Who is Elihu?

[christophernyc]

I agree with you when you say God stated that Satan had God move against Job without cause. Satan’s cause was to destroy Job. Satan had said Job would not bless God if something bad happened to his possessions, and Satan was wrong. Job did bless God. This makes Satan’s cause unjust.

This first test does not state what God’s cause was for allowing Job’s loss of possessions. It is my opinion that Job was not saved, and his soul was heading for the pit, as we read in Job 33:24. Then he is gracious unto him, and saith, Deliver him from going down to the pit: I have found a ransom.

God’s purpose for allowing Satan to take Job’s possessions was to get Job’s attention so that he might put on God’s righteousness in place of his own righteousness.

The second test turned out far different.

So Job suffers the loss of his possessions "without cause" in the first test, and responds by saying, "Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither: the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD."

The first test is without cause, and there is nothing written in chapter 2 to indicate the second test was any different. We see satan using the same tactic, except this time he raises the stakes by attacking Job's well-being (which quite literally brings Job to the brink of death by the end). So what is Job's response to this second test? Even when prompted by his own wife to curse God (as satan had again falsely predicted) Job does not curse God. What does Job do instead? "But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?" Job's attitude is one of acceptance. He willingly and humbly accepts the evil that has come upon him and refuses to curse God.

What follows is Job being accused by his friends for having sinned to incur this punishment and Job (rightly) arguing that it's not because he had sinned. He has to go to great lengths to explain himself because his friends refuse to believe him. Job is also consistently crying out to God wondering himself why this has happened to him with the aim of having his relationship with God restored. Job is satisfied at the end when God appears to him and does this very thing.

 

[tttallison]

So Job suffers the loss of his possessions "without cause" in the first test, and responds by saying, "Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither: the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD."

The first test is without cause, and there is nothing written in chapter 2 to indicate the second test was any different. We see satan using the same tactic, except this time he raises the stakes by attacking Job's well-being (which quite literally brings Job to the brink of death by the end). So what is Job's response to this second test? Even when prompted by his own wife to curse God (as satan had again falsely predicted) Job does not curse God. What does Job do instead? "But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?" Job's attitude is one of acceptance. He willingly and humbly accepts the evil that has come upon him and refuses to curse God.

You are missing so much here.

You need to lay out the two tests side by side and see what is different. The lines of the two tests are identical, except for what is actually different.

First consider what Satan's challenge was. It was not that Job would start calling God names, but that Job would not bless God. Here are the two Hebrew words from which "curse" is translated, as listed in Strong's. The first Hebrew word is "barak" Strongs H1288 which occurs 330 times and is translated bless 302 of those times. In Job 1:11 we see "barak" Strong's H1288 along with "lo" Strong's H3808 which means not, or no, or never. These two Hebrew words, "bless not" comes the translated English word "curse".

Now look in the first test where Job blessed God. Job 1:21b "the Lord gave and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord. After the second test Job does not bless God.

Job said, "shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil. In Lamentations 3:38-39 it says, "Out of the most high proceedeth not evil and good? Where fore does a living man complain, a man for the punishment of his sins?"

The next thing out of Job's mouth was to curse his day, and his mother's womb.

After the first test it is stated that Job did not sin, nor charge God foolishly. After the second test it is stated Job did not sin with his lips. It does not state that Job did not sin, only that Job did not sin with his lips. But remember, after the second test Job did not bless God.

After the first test God reported that Job had held his integrity, and after the second test God is silent.

After the second test God did not report that Job retained his integrity.

 

[christophernyc]

You are missing so much here.

You need to lay out the two tests side by side and see what is different. The lines of the two tests are identical, except for what is actually different.

First consider what Satan's challenge was. It was not that Job would start calling God names, but that Job would not bless God. Here are the two Hebrew words from which "curse" is translated, as listed in Strong's. The first Hebrew word is "barak" Strongs H1288 which occurs 330 times and is translated bless 302 of those times. In Job 1:11 we see "barak" Strong's H1288 along with "lo" Strong's H3808 which means not, or no, or never. These two Hebrew words, "bless not" comes the translated English word "curse".

Now look in the first test where Job blessed God. Job 1:21b "the Lord gave and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord. After the second test Job does not bless God.

Job said, "shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil. In Lamentations 3:38-39 it says, "Out of the most high proceedeth not evil and good? Where fore does a living man complain, a man for the punishment of his sins?"

