Tag: Job

Posted on

What Does it Mean that Jesus is the Firstborn? (Part 2)

Colossians 1

15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. (Colossians 1:15-20, NIV)

The Daily DAVEotional

About a year ago, I posted my thoughts on this very passage, explaining the meaning of the term “firstborn” and why it doesn’t teach that Jesus is a created being, as the Jehovah’s Witnesses argue.

I don’t want to rehash all of my points from that post so if you haven’t read it, I encourage you to read the original post, “What Does it Mean that Jesus is the Firstborn?” to get up to speed on the debate between the traditional Christian understanding of Jesus and the Arian view that Jehovah’s Witnesses hold.

My purpose in this post is to provide a response to some of the arguments levied by Jehovah’s Witnesses who argue against my interpretation of this passage.

In my initial post, I made the claim that the primary meaning of “firstborn” in Colossians 1:15 and 18 is “preeminence”. I reasoned that this makes the most sense since Paul uses “firstborn” in conjunction with two different terms, “creation” and “death”, neither of which have anything to do with a parent. Therefore, it seems most natural that Paul is using the term to demonstrate Jesus’ supremacy (pre-eminence) over creation and death.

In recent weeks, I’ve encountered a number of committed Jehovah’s Witnesses online who disagree with my interpretation and have offered up their own explanations for this passage.

The standard Jehovah’s Witness talking point as it relates to the meaning of “firstborn” in Colossians 1 is that the term means something like “first in line.”

The argument is that the term “firstborn” most often refers to the first offspring of a particular person. Therefore, the word should be interpreted in a similar manner when it’s used in a verse that is not referencing offspring.

If you agree with the Jehovah’s Witness logic, then the interpretation of Colossians 1 yields the following:

Jesus is the firstborn of creation, which means that he was the first one to be created by Jehovah.

Jesus is the firstborn from among the dead, which means he’s the first one to overcome death.

To some, particularly Jehovah’s Witnesses and others who hold to an Arian view of Christ, the debate is over. In their mind, the logic is irrefutable.

But is it?

Sound Bible study methods dictate that we investigate their claims. Is their understanding of the word the standard interpretation?

Let’s see.

Click here to see a A Comprehensive List of Blog Posts Based on Bible Passage Reference

I did a Bible search and found that the word “firstborn” shows up in 111 Bible verses, all but 9 of which are found in the Old Testament. In some verses, the word “firstborn” appears multiple times. Hence, the term is used more than 120 times throughout the Bible.

I’ve catalogued every verse where the term shows up, so you can see for yourself. You can access this list of verses in my blog post “Bible References to the Term “Firstborn”“.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses are right in this respect – a majority of the references to the term “firstborn” do actually refer to the first one born to a particular person. However, it is rather obvious from the context of all of those passages that this is the meaning.

Take Genesis 10:15 for example, which is the very first occurrence of the term. The verse says,

Canaan became the father of Sidon, his firstborn.

In a majority of the occurrences of the term “firstborn”, it’s used in this same manner where the term is by itself, but referencing a parent. Occasionally, the term is referenced to another living creature as in Exodus 11:5 which states that God was going to kill the firstborn of Pharaoh as well as the firstborn of all cattle.

It’s clear in these situations that the term does mean “first offspring” primarily because the verse gives the name of the parent and the son or daughter.

But how is the word understood when it is not used in conjunction with a living being (man or animal)? Is it understood in the same way?

Typically not.

One of the first occurrences where firstborn is used in a non-traditional way is Exodus 4:22, which says,

“Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the LORD, “Israel is My son, My firstborn. 23“So I said to you, ‘Let My son go that he may serve Me’; but you have refused to let him go. Behold, I will kill your son, your firstborn.”’”

Notice that the term shows up twice. In the second instance it’s used in the same way we typically see the word being used, in reference to the first offspring of a person. In this case, it’s referring to the first offspring of Pharaoh.

But in the first instance of the term “firstborn”, it is not used in the typical fashion.

According to Jehovah’s Witness’ argumentation, the word should have the same meaning even when it’s used in a non-traditional way.

It turns out that the first instance of “firstborn” in this passage CANNOT mean what the Jehovah’s Witnesses attribute to the term. God specifically states that Israel, the nation, is his firstborn. If we understand “firstborn” to be “first in line”, in what sense is Israel the “first in line”?

Israel was not the first nation to be created. And God doesn’t “birth” nations anyway, so the word cannot mean “first offspring”.

It’s clear by the context that the first occurrence of “firstborn” in this verse is to be understood as Israel having a favored status. God selected Israel for a distinct and unique purpose – to be a nation through which all the other nations would be blessed and come to know the one true God.

In this case, the meaning of “preeminent” is clearly the correct understanding.

Genesis 48 provides an insightful story that helps us understand the significance of the firstborn.

In this passage, Joseph brings his sons Manasseh and Ephraim to Jacob in order to receive a blessing before Jacob passes.

Jacob is old and his vision is failing. As he reaches out to bless Joseph’s sons, he crosses his arms so that his right hand is on Ephraim instead of Manasseh who is the first offspring of Joseph and therefore the firstborn.

Genesis 48:14 says,

But Israel stretched out his right hand and laid it on the head of Ephraim, who was the younger, and his left hand on Manasseh’s head, crossing his hands, although Manasseh was the firstborn.

In Genesis 48:18, Joseph tries to correct his father, saying,

“Not so, my father, for this one is the firstborn. Place your right hand on his head.”

Jacob tells Joseph that he is aware of the situation and he knows what he is doing. He tells Joseph that Ephraim, though he is the younger, will have a higher position over his brother. He will be the firstborn, the favored son.

Just a few verses later, in the next chapter, Jacob is giving his final words to each of his sons. Here is what he says to Reuben, his first son, in Genesis 49:3-4,

“Reuben, you are my firstborn; My might and the beginning of my strength, Preeminent in dignity and preeminent in power. 4“Uncontrolled as water, you shall not have preeminence, Because you went up to your father’s bed; Then you defiled it —he went up to my couch.

