Talk:Job 1:1-2:10

Verses 1:1-5: Good start

Robert, this is a good start, and I wanted to work out some more right on your commentary, but I wasn't sure how to adjust it. You might be right to connect this with Gen 22, but it might be better to connect it with Gen 18 (the "dust and ashes" business is unique to Job and that chapter of Abraham's story). Job is the righteous one who confronts God's otherness, demands its change, and is brought along to a higher knowledge, etc. I think it would be wonderful to delve into Job, but I think it will take quite a lot of work. --Joe Spencer 14:40, 21 Aug 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed the "dust and ashes" connection (Gen 18:27, Job 30:19 and Job 42:6). These phrases even seem to mark important junctures—Job is still in somewhat of a complaining mode in 30:19 and then seems more sincere in 42:6. Abraham, in contrast, seems to acknowledge that he is dust and ashes before his trial begins. Perhaps this is why we don't really read about Abraham complaining.

Feel free to do whatever with the commentary. I didn't really get to Job in my SS lessons, so I'll try to dig in a bit this week, but I'm not planning on getting too deep into it (though everyone should know by now how easy it is to get me hooked on different topics, and Job would certainly be interesting...). --RobertC 21:09, 21 Aug 2006 (UTC)

By the way, a wonderful alternate translation of Job 42:6 is enlightening: I repent, not in, but of dust and ashes (the translation is suggested by Gerald Janzen). With that reading, the whole Book of Job changes: Job repents of repentance, gives up his pathetic understanding of the role of man, and takes his rightful place among the gods. Where were you, Job? Right there. --Joe Spencer 14:44, 22 Aug 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that God's questioning in chapters 38-42 is sort of an effort to try and get Job to remember or understand that he was part of the pre-mortal heavenly council, that Job in fact was part of the creation and other great works God is referring to? I think 42:1-6 is a great place to focus on in Job, and I'll be curious to hear this view elaborated on there.... --RobertC 19:54, 22 Aug 2006 (UTC)

Verses 1:6-10: A Note

Interesting notes, Robert. These jumped out at me because I just finished reading The Man Who Was Thursday by G. K. Chesterton, which amounts to a rather complex interpretation of just these verses. I've got more to think about... --Joe Spencer 05:26, 14 August 2007 (CEST)

Nice work. I edited it a bit freely. Feel free to change back anything you don't like. Also, I wasn't sure what to make of the comments related to disinterest, e.g. "loving one's enemies is, presumably, a more noble, pure, and disinterested kind of love." I see how it is related to the question of Job but I'm not sure I see this as trying to advocate a disinterested love of God. Maybe my problem is just that I have a hard time even understanding what a disinterested love is. --Matthew Faulconer 09:16, 17 August 2007 (CEST)

Good point, "disinterested love" seems like a contradiction in terms since disinterest is usually taken as apathetic or something. I mean something more like "no ulterior motives"--I'll try to explain this better, feel free to edit. By the way I like the edits you made, thanks. --RobertC 10:19, 17 August 2007 (CEST)

Verses 1:11-15: Reverted?

Matthew, did you revert my edit on purpose or was this an accident? If on purpose, could you explain what bothered you? Thanks. --RobertC 14:19, 15 August 2007 (CEST)

Well, the history shows, if I'm reading it correctly, that you reverted the edits. See http://feastupontheword.org/Job_1:11-15?curid=67835&diff=69413&oldid=69412 If I did do it though, it certainly was an accident. --Matthew Faulconer 16:37, 15 August 2007 (CEST)

Woops, you're right, my bad. I guess my other personality didn't like what I wrote--I'll tell him to get another username so as to avoid future confusion.... --RobertC 21:04, 15 August 2007 (CEST)