Abigail

Then why does Paul tell wives to submitt themselves? Why were the women told not to speak in the church? Why are women told they must keep their heads covered but for men it is a shame?

A little more from another article Excerpts from "How Sin Started By Tzvi Freeman" "Initially, it was most natural for man to follow woman. Read the story: If Eve was convinced to eat of the Tree of Knowledge through dialogue with a talking snake, what convinced Adam? Quite simply, nothing at all. As he himself admitted, "The woman you put here with me gave it to me and I ate!" If Eve told him to do something, Adam understood he was bound to listen. After all, hadn't she been put here by G-d as a "helpmate"? What else could that mean? And so, writes the Nachmanides, (the "Ramban," 1194-1270) the logical consequence: From now on, the roles would be reversed. Adam would dominate Eve. A curse, truly, for both of them -- for how much of a helpmate can you be when you are dominated?Until Sarah. Sarah was the first, the Zohar says, to begin to heal the catastrophe of Eve. And so, G-d tells Abraham, "All that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice" (Genesis 21:12). And so it will be for all of us once the moshiach arrives: The feminine will once again dominate in the world, as it was in the garden before the fall."

Another interesting perspective from one of my favorite websites: Excerpts from "Parshah Articles The Curse of Eve By Tova Bernbaum" which is found HERE ". . . this portrayal of Eve as an icon of feminine deceit is featured more in Christian liturgy than in Jewish works, which may be linked to Judaism's divergent interpretation of the Original Sin. According to the Torah, the story of Adam and Eve is far more complex than a simple "she led him to sin" tale. " " Adam and Eve both received punishments for their transgression, affecting all men and women of future generations, but Eve's curses included the added shame of subordination. G-d said "And he shall dominate you," and I would be lying if I didn't admit that every time I hear that line I want to declare myself a heathen. But even more troubling than the curse itself is the way I've seen it used to justify maintaining the status quo of male dominance. Mostly, I hear the argument from men, but some women are affected by this mentality, too. They contend that sexism is woven into the fabric of creation, as if existence itself would somehow unravel if we were to end gender inequality." "Not only are these women suffering from a kind of slave mentality, they are also overlooking a simple truth: a curse is not a positive or desirable condition. In fact, describing something as a "curse" means just the opposite -- that this is not the way things ought to be. Nor does the fact that G-d is the author of a curse imply that G-d wants us to accept it as a fact of life -- at least not in the Jewish tradition, it doesn't. The Jewish people, for example, were punished to wander throughout history as strangers in a strange land, but we certainly didn't expel ourselves from various countries just to fulfill this punishment. In fact, we believe that G-d wants us to do everything in our power to get out of exile." "Yes, G-d relegated Eve to a lesser social status and said that she'll endure painful childbirth, but that does not imply a divine commandment to accept less pay for the same work, or refuse epidurals. G-d said that this is a curse -- something negative, reflecting the negative change that occurred in creation with the first sin. In other words, something to change."

DMiller, I finally had some time to peruse the site you linked. What a resource! Thank you! It is perfect for the learn at home types like me. :)-->

CW, The group I was referring to was actually reconstruction movement and they are even more liberal than reform (i.e. they take out all gender references to God, accept homosexuals, even accept those who want to come but aren't jewish and don't wish to convert). They also have a somewhat different emphasis, in that they really emphasise community service, taking care of the planet, making the world a better place. I can attend the services without paying the fee. I just can't send my kids to Hebrew school without paying membership fees and the school fees. Another difference, which I think is important to keep in mind is they do not pass an offering plate during services, though you most certaining can contribute money anytime throughout the year. So, I dunno. I think I prefer the way most Christian churches do it, leaving the giving and amount up to the parishoners - it is much easier to be a cheerful giver when you aren't feeling cornered into doing it.

Def, Hebrew school is akin to Sunday school, though it is not held on the sabbath. For K - 3 they meet once a week for 2 hours. 4 - 6th or 7th they meet twice a week. 7th graders is a somewhat different class because that is when they really crack down and prepare for Bar Mitzvah or Bat Mitzvah.

Wahoooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I can't wait to hear about it when you get back. My cousins were there over the summer and had a wonderful time! They said "those Israeli's are crazy!" But in a good way. :)-->

DMiller, I think all religions are divided. It is no different with the Jewish people, the Muslem's, etc. All ends of the spectrum (from extremely orthodox to the extremely radical) are represented. I'm not sure that is such a bad thing. It increases the odds of everyone finding a home that suites them. It is only sad that all of these groups have to be so set in the "I'm right, you're wrong" mindset because that is what truly separates the people, not the doctrinal differences. If all of these groups could communicate without that mindset I bet they would find out they have much more in common than they realize and perhaps could even find some acceptable middle grounds and even greater truthes. I haven't had time to check out the link (Or SirG's for that matter) but I will soon. I have found studying Judaism gives me a much different perspective on who Jesus was and what he was teaching.

Ex10 & CW, Thanks for the information and input! Hmmmm, maybe I should convert again - lol. :)--> It seems I still haven't found a place I'm comfortable with. :(--> I checked out a reform synogogue a while back, which I liked, but their service times just didn't work for my family - way too late at night on Friday and way too long of a service on Saturday for my two little guys to sit through. I thought perhaps the reconstructionist synogogue would work, at least the hours were better. And it was much smaller and more family oriented. "Which is why I was surprised that you weren't offered that information...unless that particular school just doesn't need or doesn't want students outside of their circle. " I don't know CW. A number of my alarm bells have gone off, but I'm not sure if its reflex reaction from TWI or if there is really cause for concern. When I went the first time, I really enjoyed it. The Rabbi was very friendly and he requested that I make an appointment to meet with him, which I did. During the meeting he told me a bit about the synogogue (it's history, focus, goals, etc.) and I told him a bit about myself. The reconstruction movement is in some ways very traditional and in others very radical (i.e. liberal). However, this synogogue only recently joined the reconstruction movement, previously they were independent and run by the congregants with the main focus being study. I think they have only had a Rabbi for about a year. It appears to be a very small group, which attends regularly, less than 25 people. They all seem quite friendly. But in the most recent news letter the Rabbi's article focused on growth and outreach (OUCH!!!! this is especially strange because outside of the Chassidic movement, Jewish people do not proseletyze) and the President's article was about giving more money (DOUBLE OUCH!!!!). I'm trying to balance the idea that all churches want to grow in size and need money to maintain themselves, etc. with my skittishhness over this stuff. I know one thing, if they ever ask me to go door to door witnessing I'm definitely outta there!!!!! lol lol

"I am ceratin that teaching children how to work is the parents responsibility, not anyone elses." And speaking of teaching children. . . . Saturday I took my kids hiking. We brought along two boys from the neighborhood (ages 7 and 9). The younger boy would not listen to anything I told him regarding safety and poison ivy. Additionally, he antagonized the hell out of my 7 year old. I told him to stop and to leave my son alone but he refused to listen. Aaron finally had enough and turned around and decked him. Then this little boy had the nerve to look at me as if I should punish Aaron. (And normally I would, because I don't allow hitting). In this case I made an exception to my rule and told the little boy he got what he had been asking for and that I had warned him to stop. The next day, another boy from our neighborhood was playing here in my home with my kids. This boy took a pair of scissors and cut a hole in one of our bean bag chairs and started pulling the stuffing out and throwing it all over the place! I am just floored by how bad these kids behave in other people's homes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It used to be, little ones might give their parents some trouble (testing and all) but at least they would listen to other adults when in someone else's home!

"Ah, so it turns out that the "tree of knowledge" requires more the cost of "tuition" than "intuition"?" Not in the information age, Danny! I can find everything I need right here on the good ol' internet and have been for quite a while. I just thought it would have been fun for the kids to go and learn some of this stuff with other kids their own age. There are some things that are difficult for me to teach them here at home, but the most important things, the ethics and morals, that I can do. Even the stuff about giving back to the community we can do without paying membership fees. There are plenty of ways and plenty of organizations who are looking for a helping hand and don't charge membership fees in the process. In fact, my seven year old is participating in jump rope for hearts this year and both boys are helping me make bags of popcorn tomorrow to sell at Monday's soccer games to raise money for the schools athletic programs (like new soccer nets :)--> ).

"if you donate 10% of your income to the church, all of your kids can attend Catholic school on that" Right, which I can understand. The church is supplying a service and you are paying for that service. Likewise I can understand paying tuition. I'm just not sure I understand the need to pay both, I guess separate services? I don't know, perhaps its just an emotional response from my TWI days, but it really bothers me. Well, in either case, I won't take food off the table to pay for either one (tithe or Hebrew school), I will simply teach my kids at home. Perhaps that is just as well anyway, becuase there may be things taught which I disagree with or it may be that things I would like emphasized won't be. I just thought it would be a neat experience for them and it would be really really cool for them to learn a little Hebrew along the way.

