[b-hebrew] NXM

David Kummerow farmerjoeblo at hotmail.com
Thu Apr 10 17:22:28 EDT 2008


Sorry, this sentence

"Will he maintain his position even in the face of God personally 
presenting himself and providing answers or promise of restitution?"

should read:

Will he maintain his position even in the face of God personally 
presenting himself and not providing answers or promise of restitution?

Thanks,
David Kummerow.



> Hi Stephen,
> 
> In my view, Satan's attack against Job subtly continues through the 
> dialogues. Sure, by ch 2 Job has won the case for God. But like in most 
> legal cases, there is opportunity for some rebuttal by the prosecution. 
> The question then is: will Job continue in this stance? What if he is 
> forced to examine from every direction what has happened? Will he 
> maintain his position even in the face of God personally presenting 
> himself and providing answers or promise of restitution? Maybe Job will 
> give up and dismiss God because there is no forthcoming blessings?
> 
> I disagree with Habel that 27:5 is addressed to God as the plural object 
> is more naturally taken as referring to the friends. Habel for his part 
> chooses not to provide an analysis of the plural object pronoun (does he 
> emend it to a singular?).
> 
> Regards,
> David Kummerow.
> 
> 
>>>
>>> Subject:
>>> Re: [b-hebrew] NXM
>>> From:
>>> "Stephen Shead" <srshead+bh at gmail.com>
>>> Date:
>>> Thu, 10 Apr 2008 12:49:37 -0400
>>> To:
>>> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
>>>
>>> To:
>>> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi David,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the reply. If NXM means "comfort(ed)" here, I agree with 
>>> you on a
>>> passive meaning; and either God himself, or perhaps the event of Job's
>>> long-awaited face-to-face encounter with God (42:5), would be the
>>> unidentified agent.
>>>
>>> For the most part, I like your outline of the book's coherence, but 
>>> I'd like
>>> to throw in a couple of things. Bear with me - I think it's relevant 
>>> to the
>>> meaning of NXM in 42:6!
>>>
>>> 1. I agree with you on the dual nature of the Satan's attack in the
>>> prologue. But I'm not convinced that this sets the parameters for the 
>>> entire
>>> book. That is, I don't think the Satan should be given as much credit 
>>> as he
>>> often is! Does he really manipulate so completely what God does 
>>> throughout
>>> the book? This is the appearance in the prologue; but I suspect the 
>>> book's
>>> theology is more subtle and sophisticated.
>>>
>>> I think the conflict with the Satan is essentially resolved by Job's 
>>> initial
>>> response to the calamities (1:20-22 and 2:10). Job's fear of God is 
>>> shown
>>> not to be motivated by material gain, and God is therefore free to 
>>> bless Job
>>> once again - not as a bribe to gain his devotion, but purely out of
>>> generosity. I take it as significant that the Satan does not reappear 
>>> after
>>> ch.2: what happens after ch.2 goes far beyond the terms of the 
>>> Satan's test.
>>>
>>> Of course, by the end of ch.2 we are left with a different 
>>> God-problem (or
>>> rather, Job is left with it!): the question of God's justice. This 
>>> was the
>>> other side of the Satan's catch-22 for God: refuse the challenge, and 
>>> both
>>> God's and Job's motives and integrity are forever in doubt; accept 
>>> it, and
>>> God's justice is in doubt.
>>>
>>> So why does God not restore Job at this point, as he is now free to 
>>> do? Why
>>> such a long delay? And when he does finally appear, why does he not 
>>> say a
>>> word to Job about what happened in chs 1-2, and defend his justice in 
>>> Job's
>>> particular case? In my view, the reason is that, although Job was the
>>> classic, irreproachable wise man, with a genuine "fear of the Lord" 
>>> and (as
>>> it turns out in the dialogues) a dogged determination to continue to 
>>> hope in
>>> God, there was a much greater, fuller understanding of and experience 
>>> of God
>>> which he lacked. This has to do, as you say, with the fact that God 
>>> is God
>>> and Job is a limited human - more specifically, it has to do with the
>>> breadth and complexity and care and enormity of God's wise government of
>>> creation, which Job can never begin to comprehend, and (implicitly) 
>>> within
>>> which his own painful circumstances fit in some inscrutable way.
>>>
>>> So by chapter 2, we know that Job is not motivated by personal gain. 
>>> But by
>>> chapter 42, he has come much further: he is willing to submit himself 
>>> and
>>> entrust himself to the wise and inscrutable government of his God, 
>>> despite
>>> every appearance and every experience which shouts that this 
>>> government is
>>> unjust and cruel.
>>>
>>> Why is this significant? Because I don't think the primary concern in 
>>> chs
>>> 38-42 is the Satan's challenge. I think, in the book's 
>>> meta-narrative, God
>>> had his own, much sterner and grander "test" for Job all along.
>>>
>>> 2. This brings me to my other point: While God adjudicates in Job's 
>>> favour
>>> as against the friends in 42:7, it is equally clear that not 
>>> everything Job
>>> says is correct. He wrongly assumes, along with the friends, that his
>>> suffering must be related to God's displeasure with him (the opposite is
>>> true!), and that the only reason God could possibly subject him to 
>>> such a
>>> thing is out of anger at some supposed sin (e.g. 10:2).
>>>
>>> More importantly, Job has assumed, within his strict forensic framework,
>>> that if he is innocent (as he is) and is to maintain his integrity 
>>> (as he
>>> insists on doing), then God cannot possibly be in the right (27:5 - 
>>> Habel
>>> takes this as addressed to God). This logic is what God challenges in 
>>> 40:8,
>>> and he responds to it by "transfer[ring] the issue from its forensic
>>> framework to a governmental context" (Habel, 562).
>>>
>>> On the traditional understanding of NXM in 42:6, this is the content of
>>> Job's "repentance" or "remorse": he regrets that fact that he "SPOKE OF
>>> things too wonderful for me, which I did not know" (42:3). His speech 
>>> went
>>> beyond the appropriate limits of human wisdom. This is no way amounts to
>>> denying his integrity (27:5): he remains a man of deep devotion and 
>>> piety.
>>> But now, based on his new appreciation of the breath-taking grandness of
>>> God's govenment of creation, he retracts his implication that God's
>>> integrity must therefore be in doubt. This logic was based on a neat, 
>>> human,
>>> limited and even self-centred view of God's government.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Stephen Shead
>>> Santiago, Chile
>>>
>>> * Habel, Norman. 1985. The Book of Job: A Commentary. OTL. London: SCM.
>>>
>>> P.S. Yes, I'm the "Radical Frame Semantics and Biblical Hebrew" guy. 
>>> Glad
>>> someone found my thesis there and was interested!
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> b-hebrew mailing list
>>> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
>>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> 
> 



More information about the b-hebrew mailing list