation, he declares that he is angry with the wicked. Wherefore, as when we hear that God is angry, we ought not to imagine that there is any emotion in him, but ought rather to consider the mode of speech accommodated to our sense, God appearing to us like one inflamed and irritated..." [Institutes]
"If the will of God be one, it does not hence follow that he does not accommodate himself to men,
and put on a character foreign to himself, as much as a regard for our salvation will bear or require... 'I will not execute the fury of my wrath': by which figurative mode of speaking he sets forth the punishment which was suitable to the sins of men. For it must ever be remembered, that God is exempt from every passion. But if no anger is to be supposed by us to be in God, what does he mean by the fury of his wrath? Even the relation between his nature and our innate or natural sins. But why does Scripture say that God is angry? Even because we imagine him to be so according to the perception of the flesh" [Commentaries Hos 11:8-9]
You are right when you used the image of pirates to explain people who terrorize believers with doubt, but I am not willing to give up freedoms I have in order to combat terrorists. The freedom Reformed Theology brought me in the examples above are freedoms I will not give up to combat the terrorism of unbelievers. So when Denmpen wondered whether the "truth" that God can't say he does something that he doesn't actually do would prove that the book of Job is not allegorical, my childhood pops into mind. Although the book of Job may very well be actual literal history and the conversations may be word for word as you said, I don't think the proof he was wondering about would be the way to prove it. I think if we tried to do that we would be giving up something: the Bible does, as Calvin, Hodge, and the Confession says above, say God does things that he doesn't actually do.
You yourself are willing to say–because I answered Danmpem as I did–I may be a pirate in disgise terrorizing believers:
Jerusalem Blade said:
"you have sailed in from alien territory. I do not believe there may not be a skull and crossbones hidden somewhere, perhaps even unknown to you. You know, of course, there is a warfare on. At times we may be enlisted on the wrong side, and not even know it."
Now I'll jump back to your first argument in your post criticizing what I said:
Jerusalem Blade said:
"I also think that at times the anthropomorphisms we attribute to God are a bit far-fetched. For instance, God being sorry (“repenteth” KJV) that He made man, and grieved at his wickedness. Can He not have feelings such as these? From these came His decree to destroy the most of mankind."
Though I am not willing to give up what Calvin and the Confessions say to combat the terroism you spoke of, do you see how it sounds like you are taking an exception to the Westminster Confession here and giving up doctrines to respond to the quotes of Calvin I had posted in order to combat what you perceive as terrorism? Do you see how, if I were to give up these doctrines I would be back were I started when I first was faced with some of the hard ways scripture talks about God? If you take exception to the Westminster Confession on 2.1 regarding the impassibility of God, that is fine. I must say I too have occasionally questioned this myself in the past, but I always come back around to agreeing with it (and enjoying the benefits of that understanding as I posted above). If you've been convinced that this is a Reformed tradition that is in error, I understand that you went through a hard process to come to that disagreement. But I don't think stating your break with tradition would be useful in a defense against someone else's break with tradition about the literary genre of the book of Job (mine). We may very well both be wrong, but I don't think I have said anything in this thread that goes against the Confession. Perhaps I have and didn't notice it, but from what I can tell, my problem appears to be that I said "I don't know." I don't know if the book of Job is in the literary genre of written history. You say you know that it is, but the first thing you state when you begin to make your case against me is to state a disagreement you have with the Confession!?
If I would have said "Yes, that does prove it" in regard to the question Danmpem asked, but then lets say someone read that "proof" and thought it an unassailable argument, and then later came to the conclusion that scripture does speak of God doing things that it elsewhere says he doesn't do, couldn't that also cause doubt if one formerly believed that this would prove God a liar (which is the way I had understood Denmpen's question)? I was raised Dispensational, son of a Dispensational Pastor and I know how much of a struggle people have when they begin to find out that, say, the apocalyptic genre is not necessarily literal, yet it is still true, and can parallel historical events. I knew people who thought salvation hinged on pretrib belief in what they also called "clear statements of scripture" that were "meant as fact." When one starts discovering, through scripture, that some of those beliefs don't hold up, there can easily be doubt until some understanding comes in to fill the place of those previous beliefs. Often discovering the beautiful genre of Apocalyptic writing fills in the place of the earlier wooden literalism.
