Robert said

Poohbear said  

So how then to RECONCILE SCRIPTURE, particularly from the same author? It’s that Job in one breath is talking about human existence, and in another he is speaking of the Kingdom to come – where he will be resurrected and see the face of God. This is what Moses meant by the “book of life.”  

That’s not really what Job is speaking about in 19,23-26. It’s late here so I only have time to give you a hint.

Ask yourself what kind of redeemer Job is constantly looking for throughout the book?

Have you ever read the book of Job?   

The book of Job is about the justice of God in light of our suffering. It’s interesting that the people who seemed to suffer the most had the greatest revelations of the Messiah. Notice David in Psalm 22 and 69. Compare that to his son Solomon who never mentioned any revelation in his absolute luxuriant life. Job began like Solomon in his wealth and ended like David in his suffering. 

Robert said
But what kind of redeemer is Job constantly looking for throughout the book? I think that’s the key to understanding this passage both in its immediate context here and in the wider context of the whole book.   

What kind of Redeemer? I looked up the definition

Son of God (noun) deity (noun) deliverer (noun) emancipator (noun) liberator (noun)

compensate for the faults or bad aspects of.

atone or make amends for (sin, error, or evil).

save (someone) from sin, error, or evil.

And in the next verse:

And after my skin has been destroyed,
yet in my flesh I will see God;
I myself will see him
with my own eyes— I, and not another.
How my heart yearns within me!

To this end was Job speaking of a Redeemer.

Robert said
No, that is completely wrong. I will ask again: have you never read the book of Job?  

It’s an odd question – I have read the Book of Job, like the rest of the bible, many times over since I was a child. It’s not my favorite book, to be sure, but yes many times.

What is “wrong” with what was written by me?

Robert said
In the book of Job, the main character, appropriately named Job, is most certainly NOT seeking a redeemer who can redeem him from his sin or faults. Rather, he is arguing his case that he is not guilty of any sin or moral fault. His redeemer would in fact make this case on his behalf.

Rather than prophesying a Christian redeemer from his sin, he wants a written record (ie, the book of Job), even engraved on stone, to stand for him in his defense, making his case against God that he has not sinned, that he is not deserving of this punishment. This personified ‘redeemer’, written in stone, would present his case against God even after his death and decay in Sheol.   

No problem with that. But during Job’s suffering he had that vision of both the Redeemer coming to the earth and his resurrection where he sees God. No one would say Job is a book about Redeemers or the throne of God.

But it’s interesting how people will say the Jews didn’t believe in a resurrection, or a Redeemer.

Robert said
Job is only speaking of posthumous vindication in his argument against God. There’s nothing here about a Christian redeemer saving him from sin or a real resurrection. He would only ‘see’ God figuratively from Sheol, after his body had decayed.   

Yes this is the ol’ literal vs figurative argument. Using it you essentially nullify the entire bible. And that’s a real rabbit hole to get into. Remember, lots of skeptics think Job, like Jesus, are themselves figurative.

There’s two statements here – and interestingly, Job is not seeing the statements as referring to a one person, but two.

I know that my redeemer lives,
and that in the end he will stand on the earth.
And after my skin has been destroyed,
yet in my flesh I will see God;
I myself will see him
with my own eyes—I, and not another.
How my heart yearns within me!

I take this as literal, as would most readers. It makes more sense than saying they are figurative. This come across as literal language. Certainly there’s tons of figurative stuff as well, such as bars and doors, dragons etc..

Robert said
Yes, Job is a purely literary character.   

How do you know that?

Why are we even debating what Job means if he didn’t exist?

Didn’t they once say that King David was a pure literary figure?

Robert said
It’s just an obviously creative narrative to illustrate a theological view in critical dialogue with more traditional theology of the time. I think most people recognize this pretty easily. Why not debate ancient literature that deals with a profound issue?

Personally, I never thought King David was purely literary, but certainly legendary.   

