For over 100 years we, the Brotherhood, have presented certain passages of scripture, to support a particular aspect of dogma, which dogma has been a focal point of strife and dissension amongst the Sons of God. As to whether this dogma in itself should have been allowed to have assumed these enormous proportions, we will not question here, but confine ourselves as to our justification for propounding, and insisting these passages do in fact support, what we have so taught and accepted as dogma.
Job 14.4. “Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one.”
Before we go further, let us clearly acknowledge — to understand this ancient book, the whole book must be considered as to its theme, and its purpose. Perhaps more so to this book, than to any other book of Scripture, is it necessary to apply this principle! Regarding the passage we are quoting, the very minimum selection for context must commence at the beginning of chapter 11, more suitably chapter 4, from the first utterance of the friends, but better still right from chapter one, verse one. We have the friends insisting that despite all appearances, Job was an unclean and unrighteous man, with concealed iniquity, hence his afflictions were his just deserts! This is their theme, and Job vigorously refutes their assumption, after the three of them have so stated their charge. [1]He starts his defence with the famous words, “No doubt but you are the people, and wisdom shall die with you”,[2] then goes on, and the quote under discussion is uttered. How are we to understand this verse? Certainly, it must associate with its context, and we ask, can this be classed as an utterance which can be understood in one sole, unequivocal manner, to the absolute exclusion of any other, without reasonable doubt? Brethren, we must in all honesty allow that the passage may be intelligently interpreted contrary to our assumption.
Salvation is of the Jew, divulged to him in his language and here recorded in one of the most ancient books known to man. It is for us, the Sons of God, to “search out a matter” with intelligence, and lack of bias. Job 14:4 is termed by grammarians as a figure of speech known as an “Erotesis”, defined as — The asking of questions not for information, or for an answer. Such questions may be asked:
- in positive affirmation,
- in negative affirmation,
- in affirmative negation,
- in demonstration,
- in wonder and admiration,
- in rapture,
- in wishes,
- in refusals and denials,
- in doubts,
- in admonition,
- in expostulation,
- in prohibition,
- in pity and commiseration,
- in disparagement,
- in reproachment,
- in lamentation,
- in indignation,
- in absurdities and impossibilities,
- double questions.
Let us note well — there are nineteen ways we can take the nuance of this figure of speech —nineteen! We have in the past 100 years taught that a denial of the question is the meaning. If however we give the same application to Job’s next erotesis in verse 14 we would deny our Hope in Israel! “If a man die, can he live again?”
It is interesting to note here that the N.E.B. omits the verse from its text proper. However, disregarding this point for the moment, what can we learn by considering the further words of this book?
Each speaker has charged Job with uncleanness, and unrighteousness, and Job calls them “forgers of lies”,[3] yet Eliphaz goes further! He states, that man can be neither clean nor righteous, and he includes the heavens as unclean. The “Holy ones” are not trusted by God![4] Strong words! Job practises his renowned patience, and refrains from taking issue with the friends over his actual own uncleanness, and unrighteousness, until Bildad takes Job’s own words of the verse we are considering and repeats them as a matter of truth i.e., in negative affirmation. Bildad would not accept Job’s contention. “How can man be clean?”[5] he asks. It is at this point that Job takes up the issue on the matter of his own standing, his cleanness, and his righteousness, upset by the denial that not even one man can be clean, let alone he, Job! First he castigates Bildad, and then ridicules Bildad’s past performance and concludes with, “And whose spirit (breath) came forth from thee.” R.V.[6] Job tells of God’s power and majesty,[7] and goes on to emphatically defend his previous stand, Surely my lips shall not speak unrighteousness. Neither shall my tongue utter deceit. God forbid that I should justify you. Till I die I will not put away mine integrity from me. My righteousness I hold fast, and will not let it go. My heart will not reproach me so long as I live will teach you concerning the hand of God.”[8]
The final accolade for Job’s contention is given from the mouth of God. “For ye (the friends) have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath”.[9] Far from being an admission of a certain type of uncleanness, Job’s words were in fact a defence of his own cleanness, and righteousness. Our misunderstanding of this verse has been brought about by the non-observance of the primary standard rule upon which we insist. Consider the context always!
