Who is Elihu?

[christophernyc]

I agree with you when you say God stated that Satan had God move against Job without cause. Satan’s cause was to destroy Job. Satan had said Job would not bless God if something bad happened to his possessions, and Satan was wrong. Job did bless God. This makes Satan’s cause unjust.

This first test does not state what God’s cause was for allowing Job’s loss of possessions. It is my opinion that Job was not saved, and his soul was heading for the pit, as we read in Job 33:24. Then he is gracious unto him, and saith, Deliver him from going down to the pit: I have found a ransom.

God’s purpose for allowing Satan to take Job’s possessions was to get Job’s attention so that he might put on God’s righteousness in place of his own righteousness.

The second test turned out far different.

So Job suffers the loss of his possessions "without cause" in the first test, and responds by saying, "Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither: the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD."

The first test is without cause, and there is nothing written in chapter 2 to indicate the second test was any different. We see satan using the same tactic, except this time he raises the stakes by attacking Job's well-being (which quite literally brings Job to the brink of death by the end). So what is Job's response to this second test? Even when prompted by his own wife to curse God (as satan had again falsely predicted) Job does not curse God. What does Job do instead? "But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?" Job's attitude is one of acceptance. He willingly and humbly accepts the evil that has come upon him and refuses to curse God.

What follows is Job being accused by his friends for having sinned to incur this punishment and Job (rightly) arguing that it's not because he had sinned. He has to go to great lengths to explain himself because his friends refuse to believe him. Job is also consistently crying out to God wondering himself why this has happened to him with the aim of having his relationship with God restored. Job is satisfied at the end when God appears to him and does this very thing.

 

[tttallison]

So Job suffers the loss of his possessions "without cause" in the first test, and responds by saying, "Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither: the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD."

The first test is without cause, and there is nothing written in chapter 2 to indicate the second test was any different. We see satan using the same tactic, except this time he raises the stakes by attacking Job's well-being (which quite literally brings Job to the brink of death by the end). So what is Job's response to this second test? Even when prompted by his own wife to curse God (as satan had again falsely predicted) Job does not curse God. What does Job do instead? "But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?" Job's attitude is one of acceptance. He willingly and humbly accepts the evil that has come upon him and refuses to curse God.

You are missing so much here.

You need to lay out the two tests side by side and see what is different. The lines of the two tests are identical, except for what is actually different.

First consider what Satan's challenge was. It was not that Job would start calling God names, but that Job would not bless God. Here are the two Hebrew words from which "curse" is translated, as listed in Strong's. The first Hebrew word is "barak" Strongs H1288 which occurs 330 times and is translated bless 302 of those times. In Job 1:11 we see "barak" Strong's H1288 along with "lo" Strong's H3808 which means not, or no, or never. These two Hebrew words, "bless not" comes the translated English word "curse".

Now look in the first test where Job blessed God. Job 1:21b "the Lord gave and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord. After the second test Job does not bless God.

Job said, "shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil. In Lamentations 3:38-39 it says, "Out of the most high proceedeth not evil and good? Where fore does a living man complain, a man for the punishment of his sins?"

The next thing out of Job's mouth was to curse his day, and his mother's womb.

After the first test it is stated that Job did not sin, nor charge God foolishly. After the second test it is stated Job did not sin with his lips. It does not state that Job did not sin, only that Job did not sin with his lips. But remember, after the second test Job did not bless God.

After the first test God reported that Job had held his integrity, and after the second test God is silent.

After the second test God did not report that Job retained his integrity.

 

[christophernyc]

You are missing so much here.

You need to lay out the two tests side by side and see what is different. The lines of the two tests are identical, except for what is actually different.

First consider what Satan's challenge was. It was not that Job would start calling God names, but that Job would not bless God. Here are the two Hebrew words from which "curse" is translated, as listed in Strong's. The first Hebrew word is "barak" Strongs H1288 which occurs 330 times and is translated bless 302 of those times. In Job 1:11 we see "barak" Strong's H1288 along with "lo" Strong's H3808 which means not, or no, or never. These two Hebrew words, "bless not" comes the translated English word "curse".

Now look in the first test where Job blessed God. Job 1:21b "the Lord gave and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord. After the second test Job does not bless God.

