3. While Job's piety is described explicitly, his wife's piety is implied. Also, while Job is described as upright, it was implied that to some extent, as a protective father, he was "uptight". That is not a criticism but the text indicated that his family of ten children were not rebellious against him but compliant. And that strongly implies that the wife, the mother of those children, encouraged the feast days as a love of life and family solidarity. It is at this that the calamity of "skin for skin" appeared to be aimed, as per the text in its fullness. 4. During the interm between calamities and the dialogue of husband and wife, these parents, reduced in their grief, very likely had comforting, and contentious, discussions amongst themselves. The text does not say otherwise. What might they have said to each other? What might they have acted toward each other? Consider the above 3 points as you think and feel what this one-flesh union might have meant to them both. 5. The video tried to fill-in the gaps with much speculation. Some of it credible if a negative view of the husband-wife dialogue is granted. Yet the text provides a viable alternative. First consider that the ancient wording that is often translated as bless God is selectively translated, in Job alone, as curse God. The same wording used in two different and opposite ways? There are technical reasons that interpreters impose such a dual translation of this wording. That aside, consider the structure of Chapter 1. How many times was this wording used? Six. And the pattern alternated between the bad and the good senses. On the sixth, the dialogue, Job 2:9, the pattern landed on the turn for the good sense. This suggests that the wife said "Bless God and die" and di not mean "curse" God and die. more ...

6. The text showed that Job appeared to be at death's door. He was emaciated. He could not eat. His physical condition was as low as it seemingly could get. His strength was depleting rapidly. The expression, Bless God and die, reflects what one would say to someone who needed to prepare for his demise from this world. Seems she might well have said to Job, praise the Almighty, speak to Him, say your piece now while you still have your strength, and then prepare to die. This is highly plausible given the text that follows both in the dialogue and in the rest of the book of Job. 7. In reply, Job said that his wife talked like a woman of folly. He did not call her a fool. He may have affirmed something she had previously spoken to him during the interim. While we do not know when this book was written, and we do not know with certainty when Job lived, we do know of phrases used to impart much meaning with few words. For example, there is the story of Dina in the account of the life of Jacob in which his daughter, born into a fractious family of ten brothers, experienced a great ordeal when a very young woman. She had "gone out in the sight of men"; this expression carries the meaning, among others, that a woman's actions can have wide-ranging consequences for men and households. Dina may have been abducted, raped, and then witnessed a massacre. Jacob had a major crisis in which an arranged marriage was portrayed, on one hand deceptively as a blessing, and on the other hand as a curse on multple levels. And so this expression became shorthand for saying that the actions of a woman can come to folly that is almost incomprehensible even afterward. Depending on context it can mean many other things, some closer and some less so, to what may have been intended in Job 2:9-10 more ...

8. If we are to fill-in the gaps, we might do so with the highly plausible notion that Job's wife had felt self-recrimination for having encouraged the feast days; not only did the sons celebrate but they included their sisters (and presumably this tamed the celebrations). Yet the daughters travelled "out in the site of men", as it were, and did so under the protection of their faither's reputation, of a great household, and had done so with joy. They also traveled to the home of father and mother for the burnt offerings. This unity seemed joyous, as per the text, as well as pious. But wth the sudden deaths of all ten children on such a feast day, it would be normal for a mother to have some deep feelings of regret for having encouraged what was truly a blessing on their family. She may have groaned to Job, this was the folly of woman (of herself in this instance) and then blamed herself in sorrow. Job, being the man he was, would have comforted her and said, My wife you are not to blame, hold on to your wholesomeness, praise God and live. more ...

9. Likewise, Job as the protective father may well have felt self-recrimination over this calamity to his childlren. He may have been responsible for the building of that house. It fell in the wind storm. He may have at least felt some remorse, even guilt, for not doing enough to protect them from gathering together for feast days so frequently, all in the same place at the same time. He was not to blame but he may have felt he had not done enough. He was the head of the great household. It is plausible, much so, that his wife comforted him and said, Husband you are blameless. She may have said, we were blessed with such a family of life-loving children. God gave us so much, He gave us them, and they lived good lives. 10. Now, consider that Job's wife had bore ten childlren. In ancient times, might not they have lost one or two others during that same period? The text does not say either way. Job had amassed huge influence on the regional economy -- on the world economy -- as indicated by the numbers of sheep, camels, oxen, and donkies. His sons, and probably his daughters with their husbands, were at the center of such a great household. They had a remarkable reputation. The sons and daughters would have shared and live according to the standards of their father. And of their mother. On the whole, such a family would have experienced good with bad at least in their family businesses, if not in their own personal lives. They were protected and shown favor, as per the text, and may have compared their blessings with the hardships of others all around them. In other words, Job and his wife had close experience with God giving and taking. The rest of the text indicates this in Job's discourses with his friends. 11. In their dialogue, wife spoke first. This indicates that while they both grieved, they had spoken of these calamities before. And that she was entitled to the initiative in this particular exchange. This indicates that the brief back and forth was meant to contrast with the much more lengthy encounters with the visiting friends who first arrived and kept silent untl Job frist spoke to them. That is to say, the text provides sufficient structure to indicate that husband and wife had been in intimate conversations -- in words but also in actions -- during the interim. Theirs was a summarizing dialogue, of sorts, in which it appears the wife brought to the fore the apparent dilemma in which they found themselves. She voiced what weighed on both their hearts. more...

12. In effect, Job's wife repeated the summary of the Heavenly Court dialogue between God and the Satan. She laid it out in stark terms. Hold on to your integrity. His wholeness. His possessions were lost, his famly crushed, his body swallowed up in pain, and he and his wife were ostracized. But she affirmed that that he held onto his wholesomeness (all that was integral to himself as a person) which is what God had observed. She did not repeat God's words exactly. Likewise, she observed how very near Job was to his death and that his suffering and become so extreme that his integrity was still at stake. His relationship with God was at stake. She was already a widow in the sense that she had nothing, not even an active husband, and little if any prospects for rebuilding their lives together. Yet she knew Job better than anyone else, as the text would soon show, and she told him to praise God, to give thanks, to worship, and this means speaking with God. It does not mean rtualistic sayings. It did not mean blessing his children on his deathbed, for they had none. It did not mean bequeathing inheritences, for they had nothing. 13. It came down to his waning strength. It was now or never, perhaps. Time to speak with God. And, yes, perhaps she and he had discussed this during the interim. They were a one-flesh union; she felt his sorrow and his pain perhaps even more deeply than Job did. She at least knew better than anyone what he was going through. Job saw his wife suffering, also, and this, in light of his own utter helplessness, would have compounded his humiliation. These were additional calamities for which they were not gulty but they did appear to be guilty even in the eyes of the surviving members/servants of their formerly great household. Their children had been massacred but so, too, were their servants or workers who had attended the other calamatities. And now if he died, she would be left far more vulnerable than she had experienced so far. She would be stricken by his death, not rewarded. She could have no relief from his death, except perhaps in his being released from suffering. She had nothing to gain for herself. She knew Job well. She knew he had something to say. That he was groanng in agony at the confusion of what he felt as set in contrast with his piety. With his own sense of justice. And she knew that the dilemma was a sort of contest between his innocence and his worship of God who, it would seem, had brought calamities unjustly. So, in their dialogue, she affirmed for Job what Job was already pondering: speak to God even if it means speaking against God, for once you are dead (and you will die eventually) you will not have the means to plead your innocence, to give account of yourself, and to ask for answers. more...