The next thing out of Job's mouth was to curse his day, and his mother's womb.

After the first test it is stated that Job did not sin, nor charge God foolishly. After the second test it is stated Job did not sin with his lips. It does not state that Job did not sin, only that Job did not sin with his lips. But remember, after the second test Job did not bless God.

After the first test God reported that Job had held his integrity, and after the second test God is silent.

After the second test God did not report that Job retained his integrity.

So is it your opinion that satan's prediction of Job about the second test was correct?

barak: To bless, to kneel
Original Word: בָרַךְ
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: barak
Pronunciation: bah-rahk
Phonetic Spelling: (baw-rak')
Definition: To bless, to kneel
Meaning: to kneel, to bless God, man, to curse

Besides the literal definition, the meaning of a word and its context must also be considered. Notice “barak” also means “to curse”, which is how nearly every translation has translated Job 1:11 and Job 2:5. It’s quite clear that satan is predicting Job will curse God if Job suffers without cause in both tests.

The additional giveaway is in the wording that follows satan's predictions. According to satan, Job will curse God to His face. If it’s about Job "not blessing" God, how would Job "not bless" God to His face? How does that work? That would be very weird syntax. According to your interpretation then it would make much more sense for satan to simply say "Job will not bless You." Adding “to Your face” to that interpretation of "barak" would not make any sense.

But if we understand the meaning of “barak” as curse then the expression “to Your face” makes much more sense. Satan is predicting that Job will curse God to His face, not that Job will simply not bless God. So it seems more likely that satan's prediction is not about Job "not blessing" God, but his prediction is about Job "cursing" God.

So Job suffers without cause in both tests, and in both tests he does not curse God to His face. Yes, Job's replies are different in both tests, but the nature of both Job's replies in Job 1:21 and Job 2:10 show an attitude of humility and an acceptance of what God has allowed to be done. Job's responses both prove satan to be wrong in his predictions as Job never curses God.

 

[tttallison]

So is it your opinion that satan's prediction of Job about the second test was correct?

barak: To bless, to kneel
Original Word: בָרַךְ
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: barak
Pronunciation: bah-rahk
Phonetic Spelling: (baw-rak')
Definition: To bless, to kneel
Meaning: to kneel, to bless God, man, to curse

Besides the literal definition, the meaning of a word and its context must also be considered. Notice “barak” also means “to curse”, which is how nearly every translation has translated Job 1:11 and Job 2:5. It’s quite clear that satan is predicting Job will curse God if Job suffers without cause in both tests.

The Hebrew word "barak" does not mean to curse any more than good means evil, or light means dark, or cold means hot. The only time "barak" means curse is when there is a negative connotation, such as bless not. When you say it is not good, the connotation is that it is evil. Hot never means cold, unless the word "not" is applied, as in "not hot".

When Job first uses the word curse it is a different Hebrew word. Job 3:8 let them curse it that curse (H779) the day, who are ready to raise up (Satan.)

We find in Job 1:11 the words "bless not" (barak lo).

If we look at Job 1:5 Job states that his sons may not have blessed God in their hearts. This is different than expressing it with the mouth. Job expresses this thought in Job 42:2, when Job acknowledges that no thought can be withheld from God. Here in lies the two methods of sinning.

Job did not bless God after the second test, nor did God state that Job had retained his integrity, as in the first test.

 

[christophernyc]

The Hebrew word "barak" does not mean to curse any more than good means evil, or light means dark, or cold means hot. The only time "barak" means curse is when there is a negative connotation, such as bless not. When you say it is not good, the connotation is that it is evil. Hot never means cold, unless the word "not" is applied, as in "not hot".

When Job first uses the word curse it is a different Hebrew word. Job 3:8 let them curse it that curse (H779) the day, who are ready to raise up (Satan.)

We find in Job 1:11 the words "bless not" (barak lo).

If we look at Job 1:5 Job states that his sons may not have blessed God in their hearts. This is different than expressing it with the mouth. Job expresses this thought in Job 42:2, when Job acknowledges that no thought can be withheld from God. Here in lies the two methods of sinning.

Job did not bless God after the second test, nor did God state that Job had retained his integrity, as in the first test.

It seems very reductionary to make the understanding of the use of this word here so black and white. We already know hot does not mean cold, and that bless is not literally defined as curse. But what we can do is ask what the expression of this word in Job 1:11 and Job 2:5 actually means in its context. Seeing a seeming contradiction like this one, it’s worth investigating to find out why.

