Featured When did Job live?

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:

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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?

 

Parables

 

Now you've got me wondering if the author knew Job personally...

 

Yeah, that too.


(I guess my western presuppositions on autobiography were showing.)