I wanted to send my kids to Hebrew School this year (it would be much like Sunday school in Christianity). I understood there would be a cost involved(and oy what a cost!) and had no issue with that. Those who work at the school deserve to be paid as any other teacher would. However, I recently learned one also has to be a member of the Synogogue to enroll their children. In order to be a member one has to once again pay and again (oy what a cost!). All of this is outside my budget, can't do it, will teach my kids at home. Now, don't misunderstand, I am aware that it takes money to keep the building, pay the Rabbi and other employees, etc. etc. I am also aware that all of this money stuff reminds me too much of shades of TWI and leaves me feeling uncomfortable. BUT it seems to me, that demanding the money is somehow wrong. To say, you can't learn because you can't afford to. . . So I was wondering, do most Christian churches have similar practices? Or do they rely soley on what people choose to give in the offering plates? I find it ironic that a synogogue which was started independently by college professors who wanted a place to study and teach their children outside of the confines of an orthodox setting, makes it so expensive to take the classes. I'm talking....hmmm for my kids to go to Hebrew School via my membership is almost $1000.00. Like I said, we will learn here at home.

Did it start snowing when he put gas in his car?

I'm sorry you are going through such a terrible time! I think health problems can be especially scary because it is happening to our body and yet we feel so helpless to control it or fix it. Very traumatic stuff! Can leave one feeling very frightened and angry. If you can, use those emotions and channel the energy into something positive. Something you can do/control and walk away feeling good about. If you can't, perhaps a healthy place to vent. A counsellor, minister, friend, punching bag. Peace

"Abby, sounds like you have had a tough road." No rougher than many and far easier than quiet a few as well. :)--> I was just explaining my perspective, which is basically "who am I to judge another?" Antisemitism, racism, anti-Christian, people who want to find a reason to hate always will.

Thank you Shaz, that was very thoughtful. :)--> Shalom

Sky, TWI had a lot of Jewish converts as well. I always wondered what they thought when LCM would go on his rants about the Holocaust being fake and the 13th Tribe stuff. I know, even though I was never raised a practicing Jew, I found it very offensive. I had family who survived concentration camps. I agree also, that we have a barometer inside us that senses when something isn't quite right, I think that is God too. But sometimes, we aren't hearing, and other times we are afraid to trust that barometer. This was one of my huge problems. Prior to my involvement with TWI, I spent a lot of time drunk or on drugs and did things I was very ashamed of. By the time I got to TWI and tried to straighten up, I no longer trusted my own judgment. So, I trusted the leaders in TWI more than I trusted myself. I was looking for forgiveness from God and I found a sense of it there. But it still took me many years to work through those things I had done and come to forgive myself. By then, I was very indoctrinated in their teachings and very attached to the people. I was also married to someone who was very committed to TWI. To this day, I believe those people who I initially began fellowshipping with were wonderful. They were not "tapped into headquarters" and they were not legalistic. They were simply loving people who wanted to share what they learned and teach us how to understand the Bible. Then everything changed very suddenly. Over the span of maybe two months, everyone in charge was removed and sent elsewhere and all new leadership came in. I knew there was something wrong and spoke up about it quite a bit. Not too long afterward, I decided to leave. However, I was pressured and intimidated into staying. I stayed five more years before I finally got to the point where I no longer cared about the consequences of leaving. I never really did learn to trust myself again until a year or so after I left TWI and my ex-husband. It was only by truly going out in the world on my own and learning to accept my imperfections and mistakes, as well as my successes that I learned to trust myself and God again. But I'll tell you, I will never forget those mistakes I made in my youth. For that reason, I will also not judge the mistakes of others. I know where I have come from and what I have done, I am no better than the next guy, be the next guy an adulterer, drunk, coveter (or however you would say that) or whatever other label one might have for sin or a sinner. I may chose to limit or eliminate my contact with someone because their actions are harmful to me or my family, but even in that, I won't judge them harshly.

"it was the one topic (but not only there were others) that told me that something was wrong in TWI from the get go. Others who were there a lenghty time, have assured me that this same attitude did not prevail in their particular fellowship." I had no idea what was going on regarding adultery in TWI until shortly before I left. It was one, but far from the only one, of the reasons I left. That being said, I think LCM had no business leading TWI, but again his adultery is not the sole reason I believe that. "But even the absence of discussion about (sin in the flesh) and no discussion of the cross was quite a signal. " Perhaps you had an advantage there in that I knew almost nothing of Christianity outside of TWI and what I did know if it made little sense to me. "God. I am not going to digress from the point either Abby, because doing so would indicate to them that a better way from God himself in their own vernacular was "not available." Clearly it was." Agreed. There is always a better way. However, sometimes we get lost along the way, while trying to find it or have gotten lost before we even begin looking.

