{"id":146,"date":"2017-11-01T12:20:29","date_gmt":"2017-11-01T11:20:29","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/?p=146"},"modified":"2017-11-01T14:20:16","modified_gmt":"2017-11-01T13:20:16","slug":"job-ii","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/2017\/11\/01\/job-ii\/","title":{"rendered":"Job – II"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>Job 22\u201327<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Original Meaning<\/p>\n

This third series of speeches concludes the dialogue section. As we will see, the friends have much less to say: Bildad has only six verses and Zophar is silent, leaving Eliphaz to carry the main thrust of the sequence.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Eliphaz (Job 22<\/a>)<\/p>\n

Eliphaz\u2019s opening line sets the tone for the remainder of his speech as he targets the issue that Job has been holding as his defense. Unfortunately, the Hebrew is extremely difficult<\/span>. If we follow the NIV<\/a> translation, Eliphaz is suggesting that it doesn\u2019t matter to God whether a person is righteous\/blameless or not; God derives no benefit from moral behavior. This interpretation <\/span>is out-of-character for Eliphaz and does not fit well with the rest of his speech. We are not surprised, then, at the numerous lexical, grammatical, and syntactical problems in verses 2<\/a> and 3<\/a>.<\/p>\n

A look <\/span>at some of the major technical commentaries will confirm the uncertainties.<\/p>\n

NIV<\/a>: \u201cCan a man be of benefit to God? Can even a wise man benefit him? What pleasure would it give the Almighty if you were <\/span>righteous? What would he gain if your ways were blameless?\u201d<\/p>\n

Habel: \u201cCan a hero endanger El? or a sage endanger the Ancient One? Is it a favor to Shaddai if you are righteous, or his gain if you perfec<\/span>t your ways?\u201d<\/p>\n

Hartley: \u201cCan a man benefit God, that a wise man should be in harmony with him? What asset is it to Shaddai that you are innocent, or gain that you claim that your ways are blameless?\u201d<\/p>\n

C<\/span>lines: \u201cCan a human be profitable to God? Can even a sage benefit him? Is it an asset to the Almighty if you are righteous? Does he gain if your conduct is blameless?\u201d<\/p>\n

I would propose the following tr<\/span>anslation:<\/p>\n

\u201cCan a wise mediator do any good for a human being [serving] on behalf of God? Can such a mediator bring a human any benefit? Will God respond favorably when you justify yourself? Will ther<\/span>e be a gain when you give full account of your ways?\u201d1<\/a><\/p>\n

In 22:2\u20133<\/a> Eliphaz is in effect saying, \u201cA mediator will do you no good; your proposed lawsuit would have no chance of success.\u201d In 22:4<\/a> this rhet<\/span>oric is continued with: \u201cIs it for your piety that he argues his case against you?\u201d Of course not! Circumstances have made it clear to Eliphaz that Job has no piety, so he should not press this lawsuit idea or <\/span>expect that it would succeed if he did manage to get a hearing. Eliphaz concludes his point in 22:5<\/a> with the rhetorical question that offers the alternative: \u201c[Instead] isn\u2019t your wickedness<\/span> great?\u201d This then leads to the enumeration of Job\u2019s many sins (all presumed, not observed).<\/p>\n

In 22:6\u20139<\/a> we find the friends\u2019 only attempt to accuse Job of specific sins. The list alleges injustice towa<\/span>rd three vulnerable classes: the debtor (22:6<\/a>), the hungry\/thirsty (22:7\u20138<\/a>), and the widow\/orphan (22:9<\/a>). We know that these are generic offenses (rather than demonstrably Israelite in nature) from th<\/span>e standpoint of ancient Near Eastern legal texts that regularly address the obligations of society to care for these vulnerable people.<\/p>\n

Knowing that the accusations of injustice are speculative and un<\/span>founded, we must also question the validity of Eliphaz\u2019s claims concerning Job\u2019s speech. In 22:13<\/a> he alleges that Job has said, \u201cWhat does God know? Does he judge through such darkness?\u201d These do not <\/span>match up with any words that Job has actually spoken, so we must take them as Eliphaz\u2019s synthesis of what Job has \u201cin effect\u201d said. Such an inference could be made from 21:22<\/a>: \u201cDoes he [the wicked man<\/span>]2<\/a> teach knowledge on behalf of God, when he [God] is the one who judges even the highest?\u201d This is one of the verses that I used as a comparison for 22:2<\/a>, and on the basis of which I offered my alter<\/span>nate translation. The reference to judging (\u0161p\u1e6d<\/span>) the highest (ramim<\/span>) in 21:22<\/a> and to the lofty (rmm<\/span>) stars and God\u2019s judging (\u0161p\u1e6d<\/span>) in 22:12\u201313<\/a> support my comparison.<\/p>\n

This suggests that there is a <\/span>further connection between the wicked teaching knowledge in 21:22<\/a> and questioning what God knows in 22:13<\/a>. In 21:13\u201316<\/a>, the wicked enjoy the fruits of their wickedness, but in 21:22<\/a> Job claims that th<\/span>ey cannot communicate information regarding divine judgment because God judges universally and impartially.3<\/a> Job thus asserts that the defiant prosperity of the wicked should not be interpreted as a r<\/span>eflection of God\u2019s policies, which are too complex to be sorted out (21:23\u201326<\/a>). Yet 21:31\u201333<\/a> suggest that (in Job\u2019s mind) God is shirking his duties. These statements would lead Eliphaz to assert that<\/span> Job has accused God of overlooking the wicked. Such an affirmation does not indicate an underlying deism, because Job has already indicated in 7:17\u201321<\/a> that God was, at the same time, paying too much <\/span>attention to him.<\/p>\n

As Eliphaz continues his discourse, we see further connections to Job\u2019s last speech. In 22:15<\/a> he is urging Job not to think that he can follow the path of the wicked that Job has jus<\/span>t described. His comments in 22:17\u201318<\/a> contain the same wording that Job attributes to the wicked in 21:14\u201316<\/a>.4<\/a><\/p>\n

In 22:21<\/a> Eliphaz begins his exhortation to Job and picks up the verb skn<\/span> (\u201csubmit\u201d) that<\/span> he used in 22:2<\/a>, except now it is in the Hiphil stem.5<\/a> Based on a cognate in the Akkadian letters from Amarna and the contexts of the three biblical passages where this form occurs, it is likely that<\/span> the verb signifies showing awareness, taking an informed position, paying attention\u2014engaging with someone.6<\/a> If this is so, Eliphaz advises Job to pay attention to God\u2014to reengage with him and stop ar<\/span>guing.7<\/a> Eliphaz\u2019s understanding of reengaging with God is, however, far different from Job\u2019s understanding.<\/p>\n

Concluding his final speech, Eliphaz turns from his exhortation to the anticipated results. <\/span>Here he emphasizes restored favor with God (22:25\u201327<\/a>) but with the twist that renewed favor will put Job in a position to influence God. This is a more subtle temptation for Job to respond in anticipa<\/span>tion of benefits, rather than retain righteousness for righteousness\u2019 sake (as Job has maintained all along). The lure of possessions has now been displaced by the lure for power: \u201cThink of all the good you can do!\u201d We see the ironic contrast between Eliphaz\u2019s prognosis here (Job\u2019s influence with God will enable him to help the downcast) and his <\/span>previous accusation (that Job has abused this same class of people).<\/span><\/p>\n

The last verse (22:30<\/a>) is unfortunately problematic. The NIV<\/a> follows the primary and traditional path, indicating that Job could even deliver the one who is \u201cnot innocent\u201d (\u02bei-naqi<\/span>). <\/span>Though \u02bei<\/span> is not used as a negative particle elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, it is known from postbiblical Hebrew and other Semitic cognate languages (e.g., Phoenician and Ethiopic).8<\/a> It is curious tha<\/span>t the author uses this awkward construction rather than one of the many available words for \u201cguilty.\u201d This oddity has caused many commentators to propose textual emendations, none of which are particularly persuasive.<\/span>9<\/a> If we retain the meaning of \u201cwhere\u201d (established in 1 Sam. 4:21<\/a>), we might surmise that Eliphaz refers to a category of individuals who are caught in the legal system. Accused of gu<\/span>ilt and unable to establish innocence (not unlike Job), this person\u2019s reputation and integrity have come under suspicion. Perhaps Eliphaz is suggesting, then, that when Job is restored, he could help people who are suffering the same thing he has endured. Presumably he could urge them to return to God, just as Elipha<\/span>z has urged him.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

Job (Job 23\u201324<\/a>)<\/p>\n

In Job 23<\/a> Job ponders his status before God. He is torn between optimistic confidence (23:6b\u20137<\/a>, 10<\/a>) and frustrated attempts at justification (23:8\u20139<\/a>). He is filled with continuing plan<\/span>s for his legal defense (23:4\u20135<\/a>) and affirmations of his righteousness (23:11\u201312<\/a>). Both his suffering (23:1<\/a>) and his terror of God (23:13\u201317<\/a>) remain.<\/p>\n

In chapter 24<\/a> Job turns his attention to the injus<\/span>tice in the world as he wonders why God does not respond. Many of Job\u2019s friends predicted the inevitable doom of the wicked. In Job 21<\/a> Job elaborated on the prosperity of the wicked\u2014a situation that s<\/span>eemed to him unfair. His charge against God progresses from \u201cunfair\u201d to \u201cunjust\u201d10<\/a> as he enumerates the many ways in which the wicked oppress the vulnerable. In Job 1<\/a> the narrator noted that Job did n<\/span>ot sin by charging God with wrongdoing (1:21<\/a>); in contrast, Job here complains, \u201cGod charges no one with wrongdoing\u201d (24:12<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Job 24:13\u201317<\/a> identifies the characteristics of those who love the dark (\u201cr<\/span>ebel against the light\u201d). Murderers, adulterers, and thieves comprise the three categories of offenders (reflecting commandments 6\u20138<\/a> in the Decalogue, though that is not Job\u2019s referent).<\/p>\n

In light of 2<\/span>4:12c<\/a>, Job\u2019s continuing speech in 24:18\u201325<\/a> seems problematic. Job has not yet elaborated the coming judgment of the wicked. For this reason, many commentators attribute this speech to one of the frien<\/span>ds (especially Zophar, who has no last speech).11<\/a> If the speech truly does belong in the mouth of Job, it would confirm that he still clings to the RP<\/a> in theory, in spite of general observation and hi<\/span>s own experiences, which do not bear it out. Job\u2019s claim of disinterested righteousness rests on his commitment to the RP<\/a>, insofar as it is the RP<\/a> that distinguishes between righteousness for its own <\/span>sake and righteousness for reward. Without the RP<\/a> there is no \u201cinterested righteousness,\u201d for no gain could be expected or anticipated.<\/p>\n

We have mentioned already that the Hebrew of the book of Job is <\/span>the most difficult in the Old Testament; worse still, this section of Job 24<\/a> is often considered the most obscure in this book. Before exploring specific lexical issues, we must address the sometimes <\/span>confusing use of singulars and plurals in this section.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Singular\/plural in <\/strong>24:13\u201324<\/strong><\/a>.<\/strong> Readers comparing translations will notice some variability on the representation of singulars and plurals throughout this section. The difficulty of the section is partly responsible for this, but gender policies also come into play as translations seek to avoid gender-specific pronouns when gender is not the issue. To sort out the interpretation of the section, we need to sort out the use of singular and plural forms.<\/p>\n

Job 24:13<\/a> uses the plural to introduce a group of criminals who operate at night. Singulars are used to discuss two criminal classes: the murderer (24:14<\/a>) and the adulterer (24:15<\/a>). A third class, those who break into houses, returns to the plural. All of these criminals are again grouped together using plural forms in 24:17\u201319<\/a>, and at the end they are collectively referred to in the plural as sinners.<\/p>\n

In 24:20<\/a> the text introduces a second category of unsavory character, using a singular abstract noun to represent a stereotype (\u02bfawlah<\/span>).12<\/a> This word was discussed in the treatment of Job 13:7<\/a> (pp. 177\u201378<\/a>), where I proposed that this noun essentially signifies misrepresentation. In that same vein, but in contrast to the outright criminals of 24:13\u201319<\/a>, Job here describes those in positions of power who pretend to be ethical but who actually oppress and manipulate others. Just as 24:14<\/a> used singular forms to identify specific types from the larger class of criminals, so 24:21<\/a> uses singular forms to identify typical behaviors of these powerful tyrants.13<\/a> These include the individual who preys on the vulnerable (24:21<\/a>) as well as the individual who manipulates the aristocracy (24:22<\/a>).<\/p>\n

In conclusion, the text uses the plural forms of 24:24<\/a> to summarize the destiny that awaits these tyrants as a group, just as it used the plurals to summarize the previous group in 24:18\u201319<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Lexical issues.<\/strong> Job\u2019s characterization of the wicked in 24:13\u201320<\/a> shows that he is not at all tempted to imitate them, and he has repeatedly refused to identify himself as one of them. He neither admits to personal deficiencies nor abandons his commitment to righteousness. That path has no future. In 24:21<\/a> the wicked are the ones who do what Eliphaz had accused Job of doing (22:9<\/a>)\u2014victimizing the vulnerable. As we have seen in previous chapters, Job continues to characterize the ways of the wicked in deplorable terms.<\/p>\n

Up to this point we have seen nothing that would be out of place in Job\u2019s mouth or in the flow of his argument. Job would not hesitate to suggest that the wicked die like everyone else. A problem would occur only if Job specifically refers to God\u2019s judgment of the wicked, because he has been denying this all along (24:12<\/a>, \u201cGod charges no one with wrongdoing\u201d). Job 24:22<\/a> (NIV<\/a>: \u201cGod drags away the mighty\u201d) poses just such a potential contradiction. It is therefore important to note that the subject of 24:22<\/a> is not specified in the Hebrew text; \u201cGod\u201d has been supplied by the translators. After a detailed analysis of verses 22\u201323<\/a> we must reconsider whether this is the best choice.<\/p>\n

uma\u0161ak \u02beabbirim beko\u1e25o yaqum welo\u02be-ya\u02beamin ba\u1e25ayyin<\/span>.<\/p>\n

yitten-lo labe\u1e6da\u1e25 weyi\u0161\u0161a\u02bfen we\u02bfenehu \u02bfal-darkehem<\/span>.<\/p>\n

NIV<\/a>: But God drags away the mighty by his power; though they become established, they have no assurance of life. He may let them rest in a feeling of security, but his eyes are on their ways.<\/p>\n

The addition of \u201cGod\u201d as the subject in verse 22<\/a> is followed in most all translations and commentaries.14<\/a> This single factor causes these statements to sound foreign to the mouth of Job. I propose it is unnecessary either to supply \u201cGod\u201d as the subject or to significantly emend the text to arrive at a suitable translation. I suggest the following paraphrase for 24:22\u201323<\/a>:<\/p>\n

He (a wicked person) uses his power to draw along the mighty; he rises (to positions of influence), but his life is in constant jeopardy. Though he has provided for his own security, he has to keep his eyes on them (the mighty) all the time.15<\/a><\/p>\n

In this analysis, Job observes that wickedness offers no advantage, but he does not suggest that the wicked are called to account by God. They fall prey to their own schemes and to their own mortality. This sort of statement would not be out of place in the mouth of Job.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Bildad (Job 25<\/a>)<\/p>\n

Bildad\u2019s last speech is only six verses long. This brevity is defensible in light of his entrenched traditionalism, which, at this point in the dialogue, has reduced him to platitudinous reiteration of his major salient points: God is unimaginably great; humans are intrinsically flawed and, in the grand scheme of things, are of little consequence.16<\/a> He believes in an ordered world, and as we have seen previously, that order is founded on the RP<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Job (Job 26\u201327<\/a>)<\/p>\n

After introductory comments filled with biting sarcasm (26:1\u20134<\/a>), Job launches into another of his hymnic orations of God\u2019s cosmic power (see 9:4\u201310<\/a>) that extends through the remainder <\/span>of the chapter and leads to the statement of his final position in ch. 27<\/a>. God is never mentioned by name in the Hebrew text of this hymn (v. 6<\/a> has only a pronoun), though the chapter is full of activ<\/span>ities that can only be attributed to God.17<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>Job 26:5\u20136<\/strong><\/a>.<\/strong> These verses describe the dead and the netherworld. The subject of the first sentence is the group known as the repa\u02beim<\/span> (NIV<\/a>: \u201cdead\u201d). This is the word used occasionally in the Hebrew Bibl<\/span>e for the shades of the dead18<\/a> and more specifically in Ugaritic for the shades of perhaps deified royal ancestors.19<\/a> It is more difficult to understand what engages the Rephaim in their dwelling pla<\/span>ce beneath the sea. The translation \u201cdeep anguish\u201d (NIV<\/a>) is based on an identification of the verbal form (ye\u1e25olalu<\/span>) as a Polal of the root \u1e25yl<\/span>;<\/em> all the other uses of this form in biblical Hebrew de<\/span>scribe the writhing of a woman in labor. The Akkadian myth The Descent of Ishtar to the Underworld recounts Ishtar\u2019s passage through the seven gates of the netherworld. As each gate opens for her, Ishtar is required to forfeit another piece of her garmen<\/span>ts of splendor and power until at last she is left naked. Even so, Ereshkigal, the queen of the netherworld, trembles (Akkad. ra\u02be\u0101bu<\/span>)20<\/a> at her pr<\/span>esence.21<\/a><\/p>\n

It is intriguing to see all of these elements (the opening of the netherworld, nakedness, and trembling) grouped together in both Job and the The Descent, but the contexts are very different<\/span>. In Enuma Elish<\/span> one of the fifty names of Marduk is Nari-lugal-dimmer-ankia,<\/em> which designates him as the one who set up the dwelling places for the various levels of deity. It is said that at his nam<\/span>e, \u201cthe gods shall tremble and quake in their dwellings.\u201d22<\/a> From these examples we see that it is common to praise a deity as one at whose name or presence other beings of power tremble fearfully.<\/p>\n

The<\/span> phrase \u201cbeneath the waters\u201d (mitta\u1e25at mayim<\/span>) uses the same terms as Genesis 1:7<\/a> (hammayim \u02bea\u0161er mitta\u1e25at laraqia\u02bf<\/span>) to reference the cosmic waters. One can also enter the netherworld through these w<\/span>aters, not just through the grave (Job 38:16\u201317<\/a>; Jon. 2:2<\/a>[3<\/a>]). The dead (both the Rephaim and the other inhabitants) live beneath the cosmic waters because Sheol is deeper than anything. Even as the m<\/span>ost awesome tremble in God\u2019s presence, the most mysterious, Sheol and Abaddon (here used in synonymous parallelism), are subject to his scrutiny and control (see NIV<\/a> text note). \u201cAbaddon\u201d is used only<\/span> four other times in the Old Testament (Job 28:22<\/a>; 31:12<\/a>; Ps. 88:11<\/a>[12<\/a>]; Prov. 15:11<\/a>), but that it refers to the place of the dead is clear enough from its contexts and its association with known cogn<\/span>ate roots.<\/p>\n

It is unclear how these verses connect to Job 26:7\u201313<\/a>, in that the latter verses refer to creation events in primordial time\u2014probably not the time frame for 26:5\u20136<\/a>. The other alternative is<\/span> that 26:5\u20136<\/a> continue the sarcasm of the previous verses. Job has referenced some anonymous source for Bildad\u2019s supposed words of wisdom. As mentioned above, the NIV<\/a>, along with most others, has provi<\/span>ded \u201cGod\u201d as the subject of discussion in the first line of 26:6<\/a>, but the Hebrew text has only a third masculine singular suffix on the preposition. Theoretically, then, the \u201chim\u201d could be this unname<\/span>d source. Even the mighty ones in the netherworld are simply quivering over the wisdom of this wellspring, and in fact, all the mysteries of death and the netherworld are like an open book to this dynamo. I suggest this only tentatively as an alternative consideration.<\/span>23<\/a> The switch to participial forms discussing primordial time in 26:7<\/a> would then indicate when God becomes the unspecified but self<\/span>-evident subject.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Job 26:7<\/strong><\/a>.<\/strong> If we follow the traditional understanding of 26:5\u20136<\/a>, the hymn moves from God\u2019s control of the realm of the dead and powerful spiritual or cosmic creatures to his control of the upper cosmos. The cosmic geography expressed in 26:7<\/a> has attracted considerable attention, since some have asserted that it reflects some modern, scientific models that conceive of the earth suspended in space.24<\/a> Careful attention, however, shows this not to be the case. The key terms to explore are tohu<\/span> (NIV<\/a>: \u201cempty space\u201d) and belyi-mah<\/span> (NIV<\/a>: \u201cnothing\u201d).<\/p>\n

Tohu<\/span> is used twenty times\u2014more than half in Isaiah (mostly Isa. 40\u201349<\/a>,25<\/a> with the other occurrences scattered between Job [3x]26<\/a> and Gen. 1:2<\/a>; Deut. 32:10<\/a>; 1 Sam. 12:21<\/a>; Ps. 107:40<\/a>; Jer. 4:23<\/a>). Elsewhere I have argued that tohu<\/span> refers to that which is nonfunctional.27<\/a>Genesis 1:2<\/a> begins by describing everything as tohu<\/span>,<\/em> and as creation unfolds, God assigns function. Egyptian literature describes the nonfunctional as nonexistent; just as it categorizes the desert as nonexistent (nonfunctional), so too the Hebrew Bible characterizes the desert as tohu<\/span> (Deut. 32:10<\/a>; Job 6:18<\/a>; 12:24<\/a>; Ps. 107:40<\/a>; Isa. 24:10<\/a>; 45:19<\/a>). Just as the Egyptian pharaoh discuss the doom of those they destroy in terms of nonexistence, Hebrew uses tohu<\/span> to talk about the destruction of order and civilization (cf. Jer. 4:23<\/a>). Job 26:7<\/a> is the best example of tohu<\/span> as a reference to nonfunctional cosmic realms. None of the uses of tohu<\/span> suggest anything about form or its absence. Whether speaking of geographical areas, nations, cities, people, or idols, tohu<\/span> refers to that which is nonproductive, nonfunctional, of no purpose. These conclusions are fully supported by the contexts and by the words used in parallel.<\/p>\n

The usage in Ugaritic28<\/a> resembles the Hebrew passages that reference a trackless waste, but, significantly, in the Ugaritic passage thw<\/span> is used parallel to ym<\/span>, the sea. All of this suggests that neither \u201ctrackless\u201d nor \u201cwaste\u201d are the most germane operative concepts; the Egyptian concept of \u201cnonexistence\u201d more accurately conveys the sense.<\/p>\n

This connection is particularly intriguing in Job 26:7<\/a>: no\u1e6deh \u1e63apon \u02bfal-tohu toleh \u02beere\u1e63 \u02bfal- beliy-mah<\/span>. Hebrew uses the word \u1e63apon<\/span> for \u201cnorth\u201d; however, the significance of the word lies not in its orientation with the points of the compass, but in its use as a reference to Zaphon, the sacred mountain known from Ugaritic literature.29<\/a> In Canaanite mythology, this mountain is the location of Baal\u2019s palace and (in their cosmic geography) was probably the center of the world. Typically the ancients pictured the cosmic mountain, like the alternate image of the cosmic tree, with its foundations in the netherworld and its heights in the heavens. As such, it marks the meeting place of heaven and earth. The cosmic mountain also served as the convening place for the assembly of the gods and was thus their dwelling place (heaven).<\/p>\n

The author\u2019s use of the verb \u201cspreads out\u201d (no\u1e6deh<\/span>) suggests that he is talking about \u201cthe heavens,\u201d since this verb usually takes \u201cheaven\u201d as its object in biblical cosmology contexts.30<\/a> If that is the case, we can understand tohu<\/span> as a reference to the \u201cnonexistent\u201d (= nonordered, nonfunctional) cosmic waters above, over which the heavens were stretched (cf. Ps. 104:2\u20133<\/a>).31<\/a><\/p>\n

In Job 26:7<\/a>tohu<\/span> parallels the unique phrase beliy-mah<\/span>.32<\/a> Most commentators consider the latter a reference to the void\u2014that is, the matterless space in which earth is suspended. This interpretation largely derives from our modern material ontology, which is concerned with the material. The ancients, however, were more concerned with functions.33<\/a> In the context of Job and the ancient Near East, the statement makes more sense when compared to the cosmology underlying the Egyptian sense of the nonexistent, referring to that which lacks function.34<\/a><\/p>\n

The verb in the second clause, \u201csuspends\u201d (tlh<\/span>), most often refers to a form of execution (\u201changed,\u201d Gen. 40:19<\/a>, 22<\/a>; 41:13<\/a>; Deut. 21:22\u201323<\/a>; Josh. 8:29<\/a>; 10:26<\/a>; 2 Sam. 4:12<\/a>; 18:10<\/a>; often in Esther). In many of these references, tlh<\/span> occurs in collocation with the preposition \u02bfal<\/span> (as in Job 26<\/a>), nearly always with the object \u02bee\u1e63<\/span> (tree, or, more likely, wooden pole\/pike, since in ancient practice the corpse was impaled as a means of exposure and a denial of proper burial). These cases would be better translated \u201csuspended on\u201d (not \u201cover\u201d). Four other contexts use the combination tlh \u02bfal<\/span> (2 Sam. 4:12<\/a>, to hang next to; Song 4:4<\/a>, to affix shields to a wall; Isa. 22:24<\/a>, to bear the family honor; Ezek. 15:3<\/a>, to hang on a peg).<\/p>\n

With all the difficult words in this verse, one might think that at least the word \u201cearth\u201d (\u02beere\u1e63<\/span>) is straightforward\u2014but unfortunately this is not the case. Though the word means earth in hundreds of passages, in a few instances (both from the Hebrew Bible and from ancient Near Eastern cognate languages) it can also refer to the netherworld.35<\/a> I favor the translation \u201cnetherworld\u201d here instead of \u201cearth,\u201d primarily because this poem does not begin discussing the earth until verse 10<\/a> (see discussion<\/span><\/a> there). Furthermore, the netherworld would be more appropriate as the opposite extreme of Zaphon. Support for \u201cearth,\u201d however, could be found in passages that speak of the earth as \u201cfounded on the waters\u201d (cf. Ps. 24:1<\/a>; 136:6<\/a>).<\/p>\n

From this profile we conclude that Job 26:7<\/a> indicates what the \u02beere\u1e63<\/span> is suspended on. In the ancient functional ontology, people saw the earth\/netherworld as suspended on the functionless cosmic waters below,36<\/a> parallel to the heaven stretched out over the upper cosmic waters. This understanding finds support in early versions (such as the Targum) when the material ontology was not quite so firmly established: \u201cOver the water<\/em> without anything supporting it.\u201d37<\/a> This is not to say that tohu<\/span> and beliy-mah<\/span> are actually words for the waters above and waters below. Rather, they describe the nonexistent, and the cosmic waters fit into the category of the nonexistent.38<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Job 26:8<\/strong><\/a>.<\/strong> The imagery of cloud-enveloped waters likewise fits the ideas current in the ancient world; note in Enuma Elish<\/span> 5.49, \u201c[Marduk] collected it and rolled it into clouds.\u201d39<\/a> An Assyrian artifac<\/span>t in the British Museum provides our only graphic representation of this phenomenon. It depicts the winged deity with drawn bow in the skies, flanked by bags containing hail or rain.40<\/a> The two words f<\/span>or \u201ccloud\u201d used in this verse (\u02bfab<\/span> and \u02bfann<\/span>) both occur commonly. The former occurs mostly in poetic texts to describe dense rain clouds (of the cumulus varieties) rather than the wispy cirrus type.41<\/a><\/span> This term is used most often in theophanies, accompanied by imagery associated with the storm god, the divine warrior who rides on the clouds (e.g., Isa. 19:1<\/a>).<\/p>\n

The second noun, \u02bfann<\/span>, occurs more oft<\/span>en in prose contexts. Many of its eighty-seven occurrences refer to the pillar of cloud in the wilderness and the cloud of Yahweh\u2019s presence in sacred space.42<\/a> It is used in reference to meteorologica<\/span>l phenomena only a few times.43<\/a> This noun often describes clouds that obscure or shroud something in contrast to clouds that bring the blessing of rain or the threat of storm. Aside from Job 26<\/a>, \u02bfab<\/span> a<\/span>nd \u02bfann<\/span> occur together only two other times: Exodus 19:9<\/a> (odd combination of the two in construct relationship: be\u02bfab he\u02bfanan<\/span>, \u201cin the storm cloud of the cloud cover\u201d) and Isaiah 44:22<\/a> (both metaphori<\/span>cal references to sins). The point of their inclusion in Job 26<\/a> is largely self-evident as it speaks of God\u2019s control: He does not allow the bags to burst under the weight of the water.<\/p>\n

Job 26:9<\/strong><\/a>.<\/strong> This verse begins with a familiar verbal root \u02be\u1e25z<\/span>;<\/em> however, this particular form (the Piel, D stem) occurs nowhere else in the Old Testament. The Akkadian cognate a\u1e2b\u0101zu<\/span> may offer helpful c<\/span>omparison; it shares a similar semantic range with the Hebrew root \u02be\u1e25z<\/span>,<\/em> and it does have attested uses of the D stem (u\u1e2b\u1e2buzu<\/span>), which may eventually assist us. The noun (kisseh<\/span>) that serves as direc<\/span>t object of \u02be\u1e25z<\/span> is equally problematic. The NIV<\/a> has followed a medieval tradition in reading this as a reference to the full moon (from noun kese\u02be<\/span>;<\/em> see Ps. 81:3<\/a>[4<\/a>]; Prov. 7:20<\/a>).44<\/a> Other interpreters <\/span>have chosen another emendation, kisse\u02be<\/span>, a word commonly translated \u201cthrone.\u201d45<\/a> At least one Akkadian text uses the verb u\u1e2b\u1e2buzu<\/span> to describe the adorning (edging) of a throne with special stone; based<\/span> on this occurrence, I would be inclined to translate verse 9<\/a> as: \u201cthe one edging the surface of [his] throne by spreading his cloudbank over it.\u201d46<\/a> The word translated \u201cspread\u201d is not a Hebrew verb (<\/span>four radicals, pr\u0161z<\/span>) but I believe this rendering is still the best guess.47<\/a><\/p>\n

Job 26:10<\/strong><\/a>.<\/strong> God\u2019s power over the sea is a familiar theme in poetic literature, both in reference to creation and to the deliverance at the Red Sea. The following passages speak of the sea\u2019s cosmic boun<\/span>daries:<\/p>\n

But at your rebuke the waters fled,<\/p>\n

at the sound of your thunder they took to flight;<\/p>\n

they flowed over the mountains,<\/p>\n

they went down into the valleys,<\/p>\n

to the place you assigned for them.<\/p>\n

You s<\/span>et a boundary they cannot cross;<\/p>\n

never again will they cover the earth. (Ps. 104:7\u20139<\/a>)<\/p>\n

I was there when he set the heavens in place,<\/p>\n

when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep,<\/p>\n

when he esta<\/span>blished the clouds above<\/p>\n

and fixed securely the fountains of the deep,<\/p>\n

when he gave the sea its boundary<\/p>\n

so the waters would not overstep his command,<\/p>\n

and when he marked out the foundations of the ear<\/span>th.<\/p>\n

(Prov. 8:27\u201329<\/a>)<\/p>\n

I made the sand a boundary for the sea,<\/p>\n

an everlasting barrier it cannot cross.<\/p>\n

The waves may roll, but they cannot prevail;<\/p>\n

they may roar, but they cannot cross it. (Jer. 5:22<\/a>)<\/p>\n

Wh<\/span>o shut up the sea behind doors<\/p>\n

when it burst forth from the womb,<\/p>\n

when I made the clouds its garment<\/p>\n

and wrapped it in thick darkness,<\/p>\n

when I fixed limits for it<\/p>\n

and set its doors and bars in place,<\/p>\n

w<\/span>hen I said, \u201cThis far you may come and no farther;<\/p>\n

here is where your proud waves halt\u201d? (Job 38:8\u201311<\/a>)<\/p>\n

Vocabulary similarities between the passages include the following:<\/p>\n

\u2022 inscribe\/decree (\u1e25oq<\/span>) a li<\/span>mit (Job 28:10<\/a>; 38:10<\/a>; Prov. 8:27<\/a>, 29<\/a>; Jer. 5:22<\/a>)<\/p>\n

\u2022 barriers (doors and bars,48<\/a> Job 38:8<\/a>, 10<\/a>) that cannot be passed (Job 38:11<\/a>; Prov. 8:29<\/a>; Ps. 104:9<\/a>; Jer. 5:22<\/a>).<\/p>\n

\u2022 set a boundary (gebul<\/span>, Ps. 104:9<\/a>; J<\/span>er. 5:22<\/a>; taklit<\/em>, Job 28:10<\/a>)<\/p>\n

\u2022 inscribe the circle (\u1e25ug<\/span>) of the earth (Job 26:10<\/a>; Prov. 8:27<\/a>; cf. also Isa. 40:22<\/a>)<\/p>\n

Though these verses indicate that God has established a boundary for the sea,49<\/a> it i<\/span>s not certain that Job 26:10<\/a> alludes to that event. The inscribed circle here (also in Prov. 8:27<\/a>) is likely not the horizon, but the entire land disk\u2014the earth. Isaiah 40:22<\/a> uses this same terminolog<\/span>y (\u201ccircle of the earth\u201d) to describe a disk rather than a sphere. Anyone who gets an unobstructed view of the horizon can easily see the circular shape of the earth, and this observation led the ancients to believe that heave<\/span>n, earth, and netherworld were all disk-shaped.50<\/a> For example, the speaker in the Babylonian Hymn to Shamash proclaims: \u201cYou suspend the circle of the lands51<\/a> from the cente<\/span>r of the sky.\u201d In Job 26<\/a> and Proverbs 8<\/a> the earth is inscribed as a boundary between heaven and the deep (or netherworld), not between the land and the sea.52<\/a> This is precisely what is said in the sec<\/span>ond half of Job 26:10<\/a>\u2014the land-disk forms the boundary between light and darkness; when the sun passed under the earth into the netherworld, there was darkness.<\/p>\n

Job 26:11<\/strong><\/a>.<\/strong> This verse contains the only reference in the Old Testament to \u201cthe pillars of the heavens\u201d (but see \u201cpillars\u201d of earth in Job 9:6<\/a>). Just as the earth is supported by pillars, so too are th<\/span>e heavens\u2014or, more specifically, the dome of heaven. The pillars may refer to mountains, since some mountains were believed to intersect the sky and perhaps hold it up. Ancient Near Eastern texts from Mesopotamia (e.g., <\/span>Enuma Elish<\/span>) make no mention of what holds up the sky. Egyptian iconography portrays the sky god Shu holding up the heavens from earth, while Pyramid Text 1040c says that the mount<\/span>ains hold up the sky.53<\/a><\/p>\n

In the context of Job 26<\/a>, why do these pillars \u201cquake\u201d (rpp<\/span>)54<\/a> and stand \u201caghast\u201d (tmh<\/span>)?55<\/a> What is the \u201crebuke\u201d (g\u02bfrh<\/span>) all about? Judging from other Old Testament cosmological <\/span>passages, the rebuke is most likely directed against the sea. The sense of the verbal root includes rebuke, reprimand, and threat. It is likely onomatopoetic (sounding like a snarl or growl).56<\/a> The se<\/span>a retreats at God\u2019s rebuke.57<\/a> This action creates a natural transition into the next verses.<\/p>\n

Job 26:12\u201313<\/strong><\/a>.<\/strong> Here Job continues his hymnic description of God\u2019s primordial ordering of the cosmos. The churning (rg\u02bf<\/span>) of the sea has been generally considered an element of the typical mythical scene<\/span> in which the restless cosmic ocean disturbs the creatures (monsters, beasts) that represent chaos and disorder. For instance, in Enuma Elish<\/span>, Anu creates the four winds that stir up Tiamat.58<\/a> Bringin<\/span>g this understanding to Job, the cosmic creature Rahab (discussed in connection to Job 9:13<\/a>, p. 171<\/a>) is roused by the agitation of the sea. God\u2019s power enables him to stir up the sea, but it is his un<\/span>derstanding (tebunah<\/span>) that gives him victory. This same understanding enabled him to set the heavens in place (Prov. 3:19<\/a>; Jer. 10:12<\/a>). M. Fox describes the word as skill expressed specifically in a f<\/span>unctional capacity.59<\/a> The presence of this word might suggest that, regardless of our translation of the Hebrew verb m\u1e25\u1e63<\/span>, we ought to understand God\u2019s action toward Rahab as a positive act of orderi<\/span>ng rather than a negative act of destruction.60<\/a><\/p>\n

In Enuma Elish<\/span>, Marduk divides Tiamat\u2019s body and uses the two halves to form the waters above and the waters below. The NIV<\/a>\u2019s translation of m\u1e25\u1e63<\/span> as \u201cc<\/span>utting in pieces\u201d is problematic because most other uses of this verb are not this specific.61<\/a> Something more along the line of \u201csmite\u201d is more probable, given the other occurrences in the Old Testame<\/span>nt and the usage in Ugaritic, as in the story of Baal and Mot, col 1, line 1: ktm\u1e2b\u1e63<\/span>. ltn.b\u1e6dn.br\u1e25<\/span>: \u201cAs you smote Litan, the fleeing servant.\u201d62<\/a> Contexts suggest someone dealing a deathblow. We migh<\/span>t well wonder how such smiting could be an act of ordering. One could propose that God\u2019s understanding is involved because it takes specialized skill to dispatch a great cosmic creature like Rahab. This reading finds comparative support in the Akkadian s<\/span>tories Enuma Elish<\/span> and The Tale of Anzu, wherein the victor god needs to possess special knowledge and weapons in order to defeat the chaos oppone<\/span>nt.<\/p>\n

To resolve the conundrum of this verse, I tentatively follow Clines in taking the verb rg<\/span>\u02bf not as \u201cchurn\u201d but as the rg\u02bf<\/span>,<\/em>2 \u201cto still\u201d (cf. Jer. 50:34<\/a>).63<\/a> In this interpretation God stills the sea <\/span>by his strength\u2014and he does so by dealing a deathblow to Rahab (using his great skill). Thus, like all the other statements in the cosmological hymn, this is an act of bringing order, which particularly fits with the parallel defeat of \u201cthe g<\/span>liding serpent\u201d (na\u1e25a\u0161 baria\u1e25<\/span>), another chaos creature mentioned in the next verse. Though we must observe the use of this word for serpent in Genesis 3<\/a>, w<\/span>e should more importantly recognize the connection with Isaiah 27:1<\/a>, where Leviathan is described as a na\u1e25a\u0161 baria\u1e25<\/span> in a group of terms cataloguing chaos creatures. Note also the same phrasing in t<\/span>he Ugaritic text cited in the previous section. More difficult questions surround the first line of verse 13<\/a>: \u201cBy his breath the skies became fair\u201d (NIV<\/a>). Most interpreters have understood that the li<\/span>ne indicates God\u2019s overcoming another chaos creature connected with storm. Thus in verse 12<\/a> he stills the sea and in verse 13<\/a> he calms the storm; both acts of ordering are accomplished by overcoming c<\/span>haos creatures.64<\/a><\/p>\n

Job 27:1\u20136<\/strong><\/a>.<\/strong> These verses are extremely significant, for they contain Job\u2019s final response to the case of his friends, who have argued from the converse logic of the RP<\/a> that if the wicked suffer, those<\/span> who suffer must be wicked. By urging Job to confess blindly in order to regain prosperity, they have unwittingly become representatives of the Challenger.<\/p>\n

The oath formula that begins Job\u2019s speech, \u201c<\/span>As surely as God lives,\u201d shows that Job is not simply making a serious statement but is delivering an ultimatum to his friends\u2014further debate will be useless.<\/p>\n

Job\u2019s next two statements concern what Go<\/span>d has done to him: \u201cdenied me justice\u201d (Hiph. sur<\/span> + mi\u0161pa\u1e6d<\/span>) and \u201cmade me taste bitterness of soul\u201d (Hiph. mrr<\/span> + nepe\u0161<\/span>). Though at one level they can be affirmed, these two statements summarize Job\u2019s <\/span>flawed view of God, which he has expressed before: God has not provided justice for Job (either in the initial strikes or in Job\u2019s requests for legal proceedings), and God has caused his suffering. The flaw is not in the blunt facts (Job\u2019s suffering at God\u2019s hand), but in what he i<\/span>mplies about God\u2019s character as he reiterates those facts.<\/p>\n

The first phrase uses the same root that described Job\u2019s de<\/span>votion in the early chapters of the book: He \u201cshunned evil\u201d (1:1<\/a>). Here, however, God has caused justice to turn aside. In particular, Job probably means that God has denied him the right to defend hi<\/span>mself in court. The second phrase resembles Naomi\u2019s expression in Ruth 1:20<\/a>, when she indicates that God has caused her calamities.<\/p>\n

Job expresses his lifelong commitment in six phrases, each of which <\/span>is discussed below.<\/p>\n

\u2022 \u201cMy lips will not speak wickedness [\u02bfawlah<\/span>].\u201d The term used here has occurred at several key points in the book (see 24:20<\/a> and esp. 13:7<\/a>). Job previously insisted that there was <\/span>no wickedness on his lips (6:30<\/a>). We have found that the word concerns misrepresentation, best describing one who is two-faced or hypocritical.<\/p>\n

\u2022 \u201cMy tongue will utter no deceit [remiyyah<\/span>].\u201d This stat<\/span>ement parallels the previous line. The two nouns \u02bfawlah<\/span> and remiyyah<\/span> were also used in parallel in 13:7<\/a>, but there they concerned the friends\u2019 depiction of God. Here Job uses them in reference to his <\/span>own reputation. \u201cDeceit\u201d is a good translation. Job is insisting that his words align with his behavior.<\/p>\n

\u2022 \u201cI will never admit you are in the right [Hiph. \u1e63dq<\/span>].\u201d We have seen Job use this verb many ti<\/span>mes, referring to his righteousness or his desire to be vindicated, but this is the only time he uses the Hiphil form.65<\/a> In the Hiphil stem, this verb indicates an action of declaring someone righteou<\/span>s or innocent, legally acquitting them of guilt or blame. Job is refusing to allow that his friends have accurately assessed his character.<\/p>\n

\u2022 \u201cI will not deny my integrity [tmm<\/span>].\u201d This statement uses <\/span>the vocabulary that has characterized Job since the first chapter; he has been proclaimed blameless or innocent at every turn. The verb used here also occurs in 27:2<\/a> (Hiph. sur<\/em>). Though God has denied<\/span> his rights, Job will not deny his integrity. It is important to reiterate that \u201cintegrity\u201d is not an all-inclusive category. Job has not committed any sins that would explain or deserve his treatment, but this does not mean<\/span> that he is free of all sin or offense. It also does not mean that his concept of God is wholly accurate or that he is justified in all of the accusations that he has hurled at God. Job has made mistakes in assessing the situation, but he has never given up his belief in the intrinsic value of disinterested righteousness. Had Job demonstrated that he was not primarily interested in righteousness for its own sake, he woul<\/span>d have forfeited his integrity. If he had been willing to blindly confess to unknown crimes to regain his <\/span>prosperity (as his friends suggested), that in<\/span>tegrity would have been forfeited.<\/p>\n

\u2022 \u201cI will maintain my righteousness [\u1e63dq<\/span>].\u201d This line confirms the manner in which he is maintaining his integrity. He is neither clinging to his rights nor to his l<\/span>osses. He is not demanding restoration of his prosperity.<\/p>\n

\u2022 \u201cMy conscience [heart] will not reproach me [\u1e25rp<\/span>].\u201d This verb occurs only five times in the Qal stem and can refer to a variety of denigrati<\/span>ng taunts.66<\/a> Though none of the other occurrences feature the heart as the subject, this context makes Job\u2019s assertion clear enough: His outward denials of wrongdoing do not contradict his inmost know<\/span>ledge. He harbors no secret sins.<\/p>\n

At a basic level, our interpretative task would have been simpler if Job had stopped after verse 6<\/a>. Job 27:7\u201323<\/a> now sounds anticlimactic, and it is easy to see why so<\/span>me ascribe these verses to one of the friends. But our procedure has been to grapple with the text as it stands, and we will treat this section in that same way.<\/p>\n

Job begins (27:7\u201310<\/a>) by cursing his en<\/span>emies, defined in 27:7b<\/a> as those who stand (Hith. of qwm<\/span>)67<\/a> against him. By this point in the book we might well imagine that Job counts his three \u201cadvisors\u201d as enemies, in that they have opposed and <\/span>condemned him. This understanding follows naturally from 27:1\u20136<\/a>. Just as they have implicitly condemned him, he now does the same to them. Anyone who opposes him, a godly man, would naturally be consi<\/span>dered godless (\u1e25anep<\/span>)68<\/a>\u2014if the shoe fits.\u2026<\/p>\n

In 27:11\u201312<\/a> he again addresses the friends directly. Job initially asked for their instruction (6:24<\/a>), which they offered in the form of teaching (8:10<\/a>). Now<\/span> Job again turns the tables, assessing their instruction as nothing but \u201cmeaningless talk.\u201d Here Job uses the term that forms the theme of Ecclesiastes (hebel<\/span>). I interpret the word as referring to th<\/span>at which is incapable of bringing ultimate satisfaction or contentment.69<\/a><\/p>\n

Job now returns to a discussion of God\u2019s interaction with the wicked (27:13\u201323<\/a>). Unlike his previous treatment of this topic (<\/span>24:18\u201324<\/a>), Job here specifically mentions God\u2019s retributive action (though God is only named in v. 13<\/a>). Still, in this context, Job only speaks of a general fate allotted by God, not a specific act of<\/span> judgment; thus, he does not contradict his statement in 24:12<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Bridging Contexts<\/p>\n

As we continue to trace the rhetorical development through the series of speeches, the brevity of the third series shows that most of the arguments have been covered. The friends hav<\/span>e tried seducing Job into appeasement by holding out the hope of restoration (cycle 1<\/a>) and by humiliating Job with the insinuations inherent in the RP<\/a> (cycle 2<\/a>). All that is left is outright accusatio<\/span>n. Because the Challenger\u2019s case depends on Job\u2019s admission of guilt (as proof that Job is only interested in benefits), the friends continue to abet the Challenger by urging Job to confess. The friends advocate this response because their e<\/span>ntire worldview depends on the RP<\/a> (remember, that is the corner of the triangle where they have staked their claim). If Job is suffering for something other th<\/span>an wrongdoing, there is no equity or stability in the world. For them, such a concession would necessitate nihilism.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

Rhetorical Issues<\/p>\n

In this third cycle of dialogues, the spiritualist, Eliphaz, is left to enumerate the offenses in the indictment (22:5\u201311<\/a>). Bildad the traditionalist has nothing new to say, as his mere six verses attest. He is left blithering the unsatisfying conclusion, \u201cOK, man is nothing more than a maggot.\u201d Zophar, the rationalist, has nothing at all to say in the third series. The absence of a speech by Zophar reveals that rationalism has been silenced, not that the text has been corrupted. The series concludes in chapter 27<\/a> as Job defiantly rejects all accusations; he will never budge from his integrity.<\/p>\n

The third series is laid out as follows:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Eliphaz: ch. 22<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Job: chs. 23\u201324<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Bildad: ch. 25<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Job: chs. 26\u201327<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Zophar: no speech<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Eliphaz:<\/em> All your talk of a mediator and a hearing is hollow\u2014a smokescreen. God obviously knows your wicked deeds of injustice\u2014you have gotten what you deserve, and I for one am glad of it. Your best course of action is to start listening and stop arguing; when you do, just imagine all the benefits and favor you will again enjoy.<\/p>\n

Job:<\/em> If only I could find God! I fantasize about what that would be like, but it is hopeless. I am<\/em> innocent and he<\/em> knows it. What a terrifying position to be in! Why doesn\u2019t God do something about this mess? Oppressive people do whatever they want without any accountability while poor people trying to scrape out a living suffer under their unchecked tyranny. Criminals go about their business unrestrained, but I am still convinced that there is no future for such people\u2014their wickedness will catch up to them eventually.<\/p>\n

The main rhetorical progress in this series is found in Eliphaz\u2019s direct accusation against Job. After dismissing Job\u2019s attempts at legal action as ridiculous, he accuses him of injustice. Why does Eliphaz select these particular charges? In the Original Meaning section we noted that these are generic offenses, evident throughout the ancient Near Eastern legal literature. The gods expected order within society, and the king (as appointee of the gods) was responsible for establishing such order. Furthermore, just behavior was also one of the most basic responsibilities of citizens of the ancient world, a universal expectation.70<\/a> At the same time, though justice could be evident in one\u2019s public life, private life also held many opportunities to be just or unjust. Eliphaz\u2019s accusations address Job\u2019s private offenses in individual situations that would have had no witnesses but the voiceless victims.<\/p>\n

Eliphaz\u2019s first speech advised Job to appeal to God (5:8<\/a>), and Zophar\u2019s first speech urged Job to put away whatever sin he might have committed (11:13\u201314<\/a>). But in both of these, the actual presence of sin was hypothetical. Against the NIV<\/a>, 11:14<\/a> says, \u201cIf there is sin in your hand, renounce it.\u201d71<\/a> Here Eliphaz uses similar vocabulary but revised syntax as he finally calls Job to repent. \u201cLook at all you will get out of it and all the good you can do! You will be able to help people just like you (caught in an ambiguous situation and thus exposed to accusation).\u201d This speech therefore suggests that Job, by virtue of repentance, could take his place among those who are able to advise by experience. His testimony of sin, judgment, repentance, and restoration could provide great encouragement to others.<\/p>\n

Job, however, insists on his innocence (23:12<\/a>) and envisions an entirely different scenario. In contrast to Eliphaz\u2019s confidence that everything will turn out fine in the end, Job envisions a world awaiting reconciliation to the ideal; he is powerless to set things right. Job is looking beyond his own circumstances to the disharmony that is evident throughout the world. Eliphaz wants Job to focus on himself; Job is more concerned about a world run amok. But even in the dissonance, Job finds a glimmer of hope: If the wicked can prosper for a time, isn\u2019t it possible that the righteous can suffer for a time? Temporary circumstances cannot evidence one\u2019s moral character. This constitutes a potential chink in the RP<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Eliphaz:<\/em><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Repent, be restored, and go on the lecture circuit.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Job:<\/em><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Look around you! Who can think about self when the world is so out of sync?<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Bildad:<\/em><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

God is unimaginably great; humans are intrinsically flawed and don\u2019t ultimately matter anyway.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Job:<\/em><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Your position is preposterous and totally unpersuasive. You have referred to God as establishing order, but you haven\u2019t begun to grasp the immensity of God\u2019s work. Yet for all of the order that he has established in the cosmos, he has brought nothing but disorder to my life. Nevertheless, I will never<\/em> follow the advice that all of you have offered. My righteousness is all I have and I will cling to it until the end. You have become my enemies, and therefore God\u2019s enemies, so we all know what is in store for you.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Job\u2019s last speech expresses a combination of his awe of God (26:7\u201314<\/a>), his resolve (27:1\u20136<\/a>), and his despair (27:11\u201323<\/a>). His hymn is one of the most extensive creation hymns in Scripture. It functions rhetorically to indicate our negligible knowledge of the order that God has established. I draw this conclusion from 26:14<\/a>, where Job characterizes his reports as but a \u201cfaint whisper.\u201d72<\/a> If little is known and if displays of God\u2019s power are difficult to understand, one should then expect that not everything will make sense. Interestingly, God later demonstrates this point to Job even more powerfully in his own speeches.<\/p>\n

Job\u2019s determination in 27:1\u20136<\/a> forms the climax of the dialogue section of the book. It proves that Job\u2019s righteousness is<\/em> disinterested and that the Challenger\u2019s contention against God\u2019s policies will not stand scrutiny. Job makes no mention of getting his benefits back but shows every intention of clinging to his integrity. His integrity is demonstrated in<\/em> his resolve to live according to righteousness, whether it pays or not<\/em>. He believes that righteousness can be objectively defined, unlike the ancient Near Eastern view that righteousness is randomly determined by the gods. The people of the ancient world believed that they could know that they were doing right when they experienced the favor of the gods; alternately, they knew that they had committed some offense when the gods withdrew their favor and subjected them to oppression. Such a system cannot conceive of righteousness for righteousness\u2019 sake. Disinterested righteousness would be an oxymoron.<\/p>\n

This mind-set is what we have been calling the Great Symbiosis: People meet the needs of the gods and the gods meet the needs of the people. Needs define the system. \u201cDoing right\u201d means meeting the needs of the gods, and you know you have done right when they meet your needs. Righteousness is tangential\u2014secondary at best. Given this information, the book of Job would have made no sense to a Canaanite or Babylonian. Who could think of serving a god for nothing? Why would you? How could you know you were serving him? The book of Job is thus a stunning literary monument in the history of theological development.<\/p>\n

If Job intends the last section (27:7\u201323<\/a>) as a virtual curse on his friends, his imprecations suggest what fate they will\/should suffer.73<\/a> Rather than Job joining their circles as an adviser (implication of Eliphaz\u2019s speech in ch. 22<\/a>), Job suggests that they will join his circle as victims\u2014a message of despair for them, but also for him since he does not imagine a way out of his predicament. Job may well be teaching about the fate of the wicked from his own experience of being treated by God as if he were wicked. His statement in 27:11<\/a> could be paraphrased, \u201cYou think you can explain God\u2019s power? I have experienced<\/em> the power of God and I will tell you all about it.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Bildad:<\/em><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Face the facts that tradition knows well.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Job:<\/em><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

God\u2019s immense power has brought order to the cosmos but not to my life. I am God\u2019s victim and you will be too. Here I stand with only my righteousness to cling to.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

