To what is he referring and why has he made a covenant with his eyes? Is she newly married? A Virgin? Thoughts?
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Job 31:1, thoughts?
- Thread starter Asforme&myhouse
- Start date
Yeah it pretty much has to be virgin, looking at the usage of the word elsewhere. He does go on to talk about other women who are married but, but the most a virgin can be is betrothed. (Which would still be adultery worthy of stoning if Job were to sleep with her). So I think it would not be too off-base to say that Job was not speaking of all virgins, just betrothed ones. That's theory number 1, which I don't actually hold.
My second theory is that Job had an intuitive sense about lusting after another man's woman was the same as adultery, and since he could not know for sure if a young woman was betrothed or not, he, being a cautious soul careful not to offend God, would not look upon a young woman, for he already had a wife and had no need to take a chance on accidentally ogling a woman betrothed. I like this theory a lot better.
My third theory is the one that everyone is going to poop on me for, but it is the one that says that Job sat at the gates of the city, where there was a place reserved for him. He gave his opinion on matters and lifted up the weak and weighed in on matters of justice. Job was very much an Elder of his city. As an Elder, Job knew that it was improper, for whatever reason, for an Elder to have more than one wife, and so wouldn't even ogle women whether or not they were betrothed to avoid the impropriety of desiring that which was not his to take.
Contributing factors: Job already had seven sons and a feast day appointed for each day of the week and a sacrifice appointed every seven days for his children. Taking on another wife would probably disrupt his schedule.
My second theory is that Job had an intuitive sense about lusting after another man's woman was the same as adultery, and since he could not know for sure if a young woman was betrothed or not, he, being a cautious soul careful not to offend God, would not look upon a young woman, for he already had a wife and had no need to take a chance on accidentally ogling a woman betrothed. I like this theory a lot better.
My third theory is the one that everyone is going to poop on me for, but it is the one that says that Job sat at the gates of the city, where there was a place reserved for him. He gave his opinion on matters and lifted up the weak and weighed in on matters of justice. Job was very much an Elder of his city. As an Elder, Job knew that it was improper, for whatever reason, for an Elder to have more than one wife, and so wouldn't even ogle women whether or not they were betrothed to avoid the impropriety of desiring that which was not his to take.
Contributing factors: Job already had seven sons and a feast day appointed for each day of the week and a sacrifice appointed every seven days for his children. Taking on another wife would probably disrupt his schedule.
Iyov 31 (OJB)
31 I made a brit (covenant) with mine eyes; how then look I upon a betulah?
2 For what chelek of Eloah is there from above? And what nachalah of Shaddai from on high?
3 Is not destruction to the wicked? And a disaster to the poalei aven (workers of wrong)?
4 Doth not He see my derech, and count all my steps?
5 If I have walked with shav (vanity, falsehood), or if my regel hath hasted to mirmah (deceit),
6 Let me be weighed in scales of tzedek that Eloah may know mine tom (integrity).
Job 31 (TLV)
31 “I made a covenant with my eyes
not to pay attention to a virgin.
2 For what is one’s lot from God above,
one’s heritage fromShaddai on high?
3 Is it not calamity for the unjust,
and disaster for workers of iniquity?
4 Does He not see my ways
and count all my steps?
5 “If I have walked in falsehood
or my foot has hurried to deceit,
6 then let Him weigh me with honest scales,
then God will know my integrity.
I like your second one better but unfortunately I feel this is the corect one. (There were better words than mia)
An Elder must be without blemish. So it also might not even be going down the one wife road though.
Almah (עַלְמָה 'almāh, plural: 'ălāmōṯ עֲלָמוֹת) is a Hebrew word for a maiden or woman of childbearing age who may be unmarried or married. ... The Septuagint version of the Old Testament renders both Hebrew words almah and betulah as the same Greek word parthenos. The Hebrew word עלמה (al-mah’) is often erroneously translated as “virgin.” A betulah’ (virgin) can be an al-mah (young sexually mature woman) and vice versa; but these two words are not synonymous! A betulah’ is not necessarily a young woman and a young woman is not necessarily a virgin.
So @Slumberfreeze was right it was a virgin.
31 I made a brit (covenant) with mine eyes; how then look I upon a betulah?
2 For what chelek of Eloah is there from above? And what nachalah of Shaddai from on high?
3 Is not destruction to the wicked? And a disaster to the poalei aven (workers of wrong)?
4 Doth not He see my derech, and count all my steps?
5 If I have walked with shav (vanity, falsehood), or if my regel hath hasted to mirmah (deceit),
6 Let me be weighed in scales of tzedek that Eloah may know mine tom (integrity).
Job 31 (TLV)
31 “I made a covenant with my eyes
not to pay attention to a virgin.
