Internet Dialogue on Job
Moshe Ben-Chaim
Christine: Another question regarding what
Job’s wife said has come up that about 700 people on the Herman Melville list
are discussing regarding the book of Job. My Tanach says she tells Job to
“blaspheme” God and die in chapter 2. Another member is claiming a book written
on errors in translation says this passage has been mistranslated, that it
should be “bless” God and die. If you could shed some light on this it would be
helpful to a lot of people.
Thank you, Christine
Moshe Ben-Chaim: The Rabbis taught that the word “bless” here indicates the
opposite. But since God is the recipient of this curse, the Torah veers away
from making such a statement to teach how far from reality one is who curses
his Maker. The Torah doesn’t even want to utter the phrase “curse God.”
Additionally, the context makes no sense if he is to truly bless God, and then
die. Why would blessing God be evil and cause his death? Job himself says right
after this verse, “shall we take the good and not the bad?” Meaning, this is
bad that has come upon him, so a blessing makes no sense as his wife suggested.
He is rebuking her for suggesting a wrong response. He is telling her,
“although in pain, shall I curse God and not accept even the evil in life?”
It is clear that “bless” means curse in this case.
Gordon: I like
Rabbi Moshe Ben-Chaim’s argumentation and tend to think that on this one, the
Protestants have got it right: “bless” stands for “curse.” The Catholics were
detoured by an excess of philology and a defect of good sense. I think the
meaning of Job’s wife’s remark may be something like: “So, what are you going
to do? Curse God, then die?!” With her irony, she is helping him along the
right path. Thanks, Tamar.
Moshe Ben-Chaim: Gordon, Job’s wife was not being sarcastic, but really meant
for him to be done with his torturous pain by literally cursing God, and then
dying by God’s hands. This is proved by Job’s response, “Shall we take the good
and not the bad?” Meaning, he was thereby critiquing his wife for her
suggestion that he abandon the bad in life by talking the easy way out and
bringing his sudden death by cursing God.
Phil: As many others have already pointed out, the book of Job seems to have had a strong impact on Melville. My own sense is that the character of Job served as a model for Ahab. They both have undergone physical and psychological trauma, they have a strong sense of indignation and outrage, they have been warned by pious bystanders about how they should behave, and they pursue their course according to their own internal compass, rather than external advice.
Tamar:
Ahab cursed God and died, losing everything. Job did not curse God, lived and
had his losses replaced. Job was, ahem, a camel who went through the proverbial
eye of the needle so to speak....a rich man who had a strong and trusting
relationship with God. And the Lord even gave Job twice as much as he had
before, when he prayed versus cursed. Job maintained his integrity. Ahab did
not. Ahab made a covenant with Satan. Satan is openly portrayed in the Book of
Job as a corrupter of men. Ahab went for the bait while Job resisted Satan’s
attacks upon him and his family.
I note that in chapter one that Job was concerned for his children, that they
might have “sinned, and cursed God in their hearts.” He offered burnt offer
rings for them “continually” lest this be the case. I further note that the
concept of “cursing God” is focused on repeatedly in chapter one. Satan
challenged God that he could get Job to curse God to his face two different
times, first when his possessions and ten children were taken from him without
cause and secondly when he touched Job himself with sore boils from head to
foot.
So the whole purpose of all these series of disastrous events was for one
thing....for Satan to get Job to curse God to His face. It looks to me that
Satan used Mrs. Job’s tongue to help get the “job” done. And especially after
losing ten children in one fell swoop, it must have been a pretty tempting possibility.
But he withstood the temptation. Job was a man of great faith. Ahab was a man
of no faith.
Moshe Ben-Chaim: Keep in mind; “Satan” here refers to Job’s corrupt, underlying philosophy.
There is no creature called Satan. It is God’s method of describing Job’s own
deficient views. God depicts Job’s opinions as “Satan”. Job felt, as long as
life is good, he would follow God. Thus, if he lacked some of his good in life,
he would not follow God. Job’s evil counsel is referred to as “Satan”.
God afflicts Job based on his own lack of knowledge and
perfection, although he did not sin in action. Thus, we learn that God may
allow tragedy to affect someone who is not perfect. But once Job heard Elihu’s
words, and God’s words, he learned new truths and perfected himself. This is
why he received his good life again, in greater measure than before, for now,
he was good in greater measure.
Jake: I’m not exactly sure of the specifics, but there seems to be a debate on “The Adversary” in Job. Is he the same as Satan? I think many Christians would say that it is. I don’t know the specifics of the Jewish beliefs, Rabbi... but from what I understand you do not believe in Satan as an actual being, so of course Job would be less of a battle between good and evil and more of a test of humanity. Many people I have seen (including myself) see a very disturbing picture painted in Job, mostly through the image of Satan. Why would god take up a bet with Satan? Why would he ruin a poor innocent man’s life just to prove himself more powerful than Satan?
Moshe Ben-Chaim: Job was subject to his tragedies only until he corrected his
deficient knowledge, and even this correction, was by God’s graciousness.
Maimonides points to the omission of the appellations “intelligent” and “wise”
in reference to Job. Although upright, he lacked wisdom. It behooves us to
review Maimonides clues to the book of Job:
“…listen to the following useful instruction given by our
Sages, who in truth deserve the title of “wise men” - it makes clear that which
appears doubtful, and reveals that which has been hidden, and discloses most of
the mysteries of the Law. They said in the Talmud as follows: “R. Simeon, son
of Lakish, says, “The adversary (Satan) evil inclination (yezer ha-ra’), and
the angel of death, are one and the same being.” Here we find all that has been
mentioned by us in such a dear manner that no intelligent person will be in
doubt about it. It has thus been shown to you that one and the same thing is
designated by these three different terms, and that actions ascribed to these
three are in reality the actions of one and the same agent. Again, the ancient
doctors of the Talmud said, “The adversary goes about and misleads, then he
goes up and accuses, obtains permission, and takes the soul.” (Guide for the
Perplexed, Book III, Chap. XXII)
The entire “so to speak” discussion between God and Satan must
be understood as a metaphor. We see above that Maimonides clarifies Satan to be
man’s evil inclination. Which man are we discussing here? It is Job; Satan here
refers to Job’s instincts. When the Satan says, “put forth thine hand
now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face” this refers to Jobs sense of
justice, i.e., Job ultimately felt obligated to God as long as he possessed his
health. His children and wealth were taken from him at first; yet, he did not
rebel until his was stricken with boils. (Maimonides highlights this point)
Only then did Job curse the day he was born. And it was this corruption that
God euphemistically says, “should smite him”. This means that Job’s incorrect
philosophy (Satan) was the reason why he was smitten. It is worthwhile to read
all of Maimonides words in this chapter.
Job sought to find answers, and exposed the false philosophies
of his three friends, Bildad, Tzofar and Elifaz. God later validated his
arguments defending God’s justice, but Job required additional wisdom. Elihu
and God eventually penetrated his mind, and with Job’s recognition of new
ideas, he was worthy of God’s intervention, and was restored to even greater
stature.
Jake, What you thought was God’s “bet with Satan”, was in fact a
conversation which never took place: God’s “address to Satan”, was really, God
verbalizing for us from where came Job’s tragedies; it was from his false
views. One, who is ignorant, as Maimonides teaches earlier in his Guide,
removes him from God, and is subject to what might befall him through nature,
or man. Interesting is that these two causes – nature and man – were
responsible for Job’s tragedies. And what you thought was God destroying some
“poor innocent man’s life”, was in fact, God perfecting someone who possessed
false ideas.
There is much more to be said about these opening chapters of
Job.