Quote:
Originally Posted by k.seymore  Job's pain after their death is where the story deals with their loss as human beings, the beginning and the end of the story are considering the loss of the children from the perspective of being Job's seed. They are something about of Job that continues after Job dies. Job's seed continues after his death even though for a brief time it looked like his name would be forgotten forever. Looking at it from this perspective it does not matter who his children are. The book doesn't tell us what the children were each personally like, it isn't interested in telling their story but Job's.
If I were to say the following I would not speaking directly about all the intrinsic value of lost individual human beings:
"My city's population sharply decreased last year because of a mysterious illness to the point where there not enough people to fill all of the jobs that were needed to keep the whole city going. But now there has been an influx of brave souls who have come in from other cities and the city is prospering"
If one reads what I said above thinking I'm referring to someone's brother and mother and friend who died, they might think I'm saying their loved ones have replacements. But that simply isn't what is meant.
I don't know if that helps. |
Having spent a fair amount of time among Bedouins in the desert, I think your observation is pretty good. There is, even now, a strong desire for posterity among the near-east orientals. Even among university educated Arabs, for instance, the most important thing a man can be called is "Abu" or father.
Paul, I'd really like to address your questions about the Hebrew, but I'm pressed for time. Let me give a thumbnail view here. I think neither Job nor the writer of Job discounted the intrinsic value of human life. Rather, the view seems more akin to "what's done is done, may God be blessed." This is a common cultural view among the ancient mid-easterners, and I'd suggest it stems from an acknowledgment that God is sovereign over all things. The view permeates Genesis, and I think the men of Job's period had the same world-view.
When reading the Hebrew, try to imagine hearing the words around a desert campfire, spoken by the elder herdsman who actually knew the man who knew Job. (I'm speculating, of course, and I know the Holy Spirit preserved it). It might give a sense of the strange romance of the era. It isn't a matter of whether Job understood the resurrection or not, rather, he understood that he was facing a mystery. His statement that he will see his redeemer is not black and white and he knows it. It is a manifestation of eastern world-view that we westerners haven't seen first hand.
This is a ramble, I know, but I'm trying to say that the old bedouins think both literally and figuratively at the same time. Their tradition views experience as already-not-yet without being conscious of it. I think the same thing was happening with Job.