Job said, "shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil. In Lamentations 3:38-39 it says, "Out of the most high proceedeth not evil and good? Where fore does a living man complain, a man for the punishment of his sins?"

The next thing out of Job's mouth was to curse his day, and his mother's womb.

After the first test it is stated that Job did not sin, nor charge God foolishly. After the second test it is stated Job did not sin with his lips. It does not state that Job did not sin, only that Job did not sin with his lips. But remember, after the second test Job did not bless God.

After the first test God reported that Job had held his integrity, and after the second test God is silent.

After the second test God did not report that Job retained his integrity.

So is it your opinion that satan's prediction of Job about the second test was correct?

barak: To bless, to kneel
Original Word: בָרַךְ
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: barak
Pronunciation: bah-rahk
Phonetic Spelling: (baw-rak')
Definition: To bless, to kneel
Meaning: to kneel, to bless God, man, to curse

Besides the literal definition, the meaning of a word and its context must also be considered. Notice “barak” also means “to curse”, which is how nearly every translation has translated Job 1:11 and Job 2:5. It’s quite clear that satan is predicting Job will curse God if Job suffers without cause in both tests.

The additional giveaway is in the wording that follows satan's predictions. According to satan, Job will curse God to His face. If it’s about Job "not blessing" God, how would Job "not bless" God to His face? How does that work? That would be very weird syntax. According to your interpretation then it would make much more sense for satan to simply say "Job will not bless You." Adding “to Your face” to that interpretation of "barak" would not make any sense.

But if we understand the meaning of “barak” as curse then the expression “to Your face” makes much more sense. Satan is predicting that Job will curse God to His face, not that Job will simply not bless God. So it seems more likely that satan's prediction is not about Job "not blessing" God, but his prediction is about Job "cursing" God.

So Job suffers without cause in both tests, and in both tests he does not curse God to His face. Yes, Job's replies are different in both tests, but the nature of both Job's replies in Job 1:21 and Job 2:10 show an attitude of humility and an acceptance of what God has allowed to be done. Job's responses both prove satan to be wrong in his predictions as Job never curses God.

 

[tttallison]

So is it your opinion that satan's prediction of Job about the second test was correct?

barak: To bless, to kneel
Original Word: בָרַךְ
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: barak
Pronunciation: bah-rahk
Phonetic Spelling: (baw-rak')
Definition: To bless, to kneel
Meaning: to kneel, to bless God, man, to curse

Besides the literal definition, the meaning of a word and its context must also be considered. Notice “barak” also means “to curse”, which is how nearly every translation has translated Job 1:11 and Job 2:5. It’s quite clear that satan is predicting Job will curse God if Job suffers without cause in both tests.

The Hebrew word "barak" does not mean to curse any more than good means evil, or light means dark, or cold means hot. The only time "barak" means curse is when there is a negative connotation, such as bless not. When you say it is not good, the connotation is that it is evil. Hot never means cold, unless the word "not" is applied, as in "not hot".

When Job first uses the word curse it is a different Hebrew word. Job 3:8 let them curse it that curse (H779) the day, who are ready to raise up (Satan.)

We find in Job 1:11 the words "bless not" (barak lo).

If we look at Job 1:5 Job states that his sons may not have blessed God in their hearts. This is different than expressing it with the mouth. Job expresses this thought in Job 42:2, when Job acknowledges that no thought can be withheld from God. Here in lies the two methods of sinning.

Job did not bless God after the second test, nor did God state that Job had retained his integrity, as in the first test.

 

[christophernyc]

The Hebrew word "barak" does not mean to curse any more than good means evil, or light means dark, or cold means hot. The only time "barak" means curse is when there is a negative connotation, such as bless not. When you say it is not good, the connotation is that it is evil. Hot never means cold, unless the word "not" is applied, as in "not hot".

When Job first uses the word curse it is a different Hebrew word. Job 3:8 let them curse it that curse (H779) the day, who are ready to raise up (Satan.)

We find in Job 1:11 the words "bless not" (barak lo).

If we look at Job 1:5 Job states that his sons may not have blessed God in their hearts. This is different than expressing it with the mouth. Job expresses this thought in Job 42:2, when Job acknowledges that no thought can be withheld from God. Here in lies the two methods of sinning.