Jacob not only defines the term “firstborn” for us but expounds on its significance. The firstborn IS the might of the father AND the beginning of the father’s strength. The firstborn is PREEMINENT.

Jacob tells Reuben that he is the firstborn in terms of offspring. But he would NOT be firstborn in terms of preeminence.

These passages, which show up early in the biblical narrative, demonstrate clearly that the idea of “preeminence” was nearly synonymous with the term “firstborn”.

Though Manasseh was Joseph’s first offspring, it turns out that he was not considered the “firstborn” in terms of stature and rank. In Jeremiah 31:9, God  confirms that “Ephraim is my firstborn.”

In 1 Chronicles 2:13, we read that,

Jesse became the father of Eliab his firstborn, then Abinadab the second, Shimea the third,

In verse 14, we learn that David was the seventh and last son born to Jesse. Yet, in Psalm 89:27, God says about David,

“I also shall make him My firstborn,
The highest of the kings of the earth.

David was not the first offspring of Jesse, but God made David His firstborn.

What does that mean?

It cannot mean that David was “first in line” because David was neither the first offspring of Jesse nor was he the first king of Israel.

What it means is that David was made by God to assume the highest rank among rulers. David was made firstborn – he was made to be preeminent.

The context dictates the meaning and sense of the word and so far, when the word is used in a way that doesn’t mean “first offspring”, it carries the meaning of “preeminence.”

There’s an interesting passage in Job that uses the term firstborn. It’s found in Job 18:13, which says:

“His skin is devoured by disease,
The firstborn of death devours his limbs.

This occurrence is informative because it uses the term “firstborn” with the prepositional phrase “of….” that doesn’t have a person or animal following. Whenever we see a person or animal (cattle, herd) follow, as in “firstborn of Jacob” or “firstborn of cattle”, the term always refers to the first offspring.

But in this case, the “firstborn of” phrase is not followed by a person or animal.

Does the standard Jehovah’s Witness meaning of “first in line” follow?

Not really.

Death is inanimate. It’s not a living organism that gives birth as humans and mammals do.

So what is this verse saying?

This verse is part of a larger discourse by Bildad in which he’s communicating his ideology that the wicked eventually get the punishment they deserve. He’s using this argumentation to try to prove that the reason Job has experienced so much trauma and suffering is because Job’s sin has finally caught up to him.

In describing the punishment the wicked will endure, Bildad claims that the skin of the wicked gets devoured by disease AND the “firstborn of death” devours his limbs. It’s obvious that Bildad is making reference to Job’s physical ailments as a proof of Job’s supposed secret sin.

But what is meant by “firstborn of death”?

Note that this term is very similar to how Paul uses “firstborn” in Colossians 1:18.

If “firstborn” means “first in line” in these kinds of cases, what exactly does that mean?

The context will not allow that interpretation because if you assume that meaning, you end up with a garbled mess of a sentence that is completely incoherent.

It’s clear in this context that death is afflicting its victim. There is no sense in which the term “firstborn of death” includes the meaning “first in line”. Death does not birth anything and does not produce a literal offspring.

But death CAN rule. Death CAN overwhelm. That is the sense that is being conveyed here. There is no meaningful or coherent sense in which “first in line” as a meaning applies to the term “firstborn” here.

There’s another uncommon use of the term “firstborn” in Isaiah that does not follow the typical examples that are littered throughout the Old Testament.

Isaiah 14:30 in the ESV says,

And the firstborn of the poor will graze,
And the needy lie down in safety;
but I will kill your root with famine,
and your remnant it will slay.

Here is another example of the word “firstborn” being used in connection with something that is a non-person and a non-animal, negating the traditional meaning of “first offspring.”

What exactly, then is the “firstborn of the poor” and does the definition of “first in line” fit here given the context?

This verse is part of a prophecy that the Lord is giving to Philistia. God warns that Philistia will experience complete devastation and that only “the firstborn of the poor will graze.”

What exactly does that mean?

One thing it doesn’t mean is “first in line”. If we apply the meaning of “highest rank” or “supreme” then it means that those who are the MOST poor will graze (be fed). In other words, it’s going to be bad, and only the most poor, or the poorest of the poor will survive.

It appears that in pretty much every case where the term “firstborn” is used in a way that doesn’t include the parent with the first offspring, the term means “preeminent.”

As mentioned at the outset, there are only 9 verses in the New Testament that use the term “firstborn”.

There are two verses in Luke 2 that use the term, and in both cases, the term “firstborn” is used to refer to Jesus as Mary’s first offspring.

In Hebrews 11:28, the term “firstborn” is referencing the Egyptian plague when the angel of death passed over the Israelites and all of the firstborn of the Israelites were shielded from the plague.

That leaves 6 more verses that use the term “firstborn” including the two in Colossians. None of these other verses use the term in the normal sense where it obviously refers to the first offspring of a certain person.

I’ll examine each of the non-Colossians verses before coming back to Colossians and then summarizing what this tells us.

Romans 8:29 says,

For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;

What is this verse saying?

It’s saying that those who become children of God are predestined to be conformed to the image of Jesus. That is, believers ultimately are going to be LIKE him. We won’t just be declared righteous, we will BE righteous because in the end, our sin nature will finally be eradicated.

This is the sense that we will fully be Christ’s brethren. Though we will be LIKE him, we will not be equal to him. Jesus will be the firstborn among all these brethren, which simply means, he will be preeminent. He will be supreme.

So this verse, as applied to Jesus, does not state that he is the first of Jehovah’s creation. It’s stating that he will have a preeminent position among all of the brethren.

This interpretation makes complete sense if we understand that Jesus is a son by nature but we are sons (and daughters) by adoption.

Hebrews 1:6 says,

And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says,
“AND LET ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD WORSHIP HIM.”

The term “firstborn” in this verse clearly refers to Jesus, but does it mean that he was the first offspring?

That is a doubtful interpretation for reasons that have already been enumerated. Jesus was not born. Therefore, the more logical understanding of this term as applied to Jesus is “preeminent one”.

