New Interpreter's Bible (12 Vols.) - Pre-Publication Examples

ESTHER 4:4-17, DIALOGUE BETWEEN ESTHER AND MORDECAI

Link to: "

COMMENTARY

4:4-6. After a marked absence, Esther reappears in the narrative. For the first time, we have a scene in which she is the central character. Esther as queen has her own entourage of maids and eunuchs who keep her informed about the goings-on in the palace. They also know that Mordecai is her relative; therefore, they must know that she, like Mordecai, is a Jew, and yet her identity remains a secret from the king. The maids and eunuchs now tell her what Mordecai is doing. Her response comes in the form of an unusual Hebrew word, ljljttw (wattithalhal, “and she writhed”), which occurs in this conjugation only here in Esther. In the active conjugations it means “to dance,” but in the reflexive sense it means “to writhe in anguish” and can be connected with the pain of childbirth. For example, the verb occurs in poetic texts, one concerning Sarah as the mother of Israel (Isa 51:2) and one portraying Yahweh as “bringing forth” Israel in travail (Deut 32:18). Mordecai's behavior seems to cause Esther intense distress, and she rushes to respond to news of her cousin's state, but not by inquiring the reason for his actions, as one might expect. Instead, she sends him clothes in place of his sackcloth, which he refuses. Her motivation is open to question. Does she wish to relieve his distress?114 If so, fresh clothes will not help, since Mordecai's outward appearance is merely a reflection of his inner turmoil. Does she wish to enable him to enter the palace, since those dressed in sackcloth are not allowed in? Or does she simply want him to stop his embarrassing behavior? Only after he refuses her solution does she send Hathach the eunuch to find out why Mordecai is behaving this way. Hathach, a new character, appears to be one of the palace eunuchs assigned to Esther. She seems to rely on his discretion, for the ensuing dialogue is intimate, 

<Page 903 ends>><Page 904 begins>>

even confrontational, yet conducted entirely through a third party. No one, neither Esther nor her servants, seems yet to know about Haman's decree, even though it has been posted in the citadel of Susa (3:15). This indicates the kind of sheltered life Esther leads inside the harem and her dependence on the discretion and loyalty of her maids and eunuchs. The dialogue between Mordecai and Hathach takes place in the main city square (a place often associated with rites of mourning; see Jer 48:37-38), in full view of the public. Mordecai, it would seem, is not at this point concerned about discretion.

4:7-8. In these verses, Mordecai demonstrates that he knows the secrets of the palace. He knows the details of Haman's bargain with the king, including the bribe of ten thousand talents. He even has a copy of the decree, which he sends to Esther. Interestingly, the assumption is that both Esther and Mordecai are literate, a fact that might go unnoticed by the modern reader. Mordecai also has a plan of action, which he does not hesitate to communicate to Esther, since, as was stated in 2:20, “Esther obeyed Mordecai just as when she was brought up by him.” He assumes that she will obey him now and repair promptly to the king to undo the threat Haman has posed to the Jews. In fact, in the LXX, Mordecai recalls Esther's obligation to him: “Remembering your humble station when you were supported by my hand. . . . Call upon the Lord, and speak to the king concerning us, and save us from death” (the LXX's mention of prayer is typical of that version's attempt to remedy the Hebrew's silence concerning God and religious practice).

4:9-17. The dialogue continues in this passage. Mordecai has assumed Esther's obedience to his command in v. 8, so her first response is something of a shock: She refuses to fall in with his plan. Esther has now been queen for five years and is steeped in palace etiquette (which she has already demonstrated by sending Mordecai clothes in v. 4), and her first response to Mordecai indicates that she cannot obey his command for reasons of palace protocol. Everyone (including presumably Mordecai) knows that to appear before the king unsummoned is to court instant death, and she has not been summoned for thirty days. Therefore, she implies, it is obvious that she cannot carry out Mordecai's plan. It is unclear whether Esther's statement is historically accurate. Josephus accepts it as such, but claims that it applies only to the royal family (to avert the danger of a palace coup?) and supplies the colorful note that men with axes surround the king on his throne to prevent unauthorized access.115 However, Herodotus is ambivalent on the subject. According to him, in the tradition of the Medes, unannounced entry before the king was unlawful,116 but a petitioner might send in a message and request an audience. Esther does not even suggest doing this, leading to the conclusion that this may be a convenient plot device on the part of the author. It is part of the irony of the book that the first queen, Vashti, is banished for refusing to appear before the king when summoned, while the second queen, Esther, is asked to risk death by appearing before the king unsummoned. Also, the fact that Esther has not been summoned for thirty days indicates that her influence is at a low ebb, and she has no reason to believe that her intervention would be efficacious.

Many biblical leaders—for example Moses (Exod 4:10-13), Barak (Judg 4:8), and Jeremiah (Jer 1:6), all male—attempted to excuse themselves when called upon for drastic action on behalf of the Jews.117 The author all but abandons the presence of the go-between to emphasize the importance and intensity of this dialogue. Mordecai is not prepared to excuse Esther so easily. He takes a severe tone, first reminding her that she is Jewish and that the decree applies to her as well. She is not safe in the palace, for it is from the palace that the danger emanates. Then, in v. 14, he threatens her: If she does not act, the Jews will receive succor elsewhere, but she and her family (which means Mordecai) will perish. The expression “relief and deliverance will rise for the Jews from another quarter” has excited much commentary, for it may contain an oblique reference to God. The AT, in fact, reads, “God will be their aid and their deliverance,” while Josephus and the Targums have taken “quarter” in their MT source as a reference to God.118 This is a 

<Page 904 ends>><Page 905 begins>>

plausible interpretation, but it may also simply refer to another human119 who will help instead of the unwilling Esther. In any case, there seems to be an assumption that something, probably divine providence, is working to save the Jews, whether directly or through human action, and that Esther should choose to cooperate with it. This saves the book from the charge of irreligiosity; God works in the background, through human action. In fact, Mordecai implies (“who knows?”) that Esther's ascent to the throne was providential, in order to save the Jews; so if she does not act, she will be disobeying God's unspoken plan.120 Mordecai, even though he is usually obedient to Persian law, believes that in a conflict between Persian law and the Jewish people, Esther's loyalty must reside with her people.

Esther responds swiftly to Mordecai's pleas. Now that she has been persuaded to act on behalf of the Jews, she quickly comes up with her own plan and carries it out. She begins to give commands, not only to her servants but to Mordecai as well; and she expects to be obeyed. All the Jews in Susa are to gather and observe a three-day fast, while Esther and her maids (it is unlikely that Esther's maids are Jewish) also fast. Fasting, which is an act of petition (2 Sam 12:16-17; Jonah 3:7), is the only overtly religious act in the book of Esther. (Ironically, if the fast did take place, it would have coincided with the beginning of Passover, in direct violation of Jewish law, which forbids fasting on Passover [Exod 12:1-10].) However, since God is not mentioned (although the AT explicitly states that the fasting is directed toward God), its religious character is muted. Thematically, the fast stands in direct contrast to the banquets that occur throughout the book and, in particular, to Haman's feast with Ahasuerus before the fast and to Esther's banquets with the king and Haman after the fast. After the fast, Esther will go to the king, although she again reminds Mordecai that it is against the law for her to do so unbidden. However, she is reconciled to the danger and makes one of the most poignant statements in the book, “If I perish, I perish.” Esther's status, even after having been queen for five years, remains precarious and her relationship with her husband is still uncertain. Esther's position as a woman in a male court is analogous to that of the Jews in the Gentile world, with the possibility of danger ever present under the surface. Esther has no guarantee that she will be successful. However, at this point she has taken responsibility for her own fate and has put the welfare of her people first, an action of which the author resoundingly approves. Mordecai is also satisfied; he leaves to carry out Esther's orders.

Mordecai's action in v. 17 signals the radical transformation the character of Esther has undergone in the last three chapters. When Esther was introduced in chap. 2, she was an orphan girl with nothing to recommend her but beauty of face and form. She was passive and obedient, obeying Mordecai, obeying Hegai, and “pleasing” everyone around her. She charmed the king, not least, one supposes, because she was pliant, unlike the spirited Vashti. Even after her marriage, she continued to obey Mordecai. She is not a character from whom we should expect great things. Now, however, she is transformed. She does not obey orders; she gives them. She is active, a risk-taker, not passively compliant. She is a queen, a figure of royal authority, such that even Mordecai hurries to obey her. Now she is a character in whom the reader can trust. Esther has taken charge, and we can rest assured that the danger to the Jews will be averted, no matter what pitfalls lie ahead.

REFLECTIONS

The actions of Esther in chapter 4 present us with an all-too-human portrait of a person's response when faced with a demand for action in a situation that she neither created nor asked for—a resounding “No!” Often life locates us in situations where we are capable of taking action on behalf of some oppressed person or people, but with possible negative 

<Page 905 ends>><Page 906 begins>>

consequences for ourselves. Esther's consequences are clear and absolute: She faces death. The consequences for us may be less absolute but nonetheless devastating—loss of job, family rupture, embarrassment, to name only a few. It is difficult at such times to overcome the self-centeredness of our everyday lives in order to discern God's call. In chapter 4, the writer acknowledges the difficulty of discerning that call. Mordecai does not know that Esther can or will be able to help—his use of “who knows?” and “perhaps” recognizes the uncertainty of the situation. But Mordecai is convinced of two things: Help will come for the Jews from somewhere, whether from God or from humans, and Esther, given her favorable circumstances, must act. If she does not, she (and her family) will be held responsible for her cowardice. This statement more than anything else in the book of Esther implies belief in the activity of divine providence, even though God remains unmentioned. The author of Esther has captured in a short two verses the dilemma of the average believer: How does one find the courage and faith to do what is right in the face of divine and human ambiguity? Esther's example may give us courage to reach beyond ourselves and act on behalf of others, placing our trust in God.

<Page 906 ends>><Page 907 begins>>

Offline for a few days….

here are  several more samples 

JUDITH 10:11–13:10a, JUDITH OVERCOMES HOLOFERNES

Judith 10:11-23, Judith Enters the Enemy Camp and Is Taken to Holofernes

Link to: 

<Page 1149 ends>><Page 1150 begins>>

COMMENTARY

10:11-16. Interestingly, the retardation of plot in the preceding scene is followed by the sudden jolt of the present one. There is finally a meeting of Israelites and Assyrians, which has been threatened for most of the book, and the Assyrians appear to be in the commanding position. Judith's plan, which up to now has only been hinted at, is beginning to be realized. The reader sees Judith at work on the enemy, and in her first words she is already lying. The Assyrian soldiers, also struck by her beauty, usher her along with a comical show of respect. The Assyrians begin to speak in an extended irony in which almost every line can be understood in two ways, depending upon whether the “lord” referred to is Holofernes or God: “You have saved your life by hurrying down to see our lord . . . some of us . . . will hand you over to him [lit., deliver you into his hands].” The audience at this point would have been aware of each reference and would not have missed the ironic distance between the show of the troops and their apparent obtuseness about the meaning of their own words. The obtuseness of the characters is an important part of the comic irony in the Gospel of John as well (see John 3:4; 4:11; 9:25).

10:17-23. Here also a vivid description enlivens the narrative. One can almost see the hubbub and excitement spread through the camp as men not only are struck by her beauty, but also marvel at what it indicates about Israelites in general. The soldiers draw the conclusion that the audience would want them to draw: that Israelite women—and therefore men as well—are superior to any on earth. This means of affirming ethnic superiority is typical of much of the writing of this period, both in the dominant Greek and Roman culture, and of the various indigenous peoples. It is found in a very similar way in Joseph and Aseneth 1:4-5, where it is said that Aseneth was “tall and comely, and more beautiful than any young woman on earth. Indeed, she bore little 

<Page 1150 ends>><Page 1151 begins>>

resemblance at all to Egyptian women, but was in every way more like the women of the Hebrews: as tall as Sarah, as comely as Rebecca, as beautiful as Rachel.” The Genesis Apocryphon (20:2-6) from Qumran is equally complimentary in regard to Sarah.

We first encounter Holofernes in a tent that is parallel to Judith's tent, but rather than a retreat for righteous fasting and praying, it is a palace in miniature, sumptuously decorated with precious stones. It is probably not meant to be effeminate, as its appearance may strike the modern reader, although this is not implausible considering the way Holofernes will later be “unmanned.” Enslin suggests that there may be evident here contempt for the luxury of the Eastern despot and his finery.107 One similarity to Judith's tent that does remain is that Holofernes is generally secluded in it. He meets with his officers in the tent, and while alive always appears in it. This tent has two chambers, and his bedchamber, covered with a canopy, is where he hopes to take Judith to bed and where he will later die. The canopy that covers the bed and separates the chambers will also be of great importance later.

One might wonder whether the structure of the tent is significant. It has at least two chambers, the inner sleeping chamber, separated from the outer chamber by the specially decorated canopy. Is this structure intended to call to mind the Temple in Jerusalem, albeit as a sort of mirror image? The Second Temple consisted of a series of concentric courts, with the Temple itself standing at the center and the altar just outside facing it. Within the Temple was the holy of holies, or inner sanctum, and like the bedchamber of Holofernes' tent, it was separated by a curtain from the rest of the Temple. The curtain was richly decorated, with some of the same colors as those of Holofernes' curtain (Exod 26:31). The curtained area of the Temple was entered only once a year on the Day of Atonement, and then only by the high priest. Judith will enter Holofernes' inner sanctum to kill him, just as the high priest enters the holy of holies, and one might say that she will “sacrifice” him. At this last point the parallel breaks down, however, because the sacrifice on the Day of Atonement is carried out on the alter in front of the Temple, and only some of the blood is carried into the holy of holies. Still, the parallel is suggestive, for the curtain of the Temple was quite symbolic of its integrity and sanctity; in early Christianity, it became a powerful symbol of the access Christ had created to the realm of God (Matt 27:51; Hebrews 9:1–10). (See Reflections at 11:1-23.)

