Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Bryant J. Williams III" <bjwvmw AT com-pair.net>]

Dear Stephen,

I take it, then, from your response that "repent" would be the correct 
rendering
of NXM in Job 42:6? The reason I ask this is that Job's thinking "has 
changed!"
He thought one way about God's justice, but, because of God's appearance and
questioning of him (Job), his mind had new information about God, and, thus, 
his
way of thinking had to change also. This would conform with the confession of
Job's own lips. He is admitting that what he spoke of is beyond what he 
thought
as seen in 42:1-5. Furthermore, this confirmed by the LXX's use of hHGHMAI
(Perfect, Passive, Indicative, 1st person singular of hHGEOMAI, "To think,
consider, count, esteem, regard"), NOT by METANOEW nor METAMELOMAI.

It seems clear from the context that Job is confessing NOT of sin, but a lack 
of
knowledge about the justice of God. God clearly condemns Job's friends,
so-called, in 42:7-8, "...because you have not spoken of me what is right, AS 
MY
SERVANT JOB HAS....You have not spoken what is right, AS MY SERVANT JOB HAS."
(emphasis mine) Two times has God said that what Job spoke about Him was
correct. Thus, "repent" in the sense of "change of mind" as found in METANOEW 
or
METAMELOMAI would be incorrect, but a "change of mind" in the sense of
confessing a lack of knowledge (hHGHMAI) would fit perfectly (PUN intended).

My article on "Repentance" deals with Nacham and Shub(v) along with METANOEW,
METAMELOMAI and EPISTREFW.  I can send it to you off-list. It is basically in
legal outline form.

Rev. Bryant J. Williams III

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stephen Shead" <srshead+bh AT gmail.com>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 9:49 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] NXM


> 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
>
> For your security this Message has been checked for Viruses as a courtesy of
Com-Pair Services!
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.11/1371 - Release Date: 04/10/08
12:23 PM
>
>


For your security this Message has been checked for Viruses as a courtesy of 
Com-Pair Services!