Ticciati on Job's Dilemma

I hope to blog on this extremely well written book. This morning I looked ahead to the Hebrew section and was pleased to find it focus on the מוכיח arbiter/umpire of chapter 9 and to link this to the bi-directional intercessory role of the prophet in Israel. Then I realized I was not being patient, so I went back to the theological sections. I will repeat her word study in a later post with a full listing of the uses of יכח - prove, reprove, etc since this is a theme in Job (15 occurrences - earlier study here).

Her first three-word summary of Barth's 6-million-word Dogmatics is the link in his commentary on Job to 1. the pure, 2. the suffering, and 3. the speaking forms of God's relationship to Christ. Ticciati summarizes Barth's relating of this to the threefold structure of Job. She intends to prevent the closing of the questions raised by Barth's relating of 3 to 3. (Her introduction reminds me of Frye's advice noted here.) The issue relates to the question - is it the same Job in the frame as in the poem? Also to be remembered is the question - why is Job not more explicitly used in the NT? Or are there veiled allusions as I have suggested in a few places? (Note the strong relationship, for instance, of Ephesians 1 to Job 42 in the matter of inheritance and those things that are prepared.)

Here is a paragraph of her summary.

... the matter in which [Job] is both right and wrong.] Job is right insofar as he recognizes that it is still his God who appears to him in this alien form, thus acknowledging God's freedom to adopt this alien form as such. However, Job can no longer recognize in this alien form the familiar contours of his own God, with whom he existed in a relationship [the pure] characterized by blessing on the one side and righteous obedience [for naught] on the other. And on the basis of this known relationship, he demands [the speaking] that God put off his alien form [the suffering], revealing himself once more as the God Job knows him to be. Job holds up his preconception of God as a standard to which God must conform, thus denying God's freedom to be God in the other form in which he now appears. This constitutes Job's wrong.

The note about hand would confirm the identity two of the forms in which God appears.

The story-telling frame

Here's a first query on the frame. Where does the story-telling connector וַיְהִי occur in Job? Only here.

ג וַיְהִי מִקְנֵהוּ שִׁבְעַת אַלְפֵי צֹאן וּשְׁלֹשֶׁת אַלְפֵי גְמַלִּים וַחֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת צֶמֶד בָּקָר וַחֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת אֲתוֹנוֹת וַעֲבֻדָּה רַבָּה מְאֹד וַיְהִי הָאִישׁ הַהוּא גָּדוֹל מִכָּל בְּנֵי קֶדֶם	1.03	and these were his acquisitions seven thousand sheep and three thousand camels and five hundred pair of oxen and five hundred she-donkeys and servants - a very great service and so it was the man, this very one who was great among all the children of antiquity
ה וַיְהִי כִּי הִקִּיפוּ יְמֵי הַמִּשְׁתֶּה וַיִּשְׁלַח אִיּוֹב וַיְקַדְּשֵׁם וְהִשְׁכִּים בַּבֹּקֶר וְהֶעֱלָה עֹלוֹת מִסְפַּר כֻּלָּם כִּי אָמַר אִיּוֹב אוּלַי חָטְאוּ בָנַי וּבֵרְכוּ אֱלֹהִים בִּלְבָבָם כָּכָה יַעֲשֶׂה אִיּוֹב כָּל הַיָּמִים	1.05	And after the striking off of party days, Job would send and sanctify them rising early in the morning to offer burnt offerings for each of them for Job said Perhaps my sons have sinned and blessed God in their hearts Thus did Job all his days
ו וַיְהִי הַיּוֹם וַיָּבֹאוּ בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים לְהִתְיַצֵּב עַל יְהוָה וַיָּבוֹא גַם הַשָּׂטָן בְּתוֹכָם	1.06	And there was the day when the children of God came and presented themselves before יְהוָה and among them the accuser also came
יג וַיְהִי הַיּוֹם וּבָנָיו וּבְנֹתָיו אֹכְלִים וְשֹׁתִים יַיִן בְּבֵית אֲחִיהֶם הַבְּכוֹר	1.13	And it happened the day his sons and daughters were eating and drinking wine in the house of their firstborn brother
א וַיְהִי הַיּוֹם וַיָּבֹאוּ בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים לְהִתְיַצֵּב עַל יְהוָה וַיָּבוֹא גַם הַשָּׂטָן בְּתֹכָם לְהִתְיַצֵּב עַל יְהוָה	2.01	And there was the day when the children of God came and presented themselves before יְהוָה and among them the accuser also came to present himself before יְהוָה
לא וַיְהִי לְאֵבֶל כִּנֹּרִי וְעֻגָבִי לְקוֹל בֹּכִים	30.31	and my harp is become 'of lament' and my pipes 'of the voice of those who weep'
ז וַיְהִי אַחַר דִּבֶּר יְהוָה אֶת הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה אֶל אִיּוֹב וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל אֱלִיפַז הַתֵּימָנִי חָרָה אַפִּי בְךָ וּבִשְׁנֵי רֵעֶיךָ כִּי לֹא דִבַּרְתֶּם אֵלַי נְכוֹנָה כְּעַבְדִּי אִיּוֹב	42.07	And it happened after יְהוָה had spoken the words - these ones - to Job that יְהוָה said to Eliphaz the Temanite: my wrath burns in you and your two friends - for you have not spoken of me what is prepared as has my servant Job.
יב וַיהוָה בֵּרַךְ אֶת אַחֲרִית אִיּוֹב מֵרֵאשִׁתוֹ וַיְהִי לוֹ אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר אֶלֶף צֹאן וְשֵׁשֶׁת אֲלָפִים גְּמַלִּים וְאֶלֶף צֶמֶד בָּקָר וְאֶלֶף אֲתוֹנוֹת	42.12	And יְהוָה blessed Job's end more than his beginning and it came to him fourteen thousand sheep and six thousand camels and a thousand pair of oxen and a thousand she-donkeys.
יג וַיְהִי לוֹ שִׁבְעָנָה בָנִים וְשָׁלוֹשׁ בָּנוֹת	42.13	And there were to him seven sons and three daughters

Other forms of to be or become also occur here. In this case it is also a frame for chapter 30. I think these are most of the uses of the Hebrew be or become in Job. This is a good result for me, for it illustrates also how often English uses 'be' in a verb form where in Hebrew it is either omitted altogether or 'understood'. I have been looking for the parsing of 'to be' for some time - and here it is in part in its most common usage in poetry and in the narrative frame.