Judith 11:1-23, Judith's Dialogue with Holofernes

Link to: 

<Page 1151 ends>><Page 1152 begins>><Page 1152 ends>><Page 1153 begins>>

COMMENTARY

11:1-8. Holofernes is as gracious to Judith as she is to him. He does not treat her as a member of a conquered people, but immediately presses her to find out why she has abandoned her village. Judith begins her speech by asking him to “accept the words of your slave,” as if it were a humble petition addressed to God. In a way, it is, as the next sentence continues the double-layered reference to “my lord”: “I will say nothing false to my lord this night.” Judith is equivocating with the truth; she will lie to one lord while being truthful with the other. She must use her two cultivated weapons, her beauty and her deceptive tongue (9:10), to distract and manipulate her oppressor: “If you follow out the words of your servant, God will accomplish something through you, and my lord will not fail to achieve his purposes.” One might argue that here the double entendre gets Judith into a moral gray area when she says, “I will say nothing false to my lord this night.” However, we must understand her intention: Her lies to Holofernes are a form of “truth” to God, since they serve God. This skates very close to lying to God, but that is precisely the point. For the audience, the exhilaration in reading Judith consists in skating close to the edge of moral violations. It is a release of moral tensions. Moore points out that to gain Holofernes' trust, Judith swears by what is holy to him—that is, the name of Nebuchadnezzar—and broadly praises Neb-

<Page 1153 ends>><Page 1154 begins>>

uchadnezzar.108 Her flattery of Holofernes is shameless and almost as much a violation of the truth as is her lying: “Not only do human beings serve Nebuchadnezzar because of you, but also the animals of the field and the cattle and the birds of the air will live.” In the book of Daniel, the king's protection of the animal kingdom is associated with Nebuchadnezzar both in the words of Daniel himself (Dan 2:37-38) and in Nebuchadnezzar's own grandiose self-image (Dan 4:12). The power of Nebuchadnezzar is elsewhere understood to be a gift of God, and strictly temporary (Jer 27:4-7).

11:9-15. Other than her maid, Judith has only one ally in her stratagem, and that is Achior. Without realizing it—although one might suspect the workings of God—Achior has helped to set up the situation that will lead to the Assyrians' downfall. In chap. 5 he presented the deuteronomic principle that could establish the vulnerability of the Israelites: If they have sinned, then their God will not protect them. Judith reiterates this principle and draws a firm conclusion: Now they have sinned and are about to fall to Holofernes. Judith spins a complicated scenario of the practices of the Bethulians that will violate God's laws. The content of her words is clearly directed to the reading audience; it refers to practices that can only really be understood within the context of Jewish laws concerning temple practices. That God could not countenance a violation in the light of the desperation of the Bethulians' situation is part of Judith's deception. The accommodation of God's law to times of crisis was certainly an accepted view in the Hasmonean state (1 Macc 2:32-41). Also, the violation at hand is carefully chosen to show a deference to the priesthood in Jerusalem. This is the real focus of the religious world of the author and audience of Judith. On the assumption that the author is not trying to present a list of violations of Jewish law that Holofernes would understand, but rather a list that the audience would understand, it appears that killing their livestock might have meant slaughtering the animals without draining the blood thoroughly as Lev 17:10-14 required (see also Acts 15:20). This, at any rate, is what the Latin versions understood by it. Since this is a part of the priestly office in Jerusalem, it matches the other violations. In their desperation, the Bethulians are eating the firstfruits and tithes of wine and oil that should have been reserved for the priests. These are precisely the same offerings that are mentioned at 1 Macc 3:49 when the Maccabee rebels hold an alternative temple service at Mizpeh before the capture and rededication of the Jerusalem Temple. The strictness of observance is emphasized by saying that the people could not so much as touch the offerings once they had been consecrated. Tobit 1:6-8 also presents an idealized view of a pious diaspora Jew bringing his offerings to Jerusalem.

The Bethulians are not acting alone, however. Judith's lie incriminates Jerusalem as well, because even there the council has allowed the citizens to do these things; more to the point, the Jerusalem council is prepared to give its permission to Bethulia as well. Bethulia is waiting for messengers to return from Jerusalem, which provides a specific point in time for their transgression to be complete in God's eyes. The precise time line imposed on the action is parallel to the time line that the Bethulians had imposed upon themselves by making a vow to surrender if God had not brought rain within five days. Although Judith says she must pray to learn when the Israelites have violated God's laws, the audience would recognize that the time line for this made-up offense is the same as that for the Bethulians' actual offense.

11:16-18. Judith states her conclusion about these violations of law with a sentence that is a marvelous double entendre: “God has sent me to accomplish with you things that will astonish the world.” The polytheistic religion of the ancient Near East would have held that a people's strength in war was related to the strength of their gods; but monotheism in Israel, and especially the deuteronomic theology, held that Israel's setbacks were not because God was weak, but because God was stronger than all nations and had willed for Israel to be overrun. Thus Judith says that God will inform her when the violation has occurred and will collude with the foreign nations to punish Israel. This theology would be laughable to a real adherent of the Assyrian gods, and in fact Holofernes had rejected it when it was spoken by Achior (5:20–6:4). However, Holofernes readily accepts 

<Page 1154 ends>><Page 1155 begins>>

it from Judith. Sensing an easy victory over her sexually and over her people as well, he need not quibble over theology.

11:19-23. Judith's language in v. 19 is laden with images from the prophets. Just as Achior spoke like a prophet, and as Nebuchadnezzar had as well, so also does Judith speak. In form her words are like an “oracle of salvation” from Second Isaiah (the section of Isaiah written during the exile, Isaiah 40:1–55. Isaiah 40:3-4, for example, familiar to Christians from its use in the Gospels (Matt 3:3; Mark 1:2; Luke 3:4-6; John 1:23), prophesies that a way will be made for the Lord through the desert to Jerusalem (see also Isa 35:8-10; 42:16; 51:11). Likewise, Judith, in an audacious affirmation of her own role, says, “There I will set your throne,” which is similar to what God promises to David in 2 Sam 7:13 and Ps 89:4. “You will lead them like sheep without a shepherd” picks up a common motif in the HB that is found also in the NT (Ezek 34:8; Zech 10:2; 13:7; Matt 9:36; 26:31). Shepherds are also likened to watchdogs that do not bark in Isa 56:10-11, an image that Judith uses here as well. When Achior had said these same things by “prophecy” (5:21; 6:2), Holofernes condemned him. Here, however, Holofernes and his retinue marvel at Judith's wisdom (vv. 20-21). This, too, is ironic, because her wisdom consists in cleverness, the cleverness required to lie to them successfully and convince them that she is giving them wise advice.

Holofernes once again unknowingly speaks words that condemn his own cause, “God has done well to send you . . . to bring destruction on those who have despised my lord.” His statement that “your god shall be my god” has caused trouble for scholars. It is the same statement that Ruth makes to Naomi in Ruth 1:16 when Ruth becomes an Israelite. But does Holofernes mean this? In the narratives of this period pagan kings, even oppressive ones, sometimes come to confess the God of Israel (Dan 2:47; 3:28-29; 4:34-37; 2 Maccabees 3:1; see also 2 Kgs 5:17). Still, Holofernes is being effusive and overly solicitous, but he is hardly converting to a worship of Israel's God. Perhaps he means that Judith will adopt his god, especially if, as he assumes, she will become a wife or courtesan of Nebuchadnezzar. Alternatively, perhaps Holofernes is again unknowingly accurate in his statement. If Judith does as she has promised, her God will be his God—in judgment. At any rate, the passage is probably intentionally ambiguous to show that Holofernes is swept up in the commonality of their purpose. It is, after all, only the audience who understands the meaning of Holofernes' words, and not he himself. Holofernes sums up his list of unintentional prophecies by affirming that Judith will be “renowned throughout the whole world,” which the audience knows to be most decidedly true.

REFLECTIONS

From the time Judith leaves the gates of Bethulia until the time she returns, there are two constant motifs: (1) the Assyrians, struck by her beauty, will stumble over themselves in trying to cater to her requests, and (2) Judith all the while will be speaking in comic and ironic utterances. Although there have been comic elements before, they dominate the text for nearly three chapters. All good comedy works with tensions within the audience and effects a release of tensions, and Judith is no exception. It is effective partly because it creates and sustains a comic situation of the pious heroine taking a sojourn outside of her seclusion and respectability to flout social conventions, entice the lustful Holofernes, walk through the menacing enemy troops, and return to the safety of her village. What is interesting about Judith is that it represents the most extended use of comedy in the Bible and combines both the “low” and “high” comedy of burlesque and satire.

This is one of the aspects of Judith that make it very “modern.” We can also sense the tensions in our society over sexual taboos that give rise to a comedy of release, and we are aware in our own time of the political implications of comedy in constructing a world (or a new world) with certain values “tested” and then reinstated. By discerning the relation of 

<Page 1155 ends>><Page 1156 begins>>

Judith's comedy to its political affirmation, we are reminded of this process in our day. Comedy draws us in and entertains us, testing our community values and rebuilding community at the same time. In Judith we can see this in the portrayal of a woman who flouts the prevailing codes of conduct and is ultimately returned to her modest and pious life.

When we talk of examining public values, groping for direction in the new day of the twenty-first century, making intelligent choices in the face of daunting new ethical dilemmas, we rarely think of that kind of discourse that is all around us and that comments on our perplexity the most directly—comedy. The positive and negative effects of comedy are felt by all members of our community alike, and in forms that are constant influences on our lives—television, film, literature, theater. The bold example of Judith reminds us that just as comedy represented a commentary on the political and religious situation of its day, so also the comedy of our own day is the most ubiquitous means of commenting on our disjointed world. And it is not just a “secular” commentary; included in its subject matter are the values of our society and the religious beliefs as well. Just as it is incumbent upon us to ask who the prophets are of our day, we must also address the question of who the Judiths are, for that is where we will find a mirror of the tensions and changes within our society.

2 MACCABEES 8:1–10:8, GOD’S DEFENSE OF THE PEOPLE

OVERVIEW

After describing the disasters that came upon the people after they abandoned their ancestral laws (chaps. 4–7), the author now describes how, following the covenantal obedience of the martyrs, God helps the people (chap. 8), afflicts the archenemy Antiochus IV (chap. 9), and regains and purifies the Temple (10:1-8).

2 Maccabees 8:1-36, The First Victory

Link to:  

                                 <Page 244 Ends><Page 245 Begins>

                                 <Page 245 Ends><Page 246 Begins>

                                 <Page 246 Ends><Page 247 Begins>

COMMENTARY

To present dramatically how God’s anger has changed to mercy, the author singles out one battle and one opponent. The dramatization can easily be seen by comparing this account with that in 1 Maccabees. After describing the onset of Judas’s guerrilla tactics, 1 Maccabees describes two battles, one against Apollonius (1 Macc 3:10-12) and one against Seron (1 Macc 3:13-26), before the account most like that of 2 Maccabees 8 (cf. 1 Macc 3:38–4:25). In particular, 1 Maccabees emphasizes the tactical maneuvers: a surprise attack by Gorgias, Judas’s escape and his surprise attack on Gorgias’s camp, and the subsequent flight of Gorgias (1 Macc 4:1-25). In 2 Maccabees, there are no such maneuvers, but one pitched battle decides all. The battles with Apollonius and Seron receive only the vaguest mention; Judas “captured strategic positions and put to flight not a few of the enemy” (8:6). In addition, although 1 Maccabees reports that Lysias sent Ptolemy, Nicanor, and Gorgias (1 Macc 3:38), with the main villain being Gorgias, in 2 Maccabees Ptolemy sends Nicanor and Gorgias, and Nicanor is the main villain. The author may have highlighted this name to balance and reflect the Nicanor in chaps. 14–15, as both are called thrice-wretched (8:34; 15:3). The account then is highly stylized.

8:1-7, The Rise of Judas. Last mentioned as being in the desert (5:27), Judas and his companions now begin to gather their kindred, most likely referring not to near relatives but to Israelites of the same persuasion. Once again the author uses the term “Judaism” (2:21; 14:38) as opposed to “Jewish faith.” The number 6,000, the total of people gathered (v. 1), is later repeated (8:16), although some of Judas’s force is said to have left (see 1 Macc 4:6, where Judas marches against Gorgias with 3,000 men). The group appeals to the Lord as the last of the martyred sons had done (7:37). The prayer employs traditional language. The blood crying out from the ground (v. 3) recalls the blood of the innocent Abel (Gen 4:10; cf. Deut 32:43; Heb 12:24). The reference to the imminent leveling of the city looks forward to Antiochus’s vow (9:13). Once God is with Judas, he is unstoppable (v. 5), although his activity probably consisted of surprise raids and ambushes by night, nuisance raids as the “little by little” of v. 8 suggests.

8:8-11, The Response of the Seleucids. Philip the Phrygian, the governor of Jerusalem (5:22; 6:11), alerts Ptolemy, the son of Dorymenes (4:45), to Judas’s success. Ptolemy appoints Nicanor and Gorgias to deal with these guerrillas. First Maccabees reports that Antiochus was informed of the matter (1 Macc 3:27), but the account in 2 Maccabees, which restricts handling of the insurrection to lower echelon officials and subordinates Nicanor and Gorgias to Ptolemy, 

                                 <Page 247 Ends><Page 248 Begins>

seems more likely. Someone named Nicanor is mentioned in the letter of the Sidonians in Shechem to Antiochus IV as a royal agent.76 Later, another Nicanor was in Rome with Demetrius, son of Seleucus IV, and was one of the closest of his friends when he became Demetrius I in 161 BCE,77 and there was also a Nicanor the Cyprian (2 Macc 12:2). “Nicanor” was thus a common name, and it is unlikely that all these references are to the same person. Gorgias was later governor of Idumea (2 Macc 10:14; 12:32), and it seems prudent that Nicanor would be joined by someone with local experience.

The author notes the ethnic mix of the army (v. 9). His estimate of the size (20,000) is half that of 1 Macc 3:38, but still high. The aim, payment of the tribute to Rome (v. 10), is the same as stated in 1 Macc 3:35, 52, 58. By 165 BCE, the time of Antiochus’s march on Persia, the Seleucid indemnity to Rome had already been paid, but Antiochus was well-known as desiring money to pay for his extravagant generosity. In order to raise money, Nicanor intends to sell the captured Jews into slavery. Ninety slaves per talent (v. 11) was a low price, perhaps expressing contempt for the Jews. At that rate, Nicanor would need to sell 180,000 slaves to pay the tribute, many more than those already taken from Jerusalem (5:41). In 1 Macc 3:41, the traders come of their own free will, whereas here Nicanor is the instigator of the plan for slavery. Nicanor is thus seen in 2 Maccabees as the source of all evil designs against the Jews. Such a portrayal prepares the way for the dénouement of the story, as Nicanor has to flee like a runaway slave (8:35). This reversal of affairs fits in with the author’s desire to make the punishment fit the crime.

