What about Job?

[Vance]

One thing that YEC's have said in the past (even on some current threads) is that it is always clear when Scripture is meant to be read non-literally and all the rest should be read literally. While I of course take issue with the idea that we should treat a "literal" reading as somehow a default interpretation absent some specific indication otherwise, I want to look at this question of whether it is always so clear.

While most can spot a parable from Jesus, and know that is not meant to be read as literal history. Others have been debated for centuries: Song of Solomon, Jonah, the Creation accounts, Babel, the Flood, Esther and Job. We have discussed Song of Solomon, and most YEC's simply don't respond to the question of whether they read it as literal (an erotic love story) or figurative (speaking of Christ and the Church). But what about Job, then?

C.S. Lewis indicates that he, like Calvin, does not read this as literal history. Others have read it as literal history. What do you think? Why?

 

[JimfromOhio]

The theme of the book of Job is how a person continues to trust God in the face of seemingly irrational suffering and evil. There is a parallelism between Job and the history of mankind. In many ways the life of Job is a pattern of the story of all mankind. Job's story is in a real sense the story of everyone. The suffering of the innocent cannot be explained by mere human reason or experience. In the story of Job, God reveals a supernatural reason behind suffering. In Job, the the curtain is drawn open a bit for us to see other players involved, spiritual beings, in this drama of good and evil. He shows us that in ways that we do not yet fully understand that mankind is a participant in his plan to resolve the problem of evil. In the whole drama of good and evil we see that Satan plays a key role. Each of us has a part in the resolution of the problem of evil and each of us stand like Job. Job was victorious because of faith. He trusted God despite the apparent irrationality of his suffering and the limited human viewpoint of his friends. We can not please God without faith. The Bible says it is impossible. There are a couple of famous verses in Job that reveal Job's mindset through his suffering. God is looking for Jobs. He is looking for men and women who will trust him in spite of circumstances that challenge appearances. Job is a model and an encouragement for all to remain faithful to God.

 

[SBG]

One thing that YEC's have said in the past (even on some current threads) is that it is always clear when Scripture is meant to be read non-literally and all the rest should be read literally. While I of course take issue with the idea that we should treat a "literal" reading as somehow a default interpretation absent some specific indication otherwise, I want to look at this question of whether it is always so clear.

While most can spot a parable from Jesus, and know that is not meant to be read as literal history. Others have been debated for centuries: Song of Solomon, Jonah, the Creation accounts, Babel, the Flood, Esther and Job. We have discussed Song of Solomon, and most YEC's simply don't respond to the question of whether they read it as literal (an erotic love story) or figurative (speaking of Christ and the Church). But what about Job, then?

C.S. Lewis indicates that he, like Calvin, does not read this as literal history. Others have read it as literal history. What do you think? Why?

I am more than happy to discuss all the books you include here.

Song of Solomon. It can be both an erotic love story and speaking of Christ and the Church. Is it so wrong to think that God has allowed us to express our love, sensually with our spouse?

The way I see Job is that it is historical and it is also showing us what is truly going on in this world. We see the conflict in different eyes.

 

[Vance]

The theme of the book of Job is how a person continues to trust God in the face of seemingly irrational suffering and evil. There is a parallelism between Job and the history of mankind. In many ways the life of Job is a pattern of the story of all mankind. Job's story is in a real sense the story of everyone. The suffering of the innocent cannot be explained by mere human reason or experience. In the story of Job, God reveals a supernatural reason behind suffering. In Job, the the curtain is drawn open a bit for us to see other players involved, spiritual beings, in this drama of good and evil. He shows us that in ways that we do not yet fully understand that mankind is a participant in his plan to resolve the problem of evil. In the whole drama of good and evil we see that Satan plays a key role. Each of us has a part in the resolution of the problem of evil and each of us stand like Job. Job was victorious because of faith. He trusted God despite the apparent irrationality of his suffering and the limited human viewpoint of his friends. We can not please God without faith. The Bible says it is impossible. There are a couple of famous verses in Job that reveal Job's mindset through his suffering. God is looking for Jobs. He is looking for men and women who will trust him in spite of circumstances that challenge appearances. Job is a model and an encouragement for all to remain faithful to God.

Exactly. And I think that is true whether the story is literally historical or not. Personally, I have no idea whether it is literally historical, or based on an historical person, or more in the nature of a parable or "true myth". The point is that it does not matter, the theological truth is still the same.

 

[billwald]

I think Job gives us the most accurate description of God in the Bible.

 

[Vance]

I think Job gives us the most accurate description of God in the Bible.

Yes, I agree completely! And, again, regardless of whether it is a literal/historical account or not.