This makes sense given the context of Hebrews 1. This passage, starting in verse 5 and ending with verse 13, is demonstrating that Jesus is superior to, or better than the angels.

So when the firstborn, the preeminent one, comes into the world, God says “let all the angels worship Him.” It logically follows that the angels are commanded to worship Jesus because he is preeminent over them.

Now two things should be said about this. First of all, it’s clear from Scripture that only God is to be worshipped. So what does it say about Jesus that God instructs the angels to worship Him?

Secondly, the Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jesus is actually the archangel Michael. They believe that Michael is the highest of angels and that God the Father (Jehovah to the Jehovah’s Witnesses) gave Michael the task of coming into the world to redeem humanity. Michael took on a human nature and changed his name for some reason. When his mission was complete, Jesus returned to heaven and assumed his prior identity as Michael the archangel.

So according to the Jehovah’s Witnesses, a powerful angel came to earth, took on a human body and God the Father instructed all the other angels to WORSHIP him.

This doesn’t sound like an angel or even someone who is god-like, as Jehovah’s Witnesses will say. This sounds like someone who possesses the divine nature. In fact, this is exactly what Hebrews 1:3 -4 teaches, that Jesus is the EXACT representation of God’s nature AND he is BETTER than the angels. How can he be better than the angels if he himself IS an angel?

Hebrews 12:23 says,

to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect,

There is some debate about what the term “church of the firstborn” refers to but we know it does NOT refer to Jesus. It clearly refers to a group of people in heaven. It’s also clear that the idea of “first offspring” is not in view here.

I think the most likely understanding of “firstborn” in this verse is either “favored status” or “inheritance.” Remember that the firstborn son had a favored status and received a double portion of the inheritance. So both of these ideas are already inherent in the term.

In this sense, the phrase “church of the firstborn” likely refers to those who have received the inheritance. In other words, it’s referring to those who, because they have placed their faith in Jesus and belong to him, receive exclusive spiritual blessings that are not available to those who are not in the church.

This view makes more sense than anything resembling “first in line”.

Revelation 1:5 says,

and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood—

This is the last occurrence of the term “firstborn” in the Bible and it’s the one occurrence that most resembles the usage of Colossians, especially Colossians 1:18.

So what does this mean?

Jehovah’s Witnesses will likely argue for the interpretation that they hold for Colossians 1:18, namely that this means that Jesus is the first to overcome death, that Jesus is “first in line”.

But given the context, noting that John follows this phrase by saying that Jesus is the RULER of the kings of the earth, it makes more sense that John is using the term to communicate that Jesus is the one who is preeminent over death. In other words, Jesus rules over death, just as he rules over the kings of earth.

It bears repeating that Jesus was not born. So what would be the purpose of using the term “firstborn” if it does not apply to Jesus as it applied to Reuben, Manasseh and the dozens of other references that referred to the first offspring of some person?

In other words, the term firstborn, in a majority of cases, was used to identify the first offspring of a person in order to distinguish that person from other siblings who were not first. But since Jesus has no spiritual “siblings”, there is no need to use the term “firstborn” to distinguish him from rival siblings.

Clearly, John is pointing to Jesus’ special status. To conclude otherwise is to stretch or twist the context of these passages and phrases to unnatural and incoherent meanings.

Now let’s circle back to the Colossians verses that use the term “firstborn”.

What we’ve seen in every use of the term “firstborn” is that it most often refers to “first offspring”. But it never means “first offspring” when the term “firstborn” is used in conjunction with  a non-person or non-mammal. In those cases, some form of preeminence, rule or supremacy is meant.

One thing that is clear is that there are no verses where the term firstborn means “first in line”. Yes, it means “first offspring” when speaking of a person or animal that bears offspring in the natural way. However, when “firstborn” is coupled with a non-person, the idea of “first in line” is never in view.

Yet that is exactly what the Jehovah’s Witnesses contend that it means in these two verses in Colossians. They argue that Colossians 1:15 means that Jesus was first in line to be created and Colossians 1:18 means that Jesus was first in line to be raised from the dead.

Their argument is that this understanding is demanded because it is the normal meaning when you see the term.

But, as we’ve seen, it’s only normal when the term is used to refer to “first offspring”. There is no instance where it carries that meaning apart from the term “firstborn” being connected with a living person or an animal such as “cattle” or “herd”.

When the term “firstborn” is used apart from a living person or animal, it always has the meaning of preeminence, supremacy or highest rank.

This rendering makes the most sense in Colossians, especially when you look at the context and realize that Paul is seeking to demonstrate that “in everything Christ might have supremacy.” 

If Paul’s argument is designed to show that Christ will have supremacy in everything (verse 18), then it makes sense that he is going to support that argument by showing that Jesus has supremacy over creation and over death.

So why do Jehovah’s Witnesses still insist that “firstborn”, when attributed to Jesus, means “first in line” when it’s never used that way in any other example?

The answer is that they have manufactured this definition as a way to maintain their theological view that Jesus is a created being.

Jehovah’s Witnesses demonstrate the most egregious form of the Bible study error known as eisegesis, which means to “read into the text.”

In simple terms, the Jehovah’s Witnesses do not approach the text in order to inform their theology. Instead, they add phrases to the text and change the normal meaning of words in order to conform the text to their theology.

It’s clear that, as it relates to Jesus, Paul is using the term “firstborn” in the sense of “preeminence”. This is how the word is used in cases that clearly don’t refer to “first offspring.”

Additionally, the context supports the idea of “preeminence” as the meaning of firstborn.

Paul states that Jesus is the “firstborn of creation” which means Jesus is preeminent over creation.

In the verses that follow, Paul states that Jesus is the creator of all things. So Jesus is preeminent over creation because he is the creator.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses have to manufacture a meaning of firstborn to mean something like “first in line” in order to convince you that Paul is trying to tell you that Jesus is the first created being of Jehovah.

Yet if Paul was trying to communicate that Jesus was “first-created”, he would have used the Greek word “protoktisis” which literally means “first-created.”

