Interesting point, Hank. Would you expound further on its main importance regarding Job and the law? Thanks.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
When did Job live?
- Thread starter rlvaughn
- Start date
-
- Tags
- old testament
Thanks, Brother Glen, including for the link about the land of Uz. I think sometimes we need to flesh things out to see how much God "has hidden in plain sight" and how much is not revealed (and if not, then apparently we didn't need to know).
I looked in my Eerdman's New Bible Dictionary to see what insights it held on the book of Job. Not much on the when and where, and some things I don't agree with about the writing of the book. But there were some comments I found insightful. The author of the entries on "Job" and the "Book of Job" is H. L. Ellison. Ellison points out that in the book of Job we learn that the works and ways of God are not fully grasped by reason and experience -- even the reason and experience of godly men. He also writes:
[From pages 636-637]
One technical point is that the language of the book of Job is distinctive, with "some 110 words not found elsewhere."
[From pages 636-637]
I know there are a lot of preachers on here and not being one myself, I've experienced what they say... How many times reading and studying the Bible you have gone over the same passage many times. Then one day as you are reading and studying the same passage and something new reaches out and grabs you that has been hidden in plain sight all the time... Think maybe God gave it to us at that time for a reason?... Just my thoughts... Brother Glen
I also knew there were some Greek and Hebrew scholars on here and maybe they would appreciate what John Gill said on this subject... Brother Glen
There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job,
&c.] Of the signification of his name, see the introduction to the book. The place where he dwelt had its name not from Uz, a descendant of Shem, ( Genesis 10:23 ) but from Uz, a son of Nahor, brother to Abraham, ( Genesis 22:21 ) unless it can be thought to be so called from Uz, of the children of Seir, in the land of Edom; since we read of the land of Uz along with Edom, or rather of Edom as in the land of Uz, or on the borders of it, ( 4:21 ) , the Targum calls it the land of Armenia, but rather it is Arabia; and very probably it was one of the Arabias Job lived in, either Petraea or Deserta, probably the latter; of which Uz or Ausitis, as the Septuagint and Vulgate Latin version read it, was a part; the same with the Aesitae of Ptolemy F21; and it is said to be near the land of Canaan F23, for in Arabia Felix the Sabeans lived; and certain it is that this country was near to the Sabeans and Chaldeans, and to the land of Edom, from whence Eliphaz the Temanite came: and as this very probably was a wicked and an idolatrous place, it was an instance of the distinguishing grace of God, to call Job by his grace in the land of Uz, as it was to call Abraham in Ur of the Chaldeans; and though it might be distressing and afflicting to the good man to live in such a country, as it was to Lot to live in Sodom, yet it was an honour to him, or rather it was to the glory of the grace of God that he was religious here, and continued to be so, see ( Revelation 2:13 ) and gives an early proof of what the Apostle Peter observed, "that God is no respecter of persons, but, in every nation, he that feareth God, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him"; that is, through Christ, ( Acts 10:34 Acts 10:35 ) . Job, as he is described by his name and country, so by his sex, "a man"; and this is not so much to distinguish his sex, nor to express the reality of his existence as a man, but to denote his greatness; he was a very considerable, and indeed an extraordinary man; he was a man not only of wealth and riches, but of great power and authority, so the mean and great man are distinguished in ( Isaiah 2:9 ) see the account he gives of himself in ( Job 29:7-10 ) , by which it appears he was in great honour and esteem with men of all ranks and degrees, as well as he was a man of great grace, as follows:
There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job,