It’s interesting that some of these “legendary” biblical figures weren’t heroic in the classic sense of Western literature. They had feet of clay. David, right to the day of his death, shows such familiar human characteristics – particularly in the tidy way he handled issues about his subjects.

Some say Jacob in Egypt was “legendary” but Jacob spoke of a future Hebrew nation, law and monarchy – all of which will last till the Messiah comes. Amazingly accurate observation from a legendary figure.

As an aside – just this week more studies on the Hyksos infiltration into Egypt. These people rose to rule most of Egypt but were driven out centuries later. It reminds me of the Hebrews going into Egypt under Hyksos rule and leaving under Egyptian rule.

Stephen said
Why are we even debating what Job means if he didn’t exist?

Oh Poohbear you have indeed drunk from the well of fundamentalism (whose waters though still are shallow as well).   The figure of the Righteous Sufferer is a familiar motif in Ancient Near Eastern literature.  We have multiple examples.  Job is the Jewish  version.   

And do you think the figure of David and his house is a “familiar motif in Ancient Near East literature”?

You have two academics – one studies how the bible is NO DIFFERENT to the literature of the Middle East, the other studies how the bible is DIFFERENT to all other religious literature. Which one is considered the “scholar” in the 20th and 21st Centuries? The former “no different” man – despite both men presenting facts and both equally qualified. The latter is a red-neck, conservative, fundamentalist, bible bashing, reactionary Christian propagandist. Our narcissistic and nihilist society is confronted by the bible. By dismissing Job, Moses, Elijah, Jesus etc we are really dismissing what they have to say, under the cover of “scholarship.”

Robert said
Why not deal with reality instead of ridiculous hyperbole? Do you really think that a single scholar cannot at the same time recognize both similarities and differences between various pieces of ancient literature? Black and white dichotomies are overly simplistic–why not engage in genuine observation, actual reasoning, and realistic thought processes?   

True. That would apply to Job, and maybe Esther. I am not comfortable with either book. But it doesn’t apply to Moses, the House of David, the prophets etc.. The bible is very complicated book, despite its simple message. Mentioned this earlier – the bible appeals to everyone in different ways – to the skeptic it presents the talking snake and donkey; to the believer it presents the story of Israel; to the creator of new religions it presents mystery, to the disbeliever the bible is a book of national issues and to those touched by it there is the Gospel and story of Jesus. This is how it has been transmitted for over three millennium despite broadly not being observed. 

Stephen said
And do you think the figure of David and his house is a “familiar motif in Ancient Near East literature”?

No, David is one of the greatest characters in all of ancient fiction.  Even if he was based on a historical character the account in the  Book of Samuel cannot be historically accurate.  The period described is one of the best attested in ancient history and we have zero evidence of the world empire described in the Bible.  

You have two academics – one studies how the bible is NO DIFFERENT to the literature of the Middle East, the other studies how the bible is DIFFERENT to all other religious literature. Which one is considered the “scholar” in the 20th and 21st Centuries? The former “no different” man – despite both men presenting facts and both equally qualified. The latter is a red-neck, conservative, fundamentalist, bible bashing, reactionary Christian propagandist. Our narcissistic and nihilist society is confronted by the bible. By dismissing Job, Moses, Elijah, Jesus etc we are really dismissing what they have to say, under the cover of “scholarship.”

Rubbish.  Go ahead and stay small while the world gets bigger.  

What do you mean the “world gets bigger” ? Methinks it’s getting smaller

2001-2015 Gallop figures on approval rates for moral issues in USA:

Gay lesbian 40 to 63%.

Baby outside marriage 45 to 61%.

Casual sex 53 to 68%.

Divorce 59 to 71%.

Polygamy 7 to 16%.

Doctor suicide 49 to 56%.

Personal suicide 13 to 19%.

Gambling 63 to 67%.

Abortion 42 to 45%.

Married men having affairs 7 to 8%.

(alas, no mention of drug abuse, child and adult porn, levels of violence, alcohol, organized crime, guns, political intolerance, etc..

Looking forward to the 2015-2020 figures. It’s moving super fast.)