Perhaps this verse in Proverbs 27:14 can help inform us of the meaning of bless and curse and how the word is being expressed in these instances. It says, “He that blesseth his friend with a loud voice, rising early in the morning, it shall be counted a curse to him.” There is blessing, and then there is blessing so exaggeratedly that it becomes a curse. So there is evidence of how the word “barak” correlates and could be used to mean curse.

Understanding this correlation of how “barak” is expressed in Job 1:11 and Job 2:5 comports then with what satan falsely claims (twice) about Job.

Also, there was no response in your last reply about how nearly every translation of Job translates the word “barak” as “curse” instead of “bless not” in these two instances. What is your opinion about the fact that most translations use the word “curse” instead? Are they all wrong? Or are they maybe translating the intention of this word in its context, even though it’s technically definitionally different?

Following that, how do you explain the meaning of the word “barak” when Job’s wife uses it in Job 2:9? Is she urging him to actually “bless” God? Do you think she is literally saying “Bless God and die?” And if that's the case, then how do you explain Job’s response to her where he encourages her to accept what God has allowed to happen?

Finally, your response did not address the obvious syntax of “barak” in conjunction with the words “to Your face”. Do you have a response? How would Job “not bless” God to His face? How does that work exactly? Again, why does satan not just say Job will not bless God? Why does he add “to Your face”? Can you explain?

 

[tttallison]

It seems very reductionary to make the understanding of the use of this word here so black and white. We already know hot does not mean cold, and that bless is not literally defined as curse. But what we can do is ask what the expression of this word in Job 1:11 and Job 2:5 actually means in its context. Seeing a seeming contradiction like this one, it’s worth investigating to find out why.

Does "not true" mean false? Is there any occasion where true actually means false without a negative?(he will curse H1288➔ H3808)

Perhaps this verse in Proverbs 27:14 can help inform us of the meaning of bless and curse and how the word is being expressed in these instances. It says, “He that blesseth his friend with a loud voice, rising early in the morning, it shall be counted a curse to him.” There is blessing, and then there is blessing so exaggeratedly that it becomes a curse. So there is evidence of how the word “barak” correlates and could be used to mean curse.

Understanding this correlation of how “barak” is expressed in Job 1:11 and Job 2:5 comports then with what satan falsely claims (twice) about Job.

Where is the correlation? There is no changing of the meaning of "barak". The man did not curse him in the morning.

Also, there was no response in your last reply about how nearly every translation of Job translates the word “barak” as “curse” instead of “bless not” in these two instances. What is your opinion about the fact that most translations use the word “curse” instead? Are they all wrong? Or are they maybe translating the intention of this word in its context, even though it’s technically definitionally different?

I don't know why. I do know that "not true" correlates to false.

Following that, how do you explain the meaning of the word “barak” when Job’s wife uses it in Job 2:9? Is she urging him to actually “bless” God? Do you think she is literally saying “Bless God and die?” And if Tthat's the case, then how do you explain Job’s response toIher where he encourages her to accept what God has allowed to happen?

I would have to assume the application of a negative there as found in Job 1:11.

Finally, your response did not address the obvious syntax of “barak” in conjunction with the words “to Your face”. Do you have a response? How would Job “not bless” God to His face? How does that work exactly? Again, why does satan not just say Job will not bless God? Why does he add “to Your face”? Can you explain?

There are two methods of sinning. One is verbal, and the other is with the heart. You can bless God with your heart, or you can bless God with your lips.

The term "to his face" expresses the method.

 

[christophernyc]

Does "not true" mean false? Is there any occasion where true actually means false without a negative?(he will curse H1288➔ H3808)

Yes, the occasion would be when someone is using sarcasm.

Also, here is what I found to the Blue Letter Bible link you provided H1288:

KJV Translation Count — Total: 330x
The KJV translates Strong's H1288 in the following manner: bless (302x), salute (5x), curse (4x), blaspheme (2x), blessing (2x), praised (2x), kneel down (2x), congratulate (1x), kneel (1x), make to kneel (1x), miscellaneous (8x).