8:12-20, Judas’s Preparation. The author, in order to magnify Judas’s courage, emphasizes the fear of the Jews, outnumbered more than three to one. One wonders why those around Judas sold all they had (v. 14)—in order to run away? They pray for God to remember the covenants with the ancestors (v. 15; note the list in Sir 44:16–45:25), as God has promised (Lev 26:42; cf. Wis 18:22), for they are a people called by God’s name (1 Sam 12:22; Dan 9:19; cf. Deut 28:10). Judas, by contrast, is not afraid (v. 16).The Gentiles act with hubris, reflecting the arrogance of Antiochus (5:17-21). The phrase “torture of the derided city” (v. 17) reflects the language used about the martyrs (7:1, 7, 10, 13, 15, 42), while the overthrow of the ancestral way of life recalls what was said about Jason (4:11). The overwhelming power of God is captured in the image of “one nod” (v. 18). As any good speechmaker, Judas proffers examples of God’s help. The first is the defeat of Sennacherib in 701 BCE (2 Kgs 19:35-36; Isa 37:36; see also 1 Macc 7:41; 2 Macc 15:22). The second example (vv. 19-20) is taken from more recent history, but the precise reference is unknown. The “Galatians” were the Celts, who, due to unrest in western and central Europe, were forced to migrate to the east and southeast. In 280/79, some Celts marched through Macedonia and Thrace and invaded Greece, while others, complete tribal groups, went to Asia Minor in 278/77 and overran many Greek cities. After a long struggle, they were confined to an area north of Phrygia, later called Galatia. Scholars have suggested that the incident in 2 Maccabees may refer to the battle of Antiochus I against the Celts in the 270s (although this took place in Asia Minor, which would cause the text of 2 Maccabees to be emended from Babulonia to Bagadaonia), near the Taurus mountains in Cilicia; to an incident in the suppression of the rebellion of Molon, governor-general of the eastern satrapies, by Antiochus III in 220 BCE; or to the rebellion in 227–26 of Antiochus Hierax, who used Galatian mercenaries, in the east against his brother Seleucus III. The latter seems the most likely scenario. The Galatian invasion made a lasting impression on the cities of Asia Minor. What this passage shows is that Jewish soldiers served under the Seleucids, and it supports the report of Josephus that Antiochus III transferred Jewish soldiers from Babylonia to Phrygia and Lydia.78

8:21-29, The Defeat of Nicanor. Judas is the counterpart to Menelaus, who was a traitor to laws and country. The division of troops described here (v. 22) is different from that of 1 Macc 3:55. The text (vv. 22-23) is very difficult to translate. Major manuscripts read as if Judas appointed his four brothers, Simon, Joseph,

                                 <Page 248 Ends><Page 249 Begins>

 Jonathan, and Eleazar, to lead the four 1,500-man units and that Judas read to them from the Scriptures. In this case, it is unclear whether the first division (spei'ra speira) refers to a phalanx of 256 men) was part of one of these four 1,500-man units. Other manuscripts suggest, and are followed by the NRSV, that Eleazar read aloud from the Scriptures (the Latin manuscripts read Ezra instead of Eleazar). The names of Judas’s brothers in 1 Macc 2:3-5 are John, Simon, Eleazar, and Jonathan. But this account lists Joseph instead of John; some scholars have suggested that this is a reference to the envious couple Joseph and Azariah of 1 Macc 5:18, 55-62, but there Joseph is called “son of Zechariah.” Eleazar seems to play the role of priest (Deut 20:2); it is interesting that “Eleazar,” in Hebrew, means “help of God” (rz[la )el (AzAr). On the reading of the Scriptures, see the parallel statement at 1 Macc 3:48. The War Scroll from Qumran indicates that “God’s help” was one of the insignia on the standards of God’s army,79 and such watchwords were common in the Hellenistic world.80 Whatever the intended meaning for vv. 22-23, the author insists that Judas calls on God for aid and that Judas’s whole family is involved in the enterprise. To this end, he divides the forces based on the number of brothers in a way that has no parallel in Jewish or Hellenistic tactical tradition. The concern of the author is clearly not about tactical maneuvers, for the description of the battle takes up only one verse (v. 24). What is important is that God is their ally. That connection with God is reinforced by the description of the Jews’ observance of the sabbath (vv. 26-27). The last two verses (vv. 28-29) refer to the story of the martyrs; the spoils are to be distributed not only to widows and orphans but also to the tortured (2 Macc 7:1, 42). Here not only the fighters benefit from their victory but so also do those whose prayer for them has great efficacy—i.e., widows and orphans (Deut 14:29; 26:12-15) and those who have been persecuted (2 Macc 7:37-38; 8:3). The language of v. 29 reflects that of the prayer of the seventh son in the martyrdom stories (7:33).

8:30-33, The Defeat of Timothy and Bacchides. The nature of 2 Maccabees as an epitome is evident in this section. People and events are mentioned without any preparation, and these accounts of other campaigns disrupt the focus on Nicanor, whose story is picked up in v. 34.

In 1 Maccabees, Bacchides is a much more important figure than the quick mention at 2 Macc 8:30 would suggest. He was the governor of the province Beyond the River, i.e., between the Euphrates and Egypt. He is sent by Demetrius I to subdue Judea, which he does (1 Macc 7:8-20). After the later defeat of Nicanor, he returns again and defeats Judas, who dies in the battle. Then Bacchides pursues Judas’s brother Jonathan but finally comes to terms with him (1 Macc 9:1-70). His activity is completely absent from the corresponding narrative in 2 Maccabees. It is unlikely that such a high-ranking personage would be listed after the middle-level commander Timothy, and so one wonders whether another Bacchides is meant here.

The death of Timothy is recorded at 2 Macc 9:3 and 10:24-38, but 2 Macc 12:10-25 records Timothy’s escape; so there seems to be two Timothys involved in 2 Maccabees. However, in 1 Maccabees there is only one Timothy who fights with Judas’s forces on three occasions: (1) when Judas defeats Timothy, captures Iazer, and returns to Judea (1 Macc 5:6-8); (2) when Timothy’s men are surprised by Judas (1 Macc 5:28-34); and (3) when Timothy, having regrouped his forces, challenges Judas again and is defeated near Carnaim (1 Macc 5:37-44). All three meetings in 1 Maccabees occur after the purification of the Temple. One will note the specific parallels between the accounts of 1 and 2 Maccabees, if the accounts in 2 Maccabees are accepted as being out of order. If one accepts as more historically reliable the outline of events in 1 Maccabees, then the author of 2 Maccabees has misplaced events. Most scholars agree that 2 Macc 12:1-25 parallels the battles in Gilead recounted in 1 Macc 5:28-44. There are also parallels between 2 Macc 10:24-38 and the account in 1 Macc 5:6-8, although 2 Maccabees records that Timothy dies in that battle, whereas 1 Maccabees does not. The events in 2 Macc 8:30-33 also seem out of order: Judas seems to be in control of Jerusalem (v. 31) even though the Jews do not recapture the city until 10:1-8; mention of strongholds (v. 30) reflects the account of 2 Macc 12:10-25. It would thus seem as if 

                                 <Page 249 Ends><Page 250 Begins>

vv. 30-32 summarize the Gilead campaign told later in 2 Maccabees 12.

This summary, however, has been well woven into the context. The author refers to the same groups—the tortured, the widows, and the orphans—in vv. 28 and 30. The same word is used for collecting the arms of the enemy at vv. 27 and 31. Just as the author uses the theme of appropriate retribution for Nicanor when he is forced to flee as a slave, so also in this section the burners are burned. The author of 2 Maccabees narrates these events possibly to suggest that there were other campaigns before the purification of the Temple or to note how Judas’s men behave after victories and also to heighten the dramatic tension as one wonders what happened to Nicanor. The spoil taken to Jerusalem (v. 31) is probably God’s portion (Num 31:28). The word for “commander” (fu"larcov phylarchos, v. 32) is sometimes taken as a proper name, Phylarchos. The Greek word  does not refer to the city, Jerusalem, but to the “fatherland” (patri"v patris ; see 4:1; 5:8, 9, 15; 8:21; 13:3, 11, 14; 14:18). Nothing else is known about Callisthenes (v. 33).

8:34-36, The Fate of Nicanor. The epithet “thrice accursed” will be used again of the Nicanor in the last battle in 2 Maccabees (15:13). His plan (v. 11) backfires, and he receives the appropriate punishment (v. 35). The author sarcastically contrasts his “success” (v. 35) with that of Judas’s (8:8). The help of the Lord (v. 35) resonates with the watchword given to the army (8:23), and the word for “defender” (uJpe"rmacos hypermachos, v. 36) is related to the word for “ally” (su"mmacov symmachos, v. 24). The author returns to the theme enunciated at 3:1: The Jews are invincible once they follow God’s law. Nicanor, as Heliodorus had done before him (3:35-39), proclaims the power of God.

REFLECTIONS

Throughout this chapter, the author emphasizes the power of prayer and the need to keep God’s covenant; these are the sure ways to victory. His emphasis on fidelity to one’s religious convictions and traditions needs to be repeated. But one must also be careful, for in this war context, the stress on standing by one’s own traditions, on knowing who one is, at times results in denigrating the opponent. Throughout this chapter, the author seeks to dramatize his story by contrasting the two foes, Judas and Nicanor, almost as light and darkness, but this rhetorical presentation at times obscures what actually happened. So we must not let our rhetoric lead us to paint those who disagree with us as “the enemy,” “godless” people.

JOB 1:2–2:13

THE PROSE NARRATIVE: INTRODUCTION

OVERVIEW

The story of Job has often been called a folktale, and there are certain elements of the folktale in Job 1–2. The main character is a traditional figure, one whose story was apparently told not only in Israel but also among other peoples (see Introduction). The style of chaps. 1–2 has many of the marks of traditional folklore: repetition, economy of plot, characters who are types rather than complex figures.31 Moreover, the central plot device, the testing of a character who does not know that he or she is being tested, recurs not only in the Old Testament (the testing of Abraham in Genesis 22) but also in many other cultures.

Although the term folktale is somewhat helpful in describing what kind of a story Job 1–2 is, it is not specific enough to account for the more distinctive features of the story and the way it is told. Compared with other biblical narratives containing elements of traditional or folk style (e.g., the wife-sister stories of Genesis 12; 20; and 26 or the wise courtier stories of Joseph in Genesis 41 and Daniel in Daniel 2), the story of Job is told in an exaggeratedly schematized style. The design of the story is symmetrically structured, organized around pairs of complementary scenes. Also notable is the extensive repetition of key words, phrases, sentences, and even whole passages. Schematic and symbolic numbers abound, both explicitly and in the structuring of scenes. Characters and events are described in exaggerated and hyperbolic terms, and the characters exemplify traits rather than undergo development. Also distinctive is the syntax of the opening line, literally, “a man there was . . . ” rather than the more common “there was a man.” The narrator is explicitly evaluative, both at the beginning of the story and at crucial points within it. Although some of these features can be found in traditional folk narratives, taken together they point to a different genre.

In terms of both its style and its function, the story of Job is best understood as a didactic story, very much like the story that Nathan tells to David about a rich man and a poor man (2 Sam 12:1-4). There, too, the story opens with the same unusual subject-verb word order (“two men there were”). The setting of the story is similarly vague (“in a certain city”). Most important, the narrative style is characterized by highly schematic, parallel, and exaggerated descriptions of characters and events, as well as by extensive verbal repetition. The plot of the story is simple in the extreme, serving, as in Job, to disclose the character of the rich man. The comparison of Job with Nathan’s story also suggests something of the function of this type of storytelling. Corresponding to the narrative schematization of the story is a moral schematization. In Nathan’s story there are no shades of gray; right and wrong are unmistakable. It is a didactic story used to orient its audience (in this case David) to clear moral values. David responds to the story appropriately by voicing his outrage at the rich man’s behavior. That judgment is just what the story is designed to provoke, although David does not foresee that he will be identified with the rich man.

Like Nathan’s story, the tale of Job uses its schematic style to orient its audience to certain judgments about the existence and nature of true piety. Very frequently, such didactic stories serve to explore and resolve apparent contradictions in the values or beliefs of a community. That is clearly how the story of Job 1–2 is structured. The satan is given the role of casting doubt. The plot of the story shows such doubt to have been wrong, and in so doing reaffirms the belief of the 

                                 <Page 343 Ends><Page 344 Begins>

community in the possibility of disinterested piety. The simplicity of that story and its moral views will be challenged in the poetic dialogue that begins in chap. 3. In order for that challenge to have its full effect, however, one must first appreciate the didactic tale on its own terms.

The story of Job 1–2 is composed of a series of six distinct scenes (1:1-5; 1:6-12; 1:13-21; 2:1-7a; 2:7b-10; 2:11-13), the first five of which alternate between earth and heaven. Scenes 2 and 3 and scenes 4 and 5 form symmetrical pairs, each consisting of a dialogue in heaven about Job and a test of Job on earth. With the arrival of the friends after the conclusion of the second test, the symmetry of alternation between earth and heaven is broken, and the story prepares for the beginning of the dialogue between Job and his friends. The anticipated seventh scene, in which Job is restored, occurs in 42:7-17.

JOB 1:1-22, THE FIRST TEST

Job 1:1-5, Scene 1: Introduction to Job

Link to:  

COMMENTARY

1:1. The character of Job is the pivot upon which the entire book turns. In the first verse the reader is told three things about Job: his homeland, his name, and the qualities of his character. The location of the land of Uz is not entirely certain; probably it refers to an area south of Israel in Edomite territory (Jer 25:20; Lam 4:21; cf. Gen 36:28), although some traditions associate the name with the Arameans, who lived northeast of Israel (Gen 10:23; 22:21). In any event it is not an Israelite location. Similarly, the name “Job” would have had a foreign and archaic ring to it. It was not a name used in Israel, but similar names are known from ancient Near Eastern texts 

                                 <Page 344 Ends><Page 345 Begins>

of the second millennium BCE.32 Although later Jewish and Christian interpreters were concerned with whether Job was an Israelite or a Gentile,33 his ethnicity plays no role in the story itself. Whatever the origins of the figure of Job, his story has been naturalized into Israelite religious culture, so that Job is presented unself-consciously as a worshiper of Yahweh (1:21). Job’s archaic name and foreign homeland help to establish a sense of narrative distance, which facilitates the presentation of Job as a paradigmatic figure.

