Job's Harmatiology

[The Biblicist]

Job 14:1 ¶ Man that is born of a woman is of few days, and full of trouble..... 4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one. 5 Seeing his days are determined, the number of his months are with thee, thou hast appointed his bounds that he cannot pass;

Job 15:14 What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?
15 Behold, he putteth no trust in his saints; yea, the heavens are not clean in his sight.

Job. 25:4 How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman?


Let us examine how our heretical friends attempt to dispose of the above texts that clearly demand that babies come into this world as sinful in nature - unclean.


Their arguments go like this:

1. Most of these texts are by Job's friends who were rebuked by God.

2. This is poetic language and cannot be taken literally

3. God never confirmed these ideas

4. If they cannot overthrow Job by the above arguments they simply go to the next step which is to PIT other scriptures against Job.



Our Response to their arguments

1. All three speakers agree with each other. The first comes from Job (Jb 14:1,4) and neither Job or God condemned these specific statements or their theological content. Job is clearly speaking of Child birth (Job 14:1) in Job 14:4 as he goes right on to talk about the extent of life (v. 5) from child birth in verse 4. The same position is confirmed by David (Psa. 51; 58).

2. The terms "clean" and "unclean" are clearly terms that reflect the ceremonial laws later in Moses. However, these writers clearly interpret these terms to mean moral righteousness and unrighteousness:

a. Job 25:4 uses "clean" synonymous with "justified"
b. Job 15:14 uses "clean" synonymous with "righteous" which in turn confirms the definition in Job 25:4 "justified"
c. Job 14:4 uses "clean" and "unclean" in the same moral sense as Job 11:4 previously define the term "clean" to mean "pure" morally.

3. Elihu whom God never rebuked but rather took up where Elihu left off makes it clear that to be "clean" means to be without transgression or iniquity.

Job 33:9 I am clean without transgression, I am innocent; neither is there iniquity in me.

Furthermore, Elihu claimed to speak on God's behalf and God never rebuked Elihu:

Suffer me a little, and I will shew thee that I have yet to speak on God’s behalf. - Job 36:2

Job 42:7 ¶ And it was so, that after the LORD had spoken these words unto Job, the LORD said to Eliphaz the Temanite, My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends: for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath.


4. Pitting other scriptures against Job demonstrates they cannot overthrow the context of Job and that the scriptures they use to PIT against Job are based upon the same mishandling of context as their arguments were against Job. God is not the author of confusion but the practice of PITTING scripture against scripture assumes contradiction in scriptures.


CONCLUSION: All the arguments by our heretical friends are completely baseless. The book of Job clearly and explicitly teaches that infants come into this world with a sinful ("unclean") nature.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

CONCLUSION: All the arguments by our heretical friends are completely baseless. The book of Job clearly and explicitly teaches that infants come into this world with a sinful ("unclean") nature.

As usual those who promote the heretical doctrine of Original Sin must yank verses out of their context and then place a foreign meaning on those verses. By the context we can understand that these words are in regard to man as being frail and dying:

"Man that is born of a woman is of few days and full of trouble. He cometh forth like a flower, and is cut down: he fleeth also as a shadow, and continueth not. And doth thou open thine eyes upon such an one, and bringest me into judgment with thee? Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one. Seeing his days are determined, the number of his months are with thee, thou hast appointed his bounds that he cannot pass; Turn from him, that he may rest, till he shall accomplish, as an hireling, his day" (Job.14:1-6).

The word "clean" is translated from the Hebrew word tahowr, and one of the meanings of that word is in regard to a nature of things which "endure for ever":

"The fear of the LORD is clean (tahowr), enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD [are] true [and] righteous altogether" (Ps.19:9).

At Job 14:4 the refernce is to a body which is not "clean" in the sense that the human body does not endure forever but instead is "cut down" and "continueth not."