א אִישׁ הָיָה בְאֶרֶץ עוּץ אִיּוֹב שְׁמוֹ וְהָיָה הָאִישׁ הַהוּא תָּם וְיָשָׁר וִירֵא אֱלֹהִים וְסָר מֵרָע	1.01	A man there was in the land of Uz Job his name and he was, the man, this very one, complete and upright and he fears God and turns away from evil
כא וַיֹּאמֶר עָרֹם יָצָתִי מִבֶּטֶן אִמִּי וְעָרֹם אָשׁוּב שָׁמָּה יְהוָה נָתַן וַיהוָה לָקָח יְהִי שֵׁם יְהוָה מְבֹרָךְ	1.21	and said Naked I came from the belly of my mother and naked I will return there יְהוָה gave and יְהוָה has taken away let the name of יְהוָה be blessed
ד הַיּוֹם הַהוּא יְהִי-חֹשֶׁךְ אַל-יִדְרְשֵׁהוּ אֱלוֹהַּ מִמַּעַל וְאַל-תּוֹפַע עָלָיו נְהָרָה	3.04	That day - let it be darkness let God not seek for it from above nor let a sunbeam on it shine
ז הִנֵּה הַלַּיְלָה הַהוּא יְהִי גַלְמוּד אַל-תָּבוֹא רְנָנָה בוֹ	3.07	behold that night let it be barren let no joyful cry come into it
ז וְהָיָה רֵאשִׁיתְךָ מִצְעָר וְאַחֲרִיתְךָ יִשְׂגֶּה מְאֹד	8.07	and as your beginning was small so your end will increase greatly
יז וּמִצָּהֳרַיִם יָקוּם חָלֶד תָּעֻפָה כַּבֹּקֶר תִּהְיֶה	11.17	and at noon transience will rise and fly away as morning you will become
ח וַתִּקְמְטֵנִי לְעֵד הָיָה וַיָּקָם בִּי כַחֲשִׁי בְּפָנַי יַעֲנֶה	16.08	You have seized me - it becomes witness rising in me is my lie - answering in my face
יח אֶרֶץ אַל-תְּכַסִּי דָמִי וְאַל-יְהִי מָקוֹם לְזַעֲקָתִי	16.18	Earth cover not my blood and let there be no end of place for my outcry
ו וְהִצִּיגַנִי לִמְשֹׁל עַמִּים וְתֹפֶת לְפָנִים אֶהְיֶה	17.06	he has exhibited me as a parable of the peoples and spittle in the face I am become
יב יְהִי-רָעֵב אֹנוֹ וְאֵיד נָכוֹן לְצַלְעוֹ	18.12	famished is his vigor a burden prepared for his rib
טו גָּרֵי בֵיתִי וְאַמְהֹתַי לְזָר תַּחְשְׁבֻנִי נָכְרִי הָיִיתִי בְעֵינֵיהֶם	19.15	Those who abide in my house and my maids count me as a stranger an alien I have become in their eyes
כג יְהִי לְמַלֵּא בִטְנוֹ יְשַׁלַּח-בּוֹ חֲרוֹן אַפּוֹ וְיַמְטֵר עָלֵימוֹ בִּלְחוּמוֹ	20.23	he is to fill his belly and he casts on him the heat of his anger and he will rain on his picnic
ב שִׁמְעוּ שָׁמוֹעַ מִלָּתִי וּתְהִי-זֹאת תַּנְחוּמֹתֵיכֶם	21.02	hear - hear my speech and this will be your comfort
כה וְהָיָה שַׁדַּי בְּצָרֶיךָ וְכֶסֶף תּוֹעָפוֹת לָךְ	22.25	And the Sufficient will become your treasure and silver from great effort will be yours
יד לָאוֹר יָקוּם רוֹצֵחַ יִקְטָל-עָנִי וְאֶבְיוֹן וּבַלַּיְלָה יְהִי כַגַּנָּב	24.14	with the light rises a slayer of needy and poor and in the night there is a thief
ז יְהִי כְרָשָׁע אֹיְבִי וּמִתְקוֹמְמִי כְעַוָּל	27.07	let it be that my enemy is as the wicked and one rising against me as unjust
ט וְעַתָּה נְגִינָתָם הָיִיתִי וָאֱהִי לָהֶם לְמִלָּה	30.09	and now their song I have become and I am to them a speech
כט אָח הָיִיתִי לְתַנִּים וְרֵעַ לִבְנוֹת יַעֲנָה	30.29	brother I have become to a sea-monster and friend to the daughters of an ostrich
לא וַיְהִי לְאֵבֶל כִּנֹּרִי וְעֻגָבִי לְקוֹל בֹּכִים	30.31	and my harp is become 'of lament' and my pipes 'of the voice of those who weep'

Tagged on the 5 books meme

I have been tagged by J.K.Gayle with the 'Books that influenced you most on reading the Bible' meme. Kurk has influenced me or should I say confirmed some other older influencers that I must struggle to remember.

The first and longest lasting Book that influenced my reading of the Bible is the Bible itself - if that can be said to be a 'book'. The Psalms taught me to lament - to point my complaint to the source of my troubles. This is not a religious or an intellectual exercise. Let me call it a whole-body approach to reading. This experience has taught me a certain skepticism towards all other books about the Bible that teach us to read it. There are a few that escape the net of my doubts. It is a personal engagement and honest transparency that I think makes me sit up, take note, and remember their words.

Chief of these is a recent small book: Jonathan Magonet, A Rabbi Reads the Psalms I have always loved structure for its framing ability and the possibility of seeing the ground rather than the figure - opening one's eyes to other possibilities.

Structure reminds me of another influence by the atheist writer, Douglas Hofstader, Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid. Poor Douglas - to think he failed to influence me with the foreground of his argument, but succeeded in delighting me with the background. I can't figure why he himself seems to have left himself so apparently certain about his conclusions. (Other atheists I have read and enjoyed - Bertrand Russel and Richard Dawkins).

Of 'religious' writers, Hans Küng weighs me down with the heaviness of all his books. The one that has influenced my thought on the Bible is his book on The Church. And I am still pondering the mystery of governance.

A name close to my heart is a person whom I did not get to know well enough, but whose son, Gregor, is our CBC morning show host, that is: Peter Craigie, and the book The Problem of War in the Old Testament. The influence was more personal than on a 'content' level.

Another more recent influence is Richard Bauckham. Gospel Women allowed me to see how scholarship could inform imaginative reconstruction without being deliberative - whatever I mean my that! Crossan - another reconstructionist scholar - has ended up in my mind as a man of justice, where justice transcends his deliberative theories. Bauckham allows for reconstruction without a full theory of something else that you have to believe. My own reconstructions and imaginations have receded into my background for the time being.

I am sure I have been unfair and incomplete in these brief recollections. (Whoa - don't forget Mark Nanos and the Mystery of Romans or Lawrence Hoffman, Covenant of Blood. I delight in the reasoning that comes from a Jewish background. Mark and I have our differences but I hope that my questions last in him as his questions have in me. Both Nanos and Hoffman raise questions about our differences that should be front and centre in our discussions of how covenant works.)

