Job and the resurrection

by peacefulpete 31 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    Actually, as I explained above, Job expresses a wish for a restoration of life from death, but he makes it clear that his wish is not based on a real hope. Wishes are not hopes. Although he dearly wanted to die and let God return him to life after his wrath had subsided, he knew that that wasn't going to happen. He explained that human lives are like stones; once they are worn down and erode away, they disappear... for good.

  • JosephMalik
    JosephMalik


    Actually, as I explained above, Job expresses a wish for a restoration of life from death, but he makes it clear that his wish is not based on a real hope. Wishes are not hopes. Although he dearly wanted to die and let God return him to life after his wrath had subsided, he knew that that wasn't going to happen.

    Leolaia,

    Job knew that was not going to happen to the mortal man that he was. He also knew that this would not happen in his day. So he wrote from this perspective. But we cannot say that his wish if some would call it that was not based on a real hope simply because we may not understand his musings. Why not let Job tell us what he believed?

    14:13 O that thou wouldest hide me in the grave, that thou wouldest keep me secret, until thy wrath be past, that thou wouldest appoint me a set time, and remember me!

    This much was covered well but it is not fair to simply call this a wish. Why? Because he went on to say:

    14 If a man die, shall he live again? all the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come. 15 Thou shalt call, and I will answer thee: thou wilt have a desire to the work of thine hands.

    Sounds more like the apostle Paul who discussed the resurrection in similar detail than Job. The changed Job, the immortal human Job, that is what this man was looking forward to and this was his real hope (wish?) in God. He knew that this would occur far in the future at a time when his God would call him and perform such a task in his behalf. As for mortal man his comments were appropriate, as this is all that awaits mortal man.

    Joseph

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    This is why I opened this thread by saying that those three verses have been lifted from context and spun into a declaration of faith. To prove me wrong you three have just done the same. But to each his own.

  • seesthesky
    seesthesky

    neither side can prove its argument with absolute certainty - at least not yet

  • peacefulpete
  • Leolaia
    Leolaia
    Job knew that was not going to happen to the mortal man that he was. He also knew that this would not happen in his day. So he wrote from this perspective.

    What you seem to overlook is that the idea Job examines -- and rejects -- is the notion that there can be a return from death at a future time. The passage isn't just about death in the here and now. The nature similies in v. 7-12 address this issue of a restoration to life from death and make the point that there is a hope for trees to begin life anew, but there isn't this hope for humans. Then Job launches into his wish (note the desiderative and exclamation), and the verses you quote in support of your position are from this passage, v. 13-15. But you neglect to note what Job says next. He then hurls a strong adversative, "But no!" in v. 18.... he's saying this dream of his is not to be. This adversative indicates that he is rejecting his wish...and the rest of the passage goes on to verify that such a wish is without hope. He returns to the nature similies, and again they refute the idea that there is a RETURN TO LIFE after death. The mountains erode away and water rubs down stones until there is nothing left. Eroded stones do not reform anew. The whole point of mentioning these metaphors is to reaffirm his pessimistic belief that God "destroys the hope of man" (v. 19). If Job didn't go on to say what he says in v. 18-21, then it would be possible to suspect that his wish is also a hope he entertained. But the fact is he said what he said, he acknowledged and reaffirmed his belief that there is no hope for those who have died.

  • JosephMalik
    JosephMalik

    What you seem to overlook is that the idea Job examines -- and rejects -- is the notion that there can be a return from death at a future time.

    Leolaia,

    On the contrary, the theme of these passages is that there is no hope for such man born of woman apart from the spiritual view that Job hopefully expresses for himself.

    1 Man that is born of a woman is of few days, and full of trouble. 2 He cometh forth like a flower, and is cut down: he fleeth also as a shadow, and continueth not.

    Job actually agrees that life can come from death if intervention such as water is added to an apparently dead root such as the tree. His hope is thus based on this observation but offered in the form of a question. Why? Because the only one that can answer or respond to this question in his behalf is his God. His steps are being watched and numbered by God. Sin is taken into account. So he continues and says: 16 For now thou numberest my steps: dost thou not watch over my sin? 17 My transgression is sealed up in a bag, and thou sewest up mine iniquity.18 And surely the mountain falling cometh to nought, and the rock is removed out of his place. 19 The waters wear the stones: thou washest away the things which grow out of the dust of the earth; and thou destroyest the hope of man.

    Job does not reject the fact that there is a return from death at some future time as already shown. He simply acknowledges the difficulty in attaining such an outcome for man, even himself should such intervention as a consequence of such sin not take place.

    Joseph

  • gumby
    gumby

    The fact is.....Job was a clueless little bastard concerning life after death as much as we are today.

    I still get a kick out of Schizm who STILL has a little bit of Jehovah's Witness genes imbedded in his brain that sounds like a terminal condition.

    12 Man also has to lie down and does not get up.
    Until heaven is no more they will not wake up, Nor will they be aroused from their sleep.

    So Schizm.......when is Heaven going to be "no more".......cuz jobs ugly arse ain't gonna see life till Jehovah shit-cans heaven.

    Here's where Schizms little dub brain kicks in just like clockwork.

    [Yes, under his own power man is unable to "get up". No man can wake himself up from out of death.]

    13 O that in She┬┤ol you would conceal me, That you would keep me secret until your anger turns back,
    That you would set a time limit for me and remember me!

    [Which clearly shows that Job believed in a resurrection.]

    Poor little Schizm says........."clearly shows". He's a terminal witness if there ever was one.