The philosophical focus and resolution in this series of speeches hinges on whether or not Job will admit to sin. Eliphaz explicates his accusations, which Job resolutely denies. This series completes the friends\u2019 role. Job is not seduced by the prospect of renewed benefits (series 1, Job 4\u201314<\/a>), he concludes that the system known as the RP<\/a> is broken (series 2, Job 15\u201321<\/a>), and he refuses to admit wrongdoing as the cause of his calamity (series 3, Job 22\u201327<\/a>). He has proven that his righteousness is not founded on the expectation of reward. As star witness for the defense, he has demonstrated that there is<\/em> such a thing as disinterested righteousness. Job thus disproves the Challenger\u2019s claim that God\u2019s policy of rewarding the righteous was counterproductive. The friends, who represented the Challenger\u2019s case, have been silenced. Case dismissed.<\/p>\n

But what about Job\u2019s claim? God\u2019s policies have not only been questioned by the Challenger (\u201ccounterproductive for righteous people to be rewarded\u201d) but also by Job (\u201cirrational for righteous people to suffer\u201d). The remainder of the book will address this other side of the dilemma.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Theological Issues<\/p>\n

As in the previous sections, we will explore some of the theological issues suggested by these speeches, though we fully realize that the book has not adopted these as its message. <\/span>The friends and Job all have pieces of truth, but their views do not carry the authority of the text. However, we can explore their perspectives to see whether we share some of the same shortsightedness about God and the world.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>Eliphaz\u2019s theological warnings<\/strong>. Eliphaz begins with the difficult statement concerning Job\u2019s inability to resolve his predicament, using the tactics he had adopted (22:2\u20133<\/a>). The NIV<\/a>\u2019s translation has <\/span>Eliphaz questioning whether anything that humans could do would bring pleasure to or benefit God. Though I feel that such a translation cannot be sustained, it suggests an interesting discussion. Since I have gone a dif<\/span>ferent direction with the translation, I will not elaborate my position further, except to say that, while we cannot benefit God (i.e., complete a deficiency or meet a need), he does take pleasure in our righteousness and faithfulness.<\/span><\/p>\n

My preferred translation portrays Eliphaz asking Job whether God will respond favorably to Job\u2019s course of action. Job\u2019s procedure has involved (<\/span>1) denying any wrongdoing (justifying himself), (2) requesting a mediator, and (3) demanding God to appear in court. Eliphaz\u2019s two questions are: (1) Will a mediator do any good? and (2) Will God be pleased that you justify yourself at his expense? These rhetorical questions suggest negative answers with which we could find reason to agree. We<\/span> will look at each one individually.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>Will a mediator do any good<\/em>? In Job\u2019s case this is ironic; he wants someone to hold God accountable\u2014precisely the role that the Challenger has played. Rather than resolving Job\u2019s predicament, the medi<\/span>ator instigated it. But this is not Eliphaz\u2019s point. He implies that even skillful negotiators could not represent God to our benefit. Eliphaz considers God too remote from even the angels for any being to intervene adequately.<\/span><\/p>\n

Moving beyond the understanding of Eliphaz and Job, we must consider God\u2019s remoteness as a theological concept. People today commonly think of God as too remote to care, ye<\/span>t the revelation of both Old and New Testaments contradict this notion. The testimony of the incarnation in the New Testament is enough, but even the Old Testament makes the case clearly, as the following samples attest:<\/span><\/p>\n

1. \u201cWhat other nation is so great as to have their gods near them the way the Lord our God is near us whenever we pray to him?\u201d (Deut. 4:7<\/a>)<\/p>\n

2. \u201cThe Lord is close to the brokenhear<\/span>ted and saves those who are crushed in spirit.\u201d (Ps. 34:18<\/a>[19<\/a>])<\/p>\n

3. \u201cThe Lord is near to all who call on him, to all who call on him in truth.\u201d (Ps. 145:18<\/a>)<\/p>\n

4. \u201c\u00a0\u2018Am I only a God nearby,\u2019 declares the <\/span>Lord, \u2018and not a God far away?\u2019\u00a0\u201d (Jer. 23:23<\/a>)<\/p>\n

Furthermore, one of the most important theological foundations of the Old Testament, the covenant, is based on the nearness of God.74<\/a><\/p>\n

Beyond the issues o<\/span>f revelation and God\u2019s presence, the center of the New Testament speaks of God\u2019s provision of a mediator (1 Tim. 2:5<\/a>). I hasten to add that this was not the kind of mediator that Job and Eliphaz were <\/span>discussing. Job wanted a mediator to explain God\u2019s actions in relation to his personal circumstances and to represent his righteousness to God. Christ\u2019s mediation for us in the New Testament consists, not of representing our righteousness before God, but of offering a sacrifice for o<\/span>ur sin and interceding for us. This development moves far beyond Job\u2019s imagination or interest.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Will God be pleased that you justify yourself at his expense<\/em>? The short answer, of course, is \u201cNo,\u201d and God expresses his displeasure over Job\u2019s attempt to do so in 40:8<\/a>. Theologically, only a flawed view of God would allow anyone to suggest that they are in the right, thereby necessitating that God is in the wrong. Yet it is natural for fallen humans to mistrust God and to doubt his attributes.<\/p>\n

Christians easily talk about the authority of the Bible, but they often neglect to think through the implications of this concept. I think that most Christians see the authority of the text in terms of its content\/nature (truth) and their response (obedience). Both of these concepts proceed from authority: truth, because the speaker\u2019s words reflect his character; obedience, because God has the right to tell us what to do. This concept of truth often becomes part of the argument for the historical accuracy of the Bible: What it says happened, happened; people who it says lived, lived.<\/p>\n

Without desiring to take anything away from those two important perspectives, I suggest there is a third aspect that is actually more important than the other two, because they derive from it; yet this third aspect is often neglected. Since we believe that the Bible is most fundamentally God\u2019s revelation of himself, the most basic idea of the text\u2019s authority derives from its portrayal of God. When we submit to the authority of the text, we are embracing\u2014without exception or qualification\u2014its portrayal of God. We cannot adopt only the parts we like and reject the parts that we find disturbing. When something seems awry in his portrayal, we ought to give God the benefit of the doubt.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, this authoritative picture of God insists that the God of the Old Testament is the same as the God of the New Testament\u2014incarnate in Christ. Whatever we, in our limited humanity, might think looks like a flaw in God\u2019s character or an inconsistency in his behavior testifies only to our inadequacies, not to his. This remains true whether the supposed problems occur in the biblical stories or in our own experiences. If submitting to the authority of the Bible means the unqualified acceptance of its presentation of God, no room is left for us to justify ourselves at his expense, to think that we could do something better than God, or to suggest that we could be more compassionate, more merciful, more loving, or more just.<\/p>\n

When we as Christians are asked to explain our understanding of God, we can point only to the testimony of the Bible. If we arbitrarily pick and choose acceptable texts, we illegitimately set ourselves over the authority of the Scripture. If we are willing to construct our own view of God from our perceptions and experiences, we are setting ourselves up as the authority rather than submitting to biblical authority. We thus admit that the pluralists are right: Anyone can construct their own view of God. What would make one person\u2019s reconstruction any more or less accurate than another\u2019s? If we accept the biblical view, then we can stand on its authority. If we waver, then any human authority is as good as another.<\/p>\n

Those of other faiths sometimes inquire how Christians can arrogantly assert that Christianity is right and other religions are wrong (to some extent at least), or to maintain that Christ is the only way. Our only defense against these questions lies in biblical authority: These are not our ideas, but the Bible\u2019s revelation. We can only say that we take such difficult positions because of the testimony and authority of the Bible. If we do not consistently adopt the Bible\u2019s presentation of God, the argument crumbles.<\/p>\n

Our determination not to justify ourselves at God\u2019s expense rests on our confession:<\/p>\n

\u2022 When God\u2019s behavior does not make sense, we give him the benefit of the doubt.<\/p>\n

\u2022 We cannot outdo God in any of his attributes.<\/p>\n

\u2022 We take all or nothing of the Bible\u2019s portrayal of God.<\/p>\n

\u2022 If we try to pick and choose to construe our own \u201cmix \u2018n match\u201d picture of God, we have set ourselves up as God.<\/p>\n

This is what the authority of the Bible is about, and this is the faith position that we adopt when we accept its authority.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

God\u2019s judgment.<\/strong> As we read Job 24<\/a>, we might easily find ourselves sympathizing with Job\u2019s burning questions. Why doesn\u2019t<\/em> God set times for judgment (24:1<\/a>)? Why doesn\u2019t<\/em> God charge people with wrongdoin<\/span>g when they are so obviously guilty (24:12<\/a>)? It is no comfort to say that we all stand guilty before God\u2014that is not the discussion here. Who enforces the system? Job wants to know\u2014and so do we often <\/span>enough. Oppression of every sort runs rampant while innocent people suffer. What is God doing? Nothing, we fear. What kind of God is this? Some reach the point of indifference, having concluded that God is not worthy of their recognition. If God truly weeps over the condition of the world, how can he adopt such a \u201chands-off\u201d posture? Even when we are able <\/span>to give God the benefit of the doubt (therefore not suggesting that he is flawed or that we are superior), we still have questions.<\/span><\/p>\n

Though these questions can be addressed from a philosophical perspective, in terms of theodicy (defending the <\/span>justice of God or investigating the origin of evil), we often are more interested in our own experiential understanding. In the end, the book of Job will offer answers that encourage us to trust the wisdom of God, but we will wait until we reach the conclusion to explore these answers in more depth. At this p<\/span>oint our focus must turn to the fallen world in which we live.<\/p>\n

A fallen world is intrinsic<\/span>ally defined by wickedness. If there were no wickedness, the world would not be fallen. No matter how much wickedness God might eliminate, we could always find more wicked people to complain about (defining \u201cthe wicked\u201d as anyo<\/span>ne we see as more wicked than ourselves). If all wickedness were eliminated, the world would no longer be fallen and none of us would exist. We see this idea in Shakespeare\u2019s <\/span>Merchant of Venice<\/em>, when Portia, posing as a judge, addresses the Jew, Shylock:<\/p>\n

Therefore, Jew,<\/p>\n

Though justice be thy plea, consider this,<\/p>\n

That, in the course of justice, none of us<\/p>\n

Should see salva<\/span>tion: we do pray for mercy.75<\/a><\/p>\n

Why does God mercifully maintain a fallen world?76<\/a> Why did he not destroy Adam and Eve for their sin and start over? When examining Job 4\u201314<\/a>, we asked whether some attrib<\/span>utes of God trumped others, and we concluded this is not the case (p. 190<\/a>). The question about the fallen world deals with the same issue. Is it more important or more natural for God to be just (havi<\/span>ng no tolerance for a fallen world) or to be compassionate (sparing his creatures despite their fallenness) and gracious (providing a means of reconciliation)? I would contend neither is the case. It is just as characteristic for God to be gracious as it is for him to execute justice. We cannot think that justice is the defau<\/span>lt while mercy requires a conscious departure from standard operating procedure. God\u2019s attributes carry equal sway within his being, and he operates with all of them held in perfect balance.<\/span><\/p>\n

If it is not contradictory to the character of God to tolerate a degree of fallenn<\/span>ess, is there a degree at which fallenness would<\/em> become contradictory? Does God allow sin only to a certain limit?77<\/a> How would the limits be defined? Answers to such questions would have to be premise<\/span>d on God\u2019s purposes rather than his character. To what end does God maintain a fallen world, and how does he ensure that it will accomplish his goals? We must seek answers to these questions through the revelation God has given us or through observations of what we and others experie<\/span>nce (descriptive approach) rather than through logic (rationalistic approach designed to devise coherence).<\/p>\n

That bri<\/span>ngs us back to the beginning with only our own bewildering observations. Does God intend our good? We would have to take the Bible\u2019s word for it that he does (Rom. 8:28<\/a>). Should we be able to figure o<\/span>ut how our experiences benefit us? Not necessarily (note Eccl. 6:12<\/a>). Is our \u201cgood\u201d defined by our comfort or our success? Often not. Consequently our normal criteria for judging what is for our good <\/span>do not help us to draw sound conclusions. Yet still we ask, how could the prosperity of the wicked possibly contribute to our \u201cgood\u201d?<\/p>\n

Job\u2019s deteriorating concept of God.<\/strong> When life goes wrong, often one of the first results is that our concept of God deteriorates, and this is certainly the case for Job. The deterioration takes root i<\/span>n perhaps small misconceptions, but these gradually become major misrepresentations of the divine character. Tracking the path of decline in Job will help us to understand how our minds work.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Section <\/strong><\/span>and Theme<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Reference<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Divine Characteristic or Behavior<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Narrative and lament Potential pettiness<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1:4\u20135<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Potentially petty<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

1:21<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Gave and took away<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

2:10<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Gives trouble as well as good<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

3:23<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Hedges in<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Cycle 1<\/strong><\/span> Uncontestable power Overdemanding<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

6:4<\/a>; 7:14<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Terrorizes him<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

7:17\u201319<\/a>; 10:14\u201317<\/a>; 14:6<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Overattentive<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

7:21<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Unforgiving<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

9:2\u20133<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Unapproachable, unrestrainable<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

9:14\u201320<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Power abuser<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

9:22<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Indiscriminate destroy<\/span>er<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

10:3<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Not forthcoming about offense<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

12:13\u201325<\/a>; 14:20<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

All-powerful for good or ill<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Cycle 2 Unrelenting assault Overaggressive<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

16:7\u201314<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Assailant<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

17:6<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Ruined reputation<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

19:6\u201320<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Made a mess of life in hi<\/span>s anger<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Cycle 3 Unaccountable judge Inaccessible<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

23:8\u20139<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Remote<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

23:13<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Unaccountable<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

24:1<\/a>, 12<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Lax in execution of judgment<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

26:7\u201314<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Incomprehensibly powerful<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

27:2<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Denied plea, made bitter<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

27:11\u201323<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Devast<\/span>ating to the wicked<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Job\u2019s ideas certainly do not develop as a systematic trajectory. Job is making the mistake that we would all make: inferring the nature of God from his experiences (and thus comin<\/span>g to many wrong conclusions). The divine attributes in the chart are neither taught in the Bible nor promoted\/affirmed by the book. Likewise we can see that Job\u2019s concept of God cannot be considered above reproach. In one sense, Job\u2019s friends have a more orthodox approach, in that they do not adjust their view of God to accommodate Job\u2019s innocence. Instead, they are willing to<\/span> question Job\u2019s innocence.<\/p>\n

Job\u2019s thought progression reflects the common complaints that people make against God. In trying to please a holy God, many look through the Bible and conclude that God asks<\/em> too much. Once we re<\/span>ach this conclusion, we can become critical when we perceive God acting on the basis of what he has asked and then conclude that he is too intrusive: God does<\/em> too much. If we persuade ourselves that G<\/span>od is demanding and intrusive, we finally decide that he just doesn\u2019t care enough about us or our situation. Like the child who thinks that there are too many chores and rules and chafes when he or she receives discipline for falling short of<\/span> expectations, our ultimate accusation becomes: \u201cYou don\u2019t love me.\u201d Even though Job is not undergoing discipline (though he and his friends all think he is), his comments proceed through the standard sequence.<\/p>\n

Accommodationist hermeneutics.<\/strong> We have tried to demonstrate that Job\u2019s cosmic hymns (9:4\u201310<\/a>; 26:7\u201313<\/a>) follow closely the cosmology of the ancient Near East. If we look through the rest of the Old Test<\/span>ament, we should not be surprised to find that this is the case throughout. No passage speaks of the shape or operation of the cosmos in a manner inconsistent with the beliefs of the ancient world; it all conforms to what can be called \u201cOld World Science.\u201d<\/span>78<\/a> God was in the business of revealing himself to his people, and to do so he did not need to give them a more advanced science. Such an action<\/span> would have been problematic, because then we would have to decide which time period the science reflected. Science changes all the time, so to put revelation in terms of the science of one period would automatically make it anachronistic to earlier periods and obsolete to later periods. Science is not made of facts; it expresses society\u2019s <\/span>consensual understanding of how the world works.79<\/a><\/p>\n

Through<\/span>out the twentieth and into the twenty-first century, some biblical interpreters have adopted what is known as a concordist hermeneutic. This approach views the Bible as an expression of modern science<\/span>. We can force an agreement between the Bible and science either by reading modern science between the lines of the biblical text, or by trying to construct a science from the interpretation of the biblical text. The drawback of these concordist approaches is that they typically end up making the Bible say a whole lot more than it said to the anci<\/span>ents, giving words and phrases new meanings that they never had. One could therefore question whether concordists actually dilute the authority of the Bible (built on authorial intent) in order to salvage \u201ctruth\u201d (equated with modern scientific ways of thinking).<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

As an alternative hermeneutic to the concordist approach, one could adopt an accommodationist hermeneutic\u2014the approach that I have taken here. The accommodationist hermeneutic asserts tha<\/span>t to communicate effectively, God accommodated his revelation to the ideas of the day. For instance, if God wanted to communicate that he created everything, he would define \u201ccreate\u201d and \u201ceverything\u201d in terms meaningful to the specific audience. After all, though the Bible was written <\/span>for<\/em> everyone, it was written to<\/em> Israelites in the ancient world. If the Bible had been written to us, God would ha<\/span>ve used different terms to say that he created everything. Likewise, if God wanted to describe to us his construction of the cosmos, he would talk about the material world: the first event (big bang?); the way that he set up gravity and hung the planets in space by the laws of motio<\/span>n; the process of beginning life through the atomic, cellular, and molecular levels; all the way to the unique brain chemistry that makes humans the image of God.<\/span><\/p>\n

But he was talking to ancient Israelites, and all of that would have been meaningless nonsense. This revelation was not intended to be mystical or obscure<\/span>. Communication requires building on the familiar, so God used Old World Science as the template for communication. The ancients were far less interested in the material cosmos than in the functional cosmos.<\/span>80<\/a> God spoke in their terms\u2014which are far different from ours\u2014because he was not intending to reveal an authoritative cosmic geography. The point of God\u2019s revelation is to assert that, regardle<\/span>ss of the details of one\u2019s cosmic geography, God set it up and makes it work.<\/p>\n

Some have found this accommodationist hermeneutic problematic because it makes some statements of Scripture untrue. The sk<\/span>y is not a solid canopy holding up waters above the earth. The sun, moon, and stars are not inside this solid water barrier. The earth is not a flat disk. But before we let this bother us, we have to look again at our doctrine of biblical authority and inerrancy. Even the statement of the International Council on Biblica<\/span>l Inerrancy pointedly refused to include scientific accuracy in its understanding of the Bible as \u201cinerrant in all that it affirms.\u201d God communicates his revelation with certain goals in mind, and it is those goals that constitute revelation and carry authority. Along the way God communicates many incidental matters that are not revelation and do not carry authority. The Bible communicates a spelling of \u201cNebuchadnezzar\u201d and therefore could be said to tacitly affirm it\u2014but God has no revelation on the spelling of Nebu<\/span>chadnezzar (and in fact, the Bible spells it two different ways, Jeremiah prefers the more accurate Nebuchadrezzar, e.g., <\/span><\/span>Jer. 21:2<\/a>). This is an incidental <\/span>detail and does not carry the burden of biblical authority.<\/p>\n

We as scientific human beings made the same kind of conclusions when we decided that we do not have to consider the earth as the center of t<\/span>he universe with the sun moving across the sky. We have also decided that, contrary to the statements of Scripture, cognitive and emotional processes are not carried out by the blood pumps in our chests or by our kidneys. Scriptural authority resides in God\u2019s revelatory message, not in the incidentals he uses to communicate that message. <\/span>Inerrancy describes the nature of revelation and our confidence that it is true. God is who he says he is. He has done what he says he has done. His motives and purposes are what the Bible proclaims them to be. He interacted with the people that the text reports he did.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Nothing in this hermeneutic should surprise us; communication always requires accommodation. When I lecture to any group, whether graduate students in my classes at Wheaton or sixth graders<\/span> in the classes I teach at church, I have to use words and ideas that they will understand or my communication will fail. God is an effective communicator; therefore, when God chose to reveal himself, to communicate to his creatures, he adopted a course of accommodation. He did not communicate in some universal language using only universal cultural elements; there are no such things (a<\/span>t least not since the Tower of Babel). He spoke to Israelites in an ancient culture, using expressions they understood. Our interpretation begins here.<\/span><\/p>\n

Some concordists would say that within God\u2019s communication <\/span>to that ancient culture, God was able to embed hints of more sophisticated information\u2014hints that we can now decipher, since we possess advanced knowledge. In other words, the ancients would have comprehended the basic level of the text, but the text has mult<\/span>iple layers, just as we might imagine for prophecy and fulfillment or christological interpretation. Such a system could potentially work if the deeper levels simply build on the surface level, but it is not so easy when the supposed deeper levels contradict the surface level. Either the sun moves around the earth or the earth moves around the sun. Both cannot be true.<\/span><\/span>81<\/a> Furthermore, in prophecy and fulfillment, we typically only accept those adjustments that are confirmed by an authoritative source (i.e., the New Testament).<\/p>\n

An accomm<\/span>odationist hermeneutic poses no problem for the doctrine of inerrancy. Inerrancy always requires us to interpret the meaning of the text so we can determine what is inerrant. The book of Job is a great example<\/span> because most of the details of the book are wrong: The Challenger is wrong; the friends are partially wrong; Job himself is partially wrong. Inerrancy comes in the interpretation of the book<\/span> as a whole. The book has to be interpreted to determine what the inerrant message is.<\/p>\n

At the same time, it must be admitted that, like any interpretive method, an accommodationist hermeneutic offers <\/span>its challenges. Where does the accommodation stop and the revelation begin? Should we follow the Levitical dietary laws? Should women wear head coverings? Is homosexuality contrary to God\u2019s designs or just a practice despised in ancient culture? Is it permissible to have slaves? Is polygamy an acceptable practic<\/span>e? Should we stone adulterers? Yes, these sorts of questions challenge us, but they are not questions that only occur in the context of an accommodationist hermeneutic. In fact, an accommodationist hermeneutic may enable us to sort some of those out more consistently than we have in the past. But that discussion would exceed the scope of this book.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

Contemporary Significance<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>Righteousness alone. Humans (especially Americans) tend to be motivated by self-interest: \u201cWhat is in it for me?\u201d we ask. We have not only adopted our own self-fulfillment and happiness as a goal, but<\/span> nearly consider it a right (subconsciously emending the Declaration of Independence to indicate what to us is indeed self-evident, that we have inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness). Not only has happiness become our ambition, it has often become a spiritual expectation. Our relationship to God looks much like the Great Symbiosis,<\/span> in that our commitment is premised on anticipated benefits. Often in the process we expect much of God and little of ourselves.<\/span><\/p>\n

If the book of Job promotes disinterested righteousness as a moral principle, we should explore what this valu<\/span>e looks like for our faith to get beyond self-interests. If our righteousness is for righteousness\u2019 sake, what will it look like? Taking the lead from the book of Job, we would have to conclude that such a faith would not abandon belief even if life gets difficult. But it is important that we also consider th<\/span>e proper motives for our behavior and our choices. How should we discern what God expects of us and what we should expect of ourselves? How should we live if we want to pursue a faith not premised on self-interests?<\/span><\/p>\n

In the college context in which I work, students often grapple with behavi<\/span>oral expectations. All the authorities in their lives (whether school, church, or parents) have imposed restrictions on the way they live, each somehow connecting these regulations to biblical authori<\/span>ty. It is no wonder, then, that young people misconstrue the Bible as a compendium of rules. As with any set of rules, the challenge too often becomes: \u201cHow much can I get away with without getting in trouble?\u201d or \u201cWhat is the least I have to do to get by?<\/span>\u201d These sorts of reactions are not just true of teenagers; that mentality stretches easily into our adult lives.<\/p>\n

The fact is, we have trouble lo<\/span>oking beyond our own self-interests. The goal of our lives, and especially of our faith, is that we become more godlike, not that we become more successful or comfortable. There is nothing wrong with success or prosperity\u2014these can<\/span> be legitimately pursued, but not as our primary goals or as the motivations of our faith.<\/p>\n

When I refer to being godlike, I am not speaking of what we often call piety, <\/span>devotion, spirituality, or godliness, though such demeanors are not to be gainsaid. I am more concerned here about what motivates our faith and our choices. The pathway we find most natural to follow (as fallen humans) is what I would call the \u201cbenefits-driven minimalistic life<\/span> of faith.\u201d It is framed by the two questions already mentioned:<\/p>\n

1. What is in it for me? (benefits driven)<\/p>\n

2. What is the<\/span> least I have to do (or most I can get away with)? (minimalism)<\/p>\n

Because we tend to see God\u2019s requirements in the Bible as \u201crules,\u201d we rationalize giving ourselves permission to do what it does not exp<\/span>licitly forbid. If we conclude that the Bible does not specifically speak against certain sorts of sexual behavior, against the activities we enjoy (but have been told are not spiritual), against the movies we want to watch, against the language we enjoy using, against the way we dress, and so on, we feel free to indulge ourselves wit<\/span>h free conscience: \u201cThe Bible doesn\u2019t say I can\u2019t.\u201d We may take comfort in all of the dastardly offenses we have not committed and decide that we are \u201cgood enough.\u201d After all, we are not disobeying the Bible.<\/span><\/p>\n

This is minimalism in its mature and virulent form. For<\/span> instance, the Bible says nothing about drug abuse. Some might respond by pulling out a biblical injunction to respect your body, but that is the wrong approach, because it still assumes that we have to dredge up a biblical prohibition or command to regul<\/span>ate every aspect of our behavior. Attempts to explicate all the mandates of Scripture are criticized (truly enough at times) as illegitimate proof-texting that employs questionable hermeneutics and fails to consider cultural context. Let us consider briefly some of the ways that people seek behavioral guidance from the Bible.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>New Testament<\/em>. We are often more inclined to look to the Gospels and Letters to find our guidelines for life, and well we should. Yet again, we must realize the limitations here. Neither corpus of lit<\/span>erature is designed to offer a fully developed guide for behavior. Instead we find occasional exhortations and admonitions, reflections and confrontations. From these we can gain discernment, but even a compilation of all this information cannot give us anything that approaches comprehensive understanding. Furthermore, as with the Old Testament, there are many cultural elements that m<\/span>ake direct appropriation problematic.<\/span><\/p>\n

These brief observations make an important point: The Bible does not readily translate into a comprehensive list of \u201cdos and don\u2019ts for righteous living\u201d; it is even difficult<\/span> to find answers to particular questions of behavior. Instead of being clear or forthright, we might regularly find that the Bible gives us ambiguous or controversial guidance.<\/p>\n

Those who attempt to en<\/span>force behavioral constraints, whether through proof-texting or any of these methods, demonstrate a misunderstanding of the problem and seek the solution in the wrong place. The Bible does not have to forbid a behavior for u<\/span>s to consider that behavior wrong. How do we determine parameters for appropriate conduct? What does it mean to be godlike and what it would it look like? How do we avoid the benefits-driven minimalistic life of faith? <\/span>Is<\/em> there anything in it for us?<\/p>\n

Recently I was having a conversation with students who wanted to know how one could or should develop a biblical view of sexua<\/span>l ethics (encompassing everything from pornography and lust to sex outside of marriage and definitions of marriage). What biblical statements have universal validity, and what statements are culturally relative? After all, the institution of marriage was far different in the ancient world than it is today, and the issue of p<\/span>remarital sex is inevitably tied to the definition of marriage. Even as we recognize the need for definitions of purity, we realize that standards of modesty vary from one culture to another. What does godliness look like in this area of behavior? What does God want from us? How do we draw parameters without imposing potentially arbitrary rules? How does one develop biblical standards if the Bible does not yield specific information through role models, the law, or exhortations in the Proverbs or New Testament letters?<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Consider these ten principles:<\/p>\n

1. We should conscientiously pursue wisdom (in its Old Testament sense), godlikeness, and holiness.<\/p>\n

2. Beyond what i<\/span>s clearly stated in revelation, we should not presume to draw parameters for others (e.g., for what constitutes modesty, humility, appropriate entertainment), only for ourselves; these should reflect <\/span>our goal (holiness) rather than the lowest common denominator that we can rationalize.<\/p>\n

3. The boundaries may differ from culture to culture and perhaps from person to person, but there must be<\/em> carefu<\/span>lly thought-out parameters that reflect our desire for holiness.<\/p>\n

4. We should not impose our boundaries on others, though we could hold them accountable to their own boundaries and challenge them to <\/span>aim higher.<\/p>\n

5. There must be discernable differences between Christian behavior and the world\u2019s behavior (Rom. 12:1\u20132<\/a>).<\/p>\n

6. We should not concede either to self-righteousness or to self-indulgence.<\/p>\n

<\/span>7. We should understand that God does not need what we give; our behavior can please him but does not benefit him.<\/p>\n

8. Our behavior should not be motivated by expectation of material rewards; further,<\/span> our behavior cannot save us.<\/p>\n

9. We should aspire to be godlike, not just to keep rules (which inherently only lead us in the right direction).<\/p>\n

10. Obedience is expected but represents the minimal l<\/span>evel of godliness.<\/p>\n

The path of wisdom, godlikeness, and holiness would rely on Scripture for guidance without necessarily looking to specific texts to lay down hard and fast rules (though it occasiona<\/span>lly might and we dare not neglect them when it does). Wisdom brings order to life and relationships, and the wise take God seriously. Wisdom derives from biblical values, but it is not necessarily bound to Israelite culture. Holiness recognizes that aspects of our behavior will sharply distinguish us from those around us. God\u2019s holiness is embodied in his distinguishing attribut<\/span>es; we exhibit holiness by reflecting God\u2019s communicable attributes (e.g., by exhibiting the fruit of the Spirit). We can build ideas about godlikeness around the biblical text\u2019s portrayal of God. Obedience is important, but our end responsibility is to strive to be like God. Disobedience will impede us from reaching this goal, but obedience alone will not necessarily achieve it.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Ideally, we should aspire to holines<\/span>s, not because of benefits we can gain as a result, but because God is God and our righteous behavior is one of the ways we honor him. Regardless of whether we experience any advantages in life because of these decisions, we choose this<\/span> path because of who God is.<\/p>\n

But could we ever say there isn\u2019t anything in it for us? We often experience good feelings when we act altruistically; self-congratulat<\/span>ion and feelings of approval can be strong motivators and have their own payoff. As Screwtape comments to Wormwood, when the subject actually experiences true humility, be sure to point him to how sel<\/span>f-satisfied and proud he is of his humility.84<\/a><\/p>\n

Two qualifications will help us through this dilemma. (1) The main threat comes from material<\/em> benefits. It is not unworthy to pursue holiness in life in <\/span>order to achieve the accolade, \u201cWell done, my good servant!\u201d (Luke 19:17<\/a>), or to run so as to win the prize (Phil. 3:14<\/a>). No fault need be found in a desire to gain Christ (3:8<\/a>) or \u201cto attain to the r<\/span>esurrection from the dead\u201d (3:11<\/a>). (2) We must recall that we are primarily concerned with the motives<\/em> for our actions, not the circumstantial results. We may well obtain a multitude of benefits, mate<\/span>rial and otherwise, but we must probe deeply into our own hearts to seek out and understand our motivations, asking the Holy Spirit to reveal and purify them.<\/p>\n

Finally, we may return to the question th<\/span>at prompted this lengthy discussion: Can we accept our (presumably) innocent suffering and the success of the wicked, based on the opportunity they provide us to learn godliness: forgiveness, humility, patience, joy in adversity, resilience <\/span>to circumstances, understanding of sin, reliance on God\u2019s strength, empathy with others, appreciation of simple joys, and any number of other character-building qualities? I would reply that they do not offer <\/span>reasons<\/em> for suffering, but they may give us some recompense<\/em> for the fallen circumstances that we endure; bringing good out of evil does not redefine e<\/span>vil as being good. Suffering can produce personal growth like nothing else, but certainly there are times when suffering produces, not maturity, but loss of faith, loss of confidence in God, loss of resolve to pursue godliness, bitterness, and disposal of all virtue and values. In light of <\/span>these two diverse responses, we might do well to ask, not \u201cWill I suffer in life,\u201d but \u201cWhat kind of sufferer will I be?\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Cole in the movie The Sixth Sense<\/em> confesses to his psychologist, \u201cI see dead people \u2026 all the time \u2026 walking around \u2026 they don\u2019t know they are dead \u2026 they see what they want to see.\u201d We a<\/span>re likewise surrounded by the dead; some are dead in their trespasses and sins, others are dead in their faith\u2014perhaps embittered because of personal suffering or disillusioned because of the world\u2019s depravity. They may have drifted from a once-strong faith, or they may have never achieved a full understanding of faith\u2019s essence. There is also a third <\/span>group of dead people: those who have died to self and sin, crucified with Christ. We are all dead people; the question is, what kind of dead person are you going to be?<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Example to others.<\/strong> People\u2019s stories can have a powerful influence on those around them; the story of Job, told in the book that bears his name, can likewise shape our thinking. On one level we are inspired by the story of his perseverance in righteousness and his resolve in suffering. This is story at its best. Even so, story alone cannot explain the reason<\/em> for his suffering. We don\u2019t suffer misfortune so that we can give testimony, though we can give testimony when we suffer misfortune. Testimony is a possible outcome, but not a cause.<\/p>\n

Eliphaz encourages Job to give testimony at another level. He wants Job to repent and so gain restoration so that he can testify to others that they ought to respond similarly to their suffering or misfortune (22:28\u201330<\/a>). This is no longer testimony about perseverance in difficult circumstances, but testimony of forgiveness and restoration following failure. If we were to use the parable of the prodigal son as an example, the older brother offers the testimony of the one who persevered without wavering, while the younger one offers the testimony of one who returned and was restored.<\/p>\n

Our culture abounds with stories of celebrity penitents, moving deftly from depravity to repentance to talk shows and book contracts. We easily see the potential for acting in self-interest, another of the unworthy motivations that the friends offered to Job and that continues to tempt us today. When material gain and influence over others become potential motivators, we are again challenged by the question of disinterested righteousness. We have seen that Job\u2019s friends urge him to pursue multiple paths that would expose an underlying, worldly motive for his righteousness; we can identify with these because we know that people primarily act with their own self-interest in the fore.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

Kelly\u2019s Story85<\/a><\/p>\n

Kelly has shared some of the many opportunities she had to influence others in all the right ways. However, like many people who are suffering through misfortunes or difficult circumstances, she also experienced the often-harsh or frustrating perspectives of well-intentioned people.<\/p>\n

JHW: Were there people who suggested your circumstances were somehow caused by sin? What perspectives did you find most frustrating? How did you respond, either verbally or in your own thinking?<\/p>\n

Kelly: People have suggested many theories of why certain things in my life have panned out the way they have, but only one person has actually insinuated that my pain was a result of my sin and I was being punished. This conversation happened at a church service. The pastor opened up a time of prayer and encouraged the congregation to pray for others around them. So this woman approached me because she noticed my arm and asked if she could pray for my arm. After she prayed for healing, she began to ask me more questions about the injury.<\/p>\n

After hearing more about the situation, you could see her face expression change and she became perplexed. I could almost see it in her face that what I was saying did not line up with her theological perspective. So she asked more questions and then came to the conclusion that all of these painful experiences had to be because of something I was doing. She paused and then looked at me, and in a very sweet tone encouraged me to really analyze myself and my actions, or sin as she saw it, to discover why God is\u2014in so many words\u2014punishing me. She asked me if I thought I had some sins in my life that I had not yet dealt with that were keeping me from being healed or if I were experiencing the pains of the sins of my parents.<\/p>\n

Not only is this perspective frustrating because I disagree with it from a theological standpoint, but it is also insulting. I knew her intentions were not to be hurtful, but I was hurt by the carelessness with her words to make such a bold claim of someone she has only met for the first time. This perspective is angering because it says a lot about how that person viewed God and his character. I remember thinking, \u201cDid she really just tell me that the reason I have nerve pain and my arm is paralyzed is because God is punishing me for sin in my life?\u201d I was so surprised by what she had just implied that I was shocked. I didn\u2019t know how to react. Do I get into a theological discussion about the loaded statement she just made? I chose to skip that discussion for that day and thanked her for her prayer and went on my way.<\/p>\n

JHW: Did some suggest that healing was withheld from you because of your lack of faith? How did you deal with that?<\/p>\n

Kelly: In many of the encounters I\u2019ve mentioned, that was the conclusion people came to. My lack of faith was the only thing that made sense to them as to why I had not been healed. They would feel frustrated and confused when they did not see the result they were expecting. Many would say, \u201cKelly, I think it is your lack of faith that is keeping you in this state of medical trauma. I think if you really believed God had the power to heal, you wouldn\u2019t be in the state you are in.\u201d Out of all of the \u201cadvice\u201d I\u2019ve received, I think this was the most hurtful. It really struck me at the core. They challenged my belief in God\u2019s healing power, implying it is my fault that I experience the pain that I do. One time I responded by reminding them of Paul, an example I go back to often to keep me in the right mindset. I told them that Paul had prayed for his thorn to be removed. It was not removed and he was told, \u201cNo, my grace is sufficient.\u201d Unfortunately most of the time, I wouldn\u2019t say much, but I would mull over their words later.<\/p>\n

JHW: Were you troubled by your own doubts and dark thoughts concerning these areas?<\/p>\n

Kelly: There definitely were times I struggled with doubt. I would doubt myself and my faith at times. Often times I would get home from church after having one of these conversations and would pray, \u201cGod, is it my lack of faith or lack of confidence in your healing power that has kept me in this medical state?\u201d I would pray, pleading with God to confront me if for some reason I was misled. But I knew that did not line up with my core beliefs of God and how he handles our world. I knew that God was not punishing me for my sin or my parents\u2019 sin, so I would usually dismiss those claims. I also was confident that I did not have a demon in me. My doubts and dark thoughts centered more around my faith\u2014not my faith in regards to believing in Jesus, but rather my confidence in his healing power. I would confuse myself because I know that God does call us to pray with confidence and have faith and hope, but then I remind myself or am reminded that having faith in God\u2019s healing power does not mean that we always get the result we are praying for.<\/p>\n

To be honest, I sometimes feel as if my life with its share of trials and suffering makes people uncomfortable with their \u201ccomfortable God.\u201d For some of the people I encountered, I realized that it was difficult for them to be confronted with a woman who is pursuing God and her faith and still experiencing horrible pain, without doubting the faith of the woman. How could God allow a woman who is pursuing him with her heart to experience trial after trial? My story rattled many people\u2019s thought patterns on how they viewed their God, and they had to explain my suffering to themselves to keep their image of a \u201ccomfortable\u201d God intact.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>Job 28<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Original Meaning<\/p>\n

The Wisdom hymn found in this chapter can be divided into three major sections. Verses 1\u201311<\/a> begins with an extended discussion of mining that serves as an introductory image in the consideration of the difficulty in discovering wisdom. Humankind exerts great effort to draw precious metals from the remote depths of the earth. In verses 12\u201319<\/a> two parallel rhetorical questions turn attention explicitly to something even more precious and more inaccessible: wisdom. This section expands beyond the confines of the opening metaphor, for wisdom is not merely difficult to find but appears utterly inaccessible. Verses 20\u201328<\/a> are also introduced by two parallel rhetorical questions, and these verses provide an answer: God provides the pathway to wisdom, and the fear of the Lord is the foundation on which wisdom is built. It is the key that opens the door to the path of wisdom.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Mining (28:1\u201311<\/a>)<\/p>\n

Mining was an important industry in the ancient world.1<\/a> Mined materials were imported and the products were used in a wide variety of practical and aesthetic undertakings. These mater<\/span>ials served as the foundation for technological advancement, production of art, and accumulation of wealth. The discovery of mineral deposits, the technology for extracting them from the earth, and the techniques for refining them were all considered somewhat esoteric, evoking awe and wonder. As the passage outlines, mining re<\/span>quires deep delving in dark, obscure places and produces stunning products (sapphire\/lapis lazuli, gold) from what looks common (dust, rock). These aspects will be applied to the search for wisdom; the last line, \u201cbrings hidden things to light,\u201d provides a summary and transition to the topic of wisdom.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Two issues that arise in this section require some attention. (1) We might ask what significance there is to mentioning the birds and beasts in 28:7\u20138<\/a>. The reference to<\/span> the birds of prey is understandable within the context, since they are known for having keen eyesight, and the surrounding verses concern places that are dark and undetectable. Lions, however, do not typically prowl a<\/span>round in such places. Of the numerous Hebrew words for \u201clion,\u201d the one used here is among the least common (seven total occurrences). It is often used in parallel with other words for lion, but in <\/span>Psalm 91:13<\/a> it parallels words for serpent. Furthermore, the phrase at the beginning of Job 28:8<\/a> (\u201cproud beasts\u201d) is used elsewhere only to refer to Leviathan, who is king of the proud <\/span>beasts (41:34<\/a>). These three observations have led to the suggestion that this word for lion could refer to a composite creature: part lion, part serpent.2<\/a> While the suggestion is interesting and has a<\/span>dvantages, the data are insufficient to establish the case.<\/p>\n

(2) What is the significance of the sources of the rivers in 28:11<\/a>? In Ugaritic literature the high god El dwells at the source of the two r<\/span>ivers.3<\/a> This is not to say that Job 28:11<\/a> is referring to seeking out the dwelling place of deity. Rather, the Ugaritic text confirms that the sources of rivers were commonly considered to be places o<\/span>f cosmic significance. Even Genesis 2<\/a> speaks of the source of four rivers being located in sacred space (Eden). The end of this section, therefore, brings the reader to the ultimate cosmic mystery. Th<\/span>e core issue of the book of Job is concerned with how the cosmos works. The mining illustration speaks of human attempts to understand the inner workings of the cosmos. But the importance of the mater<\/span>ial cosmos diminishes in light of the question concerning the role of deep wisdom in the cosmos.<\/p>\n

Elusive Wisdom (28:12\u201319<\/a>)<\/p>\n

One can search for precious metals and find them, given sufficient technology and knowledge. Likewise, though it is difficult, it is possible to explore and discover the sour<\/span>ces of rivers. In contrast, wisdom cannot be found and cannot be purchased. It is inaccessible from a human vantage point and beyond value.<\/p>\n

To say that wisdom \u201ccannot be found in the land of the livin<\/span>g\u201d (28:13<\/a>) is a bold statement and seems to be contradicted by the concluding statement in 28:28<\/a>. The examples given in 28:14<\/a>, however, suggest that 28:13<\/a> is an \u201cunder the sun\u201d type of statement, simi<\/span>lar to those common phrases found in Ecclesiastes. \u201cDeep\u201d and \u201cSea\u201d are the most inaccessible places in the land of the living, and they confess that they do not harbor wisdom in their depths. The acquisition of wisdom is a human desire that is n<\/span>ot attainable by human effort. This quest will not be fulfilled in the human realm by human ingenuity.<\/p>\n

The references to \u201cDeep\u201d (tehom<\/span>) and \u201cSea\u201d (yam<\/span>) ar<\/span>e personifications (thus my capitalization here), but there is no reason to consider them deities. These two primary representatives of the cosmic waters were generally believed to have been the first pri<\/span>mordial inhabitants of creation, which makes them logical sources for information about wisdom. As always, the author reflects on the cosmos in terms that are familiar to him and his world. The section concludes with a listing of the most precious metals and gems from exotic places. None of these is sufficient to purchase wisdom as if it were a commodity.<\/p>\n

Source of Wisdom (28:19\u201328<\/a>)<\/p>\n

Job<\/a> 28:20<\/a> Reiterates 28:12<\/a> with a change in the verb (\u201cWhere can wisdom be found\u201d in v. 12<\/a> and \u201cWhere then does wisdom come from\u201d in v. 20<\/a>). This crucial adjustment disting<\/span>uishes the message of verses 12\u201319<\/a>, in which wisdom cannot be \u201cfound,\u201d from verses 20\u201328<\/a>, which suggests that wisdom \u201ccomes from\u201d God. The first concerns a search\u2014ultimately unsuccessful; the second c<\/span>oncerns a source. In 28:14<\/a> it was the Deep and the Sea who answered; in 28:22<\/a> it is Destruction and Death who answer. The distinction is again an important one. In 28:12\u201319<\/a> the quest focused on the la<\/span>nd of the living, where Deep and Sea are located. In 28:20\u201328<\/a>, the quest is extended. Since wisdom is hidden from every living thing, Destruction and Death are consulted. They have word of it, but the<\/span>y confess that wisdom is not to be found in their realm either. One does not achieve wisdom by moving into the next realm. Sheol offers no heightened levels of awareness.<\/p>\n

The word translated \u201cDestruct<\/span>ion\u201d is \u02beabaddon<\/span> and \u201cDeath\u201d is the familiar mawet<\/span>. As with Deep and Sea in the last section, these are personified but not deified (though in Ugaritic mythology Mot\/Death [cf. mawet<\/span>] is a deity who c<\/span>ontends with Baal). Abaddon occurs only five times in the Old Testament.4<\/a> In intertestamental literature (1 En.<\/em><\/a> 20:2<\/a>) it takes on the persona of an angel, also evidenced in the New Testament (Rev. 9:1<\/span>1<\/a>) where its Greek name is Apollyon. Despite those later developments, in the Old Testament Abaddon is a place name, sometimes personified as here, not a demonic creature. Demonology is largely absent<\/span> in the Old Testament; it developed in Hellenistic Judaism under the influence of the ancient Near Eastern and Persian worldviews (see Introduction, p. 36<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Finally the poem begins moving to its concl<\/span>usion with the first reference to God in 28:23<\/a>, who then becomes the subject of the remainder of the sentences. Previously the path to wisdom and its place of dwelling were unknown; now the poem affir<\/span>ms that God knows both path and place. God\u2019s relationship to wisdom is elaborated in 28:24\u201327<\/a>. We will now evaluate these important theological affirmations one at a time.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

28:24<\/strong><\/a>.<\/strong> \u201cHe views the ends of the earth and sees everything under the heavens.\u201d The closest statement made to this in the rest of the Old Testament is in Isaiah 40:28<\/a>, where Yahweh is the Creator of th<\/span>e ends of the earth. In ancient Near Eastern literature it is typically the sun god from his vantage point in the heavens who is able to see the ends of the earth. From Mesopotamia, a Hymn to Shamash, the sun god, makes affirmations of<\/span> a similar nature:<\/p>\n

19 Your splendor covers the vast mountains,<\/p>\n

20 Your fierce light fills the lands to their limits.<\/p>\n

21 You climb to the mountains surveying the eart<\/span>h,<\/p>\n

22 You suspend from the heavens the circle of the lands.<\/p>\n

27 Regularly and without cease you traverse the heavens,<\/p>\n

28 Every day you pass over the broad earth.<\/p>\n

43 To unknown distant regions and for u<\/span>ncounted leagues<\/p>\n

44 You press on, Shamash, going by day and returning by night.5<\/a><\/p>\n

In earlier Sumerian literature, Enlil was praised for the extent of his power:<\/p>\n

Lord, as far as the edge of heaven, lord<\/span> as far as the edge of the earth,<\/p>\n

From the mountain of sunrise to the mountain of sunset.<\/p>\n

In the mountain\/land, no (other) lord resides, you exercise lordship.6<\/a><\/p>\n

Egyptian hymns express similar praises:<\/span><\/p>\n

Primeval One (Amun) who created himself,<\/p>\n

Who oversees all his creation, alone,<\/p>\n

Who reaches the ends of the earth each day<\/p>\n

In the sight of all those who walk on it;<\/p>\n

Who shines from the sky, whose visi<\/span>ble form is the sun.7<\/a><\/p>\n

The sun god Aten is also praised in these terms:<\/p>\n

You are beautiful, great, dazzling, exalted above each land,<\/p>\n

Yet your rays encompass the lands<\/p>\n

To the limits of all which you hav<\/span>e created;<\/p>\n

There in the Sun, you reach to their boundaries8<\/a><\/p>\n

Even though Yahweh is not viewed specifically as the sun god, his attributes include those associated with sun gods in the rest of the anci<\/span>ent Near East.9<\/a> As Clines and many others observe, however, the Wisdom poem here in Job does not identify the gaze of God as a daily occurrence (as it is with the sun gods) but as having taken place i<\/span>n the primordial past and serving as the basis for his creative work.10<\/a> Consequently this statement does not offer a reconsideration of 28:13<\/a>. Though the path to and the place of wisdom are indeed in <\/span>the land of the living (the ends of the earth and that which is under heaven), ultimately the inaccessibility of wisdom is most related to its place in time rather than its place in space. Wisdom is to be found in the decisions made in the original arrangemen<\/span>t of the cosmos, for wisdom is to be found in the ordering of the components of the cosmos. Order is not readily observable in daily operatio<\/span>ns, but it was instrumental in the foundation of creation and is inherent in the ongoing operations. That primordial perspective is inaccessible to humans.<\/p>\n

This is an important statement for the case <\/span>the book of Job is making. Job and his friends think that they know how the cosmos is ordered (the RP<\/a> with justice as the foundation). God will eventually demonstrate that their model is flawed. God\u2019s<\/span> perspective on the foundation of the cosmos is based on causes (all instigated by him), not on effects (what humans experience). There is<\/em> no foundational principle that runs the cosmos. The cosmos ru<\/span>ns by God\u2019s continuous and ongoing activity. It is dynamic because he is dynamic; this is why he acts according to circumstance and not by a rigid set of strictures. This is why modern empirical science (which is based on constancy and laws) has to remove God fr<\/span>om the equation before it can do anything.<\/p>\n

28:25\u201326<\/strong><\/a>.<\/strong> \u201cWhen he established the force of the wind and measured out the waters, when he made a decree for the rain and a path for the thunderstorm.\u201d The lead word \u201cwhen\u201d informs the reader of the po<\/span>int in time at which God was viewing the ends of the earth. He had the whole of the cosmos in mind as he undertook creation. The elements of the cosmos mentioned here are those that have the most impact, both positively and negatively, on human survival and existence, and Yahweh will return to these in his speech (<\/span>38:8\u201311<\/a>, 22\u201330<\/a>). Obviously these statements do not embrace every aspect of the creat<\/span>ion of the cosmos. By focusing on those forces whose effects too often appear to work independently of justice, justice and wisdom are juxtaposed.<\/p>\n

28:27<\/strong><\/a>.<\/strong> \u201cThen he looked at wisdom and appraised it; he confirmed it and tested it.\u201d Here God approves creation by the criterion of wisdom\u2014not justice. In other words, when God surveyed the breadth and <\/span>width of the cosmos and the way that the wind, waters, rain, and thunderstorm had been set up, he concluded that the operations as ordered were characterized by wisdom. This is similar to the Genesis <\/span>1<\/a> assessment that each aspect of creation was good. In this sense the cosmos was an assertion of his wisdom, and the execution of his creative work successfully reflected his wisdom.<\/p>\n

Again it must be <\/span>noted that this assessment stands in contrast to what Job, his friends, and most of the other people in their world expected. They expected that God would have appraised the cosmos in light of justice because that is <\/span>what they valued above all else.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n

28:28<\/strong><\/a>.<\/strong> \u201cAnd he said to man, \u2018The fear of the Lord\u2014that is wisdom, and to shun evil is understanding.\u201d Here the poem reaches its climax and conclusion. Commentators have considered this verse trite, cl<\/span>ich\u00e9d, contradictory, and anticlimactic, or they have dismissed it as a later addition. Such reactions are unnecessary, as I will seek to demonstrate below. Also of interest is the fact that the prota<\/span>gonists we have met so far (Job\u2019s friends) all have reputations as being among the wisest that the world has to offer; yet somehow the \u201cfear of the Lord\u201d has not figured prominently in their discussions.<\/span>11<\/a><\/p>\n

Some observations need to be made about the wording of the verse. First, the conclusion is presented as an instruction to humankind (\u02beadam<\/span>); second, it refers to the \u201cfear of Adonai\u201d rather than<\/span> \u201cfear of Yahweh\u201d; third, unlike the similar saying in Proverbs where fear of the Lord is the beginning<\/em> of wisdom, here the fear of the Lord is<\/em> wisdom; and finally, the phrase \u201cfear of the Lord\u201d is pa<\/span>ralleled with an ethical exhortation to shun evil. Each of these requires some consideration.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>(1) Instruction<\/em>. Sea, Deep, Destruction, and Death have all had their \u201csay\u201d in which they confessed to knowing little to nothing about wisdom. Now God has his \u201csay,\u201d clarifying what humans need to kno<\/span>w. Syntactically the instruction can be seen as a result clause following the assessment of wisdom. That is, having appraised and tested wisdom, the result is that he instructs humans to fear Adonai. Fearing the Lord means to take him seriously as opposed to:<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2022 thinking him detached (therefore to be ignored)<\/p>\n

\u2022 thinking him incompetent (therefore to be treated with disdain)<\/p>\n

\u2022 thinking him limited o<\/span>r impotent (therefore to be scorned)<\/p>\n

\u2022 thinking him corrupt (therefore to be admonished)<\/p>\n

\u2022 thinking him shortsighted (therefore to be advised)<\/p>\n

\u2022 thinking him petty (therefore to be resented)<\/p>\n

Were Job <\/span>and his friends taking God seriously? Job is identified as one fearing God in the introduction to the book, but his fear of God demonstrated itself at the level of meticulous ritual and conscientious submissio<\/span>n. The dialogues, however, show his perception of God to be lacking key components. He is unwilling to give God the benefit of the doubt and inclined to think that God is deficient in some way. The fear of God involves more than recognition that he has the <\/span>power<\/em> to act for or against people.<\/p>\n

