Hot answers tagged job
10
The problem is that the three friends, Zophar, Eliphaz and Bildad, claim that God always brings punishment to the wicked and blessings to the good. Their theology states that if something bad happens to someone, it must be because they did something bad. If something good happens, it must be because they did something good.
Using this theology, they try to ...
9
This is an intriguing interpretation, but there are a couple things that I think militate against it:
First, Job 32:2-3 seems to frame the discussion that precedes it in terms similar to the traditional interpretation as concerning theodicy. Elihu is angry because Job has taken up the cause of his own justice rather than that of God's. He is also angry ...
9
Who are the morning stars?
From the text, I would say the morning stars are the sons of God that are mentioned. This passage seemed to follow a common parallel format found in the surrounding text. Look at the repetitious nature of the surrounding passages for my reasoning:
5 Who determined its measurements—surely you know!
Or who stretched the line ...
8
While I agree with Soldarnal's analysis, this question is interesting enough that I would like to play devil's advocate. I've been mulling over the issue all week so bear with my (overly-long) answer.
God's Accuser
The setup of Job is the Adversary looking for a way to discredit God:
The Adversary answered the Lord, “Does Job not have good reason to ...
8
The text does not use the same word to describe both of them, so in a sense the "burden of proof" is on the argument for association, not the argument for difference, no?
The serpent is described as an Earthly creature (with consequences for others of its kind, as noted by @Richard), so "heavenly being disguised as (or possessing) an earthly being" seems ...
7
At first glance it seemed strange to me as well. However, given that the context is the good things that occur to the wicked, and in the next verse (14) we see how the wicked take these things for granted, it makes sense that it would be a positive thing, and going down to sheol in a moment wouldn't be. The root is רגע , which aside for 'moment' can actually ...
7
Are Job's friends the voice of the Accuser?
In my framework for understanding Job, in the context of justice, the men roughly represent:
Job: The wisdom of Ecclesiastes (mis-applied)
Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar: The wisdom of Proverbs (also mis-applied)
Elihu: the voice of one crying in the wilderness: "Prepare the way of the Lord"
Job identifies ...
6
Perhaps it's a case of YAPSM (Yet another primordial sea monster) in the Bible.
In recollecting from the only secular scripture class I've taken, which you may take with a grain of salt if you wish, there's Leviathan and Behemoth which represent crocodiles and hippos accordingly.
Rahab, is another sea monster, (s)he also makes her presence known in ...
6
If you read the text straight through without the division into chapters, chapter 28 seems to flow naturally from the end of 27 -- the chapter division almost seems to be in the middle of a thought. I don't know why the chapters were divided the way they were, but they are not in the original text. Chapters 29-31 read clearly as one discourse. So I don't ...
6
It's actually quite difficult, sticking to just the Hebrew Scriptures, to link the two persons. The New Testament contains far more references to Satan - and, of course, Revelation 20:2 pretty explicitly links the two - but in the Hebrew Bible there are only three instances of the Satan/Adversary: Job 1-2; Zechariah 3:-12 and 1 Chronicles 21:1. Even at that, ...
5
In my framework for understanding Job, Elihu is an Elijah figure. He is the voice of one crying in the wilderness: "Prepare the way of the Lord"
This is part of a wider Bible pattern of both:
God finally arriving in person to judge (not just in the sense of 'judgement', but also in the sense of leadership and personal presence with his people).
God being ...
5
The Hebrew for the final clause is:
וַיָּבוֹא גַם הַשָּׂטָן, בְּתוֹכָם.
גַם means "also", so a straightforward reading suggests that the satan was not part of the group. We see another "exclusive gam" in Gen 33:7, where Yaakov's concubines (handmaids) approach Eisav and "gam Leah" -- Leah is not a handmaid but a wife. These are just two examples, ...
5
The reference to singing comes a few verses later:
4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare, if thou hast the understanding.
5 Who determined the measures thereof, if thou knowest? Or who stretched the line upon it?
6 Whereupon were the foundations thereof fastened? Or who laid the corner-stone thereof,
7 When the morning ...
4
The beauty of a young woman comes to us through our eyes, whereby we might be drawn into sin and adultery. Therefore, possibly making a covenant with our eyes is just a poetic way of saying: ‘I have agreed within myself, swore to myself and all the prime members involved, that I will not lustfully gaze after a maiden.’ One might say 'I made a covenant with ...
4
Yes, the adversary and the serpent are generally accepted to be the same being.
The differences that you noted can be reconciled fairly easily, depending on the doctrinal stance from which you're viewing these books.
From one stance, the Garden of Eden can be viewed as a metaphor and "the serpent" would not be an actual physical being. From this stance, ...