"Without consequence, without indicating the seriousness of the matter, I simply see it as an issue that can creep into and infect others as well" I think most people already understand it is a serious matter and it is wrong. Which is again, why I say adultery, like drug or alcohol addiction is a symptom of a deeper problem. "You cannot create an environment which facilitates such actions and expect people to succeed. " Agreed. However, I don't think shunning people helps them succeed either. "think rightfully so, for the new covenant is a living body given for us, which the law could never provide." I see all of God's Word as a living body, including the law. "If fornicators and adulters do not inherit the Kingdom of God and we his people are his temple what wrong with showing these people their inheritance which is in a different house than God's? They wont be in his house anyway if they continune in this, so why make them think that they can? In my view that is simply deluding people." I do not decide who inhertis the Kingdom of God and think it is dangerous for any man to judge such things. That is God's place, not mine. If you study the Bible, especially the O.T., you will see that God may not change, but he does negotiate with mankind, he does understand our frame, and he loves us in spite of that. So who am I to say who will or won't be in His house? Mostly I don't even care to dwell on such thoughts. My focus is not on who is or is not "saved". I believe we are all God's children and God will find ways to teach us what he wants us to understand. "I guess we would just have to agree to disagree on that one" This could well be the case. No hard feelings, Sky, I just believe differently about this subject than you do. Such is life. :)--> Peace

Sky, "It is my view ( and I believe OT and NT one as well), that adultery and covetousness are core issues when in existence make it impossible to grow in the knowledge of God and understand true holiness." I don't think it is ever impossible to grow in the knowledge of God if one has a desire too. But I agree adultery and covetousness are very difficult issues and hurtful actions. "By disallowing participation with the people of God, my arguement is this is more merciful and would draw there full attention to the matter" Well it would certainly draw attention to the matter, but I'm not certain it would be merciful. It could just put the person further into condemnation and make the matter worse. Didn't Jesus come to preach to the sinners? What did he say to the woman caught in adultery? Really, each circumstance is different and needs to be viewed in light of the specifics. "Love must be tough, no?" Sometimes. "Just in the sense I have seen people preach while commiting adultery and I think that is the ultimate hypocracy." Ok, now this I agree with you on 100% and I'll tell you why. It is my bet that most people who commit adultery are extremely unhappy. Additionally, I would bet many of them also have a lot of self-esteem issues. Otherwise, either fix the marriage or get divorced so that at least you can live more honestly. Why do I think people with self-esteem issues shouldn't preach? Because they are rejecting the love God has for them or they have never really come to understand it. If they can't understand it, how can they teach it? Additionally, they are more likely to hurt other people in an attempt to put a bandaid on their own problems. Covetousness may very well fall in the same category. If one is at peace with one's self, loves themselves and understand the love God has for them, there is little need to covet. Alcohol and drug addtion, pretty much the same deal. Most of the time these problems mask or are symptoms of deeper ones. People who suffer these things need mercy even more than the rest. They need love as well. And yes, sometimes that love can hurt. But the sting is less if there is understanding and compession with that "tough love". "By disallowing participation with the people of God," Here, I am assuming you mean in a church setting. I cannot comment on that too much. I know what the scriptures say in black and white, but I'm not sure there aren't layers there which have not been understood yet. For myself, I do not have nor do I wish to have the authority to "disallow someone from participating with the people of God". I only pick and chose who I allow in my own life.

Yes He did. And He told him How. And it was destroyed.

Sky, You are preaching to the choir! :)--> It seems most every organization, be it religious, political, educational - whatever the ideals may have been in founding it eventually get lost in the need to perpetuate it. This is timely too, given the season (Sukkot). Because observant Jews, and even many who are not so observant are currently eating and/or sleeping in huts made of branches and twigs for the next week to remind them of how people once lived, to remind them of how good they have it, to remind them God does not dwell in buildings but in people, etc. "They gossip like snakes about the alcholic and the drug addict and placate the adulters. Why? " I must ask though, why you have such a thing about adulterers. Don't get me wrong, I understand it is sin. So are many things and in a sense, gossip could be an equal sin to adultery because it doesn't just hurt the sinner, but the ones being gossiped about as well. Should we not have mercy on the adulterer as well as the alcoholic or drug addict? Is there not a sickness there as well? "But they ought to at least not tore them apart with there mouths and left the door open thru mercy. These folks can't handle hate from gossip, it destroys the hope they have left." Agreed, we all need mercy at times and would do well to remember this before we open our mouths to gossip or condemn another. "It makes them feel more righteous themselves. " Again, agreed. "Ok, so we are not under the law but grace. Thats fine, but it certainly speaks volumes to "taking heed how you build upon your own foundation." If you gotta have a building to meet in at least make sure you got the right one in your heart also." Grace is no excuse. There are reasons people sin, as many reasons as their are sinners and sins. Those reasons need to be understood and handled compassionately, not with condemnation. For only then, can we extend mercy and healing.