2 For what is one’s lot from God above,
one’s heritage fromShaddai on high?
3 Is it not calamity for the unjust,
and disaster for workers of iniquity?
4 Does He not see my ways
and count all my steps?
5 “If I have walked in falsehood
or my foot has hurried to deceit,
6 then let Him weigh me with honest scales,
then God will know my integrity.
I like your second one better but unfortunately I feel this is the corect one. (There were better words than mia)
An Elder must be without blemish. So it also might not even be going down the one wife road though.
Almah (עַלְמָה 'almāh, plural: 'ălāmōṯ עֲלָמוֹת) is a Hebrew word for a maiden or woman of childbearing age who may be unmarried or married. ... The Septuagint version of the Old Testament renders both Hebrew words almah and betulah as the same Greek word parthenos. The Hebrew word עלמה (al-mah’) is often erroneously translated as “virgin.” A betulah’ (virgin) can be an al-mah (young sexually mature woman) and vice versa; but these two words are not synonymous! A betulah’ is not necessarily a young woman and a young woman is not necessarily a virgin.
So @Slumberfreeze was right it was a virgin.
Last edited:
This is one of those times you absolutely CAN NOT take a verse in isolation.
In the larger passage this verse is found in Job is complaining about his treatment at God's hands. He lists all of the reasons why he thinks he is righteous and doesn't deserve the tribulations he ks experiencing. His covenant with his eyes is one of his supposed virtues that he feels should have shielded him from judgement.
So right away we know that this is not a command or even an admonition that we should follow. Later on Job repents of his self righteousness.
So Job was saying that he refused to look with desire on a virgin, a command God had not and would not give, and that this adherence to a personal morality should count in God's eyes as righteousness.
There is of course deep spiritual lessons going on here but it's not about sexual purity or lust but rather substituting man's rules for God's Laws among many many other things.
In the larger passage this verse is found in Job is complaining about his treatment at God's hands. He lists all of the reasons why he thinks he is righteous and doesn't deserve the tribulations he ks experiencing. His covenant with his eyes is one of his supposed virtues that he feels should have shielded him from judgement.
So right away we know that this is not a command or even an admonition that we should follow. Later on Job repents of his self righteousness.
So Job was saying that he refused to look with desire on a virgin, a command God had not and would not give, and that this adherence to a personal morality should count in God's eyes as righteousness.
There is of course deep spiritual lessons going on here but it's not about sexual purity or lust but rather substituting man's rules for God's Laws among many many other things.
No arguement there, or with most of what you said
My only problem
Mathew 5:28
28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart
Cuts right to the heart of the matter
Matthew 5:28 is referring to a married woman. Christ made that clear when He identified the sin He was talking about, adultery.
Besides, anytime the word used there can be verified it is referring to a non-virgin.
Besides, anytime the word used there can be verified it is referring to a non-virgin.
This is a good point. Remember, Job was one who went above and beyond, even offering sacrifices on behalf of his children (Job 1:5) just in case they might have sinned.
So I Just re-read Job. In Job 38-41. G-d never rebukes Job for substituting man's rules for HIS laws. He never condemns Job for trying to go above beyond what G-d asked of him.
G-d does chastise Job for acusing HIM of being unjust. That is where Job was self righteous. In thinking he had the right to call the L-rd unjust.
40 Then Adonai answered Job, saying:
2 “Will the one who contends with Shaddai correct him?
Let him who accuses G-d answer!”
3 Then Job answered Adonai. He said:
4 “Indeed, I am unworthy—what can I reply to You?
I put my hand over my mouth.
5 I spoke once, but I have no answer—
twice, but I will say no more.”
6 Then Adonai answered Job from the whirlwind:
7 “Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you will inform Me!
8 “Would you really annul My judgment?
Would you condemn Me to justify yourself?
9 Do you have an arm like G-d’s
and can you thunder with a voice like His?
10 Then adorn yourself in majesty and dignity;
clothe yourself in splendor and honor.
11 Scatter the fury of your anger.
Look at every proud personand bring him low;
12 look at everyone who is proud and humble him;
tread down the wicked where they stand.
13 Hide them together in the dust
bind their faces in the hidden place.
