Today's post is by guest writer Lucas Ward.
First we must first back up to chapter 40.
In verse two God challenges Job to answer His first speech and Job's answer is inadequate, to say the least: Job 40:4-5 "Behold, I am of small account; what shall I answer you? I lay my hand on my mouth. I have spoken once, and I will not answer; twice, but I will proceed no further." At first this doesn't seem so bad; Job is acknowledging his smallness before God and that he doesn't have the right to speak. But look again. God has demanded Job speak, and Job refuses. Oh, he coaches it in respectful sounding words, 'I am small, I cannot answer', but he is refusing to answer God's speech because he knows he can't.
One commentator likened this to a child who was caught doing something wrong and won't talk back to his parents, but won't acknowledge wrong either and is just sullenly waiting out the tongue lashing. "Saving up more spit". God's second speech reflects this in Job, as well. While the first speech contained its share of sarcasm, it was largely in a teaching mode. God's second speech, 40:6-41:34, is downright angry at the beginning and harsher throughout. For example Job 40:8-9 "Will you even put me in the wrong? Will you condemn me that you may be in the right? Have you an arm like God, and can you thunder with a voice like his?" 41:10b "Who then is he who can stand before me?" Also, think about this: if Job had responded in the way God wanted, why did God bother to deliver a second speech? I know that if fits in the poetic structure of the book, but the book was designed around what actually happened, it didn't change what happened to fit the book. Otherwise the scripture is untrue. So therefore God gave a second speech to Job, a harsher speech, because Job didn't respond properly after the first time.
That leads us to Job 42:1-6 and Job's second response to God which is totally different from his first response. He quotes two of God's challenges to him and acknowledges that God was right to call him into question and that he was wrong. Job then "repent[ed] in dust and ashes". Once Job acknowledged his sin and repented, it was over as far as God was concerned. The next thing we see is God elevating Job before the friends as they are told to take sacrifices to Job and "my servant Job" would pray for them and "I will accept his prayer". If we acknowledge our sins before him and repent, God will forgive us completely (1 John 1:9) and Job is the perfect example of that.
Then we see that Job's family, which had formerly deserted him (19:13-14), finally shows up and helps him out, each giving Job a "piece of money". That very phrase lets us know that Job is an ancient book. Pretty much all money mentioned in the Bible from the time of the Judges onward was referred to by specific names, e.g. shekel, talent, etc. "Piece of money" was used in very ancient times before nation-states began to codify money. The only other uses of it in the Bible are in Genesis 33:19 and Joshua 24:32. After that more regular denominations of monies are usually used. (You will find "piece of silver" a few times, but the Hebrew word, and the implication, is different.) This seems to point to the fact that Job occurred previous to the time of Joshua. Another hint at the time Job lived comes in verse 16 which says he lived 140 years after these things took place. No one knows how old Job was before his test took place, but he was old enough to have 10 adult children, so he was no spring chicken. Some have suggested that since his wealth was doubled after his test was over, his life span after it was doubled also, so he was 70 when Job 1 began. I don't know if that has any merit, but it is hard so believe he was much younger than 70 given the fact of his adult children. It seems likely that he died being at least 200 years old. Given the diminishing lifespans of the patriarchs from the time immediately after the flood (600) to the time of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (175, 180, and 147 respectively) it seems likely that Job lived just prior to Abraham. (Terah, Abraham's father, died at 205.) When was the book written? Who knows, but Job that lived in the patriarchal age seems almost certain from these and other clues.
Job had three daughters after his test and he apparently loved them greatly. They received an inheritance with their brothers, which was unheard of even in the Mosaic Law, and their names also bear out his love for them: Jemimah, Keziah, and Keren-happuch. (Jemimah was almost certainly an aunt many times over but, as far as we know, she never made pancake syrup.) Jemimah means "day" indicating either that she was as beautiful as the day or that she symbolized Job emerging from his period of night. Keziah means "cassia" which was a bark used to make very expensive perfume. It indicates her value to him. Finally Keren-happuch means "horn of stibium". Stibium was a very valuable eye make-up that was highly prized for its enhancement of the eye's natural beauty. It was applied by dipping a wedge into the stibium and then putting the wedge between the eyelids and closing the eyes tightly onto the wedge, which then colored the eyelids like modern eye liner and eye shadow do. If the horn of stibium refers to the container of the makeup, then Keren-happuch's name is another reference to her value and esteem before her father. If the horn referred to the applicator then the name not only indicates her value but also implies that she made those around her more beautiful by her presence. Job obviously loved his daughters.