Always consider the full context of Scripture quoted in support of a conclusion, and particularly so when supporting dogma. In this case a completely false trail appears to have been followed, by wrongly assuming in the past, that verse one of the fourteenth chapter defined the context and subject; but the nature of man is not under consideration. The subject is Job’s cleanness or uncleanness — Job’s righteousness or unrighteousness. The book begins and ends with this subject. Chapter one, verse one.”Job was perfect and upright”, and Satan sought to prove otherwise. This was the whole purpose of the experiment, and to demonstrate this to the Sons of God. The book must be considered as a whole; and while other connected matters are dealt with, the basic subject remains Job’s character! The first verse and the last verse of the book confirm this. Does it not appear that we have been in a somewhat similar position to the “friends”, to our confusion and detriment?
Consider the different light Moffatt’s translation shows upon our quotation. It is to be noted that Moffatt shows, along with the N.E.B. that the verse appears to be an editorial comment, or an interpolation. To denote this, he places the verse within double brackets, and translates it thus:- (Oh that among the impure might be found one pure man; but there is none!) It is seen here that the sense of our quote is quite removed, as concerned with the use to which we, the brotherhood, ‘have applied it in the past. Apart from the 19 alternatives we have to consider, concerning the figure of speech used, the above further illustrates the difficulty of insisting upon a particular interpretation. On top of this there is the matter of the verse’s authenticity! Consider how we treat the interpolation of 1 John 5:7, regarding the dogma of the trinity.
Related to the foregoing, we have another equally oft-quoted passage purporting to support dogma concerning the nature of man.
Psalm 51.5. “Behold I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.”
Before going any further in our consideration of this verse, may it be asked forthrightly and sincerely – how many of us who have used this Scripture for years, can answer two pertinent questions to our commendation?
- How many of us justified the use of this verse, by examining the circumstances of David’s birth of which he speaks, before applying it to the subject of the nature of man?
- How many of us even know WHO WAS DAVID’S MOTHER?
This would be the first matter to be investigated, before using the verse to support a dogma not in evidence as under discussion. David had just committed a serious sin, and was in fact bemoaning the very fact of his own existence, not the theological subject of the nature of man!
That this is so is evidenced by the second verse where David asks, that he be washed and cleansed from “my sin”. The sin was not the “law in his members”, but the actual offence committed with Bathsheba, for which he had no defence to offer. Hence his referral to the very commencement of his life, and his continued pleas for forgiveness, and cleansing from his sin of committal, not of his birth!
What were these circumstances of his birth? Why did Jesse not present David together with the rest of his sons to Samuel? Why did Samuel have to ask, “Are here all thy children?”. There was a good reason why the Psalmist wrote the words about his mother. Jesse had not fulfilled all righteousness, when he took a woman who had been the wife or concubine of the deceased Ammonite king Nahash. This made the son born of this union inferior in the eyes of Israelites to the other sons of Jesse by his first wife. David would have been aware of this from childhood, from his brothers and others, and as is evident from his father also, as shown by the exclusion from the presentation to Samuel. Again we ask, have we been right in the emphatic use of this verse, as a brotherhood, to define the nature of man in dogma?
Another verse of long standing, allied to the two just considered, is that of Lev. 16:16., which in the A.V., reads
“And he (Aaron) shall make atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins….”
Is this conclusion justified? We may well note that, although the word has to be understood in the plural, the A.V. has used the practice of using the same word — uncleanness —irrespective of whether the singular or plural is to be conveyed, except in Ezek. 36:29. When our quotation was presented as supporting dogma concerning the nature of man over a hundred years ago, translations other than the A.V., were not as available as they are today, and had they been so, it is most probable the quote would not have been presented in support, although referral to the uses of the key word “uncleanness/es” with the help of a concordance would have disclosed that the Hebrew “Tumah” can convey both singular and plural. Our word ‘sheep’ is similar. The assumption that the word in Lev 16:16 must be understood in the singular is difficult to justify, but is necessary if we insist — as we have — that the “uncleanness” is “besides” i.e., additional to the transgressions of Israel, and not one and the same. There appears little to justify our inclusion of the word “besides” into the understanding of the verse; no translation so defines the verse.