I know that you said, "I do not accept that Job – or the poetic speeches therein – constitute the genre of poetry" but to me the book is not so clear as to genre. I may come to your conclusion some day, but for now I still have to say "I don't know." For instance, the Reformation Study Bible says of its genre, "Compositions similar to the Book of Job appear in Mesopotamian and Egyptian sources from Old Testament times. One, 'A Dialogue About Human Misery' is about a counselor who criticizes a sufferer for his impiety while the sufferer struggles over the character of the gods. The literary format of Job is not unique among the documents of the ancient Near East, consisting of a prose prologue, a poetic dialog, and finally a prose epilogue." And, "God used a skillful poet from the covenant community to write this book." The Reformation Study Bible is, on the other hand, also careful to say Job was historical and there is a chance the poet who wrote the book had some original sources: "The probability is that the poet used sources from patriarchal time, including some from Job himself, in composing the book." But it also understands the influence the poet would have within the genre, for instance: "3:1-27:23 In three cycles of speeches, the writer explores human perspectives on Job's suffering" and "28:1-28 The new form of ch. 28 indicates that the disputation or dialog is over. Now a new type of wisdom literature is presented: the standard wisdom like that of the Book of Proverbs. The author of Job reflects on the lack of wisdom displayed so far in the dialog... the poem ends with the answer to the question asked in the refrain, 'Where can wisdom be found?'" and "30:1-15 ...These verses are a good example of the discursive style of the poet."
Another thing regarding genre: I looked up the beginning of Job in a number of reformed commentaries that I had here, and each of them begin by asking whether Job was a historical figure or not. Then they went outside the Book of Job to other passages of scripture to prove that Job was a historical person. Why do they do this? Isn't it paritally because everyone recognizes that the book has qualities which make it hard to tell exactly what genre it is?
Jerusalem Blade said:
Regarding your remarks on the imagery in Job 37:18, I shall simply bring a pertinent quote from Francis Andersen’s little (Tyndale) commentary on that book,
"Since the sky seems firm and solid to a viewer on earth, the poetic comparison with a molten mirror should not be spoilt by introducing quarrels about its ‘scientific’ accuracy. The Hebrews were fully aware that the structure of the heavens was much more complex than that of an ‘inverted bowl’. (p. 267)"
Yes. As I had quoted Calvin on Genesis 1 regarding the water above heaven (remember heaven is what God names the "firm"ament, and what Job here calls hard as metal), the descriptions of nature here in Job also are not necessarily scientific. And Francis Anderson explains this as being due to the fact that the genre here isn't scientific writing... Anderson in the quote you used explains that the genre in the passage is poetry. He recognizes that it is referring to the belief of the ancients in the hard inverted bowl, but he explains this non-scientific view as being due to the genre of the passage.
You later brought up the Water Canopy Hypothesis which seems odd to me since you already used the quote from Francis Andersen who appears to know that the ancients thought the sky was hard and dome shaped and explained Job saying the sky was hard isn't scientific. Yet the Water Canopy Hypothesis is an alternate way of explaining passages in scripture that speak of water above the firmament. And you also quoted Derek Kidner who has another theory different than the Water Canopy which explains the waters above the firmament as simply a poetic way of referring to rain clouds. To insinuate that I might cause doubt in others on this particular issue seems strange to me when 1) I was quoting Calvin 2) What I said agrees with Andersen which you yourself quoted, 3) I love reading translations of Ancient Near Eastern texts and the ancients around Israel really did think the sky was hard and kept the water from pouring down on the earth 4) that the ancients spoke of the sky as being hard and keeping the water from destroying it is not a hypothesis 5) to get around scripture using language like the people around them, you quote three contradictory interpretations of the same thing in scripture, including a hypothesis, etc. Instead of getting on to me about saying "I don't know" regarding the book of Job, and then giving three different explanations for a certain type of language in scripture, why don't you yourself just say, "I don't know" what the passages in scripture which seem to speak of the heavens as being hard with water over them are referring to? Like I said about the book of Job.