That Paul didn’t use that word speaks volumes.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses then have to add the word “other” to the text four times in order to change the meaning of the text to show that Jesus is not really the creator as the original Greek text indicates.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses are like the person who tells a small lie to promote a false narrative but are then forced to create bigger lies in order to maintain the fabricated story.

They first had to offer up a definition for “firstborn” that is literally not used in any of the more than 100 occurrences of the term.

Then, to keep their narrative alive that Jesus is a created being, they have to add the word “other” to the passage four times. Their explanations and justifications for their interpretive choices get increasingly more complicated and logically convoluted in their effort to maintain their theological view.

The most direct, plain and understandable meaning of this passage is that Jesus is preeminent over creation because he is the creator. Additionally, Jesus is preeminent over death because he conquered death. All of this demonstrates that Jesus will come to have first place (i.e. preeminence) in everything!

No extra words and no uncommon and unnatural definitions are required to arrive at this understanding.

So we are back to my original premise in my first blog post, which is that the word “firstborn” does not mean what the Jehovah’s Witnesses think it means.

Jehovah’s Witnesses would do well to heed the advice of Inigo Montoya, who famously said,

 

Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!

 

Reflection

Do you agree with the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ interpretation of Colossians 1;15 and Colossians 1:18 that the term “firstborn” should be understood as “first in line”? If so, how do you interpret the other passages that use “firstborn” in a context that doesn’t refer to “first offspring”?

Have you ever told a small lie that escalated into much bigger fabrications? What is the motivation for lying in the first place? What are the reasons a person might continue to promote a falsehood?

What are some examples you can think of where a person is so committed to their narrative that they resort to convoluted logic and distorted definitions in an attempt to justify their narrative?

If the term “firstborn” means “first in line” in Colossians, as Jehovah’s Witnesses assert, what exactly is the meaning of the phrase “firstborn from among the dead”? How does the idea of “first in line” apply to Jesus’ death?

 

Photo is a screenshot from the movie “The Princess Bride”

Posted on

Was Job a Real Person?

Job 1

1There was a man named Job who lived in the land of Uz. He was blameless, a man of complete integrity. He feared God and stayed away from evil. 2He had seven sons and three daughters. 3He owned seven thousand sheep, three thousand camels, five hundred teams of oxen, and five hundred female donkeys, and he employed many servants. He was, in fact, the richest person in that entire area.

4Every year when Job’s sons had birthdays, they invited their brothers and sisters to join them for a celebration. On these occasions they would get together to eat and drink. 5When these celebrations ended—and sometimes they lasted several days—Job would purify his children. He would get up early in the morning and offer a burnt offering for each of them. For Job said to himself, “Perhaps my children have sinned and have cursed God in their hearts.” This was Job’s regular practice.

6One day the angels came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan the Accuser came with them. 7“Where have you come from?” the LORD asked Satan.

And Satan answered the LORD, “I have been going back and forth across the earth, watching everything that’s going on.”

8Then the LORD asked Satan, “Have you noticed my servant Job? He is the finest man in all the earth—a man of complete integrity. He fears God and will have nothing to do with evil.”

9Satan replied to the LORD, “Yes, Job fears God, but not without good reason! 10You have always protected him and his home and his property from harm. You have made him prosperous in everything he does. Look how rich he is! 11But take away everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face!”

12“All right, you may test him,” the LORD said to Satan. “Do whatever you want with everything he possesses, but don’t harm him physically.” So Satan left the LORD’s presence.

13One day when Job’s sons and daughters were dining at the oldest brother’s house, 14a messenger arrived at Job’s home with this news: “Your oxen were plowing, with the donkeys feeding beside them, 15when the Sabeans raided us. They stole all the animals and killed all the farmhands. I am the only one who escaped to tell you.”

16While he was still speaking, another messenger arrived with this news: “The fire of God has fallen from heaven and burned up your sheep and all the shepherds. I am the only one who escaped to tell you.”

17While he was still speaking, a third messenger arrived with this news: “Three bands of Chaldean raiders have stolen your camels and killed your servants. I am the only one who escaped to tell you.”

18While he was still speaking, another messenger arrived with this news: “Your sons and daughters were feasting in their oldest brother’s home. 19Suddenly, a powerful wind swept in from the desert and hit the house on all sides. The house collapsed, and all your children are dead. I am the only one who escaped to tell you.”

20Job stood up and tore his robe in grief. Then he shaved his head and fell to the ground before God. 21He said,

“I came naked from my mother’s womb,

and I will be stripped of everything when I die.

The LORD gave me everything I had,

and the LORD has taken it away.

Praise the name of the LORD!”

22In all of this, Job did not sin by blaming God.

(Job 1:1-22, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

Recently, my Bible reading program has me reading through the book of Job (along with other selections in the Old and New Testaments).

Job is a fascinating book that seeks to help the reader understand the nature of God’s justice and how we are to comprehend and deal with sickness and personal tragedy.

It’s not surprising that many outside of the church would consider the story of Job as nothing more than a fairy tale or a fictional narrative. However, there are more and more critics inside the church who are making the claim that Job was not a real person.

I recently encountered an ex-vangelical Christian (someone who claims to still be a Christian but has left the “evangelical” Christian movement) on X (formerly Twitter) who made the claim that Job is not a real person and that God is more of a villain in the story.

What are we to make of these claims? Is it true that Job was not a real person? Does it even matter? How would we even go about proving or disproving this thesis?

First of all, short of some archaeological evidence, we have no way to actually substantiate the existence of Job as a real person. But that doesn’t mean he didn’t exist.

The main evidence we have to determine the probable “realness” of Job as a person is to evaluate the text itself.

If you look at the beginning of Job, there is nothing that indicates that this is a fictional story. Think about some of the parables of Jesus. It’s obvious that he’s telling a story to make a moral point as the people and places are often nameless.

Consider this example from Luke 20:

9Now Jesus turned to the people again and told them this story: “A man planted a vineyard, leased it out to tenant farmers, and moved to another country to live for several years.