If the word "clean" at Job 14:4 is referring to being free of sin then we must believe that the Lord Jesus could not have been born without sin because He came from the womb of Mary, a person who was a sinner and in need of a Savior.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Friends do not call friends heretical.



Job 14:4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.
Job 14:5 Seeing his days are determined, the number of his months are with thee, thou hast appointed his bounds that he cannot pass;


Job 14:4 All that can be made out of this passage, is that a physically depraved women could only bring forth physically depraved offspring. Job was not dealing with the notion or moral depravity in the least in this passage. He was dealing with the dying and frail state of humanity. His whole focus of this passage was upon the frail PHYSICAL state of humanity. What he says is simply, How could a frail dying women bring forth anything other than frail dying offspring? No one can.
Biblicist is clearly long on straining gnats and short on close attention to reasonable context in the passages he tries to support the false notion of original sin.



Job 15:14 “What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?” First, who is the author of this verse? Scripture informs us that Eliphaz stated this. Is he a reputable source of truth? Not according to God. He was using this argument to accuse a man that God said was “perfect and upright, and that feared God, and eschewed evil. Eliphaz is not hardly a reputable source for the establishment of Church doctrines. Beside this, this Scripture in no way indicates original sin, but rather is only making a statement as to the universality of sin in Eliphaz’s eyes. Enoch, Noah a preacher of righteousness, and Job are all examples that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that righteous men were indeed among the living, one staring him in the face. If Eliphaz could not recognize righteousness standing before him, is it any wonder he would have a such poor opinion of the rest of the world? Again, this was Eliphaz, the miserable comforter, confused in his thinking and wrong in his assertions, and judged by God as such, that made this statement. We would do well to formulate sound doctrine from different sources.

In conclusion Jobs comment in 14:4-5 state absolutely nothing in like manner as were Eliphaz's comment in Job 15: 14. Job, in chapter 14, was speaking directly to the physical state of man. Neither verse 4 or verse five address moral depravity in the least.

On the other hand, Eliphaz's comments were indeed aimed at the moral state of Job as he viewed it. He was accusing Job in chapter 15 of sin. No way had Job accused himself or even suggested that sin was at the heart of his demise. Eliphaz would have gave Job a high five if Job would have been speaking of moral depravity in Chapter 14, but instead he tried to convince Job in chapter 15 that it was indeed a moral fault from which his troubles came. He was accusing Job in that chapter of moral impurity, as the other miserable comforters had done as well. That is far from what Job was doing in chapter 14. Eliphaz in Chapter 15 obviously was incensed at Job's testimony of being upright in heart and retaining his integrity and refusing to say his problem was a product of sin.

 

[The Biblicist]

The word "clean" is translated from the Hebrew word tahowr, and one of the meanings of that word is in regard to a nature of things which "endure for ever":

That is a RARE application not the NORMAL meaning and not how it is used in the book of Job. The NORMAL meaning has to do with moral and ethical purity.

The Bottom line is how is it used in the Book of Job.

1. The Jewish translators of the Septuigent use the same Greek term "katharos" for every passage I quoted in Job thus making no such distinction.

2. The writer of Job uses it consistently for MORAL and ETHNICAL purity

Job 4:17 Shall mortal man be more just than God? shall a man be more pure [Tahowr] than his maker?

Job 17:9 The righteous also shall hold on his way, and he that hath clean [Tehore] hands shall be stronger and stronger.

Job 37:21 And now men see not the bright light which is in the clouds: but the wind passeth, and cleanseth [tawher] them.


3. The term "Tahowr" is defined by using it in contrast to "unclean" [Tamay] which is consistently used for ceremonial defilement and impurity.


4. The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament by Harris, Archer and Walkte says concerning the verb and its forms:

"The verb occurs ninety-four times in the Qal, Piel, Pual, and Hithpael stems. It is used almost exclusively of ritual or moral purity.....All told taher and its derivitives occur 204 times. In the great majority of cases they appear in the priestly literature; about fourty-four percent in Lev. and Num. about sixth percent in Es...about fourteen percent in Chr. and Ezek....The LXX general translates taher and its derivatives by katharizo, karthos, katharismos, etc. to 'purify,' 'pure,' 'purity.'" - p. 792


So your objections are false!