Of course God has power, but this context suggests that an issue of trust<\/em> is involved. The fact th<\/span>at wisdom is inaccessible to humans except through God requires that we trust him\u2014and this aspect of trust is therefore included in his instruction to \u201cfear the Lord.\u201d We trust that he is not detached<\/span>, incompetent, impotent, corrupt, shortsighted, or petty. Thus we can rest assured in the information that our wisdom is codependent on his and derived from it. This reality has not been expressed in the dial<\/span>ogues between Job and his friends, but it is an essential element for making further progress in the discussion.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

<\/span><\/span>(2) Adonai<\/span>. As previously mentioned, the name Yahweh occurs only in the frame narrative and the Yahweh speeches (Job 1\u20132<\/a>; 38\u201342<\/a>) with the arguable exception of 12:9<\/a> (see p. 177<\/a> for discussion), so we <\/span>would not necessarily expect this poem to speak of the fear of Yahweh. What we might expect is that it would refer to the fear of God (\u02beelohim<\/span>) (as in 1:1<\/a>, 8<\/a>, 9<\/a>; 2:3<\/a>). Adonai is a much vaguer term sin<\/span>ce it can also refer to human authorities. This is also the only occurrence of Adonai in the book. Furthermore, it is put in the mouth of God (i.e., it is the instruction he is giving); nowhere else in the Old Testament does God refer <\/span>to himself simply by the title Adonai. This usage is therefore noteworthy and unique on several counts.<\/p>\n

Job has already been identified as one who fears God, so to r<\/span>eiterate that concept here only serves to loop the reader back to the opening description of Job. \u201cFear of Yahweh\u201d would anticipate Yahweh\u2019s forthcoming speeches at the end of the book, but Job has not yet encountered Yahweh and that would preempt the book\u2019s co<\/span>nclusion. It should be noted that the instruction is not addressed to Job but to humankind, and thus to the reader. For the Israelite reader, the term Adonai moves toward the name Yahweh (from the more general <\/span>\u02beelohim<\/span>), yet still retains some ambiguity. Somewhere between piety (fear of God) and Yahwism (fear of Yahweh) is the recognition<\/span> of one\u2019s submission to deity. This is what Job lacks, and the book will move to address this deficit. The title Adonai, \u201clord, master,\u201d draws out this element of submission.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>(3) Is Wisdom<\/em>. In the previous references to wisdom in the chapter (vv. 12<\/a>, 20<\/a>), the noun has a definite article: the<\/em> Wisdom, indicating that it is both fundamental and transcendent. Here in verse 28<\/a> <\/span>there is no definite article. These references must therefore be distinguished. Fear of Adonai is not then being identified as the Wisdom to which God understands the way and that is inaccessible to hu<\/span>mans in the land of the living. Fearing Adonai will not give people that Wisdom; it is an act of wisdom as it opens up the path to the<\/em> Wisdom. Furthermore, when people respond to God with the assumpt<\/span>ion that he is wise, they will enact the fear of Adonai. It is wise to trust God as the path to the<\/em> Wisdom.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

(4) Ethical exhortation<\/em>. What comprises the wise fear of Adonai? Here it is equated with turning away from evil. That sounds obvious enough to us, but we have to think in terms of the ancient world. We might recall that Job\u2019s fear of God in the first chapter expressed itself in dutiful and conscientious ritual observance (1:4\u20135<\/a>). This was a common reflex in the ancient world. God\u2019s assessment of him, however, asserted that Job was a man who had also turned away from evil (1:8<\/a>\u2014the same vocabulary as used here in 28:28<\/a>). If Job is already one who fits the criteria cited here, what is the point?<\/p>\n

The most reasonable explanation is that this serves as an affirmation and vindication of the stance that Job has adopted as he withstands the assault of his friends. The argument in the dialogues concerns whether Job is going to make a principled stand on his righteousness (this is the integrity that he defended in 27:1\u20136<\/a>) or whether he will accede to the advice of his friends and admit to offenses in a strategy designed to recover his prosperity. Fear of Adonai is expressed in righteous behavior\u2014turning away from evil, but not in appeasement of deity presumed to respond to people based on the ways they meet his needs. In this way of thinking, fear of Adonai does not look for patronizing a needy god so that he will leave you alone (inherent in the Great Symbiosis); fear of Adonai looks for upright behavior\u2014true ethical righteousness as Job has insisted.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

Bridging Contexts<\/p>\n

In the Introduction to this commentary (pp. 29\u201331<\/a>) I have already discussed the difficulties surrounding the identification of the speaker in this Wisdom poem. For the reasons indicated there I am not persuaded that the speaker is Job, Zophar, or Elihu, as others have suggested. I believe that this chapter is best understood as a return to the compiler, the true author of the book whose voice we hear in the prose introduction and conclusion.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Role in the book.<\/strong> In this scenario, this Wisdom poem serves as a transition from the section of the book that has presented the case of the three friends, who in turn have been unwittingly pressing the case of the Challenger. Job has stood firmly against their pressure to pursue a path of regaining his prosperity. Consequently the Challenger\u2019s contention that he was motivated by desire for reward has been shown false\u2014Job\u2019s is<\/em> a disinterested righteousness.12<\/a><\/p>\n

Nevertheless, this still leaves Job\u2019s complaint unaddressed. The Challenger had contended it was bad policy for the righteous to prosper<\/em>because such a policy would corrupt their motives. Job has contended that it is bad policy for the righteous to suffer<\/em> because that would undermine God\u2019s justice. The \u201cwisdom\u201d of the friends has not been wisdom at all, and Job himself has been groping to understand his experiences and how God and the world work.<\/p>\n

This poem ultimately affirms that the friends are wrong and Job is right in the sense that wisdom is found in a fear of God that depends on a righteousness that turns away from evil, rather than on one that relies on piety and appeasement and results in divine favor and prosperity. Having concluded the consideration of the case argued by the friends and Challenger, the author turns attention to the contention of Job. The question in the first part of the book was: \u201cIs Job\u2019s righteousness disinterested?\u201d In the second part of the book, the question turns to: \u201cCan there be coherence when righteous people suffer?\u201d Real wisdom has not yet been brought to light, and doing so is not an easy task, as chapter 28<\/a> indicates.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Job 28<\/strong><\/a> and its view of wisdom.<\/strong> Job and his friends have been assuming that there is a wisdom that humans can acquire that understands life\u2019s experiences as an expression of God\u2019s justice (the wisdom e<\/span>xpressed in the RP<\/a>). This wisdom that they seek will presumably bring coherency by providing an understanding of how justice is done both in general and in Job\u2019s specific situation.<\/p>\n

Though wisdom is t<\/span>he key to this understanding, Job and his friends seek a wisdom that is inaccessible and will not fulfill their expectations. \u201cWhatever Job thinks he is doing, his mistake is in presuming that human rationality can gra<\/span>sp and hold the structures of the world in intelligibility.\u201d13<\/a><\/p>\n

The poem shifts the book from a search for justice to a search for wisdom. God should be viewed as a purveyor of wisdom<\/span> rather than a simple purveyor of justice. This offers an alternative model by which to account for reality. C. Newsom captures this with the observation that Job is involved in \u201cthe search for something that is not only more precious than gold but beyond all other values. What he seeks, though he may not employ the t<\/span>erm \u1e25okmah<\/span> [wisdom] for it, is a point of coherency, a vantage point from which <\/span>God, the world, and his own experience make sense.\u201d14<\/a><\/p>\n

God and wisdom.<\/strong> The term used predominantly in Job 28<\/a> for wise\/wisdom is \u1e25akam\/\u1e25okmah<\/span>. A study of the root \u1e25km<\/span> throughout the Old Testament turns up some surprising results. The Old Testament rarel<\/span>y suggests that God is wise.15<\/a> The noun (\u1e25okmah<\/span>) refers to that which belongs to God (Job 12:13<\/a>) and which is given by God (1 Kings 3:28<\/a>; 10:24<\/a>; Prov. 2:6<\/a>; Eccl. 2:26<\/a>). God operates in wisdom (Ps. 10<\/span>4:24<\/a>; Prov. 3:19<\/a>). God is the one who brought wisdom forth (Prov. 8:22<\/a>). M. Fox observes about Proverbs 8<\/a> that \u201cGod acquired\/created wisdom as the first of his deeds. Wisdom was \u2018born\u2019 (vv 24<\/a>, 25<\/a>) at <\/span>that time. She did not exist from eternity. Wisdom is therefore an accidental attribute of the godhead, not an essential or inherent one.\u201d16<\/a><\/p>\n

Wisdom should be understood as that which brings order and <\/span>coherence. Since before there was creation there was only God, there was nothing for God to provide coherence for and no one to seek coherence. Order implies a relationship of things and there was nothing else. God is the author of order and the foundation fo<\/span>r coherence, but one would not speak of God himself, alone, as coherent or orderly. Only as creation was put in place could God envision order and inculcate it into the cosmos. One can then say that God was exercising wisdom to do so, but to say that God is wise understates God\u2019s nature. Affirmations such as \u201cGod is wise,\u201d \u201cGod is good,\u201d or \u201cGod is holy\u201d are misleading and ultimately reductionistic, though the Bible makes such statements legitimately. The<\/span> adjectives themselves find their definition in God, so one may as well say \u201cGod is God\u201d\u2014a philosophically meaningless tautology. Humans can only approach wisdom, goodness, or holiness by being like God\u2014not because he is wise, but because any wisdom we might find has its foundations in him.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

These observations help us to begin to understand the point being made in Job 28<\/a>. The cosmos is permeated with wisdom because God made it that way. The poem does not suggest that God is<\/em> wisd<\/span>om or that he has<\/em> wisdom. Certainly God understands and knows wisdom because it finds its source in him. One can only perceive order and coherence if one takes seriously that those qualities of wisdom<\/span> emanate from God; thus fearing the Lord is wisdom. We are used to the saying, \u201cAll truth is God\u2019s truth.\u201d The variation of that saying that emerges from this discussion is \u201cAll order is God\u2019s order.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

How does the presentation of God in 28:24\u201327<\/a> contrast with the picture of God given previously in the book? Through this point in the book Job has been seeking wisdom (a coherent understanding of his<\/span> situation), and his friends have been offering the wisdom that they reputedly and presumably have. Job has a reputation as a wise man, but now he is stumped. His default understanding of coherence is not working, and he finds the suggestions of his friends inadequate.<\/span><\/p>\n

The introduction indicates that Job fears God (1:8<\/a>). This is demonstrated by his pious attention to ritual and his turning away fr<\/span>om evil. But there are other areas in which to express fear of the Lord. Does Job consider God to be the author of coherence? Fearing God in that manner would be demonstrated in giving him the benefit<\/span> of the doubt even in the midst of perceived incoherence. For Job, coherence can only be found in justice. It would seem that if Job is unable to identify a coherence associated with justice, God becomes suspect and should be called to account. In this sense, Job at least tacitly believes that he knows the path to wisdom and the shape that it needs to take. Job\u2019s friends suffer the sa<\/span>me overconfidence.<\/span><\/p>\n

Job 28<\/a> therefore serves an important function at this juncture in the book. It serves notice that Job is not in the position of control and that his expectations should not dictate the direction<\/span> in which the situation proceeds. It also serves notice that the friends\u2019 perception of coherence is flawed and simplistic.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Contemporary Significance<\/p>\n

Our discussion of the contemporary significance of this chapter can proceed differently than it has in the previous chapters. Throughout the dialogues we were well aware that<\/span> the text was presenting flawed views rather than authoritative biblical teaching. Our strategy was therefore to interact with those views, identify them in our own responses, and critique them.<\/p>\n

If I <\/span>am right in reading this speech as from the mouth of the narrator, however, we here have biblical teaching on the proper way to think. In fact, this chapter offers some of the fundamental insights on which<\/span> I base my interpretation of the book and its teaching. These insights challenge our own inclinations when we face suffering and suggest new models for thinking.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

Role of Wisdom in the Cosmos<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Past not present. When life goes wrong, we look for reasons. Where do we expect to find them? This poem suggests that the wisdom for finding such explanations is not available. We should not expect that we will ever deduce or receive a rationalization that justifies our suffering.17<\/a> Consequently it is futile to spend time and energy trying to decipher the situation.<\/p>\n

Our circumstances find their roots in the past, not in the present. In other words, our circumstances, for good or ill, are based in God\u2019s ordering of the cosmos of creation. Perhaps a mundane illustration will help. We can say that God created gravity at the beginning. God\u2019s wisdom is inherent in gravity. When any of us do something intentional or accidental that results in us leaving the ground, gravity will become evident. God\u2019s wisdom is not to be sought in every individual expression of gravity, though we dare not say that it operates without him (one form of deism). He could theoretically disengage it in a particular moment or instance, but we should not expect it. The explanation for gravity would therefore be sought at the beginning of time, not in the present expression of it. One could ask endlessly why gravity expressed itself in a particular situation, but such answers are inaccessible and reflect a wrongheaded question.<\/p>\n

Are our questions about our suffering really any different? When God made gravity, it became inevitable that some people would fall, resulting in death or injury. When God created our nervous systems, it became inevitable that there would be pain. Each experience of pain finds its ultimate explanation in how the system was initially constructed. When we move from the question, \u201cWhy do I experience pain?\u201d (nervous system) to \u201cWhy did this particular pain-causing experience happen to me?\u201d we should not expect to discern an answer.<\/p>\n

When I trip and experience gravity, I don\u2019t ask, \u201cWhat did I do that resulted in God causing me to trip?\u201d God did not cause me to trip, nor did he foreordain me to trip. In the same way, when I experience pain or suffering, it is fruitless to ask, \u201cWhat did I do that resulted in God causing this pain and suffering for me?\u201d This is what the text is addressing when it indicates that answers to those questions are not to be found in the land of the living. Some explanations may be found in relation to the way that God ordered the cosmos. In such cases, the answers are systemic, not personal\u2014just as gravity is systemic, not personal.18<\/a> We must resist, however, adopting this course of logic as a replacement system, for it too easily becomes reductionistic. Deism is not an alternative Scripture allows.<\/p>\n

We might then wonder why God has set things up in such a way that suffering could happen. This is a better question and has a different sort of answer. It is different in that it is theological and focuses on the systems inherent in the cosmos instead of on my specific experiences. Instead of asking questions about whether I or a loved one deserves to suffer (situational justice), it asks whether it was wise or just for God to set up such a system so that these things could happen. The poem in Job 28<\/a> talks about God\u2019s wisdom as inherent in the causes that he initiated, and we cannot confidently trace those to the effects that can be observed day by day.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Wisdom and justice.<\/strong> The next question, then, becomes whether justice was the central element in God\u2019s creation of the cosmos. That is, did he set up the system so that justice would always be done? Ag<\/span>ain, using gravity as an illustration, God did not make gravity discerning. Gravity does not choose the path of justice. It makes no decision about whether it engages and is not based on any person\u2019s nature or circumstances. Furthermore, God does not micromanage the application of gravity to individual circumstances. In his wisdom he constructed the system, without justice in mi<\/span>nd or as the criteria in its operation. That does not mean that justice is perverted (in the system\u2019s operation\/creation) or that God is not just. If God had set up the cosmos so that justice would be the default, a fallen world could not exist. As it stands, however, there is more to the world than justice, and we should be glad of this reality. Otherwise none of us would exist.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

We should not seek an explanation fo<\/span>r our personal circumstances, and we should not seek an understanding of how the larger issue of justice is served in our suffering. Instead we should understand that we have experienced one of the consequences of the way that God organ<\/span>ized the cosmos as well as the consequence of the fall and the curse. We should seek out the wisdom of the cosmos rather than seek out the justice behind our circumstances. We should not assume that there is justice, but we should assume that there is wisdom.<\/span><\/p>\n

A. MacLeish, in the Pulitzer Prize-winning play, J.B.<\/em>, tries to put the pieces together:<\/p>\n

God is God or w<\/span>e are nothing\u2014<\/p>\n

Mayflies that leave their husks behind\u2014<\/p>\n

Our tiny lives ridiculous\u2014a suffering<\/p>\n

Not even sad that Someone Somewhere<\/p>\n

Laughs at as we laugh at apes.<\/p>\n

We have no choice but to be guilty.<\/p>\n

God <\/span>is unthinkable if we are innocent.19<\/a><\/p>\n

Can we agree with this assessment and the reasoning that underlies it? The first five lines identify the philosophical problem in what I believe would be accurate <\/span>terms. But the final two lines are theologically shortsighted. Yes, of course, all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; but MacLeish\u2019s reasoning still has the shortcoming of turning suffering into <\/span>punishment for our generalized guilt. Like Job and his friends, his only and final foundation is justice. Rather than thinking of God\u2019s presumed injustice making him \u201cunthinkable,\u201d we should t<\/span>urn our attention to his wisdom, which is beyond our knowledge or imagination. This is only possible as it is facilitated by the \u201cfear of the Lord\u201d to which we now turn.<\/p>\n

Fear of the Lord<\/p>\n

In the pop-culture novel Memnoch the Devil: The Vampire Chronicles<\/em> by Ann Rice, a remarkable 150-page section offers Memnoch\u2019s (Satan\u2019s) perspective on his fall in self-justifying ter<\/span>ms. In the course of that lengthy conversation is the following reflection from those in Sheol:<\/p>\n

We accept that our lives have been wondrous experiences and worth the pain and the suffering, and we che<\/span>rish now the joy we knew, and the moments of harmony, and we have forgiven Him for not ever explaining it all to us, for not justifying it, not punishing the bad or rewarding the good, or whatever else it is that all these souls, living and dead, expect of Him. We forgive Him. We don\u2019t know, but we susp<\/span>ect that maybe he knows a great secret about how all this pain could come to pass and still be good. And if He doesn\u2019t want to tell, well, He is God. But whatever, we forgive Him and we Love Him in our forgiveness, even though we know He may never care about any of us, any more than He cares for the pebbles on the beach below.<\/span><\/span>20<\/a><\/p>\n

We could contest the theology on many points here, but I quote it for its expression of one implication of the fear of the Lord. I would not agree with the concept o<\/span>f forgiving God, for that implies some offense on his part. What is important here is the ability\u2014or perhaps the decision\u2014to look beyond our perceptions of justice and our demands for answers. I don\u2019t think that it is a matter of his having a \u201cgreat secret\u201d that turns every devastating experience into good. The key, not a secret at all, is that God can take all o<\/span>f the pain and devastation that might occur in our lives and bring good from it. That does not make the pain and devastation good. Rather than thinking in terms of forgiving him, we should think in terms of trusting his wisdom and loving him. He <\/span><\/span>does<\/em> care for us more than for the pebbles on the beach and experiences our pain along with us.<\/p>\n

Can we acquire an understanding of the wisdom that underlies the cosmic system? Job 28<\/a> says n<\/span>o. We are not able to understand it and we are not asked to understand it. It is no surprise that we are curious, but we should not expect that curiosity to be satisfied.<\/p>\n

The alternative that the text<\/span> offers is that we partake of the wisdom that is expressed in fearing the Lord. This is different from the fruitless search described (28:20\u201321<\/a>) in that it requires we believe that God has set up and <\/span>sustains the cosmos in wisdom, even if we cannot receive an explanation that makes sense to us. It is wise for us to believe that he is wise. This becomes a matter of trust rather than understanding. Adopting such a posture does not require us to affirm tha<\/span>t \u201cthere is a reason even though I don\u2019t know what it is.\u201d Instead it asks us to move beyond reasons. Our confidence is not that there is<\/em> an ex<\/span>planation. We trust that God has established the cosmos wisely and that whatever comes our way is reconcilable with his wisdom.<\/p>\n

This should not be confused with deism. God did not just initiate creati<\/span>on and then leave everything to work by itself. But many aspects of the cosmos have been firmly established since the foundation of the world. In these God\u2019s wisdom was manifest, but justice was not the sole basis for its design. Furthermore, God does not tinker with it s<\/span>ituation by situation even though he is thoroughly engaged in the operation of the cosmos moment by moment (but if he wants to tinker, he can). In him all things cohere, and without his sustaining hand all would cease to exist.<\/p>\n

Power and trust.<\/strong> Some people might say that we fear God because he has the power to do us harm. This is illustrated in the comment made by one of the characters in the TV show House<\/em>: \u201cPeople pray so t<\/span>hat God does not squash them like bugs.\u201d It is true that he has the power to do us harm, and it is true that we risk his powerful wrath when we spurn him in our thoughts or actions. But our fear of the Lord is not suppo<\/span>sed to either begin or end with his power. The power of a powerful being is expressed most in his or her ability to refrain from using that power in inappropriate ways. Such restraint results in trust.<\/span><\/p>\n

We express our fear of the Lord when we trust him with our circumstances\u2014as uncomfortable or confusing as they may be. We trust him enough to accept that there need not be an expl<\/span>anation. We trust that his just nature is unassailable even though there is no identifiable justice in the circumstances in which we find ourselves. We trust that he has set up the system in the very best (= wisest) way possible even when we are suffering the consequences of a system broken by the fall.<\/span>21<\/a> We trust his love for us, and we trust that even in our difficulties, he can show his love an<\/span>d strengthen us through the trials.22<\/a><\/p>\n

\n
\n

Ethics and ritual.<\/strong> What does God expect of us? Once we accept that the fear of the Lord (trusting him) is wisdom, what implications does that have for us? It is not unusual for Christians to have a re<\/span>sponse similar to what we called the Great Symbiosis in the ancient world. When the people in the ancient Near East experienced uncomfortable circumstances, they sought explanations. Since human obligation was to serve the gods by providing for their needs, the conclusion was generally reached that deity had been offended by some ritual trespass (since rituals addressed the needs<\/span> of the gods). To summarize the logic:<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2022 They suffered because deity was angry.<\/p>\n

\u2022 Deity was angry because of ritual failure.<\/p>\n

\u2022 Divine wrath needed to be appeased.<\/p>\n

\u2022 Appropriate ritual acts would hopefully accomplish ap<\/span>peasement and restoration.<\/p>\n

Do Christians follow a similar train of thought? In many ways, yes. The following questions will help you test your \u201cGreat Symbiosis Quotient\u201d:<\/p>\n

1. Have sins caused your suff<\/span>ering?<\/p>\n

2. Does God have \u201creasons\u201d?<\/p>\n

3. Did God do these things to you?<\/p>\n

4. Does God \u201callow\u201d suffering and disaster?<\/p>\n

If your answer to each question was an unqualified yes, your GSQ is high and you have <\/span>a lot in common with the Babylonians. Let\u2019s take a look at each question.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

1. Have sins caused your suffering?<\/em><\/p>\n

Sin can result in suffering because God does take the punishment of sin seriously and suffering is one possible punishment. Examples can be found throughout the Bible: the people groups whom God exterminated in the Old Testament (Canaanites, Amorites, Amalekites); the unfaithful Israelites; individuals committing offenses (Achan, Uzzah, Ahab; and in New Testament Ananias and Sapphira) p. 105<\/a>; plus many others.23<\/a> Nevertheless, we also learn from Scripture that not all suffering is punishment for evil (note esp. 1 Peter 4:12\u201319<\/a>). If not all personal suffering is caused by personal sin, one cannot confidently conclude that any particular suffering is punishment for sin, unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. We can say that sin in the world causes suffering in the world, but is your particular suffering the result of your personal sin? Probably not.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

2. Does God have \u201creasons\u201d?<\/em><\/p>\n

It would be incorrect to think of God as acting in arbitrary, capricious, or selfish ways. We have proposed that God acts in wisdom. When we seek reasons, we are generally <\/span>seeking explanations that will reveal the justice underlying our situations\u2014that is, we are looking for particular sorts of reasons, reasons rooted in our behavior, for our particular circumstances. That is the flaw that exposes our Great Symbiosis thinking. While we would never want to presume so much knowledge of God that we would claim he has no reasons, at the same <\/span>time we should think neither that there must be reasons nor that we could ever discern them when there are. If God has reasons, and they are important for us to know, his Spirit is perfectly capable of revealing them to us. But we should not be manufacturing them to satisfy our desire for coherency and closure.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>3. Did God do these things to you?<\/em><\/p>\n

It would be to our theological peril to think that anything<\/em> that happens to us is outside of God\u2019s realm of activity and involvement. All that happens is under his s<\/span>upervision and providence and nothing happens that we could claim he did not do. So regarding anything that happens, he \u201cdid\u201d it in the same sense that he causes you to stay on the ground rather than float away with each step you take. But when we think of God doing things to us, we usually think of him a<\/span>cting with reasons stimulated by our behavior, and that if we acted differently, he would act differently. Therein lies the Great Symbiosis thinking.<\/span><\/p>\n

In H. Kushner\u2019s popular book, When Bad Things Happen to Good People<\/em>, he offers the choice he has made at horrible cost: \u201cI can worship a God who<\/span> hates suffering but cannot eliminate it, more easily than I can worship a God who chooses to make children suffer and die, for whatever exalted reason.\u201d24<\/a> This is a false dichotomy. God is neither in<\/span>capable nor cruel for a higher good. Trusting in his wisdom does not make him the efficient cause of all that we experience.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>4. Does God \u201callow\u201d suffering and disaster?<\/em><\/p>\n

Undoubtedly yes, but that is not an answer because if God is all-powerful, everything must be allowed by him in some sense. This cannot be treated as a ques<\/span>tion that is simply asking whether God is all-powerful. Instead, it is generally a question about whether God allows things with reasons<\/em>. The idea some people have seems to be that arbitrary circumsta<\/span>nces come to God\u2019s desk, as it were, on which he decides whether there is sufficient cause or benefit to let it through or not. If there is, then he \u201capproves\u201d it and it transpires. This supposedly has the advantage of removing God from \u201ccause\u201d but maintaining his<\/span> providence and sovereignty and preserving accountability for humans who may have had a culpable role.<\/p>\n

This reasoning contains three pot<\/span>ential theological flaws in that it assumes (1) a broad range of independently operating causation that could lead to viewing God as contingent; (2) an overly simplistic \u201capproval process\u201d; and (3) the necessity of \u201creasons.\u201d None of<\/span> these assumptions is sustainable. Both prosperity and adversity come from the hand of God (Eccl. 7:11\u201314<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Greg Boyd legitimately (I think) critiques what he calls th<\/span>e \u201cblueprint view\u201d\u2014that God ordains or at least allows every tragedy with reasons in mind.25<\/a> He questions this view as he considers examples of disease or tragedy on the personal level, and terrorism <\/span>and war on a global scope. He concludes that God is not to be held responsible, but that these are reflections of warfare against people by the enemies of God. I think he has overstated the role of the enemies of God, but I do adopt the same sort of conclusion he does. We should not look for enemy explanati<\/span>ons any more than we should look for God\u2019s reasons. Instead, we settle for no explanation and trust God\u2019s wisdom in how the world was constructed and how it is run. We cannot say that there <\/span>are<\/em> reasons or that there are not<\/em>. At the same time, we should not view God as constrained by the cosm<\/span>os that he made\u2014it is constructed in his wisdom and he is not contingent on it.<\/p>\n

Returning to the matter of ethical behavior, we can now assert that God does expect ethical behavior to result from fear<\/span> of the Lord, but this is not part of a Great Symbiosis equation. We are neither to seek to appease some imagined wrath of God with ritual, nor are we to think that we can earn reward through good behavior. We deserve neither the suffering that comes our way nor the prosperity that some enjoy. The various times of life<\/span> come as they will and are part of life under the sun, as Ecclesiastes tells us (<\/span>Eccl. 3<\/a>).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Seeking coherency.<\/strong> So how should we make sense of God, the world, and our experience? Perhaps there is a prior question: Is coherency to be expected? My reading of Ecclesiastes would suggest that we should not expect coherency. God, despite the fact that he has revealed himself to us, remains mysterious and paradoxical. The world, though under the control of God, is fallen, and as it awaits redemption it is often more chaotic than coherent. Our experiences in this world, given what was just said about God and the world, will evade our vain attempts to be harnessed into some sustained and consistent coherence.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

Path to Wisdom<\/p>\n

In conclusion we must take seriously the claim of the poem that the path to Wisdom is not open to us: \u201c[God] alone knows where it dwells\u201d (28:23<\/a>). Though that ultimate Wisdom is not acc<\/span>essible to us (even in the Bible), God has made a wise course of action available to us as we fear him, submit to his wisdom, and turn aside from evil.<\/p>\n

What does this path look like when life is going<\/span> terribly wrong?<\/p>\n

1. Trust God rather than blame him or make demands of him for explanations.<\/p>\n

2. Trust God for strength to endure.<\/p>\n

3. Don\u2019t expect it all to make sense.<\/p>\n

4. Channel resentment toward the<\/span> fallenness of the world, not the God who has given all to initiate its redemption.<\/p>\n

5. Resist succumbing to the temptation to believe that you could run this world better than God does.<\/p>\n

6. Above all, <\/span>trust that he is wise.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n

Kelly\u2019s Story26<\/a><\/p>\n

It is one thing to construct a bullet-point list of theoretical strategies and advice as that just given, but an entirely different matter to consider its merits when life is a mess. Does it really work? I wanted to get Kelly\u2019s perspective on it.<\/p>\n

JHW: Kelly, as you read Job 28<\/a> and the present chapter and reflect on the list above, what makes sense and what doesn\u2019t? Have any of these worked for you as you have tried to struggle through your circumstances? We would even like to know specifically which ones work and maybe which ones don\u2019t.<\/p>\n

Kelly: After reading Job 28<\/a> and meditating on the meaning of the text and then reading the list above, I think to myself there is so much depth and truth in each point on the list, but how do I convey to the reader the magnitude of each step without appearing clich\u00e9d? I guess I can start with stating that when I look at this list, I think every point is a great step on the path towards wisdom, but so many of these points seem almost impossible without God\u2019s power.<\/p>\n

I know if I had looked at this list in the spring of 2009 or even after the recent disappointing trip to California, I would want to trust God and have strength, not demand an explanation, or not have resentment, but I would feel helpless and feel as though I did not have the power to do so. When you are in a place of brokenness, you desire to feel close to God, to trust him and his will, but so many times the cycle of destructive thoughts wins the battle and brings you back to a place of frustration. Well, I shouldn\u2019t say frustration, because I was once told that \u201cfrustration\u201d is a secondary emotion to either anger or sadness. So I guess it is more accurate to state that when destructive thoughts won the battle over wisdom, it brought me back to a place of sadness. So I think a key component to following these points as you seek wisdom is first and foremost to pray and ask God to help you each step of the way. Now as clich\u00e9d as that might sound, the power of prayer is vital, especially during a period of great suffering.<\/p>\n

I remember distinctly when I started to heal and get back on my own two feet, while still dealing with the same trials and pain, I had to let go fully of any type of control, which also relates to point 5, because it was not going to be by my strength or power that I was going to get through this. So if you are angry with God, turn to him and start approaching him\u2014even in your anger. Start spending time in the Word and making time for the Lord, to get to a place where you can reach the goal of point 4, \u201cChannel resentment toward the fallenness of the world, not the God who has given all to initiate its redemption.\u201d So I think what makes sense to me is making point 4 the first point on the list. I say this because in my experience, I don\u2019t believe that you can get to a place of fully trusting God if you have not first dealt with your anger and resentment toward him. After getting to a place where you have realized that your anger needs to be channeled toward the fallenness in our world, you can begin the process of fully trusting him.<\/p>\n

So the process of pursuing wisdom in light of my trials started with praying for the power to do so: praying for the power to trust God and for the strength to endure, to let go of control, and to realize you can\u2019t run the world; and praying for faith and trusting that he is wise.<\/p>\n

For me, when I am in this process of struggling with my circumstances and trying to trust God, I have had a hard time with the second part of point 1, to not \u201cmake demands of him for explanations.\u201d We know God can bring good from our suffering, but it is important to differentiate between having hope that God has a reason and purpose, and being content not knowing what it is. This is the process of simply trusting that God is good and wise rather than demanding the reason, or manufacturing a reason to \u201csatisfy our desire for coherency.\u201d<\/p>\n

When our focus is solely on the pain and \u201cfiguring out\u201d the trial we are in, our prayer life can become a desperate plea for an escape. We can get consumed by praying for God to remove this thorn from our life instead of praying and trusting God for the strength to endure it.<\/p>\n

So I would say each point makes sense and is one that I have wrestled with throughout the process, and I think that it is important to recognize that it is a process. It is not a \u201csix easy steps to wisdom\u201d crash course. It is a continual struggle, but God does reward you with wisdom and perspective the more time you spend meditating on those things.<\/p>\n

JHW: Is there anything you can add to the list?<\/p>\n

Kelly: After thinking about my struggle to follow the path of wisdom while in the fire, I decided that a couple more points or additions might be helpful for some. I would add a second part to point 3. \u201cDon\u2019t expect it to all make sense, and pray for a heavenly perspective.\u201d Oftentimes when we are in a hardship, as I mentioned before, it consumes us and our thoughts. All we see, think, or feel is related to the pain or struggle we are in. We need to take a step back and look at this experience from a wider view angle. When we come to terms with the fact that we cannot expect everything to make sense, we need to pray for a heavenly perspective to be at peace with that uncertainty, which also relates back to trusting God and his will.<\/p>\n

The one other point I would add is to be sure to stay connected and spend time with godly people and\/or mentors in your life. In times of hard trials it is easy to isolate yourself, and that is usually when your darkest thoughts and doubts fill your mind. When my left arm was losing feeling and strength daily, I went through a period where I did not want to be around my friends, mentors, or community, and it was in that period that I felt the weakest. When we are alone, we can dwell on the pain that we are experiencing and often get into a dark downhill spiral of thoughts. God can use those people to remind you of truth and help you get out of an unhealthy thought pattern. But as we learned in Job, your friends do not always offer the best advice or encouragement, so be wise with the people you chose to play that role in your life.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Job 29\u201331<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>Original Meaning<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n

In Job\u2019s discourse in these chapters, the book\u2019s attention turns to his contention that it is poor policy for God to inflict suffering on righteous people. Throughout Job 29<\/a>, Job wallows in nostalgia, pining for his lost prosperity, honor, and dignity. This melancholy focus contrasts with his indignant posture in the book\u2019s dialogue section, where he expounded on his righteousness rather than his lost prosperity. While his mood and subject matter have shifted, Job still refrains from attempting to regain prosperity and thus maintains his integrity.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

In 29:1\u20136<\/a>, Job acknowledges God <\/span>as the source of his former prosperity. This is the last explicit reference to God in the discourse until Job begins his oath of innocence.1<\/a> Job\u2019s attention is fixed on himself and his plight.<\/p>\n

The per<\/span>spective of an honor-based culture is evident in Job 29\u201330<\/a>. Chapter 29<\/a> characterizes Job\u2019s former state as the epitome of honor, and chapter 30<\/a> depicts his current misery as the opposite\u2014utter shame a<\/span>nd disgrace. These descriptions reveal the aspects of an individual\u2019s life that reflected honor or shame.<\/p>\n

The following are hallmarks of honor:<\/p>\n

\u2022 protective deity (29:2\u20134<\/a>)<\/p>\n

\u2022 many children (29:5<\/a>)<\/p>\n

\u2022 suc<\/span>cessful exploitation of resources (29:6<\/a>)<\/p>\n

\u2022 position of prominence in society (29:7<\/a>)<\/p>\n

\u2022 respect from all, including young and old and the powerful (29:8\u201311<\/a>)<\/p>\n

\u2022 responsiveness to the poor and bereaved (29<\/span>:12\u201313<\/a>)<\/p>\n

\u2022 righteousness and justice recognized (29:14<\/a>)<\/p>\n

\u2022 aiding the blind and lame (29:15<\/a>)<\/p>\n

\u2022 facilitating justice for the vulnerable (29:16<\/a>)<\/p>\n

\u2022 scourge of the wicked (29:17<\/a>)<\/p>\n

\u2022 long life (29:18<\/a>)<\/p>\n

\u2022 healt<\/span>h and vigor into old age (29:19\u201320<\/a>)<\/p>\n

\u2022 wisdom recognized (29:21\u201323<\/a>)<\/p>\n

\u2022 supplicants for his favor (29:24<\/a>)<\/p>\n

\u2022 elevated status (29:25<\/a>)<\/p>\n

Clearly most items on this list are societal rather than ethical in nat<\/span>ure. In an honor\/shame-based culture, a person\u2019s role and status within the community defines his or her identity. Corporate identity takes precedence over individual identity,2<\/a> with the result that s<\/span>elfhood is shaped primarily by social interaction, not private inward perception. In other words, \u201cself\u201d is defined in largely exterior terms.3<\/a> Egyptologist J. Assmann describes the social constellati<\/span>on as most important for identity:<\/p>\n

A person comes into being, lives, grows, and exists by building up such a sphere of social and bodily \u201cconstellations.\u201d A constellative anthropology stresses the tie<\/span>s, roles, and functions that bind the constituent parts together. It abhors the ideas of isolation, solitude, self-sufficiency, and independence, and considers them symptoms of death, dissolution, and destruction. Life is interdependence, interconnection, and communication within those webs of interaction and interlocution that constitute reality.<\/span>4<\/a><\/p>\n

Assmann further notes that social coherence is es<\/span>sential for maintaining personal coherence.5<\/a> Within a culture of shame and honor, Job cannot attain coherence unless he is reintegrated into society, which in turn cannot happen until he is vindicated<\/span> and his honor is restored. In the dialogue section of the book, Job sought to recover connection to God by reiterating his plea for audience. By contrast, Job\u2019s statements in 30:18\u201323<\/a> suggest that he<\/span> has abandoned hope that God will intervene. His oath of innocence attempts to appropriate God\u2019s silence as an inferred vindication, which will enable Job\u2019s reconnection with society.<\/p>\n

Just as Job desc<\/span>ribed honor in social terms in ch. 29<\/a>, in 30<\/a> he likewise depicts his shame as an exterior situation. Outcasts with no social status consider Job even more inferior than they are and treat him with dis<\/span>dain. Their fathers were nothing, and they are less than nothing, yet Job has become the object of their scorn. In 30:15<\/a>, the summary of this section, Job identifies the crux of his shame: his safety <\/span>and dignity are gone, leaving him vulnerable and disenfranchised. As noted, this state is external in nature and should not be interpreted as a purely emotional struggle stemming from guilt, low self-esteem, or regret.<\/span><\/p>\n

In a culture of shame and honor, one gains nothing by affirming a positive self-image, and the admiration of others is not won by displaying poise amid suffering. Job has been dehum<\/span>anized, and it is out of his power to change his status. In this context, Job\u2019s claims of innocence sound as pitiful as those of today\u2019s indicted politicians, whose peccadilloes and corruptions are documented so publicly that guilt is a foregone conclusion. Like them, Job desires to portray himself as a victim, but in an honor-based society, someone so utterly debased could neve<\/span>r regain a status of respect.<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/span>Job 29<\/a><\/p>\n

The chapter can be divided into six sections:<\/p>\n

a 29:1\u20136<\/a>: How Job perceived God\u2019s protection<\/p>\n

b 29:7\u201310<\/a>: How city leaders respected Job<\/p>\n

c 29:11\u201317<\/a>: How Job served a royal role on behalf of the vul<\/span>nerable<\/p>\n

a\u2032 29:18\u201320<\/a>: How Job perceived his own prospects<\/p>\n

b\u2032 29:21\u201323<\/a>: How the people respected Job<\/p>\n

c\u2032 29:24\u201325<\/a>: How Job served a royal role<\/p>\n

Never in Job\u2019s description of God\u2019s blessing in his life doe<\/span>s he suggest that he deserved or had earned such treatment. In evaluating the nature of Job\u2019s special blessing, the reference to God\u2019s \u201cintimate friendship\u201d (Heb. sod<\/span>) in verse 4<\/a> is of particular inte<\/span>rest. This noun occurs about twenty times in the Hebrew Bible and often concerns the operation of a council (cf. Gen. 49:6<\/a>; Job 15:8<\/a>; Pss. 89:7<\/a>; 111:1<\/a>; Jer. 23:18<\/a>; Ezek. 13:9<\/a>). It can also describe mo<\/span>re personal interaction, such as private confidences between individuals (cf. Ps. 25:14<\/a>; Prov. 11:13<\/a>; 20:19<\/a>) or fellowship (Ps. 55:14<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Previously, Job used sod<\/span> in relation to his friends who betrayed<\/span> him (19:19<\/a>), with whom he once shared confidences, counsel, and trust. Here in 29:4<\/a>, this word is grammatically linked to the word for God (\u02beeloah<\/span>), a combination that occurs in only four other conte<\/span>xts (Job 15:8<\/a>; Ps. 25:14<\/a>; Jer. 23:18<\/a>, 22<\/a>; Amos 3:7<\/a>). Of these, all but Psalm 25:14<\/a> refer to the formal divine council. All of the above uses share the concept of confidentiality. Formal councils take <\/span>place behind closed doors and treat private matters. Friends who confide in one another may be termed confidants. When enemies conspire together, they formulate confidential schemes.<\/p>\n

Prophets were con<\/span>sidered to have access to the privy council of Yahweh, where they received the messages or overheard information that they subsequently transmitted to the people (Jer. 23:18<\/a>, 22<\/a>; Amos 3:7<\/a>). Psalm 25:1<\/span>4<\/a> applies the sod<\/span> of Yahweh beyond the role of prophet to all those who fear him. Job 29:4<\/a> states that the sod<\/span> of Eloah was upon, or more likely over, Job\u2019s tent. This description seems to indicate th<\/span>at Job enjoyed an \u201cinsider\u201d relationship with God and had access to the divine council chamber.<\/p>\n

In the ancient world, kings sought admittance to the divine council via dream incubation, which entailed<\/span> sleeping in the temple, where the divine council met, in an attempt to overhear the proceedings or perhaps even to receive direct comment. Because the divine council met in sacred space (cf. Isaiah\u2019s throne vision in <\/span>Isa. 6<\/a>), Job\u2019s description here equates his tent with sacred space. This depiction would make the line parallel to the first line of the next verse, which refers to God\u2019s presence wi<\/span>th Job.<\/p>\n

Because of this connection between Job\u2019s tent and the divine council, Job 29:4<\/a> may not be used to support a discussion about friendship with God. Job describes being taken into God\u2019s confidenc<\/span>e, but in conciliar rather than personal terms. More importantly, his privileged status stems from his close physical proximity to sacred space. Israelite readers would identify access to sacred space and the divine council with elite offices such as those of king, prophet, and priest. God\u2019s presence brought Job <\/span>the blessings of family and excess provision\u2014the cream flowed out all around his feet, and the rock of the olive press produced not just a trickle of olive oil, but streams (<\/span>29:6<\/a>).<\/p>\n

In Job 29:7\u201310<\/a> and 21\u201323<\/a>, Job describes the universal respect he received from leaders and the general po<\/span>pulace. Job may well have been wise, kind, and upright, and his attractive qualities certainly may have contributed to the respect he enjoyed. Ultimately, however, his success and prosperity were the <\/span>primary factors behind his social position. Presumably his wisdom and kindness did not change, but when he lost his prosperity, he lost respect from those around him.<\/p>\n

Job himself does not acknowledge <\/span>this point\u2014he cites his track record of care for the vulnerable (29:11\u201317<\/a>) as the source of his good repute. When he joined the ranks of the vulnerable, however, he lost his ability to aid them. His l<\/span>ifetime of charitable work merited nothing; memories are short when fortunes change.<\/p>\n

Job\u2019s state of blessing meant that his future prospects were likewise ideal, as described in 29:18\u201320<\/a>. This highly <\/span>poetic passage details Job\u2019s anticipation of a long life filled with prosperity and youthful vigor. Perhaps the most intriguing imagery is found in verse 18<\/a>, which refers to his \u201cnest\u201d (qen<\/span>;<\/em> NIV<\/a>: \u201chou<\/span>se\u201d). The phrasing here is problematic; the preceding preposition (\u02bfim<\/span>) generally means \u201cwith\u201d rather than \u201cin\u201d and most naturally would indicate that Job expects to perish along with his nest.6<\/a> The b<\/span>est solution is yielded by an investigation of the Akkadian cognate qinnu<\/span>, which refers predominantly to a bird\u2019s nest, as in Hebrew, but in a few occurrences connected to human beings clearly means \u201c<\/span>family.\u201d7<\/a> In Akkadian texts, speakers express hopes that their family (qinnu<\/span>) will not be scattered or dispersed.8<\/a> A similar sense seems to be in play here: Job expects to die with his children surrou<\/span>nding him (taking \u02bfim<\/span> to indicate in the midst of, rather than along with, his family).<\/p>\n

Job\u2019s musings conclude by equating his high social standing to the role of a chief or king. The passage\u2019s imager<\/span>y nuances the specific form of control he exercised: he chose<\/em> their way, and he was like a king among his troops<\/em>. These phrases suggest unquestioned loyalty from his followers and portray Job as a com<\/span>passionate leader, not an oppressive tyrant over unwilling subjects.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n
\n
\n

Job 30<\/a><\/p>\n

The scene shifts as Job\u2019s thoughts turn to his current state. His recent disasters have obliterated past glories, and Job details the shame that he now endures. He identifies his mockers in verse 1<\/a> and comments on their shiftless fathers in 30:1\u20138<\/a>. Lacking the ability to meet even basic needs, these men became outcasts scratching out a mean existence. They passed this ignoble heritage to their sons, who are disrespectful predators. It is noteworthy that in this passage Job does not encounter disdain from everyone who formerly respected and honored him. Rather, those who are by nature scoundrels take advantage of his ill fortune. It would be bad enough to be passively neglected by upstanding citizens, but it is far worse to be subject to abuse by the dregs of society.<\/p>\n

Job 30:15<\/a> concludes the exposition of Job\u2019s sad state. Although the word \u201cterrors\u201d (ballahot<\/span>) is grammatically feminine plural, here it takes a masculine singular verb form, suggesting that it may be a personification.9<\/a> The same term was used in 18:14<\/a>, when Bildad spoke of a \u201cKing of Terrors\u201d parallel to the \u201cFirstborn\u201d of Mot (Death) in a string of personifications. If Terrors is indeed a personal entity, \u201cNight\u201d in 30:17<\/a> may also be a personification parallel to Terrors, and either or both could serve as the subject of the masculine singular verbs in 30:18\u201319<\/a>. Most translations supply \u201cGod\u201d as the subject here, though he is not mentioned in the Hebrew text. I prefer the personification reading, and thus consider 30:16\u201319<\/a> as describing the actions of \u201cNight\u201d rather than the actions of God.<\/p>\n

Regardless of whether this interpretation is accepted, by 30:20\u201323<\/a> Job has indeed returned his attention to God. Once again the text does not explicitly mention God, but it employs second person forms, and it is unlikely that Job here is beseeching personified Terrors and Night. Rather, in Job\u2019s perception, God has joined Terrors and Night in behaving toward Job as a chaos creature, as author of disorder and death.<\/p>\n

The chapter ends with Job\u2019s summary reflections on his plight (vv. 27\u201331<\/a>). The close proximity of these observations to his characterization of God as the actor causing his distress (vv. 21\u201323<\/a>) underscores Job\u2019s fundamental accusation against God in verses 24\u201326<\/a>. Not only has God brought disaster, he refuses to act on Job\u2019s behalf or respond to his pleas. As a result, Job himself has become an outcast (30:29<\/a>), like the worthless men described earlier in the chapter. He is now the mourner (30:31<\/a>), with no one to comfort him.<\/p>\n

In addition to social loss, his suffering encompasses physical ailments. He describes himself as \u201cblackened\u201d (qdr<\/span>, v. 28<\/a>) and as having black, peeling skin (\u0161\u1e25r<\/span>, v. 30<\/a>) and fevered bones. Assyrian medical texts mention blackened skin (necrosis) frequently as a disease symptom, but the condition is too general to allow diagnosis.10<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Job 31<\/a><\/p>\n

The final chapter of Job\u2019s discourse features an oath of innocence in which he catalogues potential offenses and vows that he is innocent of each. Such an oath presumes that if Job swears false<\/span>ly, God will be obliged to punish him for both the crime and the false oath.<\/p>\n

Ancient Near Eastern literature includes a variety of declarations of innocence. Most are fairly brief, with just a few lin<\/span>es listing denied offenses.11<\/a> In literature from Mesopotamia, the works most frequently cited as similar to Job\u2019s oath are the dingir.\u0161a.dib.ba incantations and the \u0161urpu<\/span> incantations. Both texts add<\/span>ress an angry god in an attempt to appease his wrath and bring relief to the person suffering. The dingir.\u0161a.dib.ba incantations contain lines in which the sufferer claims innocence on certain points <\/span>(e.g., \u201cI have not held back from him [the deity] the sheep in the pen\u201d), as well as long confessions of sins he is willing to admit (e.g., \u201cI spoke lies \u2026 I coveted your abundant property \u2026 I raised my hand and desecrated what should not so be treated \u2026 I have continually committed i<\/span>niquities, known and unknown\u201d).12<\/a> The \u0161urpu<\/span> incantations, by contrast, limit their scope to confessions of actual o<\/span>ffenses\u2014the opposite of Job\u2019s tack.13<\/a> Besides the incantations a negative confession can be found in ritual texts. In the Babylonian New Year\u2019s festival (Akitu), the king expresses his eligibility for<\/span> renewed kingship by narrating his care for Babylon and the temple and its rites, including proper treatment of subordinates.14<\/a><\/p>\n

The most extensive ancient Near Eastern claim of innocence is found in s<\/span>pell 125 in the Egyptian Book of the Dead. The spell lists forty-two denied offenses, each addressed to one of the forty-two gods who will decide whether the deceased will enter the next life. The list<\/span>15<\/a> incorporates a wide variety of behaviors:<\/p>\n

1. I have not done wrong.<\/p>\n

2. I have not robbed.<\/p>\n

3. I have not stolen.<\/p>\n

4. I have not slain people.<\/p>\n

5. I have not destroyed food offerings.<\/p>\n

6. I have<\/span> not reduced measures.<\/p>\n

7. I have not stolen the god\u2019s property.<\/p>\n

8. I have not told lies.<\/p>\n

9. I have not stolen food.<\/p>\n

10. I was not sullen.<\/p>\n

11. I have not fornicated with the fornicator.<\/p>\n

12. I hav<\/span>e not caused anyone to weep.<\/p>\n

13. I have not dissembled.<\/p>\n

14. I have not transgressed.<\/p>\n

15. I have not done grain-profiteering.<\/p>\n

16. I have not robbed a parcel of land.<\/p>\n

17. I have not discussed secre<\/span>ts.<\/p>\n

18. I have brought no lawsuits.<\/p>\n

19. I have not disputed at all about property.<\/p>\n

20. I have not had intercourse with a married woman.<\/p>\n

21. I have not wrongly copulated.<\/p>\n

22. I have not struck ter<\/span>ror.<\/p>\n

23. I have not transgressed.<\/p>\n

24. I have not been hot-tempered.<\/p>\n

25. I have not been neglectful of truthful words.<\/p>\n

26. I have not made disturbance.<\/p>\n

27. I have not cursed.<\/p>\n

28. I have not been <\/span>violent.<\/p>\n

29. I have not confounded truth.<\/p>\n

30. I have not been impatient.<\/p>\n

31. I have not discussed.<\/p>\n

32. I have not been garrulous about matters.<\/p>\n

33. I have not done evil.<\/p>\n

34. I have not disputed <\/span>the king.<\/p>\n

35. I have not waded in the water.<\/p>\n

36. My voice was not loud.<\/p>\n

37. I have not cursed a god.<\/p>\n

38. I have not made extolling.<\/p>\n

39. I have not harmed the bread ration of the gods.<\/p>\n

40. I have<\/span> not stolen the Khenef-cakes from the Blessed.<\/p>\n

41. I have not stolen Hefnu-cakes of a youth, nor have I fettered the god of my town.<\/p>\n

42. I have not slain sacred cattle.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Denials<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Book of the Dead<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Job <\/strong><\/span>31<\/strong><\/a>:<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Decalogue #<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Astral worship<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n\n

26\u201327<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

Betrayal<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

17<\/a>, 31<\/a>, 32<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

Cheating<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

6<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

Concealed sin<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n\n

33\u201334<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

Cruelty<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

12<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

Cursing<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

27<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

30<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Demeanor (e.g., anger)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

10<\/a>, 24<\/a>, 30<\/a>, 36<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

Failure to care for needy<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n\n

16\u201322<\/a>, 3<\/span>1\u201332<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

Falsehood\/deception<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

8<\/a>, 13<\/a>, 25<\/a>, 29<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5\u20136<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

9<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Comprehensive general misdemeanors<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1<\/a>, 14<\/a>, 23<\/a>, 33<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

Greed<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n\n

24\u201325<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

Oppression<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

15<\/a>, 18<\/a>, 26<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

13\u201315<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

Political intrigue<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

34<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

Property\/theft<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2<\/a>, 3<\/a>, 9<\/a>, 16<\/a>, 19<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

39\u201340<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

8<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Rejoicing over enemy\u2019s trouble<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n\n

29<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

Sacrilege\/ritual offense<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5<\/a>, 7<\/a>, 35<\/a>, 37\u201342<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

7<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Sexual misconduct<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

11<\/a>, 20<\/a>, 21<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1<\/a>, 9\u201310<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

7<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Unfaithfulness to God<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n\n

28<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Violence<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4<\/a>, 22<\/a>, 28<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n\n