It’s clear from the text that the story is fictional. The writer not only leads with this fact, but the main characters and places are nameless: a man planted a vineyard, leased it out to tenant farmers, and moved to another country.

Contrast that with the book of Job. Right away, in the first verse, we know the name of the man (Job) and where he lived (Uz). Though we are not exactly certain where Uz is today, we know that it was a real place that was known to those who lived in the Ancient Near East Culture.

In addition, the text mentions that Job’s first tragedy occurred at the hands of “Sabean raiders”. The Sabeans were likely a group of people from South Arabia. In addition to this passage, they are mentioned in Isaiah 45:14 and Joel 3:4-8. They were real people.

If Job is a fictional character, why are all the details of this fictional story real?

There is another, perhaps even more convincing reason to believe that Job was a real person – he is mentioned in other parts of the Bible.

In Ezekiel 14:12, Ezekiel delivers a prophecy from the Lord that emphasizes the certainty of the coming judgment of the Jewish people:

12Then this message came to me from the LORD: 13“Son of man, suppose the people of a country were to sin against me, and I lifted my fist to crush them, cutting off their food supply and sending a famine to destroy both people and animals alike. 14Even if Noah, Daniel, and Job were there, their righteousness would save no one but themselves, declares the Sovereign LORD.

15“Or suppose I were to send an invasion of dangerous wild animals to devastate the land and kill the people. 16Even if these three men were there, the Sovereign LORD swears that it would do no good—it wouldn’t save the people from destruction. Those three alone would be saved, but the land would be devastated.

17“Or suppose I were to bring war against the land, and I told enemy armies to come and destroy everything. 18Even if these three men were in the land, the Sovereign LORD swears that they could not save the people. They alone would be saved.

19“Or suppose I were to pour out my fury by sending an epidemic of disease into the land, and the plague killed people and animals alike. 20Even if Noah, Daniel, and Job were living there, the Sovereign LORD swears that they could not save the people. They alone would be saved by their righteousness.

This prophecy is making the point that the people have been so steeped in sin that no amount of righteousness from the people can outweigh their wickedness. The prophecy then refers to 3 of the most righteous Old Testament characters to make the point. Even if Noah, Daniel and Job were living there, their combined righteousness would save only themselves. It would not be enough to save the whole because everyone else was utterly corrupt.

Now if the prophecy was trying to contrast the unrighteousness and wickedness of the people with the righteousness of 3 Old Testament characters, why would one of those characters mentioned be a fictitious person? If Job is not a real person, would it not be better to mention a different person instead of him? Why not mention someone like Enoch who walked so closely with God that God took him directly to heaven without having to endure a natural death? (see Genesis 5:22-24)

Clearly, this passage presupposes that Job was a real person and not a fictional character in a fictional story.

In addition to being portrayed in Ezekiel as a historical figure, Job is also mentioned in the book of James in a way that characterizes him as an actual person.

10For examples of patience in suffering, dear brothers and sisters, look at the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord. 11We give great honor to those who endure under suffering. Job is an example of a man who endured patiently. From his experience we see how the Lord’s plan finally ended in good, for he is full of tenderness and mercy. (James 5:10-11, NLT)

James uses Job as his example of someone who endured suffering with great patience. It would be very odd to use Job as your primary example if Job was only a character in a fictitious story.

Imagine I’m trying to console a friend who has endured great personal tragedy – the loss of loved ones and the loss of their livelihood.

I say, “I know you’ve gone through a lot, but you know who ELSE has gone through a lot and endured? Rocky Balboa. He lost Mickey, his trainer, the only person who really believed in him. Then he lost Adrian, his wife, the only person who ever really loved him. Then he lost his friend Apollo Creed and his brother-in-law Polly. Finally, he lost his entire fortune to an unscrupulous accountant. But he endured. He kept going. He kept fighting. You can too!”

How ridiculous is that? But if you believe Job is a fictional character, then that is exactly what James is doing. He’s appealing to “Rocky Balboa” as his ultimate example of endurance.

I think it’s clear that the biblical writers thought of Job as a real person and it seems obvious that those who lived at the time of the biblical writings also saw Job as a real person.

I said at the outset that apart from archaeological evidence, it’s hard to prove or disprove the legitimacy of Job as a “real” person. However, there’s nothing in the text that gives any indication that the person and the story of Job are not real.

So why argue that Job is NOT real?

It’s my belief that these kinds of claims are made for the purpose of putting the authenticity of the biblical narrative in question. If the book of Job is a work of fiction, then perhaps there are other parts of the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, that are also fictitious. If there are parts of the Old Testament that are fictitious, then I can dismiss the commands of the Old Testament and the God who delivered those commands.

If you doubt parts of the Old Testament, you can doubt the whole. If you don’t like the God of the Old Testament, then the easiest way to dismiss Him is to say that the primary revelation of that God is a work of fiction.

I won’t belabor this much more but will end with this. It’s apparent in today’s Christian culture that there are a growing number of people who claim to be believers who do not like the God of the Old Testament, who is often seen as genocidal, blood-thirsty, petty and self-absorbed.

It’s much easier to embrace the God of the New Testament, portrayed by the person of Jesus, who, according to the narrative, is a kind, gentle soul who only seeks to spread love and joy to those who would embrace it.

I believe the bible is true in it’s totality and is an accurate conveyance of the full nature of God. The description and depiction of God in the Old Testament is just as accurate as the description and depiction of God in the New Testament. There is no contradiction in his nature. Our job, as believers is to be students of the revelation of God that we have been given (primarily through His word) and reconcile the description of God we see in both the Old and New Testaments.

 

Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!

 

Reflection

How have you traditionally viewed the book and character of Job?

If you believe that he’s a fictional character, what are your reasons for coming to that conclusion?

What has been your view of the God of the Old Testament? 

Do you struggle with the different views of God as portrayed in the Old Testament vs. the New Testament? How have you reconciled the differences in these two characterizations of God?