Oddly enough, let's say someone read your words about the Water Canopy and took this Hypothesis as truth. I certainly did as a child. I remember watching a video at church speaking of the Water Canopy and I bought it. I told many of my friends it was proof of the truth of the scriptures. There was evidence of it, as the video said. There was proof! Scriptures are true! But later creationists started rejecting the Water Canopy, and even now Answers in Genesis has the Water Canopy on their "Arguments That We Think Creationists Should Not Use" under the "Arguments are
doubtful, hence, inadvisable to use" section. Now which do you think would cause more doubt about scripture with my friends: 1) Me telling them there was proof for a Water Canopy which later is called a "doubtful" interpretation. or 2) simply telling them it is proven that many of the ancients spoke of the sky as being hard with water above it paritally because of the seemingly unending supply of rain that they experienced, similar to how we experience the sun as rising, even though that is merely in our perception and not scientific. The ancient used language like we do. I think telling them #2 is less
doubtful than #1. I wish I had never told my friends that the evidence for the water canopy proved the scriptures. I wish I had never seen that video. It should have tipped me off to this questionable intperpretation when I read that scripture speaks of the heaven as hard and having windows in it which God can open to let the water down through heaven! Even if they really thought of the firmament as not actually being hard, why would they figuratively speak of it as needing windows? Perhaps they would if they also figuratively spoke of it as being hard like metal that was hammered out!
On other passages of scripture we all have no problem with saying, "oh, that's just how the ancients talked about these things, they aren't saying these things are literal truth." For instance in Job 55:7 says "the sons of Resheph fly upward" (in the Hebrew) to prove that "man is born to trouble." The Reformation Study Bible here says, "Resheph was the God of pestilence, lightning and destruction." So here the hebrew is using the language of mythology to speak of natural things, again having no problem not using the language of science. In Job 7:12 the Reformation Study Bible also says Job is referring to the god Yam: "This is poetic language for the god Yam (Sea)." Yam is the Sea "dragon" which is the somewhat equivalent to the sea monster in Enuma Elish which is the waters over the heavens which the god Marduk kills, uses part of its body as a dome-like firmament to keep its waters out, then sets up guards to watch the water. Another version of this is Job 19:13, where the Reformation Study Bible says "Rahab is the Semitic sea monster." Or in Job 18:14 the Reformation Study Bible explains why one of Job's friends speaks of death as he does because "The Canaanites understood death as a god whose one lip touched the earth and the other the heavens..." When Job describes God creating the world, the Reformation Study Bible that this doesn't teach "the science of space or weather" and explains that it also refers to God ruling "the supposed dominion of Yamm" and also refers to the "mystical Canaanite monster." Job here speaks of the heavens (that he speaks of as being a hard firmament) and the waters over them using the mythical language similar to Marduk slaying the dragon to create the hard bowl that is the heavens: "By his wind the heavens were made fair; his hand pierced the fleeing serpent." (Job 26:13)" In Enuma Elish, the god Marduk blows air into the water dragon's mouth and fills it up like a balloon, then he pierces it dividing it in half. The inside of it's body is described as hard like a seashell, and is the heavens (firmament), within which Marduk places the stars and the sun. The waters are above the heavens, beyond the stars. I could go on, but I don't have to. I'm sure you would agree that these not being used literally, but why, when scripture uses the same type of language elsewhere, why should there be literal scientific explanations sought out? Ones that might be refered to as doubtful?
Anyways, all that to simply point out that scripture really does say God did things that he didn't actually do. And the book of Job, in poetic language, speaks of God doing things he didn't actually do, but use mythology and poetry, etc.. So I hope this proves to you that what Danmpem thought of, that if the book of Job says God does things he didn't actually do that would make God a liar, is false.
Now on to what you said about whether or not Job believes in the Resurrection...