6<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

The preceding comparison r<\/span>esults in few surprises. Items unique to the Book of the Dead represent interests and norms common in Egyptian society, whereas items unique to Job reflect standard biblical concerns. Areas of overlap constitute recognizable c<\/span>ategories of misconduct that pervade ancient literature, including the Decalogue, which features examples from most of the overlapping categories. The only Decalogue topics omitted from Job\u2019s list are abstaining from idol use, honoring the Sabbath, and honoring parents. The first two are distinctively Israelite topics (although other uniquely Israelite topics such as the prohibition of astral worship can be found in the li<\/span>st). The Egyptian list emphasizes ritual offenses, while such are not of significant concern in Job, which lists only one vague ritual offense. By contrast, Job places priority on several matters concerning treatment of the poor, a category absent from the Egyptian list.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In addition to a comparison of content, differences in function must be note<\/span>d. The Egyptian list is magical in nature and serves to ensure passage to the afterlife. Job\u2019s list is legal and attempts to secure vindication in this life. The Egyptian list ostensibly is concerned with vindication, but since it accomplishes its aim by means of magic, it re<\/span>flects a very different view of such vindication. Indeed, the Egyptian deceased does not presume righteousness, but seeks to be counted among the righteous by manipulation. Job employs his list consistent with his established intentions\u2014as a means to protest his innocence and righteousness.<\/span><\/p>\n

When we turn our attention to th<\/span>e details of Job\u2019s oath, several elements require investigation. The most striking issue is visible upon a casual reading\u2014the first verse and the last three verses seem displaced. The most suitable introduction occurs in <\/span>31:2\u20134<\/a>, and the best conclusion is 31:35\u201337<\/a>. Various commentators offer rearrangements or simply omit verses as later additions.<\/p>\n

Misplacement of verses is not unheard of. For exam<\/span>ple, a comparison of 2 Kings 20<\/a> with its parallel in Isaiah 38<\/a> reveals that a line has been misplaced in the latter. Isaiah 38:21\u201322<\/a> belongs between verses 6\u20137<\/a>, as it is situated in 2 Kings 20:7\u20138<\/a>. Su<\/span>ch displacement can occur when a copyist inadvertently omits a line and, upon checking the page, discovers the error. Rather than write the entire page once more by hand, he opts to note the missing porti<\/span>on in the margin of the page. The next copyist encounters the marginal line and must decide where to put it. If his Hebrew is sufficient, he may deduce the correct placement; more likely, however, he will simply relocate it at the beginning or end of the chapter, as in <\/span>Isaiah 38<\/a>. Such a process may well have occurred in Job 31<\/a>, and I agree with other commentators that Job 31:1<\/a> and 31:38\u201340a<\/a> pr<\/span>obably belong elsewhere in the chapter.16<\/a><\/p>\n

Job 31:1<\/a> opens with reference to a covenant. The noun and verb here are the standard Old Testament terminology for making a covenant. These two occur with the<\/span> preposition used here about twenty-five times; in most cases the object of the preposition designates the other party in the covenant. We would furthermore expect that both parties would be named in a covenant context. All of this suggests that Job\u2019s eyes are being treated as vassals brought under a suzerain\u2019s control.<\/span><\/p>\n

Since this verse seems an obvious statement about sexual ethics, we must consi<\/span>der the textual details carefully. The verb in the second line describing the forbidden activity is \u02beetbonen<\/span>, the Hithpael form of the root byn<\/span>, which occurs twenty-two times in the Old Testament (eig<\/span>ht times in Job). Most of these instances describe close or careful examination of an object. In only one occurrence (Ps. 37:10<\/a>) is the verb followed by this preposition (\u02bfal<\/span>), and there it refers to <\/span>seeking out (but not finding) the wicked. Neither this instance nor any other occurrence of the Hithpael form carries sexual nuance. The NIV<\/a> has arrived at its translation by context, interpreting the<\/span> gaze as lustful because its object is a virgin (betulah<\/em>).<\/p>\n

This interpretation does not satisfactorily explain why the prohibition to Job\u2019s eyes is limited to a betulah<\/em>. If sexual ethics are truly at <\/span>stake, it would be more natural for his covenant to extend to any woman. Furthermore, if a girl remains under her father\u2019s protection (as does a betulah<\/em> by definition), she is a viable candidate for m<\/span>arriage\u2014and society at this time was comfortably polygamous.<\/p>\n

To reach a better understanding, we must begin fresh. Job has made a covenant regarding his eyes\u2014that much is clear. The second part of the<\/span> verse begins with a common interrogative particle, \u201cwhat\u201d (mah<\/em>). Although Job\u2019s usage of this particle is consistent, most translations choose not to render it in this particular verse. Typically in <\/span>Job this particle introduces a rhetorical question, which seems likely here as well. Psalm 37:10<\/a> employs the same verb as this verse to direct the reader to \u201clook all around\u201d for the location of the w<\/span>icked; within its context, this directive suggests that if one inquires diligently after the status of the wicked, the search will yield nothing. If we apply this observation to Job\u2019s statement, the sense is as follows: \u201cSince I have made a covenant with regard to my eyes, what interest would I have in <\/span>inquiring after a betulah<\/em> (i.e., investigating her availability)?\u201d<\/p>\n

Inquiring after a betulah<\/em> is <\/span>not the same as inquiring after a prostitute. If the text truly was speaking against lust, the verb \u1e25md<\/span> (\u201ccovet\u201d) would be a more likely word choice.17<\/a> Betulah<\/em> generally does indicate a virgin, but v<\/span>irginity is more circumstantial than truly representative of the word\u2019s core meaning. More to the point, a betulah<\/em> is a marriageable girl still within the household of her father and under his protect<\/span>ion.18<\/a> One would inquire after a betulah<\/em> in order to arrange a marriage. Such an inquiry could potentially be motivated by lust (cf. Judg. 14:2<\/a>), but that is only one of several alternatives and may n<\/span>ot be automatically inferred. In point of fact, any<\/em> arranged marriage begins with inquiring after a betulah<\/em>.<\/p>\n

In light of this discussion, Job\u2019s covenant regarding his eyes cannot be interpreted as a c<\/span>ommitment to asceticism, because he already has a wife (as noted not only in ch. 2<\/a>, but also in 31:10<\/a>). The logical alternative is that the statement concerns the acquisition of a harem. A large harem<\/span> was an indicator of power and status in the ancient world. Job eschews amassing multiple wives and concubines, and he characterizes this decision as a covenant regarding his eyes in order to underscore the point that he is not even \u201con the prowl.\u201d This avowal mirrors his statement in <\/span>31:24\u201325<\/a> that he is not absorbed in the pursuit of wealth. Job has undertaken neither a vow of poverty nor a vow o<\/span>f chastity, but rather avoids the obsessive pursuit of prestige. This interpretation takes account of each word choice the author has made and therefore presents the most likely interpretation. Accordingly, the verse has nothing to do with sexual ethics, as important as they may be. Instead, it accords wi<\/span>th Job\u2019s many pronouncements that he has not attempted to consolidate or abuse his power\u2014tempting actions for a person in his position (cf. Samuel\u2019s lecture in <\/span>1 Sam. 8:11\u201317<\/a> regarding the tactics of a king building a power base).<\/p>\n

Verse 2<\/a> leads into the chapter\u2019s effectual introduction. Job de<\/span>monstrates his ongoing commitment to the RP<\/a> in his assertion that the wicked will suffer. Verse 4<\/a> combines the philosophical premise of verse 3<\/a> with the theological affirmation that God scrutinizes Jo<\/span>b\u2019s actions. These two principles give Job\u2019s oath of innocence its bite: swearing a false oath, especially one so replete with claims, would be an evil worthy of punishment, and God is paying attention. Therefore, if God does not act against Job, Job may cl<\/span>aim vindication.<\/p>\n

Verse 5<\/a> launches the catalog itself. Commentators dispute how many items the list includes, but the number\u2019s significance is m<\/span>inimal. If we base the list\u2019s structure on the protases, we can identify eleven paragraphs from 31:5\u201334<\/a>19<\/a> and a twelfth in 31:38\u201340<\/a>. Each paragraph begins with \u201cif\u201d (\u02beim<\/span>), the typical Hebrew introduc<\/span>tion to a self-curse. In such a curse, the protasis of the conditional statement usually appears alone, with an implied apodosis of judgment, such as \u201cmay God strike me dead.\u201d20<\/a> Yet four of the twelve<\/span> paragraphs of Job\u2019s oath feature an explicit apodosis (vv. 8<\/a>, 10<\/a>, 22<\/a>, 40<\/a>; and a further quasi-apodosis in v. 28<\/a>). These apodoses are extreme and accordingly should be understood hyperbolically. Their<\/span> excessive force demonstrates Job\u2019s confidence in his innocence. The following formal outline, divided by protases, illuminates the variety of features contained in the twelve paragraphs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

31:5\u20136<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Prota<\/span>sis: walking in falsehood, hurrying after deceit (two parts, 5a<\/a>, b<\/a>)<\/p>\n

Plea to God for fair consideration (6<\/a>)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

31:7\u20138<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Protasis: steps turned from path, heart led by eyes, hands defiled (three parts, 7a<\/a>, b<\/a><\/span>, c<\/a>)<\/p>\n

Apodosis: others eat of my labor, crops uprooted (two parts, 8a<\/a>, b<\/a>)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

31:9\u201312<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Protasis: heart enticed by woman, lurked at neighbor\u2019s door (two parts, 9a<\/a>, b<\/a>)<\/p>\n

Apodosis: wife grind another\u2019s grain, ot<\/span>her men sleep with wife (two parts, 10a<\/a>, b<\/a>)<\/p>\n

Explanation indicating seriousness of crime (11<\/a>)<\/p>\n

Wisdom saying (12<\/a>)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

31:13\u201315<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Protasis: denied justice to servants (13<\/a>)<\/p>\n

Accountability to God (14<\/a>)\u2014God will a<\/span>ct<\/p>\n

Theological rationale for values and behavior (15<\/a>)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

31:16\u201323<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Compound protasis: denied the poor, failed to share bread with fatherless, ignored needy, acted against fatherless (four parts, each begi<\/span>nning with the particle \u02beim<\/span>, 16<\/a>, 17<\/a>, 19\u201320<\/a>, 21<\/a>)<\/p>\n

Contrasting positive behavior (18<\/a>)<\/p>\n

Apodosis: broken limb (22<\/a>)<\/p>\n

Accountability to God (23<\/a>)\u2014fears God<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

31:24<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Protasis: trust in gold (24<\/a>)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

31:25<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Protasis: re<\/span>joiced in wealth (25<\/a>)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

31:26\u201328<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Protasis: astral worship (three parts, 26\u201327<\/a>)<\/p>\n

Quasi-apodosis: judged (28a<\/a>)<\/p>\n

Explanation indicating seriousness of crime (28b<\/a>)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

31:29\u201330<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Protasis: rejoiced at enemy\u2019s misfo<\/span>rtune (29<\/a>)<\/p>\n

Corresponding negative affirmation (30<\/a>)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

31:31\u201332<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Protasis: treatment of strangers (complex, two parts, including negative affirmation, 31\u201332<\/a>)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

31:33\u201334<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Protasis: concealed sin (33<\/a>)<\/p>\n

Identific<\/span>ation of projected motivation for crime he did not commit (34<\/a>)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

31:38\u201340<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Compound protasis: land use (two parts, each beginning with the particle \u02beim<\/span>, 38<\/a>, 39<\/a>, the latter having two parts, 39a<\/a>, b<\/a>) Apodo<\/span>sis: weeds instead of crops (40<\/a>)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

The above outline clarifies that while the conditional self-curse form is employed throughout the chapter, other variables occur irregularly and prevent the formulaic<\/span> chapter from becoming rhythmic.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

The preceding analysis has rested on the protases. If we adopt an alternative chapter structuring based on the apodoses, we find that the number of sections reduces to<\/span> five, and the subjects of discussion are conveniently grouped together:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Verses<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Subject<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Apodosis<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

31:5\u20138<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Lack of integrity of character<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Loss of means of provision (8<\/a>)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

31:9\u201312<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Lack of sexual purity<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Loss<\/span> of wife (10<\/a>)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

31:13\u201323<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Lack of compassion and charity to the vulnerable<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Loss of power to do good or ill (22<\/a>)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

31:24\u201328<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Lack of trust in God<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Loss of favor with God (28<\/a>)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

31:29\u201332<\/a>, 38\u201340<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Lack of grace to <\/span>outsiders (enemies, strangers, competitors)21<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Loss of produce and prosperity (40<\/a>)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>Textual Explanations<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

31:5\u20138<\/strong><\/a>.<\/strong> This section could be viewed as continuing the thought expressed in verse 4<\/a>, since it also comments on Job\u2019s steps and path. Because God observes Job\u2019s steps (v. 4<\/a>), he knows whether Job has gone astray (v. 5<\/a>); therefore, Job asks to be judged accordingly (v. 6<\/a>). If viewed as connected to verse 4<\/a>, verses 5\u20136<\/a> can serve as an introduction to the entire chapter, as Job calls on God to affirm his innocence.<\/p>\n

Job\u2019s request to be weighed in honest scales is reminiscent of the judgment scene in the Egyptian Book of the Dead. The forty-two statements of innocence before the forty-two gods of the tribunal are accompanied by the famous illustration in which Anubis brings the deceased before the scales of judgment and weighs the individual\u2019s heart against Maat (truth, justice), represented by her emblem feather, while Thoth records the results. If the declaration of the deceased is acceptable and the heart does not outweigh Maat, Horus ushers the deceased before Osiris, the god of the netherworld, and grants entry to the next life. If the deceased fails, the devouring gobbler waits hungrily nearby.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

The second part of this section (31:7<\/a>) continues the theme of Job\u2019s steps and path. The <\/span>deviations that Job denies here and in the previous section involve a variety of general offenses that primarily concern issues of character, such as duplicity in the pursuit of selfish desires, and which are expressed in connection with body parts (f<\/span>eet, heart, eyes, hands). The proposed punishment correlates to the sin. Had Job sought personal gain, he would suffer personal loss. Had he attempte<\/span>d to achieve his desires at the expense of integrity, he would lose his means for even basic survival. The apodosis suggests reversal of fortunes in the same area of life where the denied offense would have taken place.<\/p>\n

31:9\u201312<\/strong><\/a>.<\/strong> The potential offense here concerns sexual purity. Being enticed by a woman entails falling prey to a second party\u2019s active advances.22<\/a> Lurking at a neighbor\u2019s doorway exhibits a more active <\/span>pursuit\u2014solicitation of an adulterous liaison with the neighbor\u2019s wife. These two examples demonstrate the oath\u2019s application to a wide range of sexual misconduct and indicate that illicit sexual relationships, rather than merely any illicit sexual acts, a<\/span>re its target. The projected punishment is loss of legitimate sexual relationship. Another man would take Job\u2019s wife, and Job would become the injured party instead of the neighbor. The image of Job\u2019s wife \u201cgrinding another man\u2019s grain\u201d is a sexual euphemism: She will process what another man produces (i.e., children).<\/span><\/p>\n

The wisdom saying that <\/span>closes the section (31:12<\/a>) bears resemblance to the one that encapsulates the message of Song of Songs: \u201cLove is as strong as death, its jealousy unyielding as the grave. It burns like a blazing fire,<\/span> like a mighty flame\u201d (Song 8:6<\/a>). Passion cannot easily be extinguished and, as the text indicates, will burn to Destruction (Heb. \u02beabaddon<\/span>). When Job states that such passion would have uprooted his <\/span>harvest, he acknowledges that sexual misconduct would have undermined all his positive effort and blessing. As many have discovered, it only takes a moment of sexual indiscretion to undo a lifetime of labor.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n
\n
\n

31:13\u201323<\/strong><\/a>.<\/strong> The broad range of activities in this section finds order within a rubric of justice. Per Job, the person who does justice shows compassion and performs acts of charity. His list of just behavior includes hearing grievances (v. 13<\/a>); meeting the needs of the poor (v. 16a<\/a>); comforting the bereaved (v. 16b<\/a>); and providing bed and board for the orphan (vv. 17\u201318<\/a>), clothing for the needy (vv.19\u201320<\/a>), and legal defense for the powerless (v. 21<\/a>). Job\u2019s protases imply that he took every available opportunity to enact compassion and justice, as anyone who is able should, and therefore he considered himself above reproach.<\/p>\n

The extreme consequence envisioned in the apodosis (v. 22<\/a>) is loss of an arm. The ramifications of this idiomatic expression reach beyond anatomical casualty: both arm and hand are metaphors for power. If Job had possessed the power to help and failed to do so, his power would be revoked.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

31:24\u201328<\/strong><\/a>.<\/strong> Attention now turns to sources of trust and security. Job raises two possibilities. The first is the familiar faith in material wealth. Job has not chosen a life of poverty or given away his<\/span> property, but he insists that he exhibits an appropriate attitude toward his worldly goods. Job maintains that he has successfully held great wealth without finding security therein.<\/p>\n

The second poten<\/span>tial locus of trust is the gods, particularly the astral deities (sun and moon). The offense to which Job refers involves perception followed by a response of worship (v. 27b<\/a>). In verse 29<\/a>, the verb \u201c<\/span>enticed\u201d is the same as in 31:9<\/a>, although the verbal stem is different (Qal, four other occurrences: Deut. 11:16<\/a>; Job 5:2<\/a>; Prov. 20:19<\/a>; Hos. 7:11<\/a>). Contextual usage of this stem suggests a stative asp<\/span>ect,23<\/a> \u201cto be gullible or mindless; easily led astray.\u201d While some English translations render the act of worship as a hand offering a kiss of homage (NIV<\/a>), the Hebrew is much more laconic and somewha<\/span>t puzzling: \u201cmy hand kissed my mouth.\u201d The verb \u201ckiss\u201d (n\u0161q<\/span> in Qal plus prep. l<\/em>-) appears in a worship context only one other time (1 Kings 19:13<\/a>, kissing Baal).24<\/a> In every instance of this phrase, th<\/span>e preposition l-<\/span> takes a person as its object, never an anatomical part such as hand or lips. For the latter, \u02bfal<\/span> would be used (cf. Gen. 41:40<\/a>). In Job 31:27b<\/a>, there is no person in view, only anatom<\/span>ical references. \u201cMy hand\u201d must be the subject of the verb, because \u201cmy mouth\u201d is introduced with the preposition. Every other occurrence of this verb has a person as its subject, so context is the only available guide to the potential meani<\/span>ng of \u201cmy hand kissed my mouth.\u201d The most plausible interpretation is suggested by ancient Near Eastern iconography, in which a worshiper often appears with hand over mouth in the presence of a deity, a pose commonly interpreted as a gesture of worship.<\/span>25<\/a> For example, Hammurabi\u2019s stele portrays Hammurabi before the sun god, Shamash, so in his case the gestu<\/span>re is an acknowledgment of the sun (god).<\/p>\n

The apodosis comes in verse 28<\/a>, where Job indicates the expected consequences of such misplaced trust and worship. The NIV<\/a> refers to the actions in views as \u201c<\/span>sins to be judged,\u201d since they would render Job \u201cunfaithful to God.\u201d The word translated \u201cjudged\u201d (pelili<\/span>) appears only in this chapter (see also v. 11<\/a>). Because contextual data is limited, to better <\/span>understand this word\u2019s meaning we may turn to root associations, which suggest that it refers to taking proactive steps to initiate a course of action. This word highlights a recurring theme of the se<\/span>ction, because taking action is precisely the response that Job is attempting to elicit from God. In the midst of his oath, Job reminds God that he is obliged to take action if Job has committed any of these errors, including in this case \u201cunfaithfulness\u201d to God. The word rendered \u201cunfaithfulness\u201d is the root <\/span>k\u1e25\u0161<\/span>, which in the Piel stem often connotes dissociating or disowning. Job identifies suc<\/span>h behavior as sufficiently serious to necessitate retribution from God.<\/p>\n

This sin of dissociation is an example of an offense that carries much more weight in Israel than the rest of the ancient Near E<\/span>ast. In a polytheistic setting, attention to another a deity is a nonissue. The very essence of polytheism is the recognition of the existence of many gods. But any given worshiper would have to choose which deities would be worthy of attention and worship. In a somewhat analogous manner, today people might choose to support a<\/span> particular charity or mission organization. They may give occasionally or regularly, as influenced by a variety of factors. At some point, they may be impressed with one organization or disappointed by another, and adjust their giving patterns accordingly. Such a shift is not necessarily considered unfaithfulness, but it could involve dissociation. In the ancient Near East, acknowledgment of sun or moon would not equate to detachment from a city\u2019s patron deity or one\u2019s personal deities. But in an Israelite context of mono<\/span>theism, recognition of any other deity involves an intrinsic dissociation with Yahweh, for he tolerates no rival.<\/p>\n

31:29\u201332<\/strong><\/a>, <\/strong>38\u201340<\/strong><\/a>.<\/strong> The overarching theme of this paragraph may be termed \u201cgrace to outsiders\u201d\u2014outsiders being identified as those who are not members in good standing in the community. The text referenc<\/span>es various categories of people: enemies (vv. 29\u201330<\/a>), strangers (vv. 31\u201332<\/a>), and landowners (vv. 38\u201339<\/a>). The first two groups are defined clearly, and their outsider status is readily visible. The thi<\/span>rd category, however, is more problematic. The NIV<\/a> translates \u201ctenants,\u201d but the Hebrew word (ba\u02bfal<\/span>) usually signifies owner or master. If the two lines of verse 39<\/a> are parallel, and there is every re<\/span>ason to believe they are, the verse describes Job as devouring landowners\u2019 property, not just its yield, without payment. Such confiscation would naturally bring grief, expressed here by a deep sigh, to the owners.<\/span><\/p>\n

In the ancient world, the unpredictable climate often caused consecutive years of nonproductivity, resulting in debt and subsequent forfeiture of property for those with meager holdings<\/span>. Large landholders too could be forced into insolvency and fall prey to powerful rivals. Any scenario of forced forfeiture makes sense within these verses, but if they are associated with verses 29\u20133<\/span>4<\/a> (a proposal open to question), the \u201coutsider\u201d status would be best filled by agricultural competitors, who could be forced out of business.<\/p>\n

31:33\u201337<\/strong><\/a>.<\/strong> This section serves as a transition to the key verses of the chapter: Job\u2019s signature to his oath (31:35\u201337<\/a>). In verse 33<\/a>, Job comments that he has not hidden offense in the \u201cfold of his gar<\/span>ment\u201d (pers. trans.); the word appears only here, so there is some uncertainty as to its exact meaning, but it is generally agreed that it refers to his clothing rather than physiology (e.g., NIV<\/a>, \u201che<\/span>art\u201d). More significant is the interpretation of the first line\u2019s comparative phrase, which the NIV<\/a> renders \u201cas men do.\u201d An alternative reading understands the word \u02beadam<\/span> not as humankind in general, <\/span>but as Adam in the Genesis narrative.26<\/a> In this more specific reading, Job asserts that he did not conceal his sin as Adam did in the garden. The same question of whether \u02beadam<\/span> is general or specific <\/span>occurs in two other Old Testament passages that compare a person\u2019s fate to that of \u02beadam<\/span> (Ps. 82:7<\/a>; Hos. 6:7<\/a>). In this instance, we should remember that Genesis refers to Adam concealing himself, not <\/span>his sin.<\/p>\n

While some build arguments based on Job\u2019s probable knowledge (or lack thereof) concerning the Genesis narrative, the better interpretive method is to evaluate what makes the best logical sens<\/span>e in the passage. In fact, the comparison to Adam makes no sense in this context\u2014Job comments in the next verse that his motivations for hiding sin would have been fear of the crowd or the contempt of other families. These fears have no relevance to Adam\u2019s motivation, so it is unlikely that Job employs him as a comparison here. Job\u2019s allusion to fear of public scorn reminds us how central<\/span> the opinion of family friends was to identity and self-perception.<\/span><\/p>\n

Job\u2019s oath reaches its grand finale in 31:35\u201337<\/a>. In the absence of an advocate or judge, he sets his signature to the dossier of oaths. The t<\/span>ext includes no word for this dossier (NIV<\/a> adds \u201cdefense\u201d for clarification). His \u201csignature\u201d is an X mark\u2014the Hebrew word is taw, the final letter of the alphabet, which in the earliest forms of the <\/span>script took the shape of an X.<\/p>\n

Job calls not only on El Shaddai to answer him (although he may not expect an answer), but also on anyone who wishes to contest his claims of innocence. Job employs lega<\/span>l language here; any potential litigant (\u02bei\u0161 ribi<\/span>;<\/em> NIV<\/a>: \u201caccuser\u201d) must submit a formal claim (indictment). If no one, divine or mortal, steps forward with such a claim, Job will have secured his vind<\/span>ication and, consequently, the possibility of reintegration into society. In anticipation of that positive outcome, Job uses royal imagery (\u201cprince\u201d and \u201ccrown\u201d) to describe his willingness and ability to give full account for his actions. Job is no cringing defendant; he will receive any challenge with confident assurance of his innocence.<\/span><\/p>\n

Job\u2019s imagery (bearing the indictment on his shoulder, do<\/span>nning it as a crown) also suggests that he will publicize any claims against him. Commentators have explored whether this language might represent a historical legal custom involving an actual physical enactment, but there is no available documentation of s<\/span>uch a practice, and the description may well be metaphorical. Regardless, the significant implication is Job\u2019s eagerness for the opportunity to respond to formal legal charges.<\/span><\/p>\n

Job\u2019s final formal speech thus concludes on one of the book\u2019s high points. He has adamantly denied any wrongdoing and has taken a decisive (and risky) step to try to <\/span>force a response from God. If God remains silent, Job, though undoubtedly still dissatisfied, could at least theoretically claim vindication (i.e., God did not strike him dead for a false oath) in order to facilitate social reintegration and restoration of his status and identity. Such an accomplishment would enable Job to restore his sense of coherence.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

Rhetorical Strategy<\/strong><\/p>\n

Job\u2019s discourse concerns themes of coherence and equilibrium as he considers his plight:<\/p>\n

\u2022 Chapter 29<\/a> recalls the coherence of the past.<\/p>\n

\u2022 Chapter 30<\/a> describes the incoherence of the present.<\/p>\n

\u2022 Chapter 31<\/a> seeks to regain coherence not by revising Job\u2019s expectations or his focus on justice, but by attempting to force God\u2019s hand through the oath of innocence. This strategy is not designed to regain Job\u2019s prosperity but to achieve vindication, albeit tacitly.<\/p>\n

In the dialogues, Job\u2019s friends offered him a solution to find coherence and equilibrium, but at a cost. Their resolution required Job\u2019s righteousness to be motivated by gain. According to their worldview, the cosmos is founded on justice, and thus coherence is sustained by adopting the Great Symbiosis. Appeasement is the all-purpose equilibrator: find a path to appeasement, regain the favor of deity, and prosperity and blessing will be restored. If Job had taken this route to regain coherence, he would have been required to adopt a perspective of self-interested righteousness. The primary question underlying the dialogue section of the book is whether Job\u2019s righteousness is disinterested.<\/p>\n

Having rejected his friends\u2019 solution, in Job 29\u201331<\/a>, Job seeks his own path to coherence and equilibrium. The primary question becomes that familiar quandary: Why do God\u2019s policies allow righteous people to suffer? After juxtaposing his previous prosperity (ch. 29<\/a>) and his current degradation (ch. 30<\/a>) in stark contrast, Job presents the core of his case in the oath of chapter 31<\/a>. If Job\u2019s plan is successful, he will demonstrate conclusively that God\u2019s policies are incoherent. In the dialogues, Job has prioritized his righteousness over prosperity. In this discourse, he demonstrates that he values his righteousness more than God\u2019s reputation.<\/p>\n

Job\u2019s oath of innocence in chapter 31<\/a> addresses the passage\u2019s underlying question: Why does God allow the righteous to suffer? In his oath, Job seeks coherence based on himself rather than God. Job\u2019s oath is intended to vindicate him, and in that vindication he will find coherence and equilibrium. Although his life remains in shambles, he will attain a measure of peace if his innocence is declared. Additionally, he will have public evidence of vindication, which may provide the means to regain social integration. Although Job never demonstrates interest in regaining prosperity, he certainly desires to recover his status as a righteous person within his community. Because his desire is for a status based on recognition and approval of his righteousness, his righteousness may yet be characterized as disinterested. His desire for status can be classified as disinterested because it is his righteousness that motivates him. If he is recognized as righteous, the status will automatically follow. He is not pursuing office or honors but a reputation for righteousness, which has been tarnished.<\/p>\n

How exactly does Job\u2019s attempt to regain coherence and equilibrium function, particularly in relation to previous discussions surrounding the RP? In the dialogues, coherence and equilibrium would be found when the RP<\/a> was in evidence. Under the RP<\/a>, if Job confessed sin, his prosperity would be restored, and all would be right in a just world. But Job is notably uncooperative. Had he cooperated, God\u2019s policies would have been revealed as inadequate, because Job\u2019s righteousness would have been motivated by gain, which would confirm the Challenger\u2019s suspicions. An RP<\/a>-based worldview would have been preserved, but as pretense only, because Job\u2019s experience was not truly just.<\/p>\n

In the oath of innocence in chapter 31<\/a>, coherence and equilibrium would theoretically result from God\u2019s expected continued silence, which would tacitly vindicate Job. As noted, Job would not necessarily regain prosperity, but his reputation would be vindicated and his claim to righteousness upheld. The coherence attained here stems not from the RP<\/a>, but Job\u2019s perception of himself as righteous. This scenario renders God\u2019s policies capricious and discredits his reputation\u2014he is neither just nor wise.<\/p>\n

This coherence comes at a high theological cost. The battle would have been won but the ramifications of the theological conclusions would be devastating. If Job prevails in the confrontation, God is reduced to a powerful being who possesses neither wisdom nor justice. He is a chaos creature who is not just arbitrary, capricious, or inscrutable; rather, he is uncontrolled even by himself. This result is worse than the result that could have come from the dialogue scenario. There God would have been reduced to a deity like any other in the ancient Near East. In Job\u2019s scenario, God is no God at all.<\/p>\n

If we understand wisdom to be aligned with coherence and equilibrium, Job thinks he knows the way to it (contrary to the claim of the author of the Wisdom poem in ch. 28<\/a>). As previously suggested, fearing Adonai (the heart of wisdom) involves an element of submission. Yet Job is the opposite of submissive; he is confrontational and demanding. Job\u2019s attempt at wisdom, entangled in his struggles for coherence, requires him to discount God\u2019s wisdom.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Theology: Job\u2019s View of God<\/p>\n

At this juncture, it is helpful to consider how the view of God expressed in this section fits into Job\u2019s broader argument and whether this view differs from previous statements. Within the dialogue section, the strongest negative statements about God appear in 16:9\u201314<\/a>. There Job claims God has acted in anger (16:9<\/a>) and without pity (16:13<\/a>). By contrast, the accusation in 30:18\u201323<\/a> that God has behaved with reckless cruelty (\u02beakzar<\/span>, 30:21<\/a>) is significantly more severe.27<\/a> In the dialogues, Job infers that God is angry and portrays his actions as incomprehensible, yet he continues to seek the reasons for God\u2019s actions, as demonstrated by his repeated attempts to force God into court to defend his justice. Throughout the dialogues, Job never questions\u2014and in fact affirms\u2014God\u2019s wisdom (e.g., 12:13<\/a>).<\/p>\n

In Job\u2019s present discourse, however, he portrays God as a chaos creature (ch. 30<\/a>) who brings disorder and who can be outmaneuvered (ch. 31<\/a>). Job\u2019s case has ceased questioning God\u2019s justice and begun questioning his wisdom\u2014precisely the divine quality affirmed in chapter 28<\/a>, providing further evidence that the Wisdom poem in chapter 28<\/a> should not be viewed as Job\u2019s speech. In a marked shift from the dialogues, God has become the author of disruption. In 7:12<\/a>, Job wondered why God was treating him as a chaos creature; here he assigns that role to God.<\/p>\n

The oath of chapter 31<\/a> is intended to accomplish a forced coherence and equilibrium. If God does not strike Job dead for a false oath, the assumption would be that he is innocent. If Job is innocent, then God has acted unjustly in bringing disaster on him. The unanswered oath juxtaposed to the horrors Job has suffered would demonstrate that God\u2019s policies cannot be carried out consistently. If Job\u2019s oath stands unanswered, Job wins, and God\u2019s policies have been proven flawed with regard to the suffering of the righteous\u2014Job\u2019s primary concern in this section.<\/p>\n

Although the categories of denied offenses in Job\u2019s oath have been addressed, we have yet to consider the theology revealed in other parts of chapter 31<\/a>. Job has demonstrated his righteousness<\/em> to be disinterested, but that does not mean that histheology<\/em> is disinterested. The primary question of the dialogues concerned what motivated Job: blessing or righteousness? In the discourse section, the question becomes who is in the right\u2014Job or God? In effect, Job pits his reputation against God\u2019s. His view of the intrinsic importance of righteousness, as displayed in the dialogue section, is appropriate and biblical; his view of God as displayed in the discourse is not. Job is wrong about the nature of God. He himself is dissatisfied with his conclusions about God and would wish them otherwise, but his drive to achieve coherence can only reach its goal, he believes, if he adopts an alternative view of God. In this respect, Job mirrors the behavior of many Christians today, who make costly theological sacrifices in order to attain a measure of coherence in their world. Thus it is beneficial to examine the flawed theological underpinnings of Job\u2019s position.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Manipulation.<\/strong> The most significant flaw in Job\u2019s theology is his belief that God can be manipulated and outmaneuvered. Hints at this weakness appear as early as chapter 1<\/a>, where we see that Job perhap<\/span>s was treating God as if he were a petty deity who could be managed by ritual (Job 1:4\u20135<\/a>)\u2014a common practice in the ancient world. This type of manipulation is not limited to the ancient world, however<\/span>. The belief that deity is limited and may be controlled in some manner lies behind any thought system that we label paganism. In this sense, a \u201cpagan splinter\u201d is lodged in each of our hearts, most likely as a consequence of the fall; we each are inclined to try to bring God to heel, however subtle or subconsc<\/span>ious our attempts may be.<\/p>\n

Job\u2019s clearest attempt to outmaneuver God appears in his strat<\/span>egic oath of innocence, in which God\u2019s reputation is forfeit while Job\u2019s is salvaged. This effort, however, is categorically different from ritual manipulation, since the latter supposes that the divine being in question has needs. Job does not treat God as need<\/span>y, but as apathetic, preoccupied, or inept. The oath is evidence of Job\u2019s core theological problem, because it underestimates God\u2019s wisdom and undermines his character.<\/span><\/p>\n

Trusting God\u2014which is the same as fearing God\u2014means accepting the fact that God does not need us or anything we possess or accomplish, and acknowledging that he is not l<\/span>acking in any aspect of his character or nature. The God revealed in the Bible cannot be manipulated or outmaneuvered, and our petty attempts to do so only demonstrate our refusal to accept Scripture\u2019s presentation of God in favor of our own caricatures of him.<\/p>\n

God as chaos creature.<\/strong> Job\u2019s revised portrayal of God as chaos creature is the inevitable conclusion of the philosophy Job adopts. If God does not have reasons for his choices, is not universally gove<\/span>rned by justice, and influences human lives with his power, he logically falls into the category of chaos creature\u2014a category well-known throughout the ancient world.28<\/a><\/p>\n

Chaos creatures have no direct <\/span>parallel in our modern worldview. They represent a cosmic element that works against order. They should not be equated with demons, although demons in the ancient world sometimes pose threats to order as well. The ancient world con<\/span>strued demons differently from what we do today; the ancients viewed them as amoral (as we would consider a tornado) and under the control of deity. Most demons could function for either good or evil, but if left unsupervised might run amok.<\/span><\/p>\n

It is highly debatable whether the Old Testament contains any reference to demons. Notable biblical examples of chaos creatures<\/span> in the contrast include Leviathan, Tannin, and Rahab. In biblical theology as well as the ancient Near East in general, these monsters do not pose a threat to God.29<\/a> In ancient Near Eastern contexts,<\/span> chaos creatures can adopt an adversarial role (as Anzu does, for example), and in the Old Testament, God at times opposes their influence. But overall, these creatures work against order, not against God, and they come into conflict <\/span>with deity only when deity works to establish order.<\/p>\n

To help us understand how Job thinks about God in this discourse, we may turn to an eighth-century myth known as <\/span>the Poem of Erra, in which the deity Nergal takes on the role of chaos creature.30<\/a> This work, also known as Erra and Ishum, is believed to be a mythological reflection of the political upheaval that t<\/span>ook place in Babylon in the first half of the first millennium BC. Nergal, god of plague and the netherworld, tricks Marduk, chief god of Babylon, into leaving the city. Nergal then wreaks havoc until<\/span> Marduk returns and restores order. While I am not persuaded that Job borrows from the Poem of Erra or that a point-by-point comparison may be sustained, the Poem of Erra demonstrates that a god actin<\/span>g as chaos creature as a known motif in the ancient world.31<\/a> The key feature of this idea is the deity\u2019s lack of discrimination between the righteous and the wicked.32<\/a><\/p>\n

In the Old Testament, God someti<\/span>mes uses disorder as punishment (e.g., the flood of Noah, the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem by the Babylonians). In such cases, however, the text carefully notes that God\u2019s actions constituted just punishment of indictable<\/span> evil. Prophets such as Habakkuk sometimes demand explanations for events apparently lacking rationale, and ultimately explanations are presented. In contrast, Job does not simply question\u2014he accuses. As noted, this behavior demonstrates that Job has succumbed to a flawed view of deity common in the ancient Near East. Because he experiences what he perceives to be irrational disorder, he finally concludes that God must be the au<\/span>thor of that disorder. Indeed, in some sense God is the agent of Job\u2019s distress, but Job has yet to comprehend God\u2019s role in a theologically appropriate manner.<\/p>\n

Weighing in honest scales.<\/strong> The very nature of Job\u2019s plea to be evaluated accurately reveals a deep theological flaw. His request implies that there is an alternative\u2014namely, that God might not assess <\/span>Job\u2019s case honestly. To admit such a possibility is to establish ourselves as arbiters of God\u2019s policies; our<\/em> judgment determines whether God does right or not. Yet if God does not always behave accor<\/span>ding to what is right, what becomes of the standard by which we may measure justice?<\/p>\n

Job seeks to hold God accountable. This is poor theology. In the ancient Near East, it was necessary to hold the go<\/span>ds accountable for their actions, because they were not naturally inclined to behave appropriately. Yet even their accountability was to the divine council, not to human beings.<\/p>\n

In his discourse, Job <\/span>pictures God as a being who can be manipulated, who tends to be irrational and uncontrollable, and who must be called to accountability. The latter point inevitably assumes a standard outside of God, making God a contingen<\/span>t being. Just as the biblical text as a whole does not affirm this picture of God, the book of Job does not expect the reader to adopt it as revealed truth. At this stage in the book, Job\u2019s perspective is not refuted, but Elihu will eventually rebuke Job, and Yahweh will provide an alternate view. Consequently, we can conclude that the purpose of this section is not to teach us about God, but rather to illustrate how h<\/span>uman beings in the throes of crisis might easily misconstrue God\u2019s nature. <\/span>The book continues to explore the question of who is at fault for the mess that s<\/span>ometimes characterizes our lives, and in so doing, it exposes the selfishness inherent in our inclination to impugn God rather than ourselves.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

Contemporary Significance<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Motivation for righteousness. The contrast between the innocence oaths in Job and the Egyptian Book of the Dead offers some insight into problems that persist in today\u2019s church. Is our behavior motivated by a desire to be righteous, or have we developed a social code that functions almost as a magical means of ensuring access to heaven (as the Egyptians did)?<\/p>\n

It is easy to slip into a pragmatic mentality that views our religious and spiritual commitments as means for gaining benefits. Without a doubt our righteousness\u2014though it be as filthy rags\u2014brings important benefits, such as forgiveness of sin and eternal life, making it all the more difficult to ensure that our motives are pure as we pursue right living. Our righteousness does not earn these benefits, but Scripture traces a connection between the salvation we are granted and the righteousness that characterizes our life of faith (e.g., Matt. 25:31\u201346<\/a>; Heb. 4:11<\/a>; 10:19\u201331<\/a>; James 2:14\u201326<\/a>; 1 John 3:11\u201324<\/a>). We may also be lured into believing that our righteousness does (or should) earn us special consideration from God. It is critical that we as Christians understand that righteousness is solely an end, never a means<\/em>. Righteousness is not a bargaining chip but is rather the offering that God asks of us and which we owe to him as our Creator and Savior. Righteousness should be our natural response to the fact that God is God.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

Biblical values.<\/strong> Although Job has assessed the situation incorrectly and reached false conclusions about God and the world, he demonstrates a firm grasp of values that are legitimately biblical. As in<\/span>dicated in the chart on p. 325<\/a>, these values are integrity of character, sexual purity, compassion toward the vulnerable, trust in God, and grace to outsiders. We should seek to imitate these values, <\/span>although the biblical text does not mandate them here. The values that Job upholds delineate a set of behaviors that continue to challenge us today.<\/p>\n

In fact, the five categories that they represent co<\/span>uld be considered among the most significant areas for Christian self-evaluation. Our struggles today relatively rarely take the form of theft, murder, idol worship, or polytheism. Most churches, however, are plagued by conflicts in which integrity of<\/span> character is sadly lacking. We can easily recognize ourselves in Job\u2019s list. Too often churches must engage in discipline related to sexual sin. Man<\/span>y churches insulate themselves from the needs of the world, neglecting compassion. In an established church culture, we may find it easier to rely on ourselves, our programs, and our strategies than to r<\/span>ely on God. Outsiders may enter the doors of the church once and never return, because they were treated coldly or ignored altogether, and too often the church\u2019s population itself is divided among social cliques, with lonely people held at arm\u2019s length. Fostering values such as Job\u2019s helps us honestly evaluate our shortcomings and avoid erosion of character within the church.<\/p>\n

Faulty theology as a consequence of experiences.<\/strong> What theological price are we willing to pay in order to achieve coherence in our lives? Do we prioritize our coherence above God\u2019s reputation? Do we g<\/span>ive more concern to our reputation than God\u2019s reputation? If we truly believe what we say we believe about the Bible\u2014that it is God\u2019s revelation of himself, in which he offers an understanding of his character that is both right and true\u2014then that biblical revelation takes precedence over our feeble attempts to discern coherence in our world and over<\/span> any defense we may wish to make of our reputation.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n

Kelly\u2019s Story33<\/a><\/p>\n

JHW: Job resorted to various strategies that revealed much about his perception of God. In times of hardship, our view of God is put to the test. I would like you to reflect on whether you found your experiences leading to such strategies, and how they put pressure on your view of God. Did you ever find yourself trying to manipulate God? What did that look like, and how did you move past that approach?<\/p>\n

Kelly: I did find that my view of God was pressured during my own experiences of hardship, but it was a lie about his character that was so deeply buried that it was impossible to recognize until I started searching for it. We have seen throughout the book of Job that so often in our struggles, our first cry to God is, \u201cWhy? Why would you do this or allow this to happen?\u201d Even by asking that common question, we are challenging God\u2019s character and how he runs the world. As we challenge him, it is a clear sign that it is not God\u2019s character that is flawed, but our view of him.<\/p>\n

When I would confront God in pain or anger, I did not necessarily manipulate him or try to test him. The list described in the chapter about Job 28<\/a> states that when we fear the Lord, we do not think of him as \u201cdetached, incompetent, limited, corrupt, shortsighted, or petty.\u201d But I think that many people could identify with this way of thinking about God. After experiencing extreme pain and trials, it is easy to believe the lie that God fits one or many of those descriptions.<\/p>\n

Personally, the lies that I had started to believe about God\u2019s character were more in relation to his love for me. I believed that God had the power to heal, but that he never would choose to or it would never be in his will for my life. Then God put an amazing Christian woman in my life as a mentor, who prayed with me and met with me, helping me struggle with the emotional pain I was dealing with. It was in one of my conversations with her, when she asked me to reflect on that angry conversation with God, that I realized that I was listening to the lie that God did not love me. When I finally realized the lie that was binding me, I could begin to pray against it. She would ask me to pray and go to him with that lie against his character and ask, \u201cNow what does God\u2019s Word have to say about that lie.\u201d<\/p>\n

JHW: Job was most interested in finding coherence for himself, even if it resulted in accepting a downgraded view of deity. Do you recognize that inclination in any of the ways that you responded to your suffering? What did that look like, and how did you move past it?<\/p>\n

Kelly: Pursuing wisdom in times of suffering is a long process, and as I reflect back on different stages in the process, I can identify a time when I responded trying to find coherence, but at the cost of accepting a downgraded view of God\u2019s deity. In the spring of 2009, the season I continually refer back to, when I felt my health took a big turn for the worse, I remember coming to the conclusion that God must be causing all these things to happen at once, in order to strengthen my testimony to be a light for others. I found coherence or a \u201cpurpose\u201d to hold on to that made some sort of sense in my mind; but if this statement was true, it meant that I would have to accept that God is a God that uses people for their testimonies at their expense. As I said before, I struggled with God\u2019s love for me. I knew the right words in my mind about Jesus\u2019 love, and at times I would feel his love at the surface but it did not sink into my heart.<\/p>\n

Even the most recent trip to California caused me to have a difficult conversation with God. I had prayed for months for him to shut the door if this was not in his will. I asked the Lord to make all of the California plans difficult if it was not in his will and would not be successful. Not only did the clinic have a miraculous opening in their schedule during the exact time we were available to go, but we were also offered free housing in Los Angeles that turned out to be right next to where the clinic is, so it seemed each step in the planning period was being blessed by God.<\/p>\n

Yet the trip only resulted in a huge financial burden that will take years to pay off, along with pain and confusion. I had an angry conversation with God on the long fifteen-hour drive home that really revealed to me how many lies I was still struggling with from my experiences and how that had affected my view of God. The idea arose yet again that God was \u201cstrengthening my testimony.\u201d Those words became very bitter. Some days\u2014a lot of days actually\u2014I would be grateful for how my testimony has encouraged people. But I definitely wrestled with God about when I was going to get a break. And if I truly analyzed what I was implying by saying that to God, it was as though he was detached, without deep love for me, just ready to do something else because he knew regardless, I\u2019d still believe in him. I am embarrassed as I type these words to think of how I downgraded the deity of God.<\/p>\n

Then I also found myself accepting a downgraded view of his deity during the recovery process of my left arm. Feeling and motion came and went, fluctuating. We would see improvement, and then randomly I\u2019d lose control of my fingers while sitting in class and wouldn\u2019t be able to write notes. Then I would humbly have to ask a peer if I could copy their notes later. So I became fearful\u2014fearful of the next thing God would do to \u201cstrengthen my testimony.\u201d So I began trying to not \u201cgive him more opportunities\u201d to hurt me. This meant that I would avoid any medical procedure or medication that was said to help me because I did not want to risk God\u2019s allowing the procedure to fail, leaving me worse off. I believed if there was a risk of something going wrong, it would. That statement is full of lies about God\u2019s character.<\/p>\n

When we realize how our view of God has been distorted, we need to ask ourselves what experience on earth led us to that conclusion about God. The biggest step in healing and correcting that mind-set is identifying what the lies are and where they come from. When I was in the thick of it, I couldn\u2019t tell you why I was so sad, hurt, confused\u2014beyond the physical pain. It was a jumbled mess in my head. I just knew the pain I was feeling emotionally, physically, and spiritually was suffocating me. It wasn\u2019t until I started meeting with Beth, my mentor, to just talk about some of the things I was experiencing that I started to dissect it to find out what the roots were beyond some deep lies and wounds.<\/p>\n

That process was not fun by any means. It took intentional effort. Who wants to sit in a room and talk about the things that hurt you the most or about your deepest fears? So many times I dragged my feet, dreading the conversation that was ahead, and it was on those days that I saw the most breakthroughs. So I think a huge contributing factor to getting past the approach of distorting God\u2019s character in response to your pain, is first, to be willing to address the pain and the circumstances. Second, seek a mentor. Find someone who can help you through this process, because for me, if I didn\u2019t have someone asking about me continuously, I would bottle all of my emotions, listening to the lies in my head because they sounded like truth based on my experiences. Finally, I learned we don\u2019t reflect on the past or the present pains to identify the lies that are binding us and then forget them; instead, we identify them so we can redeem them. Redeeming lies about our Father can only happen with the help of the Holy Spirit.<\/p>\n

JHW: Job attempted to call God to account. Do you have thoughts on that?<\/p>\n

Kelly: Calling God to account is one more thing that identifies your view of him as flawed, and I did have those weak moments where I thought I had some authority to do that. In the middle of my semester in my junior year at Wheaton, things were at their worst. I could no longer take notes in class, type papers, or use a camera\u2014and I was attempting to double major in studio art photography and Spanish. With an eighteen-hour class load and not a functioning hand to get the thoughts in my head to paper, I was at my wit\u2019s end.<\/p>\n

One blessing was, I was seeing an amazing chiropractor in Naperville, Dr. Scott Selby, to whom I give credit for helping me get the use of my left arm back. After learning more about the disc injury causing the loss of feeling and motion, I started seeing him three times a week. He would realign the disc and I would be able to use my hand for a day or so, then slowly I would lose feeling again as the disc slid back out of place. I had to reorganize my homework based on which days I could see Dr. Selby and be able to use my hand. So I\u2019d try to type all of my homework, papers, and so on in that short period of time because it was uncertain how long I\u2019d have use of fine motor skills in my hand.<\/p>\n

I remember one night, after coming home from seeing Dr. Selby, that I was feeling hopeful we might be making progress. When I got to my apartment and pulled the Mai Thai\u2019s pad thai out of the fridge, I reached up in the cabinet to get a plate, and as I began to take it out, the weight became too much and my hand gave out, sending the plate crashing to the floor. It was one plate. I couldn\u2019t lift one plate. I sat on the floor in the broken glass around me and began to cry. I remember feeling as if God had me in the wilderness. I did not feel his presence, his comfort, his guidance, anything. I remember calling out to God as I sobbed on the floor, once again with limp arms saying, \u201cGod, you picked a really bad time to be silent or have me in the wilderness. This is when I need you the most and you choose to be silent. Please come! I NEED YOU! I need your help!\u201d<\/p>\n

God did show up, but I soon found out it was because I finally recognized that I needed him. My lack of trust in him, that he\u2019d be there or that he\u2019d help me, caused me to resort to use my own strength, and I created that distance. I remember feeling as if God was just saying, \u201cKelly \u2026 I have been waiting for you to say that. You do need me.\u201d I do believe that God oftentimes uses a famine in order to work up an appetite for him.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n

Job 32\u201337<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>Original Meaning<\/p>\n

Suspense is running high at this point in the book. Job has thrown down the gauntlet before God with his oath of innocence in chapter 31<\/a>. It looks like a win-win situation for Job. If<\/span> God strikes him dead for a false oath, Job\u2019s death wish (Job 3<\/a>) is fulfilled. If God does nothing, Job is tacitly vindicated of wrongdoing because his oath stands. If God defends himself, Job gets th<\/span>e satisfaction of the dialogue he has been demanding. Job has constructed an alternative legal scenario by uttering his oath (where previously he was trying to subpoena God). He has chosen a risky strategy, and for the reading audience the atmosphere crackles with expectation. We have every indication that we have reached the climax an<\/span>d culmination of the drama.<\/p>\n

What an odd time to introduce a new<\/span> character. The resulting literary vertigo has led many interpreters to conclude that the Elihu speeches must be a later addition by a clumsy editor. They consider his bombastic speeches to be nonproductive repetitions of the points al<\/span>ready covered. In contrast, however, as suggested in the Introduction, Elihu is the only character in the book who offers a cogent theodicy (I referred to it as an \u201ceducative theodicy\u201d). He defends God\u2019s justice rather than a system, though he still accepts a modified version of the <\/span>RP<\/a> that the other characters accept. He accuses Job of self-righteousness, an acc<\/span>usation later verified by God (40:8<\/a>). We can see, then, that Elihu offers a model for coherence while trying to maintain a justice orientation. It is a clever and noteworthy attempt that is more sophi<\/span>sticated than what was offered by the other characters, though it remains inadequate.<\/p>\n

While Elihu pontificates against Job and spins his proposal, the audience is left suspended in the shadow of the d<\/span>elayed denouement, wondering how God will respond to Job\u2019s hubris.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>Elihu\u2019s Identity and Status (32:1\u20135<\/a>)<\/p>\n

Who is Elihu? He does not come among the three friends introduced in 2:11<\/a>. His pedigree is longer than any other in the book, and all the names would be appropriat<\/span>e Hebrew eponyms. This leads Hartley to identify him as Israelite,1<\/a> an opinion that, while attractive, does not account for the fact that he is identified as a Buzite. Buz was a brother of Uz in Genes<\/span>is 22:20\u201321<\/a>, and thus Elihu is related to Israelites as part of the international family of Abram. Territorially, Jeremiah 25:23<\/a> locates the clan in Edom. Despite the ethnic relationship and territori<\/span>al proximity, such identification still distances Elihu from national Israelites.<\/p>\n

Nevertheless, the meaning of his name (\u201cHe is my God\u201d) draws him nearer and the position he adopts is one that a right<\/span>-thinking Israelite could maintain. In this way, I might suggest that just as the friends represented the common logic of the ancient Near East, Elihu represents a more theologically sophisticated and nuanced opinion that might have predominated among the Israelites. Those Israelites who would have scoffed at the bla<\/span>tant attempts of the friends to prompt Job to action in order to restore his prosperity and favor with God would likely find Elihu\u2019s thinking more persuasive.<\/span><\/p>\n

Elihu\u2019s character has been heavily criticized. Though descriptions of him as insufferably pompous are perhaps accurate, the<\/span>y should not lead to a dismissal of him as a buffoon (as some interpreters do). The other friends were also arrogant and insensitive, as people can be when they are not the ones in the difficult situation.<\/span><\/p>\n