14 Then I—even I will acknowledge to you,
that your own right hand can save you!
Job retracts his accusation and is restored. If
G-d does chastise Job for acusing HIM of being unjust. That is where Job was self righteous. In thinking he had the right to call the L-rd unjust.
40 Then Adonai answered Job, saying:
2 “Will the one who contends with Shaddai correct him?
Let him who accuses G-d answer!”
3 Then Job answered Adonai. He said:
4 “Indeed, I am unworthy—what can I reply to You?
I put my hand over my mouth.
5 I spoke once, but I have no answer—
twice, but I will say no more.”
6 Then Adonai answered Job from the whirlwind:
7 “Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you will inform Me!
8 “Would you really annul My judgment?
Would you condemn Me to justify yourself?
9 Do you have an arm like G-d’s
and can you thunder with a voice like His?
10 Then adorn yourself in majesty and dignity;
clothe yourself in splendor and honor.
11 Scatter the fury of your anger.
Look at every proud personand bring him low;
12 look at everyone who is proud and humble him;
tread down the wicked where they stand.
13 Hide them together in the dust
bind their faces in the hidden place.
14 Then I—even I will acknowledge to you,
that your own right hand can save you!
Job retracts his accusation and is restored. If
was what Job was guilty of or if G-d had an Issue with going above and beyond what G-d asked of him/us wouldn't here be the time and place to rebuke him?
Last edited:
I think that Job's testimony on what is right conduct can be trusted on account of:
"There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job; and that man was blameless, upright, fearing God and turning away from evil."
It is quite true, that Job did justify himself rather than God, but that was not a function of him having substituted his own rules in the place of God's. If he were the sort of man to do that, it would be easier to rebuke him. Moreover the issue of the possibility of having a higher standard than God is dealt with in this book.
Job's self-righteousness was not a function of his own moral code of personal conduct conflicting with God's, but the assertion that God was unjust for striking him when he had committed no wrong to deserve it. An assertion, by the way, that was buried so deep within Job's heart that it took the sorest pressing and vexing by God, man, Satan, friends, and family to drag out of him. I daresay I've complained harder and with less provocation than Job persevered through.
After losing all ten of his children and all his worldly possessions and contracting a horrid painful disease, and after enduring the baseless accusations of his close friends and the discouragement of a wife who encouraged him to die; then Job finally let out a complaint and was rightly rebuked for it. I do not see that this is grounds to accuse Job of substituting man's tradition for the commands of God.
"There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job; and that man was blameless, upright, fearing God and turning away from evil."
It is quite true, that Job did justify himself rather than God, but that was not a function of him having substituted his own rules in the place of God's. If he were the sort of man to do that, it would be easier to rebuke him. Moreover the issue of the possibility of having a higher standard than God is dealt with in this book.
Job's self-righteousness was not a function of his own moral code of personal conduct conflicting with God's, but the assertion that God was unjust for striking him when he had committed no wrong to deserve it. An assertion, by the way, that was buried so deep within Job's heart that it took the sorest pressing and vexing by God, man, Satan, friends, and family to drag out of him. I daresay I've complained harder and with less provocation than Job persevered through.
After losing all ten of his children and all his worldly possessions and contracting a horrid painful disease, and after enduring the baseless accusations of his close friends and the discouragement of a wife who encouraged him to die; then Job finally let out a complaint and was rightly rebuked for it. I do not see that this is grounds to accuse Job of substituting man's tradition for the commands of God.
I was definitely adding commentary Kevin so nothing I said is a sword I would fall on. I didn't mean to imply it's a sin to go the extra mile. I think verse 8 sums it up for me though. Job was using a standard God never set to imply that God was unjust.
I would normally like this statement wholeheartedly even more though I would quibble with the details. But since it's in response to my comment I won't cop out. Look, Job implied that God was unfair to him because God didn't shield Job because of all this list of things that Job felt like made him righteous.
I could never live up to the standard that Job set. So I'm not accusing Job but we do have to take this passage as it was intended.
And Job 31:1 was not intended to be a moral prescription. Is there anything wrong with living by it? Absolutely not, unless you teach it as God's Law. Then you run into trouble.
Think about what would happen if no man looked on a virgin with lust. There would be no marriages, children or next generation.
Right on!
We also have to dig into what "lust" means, or rather what ἐπιθυμέω (G1937) means. I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with looking at a married woman and finding her to be [sexually] attractive, or enjoying the sight of her.