I see this meme has gone the rounds so I will refrain from tagging others. Rest assured though, fellow bloggers, I do recognize the influence you have on me - sometimes it glances off and sometimes it sticks.

Afterthoughts - and what about all that English poetry - Donne, Herbert, Milton, ... or even further back, A. A. Milne's Winnie the Pooh and Lewis Carrol's Alice. What would I know about the glory of Capitalization without these two?

One of my employees told me his list too - including the poems of T.S. Eliot and Robert Capon (who has also made me laugh with his The Third Peacock) - but there are so many. I forget some of the old Anglican divines who would shudder at my stance on some things - like Stephen Neill and William Temple - and of course Lewis's The Great Divorce - probably the best exploration of the pattern of the use of the cross of anyone I have read.

tremble, tremble, tremble

Another overlapping set of words - tremble or crush or break or broke or worry or dismay. Sometimes it causes me to ... In particular it causes me to wonder how we are protected from the subjective opinion of the translator as to which word is appropriate in which situation. How can the translator do anything except impose on the reader! How gentle are we! How is transparency achieved? Who is to say what is equivalent? And how confusing and error-prone we can be. A sudden thought ill-considered, not followed up, a break-out of too much complexity at once...

Chapter 31 is almost done - it has caused all this anguish. And gentles, my reading even on the surface differs from some. For example, Job 31:34 below is one that is different - I did not translate opening (פתח) as 'door'. It is not the same door as the door of Job 31:32 (דלת) or the gate (שער) of Job 31:21. I am beginning to think that concordant translation is a good target - even better than I had thought already. I did it first for structure and sound. In this case, the idea of an 'opening' lends itself also to a metaphorical meaning - the word is used twice only in Job as a frame in chapter 31 and it fits both contexts very well.

I pondered printing the remaining chapters in this form, but I think we don't read this form so easily. We need a different space for the words.

ה כִּי עַתָּה תָּבוֹא אֵלֶיךָ וַתֵּלֶא תִּגַּע עָדֶיךָ וַתִּבָּהֵל	4.5	for now it comes to you and you will do nothing it reaches you and you are dismayed
יד פַּחַד קְרָאַנִי וּרְעָדָה וְרֹב עַצְמוֹתַי הִפְחִיד	4.14	dread met me and trembling and my many bones were in dread
יט אַף שֹׁכְנֵי בָתֵּי-חֹמֶר אֲשֶׁר-בֶּעָפָר יְסוֹדָם יְדַכְּאוּם לִפְנֵי-עָשׁ	4.19	as for those that live in clay houses with dust for foundation who are crushed before their maker
ד יִרְחֲקוּ בָנָיו מִיֶּשַׁע וְיִדַּכְּאוּ בַשַּׁעַר וְאֵין מַצִּיל	5.4	his children are far from safety and they are crushed in the gate and there is no one to rescue
ט וְיֹאֵל אֱלוֹהַּ וִידַכְּאֵנִי יַתֵּר יָדוֹ וִיבַצְּעֵנִי	6.9	and God would be humored to crush me that he would let go his hand and finish me
כא כִּי-עַתָּה הֱיִיתֶם לֹא תִּרְאוּ חֲתַת וַתִּירָאוּ	6.21	for now you are with him you see brokenness and you are afraid
יד וְחִתַּתַּנִי בַחֲלֹמוֹת וּמֵחֶזְיֹנוֹת תְּבַעֲתַנִּי	7.14	then you break me with dreams and with visions terrify me
כה הֶעָלֶה נִדָּף תַּעֲרוֹץ וְאֶת-קַשׁ יָבֵשׁ תִּרְדֹּף	13.25	a scattered leaf will worry you? and dry stubble will you hound?
ב עַד-אָנָה תּוֹגְיוּן נַפְשִׁי וּתְדַכְּאוּנַנִי בְמִלִּים	19.2	How long will you grieve my being and crush me with speeches
כו כָּל-חֹשֶׁךְ טָמוּן לִצְפּוּנָיו תְּאָכְלֵהוּ אֵשׁ לֹא-נֻפָּח יֵרַע שָׂרִיד בְּאָהֳלוֹ	20.26	all darkness is buried in his treasures fire not blown consumes him one left in his tent will tremble
ו וְאִם-זָכַרְתִּי וְנִבְהָלְתִּי וְאָחַז בְּשָׂרִי פַּלָּצוּת	21.6	even if I remember and am dismayed and shuddering grasps my flesh
יג יבלו (יְכַלּוּ) בַטּוֹב יְמֵיהֶם וּבְרֶגַע שְׁאוֹל יֵחָתּוּ	21.13	they decay in the good of their days and in a moment to Sheol, they are broken
ט אַלְמָנוֹת שִׁלַּחְתָּ רֵיקָם וּזְרֹעוֹת יְתֹמִים יְדֻכָּא	22.9	widows you have sent away empty and the arms of the orphan are crushed
י עַל-כֵּן סְבִיבוֹתֶיךָ פַחִים וִיבַהֶלְךָ פַּחַד פִּתְאֹם	22.10	therefore on your every side are traps and dread dismays you suddenly
טו עַל-כֵּן מִפָּנָיו אֶבָּהֵל אֶתְבּוֹנֵן וְאֶפְחַד מִמֶּנּוּ	23.15	therefore from his face I am dismayed I am understanding and I have dread from him
טז וְאֵל הֵרַךְ לִבִּי וְשַׁדַּי הִבְהִילָנִי	23.16	for God makes tender my heart and the Sufficient dismays me
לד כִּי אֶעֱרוֹץ הָמוֹן רַבָּה וּבוּז-מִשְׁפָּחוֹת יְחִתֵּנִי וָאֶדֹּם לֹא-אֵצֵא פָתַח	31.34	as if I was worried by a great crowd or broken by the contempt of tribes and I kept silence and did not take the opening

A taste of close reasoning

I am part way through chapter 24. Chapter 25 is done - being only 6 verses, I attacked it before chapter 24. Chapter 24 is quite difficult and seems to have some structure - but I have not finished seeing. I thought you might get a kick out of a diagram I threw together this morning that shows how close almost to rigidity my translation is. The whole diagram is here.

The colours show repeated words - note how 'and not' is repeated in chapter 23 and 'not' by itself in chapter 24. Also note how sometimes a single word gathers all prepositions and pronouns into itself - and sometimes not (e.g. verse 6). I suspect that stylistically, where both possibilities were open to the author, that he chose separate words for a reason.

I left chapter 24 as an exercise if you want one. You can print out this diagram and fill in the blanks. - hmm... a good flashcard exercise - I might even try it myself.

Job 24

Job continues his speech. The subject changes with the first verse of this chapter. Its meaning on first attempt is difficult to hear. Literally -

for what purpose from the Sufficient are times not hidden?
do those knowing him not discern his days?