Lucas Ward
First we must first back up to chapter 40.
In verse two God challenges Job to answer His first speech and Job's answer is inadequate, to say the least: Job 40:4-5 "Behold, I am of small account; what shall I answer you? I lay my hand on my mouth. I have spoken once, and I will not answer; twice, but I will proceed no further." At first this doesn't seem so bad; Job is acknowledging his smallness before God and that he doesn't have the right to speak. But look again. God has demanded Job speak, and Job refuses. Oh, he coaches it in respectful sounding words, 'I am small, I cannot answer', but he is refusing to answer God's speech because he knows he can't.
One commentator likened this to a child who was caught doing something wrong and won't talk back to his parents, but won't acknowledge wrong either and is just sullenly waiting out the tongue lashing. "Saving up more spit". God's second speech reflects this in Job, as well. While the first speech contained its share of sarcasm, it was largely in a teaching mode. God's second speech, 40:6-41:34, is downright angry at the beginning and harsher throughout. For example Job 40:8-9 "Will you even put me in the wrong? Will you condemn me that you may be in the right? Have you an arm like God, and can you thunder with a voice like his?" 41:10b "Who then is he who can stand before me?" Also, think about this: if Job had responded in the way God wanted, why did God bother to deliver a second speech? I know that if fits in the poetic structure of the book, but the book was designed around what actually happened, it didn't change what happened to fit the book. Otherwise the scripture is untrue. So therefore God gave a second speech to Job, a harsher speech, because Job didn't respond properly after the first time.
That leads us to Job 42:1-6 and Job's second response to God which is totally different from his first response. He quotes two of God's challenges to him and acknowledges that God was right to call him into question and that he was wrong. Job then "repent[ed] in dust and ashes". Once Job acknowledged his sin and repented, it was over as far as God was concerned. The next thing we see is God elevating Job before the friends as they are told to take sacrifices to Job and "my servant Job" would pray for them and "I will accept his prayer". If we acknowledge our sins before him and repent, God will forgive us completely (1 John 1:9) and Job is the perfect example of that.
Then we see that Job's family, which had formerly deserted him (19:13-14), finally shows up and helps him out, each giving Job a "piece of money". That very phrase lets us know that Job is an ancient book. Pretty much all money mentioned in the Bible from the time of the Judges onward was referred to by specific names, e.g. shekel, talent, etc. "Piece of money" was used in very ancient times before nation-states began to codify money. The only other uses of it in the Bible are in Genesis 33:19 and Joshua 24:32. After that more regular denominations of monies are usually used. (You will find "piece of silver" a few times, but the Hebrew word, and the implication, is different.) This seems to point to the fact that Job occurred previous to the time of Joshua. Another hint at the time Job lived comes in verse 16 which says he lived 140 years after these things took place. No one knows how old Job was before his test took place, but he was old enough to have 10 adult children, so he was no spring chicken. Some have suggested that since his wealth was doubled after his test was over, his life span after it was doubled also, so he was 70 when Job 1 began. I don't know if that has any merit, but it is hard so believe he was much younger than 70 given the fact of his adult children. It seems likely that he died being at least 200 years old. Given the diminishing lifespans of the patriarchs from the time immediately after the flood (600) to the time of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (175, 180, and 147 respectively) it seems likely that Job lived just prior to Abraham. (Terah, Abraham's father, died at 205.) When was the book written? Who knows, but Job that lived in the patriarchal age seems almost certain from these and other clues.
Job had three daughters after his test and he apparently loved them greatly. They received an inheritance with their brothers, which was unheard of even in the Mosaic Law, and their names also bear out his love for them: Jemimah, Keziah, and Keren-happuch. (Jemimah was almost certainly an aunt many times over but, as far as we know, she never made pancake syrup.) Jemimah means "day" indicating either that she was as beautiful as the day or that she symbolized Job emerging from his period of night. Keziah means "cassia" which was a bark used to make very expensive perfume. It indicates her value to him. Finally Keren-happuch means "horn of stibium". Stibium was a very valuable eye make-up that was highly prized for its enhancement of the eye's natural beauty. It was applied by dipping a wedge into the stibium and then putting the wedge between the eyelids and closing the eyes tightly onto the wedge, which then colored the eyelids like modern eye liner and eye shadow do. If the horn of stibium refers to the container of the makeup, then Keren-happuch's name is another reference to her value and esteem before her father. If the horn referred to the applicator then the name not only indicates her value but also implies that she made those around her more beautiful by her presence. Job obviously loved his daughters.
Lucas Ward
RSS Feed