    Gumby

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia
    Job actually agrees that life can come from death if intervention such as water is added to an apparently dead root such as the tree. His hope is thus based on this observation.

    In my opinion, this is another misreading of the text. Job is not saying man is like a tree and will have life restored through the aegis of divine intervention (e.g. like water enliving the plant). Job is making a contrast, he says that trees have this hope but not man.

    First he says in v. 5-6 that God has predetermined the number of days of man. God has set a limit to how long we are to live (man reaches the limit when he dies, as v. 6 says), limits that cannot be surpassed (v. 5). A return to life after death would surpass these predetermined limits. Then he says that: "For (ky) there is hope (tqwh) for a tree, when it is cut down that it will sprout again" (v. 7). The causal conjunction ky "for, on account of the fact that" is crucial. It ties the nature simile of the tree directly to the statement about God limiting the life of man. It makes the two statements logically connected. Now, if Job is saying that man is like a tree and has a hope of a return to life, how does the tree simile illustrate the fact that man reaches the ultimate limit of his life when he dies? It doesn't...it is an illustration of a creation that does not have such a limit. Job is thus bringing up the example of the tree to set up a contrast that illustrates his earlier point. God has numbered the days man has to live, and when he dies his days are complete and these are limits "he cannot surpass" (v. 5). For at least trees have a hope of returning to life (v. 7-9), but as for man, he does not have this hope, "he will not be wake or be roused from his sleep" (v. 10-12). The causal conjunction introduces a two-part antithesis. There is a return to life for trees: "Its roots grow old in the ground and its stump dies in the dry soil, at the scent of water it will flourish and put forth sprigs like a plant" (v. 8-9). This life-cycle partly parallels that of man, growing old and dying....but behold, there is hope of the plant flourishing again. Is that what also happens in man? No. Job goes on to contrast the life-cycle of a plant with that of man: "But (w-) man dies and lies prostrate and where is he? As water evaporates from the sea and a river becomes parched and dried up, so man lies down and does not rise. Until the heavens are no longer, he will not wake or be roused from his sleep" (v. 10-12). This is not at all what we'd expect him to say if Job was likening man to a tree. We'd expect something along the lines: "Indeed, man dies and will again one day return from the dust again. Like the roots that flourish again, man lies down and will again rise. He will wake and will be roused from his sleep". Job does not say this...he unequivocally says that man will not wake from death. He disappears like a river that dries up into a dead river bed. This just doesn't fit at all with the tree simile. The waw-conjunction "but" in v. 10 in fact marks what follows as an antithesis of the tree simile (cf. Genesis 17:20-21; Leviticus 2:12; Job 6:25, etc. where waw links two antithetical clauses).

    So he continues and says: 16 For now thou numberest my steps: dost thou not watch over my sin? 17 My transgression is sealed up in a bag, and thou sewest up mine iniquity.18 And surely the mountain falling cometh to nought, and the rock is removed out of his place. 19 The waters wear the stones: thou washest away the things which grow out of the dust of the earth; and thou destroyest the hope of man.

    The KJV has translated the strong adversative w'wlm as "and surely", which obscures the fact that it is emphatically marking an antithesis or opposition. It is better translated as "But no!" (JB), "but" (NIV, NASB, HCSB), "But in the real world" (CEV), or "but indeed", "however", or "nevertheless" as indicated in the lexicons. By using the adversative, Job indicates that his wish is not a real hope. As mentioned in my earlier posts, the nature similes that follow reinforce the point Job made earlier that there is no return from death: mountains erode away, and waters wear stones down. Stones do not reform like trees. These would be the wrong nature similes to mention if Job wanted to express his hope for a return to life from death! His point is the opposite: "Water wears away stones, its torrents wash away the dust of the earth, so you destroy man's hope" (v. 19). Here water has the exact opposite function as it had in v. 7. For the tree, water restores life. For man and for stones and dust, water erodes and washes away whatever might remain. The tree has "hope" (tqwh), it can be enlivened by water. But like water washing away and destroying what might remain, so does God destroy man's hope (tqwh). It's the same word Job uses, and obviously we are to think back to the hope of a return to life that the tree has (v. 7). The tree has hope, but man's hope is destroyed by God. How does God destroy this hope? Job already explained in v. 5-6: God has predetermined the days of man and set limits that cannot be surpassed. This is the stark conclusion that Job comes to: God destroys man's hope. How can one ignore this plain statement (and the entire rhetorical construction of the chapter) and think that Job had a real hope? In v. 13-17 he did express a wish (and marked it as such, by using the exclamation and desiderative), and its a wish that bears some resemblance with the later Jewish hope of a resurrection, but in v. 18ff he admitted that his wish had no basis in reality. He had no real hope....it had been destroyed by God.

  • Schizm
    Schizm
    So Schizm.......when is Heaven going to be "no more".......cuz jobs ugly arse ain't gonna see life till Jehovah shit-cans heaven.

    Back to playing your silly games again, aren't you Gumbish piece of play dough. You fricking idiot, Heaven will always exist. It's God's place of residence, you dummy!

    The point of the text you refer to is that, left to themselves, the dead would never wake up.

    That man or woman who was buried and turned to dust, let's say 5,000 years ago, never woke up, and it doesn't "appear" that they ever will. Yes, they "appear" to be gone forever. But they CAN be awakened, because God has the ability to bring them back to life. Job had faith in the resurrection, no doubt about it!

    .

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit