What genre is Job?

[Clare73]

I agree. I understand that many have come to believe that Job is historical and there are many reasons for it. But there is no doubt that it is almost a replica of the Babylonian Theodicy. Many regard it as the oldest book in the Bible. But I have come to believe that it is a story written much later. Presumably during Israel's exile. Combine that with the underlying theme of suffering, and how it was written in poem, it seems clear that it was very encouraging to so many Israelites who suffered under Babylonian rule. I also believe that regarding the book as historical raises more questions that are difficult to answer.

For example, if God is so Holy that sin has created a separation that only a perfect sacrifice can fill, how then is Satan able to meet with God and have a conversation? Much less how the conversation involve a wager that results in seemingly needless suffering of one considered to be righteous? I do understand that many scholars have regarded "the satan" as an opponent, but not The Opponent (Lucifer), but there are still looming questions that cannot reconcile such a wager with the omnibenevolence of God.

I'm thinkin' that God has declared a controversy with Satan in which
1) God's goodness, love, mercy, etc. will be glorified in the glory of his Son through the church (Eph 3:8-11), and
2) his justice, righteousness, holiness, etc. will be glorified by overcoming Satan in such a way that he will no longer contest (Job 1:9-11, Zec 3:1-2, Rev 12:10), but will be obliged to agree that God is just and right (Ro 3:4, Php 2:10-11).

God is Judge and, therefore, he will not only execute justice, but he will oblige all to agree with it (Php 2:10-11),
for he will be cleared and vindicated (of any charges of injustice) when he judges (Ro 3:4).

 

[joechristianwarrior]

Well...who was present when God created the universe? Who was present to document Jesus being tempted in the wilderness? My opinion is that there were no witnesses. But stories heard through word of mouth.

We have to trust & *believe* that the Scriptures were inspired. And that some of the stuff which there seems to be no eye-witness to was revealed through the power of the Holy Spirit. Otherwise, you'd have to reject a good portion of the Bible if you only say you're going to accept eye-witness testimony for everything it contains.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

We have to trust & *believe* that the Scriptures were inspired. And that some of the stuff which there seems to be no eye-witness to was revealed through the power of the Holy Spirit. Otherwise, you'd have to reject a good portion of the Bible if you only say you're going to accept eye-witness testimony for everything it contains.

I am not saying we should reject it. But reevaluate whether it should be taken literally as if it was historic narrative, or figuratively like a parable.