I will forbear to synthesize a treatise on the matter, and simply provide links.
I do not endorse all of the positions held by these two, but I think they're pretty much right with respect to their exegesis regarding "lust".
https://www.jasonstaples.com/bible/most-misinterpreted-bible-passages-1-matthew-527-28/
https://biblicalgenderroles.com/what-is-lust/
17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbors...
Lust/covet...
If it ain't yours, stop trying to figure out how to make it yours, even if it's just in your mind. It's quite disrespectful. Besides, it's a waste of time when you could be doing more productive things.
Lust/covet...
If it ain't yours, stop trying to figure out how to make it yours, even if it's just in your mind. It's quite disrespectful. Besides, it's a waste of time when you could be doing more productive things.
Is this directed at me?
Copping out is definitely not something I would accuse you of!
I do agree there. Although it is my belief that he was adhering to correct moral behavior by not looking upon women with lust because his position as Elder made it so that the one wife that he had was the only wife he should have. The prescription is in Titus and Timothy.
Which, I am VERY aware my view on that is in the minority opinion, but this is how Job's statements fit in with my view.
If however, I'm totally wrong about what the bible said about an Elders marital options, then Job harbored some weird monogamous views. In the context, his not looking at a virgins with desire was a function of his fear of God. He knew God was watching his every step and feared destruction, so he wouldn't do anything wicked. It seems like an odd thing to believe, when all of his other statements pertaining to righteous conduct seem so orthodox.
Job can not catch a break tonight!
It's a generic "you". Can't remember the proper grammar term. Universal to all men.
I'm speaking of the spirit of that commandment and the application.
Q. "Why shouldn't someone covet what's not theirs?"
A. "It's disrespectful to the rightful owner, and a waste of time, and if you did manage to actually acquire it, it means you violated another man's possession. God honors property rights.
Not picking on anyone
Your second theory makes sense, especially with the care Job gives to avoiding sin. The third theory has us looking in the rear view mirror at the verses that pertain to the qualifications for elders and decons. Looking at those New Testament verses through the lens of monogamy only, it seems to make plain sense that Paul is limiting leaders to one wife, for morality reasons. However when you look at those verses from the understanding that polygyny is no less moral than monogamy, it makes no biblical sense that he is limiting the number of women a leader has. That restriction would disqualify many of the men G-d used to write scripture, from teaching from the scriptures
. Some say it might be a limit to only one wife because otherwise the leaders wouldn’t have time to lead. I suppose that could be. I don’t really buy that though, because Paul gives a reason right in the verse.(for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?)
1 Timothy 3:5
Having more than one wife is no indication that one is ruling his own house poorly, biblically speaking. I see nowhere in scripture that would indicate that idea in the slightest, so why would we assume that when we get to those verses? So I don’t know why we would apply the thought that having more than one has some inherent evil to it, when scripture doesn’t teach that anywhere. Imo, your second theory makes more sense. It’s kind of as if maybe Job is saying, I didn’t even come close to sinning sexually.
Edit: as in, he was avoiding the possibility of coveting another’s wife.
Last edited:
I just meant that perhaps his righteousness was grounded in the Law he knew (what God would have revealed prior to Moses) but also things he added. They weren't bad, but additions are still extra things God doesn't necessarily need and may distract someone....a little pharasaical?
In all his trial, he never sinned, but he did say: "I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye seeth thee..."
In all his trial, he never sinned, but he did say: "I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye seeth thee..."
I can't explain why "husband of one wife" is there. Certainly it is no sin to be the husband of more than one wife.
My inclination is to believe it has less to do with him being too busy, and more to do with the attitude an Elder is supposed to have.
Which is to say:
Woe, shepherds of Israel who have been feeding themselves! Should not the shepherds feed the flock? 3“You eat the fat and clothe yourselves with the wool, you slaughter the fat sheep without feeding the flock.
Something tells me that the man who watches over the flock should be devoted to making the flock grow healthy, and not looking to harvest the young ladies that are under his care for his own use.
My inclination is to believe it has less to do with him being too busy, and more to do with the attitude an Elder is supposed to have.
Which is to say:
Woe, shepherds of Israel who have been feeding themselves! Should not the shepherds feed the flock? 3“You eat the fat and clothe yourselves with the wool, you slaughter the fat sheep without feeding the flock.
Something tells me that the man who watches over the flock should be devoted to making the flock grow healthy, and not looking to harvest the young ladies that are under his care for his own use.