The crucial information about Job is the description of his character: “blameless and upright, one who feared God and turned away from evil.” These are all very general moral and religious terms, particularly frequent in the wisdom literature and the book of Psalms (see, e.g., Pss 25:21; 37:37; Prov 3:7; 14:16; 16:6, 17). Although their content is important, the form of their presentation is also meaningful: two pairs of parallel terms. There is something hyperbolic in this piling up of adjectives. Even Noah, that other legendary righteous man (see Ezek 14:14), is described with only two (Gen 6:9).34 More significant, the use of the numerical schema of four qualities, neatly paired, suggests completeness and perfection (cf. below on the fourfold destruction of “all that he has”). The leading term of the sequence, “blameless” (!t tAm), carries connotations of wholeness and is often translated “integrity.” This term becomes central to the story, as both God and Job’s wife characterize him as one who “persists in his integrity” (hmt tûmmâ, 2:3, 9). The first term of the second pair, “one who fears God,” is also echoed in a thematically crucial verse (1:9). “Fearing God” is a traditional Hebrew term for respectful and unsentimental piety.

1:2-3. The description of Job continues with an account of his children, his property, his household, and his status. Although it is not often reflected in the translations, the first word of v. 2 is “And” (w wu). It is grammatically possible to translate it simply as “and,” a word that coordinates two independent observations, or it could be translated “and so,” indicating a causal relationship. Does Job just happen to be rich and have a large family, or does he have these things because he is a man of exemplary piety? Although the narrator does not say explicitly, the very description of Job’s family and wealth suggests a connection. All the numbers used are symbolic, suggesting completeness and perfection: seven sons and three daughters, for a total of ten children; sheep and camels in the same ratio of seven thousand and three thousand; and agricultural animals in a balanced distribution of five hundred plus five hundred. Just as Job’s piety is complete and perfect, so also his family and property are complete and perfect. The reader is encouraged to see these as two things that fit naturally together. What binds them is the religious notion of blessing. Although the word “blessing” is not yet used, the picture the narrator draws of Job is easily recognized as the image of the righteous person blessed by God (cf. Pss 112:1-3; 128:1-4; Prov 3:33; 10:22). As with Isaac (Gen 26:12-14) Job’s greatness (v. 3), i.e., his wealth and the status that accompanies it, can also be seen as a mark of divine blessing.

1:4-5. These verses illustrate the untroubled happiness of Job’s family and the extraordinary piety of Job himself. Directing the reader’s attention to the children foreshadows their crucial place in the destruction that follows (vv. 13, 18-19). Job’s sons live like a king’s sons, each in his own home (cf. 2 Sam 13:7; 14:31). Some interpreters see the series of banquets that the sons host “each on his day” as nonstop partying every day of the week,35 but that interpretation seems unlikely. Since the brothers formally invite their sisters to each banquet and Job conducts sacrifices on their behalf “when the feast days had run their course,” it is more likely that what is referred to here is a cycle of banquets lasting several days, hosted by each son on the occasion of his birthday (cf. 3:1, where “his day” refers to Job’s birthday). In contrast to the frequent OT narrative theme of conflict between brothers (e.g., Cain and Abel in Genesis 4; Absalom and Amnon in 2 Samuel 13), Job’s sons live harmoniously and honor their sisters with particular attention. Nothing seems amiss in this picture.

                                 <Page 345 Ends><Page 346 Begins>

Job’s action, however, is the focal point of the passage. “To send and sanctify” suggests that Job summons his children to a solemn occasion at the conclusion of each banquet in order to offer sacrifice on their behalf (cf. Exod 19:10, 14; Lev 25:10; Joel 1:14; 2:15).36 The sin that Job fears, cursing God, is a serious one, punishable by death (Exod 22:28 [27]; Lev 24:14-16; 1 Kgs 21:10). Job, however, does not even imagine that his children have cursed God aloud, but only “in their hearts.” Moreover, the children may not be guilty of any misdeed at all. Job offers the sacrifice just in case his children have sinned. As with almost every other detail in this story, there is something a little exaggerated in the description of his careful intercession. The image of Job, protectively sacrificing on behalf of his children, recalls Ezekiel’s allusion to Job (Ezek 14:14-20) as a legendary figure whose own righteousness sufficed to save the lives of sons and daughters. The irony of this scene is that it is precisely Job’s righteousness that will set in motion events leading to the deaths of his children.

The English reader often misses a peculiarity of the text that is present in the Hebrew. Where the translations render “cursed God” in v. 5, the Hebrew text actually reads, “perhaps my children have sinned and blessed God in their hearts.” The translators correctly recognize that “blessed” (^rb bArak) is used euphemistically here in place of “curse” (llq qll), as in 1 Kgs 21:13. This euphemism is probably not a later substitution of the scribes who transmitted the biblical text; if it were, one would expect the euphemism to be standard throughout the Bible. There are, however, passages in which the literal words “curse God” (wyhla llqy yuqallel )ulohAw) appear (Lev 24:15; see Exod 22:28 [27]). Instead, this rather prim euphemism is a matter of the stylistic preference of the author. It may even be a part of the artistry of the story. Each of the seven times the word occurs in the prose tale (1:5, 10, 11, 21; 2:5, 9; 42:12), the reader must negotiate its meaning. Does it mean “bless” or “curse”? Even though most of the instances are easily enough resolved, the antithetical use of the word “bless” draws attention to itself. The word is thematically crucial. Just as “blessing” is used in a self-contradictory way, the story will explore a contradiction deeply hidden in the dynamic of blessing itself. (See Reflections at 2:11-13.)

Job 1:6-12, Scene 2: A Dialogue About Job

Link to:  

                                 <Page 346 Ends><Page 347 Begins>

COMMENTARY

1:6. The first scene closed with the observation that “this is what Job always did,” literally, “all the days.” Scene 2 opens with the contrasting punctual phrase, “One day. . . . ” The divine council is the setting of scene 2. Like its neighbors in the ancient Near East, Israel often imagined God as a king holding court, taking counsel, and rendering judgments about various matters (see 1 Kgs 22:19-23; Psalm 82; Isa 6:1-8; Dan 7:9-14).37 The divine court consists of heavenly beings who are generally presented as an anonymous group, rarely distinguished by title or function. In Hebrew they are called the “sons of God.” The term does not refer to a family relationship but is a Hebrew idiom for specifying the group to which an individual belongs. Thus “sons of cattle” means “cattle,” “sons of Israel” means “Israelites,” and “sons of God” means “divine beings” (see Gen 6:2, 4). Here the divine beings “present themselves before Yahweh,” a formal gesture (see Deut 31:14; Judg 20:2). The image is one of divine beings reporting to God, receiving commissions to execute, and reporting back from their missions. The most suggestive parallel to Job 1:6 is Zech 6:5, where the chariots of the four winds/spirits of heaven are described as setting out to patrol the earth after having “presented themselves before Yahweh.”

It is unfortunate that so many translations, including the NRSV and the NIV, render the Hebrew @fch (haZZAtAn) in Job 1–2 as “Satan,” which is linguistically inaccurate and highly misleading. The word satan is a common noun, meaning “accuser,” “adversary,” and is related to a verb meaning “to accuse,” “to oppose.” Here, where the noun is accompanied by the definite article, it cannot be understood as a personal name but simply as “the accuser.” To read back into Job 1–2 the much later notions of Satan-the-devil is seriously to misunderstand the story of Job.

v v v v v v v v v v

EXCURSUS: THE ROLE OF SATAN IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

Elsewhere in the OT the word satan is used to describe both human (1 Sam 29:4; 1 Kgs 5:4 [18]; Ps 109:6) and heavenly beings (Num 22:22; Zech 3:1), who act as adversaries or accusers. The context may be personal, legal, or political, but in each case the noun simply defines a function. It is likely that by the early post-exilic period, when the book of Job was probably written, the expression “the satan” had come to designate a particular divine being in the heavenly court, one whose specialized function was to seek out and accuse persons disloyal to God. The chief evidence for this is Zech 3:1, which describes 

                                 <Page 347 Ends><Page 348 Begins>

the heavenly trial of the high priest Joshua, who is “standing before the angel of Yahweh, with the accuser [ha-satan] standing at his right hand to accuse [satan] him” (author’s trans.). Some scholars have speculated that the figure of the accuser in Zechariah and Job may be modeled on officials in the Persian court who served as informers (“the eyes and ears of the king” [cf. Zech 4:2, 10b]) and even as agents provocateurs,38 although this is less certain.

There is an ambivalence in the relation between Yahweh and the accusing angel that is important for understanding the development of this figure. The accusing angel is a subordinate of God, a member of the divine court who defends God’s honor by exposing those who pose a threat to it. In that sense he is not God’s adversary but the adversary of sinful or corrupt human beings. Yet in Zech 3:2, Yahweh rejects the accuser’s indictment of the high priest and rebukes the accuser instead. In Job 1–2, Yahweh and the accuser take opposing views of the character of Job. As one who embodies and perfects the function of opposition, the satan is depicted in these texts as one who accuses precisely those whom God is inclined to favor. In this way the ostensible defender of God subtly becomes God’s adversary.

Many scholars have seen in the development of the satan a process whereby ambivalent characteristics of God are externalized as a subordinate divine character. The satan’s actions are therefore not directly attributable to God and may even be rejected. The story of David’s census of Israel is often cited as evidence of this process. In 2 Sam 24:1, the narrative says that “the anger of Yahweh was kindled against Israel” (author’s trans.) and that Yahweh incited David to sinful behavior in conducting the census. In the later, parallel story in 1 Chr 21:1, however, the verse says, “Satan stood up against Israel, and incited David to count the people of Israel” (NRSV). In 1 Chronicles 21 the term satan is apparently used as a proper name for the first time,39 and Satan represents an externalization, or hypostasis, of divine anger. In Zech 3:1, the accusing angel is the externalizing of the divine function of strict judgment in contrast to divine graciousness, which is then exercised by God (Zech 3:2).40 In Job 1–2, the accuser is the externalizing of divine doubt about the human heart, which allows God to voice confident approval of Job’s character.

In later centuries the figure of Satan develops into the dualistic opponent of God.41 This hostile image of Satan is presumed by the New Testament (see, e.g., Mark 3:22-30; Luke 22:31; John 13:27; Rev 20:1-10). In the story of Job, however, that later development has not yet taken place. The accuser is simply the wily spirit who embodies his given function to perfection. In Goethe’s famous phrase, he is der Geist der stets verneint, “the spirit who always negates.”

v v v v v v v v v v

1:7. There is a formal, almost ritual quality to the initial exchange between Yahweh and the satan. As a sovereign receiving a subordinate returned from his mission, Yahweh inquires whence he has come, and the satan replies (v. 7). His answer is neither evasive nor disrespectful.42 The verbs are the same ones used in Zechariah of the “eyes of Yahweh who range [fwv sût)] through the earth” (Zech 4:10) and of the “divine horsemen and chariots who patrol [^lh hAlak ] it” (Zech 1:11; 6:5). At the same time, the satan’s reply presents him as a figure of wit and intelligence. His words are cast in poetic parallelism (AB//A´ B´) and contain a visual pun on his own title. The first verb, “to rove,” “to go to and fro,” is spelled sût ; and satan is ZAtAn.

1:8. From his title one can assume that the 

                                 <Page 348 Ends><Page 349 Begins>

satan has been patrolling the earth looking for disloyalty or sinful behavior to indict before Yahweh. Before the satan can give his report, however, Yahweh challenges him with a pre-emptive question. This is not a request for information. Narratively, Yahweh’s challenging question suggests an ongoing rivalry with the satan. The grounds for such an edgy relationship are implicit in the satan’s function. One who defends a king’s honor by zealously ferreting out hidden disloyalty simultaneously exposes the king to dishonor by showing that he is disrespected. Here, Yahweh pre-empts such activity and in effect defends his own honor by directing attention to “my servant Job” (cf. Gen 26:24; Exod 14:31; 2 Sam 7:5), the one person whose perfect loyalty and regard for God cannot be doubted. Yahweh’s words in v. 8b are precisely those by which the narrator introduced Job in v. 1b, but God’s praise is even more hyperbolic than the narrator’s. Job is not merely the “greatest of all the people of the east” (v. 3); in God’s judgment, “there is none like him on the earth.”43

1:9-10. One of the conventions of Hebrew narrative is that the narrator can be trusted. When God confirms what the narrator says, the structures of narrative authority are doubly reinforced. Job’s perfect character would seem to leave no crack for the accuser’s doubt to penetrate. But as an accuser the satan must be true to type. The satan’s strategy is to shift the grounds of the debate. He meets God’s rhetorical question with a rhetorical question of his own. “Is it for nothing [!nj hinnAm] that Job fears God?” (v. 9, author’s trans.). The satan shifts the focus to the question of what motivates Job’s behavior. This is not necessarily, as it first appears, merely a questioning of Job’s sincerity. The following rhetorical question is directed at God’s activity in protecting and blessing Job. It is blessing itself that casts doubt on the very possibility of disinterested piety, even in such a paragon as Job. The satan’s insinuation suggests the symbolic image used by Henry James in The Golden Bowl, a vessel gleaming and perfect on the surface, but flawed by a hidden crack within. The crack in the golden bowl that the accuser claims to see is the subtly corrupting influence of blessing on piety, which then becomes a tool of manipulation.

The satan’s language in v. 10 is vivid. As an image of God’s protection, the hedge is an agricultural metaphor. The well-tended vineyard protected by a thorn hedge is safe from the destructive trampling of wild animals and theft by passers by (Ps 80:8-13 [9-14]; Isa 5:1-7). What is thus protected for Job is described in a three-part sequence that proceeds from the most intimate to the most distant: himself, his house (i.e., family), his possessions. While protection is described with a metaphor of containment (the hedge [^wc Zûk ]), Job’s blessing is depicted as a “bursting forth” of flocks and herds ($rp pAraz ; see Gen 30:30).

1:11-12. The words that the satan utters in v. 11 are no wager but a challenge to a test. Job and God are mutually self-deceived in thinking that piety can ever be freely offered when it is routinely met with blessing. Breaking the nexus will prove the accuser right. If God breaches the protective hedge and destroys what Job has, Job will openly repudiate God. The language of the challenge requires comment. Literally translated, the sentence reads, “but stretch out your hand and touch all that he has—if he doesn’t ‘bless’ you to your face.” The euphemistic substitution of “bless” for “curse” is recognizable here, as in v. 5. The clause beginning with “if” is a form of self-curse. The full form contains both a protasis (an “if” statement) and an apodosis (a “then” statement), as in Ps 7:4-5 [5-6] (“If I have repaid my ally with harm/ or plundered my foe without cause,/ then let the enemy pursue and overtake me,/ trample my life to the ground,/ and lay my soul in the dust” [NRSV]). Commonly, a shortened form of the self-curse, without the apodosis, functions as an exclamation (Gen 14:23; 1 Sam 3:14; 14:45). Although occasionally an interpreter will argue that the accuser’s exclamation is a seriously intended self-curse,44 most recognize the conventional nature of the expression. Both the form and the nuance of the satan’s statement can be colloquially but aptly rendered as “stretch forth your hand and strike all that he has, and I’ll be damned if he doesn’t curse you to your face!” The satan’s challenge makes Job’s speech about God the decisive factor in the

                                 <Page 349 Ends><Page 350 Begins>

 drama. As Gutiérrez astutely observes, how to talk about God becomes the central issue in the whole book.45

The concluding words of v. 11 echo and contrast with v. 5. Where Job sacrificed on behalf of his children because he feared they might have cursed God in their hearts, the accuser challenges God to sacrifice Job’s well-being to see if he will curse God to God’s face. God consents and sets the terms. For the third time in as many verses, the phrase “all that he has” is repeated. The protective hedge is removed; God reserves for protection only the person of Job. Note that the threefold distinction of v. 10 has now become a twofold distinction. Job’s family is incorporated into the category of “all that he has.”