Jerusalem Blade said:
Addressing (once again – and I bring this in to show the view of the believing church) Job 19:26; I quote from Gleason Archer’s, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (1994, Moody):
A final word should be said concerning the divergent interpretations of Job 19:26. The KJV seems to indicate that Job entertained a hope of the resurrection of the body. There are, however, many critics who insist that the correct interpretation of the original Hebrew indicates no more than a vindication of the soul after death in a perfectly disembodied state; thus the RSV, “And after my skin has been thus destroyed, then without my flesh I shall see God.” (This is to be contrasted with the KJV: “Yet in my flesh I shall see God.”) Here the interpretation hinges upon the meaning of the preposition min, which sometimes does signify “without”; yet it is fair to say that in connection with the verb to see, (haza) min in its usage elsewhere almost always indicates the vantage point from which the observer looks. It is fair to conclude that a Hebrew listener would have understood this statement to mean, “and from the vantage point of my flesh, I shall see God.” (pp. 514, 515)
I appreciate the Reformed approach to tradition, but to seek to move me from the traditional exegesis of this passage in the name of “Reformed hermeneutics” I find sophistical (though I do not believe this is intentional on your part). Tradition is this instance is sound.
If you will notice, I too was understanding the passage to mean Job would see God in his flesh, as Gleason translated it. Translating it as "without" would totally go against how I was reading it, and the way I was reading it (the traditional "in my flesh") makes much more sense to me in the context of the book. The way I read it seems to make sense of many of the other thing that are said through the book, and leads right into a perfect resolution of the Job's story at the end. And one note, when I say that I think Job didn't seem to know about the resurrection, all I mean is that that hadn't been revealed to him, he simply didn't have that knowledge.
In the beginning we are told that God has allowed Satan to destroy Job's skin, but Job's life must be spared. So the "loathsome sores" come, and Job longs for death. Except for there is one problem. God doesn't appear to want him to die quite yet for some reason, and Job recognizes it. God still gives him the "light" of life: "Why is light given to him who is in misery, and life to the bitter in soul, who long for death, but it comes not?" (Job 3:20-21). Job knows he will eventually die, but at times he wishes it would come sooner rather than later. And within the things that Job believes about death, we find out that he doesn't seem to believe in a resurrection. The light of life becomes the darkness of death from which Job believes no one ever returns:
"Are not my days few? Then cease, and leave me alone, that I may find a little cheer before
I go—and I shall not return—to the land of darkness... where light is as thick darkness" (Job 10:20-22).
Job explains what he means, and longs that, since he believes that humans have no hope because they don't return from death, God would open his eyes and vindicate him before he dies and leave him alone to enjoy the days he has left:
"Man who is born of a woman is few of days... And do you open your eyes on such a one and bring me into judgment with you? ...Since his days are determined... look away from him and leave him alone, that he may enjoy, like a hired hand, his day."
Job continues by emphasizing the hopelessness that he believes that humans have by contrasting it with the hope that a tree has. Job emphasizes this so that God will leave him alone, because humans don't have the hope a tree does:
“For there is hope for a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that its shoots will not cease. Though its root grow old in the earth, and its stump die in the soil, yet at the scent of water it will bud and put out branches like a young plant.
But a man dies and is laid low; man breathes his last, and where is he? As waters fail from a lake and a river wastes away and dries up, so a
man lies down and rises not again; till the heavens are no more he will not awake or be roused out of his sleep" (Job 14:1-12).
Job wishes he could have the same hope that a tree does, and be resurrected with life, but he says he doesn't. He believes that even till "the heavens are no more" this will never happen. So he hopes God will vindicate him before death and let him live out the last of his days in peace. He goes on again to long for God, the judge, to quickly vindicate him before his dies and never returns:
"my eye pours out tears to God, that he would argue the case of a man with God, as a son of man does with his neighbor. For when a few years have come I shall go the way from which
I shall not return." (Job 16:20-22)
So Job believes that once he can argue his case with God, then God will stop tormenting him with suffering, and he will be able to live the rest of his life in peace. Above can see that he recognizes that God is not killing him and he believes he is going to live out the rest of the years of his life, "for when a few years have come, I shall..." And as with the earlier context, Job emphasizes how short life is so that God will vindicate him sooner rather than later. So Job recognizes through his experience a little bit of the prologue of the book. He knows God is allowing his exterior to waste away, but he knows God is keeping him alive.
So then we get to chapter 19. Job seems to repeat his current understanding that he is escaping death, but God is allowing part of him to waste away: "My bones stick to my skin and to my flesh, and I have escaped by the skin of my teeth!" (job 19) That is, Job is experiencing what Satan demanded: "Skin for skin!" Yet Job's life has been spared, as God demanded: "I have escaped," Job says. So then right after saying that he is wasting away but his life is being spared, Job says,
"I know that my Redeemer lives, and at the last he will stand upon the earth. And after my skin has been thus destroyed, yet in my flesh I shall see God, whom I shall see for myself, and my eyes shall behold, and not another."