More than any other quality trait, however, Elihu is seen as a raging, angry young man. The narrator indicates this four times in the text itself (32:2<\/a> [2x], 3<\/a>, 5<\/a>). He directs his anger against <\/span>Job because of Job\u2019s self-righteous attitude (32:2<\/a>) and against the three friends because of their philosophical incompetence (32:3<\/a>, 5<\/a>). The text is clear that this anger is not just because Job consi<\/span>ders himself righteous, for Job\u2019s righteousness has been repeatedly affirmed and Elihu would have no reason to be angry with that which is patently true. More specifically, Elihu is angry because Job regards his own righteousness more highly than he regards God\u2019s. T<\/span>his is the same accusation God will make in Job 40:8<\/a>, so his anger on this point is justifiable.<\/p>\n

Elihu directs his anger against the i<\/span>ncompetence of the friends on two counts: (1) They have condemned Job without having found fault, and (2) they had run out of arguments without having succeeded. The first of these has constituted the<\/span> core of the book\u2019s message: Elihu\u2019s condemnation of the friends is nothing less than a condemnation of the Great Symbiosis in general and the traditional formulation of the RP<\/a> in particular. They hav<\/span>e functioned as unwitting agents of the Challenger by means of representing that philosophy in their arguments. The second count of his anger expresses his disappointment that they could not move beyond their simplistic para<\/span>digms to address what Elihu considers the real issues. Those issues are the ones to which he turns his attention.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
\n

Elihu\u2019s Premise (32:6\u201322<\/a>)<\/p>\n

Elihu first refutes what is apparently traditional thinking, if not common sense, that in matters of wisdom, age should have priority. In contrast, he contends that while a certain wisdom can come with age, the most important wisdom comes from God and may be given to young or old (32:9<\/a>, 18<\/a>; 33:4<\/a>).<\/p>\n

In Job 32:8<\/a> Elihu asserts \u201cBut it is the spirit in a person, the breath of the Almighty, that gives them understanding\u201d (NIV<\/a> 2011). The word translated \u201cbreath\u201d alludes to the concept expressed in Genesis 2:7<\/a>, where God breathed into Adam the breath of life. That breath came from God, and so also here it denotes the \u201cbreath of the Almighty.\u201d In Genesis 2<\/a> that breath made Adam a living being, whereas here it gives understanding. In this sense, we might justifiably connect the breath of life\/the Almighty with the image of God in Genesis 1<\/a>, which could easily be associated with the human attribute of wisdom.2<\/a> In this sense, Elihu\u2019s statement can be viewed as merging anthropological concepts found in Genesis 1<\/a> and 2<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Elihu goes further, however, to suggest that this \u201cbreath of the Almighty\u201d serves as a person\u2019s spirit (rua\u1e25<\/span>). It is true that some interpreters have preferred a capitalized reading of Spirit and considered it a (veiled) reference to the Holy Spirit.3<\/a> Trinitarian theology would not be what Elihu would have had in mind, nor would it be something comprehended by Job or the Israelite audience, whatever we might decide the role of the Holy Spirit to be. If we are to contend for biblical authority, we must retain linkage to the author\u2019s understanding. Elihu\u2019s statement has more to say about his understanding of the human nature than about the divine nature.<\/p>\n

We may infer from the Old Testament that the Israelites considered the human spirit to be \u201con loan\u201d from God. In Israelite understanding, one would not say that humans are body, soul, and spirit. Rather, a human is<\/em> a nepe\u0161<\/span> (self or soul; it ceases when one dies, see Gen. 35:18<\/a>), who has<\/em> a body (made by God to return to the earth) and has<\/em> a spirit (rua\u1e25<\/span>, given by God as a portion of his own spirit to return to him upon death).4<\/a> The idea that humans have no spirit of their own but only God\u2019s spirit \u201con loan\u201d is primarily conveyed in the book of Job (27:3\u20135<\/a>; 33:4<\/a>; 34:14\u201315<\/a>), but also indicated in Psalm 104:29<\/a> (people\u2019s rua\u1e25<\/span> is gathered, presumably back to God who gave it, and they die; their bodies return to dust). God also speaks of his rua\u1e25<\/span> in humankind in Genesis 6:3<\/a> (perhaps the only clear part of that difficult verse). Ecclesiastes 12:7<\/a> verifies this assertion: \u201cThe spirit returns to God who gave it.\u201d<\/p>\n

Zechariah 12:1<\/a> potentially offers a different view referring to the \u201cspirit of man\u201d that God formed within a human being.5<\/a> This is not contradictory, however, if we conclude that when God places his spirit in a human being, it becomes that person\u2019s spirit until he or she dies and it returns to God from whom it came. In Israelite thinking the spirit (whether described as God\u2019s or human\u2019s) is a vitalizing energy rather than a component part.6<\/a> Here Elihu identifies the spirit particularly as the source of the wisdom that he declares he possesses. It is the spirit within him (not the Holy Spirit) that compels him in 32:18<\/a>; he is energized and impatient to speak.<\/p>\n

In 32:12\u201314<\/a> Elihu reiterates the failure of the friends to answer Job satisfactorily and proceeds to differentiate himself from the three friends. He anticipates their assessment of the current state of the discussion in 32:13<\/span><\/a>: They believe they have done their job of making wisdom plain, but since Job has proven so intractable, further or more persuasive refutation will have to come from God. In contrast to their lame philosophical capitulation, Elihu declares that none of Job\u2019s arguments have addressed the direction his argument will take (32:14<\/a>), and he is not going to be following the same tactic they have used.<\/p>\n

In 32:15\u201322<\/a> Elihu\u2019s description of himself resembles Jeremiah\u2019s description of how he is compelled to deliver his prophetic message. Just as Elihu feels ready to burst and needs to find relief, Jeremiah reports that if he tries not to speak the prophetic message given to him, \u201chis word is in my heart like a fire, a fire shut up in my bones. I am weary of holding it in; indeed, I cannot\u201d (Jer. 20:9<\/a>). We should not, however, conclude that Elihu is claiming a prophetic office or role. There is no sense of \u201cThis is what the Lord says\u201d here.<\/p>\n

Elihu concludes this part of his speech by insisting that he will not engage in flattery or show partiality. Readers will recall that when the friends began their speeches, they acknowledged the wisdom and righteousness of Job. Only as the dialogues continued did they begin accusing. Elihu is not inclined to such diplomacy; he jumps directly to confrontation. The word translated \u201cflattery\u201d (32:22<\/a>) is used elsewhere to refer to the bestowing of honorific titles (cf. Isa. 44:5<\/a>; 45:4<\/a>). Elihu thereby asserts that he has no intention of engaging in obsequious pandering. To use some modern clich\u00e9s, he views this as a \u201cno holds barred\u201d situation and does not plan to \u201cpull any punches.\u201d Intriguingly he claims that his integrity will not allow any other path. He says that if he did not do this, his Maker would soon take him away. Just as Job continually insists on keeping his integrity intact, Elihu identifies his own guiding mantra as boldly proclaiming hard truths.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Elihu\u2019s Theory Statement (Job 33<\/a>)<\/p>\n

In chapter 33<\/a> Elihu presents the theology that provides the foundation for his understanding of Job\u2019s situation. In the following paragraphs I will clarify some of th<\/span>e phrasing and statements and then turn to his overall argument in the Bridging Contexts section.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

\u201cThe Spirit of God has made me; the breath of the Almighty gives me life\u201d (<\/strong>33:4<\/strong><\/a>).<\/strong> Even though the NIV<\/a> capitalizes \u201cSpirit,\u201d the parallel with \u201cbreath\u201d suggests otherwise. Humans are viewed as invigorated by the breath of God. If this were to be viewed as a reference to the Holy Spirit, it would suggest that every human has been granted the presence of the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, the Israelites knew nothing of the Trinity and would not have used \u201cthe Spirit of God\u201d for the third person of the Trinity. In the Old Testament the \u201cspirit of God\u201d is understood as an extension of the power of God. This statement by Elihu continues his claim in 32:8<\/a> that he is possessed of wisdom. The statement that the spirit \u201chas made me\u201d is parallel to the statement that God\u2019s breath \u201cgives me life.\u201d Elihu is speaking of that aspect of creation that is focused on the functional rather than the material.7<\/a> God \u201cmade\u201d him by giving him life and wisdom. He is referring to the same role of God when he describes him as his \u201cMaker\u201d in 32:22<\/a>. There he indicates that the Maker would virtually unmake him if he misused his wisdom in idle flattery.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Claims attributed to Job (<\/strong>33:8\u201311<\/strong><\/a>).<\/strong> Even though Elihu does not directly quote any of Job\u2019s lines, Elihu fairly summarizes Job\u2019s overall position. Since we are in the discourse section of the book rath<\/span>er than the dialogue section, we never hear how Job would respond to Elihu, but most likely he would not object to this paraphrase. Job would not have considered himself free of any guilt whatsoever, and Elihu places the claim of innocence relative to th<\/span>e way that God has treated Job. That is, Job would claim that the suffering that has come his way can in no way be justified by his behavior.<\/p>\n

Portrayal of God and his ways.<\/strong> Elihu begins by warning Job that no one can \u201cout-God\u201d God (33:12<\/a>). Job seems to believe that he has caught God in an inconsistency\u2014that his policies are somehow flawed o<\/span>r his execution of them lacking. To his credit, Elihu avers on principle that this can never be the case. This theological commitment is Elihu\u2019s strength and it is what makes his position more acceptable than Job\u2019s.<\/span><\/p>\n

Specifically, Elihu contends that God has not been silent; rather, Job has not been listening on the right frequency. He presents dreams and visions as the first examples of the media <\/span>God uses for communication (33:15\u201318<\/a>). Everyone in the ancient world believed that dreams were communication from deity, and Job himself has referred to his dream experiences as one of the ways God ha<\/span>s terrorized him (7:14<\/a>). In ancient Near Eastern thinking, nightmares indicate that the gods are angry with the dreamer.8<\/a> Thus, terrifying dreams constitute one form that suffering takes. Elihu adds p<\/span>hysical pain to the list of divine communications in 33:19<\/a> along with distress (such as Job experienced in losing his property and family). He identifies all of these communication strategies as havin<\/span>g corrective intentions (33:17\u201318<\/a>).<\/p>\n

In other words, Elihu considers these communications to be instructive and constructive rather than punitive. In this he offers a perspective not represented in the<\/span> thinking of Job or his friends. Rather than restoring the sufferer to the path of life, however, such experiences often lead instead to depression and a decline toward death. On a technical point, it should be noted that the last word in <\/span>33:18<\/a> is now often understood to refer to the river of death that has to be crossed (see NIV<\/a> text note) and is thus parallel to \u201cthe pit\u201d in the first line of th<\/span>e verse.9<\/a><\/p>\n

How can this discrepancy (decline toward death rather than restoration to life) be addressed and the cycle broken? Elihu offers his theory in 33:23\u201328<\/a>, but it is not an easy one to sort out.<\/span> Questions arise as to whether the messenger (NIV<\/a> \u201cangel\u201d) is an angelic mediator or a human one, whether the intercession involves communication to God or to the sufferer, and whether the \u201cransom\u201d (3<\/span>3:24<\/a>) is something specific or general. The procedure involves actions by all three parties: the messenger (33:23\u201324<\/a>), God (33:25<\/a>), and the sufferer (33:26\u201328<\/a>). The messenger is identified specificall<\/span>y as a mediator (meli\u1e63<\/span>), a term used in 16:20<\/a> for someone who intercedes with God on the behalf of someone who is suffering. Outside of Job the word is used only three times; in each it refers to hum<\/span>ans (a human interpreter, Gen. 42:23<\/a>; human envoys, 2 Chron. 32:31<\/a>; most likely prophets in Isa. 43:27<\/a>). In Job, \u201cangel\u201d (mal\u02beak<\/span>) occurs only two other times, once referring to a human messenger (1:14<\/a><\/span>) and once to supernatural beings (4:18<\/a>). In this context, the messenger\/mediator speaks both to the sufferer (\u201cto tell a man what is right for him\u201d) and to God (\u201cspare him\u201d)10<\/a> regarding the situation<\/span> and contributes to the solution by finding a \u201cransom.\u201d None of these dictates whether the messenger\/mediator is human. In Job \u201cransom\u201d (koper<\/span>) is used as a monetary sum to be paid on one\u2019s behalf.11<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/span>Sorting through all of these variables, I would agree with those who believe that Elihu is referring to his own role.12<\/a> He views himself as the messenger\/mediator who is going to interpret Job\u2019s situa<\/span>tion and advise him what he needs to do (\u201ctell him what is right,\u201d as he does beginning in 34:4<\/a>). He intercedes with God to spare Job\u2019s life (his intention as stated in 33:32<\/a>),13<\/a> and he provides a ran<\/span>som, if that can be understood as a portion of the wealth of his wisdom. In that case, the ransom provides the reasoning that would allow Job to make progress toward a solution. The ransom is a strategy that would satisfy <\/span>all parties. That is what diplomats (mediators) do when they attempt to bring two sides together.<\/p>\n

If this is the case, rather than Job being provided the equivalent of a public d<\/span>efender (as he has requested numerous times), Elihu is serving in the role we might recognize as federal mediator to bring the sides to a mutual understanding. He proposes that God will restore Job to health (<\/span>33:25\u201326<\/a>; notice no reference to restoring prosperity) and that Job will reconcile with God (33:26<\/a>) and confess in public to the nature of his wrongdoing and the grace of God\u2019s treatment of h<\/span>im (33:27<\/a>). That Elihu considers himself to be in this role is supported by the fact that after he paints this scenario, he urges Job to listen to him (33:31\u201333<\/a>) as he proceeds to do exactly what he j<\/span>ust proposed more generally. Nevertheless, Elihu is hardly the sort of mediator whom Job has been seeking.<\/p>\n

Verdict: The Justice of God (Job 34<\/a>)<\/p>\n

Elihu\u2019s articulation of Job\u2019s position in 34:5\u20139<\/a> is confusing. It is certainly true that Job considers himself innocent and maintains that God has denied him justi<\/span>ce (34:5<\/a>; cf. 40:8<\/a>, where God says something similar). He also considers his position to be truthful and the scourge of God to be disproportionate to his guilt (34:6<\/a>; cf. 6:4<\/a>, 28<\/a>; 9:21<\/a>). But what is E<\/span>lihu referring to in 34:7\u20139<\/a>? In 34:7<\/a> Job is said to \u201cdrink scorn.\u201d One could logically think that \u201cdrinking\u201d refers to absorbing scorn\u2014taking it in. This would be an accurate description of Job\u2019s posi<\/span>tion since he has been absorbing the scorn of people around him, including his friends. Alternatively, however, one could think of drinking as meeting a basic need and providing for one\u2019s own refreshment. In this approach Job indulges in mockery as easily and frequently as he drinks water. In this view, rather than being mocked by others, Job is being accused of<\/span> engaging in mockery of God. The content of this mockery would be the accusations that Elihu has already identified in <\/span>34:5<\/a>. The shape of the metaphor would thus favor seeing Job as the object of scorn, whereas the context would favor s<\/span>eeing Job as the one who is scorning.<\/p>\n

The issue has to be resolved by sorting out 34:8\u20139<\/a>. It has certainly not been proven that Job \u201ckeeps company with evildoers,\u201d and the purported position stated in<\/span> 34:9<\/a> uses the language that was adopted by Eliphaz in 22:2<\/a> (though 34:9<\/a> does not reiterate the claim actually made by Eliphaz; see discussion on p. 244<\/a>). Is 34:9<\/a> a claim that represents Job\u2019s thinkin<\/span>g accurately? To answer that we have to make sure we understand the statement clearly. We have already treated the Hebrew verb skn<\/span> in detail in its context in Job 22:2<\/a> (p. 245<\/a>). It means to gain, prof<\/span>it, or benefit from something. The NIV<\/a> renders the last phrase in 34:9<\/a> as \u201ctries to please God,\u201d but we can be a little more specific. The Hebrew root r\u1e63h<\/span> generally means \u201cto please or take delight,\u201d<\/span> but here it is combined with the preposition \u2018im. This collocation occurs elsewhere only in Psalm 50:18<\/a>, where by context and parallel it clearly focuses on keeping company with someone (the \u201cpleased<\/span>\u201d aspect would be represented in that one found the company of certain individuals to be pleasant and desirable).<\/p>\n

We can now see, then, that Job 34:9<\/a> needs to be read as the complement of 34:8<\/a>. Job ha<\/span>s tacitly taken up company among the wicked when he concludes that associating with God does not produce personal benefit. Thus 34:8<\/a> is a logical deduction rather than an empirical observation; that i<\/span>s, Job is accused of aligning himself philosophically with evildoers by default when he sets himself against God.<\/p>\n

In this deduction, Elihu is wrong. We should recall that the whole question of the boo<\/span>k is whether Job\u2019s chosen behavior is based on potential gain. Job has \u201cmaintained his integrity\u201d (27:1\u20136<\/a>) by not pursuing regaining his prosperity. Elihu\u2019s statement assumes that if Job finds no bene<\/span>fit in throwing in his lot with God, he is therefore going to throw in his lot with the wicked. This would be a logical deduction only if Job\u2019s alignment with God were based on the expectation of benefit. Job in fact believes that it <\/span>should<\/em> work that way (i.e., the RP<\/a> should work), but the whole book is designed to demonstrate that Job is not motivated<\/em> by that expectation. After all, that had been<\/span> the Challenger\u2019s claim from the beginning. This is important because in this sense, though Elihu is more justified in the sort of offense that he identifies in Job (self-righteousness), the accuracy of that assessment still does not compromise o<\/span>r undermine the central question of the book. Though Job is<\/em> guilty of self-righteousness and disparaging God\u2019s justice (as Elihu contends), he is not<\/em> guil<\/span>ty of pandering\u2014following God only because of the benefit such a relationship brings. In this misrepresentation of Job, Elihu is no better than the friends. The difference is that he does not misrepresent <\/span>God as the friends do. He is right about Job\u2019s offense; he is wrong in his inference about Job\u2019s motivation.<\/p>\n

In 34:10\u201320<\/a> Elihu offers his basic presuppositions. In 34:10<\/a> he indicates that the jus<\/span>tice of God is his bedrock. This is what differentiates him from the other protagonists. In 34:11<\/a> we see that his corollary includes a full affirmation of the RP<\/a>. Elihu\u2019s worldview presupposes that if<\/span> God is just, the RP<\/a> must be carried out\u2014an ideal he asserts directly in 34:12<\/a>. In this way we can see that justice provides the framework for Elihu\u2019s worldview just as it does for everyone else in th<\/span>e book. Yahweh is going to offer another alternative through his speeches, so this is still a flaw in Elihu\u2019s position.<\/p>\n

Elihu\u2019s insistence that God would not pervert justice echoes the words of Bildad<\/span>\u2019s first speech (8:2<\/a>). It is strong language, and in using it Elihu may be guilty of maintaining a simplistic tautology. In this tautology justice is defined by the RP<\/a>; therefore, perversion of justic<\/span>e is the only possible assessment when the RP<\/a> is not maintained.<\/p>\n

Elihu continues to wax eloquent on the loftiness of God in 34:13\u201315<\/a>. He affirms that God is not a contingent being (not accountable or <\/span>dependent on another). In theological terms, he is asserting God\u2019s aseity (his existence has its source only in himself). Conversely, human beings are absolutely and totally contingent (34:14\u201315<\/a>). If <\/span>God withdrew from us, we would cease to exist. Elihu\u2019s affirmations of God\u2019s aseity and humanity\u2019s contingency contribute to his case in that they establish rank priority: God does not need us but we need h<\/span>im; God is not accountable to us but we are accountable to him. Consequently we do not surpass God in his attributes, including that of his justice.<\/p>\n

Elihu continues by posing a rhetorical questi<\/span>on in 34:17<\/a>, but it again reflects reductionism. No one has suggested that God hates<\/em> justice. Job, for his part, has wondered how important justice is to God and whether he carries it out consistently<\/span>. So again, hyperbole, though perhaps rhetorically acceptable, here weakens Elihu\u2019s case. Yet as he returns to expressing the attributes of God, his affirmations are legitimate. In 34:17b\u201320<\/a> Elihu aga<\/span>in addresses human contingency in reference to the most powerful humans. People cannot hold God accountable (v. 17b<\/a>), but it is God who condemns wicked rulers, shows no partiality to the wealthy, and <\/span>exacts punishment. It is true that God acts in this way. The question that Elihu fails to consider is whether his policies are defined by and grounded in such involvement. Does God have options?<\/p>\n

What <\/span>we are seeing is that just as Job has drawn false inferences about governance from his understanding of God (inferences about the centrality and execution of the RP<\/a>), Elihu is drawing other inferences<\/span> (based on his reinterpretation of the RP<\/a>). Though both have a basically sound comprehension of the attributes of God, both are wrong (in different ways) about what inferences can therefore be drawn.<\/p>\n

<\/span>In 34:21\u201330<\/a> we find the next stage of Elihu\u2019s case for God. He begins by affirming God\u2019s omniscience, particularly as it relates to his omnipresence. God has access to every place, and thus, in his ro<\/span>le as judge, he has immediate access to all pieces of evidence. He is omniscient and has no need to gather information, no need for research, testimony, or trial (\u201cno need to examine,\u201d 34:23<\/a>; \u201cwithout<\/span> inquiry,\u201d 34:24<\/a>). He simply acts to carry out judgment. Some of the cases of judgment are final (\u201cshatters,\u201d 34:24<\/a>; \u201coverthrows\u201d or \u201ccrushes,\u201d 34:25<\/a>) and may take place out of the public eye (\u201cin the<\/span> night,\u201d 34:25<\/a>). Other types of punishment are done in public (34:26<\/a> uses a word specifically connected with public beatings).<\/p>\n

In 34:29\u201330<\/a> Elihu turns his attention to an issue that is closer to home.<\/span> Up to this point he has been talking about God taking responsibility to maintain justice, but what if God remains silent? Indeed, this is precisely the content of Job\u2019s complaint. He has noted God\u2019s silence in terms of his failure to respond to the deeds of the<\/span> wicked and his inattention to the pleas of the suffering righteous. Elihu maintains that God has a right to such a silence and thus impli<\/span>es that Job is presumptuous to be critical of God on this count. Elihu also contends that God\u2019s silence does not allow one to conclude that God is an absentee landlord. Though one may not perceive it, God is still at work to prev<\/span>ent negative situations from developing.<\/p>\n

Having offered a defense of God\u2019s apparent indifference (which addresses indirectly one of Job\u2019s major complaints), Elihu now prop<\/span>oses a hypothetical course of action (34:31\u201333<\/a>). Commentators offer a wide variety of interpretations of verse 31<\/a> because the terseness of language creates confusion for the modern reader. The verb tr<\/span>anslated by the NIV<\/a> as \u201cI am guilty\u201d (na\u015ba\u02beti<\/span>) is a common enough verb (\u201clift up, raise\u201d), but it usually communicates its meaning through combination with an object (e.g., hand, head, face, sin, eyes<\/span>, voice\u2014all with their own idiomatic values), and here there is no object. What is Job supposed to lift up and with what purpose?<\/p>\n

The decision must be made on the basis of 34:32\u201333<\/a>. In verse 32<\/a> there <\/span>is no admission of offense, only the willingness to be shown offense and the commitment to deal with it once it is made known. Furthermore, verse 33<\/a> speaks of the absence of repentance. We must theref<\/span>ore conclude that verse 31<\/a> does not contain repentance or admission of guilt. Instead, it would logically refer to the person adopting a posture of confidence\u2014standing tall in the dock with head held <\/span>high.<\/p>\n

The last verb in verse 31<\/a> (NIV<\/a>: \u201coffend\u201d) is first person imperfect and therefore suggests the person is offering a statement about present or future behavior. It could not easily be read as a s<\/span>tatement about the past (i.e., \u201cI have committed no offense\u201d). The verb is rarely used and the only other occurrence of the Qal is in Nehemiah 1:7<\/a>. It may well be that this should be read as his deter<\/span>mination not to act corruptly. Corrupt behavior would result in the kind of compromising of his integrity to which the friends have been urging him. If this is the case, then the attitude attributed to Job here is similar to that which he stated himself <\/span>in 27:1\u20136<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Support for this view of 34:31<\/a> comes in 34:32<\/a>. Here the person in the dock (presumably representing Job in Elihu\u2019s little vignette) req<\/span>uests that he be charged with specific offenses if they are known. He demands a formal accusation from the prosecution. In this sequence Elihu has characterized Job accurately in terms that are consistent with the dialogue section of the book. As Job has refused to repent, Elihu makes his <\/span>case as he asks Job what he expects God to do (34:33<\/a>). Elihu implies that he has expressed Job\u2019s expectations <\/span>in this confrontation and thus insinuates that Job\u2019s request is impious. Though Elihu has characterized Job\u2019s posture correctly, has he rightly identified Job\u2019s expectation? What does<\/em> Job expect to re<\/span>sult from the legal confrontation that he requests?<\/p>\n

Elihu\u2019s assessment is that Job wants God to \u201creward\u201d him on Job\u2019s terms. The verb NIV<\/a> translates \u201creward\u201d (\u0161lm<\/span>,<\/em> Piel) usually expresses something mo<\/span>re along the line of compensation or recompense in legal contexts. Most agree that the thrust of the first line is to challenge Job concerning his apparent belief that he can call the shots and drive the process according to his understa<\/span>nding. Elihu\u2019s affirmations about God through the middle section of this chapter have led to this climax. God is in charge and cannot be called to heel as Job has been attempting. This posture of Job\u2019s is what Elihu then identifies in <\/span>34:36\u201337<\/a> as he summarizes what he perceives to be Job\u2019s offense. That offense is not something that occurred prior to his downfa<\/span>ll, but it has become evident in his response to his downfall. Elihu\u2019s call, then, is: \u201cStand down, Job!\u201d Now that he has issued his summary indictment, Elihu will develop his understanding of Job\u2019s offense in more detail in the next chapter.<\/p>\n

Transcendence of God (Job 35<\/a>)<\/p>\n

Elihu\u2019s summary of Job\u2019s putative position presents Job as expecting to benefit from his righteous behavior (35:3<\/a>). As I indicated earlier, that may indeed be Job\u2019s expec<\/span>tation, but that does not mean it is his motivation. If, however, we could imagine Job\u2019s response to Elihu (which he never gives), he might object that he is not<\/em> looking for profit or gain from not si<\/span>nning; he is<\/em> expecting that he would be protected from major devastations. The semantic distinction might be that any profit Job might expect would be in protection, not in material prosperity. Argue <\/span>as we may, however, it is Elihu\u2019s rhetorical style to be reductionist and to engage in hyperbole.<\/p>\n

Elihu\u2019s first point of reply is that any human being\u2019s righteousness or wickedness has no effect on Go<\/span>d whatsoever. In these affirmations Elihu offers a concise refutation of the Great Symbiosis. As discussed in the Introduction, this symbiosis is benefit-focused: The gods reap benefits from the labor of humans, and the humans reap benefits from the favor of the gods. In its ancient Near Eastern form,<\/span> people were providing material support for the gods (food, clothing, housing, etc.).<\/p>\n

In Job, no o<\/span>ne is advising Job that he should be more involved in the care and feeding of the gods, but there is still an element of the Great Symbiosis in the assumption that Job has offended God and therefore disrupted the<\/span> Great Symbiosis. Offense would often take the form of intruding on divine prerogatives. In this way the other friends were encouraging Job to adopt the Great Symbiosis thinking; Elihu, by contrast, accuses him (as the Challenger had) of falling prey to that kind of thinking. Again, he is wrong about Job but right about God. The other friends spoke incorrectly about God because they viewed him as involved in <\/span>the Great Symbiosis <\/span>system. Elihu becomes the defender of God by denying the validity of the Great Symbiosis. The difference that righteous or wicked behavior makes must be vie<\/span>wed only horizontally (affecting the human world) rather than vertically (affecting God).<\/p>\n

In 35:8\u201313<\/a> Elihu contrasts two different ways of approaching God. The first involves prayers for relief from o<\/span>ppression (35:9<\/a>); the second involves a search for God and recognition of his grace as he teaches wisdom (35:10\u201311<\/a>). Elihu suggests that God is not responsive to the former (35:12\u201313<\/a>). In this he sugg<\/span>ests that people should be more interested in coming to know God better rather than on trying to get God to solve their problems. He should be the object of our inquiry rather than the object of our complaints. He is n<\/span>ot at our beck and call and cannot be called to heel like a dog\u2014he is our Maker<\/em>!<\/p>\n

As Elihu thus emphasizes God\u2019s transcendence over his immanence (introduced in 35:5<\/a>) he suggests that<\/span> we need to show a little more recognition of our place. If God\u2019s \u201cjob\u201d is not to field people\u2019s complaints, then Job should not expect God to be responsive to his calls for attention. Elihu would say that we should th<\/span>ink in terms of responding to God rather than God responding to us. God responds according to his own purposes and timing. People cannot call him to account for the way he interacts with them nor to criticize him in accordance with their own expectations.<\/span><\/p>\n

In this Elihu again offers a valid understanding of the nature of God. In Elihu\u2019s view Job has made the mistake of thinking th<\/span>at he is important. This sense of self-importance is out of proportion but is characteristic of people who think that God is micromanaging their personal circumstances (e.g., as Job does in 7:17\u201324<\/a>). <\/span>He believes that Job has diminished God by the way he thinks about him.<\/p>\n

Summary and Closing Remarks\u2014The Acts of God (Job 36\u201337<\/a>)<\/p>\n

As Elihu introduces his last speech, he again indicates that he views himself as speaking on behalf of God. Elihu\u2019s insistence that people recog<\/span>nize God\u2019s transcendence (again the title \u201cMaker\u201d14<\/a> in 36:3<\/a>, to keep us in our place) is entirely appropriate and not open to discussion. At the same time we can see that he continues to believe that <\/span>justice is the foundation of God\u2019s policies and behavior. In the end, this view is not going to be endorsed in the book. Ultimately, God does not defend his justice and does not posit justice alone as the foundation of his policies.<\/span><\/p>\n

Elihu appears to have an elevated view of himself (\u201cknowledge from afar,\u201d 36:3a<\/a>; \u201cperfect in knowledge,\u201d 36:4b<\/a>). The word translated \u201cafar\u201d (lemera\u1e25oq<\/span>) refers sometim<\/span>es to distance in relation to divine (2 Sam. 7:19<\/a>; 2 Kings 19:25<\/a>, information of an arcane nature). At other times, it refers to distance in relation to the human world (relative to sound, Ezra 3:13<\/a>, <\/span>or sight, Job 39:29<\/a>). Elihu is claiming the former. This is consistent with his earlier claims that God has given him this understanding (32:8<\/a>). It would mean little for him to claim that his knowledg<\/span>e is exotic (from faraway places). When he describes himself as \u201cperfect [tammim<\/span>] in knowledge,\u201d we easily misunderstand his claim. Even though he is prone to hyperbole and may be engaging in it here,<\/span> he is only saying that his opinions (which he is about to put forward) are consistent and coherent. The adjective tammim<\/span> is related to integrity.15<\/a> Opinions that have an internal integrity are soundl<\/span>y reasoned and well-thought out.<\/p>\n

In the remainder of Elihu\u2019s speech he waxes eloquent on the might of God, introducing the topic with the adjective kabbir<\/em>. Of its ten occurrences in Hebrew Bible, seve<\/span>n are in Job and the remainder in Isaiah.16<\/a> The contexts are widely disparate. Only one other occurrence in Job is used as a divine attribute (34:17<\/a>). The other occurrences serve to modify wind, wealt<\/span>h, and years of life. In Isaiah it describes a loud roaring and the power of waves in flooding, and in its negation it refers to feeble survivors of Moab. An English adjective approaching a similar range of meaning might be \u201cinexorable.\u201d It speaks of t<\/span>hat which cannot be opposed or even withstood. Such things are relentless and overwhelming. Something so described represents a force to be reckoned with\u2014a juggernaut.<\/p>\n

The view of God that Elihu offers balances the ideas that though God is inexorable, he does not therefore simply run roughshod over humans indiscriminately. He is not incognizant o<\/span>f people and their situations (my interpretation of \u201che does not reject\u201d\u2014to care little for something or devalue it through disdain or neglect). In contrast, God\u2019s inexorability is guided by a \u201cfirm \u2026 purpose\u201d (<\/span>NIV<\/a>). The \u201cstrength of heart\u201d (lit. trans.) with which God is characterized is the opposite of indiscriminate neglect. Instead, he has a determined posture and steadfast policy regarding hi<\/span>s treatment of humanity, though that does not mean he is predictable. Again, Elihu identifies this divine policy as the RP<\/a>\u2014the wicked are punished while the righteous are rewarded (36:6\u20137<\/a>). He elabora<\/span>tes by asserting that not only does God act according to this principle, but he also communicates (36:9\u201310<\/a>), thus giving people opportunity to change their ways and their circumstances (36:11\u201312<\/a>). As <\/span>before, God\u2019s character is accurately perceived, but his policies are misrepresented.<\/p>\n

After characterizing the wicked as unresponsive to God\u2019s promptings (36:13\u201314<\/a>), Elihu makes a bold transition from<\/span> third person plural forms to second person singular in 36:16\u201321<\/a> to draw out the implications for Job personally. The Hebrew is particularly difficult and interpretations range widely. In 36:16<\/a> Elihu <\/span>suggests that God would like nothing better than to restore Job to a status of blessing. The verb that NIV<\/a> translates as \u201cwoo\u201d typically refers to trying to persuade someone to follow a course of acti<\/span>on that they either do not want to pursue or should not pursue. Here the meaning would have to be the former\u2014Elihu portrays Job as disinclined to accept the generous offer of God to resolve his situation. In Elihu\u2019s mind, Job has demonstrated this disinclination by refusing to back down and ad<\/span>opt a submissive posture before God. He considers Job\u2019s strident demands to be evidence of the intractable position he has adopted.<\/p>\n

Job 36:17<\/a> then explains that Job has brought this judgment of God on himself\u2014not by prior sin (as the other friends were persuaded) but by his self-righteous posture before G<\/span>od; yet evil is evil. In the remainder of this section Elihu turns to exhortation (36:18\u201321<\/a>). We need to determine what courses of action Elihu is warning against and assess whether they realistically<\/span> describe a behavior to which Job is prone.<\/p>\n

In 36:18<\/a>, the word translated \u201centice\u201d is the same verb that was translated \u201cwoo\u201d in 36:16<\/a> (swt<\/span>). There it described a course of action offered by God that <\/span>Job was disinclined to follow; here, the subject of the verb is someone who is presumably trying to lure Job into pursuing a course of action he should resist. Elihu expresses the idea that Job, in his present condition, is so attracted to wealth and power that<\/span> he would be vulnerable to those who offered it in conjunction with oppressive schemes. If Job has found his righteous behavior incapable of delivering success and prosperity, he may be amenable to gaining it in other less honorable ways. As we have seen throughout Elihu\u2019s speeches, this is an inaccurate characterization of Job, who has demonstrated that his motivation is not wealth or power, but righteousness. As the other friends did, Elihu is representin<\/span>g a sort of thinking that one could pursue in seeking to understand suffering. Elihu\u2019s system differs from the friends, but as readers we see that Elihu\u2019s understanding is inadequate.<\/p>\n

Elihu rightly observes that the short-term gain of accepting unrighteous profits would, in the<\/span> end, have unsatisfactory results. This leads to his concluding admonition that Job should resist turning to evil, a course of action that Elihu alleges Job might soon opt for as a resolution to his a<\/span>ffliction. Elihu has indicted Job for accusing God of injustice and adopting an attitude of self-importance and self-righteousness. He views this as only one step short of abandoning the idea of a just<\/span> God and becoming an opportunist willing to take profit in a world where God is inattentive and justice is only an idle wish (Ezek. 9:9<\/a>). The proverbial slippery slope Elihu presents begins with part<\/span>icipating in get-rich schemes, then accepting bribes, and inevitably descends to displacing innocent people in the middle of the night.<\/p>\n

In summary, Elihu suggests that if Job seeks to regain wealth an<\/span>d power through evil, he will simply be exchanging his current affliction for another one. It could not be fairly said that Job chose<\/em> his current affliction, but if turning to evil is the choice he ma<\/span>kes, he will<\/em> be choosing the affliction that will inevitably result.<\/p>\n

The description of God\u2019s cosmic power in 36:22\u201337:13<\/a> is one of the most eloquent in the Hebrew Bible. Elihu begins by identifying G<\/span>od\u2019s power as a means by which he teaches. The noun for \u201cteacher\u201d used here (moreh<\/span>) occurs in only five other passages.17<\/a> Syntactically, this passage presents the teaching as being accomplished by God<\/span>\u2019s exaltation<\/em> of his strength. This latter verbal form (\u201cexalt,\u201d Heb. \u015bgb<\/span>) occurs approximately twenty times, but this is the only time it occurs in the Hiphil. In general the root refers to being li<\/span>fted up for the purpose of security and protection. Usually the objects of the verbal action are vulnerable before they are secured (these occurrences use the Piel form) or are secure because they have been so lifted up (like a city that is lifted up and therefore secure in its defense, <\/span>Isa. 26:5<\/a>). When it is God or God\u2019s name that is lifted up, the verb describes the divine state (secure) and the<\/span>refore its invulnerability (these occurrences use the Niphal form of the verb).<\/p>\n

Presumably Elihu\u2019s speech uses the Hiphil because God\u2019s own strength, not an alternate outside force, secures his positi<\/span>on. This secured, exalted position makes him an unsurpassable teacher because his instruction cannot be gainsaid. The next verse verifies this reading\u2014no one can question him. This proclamation of the general greatness of God draws to a close with the exclamations in <\/span>36:26<\/a>. When Elihu declares that God\u2019s years are unsearchable, we may prefer to translate mispar<\/span> (NIV<\/a>: \u201cnumber\u201d) as \u201caccount\u201d because<\/span> the count<\/em> of the years is ultimately insignificant. The question is, can they be accounted for?18<\/a> That is, can God\u2019s biography be written? Elihu\u2019s few meager observations scarcely begin this report.<\/p>\n

Now we come to Elihu\u2019s recitation of some of the mighty acts of God, mostly related to precipitation, thunder, and lightning. His description of precipitation in 36:27\u201328<\/a> has drawn some interesting co<\/span>mments over the years. Some are inclined to see Elihu as offering a scientifically sophisticated understanding of the water cycle, including evaporation and condensation.19<\/a> This idea would anticipate <\/span>its scientific confirmation by millennia and one might wonder why, if that was what Elihu was understanding, that the scientific knowledge did not develop much earlier.<\/p>\n

Much of this interpretation dep<\/span>ends on the translation of the Hebrew verbs gr\u02bf<\/span> (NIV<\/a>: \u201cdraws up\u201d) and zqq<\/span> (NIV<\/a>: \u201cdistill\u201d). The first occurs only here and the second appears in this verbal stem only elsewhere in Job 28:1<\/a> (NIV<\/a>: \u201crefi<\/span>ned\u201d).20<\/a> This ought to make us cautious about concluding that they represent scientific innovation. We do not have a clear idea of what gr\u02bf<\/span> means, and zqq<\/span>, with its connection to refining and filterin<\/span>g, most logically concerns how salt water in the cosmic seas (perhaps those above and below?) becomes fresh water in rain.<\/p>\n

Before drawing conclusions such as these, we should explore what people in th<\/span>e ancient world thought about precipitation and see if Elihu offers a dramatically different conclusion. One author\u2019s assessment of the ancient worldview concludes that they believed that \u201cthe drops of water are taken from the celestial reservoirs, trickle through the firmamen<\/span>t, and collect into clouds, which then finally cause the rain to fall.\u201d21<\/a> This is as good a guess as any, but it is lacking<\/span> clear, nonpoetic substantiation in the texts. The difficulty arises from the fact that the ancients did not concern themselves very much with material explanations since the phenomena were beyond their ability to investigate.<\/span>22<\/a> Not only were the means absent, so was the motivation.<\/p>\n

In the ancient worldview, the germane questions concerned who controlled the weather, not how weather phenomena oper<\/span>ated. They wanted to know who could send rain or withhold it and why they would do so. We might seek to control the weather by understanding the mechanics by which it works and then seeking to infiltrate those mechanics in order to manipulate the causes to produce more suitable results. Such manipulation is still l<\/span>argely beyond our capacity, so we content ourselves with reading the indicators and understanding the workings sufficiently to predict <\/span>tolerably well what will happen. For the ancients, if they were to seek to control the weather by understanding the mechanics, they would be in the r<\/span>ealm of theology, not meteorology. They did not believe there were material causes independent of deity, so why bother investigating them? Since the mechanics were ultimately theological, their attempts to infiltrate and manipulate the weather system were also theological.<\/span><\/p>\n

Under these conditions, it is clear why the ancient world would have little concern for being able to describe the material pr<\/span>ocesses. When they offer any thoughts on the matter, they are couched in poetry, as in Elihu\u2019s speech, and are related to divine activity. We might compare the brief and broken description in the Babylonian Creation Epic, <\/span>Enuma Elish<\/span> 5.49\u201350: \u201cHe [Marduk] collected it [presumably Tiamat\u2019s spittle, though the previous lines are broken] and rolled it into the clouds.\u201d23<\/a><\/p>\n

In Elihu\u2019s comments we can se<\/span>e that he also is describing divine action, not material mechanisms (\u201cHe<\/em> draws up \u2026\u201d); in fact, he explicitly notes that it is beyond understanding (\u201cWho can understand how he spreads out the clouds?\u201d<\/span> 36:29<\/a>). He shows no inkling that he is receiving new revelation about the hydrologic cycle, and we would be surprised to find God introducing such a scientific innovation in this context.<\/p>\n

The rain is<\/span> ultimately delivered to the \u201cstreams\u201d (NIV<\/a>; Heb. \u2018ed<\/span>). This is that same problematic word that occurs in Genesis 2:6<\/a> (its only other occurrence), where it refers to how the earth was watered. It may <\/span>be instructive to excerpt from the study of this word that I included in my Genesis commentary in this same series.24<\/a><\/p>\n

The term has posed difficulties to translators on three counts: the context is obs<\/span>cure, the lexical base is small (only one other occurrence, Job 36:27<\/a>), and the comparative Semitic data have been variously interpreted. Thus we find quite a variety of translations offered (e.g., \u201cm<\/span>ist,\u201d \u201cflood,\u201d \u201cwater,\u201d \u201cstreams\u201d). Lacking contextual, synchronic, and diachronic information, it is no surprise that our exegesis must be considered tentative. Contextually \u02beed<\/span> can be distinguished <\/span>from rain in that rain comes down while \u02beed<\/span> comes up. Synchronic information (that which is derived from how contemporary authors used the word) draws from Job 36:27<\/a> only that the \u02beed<\/span> was the recipien<\/span>t of rain.<\/p>\n

Diachronic information (that which is derived from the etymology, constituent parts, other uses of the root, or cognate usage of the word) is a generally unreliable source of information ab<\/span>out a word, but must suffice when synchronic information is lacking.25<\/a> Two connections have been suggested: one to the Sumerian ID,<\/em> which refers to subterranean fresh waters (followed, e.g., by Wester<\/span>mann and Wenham); the second to Akkadian edu<\/span>, which refers to waves or the swell of a body of water (followed, e.g., by Speiser and Hamilton).<\/p>\n

Tsumura makes a case that \u02beed<\/span> refers (among other things)<\/span> to the regular inundation of the major river systems.26<\/a> As such it stands in contrast to rain so that both represent the two major ways that water fertilized the land in the ancient Near East. The in<\/span>undations would be mentioned in relation to people working the ground because the annual inundations were only made useful by the digging of irrigation canals to channel the water profitably. It is also true that the inundation rises (to match the verb in v. <\/span>6<\/a>). In Akkadian usage edu<\/span> was believed to arise from the apsu<\/em>, the subterranean waters.27<\/a><\/p>\n

The thrust of verses 5\u20136<\/a> in an interpretive paraphr<\/span>ase is as follows: \u201cNo shrubs or plants were yet growing wild (for food) because God had not yet sent rain; and people were not yet around to work the ground (for irrigation) so the regular inundations saturated the ground indi<\/span>scriminately (thus no food was being grown).\u201d A creation text from Nippur sets the scene for creation in a similar way by saying that waters did not yet flow through the opening in the earth and that nothing was growing and no furrow had been made.<\/span>28<\/a><\/p>\n

In the decade since that was written, little has changed in our ability to understand the word.<\/p>\n

Elihu\u2019s discourse on the w<\/span>eather continues in 36:29\u201337:5<\/a> with discussion of thunder and lightning. The focus is still on God\u2019s control of these phenomena and the evidence they provide of his rule (36:31<\/a>). His rule is expressed<\/span> in providing the food supply necessary for survival. This is the way he governs the people (not NIV<\/a>\u2019s \u201cnations\u201d\u2014the present term does not refer to political rule). Furthermore, the Hebrew word that N<\/span>IV<\/a> translates \u201cgoverns\u201d (dyn<\/span>) is one that typically refers to judging. It is by means of providing or withholding food that God brings justice on the people.<\/p>\n

This reminds us that the focus of Elihu\u2019s <\/span>discussion is on God\u2019s justice. We may not understand his justice (36:29<\/a>), but even the cattle recognize his hand at work (36:33<\/a>). This is the conclusion that he draws in 37:5<\/a>\u2014it is God\u2019s<\/em> voice that t<\/span>hunders, and it is beyond human understanding. Elihu notes the unfathomable nature of all of this by assigning it to the category of nipla\u02beot<\/span> (NIV<\/a>: \u201cmarvelous ways\u201d). This term is used when something <\/span>is classified as divine and therefore impossible for humans to grasp (e.g., when God or his messenger\u2019s name is requested and is told it is \u201cwonderful,\u201d as in Judg. 13:18<\/a>; cf. Gen. 18:14<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Elihu illus<\/span>trates the way this unfathomable instrument of judgment works in 37:6\u201313<\/a>. Extreme weather is debilitating to agricultural work. All meteorological phenomena continue to be seen as the direct work of G<\/span>od (note particularly that his breath produces ice, 37:10<\/a>, not the cold temperatures and their effect on molecules of H2O). All of it takes place at his command (37:12<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Elihu concludes this section b<\/span>y returning to his main point: Through this activity God punishes or shows his favor\u2014weather is an instrument of his justice (37:13<\/a>). This is surely the sense of this line though the Hebrew is far fro<\/span>m transparent. The main dilemma is whether the verse offers two possible scenarios or three. NIV<\/a> treats it as two (punishment or love), but the syntax favors three (for a rod [= punishment], for his l<\/span>and [= neutrality with regard to people], or for his loyalty [= blessing]).<\/p>\n

Elihu\u2019s speech concludes as he addresses Job directly again in 37:14\u201324<\/a> and urges him to consider the \u201cwonders\u201d (nipla\u02beot<\/span>, a<\/span>s in 37:5<\/a>) of God. This strategy is intended to cause Job to recognize his false presumption that he could comprehend what God was doing and critique his policies. Elihu\u2019s posing of rhetorical questio<\/span>ns to prompt Job\u2019s recognition of God\u2019s great works in nature (37:15\u201316<\/a>) foreshadows the approach of God in the next chapter. He also challenges Job to envision himself in God\u2019s role (37:18<\/a>), which is<\/span> likewise part of Yahweh\u2019s challenge (40:10\u201314<\/a>). Yahweh\u2019s challenge concerns the enforcement of the RP<\/a>, however, while Elihu\u2019s concerns involvement in creation.<\/p>\n

The cosmological comments in 37:18<\/a> requ<\/span>ire some specific attention. In the first line Elihu poses the question to Job about whether he thinks he could join God in \u201cspreading out the skies.\u201d Both the verb and its direct object are of interest he<\/span>re. The verb is from the root rq\u02bf<\/span> (11x), which is related to the noun raqia\u02bf<\/span>, used in Genesis 1:6<\/a> (NIV<\/a>: \u201cexpanse\u201d). The verb in some of its forms appears in metallurgical contexts, referencing th<\/span>e technical work of preparing metals for overlaying wood (e.g., Ex. 39:3<\/a>; Num. 16:39<\/a>).29<\/a> In other contexts it refers to trampling (e.g., 2 Sam. 22:43<\/a>; Ezek. 6:11<\/a>).30<\/a> The remaining three occurrences re<\/span>fer to cosmology (Ps. 136:6<\/a>; Isa. 42:5<\/a>; 44:24<\/a>\u2014all referring to God spreading out the earth on the waters).31<\/a> Job 37:18<\/a> stands uniquely apart from these other occurrences in both its verbal form (the o<\/span>nly Hiphil) and its direct object (connected with the \u201cskies\u201d instead of the earth). When the Qal form is active indicative, as it is with this root, the Hiphil typically involves a double direct object (someone causes D.O.<\/span>1 to do D.O.2). The use of the Hiphil thus suggests that the role posited by Elihu for Job is not as passive as \u201cjoin with him\u201d might imply. It rather puts Job in the position o<\/span>f control and cause with God as his instrument. The object (here, God) is viewed as participating in the event, to \u201cparticipate indirectly as a second subject\u201d rather than serving as the primary actor.<\/span>32<\/a> Job is thus hypothetically portrayed by Elihu as directing God in this cosmological process.<\/p>\n

As Elihu concludes his speech, he confronts Job with a question that Job himself has considered: \u201cWhat <\/span>in the world do you think you would say to him if you got your request of a day in court?\u201d (cf. 37:19<\/a>). Job has already anticipated this problem (9:14\u201320<\/a>) and, like Elihu, held out little hope for the<\/span> prospect. Elihu wonders why anyone would ask for the inevitable trouble that would result (37:20<\/a>). When God approaches, his majesty is overwhelming. Elihu\u2019s description of this in 37:22<\/a> anticipates Y<\/span>ahweh\u2019s entrance a few verses later.<\/p>\n

Elihu, however, is mistaken in his assertion that God is beyond human reach, though he is right that God is exalted in power (37:23<\/a>). God is going to demonstrate t<\/span>hat he is both beyond human reach (transcendent), yet accessible in his immanence.<\/p>\n

As interpreted in the NIV<\/a>, Elihu ends with a rhetorical question (37:24<\/a>).33<\/a> Part of this decision is based on the ide<\/span>ntification of the \u201cwise in heart.\u201d Is it referring to those who actually are wise or to those who think they are wise? To begin the discussion, we might inquire as to why Elihu uses \u201cwise of heart\u201d instead of just \u201cthe wise.\u201d M. Fox investig<\/span>ates the use of the combination of hakam<\/em> and leb<\/em> and suggests that it functions as a designation of those who have been given the wherewithal to exercise wisd<\/span>om, though it has yet to be gained, developed, or exercised.34<\/a> In many contexts this would make sense, but a previous use in 9:4<\/a> presents a problem for this analysis because it is traditionally transl<\/span>ated as a reference to God. There is reason, however, to suggest an alternative translation. Rather than God being identified as the one whose \u201cwisdom is profound and power is vast\u201d (NIV<\/a>), the descrip<\/span>tion could be taken as a reference to the one who wishes to dispute with God (9:3<\/a>). Even though such a one might be wise and powerful, he does not escape unscathed. It is the next verse that adopts Go<\/span>d as its subject.<\/p>\n

\n
\n\n\n\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>Excursus on \u0160ahaq<\/span><\/p>\n

The identification of the object being spread out also proves problematic. The word translated \u201cskies\u201d (\u0161e\u1e25aqim<\/span> in the plural) is often rendered \u201cclouds\u201d in its twenty-one occurrenc<\/span>es.1<\/a> Nevertheless, it must be noticed that in this context, 37:21<\/a> (again, \u201cskies\u201d) cannot possibly refer to the clouds since it specifically refers to a cloudless sky. Furthermore, 2 Samuel 22:12<\/a> spea<\/span>ks of the \u201cclouds of the \u0161e\u1e25aqim<\/span>,\u201d indicating that the clouds are part of the \u0161e\u1e25aqim<\/span>, rather than the \u0161e\u1e25aqim<\/span> being clouds. It would be nonsensical to say \u201cclouds of the clouds.\u201d We should also no<\/span>te that in another cosmological context, it is obvious that establishing the \u0161e\u1e25aqim<\/span> refers to an act of creation rather than to something God does now and then (Prov. 8:28<\/a>).<\/p>\n

In light of these data, <\/span>we must undertake a fresh examination of the \u0161e\u1e25aqim<\/span>. In terms of their role we find that they are never identified as the source of rain (as clouds would be), but are identified as the source of oth<\/span>er forms of moisture. The verbs used to express this (nzl<\/span>, Job 36:28<\/a>; Isa. 45:8<\/a>; and r\u02bfp<\/span>, Job 36:28<\/a>; Prov. 3:20<\/a>) are connected with dew.<\/p>\n

Structurally, the \u0161e\u1e25aqim<\/span> are part of the heavens (\u0161amayim<\/span>) an<\/span>d can appear parallel to the heavens (Deut. 33:26<\/a>; Job 35:5<\/a>, as can raqia\u02bf<\/span>). They are said to contain the doors of heaven through which manna came (Ps. 78:23<\/a>). Their appearance is described as \u201chard a<\/span>s a mirror of cast bronze\u201d (Job 37:18<\/a>). From these structural data, I would propose that \u0161e\u1e25aqim<\/span> pertains to the solid sky, a common component of ancient Near Eastern cosmology. It is commonly accept<\/span>ed that the Israelites also believed in a solid sky, but usually scholars identify that solid sky with the raqia\u02bf<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Given this fresh analysis of \u0161e\u1e25aqim<\/span>, I would propose that raqia\u02bf<\/span> refers to the spac<\/span>e created when the \u0161e\u1e25aqim<\/span> were put in place. This would explain why the birds and sun and moon are seen to be in<\/em> the raqia\u02bf<\/span>. Both \u0161e\u1e25aqim<\/span> and raqia\u02bf<\/span> can be used parallel to \u0161amayim<\/span>, and perhaps the<\/span>y could be viewed as constituting the plurality of \u0161amayim<\/span>. Some cosmological literature from Mesopotamia describes the solid sky as being composed of three levels of stone, and the texts detail what <\/span>stone each is made of and which gods are associated with each.2<\/a> The regular use of \u0161e\u1e25aqim<\/span> in the plural may plausibly suggest that the Israelites also thought in similar terms.<\/p>\n