Yahweh will not personally “stretch forth his hand” against Job, as the satan suggested, but the difference is not significant. Yahweh and the satan have, metaphorically, joined hands to destroy Job. The scene ends dramatically: The accuser, having received a new commission, goes out from Yahweh’s presence (v. 12; cf. 1 Kgs 22:22; Zech 6:5). (See Reflections at 2:11-13.)

Job 1:13-22, Scene 3: The Test—Destruction of

 “All That He Has”

Link to:  

                                 <Page 350 Ends><Page 351 Begins>

COMMENTARY

1:13. This scene opens with two verbal echoes that set an ominous tone. Its first words, “one day . . . , ” are the same as those that opened the preceding scene of the heavenly council at which the destruction was decreed. The description of the sons and daughters “eating and drinking wine” echoes v. 4. Although ostensibly the verse serves only to set the scene, it foreshadows the transformation of celebration into destruction and grief. There is also an ironic echo of the divine council. Just as emissaries come to Yahweh to report, so also messengers come to Job with reports. But Job is not sovereign over the events that befall him.

1:14-19. The account of the four messengers in vv. 14-19 is an astonishing piece of verbal art, using symmetrical structures and closely patterned repetition and variation. In vv. 2-3 Job’s blessings were enumerated in the sequence of (1) sons and daughters, (2) herds of sheep and camels, (3) agricultural animals (oxen and asses), and (4) servants. In the reports of the messengers, the sequence is presented in almost the reverse order. The destruction of the servants, however, is distributed throughout the four reports. To keep the numerical total of four, the accounts of the destruction of the camels and sheep are separate events. Thus the disasters are reported in the order: (1) oxen and asses, (2) sheep, (3) camels, (4) children. Other symmetries are present as well. The first and the fourth reports (vv. 14-15, 18-19) are longer and begin with a description of the peaceful scene before the destruction. The second and the third reports begin with an immediate identification of the agent of destruction (vv. 16-17). The agents of destruction alternate between human predators (Sabeans, Chaldeans) in the first and third reports and natural forces (lightning and a storm wind) in the second and fourth.

It becomes clear in the fourth messenger’s report why the author has chosen to distribute the death of the servants throughout the account. A different term is used for the servants in vv. 14-19, not (abUdâ (hdb[) as in v. 3, but nu (Arîm (!yr[n). Although nu (Arîm is often used to mean “servants,” its primary meaning is “boys,” “young people.” This strategic shift on the author’s part allows a momentary ambiguity when the fourth messenger, reporting on the destruction of the eldest brother’s house, says that it “fell on the nu (Arîm and they are dead.” But Job and the reader know that this time the term includes both the servants and the children. For the reader, too, another echo is recognizable. In the fourth messenger’s description of the situation before the disaster, he repeats word for word the narrator’s scene-setting description in v. 13. The ominous anticipation has been fulfilled; the destruction is complete.

What is one to make of the narrative art of this description? At one level it is simply part of a schematic and hyperbolic style. But form always has meaning, although it may be elusive. Clearest is the use of the number four to suggest totality.46 The interlinking of the four distinct reports in the various ways described underscores the fact that they are aspects of a single event. At a more comprehensive level of analysis, the totality is part of the story’s structure. The completeness of Job’s piety (v. 1) and the completeness of his blessing (vv. 2-3) are answered by the completeness of his destruction (vv. 14-19).

                                 <Page 351 Ends><Page 352 Begins>

The interlocking of the four messenger reports, the formulaic repetition of the way the narrator introduces each (“while this one was speaking, another came and said,” vv. 16-18), and the way each messenger ends his speech (“and I alone have escaped to tell you,” vv. 15-17, 19) contribute not only to the scene’s unity but also to its emotional impact. No time has been allowed for Job to respond to each individual destruction. The terms of the test were that “all that he has” be destroyed. Only now is it time for Job’s response.

In contrast to the nonstop, overlapping words of the messengers, Job’s response is initially nonverbal. He expresses himself in the ancient gestures of mourning, which the narrator enumerates in a series of brief clauses (v. 20). Tearing the robe in grief (see Gen 37:34; Josh 7:6; 2 Sam 1:11; 3:31; 13:31; Ezra 9:3, 5; Esth 4:1) and shaving the head (see Ezra 9:3; Isa 22:12; Jer 7:29; Ezek 7:18; Mic 1:16) are customary responses to catastrophe. Falling to the ground may also be (see Josh 7:6; cf. 2 Sam 13:31). The last verb in the sequence (lit., “to prostrate oneself” [hwjtvh histahawâ ]) is not otherwise used in a context of grieving. It is distinctly a gesture of worship (1 Sam 1:3; Ps 95:6; Ezek 46:9). This is the decisive moment of Job’s response. Why Job understands it to be an appropriate sequel to his gestures of grief is disclosed in his words.

1:20-21. Contrary to what one might expect, Job does not use the language of the funeral song or the lament. Those genres guide the grieving to experience and to express loss by contrasting what was with what is (“How the mighty have fallen” [2 Sam 1:25a NRSV]; “She that was a princess . . . has become a vassal” [Lam 1:1c NRSV]). Job also reaches for traditional words to orient himself in the face of shattering loss, but the words he chooses are proverbial ones from the wisdom tradition (v. 21). Variants of the saying about the mother’s womb occur in Eccl 5:15 and Sir 40:1. Differences in form and context suggest that those later authors are not borrowing directly from Job. More likely the saying in Job 1:21a was traditional. Unlike the contrastive structure of the lament, the wisdom saying Job repeats is shaped according to a structure of equivalence. The governing image is that of the naked body, glimpsed as just-birthed infant and as corpse. The image is even more apt if one recalls that in the ancient Near East bodies were often arranged in the fetal position for burial. Thus the womb of the mother becomes the metaphor for the grave, and indeed for the earth, from which one comes and to which one returns (cf. Gen 3:19b ; Ps 139:13-15). If the privileged image is that of the naked body at birth and death, then all else—not only possessions but also human relationships—is implicitly likened to the clothes one wears. However much clothes may feel like a second skin, they are put on and eventually must be put off. By means of the proverbial saying, Job is orienting himself to the hard but necessary reality of relinquishing what cannot be held on to.

The proverbial saying in v. 21a is followed by a specifically religious one in which the orientation is no longer to the experience of the human individual but to the activity of Yahweh. Fohrer is probably correct that the saying presumes an ancient idea that possessions are a loan from God, who may require them back at any time (cf. the notion of the present moment as a gift in Ecclesiastes).47 But how would such a notion and such a statement lead to the final benediction, “blessed be the name of Yahweh”? First one must notice that the word order of the saying places the emphasis not on the verbs but on the subject. “It is Yahweh who has given and Yahweh who has taken away.” The parallelism between the first saying and the second one is also important. In the first saying, the terror of birth and death, the vulnerability of nakedness, is contained through the image of the mother. It is she who sends and she who receives back again. In the second saying, Yahweh occupies the same place as the mother and is to be understood in the light of that image. The fragility of the gift and the desolation of the loss are endurable only if it is Yahweh who gives and Yahweh who takes (cf. Ps 104:27-30). Human words of blessing addressed to God are an act of worship that reaffirms relationship with God. It is not in spite of his loss but precisely because of its overwhelming dimensions that Job moves from the ritual of grief to words of blessing, which echo the liturgical formula in Ps 113:2.

1:22. In the Hebrew text the crucial word “blessed” (^rbm mubôrAk) comes last in Job’s speech. Its occurrence reminds the reader of what is at stake in Job’s response. What Job has said

                                 <Page 352 Ends><Page 353 Begins>

 contradicts the accuser’s prediction that Job would curse God openly. Rather, in the light of the euphemism in 1:11, Job ironically says precisely what the satan predicted: He blesses God. The narrator sums up Job’s response in v. 22. The word hlpt (tiplâ), which the NRSV and the NIV translate as “wrongdoing,” is obscure. It is related to a word that means “insipid,” “without taste” (Job 6:6; Lam 2:14), but the precise nuance of tiplâ remains uncertain. According to Clines, the context suggests that attributing tiplâ to God must be the most modest form of cursing God.48 Job does not do even this. Thus Job’s words are judged to have been absolutely blameless. The narrator’s comment serves as a guide to what issues are central and how the reader is supposed to respond. Job’s words demonstrate that piety can be disinterested, that it is not necessarily corrupted by divine blessing or destroyed by loss. There is no hidden crack in the golden bowl after all. The narrator’s summing up also has a restrictive function. Other issues and questions that the reader might wish to raise about the characters, their actions, and their values are subtly discouraged as beside the point. Perhaps the author of Job has emphasized this stylistic trait of narrative control in order to make Job’s outburst in chapter 3 all the more powerful. (See Reflections at 2:11-13.)

JOB 2:1-10, THE SECOND TEST

Job 2:1-6, Scene 4: A Second Dialogue About Job

Link to:  

                                 <Page 353 Ends><Page 354 Begins>

COMMENTARY

2:1-3. The fourth scene begins in a way virtually identical to the second (1:6-12). The addition of the phrase “to present [himself] before Yahweh” at the end of v. 1 points to the satan’s report as the one that matters for this story.49 God initiates the dialogue as before, and the satan replies in the same way. Such repetition has several functions. It reinforces the stylized quality of the narrative. Repetition also increases the reader’s sense of participation, as well as the sense of familiarity. Moreover, repetition increases anticipation. Whatever words break the repetition become the focus of attention. These crucial words occur in v. 3b. In the first part of that statement God echoes the narrator’s positive judgment about Job, using the key term “integrity” (hmt tûmmâ). The following part of God’s statement requires more reflection, however: “although you incited me against him, to destroy him for no reason.” The wording shifts the focus momentarily from Job’s character to the actions of God and the satan. Consider the difference if the storyteller had written, “He still holds fast to his integrity, even when the hedge around him is removed.” The momentary loss of focus on Job runs counter to the highly controlled style of the didactic tale. It serves the design of the book as a whole, however. In the poetic dialogues God’s character will become one of the main issues.

The author signals the thematic importance of this brief line more directly. The last word of Yahweh’s statement (“without cause” [!nj hinnAm ]) is in Hebrew the same as the first word of the satan’s crucial question in 1:9 (“for nothing”). The Hebrew term hinnAm has a range of meanings: “without compensation,” “in vain,” “without cause,” or “undeservedly.” It is possible to translate the line “in vain you incited me to destroy him,” the point being that the test did not work as the satan predicted.50 The word order, however, makes it more likely that the phrase is to be translated “to destroy him for no reason”—i.e., undeservedly. Something of the play on words can be suggested in English by the related words gratis and gratuitously. The use of the same word with different nuances in 1:9 and 2:3 suggests that the issues of the story are more complex than first envisioned. The didactic tale has been guiding the reader to affirm that disinterested piety, a fully unconditional love of God, is both possible and commendable. Yahweh’s echo of the term hinnAm in the context of “gratuitous destruction,” however, suggests the dark possibilities inherent in a relationship that is radically unconditional.

2:4-6. The satan is a formidable adversary. Unwilling to concede defeat, he shifts ground again. The proverbial saying that the satan cites is obscure.51 It probably derives from a marketplace setting and has to do with comparative values. As Good argues, it should not be translated “skin for skin,” which would be expressed in Hebrew with a different preposition. Rather, it is better translated “skin up to skin.”52 A person trying to trade for a skin would be willing to offer anything of value, up to an equivalent skin. But if the cost of a skin is another skin, then the deal is off, because there is no advantage in it. So the satan argues in the following line, which uses the same preposition, “All that a man has he will give, up to [d[b bu (ad ] his life.”

The satan’s rhetoric is persuasive because it builds on Job’s own images. Job used the image of the naked body as the essential self. So the satan turns to the image of skin, the reality of bone and flesh. The expression “bone and flesh” is an idiom elsewhere used to describe the identity of kinship, as in Laban’s greeting of Jacob in Gen 29:14. Following the same wording as in the previous challenge (1:11), the satan now predicts that if God strikes Job’s body, Job will openly curse God. As before, God places Job under the power of the accuser, this time preserving only his life (v. 6). Parallel to 1:12, the satan departs from the presence of God (1:7a). (See Reflections at 2:11-13.)

                                 <Page 354 Ends><Page 355 Begins>

Job 2:7-10, Scene 5: The Test—Disease

Link to:  

COMMENTARY

2:7. Since the second test is an attack on Job’s body, there is no place for a scene such as 1:14-19. Instead, the destruction is briefly described in a narrative summary (2:7b). Here, too, however, there is a symbolic representation of the totality of Job’s affliction, as he is struck with skin sores “from the soles of his feet to the top of his head.” The identity of Job’s disease has long intrigued interpreters; attempts at diagnosis are beside the point, however. It is significant that it is a disease of the skin. Perhaps because so much of a person’s identity is invested in the skin and because at least hands and face are involved in the public presentation of the self, diseases of the skin often evoke social revulsion. In the ancient Near East, where disease in general was often seen as a sign of divine displeasure, serious and intractable skin disease was particularly likely to be so interpreted.53 There is, for instance, a strong echo between the description of Job’s disease and the disease threatened as one of the curses for disobedience to the covenant in Deut 28:35. Similarly, in the Prayer of Nabonidus, a fragmentary Aramaic narrative from Qumran, a Babylonian king is stricken with “painful sores” (the same phrase as in Job 2:7). He recovers only when a “Jewish exorcist” pardons his sins and teaches him to worship the Most High God. Thus the disease with which the satan afflicts Job is one that would easily lend itself to interpretation as a mark of divine displeasure.