Job did not bless God after the second test, nor did God state that Job had retained his integrity, as in the first test.

It seems very reductionary to make the understanding of the use of this word here so black and white. We already know hot does not mean cold, and that bless is not literally defined as curse. But what we can do is ask what the expression of this word in Job 1:11 and Job 2:5 actually means in its context. Seeing a seeming contradiction like this one, it’s worth investigating to find out why.

Perhaps this verse in Proverbs 27:14 can help inform us of the meaning of bless and curse and how the word is being expressed in these instances. It says, “He that blesseth his friend with a loud voice, rising early in the morning, it shall be counted a curse to him.” There is blessing, and then there is blessing so exaggeratedly that it becomes a curse. So there is evidence of how the word “barak” correlates and could be used to mean curse.

Understanding this correlation of how “barak” is expressed in Job 1:11 and Job 2:5 comports then with what satan falsely claims (twice) about Job.

Also, there was no response in your last reply about how nearly every translation of Job translates the word “barak” as “curse” instead of “bless not” in these two instances. What is your opinion about the fact that most translations use the word “curse” instead? Are they all wrong? Or are they maybe translating the intention of this word in its context, even though it’s technically definitionally different?

Following that, how do you explain the meaning of the word “barak” when Job’s wife uses it in Job 2:9? Is she urging him to actually “bless” God? Do you think she is literally saying “Bless God and die?” And if that's the case, then how do you explain Job’s response to her where he encourages her to accept what God has allowed to happen?

Finally, your response did not address the obvious syntax of “barak” in conjunction with the words “to Your face”. Do you have a response? How would Job “not bless” God to His face? How does that work exactly? Again, why does satan not just say Job will not bless God? Why does he add “to Your face”? Can you explain?

 

[tttallison]

It seems very reductionary to make the understanding of the use of this word here so black and white. We already know hot does not mean cold, and that bless is not literally defined as curse. But what we can do is ask what the expression of this word in Job 1:11 and Job 2:5 actually means in its context. Seeing a seeming contradiction like this one, it’s worth investigating to find out why.

Does "not true" mean false? Is there any occasion where true actually means false without a negative?(he will curse H1288➔ H3808)

Perhaps this verse in Proverbs 27:14 can help inform us of the meaning of bless and curse and how the word is being expressed in these instances. It says, “He that blesseth his friend with a loud voice, rising early in the morning, it shall be counted a curse to him.” There is blessing, and then there is blessing so exaggeratedly that it becomes a curse. So there is evidence of how the word “barak” correlates and could be used to mean curse.

Understanding this correlation of how “barak” is expressed in Job 1:11 and Job 2:5 comports then with what satan falsely claims (twice) about Job.

Where is the correlation? There is no changing of the meaning of "barak". The man did not curse him in the morning.

Also, there was no response in your last reply about how nearly every translation of Job translates the word “barak” as “curse” instead of “bless not” in these two instances. What is your opinion about the fact that most translations use the word “curse” instead? Are they all wrong? Or are they maybe translating the intention of this word in its context, even though it’s technically definitionally different?

I don't know why. I do know that "not true" correlates to false.

Following that, how do you explain the meaning of the word “barak” when Job’s wife uses it in Job 2:9? Is she urging him to actually “bless” God? Do you think she is literally saying “Bless God and die?” And if Tthat's the case, then how do you explain Job’s response toIher where he encourages her to accept what God has allowed to happen?

I would have to assume the application of a negative there as found in Job 1:11.

Finally, your response did not address the obvious syntax of “barak” in conjunction with the words “to Your face”. Do you have a response? How would Job “not bless” God to His face? How does that work exactly? Again, why does satan not just say Job will not bless God? Why does he add “to Your face”? Can you explain?

There are two methods of sinning. One is verbal, and the other is with the heart. You can bless God with your heart, or you can bless God with your lips.

The term "to his face" expresses the method.

 

[christophernyc]

Does "not true" mean false? Is there any occasion where true actually means false without a negative?(he will curse H1288➔ H3808)

Yes, the occasion would be when someone is using sarcasm.