 

[JimfromOhio]

Job

The theme of the book of Job is how a person continues to trust God in the face of seemingly irrational suffering and evil. There is a parallelism between Job and the history of mankind. In many ways the life of Job is a pattern of the story of all mankind. Job's story is in a real sense the story of everyone. The suffering of the innocent cannot be explained by mere human reason or experience. In the story of Job, God reveals a supernatural reason behind suffering. In Job, the the curtain is drawn open a bit for us to see other players involved, spiritual beings, in this drama of good and evil. He shows us that in ways that we do not yet fully understand that mankind is a participant in his plan to resolve the problem of evil. In the whole drama of good and evil we see that Satan plays a key role. Each of us has a part in the resolution of the problem of evil and each of us stand like Job. Job was victorious because of faith. He trusted God despite the apparent irrationality of his suffering and the limited human viewpoint of his friends. We can not please God without faith. The Bible says it is impossible. There are a couple of famous verses in Job that reveal Job's mindset through his suffering. God is looking for Jobs. He is looking for men and women who will trust him in spite of circumstances that challenge appearances. Job is a model and an encouragement for all to remain faithful to God.

 

[ChristianMuse]

Have you considered the character flaw found in Job? That here is a man who does all he can to live a righteous life before God. So much so that when he is tested he now thinks that God owes him an explanation for all the evil that has befallen him. His friends try to point out that there must be something he did wrong because of the circumstances that has struck Job. Job still loves and honours God but there is this "you need to give me an explanation." Funny thing is that God doesn't give Job an explanation. God asks Job "where were you...". At the end Job repents for the stance he took, that God owes him an explanation. He prays for his friends and God restores Job. I believe this is a historical event. If not then it is simply a philosophical play, a story of little significance.

 

[seebs]

I see no reason at all to assert that Song of Songs has anything to do with Christ and the church.

As to Job... It's a play, Babylonian I think, written to explore three philosophical views (Job's "friends"), then adapted by the Hebrews to make theological points about faith.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

I believe this is a historical event. If not then it is simply a philosophical play, a story of little significance.

How could an inspired book of the Bible have little significance if it takes the form of a philisophical play? Do you also consider Jesus' parables to have little significance because they are not historical?

 

[ChristianMuse]

How could an inspired book of the Bible have little significance if it takes the form of a philisophical play? Do you also consider Jesus' parables to have little significance because they are not historical?

Nope. Then again, I make a difference between a play and a parable. The story of Job is large and meant to be understood. The parables on the other hand were used to bring about misunderstanding. (Matthew 13 is an example and explanation) That is why today the parables are still hotly contested as to their meaning.

 

[gluadys]

The story of Job is large and meant to be understood.

And that is completely irrelevant when it comes to deciding whether it is a drama or a historical event. It could still be either. Or, for that matter, both. History has often been dramatized. We don't expect dramatized history to be historically accurate. In fact, accuracy is often sacrificed to dramatic purpose.

 

[SBG]

The parables are hotly contested because people are still without understanding, leaning rather upon their own understanding that God's. This is the human condition that we each have, we are corrupt and sinful. The very core of us is evil.

When we don't understand the parable(s), we have not given ear to the Lord to so that we may hear. Peter asked Jesus to explain to them a parable and Jesus said to them 'are you without understanding still (or are you still stupid).'

 

[ChristianMuse]

And that is completely irrelevant when it comes to deciding whether it is a drama or a historical event. It could still be either. Or, for that matter, both. History has often been dramatized. We don't expect dramatized history to be historically accurate. In fact, accuracy is often sacrificed to dramatic purpose.

I would think that God would be able to make the drama and the history accurate. My statement that "Job is large and meant to be understood" still stands. I was pointing out that there was a difference between Job and the use of Jesus' parables.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

I would think that God would be able to make the drama and the history accurate.

Yes, God could even have made the characters in Job actually speak in poetry to each other as it is recorded in the book. But, I see no need to claim God must have made it completely historical in order for it to be true and inspired Scripture.

 

[gluadys]

I would think that God would be able to make the drama and the history accurate. My statement that "Job is large and meant to be understood" still stands. I was pointing out that there was a difference between Job and the use of Jesus' parables.

Sure there is a difference. But not one that assures that Job is history.

 

[Vance]

The real question is whether God is allowed to tell us an entirely fictional story for the purpose of telling theological truths?

And, if He is allowed to do that, must he inspire the human author to put a disclaimer in verse 1 that it is not to be read as literal history?

Now, it is possible that the story IS literal history, but the point is that it need not be literal history in order to be TRUE. Other Scripture is very different and it does need to be literal history in order to be true, to the extent the Scripture is given AS history. Acts, for example, seems for most peopled to be written to convey literal history.

For a lot of people, though, Job does not read like literal history at all, like Calvin and CS Lewis. For others, it does sound like literal history, but I would propose that the only reason they think so is because they presume literal history in Scripture unless it is obvious that it is not.

 

[Anduron]

The parables are hotly contested because people are still without understanding, leaning rather upon their own understanding that God's. This is the human condition that we each have, we are corrupt and sinful. The very core of us is evil.

When we don't understand the parable(s), we have not given ear to the Lord to so that we may hear. Peter asked Jesus to explain to them a parable and Jesus said to them 'are you without understanding still (or are you still stupid).'

Indeed. It's quite a problem, those are willing to listen to everyone and everything else, except God.