This proposal require<\/span>s an explanation of three potentially problematic passages in order to be confirmed. The customary translation of Job 38:37<\/a> indicates the \u0161e\u1e25aqim<\/span> can be counted (Piel of spr<\/span>). \u201cCount\u201d is certainly on<\/span>e of the possible meanings of this verb (though typically with the Qal, while this verse has a Piel), and if it is to be retained, we might consider whether it refers to counting the levels of heaven. The Piel and Pual forms o<\/span>f the verb regularly refer to giving an account through report or proclamation. In these occurrences, the context almost always indicates someone to whom the report or account is being given. Fortunately, <\/span>Job 28:27<\/a> offers us a similar type of syntax and context in which wisdom is the object of the verb (NIV<\/a>: \u201cappraised\u201d).3<\/a> I would therefore conclude that Job 38:37<\/a> is not <\/span>referring to \u201ccounting the clouds\u201d but to \u201cappraising the nature of the [solid] skies.\u201d4<\/a><\/p>\n

The next problem arises when we try to understand the significance of the two passages where the singular \u0161a\u1e25aq<\/span><\/span> is used. In Psalm 89:6\u20137<\/a> the text describes \u0161a\u1e25aq<\/span> as the place where God and the divine council reside. If we are right to think of the plural as referring to multiple levels of heaven as in Mesopo<\/span>tamia, we could suggest that, like the Babylonians, they associated a particular level with the location of God\u2019s heavenly residence. Thus the plural was used to refer to all the levels as a component of the cosmos, but one particular one was where God dwelt. Likewise, <\/span>Psalm 89:37<\/a> would be seen as a reference to one particular level where the faithful witness was established.<\/p>\n

Finally, by far the m<\/span>ost difficult context is Isaiah 40:15<\/a>. All translators have struggled with this because the context refers to the insignificance of the nations and clearly demands something like \u201cdust\u201d on the scales.<\/span> This perception is strengthened by the parallel to a drop in a bucket in the previous line and to \u201cfine dust\u201d in the following line. Yet it is odd to take a word that otherwise refers to a macro-component of the cosmos and translate it as \u201cdust.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

The solution that I have to offer combines the needs of this context with the previously mentioned idea that the \u0161e\u1e25aqim<\/span> were understood as the source <\/span>of the dew. In ancient Near Eastern texts the source of dew is the stars,5<\/a> which are believed to be engraved on the underside of the lowest level of the solid sky.6<\/a> This would demonstrate that connect<\/span>ions between the dew, the stars, and the solid sky were made in the ancient Near East. Based on the association with stars, another Akkadian term emerges as significant for this discussion. The Akkadi<\/span>an term burumu<\/span> refers to the level of the skies that hold the night stars and specifically describes the appearance of the stars as specks.7<\/a> In the context of Isaiah 40:15<\/a> the nations would then be li<\/span>kened to the appearance of the night sky (the starry \u0161a\u1e25aq<\/span>\u2014not all the levels, just that one) on the scales. They would thus be considered specks on the scale. The interpretation of the passage would<\/span> not change, but this reading clarifies the metaphor. Isaiah refers to the great multitude of parts making up the whole (same as drops in a bucket) and the corresponding insignificance of each one. The scale metaphor introduces the concept of assessment\u2014the nations are being weighed, measured, assessed, and judged.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n

With this modification as caveat, Fox\u2019s assessment of the nature of the designation \u201cwise of heart\u201d suits well the sixteen contexts in which the two terms occur together.35<\/a> The result of this analysis as it regards Elihu\u2019s statement is that rather than a rhetorical question, it is his final conclusion that God cannot be swayed by those who would qualify as the wisest among humanity (whether in the estimation of others or in their self-assessment). People fear (= respect) him because they are no match for him.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n

Elihu\u2019s Rhetorical Role in the Book<\/strong><\/p>\n

I have suggested that the three friends are representatives of ancient Near Eastern thinking and that they unwittingly press the case of the Challenger. If the friends had persuaded Job to comply with their advice, the Challenger would have won his case. Job would have thus shown that prosperity was his highest priority rather than righteousness itself.<\/p>\n

That is not so with the argument of Elihu. If Job were to accept Elihu\u2019s accusations as truth, he would not thereby betray self-interested motives (though Elihu does also believe that Job\u2019s motives are questionable). Elihu is not advising Job as to how he can get back in favor with God to have his prosperity restored (as the friends were). Elihu instead is holding Job accountable to God. This contrast demonstrates that Elihu\u2019s discourse properly belongs in this section of the book where Job\u2019s case against God is being treated (\u201cIt is bad policy for righteous people to suffer\u201d) rather than the Challenger\u2019s case (\u201cIt is bad policy for righteous people to prosper\u201d).36<\/a> Elihu believes that Job deserves his treatment because of his self-righteous attitude in which he justifies himself at the expense of God\u2019s reputation.<\/p>\n

We can identify the parameters of Elihu\u2019s claims from his speeches:<\/p>\n

1. He defends God from the charge of evil (34:10<\/a>, 12<\/a>, 17<\/a>).<\/p>\n

2. He defends God\u2019s justice (36:3<\/a>; 37:23<\/a>).<\/p>\n

3. He accepts the paradigm of the RP<\/a> (34:11<\/a>; 36:11\u201312<\/a>).<\/p>\n

4. He agrees with the Challenger about Job\u2019s motives (35:3<\/a>).<\/p>\n

5. He accuses Job of the sin of self-righteousness and considers that to be the reason for Job\u2019s suffering (34:35\u201337<\/a>); this is the only point that differentiates him from the other accusers.<\/p>\n

6. His emphasis is on righteousness, not the Great Symbiosis, though he questions whether God needs human righteousness (35:7\u20138<\/a>).<\/p>\n

To clarify Elihu\u2019s position we need to return to the triangle diagram offered in the Introduction (pp. 42\u201344<\/a>). There I observed that Elihu seeks to defend the corner of the triangle that represents God\u2019s justice and thus to offer a theodicy. It is an \u201ceducative theodicy\u201d that sees suffering as a means of bringing potential problems to our attention so that they can be remedied. Elihu modifies the RP<\/a> even as he defends it. His modification is that suffering is not just God\u2019s response to past sin; it can also preempt future or potential sin. He also modifies the triangle with regard to his understanding of Job\u2019s righteousness. Having redefined the scope of the RP<\/a> (preventive, not only remedial), he now faults Job for his self-righteous response to suffering. So God\u2019s justice is maintained (theodicy) because Job really has committed a serious offense (indictment) and the (revised) RP<\/a> remains intact as the foundation of God\u2019s policies in the world. In this position he refutes the friends, whom he considers guilty of counseling Job to bribe God with repentance of things he did not do in order to gain his riches back (36:18<\/a>), and he refutes Job, whom he considers guilty of undermining God\u2019s justice by subordinating God to his own sense of self-righteousness.<\/p>\n

As we assess Elihu\u2019s position, we can affirm some of his beliefs about Job and God, but we must reject others. He is patently right in his condemnation of Job\u2019s self-righteous attitude\u2014not suggesting Job has been deceptively hiding massive crimes against humanity and maintaining a duplicitous life that has finally caught up to him (the implications made by the friends). No, Elihu has rightly identified Job\u2019s willingness to defend himself at the expense of God.<\/p>\n

At the same time, Elihu is wrong about Job\u2019s motivations. Elihu despises the Great Symbiosis attitude and believes that Job is still harboring a desire for benefits. Job has amply demonstrated that prosperity at any cost is not the driving motivation of his life.<\/p>\n

Elihu is right about God when he insists that God is not accountable to us and that his justice, along with all other aspects of his character, is unassailable. We cannot question God; we cannot do his job better; we dare not impugn his governance. God is not contingent, and we should not think that his actions are subject to our evaluation or correction.<\/p>\n

Though he is therefore right about the nature of God\u2019s person, Elihu is wrong about the nature of God\u2019s policies. He continues to have an inadequate theodicy and does not seem to realize that in attempting a theodicy, he is falling prey to the same fault of which he accuses Job\u2014he overestimates his ability to bring coherence on the basis of justice. God will present his policies very differently in his own speeches, and we will find that human attempts at theodicy are inevitably presumptuous.<\/p>\n

What is Elihu\u2019s contribution to the book? Could we do without him? Though we can affirm much of Elihu\u2019s theology, he is not intended to be a doctrinaire voice instructing the reader in sound theology. His theology simply forms another component of his rhetorical role, and it is that rhetorical role that is his raison d\u2019\u00eatre in the book. In turn, that rhetorical role is essential to the book and its message. Without Elihu\u2019s voice, readers might have a tendency to idealize Job and to conclude that his response to his suffering was impeccable. In light of Elihu\u2019s sound rebuke of Job\u2019s self-righteousness, however, we are all warned against thinking that our suffering should properly instigate a challenge of God. Job\u2019s other friends had discovered no cracks in the fa\u00e7ade of Job\u2019s character; Elihu, in contrast, reveals gaping wounds.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, the philosophical contribution of Elihu plays a significant role. He begins to call into question the RP<\/a> insofar as he does not seek to identify sin in Job\u2019s behavior prior to the onset of suffering. Though he does not go far enough, through Elihu we, as readers, can begin to detect the philosophical vulnerability of the RP<\/a>. Elihu\u2019s most important philosophical role, however, is that he is the sole figure to attempt a theodicy, and the failure of his attempt shows that a reasoned theodicy such as the one he proposes cannot be the answer to suffering. God is above reproach, but theodicies of our own devising easily fall short. Thus Elihu, in his failure, effectively shuts down a significant philosophical approach to understanding suffering in the world. At the same time, he has represented the third angle of the triangle. With all three angles having been defended and found wanting, the book has arrived at the point anticipated in Job 28<\/a>, that a solution lies in a different direction than the triangle could provide.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Elihu\u2019s Theology<\/p>\n

We have suggested that Elihu offers a largely accurate (biblically speaking) picture of God, but a flawed understanding of how God\u2019s policies work (specifically the issue of theodicy)<\/span>. In this section we will explore Elihu\u2019s theology and philosophy as we unpack its truths as well as its distortions.<\/p>\n

Spirit of God and man.<\/strong> Elihu\u2019s understanding of the divine spirit is nonpersonal; that is, God\u2019s spirit is never articulated in trinitarian terms in which the Spirit is a distinct person of the godhea<\/span>d. As in the rest of the Old Testament, the spirit is an extension of God\u2019s power, presence, and authority.37<\/a> It is viewed as part of God\u2019s person, but not as a distinct person.<\/p>\n

Elihu\u2019s view of the hu<\/span>man spirit appears to be that it is a gift on loan from God. This also is a view consistent with other Old Testament passages. In this view, the spirit in Elihu, for example, is God\u2019s spirit in Elihu, not Elihu\u2019s spirit. I<\/span>n these elements Elihu can be seen to have theological ideas that Israelites would have agreed with, but that have been superseded in modern theology. New Testament revelation about the Holy Spirit has given us new ways to think about the spirit of God in the Old Testament. On the human side of the equation, we continue to understand the human spirit as a gift from God, but we are more inclined to consider it more than<\/span> <\/span>just an invigorating power. It is often seen as bearing the identity of the human person beyond death into eternity. Christian theologians and philosophers<\/span> continue to debate the constitution of the human person (e.g., monism vs. dualism), what survives death in eternity and what existence beyond death will be like. There is no unanimity on that issue, but none of the positions align with Israelite beliefs. Consequently, Elihu does not offer us guidance on how to formulate a comprehensive doctrine of eith<\/span>er the Spirit or the human spirit.<\/p>\n

Revelation and the word of God.<\/strong> Elihu does not make claims of special inspiration. He views his wisdom as like that of any wise person, for all wisdom finds its source in God (32:8<\/a>). Like a prophet he<\/span> feels ready to burst under the compulsion of his message (32:18\u201319<\/a>), but he has no oracles to offer under the rubric of \u201cthis is what the Lord says,\u201d and it does not present his argument as having it<\/span>s source in revelation from God. Elihu takes the mantle of a sage, not of a prophet.<\/p>\n

No one can \u201cout-God\u201d God (<\/strong>33:12<\/strong><\/a>).<\/strong> This is one of Elihu\u2019s strongest and most important points. Its message should ring in our souls. One of the most persistent human errors is the belief that God is no<\/span>t doing a very good job, which implies that given the chance, we could do it better. This is precisely the mentality evident in Job\u2019s responses throughout the book, and this is what Elihu attacks most vigorously.<\/span><\/p>\n

When the world doesn\u2019t work the way that we think it should, we are inclined to manufacture solutions in our minds that will address either our situation or the situation that concerns us<\/span> (famine in Africa, child prostitution in the Far East, oppressive tyranny in this country or that). We are inclined to make it seem like a simple fix. We are rarely able to imagine the complications or collateral damage\u2014a problem portrayed in modern application by the movie <\/span>Bruce Almighty<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The human plight is a consequence of our fallenness. No aspect of that human plight can be addressed in isol<\/span>ation. Addressing one aspect of it is insufficient, and the only true resolution is in eliminating human sin. Practically speaking, that means the problem would be addressed only by obliterating sin\u2014which would mean obliterating humanity (or, of course, initiating a process to redeem it). Our shortsighted a<\/span>nd inadequate solutions only register as naive hubris when visualized to scale in relation to the majesty of God and the magnitude of the problem. We are mistaken to think of God as handling it poorly; God is no bumbler.<\/span><\/p>\n

We should not even imagine that it is complicated for God or that he is<\/span> somehow fraught with anxiety wondering how he can manage it all. For us there would be constant angst in finding the line between justice and mercy. For God, however, his attributes intertwine and apply in seamless <\/span>perfection. This is not an affirmation we can make because we understand how that all happens and can be explained; it is the conviction of our faith that it is so. Such is Elihu\u2019s ins<\/span>istence, and we can be grateful for the reminder and the challenge that it brings.<\/p>\n

Perverting justice?<\/strong> Job and his friends believe that if the RP<\/a> is not maintained, God could be accused of perverting justice. Elihu\u2019s modification of the RP<\/a> in defense of God and his construction of a<\/span> theodicy suggest that he agrees (34:12\u201315<\/a>). Many people throughout history have thought the same way in response to their suffering. Consequently we must ask whether it is so.<\/p>\n

If we were to believe t<\/span>hat justice could be assessed by the RP<\/a>, we would have to develop a complex understanding of the principle. Elihu gives us a good example as he seeks to include both preventative and remedial aspects <\/span>in his attempt to address what constitutes the offense that stimulates God\u2019s response. It becomes even more complicated than Elihu\u2019s modifications address. Two other factors, timing and proportionality, must also be considered.<\/span><\/p>\n

With regard to timing, we would have to determine how often the accounts must be balanced for justice and the RP<\/a> to be maintained. Should judgment and reward be given decad<\/span>e by decade? Month by month? Day by day? Moment by moment? What would meet the demands of justice? The psalmist addresses this issue when he asks \u201cHow long?\u201d in the midst of injustice (Pss. 13:1<\/a>; 82:2<\/a><\/span>), or when he accepts a longer span of time between action and retribution (Ps. 37:25\u201326<\/a>).<\/p>\n

With regard to proportionality, the principle is that great righteousness should bring great reward; inversel<\/span>y, great wickedness should bring great judgment. This is fine in theory, but how do humans, with all of their limitations, assess the scale of one\u2019s wickedness or righteousness? How do we measure what is enough reward or enough judgment for one\u2019s actions? All of these unknowns make it impossible for humans t<\/span>o make this assessment.<\/p>\n

The result is that we may well recognize that we cannot discern how<\/span> the RP<\/a> should work in all cases, but we believe we can recognize a travesty of justice when we see it, or even more so, when our personal situations are involved. I would therefore suggest that most <\/span>attempts to tie justice to the RP<\/a> amount to little more than special pleading for our own circumstances to be worked out more conveniently and comfortably. We really have no inkling how to make a whol<\/span>e system work consistently; we only know that it is not working to our satisfaction. We may talk about theodicy, but God is less of a concern than our personal claims of unfairness and our (less than objective) assessment of what would constitute our \u201cjust deserts.\u201d Consequently I would suggest that the true issue when people today cite <\/span>failure of the RP<\/a> is not really a concern about the perversio<\/span>n of justice; it is purely and simply disappointment with God that he did not work things out better for us.<\/p>\n

God as judge.<\/strong> When we think of God as judge, we might consider the issue of his gathering of evidence and then weighing that evidence to arrive at a verdict. We have some sense of how this works in a <\/span>court of law, and the Israelites also had beliefs about how the judiciary system works. Though their system differed at many points from our own, all people would share the idea that a judge ought to gather all possible evidence and then sift through it to arrive at a just decision. Despite this ideal, we all recognize that a human judge has limitations that can undermine, if not crip<\/span>ple, his ability to do his job. People may do things in secret places hidden from view of any potential witness. At times the important factor of their motivations could be involved. Furthermore, it was not unusual for a case to come down to one person\u2019s word against another. Any of these can hinder a judge\u2019s work or invalidate his verdict.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In Job 34:21\u201324<\/a> Elihu suggests that God is not subject to such limitat<\/span>ions. In Psalm 139<\/a> the psalmist confirms this as he affirms that God knows everything we think (139:2\u20134<\/a>), that we can do nothing in secret (139:7\u201312<\/a>), and that he knows us intimately (139:13\u201316<\/a>, which<\/span> presumably includes our motivations). In this psalm these affirmations are part of the claim that God is therefore not a judge who suffers under the limitations of human judges. He has all the necessary inf<\/span>ormation at his disposal and therefore should be able to execute justice perfectly. Elihu concludes with an affirmation that God indeed does judge fairly. Though he has all power and is not accountable, \u201che does not oppress\u201d (<\/span>Job 37:23<\/a>). He is respected among men not as a result of his intimidating power, but for his justice (37:24<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Aseity and contingency.<\/strong> We reiterate what was stated in Original Meaning: God does not need us but we need him; God is not accountable to us but we are accountable to him. The Great Symbiosis has been<\/span> one of the background discussion points in the book. It is a system that was based on gods who had needs. The gods of the ancient Near East were contingent beings. They not only needed what human beings provided for their continued sustenance, they needed one another to ensure the continuing operations of the cosmos, as well as those principles that had been woven into the <\/span>cosmos. Polytheism is a contingency network. Further contingency is evident in the positioning of the gods in the cosmos. The ancient Near Eastern gods were inside the cosmos, not outside it. Many aspects of the cosmos were not set up by them and not subject to their authority. Consequently, they were contingent with relation to the cosmos just as they were to humans and one another.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Another piece of the picture of Elih<\/span>u\u2019s view of God\u2019s aseity is that he values transcendence over immanence (35:6\u20137<\/a>). When we discuss transcendence and immanence today, we often think in terms of the level of God\u2019s involvement with us. <\/span>In Elihu\u2019s elaboration, he is more interested in our potential involvement with God. Our wickedness has no impact on him and our justice adds nothing to him. Today we often talk about how our sin grieves God and our righteousness delights him. To an extent these are true descriptions of how our behavior succeeds or fail<\/span>s to coincide with God\u2019s character and wishes. But we go too far if we begin to think of God\u2019s emotional stability as dependent on human behavior. If we think that our behavior is something that can be dangled over his head to motivate him to certain sorts of action, we have again reduced him to a contingent being.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In Elihu\u2019s speech we find a notably Israelite-shaped theology that posits a noncontingent deity. The God whom Elihu defends has no accountability (35:9\u201315<\/a>) and no<\/span> subordination. This is sound theology and a needed element in the theology of the book.<\/p>\n

Accessibility.<\/strong> If God is judge, then one might think he ought to be accessible because in human terms, what good is a court system if no one can ever have their case heard. Yet if God is transcendent,<\/span> such that our wickedness or righteousness does not affect him significantly, why should he bother? It is fine to affirm that God is a competent, even perfect judge, but is he accessible?<\/p>\n

In the book <\/span>of Job, God\u2019s lack of accessibility has been one of Job\u2019s greatest complaints. Elihu\u2019s portrayal is of a God who is not accessible (37:23<\/a>). Elihu\u2019s opinion would be that God does not need our promptin<\/span>g to do justice and he should not be bothered with our petty requests. \u201cDon\u2019t worry, he is doing his job and he shouldn\u2019t be bothered with your challenges or demands.\u201d God should not be viewed as working the customer service desk. People should be content to view<\/span> him from afar to learn about him and respect him. Job should not have thought for a moment that God would respond to his desire for a hearing. We should be more concerned with responding to God rather than trying to get him to respond to us.<\/span><\/p>\n

Is this sound theology? I believe that we should see wisdom in it and be cautioned by it. God,<\/span> of his own will, has drawn near to us. From the very beginning, he has loved us and wants to be in relationship with us; this came to clearest expression in the incarnation of Jesus Christ. This immanence, however, can be abused, and we must be careful not to impose on his grace and generosit<\/span>y. I do not refer to how close we feel to him, but to the sort of familiarity where we might feel we have an inside track to influence his behavior of receive special favors.<\/span><\/p>\n

We often hear \u201cIt is not what you know, but who you know that counts\u201d in our world, where power is wielded and influence-peddling a<\/span>ccomplishes things. Our governments are beleaguered by lobbyists seeking influence for their clients to affect public policy and accomplish their corporate objectives. There is power in being an \u201cinsider.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

It is not surprising, then, that a natural human inclination is to want to have \u201cinsider\u201d status with God. This is the accessibility that Elihu would most denounce, and rightly so. God is not su<\/span>bject to our influence-peddling or our attempts to exploit a relationship with him to achieve our goals. We must not overstep our privileges or presume on his grace. We insult him with our demands for more information as if he needed to be reminded of his responsibilities or explain what we might think are questionable actions.<\/p>\n

God\u2019s control of weather for justice.<\/strong>38<\/a> Elihu suggests that God uses the weather as one of his instruments to carry out justice (37:13<\/a>). Yahweh\u2019s speech to Job is going to qualify this (38:25\u201327<\/a>), but<\/span> not negate it. Our theology can affirm that God is able to use the weather for his purposes, but there are limits to our ability to determine when that is the case. The question then is not \u201cWhat can God d<\/span>o?\u201d but \u201cHow would we know whether any given weather-related phenomenon is communication of God\u2019s favor or disfavor?\u201d To answer such a question we need to enter a discussion of divine communication specifically as it relates to epistemology (How we know what we know?), beginning with Elihu.<\/span><\/p>\n

In Job 33<\/a> Elihu offers the theoretical underpinnings of his theology. He begins with Job\u2019s claim that <\/span>he is righteous yet has become God\u2019s target (33:9\u201311<\/a>). Elihu contends that Job is incorrect in his complaint that God has refused to answer his pleas (33:12\u201314<\/a>), and here he gets to his main point: Go<\/span>d communicates in a variety of ways (Elihu mentions dreams and pain as two examples), and he does so in a variety of circumstances (33:17<\/a>, remedial [turn from wrongdoing] or preventative [keep from pr<\/span>ide]).<\/p>\n

One of the areas of sharpest distinction between the ancient world and our modern world concerns how we think God communicates. How do we believe that we can know how God communicates and know <\/span>what he is saying? What convinces us that we know what we believe we know? Modern Christians believe that they can know about God through the Bible because of their beliefs about the nature of the Bible. We further believe that some information about God is available from the blunt facts observable in the world around us (<\/span>Rom. 1:20<\/a>). We also believe that God communicates through his Holy Spirit. T<\/span>hese are three elements of our epistemology that distinguish us from the world around us. Others in our world, more skeptical of the claims of Scripture and about the existence or involvement of God, <\/span>might believe that we can only know things that our senses perceive or that can be demonstrated naturalistically or scientifically.<\/p>\n

By contrast, the epistemology of people in the ancient world include<\/span>d many other ways that deity communicated. Some believed that he communicated through the movements of the heavenly bodies, through the configuration of the entrails of animals, through the strange behaviors of animals in the world around them, and through dreams\u2014just<\/span> to name a few. What we understand as meteorological phenomena were also seen as a means by which God communicated. Some continue to think that today when they interpret a tsunami, a hurricane, a tornado, or a flood as acts of God\u2019s judgment.<\/span><\/p>\n

A middle ground position that is more common today is that it may well be true that God i<\/span>s judging through natural disasters, but we have no reliable interpretive methodology by which we can receive that communication. Consequently, the credibility we lend to those who claim such prophetic ability has greatly diminished. For Elihu and his audience, however, the epistemologica<\/span>l premise is uncontested even when a variety of interpretations might be possible. Weather is a communicative instrument of God.<\/span><\/p>\n

Are we supposed to adopt this epistemology as biblically mandated? We cannot do so on the strength of Elihu\u2019s assertions, because he is not always correct. Sound bites from Elihu\u2019s s<\/span>peech cannot be used for theological proof texts. What he says must be verified from other canonical texts before they can be taken as truth. In this case Yahweh\u2019s speech offers important qualifiers that must supersede Elihu\u2019s blunt statements (this will be discussed further in the next chapter, pp. <\/span>414\u201315<\/a>).<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Contemporary Significance<\/p>\n

\n
\n

Sense of self-importance. In this topic we find one of the great mysteries that we struggle with all the time. Our theology tells us that God cares about every aspect of our lives. Scripture tells us he knows the number of hairs on our head. Our moment-by-moment circumstances are important to him. We believe that he is involved in our lives and that nothing that happens is outside of his control. This is all sound theology.<\/p>\n

At the same time, we share Elihu\u2019s caution about thinking of God micromanaging every second of our lives. An illustration might help. Once after a Christmas visit to the east coast, my wife and I were driving back to the Midwest. In western Pennsylvania we encountered blizzard conditions and the roads became treacherous. As I tried to move carefully and gradually from a middle lane to the right lane I found that the car was not responding to my steering. When I tried to stop moving over, the car continued its slide toward the edge of the road. We slid past the shoulder and up onto a rocky embankment, which finally gave me sufficient traction that I was able to steer back toward the shoulder. However, the rocks of the terrain had given me a flat tire, and when I got back to the shoulder, that wheel stopped working and the car pivoted 180 degrees to end up facing the opposite direction, thankfully still on the shoulder. Shaken, but relieved that we had been spared injury or serious accident, we thanked God.<\/p>\n

As we waited for the tow truck and thought back through the experience, we realized how very fortunate we had been. All along that stretch of highway there were sections with deep drop-offs and others with rock walls. Sliding off the road in places like those would have been disastrous. We were thankful that we slid off the road where we did rather than in more dangerous locations.<\/p>\n

Now to the theology. When we thank God in such situations, what role are we imagining for him? If we think that he was involved in protecting us from sliding off the road where there was a cliff, does that mean he orchestrated our sliding off the road where we did? In that case, why didn\u2019t he prevent us from sliding off altogether? Would it be appropriate to think of him with control of the wheel or the tires or the road or the placement of rocks? On one hand, we might well be reluctant to say that God had nothing to do with any of those things. On the other hand, I suspect that we would all feel reticent about thinking of God as selecting the place, guiding the steering wheel, and making sure that certain rocks were hit. Where is the line between a deism that posits an uninvolved God, and a micromanagement of everyone\u2019s circumstances down to the smallest detail (a form of what is sometimes called \u201cmeticulous providence\u201d)?<\/p>\n

Elihu\u2019s opinion was that when anyone thinks of God as paying close attention to the details of our lives and micromanaging our circumstances, we are giving ourselves too much importance and trivializing God\u2019s role in the cosmos. Yet what is the alternative? Do we believe that God is not really involved in the details and is only engaged in the larger issues? Here lies mystery. While we can err on the deism extreme or on the micromanagement extreme, we can also err by thinking we can sort it all out and figure out how God works or does not work. The error of \u201cGod too small\u201d is committed when we misrepresent at one extreme or the other, but it is also committed when we think we can fully describe the nature of his involvement. To believe that his work could so easily be defined is to reduce him to something manageable. We must be content with mystery. I can thank God for protecting us and be grateful that we did not slide off the road at a more dangerous spot. But I must stop short of trying to detail all of the aspects of his involvement.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, Elihu is right that we should be reluctant to think of ourselves as at the center of God\u2019s attention and worthy of his continuous involvement in our circumstances. Yet we should not be surprised that we are never \u201coff the radar\u201d and on our own. Again, the line between is part of the mystery that we can never fully understand. We should be willing to think less of our own importance and always willing to give more credit to God.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Christian responses to natural disasters.<\/strong> The world was shocked at the devastation caused throughout the Far East by the tsunami that struck on the day after Christmas in 2004, caused by the Sumatra-A<\/span>ndaman earthquake (the third largest ever recorded) in the Indian Ocean. The death toll was nearly a quarter of a million people. Was that an act of God? Some were quick to affirm it as such; others were unpersuaded and echoe<\/span>d Abraham\u2019s comment to God, \u201cFar be it from you to do such a thing\u2014to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?\u201d (<\/span>Gen. 18:25<\/a>).<\/p>\n

The following spring I had a student in my class from one of the devastated areas of Indonesia. In one conversation with her I asked whether she ha<\/span>d lost family or loved ones in the tragedy. She replied that gratefully all were safe, and then she told me a remarkable story. In recent years there had been a thriving Christian community living in the coastal region, her family included. The dominant Muslim population of that area, however, had become belligerent and had begun persecuting the<\/span> Christians, taking their homes and driving them from the area. Over several years the Christians were all driven inland. Then the tsunami struck and virtually wiped out the population of their oppressors.<\/span><\/p>\n

It would be easy to see how the Christians of t<\/span>hat community would conclude that justice had been done\u2014God had used the tsunami to punish evildoers. They got what they deserved. That was indeed the immediate response, but the wise and godly pastor began to push their thinking in a different di<\/span>rection. The tsunami, he insisted, was an opportunity for the Christians to show love to their enemies by coming to the aid of those who had persecuted them. He urged his congregation to gather medical supplies, food, and clothing and to travel to their old community and help those who had survived. What a challenge!<\/span><\/p>\n

That pastor offers a lesson to all<\/span> of us. Though it may well be that God has used a disaster to execute justice, it is not our job to take a seat next to him on the judge\u2019s bench to proclaim his deeds and add our renunciation to what <\/span>we perceive as his verdict. God\u2019s verdicts are often sealed, and we cannot know their content. Our job, rather than taking up a cry of renunciation, is to respond with grace and mercy. God is the one responsi<\/span>ble for doing justice. We are asked to be forgiving and merciful. This was the model Jesus gave us. It is articulated in the Sermon on the Mount and is illustrated in his interaction with his own enemies.<\/span><\/p>\n

One remarkable illustration of this balance of justice and mercy is in the contested story of the woman caught in adultery in John 8:3\u201311<\/a>. The force of the story has been captured brillia<\/span>ntly by Orson Scott Card in his fantasy novel Speaker for the Dead<\/em>.39<\/a><\/p>\n

A great rabbi stands teaching in the marketplace. It happens that a husband finds proof that morning of his wife\u2019s adultery, and a<\/span> mob carries her to the marketplace to stone her to death. (There is a familiar version of this story, but a friend of mine, a speaker for the dead, has told me of two other rabbis who faced the same situation. Those are the ones I\u2019m going to tell you.)<\/span><\/p>\n

The rabbi walks forward and stands beside the woman. Out of respect for him the mob forbears and waits with the stones heavy in their hands. \u201cIs t<\/span>here anyone here,\u201d he says to them, \u201cwho has not desired another man\u2019s wife, another woman\u2019s husband?\u201d<\/p>\n

They murmur and say, \u201cWe all know the desire. But, Rabbi, none of us has acted on it.\u201d<\/p>\n

The rabbi <\/span>says, \u201cThen kneel down and give thanks that God made you strong.\u201d He takes the woman by the hand and leads her out of the market. Just before he lets her go, he whispers to her, \u201cTell the lord magistrate who sa<\/span>ved his mistress. Then he\u2019ll know I am his loyal servant.\u201d<\/p>\n

So the woman lives, because the community is too corrupt to protect itself from disorder.<\/p>\n

Another rabbi, another city. He goes to h<\/span>er and stops the mob, as in the other story, and says, \u201cWhich of you is without sin? Let him cast the first stone.\u201d<\/p>\n

The people are abashed, and they forget their unity of purpose in the memory of thei<\/span>r own individual sins. Someday, they think, I may be like this woman, and I\u2019ll hope for forgiveness and another chance. I should treat her the way I wish to be treated.<\/p>\n

As they open their hands and le<\/span>t the stones fall to the ground, the rabbi picks up one of the fallen stones, lifts it high over the woman\u2019s head, and throws it straight down with all his might. It crushes her skull and dashes her b<\/span>rains onto the cobblestones.<\/p>\n

\u201cNor am I without sin,\u201d he says to the people. \u201cBut if we allow only perfect people to enforce the law, the law will soon be dead, and our city with it.\u201d<\/p>\n

So the woman died<\/span> because her community was too rigid to endure her deviance.<\/p>\n

The famous version of this story is noteworthy because it is so startlingly rare in our experience. Most communities lurch between decay an<\/span>d rigor mortis, and when they veer too far, they die. Only one rabbi dared to expect of us such a perfect balance that we could preserve the law and still forgive the deviation. So, of course, we killed him.<\/span><\/p>\n

It is not within our ability to decide what are acts of God or what are not. It is not our place to take up the role of prophet announcing doom. It is our responsibility to come alongside hurt<\/span>ing people, even if they are enemies, and offer assistance in the name of Christ. We promote justice insofar as it is within our ability to establish it. God will do his part.<\/p>\n

Pain as God\u2019s megaphone.<\/strong> In Job 36:9\u201310<\/a>, 15<\/a>, Elihu asserts that God communicates wrongdoing by inflicting suffering and pain. Again, we cannot take Elihu\u2019s theological pronouncements as reliable becau<\/span>se of his role in the book, so we have to examine whether they are accurate or not.<\/p>\n

C. S. Lewis is well-known for expressing a similar perspective on pain: \u201cBut pain insists on being attended to. God <\/span>whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks to us in our conscience, but shouts to us in our pains: it is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world.\u201d40<\/a> In the movie version of Lewis\u2019s life, Shadowlands<\/em>, he is s<\/span>hown as repeating that line in several lectures, but coming to reject its insensitive naivet\u00e9 when faced with the deep suffering of his friend, and eventual wife, Joy Davidman Gresham.<\/p>\n

It is undeniabl<\/span>y true that pain shouts to us and that it must be attended to. It is also biblically supportable and theologically sound that God can use pain and suffering as a response to wrongdoing. The problem comes when we see<\/span>k to move from those observations to generalizations about what suffering intrinsically is and how God is characteristically related to it. We can readily and appropriately conclude that suffering and pain can serve to draw our attention to God, rely on him, and perhaps in self-evaluation, discover behaviors or attitudes that should be corrected. But we should be more cautious about suggesting that pain and suff<\/span>ering be always viewed as God\u2019s instrument for accomplishing any of those goals. We cannot adopt <\/span>a view of suffering that sets up those potential results as God\u2019s reasons<\/span> for bringing suffering into our lives.<\/p>\n

Kelly\u2019s Story41<\/a><\/p>\n

Armed with these reflections, we turn back to Kelly to see how they function when people are actually suffering.<\/p>\n

JHW: Does the idea of pain as God\u2019s megaphone appeal to you? Does it h<\/span>elp you to process your experiences?<\/p>\n

Kelly: When I think of the idea of pain being God\u2019s megaphone, I do not reject the idea, but I also don\u2019t relate to it either. I can relate to entertaining the tho<\/span>ught that God is causing these things to happen to correct some major sin in my life. But the more I thought and prayed about that idea, the more I found that wasn\u2019t the case. As you said, there is biblical support that God can use pain to draw our attention to him, bring us closer, teach us things, refine us in the fire, if you will. But I see a big difference<\/span> between God using the pain that occurs in your life, and God putting the pain in your life as a megaphone to communicate to you that things need to change.<\/span><\/p>\n

I was in a car accident and suffered from an injury that has left me extreme amo<\/span>unts of pain. That statement is a sign of the reality that we live in a broken, fallen, and imperfect world. I don\u2019t believe that God caused my brother to fall asleep at the wheel and have a nearly fatal car accident in order to use that as his megaphone to correct sin in our liv<\/span>es. In the same tone, I don\u2019t believe the devastation of the unending pursuit of pain relief is God\u2019s megaphone either. So \u201cpain as God\u2019s megaphone\u201d approach is not one I relate to; rather, when I am in trials that have come from circumstances, I pray that God will use the trial to teach and prune me.<\/span><\/p>\n

JHW: How does Eli<\/span>hu\u2019s position strike you? Do you feel that his assertions have the potential of offering any comfort or resolution as you deal with your day-to-day circumstances?<\/p>\n

Kelly: Elihu\u2019s position, although it <\/span>has some faults, strikes me as a strong and important perspective that was needed in the conversation with Job and in our conversation about suffering in the present day. His assertions are applicable to one in the midst of suffering or <\/span>any believer because I think we can easily fall into these faulty mind-sets and views of God. Given how Elihu\u2019s position was written, I would not say that if I were Job, I\u2019d feel \u201ccomforted,\u201d but we should be comforted that he was right about God\u2019s <\/span>character. We worship a God who is bigger than the box that we, and Job, create for him. I would much rather be co<\/span>rrected in my distorted view of God than worship a God who was in fact petty, accountable, or contingent in the way that Job\u2019s arguments imply, and we should take comfort in that.<\/p>\n

Even though Elihu wa<\/span>s not accurate about Job\u2019s motivations, he was right to correct Job\u2019s view of God. Elihu\u2019s attack on Job\u2019s mentality that he can \u201cout-God\u201d God was one that we so often need to correct in our own lives. Elihu\u2019s position i<\/span>s one that can help in the day-to-day circumstances because we have a choice in how we respond to our suffering, and I think Elihu\u2019s challenges to Job\u2019s view of God are ones to keep in our minds. So often we let our experiences on earth dictate God\u2019s character.<\/span><\/p>\n

With these assertions in mind, we can check ourselves when we are in a deep trial to see if our perspective of God is <\/span>aligning with Job\u2019s and needs to be corrected. During the spring of 2011, when I was on the long drive back from California, I was confused and upset that once again I felt the Lord had opened all the<\/span>se doors and led me in, only to experience pain and disappointment, and to waste thousands of dollars I didn\u2019t have on something that did nothing for me. I began seeing myself starting to challenge God, but this time I was in a trial and felt more equipped. I had been studying Job throughout this process as we have been writin<\/span>g this commentary and reflecting on how my suffering has distorted my view of God in the past, so I began to catch myself before forming more lies in my head about God\u2019s character.<\/span><\/p>\n

I still have questions and days where I am frustrated that God did not close that door and <\/span>protect me from yet another emotional and physical rollercoaster, but overall I noticed that the questions I was asking were different and my thought process had changed as I wrestled with the unknown. So Elihu\u2019s position is directly linked with Job\u2019s faulty views of God and his character, <\/span>and I think it can be helpful day by day to keep these things in mind, but also in being careful not to adopt Elihu\u2019s entire position. We should focus on his assertions regarding how Job viewed and approached God.<\/span><\/p>\n

JHW: In your long-time experience of suffering, how satisfying is the proposal that we have to <\/span>be content with \u201cmystery in the middle\u201d?<\/p>\n

Kelly: When we consider God\u2019s involvement, we have no choice but to rest with the \u201cmystery in the middle,\u201d because drifting to either extreme downgrades God\u2019s <\/span>deity once again. But as I read that question, \u201c\u2026 how satisfying is the proposal,\u201d I guess if I am honest, I\u2019d have to say that I\u2019m not fully satisfied if I continue to ask the same questions and wrestle with that mystery. I logically see that I need to be satisfied because we are not going to get the answers to God\u2019s mysteries, yet I know that I still pray<\/span> and question God at times hoping that ma<\/span>ybe this time he\u2019ll clue me in and give me a different answer.<\/p>\n

Our own \u201csense of self-importance,\u201d as you described above, can often lead us to misconstrue God\u2019s role in the cosmos as well as bring us<\/span> to false conclusions about our own experiences. We tend to put our trial as the center focus not of just our universe, but of God\u2019s. The example that you gave about your family\u2019s near accident is one I feel is so common in Christians\u2019 thinking today. We can overspiritualize experiences and credit every positive detail to be of God\u2019s i<\/span>ntentional involvement, but those who hold that belief struggle with holding it consistently. If God is involved in every detail of the blessings in our lives, that would mean he is also involved in every detail of the painful things in life. I struggled with falling to the extreme that God micromanages, because I remember believing that God purposefully kept every medication and treatment from working in order to strengthen my testimony. This thought process reveals that I was giving myself and my testimony too much importance by <\/span>thinking that God is focusing solely on me and causing these painful situations in order to strengthen my testimony. If I rest in the middle, I might conclude that my situation is likely due to the unfortunate truth that in our fallen world we have pain, and science has not found a way to treat the pain that I suffer. God sees this occurring, mourns with me as I suffer, and wants to use it for his purpose. So even though I wrestle with it and at times question God, I do feel at peace that God is in the middle of the two extremes.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>Job 38\u201341<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Original Meaning<\/p>\n

As Clines observes, in contrast to Waiting for Godot<\/em>, in which Godot never comes, the waiting for God has now come to fruition.1<\/a> Yet many readers have wondered whether this long-awaited appearance is a mere shadow of a solution rather than the epiphany that was expected. Some readers have found God\u2019s reply to be an exercise in obfuscation meant to distract and intimidate rather than to offer real answers. It is not surprising that an answer of \u201cI am God and you are not\u201d is considered unsatisfying, leading to responses such as Bernard Shaw\u2019s reputed quip: \u201cIf I complain that I am suffering unjustly, it is no answer to say, \u2018Can you make a hippopotamus?\u2019 \u201c2<\/a><\/p>\n

Yahweh\u2019s speech begins with a series of rhetorical questions, first dealing with larger operations of the cosmos (macrocosm, 38:4\u201338<\/a>), then with the animal world (microcosm, 38:39\u201339:30<\/a>), and finally with the cosmic creatures Behemoth and Leviathan (40:15\u201341:34<\/a>). The use of rhetorical questions in a discussion about the wisdom and power of deity is also found in the Akkadian epic known as Erra and Ishum:3<\/a><\/p>\n

Who carries the pure axe of the sun, and knows \u2026 timbers?<\/p>\n

Who makes [the night?] as radiant as day and makes [people?] bow down beneath me?<\/p>\n

Where is Kusig-banda, creator of god and man, whose hands are pure?<\/p>\n

Where are the precious stones, produce of the vast ocean, fitting ornaments for crowns?<\/p>\n

Where are the seven sages of the Apsu, the holy carp, who are perfect in lofty wisdom like Ea their lord, who can make my body holy?<\/p>\n

As in the book of Job, the rhetorical questions draw out the necessary relationship between wisdom and power in matters concerning justice.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Introduction (38:1\u20133<\/a>)<\/p>\n

We must first notice that it is Yahweh<\/em> who speaks. This marks a shift in terms, because throughout the dialogues and discourses of the book, the deity has most often been identif<\/span>ied as El Shaddai or Elohim.4<\/a> The use of Yahweh in the prologue and now in the divine speeches may well have significance, but it is not transparent what it might be. One might note that Shaddai perta<\/span>ins to the power of God and the switch to Yahweh may signal a theological upgrade in how the audience ought to think about God. Such usage might suggest that when the audience only knows of God as El Shaddai, they are left with no answers to their questions. The revelation of Yahweh, however, offers greater insight. But such speculations cannot be verified.<\/span><\/p>\n

A second observation is that Yahweh come<\/span>s in the storm (se\u02bfarah<\/span>, see also 40:6<\/a>). This word has not occurred previously in Job and is found only sixteen times in the Old Testament.5<\/a> It is often used as an instrument in the hand of Yahweh in <\/span>an expression of his wrath. The storm sets the tone for the nature of the theophanic speeches of Yahweh. Another example of a storm theophany is found in Ezekiel 1:4<\/a>,6<\/a> but there we see much more deta<\/span>il. Even though the theophany in Ezekiel eventuates in the prophet\u2019s commissioning, the storm communicates God\u2019s anger at his people and, in Ezekiel 10<\/a>, his departure from the temple. In Job, Yahweh\u2019s<\/span> first words also suggest anger at Job\u2019s arrogance and presumption (supported by 40:1\u201314<\/a>). The important point is that Yahweh is not simply taking up the role of wisdom instructor; the tone of his wor<\/span>ds should be understood as a rebuke. The storm does not simply convey his power; it conveys his wrath.<\/p>\n

Consequently, as Yahweh characterizes Job, we see a clear distinction from the open admiration ex<\/span>pressed in the prologue. There Yahweh described Job as \u201cblameless and upright\u201d (1:1<\/a>); here he is one who \u201cdarkens my counsel\u201d and utters \u201cwords without knowledge.\u201d The contrast is not contradictory bu<\/span>t suggests that although Job\u2019s conduct is above reproach, his understanding is flawed. Job\u2019s perception of God is the issue that has been under scrutiny since the opening verses of the book. Job\u2019s exc<\/span>essive action on behalf of his children first raised the question of how he viewed God. The Challenger\u2019s case focused on whether Job\u2019s conduct was properly motivated. Job\u2019s speeches demonstrated shortcomings in how he understood God and his operation in the world. No<\/span>w, as God begins his speech, the negative characterization of Job is intended to indicate unambiguously that Job\u2019s assessment of God and his ways is not accurate. Yahweh is about to offer a corrective.<\/span><\/p>\n

The assertion that Job has \u201cdarkened my counsel\u201d uses a causative form of the familiar verb and noun (\u1e25\u0161k<\/span>) that contrasts with lig<\/span>ht. The other five occurrences of this causative form predictably refer to bringing night or trouble. The pairing with \u201ccounsel\u201d is unique to this passage. Yahweh\u2019s use of this word characterizes Job as considering God\u2019s plan<\/span> (\u201ccounsel\u201d) to be dark\u2014that is, sinister, devious, or even evil. In Job\u2019s reiteration of this accusation in 42:3<\/a>, he substitutes a verb that indicates obscuring or hiding. Jo<\/span>b\u2019s word choice perhaps avers that though he may have been confused about God\u2019s plan, he is unwilling to own that he has portrayed God\u2019s plan as sinister. It is no surprise that Job would be confused because he lacked knowledge; what is unacceptable is that he s<\/span>poke as if he did have knowledge. For this he is reprimanded.<\/p>\n

The reprimand takes the form of an examination as Yahweh turns the tables. I<\/span>nstead of Job playing inquisitor, a role he has taken throughout the book, Yahweh will ask the questions. Although the queries that follow are rhetorical, Yahweh states that Job should answer. The answer expected is not a reply to specific questions, but a response to God tha<\/span>t will reflect a reassessment of Job\u2019s perspective and beliefs.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

Macrocosmic Operation (Job 38:4\u201338<\/a>)<\/p>\n

In these verses Yahweh expresses his control, which comprises his power and wisdom. He communicates about macrocosmic operations using the terminology and understanding of the ancient world\u2014Job\u2019s world. In this worldview, we find a cosmic geography consistent with what we have seen throughout the book and with the general beliefs of the ancient world:7<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2022 The earth has foundations (38:4<\/a>), footings (38:6<\/a>), and a cornerstone (38:6<\/a>).<\/p>\n

\u2022 The sea has been confined behind doors with bars (38:10<\/a>).<\/p>\n

\u2022 The netherworld has gates (38:17<\/a>).<\/p>\n

\u2022 Light and darkness have locations rather than sources (38:19<\/a>).<\/p>\n

\u2022 Snow and hail are kept in storehouses (38:22<\/a>).<\/p>\n

\u2022 Lightning and east winds are locations (38:24<\/a>).<\/p>\n

\u2022 Rain is stored in water jars (38:37<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Because of this passage\u2019s poetic nature, we can appreciate these statements as poetic, in contrast to our modern cosmic geography, and thus dispense with questions of scientific accuracy. But in the ancient world, this poetry expressed the reality of common understanding, not just metaphors severed from genuine perception. Furthermore, nothing here suggests that scientific truth is being offered that diverges from how the people of antiquity perceived the world. As is true throughout the Bible, God communicates to his people on the basis of their understanding when it comes to scientific matters. It is primarily in theological matters that he pushes them beyond their cultural understandings.<\/p>\n

It should also be noted that this passage is a discussion of Yahweh\u2019s work as Creator, yet it deals not with manufacturing matter out of nothing, but with bringing organization and order to the operations of the cosmos. This supports what I have contended elsewhere, that in the ancient world people thought of creation largely in functional rather than material terms.8<\/a><\/p>\n

We should pause for further comment on a few of the details of this section. In 38:7<\/a> we encounter one of the few references in the Old Testament to the bene<\/span> \u02beelohim<\/span> (lit., \u201csons of God\u201d; the others are in Gen. 6:2<\/a>, 4<\/a>; Job 1:6<\/a>; 2:1<\/a>; the similar bene \u02beelim<\/span> occurs in Pss. 29:1<\/a>; 89:7<\/a>). In our brief discussion of the term in Job 1:6<\/a> (pp. 63\u201364<\/a>), the sons of God were seen as members of the divine council. Here we have additional information that presents them as parallel to \u201cthe morning stars.\u201d This association between the members of the divine council and the stars also occurs in ancient Near Eastern literature,9<\/a> in which the gods are considered celestial bodies, the celestial bodies are considered images of the gods, and the celestial bodies are considered to have a divine nature.10<\/a> In Ugaritic texts, the \u201csons of El\u201d or \u201csons of the gods\u201d are parallel to the \u201cassembly of the stars.\u201d11<\/a> In this way, Yahweh\u2019s speech reflects common thinking in the ancient world. The difference is that in Israelite theology, the divine council (= sons of God = heavenly host = stars) is not composed of gods with whom Yahweh shares divine authority, though he may at times delegate tasks to them.12<\/a><\/p>\n

A second issue of particular note arises in 38:25\u201327<\/a>. Throughout the book, Job\u2019s expectations have been premised on the idea that he knows how the world operates. He has assumed the RP<\/a> and therefore has embraced the belief that the world operates according to justice. These beliefs have been challenged by his experience, which cannot be explained as justice. His quandary, then, is that God, who runs the system, may not be just.<\/p>\n

The flaw in this logic is that one cannot move automatically from the justice of God to the necessity of the world\u2019s operations being just. Yahweh makes this point in 38:25\u201327<\/a>, where he notes that rain falls in places where no one lives. If justice reigned in the cosmos, rain, the provider of blessing and fertility, would target the deserving. By noting that rain falls on uninhabited lands, Yahweh demonstrates to Job that his logic does not account for reality. In effect, Yahweh asserts that justice is not the foundation of the world, nor does the cosmos operate by justice, despite the fact that he rules the cosmos and he is just. We can understand Job\u2019s confusion, yet we can also recognize the validity of the point. No one today would argue that gravity was just, for example, or that God makes decisions about when gravity should work and when it should not. Although we affirm God\u2019s control of the forces of nature, we don\u2019t believe that he micromanages the system with justice in mind for each moment\u2019s activity. Thus Job\u2019s perception of the cosmos is undermined, and his reliance on the RP<\/a> crumbles under scrutiny.<\/p>\n

A third note concerns the ancient Near Eastern context for the depictions of rain, dew, and ice in reproductive and familial terms in 38:28\u201330<\/a>. In Ugaritic texts, \u201cdew\u201d is one of Baal\u2019s daughters.13<\/a> Furthermore, some have suggested that rain was sometimes viewed as the semen of the sky god impregnating the earth with fertility.14<\/a> Despite these notions, it is unlikely that Yahweh is refuting pagan fertility ideas; rather, he is addressing Job\u2019s misconceptions about philosophical foundations, and Job shows no inclination to believe the standard elements of pagan mythology. We can therefore posit that Yahweh is pointing out Job\u2019s lack of knowledge about the source<\/em> of rain, dew, ice, and frost. Yahweh\u2019s use of the language of conception to do so demonstrates again that communication is taking place on the level of the popular thinking of the day.<\/p>\n

Finally, a word should be said about the constellations. We have already discussed in some measure the constellations in relation to Job 9<\/a> (pp. 169\u201370<\/a>). Mesopotamian cosmology held that the great gods had inscribed the stars and constellations on the underside of the heavenly dome.15<\/a> As throughout this portion of his speech, Yahweh is challenging Job about his understanding of, or ability to perform, the deeds normally associated with deity. As the Babylonian text Enuma anu Enlil<\/span> shows, the constellations and their movements were used as a source of omens and could thereby bring favor or disaster. These verses accordingly ask whether Job is able to bring about justice through the manipulation of constellations that theoretically determine fortunes on earth.<\/p>\n

This thought finds its conclusion in 38:33<\/a>, where Yahweh asks whether Job knows the laws of the heavens and can make decrees concerning the earth and its operation.16<\/a> In the ancient world outside Israel, the divine council was responsible for making the decrees by which the cosmos, society, human lives, countries, and temples functioned. These decrees were made regularly and expressed the gods\u2019 control over the cosmos. In Old Testament theology, Yahweh is the one whose decrees determine operation of the cosmos.<\/p>\n

