"God"

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Salamander, Aug 15, 2006.

  1. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is only a discussion concerning the theology of Job 24:22. It is NOT a discussion concerning versions.

    If "God" fits the verse, then why is it that we see the conjunction "also" which reverts back to verse 21?

    I have read many commentaries on the subject, most agree this cannot be an attribute of God in verse 22, it goes against His very Being in His having mercy to all generations and the Remnant being reserved unto Himself.

    Anyone got anything to add?:thumbsup:
     
    #1 Salamander, Aug 15, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 19, 2006
  2. Jarthur001

    Jarthur001
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    5,701
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gills...

    Job 24:21

    Ver. 21. He evil entreateth the barren, [that] beareth not,.... Here Job returns, to give some further account of the sins of some wicked men, who prosper in this world, and go through it with impunity; and speaks of such that use their wives ill because they are barren, upbraid them with it, and are churlish to them on account of it; or use them ill that they may be barren, and bear no children, having no pleasure in them, as not in vineyards, before, Job 24:18; and some interpret this of deflowering virgins, who never bore children, and of using methods to make them abortive, when with child; the word we translate "evil entreateth" sometimes signifies joining to, or being a companion of others, as in Pr 13:20; hence various senses are given; some, he joins himself to a barren woman, that he may have no children, being not desirous of any; others, he, joins himself to, and is a companion of harlots, who are commonly barren: and like the prodigal, spends his substance among them. Some interpreters take this verse and
    Job 24:22; as expressive of the punishment of wicked men: so Mr. Broughton renders the words, "he adjoineth the barren" {d}, and gives the sense of them thus; God sends after him a barren wife, that he shall have no help by children; but, though a numerous offspring has been reckoned an outward happiness, and not to have any an infelicity, yet it has been the case of many good men and women to be childless; wherefore love and hatred are not known hereby: besides, such a sense is contrary to the scope and design of Job, which is to prove that wicked men often go unpunished in this life; wherefore, rather the meaning is, that a wicked man uses ill such, who having not only lost their husbands, but having been barren, and so childless, have none to take their part, and to protect and defend them from the abuses of such men; the Targum renders the word, "he breaketh", and so some understand it {e}; he breaketh the barren, tears them to pieces, ruins and destroys them, as to their outward substance, because they have no children to help them; with which agrees what follows,

    and doth not good to the widow; does not make her glad and cheerful, as Job did, who made the widow's heart to sing for joy, Job 29:13; does not relieve and assist her when in distress, either by counsel and advice, or by administering to her necessities; but, on the contrary, afflicts and oppresses her; takes her ox, or her raiment, for a pledge, and plunders her house, and devours the substance of it; for more is intended than is expressed.

    {d} hrqe her "consociat ei sterilem", Junius & Tremellius. {e} Pagninus, Montanus, Bolducius, Piscator, Mercerus, Drusius.


    Job 24:22

    Ver. 22. He draweth also the mighty with his power,.... Such a wicked man not only maltreats the weak, the helpless, and the defenceless, but even attacks the mighty and powerful; such as are in great power and authority, and abound in wealth and riches, only somewhat inferior in both to himself: wherefore, by his superior force, he draws them to be of his party, to join with him in acts of rapine and violence, oppression and cruelty; or he draws them by power or policy, or by both, as the wicked man does the poor with his net, Ps 10:9; and so makes a prey of him and his substance. Some understand this of the punishment of wicked men, and interpret it, as Jarchi does, of God's drawing him to punishment; God sometimes does indeed draw and hurl the mighty from their seats; though they are set in high, yet in slippery places, and are brought down to destruction in a moment; and he will draw them all to his judgment seat hereafter, whether they will or not, and send them into everlasting punishment; but the former sense is best:

    he riseth up, and no [man] is sure of life; he rises up in the morning:, either from his bed, or from his lurking place, where he was all night with a murdering intention, and no man he meets with is safe, but in the utmost danger of his life, Job 24:14; or, he rises in the world to great power and dignity, and increases in wealth and riches, which he abuses to the hurt of others; so that they flee from him and hide themselves, not caring to trust their life with him, Pr 28:28; or he riseth up against a man in an hostile way, and against whomsoever he does, they are in the utmost jeopardy, and cannot be secure of their lives; though this also is by some interpreted as the punishment of a wicked man, who, when he rises in the morning, "trusteth not his own life" {f}, as the words may be rendered, and as they are in the margin of our Bibles; but his life is in suspense, being surrounded with a thousand dangers, and has no assurance of it, and is in continual fear, and often fears where no fear is; see De 28:66; or, if a man rises up against him, the wicked tyrant and cruel oppressor, he the tyrant is not sure of his life but may be slain by him that rises up against him; but the former sense is best.

