Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] NXM

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] NXM
  • Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 07:22:28 +1000

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







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page