Tur Sinai suggests that מִשַּׁדַּי לֹא is really one word (just drop the space) from the Syriac meaning hypocrite. That certainly solves one immediate problem. Rather than dropping the 'not' and imaging God as blind to the days of the hypocrite, (which would agree with some of what Job has already implied), we attach the 'not' to the Sufficient and ask why is the hypocrite ('the Sufficient-not' by what is almost a letter game) blind to the times (of punishment)?

Well all this is religiously possible - but is it true? And forget the addition of the words 'of punishment' because the vengeance of God is revealed in time in the death of Jesus. This is an annihilation deeply to be sought (I should be glad of another death), a partaking of (something stronger than) the Hawking radiation around that black hole in time.

for what purpose are times not hidden from the Sufficient?
do those knowing him not discern his days?
for what purpose are times hidden from the not-sufficient i.e. the hypocrite?
do those knowing him not discern his days?

(whose days?)

I must still struggle with it - but not necessarily make it make sense in my religious or meaning framework. Times are hidden. Reality is hidden. Perhaps in 'not knowing', God makes possible our 'knowing' - even as those who are not sufficient.

Update: hidden - must be changed to treasured - to note the usage of צפן everywhere else in the poem and to reserve the hide metaphor for another word - it actually works better here too.

for what purpose from the Sufficient are times not treasured?

do those knowing him not discern his days?

They take hold of landmarks
they despoil flocks while they are grazing
the orphan's donkey they drive away
they pledge the ox of the widow
they stretch out the poor from the way
as one the needy of earth withdraw themselves

lo wild asses in the wilderness go out to their work seeking their prey
the plain is to him food - and to his lads
in the field his corn they reap
and the vineyard of the wicked they gather

the naked they make lodge without clothing
so there is no covering in the cold
from the rain of the mountains they are moist
and without refuge they embrace the rock

they despoil the orphan from the breast
and the needy they pledge
the naked are made to go about without clothing
and from the famished they lift the sheaf

within their walls they press oil(1)
they tread the wine-press and go thirsty
from the city males groan
and the being of the wounded shouts out
but God does not set them as fickle

they - they are those who rebel against light
they do not recognize his ways
and they do not sit in his tracks
with the light rises a slayer of needy and poor
and in the night there is a thief
and an eye of adultery watches for twilight saying
"no eye will look on me" and covering faces he sets out

they burgle in the darkness into houses
that in the day they had sealed for themselves
they do not know light
for morning is as one to them as obscurity
for he recognizes the destruction of obscurity
swift is he on the surface of the waters(2)
slandered is their portion in the land
he is not present to the way of the vineyards

"drought indeed heat despoils the snow water
Sheol his sin"
forget him will the womb
suck sweetly the worm
time will not remember
and injustice will be maimed like a tree

he grazes on the barren that does not give birth
and the widow he does no good
he drags the mighty in his strength
he rises and is not faithful with their lives
it is given to him to trust and he is supported
but his eyes are on their ways
they are high for a little
but he is gone and they are humiliated
as are all they will be shut up
as the head of the grain they will be cut off

and if not now who will set me up as a liar
and who will set as nothing my speech?(3)

(1) the image is opaque - TS suggests with much elaboration a parallel to the following cola as: they pass the noonday between deceptive palm-trees - following the Vulgate. It is too much to take note of at the moment and will have to remain enigmatic.
(2) perhaps referring to the greased swimmer of chapter 15 - I think I read in TS that he is too slippery to escape from the sea and come to the dry land of the vineyards. (Tongue in cheek?) The word קלל is multiply glossed: swift (as in email), or curse or slander. It is what job does to 'his day' in chapter 3:1 at the double beginning of his first speech. It is what God moves Job to say of himself in chapter 40:4 and it is used four times in the middle of the book: twice in this verse (swift and slander where both meanings fit taken one at a time) and twice as a metaphor for speed - re the swifter than a weaver's shuttle (7:6) and swifter than a blog post (9:25). Maybe I should have rendered chapter 3:1 as "and Job opened his mouth and swift-kicked his day!" But here is the warning - do not be in a hurry. The best time to post an email or a blog post is God's time!
(3) to make something of his speech as a diatribe against the lack of punishment for the wicked, all one needs is a single set of quotes. Note that being maimed like a tree means evil will easily regrow. What shall we read between the lines here about God?

Update: a little colouring - there are clusters of repeated words but no obvious recurrence structures here as we find more frequently in the psalms. Note also the repetition of fickle - my gloss three months ago for the last verse about Job 1 where Job does not ascribe fickleness to God.

Job 18

In the macro structure, this is Bildad's second response to Job - mid way through the second cycle of speeches.

As I continue, with blessing in my heart to you who read with me, I am occasionally revising prior posts to reflect the wording as I look at every instance in this saga of usage for each word. For example - in this chapter 'firstborn' is used - and I think it must reflect chapter 1 - when they were eating in the house of the firstborn. So eldest must not be used in chapter 1 or the reader of the translation will miss the possible allusion.

In this chapter also we need 6 different words for trap - a second challenge. (I avoided gin as an obsolete synonym- gin and tonic being a favorite drink.)

As far as verbal patterns and 'seeing' them, I seem to be noting that there are words that are used only in the earlier chapters or only in the later chapters. I imagine another kind of Jobean self-portrait but a way of presenting it is eluding me. A single diagram such as I did for Song of Songs or Romans is too confusing, and individual portraits such as work well for short poems like the psalms do not work for a long poem of this nature.

Then answered Bildad the Shuhite and he said
How long will you set wrenches in speeches?
Understand and afterward we will speak
For what purpose are we counted as the beast
Impure in your eyes?
He tears his being in his anger
On account of you should earth be abandoned
And the rock be removed from its place?

Even the light of the wicked will be extinguished
and the spark of his fire will not shine
light is darkness in his tent
and his candle with him will be extinguished
the steps of his vigor will be shortened
and his own counsel will cast him down

For he is sent into a net by his own feet
and onto a lattice he walks
a trap will grasp by the heel
famine will prevail against him
hidden in the earth his binding
and a snare on a track

On every side destructions terrify him
and scatter his feet
famished is his vigor
a burden prepared for his rib(1)
he will eat the solitude of his skin
the firstborn of death will eat his solitude(2)

Uprooted from his tent is his trust
and it will slow-march him to the king of destructions
it will dwell in his tent from his lack
and pitch will winnow his home
from beneath his roots dry up
from above cut off is his harvest

His memory will perish from earth
and he is nameless on the face of the street
thrust from light into darkness
and from the world chased
no child left to him
nor progeny among his people
and there is none left in his lodging

At his day those who come after will be appalled(3)
And those who came before were grasped with a whirling tempest
Such are the dwellings of injustice
And this is the place without knowledge of the One

(1) help-meet, wife, partner
(2) TS makes more sense of this - firstborn of death is the subject also of the previous line by proleptic ellipsis and means the famished and doomed firstborn. בד solitude (my guess) occurs only here and in chapter 17. My gloss is awkward - I wonder at the significance.
(2) or west and east (Clines) instead of after/before (but not the same word as in chapter 1)

Job - large scale structure of the tale

For the general shape of this rather colorless image I am indebted to Michael Cheney's book, Dust, Wind, and Agony. (The colours are calculated by my inimitable gematria mapping.)

