Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

John:

I don't know about any translation, seeing as I haven't read one (except for
rare, short passages) in decades, but the Hebrew says, "Have you not hedged
about on his behalf and on behalf of his house (family) and on behalf of all
that he owns, you have blessed what his hands do and his livestock multiply
on the land? However, send out your hand and touch all of his (in a
destructive manner). If not? He will bless you." The implication that Satan
is pushing is that Job's blessing of God is dependent on all the good that
Job received from God. The same is true in 2:5, but modified in that he
still has his life and health.

As for 2:9, the way I understand it is that his wife complained that Job
should have a negative reaction to all the bad that happened to him, but he
had not changed, Her exclamation is more akin to "go to hell!" but worded
"Bless God and die!"

1:5 is more problematic, but I understand it more in the sense that his
children, in their feasting and drinking, may bless God improperly. This is
not the same as a curse, which would be premeditated, but an error.

On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 1:05 PM, John Estell <oldearther AT yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> I understand that most translations translated barak as "curse" in this
> verse, as well as in Job 1:5, 2:5, and 2:9.  However, does the usual sense
> of "to bless" make sense in this context?
>

See above, I certainly think so.


> Might Satan be asking  God a question that if He put forth His hand against
> Job
> will Job bless God to His face? Or in 2:5, might Satan have been telling
> God to put forth His hand and touch all Job has in order to see if he will
> still bless God?
>

I understand that Satan's challenge is that unless Job's situation were
changed, that Job would continue to bless God. The implication is that
should his good fortune be changed to bad, so his blessing of God would
change to a curse.

But it didn't.


> Thanks,
>
> John
>
>
> Karl W. Randolph.