Here is what Rashi says about Elihu: 32:2 "Then Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite of the family of Ram became angry; he became angry with Job because he thought himself [more] righteous than God. of the family of Ram Abraham, as it is stated (Josh. 14:15): “the greatest man among the Anakim.” This is Abraham. than God More than the Omnipresent." This is very interesting (it is not from Rashi) "Abraham was the first Jew to be circumcised, and the covenant of circumcision is known to this day as “the covenant of Abraham.” Thus, whoever fulfills the commandment of being circumcised and guards the purity of his sexuality merits Abraham’s protection. Allegorically, this simply means that guarding sexual purity is sufficient merit to be spared the ordeal of Purgatory even if one has sinned in other ways that would have otherwise required that he undergo the purging process. Now, this caused Terah to be reincarnated. When he returned, he descended as a woman and married according to leviratic law. I.e., she married the brother of her deceased, childless husband. In such a case, the first child of this union is considered the child of the deceased man. Although Terah repented of his sin of idolatry before he died, he evidently had to be reincarnated in order to right his sexual sins. He thus descended as a woman—presumably to experience female consciousness and thereby realize the seriousness of having “used” women. As a woman, s/he suffered being childless and losing her husband. S/he then had to marry the deceased husband’s brother. The key to the rectification of Terah’s sexual sins was the sexual purity and idealism of his son, Abraham. The fact that Abraham (re-)introduced the idea of sexual integrity into the world allowed Terah’s soul to be set straight. The result of this union was Job. Job [thus lived] in the generation of Isaac. He was not comforted by the words of any of his [three] friend who came to console him. He was only comforted when he met Isaac, [who is called in the book of Job] Elihu ben Berachel the Buzite.[7] Isaac was called Elihu ben Berachel [literally, “Elihu the son of he whom G-d has blessed”], for G-d blessed him. [Elihu ben Berachel] was “from the family of Ram,” meaning Abraham. Job, like Isaac, was a grandson of Terah. He lived in “the land of Utz,” and Utz was the son of Nahor, Abraham’s brother. After G-d inflicted suffering upon Job, his three friends came to console him. But Job was not consoled by their words, since they each tried to convince him that he had done something to deserve this suffering. Only the younger Elihu was able to console Job." And here is more from another source "WHO WAS ELIHU? Enter Elihu. Who is Elihu? Elihu was a member of the Ram family [Job 32:2] and was therefore a descendant of Ram. Who was Ram? Perhaps a better way to pose the question: Who was the father of the Ram family? Av = Father, therefore, the father of the Ram family was Av Ram; more commonly known as Abram. The Talmud in Bava Basra 15b records that Elihu was a descendant of Avraham. Elihu's name is spelled two different ways: five times with an aleph at the end, but twice [Job 32:4, 35:1], without an aleph at the end. Without the aleph, Elihu's name is spelled the same way that Elijah's name (Eliyahu) is occasionally spelled. Is there significance to that "coincidence"? Is there a relationship between Elihu and Elijah? Malachi said that Elijah will come before the great and dreadful day of the HaShem [Malachi 3:23]. It is interesting that Elihu came before the great and dreadful day of HaShem's revelation to Job. The sages tell us that the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob kept the Torah before it was given on Mount Sinai. That is, the patriarchs comprehended the spiritual realities of the Torah that was ultimately revealed at Mount Sinai and lived in accordance with that understanding. The spiritual knowledge and understanding of the patriarchs was far beyond the level of even the most righteous Gentile Noachide. (Keep in mind that all Israelites, prior to the giving of the Torah on Mount Sinai, were obligated to keep the Seven Laws of Noah and were therefore Noachides in the technical sense). Elihu was from the family of Abraham. According to the Artscroll Translation [page 274, footnote to Job 32:2], the Ramban informs us that Elihu was Abraham's descendant and that Elihu was steeped in the traditions of Abraham's faith. Elihu partook of Abraham's spiritual knowledge and understanding. It was from that wellspring of spiritual knowledge of Torah that Elihu was able to 'correct' the deficiencies in the Noachide theology of Job. What does Elihu's name mean? Eli means "my G-d". Hu are the middle two letters (Y-V) of HaShem’s name (Y-K-V-K). Elihu (aleph-lamed-yud-heh-vav) could also be a contraction of two words: Eli (aleph-lamed-yud) and Yahu (yud-heh-vav). The two yud are contracted into a single yud. The aleph (which has no sound) at the end may be a polite way not to write out all of HaShem’s name into someone else's name. In short, Elihu's name means: My G-d is HaShem." Ok, enough reading for one night. Pretty interesting stuff regarding Elihu - especially considering Martindale taught that Elihu was born of the seed of the devil!