Inside and outside

It is all too easy to feel like an outsider in a strange context. This is partly the problem Paul had in writing to the Romans and trying to get them to be true to the Shema (as Mark Nanos interprets Paul's reference in Romans 3:27). But consider - if Paul thought that the Gentiles were being grafted into Israel and Israel as represented by the established Diaspora communities within the structure of the Empire wanted no such thing - then there would be sharp resistance. All three Abrahamic faiths have put up boundaries of confession or exclusivity. Allowing the Oneness of God in our collective hearts is therefore very difficult for us. It is more than an intellectual or even political problem. The action called for is difficult and that's without even considering the influence of secularism - which itself has much to commend it for its honest skepticism. I wonder how a unifying voice can be heard.

I hear people like Rachel Barenblatt through her poetry and personal experience. I find Irshad Manji works perceptively for Islam and I am looking forward to April Deconick for early Christian history. Among recent scholars, I enjoy James McGrath for his questioning.

If there is a unity - and this I believe, for I believe that the light is good (Genesis 1:4) and that the Lord is good (Psalm 34:8), and that our agreement on this alone would be some measure of unity in faith - but if there is such unity, it cannot call for a conversion between 'religions' or even for a conversion to 'religion'. Even for Christians, conversion is not equivalent to fulfilling the great commission and thereby 'making disciples', whatever the head counters think.

Rather I think it may be expressible by negatives: turning away from those things that damage others, turning away from fear and defensive positions. Such acts are hard enough. If, on the other hand, there is only competition for scarce resources and a lack of real creativity, then we have only a limited transience to celebrate and we can look forward to more self-protection at all costs, war and destruction. Should we then conclude that "eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die" is the only sensible response to the real?

That is why the negative approach is simplest to say. The positive approach cannot be known unless the barriers are down. Limited resources and fear are both barriers but they are not the most powerful. Among the powerful is the need to be right and to be inside rather than outside. Is it also deceptive? Can we in fact be right and continue hurting others by our insecurity? Can we be inside through accepting a confession of faith and yet still know within us a noisy chaos?

John did not write, God so loved the church... (John 3:16) nor did Jesus in John's gospel limit himself to Israel as he did in the synoptic gospels. But there is no mention of Christianity as a religion. Believing that God is love does not require you to be a Christian. Salvation and joy are not exclusive to Christianity. Paul is not remotely happy with such a possibility (Galatians 2:18) nor is he necessarily exclusive as the fundamentalists say over the definition of who is a 'brother' (Romans 14:15).

Religions have gathered (pace Hebrews) and enforced gathering and confession because of fear and through violence. Even translations are molded to subdue the people to the powers that be. Translations often without warning substitute a word or phrase that interprets what the translator thinks the word should say - not what it does say. (Try it, you will soon see what I mean - there is no substitute for training the ear than conducting a choir or learning to play a stringed instrument in an orchestra.)

I am biased of course. I do not think I could know these things for myself except through the Anointing I have come to know through the word and life of Jesus. I also note that others like the Sufi who seem to record a similar experience (see my post here) are often persecuted for incarnationalism. I must remain critical within my own tradition. My voice is one in many, whether of many or not I do not know.

Reference: Mark Nanos, The Mystery of Romans (1996) P183ff

Getting back into the groove

Job is intimidating to say the least. Several of the essays and books I have read suggest that chapter 3 - the undoing of Job's creation, is countered by the speeches of יהוה

So I have just looked briefly at 3:8-14 and listed below painstakingly the common words between that speech and those in chapters 38-41. Many words repeat only in these two areas or there and in a couple of other places. Is it significant? or accidental? ++ means there are other uses I did not list.

Of course a 'conversation' especially a set of staged conversations about a troubling subject, is more complex than frame and thread can encompass. But it gets me thinking... The links which allow you to see the KJV on hover show that whatever structure is implied is often hidden by synonyms or must be obscured in translation because of Hebrew homonyms.

Frame

Leviathan Job 3:8, 41:1 לויתן
Curse / pierce Job 3:8, 5:3, 40:24, 41:2 נקב
Raise up / awaken Job 3:8, 41:10 ++ עור
stars Job 3:9, 38:7 ++ כוכב
darken Job 3:9, 38:2 חשך
eyelids Job 3:9, 16:16, 41:18 עפעפים
cattle / substance, Job 1:3, 1:10 36:33 מקנה
shut up Job 3:10, 41:15 סגר
doors Job 3:10, 41:14 דלת ++
belly Job 3:10, 38:29, 40:16 בטן
eyes Job 3:10, 41:18 עין ++
womb Job 3:11, 38:8 רחם ++
prevent Job 3:12, 41:11 קדם
king Job 3:14, 41:34 מלך ++
counsellor - Job 3:14, 26:3 יעץ also frame for the 'speeches'
build - similar to counsellor בנה
waste Job 3:14, 30:30, 39:22, 40:19, 41:26 ++ חרבה חרב
and so on - a detailed comparison of chapter 3 and 38-41 is called for.

Thread

Day יום
Life, beasts חי - also frame Job 3:20, 38:39, 39:15, 40:20
beasts 'of the field' Job 5:23, 40:20 שדה
going forth Job 3:11++ יצא
stillness Job 3:13 ++ שכב
Quiet Job 3:13 שקט - four synonyms in this verse

Job Resources

I read a few good essays on Job during my three days away. Dust Wind and Agony, by Michael Cheney is a helpful surmise of characterization in Job based on a top down structural approach (length of speech in poems and cola, internal microstructures, verbal and linguistic clues, etc). I thought of many things to say as I read it - and they may come out in subsequent and comments on or revisions of past posts. It was good to have a sense of how little traction Tur Sinai's approach has had. Cheney has a particularly good look at Aramaic and Arabic as well as archaisms in the dialogues and concludes that the ancients knew how to write dialect and used such skill as part of the characterization of individual speakers.

I also have Harold Bloom's collection of essays on The Book of Job with contributions by Northrope Frye on Blake's Job - brilliant as usual, Robert Alter, always the perceptive poet - I love his approach to the speeches of יְהוָה, Ken Frieden - the closest to a unified response, an unexpected gem, Réné Girard, meaningful but perseverating on his thesis. Also in the the book is an essay by Daiches which I did not find gripping or exciting, and Ricoeur, which got better towards the end but began with such abstraction that I had nowhere to stand. Bloom's Introduction is short and to the point - 4/7 for the book as a whole.