 

Photo by Alabaster Co on Unsplash

Posted on

Is Extreme Wealth Evil?

Job 1

1There was a man named Job who lived in the land of Uz. He was blameless, a man of complete integrity. He feared God and stayed away from evil. 2He had seven sons and three daughters. 3He owned seven thousand sheep, three thousand camels, five hundred teams of oxen, and five hundred female donkeys, and he employed many servants. He was, in fact, the richest person in that entire area.

4Every year when Job’s sons had birthdays, they invited their brothers and sisters to join them for a celebration. On these occasions they would get together to eat and drink. 5When these celebrations ended—and sometimes they lasted several days—Job would purify his children. He would get up early in the morning and offer a burnt offering for each of them. For Job said to himself, “Perhaps my children have sinned and have cursed God in their hearts.” This was Job’s regular practice.

6One day the angels came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan the Accuser came with them. 7“Where have you come from?” the LORD asked Satan.

And Satan answered the LORD, “I have been going back and forth across the earth, watching everything that’s going on.”

8Then the LORD asked Satan, “Have you noticed my servant Job? He is the finest man in all the earth—a man of complete integrity. He fears God and will have nothing to do with evil.”

9Satan replied to the LORD, “Yes, Job fears God, but not without good reason! 10You have always protected him and his home and his property from harm. You have made him prosperous in everything he does. Look how rich he is! 11But take away everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face!” (Job 1:1-11, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

What does the Bible say about money and wealth? Actually, the Bible says a lot about money and riches, but what the Bible says may surprise you.

In today’s culture, there are many who decry wealth as being evil. Politically, there is a whole movement that seeks to take from those who have and redistribute it to those who don’t have.

Some have argued that God is “against the wealthy” and “for the poor”. I’ve argued extensively against this thinking in a number of posts that explain key biblical texts on money and wealth. You can read some of my thoughts, here, here, here and here.

So what does any of this have to do with Job?

Job actually provides an interesting example of how God views rich people. Some people assume that God is automatically against the wealthy, because, well, they’re wealthy and God must hate wealth.

But nothing could be further from the truth.

In this opening chapter of Job, we find out some interesting things about the man. The first thing stated about him is that “he was blameless, a man of complete integrity.”

The second thing we learn about Job is that he was extremely wealthy. He owned land and livestock and the text says that “He was, in fact, the richest person in that entire area.” In today’s vernacular, we might say that he was INSANELY rich!

Another thing we learn from this passage is that God does not consider wealth evil. Notice in verse 8 that God tells Satan that Job is “the finest man in all the earth – a man of complete integrity.” God continues, saying that Job “fears God and will have nothing to do with evil.”

If God opposes wealth because it is evil, He could not claim that Job, who was in fact the richest man in the entire area, will have nothing to do with evil.

It’s clear from this passage that God does not consider wealth to be evil.

It’s also interesting to note that Satan himself recognized that Job was wealthy because God had made him prosperous.

For those who consider wealth to be bad or even evil, how is this explained? How is it that God could make Job the most prosperous man in the entire area and yet call him blameless – a man of complete integrity who will have nothing to do with evil?

Clearly, wealth is not evil.

I sometimes encounter others who will stipulate that wealth is not evil but what they really believe is that having SOME wealth is ok but having EXTREME wealth is bad. They may hesitate to call extreme wealth evil, knowing that nowhere in the Bible does God condemn wealth but they’ll use other words such as insane, outrageous or even “filthy rich”.

The truth is that we don’t understand what we haven’t experienced ourselves. I think it’s common for people to want to make themselves the norm and anything that is outside that norm is an easy target for criticism.

For example, I live in a South Orange County, an area that is known for it’s wealth. That doesn’t mean everyone who lives in this area is extremely wealthy but there are many communities in this area that are known to be areas where extremely wealthy people reside.

I find that it’s easy to criticize the person who lives in the “extremely wealthy” community and ask questions like, “why does that person need to drive that expensive kind of car when a less expensive car will do just fine?” Or, “why does a person need a house with 7 bedrooms and 5 bathrooms?” Or, “why does anyone need to own a vacation home, or a boat, or a yacht, etc.?”

This line of questioning and reasoning is senseless and meaningless. It tells us nothing about real people. After all, while you are questioning why a person in that rich community needs to live in a 4000 square foot house with 7 bedrooms, 5 bathrooms and a 4 car garage, there’s another guy, in the next town over, who is questioning why you need to live in a 2500 sqare foot house with 4 bedrooms and 3 baths when he himself is only living in an 1850 square foot house with 3 bedrooms and 2 baths.

The truth is that nobody really NEEDS to own those things. Plenty of people get along just fine without them.

I think our sin nature causes us to view those who have more than we do as ostentatious and we can question their motives and integrity.

Job teaches us a valuable lesson about this. First off, Job certainly didn’t NEED all the things he owned but God blessed him in such a way that he was EXTREMELY wealthy. God gave him way more than he actually needed and didn’t consider it bad or evil. Apparently, God doesn’t evaluate our integrity based on how much. or how little we have.

This was actually the nature of the the challenge Satan posed to God. He insisted that Job’s integrity was a result of his wealth. He contended that Job was not righteous at his core but it was simply an act based on the fact that he was well off. God allowed Satan to test Job in order to demonstrate that Job’s integrity was not dependent on his wealth and his circumstances.

So where does that leave us?

It leaves us with this conclusion: wealth is not bad. And EXTREME wealth is not bad either. Our integrity is not determined by how wealthy or poor we are.

Hence, there may be some extremely wealthy people who lack integrity and demonstrate an evil heart, but it is not the wealth that made them that way. At the same time, there are plenty of people who are extremely wealthy who have integrity and are blameless, wanting nothing to do with evil, just like Job.

Reflection

What are your thoughts and feelings towards people who are EXTREMELY wealthy? Do you have a hard time thinking that they could be godly people who are blameless and have integrity? If so, why do you think you struggle with those views?

Why do you think God would allow people to have enormous amounts of material possessions well beyond what they actually NEED? 