2:8. Job’s response to this new disaster is described in quite different terms from the parallel scene. Job engages in no new acts of mourning. The NIV translation, “as he sat among the ashes,” reflects well the syntax of the Hebrew. The clause identifies existing circumstances, not new action. As Clines observes, the implication is that Job has been sitting in the ashes as part of his mourning for his previous losses (cf. Jer 6:26; Ezek 27:30).54 Now Job’s only response to this new, terrible suffering is a purely physical one: He picks up a piece of a broken pot and scratches himself with it. The gesture communicates nothing explicit about Job’s inner state, although its very noncommunicativeness has a somewhat ominous quality.

2:9. The silence is broken by Job’s wife. For a character with only one line to speak, she has made an indelible impression on interpreters of the book of Job. The ancient tradition, reflected in Augustine, Chrysostom, Calvin, and many others, that she is an aide to the satan underestimates the complexity of her role. Verbally, her speech echoes both God’s evaluation of Job (2:3) and the

                                 <Page 355 Ends><Page 356 Begins>

satan’s prediction of what Job will eventually say (1:11; 2:5; she, too, employs the euphemistic “blessed” [^rb brk ]). Her words contain an ambiguity seldom recognized, one having to do with the thematically important word “integrity” (tûmmA).55 That word and its cognates denote a person whose conduct is completely in accord with moral and religious norms and whose character is one of utter honesty, without guile. (In Psalm 101, for instance, integrity of heart and conduct is contrasted with images of a twisted heart, secret slander, deceit, and lies.) Ordinarily, it would be unthinkable that a conflict would exist between the social and personal dimensions of the word. Just such a tension, however, is implicit in the words of Job’s wife. One could hear her question as a frustrated, alienated cry of bitterness stemming from immeasurable loss and pity, the equivalent of “Give up your integrity! Curse God, and in so doing, put yourself out of your misery!” More hauntingly, one could hear her words as recognition of a conflict between integrity as guileless honesty and integrity as conformity to religious norms. If Job holds on to integrity in the sense of conformity to religious norm and blesses God as he did before, she senses that he will be committing an act of deceit. If he holds on to integrity in the sense of honesty, then he must curse God and violate social integrity, which forbids such cursing.

2:10. However Job hears the words of his wife, he rejects them with strong language of his own, characterizing her as talking like one of the  twlbn (nubAlot ). Often translated “foolish women,” this term has both moral and social connotations.56 In English, one could capture something of the nuance by saying that she “talks like trash.” Job’s reply may also contain an element of social disdain for the outspoken woman (cf. Prov 21:9, 19; 25:24; 27:15-16). Although Job’s criticism of his wife has largely set the tone for her evaluation by interpreters, there are more sympathetic interpretations of her character. The Septuagint gives her a longer speech, allowing her to talk about Job’s sufferings and her own. In the Testament of Job, a Jewish retelling of the story of Job from the first century BCE, she is a character of pathos, whose suffering as she tries to care for her husband is vividly described. In both of these accounts, however, Job is the morally superior character who corrects her understanding. The sympathetic interpretation, as much as the hostile interpretation, obscures the role of Job’s wife in articulating the moral and theological dilemma of his situation. Significantly, Job’s rebuke of his wife is the last thing that he says for some time. When he speaks again in chap. 3, his words bear traces of hers. Although he does not curse God, he curses the day of his birth. Although he does not die, he talks longingly of death. In subsequent chapters, his persistence in his integrity—both in the sense of his moral conduct and in the sense of his absolute honesty—-motivates his own angry speech. His wife’s troubling question will have become his own.57

Those developments lie in the future, however. In the present scene Job responds to his wife’s question with another rhetorical question. Although it is not otherwise attested in wisdom literature, the rhythmic balance of the saying suggests that here, too, Job turns to tradition for words to orient himself and his wife to a proper response. The notion that both “weal and woe” come from God is a conventional way of acknowledging God’s sovereignty (Isa 45:7; cf. Deut 32:39).

The artistic use of parallel scenes in the story directs the reader back to the equivalent scene and words in 1:20-21. There are contrasts: Job’s words here are much less personal; there is no concluding blessing. At the same time, nothing in Job’s words can be construed as cursing God. The comparison of the narrator’s concluding evaluation is even more striking. The first words are the same: “In all this Job did not sin.” But whereas the narrator in 1:22 went on to add “or charge God with wrongdoing” (NRSV), the narrator now adds only the phrase “with his lips.” That phrase could with equal legitimacy be construed in two contradictory ways. It could be taken to mean that Job, like the ideal righteous person, was in control of himself from the inside out (cf. Ps 39:2; Prov 13:3; 18:4; 21:23).58 Alternatively,

                                 <Page 356 Ends><Page 357 Begins>

 it could suggest, as the Talmud says, that “Job did not sin with his lips; but in his heart he did.”59 That, after all, was what Job imagined his children might do, simply in the careless spirits of a feast (1:5). Of course, even if one conceded what the Talmud suggests, the terms of the test were about cursing God to God’s face. Nevertheless, a merely technical victory is not a very satisfying outcome. This entire scene has suggested increasing strain on Job, and the ambiguous concluding verse raises the level of narrative tension. That tension must be resolved in a third and decisive scene.

It is almost disingenuous to talk about narrative tension, however, in this sort of story. The reader has been told by the authoritative narrator and by God that Job is “blameless and upright,” etc. The situation is similar to that in a melodrama, where the audience knows that the hero will triumph over the villain and so can enjoy the pseudo-anxiety of the conflict. So here, the reader of the tale can enjoy the pseudo-anxiety that the hero will fall from perfection, knowing that in the third and decisive test the hero will triumphantly dispel all doubt about his character. Or so one could expect if the whole book of Job were told as a traditional tale. (See Reflections at 2:11-13.)

JOB 2:11-13, SCENE 6: THE THREE FRIENDS

Link to:  

COMMENTARY

The alternation of scenes between earth and heaven breaks off as the perspective shifts to another location on earth. The reader first sees the three friends of Job come together with the intention of visiting him in his grief (v. 11), and then sees Job through the eyes of the friends as they approach (v. 12).

Like Job in 1:1, the three friends are identified by name and place. The significance of the names and locations is no longer entirely clear, although the likelihood is that the three are presented as Edomites and, therefore, countrymen of Job.60

The friends’ action, going to Job “to console and comfort” him, is a traditional expression of solidarity in grief. To be deprived of this gesture of friendship made suffering even more difficult to endure (cf. Ps 69:20[21]; Isa 51:19; Nah 3:7,

                                 <Page 357 Ends><Page 358 Begins>

 where the same pair of words occurs). Although the text says that the friends did not recognize Job, they clearly do, for it is the sight of him, changed almost beyond recognition, that provokes their gestures and cries of grief (cf. Isa 52:14). Weeping and tearing one’s robe are both conventional expressions of mourning and distress, as is the use of dust. The precise nature and significance of “sprinkling dust in the air upon their heads” is obscure. The particular verb (qrz zAraq) and direction (lit., “heavenward” [hmymvh hassAmAymâ ]) recall how Moses flung soot into the air (Exod 9:10) to bring on the plague of “boils” (@yjv suhîn, the same word as in Job 2:7). The meaning and purpose of the actions, however, seem quite different.61 Perhaps the word “heavenward” was not originally part of the text (cf. LXX) but was added as a gloss by a scribe who noted other similarities with Exod 9:10. Others suggest that the word may be an error for a similarly written word, “appalled” (!mvh hasamem ; cf. Ezek 3:15; Ezra 9:3).62

Symbols of completeness and “perfection” are present in this scene, as in every other: the numerical symbols of three friends and seven days; the complementary images of seven days and seven nights. (Elsewhere periods of grief or silent distress may be described as seven days [Gen 50:10; 1 Sam 31:13; Ezek 3:15] but never as seven days and seven nights.)63 The final words in 2:13 about the greatness of Job’s suffering ironically echo the introduction of Job in 1:3 as the greatest among the peoples of the east. He has now exceeded all in suffering as he had in good fortune.

The picture of Job’s friends sitting in silence on the ground is a conventional image of grieving, recalling Lam 2:10. The narrator focuses the scene through their eyes (“for they saw that his suffering was very great”). The friends’ silence is respectful, even awed. In their silence they present a contrast to Job’s wife, who, whatever her motives and meaning, sought to bring an end to Job’s suffering by urging him to curse God. Ironically, the space created by the friends’ silent presence is what finally provokes Job to a curse, moving the story out of the safe confines of the simple tale.

REFLECTIONS

This seemingly simple story presents any number of issues for reflection. Three of them will be examined: (1) the relation of blessing and self-interested religion; (2) attachment, loss, and grief; (3) the disturbing image of God in Job 1–2 and the cultural context it assumes.

In the OT blessing is primarily an expression of a close relationship or bond between God and an individual or a people. Divine blessing makes people flourish, and that flourishing is often talked about in very concrete terms: a large family, material prosperity, social power and status (e.g., Psalms 112; 128). Moreover, often one finds the promise of blessing offered as motivation for good conduct (Gen 17:1-2; Deuteronomy 28). That is the problem addressed by the satan’s cynical question: Hasn’t the way people understand divine blessing slipped into essentially a barter religion? “If you will do this for me, I will do that for you.” “If you will guarantee me this, then I will agree to do that.” It does not take long, listening to religious talk shows or browsing through religious book stores, to feel the force of the satan’s question. Explicitly or implicitly, much of religion seems preoccupied with striking a bargain with God.

It is easy enough to deplore crude expressions of self-interested religion. The satan’s challenge goes deeper, however, suggesting that the distortion in the religious relationship is so deeply ingrained that people are not even aware of its presence until something happens to upset their assumptions. One finds out what people really believe when they face a crisis. The baby lies gravely ill, and the father rejects God in rage. The question that Job 1–2 poses to such a

                                 <Page 358 Ends><Page 359 Begins>

 situation is not about the proper pastoral response or even about whether it is emotionally and religiously healthy to express the anger one feels. The story’s question is about the theology implied by that rage, a theology that contains the unspoken assumption of a contract with God: God is bound to protect me from tragedy because I have been good or simply because I belong to God. Such a brittle faith will not sustain a person in crisis; yet it is often taught subliminally in the way religious communities talk about God. (There is, of course, much more to be said about the relation between anger and faith; later parts of the book will provide opportunity to reflect on different dimensions of that issue.)

It can be difficult to make the distinction between the appropriate human desire to protect what is precious and the inappropriate belief that one can strike a bargain with God. The story in Job 1–2 explores this subtle distinction by showing the reader a character who is fully aware of the human fears that drive so many to try to bargain with God but who does not understand his own piety and religious acts as a guarantee of security. The story engages readers by drawing them into emotions that readers have themselves experienced, as well as drawing them into situations and feelings that seem foreign or strange. Job’s gathering his children and offering sacrifice for them “just in case” is the representative of every parent who has sat looking at his or her children around the dinner table, knowing that there is so much danger in the world and longing to protect them from it. The very exuberance and high spirits that make young people so dear is one of the things that produces anxiety in a parent’s heart. Job knows this, like any parent, and evidently worries that his children would not think through the consequences of their actions, would get caught up in the partying and do something foolish, or in the process of trying to impress one another would make a bad judgment with possibly fatal consequences. It is a rare parent who has not, like Job, offered up a prayer to God on behalf of her or his children.

Such prayers are not necessarily attempts to strike a bargain with God, although the temptation is always there. Praying on behalf of another is an act of caring. When that prayer concerns a sin that the other person is unable or unwilling to bring before God, then it can be an act of reconciliation. Only when such prayer is assumed to have struck a deal is the proper function of prayer abused. Job’s response to the sudden loss of children, property, and health shows that his piety was not the sort corrupted by the assumption of an implicit bargain. To understand the religious perspective that grounds piety like that of Job, it is necessary to look at the issues of attachment, loss, and grief, and at the way in which they are illustrated by Job.

The agony of love is that it cannot ensure the safety of the one we love so deeply. All the prayers, all the good advice, all the superstitious rituals (“if I imagine all the bad things that could happen, then they won’t happen”) cannot guarantee it. Loving is risky business; there is no way to bargain with God about that. Vulnerability is a condition of our being finite and mortal creatures. The greater evil would be to fear loss too much to risk loving at all. Mary Oliver says it well:

To live in this world

you must be able

to do three things:

to love what is mortal;

to hold it

against your bones knowing

your own life depends on it;

and, when the time comes to let it go,

to let it go.64

                                 <Page 359 Ends><Page 360 Begins>

Job’s blessings, especially as they are manifested in his children, but also in his prosperity and in his health, may appear to the satan as a hedge of security, but they can be seen equally well as a measure of Job’s vulnerability. Health, financial security, family—these things matter. There is nothing venal or sinful or wrong in caring about them very much. It is because they are so important that the story insists that it is also important to think about the experience of losing them, and about the related but distinct experience of letting them go. Losing something one cares about deeply is a devastating experience. Numbness, disorientation, anger, an overwhelming sense of helplessness—all of these emotions and more wash over a person in waves. This is the first part of grieving, but the work of grief requires something more. Finally, one has to let go of what has been lost. This does not mean forgetting or no longer feeling the aching absence. Letting it go does mean recognizing the reality of loss and accepting its finality. Both aspects of this process are reflected in Job’s response, the first in the silent gestures of grief, the second in the words that he utters.

There are many ways to accept the finality of loss, because people bring different understandings of the world and of God to that process. For Job, letting go is made possible precisely because all things—both good and bad—ultimately come from God. To many readers, this is a baffling, if not an outrageous, position. There is a wisdom in Job’s words, however, that is deep and powerful. Job’s words are not about causality in the narrow sense. They do not deny the reality of tornadoes or bandits. Especially in the case of human violence it is right to be angry, to seek justice, to prevent such violence from occurring again. Energies directed in those directions are important, but they do not finish the work of grieving. One also has to come to grips with the terrible fragility of human life itself, the vulnerability that attends all of existence. It is God the creator who has made us as we are, capable of love and attachment, but also susceptible to disease, accidents, violence. In this sense, it is God who gives and takes away, from whom we receive both what we yearn for and what we dread. There is a tendency to want to associate God with only what is good. If one does that, however, then when trouble comes it is easy to feel that one has fallen into a godforsaken place. At the time, when one most needs the presence of God, there is only the experience of absence. The wisdom of Job’s stance is that it allows him to recognize the presence of God even in the most desolate of experiences. Job blesses God in response to that presence.