Outline of Biblical Usage

1. to bless, kneel
   1. (Qal)
      1. to kneel
      2. to bless
   2. (Niphal) to be blessed, bless oneself
   3. (Piel) to bless
   4. (Pual) to be blessed, be adored
   5. (Hiphil) to cause to kneel
   6. (Hithpael) to bless oneself
2. (TWOT) to praise, salute, curse

Strong’s Definitions (Strong’s Definitions Legend)
בָּרַךְ bârak, baw-rak'; a primitive root; to kneel; by implication to bless God (as an act of adoration), and (vice-versa) man (as a benefit); also (by euphemism) to curse (God or the king, as treason):—× abundantly, × altogether, × at all, blaspheme, bless, congratulate, curse, × greatly, × indeed, kneel (down), praise, salute, × still, thank.


Did you notice that the word "curse" is included here in addition to the other definitions. Why is that?

 

[tttallison]

Yes, the occasion would be when someone is using sarcasm.

Also, here is what I found to the Blue Letter Bible link you provided H1288:

KJV Translation Count — Total: 330x
The KJV translates Strong's H1288 in the following manner: bless (302x), salute (5x), curse (4x), blaspheme (2x), blessing (2x), praised (2x), kneel down (2x), congratulate (1x), kneel (1x), make to kneel (1x), miscellaneous (8x).

Outline of Biblical Usage

1. to bless, kneel
   1. (Qal)
      1. to kneel
      2. to bless
   2. (Niphal) to be blessed, bless oneself
   3. (Piel) to bless
   4. (Pual) to be blessed, be adored
   5. (Hiphil) to cause to kneel
   6. (Hithpael) to bless oneself
2. (TWOT) to praise, salute, curse

Strong’s Definitions (Strong’s Definitions Legend)
בָּרַךְ bârak, baw-rak'; a primitive root; to kneel; by implication to bless God (as an act of adoration), and (vice-versa) man (as a benefit); also (by euphemism) to curse (God or the king, as treason):—× abundantly, × altogether, × at all, blaspheme, bless, congratulate, curse, × greatly, × indeed, kneel (down), praise, salute, × still, thank.


Did you notice that the word "curse" is included here in addition to the other definitions. Why is that?

Yes, I noticed that they included curse in the definitions of "barak". Of the 300 plus times that barak is translated into English only four times is it translated curse, and one of those times we can observe the Hebrew word "lo" meaning "not" from which we get bless not, or if you will to curse. To not bless God is to curse God, for there is no middle ground. We see Job blessing God after the first test, but Job does not bless God after the second test.

If you lay the two tests out together you will see what the obvious differences are between the results of the two tests. One of the most obvious is that Job does not bless God after the second test, nor does God announce that Job retained his integrity. What does occur is Job curses his day, and the word Job uses that is translated curse is not "barak". In the first test Job blessed God with his lips, and in the second test Job did not bless God with his lips, and we are not told whether Job blessed God with his heart. Remember, that is what Job said about his sons, that they might curse God with their hearts.

God has no conversation with Job himself until the 38 chapter, where God said "Who is this that speaks without knowledge." Job had reproved God and exalted himself above God. So, when did Job lose his integrity?

 

[christophernyc]

Where is the correlation? There is no changing of the meaning of "barak". The man did not curse him in the morning.

(Circling back real quick to respond to your question from earlier...)

Nobody is saying the man "cursed" his friend in the morning in Proverbs 27:14. If you see it, the point of the proverb is to express how blessing someone inappropriately (i.e., in this instance “loudly in the morning”) would have the opposite effect of blessing. Delivering a blessing to his friend in an improper way would then be experienced the same as if he had delivered a curse to his friend.

 

[posthuman]

what does it really mean tho, equivalently, if one refuses to bless God?
is it not effectively equivalent to cursing Him?

whoever does not believe is condemned already - - there is no fence to sit on.

 

[christophernyc]

Yes, I noticed that they included curse in the definitions of "barak". Of the 300 plus times that barak is translated into English only four times is it translated curse, and one of those times we can observe the Hebrew word "lo" meaning "not" from which we get bless not, or if you will to curse. To not bless God is to curse God, for there is no middle ground. We see Job blessing God after the first test, but Job does not bless God after the second test.

If you lay the two tests out together you will see what the obvious differences are between the results of the two tests. One of the most obvious is that Job does not bless God after the second test, nor does God announce that Job retained his integrity. What does occur is Job curses his day, and the word Job uses that is translated curse is not "barak". In the first test Job blessed God with his lips, and in the second test Job did not bless God with his lips, and we are not told whether Job blessed God with his heart. Remember, that is what Job said about his sons, that they might curse God with their hearts.