If God doesn’t evaluate integrity based on wealth, how do you think He makes that determination?

What do you think are the reasons that many people (Christians included) oppose those who are rich? What are some possible reasons driving those views?

 

Photo by Anastase Maragos on Unsplash

Posted on

Brace Yourself!

Job 38

1Then the LORD answered Job from the whirlwind:

2“Who is this that questions my wisdom with such ignorant words? 3Brace yourself, because I have some questions for you, and you must answer them.

4“Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell me, if you know so much. 5Do you know how its dimensions were determined and who did the surveying? 6What supports its foundations, and who laid its cornerstone 7as the morning stars sang together and all the angels*shouted for joy?

8“Who defined the boundaries of the sea as it burst from the womb, 9and as I clothed it with clouds and thick darkness? 10For I locked it behind barred gates, limiting its shores. 11I said, ‘Thus far and no farther will you come. Here your proud waves must stop!’

12“Have you ever commanded the morning to appear and caused the dawn to rise in the east? 13Have you ever told the daylight to spread to the ends of the earth, to bring an end to the night’s wickedness? 14For the features of the earth take shape as the light approaches, and the dawn is robed in red. 15The light disturbs the haunts of the wicked, and it stops the arm that is raised in violence.

16“Have you explored the springs from which the seas come? Have you walked about and explored their depths?  17Do you know where the gates of death are located? Have you seen the gates of utter gloom?  18Do you realize the extent of the earth? Tell me about it if you know!

19“Where does the light come from, and where does the darkness go? 20Can you take it to its home? Do you know how to get there? 21But of course you know all this! For you were born before it was all created, and you are so very experienced! (Job 38:1-21, NLT)

Note: Read the entire chapter to see all of the questions God challenges Job with in this chapter.

The Daily DAVEotional

For the first 37 chapters of Job, we’ve listened to Job consistently defend his innocence against God’s so-called attacks on him, while his “friends” form a tag team of truth-tellers insistent on getting Job to admit his unrighteousness and recognize that he’s obviously experiencing punishment for some sinful act.

It’s at this point that God finally steps in and interrupts the conversation.

He begins with these two words:

“Brace yourself!”

God has some hard questions for Job, who, because he doesn’t understand why he is experiencing such calamity despite his sinless ways, concludes that God must get a rise out of bringing pain and hardship on people simply for the fun of it. I wrote about “Job’s Case of Cognitive Dissonance” here.

For the remainder of the chapter, God asks a series of rhetorical questions, the point of which is to underscore the fact that Job (as well as all humans) know almost nothing about God. He is so far above us, so much mightier and more powerful than us, how can we ever begin to think we can understand Him or His ways?

It is fashionable, especially in today’s culture to malign God’s character because His sense of justice or love or fairness does not match exactly with our own understanding.

Many think of God as selfish or narcissistic because He requires that we worship or “pay attention to Him.”

Others think of God as angry, wrathful or evil because he “slaughtered” all those people in the Old Testament.

But the truth is, we know virtually nothing about God. We think we know so much but we know so little. Our knowledge is limited and yet we think that our limited life experience gives us a front row seat to true enlightenment.

Just as God had some choice words for Job, He has those same words to those of us who might question His motives, His intentions and His character.

God created everything. Do YOU know how he did it? NO. Therefore, you can’t possibly understand the power and the process of creating the universe!

In addition to creating the universe, God also oversees the physical processes in the universe. He is in control of the sunrise and sunset.

What physical processes do you control and oversee? NONE!

So how can you criticize someone who is so far above you? You can’t understand the physical processes, but you think you can understand what justice is?

God’s point is that Job is responding from a position of utter ignorance when it comes to evaluating God, His motives, His character and His intentions.

We do the same thing today. We think that our understanding and our version of justice is correct, even though we have such a limited perspective and very little life experience when compared with the entirety of human history.

How arrogant is it to question the character of the God of the universe? It’s so arrogant that God employs sarcasm to illustrate the absurdity of Job’s baseless position:

But of course you know all this! For you were born before it was all created, and you are so very experienced! (Job 38:21, NLT)

In my mind, I imagine God saying what I might say to my kids, “But of course, you know EVERYTHING, don’t you?”

The obvious response to this is, “NO. You know NOTHING!”

Therefore, to take the position Job has taken, and to malign God’s character is nothing short of ridiculous!

 

Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!

 

Reflection

Have you ever lashed out at God and maligned Him for something you didn’t understand? What were the circumstances?

Why do you think people take the illogical position that our understanding of justice or love, or whatever is correct while God’s version of these qualities is distorted or warped?

What are some ways you can lovingly respond to those who might berate God and impugn His character?

 

Photo by Guillermo Ferla on Unsplash

Posted on

Job’s Case of Cognitive Dissonance

Job 9

1Then Job spoke again:

2“Yes, I know this is all true in principle. But how can a person be declared innocent in the eyes of God? 3If someone wanted to take God to court, would it be possible to answer him even once in a thousand times? 4For God is so wise and so mighty. Who has ever challenged him successfully?

5“Without warning, he moves the mountains, overturning them in his anger. 6He shakes the earth from its place, and its foundations tremble. 7If he commands it, the sun won’t rise and the stars won’t shine. 8He alone has spread out the heavens and marches on the waves of the sea. 9He made all the stars—the Bear, Orion, the Pleiades, and the constellations of the southern sky. 10His great works are too marvelous to understand. He performs miracles without number.

11Yet when he comes near, I cannot see him. When he moves on, I do not see him go. 12If he sends death to snatch someone away, who can stop him? Who dares to ask him, ‘What are you doing?’ 13And God does not restrain his anger. The mightiest forces against him are crushed beneath his feet.

14“And who am I, that I should try to answer God or even reason with him? 15Even if I were innocent, I would have no defense. I could only plead for mercy. 16And even if I summoned him and he responded, he would never listen to me. 17For he attacks me without reason, and he multiplies my wounds without cause. 18He will not let me catch my breath, but fills me instead with bitter sorrows. 19As for strength, he has it. As for justice, who can challenge him? 20Though I am innocent, my own mouth would pronounce me guilty. Though I am blameless, it would prove me wicked.