I also have the Word Commentary by David Clines which I will try and look at in more depth. At least it is a second commentary but on first glance I thought it was too heavy to put in the car for holiday reading. The testimonia at the beginning from Auden, Calvin, Frost, etc are delightful. I will conclude with two of these - one from Clines and one from Cheney (who also cites Clines).

[God to Job in the afterlife]
Robert Frost

You realize by now the part you played
To stultify the Deuteronomist
And change the tenor of religious thought

Leonard Cohen

Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in

The Auden is over my head - but I know it is very clever as are all his poems that I have sung. I won't copy it since it is probably still under copyright - Google this if you like:

Auden
where job squats awkwardly upon his ashpit
... Scraping himself with blunted Occam Razors

Also a bit more of it here, a place I am happy to reference. I do have my prejudices.

Job 6:11-21 take 2

What is my strength that I should wait?

What is my terminus that I should prolong my life?
Is the strength of stones my strength?
Is my flesh of bronze?(1)

What if my help is without help in me(2)
and success is banished from me(3)
to one in despair from his friend there should be loving-kindness
and the fear of the Sufficient when he is abandoned(4)

my brothers are treacherous like a torrent
as a stream of torrents they pass on
depressed by ice keeping secret their snow(5)
in time they thaw and vanish
in heat they are extinguished in their place

the paths of their way are twisted
they offer formlessness and perish(6)
the paths of Tema attended
the goings of Sheba expected them

they were ashamed for he trusted(7)
they came there and were confounded
for now you are with him(8)
you see brokenness and you are afraid

(1) bronze - the bronze here is misspelled - נחוש. In chapter 40 as in other uses in the Bible it is spelled נחושה - why would this be?
(2) I could not take this sentence as a question. So I ignored the initial ה in the first word and phrased it as a 'what if'. The word הַאִם made no sense to me. TS says that this word is not a word and that the ה should be attached to the previous verse to fix the spelling of bronze. Does that ever make sense! The what if is not required and the condition can simply be phrased as if..., then his friends should show him mercy.
(3) TS has counsel for success תושיה - I kept success to agree with the same word in chapter 5 which will recur 4 more times in subsequent chapters - if this is a thread, we must find it somehow. If it is not, then we can obscure it later.
(4) I have read many interpretations of Shaddai, usually translated the Almighty. I like the sense of self-sufficiency. There was discussion of this last year among bloggers - perhaps in our psalm 68 marathon in 2007 but I can't find the reference. (Suzanne on a blog that she is no longer posting to?) Also in this stich TS changes the qal to niphal - a much better parallel requiring no adjustment to letters, but just to vowels.
(5) TS considers ice קרח a misreading of Syriac קרחא for storm or tempest - perhaps when we get to chapter 37, I will be able to comment more on this suggestion. Habel (below) keeps ice.
(6) I read this as a continuation of the metaphor of the streams. TS reads paths as caravans. This word is another possible thread - not sure what to do with it yet.
(7) Still work to do on the apparent singular-plural issue - does the singular refer back to the one who is forsaken but who still expresses trust per the story?
(8) There is an alternate reading here - I am thinking that the translation of the text without the alternative could make better sense. The two nothing's in the KJV in these verses are not verbally related at all.

Habel's commentary is online. The legal metaphor on page 54 shows a possible structure and gives a role to Elihu. Why then did the NT writers not use this book? I think there must be some serious problems in applying the text.

Job 3 Interpreted

Well, that is an extreme title - I am not sure I can interpret anything yet.

What is Job's opening salvo about? How rough can we be in our interaction with God and not be impolite to the point of no return? Is God's commendation of Job (Job 42:7) ultimately supportable?

I divided the prior post into 8 sections. I noticed that several words recur in later passages and I wondered if they are structurally significant. I noted this with the reference to Leviathan. Also potentially implicated in the structure is the word סכך that may be a euphemism for defecating. I originally had God dumping on Job but there is no way I could use this gloss in Job 38:8 or Job 40:2. So it cannot stand in Job 3. Besides, it is impolite and therefore distracting.

The 8 sections:

1. introduction: day and night,
2. day: the wish that his birthday had not been,
3. night: the wish that the night of his conception had not been included in the calendar. This section invokes Leviathan. Also this section contains two instance of 'come' a bracket closed in section 8. (This is an argument for reordering the lines.)
4. belly: neither night nor day closed his belly - i.e the home that nurtured him before birth
5. rest: the rest of death that includes kings, counselors, rich
6. abortion: there is a missing thought, if day and night had to see me, why wasn't it short - then there are additional examples of rest including the wicked, the weary, the prisoner, small and great, servant free from his lords
7. question: why give light to the miserable?
8. admission: the reality of threat - here TS and the Aramaic interpretation of the word traditionally translated as 'bread' makes good sense. Here too Job shows his Achilles' heel. He worshiped in the days of his wholeness out of fear. We close the opening section with a threefold repetition of 'come' and a recurrence of quiet and rest. Life just is not quiet and rest, even for the upright.

Is this all true? Or is this all rhetoric of a sort? What do you think?

For other Job related posts, click here.

My insufficiency

What is this first sentence of the letter to the Hebrews? How would I translate it? Is there only one 'right' translation? (No) Life and language are never so clear cut. But there are stronger and weaker translations, colorful and bland translations, obtuse and transparent translations in many ways and in many parts.

The obtuse is the parable, the saying that they will not hear so they might turn and be healed. Transparency by itself requires elaboration: what can you see from this translation: transparency of thought, transparency of structure, transparency of 'meaning'? Meaning itself is dangerous stuff. It makes us think we are in charge if we think we 'understand' something. And if anything is true, it is that God is in charge - and us if at all, only through the median of the consecration of our lives in Christ. Such is the way we become 'kings and priests'. When you are on the median, you can go both forwards and backwards.

I have a simple rule with respect to translating. If the source language plays games, then the target language must imitate or note the game. Hebrews 1:1-4 is one sentence. It begins, as everyone knows, with alliteration, a packet of p's. And it is an enormous rhetorical game of theological praise. What is this anarthrous son? Maybe we should pay attention - precisely because we do not understand.

In-many-portions and in-many-fashions, of old
God having spoken to our ancestors by the prophets,
in these last days speaks to us by a son,
whom he appoints heir of all things,
through whom he also makes all times and seasons,
who, being the effulgence of glory
and the exact imprint of his very being,
bearing all things by the declaration of his power,
when he had made purification for sins,
he sat down at the right of the majesty on high,
having become as much superior to angels
as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.