This kind of reflection, which focuses on the religious values of Job and views God only through Job’s statements about God, does not get at all of the difficult issues raised by this story. After all, the reader knows what Job does not—namely, what has gone on in heaven. No reflection on this story can be complete that has not wrestled with the difficult question of what to do with the image of God presented by the narrative itself. Some readers are so outraged by God’s treatment of Job that they can hardly focus on any other aspect of the story. Others do not see this as an important issue at all. After all, they would say, this is not “really” God but a fictional story in which God is represented as a character. The whole business of testing Job is necessary to the plot, and without it there would be no story. Both of these responses have merit. It is important to be attuned to the genre and style of the story—to its playfulness and freedom of the imagination. Like some parables, it adopts a frankly outrageous premise to enable its readers to see something important. On the other hand, it would be a mistake to set Job 1–2 aside as “just a story,” as though other speech about God could be literally descriptive. That is not so. All speech about God is the making of an image of God. All verbal or visual images of God are attempts to make a claim about who God is and what God is like. These images are suggestive, of course, rather than literal. Taking the genre of Job 1–2 fully into account, it remains necessary to reflect on the story’s claim about who God is.

The representation of God as king of the universe in Job 1–2 is quite familiar from other biblical imagery and serves as a graphic way of attributing authority and sovereignty to God. 

                                 <Page 360 Ends><Page 361 Begins>

The way the story represents God’s motives in the actions that constitute the plot, however, puzzles many modern readers. What is God doing in bringing up Job’s name, almost as a provocation, and then responding to the satan’s counterprovocation? To many readers, the exchange seems childish and quite unworthy as a representation of God.65 Why the characters act as they do can be understood only when one recognizes that they represent the values of a culture of honor. When the satan casts doubt on Job’s motives, he also besmirches God’s honor by suggesting that even the best humans do not love God for God’s own sake, but simply for what they can get out of it. Since God has just praised Job, God appears as a dupe. In cultures in which honor is a paramount value and losing face is a matter of shame, such a challenge cannot be ignored. Not only God’s dignity but also God’s authority would be compromised if the issue remained unaddressed. Readers who share those assumptions are not likely to consider God’s response as “just showing off” but as something much more serious.

The narrative of Job 1–2 makes a radical case for the religious values accompanying a culture of honor. In doing so, it also exposes the limits of those religious values. Most readers of this commentary probably belong to communities in which honor, although important, is not such a central moral value as it appears in the narrative of Job 1–2. It takes a stretch of the imagination to enter into its worldview and theological values. Only after one has made the effort to appreciate those values, however, is criticism of their limitations legitimate.

God’s honor and Job’s freely given piety are two sides of the same religious values. Giving such devotion to God not only honors God but also provides the source of Job’s own identity and self-worth. He is not a mercantile, self-oriented person, but one whose values are emphatically non-materialistic. That is what the story honors in Job and holds up as an ideal value. It is because of the integrity of his own devotion that Job can experience God’s blessing as free grace. He places absolutely no conditions on his loyalty to God, and so does not feel forsaken by God even in the midst of his loss. Søren Kierkegaard praised Abraham as a “knight of faith.” Yet Job excels Abraham.

The analogy with Abraham, however, raises questions about the intent of the Job narrative. In a sense, it radicalizes the story of Abraham. God tested Abraham, apparently uncertain of whether Abraham would sacrifice Isaac. When Abraham made it clear that he would, God spared Isaac—and Abraham. God has no doubts about Job. Yet neither Job’s children nor Job is spared. It is as though the narrative asks the reader to look at values believed to be true—God’s honor and Job’s unconditional piety—and then forces the reader to evaluate those values under the most extreme circumstances. Can either value stand when weighed against the death of ten children and the torment of a loyal servant? The narrative appears to ask the reader to say yes by presenting Job’s response as a sublime example of selfless piety. But is Job’s response an example of sublime faith or of religious masochism? If the honor of God is absolutized, then nothing is too precious to be sacrificed to it—not the lives of children, not the body of a devoted worshiper. Job’s own self-worth has been invested in his integrity as one who “fears God for nothing.” But has his integrity itself become such a fetish that he cannot recognize the perversity of blessing the one who destroys him for no reason?

The literary genius of the prose tale is that one genuinely cannot say whether it intends to be a straightforward didactic tale that represents the sublime expression of a true knight of faith who loves God unconditionally, or whether it is a subversive didactic tale that exaggerates the traditional style just sufficiently to reveal the obscenity lurking behind the values of God’s honor and the integrity of disinterested piety.

                                 <Page 361 Ends><Page 362 Begins>

George Somsel said:

Dan Francis said:

Offline for a few days….

here are  several more samples 

 

Don't you think you might be stretching the concept of fair use a bit?

Actually I am not doing anything illegal, but my goal of having a snippet from every book of the Bible to show the value of this series and encourage people to pre Order it so it can be produced, was never meant to offend anyone, yes this is generally a liberal critical work and (although many greatly respected conservative scholars contributed to it) I know many conservative Christians would see little value in it. I cannot fathom why anyone not wanting to learn more about this series would be reading this thread. I have no interest in angering anyone and indeed when someone complained before a Logos representative encouraged me to continue posting, although I believe the persons main concern was the actually multiple threads being too hard to follow along. Unless I have someone requesting me to continue on I will make this one on Isaiah the last one I post. I am not going to convince any ultra conservative Christian to purchase this and as for the several people wanting it to be produced before they consider it, that simply will never happen, people either have to step up and preorder it or realize  it will never be made. I will admit, albeit pretty weighted to the Old Testament, there are enough samples, to give anyone a good idea of it's value. So here is the last one I have to offer:

--------

ISAIAH 6:1–9:7, THE PROPHET, CHILDREN, AND KINGS

OVERVIEW

This section has long been recognized as a distinct literary unit within the book of Isaiah. As noted already, it interrupts a sequence begun in 5:25-30 and resumed in 9:8, suggesting that 6:1–9:7 was an independent unit inserted into another collection. Beyond that, when one views these chapters broadly, a number of unifying factors can be recognized, including genre, chronology, and theological themes.

The dominant literary genres of this section are quite different from those in its context. Whereas everything before and most of what follows is prophetic address, the reader now encounters narratives. Some are autobiographical in style if not necessarily in purpose—that is, the prophet himself reports about events such as his vision of the Lord (chap. 6) or what he did and said at particular times, including symbolic actions and his encounters with the king (chap. 8). Others are third-person narratives, accounts about the prophet’s activities (see chap. 7). These features have led many commentators to identify the section as Isaiah’s “memoirs” (German Denkschrift), compiled by the prophet and comprising the earliest stage in the Isaiah tradition.73 Although it is doubtful that Isaiah himself compiled this unit, it does relate to his own self-understanding, comes from a relatively early period in his work, and could very well be the earliest collection of traditions concerning Isaiah.

There is some chronological coherence to the section. Many of the events reported here share the same historical horizon, the one presumed in 7:1-9, the Syro-Ephraimitic war of 735–732 BCE. This certainly includes the accounts of the prophet’s activities in 7:1–8:18. If “the year that king Uzziah died” (6:1) is as late as 736 BCE, then that would put the prophet’s vision of the Lord and his commission not long before the other events, and 6:1 becomes an appropriate heading for this large unit as well as the call itself. Both chronologically and in terms of genre, 9:1-7 has the least affinity with the other parts of the section. It is the announcement of the future on the basis of the birth of a crown prince. However, the introduction in 9:1 attempts to locate it historically, and—as in some of the prophetic narratives—a child is a sign from God.

Thematically, there is evidence of some progression of thought. The section begins with the prophet’s summons to present an unqualified message of judgment, moves through indictments and warnings in which the central theme is faith and the situation is military danger, to conclude with an announcement of a time of peace and justice under a future Davidic king. Specifically, the harsh commission (6:9-10) corresponds to what happens to the prophet’s words in the time of Ahaz, and 8:16 brings the theme to culmination. Ward sees the coherence of the section differently, in terms of the theme of kingship. Chapter 6 is a vision of Yahweh as King, chaps. 7 and 8 contain oracles and signs for the reigning king, and 9:1-7 announces the new king.74

So the parts of this section cohere in more than one way. But the more deeply one looks into this forest, the more distinct become the individual trees. Although most of the literature is narrative, the individual units belong to quite different narrative genres. There seem to be chronological affinities, but many dates are uncertain, and others are absent. “The year that king Uzziah died” is debated, and the identity (and thus the date) of the crown prince born or to be born in 9:1-8 is uncertain. Moreover, even when broad common themes are recognized, the individual issues are very different. Finally, some transitions between stories are rough and connections unclear. Consequently, it seems highly unlikely that these chapters were composed by a single author at one time. Rather, 

<Page 99 ends>><Page 100 begins>>

 an editor, using originally independent traditions, has put the section together and organized it on the basis of some broad literary, historical, and theological principles.

The major sections are Isaiah’s report of his call (6:1-13), two third-person symbolic action reports concerning children (7:1-9, 10-25), a series of third-person symbolic action reports (8:1-22), and the messianic poem promising a reign of peace (9:1-7).

Isaiah 6:1-13, Isaiah’s Commission

Link to: Isaiah 6:1

<Page 100 ends>><Page 101 begins>>

COMMENTARY

The location of Isaiah’s report of his call in the book of Isaiah is unusual, and not only because it interrupts a previously established collection of the prophet’s speeches. Those of Jeremiah and Ezekiel are found more logically at the very beginning of the books. Given the relation of this account to the narratives that follow, it seems likely that the vocation report once stood at the beginning of an early collection of traditions concerning the prophet. Efforts to account for this location historically (e.g., that the words and events in chaps. 1–5 took place before those in chaps. 6–9), have been unsuccessful.75

The vocation and visionary experiences of prophets and other servants of God would have been very private and individual matters. It is all the more remarkable, therefore, to discover that Isaiah’s report of his call has a great many features in common with other OT vocation reports.76 These include those of Moses (Exod 3:1–4:17), Gideon (Judg 6:11-24), Jeremiah (Jer 1:4-10), and Ezekiel (Ezekiel 1–3). In all cases there is a report of an encounter with God, either directly or through a messenger; a commission to do the Lord’s will or speak the Lord’s word; and a ritual act or sign symbolizing the designated role. In all instances except Ezekiel, the one who is called objects to the vocation and then receives reassurance from God.

In its more specific features, Isaiah 6 closely parallels Ezekiel 1–3.77 Both are reports of visions of the Lord’s heavenly throne. Similar also is the scene described by Micaiah ben Imlah in 1 Kgs 22:19-22: “I saw the Lord sitting on his throne, with all the host of heaven standing beside him.” Neither Isaiah nor Ezekiel sees God directly, but both have the sense of being on the outskirts of the heavenly throne room and hearing the deliberations going on there. This OT imagery is indebted to ancient Near Eastern traditions concerning the heavenly court. In those polytheistic traditions the court included the chief god and other deities; in the OT, God holds court with messengers (see also Job 1:6-12).

In part because of its location in the book and in part because this report has some distinctive features, some scholars have questioned whether Isaiah 6 is actually a vocation report.78 Although it is possible that the experience reported here might not have been the inaugural vision that first set the prophet on his path, it shares both form and function with other vocation accounts. Like all the other reports, it has distinctive elements and a particular purpose. Frequently the authority of prophets to speak was challenged (see Jer 1:6-8; Amos 7:10-17), especially when they proclaimed

<Page 101 ends>><Page 102 begins>>

 judgment. Since prophets in Israel had no “official” standing comparable to that of, for example, priests, their right to speak in the name of the Lord was open to question. The vocation reports were their responses to such challenges. They were not only entitled but also compelled to speak because God had called them to do so; they had not sought the role, but it had been thrust upon them. In the case of Isaiah 6, the prophet specifically justifies his harsh message (“keep listening, but do not comprehend,” vv. 8-10) by reporting his vision of the Lord on a throne.79

This chapter is a fully self-contained unit, presented as the first-person report by the prophet of what happened to him, what he saw and heard, and what he said. So it is a story, in form a personal account by the prophet of a momentous event in his life, the defining vision. There is a plot, and there are characters. The main ones are the prophet and God; but there are others, including the seraphs, the heavenly court, and, of course, offstage, “this people” (v. 9) to whom Isaiah is sent. Some of the characters speak, both moving the story along and bringing the listeners up short. The account, consisting mainly of dialogue, is continuous and complete, and its main parts are easily discernible on the basis of shifts of genre, speaker, and content. Broadly, the elements include the account of the vision and audition (vv. 1-4), the prophet’s reaction (v. 5), the account of the ritual of purification (vv. 6-7), Yahweh’s question and Isaiah’s response (v. 8), Yahweh’s commission to the prophet (vv. 9-10), and Isaiah’s objections with the Lord’s response (vv. 11-13).

6:1-4. The vocation report begins with a date formula, which also sets the mood. “The year that King Uzziah died” could have been as early as 742 or as late as 736 BCE, but that king’s death signaled the end of an era of relative independence for Judah. Tiglath-pileser III came to power in Assyria in 745 BCE, and, after consolidating his power in Mesopotamia, began to expand his empire to include the small states in Syria and Palestine. His successors would continue his military and political policies. During most of Isaiah’s lifetime, Judah lived under the threat of Assyrian domination.

In addition to reminding the readers of the international events that followed the death of Uzziah, the date formula functions, as do those in contracts, to verify and thus validate the report that follows.80 It also serves a theological function similar to that of superscriptions to the prophetic books—that is, to locate the revelation in a particular time (see the Commentary on 1:1). Finally, the date refers to the time of the experience and indicates that the report itself was written later.

The story begins with the description of an awe-inspiring vision of Yahweh as King on a throne. The fact that “the hem of his robe” (v. 1) filled the Temple indicates that the prophet stands at the entrance to the sacred precincts and that the ark on the sanctuary’s elevated most holy place was understood to be the symbolic throne of Yahweh (for a description, see 1 Kgs 8:6-8). Other aspects of temple worship are the antiphonal hymn of praise sung by the seraphim and the smoke—from offerings or incense or both—that filled the “house”—that is, the Temple. The seraphim who attended the Lord must cover both their “feet” (a euphemism for their nakedness) and their faces; no one can appear naked before the Lord, and no one can see God directly and live, not even the supernatural beings that guard the throne. Seraphim (lit., “fiery ones”; the English simply transliterates the Hebrew) elsewhere are serpents (Num 21:6; Isa 14:29; 30:6; cf. 1 Kgs 6:23-28; 2 Kgs 18:4), but here they have six wings.81 Whatever their form, their function is clear. Like the cherubim in Ezekiel 1, they are attendants around the divine throne, and they praise the Lord.