God has no conversation with Job himself until the 38 chapter, where God said "Who is this that speaks without knowledge." Job had reproved God and exalted himself above God. So, when did Job lose his integrity?

So when does Job lose his integrity? The answer is he does not lose his integrity, as evidenced in the text in Job 2:9. Additionally, what follows is Job continuing to maintain his integrity in the face of his wife urging him to do the exact opposite. Herein again, Job refuses to curse God as satan had falsely predicted. This is the spirit of what is happening in this scene. To imply that there is some hidden secret cursing of God in Job’s heart is to murder the spirit of what the story is telling us at this moment. Job adamantly refuses to curse God and is exemplifying in real time how he practices “turning away from evil” just as God had already explicitly testified about him twice.

For Job to “bless” God at this moment, as his wife urged him to, would actually have had the opposite effect of blessing, as demonstrated in Proverbs 27:14. Job’s wife, understandably, is exasperated and suffering horribly as a result of what has happened to them. It’s overwhelming, and in this weak moment we can see why she would sarcastically say “bless God” and die. She knows under these particular circumstances that “blessing” God here at this moment would be the same as if Job was offering a curse. Apparently this is the reason most bible translations of this text have Job’s wife saying “curse God and die”.

 

[tttallison]

So when does Job lose his integrity? The answer is he does not lose his integrity, as evidenced in the text in Job 2:9. Additionally, what follows is Job continuing to maintain his integrity in the face of his wife urging him to do the exact opposite. Herein again, Job refuses to curse God as satan had falsely predicted. This is the spirit of what is happening in this scene. To imply that there is some hidden secret cursing of God in Job’s heart is to murder the spirit of what the story is telling us at this moment. Job adamantly refuses to curse God and is exemplifying in real time how he practices “turning away from evil” just as God had already explicitly testified about him twice.

For Job to “bless” God at this moment, as his wife urged him to, would actually have had the opposite effect of blessing, as demonstrated in Proverbs 27:14. Job’s wife, understandably, is exasperated and suffering horribly as a result of what has happened to them. It’s overwhelming, and in this weak moment we can see why she would sarcastically say “bless God” and die. She knows under these particular circumstances that “blessing” God here at this moment would be the same as if Job was offering a curse. Apparently this is the reason most bible translations of this text have Job’s wife saying “curse God and die”.

Unless you lay the two tests out together you will miss it.

THE TWO TESTS OF JOB​

Job had two tests. Whenever you take a test, you get scored on that test. In the reading of the first and second chapters of Job we are caught up with the anguish and torment of Job, and in the process we are blinded to the actual results of the two tests.


The first thing that should come to your observation is the process of the presentation of these two tests. They are virtually word for word in the presentation between the first test, and the second test. What would one obvious reason be for the two presentations being almost identical? One obvious reason would be that we might take note of that which is different between the two tests.

PRSENTATION OF THE TWO TESTS​

Test 1 Job 1:6 (Now) there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.

Test 2 Job 2:1 (Again) there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them, (to present himself before the Lord).


In the first test Satan appears to have been a casual observer, while in the second test you might assume Satan was commanded to be there.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Test 1. Job 1:7 And the Lord said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the Lord, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

Test 2. Job 2:2 And the Lord said unto Satan, From whence comest thou? And Satan answered the Lord, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

They are identical.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Test 1. Job 1:8 And the Lord said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?

Test 2. Job 2:3 And the Lord said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? (And still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.)


The difference is the first test has already taken place, and Job has passed. Two other things should be noted here. 1. That God did the moving, or is responsible for Job’s tribulation. 2. That Satan’s cause was unjust, Job passed. It does not mention God’s cause for allowing the test.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Test 1. Job 1:9-10 Then Satan answered the Lord, and said, (doth Job fear God for nought? Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house and about all that he hath on every side? Thou hast blessed the work of his hand, and his substance is increased in the land.)

Test 2. Job 2:4 And Satan answered the Lord, and said, (Skin for skin, yea, all that a man hath will he give for his life.)


The difference is that the first test involved Job’s possessions and the second test will involve Job.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Test 1. Job 1:11 But put forth thine hand now, and touch (all that he hath), and he will curse thee to thy face.



Test 2. Job 2:5 But put forth thine hand now, and touch (his bone and his flesh), and he will curse thee to thy face.