 

[The Biblicist]

Friends do not call friends heretical.



Job 14:4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.
Job 14:5 Seeing his days are determined, the number of his months are with thee, thou hast appointed his bounds that he cannot pass;


Job 14:4 All that can be made out of this passage, is that a physically depraved women could only bring forth physically depraved offspring.

Completely and absolutely false! The Hebrew terms translated "clean" and "unclean" refer to MORAL PURITY and the proof is that these are the terms under the ceremonial law that symbolize moral righteousness and unrighteousness.

Job 15:14 “What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?” First, who is the author of this verse? Scripture informs us that Eliphaz stated this. Is he a reputable source of truth?

1. What he said is in perfect agreement with Job and Bildad and the usage of terms by Elihu!

2. GOD NEVER REBUKED ANY OF THEM on this particular point of theology!

3.The ONLY rebuke by God was for charging Job with sin - period!

In conclusion Jobs comment in 14:4-5 state absolutely nothing in like manner as were Eliphaz's comment in Job 15: 14. Job, in chapter 14, was speaking directly to the physical state of man. Neither verse 4 or verse five address moral depravity in the least.

1. Both are speaking of birth of a child from the mother's womb

2. Both use terms that consistenly used for MORAL righteousness and unrighteusness and NEVER are used for to describe merely the physical condition UNLESS the physical condition SYMBOLIZES the moral condition.

3. From the beginning Job told his wife that they were deserving of evil consequences and such an admission is not consistent with sinless perfection.

 

[Winman]

Biblicist, if these verses mean what you say, then the sin nature is passed through the woman and Jesus would have been born with a sin nature.

God the Father is a spirit and cannot be tempted. Jesus got his flesh from his mother and could be tempted.

 

[mandym]

CONCLUSION: All the arguments by our heretical friends are completely baseless. The book of Job clearly and explicitly teaches that infants come into this world with a sinful ("unclean") nature.

Kind of harsh isn't it?

 

[The Biblicist]

Biblicist, if these verses mean what you say, then the sin nature is passed through the woman and Jesus would have been born with a sin nature.

First, we don't believe the sin nature passes down through the woman to the child but through the father to the child. Each parent contributes to the birth of the child. This is not the contribution of the mother and that is precisely why Jesus had to be virgin born!

It is amazing that the very doctrine we are denying is the ASSUMED basis for your argument above!!! That is called CIRCULAR REASONING!

The only reason you can conclude that I am asserting Jesus is born with a sin nature is because IN YOUR OWN MIND and in your argument you make the foolish assumption that there is no practical and valid reason for the virgin birth and that human nature is equal to sin nature!

Isaiah chapter one treats the sin nature as a parasite that diseases the body and as dirt that pollutes the body and neither are part of human nature.

Romans 7 repeatedly states that sin at work IN THE BODY is called "the law of sin" which is not part of the human nature but something that dwells IN the body.

Hence, your whole rationale is unbiblical and thus irrational.

 

[The Biblicist]

Kind of harsh isn't it?

Better than just calling a spade a spade! A spoonful of sugar helps the medicene go down!

I am being friendly to these heretics.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

So your objections are false!

If my objections are false then why did you not even attempt to answer the following objection:

If the word "clean" at Job 14:4 is referring to being free of sin and the word "unclean" refers to being sinful then we must believe that the Lord Jesus could not have been born without sin because He came from the womb of Mary, a person who was a sinner and in need of a Savior.

"Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one. Seeing his days are determined, the number of his months are with thee, thou hast appointed his bounds that he cannot pass; Turn from him, that he may rest, till he shall accomplish, as an hireling, his day" (Job.14:4-6).