The description of the appearance of the deity has already prepared for the song of praise, which emphasizes the Lord’s power and sacredness. The “Lord of hosts” is the leader of armies, both earthly (1 Sam 17:45) and heavenly (Isa 40:26). “Holy” is that which pertains only to God, emphasizing the radical otherness of the Lord. Although the hem of God’s robe may fill the Temple, the “whole earth” is filled with the “glory,” the powerful presence of the one who is radically other.

Other sights and sounds accompany the singing, recalling the traditions of the appearances of the Lord. The shaking of the “doorposts and thresholds” and the smoke (v. 4) are like the 

<Page 102 ends>><Page 103 begins>>

 appearance of the Lord on Mt. Sinai (Exod 19:9, 18; cf. Judg 5:4-5) and elsewhere (Hab 3:6).

6:5. Isaiah’s response to the theophany is a cry of woe (v. 5). He literally fears for his life (“I am lost”). In the context of other vocation reports, this is not unlike expressions of resistance or inadequacy (Exod 3:13; 4:1, 10, 13; Jer 1:6). The content of Isaiah’s declaration, however, is similar to a confession of sin and an expression of mourning both for himself and for his people. In the presence of the Lord, he knows that he is unclean, although by the priestly criteria he would have been judged ritually clean before he approached the Temple. The meaning of “unclean” in this context is unclear; no particular violation of ritual purity is stated.

6:6-7. In direct response to the prophet’s confession, one of the seraphs performs a ritual of purification that combines word and action. Isaiah had confessed that he was “a man of unclean lips” (v. 5), so the seraph touches the prophet’s mouth with a coal from the altar and pronounces that his guilt is removed and his sin forgiven. This ritual parallels those in the vocation reports of both Jeremiah (Jer 1:9) and Ezekiel (Ezek 2:8–3:3) in that all of them concern the mouth of the prophetic spokesman for God. The image of purifying fire appears elsewhere in Isaiah (1:25-26). The seraph solemnly pronounces the prophet free of “guilt” and “sin.” The meanings of these two broad terms overlap. Moreover, “guilt” in ancient Israel was not so much a feeling as a state of being brought about by wrong behavior. For sin and guilt to have “departed” or to have been “blotted out” means that the effects of wrongful actions have been ended or removed.

Remarkably, the ritual has cleansed the prophet but not addressed the other aspect of his confession: that he lives “among a people of unclean lips” (v. 5). This suggests that Isaiah has now been set apart from the people.82

6:8. For the first time Yahweh speaks, and not directly to the prophet. The vision report reaches its climax when the prophet overhears the Lord asking the heavenly court who should be sent, and the prophet steps forward without hesitation. The closest biblical parallel to this scene and these speeches appears in 1 Kgs 22:19-23, where the Lord asks the heavenly council how best to bring judgment (see also Jer 23:18). Seen in that context, the harsh commission that follows is not surprising.83

6:9-10. Now the Lord speaks directly to Isaiah with his commission, setting forth how the prophet is to bring judgment upon “this people.” There are two parts to Yahweh’s address. In the first (vv. 9-10a) the Lord commands Isaiah what to say and do, and in the second (v. 10b), the Lord sets out the purpose of those words and actions. The prophet is to tell the people to listen but not comprehend, to look but not understand; he is to prevent the people from understanding, hearing, or seeing lest they see, listen, and comprehend and “turn and be healed.” Isaiah’s mission is clear: He is to prevent repentance and healing.

The force of the prophet’s question is by no means self-evident. Viewed in the context of other biblical vocation reports, this could serve, along with v. 5, as an expression of resistance or reluctance. Although he does not explicitly object to the commission, he does raise a question about it. Behind these words stands a long tradition of prayer in ancient Israel. “How long?” is a common opening in the individual complaint psalms, the preface to a petition (Pss 13:2; 74:10; 75:5; 80:4; 89:46; 90:13). Thus “Isaiah begs for mercy.”84 Since the petition is on behalf of others (“this people”), it is a prayer of intercession (see also Amos 7:2, 5).

The Lord’s initial responses offer no hope. The commission will not be fulfilled until the land is completely destroyed, not just cities and houses but those who live in them as well (v. 11). Verse 12, which speaks of Yahweh in the third person, shifts the focus slightly to an exile that leaves the land empty. Verse 13 uses the imagery of trees and fire to emphasize that what has been burned will be burned again, including the stumps of fallen trees. Only the last line of the chapter, “the holy seed is its stump,” offers a glimmer of hope beyond destruction. The meaning and translation of v. 13, and especially its last line, are quite uncertain; it is very likely that the final line is a secondary 

<Page 103 ends>><Page 104 begins>>

 addition or a modification of an earlier form of the tradition.85

No reason is given for this announcement of disaster, only that the word of the Lord through the prophet is to make repentance impossible and thus to effect judgment. There is a hint of indictment in the prophet’s initial reaction to the vision of the Lord: “and I live among the people of unclean lips” (v. 5). The prophet but not the people had been cleansed. It is possible that the judgment announced here is finally to purify the people. There is a kind of symmetry, if not a parallel, between the cleansing of the prophet by means of the coal from the altar and the “cleansing” of the people through the destruction. At the end, even the stump is burned, and then—in the final form if not in the original vision report—there is the seed, the possibility of renewal. The editors of the book, if not Isaiah or the earliest tradents, saw that the national disaster could be a cleansing punishment and that new life could grow out of it.

REFLECTIONS

1. The most obvious issues this chapter raises concern vocation in general and the call to a prophetic role in particular. Isaiah 6:8, with the Lord’s invitation and the prophet’s unhesitating response, has been the focus of attention, particularly in Protestant circles. For generations of readers, Isaiah has been lifted up as the heroic model of the servant of God. But this heroism—if it is that—did not appear out of thin air. For the prophetic voice that reports the call and commission, the sequence of events leading up to this point is important. There had been the encounter with the presence of God, confession, a ritual of purification, overhearing the Lord addressing the heavenly council, and then acceptance of the commission. It is also important that God does not address Isaiah directly, but the one purified by the divine messenger is able to hear the call and accept the commission to go as God’s representative, to take the place of the angels. The prophet could proclaim the most difficult message because he had experienced the presence of the God whose glory fills the whole earth.

Although at that critical moment the prophet shows no hesitation, there are two points of resistance. Isaiah’s first words confess his unworthiness (6:5), and he intercedes for the people when he learns the message he is to bring (6:11a). The persistence of reluctance or resistance in vocation reports indicates that resistance to the call is not linked so much to individual personalities as it is to the experience of standing in the presence of God. It is part of the office, even verifying that one is called by God, to feel unworthy in one way or another. Moreover, it does not go too far to conclude that one test of an authentic call to confront others is to identify with the accused. Isaiah questioned the harsh message and interceded for the people. In the Old Testament, one is allowed to resist, to disagree with, and to challenge even the God whose glory fills the whole earth. Questions are always allowed.

If standing in the presence of God were not enough, the biblical prophets believed that their words had genuine power. Because their words are the human expression of the words of God, what they say changes the course of events. What could be more intimidating to a messenger? The prophet is empowered with words that will prevent repentance and will bring judgment. Are there any modern words that have—or are understood to have—such power? Although we seldom believe that our words are the direct Word of God, we know that words have power. To be sure, some words have more power than others, but none are “off the record.” Rituals and official language are particularly powerful. If one says, for example, “I now pronounce you husband and wife,” then reality has been changed, even if the marriage does not last.

One other point concerning the prophetic call deserves consideration. The vision in the Temple, the hymn, the smoke of the offering, and the ritual of purification show that the prophet 

<Page 104 ends>><Page 105 begins>>

 is in the sanctuary. Such texts as this make it difficult to drive a wedge between a prophetic and a priestly vocation. The contemporary call to respond prophetically to social problems such as racism, poverty, and other forms of injustice typically is experienced in the context of prayer and worship. Likewise, prophetic words and actions gain conviction and force when expressed out of genuine piety. Moreover, worship and prayer are shallow without awareness of and concern for the specific and concrete problems of human societies.

2. When Isaiah 6 appears in church lectionaries the reading usually ends with the prophet’s exclamation in v. 8: “Here am I, send me!” That may be the climax, but it is not the end. The church tradition that selected the lectionary lost its nerve when it came to the contents of the prophet’s commission, what he was told to say and do. Serious problems arise when one considers the message that Isaiah was commissioned to deliver. This command to prevent hearing, to “make the mind of this people dull,” has long been a problem for readers. (The Greek text tried to tone it down by changing the imperatives of 6:10 to indicatives.)86

The meaning of the message is unmistakable. These lines confront their readers with the bad news. Many prefer to interpret even the prophetic announcements of disaster as warnings, to encourage repentance and thus avert the announced judgment. Here the prophet is to prevent repentance: “so that they may not look . . . listen . . . comprehend . . . and turn and be healed” (italics added).

To be sure, this message needs to be interpreted in its wider context in Isaiah 1–39, the entire book of Isaiah—indeed, the biblical tradition as a whole. This is neither the only nor the last word. But readers, and especially modern readers, tend to move over it too quickly. Is it ever possible that the Word of God, the truth for the present and future, is the proclamation of judgment? The Word of God is not a dogma, requiring the same proclamation in all times and places. Thus there is a time and an occasion not only for judgment, but also for salvation. We could miss the yes because we have not heard the no.

Do circumstances have to get worse before they can get better? Something like that is suggested in the final form of Isaiah 6. With that glimmer of hope in the final line, “the holy seed is its stump,” the editors of the text did not deny the announcement of disaster—in fact, they may have experienced it—but they could see beyond judgment.

3. Undergirding this text, including the call of the prophet and his horrible commission, is a profound understanding of God. Virtually every line emphasizes that God is holy. The prophetic account of standing in the awesome presence of God describes what many have considered to be the heart of religious experience. The experience is both mysterious and awesome.87 To encounter that presence is to acknowledge one’s own imperfection. Does one need such a dramatic encounter to experience God, the Holy One?

If one reads only 6:3 and 8, then Isaiah becomes a text for Trinity Sunday in Christian lectionaries. The threefold “holy” and the Lord’s self-reference in the plural (“who will go for us”) were, for the early church, obvious references to the Trinity. The famous Christian hymn “Holy, Holy, Holy” derives in part from this text. But the text is not about the Trinity, a doctrine that arose in the early church long after the Bible had been written. This text does, however, reflect the experience of God that leads to such a doctrine. It includes all the essential elements: First, God is experienced as transcendent and all-powerful. The hem of the Lord’s robe alone fills the Temple; thus a metaphor of size or dimension expresses the inexpressible. Second, God’s presence fills the whole earth. Third, with the call and the active word, God intervenes in history through a human vessel.

<Page 105 ends>><Page 106 begins>>

tom collinge said:

Sogol said:

Yes, I am eagerly awaiting this one too.

It looks so close. Is there anything (reasonable) we can do to help get it into production?

Wait for another year or so.  IMHO, everyone who is going to purchase the set has already signed up for it.  Therefore, we have to wait for more new users who know how great this set is.

You are probably right but if Logos looked at from another angel they might find that getting this into their format brings more people to Logos, They have to make their own decisions but I am sure they would find may additional orders once it was available. I came across several people not willing to preorder it but saying they will likely buy it when it comes out. Logos stands to lose out if it comes to other platforms before it comes out on Logos. I for one will be happy to have it in either OliveTree or Accordance. The bulk of my Library is in Logos so here it would be good but the other two platforms are very well done so would be happy with it. And while accordance would not draw tons of purchasers away since it is Macintosh/iOS only, OliveTree works on Mac/windows/iOS/Android.

-Dan

George Somsel said:

Dan Francis said:

You are probably right but if Logos looked at from another angel

Which angel is that?  Gabriel, Michael?

Typo of course [8-|] ANGLE …however were we blessed with the viewpoint of an Angel we might find human ideas are something worth noting, since it is in peters turn a phrase "good news by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven--things into which angels long to look!" Although i am quite sure often times angels must simply shake their heads. But then all we can do is trust the Holy Spirit to guide us where Christ will lead.

-Dan

John said:

I am already subscribed to NIB online as a part of a service the publisher offers along with many other references. Got tired of waiting!

John

While I am sad to hear that but not surprised. I suspect that this will happen more and more. I have stated my intent to pull out if it comes available from someone else. Logos could have made itself the first out and the one most people would have flocked to to get it on their computers/mobile device. I have already come to the conclusion that this resource is not likely to make it into Logos. As I said earlier if it was just accordance they were going to be competing against there would be no issue for Logos, but most all New Interpreter's stuff has been released on OliveTree, the full 12 volume has not been announced but if it ever is likely will be the death nail for Logos' chances of getting it.

-Dan

Sogol said:

Yes, thanks, Bill!

On my screen, the bar is at 4.8 of 5.5 centimeters (~87%). 

I have known i think 3 others in the past 2 weeks saying they had just ordered it, but haven't noticed any movements at all…. If someone from Logos is out there can you tell us how many more orders are needed. Not that we are able to do too much about it, but it would be nice to know 100 more people need to order it or 15 more… 

-dan

PS: Maybe we need a prayer chain….. "Oh Holy Spirit move the hearts of those who love the study of your Word to  help bring the New Interpreter's Bible to Logos." But in all seriousness, if i could only own one commentary without a doubt it would be NIB, allowed 4 it would be NIB, WBC, DSB, Interpretation, so as you see my other 3 favourites are there, heck I was ecstatic when the OT of the Daily Study Bible appeared on my iPad a couple weeks ago. NIB will come in good time to one program or another.

George Somsel said:

Dan Francis said:

It has been on the home page a few times, I would be happier if Logos would correct the NIB page to reflect 97 contributors, not 18 as it now states. On on their blog announcing the price drop. It just is super frustrating that even though there are many new orders, it's only about where it was before the price drop.

One of the problems with this is that Leander Keck is listed as either the author or as one of the authors on quite a number of the volumes.  A broader base of contributors would be desireable.  I don't think Keck is quite up to the caliber of a John Calvin.

Who wrote the NIB??? 

Keck ONLY Wrote the Introduction, he was the general editor, the above link lists the complete 97 contributors. THIS is what i was saying Logos is refusing to correct the information page, I say refusing because it has been pointed out several times. This is the same as claiming Frank E. Gaebelein (General Editor) wrote the whole Expositors Bible Commentary.

-Dan

Logos has updated the product page, http://www.logos.com/product/8803/new-interpreters-bible now lists all the authors even though total count is still wrong now 45 vs 18 previously listed but still far from the 95 that there are… This has be corrected too…listing 94, which I assume is the correct count. It;s nice to see Logos putting this right, it may not bring a lot more people around but it sets the facts out there anyway. Thank you Bob, for getting marketing to update things.

-Dan