------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Test 1. Job 1:12 And the Lord said unto Satan, Behold, (all that he hath is in thy power; only put not forth thine hand.) So Satan went forth from the presence of the Lord.

Test 2. Job 2:6-7 And the Lord said unto Satan, Behold, (he is in thy hand; but save his life.) So Satan went forth from the presence of the Lord,--.


The difference is that in the first test Job's possessions were in Satan's hands, and in the second test his flesh was in Satan's hand.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

God’s presentation of the two tests is unique in that every word that could be duplicated was, from one test compared to the other test. It is the results of the two tests that will be presented next, and the obvious differences stand out.

RESULTS OF THE TWO TESTS​

Test 1. Job 1:20 Then Job arose, and rent his mantle, and shaved his head, and fell down upon the ground, and worshipped, and said, Naked came I out of my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return thither: the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord.

Test 2. Job 2:8 And he took him a potsherd to scrape himself withal; and he sat down among the ashes. (Notice that Job does not bless God. This was what Satan had said, that Job would "not bless" [lo-barak] God to his face.)


After the first test Job prostrated himself before God and worshipped God. Job mentioned his mother’s womb in a neutral manner, and then blessed the name of the Lord.


After the second test Job sat down and said nothing. The worshipping and blessing of God is missing. When Job finally spoke, it was in reply to his wife’s question, in which Job replied with a question, “shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? Notice after the first test Job mentioned his mother’s womb in a neutral manner, but later after the second test we hear Job cursing the day he came out of his mother’s womb. (Job 3:1,10-12)

Can you tell me when Job lost his integrity?

 

[christophernyc]

Thank you for laying these points out. How familiar are you with parallelism in Hebrew poetry?

 

[tttallison]

Thank you for laying these points out. How familiar are you with parallelism in Hebrew poetry?

Could you define poetry as it relates to the bible?

 

[christophernyc]

Could you define poetry as it relates to the bible?

The reason I am asking is because you laid out such a great example of the use of Hebrew poetry in this book, specifically that of parallelism. You did it so well it made me wonder if you were already familiar with it.

Chapters 1 & 2 of Job clearly parallel each other, as you have aptly pointed out. Thank you again. In more immediate instances, the Hebrew poetry of parallelism can be seen in these verses in the book of Proverbs, for example:

Proverbs 12:28
In the way of righteousness is life;
and in the pathway thereof there is no death.

Proverbs 27:2
Let another man praise thee, and not thine own mouth;
a stranger, and not thine own lips.

Proverbs 27:6
Faithful are the wounds of a friend;
but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.

What we find is the same thought and idea being repeated in two different ways. Though written differently, the two different expressions compliment each other. This poetry is not a rhyming of words, but a rhyming of ideas. Parallelism is just one form of Hebrew poetry which can be found all throughout the bible, both in single verses, as well as in narratives.

Understanding how stories in the bible are structured is also important and informative in interpreting them. There is a reason why the stories are written the way that they are in the bible.

So the parallelism you highlighted in Job chapters 1 & 2 is pertinent to Job’s responses. He suffers two different ordeals, and both of his responses compliment each other. Understanding parallelism, you can see that in Job’s reactions he blesses God, and he also refuses to curse God. Both responses serve to support the same goal and parallel each other.

These moments are a witness for us to Job’s character, just as God described when He said that Job is (1) one who fears God, (2) and turns away from evil. In chapter 1 Job shows fear for God after his first ordeal. In chapter 2 Job turns away from evil by not inappropriately “blessing” God. (This again makes sense why translators of this book use the word curse here, as explained in prior posts.) Although expressed differently, Job's reactions serve to compliment each other. They are parallel.

Finally, one last note, we know Job did in fact maintain his integrity after the second test because it is written in the text in Job 1:9.

Hope this is helpful.

 

[tablet123]

Elihu introduces himself as the youngest of those talking to Job. Beyond that, we don't know much about this guy.

The Lord in chapter 42 doesn't say anything good or bad about him, like He does to Job and his 3 friends. He just kinda disappears.

Elihu says some apparent good things, but there might be some little hints that maybe something is amiss with him. I have heard some say that he is Satan, and I've heard others say he is a Christophany (appearance of Christ in O.T.)

I honestly don't know what to think about him, but I suspect he is very important. I'd be interested to hear what others think about him.