(By the way I don't do Greek - I can barely read it.) Am I allowed to see this as a theological statement? I have no choice. It most obviously is a theological statement. I.e. whatever I do with this translation, I am on grounds that make statements about the nature of and character of God and the word that is a son that is glory's effulgence and his very being's exact imprint and who bears all things by his power's declaration and his declaration's power.

(I can already see that 'his' is ambiguous as to its antecedent. In a translation, I would rather not resolve ambiguity. I think that is between the reader and the read. Are we for instance already in the presence of the oracle of the Lord in Psalm 110 and the declaration in Psalm 2?)

In English I have wrestled with data design and naming for 40 years. What are potential independent entities in the sentence? An independent entity has its own identifier and has attributes. So it has a unique name by which we can point and say: this one and not some other and it has attributes that characterise it. A dependent entity has attributes but must take its identity from the owning independent entity. Dependent entities can become independent if we give them independent identifiers. In a given sentence, every noun needs to be examined to test if it is independent or dependent. This analysis must carry us out of the sentence to see how the nouns are used in other places.

What we have in Hebrews 1:1 is a theological statement relating a large number of nouns, every one of which could be seen as independent or dependent. Here are the nouns: time, ancestors, prophets, days, son, (us), heir, ages or worlds, reflection, glory, imprint, being, things, word, power, purification, sins, hand, majesty, angels, name.

Which of these have independent identity? We can identify nouns related to time, eons past, ancestors, last days, we can count or name days, as in the opening of Ruth 1:1. We can identify nouns related to person, we can name the person, us, ancestors, prophets, God (except in this case we have no identity yet for 'a son'). We can point to the nouns related to things, worlds, sins, things, purification, majesty, name.

Which nouns are dependent on another nouns for identity? I.e. which are without identity except as they relate to other nouns, maybe reflection, glory, imprint, being, word, power? Of these few possibly dependent entities, are they independent of each other?

Take glory for example. It has no pronoun in this sermon. The heavens declare the glory of God without voice, and their sound is gone into all the world. We can point heavenward. If I identify God's glory, have I necessarily also identified God's glorious word? Now take power. If I identify the power of a son, have I necessarily identified the power of the word? or the word of the power? Are these emanations of the son as the word of God to us independent of each other, or do they simply modify each other - as in a 'powerful word' ?

Maybe we don't know the answer. The power and the glory seem to me both to be potentially at least independent aspects of God and also of the word of God, in this case described as 'a son'. Having made that decision, I cannot demote power to the role of an adjective simply attributing a property value to the word.

Forgive me please for my rudeness.

Is meaning important?

Is meaning important? What a silly question! Of course it is. And so are adjectives and adverbs. But these things: words, qualifiers, and thoughts are not more important than the faithful action that gives them what we think we have grasped by them. We do not need to grasp at the form of our mind.

So when I read these paragraphs about Job in the middle of Ken Schenck's long online essay (whew!):

Job 19:25 ... case study: "I know that my Redeemer is living, and afterwards He will rise on the dust. After this my skin is thus destroyed, from my flesh I will see God." This verse has a distinctively Christian reading, although not one attested in the New Testament. ...
...this reading of Job as Christian Scripture...is... very unlikely to be anything like the original sense of Job 19.
... it seems far more likely that what Job is saying is that he believes that God, his Redeemer, will eventually come--before he dies--and vindicate his innocence, restoring his flesh. ...

When I read this, I ask what is my reading of Job and does it qualify as Christian? It is hard to remember one's first impressions of Job. Very likely I tried to read it several times before succeeding. These rough-cut dozen may be second impressions:

1. The accuser as an angel in the presence of God.
2. The difference between the setting of the stage and the long poetic dialogue.
   
3. The silence of his friends, then their arguments.
   
4. The stark nature of Job's cursing of the day of his birth.
   
5. The reaction of Job's wife.
   
6. The song of wisdom beautifully set by William Boyce.
   
7. A vague memory that this part of Handel's libretto seemed slightly off base.
   
8. The magnificence of God's speeches and the buildup to them by Elihu.
   
9. The tenderness of the O magnum mysterium. (The ox and the ass spending a night at God's crib.)
   
10. The stars singing for joy.
    
11. God's playing billiards with the world - shades of Velikovsky.
    
12. Job's response in dust and ashes and my unresolved ambivalence towards the postscript.

I don't think I ever attributed ultimate validity to the comforters - but there is a considerable unresolved tension. Can I get to second naivety with this book?

I want to look only at Job19:25-26 as a brief test.

וַאֲנִי יָדַעְתִּי גֹּאֲלִי חָי וְאַחֲרֹון עַל־עָפָר יָקֽוּם

וְאַחַר עֹורִֽי נִקְּפוּ־זֹאת וּמִבְּשָׂרִי אֶֽחֱזֶה אֱלֹֽוהַּ

What about Ken's translation? Well this is not exactly a slam-dunk is it?

The traditional rendering assumes much. Could Job actually say what is rendered here in the state he was in as the prelude to the last sequence of speeches? It certainly would not be cheap grace so it had better not sound religious like the speeches of his comforters. In the poem, גֹּאֲלִי occurs only one other time - in Job 3:5 (rendered as pollute rather than redeem). And 'upon the earth' is a rare rendition of עַל־עָפָר - and 'stand' for יָקֽוּם while appropriate stays away from more common glosses - arise or rise up.

I am going to ponder the larger structure of chapter 19 but here is a quick first cut of how I would approach this:

as for me, I know how I would redeem life

and afterwards in the dust it would rise
and after, this skin of mine stripped
in my flesh I would see God

I am not sure how to parse the verb redeem or the noun life גֹּאֲלִי חָי - is this a construct 'my redeeming of life' or is it as participle a noun, the one who redeems me? The slightly uncommon word for seeing is paralleled in Psalm 11 which as I noted a few days ago has a lot of rare vocabulary in common with Job.

To be continued - and I would welcome corrections to my direction...
Update: note this online resource (page 28) for a reading of 19:25-26 differing of course from my conjecture above.

The Jesus Project

This project seems to be happening. I wonder what sort of results might come from it. From the Jesus Seminar, we had many publications and some were quite helpful for a beginner in ancient history. Perhaps there will be a scribe in the Jesus Project who can hear and tell the story without having to prove anything. I doubt though that they will succeed in defining 'faith' or even give credible reasons why Christianity began. Crossley has a good question though: "why was the figure of Jesus the object of affection?"

I have never seen anyone suggest that God does something special. I guess it is because God is immeasurable - i.e. not subject to scientific statements in whatever science you name: history, language, astronomy, or physics. God is not even subject to religion. I cannot define God's doing either. Nor can any scholar define God's undoing. But affection? That's almost like measuring love.