 

[mandym]

Better than just calling a spade a spade! A spoonful of sugar helps the medicene go down!

I am being friendly to these heretics.

By the use of the word "heretics" are you saying they are lost ( as in not born again) or just wrong on this particular doctrine?

 

[The Biblicist]

If my objections are false then why did you not even attempt to answer the following objection:

If the word "clean" at Job 14:4 is referring to being free of sin and the word "unclean" refers to being sinful then we must believe that the Lord Jesus could not have been born without sin because He came from the womb of Mary, a person who was a sinner and in need of a Savior.

"Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one. Seeing his days are determined, the number of his months are with thee, thou hast appointed his bounds that he cannot pass; Turn from him, that he may rest, till he shall accomplish, as an hireling, his day" (Job.14:4-6).

I did answer it! Read post #8

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Biblicist, if these verses mean what you say, then the sin nature is passed through the woman and Jesus would have been born with a sin nature.

That is the same point which I made but the Biblicist evidently thinks that a clean person can indeed come out of one who is unclean despite the literal meaning of the verse which he himself quoted:

"Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one. Seeing his days are determined, the number of his months are with thee, thou hast appointed his bounds that he cannot pass; Turn from him, that he may rest, till he shall accomplish, as an hireling, his day" (Job.14:4-6).

Is the Biblicist somehow able to trick his mind into thinking that the Lord Jesus did not come out of Mary, a sinner in need of a Savior?

Probably!

 

[Winman]

First, we don't believe the sin nature passes down through the woman to the child but through the father to the child. Each parent contributes to the birth of the child. This is not the contribution of the mother and that is precisely why Jesus had to be virgin born!

It is amazing that the very doctrine we are denying is the ASSUMED basis for your argument above!!! That is called CIRCULAR REASONING!

The only reason you can conclude that I am asserting Jesus is born with a sin nature is because IN YOUR OWN MIND and in your argument you make the foolish assumption that there is no practical and valid reason for the virgin birth and that human nature is equal to sin nature!

Isaiah chapter one treats the sin nature as a parasite that diseases the body and as dirt that pollutes the body and neither are part of human nature.

Romans 7 repeatedly states that sin at work IN THE BODY is called "the law of sin" which is not part of the human nature but something that dwells IN the body.

Hence, your whole rationale is unbiblical and thus irrational.

Job could have easily said "born of a man", but he did not.

And where does the Bible say sin is passed to children by their father?

Adam sinned, where did he get this from?

 

[The Biblicist]

Job could have easily said "born of a man", but he did not.

Oh really?

Man that is born of a woman is of few days, and full of trouble. -Job 14:1

This verses introduces his subject and verse 4 explains why man "born of woman is a few days, and full of trouble."

And where does the Bible say sin is passed to children by their father?

Adam sinned, where did he get this from?

Nope! I am not moving from the book of Job. If Job proves your theory wrong and IT MOST CERTAINLY DOES, why should I play the JUMPING game with you all over the Bible when you can't answer Job?????

 

[mandym]

Oh really?

Man that is born of a woman is of few days, and full of trouble. -Job 14:1

This verses introduces his subject and verse 4 explains why man "born of woman is a few days, and full of trouble."




Nope! I am not moving from the book of Job. If Job proves your theory wrong and IT MOST CERTAINLY DOES, why should I play the JUMPING game with you all over the Bible when you can't answer Job?????

By the use of the word "heretics" are you saying they are lost ( as in not born again) or just wrong on this particular doctrine?

 

[The Biblicist]

That is the same point which I made but the Biblicist evidently thinks that a clean person can indeed come out of one who is unclean despite the literal meaning of the verse which he himself quoted:

"Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one. Seeing his days are determined, the number of his months are with thee, thou hast appointed his bounds that he cannot pass; Turn from him, that he may rest, till he shall accomplish, as an hireling, his day" (Job.14:4-6).