Sky, I am interested in your "weird theory" no matter how weird you think it is. :)--> I will look the verse up the next time I get to the library at the synogogue. (They have the most incredible library there - open to all). I will also ask the Rabbi if I get a chance. I was going to say too, if you want to discuss OT with a Rabbi try a Reform or Reconstructionist synogogue - they are more likely to be open to someone who is not Jewish. :)--> I wasn't able to find much on your verse beyond the English translation, but here is what I did find: "Job, on seeing death approach, gave a cithara to his first daughter, Day ("Yemimah"), a censer to his second, Kassiah ("Perfume"), and a timbrel to his third, Amaltheas Horn ("?eren ha-Puk"), that they might welcome the holy angels who came to take his soul; and while they played and glorified God in the holy dialect, He who sitteth upon the Great Chariot came and took the soul of Job away with a kiss and carried it eastward, where the Heavenly Throne is erected. Amid the singing of his daughters and the great mourning of the people, particularly the poor and the fatherless, his body was taken to the grave. The dirge is given at the close of the book (ch. xi-xii., ed. Kohler; xli.-lii., ed. James)." "The English word "resurrection" means a re + standing, or standing (rising) again. The Greek is anastasis and occurs first in Matthew 22:23 for a total of 40x in the Christian Bible. The first occurrence of the word in the Jewish Greek Bible (LXX) is in the negative at Job 14:12, "and man that has lain down (in death) shall certainly not rise again." Or, "will not be resurrected." That a resurrection is possible is inferred in verse 13, 14. There are two other occurrences of forms of ANASTASIS in some versions of the LXX at Job 42:17, ‘And Job died, an old man and full of days: and it is written that he will rise again (ANASTESESTHAI) with those whom the Lord raises up (ANISTESIN).’ This could be rendered: "that he will be resurrected with those the Lord resurrects." So, the first occurrence of "resurrect," or "resurrection" is in the Book of Job which is thought to record events from the Sixteenth Century BC between Joseph and Moses." Rashi - who is one of the two most well known and accepted Rabbi's who offered comentaries states Job 42:17 this : "Then Job died, being old and sated with days.... and sated with days Heb. ????????.From ????????? he says ????????, in the construct state." For the complete book of Job with Rashi's commentary go here In my search for your verse, I also found this, which I thought you might find interesting: "Like the Patriarchs (comp. Test. Patr., Adam, 14, and Tan., Waye?i, 8, ed. Buber, and Bo, 2), Job in a farewell address to his children reviews his life, telling them that he is of the generation of Abraham, a descendant of Esau (Gen. l.c.), and was known as "Jobab," a rich ruler of the land of Uz (Ausitis), before God called him "Job" because of his martyrdom (see Job, Critical View); that his second wife, their mother, was Dinah, the daughter of Jacob (comp. B. B. 15b). Like Abraham, he had changed from idolatry to the worship of the true God, the Maker of heaven and earth (comp. Num. R. xiv.); yet as he had set out to destroy the idols of the land, the work of Satan, he had been told by the archangel of God to prepare for a life-long battle with Satan, but at the same time he had been promised lasting renown as a great spiritual athlete and a crown of amaranth in the world to come, after the resurrection. "I shall from love of God endure until the end," Job said, and received from the angel the seal of life (comp. So?ah v. 5, and Kohler, l.c. pp. 271, 316). Satan, after having first attempted, in the guise of a beggar, to get Job into his power, but without success, secured from God permission (comp. Targ. Job i. 12) to take away all his possessions (ch. i.-ii., ed. Kohler; ch. i.-viii., ed. James)."