Job 32:2 Then was kindled the wrath of Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the kindred of Ram: against Job was his wrath kindled, because he justified himself rather than God.

Job 32:3 Also against his three friends was his wrath kindled, because they had found no answer, and yet had condemned Job.
Job 32:4 Now Elihu had waited till Job had spoken, because they were elder than he.
Job 32:5 When Elihu saw that there was no answer in the mouth of these three men, then his wrath was kindled.
Job 32:6 And Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite answered and said, I am young, and ye are very old; wherefore I was afraid, and durst not shew you mine opinion.

Job 42:1 Then Job answered the LORD, and said,
Job 42:2 I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee.
Job 42:3 Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge? therefore have I uttered that I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not.
Job 42:4 Hear, I beseech thee, and I will speak: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me.
Job 42:5 I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee.
Job 42:6 Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.

Job 42:7 And it was so, that after the LORD had spoken these words unto Job, the LORD said to Eliphaz the Temanite, My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends: for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath.
Job 42:8 Therefore take unto you now seven bullocks and seven rams, and go to my servant Job, and offer up for yourselves a burnt offering; and my servant Job shall pray for you: for him will I accept: lest I deal with you after your folly, in that ye have not spoken of me the thing which is right, like my servant Job.
Job 42:9 So Eliphaz the Temanite and Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar the Naamathite went, and did according as the LORD commanded them: the LORD also accepted Job.

Elihu was the only person that spoke right which is why God did not require repentance and sacrifice from him like the other 3 men and Job repented of what he said wrong.

I do not know who he was but he was a good man.

 

[christophernyc]

Job 32:2 Then was kindled the wrath of Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the kindred of Ram: against Job was his wrath kindled, because he justified himself rather than God.

Job 32:3 Also against his three friends was his wrath kindled, because they had found no answer, and yet had condemned Job.
Job 32:4 Now Elihu had waited till Job had spoken, because they were elder than he.
Job 32:5 When Elihu saw that there was no answer in the mouth of these three men, then his wrath was kindled.
Job 32:6 And Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite answered and said, I am young, and ye are very old; wherefore I was afraid, and durst not shew you mine opinion.

Job 42:1 Then Job answered the LORD, and said,
Job 42:2 I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee.
Job 42:3 Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge? therefore have I uttered that I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not.
Job 42:4 Hear, I beseech thee, and I will speak: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me.
Job 42:5 I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee.
Job 42:6 Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.

Job 42:7 And it was so, that after the LORD had spoken these words unto Job, the LORD said to Eliphaz the Temanite, My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends: for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath.
Job 42:8 Therefore take unto you now seven bullocks and seven rams, and go to my servant Job, and offer up for yourselves a burnt offering; and my servant Job shall pray for you: for him will I accept: lest I deal with you after your folly, in that ye have not spoken of me the thing which is right, like my servant Job.
Job 42:9 So Eliphaz the Temanite and Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar the Naamathite went, and did according as the LORD commanded them: the LORD also accepted Job.

Elihu was the only person that spoke right which is why God did not require repentance and sacrifice from him like the other 3 men and Job repented of what he said wrong.

I do not know who he was but he was a good man.

How do you know Elihu was present when God required the sacrifice for the 3 friends? After God appears in the whirlwind, Elihu he is not heard from or mentioned again. Why do you believe he is still there?

I would encourage you to look closer at what Elihu says and give more consideration to the context in which he says it. For example, while his approach differs from the 3 friends, his criticism of Job is still based on the idea that Job has sinned somehow to incur his suffering, which we know is false.

 

[posthuman]

while his approach differs from the 3 friends, his criticism of Job is still based on the idea that Job has sinned somehow to incur his suffering, which we know is false.

no, it's not.

you've ignored the context of Elihu's comments in ch. 34 and 35.

Job 34:9​

For he has said, 'It profits a man nothing That he should delight in God.'​

​

Job 35:3​

For you say, 'What advantage will it be to You? What profit shall I have, more than [if] I had sinned?'​

​

Job had complained in ch. 21 and 30 that it didn't matter if he sinned or not, because he could still suffer earthly calamity that he was undergoing things he thought only the wicked should have happen to them, tho he had been righteous.

Elihu is rebuking that argument, saying God does indeed punish the wicked for their sin.
the only thing Elihu says Job has been unrighteous in, is having justified himself instead of God - the exact same thing God Himself also rebukes Job over.



perhaps you are so dead set on finding fault in Elihu that you aren't clearly understanding what he is saying?

 

[ZNP]

no, it's not.

you've ignored the context of Elihu's comments in ch. 34 and 35.

Job 34:9​

For he has said, 'It profits a man nothing That he should delight in God.'​

​

Job 35:3​

For you say, 'What advantage will it be to You? What profit shall I have, more than [if] I had sinned?'​

​

Job had complained in ch. 21 and 30 that it didn't matter if he sinned or not, because he could still suffer earthly calamity that he was undergoing things he thought only the wicked should have happen to them, tho he had been righteous.

Elihu is rebuking that argument, saying God does indeed punish the wicked for their sin.
the only thing Elihu says Job has been unrighteous in, is having justified himself instead of God - the exact same thing God Himself also rebukes Job over.



perhaps you are so dead set on finding fault in Elihu that you aren't clearly understanding what he is saying?

This is why I think Job is depicted by the self righteous man praying.

9 And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:

10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.

11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.

12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.

14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

In the beginning we see that Job is going to God on behalf of his children in case they have sinned. No mention that he is repenting of his own sins. Sure sounds like he trusted in himself that he was righteous and despised others.

The story of Job is about God removing the hedge of protection. Then Job learns how quickly he can become dust.

Also this word "justified" indicates that both are appearing before the judge in a trial when they pray. Satan is the accuser and one is justified before the judge, he pleaded to God to be merciful to him, a sinner. God said, I can do that.

The other one exalted himself, look at me, look at how great I am. God said, I can do that and told Satan to look at Job and let's find out how great he is. As a result Job was abased.

But he learned a really valuable lesson, he can pray to God and do great things. He is no match for Leviathan, but God has no problem handling Leviathan. We learn that God loved and valued Job. All Job needed to do was ask God for help in taking down leviathan and God would have been there in an instant. So then, we see once Job has learned this lesson he becomes much richer spiritually than he was before.

 

[tttallison]

The reason I am asking is because you laid out such a great example of the use of Hebrew poetry in this book, specifically that of parallelism. You did it so well it made me wonder if you were already familiar with it.

Chapters 1 & 2 of Job clearly parallel each other, as you have aptly pointed out. Thank you again. In more immediate instances, the Hebrew poetry of parallelism can be seen in these verses in the book of Proverbs, for example:

Proverbs 12:28
In the way of righteousness is life;
and in the pathway thereof there is no death.

Proverbs 27:2
Let another man praise thee, and not thine own mouth;
a stranger, and not thine own lips.

Proverbs 27:6
Faithful are the wounds of a friend;
but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.

What we find is the same thought and idea being repeated in two different ways. Though written differently, the two different expressions compliment each other. This poetry is not a rhyming of words, but a rhyming of ideas. Parallelism is just one form of Hebrew poetry which can be found all throughout the bible, both in single verses, as well as in narratives.

Understanding how stories in the bible are structured is also important and informative in interpreting them. There is a reason why the stories are written the way that they are in the bible.

So the parallelism you highlighted in Job chapters 1 & 2 is pertinent to Job’s responses. He suffers two different ordeals, and both of his responses compliment each other. Understanding parallelism, you can see that in Job’s reactions he blesses God, and he also refuses to curse God. Both responses serve to support the same goal and parallel each other.

These moments are a witness for us to Job’s character, just as God described when He said that Job is (1) one who fears God, (2) and turns away from evil. In chapter 1 Job shows fear for God after his first ordeal. In chapter 2 Job turns away from evil by not inappropriately “blessing” God. (This again makes sense why translators of this book use the word curse here, as explained in prior posts.) Although expressed differently, Job's reactions serve to compliment each other. They are parallel.

Finally, one last note, we know Job did in fact maintain his integrity after the second test because it is written in the text in Job 1:9.

Hope this is helpful.

Injecting poetry can easily lead down a rabbit trail. Does your definition of poetry in the bible include poetic license?

The only parallel we see here is in the actual presentation of the two tests.

No, Job did not pass the second test, because he did not bless God after the second test as he did in the first test.

If Job retained his integrity after the second test, could you please explain when he did lose his integrity. It is easy to see that Job had lost his integrity somewhere before he stated that he was vile and abhorred himself. Look at Job's words before this.
Job 27:6 My righteousness I hold fast, and will not let it go: my heart shall not reproach me so long as I live.