Is the Biblicist somehow able to trick his mind into thinking that the Lord Jesus did not come out of Mary, a sinner in need of a Savior?

Probably!

In my OP I predicted that when you could not respond RIGHTLY to the evidence in Job you would then PIT scripture against scripture and that is precisely what you are now doing. You are pitting YOUR INTEPRETATION of Hebrews 2:17 against the overall repeated explicit non-symbolic literal teaching of Job.

However, I Answered this objection in Post #8 where I said:

First, we don't believe the sin nature passes down through the woman to the child but through the father to the child. Each parent contributes to the birth of the child. This is not the contribution of the mother and that is precisely why Jesus had to be virgin born!

It is amazing that the very doctrine we are denying is the ASSUMED basis for your argument above!!! That is called CIRCULAR REASONING!

The only reason you can conclude that I am asserting Jesus is born with a sin nature is because IN YOUR OWN MIND and in your argument you make the foolish assumption that there is no practical and valid reason for the virgin birth and that human nature is equal to sin nature!

Isaiah chapter one treats the sin nature as a parasite that diseases the body and as dirt that pollutes the body and neither are part of human nature.

Romans 7 repeatedly states that sin at work IN THE BODY is called "the law of sin" which is not part of the human nature but something that dwells IN the body.

In addition to the above God through Isaiah in chapter one clearly shows that the sin nature cannot be equated to human nature as the sin nature is dealt with and described as DIRT on the body that needs to be washed off and DISEASE spread through the body that needs to be healed.

Both disease and dirt are not part of human nature but are either INVADERS or DISTINCT from human nature. Romans 7 repeatedly describes SIN AT WORK in the body, in my members as the "law of sin" rather than part of human nature. Hence, Christ took upon human nature but did not take upon the sin nature of fallen man.

However, I AM STAYING PUT IN THE BOOK OF JOB.

Hence, your whole rationale is unbiblical and thus irrational.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

First, we don't believe the sin nature passes down through the woman to the child but through the father to the child.

What evidence can you give to back up that assertion?

Hence, your whole rationale is unbiblical and thus irrational.

Your whole rationale is a denial of what is said in the following verse:

"For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people" (Heb.2:17).

You say that he was made like His brothers in only some ways, but not all.

 

[The Biblicist]

What evidence can you give to back up that assertion?

Nice Try! I am not leaving the book of Job or anwering any of you questions designed to run from the evidence. Deal with the evidence I presented and then I will play your JUMPING and PITTING game!

 

[The Biblicist]

That is a RARE application not the NORMAL meaning and not how it is used in the book of Job. The NORMAL meaning has to do with moral and ethical purity.

The Bottom line is how is it used in the Book of Job.

1. The Jewish translators of the Septuigent use the same Greek term "katharos" for every passage I quoted in Job thus making no such distinction.

2. The writer of Job uses it consistently for MORAL and ETHNICAL purity

Job 4:17 Shall mortal man be more just than God? shall a man be more pure [Tahowr] than his maker?

Job 17:9 The righteous also shall hold on his way, and he that hath clean [Tehore] hands shall be stronger and stronger.

Job 37:21 And now men see not the bright light which is in the clouds: but the wind passeth, and cleanseth [tawher] them.


3. The term "Tahowr" is defined by using it in contrast to "unclean" [Tamay] which is consistently used for ceremonial defilement and impurity.


4. The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament by Harris, Archer and Walkte says concerning the verb and its forms:

"The verb occurs ninety-four times in the Qal, Piel, Pual, and Hithpael stems. It is used almost exclusively of ritual or moral purity.....All told taher and its derivitives occur 204 times. In the great majority of cases they appear in the priestly literature; about fourty-four percent in Lev. and Num. about sixth percent in Es...about fourteen percent in Chr. and Ezek....The LXX general translates taher and its derivatives by katharizo, karthos, katharismos, etc. to 'purify,' 'pure,' 'purity.'" - p. 792


So your objections are false!

Again here is the evidence!