&c.] Of the signification of his name, see the introduction to the book. The place where he dwelt had its name not from Uz, a descendant of Shem, ( Genesis 10:23 ) but from Uz, a son of Nahor, brother to Abraham, ( Genesis 22:21 ) unless it can be thought to be so called from Uz, of the children of Seir, in the land of Edom; since we read of the land of Uz along with Edom, or rather of Edom as in the land of Uz, or on the borders of it, ( 4:21 ) , the Targum calls it the land of Armenia, but rather it is Arabia; and very probably it was one of the Arabias Job lived in, either Petraea or Deserta, probably the latter; of which Uz or Ausitis, as the Septuagint and Vulgate Latin version read it, was a part; the same with the Aesitae of Ptolemy F21; and it is said to be near the land of Canaan F23, for in Arabia Felix the Sabeans lived; and certain it is that this country was near to the Sabeans and Chaldeans, and to the land of Edom, from whence Eliphaz the Temanite came: and as this very probably was a wicked and an idolatrous place, it was an instance of the distinguishing grace of God, to call Job by his grace in the land of Uz, as it was to call Abraham in Ur of the Chaldeans; and though it might be distressing and afflicting to the good man to live in such a country, as it was to Lot to live in Sodom, yet it was an honour to him, or rather it was to the glory of the grace of God that he was religious here, and continued to be so, see ( Revelation 2:13 ) and gives an early proof of what the Apostle Peter observed, "that God is no respecter of persons, but, in every nation, he that feareth God, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him"; that is, through Christ, ( Acts 10:34 Acts 10:35 ) . Job, as he is described by his name and country, so by his sex, "a man"; and this is not so much to distinguish his sex, nor to express the reality of his existence as a man, but to denote his greatness; he was a very considerable, and indeed an extraordinary man; he was a man not only of wealth and riches, but of great power and authority, so the mean and great man are distinguished in ( Isaiah 2:9 ) see the account he gives of himself in ( Job 29:7-10 ) , by which it appears he was in great honour and esteem with men of all ranks and degrees, as well as he was a man of great grace, as follows:
I wanted to point out that traditional components of "the law" may have existed before its final codification by Moses of which the patriarchs (and perhaps others) may have had access. Moses having inspiration of God of course.
If so then perhaps Job had access to these pre-mosaic elements of "the law".
HankD
alphaomega
New Member
Job ; lived in the time of genesis ; post flood
he marries the daughter of Jacob ; Dina after his first wife dies
Job's second set of ten children come from her
reference --- testimony of Job
he marries the daughter of Jacob ; Dina after his first wife dies
Job's second set of ten children come from her
reference --- testimony of Job
Just for clarity, I don't think that the timeline of Job is hidden in plain sight. Seems many many have looked and not found it!
Thanks for this reference. Gill seems to lean toward the idea of association with Edom. I notice no one here seems to think that is a viable possibility -- or at least has not said so.
Greektim
Well-Known Member
Has anyone considered that this book, likely written after the exile, was part of the wisdom tradition and thus not intended to relay an actual historical account? Could it not just be a lengthy fiction to teach profound spiritual truths? That would not be outside the realm of orthodoxy since our Lord did something similar.
I am aware of both of these positions, though I don't take either. IIRC, Ellison in the New Bible Dictionary (which I was looking at last night) proposed 250 BC as a possible date of writing, of a much older story. I can agree that it is not outside orthodoxy to think of this as a story designed "to teach profound spiritual truths." One can glean the truths of the story without understanding it to be historical. It seems to me, though, that both Ezekiel and James accept this simply as an historical account. I also think something is lost mentally, emotionally or psychologically (not sure of the best terminology) when thinking of this as fiction. To me, it is much more encouraging to understand a real live human being went through this tragedy and came out on the other side, rather than it just being a story that somebody made up for teaching purposes.
Could have been that, but most would see it as recording down actual conversations between God and Job and his "advisors"
And what fiction did Jesus use?
To my way of thinking, the concluding material in the book of Job has the earmarks of an historical record rather than a fictional account. For example, the names of his three daughters, their extraordinary beauty and that they received equal inheritance with their brothers doesn’t seem particularly pertinent to concluding an allegory on suffering. On the other hand, it adds a fine touch to the historical record of a man who suffered greatly (Job 42:14-15).
Or was, perhaps, Job himself?
Well, I didn't remember correctly. Ellison was pretty noncommittal on dating the writing, stating that modern scholarship (that would have been modern in the 1960s!) set the date anywhere from the time of Solomon to 250 BC. Ellison didn't think it was any older than than Solomon's time (i.e., the writing down of it).