In Lev 15:31, the same word Tumah —uncleanness/es — is used, referring to instances of uncleannesses, and can only be understood in the plural. Similarly in 2 Chron. 29:16; Ezra 9:11 & Ezek. 39:24. In the verse under discussion, the R.V., and the R.S.V. use the plural, while the N.E.B. speaks of ritual. The “Torah” gives the same aspect as the others, of conjointness for Israel;s uncleannesses and transgressions: – “Thus he shall purge the shrine of the uncleanness and transgressions of the Israelites, whatever their sins; and he shall do the same for the Tent of the Meeting, which abides with them in the midst of their uncleanness”. Moffatt assesses the position similarly: – “so performing expiatory rites for the sacred place on account of the unclean practices of the Israelites, and their sinful transgressions; he must do the same for the Trysting tent that is surrounded by them and their unclean practices”. Can we intelligently insist therefore, that the word Tumah must be taken here in the singular? If we insist that here the word uncleanness refers to the uncleanness of man as per the dogma of the nature of man, would it appear worthy of the Brotherhood? Yet this position has pertained, and does today!
We turn now to the New Testament, to a quote which has similarly been proposed, as being capable only one interpretation. Rom. 7:18.
“For I know that in me (that is in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing.”
Certainly all agree that this thing in the flesh is “no good thing”, but does the Apostle in fact mean it is the only thing dwelling in man? Surely the words may have another sense, viz., “This thing that dwells in me is a bad thing” i.e., this is one thing in me which is no good, not excluding thereby, that there are other things dwelling in man, such as love, kindness, patience, hunger for spiritual things, penitence etc. This interpretation does violence to neither text nor spirit of Scripture. Have we any right to state that the passage should be read, “In me (that is in my flesh) dwelleth not any good thing” and disallow, “In me (that is in my flesh) dwelleth a thing that is not good” i.e., a bad thing? Sin is a bad thing, but, by nature, is it the only thing which dwells in man?
What does Paul say of those who have remained fully natural outside the law? Are they all individually, wholly evil? Of them he says, “For when the Gentiles do by nature the things of the law…..”,[10] and again referring to natural instincts, “Doth not nature itself teach you, that if a man hath long hair, it is a dishonour to him?”[11] The Apostle is speaking of basic human nature, and referring to “good” things therein. He also implicitly infers that natural conception is not against nature, and attracts no condemnation, although it is natural. Un-natural use however is certainly condemned![12] Does not Paul show, then, that all nature in man is not evil?
If we insist that there is nothing good in man’s nature, we have no defence against the conclusion that a smaller man, or one who has lost a limb, would be more acceptable than others, because he has in fact, by chance, less flesh – “in which dwelleth no good thing”!
We have considered four quotes, which for over one hundred years, have been at least part of our basis in defining our dogma of the nature of man, and it may be apparent, that the quotes are open to consideration as being intelligently capable of understanding, other than we have presented them as favoring dogma about the nature of man. Are we within the bounds of our mandate as Sons of the Most High when we insist upon unequivocal acceptance of dogma regarding the understanding of these quotes, as being absolute, incontrovertible Truth?
“WHAT IS WRITTEN IN THE LAW? HOW READEST THOU?”
References
[1] Job 4:6, 7; 8:6; 11:14.
[2] Job 12:1
[3] Job 13:4
[4] Job 15:14, 15
[5] Job 25:4
[6] Job 26:1/4
[7] Job 26:5/14
[8] Job 27:4/6, 11
[9] Job 42:7
[10] Rom 2:14
[11] 1 Cor 11:14
[12] Rom 1:26
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One