Here's what I think in a very few words. Humans are violence-prone, filled with fear, kept in check by a veneer of social graces beaten and shamed into them in their youth. Some try to raise with love and there is some degree of alleviation of fear, self-seeking, pain-avoidance and violence in a few cases. Violence may or may not improve chances of a temporary survival. It seems people still believe this proposition and take their chances.

Jesus seems to have been different. At least those are the reports in the New Testament. It could be that the ultra-violence that Rome had spread around the Mediterranean world and competition for her favours improved the chances of some kind of explosion particularly in a special place like Israel. In one sense the explosion came through revolution and the subsequent crushing of Jerusalem. In another sense, because of Jesus, the explosion came through a radicalization of response to each other and even to rulers. (Affection?)

It appears also that there was preparation in the human psyche for the message of redemption and love. Those like the Ethiopian eunuch who 'went on their way rejoicing' don't seem to have been great politicians or scholars. They may have found joy in that kind of knowledge - the measurable, readable, quotable kind. But they also more particularly found joy in something new in their relationship to 'the ultimate'. One dare not say. They spoke in tongues, they traveled and preached till their heads were chopped off, they recounted the presence of the Spirit of Christ, a risen Lord Jesus to everyone they met. They reasoned but not about axioms and proofs, rather about hope and experience.

Their 'success' seems moot. Eventually, they / we seem to have created the same old religious structures that were there before the explosions. Something good maybe, but something missing also? The good news doesn't seem very joyful. Violent children still are violently shaped for a violent and unjust social order. And though there is good work, there is also an abundance of trouble.

Was there something special in Jesus? Something that is an invitation? Something that frees one to a different joy? Something that leads into hope and heals the angry heart? Or is this impulse of stubborn faith just the working out of a bootstrapped process that runs on power and death? (Bootstrap is a technical term here. It refers to the necessary and tricky start-up of an automaton - which then can keep going till it runs out of stuff to do or someone turns off the power.)

I searched here and there in my life and I found a few interesting tidbits. Nothing helped till I found the power of the death of Jesus for me. Like Psalm 34, where the writer says - taste and see that the Lord is good, I found a start of a journey that did not seem to be simply another violent and shameful dead end. There was an end, my end in him, and there is also surprise. Of course, I can't really tell you everything. Affection? Yes - definitely. As the Beloved for the Bridegroom and without disappointment.

So what will the intelligence behind the Jesus Project give birth to? Something more effective than the Jesus Seminar? Or something similar - lots of books for the religious market and a few wandering lecturers reading Psalm 82 and going on about meeting someone again for the first time.

[Update - see this interesting essay by Richard Beck]

Romans - the central spine

Paul's Letter to Rome - the questions on their own

The table shows a 10-fold structure - 10 'What then'; 10 'By no means'; 7 'what shall we say' and 4 'I ask then'. (Well, 11 fold here). Was Paul counting on his fingers?

The structure should agree with the grammatical structure shown by the deliberate features in the epistle.

I highlighted 27 questions through the numbering - I do not yet know if I have hit the high points of the argument. There is a serious tension in Paul - his love of Torah and his statement that it is fulfilled. He refuses to say that the covenant with Israel has been replaced, yet he does not allow the pride of having been chosen to undo the reality of completion in Christ for all.

				Summary of the 27
[1]	1	3.1: Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision?[1a]		The value of Circumcision
[2]		3: What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God?	By no means!	The faith of the Chosen
[3]		5: But if our wickedness serves to show the justice of God, what shall we say? That God is unjust to inflict wrath on us?	By no means!	Argument against grace
		For then how could God judge the world? [3a]
		7: But if through my falsehood God's truthfulness abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner?[3b]
		8: And why not do evil that good may come?[3c]
[4]	2	9: What then? Are we Jews any better off?		The value of Circumcision
[5]		27:Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded.		No boasting
[6]		On what principle? On the principle of works?[6a]		Life is not by 'status'
[7]		29: Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also?[7a]		God is One
[8]		31: Do we then overthrow the law by this faith?	By no means!	How to establish Torah
[9]	3	4.1: What then shall we say about Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh?		Does faith agree with the evidence in Torah itself?
		3: For what does the scripture say?[9a]		Yes
[10]		9: Is this blessing pronounced only upon the circumcised, or also upon the uncircumcised?		Is Torah inclusive?
		We say that faith was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness. 10: How then was it reckoned to him?[10a] Was it before or after he had been circumcised?[10b]		Yes
		5...
[11]	4	6.1: What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?	By no means!	We, now including Jew and Gentile
		How can we who died to sin still live in it?[11a]
		3: Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?[11b]
[12]	5	15: What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace?	By no means!	obedience without relationship is sin
		16: Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to any one as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?[12a]
		21: But then what return did you get from the things of which you are now ashamed?[12b]
[13]		7.1: Do you not know, brethren -- for I am speaking to those who know the law -- that the law is binding on a person only during a person's life?		Having died, the law is no longer binding
[14]	6	7: What then shall we say? That the law is sin?	By no means!	the Law is not sin
[15]		13: Did that which is good, then, bring death to me?	By no means!	The good Law brought wrath, not death
		24: Wretched human that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?[15a]
[16]	7	8.31: What then shall we say to this? If God is for us, who is against us?		Confidence in the Extreme
		32: He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, will he not also give us all things with him?[16a] 33: Who shall bring any charge against God's elect?[16b] It is God who justifies; 34: who is to condemn?[16c] Is it Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us? [16d] 35: Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?[16e] Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?[16f]
[17]	8	9.14: What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part?	By no means!	Is this Justice? Yes
[18]		19: You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?[18a]" 20: But who are you, a human, to answer back to God?[18b] Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me thus?[18c]" 21: Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for beauty and another for menial use?[18d] 22: What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the vessels of wrath made for destruction, 23: in order to make known the riches of his glory for the vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory, 24: even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?[18e]		Fault cannot be found in God - there is patience and humility in God's wrath.
[19]	9	30: What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, righteousness through faith; 31: but that Israel who pursued the righteousness which is based on law did not succeed in fulfilling that law. 32: Why?		Election and Torah
[20]		10.8: But what does it say?		Confession and the word of faith
[21]		14: But how are people to call upon him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? [21a] And how are they to hear without a preacher? [21b] 15: And how can people preach unless they are sent? [21c] As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach good news!" 16: But they have not all obeyed the gospel; for Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?"		Evangelism in time (there is no time and there is all time)
[22]		18: But I ask, have they not heard?		All have heard
[23]		19: Again I ask, did Israel not understand?		They will be provoked to understanding
[24]		11.1: I ask, then, has God rejected his people? Do you not know what the scripture says of Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel?[24a]	By no means!	Remnant
[25]	10	7: What then? Israel failed to obtain what it sought.		Faith and status
[26]		11: So I ask, have they stumbled so as to fall?	By no means!	Not the end
[27]		15: For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead?		the end

This series on Romans begins here