Also, here is what I found to the Blue Letter Bible link you provided H1288:

KJV Translation Count — Total: 330x
The KJV translates Strong's H1288 in the following manner: bless (302x), salute (5x), curse (4x), blaspheme (2x), blessing (2x), praised (2x), kneel down (2x), congratulate (1x), kneel (1x), make to kneel (1x), miscellaneous (8x).

Outline of Biblical Usage

1. to bless, kneel
   1. (Qal)
      1. to kneel
      2. to bless
   2. (Niphal) to be blessed, bless oneself
   3. (Piel) to bless
   4. (Pual) to be blessed, be adored
   5. (Hiphil) to cause to kneel
   6. (Hithpael) to bless oneself
2. (TWOT) to praise, salute, curse

Strong’s Definitions (Strong’s Definitions Legend)
בָּרַךְ bârak, baw-rak'; a primitive root; to kneel; by implication to bless God (as an act of adoration), and (vice-versa) man (as a benefit); also (by euphemism) to curse (God or the king, as treason):—× abundantly, × altogether, × at all, blaspheme, bless, congratulate, curse, × greatly, × indeed, kneel (down), praise, salute, × still, thank.


Did you notice that the word "curse" is included here in addition to the other definitions. Why is that?

 

[tttallison]

Yes, the occasion would be when someone is using sarcasm.

Also, here is what I found to the Blue Letter Bible link you provided H1288:

KJV Translation Count — Total: 330x
The KJV translates Strong's H1288 in the following manner: bless (302x), salute (5x), curse (4x), blaspheme (2x), blessing (2x), praised (2x), kneel down (2x), congratulate (1x), kneel (1x), make to kneel (1x), miscellaneous (8x).

Outline of Biblical Usage

1. to bless, kneel
   1. (Qal)
      1. to kneel
      2. to bless
   2. (Niphal) to be blessed, bless oneself
   3. (Piel) to bless
   4. (Pual) to be blessed, be adored
   5. (Hiphil) to cause to kneel
   6. (Hithpael) to bless oneself
2. (TWOT) to praise, salute, curse

Strong’s Definitions (Strong’s Definitions Legend)
בָּרַךְ bârak, baw-rak'; a primitive root; to kneel; by implication to bless God (as an act of adoration), and (vice-versa) man (as a benefit); also (by euphemism) to curse (God or the king, as treason):—× abundantly, × altogether, × at all, blaspheme, bless, congratulate, curse, × greatly, × indeed, kneel (down), praise, salute, × still, thank.


Did you notice that the word "curse" is included here in addition to the other definitions. Why is that?

Yes, I noticed that they included curse in the definitions of "barak". Of the 300 plus times that barak is translated into English only four times is it translated curse, and one of those times we can observe the Hebrew word "lo" meaning "not" from which we get bless not, or if you will to curse. To not bless God is to curse God, for there is no middle ground. We see Job blessing God after the first test, but Job does not bless God after the second test.

If you lay the two tests out together you will see what the obvious differences are between the results of the two tests. One of the most obvious is that Job does not bless God after the second test, nor does God announce that Job retained his integrity. What does occur is Job curses his day, and the word Job uses that is translated curse is not "barak". In the first test Job blessed God with his lips, and in the second test Job did not bless God with his lips, and we are not told whether Job blessed God with his heart. Remember, that is what Job said about his sons, that they might curse God with their hearts.

God has no conversation with Job himself until the 38 chapter, where God said "Who is this that speaks without knowledge." Job had reproved God and exalted himself above God. So, when did Job lose his integrity?

 

[christophernyc]

Where is the correlation? There is no changing of the meaning of "barak". The man did not curse him in the morning.

(Circling back real quick to respond to your question from earlier...)

Nobody is saying the man "cursed" his friend in the morning in Proverbs 27:14. If you see it, the point of the proverb is to express how blessing someone inappropriately (i.e., in this instance “loudly in the morning”) would have the opposite effect of blessing. Delivering a blessing to his friend in an improper way would then be experienced the same as if he had delivered a curse to his friend.

 

[posthuman]

what does it really mean tho, equivalently, if one refuses to bless God?
is it not effectively equivalent to cursing Him?

whoever does not believe is condemned already - - there is no fence to sit on.