The Other Side of the Coin
But he said to her, “You are speaking as one of the foolish women speaks. Shall we actually accept good from God but not accept adversity?” Despite all this, Job did not sin with his lips. Job 2:10 NASB
Actually accept – The Hebrew combination here is gam plus qābal. Two things need to be mentioned. First is the range of meanings for gam, that is “again, alike, as, but, even, likewise, in like manner, so much as, then, though, with, yea.”[1] Smith remarks, “A particle occurring over 750 times, gam denotes addition. It is often repeated in a sentence, in which case the most frequent translations are both … and; either … or; nay … neither; so … and. Sometimes in English translations gam is completely ignored.”[2] He adds this important idea: “Like ʾap, gam may serve as an intensive particle at the beginning of an emphatic statement (Prov 17:26; Joel 2:29 [H 3:2]). (5) As an emphatic particle gam is used to stress a particular word within the sentence, especially pronouns and nouns with pronominal suffixes (Gen 4:26; 10:21; 27:34).”[3] This helps us realize that Job is emphasizing the verb, qābal, not as a theological theory but as a lived reality! Read that again.
Most of us realize that God’s sovereignty extends to the good and the bad. But for most of us, that sovereignty is theoretical. We actually believe that the good God would never allow bad things to happen to us. We operate on this mistaken theology, and so when tragedy does strike, we are spiritually perplexed, emotionally distraught, and religiously challenged. That’s why there are books titled Why Do Bad Things Happen to Good People?. If you really think about it, the title is an oxymoron, an utter contradiction. Everything that happens is under the auspices of the good and utterly sovereign God. So, what’s the problem? The problem is our assumption, not God’s involvement. Job’s use of gamunderscores the reality of divine sovereignty, the living consequences of this fact. It’s not theory for him and it shouldn’t be theory for us.
Now that we’ve set aside that ubiquitous mistake, Job takes us to the real point—“*קָבַל (qābal) take, receive (Piel and Hiphil only).”[4] What’s important here is the verb tense. Notice that this verb occurs only in the Piel and Hiphil. What does that mean? Let’s look at the two options:
Piel – a verb formation that can express a variety of actions, including intensive, causative, or resultative actions.
The Hiphil stem in Hebrew is a verb stem that expresses a causative action, or the idea that one subject causes another to perform an action.
“Our root appears to be a loan word, perhaps from Aramaic (as suggested by KB). It occurs only in clearly late texts except for the technical sense of Ex 26:5; 36:12. Our root occurs twelve times (its derivatives occur only in Ezk 26:9 and II Kgs 15:10).”[5]
Coppes’ comment raises a perplexing issue, but before we get to that, let’s recognize that this verb is an intense, causative action. Again, there’s nothing theoretical here. If we expect to take some blessing from God, we must also expect to receive whatever God sends our way. As the rabbis pray, “Lord, make my heart so malleable that I may accept whatever You choose.” I wonder if we have truly embraced divine sovereignty if we complain about our circumstances.
This verse clearly shows that Job’s wife did not have a heart for God. She was a horizontal believer, good on the surface but without the depth needed to navigate life’s waves. She is most of us, I’m afraid. And her sarcasm about “blessing” only shows how shallow her belief was. She is nābāl, a woman of disgraceful speech. Perhaps I recognize her attitude because I have shared the same disrespect for God’s choices. May He forgive me.
Topical Index: qābal, gam, take, receive, sovereignty, Job 2:10
[1] Smith, J. E. (1999). 361 גמם. In R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer Jr., & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed., p. 167). Moody Press.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Coppes, L. J. (1999). 1980 קָבַל. In R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer Jr., & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament(electronic ed., p. 783). Moody Press.
KB L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner, Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros, 2nd ed., Eng.-Ger., 1958
[5] Ibid.
Indeed, I, too, recognize her attitude because I have shared the same disrespect for God’s choices. May He forgive me. Amen
“…there’s nothing theoretical here.” Emet.
The “knowledge of good and evil” comes not by some means of understanding acquired by way of nothing more than contemplative consideration. No! It comes “in deed”… that is, by virtue of act—doing or engaging in some action that involves one’s will and intent to perform by the consideration and consent of one’s mind. Nābāl “emphasizes being ignoble and disgraceful” because it “in deed” demonstrates an “insensibility to God” as a “moral insensibility” such that one’s mind is closed to reason by illumination of the Truth.
“Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.’ “ (cf. John 14:6)