Job's Harmatiology

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.

 

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!

 

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.

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!

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.

 

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.

 

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

I am being friendly to these heretics.

 

I did answer it! Read post #8

 

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?????

 

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.

 

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!

 

Again here is the evidence!