21“I am innocent, but it makes no difference to me—I despise my life. 22Innocent or wicked, it is all the same to him. That is why I say, ‘He destroys both the blameless and the wicked.’ 23He laughs when a plague suddenly kills the innocent. 24The whole earth is in the hands of the wicked, and God blinds the eyes of the judges and lets them be unfair. If not he, then who? (Job 9:1-24, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

In Job 9, Job responds to the discourse of Bildad in Job 8, in which Bildad promoted what we know as prosperity theology. You can read more about Bildad’s distorted views of God’s justice in a previous post here, but the summary is that Bildad believes that any tragedy or hardship can be assumed to be a punishment from God for some sin or wickedness. Since Job was experiencing hardship, Bildad was encouraging Job to stop the innocence act and come clean with his sin.

It’s interesting that Job doesn’t dispute Bildad’s theological framework. In fact, he starts his response with, “I know this is all true in principle” as a prelude to then declaring his innocence.

Job understands certain truths about God – that He is mighty and He is the creator of everything. Job also understands that God is in control and sovereign over creation.

But Job also gets some things wrong about God – questioning His character, saying that God “attacks for no reason, and he multiplies my wounds without cause.” (verse 17)

He paints a picture of a powerful God who doesn’t care. He says in Job 9.23 that “God laughs when a plague suddenly kills the innocent.”

His situation has given him a distorted view of God’s love and justice.

He believes that God finds him guilty even when he’s innocent (vs. 20).

Job assumes that everything he is experiencing is a punishment and because he is a righteous person, he concludes that God must punish for sport.

This is what happens when we go through trials or when things happen that either we don’t understand or that contradict our own reason – we end up distorting and skewing our own view of God.

This is what’s known as cognitive dissonance. When our understanding of a situation doesn’t match the reality, we create a narrative or a way of understanding that explains why the outcome doesn’t match my understanding, which I hold to be true.

Job firmly believes that his understanding of God is true (similar to what Bildad has asserted). Yet Job maintains his innocence, which makes his circumstances hard to understand.

Job has two choices. He can adjust his understanding of God in order to give coherent meaning to the tragic events he’s experiencing or he can create a narrative that would explain his circumstances while allowing him to maintain his initial view.

Job chooses the second option, which is the option of cognitive dissonance. In this option, Job holds fast to his wrong understanding of God’s justice, which means he is able to comprehend his innocence only by creating a distorted view of God, a demented being who “laughs when a plague suddenly kills the innocent.”

Reflection

What is your reaction when things happen that you don’t understand? 

Cognitive dissonance occurs when we hold certain views tightly without allowing for the possibility that our views may be wrong. What are some views or opinions that you might need to re-evaluate in order to avoid the danger of cognitive dissonance?

What are some ways a person can avoid the trap of cognitive dissonance?

 

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

Posted on

The Prosperity Gospel in the Old Testament

Job 8

1Then Bildad the Shuhite replied to Job:

2“How long will you go on like this? Your words are a blustering wind. 3Does God twist justice? Does the Almighty twist what is right? 4Your children obviously sinned against him, so their punishment was well deserved. 5But if you pray to God and seek the favor of the Almighty, 6if you are pure and live with complete integrity, he will rise up and restore your happy home. 7And though you started with little, you will end with much. (Job 8:1-7, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

The book of Job is considered to be one of the earliest books of the entire Bible.

If you’re not familiar with the book, it’s essentially 40+ chapters of dialogue and discourse about the nature of God, particularly as it relates to His attribute of justice.

In the first two chapters we find Job, a righteous man, experience extreme, unspeakable hardships and tragedy as the Lord allows Satan to test Job’s faith and his character. Satan’s assertion is that the only reason Job is righteous is because he has everything he needs and wants. Satan contends that if pressured, Job would certainly curse God.

The whole premise of the book is interesting as it deals with the question of character and true devotion. Is a person considered righteous because of what he has (and does), or is he righteous because of who he is?

So God allows Job to experience hardship and tragedy. The rest of the book is a series of discourses  as Job repeatedly expresses his pain and anguish while his friends take turns lecturing him on why he should repent of the hidden sin that must’ve been the cause of his calamity.

In chapter 8, Bildad the Shuhite weighs in with his take on Job’s situation. What’s interesting about Job’s friends is that their understanding of God and His character, particularly His attribute of justice, is wrong in different ways. Interestingly, their theological errors are still being promoted today in many modern day false gospels. Here Bildad espouses a view that clearly is the forerunner to what today is known as “prosperity theology”.

Prosperity theology basically teaches that if you follow the rules (do good), you will be blessed. If you don’t follow the rules, then calamity will ensue.

Bildad’s prosperity theology can be seen most clearly in verse 4, where he says that bad things are the result of sin, as well as verse 7, where he contends that seeking God’s favor results in “much”.

Bildad’s argument can be summed up as follows

1. God is just

2. God doesn’t punish just people

3. Job is obviously being punished. Therefore, Job must be unjust

Bildad understood that God is just but misunderstood how God’s justice is applied. Specifically, he thought God’s justice was always applied in the way outlined above.

In addition, Bildad assumes that anything bad that happens to a person is a result of God’s punishment, and the punishment is a result of sin. This is false.

The truth is that bad things often happen to good people but it doesn’t mean that they are being punished because of some secret sin.

Prosperity theology is popular with people because it gives a quick and easy formula to explain all the bad things that happen to us. But prosperity theology fails because God is not a formula. He’s an infinitely complex being whose ways are ultimately mysterious and beyond our comprehension. If you keep reading the rest of the book of Job, you’ll see how this becomes more clear throughout the book.

Reflection

In what ways have you tended to embrace Bildad’s prosperity theology as an accurate description of how God metes out justice?

If you were Bildad, how would you change what you say to Job to more closely match the true nature of God’s justice?

 

Photo by Sora Shimazaki from Pexels