Now in the context of what comes earlier, it sounds to me like Job is saying he believes that once the destruction of his skin is finished, but before he dies, someone will stand up for him before God the judge, God will relent, and Job will live out the rest of his days in peace. And this is exactly how the book resolves! But don't take my word for this interpretation of Job 19. One of Job's friends will later interpret what Job says for us.
Shortly after Job says that he will see God in the verse above, he tells us he longs to see God soon. And what does he mean by that? He means he wants God to come soon as righteous Judge, he doesn't know why it is taking so long:
"Why are not times of judgment kept by the Almighty, and why do those who know him never
see his days?" (Job 24:1).
Shortly thereafter, Elihu pops us with a speech for Job, and he also understands Job as referring to God the judge's coming to judge when Job speaks about seeing God: "you say that you do not
see him, that the case is before him, and you are waiting for him!" (Job 35:14).
But that is nothing compared to Elihu, in the same speech, interpreting what Job meant by "my Redeemer lives, and at the last he will stand upon the earth. And after my skin has been thus destroyed, yet in my flesh I shall see God." And here is Elihu's interpretation. As Elihu speaks of a "hypothetical" man, How does he seem to interpret what Job says above? "His flesh is so wasted away that it cannot be seen, and his bones that were not seen stick out. His soul draws near the pit, and his life to those who bring death. If there be for him an angel, a mediator, one of the thousand, to declare to man what is right for him, and he is merciful to him, and says [to God], ‘Deliver him from going down into the pit; I have found a ransom; let his flesh become fresh with youth; let him return to the days of his youthful vigor’; then man prays to God, and he accepts him... He sings before men and says: '...He has redeemed my soul from going down into the pit, and my life shall look upon the light.’"
To "redeem from death" in the book of Job means, as can be seen above as well as at a number of other places in the book (for instance 5:20), to deliver someone from dying, not deliver someone who is dead. It means to deliver someone whose "soul draws near the pit" and from "those who bring death." It means, as the passage above shows, "deliver him from going down to the pit" not deliver someone who is in the pit already by resurrecting them. And then Job could cry out what Elihu also said, "He has redeemed my soul from going down into the pit, and my life shall look upon the light." Notice that– "light" again. We've come full circle to Job's statements in his first speech when he longed for death and looked to "darkness" instead of the "light" of "life" but God wouldn't give it. Knowing he wouldn't die, Job longed to be delivered. And now we see, exactly as Job said, in the end of the book, after Job's skin had been destroyed, but while Job was still in the flesh, God the judge really does come.
Now after God the judge appears, here's what Job says: "now my eye sees you" (Job 42:5). And then God proceeds to vindicate him in the eyes of his friends. And then, in an ironic twist on the "my redeemer lives," Job, the very one that had just been redeemed from his suffering, is told to be a mediator for his friends (like the angel redeemer Elihu had mentioned) or else they will not be forgiven:
"Go to my servant Job and offer up a burnt offering for yourselves. And my servant Job shall pray for you, for I will accept his prayer not to deal with you according to your folly" (Job 42:8).
I know that, as you said, this is not the traditional way of reading the passage about a "redeemer". But it seems to me that the book interprets the passage for us. If God's intended meaning of the passage really is what Elihu interprets the passage as, then you aren't just telling me I am wrong. You are also saying Elihu is wrong. And the author is wrong, etc..
Scripture is very clear that Christ was raised, and clear that we will be too. The new testament makes this particlarily clear. But if, in light of this fact of resurrection, Christians have searched the Old Testament for
other proofs of resurrection and have occasionally wrenched verses out of their context to use as proof texts, I feel we should always carefully read the context and correct ourselves when necessary. If resurrection was not God's intended meaning in the passage in Job, then forcing scripture to say something it doesn't really say to make a case for resurrection to someone using that passage could easily lead to doubt when they find out that it isn't true. It is using false evidence. It makes one a false witness. And it could easily cause doubt. But, hey, I may be wrong in my interpretation, and if so, please show me.