In conclusion, this section about macrocosmic operations intends to show that Job is incapable of taking control of the cosmos to bring about justice. He has overestimated his ability to devise a cogent philosophy of the operation of the world and has underestimated the complexity of the system (note the inability to devise such systems in Eccl. 7:25\u201329<\/a>). Yahweh\u2019s questions pertain to time (Where were you when? 38:4<\/a>), to person (Who? e.g., 38:5<\/a>, 8<\/a>, 25<\/a>, 36<\/a>), and to place (On what? Where? e.g., 38:6<\/a>, 19<\/a>, 24<\/a>). They include first person comments about what Yahweh has done (e.g., 38:9\u201311<\/a>) and second person challenges regarding what Job cannot do or has not done. Job has questioned God\u2019s design and execution, so in this section God focuses on Job\u2019s faulty understanding of design and his inability to execute.17<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Microcosmic Operations (Job 38:39\u201339:30<\/a>)<\/p>\n

This section comments on eight animals, all but one of which are from the wild or even the liminal world (the world that is near the boundaries of the ordered <\/span>world).<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Verses<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Animal<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Subject<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

38:39\u201340<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Lion<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Providing food<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

38:41<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Raven<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Providing food<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

39:1\u20134<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Nubian ibex<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Mating and birthing<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

39:5\u20138<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Wild donkey<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Free ranging<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

39:9\u201312<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Wild ox (aurochs)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Undomesticable na<\/span>ture<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

39:13\u201318<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Ostrich<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Treatment of eggs<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

39:19\u201325<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Horse<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Battle readiness<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

39:26\u201330<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Hawk<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Hunting prey<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

In the ancient world, it was a common academic exercise to make lists of plants, animals, stars, and<\/span> many other things (professions, words, etc.). Such lists were a type of wisdom, so it is no surprise to find a list such as this in a biblical wisdom book. Some of the earliest forms of wisdom literature had a fable aspect founded on the characteristics or behavior of plants and animals. Hymns to g<\/span>ods likewise focus on the ways that they care for animals. One section of a hymn to Amun reads as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n

Creator of the fodder on which cattle live and the tree of life for people.<\/p>\n

He who creates what the fish in the river live on<\/p>\n

And the birds who populate the sky.<\/p>\n

He who gives breath to the one <\/span>in the egg<\/p>\n

And sustains the young of the serpents,<\/p>\n

Who creates what gnats live on,<\/p>\n

And worms and fleas as well,<\/p>\n

Who provides for the mice in their holes,<\/p>\n

And sustains the beetles in every piece of woo<\/span>d.18<\/a><\/p>\n

The eight sections in this portion of Job flow on the basis of concept bridges. Lion and raven are connected by the concept of food; raven and ibex by their young; ibex and donkey by their free-r<\/span>anging nature; donkey and ox by their untamable nature; ox and ostrich by their untrustworthiness; ostrich and horse by their relative speeds; horse and hawk by their senses from a distance; and, theo<\/span>retically, hawk back to lion by their predation.<\/p>\n

Though each of these animals could be discussed in turn, space demands that we narrow our focus. The most problematic section is the one addressing the<\/span> ostrich (39:13\u201318<\/a>). Some have objected that Yahweh\u2019s description does not accurately portray ostrich behavior, but it should be noted that the comments in the text deal with perception. Humans might <\/span>observe the ostrich\u2019s behavior and draw conclusions that the bird is negligent of its young or that it treats them harshly\u2014conclusions such as those reflected in this passage.19<\/a> In reality, the ostric<\/span>h behaves differently from other birds but is quite attentive to its very sturdy eggs.<\/p>\n

The problem, then, is in 39:17<\/a>. Yahweh does not say that the ostrich was given wisdom that humans cannot understa<\/span>nd\u2014a different kind of wisdom, as it were\u2014but that he did not endow the ostrich with wisdom at all. In evaluating this verse, it should be noted that Yahweh here oddly speaks of himself in the third person: \u201cGod [<\/span>\u02beeloah<\/span>] did not endow \u2026\u201d (see also 38:41<\/a>, though there God is object rather than subject; contrast to the first person in 39:6<\/a>). The only solution to this conundrum that I see is the conc<\/span>lusion drawn in the section on the macrocosm: that Yahweh is adopting the perspective common to humans at the time rather than making universally verifiable statements about the ontological nature of ostriches.<\/p>\n

Job\u2019s First Response (Job 40:1\u201314<\/a>)<\/p>\n

In 40:1\u20132<\/a> Yahweh concludes his first discourse by again demanding an answer from Job. As in 38:2<\/a>, it is clear that Yahweh is taking Job to task for the way that he h<\/span>as responded to his suffering. Three words characterize the criticism: Job is one who \u201ccontends\u201d (ryb<\/span>), seeks to \u201ccorrect\u201d (ysr<\/span>), and \u201caccuses\u201d (yk\u1e25<\/span>). The first verb is a legal term referring to a co<\/span>urt dispute and is used both by Job in his inquiries about why God<\/em> is contending with him<\/em> (e.g., 10:2<\/a>), and by Elihu describing Job\u2019s response to God (33:13<\/a>). The NIV<\/a> translates the second verb as if <\/span>from the verb ysr<\/span>, \u201cto instruct,\u201d though this root is never used elsewhere in the Qal form of the verb. Other interpreters, with a slight repointing of the verb, understand it as related to the root s<\/em><\/span>ur<\/em>, meaning to turn back, or, specific to this context, to withdraw or rescind a case. This suggestion makes sense in context, as \u201ccontend\u201d in the first phrase would be parallel to \u201caccuse\u201d in the sec<\/span>ond, and \u201cretract, rescind\u201d in the first would be parallel to the expected direction of the \u201canswer\u201d in the second phrase.<\/p>\n

Job\u2019s reply (40:4\u20135<\/a>) is appropriately one of submission and humility, but he <\/span>stops short of recanting. He is speechless and has adopted a stance of neutrality: \u201cI will say no more.\u201d Job has been cowed and intimidated\u2014an outcome he had anticipated as early as 9:3<\/a>, and which was<\/span> not without a level of validity\u2014but he has not yet understood the extent of his folly. Therefore Yahweh launches the second stage of his discourse.<\/p>\n

As in 38:3<\/a>, Yahweh opens in 40:7<\/a> by challenging Job<\/span> to prepare to answer as one who has wisdom (as a geber<\/span>).20<\/a> In this second challenge, however, Job is identified as one who has discredited Yahweh\u2019s justice (40:8<\/a>) in contrast to one who has questione<\/span>d the wisdom of his design (38:2<\/a>). Furthermore, Yahweh accuses Job of having defamed Yahweh in order to justify himself. We have noted from the beginning that Job considered his own righteousness the <\/span>only factor of which he could be certain. Yahweh is taking Job to task for not valuing God\u2019s justice more than his own righteousness.<\/p>\n

Yahweh offers a challenge: Let Job take up control of the cosmos u<\/span>sing the RP<\/a> that he has adopted and imposed on Yahweh. If Job were \u201cGod for a day,\u201d could he execute the RP<\/a> consistently in bringing justice?<\/p>\n

Two observations require our attention. (1) It is interest<\/span>ing that in 40:11\u201313<\/a> Yahweh speaks only of Job punishing the wicked with his endowment of power and makes no mention of ensuring that the righteous do not suffer. I suspect that this is because punish<\/span>ing the wicked would be much easier than ensuring that the righteous do not suffer, and the point will be made that Job cannot even do the former, let alone attempt the latter. (2) In 40:14<\/a> Yahweh con<\/span>cludes with the statement that if Job successfully meets his challenge, Yahweh will acknowledge that Job\u2019s own hand could save him. Why does Yahweh offer that conclusion given the previous verses?<\/p>\n

Our<\/span> interpretation begins with the recognition that 40:8<\/a> and 14<\/a> function as an inclusio to the section and therefore are parallel to one another. Job\u2019s \u201csalvation\u201d in 40:14<\/a> equates to a declaration of hi<\/span>s righteousness (40:8<\/a>). Throughout the book, Job\u2019s focus has been on his righteousness. He has not been interested in regaining his goods or his status, or in being relieved from his suffering. He wan<\/span>ts to be declared righteous and receive acknowledgment that he did nothing to deserve the tragedies that he has experienced. Thus far in the book, he has attempted to establish his righteousness by defaming God\u2019s justice\u2014or more precisely, the justice of God\u2019s policies for running the world.<\/span><\/p>\n

In God\u2019s challenge, if Job could don the mantle of divine power and demonstrate that his concept of just co<\/span>smic operation could actually be sustained, his righteousness would be vindicated and he would be \u201csaved.\u201d If he can consistently bring judgment on the wicked alone, he will vindicate his name by establishing a cosmic system operating solely on righteousness and justice. He must demonstrate that the system<\/span> he envisions (and to which he wants God held accountable) can actually work. Only in such a system would suffering be taken as evidence of unrighteousness. Only in such a system would Job need vindication in the shadow of his suffering.<\/p>\n

Cosmic Fringe Operations: Yahweh\u2019s Second Speech (40:15\u201341:34<\/a>)<\/p>\n

In this section the discussion is no longer about Job being God for a day or Job\u2019s limitations. Instead, the focus moves to how God\u2019s sys<\/span>tem should properly be seen. The discussion shifts from reprimand to instruction, from what Job cannot do to what God has done (\u201cI made,\u201d 40:15<\/a>). In the dialogues, Job wonders why God is treating him <\/span>like a chaos creature (7:12<\/a>); in the discourses, Job suggests that God is acting like a chaos creature (ch. 30<\/a>). Here in God\u2019s second set of speeches, Yahweh picks up both of Job\u2019s charges and alters <\/span>Job\u2019s fundamental assumption: Chaos creatures are in fact part of God\u2019s ordered world.<\/p>\n

Most of the ancient world believed that chaos creatures were outside of the established order and often viewed th<\/span>em as a threat to that order. In contrast, the Hebrew Bible consistently expresses God\u2019s control of chaos creatures and merges them into the ordered cosmos. For example, they are created (which entails being drawn into the ordered cosmos) in <\/span>Genesis 1:21<\/a>, and they are passive rather than threatening in Psalm 104:26<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The passages about Behemoth and Leviathan appropriately follow Yahweh\u2019s challenge <\/span>to Job to bring low all the proud (40:11<\/a>), for Leviathan is identified as the king over all who are proud (41:34<\/a>). In the discussion of Leviathan in Job 3<\/a>, I suggested that he should be labeled an \u201can<\/span>ti-cosmos creature\u201d rather than a \u201cchaos creature.\u201d These creatures exist on the fringes of the ordered world. Although creation entailed bringing order to the cosmos, the cosmos is not a totally ordered system. The fact that there is a garden of<\/span> Eden, where a high level of order exists, but also space outside the garden, where order has yet to be established, evidences the distinction. Liminal creatures (such as coyote, owl, and ostrich) are near the boundaries of the ordered world. Nonzoological creatures such as Behemoth, Leviathan, Rahab, and Tannin are not viewed as unbridled threats, but neither are they drawn totally into the ordered sphere. Nahash, the serpent of <\/span><\/span>Genesis 3<\/a>, is another example of an anti-cosmos creature.21<\/a> Anti-cosmos creatures are creations of God but are the thorn<\/span>s and thistles of the animal world.<\/p>\n

Identification.<\/strong> I do not find persuasive the suggestions that Behemoth and Leviathan are either zoological specimens or now-extinct creatures that once roamed the earth. In the former category, while <\/span>Behemoth\u2019s location among the lotus plants in the reeds of the marsh (40:21\u201324<\/a>) might bring to mind the mighty hippopotamus, the description of the tail (40:17<\/a>) makes such identification impossible.22<\/a><\/span> Likewise those who suggest some huge now-extinct plant-eating dinosaur would have trouble explaining how he is concealed among the lotus plants. In the same way, although Leviathan may have some char<\/span>acteristics of a Nile crocodile, his fire breathing (41:18\u201321<\/a>) and multiple heads (Ps. 74:14<\/a>) refute that identification.23<\/a> I suspect those in antiquity would have viewed the hippopotamus and crocodil<\/span>e as reminiscent of Behemoth and Leviathan, and perhaps even as their spawn in some sense, but Behemoth and Leviathan are the archetypes and personify abstractions that the hippopotamus and crocodile do to a much lesser degree.<\/span><\/p>\n

Alternatively, it is not uncommon to see Behemoth and Leviathan identified as throwbacks from ancient mythology. Behemoth would perhaps be represented in figurines and reli<\/span>efs of a human-headed bison, and Leviathan, also referred to in Ugaritic texts (Litan), would be the seven-headed dragon that appears on seals and engravings in Mesopotamia.<\/p>\n

A third direction taken by<\/span> interpreters posits Behemoth and Leviathan as figures known from West Semitic mythology, primarily available in the Ugaritic texts. Collins associates them with Mot and Yamm,24<\/a> while Day prefers to i<\/span>dentify Behemoth with El\u2019s calf, Atik (Ar\u0161), and Leviathan with the Ugaritic mythological sea dragon, Litan.25<\/a><\/p>\n

It is no surprise that Behemoth and Leviathan evince connections to both the world of nat<\/span>ure and the world of myth. These associations make them recognizable to the audience and inform their use. In the end, however, it is not the roots of the ideas or the associations they may evoke that<\/span> are most important; it is their literary use in Job.<\/p>\n

Job is compared to Behemoth (40:15<\/a>).26<\/a> Job, like Behemoth, is the first of God\u2019s works (cf. 15:7<\/a>) and withstands all turbulence. God brings his sw<\/span>ord against Job (40:19<\/a>) and by a snare he penetrates Job\u2019s anger (40:24<\/a>). Yahweh does not speak of Job doing anything to<\/em> Behemoth, but when the discussion switches to Leviathan, the first eight verses<\/span> use the second person. I therefore suggest that Leviathan is to be compared to Yahweh (41:3<\/a>, 10\u201311<\/a>, 34<\/a>)27<\/a>\u2014he won\u2019t beg you for mercy and won\u2019t speak with gentle words; you can\u2019t put him on a leash, s<\/span>ubdue him, or rouse him. These all discuss what Job<\/em> can\u2019t do to Leviathan, and they are also things that Job must learn he cannot do to Yahweh. The following summary identifies how Yahweh presents Beh<\/span>emoth as an illustration for Job to emulate and Leviathan as an illustration of how Job should think about Yahweh.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

Behemoth<\/strong><\/p>\n

40:15<\/a> Starts with a comparison\u2014\u201calong with you\u201d28<\/a><\/p>\n

40:15<\/a> Content and well-fed (as you have been)<\/p>\n

40:16\u201318<\/a> Made strong (as I made you)<\/p>\n

40:19<\/a> Ranks first among its kind (as you do)<\/p>\n

40:20<\/a> Cared f<\/span>or (as you were)<\/p>\n

40:21\u201322<\/a> Sheltered (as you were)<\/p>\n

40:23<\/a> Not alarmed by raging river (as you should not be)<\/p>\n

40:23<\/a> Trusts and is secure (as you should be)<\/p>\n

40:24<\/a> Cannot be captured or trapped (to which y<\/span>ou should also be invulnerable)<\/p>\n

40:24<\/a> Nose (= anger) cannot be \u201cpierced\u201d (difficult word\u2014sometimes means named, designated, or penetrated) (to which you should also be invulnerable)<\/p>\n

Note that the text<\/span> does not say what Job can or cannot do with regard to Behemoth, or what God does with Behemoth.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Leviathan.<\/strong> The text switches immediately to \u201cyou,\u201d focusing on what Job cannot do to Leviathan (i.e., if you can\u2019t do this to Leviathan, why do you expect to do it to me?). Likewise this passage never talks about what God does to Leviathan (e.g., his control of him or defeat of him).29<\/a><\/p>\n

41:1\u20132<\/a> Cannot be controlled (neither can Yahweh)<\/p>\n

41:3\u20136<\/a> Will not submit or beg for mercy (neither will Yahweh)<\/p>\n

41:7\u20139<\/a> Cannot be wounded or subdued; hopeless to struggle against him (same is true of Yahweh)<\/p>\n

41:10<\/a> Outright comparison: can\u2019t rouse him, so who can stand against me?<\/p>\n

41:11<\/a> No one (including you, Job) has a claim against me<\/em><\/p>\n

41:12\u201318<\/a> Cannot force his mouth open to receive bridle (so Yahweh cannot be controlled or domesticated)<\/p>\n

41:19\u201325<\/a> Dangerous when riled (as is Yahweh)<\/p>\n

41:26\u201332<\/a> Invulnerable (as is Yahweh)<\/p>\n

41:33<\/a> No creature is his equal (nor is Job Leviathan\u2019s equal, let alone Yahweh\u2019s equal)<\/p>\n

41:34<\/a> Dominates all who are proud (cf. 40:11\u201314<\/a>, where the section was introduced). Job cannot humble the proud (40:11\u201312<\/a>), nor can he subdue the king over the proud (41:34<\/a>); God is also king of the proud in the sense that he rules over them.<\/p>\n

If this is what the text is doing, it does not matter what relationship these creatures have to zoology or mythology; rather, the point of the text lies elsewhere. Yahweh\u2019s message would be clear: \u201cJob, be strong and content like Behemoth, and don\u2019t think that you can domesticate or subdue me any more than you can Leviathan.\u201d Job needs to have more respect for Yahweh. Yahweh now is<\/em> addressing Job as if he (Job) were a chaos creature (cf. 7:12<\/a>), and he is<\/em> likening himself to a chaos creature (cf. ch. 30<\/a>)\u2014but all within the confines of his ordered world.<\/p>\n

Obviously this interpretation is diametrically opposed to one like Fyall\u2019s, who views Behemoth and Leviathan as the \u201cembodiment of cosmic evil.\u201d30<\/a> One looks in vain to find any characterization of evil in either creature. Yet Fyall hits the mark when he comments, \u201cNow he [Yahweh] is showing Job that it is unthinkable that he could confront Leviathan much less God.\u201d31<\/a> The point is not that God can subdue Leviathan and therefore he can subdue Job\u2014that was never in question. Rather, the passage indicates that since Job cannot bring Leviathan to heel, he cannot expect to domesticate Yahweh.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Bridging Contexts<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Rhetorical Strategy<\/strong><\/p>\n

In this section of Job, we are finally offered the perspectives that the author wishes us as readers to adopt regarding our understanding of how God works in the world. By demonstrating to Job that there are many phenomena in nature that humans do not understand, God shows the folly of devising a simplistic system such as the RP<\/a>, which is supposed to give consistent account of the way the natural world operates under God\u2019s sovereign control.<\/p>\n

As noted in the introductory chapter (using the triangle illustration, pp. 42\u201344<\/a>), God rejects the idea that the RP<\/a> can provide a foundation for understanding how he works in the world, because it is an inadequate description of his policies. The RP<\/a> is founded on principles of justice, but God urges a perspective founded on principles of wisdom. Instead of addressing his justice and attempting to give account of it, Yahweh\u2019s first speech addresses wisdom by drawing Job\u2019s attention to the macrocosm and microcosm so that Job can realize his inadequacy to formulate a theory encompassing everything (note Eccl. 8:17<\/a>).<\/p>\n

A view that attributes to God the things for which we have no explanation sometimes is called \u201cGod of the gaps.\u201d Many consider it a flawed way of thinking because it results in God growing smaller as more understanding is gained through science. We should note, however, that the modern undertaking of classifying what can be explained without recourse to God is part of the logic used to try to demonstrate that there is a God, and that humans and their scientific endeavors cannot explain everything.<\/p>\n

In this section of Job, Yahweh is not seeking to prove his existence. He is making the point that it is foolhardy to call him to task for his putative failure to conform to a system of human devising that has access to so little data. The issue at stake in the Old Testament is not whether God exists and what role he might have in the cosmos. Everyone believed there were gods and that they were thoroughly engaged in the operation and control of the cosmos. Consequently, there is no Old Testament comparison to today\u2019s \u201cGod of the gaps\u201d discussions. Job is confronted with his inability to formulate an understanding of how the world works. If he cannot construct such a theory, he cannot presume to hold God accountable to work in certain ways.<\/p>\n

As an aside, it is also important to note that several of the passage\u2019s examples show God\u2019s provision for predators. For many people today, predation constitutes an inexplicable aspect of creation that is commonly associated with the fall. One of the arguments against evolution or an old earth is that such views entail predation before the fall, a situation that some find irreconcilable with the nature of God or the statement in Genesis 1<\/a> that \u201cit was good.\u201d In contrast to this argument, Yahweh\u2019s speech shows that he provides for predators just as he does for everyone else, so such provision is not contrary to his character. With regard to Genesis 1<\/a>, as I have suggested elsewhere, the term \u201cgood\u201d should be understood relative to proper functioning rather than to a standard of moral perfection.32<\/a><\/p>\n

The first speech is intended to demonstrate Yahweh\u2019s knowledge and control of the macrocosm and the microcosm. Job, like us, has little understanding or power, but Yahweh\u2019s knowledge and power are unlimited. God has ordered the cosmos by his wisdom; justice is one of his attributes, but the cosmos does not mirror his attributes. Wisdom is at the heart of order.<\/p>\n

Job\u2019s response to this first speech is silence (40:2\u20135<\/a>) in acknowledgment that he is unworthy to devise a scheme for how the world works. He thereby acknowledges his lack of wisdom. But it is not enough for Yahweh to extract from Job this admission of inadequacy. A mere concession of Yahweh\u2019s divinity and Job\u2019s humanity (\u201cYou are God; I am not\u201d) is insufficient. Job, like us, needs direction in order to adopt a more proactive attitude. This is the focus of Yahweh\u2019s second speech.<\/p>\n

As suggested in Original Meaning, I believe that Behemoth and Leviathan are offered as illustrations of how to think about God\u2019s policies, God\u2019s role, and our posture. Answers to questions regarding suffering and justice do not lie in our ability to devise a system in which the operations of the cosmos all fit a neat scheme. Instead we should acknowledge God\u2019s wisdom and realize that he controls the cosmos in accordance with that wisdom. Such a perspective goes beyond a simple assertion that we are not God\u2014it warns us not to reduce God to less than he is.<\/p>\n

In the movie Patch Adams<\/em>, Robin Williams plays an idealistic medical student who wants to revolutionize the medical profession to focus on compassion more than profits. He starts a free clinic that predictably attracts some who not only are at risk themselves but endanger others. Patch\u2019s girlfriend works alongside him at the clinic and is tragically murdered by one of the unstable patients. This experience throws Patch into a crisis of philosophical and theological confusion. At one point in the movie, he finds himself looking down from a cliff and considering suicide. His poignant soliloquy addressed to God is illustrative of the experience of many who suffer:<\/p>\n

So answer me please\u2014tell me what you\u2019re doing \u2026 You create man; man suffers enormous amounts of pain; man dies. Maybe you should have had just a few more brainstorming sessions prior to creation. You rested on the seventh day\u2014maybe you should have spent that day on compassion.<\/p>\n

After this serious indictment against God, Patch looks down again as he considers throwing himself off, then turns his eyes back to heaven with his conclusion: \u201cYou know what? You\u2019re not worth it.\u201d And he walks away.<\/p>\n

In this response, Patch reflects a conclusion common to those who suffer and those who are horrified by the needs of the world. They cannot reconcile a just and good God with a world gone awry. The book of Job encourages us to avoid the easy reductionism that makes God accountable to how we think the world ought to operate. His wisdom extends far beyond our shortsightedness; there is always more afoot than we can imagine. Our ideas of how things ought to work will always be naive and simplistic. God asks that we trust him.<\/p>\n

The reader will recall that in the book of Job, accusations are made against God\u2019s policies from two directions: from the Challenger, who contends that it is bad policy for righteous people to prosper because that will subvert their motivations for righteousness, and from Job, who contends that it is bad policy for righteous people to suffer because that is inconsistent with God\u2019s just character. The Challenger\u2019s contention has been answered by the fact that Job maintained his integrity even when he was not prospering (see discussion in Job 27<\/span><\/a>, p. 265<\/a>).<\/p>\n

But answering Job\u2019s contention is more difficult, and that has been the focus of the second part of the book. If the RP<\/a> (the basis for Job\u2019s understanding of God\u2019s policies) were allowed to stand as the foundation for how God\u2019s policies work, God would lose the case. If God used the RP<\/a> to give Job an explanation of his suffering, he would lose the case. No hint of the RP<\/a> enters Yahweh\u2019s speeches except where he casts doubt on it indirectly in 38:25\u201327<\/a>.<\/p>\n

God\u2019s answer to Job\u2019s contention is not to explain when or why righteous people suffer. The cosmos is not designed to protect righteous people from suffering. Suffering is inevitable in a world where order has not been finally and fully established. A complete state of order cannot exist in a world where sin (one manifestation of disorder) is present at any level. Like Job, we may think that it is bad policy for righteous people to suffer, but we would, I suggest, be equally dissatisfied with the alternatives. The divine policy that we need to understand is not how God\u2019s justice is reflected in the operations of the cosmos, but that he has brought sufficient order into the cosmos for it to be functional for our existence as his creatures, and at the same time has allowed sufficient disorder to accommodate the continued existence of sinful humanity\u2014one of the forms that disorder takes.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Job questioned God\u2019s design, and G<\/span>od responded that Job had insufficient knowledge of God\u2019s design to do so. Job questioned God\u2019s justice, and God responded that Job ought to be content and trusting, and that he should not be so bold as to think that God can be domest<\/span>icated to conform to Job\u2019s feeble perceptions of how the cosmos should run. God asks for trust, not understanding, and the cosmos is founded on his wisdom, not his justice.<\/span><\/p>\n

Notice that the comparisons to Behemoth and Leviathan do not comment on righteousness or justice. Job\u2019s speeches have been replete with claims about his own righteousness and claims against God<\/span>\u2019s justice. Behemoth is not an example of righteousness, but an example of stability and trust. Leviathan is not an example of justice, but a picture of one who cannot be challenged. If Job is to understand the world, he must recognize these respective roles. Humans should respond to raging rivers (i.e., the crises of life, the metaphor drawn from <\/span>40:23<\/a>) with security and trust, and they should no<\/span>t think that they can domesticate or challenge God.<\/p>\n

In short, God offers information on three topics: Speech one, how we should think about the world; speech 2a (Behemoth), how we should think about o<\/span>urselves; and speech 2b (Leviathan), how we should think about God.<\/p>\n

We can contrast some of the answers offered throughout the book as follows:<\/p>\n

\n
\n

RP<\/strong><\/a> (Job and his friends):<\/strong> Wickedness is God\u2019s reason for sending suffering.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>Elihu:<\/strong> God\u2019s reasons for sending suffering may be more complex than the RP<\/a> recognizes. Suffering has its cause either in wicked behavior or in an attempt to address potentially wicked behavior or atti<\/span>tudes. Elihu still sees suffering as having a cause rooted in wickedness.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

God:<\/strong> Humans cannot assume that all suffering is caused by God with \u201creasons\u201d in mind, though this in no way compromises his sovereignty. The RP<\/a>, in its restrictive identifications of cause and its simplistic focus on justice as discernible by human observers, puts limitations on God\u2019s sovereignty by not giving enough room for his wisdom. Providence does not insist that God endowed nature with his attributes.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

God\u2019s wisdom and justice cannot be comprehended in full by human beings, but at the same time, God cannot be considered inscrutable (i.e., illogical, inconsistent, arbitrary, or as having alternate criteria for justice). Rather, human inability to discern justice ought to be explained by our limitations in wisdom. The fact that we cannot discern the logic does not mean that there is no logic or that the logic is different from that under which we operate. The fact that Job does not understand the ordering of the cosmos is no proof that such ordering does not exist. The fact that Job does not understand the reasons for events in the natural world does not mean that there are none, though the existence of reasons cannot be assumed. Things that appear random or uncontrolled are not, but neither is everything explicable in terms of justice.<\/p>\n

We must recall that it is not Job who is on trial, but God\u2019s policies. The book never intended to provide an explanation for human suffering. Rather, it offers a defense of God\u2019s policies, rejecting a wooden application of the RP<\/a> in the process. This approach is not \u201cinscrutability,\u201d which in the ancient Near East was the conclusion that God cannot be known. The only inscrutability here concerns \u201creasons,\u201d which cannot be known and cannot be inferred from the RP<\/a>. It is important that Job is never told \u201cwhy\u201d he suffered (and the prologue does not tell us<\/em> why he suffered either\u2014the narrative scenario is not a reason). Assessment of justice requires all the facts. Since all the facts cannot be given or comprehended, we must depend on the wisdom of the judge. If Job were told why<\/em>, his situation would cease to be realistic because no one receives answers, and the answer Job would receive would be an explanation of the scene in heaven, which would apply to no one else. Furthermore, offering an explanation would return the focus to the question of justice and would thus displace the focus on wisdom.<\/p>\n

So, at long last, what answers does the book provide as it seeks to guide our understanding of God\u2019s policies in a world where suffering and evil may plague the righteous as well as the wicked? Yahweh does not defend his justice; he does not explain Job\u2019s suffering; and he does not enter the courtroom into which Job has summoned him. We should not expect him to perform any of these actions in our personal circumstances either, even though these often represent our deepest longings. He directs our thinking in an entirely different direction. If there is any part of Job\u2019s speeches that Yahweh addresses directly, it is Job\u2019s lament over the day of his birth, since Yahweh picks up many of the same terms and concepts that Job used.33<\/a> This interconnection gives some indication of where God is trying to meet Job.<\/p>\n

The message of Job is that we must trust God\u2019s wisdom when we encounter suffering or crises, rather than attempting to figure out answers to the \u201cwhy\u201d questions. We should not think that the cosmos itself reflects God\u2019s attribute of justice or that we can hold God accountable to running the cosmos according to justice moment by moment. If he were to do so, none of us would survive, for we all embody injustice at some level in our sinful condition. So justice would involve punishing us.<\/p>\n

Trusting God\u2019s wisdom does not mean adopting a belief that everything that happens to us ultimately represents justice even though we cannot see why that is so. Trust is not the conviction that there is a good reason (= explanation that justifies the suffering) even when we cannot fathom it. In other words, the book does not suggest a hidden, deeper justice behind what we perceive as injustice. If we were to think in those terms, we would still be clinging to justice as the foundation of the system and simply theorizing alternative ways that it could function, as Elihu did.<\/p>\n

Instead, the book posits that God, in his wisdom, is willing to allow injustice in this world\u2014perhaps sometimes as a means to a greater end, but even that does not offer an explanation that justifies the suffering. We can assume that it grieves his heart, for he is just. In his wisdom, he elevates purposes<\/em> above reasons<\/em>, a concept that was elaborated briefly in the Introduction (pp. 47\u201348<\/a>). Even here, however, we must tread carefully. We cannot know<\/em> reasons, and we cannot assume that there are<\/em> reasons. We should assume that there are<\/em> purposes, but that does not mean that we can or will ever know<\/em> those purposes. The injustice, suffering, trials, and crises that we experience shape us into the people we are and the people God desires us to be. This truth is not intended to bring comfort to those suffering, nor does it do so. It is meant to bring understanding that might prevent us from committing Job\u2019s error, which is the easy solution of blaming God. The alternative is to trust God.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Theological Issues<\/p>\n

Many deeply significant theological issues present themselves in the book of Job. These issues are not merely esoteric; they pertain to our deepest feelings and questions. We can on<\/span>ly address a few of them briefly here, but the comments that follow provide some direction for further meditation and discussion.<\/p>\n

God does not endow nature with his attributes.<\/strong> We affirm an important distinction between God\u2019s ability to use any aspect of the cosmos to effect his will and the idea that all of the cosmos reflects <\/span>and operates by the character of God. In the ancient world, this distinction was not maintained. The polytheism and low view of deity that pervaded the ancient world could be thought of as resulting directly from the belief that all earthly events were a reflection of some divine will or attribute. Consequently, ancient people could not view the gods a<\/span>s intrinsically just (even though the gods were interested in justice). The world was not just, and therefore the gods were not just. This link between deity and cosmic operations lies at the very root of pagan thinking, and thus when we fail to clearly distinguish these two elements, we risk being drawn into thinking that is essentially pagan and degrading to the God of the Bible.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Pantheism sees the divine in everything and considers everyth<\/span>ing (rocks, trees, insects, etc.) to be in some way part of the divine. Animism moves a further step by divinizing everything. The polytheism of the ancient world is one step removed from animism in the linkage it assumes between the god and the actors in the c<\/span>osmos (sun, moon, storm, etc.) The resulting homological relationship consists of inseparably linked pairs (e.g., sun and sun god).<\/p>\n

The the<\/span>ology presented in the biblical text is the next step removed. God is now outside the cosmos, yet still controls it moment by moment. He is not a sun god or storm god, though he controls both sun and storm. <\/span>The cosmos does not share or reflect his attributes, yet he governs the operations of the cosmos.34<\/a> This view is one step (or perhaps several steps) short of deism, which removes God not only f<\/span>rom linked identification, but also from cosmic operations. In deism, God is not only outside worldly operations (i.e., noncontingent), he is disengaged.<\/p>\n

In the biblical view, God\u2019s attributes are not<\/span> present in the rain (Job 38:25\u201327<\/a>; cf. Matt. 5:45<\/a>), nor in the storms, hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, tornadoes, droughts, famines, plagues, and epidemics, nor in any of those phenomena that acti<\/span>vely or passively bring trouble to our world, including mutation at the cellular level. That is not to suggest that these elements are impervious to God\u2019s control. They do not exist independently of h<\/span>im, but they cannot be viewed consistently as operating by his remote control. God can use such things to bring judgment, but not every occurrence of them can be considered an act of judgment. Just as people do not always reflect the attributes of God but operate according to t<\/span>heir own nature and can be used by God in complex and subtle ways to accomplish his plan, so the elements of the cosmos are subject to his bidding.<\/span><\/p>\n

The result of this conclusion is that we cannot evaluate God\u2019s nature based on events in the cosmos or in our experience. Here we must note how limited a statement Paul actua<\/span>lly makes in Romans 1:20<\/a>. He specifies that what has been evident in the created world is God\u2019s \u201cpower\u201d (dynamis<\/span>) and \u201cdivine nature\u201d (theiotes<\/span>). His point is that the cosmos offers sufficient evidenc<\/span>e of a great God. It can be discerned that the Creator has<\/em> a divine nature, but creation does not offer definition of the divine attributes. Paul stops short of suggesting that all of God\u2019s attributes<\/span> can be deduced from the cosmos or that a full revelation of the nature of deity is available therein. Such beliefs constituted the most central misunderstandings of the polytheistic systems of the ancient and classical world, and Paul does not embrace them.<\/p>\n

How <\/strong>should one reconcile the justice of God with a cosmos that, although under his control, is not just?<\/strong> Job found it easy to expect that if God is just and he rules the world, then the world ought to<\/span> be just. This conclusion is logical enough, but we are well aware, and Job was no less so, that justice cannot be attributed to what we call the \u201cnatural\u201d world. How then is it under the control of a just God?<\/span><\/p>\n

We do not have to be persuaded that the cosmos we experience is not just. We affirm that God can at any time use earthquakes, rainfall, floods, or temperature to effect his will and to carr<\/span>y out justice. Yet even in that affirmation we must confess that we have no access to a prophetic voice to lead us to understand precisely when and how he is doing that. We cannot discern that any particular tsunami or epidemic is a judgment from God, or that those spared from such calamities are under his protection. But we are left with the question of how a just God can tolerate the <\/span>operation of a cosmos that does not bend to his nature and will at all moments.<\/span><\/p>\n

I believe that the answer is \u201cgrace.\u201d A cosmos totally conformed to his justice would have no room for sinners, even those whose si<\/span>ns stood forgiven. It is his mercy that stays his hand of justice. God is not incapable of imposing justice on humanity and the cosmos he created, but his love constrains him from doing so.35<\/a> In his w<\/span>isdom he acts in justice or mercy. He does not have to think deeply about which to apply at any given time or in any given situation. God does not have quandaries. He not only possesses the attributes<\/span> that define him, he executes them in perfect harmony.<\/p>\n

Some conclude as they look at the suffering around them or in their own lives that there must be a better way. How can a loving and merciful God <\/span>not intervene to alleviate the horrors that people experience with such regularity? Again, these questions echo the flawed thinking of both Job and Patch Adams\u2014the presumptuous belief that we could do a better job than God. We cannot afford to underestimate God or to overestimate our own abilities. In the film <\/span>Bruce Almighty<\/em> the character played by Jim Carrey was guilty of doing both. He thought i<\/span>t would be fun and easy to be God. He found that it was neither. Job learned that same lesson, and we need to assimilate it as well. God does not wield this message as intimidation (\u201cI am God, you are not\u201d), but as realism. We find it too easy to look at only one part of th<\/span>e problem, so our solutions can only be naive.<\/p>\n

Is the cosmos fully ordered?<\/strong>36<\/a> The essence of the idea of creation in the ancient world is that God brought order to the cosmos in his creative acts. In fact, the Greek word kosmos<\/span>, from which we deri<\/span>ve our English word, has the concept of order inherent within it. Order is imposed on the material of the cosmos as well as on the functions of the cosmos. In the ancient world, people were more interested in and focused<\/span> on function, whereas we in the modern world are often more interested in and focused on the material cosmos when we talk about creation.37<\/a><\/p>\n

Nevertheless, order has been imposed nei<\/span>ther fully nor equally on the cosmos. As mentioned in passing in Original Meaning, this diverse state is evident in Genesis in the description of the garden of Eden, in the creation of the chaos creatures, and in the incorporation of darkne<\/span>ss and the Sea. God\u2019s presence was located in the center of sacred space in the middle of the garden. The garden functioned much like the antechamber of the temple adjacent to the Holy of Holies. In the concept of sacred space represented in temples in the Bible and the ancient world, there were concentric circles of graduated holiness. In Israel, after the Holy of Holies and the antechamber, the next gradation of holiness was the court<\/span>yard surrounding the altar. Outside the temple courts, \u201cthe camp\u201d had a lower level of sacredness, and \u201coutside the camp\u201d even lower. Those who did not meet the holiness or cleanliness requirements for the camp were sent outside the camp.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The area outside the camp was still ordered space, but beyond it was the liminal <\/span>region of unordered space\u2014the sea and the desert. In the ancient world these were sometimes described as \u201cnonexistent,\u201d because existence was defined as having been brought into the ordered sphere.38<\/a> <\/span>Like the gradations of sacredness within and surrounding the temple, the order inside the garden of Eden can be contrasted to a lesser degree of order outside the garden. Thus Adam and Eve had the task<\/span> of expanding the ordered cosmos (since they were to be fruitful and multiply, they would eventually need more ordered space),39<\/a> and when they sinned they were driven from the ordered space to the ar<\/span>ea outside the garden, where things were much more difficult, for order was less evident.<\/p>\n

That Adam and Eve failed in their commission to preserve the order of sacred space can be inferred from the pr<\/span>esence of the serpent, a chaos creature, in the garden. This again demonstrates that disorder continued to exist in the partially ordered cosmos. The world was a work in progress that God expected humans, as his image, to help establish more fully.<\/span>40<\/a> Disorder had not been eliminated entirely by the imposition of order, but, as many biblical texts attest, especially in Psalms and Job, it had been p<\/span>ushed to the margins and contained, as Levenson contends:<\/p>\n

The confinement of chaos rather than its elimination is the essence of creation, and the survival of ordered reality hangs only upon God\u2019s vig<\/span>ilance in ensuring that those cosmic dikes do not fail, that the bars and doors of the Sea\u2019s jail cell do not give way, that the great fish does not slip his hook.41<\/a><\/p>\n

Biblical theology substantiates in<\/span> both Testaments the continued existence of disorder\u2014both that which remained after creation and that brought about by sin\u2014and amplifies the effects of disorder on the human world. Scripture occasionally refers to the impact of the fa<\/span>ll rippling across the \u201cnatural\u201d world (e.g., Rom. 8:18\u201325<\/a>) and to the world\u2019s restoration (e.g., Hos. 2:18<\/a>), but it offers little explanation of precisely what const<\/span>itutes that fallen nature. Disorder, however, is not just the result of the fall, but the evidence of a creation in progress. Some believe that at the conclusion of history we will return to the prefall state. I think it more accurate to say that some of what<\/span> we experience in eternity may represent a return to what was before the fall, but that there will be much more to the experience. In eternit<\/span>y all will be brought into order (though Gehenna will continue to be a pocket of disorder), a situation that was not present in the prefall condition.<\/p>\n

What does a biblical theology of suffering look like?<\/strong>42<\/a> Randy Becton identifies five basic ways that people explain suffering:43<\/a><\/p>\n

1. Suffering is divine punishment.<\/p>\n

2. Suffering is a divine test or tr<\/span>ial of faith.<\/p>\n

3. Suffering is part of the gift of human freedom.<\/p>\n

4. Suffering is part of the nature and function of the physical world.<\/p>\n

5. Suffering is creation in process.<\/p>\n

These are not mutually excl<\/span>usive positions, and I will address them in the following series of propositions.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>Suffering should be faced with trust in God\u2019s wisdom<\/em>. This is difficult to achieve, particularly when certain cases of suffering make so little sense to us. Nevertheless, it is the only counsel Script<\/span>ure offers. Trusting God\u2019s wisdom does not mean that we try to explore the question of \u201cWhy did God do this?\u201d or \u201cWhy did God not prevent that?\u201d We should not assume that God initiated the course of action resulting in a particular case of suffering, or even that he \u201csigned off\u201d on it (we often use terms such as \u201callowed\u201d or \u201cpermitted\u201d).<\/span>44<\/a> These responses reflect an overly simplistic view.<\/p>\n

We hav<\/span>e no language to express the nature of God\u2019s involvement. He is neither disengaged from a world run amok, nor is he micromanaging a disastrous sequence of events. In his wisdom God created this world this w<\/span>ay, not another way, and he therefore has chosen to operate in this kind of world.45<\/a> Accepting this tension is integral to the kind of trust that God calls us to exercise. On this topic J. Polki<\/span>nghorne suggests that terminology like \u201callow\u201d should not be used in a way that suggests blame: \u201cThe suffering and evil of the world are not due to weakness, oversight, or callousness on God\u2019s part, but, rather, they are the inescapable cost of a creation allowed to be other than God.\u201d<\/span>46<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>Suffering should be viewed as an opportunity to deepen our faith and spiritual maturity as we look forward to understand God\u2019s purposes, rather than backward in an attempt to discern reasons<\/em>. Sufferin<\/span>g shapes us\u2014of this there is no doubt. What varies is whether it breaks us. Sometimes there is no visible silver lining, no redeeming value in sight. Sometimes those who endure difficulty feel that nothing is l<\/span>eft but an empty shell. Some people never recover physically, emotionally, or spiritually. It is not guaranteed that we will emerge on the other side of pain strengthened by the experience. It would be naive to suggest that suffering universally results in growth. S. Cairns suggests a more nuanced perspective as he elaborates on Simone Weil\u2019s observation that \u201caffliction compels us to recognize as real what<\/span> we do not think possible.\u201d He observes:<\/span><\/p>\n

The occasions of our suffering are capable of revealing what our habitual illusions often obscure, keeping us from knowing. Our afflictions<\/span> drag us\u2014more or less kicking\u2014into a fresh and vivid awareness that we are not in control of our circumstances, that we are not quite whole, that our days are salted with affliction.47<\/a><\/p>\n

I dare to sugge<\/span>st, however, that when we undergo trials, the biblical way to pray is for strength to carry on and acquit ourselves well. We should seek to honor God when life is at its lowest. We should strive to trust him even wh<\/span>en hope is gone.<\/p>\n

This is illustrated in the story Philip Yancey tells of a young woman dying a painful death from cystic fibrosis. She felt encouraged by William Barclay\u2019s statement tha<\/span>t \u201cendurance is not just the ability to bear a hard thing, but to turn it into glory.\u201d48<\/a> In the case he recounts, as with many others, there was no opportunity for the young woman\u2019s afflictions to mak<\/span>e her faith stronger and to bring greater maturity. Death was howling at the door. She was joined in her suffering by friends and family. For some their own faith was undoubtedly bolstered by the courageous faith of this woman dying in pain; others, just as assuredly, had their faith shaken. None, however, woul<\/span>d miss the evidence of the frail world in which we live.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Suffering for the gospel gives us the opportunity to participate in Christ\u2019s sufferings<\/em>. In one sense this may be the opportunity no one ever asks for, yet the testimony of the New Testament is clear on this point, from Jesus (Matt. 5:10\u201312<\/a>; Luke 14:26<\/a>), to Paul (Rom. 5:3<\/a>; Phil. 3:10<\/a>; Col. 1:24<\/a>), to Peter (1 Pet. 2:19\u201325<\/a>; 3:8\u20134:19<\/a>), to the author of Hebrews (Heb. 11:32\u201340<\/a>). We should count it all joy when we are called upon to suffer for Christ. This idea is counterintuitive to our natural thought and is the polar opposite of the RP<\/a>. Under the RP<\/a>, suffering is considered the judgment of God for evil. The New Testament turns suffering into a joyful means of being \u201cin Christ.\u201d But this cannot be used to refurbish the RP<\/a>\u2014being in Christ gives us a response to suffering, not the reason for it.<\/p>\n

We should further note that when God, in his wisdom decided to use a long process to bring order to the cosmos and to humanity and thereby chose to have a world with continuing disorder and resultant suffering, he also chose the world in which Jesus would have to suffer and die. His wisdom might seem foolishness to some (1 Cor. 1:18\u201321<\/a>), but it includes suffering in a disordered world moving toward order.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Contemporary Significance<\/p>\n

We began this chapter with a brief allusion to Waiting for Godot<\/em>. In that work Godot never arrived, but in the book of Job, God did. Godot has been interpreted as a thinly di<\/span>sguised trope for God (among many other things). The play is an exercise in the absurd, and \u201cnothing\u201d is a key theme. Everywhere they look, the characters find \u201cnothing\u201d\u2014a commentary on life in general and on the search for God in particular. Both main characters confess they know little to nothing about Godo<\/span>t, but they expect to recognize him when they see him. The play is punctuated by a false Godot (Pozzo, in several guises) and by a messenger who assures the waiting pair that Godot will indeed arrive shortly. In the messenger\u2019s second appearance, we are told that Godot does nothing and perhaps wears a long white beard.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

If the play is viewed in relation to the book of Job, Pozzo could represent several different perspectives on God. He is not the Godot the characters are waiting for, bu<\/span>t he is mistaken for him. In his first appearance, he keeps his slave on a leash, as God might be thought to treat humankind. In this guise, Pozzo is all talk and eats grandly, but has little to share with the two who are waiting and hungry. In his second appearance, he is blind and led by his slave\u2014a picture reminiscent of a blind god created by humankind and totall<\/span>y at their disposal. Commentators have noticed that Pozzo\u2019s slave, Lucky, is consistently the one in charge. He is the one who thinks, and he meets the needs of Pozzo. This image is reminiscent of what we have called the Great Symbiosis in the ancient Near East.<\/span><\/span>49<\/a> Lucky dances and thinks on Pozzo\u2019s command, and that is how some would consider humanity\u2019s relationship to God, as puppets on a string. Like Lucky, we are on a long r<\/span>ope, totally controlled, but actually in charge in subtle ways.<\/p>\n

I am not suggesting that Samuel Beckett meant to present these ideas in his play, only that when we read Job and Godot<\/em> together, we may <\/span>observe ways in which they align. The book of Job wants to correct the misconceptions about God to which we are so prone. God is not the do-nothing with the white beard who beats his servants; he is not the conceited P<\/span>ozzo, incapable of thinking for himself, with humanity (whom he needs) dancing at the end of a leash; he is not the blind Pozzo totally controlled by his slave; and he is not the unk<\/span>nown, ever-awaited character who is forever offstage and disappointing in his absence.<\/p>\n

We easily caricature God and construct our worldview around our misconceptions, as do the characters in both Godo<\/em><\/span>t<\/em> and Job. Godot never arrives, and therefore no correctives are ever offered for the characters\u2019 perspectives. How is it different when Yahweh actually does arrive? How should Yahweh\u2019s speeches affec<\/span>t our misguided perspectives?<\/p>\n

\n
\n

How Should We Think about God?<\/p>\n

In Bridging Contexts I suggested that the book of Job is not intended to bring comfort to the suffering, but to bring understanding that might prevent us from simply bla<\/span>ming God. The alternative is to trust God, and the book gives us a focus for our faith. Too often we focus our faith on believing that God will heal, relieve our suffering, or protect us from pain. Sometimes our faith lies in the belief that God will somehow come to us and give us explanations. Other times we place our faith in our ability to forc<\/span>e our experiences into a coherent, meaningful narrative. All these approaches are unrealistic. Our faith should be directed toward embracing an all-wise God and asking him for help to live well before him regardless of our plight in this world that continues to display both order and disorder.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

We should recognize, then, that the book of Job does not seek to explain God to us\u2014such an endeavor would be impossible, as the book demonstrates. The book <\/span>instead exposes our false and misguided ideas about God, the world, and suffering. It does not replace the rejected concepts with a comprehensive list of particulars, but simply gives direction for thinking. If we can avoid the standard list of misperceptions and begin moving in the right direction, the book will have achieved its purpose.<\/span><\/p>\n

Should we expect God to speak to us as he eventually did t<\/span>o Job? I suggest that this should not be our goal\u2014the book has told us what he would say. The fulfillment of Job\u2019s hopes that God would come and speak took shape in a manner far different than he imagined. First, God came in wrath\u2014that is not the sort of app<\/span>earance most of us desire. Second, we again note that God did not answer Job\u2019s questions. If we ask whether Job was satisfied with God\u2019s resolution of his requests, I suspect the answer would be no. Finally, recall that I have suggested that much in Job is part of a \u201cthought experiment\u201d (see Introduction, pp. <\/span>26\u201327<\/a>). If this is so, we need <\/span>not think of God\u2019s appearance to Job as a precedent for our crises. The book does not offer paradigms for how God regularly acts. It does not give us a guide for what our experience might look like, but it tries to shape our t<\/span>hinking as we face suffering. Through the book, then, we have come to know God better by eliminating incorrect thinking.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

How Should We Think about the World?<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

The book of Job has indicated our need to realize that the world is not set up to operate in accordance with God\u2019s attribute of justice (or any other constant prin<\/span>ciple). This realization, however, does not mean that we should cease pursuing justice. When God created human beings in his image, he gave them the charge to \u201csubdue and rule.\u201d50<\/a> One of the ways in w<\/span>hich we do so is by seeking to establish justice and thus bring increased order to the world. God established sufficient order for us to exist in this world, but he did not complete the task\u2014he gave it to us, his stewards<\/span>, to continue. We cannot bring order to the macrocosm, though technology has made considerable advances over the centuries as we have learned to harness our environment. Technology is helping us to bring order out of disorder (though since we are wielding it, it can also create further disorder). More importantly, we can seek to bring order by establishing justice in society. This also is a task that God assigned from<\/span> early times (<\/span>Gen. 9:6<\/a>), though also one that cannot be fully achieved.<\/p>\n

Justice in the cosmos and in society is therefore our objective, not our experience. W<\/span>e must keep this distinction in mind when we face the results of living in an unjust world: Suffering is inevitable, and it does not discriminate.51<\/a> Disorder is not to be thought of as \u201cChaos\u201d\u2014that is<\/span>, a personified horror (whether as a flawed conception of God or an anti-God devil). Chaos simply represents an unfinished creation. It is unfinished by plan, not by negligence or incompetence. Humanity is a work in progress; each of us individually is<\/span> a work in progress; and the cosmos is likewise a work in progress. Suffering is the by-product of our in-progress state, and new creation is the denouement of God\u2019s ongoing creative activity.<\/p>\n

How Should We Respond to Suffering?<\/p>\n

What does a proper response to suffering look like \u201con the ground\u201d? I find it interesting that Job never addresses a prayer to God, asking him to deliver or save, t<\/span>hough that likely would have been our first inclination.52<\/a> Its absence should not be taken as a tacit suggestion that such a response is misguided, but if the book is offering strategies, it is notewo<\/span>rthy that this particular strategy is lacking. Neither Job nor the Bible as a whole suggests that the standard sequence is suffering-prayer-healing. We might notice that even the Lord\u2019s Prayer contain<\/span>s no prayers for healing or relief from suffering\u2014only that we not be tempted and that we seek God\u2019s kingdom.53<\/a><\/p>\n

Areas of temptation might easily include being tempted to think wrongly about God or abo<\/span>ut our suffering. Instead, we seek God\u2019s kingdom. We do so in at least two ways: first, by seeking to live well even during times of suffering so that we might bring honor to him; and second, by patiently waiting in faith for the new creation. Others could be added. For example, we conti<\/span>nually seek God\u2019s kingdom by trying to establish justice and relieve the suffering of others. Our prayers certainly can request relief, but more importantly they should focus on how we respond to our suffering. We should be praying, \u201cLord, use this to help me become more trusting, more dependent on you, more patient with others, more aware of my weaknesses, and more full of grace rather than bitterness.\u201d We must use our suffering to push us nearer to Christ rather than allowing it to<\/span> drive us away from God. As Simone Weil observes, \u201cThe extreme greatness of Christianity lies in the fact that it does not seek a supernatural remedy for suffering, but a supernatural use for it.\u201d<\/span><\/span>54<\/a><\/p>\n

The book argues against l<\/span>ooking to the past to find reasons. That does not mean that there are never reasons for suffering that might need to be recognized. Sometimes we suffer the consequences of bad choices, and we need to acknowledge that and make<\/span> changes. Overall, however, we are not encouraged to immerse ourselves in anguish over what may have caused our suffering. We definitely should not assume that if we are suffering, we must have done something to deserve it. People are often prone to respond to suffering with the question, \u201cWhy me?\u201d I would propose that it is when we have <\/span>not<\/em> suffered or when we are unexpec<\/span>tedly granted relief<\/em> from suffering that we should pose the puzzled question, \u201cWhy me?\u201d<\/p>\n