    {f} wyyxb Nymay "non fidit suae vitae", Tigurine version, Piscator; so V. L.
     
    #2 Jarthur001, Aug 15, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 19, 2006
  3. Jarthur001

    Jarthur001
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    5,701
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here is a good overview of the book Job by Stedman.

    Called.."The Hardest Questions of Job"

    Click here for link to Job


    This is a realplayer file, so your need realplayer to hear it.
     
  4. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is it in text format for reading?

    BTW, thx for the input John Gill is one of my favorites.
     
  5. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, Slamander, the topic you have brought up cannot be discussed without referring to various Bible translations. The old Bible translations up to and including the KJV do not have God as the subject of Job 24:22. Most of the modern versions do have God as the subject of v. 22.

    I am sure that there is manuscript evidence for the old rendering like that of the KJV. Yet I am sure there is also manuscript evidence for the modern versions' rendering with God as the subject. Someone like Dr. Bob who is much more versed in manuscript texts should address that topic.

    Basically, if there is manuscript evidence to support both readings, then what we believe about the subject of v. 22 (God or man) hinges on what we believe about the texts underlying the various Bible versions. If we believe the newer texts underlying the KJV (the Bishops', the Geneva and other old versions as well) are more accurate, then we must believe that man is the subject in v. 22. However, if the textual evidence also exists for the modern versions' reading placing God as the subject of v. 22, then we must believe that the older texts are more correct.

    Dr. Bob, can you or anyone else familiar with original-language texts address this matter?
     
    #5 Keith M, Aug 19, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 19, 2006
  6. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    I finally heard back from a guy I know from another board. He is very knowledgeable of Hebrew. His comments are that basically it boils down to the translators' understanding of the context.

    Even in the original Hebrew there is no clear indication of whether this passage is speaking of God or of man. My friend's conclusion is this: "I guess we can say that "good translators differ" on how to interpret this."

    There is no pat answer to your question, Salamander. The KJV translators and translators of early English Bible's left the subject unspecified as "he" probably because of their own uncertainty. Translators of modern versions often include God as the subject, and there is no concrete evidence that they are wrong. Even in the original Hebrew the subject of Job 24:22 is not clear.

    I don't see this as a major doctrinal issue. This is just one of the things about the Bible (any version) that we will not know for certain in this lifetime. When we get to those pearly gates and enter the New Jerusalem then we will understand everything. Until then there are just some things we will never understand completely and we just have to leave it to the Lord to guide our interpretatin and our understanding.

    Apparently when one says that God cannot possibly be the subject of v. 22 one is taking a stance for which there is no firm foundation. Taking such a stance could be construed as taking sides in the KJVO debate, which I will not go into here.
     
  7. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    So context is not a Scriptural foundation anymore?

    The Hebrew word for the context is "yiteen". It is argued that yiteen is always used in reference and in the context of Jehovah/YhWh, BUT! In many instances this is not true at all, but also refers to one who has an element of overpowering others from his gender as a male. Then you have the context, again, which denoted the character of, not God, but the trickery and deceits of the wicked, who, just btw, do exactly as the verse says,"...and no man is sure of life"

    Those men caught in the snare of deceit are left wanting and aren't sure if they can remove themselves and still remain alive.

    Now all would have to agree, if they know God, that the LORD doesn't have that attribute within His character. Though more powerful than all men put together, God still saves those who trust in the Gospel for everlasting life. God neither rises up to leave no man sure of life, nor has he ever. Even the account of the Flood shows differently, as well as the judgement against Sodom and Gomorrah: Noah, his three sons, and their wives all escaped the wrath of God. Then you have Lot and his two daughters ecscaping the fire and brimstone raining down, so there were at least 11 souls sure of life when God had "risen up".

    The problem is trying to be dogmatic about a word for word interpretation and not considering the, as Paul Harvey would say, "...the rest of the story".

    Oh, and please don't ever mention the "KJVO debate" anymore while we discuss this, else you'll invite that trash into the conversation and this is NOT a trash heap.
     

Share This Page

Loading...