4
The context at hand is not concerning the maidens, but concerning the ferocious creature of the sea, Leviathan. This is the key to understanding the context. There is no cynicism, but in fact grave awe.
The word Leviathan (לִוְיָתָן) is only mentioned five times in the Hebrew Bible, and refers to either a ferocious creature of the sea, or to an angelic ...
3
Abstract
Elihu continues the accusations of Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar, lacks their wisdom, and is beneath contempt.
Structure of the dialogue
The core of Job follows a strict order of speeches for three cycles:
Job
Eliphaz
Job
Bildad
Job
Zophar
The basic content of Job's words is always the same: questioning God why the calamities of chapter 1 and ...
3
Background
Job is generally thought to be among the most ancient of the surviving Hebrew texts, if not the oldest.1 Exactly when the account was penned is not known, but the best guess as to the time period portrayed is around the time of Abraham or later. Therefore it's entirely possible that the author knew the sources of the Gilgamesh epic. One of the ...
3
In sensus plenior there are four layers of meaning made possible by prophetic recapitulation. Simply said, there are four proper interpretations.
The first is the literal speaking of a real occurrence with the historical Job.
The second is in the voice of the Judge which speaks of God's viewpoint about the literal.
The third speaks about Jesus in the ...
2
The rabbis of the talmud, recording received oral tradition, appear to understand God to have arranged the stars into their constellations. The following passage from Tractate B'rachot 58b (in the Babylonian talmud) comments on the passages brought in this question (among others):
Samuel contrasted two texts. It is written, Who maketh the Bear, Orion, ...
2
I think the wording of the text draws our minds to ponder the beauty and arrangement of the stars and the power of God who put them in their place. Back in the days before electricity, the heavens would have been the most fascinating movie theatre to watch and it is no surprise that ancient philosophers identified the idea of God/gods with them and paid ...
2
I would follow the view of Rashi who at Job 9:13 says that Rahab would be the angel assigned to assist Egypt. Rashi understands this from the use of the word Rahav (רָהַב), which he translates as "haughty," in Isaiah 30:7. There it says: "And the Egyptians help in vain and to no purpose, therefore I called this, 'They are haughty (רָהַב), idlers." They ...
2
If we had nothing but the Book of Job to go by, and we had to interpret the Book of Job through the Book of Job, then we would be compelled to look at Job 9:32-33, which read as follows:
Job 9:32-33 (NASB)
32 For He is not a man as I am that I may answer Him, that we may go to court together.
33 There is no umpire between us, who may lay his hand ...
2
The genre of Job
The book of Job falls clearly in the category of wisdom literature:
Wisdom literature is a genre of literature common in the Ancient Near East. This genre is characterized by sayings of wisdom intended to teach about divinity and about virtue. The key principle of wisdom literature is that while techniques of traditional story-telling ...
1
From Wikipedia, Book of Job:
The Talmudic tractate Bava Batra (15a-b) maintains that Job was written by Moses, although nowhere does it name its author. Other opinions in the Talmud ascribe it to the period of before the First Temple, the time of the patriarch Jacob, or King Ahasuerus. The Talmud cites a number of opinions about exactly when the events ...
1
It seems that anyone who is termed the "son of God" is someone who is directly created by God. Thus Adam is the "son of God" because he was directly created by God (Luke 3:38). Likewise, Jesus is the "son of God" because he was begotten by his heavenly father. Satan, like other angels, was created by the direct hand of God (Ezek 28:13), and therefore he too ...
1
Adam Kadmon (as taught by the rabbis) is both Divine Light and Man. This is also the claim of the Christian Messiah. (See John 1:1-4.)
It is he that will fully reveal God to man. Another claim of Jesus. "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father".
It is not common among Jews since it is only taught to faithful Jewish men over the age of 40. Job ...
1
Rahab is indeed a sea monster, but not necessarily a mythical one as seems to be implied by some of the comments made on Behemoth and Leviathan. It is not at all impossible that dragons (AKA dinosaurs) existed among humans in centuries before ours. There is significant evidence in the fact that both the idea and image of dragons are world-wide, not limited ...
1
What is a "son"?
In the genealogy of Joseph in Luke 3:38, Adam is described as the "son of God" because he was directly created by God.
In like manner, God is the progenitor of all angels. (They are non-procreating beings according to Matthew 22:30.) Thus as beings who are created directly by God, they are "sons of God."
Thus the "sons of God" shouted for ...
1
The morning stars (more than one) sung together implying they were a group or a choir, a soloist doesn't sing together, they just sing. The sons of God shouted, didn't say they sung. Maybe the morning stars was the heavenly choir and "The morning star" was the choir director, at first Lucifer (Isaiah 14:12) but he fell and now it is Jesus (Revelation ...
Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible
