Date: 19 Sep 2000
Time: 13:03:34
Job “was blameless and upright” In the age-old debate over whether Job was historical or a creation of dramatic fiction, I guess this phrase is proof that Job is a work of fiction. Because we know that the total witness of the Bible is that ALL have sinned – “there is none that is righteous, no not one.” He could therefore not have been "blameless" The question is not whether this particular story ever happened, -– not whether it is true, but whether it is truth. While the jury may still be out as to whether or not Job is true, there can be no question that it is TRUTH. And if this begins to sound a bit like discussiing what the meaning of the word “is” is – so be it. Van in the Garden State
Date: 20 Sep 2000
Time: 20:50:55
Everyone has such wonderful takes on these verses. I applaud you all for taking on the "tough" one for Oct. 8. I think Job is incorrect in ascribing the bad to God in 2:10 and am thinking about focusing on God's will. In this case, demonstrating the difference between the perfect will of God and the circumstancial will of God. Any comments or advice? Bob in Texas
Date: 20 Sep 2000
Time: 21:01:06
Van, I get your point. Along that line, I don't equate blameless with sinless. I take the line to mean he was a good person who didn't intentionally sin. We all know and respect people like that. I haven't looked at the Hebrew for "blameless and upright" yet, but we know bad things happen to these people too. That's the truth. The danger in these verses seems to be ascribing the bad to God. Bob in Texas
Date: 30 Sep 2000
Time: 12:41:39
I am drawn to the relationship here between God and Satan. It appears as if Satan is playing God's shadow which is somewhat disturbing to me. Any comments? D. in Can.
Date: 01 Oct 2000
Time: 19:41:06
Any ideas about what it means here to "persist in integrity"?
Date: 01 Oct 2000
Time: 19:41:26
Any ideas about what it means here to "persist in integrity"?
Date: 02 Oct 2000
Time: 21:02:32
D. in Can.: I was taught in seminary that the word translated as a proper name, "Satan," was actually the satan (sa-TAHN). It was an image drawn from the Persian court systam. The satan's job was to question every decision that the king made, to ensure that he had thought things through. In that sense, he was an adversary of sorts, but he was simply doing his job. That assumption has helped me with the beginning of Job. From there, the portrayal of "Satan" evolved over time. A good book on the subject is "The Origin of Satan," by Elaine Pagels. MTSOfan
Date: 03 Oct 2000
Time: 12:26:53
I recall reading somewhere that the concept and persona of "Satan" we have developed in Judaism only in the centuries following the Babylonian exile (which would make the connection to Persian religions reasonable, since Cyrus of Persia broke the Babylonian empire and let the people return to Palestine and renew their religious practices...)and that the older or more original understanding of Satan was as we see him / it in Job - one who simply opposes or tests, but well under God's authority, and not as a separate evil God-like power. Jim in ct.
Date: 03 Oct 2000
Time: 17:49:03
Satan implies that people value their skin more than they value money or family.
How do you think most Americans would rank the importance of money, family, and health?
I'm not asking you to guess what they would say, for people often say they are more virtuous than they really are. However, based on your observations of our actions and daily habits as well as of our media and pop culture, what do we think is truly important to us?
Input from my brothers and sisters around the world are also welcome. Feel free to leave your impressions about Americans or to make comments about your own culture.
ALSO, Within the past month 30% of my congregation has suffered some serious health problems. What is the pastoral word from this passage to a congregation that is very aware of its poor and failing health?
DSS
Date: 03 Oct 2000
Time: 17:54:03
The phrase, "Skin for skin" strikes me. I've read two very different commentaries on that phrase, though everyone seems to agree that the meaning is obscure. One says that the saying right after it actually exegetes the "skin for skin" language -- that the first "skin" refers to everything that a person owns and holds dear -- family, home, etc. -- and that the meaning the satan wants to express is that people will give up just about everything just to save their own lives. Job has just talked about being born naked and returning naked, which this first interpretation would reinforce. The second idea is that the phrase comes from the marketplace. A person will trade anything of value to get a (tanned) skin if that's what the person is shopping for -- up to a comparable skin. In the case of a comparable skin, it would make no sense to make the trade, since the transaction would be worthless to both sides. I prefer the first idea, and it would be meaningful as the people of Israel reflected on their experience in exile. The image could also be extended to the way we might feel when in our own spiritual exiles -- our external "skins" have been stripped away and God seems absent. Has anyone else reflected on the phrase? MTSOfan
Date: 03 Oct 2000
Time: 18:17:23
Satan implies that people value their skin more than they value money or family.
How do you think most Americans would rank the importance of money, family, and health?
I'm not asking you to guess what they would say, for people often say they are more virtuous than they really are. However, based on your observations of our actions and daily habits as well as of our media and pop culture, what do we think is truly important to us?
Input from my brothers and sisters around the world are also welcome. Feel free to leave your impressions about Americans or to make comments about your own culture.
ALSO, Within the past month 30% of my congregation has suffered some serious health problems. What is the pastoral word from this passage to a congregation that is very aware of its poor and failing health?
DSS
Date: 03 Oct 2000
Time: 22:31:42
I just attended a lectionary discussion group where we talked about this passage. I haven't typed up the notes from the tape yet, but one thing I do remember is this. Re: the "skin for skin" comment--Satan thinks that we value our own lives more than being faithful to God. Do we prove Satan right? Or maybe more appropriately, how often do we prove Satan right?
Sybil
Date: 04 Oct 2000
Time: 15:58:34
Would it be possible, given the understanding of Satan as a court official, that what is being tested is not really Job's faithfulness, but the wisdom of a God who would show confidence in and love for a finite creature like Job. Is Job's integrity more than a justification of himself, but a witness to the wisdom of a God who has refused to stop giving up on the good that is within the human creature. jp in BG
Date: 05 Oct 2000
Time: 03:17:27
When I was a boy in British Columbia's interior a radical sect of Doukhabours used to protest by parading naked into town.(quite a sensation). Later I asked a Russian friend about the meaning of their nudity. He quoted the passage from Job--"naked we come into the world and naked we leave it". a kind of minimalism. I think too of Tolstoy's story of the man who kills himself in an effort to secure a huge amount of land and in the end the narator says he got enough to be buried in "how much land does a man need?" Somehow I hope to tie this in with Canada's Thanksgiving.
Date: 05 Oct 2000
Time: 03:17:58
When I was a boy in British Columbia's interior a radical sect of Doukhabours used to protest by parading naked into town.(quite a sensation). Later I asked a Russian friend about the meaning of their nudity. He quoted the passage from Job--"naked we come into the world and naked we leave it". a kind of minimalism. I think too of Tolstoy's story of the man who kills himself in an effort to secure a huge amount of land and in the end the narator says he got enough to be buried in "how much land does a man need?" Somehow I hope to tie this in with Canada's Thanksgiving. H.M. in Victoria, BC
Date: 05 Oct 2000
Time: 14:20:23
A good illustration on how modern culture miplaces values: A wealthy banker was traveling late one night on a dangerous mountain road when he lost contol of his sports car. The car spins out of control and heads for the edge of a great cliff. At the last moment the man is able to leap from the car, but in doing so his arm is caught and torn from his body. A trucker who witnessed the entire event, hurried to the mans aid. When he arrived he found the man standing in a state of obvious confussion looking over the cliff at his burning auto, mumbling, "My BMW, my BMW". The trucker says, "Forget about your car, we should look for your arm, perhaps the doctors can sew it back on." At that moment the man realized he had lost his arm and exclaimed, "My Rolex, My Rolex." lennie, ks
Date: 05 Oct 2000
Time: 18:07:16
I very much appreciate your comments I very much appreciate your comments but but one one post post is is enough enough
Date: 07 Oct 2000
Time: 09:16:34
As I start to look at the job passage on Saturday (yes Saturday) at the end of a very hectic week, my thoughts turned to C.S. Lewis and the problem of pain ... his study of suffering ... and comapring that with his later experience of suffering in the death of his wife, Joy. If you have the book 'A grief observed' that might shed light into Job ... bit also if you have the book 'Shadowlands' by Brian Sibley, it gives a very helpful commentary on Lewis' personal struggle with suffering - especially helpful are the final chapters of that book - 'A gried observed' and 'Further up and further in' ... I came away from reading thise chapters in tears ...
Something of the desperate state of those who suffer like Job comes through ... the questioning that we have for God ... our doubts and our pain. All of Lewis' intellectual treatment of suffering falls like a pack of cards when he himself suffers.
Finally the door that had seemed locked opened - not that there were any answers ... but God seemed to be back again ...If you can read these two chapters I'm sure they will help you as they have helped me. Grace and Peace.
Rev in UK
Date: 07 Oct 2000
Time: 19:08:15
One brief comment: The name 'Job' can also be translated as "Where is God?". The Book of Job is, I feel, a commentary, or questioning of, why we are people of faith. Satan asks some very cunning questions- Are we in it for the blessings? Are we faithful simply for the riches? Or, as God implies, is our love for God and God's love for us enough as an end unto itself?
Date: 07 Oct 2000
Time: 21:04:32
I think that to "persist in integrity" _is_ the word to give to a congregation that has been suffering. It is a faithful Christian response to humanity's frailty. To ascribe bad events to God is to ignore the fact that we were created as finite beings and therefore subject to illness and accidents that hurt. For those of us who believe in 'free-will' it serves to help explain why "bad things happen to good people." In the Holocaust the question was asked "Where is God when a young boy is hanging dead from a noose." Someone suggested "God is right there...hanging on that noose." I believe that God weeps right along with us when we suffer and when it is God's will our recovery looks exactly the way that we want it to. Our task is to remain faithful even when our answered prayer doesn't look the way we've asked and especially when it appears that it has been unanswered. Sharon, TX.
Date: 07 Oct 2000
Time: 21:04:43
I think that to "persist in integrity" _is_ the word to give to a congregation that has been suffering. It is a faithful Christian response to humanity's frailty. To ascribe bad events to God is to ignore the fact that we were created as finite beings and therefore subject to illness and accidents that hurt. For those of us who believe in 'free-will' it serves to help explain why "bad things happen to good people." In the Holocaust the question was asked "Where is God when a young boy is hanging dead from a noose." Someone suggested "God is right there...hanging on that noose." I believe that God weeps right along with us when we suffer and when it is God's will our recovery looks exactly the way that we want it to. Our task is to remain faithful even when our answered prayer doesn't look the way we've asked and especially when it appears that it has been unanswered. Sharon, TX.
Date: 07 Oct 2000
Time: 22:17:50
Sharon, I agree with the idea of integrity. The two words, blameless and upright in the Hebrew could be translated "mature" and "straight shooter". The idea of integrity is the best word in my opinion.
The idea of integrity in suffering implies holding onto faith in action when the circumstances don't square with what you believe. Not copping out and short-circuiting the process just to resolve the tension. Integrity--Job refused to accept the easy way out and believed for better than what he was experiencing, or being told HM in Victoria (apolgies for the double-post)
Date: 08 Oct 2000
Time: 02:00:10
HM, thanks for your response. That was my first post. Sorry it double pumped. What's up w/that? No matter.
Your response shed light on how this passage from Job relates to the NT text for this week on marriage. The words you used can be plugged right into a discussion on divorce. "Short-circuiting the process just to relieve the tension" "holding on...when the circumstances don't square with what you believe" (or want?) As was mentioned earlier Theodicy is the path one usually takes w/Job and for good reason. However, I like this slant on the lectionary as a whole. The Hebrew fits as well..."mature" and "straight-shooter"...don't both of those characteristics give health to a marriage?
Date: 08 Oct 2000
Time: 02:34:54
I love the book of Job. I've thought that those who mocked Jesus on the cross would have had a valid point ("If you are the Son of God, come down from there!") were it not for the book of Job. Like it or not (and of course I don't, but neither does God) suffering is part of His plan.
BroKen
Date: 08 Oct 2000
Time: 03:03:42
BroKen, (nice play on your name, BTW :) You say the bottom-line: "Like it or not...suffering is a part of His plan." I think folks confuse "Christ died for us" to mean that we won't have to suffer and die ourselves. We're so surprised when our bodies begin to fail or life hurts for whatever reason. In our lack of maturity (H translated the Hebrew word for "Blameless" as mature) we 'expect' only blessings and become indignant when life hands us lemons. Sharon.
Date: 08 Oct 2000
Time: 10:26:32
Sharon from TX: It is a late contribution I offer, but I believe you are referring to Elie Wiesel's book "Night" in the illustration of the noose. It is a reference he makes to a beautiful child in death as I recall. "Night" is one of Wiesel's struggles with human suffering in the holocaust. Nan