If we shouldn\u2019t expect explanations or relief, what should we expect? We should expect that God is able to susta<\/span>in us through suffering and even strengthen us through it. We please and honor God by trusting him in faith. We find purpose in suffering if we allow it to draw us closer to him in dependence instead of driving us further from him (though this should not be confused with ultimate cause or treated as a reason). <\/span>We serve and honor God by being people of faith and helping others who might also be suffering to find the same solutions.<\/p>\n

Kelly\u2019s Story55<\/a><\/p>\n

JHW: Have you developed your own \u201ctheology of suffering\u201d in light of your experiences? What does it look like?<\/p>\n

Kelly: I would say, in light of my experiences and the opportunities I h<\/span>ave had to look into this topic on a deeper level, that yes, I have developed such a theology\u2014or maybe it is more accurate to state that I have adopted one that was already created. My theology with suffering starts with trusting God. From that follows knowing that God is<\/span> good and God loves us. Those are statements that, even though they sound clich\u00e9d, were some of the core beliefs I struggled accepting with my whole heart, as you saw over the course of my story. I continually challenged God and viewed my experiences in a way that, if you boil it down, meant that I did not trust God or believe that he loved me.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

So if I start the foundation of my theology with those three things\u2014trusting God, acknowledging that God is good, and believing that God loves us\u2014then I know my foundation is solid.<\/span> As you noted, I acknowledge that there are biblical examples of when God brought about suffering to bring judgment or teach his people something, but I do not believe we can use those examples to draw a conclusion that says: \u201cIf there is suffering, then God brought it upon them as judgment or pruning.\u201d Rather, we live in a fallen world where things don\u2019t always work out; to be <\/span>more specific, I live in a fallen world where a car accident occurred leaving me with an incredibly painful disability that doctors have failed to solve, despite their efforts.<\/span><\/p>\n

I know God has the power to intercede, whi<\/span>ch at times is the part I still wrestle with. That is where trusting him comes into play. I have to trust God and accept that he is good even when I do not understand. I may not understand the purpose or why God didn\u2019t choose to intercede in <\/span>different parts of my story, but I do know he has used my experiences to teach me something about wisdom and perspective, and to draw me closer to him in a way that he never could have if I hadn\u2019t gone through the experiences I did.<\/span><\/p>\n

So I don\u2019t know if I\u2019d state that this is my own theology on suffering; rather, it may be an assortment of what I believe to <\/span>be wise and true teachings from people in my life that I respect. I have had the honor to discuss these questions regarding God and suffering, which are questions that Christians and non-Christians struggle with alike.<\/span><\/p>\n

The book of Job serves the purpose of providing training for the mind so we can be prepared for suffering and crises. When musicians prepare for a recital or concert, they engage in<\/span> many long hours of practice. A pianist trains her fingers to know the music so that when it is time for the concert, they go through the right movements subconsciously. If the pianist has to think about each transition and each fingering, the recital will not be a success. The body must be trained to act instinctively. Such a feat can only be accomplished through mental and phy<\/span>sical discipline.<\/p>\n

T<\/span>he book of Job is intended to function like the scales and finger exercises that a pianist has to practice endlessly so that the concert pieces may be played with skill. The book of Job is not the musi<\/span>cal score itself that serves as a script, and we do not turn to this book as a resource to walk us through our suffering. Job is the practice material that prepares us for the performance. We assimilate its truths now so that we will be mentally and spiritually prepared for suffering when it comes. Sight-reading music the day of the concert dooms one to failure. The book does not give us a step-by-<\/span>step guide to ensure a flawless performance; instead, it gives us the tools necessary to prepare for a respectable performance. How embarrassing it would be to play a piece in the wrong key, or in three-four time when it should be four-four.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

As I was writing these final chapters a number of situations unfolded in the lives of family members\u2014serious illnesses, lost jobs, emotional stresses. As I <\/span>interacted with them in their crises, I searched back in my mind through what I had written in the pages of this commentary to see how I could offer comfort. I came up empty, because the book offers no comfort to the suffering. Comfort would have to consist of explanations or hope, and neither of those is intended by the author. The book offers theologic<\/span>al guidance, not an instrument for psychological, emotional, or spiritual counseling. I use the book to help me think right and well so I am prepared for suffering; I have not discovered how to use it to respond to people\u2019s needs when trouble strikes.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In summary, then:<\/p>\n

1. Wisdom, not justice, is the foundation of how God has set up the world. Disorder exists alongside order, and we must trust God\u2019s wisdom and rely on him in faith when we ex<\/span>perience disorder.<\/p>\n

2. Our expectations in life should not be based on the RP<\/a>. We can follow the advice found in Ecclesiastes: Live as if the RP<\/a> is true, but don\u2019t expect it to work out consistently in<\/span> experience (my summary of the thrust of Eccl. 8\u20139<\/a>).<\/p>\n

3. Purpose, not cause, should be the focus of our attention when we face difficult times. This is the direction that Jesus gives in John 9:3<\/a>.<\/p>\n

4. Ab<\/span>ove all, we must not underestimate God by imagining that we could do things better. Concluding that God is incompetent or less than what Scripture presents him as being is the first step to setting ours<\/span>elves up as God\u2014a transaction doomed to miserable failure.<\/p>\n

All of this is inadequate and unsatisfying when we or our loved ones suffer, or when we are crushed by the suffering we see all around us. <\/span>It is not meant to be satisfying but to drive us to faith. No explanation can suffice to alleviate our suffering, and no strategy can avoid or eliminate suffering, but, as Bonhoeffer observes, life with all its struggles, trials, and hardships is what develops us into people of faith:<\/span><\/p>\n

I thought I could acquire faith by endeavoring to lead what might be termed a holy life.\u2026 Later I discovered, and <\/span>am still discovering to this day, that one can acquire faith only by leading an entirely worldly [as opposed to other-worldly] life. If we renounce any attempt to make something of ourselves, be it saint or penitent sinner or churchman (a so-called priestly type!), be it a righteous or unrighteous, sick or health<\/span>y individual\u2014and by worldliness I mean living amid the [world\u2019s] abundance of duties and problems, successes and failures, experiences and perplexities\u2014if we do that, we cast ourselves completely into the arms of God; we take seriously, not our own sufferings, but those of God in this world; and we share Christ\u2019s vigil in Gethsemane. That, I believe, is faith, is <\/span><\/span>metanoia<\/span>, and that is how one becomes a human being and a Christian.\u2026 I\u2019m thankful to have recognized this, and I know t<\/span>hat I could only have done so on the road I have traveled. That is why I reflect with gratitude and serenity on things past and present.56<\/a><\/p>\n

Bonhoeffer shows us that beyond faith and trust, what God ask<\/span>s of us is humility: humility about our ability to discern how the cosmos works, and humility about our ability to fully comprehend God and his ways.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>Job 42<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>Original Meaning<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Job\u2019s Second Response<\/strong><\/p>\n

In 40:4\u20135<\/a>, Job responded to God\u2019s questioning concerning the macrocosm and microcosm with awed silence. He would no longer press his case. Yahweh deemed his silence inadequate, however, and followed up with a second speech featuring the mysterious Behemoth and Leviathan. Job now responds to this second speech by recanting and repenting.<\/p>\n

Job here first acknowledges God\u2019s wisdom and power (42:2<\/a>), then admits the validity of God\u2019s accusation that he (Job) has obscured knowledge and spoken ignorantly (42:3<\/a>). He concedes that he spoke of things too \u201cwonderful\u201d to know. The Hebrew word here is pele\u02be<\/span>, which refers to information in the divine realm that is beyond human understanding. The same word describes knowledge of God\u2019s name (Judg. 13:18<\/a>) and God\u2019s wondrous acts (Ex. 3:20<\/a>; Josh. 3:5<\/a>; Judg. 6:13<\/a>; Ps. 139:6<\/a>). An equivalent term today would be \u201csupernatural.\u201d<\/p>\n

No concept of natural existed in the ancient world, so there could be no distinction between natural and supernatural. All action was considered effected by God,1<\/a> though people did recognize a difference between divine and human capabilities. In Job, the word pele\u02be<\/span> occurs five other times (5:9<\/a>; 9:10<\/a>; 10:16<\/a>; 37:5<\/a>, 14<\/a>), and these instances provide a helpful profile of its usage. Job\u2019s use of the word here is particularly appropriate, as he acknowledges that God\u2019s ways are beyond his ability to comprehend and systematize.<\/p>\n

In 42:5<\/a> Job distinguishes between secondhand experience (\u201cmy ears had heard\u201d) and firsthand experience (\u201cnow my eyes have seen\u201d), and in light of the comparison, he \u201cdespises\u201d (NIV<\/a>; Heb. m\u02bes<\/span>) and \u201crepents\u201d (NIV<\/a>; Heb. n\u1e25m<\/span> in the Niphal). The first verb connotes considering something or someone as nothing or as having no value. Job previously used this verb to describe his low estimation of himself (7:16<\/a>; 9:21<\/a>).2<\/a> The expression goes beyond humility to self-abasement. He is deeply ashamed of his former presumption in challenging God\u2019s ways.3<\/a><\/p>\n

The second verb should be distinguished from others that can be translated \u201crepent.\u201d Eliphaz, working under the assumption that Job was guilty of great sin, urged him to \u201crepent\u201d (NIV<\/a>: \u201creturn\u201d in 22:23<\/a>; \u0161ub<\/span>)\u2014that is, to change his behavior. In 42:5<\/a>, Job does not suggest behavior change, but rather wishes to retract his previous statements. He employs the same verb and form used when God \u201cchanges his mind\u201d (e.g., Ex. 32:14<\/a>; Jer. 4:28<\/a>; 18:10<\/a>; Joel 2:13<\/a>; Jonah 3:10<\/a>). While it is a difficult word to translate into English, many of its occurrences take place in situations involving regret. It would not be misguided to see in Job\u2019s statements that he regrets his previous statements, his characterization of God, his presumptuous belief in his own understanding, and his arrogant challenges.<\/p>\n

Nevertheless, his statement here focuses elsewhere. When the Niphal form of the verb n\u1e25m<\/span> is used with the preposition \u02bfal<\/span> (as here), it typically means to reconsider something or, more often, to put something out of mind\u2014to forget all about it.4<\/a> In this verse, that \u201csomething\u201d is his dust and ashes. The preposition cannot be read as Job repenting with<\/em> dust and ashes; rather, he \u201creconsiders dust and ashes,\u201d or \u201cputs dust and ashes out of his mind.\u201d He has thereby announced the end to his mourning as he has accepted his reality.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Narrative Epilogue<\/p>\n

The epilogue comprises two parts: the reprimand and reconciliation of Job\u2019s friends (42:7\u20139<\/a>), and the restoration of Job\u2019s prosperity (42:10\u201316<\/a>). Both have their difficulties. The f<\/span>irst section presents vocabulary problems, which we will address immediately, and the second raises concerns regarding the conclusion\u2019s theological and rhetorical logic, which we will address under Bridging Contexts.<\/span><\/p>\n

After God expresses his anger at the three friends, he twice identifies the reason for his displeasure: \u201cYou have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has.\u201d At this point<\/span> in the book, we can see many ways in which the friends have spoken incorrectly, but it is more difficult to understand why Job seems to receive exoneration for his statements about God, particularly <\/span>in light of the harsh indictment that immediately preceded this section.<\/p>\n

Outside of God\u2019s statements in 42:7\u20138<\/a>, neither God nor Job seems to consider Job\u2019s speech about God to be appropriate; indeed, <\/span>passages such as 30:18\u201323<\/a> raise serious questions about the validity of Job\u2019s characterization of God. Furthermore, Job\u2019s oath of innocence in chapter 31<\/a> carries implications that are inherently devas<\/span>tating to God\u2019s character. As is often the case, clarity is found in a close reading of the Hebrew text, particularly an investigation of the narrator\u2019s choice of words.<\/p>\n

The Hebrew combines the verb d<\/span><\/span>ibber<\/span> (the common word for the act of speaking) with the preposition \u02beel<\/span> followed by the first person pronoun, ending with the adjective nekonah<\/span> (NIV<\/a>, \u201cright\u201d), and presents the entire phrase as a con<\/span>trast to Job\u2019s behavior (k-<\/span> preposition of comparison).<\/p>\n

The versions and manuscripts testify that interpreters have long struggled with this line. Most notably, many Hebrew manuscripts substitute the <\/span>Hebrew preposition b-<\/span> for k-<\/span> preceding the reference to Job. This change results in the translation: \u201cbecause you have not spoken of me what is right against<\/em> my servant Job\u201d (instead of \u201cas<\/em> my servant<\/span> Job\u201d). Such a reading eliminates the suggestion that Job has spoken correctly about God.5<\/a> Although this presents a possible solution, it may be a textual adjustment made in the transmission history i<\/span>n order to resolve a perceived problem rather than a reading that commends itself as original.<\/p>\n

An alternative explanation relates to the word nekonah<\/span> (Niphal fem. ptc. of kwn<\/span>). As noted in the comment<\/span>s on Job 10:13<\/a> (p. 178<\/a>), when this word concerns something that is expressed or discovered, it indicates that such expression or discovery is sensible, logical, or verifiable. A statement characterize<\/span>d as nekonah<\/span> can be validated by evidence. In 10:13<\/a>, I suggested the following conclusion: \u201cJob believes that God is afflicting him without cause (9:17<\/a>), a belief that God affirms is true (2:3<\/a>); in co<\/span>ntrast, Job\u2019s friends claim that God is afflicting Job with cause and press Job to confess his supposed crimes. This does not mean that Job\u2019s concept of God is unobjectionable or that all that he says of God <\/span>is correct, but it does mean that Job has drawn logical conclusions.\u201d As this reading suggests, we may be able to differentiate between ways of \u201cspeaking what is right.\u201d In contrast to his friends, Job did speak what is right (or valid) in certain ways, even though in other ways he misspoke. I believe this offers the most profitable direction for interpretation. Regardless of which interpretive option we <\/span><\/span>choose, however, all commentators agree that although Job spoke more truly than his friends, God does not exonerate his behavior as a whole.6<\/a><\/p>\n

We must address one more textual issue bef<\/span>ore turning our attention to rhetorical strategy in Bridging Contexts. In verse 8<\/a> God states that if Job offers a sacrifice and prays for the friends, \u201cI will accept his prayer and not deal with you a<\/span>ccording to your folly\u201d (NIV<\/a>). This translation avoids a problem evident in the Hebrew text, which has no second person pronoun attached to the noun folly (nebalah<\/span>). The Hebrew thus appears to require<\/span> the translation \u201clest I commit folly in my treatment of you.\u201d The syntax (lebilti<\/span> + \u02bfa\u015bot<\/span> + uninflected noun, cf. Lev. 18:30<\/a>; Ezek. 33:15<\/a>, in this case, nebalah<\/span>) suggests that Yahweh may act with fo<\/span>lly (nebalah<\/span>), a concept that is incompatible with his character (note nebaloth<\/span> as a description of Job\u2019s wife in 2:10<\/a>). Before adding words to the text (as the NIV<\/a> does), we will attempt to understan<\/span>d the full semantic range of the word nebalah<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Some have suggested that nebalah<\/span> refers to actions that are scandalously contrary to convention or to someone engaged in such behavior.7<\/a> The word often d<\/span>escribes strikingly immoral behavior (e.g., Gen. 34:7<\/a>; Judg. 19:23<\/a>; 2 Sam. 13:12<\/a>) or disparagement of God\u2019s character (Isa. 9:17<\/a>; Jer. 29:23<\/a>). Such behavior is considered outrageous because it violate<\/span>s all sensibility, logic, and tradition. We readily translate nebalah<\/span> as \u201cfolly,\u201d because characteristically it is a fool who commits such acts. The term involves not only unconventional comportment, <\/span>but shocking iconoclasm and reversal of norms. Can God act this way? In light of preceding chapters, we must answer in the affirmative, for a reversal of norms is precisely the manner in which God has acted toward Job: God brought suffering on that righteous man even though convention dictated that he should prosper. Here, then, <\/span>God threatens that Job\u2019s friends are not immune to similar treatment. They too are vulnerable to loss and misery, contrary to their confidence in the <\/span>RP<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Finally, Job offers a prayer for his friends after they have offered the requisite sacrifices. This action serves a<\/span>s an inclusio with chapter 1<\/a>, where Job offered sacrifices for his children. When Job acted as priest for his children, his behavior revealed flaws in his theology and exposed him to questions regardi<\/span>ng his motivations, which led to his suffering. In contrast, when Job acts as intercessor for his friends at the end of the book, he does so in reflection of God\u2019s compassion, not in suspicion of God\u2019s unreasonable character; as a result, this behavior leads to Job\u2019s restoration (<\/span>42:10<\/a>). Job conducted his former rituals in order to hedge against the possibility that his children had cursed God; no<\/span>w their rituals and his prayer are required because his friends did not speak what was right about Yahweh\u2014a fact, not a vague suspicion.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

Bridging Contexts<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>Rhetorical Strategy<\/strong><\/p>\n

We must address two questions as we approach the rhetorical conclusion of the book:<\/p>\n

1. How does Job\u2019s concluding statement serve as a logical response to God\u2019s second speech?<\/p>\n

2. Ho<\/span>w does the epilogue serve as a legitimate conclusion to the book?<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Job\u2019s response to Yahweh\u2019s second speech.<\/strong> We have already discussed the reasons for Yahweh\u2019s second speech and the ways in which Job\u2019s second response surpasses his first. We must now consider why Yahweh\u2019s second speech effectively elicits a more significant response from Job.<\/p>\n

As previously suggested, in his second speech Yahweh employs Behemoth and Leviathan as illustrations for Job and himself, respectively. The lesson of Behemoth concerns stability and trust. The lesson of Leviathan is the utter folly of challenging God\u2014one wouldn\u2019t dream of challenging Leviathan, and God is far greater than Leviathan. Job\u2019s second response, in which he recants his arrogant challenges, demonstrates that he has taken these lessons to heart. Presumably he is now prepared to place his trust in God rather than the RP<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Epilogue as fitting conclusion to the book.<\/strong> Many have been baffled by the conclusion for a number of reasons:<\/p>\n

\u2022 Restoring Job\u2019s prosperity doesn\u2019t erase the suffering he experienced\u2014this solution ring<\/span>s hollow.<\/p>\n

\u2022 Providing Job with more children does not heal his grief for those he lost.<\/p>\n

\u2022 Restoring Job\u2019s prosperity seems like a reinstallation of the RP<\/a>, which makes little sense given that God has <\/span>just established its inadequacy.<\/p>\n

Any treatment of the book must address these issues in order to explain why the conclusion is appropriate.<\/p>\n

To fully grasp the appropriateness of the conclusion, we mus<\/span>t bear in mind the book\u2019s central concern: God\u2019s policies. The Challenger claims that it is poor policy for righteous people to prosper. Job claims that it is poor policy for righteous people to suffe<\/span>r. The first twenty-seven chapters of the book explore the Challenger\u2019s claim, throughout which Job maintains his belief that righteousness, not prosperity, matters most. We traced the integrity of Job\u2019s conviction chapter by chapter and concluded that, contrary to the Challenger\u2019s contention, prospering righteou<\/span>s people does not automatically subvert their motives. Job demonstrates that it is possible to be righteous for righteousness\u2019 sake\u2014he indeed will serve God for nothing.<\/span><\/p>\n

The book likewise addresses Job\u2019s claim and concludes that it is not God\u2019s policy<\/em> to prosper righteous people invari<\/span>ably. While God delights in bringing good to those who are faithful, the world does not operate according to justice. The RP<\/a> does not provide a theodicy.<\/p>\n

By restoring Job\u2019s prosperity in the epilogue,<\/span> God makes a clear statement that he will continue to act as he did before, with policies unchanged. The cases presented by the Challenger and by Job have proved untenable. God is not bound by the RP<\/a>.<\/span> Job can now understand his prosperity differently: Prosperity is not a reward he deserves or one that God is obliged to provide. It is rather a gift from God.<\/p>\n

When we view the epilogue in this light,<\/span> the objections raised earlier may be effectively addressed. The restoration of Job\u2019s prosperity is not intended to erase Job\u2019s pain, and it is not even primarily for Job\u2019s benefit. This is not about Job. Through Job\u2019s renewed prosperity, G<\/span>od\u2019s challenged policies are reinstated. Now, however, it can be understood that this prosperity of Job\u2019s is not a given, is not mechanical; it is not the obligation of God but the pleasure of God. This point is critical for an accurate understanding of the book\u2019s message. The epilogue does not suggest that when we suffer, we may console ourselves with an expectation of future satisfaction\u2014that someday we will get it all back.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Similarly, the fact that Job is given more children is not meant to erase his grief over those who died. Like many Jews in the af<\/span>termath of the Holocaust, Elie Wiesel struggled to understand a God who could allow such devastation to his chosen people. In Messengers of God: Biblical Portraits and Legends<\/em>, Wiesel makes the point <\/span>that tragedies do not cancel one another out. Wiesel suggests that what Job should have asked at the end of the book was: \u201cWhat about my dead children?\u201d8<\/a> Those losses were real and could not be amelio<\/span>rated by replacements. But the epilogue does not suggest such an unrealistic way of thinking. Again, the restoration is not primarily for Job\u2019s benefit; rather, it demonstrates that God\u2019s policies are<\/span> intact and unaltered in the aftermath of the challenges made to them. Wiesel is seeking reasons and explanations for suffering, which the epilogue does not offer.<\/p>\n

If we consider the epilogue (or the <\/span>book as a whole) and imagine how we would feel if we were Job or if we experienced Job-like suffering, we will miss the point. Our purpose is not to learn from Job as a character or from his experiences. The book does not ask us to put <\/span>ourselves in his place or to model our responses after his behavior. Instead, the book prompts us to learn how to think about God more accurately, just as Job learns alongside us. God delights in showing favor to those who are faithful to him, but the world is not bound to operate on that premise.<\/span><\/p>\n

The observations provided in response to the first two objections<\/span> also give an answer to the third. The restoration of Job\u2019s prosperity does not equate to an unqualified reinstallation of the RP<\/a>, and thus Job\u2019s blessings now may be considered in a different light. <\/span>Neither God\u2019s policies nor the world\u2019s operations are founded on the RP<\/a> applied as theodicy. Rather, when events appear to occur according to the RP<\/a>, they should be viewed as the ripple effects of God<\/span>\u2019s character as he intervenes to bring blessing and judgment.<\/p>\n

In order to understand the strategy and import of the book, we must recognize that it does not offer us an explanation of why righteous pe<\/span>ople suffer. We should not base our expectations on Job\u2019s experiences. Job receives no explanation for his suffering, and the book does not fill that void for readers either. The only explanation the book offers concerns right thinking about God and his policies in a world where suffering is pervasive and inevitable.<\/span><\/p>\n

In light of the preceding points, the epilogue is the perfect conclusion to the b<\/span>ook. The challenges to God\u2019s policies have been addressed, and various misconceptions about God and the cosmos have been dispelled. In the process, we have gained wisdom. This wisdom does not ease our suffering, but it does help us to avoid the foolish thinking that might lead us <\/span>to reject God when we need him most.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

Theological Issues<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Retribution Principle remix. Given the book\u2019s conclusion, we may reevaluate our view of the RP<\/a>, especially in light of the positive affirmations found in Proverbs, wisdom psalms such as Psalm 37<\/a>, and Deuteronomy\u2019s covenant blessings and curses. The Introduction (pp. 39\u201348<\/a>) addressed this material at length, so we only reiterate it briefly here. The two key ideas are as follows:<\/p>\n

1. The Bible affirms the RP<\/a> as good theology, but it does not use it to construct a theodicy, despite the natural inclination to do so.<\/p>\n

2. The Bible\u2019s affirmation of the RP<\/a> is covenantal and proverbial. In covenantal terms, it operates collectively, not individually, and therefore is philosophically unproblematic when an individual faces a crisis. Wisdom literature presents the RP<\/a> as proverbial truth, which by its genre constitutes a generalization about how things tend to be rather than a guarantee of universal reality.<\/p>\n

As we consider the RP<\/a> in collective covenantal terms, we may ponder Job\u2019s impact on corporate Israel. It is unlikely that Israelites in exile viewed themselves as a corporate righteous sufferer, but they may well have gained insight into the covenant\u2019s RP<\/a> aspects in context of their national relationship to Yahweh.9<\/a> Per the message of Job, the covenant asks Israel to trust God\u2019s wisdom rather than to apply a mechanical tally system suggested by a superficial reading of the covenant blessings and curses.<\/p>\n

God\u2019s policies remix.<\/strong> Even when we accept the book\u2019s teaching that God\u2019s policies are sound and that the RP<\/a> is not the foundation for the world\u2019s operations, we inevitably find ourselves with further questions about how God works. Why does God bring blessing to the righteous and judgment on the wicked inconsistently? Even if he did so only rarely, wouldn\u2019t such action require \u201coverriding\u201d the natural system of cause and effect in order to impose his will? If God overrides the system sometimes, why not all the time? How does he choose when to do so? We easily find ourselves at square one, questioning God\u2019s policies.<\/p>\n

Our understanding of these issues will benefit if we can set aside our default conception of the post-Enlightenment Kantian divide between supernatural and natural, in which the natural world operates by an inexorable chain of cause and effect, and any supernatural element is a disruption. Instead, we must think in ancient categories of order and disorder, which were introduced in our investigation of Behemoth and Leviathan (p. 413<\/a>). Suffering is part of the disorder that continues to exist in the cosmos. It has been left there by God\u2019s design, according to his purposes. God can<\/em> send suffering as punishment, but suffering is also an automatic result of disorder. Human beings, made in God\u2019s image, can alleviate a measure of suffering as they follow their mandate to \u201csubdue and rule.\u201d Such alleviation may be seen in technology employed on a global basis to maximize resources, and through the advance of medical technology to treat disease and reduce pain. This type of progress, however, is inevitably limited and cannot serve as a final solution to disorder. These same technologies can be exploited in harmful ways as they are wielded by fallen humans.<\/p>\n

God brings order in many ways besides human effort. Creation is the act of bringing order, and God is Creator. His creating work entails ongoing involvement, not merely a past burst of activity. Enactments of the RP<\/a> are a manifestation of order. We cannot address why God chooses to enact the RP<\/a> in some instances and not in others\u2014this is where trust comes into play. God will eventually align all of creation with his attributes and establish absolute order in the new heavens and new earth. Until then, we should expect continued manifestations of disorder.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Contemporary Significance<\/p>\n

When I have opportunity for casual reading, fantasy is my genre of choice. I enjoy how it opens my imagination and offers truths about the world. Fantasy writers often indulg<\/span>e in philosophical and theological ruminations; in this and many other ways, they are indebted to the likes of J. R. R. Tolkien and C. S. Lewis. Sometimes their ideas ring true; other times, I find reason to disagree or to question whether they have put truth in the mouths of their characters.<\/span><\/p>\n

In The Astonishing Life of Octavian Nothing: Traitor to the Nation, Volume 1, The Pox Party<\/em>, by M. T. And<\/span>erson, one of the characters offers a remarkable commentary on the relationship between kindness and profit\u2014precisely the issue addressed in the book of Job.<\/p>\n

Kindness without the promise of profit is <\/span>an impossibility. You must want something if you are to act. Otherwise, it would be like movement without motivation. Reaction without action. Kinesis without stimulation. Motion without energy. Kindness without profit is like a teapot hoveri<\/span>ng over a table, held by nothing.10<\/a><\/p>\n

It is not surprising that some people truly subscribe to this belief. Profit is undoubtedly a common motivation for kindne<\/span>ss, and in our fallen state this observation easily shapes our mind-set, even if subconsciously. After all, we are not naturally inclined to be kind. The book of Job offers the good news that kindness (or righteousness) can be motivated by something other than profit.<\/span><\/p>\n

This statement appropriately leads to a question we each should answer: Do we serve God for nothing? If our righteous or kind behav<\/span>ior is motivated primarily by a desire to ingratiate ourselves with God and\/or others, to win approval, or to conform to expectations, we are missing the mark. Honest self-evaluation can be difficult,<\/span> because these false motivations are often buried deeply in our psyche. To correct this tendency, we do not need to eliminate our desire for approval or our inclination to conform, but we do need to nurture right ways of thinking.<\/span><\/p>\n

How do we do so, and how will we know if we are getting it right? Righteous behavior often does<\/em> result in approval or even profit, and it is all too easy to view those r<\/span>esults as incentives. In order to detach motivation from personal gain, therefore, we ought to seek opportunities to do what is right without hope of approval or profit. Even in anonymous acts of righteousness, however, we may feel satisfied that we are ingratiating ourselv<\/span>es with God, and we must dissuade ourselves from thinking in those terms. Righteousness and kindness certainly please God, and his pleasure is sound motivation. The key is to avoid expecting something in return; his approval should be enough. These are high ideals indeed, and they do not come naturally. We can work on them for our entire lives and still feel we have made little progress and failed frequently. Nevertheless, pure motivation should become the object of our<\/span> prayers.<\/span><\/p>\n

As the book of Job comes to a close, we sh<\/span>ould also take the opportunity to review our conception of an appropriate response to suffering. We have discussed this notion several times, but we have yet to address the various suggestions that are typically made. I begin with a quote fro<\/span>m another fantasy novel, this one offering a perspective on suffering: \u201cEvery injury is a gift, every gift an injury.\u201d11<\/a> When I encountered this statement by <\/span>one of the characters in the book, I set the book down and spent some time pondering its validity. I recognize the statement as a generalization, and as such it need not be considered always<\/em> true. But<\/span> does it have a ring of truth to it as an observation of reality?<\/p>\n

We could consider \u201cevery injury a gift\u201d if we emphasize the way in which an injury to one part of the body sometimes strengthens other<\/span> parts. Indeed, in the book the line was spoken by a blind character who experienced compensatory development via the sharpening of other senses. We could also consider the statement to be true in the sense that suffering may help us to mature, as pointed out earlier. In this way too, injuries could be accepted as gifts.<\/span><\/p>\n

Correspondingly, we could consider \u201cevery gift an injury\u201d because a gift may <\/span>indebt us to the giver. Obligations place burdens on us, some of which we can never repay. In such cases, we may feel guilty or constrained. When gifts come with chains of conscience or duty attached, we may indeed view them as injuries.<\/span><\/p>\n

It is inappropriate, however, to think of God\u2019s gifts as inflicting injury. The essential point of Job is that God does not run a mutual indebtedness scheme. His <\/span>gifts to us impose no obligation. Undoubtedly some respond to God as if they are trapped in servitude, but that is not how God desires us to interact with him. We are to respond as his children, not as his slaves (<\/span>Rom. 8:15\u201317<\/a>). It is true that we are debtors to his grace, but that is a debt we can never repay, and in fact God does not expect repayment. Christ died because we could not independent<\/span>ly rectify our situation, so if we serve him only out of a sense of guilt or duty, we miss the point entirely. Christ\u2019s death was not a relocation of guilt\u2014guilt over sin to guilt over an impossible debt; rather, Christ died to free us from guilt so that we can serve him freely, out of love.<\/span><\/p>\n

We may conclude, then, that the novel\u2019s saying contains some truth and demonstrates a potential perspective<\/span> on suffering: suffering as a gift. Those who maintain that suffering is God\u2019s will and therefore worthy of a joyful response express the same concept. The notion of rejoicing in suffering has biblical support:<\/span><\/p>\n

Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance. Perseverance must finish its work so that y<\/span>ou may be mature and complete, not lacking anything. If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him. (James 1:2\u20135<\/a>)<\/p>\n

These <\/span>verses touch on many of the points we have presented throughout the book. Trials result in maturity, and God gives us wisdom to cope with the pain we experience. Notice also that James urges us to pray for <\/span>wisdom rather than for relief.<\/p>\n

At the same time, we may question whether James is addressing trials of suffering, for within the book\u2019s discussion of perseverance, the emphasis remains primarily<\/span> on temptation and persecution. James likely would not exempt suffering from the larger category he labels \u201ctrials,\u201d for he mentions Job as an example of one who persevered (James 5:11<\/a>). It is appropr<\/span>iate, then, that we try to find joy (which is distinct from \u201chappiness\u201d) in suffering. Although such an attempt often feels impossible, it is nonetheless the perspective to which we should aspire.<\/p>\n

I m<\/span>ust make one final observation on this point: I am not convinced that we should view suffering as \u201cGod\u2019s will,\u201d by which I mean that it is not his desire for us to suffer. God desires that we learn perse<\/span>verance and wisdom and that we mature. Suffering is part of the disorder in the world and God can bring good from it. Disorder has remained part of the cosmos as part of God\u2019s plan. But instead of <\/span>responding to this disorder righteously, we have responded to this disorder with sin, which sometimes results in suffering. We should not rejoice over our sin and over the chaos and suffering that ensue as a result. Positive re<\/span>sults can follow sin when we recognize it, suffer the consequences, repent, and thereby grow strong against it\u2014but that does not make sin God\u2019s will.<\/p>\n

We should not think of <\/span>suffering as God\u2019s way to teach us a lesson and that our continued suffering means we have not yet learned the intended lesson. God can teach lessons through our suffering, but we should not think of it as his will to do so<\/span>. Likewise we should not think in terms of \u201cblaming the world.\u201d We must resist finding a focus for blame, for that is not the point.<\/p>\n

God\u2019s plan for history and the cosmos entail<\/span>s a gradual process of expanding order. While that process remains incomplete, we cope with the disorder that remains. God could have chosen to act differently, but it is not our role to second-guess God or to suggest better options, as the boo<\/span>k of Job has taught us. When we distinguish between God\u2019s permissive will and his perfect sovereign will, we reflect our desire to craft theology to justify our experience. Such systematizations run the risk of committing the same fault as Job and his friends: reducing God\u2019s policies to a simple formula.<\/span><\/p>\n

My reticence to label suffering as \u201cGod\u2019s will\u201d do<\/span>es not entail agreement with those who label suffering as the work of the devil.12<\/a> We often overstate the role of Satan in the world. When we portray him as the enemy of God, we must be careful not to<\/span> elevate him above his pay grade. God has no enemies worthy of the title, and he is not in a struggle to retain power or control over the universe. Satan is our<\/em> enemy, but he is entirely under God\u2019s c<\/span>ontrol, as discussed in chapter 1<\/a> (pp. 64\u201367<\/a>). Satan is only part of the disorder that continues to exist in the cosmos; he is neither the author of that disorder nor its sustainer. He has a role in t<\/span>he disorder, and his presence testifies to it, but every instance of disorder cannot be attributed to him.<\/p>\n

Another common reaction to suffering is the conclusion that we suffer because we deserve it. <\/span>For every natural disaster, there are unfortunately people willing to enumerate the sins of the victims (corporately if not individually). When Hurricane Katrina decimated a large section of New Orleans, self-styled prophets announced that the devastation was God\u2019s judgment on a sinful city. <\/span>There is no question that God can use natural disasters to bring judgment, but no one today should dare claim a prophet\u2019s authority to expound the mind of God. Correlating suffering and sin too closely leads to overreliance on the <\/span>RP<\/a>\u2019s explanatory capacity. This is precisely the error critiqued by the book<\/span> of Job, and we should seek to avoid it.<\/p>\n

This flaw also appears in the ever-popular \u201chealth-and-wealth\u201d gospel. Instead of claiming that disasters are God\u2019s punishment for wickedness, this theological<\/span> aberration proclaims great material rewards, often in the form of monetary gifts, for those who respond to God. This outlook is another misapplication of the RP<\/a>. As noted, the RP<\/a> appears within the c<\/span>ontext of wisdom literature and should be read as theological proverb; it cannot accurately or profitably be viewed as offering a promise or guarantee.<\/p>\n

Other explanations of suffering emerge in contex<\/span>ts such as the dramatic production God on Trial<\/em>, which portrays a court case held at Auschwitz.13<\/a> God is put on trial for violating his covenant and abandoning his people. The play identifies various <\/span>interpretations of suffering, including the ideas that God brings suffering to test the faith of righteous people (offered by the character named Kuhn) and that God brings suffering for the purpose of purification (offered by Schmidt). Neither of these options should be dismissed out of hand. Undoubted<\/span>ly, either could be the result<\/em> of suffering, but there is a significant difference between \u201cresul<\/span>t\u201d and \u201creason.\u201d As we have learned from Job, we should be hesitant to believe that we can identify reasons for suffering or explanations for God\u2019s actions. Our job is to trust, not to explain. Our objective is faith and perseverance, not relief. Our determination is<\/span> to refrain from reducing God to a manageable size by confining him to a philosophical box of our own design. And our commitment is to respond with humility rather than to defame his character or dismiss him.<\/span><\/p>\n

In conclusion, I want to register a final objection to those who summarize the message of the book of Job as \u201cI am God and y<\/span>ou are not.\u201d I begin with a confession. When I was in my adolescent years, our home had a simple back patio made of stone slabs with spaces of soil between them. As is often the case, ants made their home in these dirt cracks, and the patio was often awash with their activity. For some reason that I still cannot fathom, I <\/span>used to spend time out on the patio with a basketball, squashing ants. It did not occur to me that I should be reluctant to so casually remove life that God had created, with no reason or benefit\u2014the ants brought no harm to the house or garden.<\/span><\/p>\n

Sometimes we might be inclined <\/span>to see ourselves as the ants and God as the mindless adolescent with the basketball. He is not simply exercising power because he can, or demonstrating cruelty, so that it impossible for us to either question him or explain his act<\/span>ions. This view does not represent sound biblical or theological thinking. We should not adopt any of the following elaborations of \u201cI am God and you are not:\u201d<\/p>\n

\u2022 I am Go<\/span>d, mind your own business.<\/p>\n

\u2022 I am God, I can do whatever I want.<\/p>\n

\u2022 I am God, you are worthless.<\/p>\n

In light of the book of Job, the only acceptable elaboration would be: \u201cI am God, I care deeply, and I w<\/span>ant you to trust me even when you don\u2019t understand.\u201d By affirming such a view of God, we do not dismiss suffering as meaningless but try to understand it in the larger context of God\u2019s wisdom and the world in which we live.<\/p>\n

Kelly\u2019s Story14<\/a><\/p>\n

JHW: We have reached the end of the book, Kelly, but you still have your life before you. Could you conclude by reflecting on how the book of Job has changed your perspective about yo<\/span>ur situation and what the future looks like for you (both in terms of your physical condition and your perspectives on it)?<\/p>\n

Kelly: This process has changed my perspective on suffering and my situation<\/span> in so many ways, I am not sure where to begin. Looking back at the lunch conversation with you in the Wheaton College dining hall when you asked me to consider being a part of this commentary in the <\/span>spring of 2009, I remember feeling honored, excited, horrified, way underqualified, and confused all at the same time. I remember thinking, \u201cWhy on earth is he asking me? I feel like the last person t<\/span>o be giving my thoughts on suffering for a Job commentary. Maybe he hasn\u2019t noticed that God and I are in a bit of a disagreement at the moment.\u201d It was as though you read my mind because you then said, \u201cStruggling through the hard questions, wrestling with the unknown, and having someone share their raw and real emotions in the midst of trial will be what readers relate to.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

When I think about the<\/span> honor I have had to be a part of this project, I see God\u2019s involvement, or rather his purpose, written all over it. As I reflect on my testimony, there are still many unanswered questions, and I may never know the answers<\/span>\u2014nor am I entitled to. When it comes to this book on Job, however, it is clear how God used the timing of this opportunity for a greater purpose.<\/p>\n

I was broken. I was in the thick<\/span> of it. When I first started writing my section of this book, typing was still a difficult task since I had lost my fine motor skills in my left hand and was still recovering and trying to strengthen those muscles. I am grateful tha<\/span>t as I type now, it is a task I can do with ease. As we know from what we learned in studying Job, God is not a God who micromanages every detail; but I do believe he i<\/span>s a God who answers prayers, equips us, and gives us the strength\u2014or in my case, the project\u2014to help us through our trials.<\/p>\n

God knew that I was angry, confused, hurt, and suffering, and that I would m<\/span>ost likely bottle all of my emotions. I would not talk about my questions to God, or even what I was struggling through, but then I willingly signed a contract stating that I have<\/em> to talk about the tr<\/span>ial I\u2019m in and write out my questions and dialogue with God in the process. He may not have removed the thorn, but what a better way to carry me through the trial than to say: \u201cKelly, I\u2019m going to have you sign a contract<\/span> for a commentary on the book of Job. So while you are in these trials, you are going to study Job and the topics of suffering on earth and my involvement in it. You will then talk about how those themes are directly connected to your personal testimony, and then be forced to deal with deep-rooted issues in regard to the lies that you have believed about me as a result of your painful experiences.\u201d It has been a proce<\/span>ss for which I am grateful. There were times where you would send me questions that I would have to skip and return to later on, because I wasn\u2019t ready to address that area of my faith or my life.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

So once I was in the process, how did studying the book of Job change my perspective? First, I learned how to pray while in suffering, which greatly impacted my <\/span>perspective. I learned that in my moments of pain I should seek wisdom (as we talked about in Job 28<\/a>), ask for the strength to endure, and pray for a heavenly perspective, rather than focusing solely <\/span>on the trial and begging for an escape. I learned that when I was challenging God and asking him \u201cWhy?\u201d it did not reveal God\u2019s distorted character, but my distorted view of him. This caused me to reflect on the lies that I was believing about my own worth and about God that were formed from painful<\/span> experiences on earth. But the largest thing that changed my view on my situation was identifying my lack of trust in God. The restoration of my trust in him and knowing his love for me brought emotional and spiritual healing.<\/span><\/p>\n

There were times where I felt like the ant that you described in your sto<\/span>ry. In times like those I felt as if God was carelessly causing me pain, but I had to remember his love for me and that in the midst of the pain, I must trust that his plan is good, because his character does not change.<\/span><\/p>\n

A lot has changed in my life throughout this process. I graduated from Wheaton College with a degree in Fine Art Photography and Spanish, moved back to my home state of Colorado t<\/span>o start up my photography business, and I got married in the summer of 2011 to my best friend. I know I would be in a very different place if I had not restored my trust in God, which has allowed me t<\/span>o heal from the lies that were binding me in my suffering. The trials and the story continue. I still have excruciating nerve pain, failed medical procedures, and medical bills for those failed procedures, and I know that <\/span>such experiences will most likely be a part of my life in the future. But the only reason I talk in the past tense when referring to my view of my situation is because even though the suffering remains today, the refreshed perspective acknowledges that God is sovereign, and I believe in him, and his love gives me a renewed strength to trust his wisdom, to overcome the trials, and to be content in the mystery of the unk<\/span>nown.<\/span><\/p>\n

As I write these words I want to be careful because even though I am joyful for the healing that has taken place and for my refreshed perspective, tha<\/span>t does not mean I do not still have days where I feel weak and struggle. The trials are just as real today as they have been over this past decade. So as I encounter trials and pain in my life, I have to continue to seek God and seek wisdom to retain that perspective. I guess what I am saying is that it is <\/span>not<\/em> a one quick fix. Doubts and lies can still creep into our way of thinking, so we need to<\/span> be praying for strength and for discernment when thoughts come into our minds that distort our view of God.<\/p>\n

I do not know what the future holds in terms of my physical condition. I am continuing to l<\/span>earn how to do new things with one arm (I learned how to rock climb recently, and this past summer I had a surfing lesson!), but nerve pain is a continual battle. But in it all, I can say that I trust God and his wisdom, and that he will equip me to persevere through whatever this next seas<\/span>on will bring.<\/p>\n

Kelly\u2019s story, like most of our own stories, has no neat tying up of loose ends\u2014no quasi-happy<\/span> endings like the one we find in Job. Her story continues to unfold. As she noted, the pain continues as does the disability; bills remain; medical solutions are evasive; people continue to offer unhelpful or even hurtful advice. Kelly has chosen not to include many additional hurts in some of<\/span> her personal relationships, but the ripple effects of those continue as well. The trust that we are called upon to exercise is not trust that God will bring resolution. That would be the wrong conclusion to draw from the book of Job. Instead, we trust in God\u2019s goodness and love, even when our experiences cause us to question those attributes.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

This key aspect of trust was also the direction promoted in William Paul Young\u2019s wildly popular 2007 novel, The Shack<\/em>, which gained a number-one position on the<\/span> New York Times<\/em> bestseller list.15<\/a> The center portion of the book contains lengthy discussions between God and the main character about numerous theological topics, including, prominently, suffering. <\/span>The following speech by God tracks well to what I have suggested is part of the teaching of the book of Job.<\/p>\n

You try to make sense of the world in which you live based on a very small and incomplete p<\/span>icture of reality. It is like looking at a parade through the tiny knothole of hurt, pain, self-centeredness, and power and believing you are on your own and insignificant. All of these thoughts contain powerful lies. You see pain and death as ultimate evils and God as the ultimate betrayer<\/span>, or perhaps, at best, as fundamentally untrustworthy. You dictate the terms and judge my actions and find me guilty.<\/span><\/p>\n

The real underlying flaw in your life, MacKenzie, is that you don\u2019t think I am good. If you knew I was good and that everything\u2014the means, the ends, and all the processes of individual lives\u2014<\/span>is all covered by my goodness, then while you might not always understand what I am doing, you would trust me. But you don\u2019t.16<\/a><\/p>\n

This conversation is drawn to a powerful conclusion:<\/p>\n

MacKenzie, you cann<\/span>ot produce trust, just as you cannot \u201cdo\u201d humility. It either is or is not. Trust is the fruit of a relationship in which you know you are loved. Because you do not know that I love you, you cannot<\/em> tr<\/span>ust me.17<\/a><\/p>\n

So now we have reached the end of the matter: trust in the wisdom of God born of our absolute conviction that he loves us. That is the way through the struggles of life.<\/p>\n

The fitting benedict<\/span>ion comes from Romans 11:33\u201336<\/a> (with my italics for emphasis):<\/p>\n

Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom<\/em> and knowledge<\/em> of God!<\/p>\n

How unsearchable his judgments<\/em>,<\/p>\n

and his paths beyond tracing out!<\/p>\n

\u201cWho ha<\/span>s known the mind of the Lord?<\/p>\n

Or who has been his counselor?\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cWho has ever given to God<\/p>\n

that God should repay him?\u201d<\/p>\n

For from him and through him and to him are all things.<\/p>\n

To him be the glory forever<\/span>! Amen.<\/p>\n

Technical Appendix<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n
\n

Job 2:3<\/a><\/p>\n

The word translated \u201cincited\u201d is in a form that creates a play on words with \u015ba\u1e6dan<\/span>: tesiteni<\/span>, though neither the s<\/em> nor the t<\/em> is the same Hebrew letter as in \u015ba\u1e6dan<\/span>, and the n<\/em> in this verb is part of the pronominal suffix, not the root; thus there is no morphological relationship between the words. The verbal root, swt<\/span>, makes an intriguing study. It occurs only 18x, always in the Hiphil form; we should begin our first level of analysis with the most similar uses, so we begin with those occurrences that combine the verb with the preposition be<\/em>, as in Job. This phrase features both a direct and indirect object in a collocation that occurs only three other times (1 Sam. 26:19<\/a>; 2 Sam. 24:1<\/a>; Jer. 43:3<\/a>). In each of these, person A (subject) incites person B (direct object) against person C (indirect object) into taking a course of action that is contrary to what is expected, beneficial, or desired by person C.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Person A<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Person B<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Person C<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Action<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

1 Sam. 26:19<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Yahweh<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Saul<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

David<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Pursuing him<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

2 Sam. 24:1<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Yahweh (or his anger)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

David<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Israel<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Take census<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Jer. 43:3<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Baruch<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Jeremiah<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Israel<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Deliver to Babylonians<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Job 2:3<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

s\u00e1\u1e6dan<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Yahweh<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Job<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Ruin him without cause<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Another set of occurrences feature a subject (person A) of the verb and a direct object (person B) but no indirect object (person C).<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Person A<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Person B<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Action<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Deut. 13:6<\/a> (Heb. 7<\/a>)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Close relative<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Israelite<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Worship other gods<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

1 Kings 21:25<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Jezebel<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Ahab<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Do evil (context: Naboth)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

1 Chron. 21:1<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

s\u00e1\u1e6dan<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

David<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Take census<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

2 Chron. 18:2<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Ahab<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Jehoshaphat<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Attack Ramoth Gilead<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

2 Chronicles 32:11<\/a>, 15<\/a>; 2 Kings 18:32<\/a>; Isaiah 36:18<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Hezekiah<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Israel<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Oppose Assyria<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Job 36:18<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

No one<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Sufferer\/Job<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Pursue riches<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Jeremiah 38:22<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

False prophets<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Zedekiah<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Oppose Babylon<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

In these passages, person A is in a position of influence behind the scenes and would be considered complicit and responsible for the action of person B. Person B, however, is the one who actually is held accountable and is not considered a victim taken advantage of.<\/p>\n

In the first table, the incited action is always negative for person C, though it is not intrinsically a sinful or evil action. Do ill feelings in person A motivate him to incite someone against person C? In 1 Samuel 26<\/a>, we may hypothetically ask whether David is truly out of favor with Yahweh; if so, the inciting of Saul would be a reflection of that disfavor. In 2 Samuel 24<\/a>, the author specifically states that Yahweh is angry with Israel. In Jeremiah 43<\/a>, it appears that there has been some tension between Baruch and the Israelites, since they cast blame on him, but there is not enough information for us to draw a definitive conclusion.<\/p>\n

When we bring this information to Job 2:3<\/a>, we can conclude most importantly that, as person B, Yahweh is accountable for the action against Job, though the Challenger has influenced the decision. In this case, Job as person C has no knowledge of the Challenger\u2019s role and never voices any suspicion that another party might be involved; therefore, any potential disfavor toward Job on the Challenger\u2019s part (as person A, usually the driving force in these scenarios) cannot be assumed and is not part of the plot. It is true that person A cannot be exonerated from harboring ill feelings against person C, but there are not enough data to allow us to conclude that such ill feelings are intrinsically involved. In fact, the context here argues against this, as Yahweh specifically says he has been incited against Job \u201cwithout any reason.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n

Job 22:2\u20133<\/a><\/p>\n

The commentaries and translations regularly take the Hebrew word geber<\/span> (NIV<\/a>, Hartley: \u201cman\u201d; Habel: \u201chero\u201d; Clines: \u201chuman\u201d) as the subject of the verb in the first clause of 22:2<\/a>. The occurrence of the same construction in 34:9<\/a> shows, however, that geber<\/span> must be the object rather than the subject, as I have rendered it.<\/p>\n

I have proposed the interpretive \u201cwise mediator\u201d as the subject of the first sentence, which is a translation of the noun ma\u015bkil<\/span>, which both in the Hebrew text and in most translations (NIV<\/a>, Hartley: \u201cwise man\u201d; Habel, Clines: \u201csage\u201d) occurs in the second line. Evidence that it should be considered the subject of this sentence is based on Job 34:9<\/a> (NIV<\/a>: \u201cIt profits a man nothing when he tries to please God\u201d), which uses the same verb as 22:2<\/a> (skn<\/span>). What is in effect the subject in 34:9<\/a> also comes in the following line, in the phrase \u201cwhen he tries to please God\u201d (i.e., his attempts to please God profit a man nothing).<\/p>\n

If the geber<\/span> in 22:2<\/a> refers to a human being, as seems probable, then the ma\u015bkil<\/span> must be someone else; this is the primary evidence for my translation of ma\u015bkil<\/span> as \u201cwise mediator.\u201d It is possible that Eliphaz is referring to his own role, but it would be unusual for him to refer to himself in such an obtuse way. Since the next verse at least alludes to Job\u2019s case, I propose that Eliphaz refers to the mediator that Job has been requesting. Job has not used the noun ma\u015bkil<\/span> to designate this individual, but it is not surprising that Eliphaz chooses a different word from the one Job has been using. I have suggested that Job thinks of his advocate as a heavenly being (p. 214), an idea that Eliphaz has already pronounced useless (5:1<\/a>). Here Eliphaz indulges Job by considering the role of an intermediary, but does so by referring noncommittally to any prudent, insightful individual who could be called on to serve as mediator. By definition, this mediator would speak on behalf of God as well as advocate for the human being. The mediator role is suitably expressed by this noun, which does not just refer to a sage, but to a particular type of wise man. Fox describes the root word (\u015bekel<\/span>) as:<\/p>\n

Insight, the ability to grasp the meanings or implications of a situation or message \u2026 the ability to understand practical matters and interpersonal relations and make beneficial decisions.1<\/a><\/p>\n

Waltke agrees with this assessment and adds that this prudent person \u201cgives attention to a threatening situation, has insight into its solution, acts decisively, and thereby effects success and life and prevents failure and death.\u201d2<\/a> Such is the role of a mediator.<\/p>\n

I have rendered the verb skn<\/span> as \u201cdo any good.\u201d3<\/a> The NIV<\/a>, Hartley, and Clines go the same direction while Habel chooses \u201cendanger\u201d on the basis of some slight cognate evidence. From the words used in parallel with skn<\/span> in other passages, translators have deduced that skn<\/span> has to do with profit or benefit; whatever its specific nuance, this is certainly the general drift. The basic thrust of Eliphaz\u2019s statement would then be: \u201cDo you really think that a mediator will do you any good?\u201d<\/p>\n

Unlike the other translators, I have not set God as the direct or indirect object (\u201cbenefit [to] God\u201d) but removed him grammatically one step further from the action (\u201con behalf of God\u201d). I base this decision on the other two occurrences of this construction (13:7<\/a> and 21:22<\/a>; nowhere else in the Old Testament). A comparison of these verses will help us to see the parallel constructions:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Job 13:7<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

hale\u02beel<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

tedabberu<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u02bfawlah<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Is it on behalf of God<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

you speak<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

wickedness<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Job 21:22<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

hale\u02beel<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

yelamm<\/span>ed<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

da\u02bfat<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Is it on behalf of God<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

he teaches<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

knowledge<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Job 22:2<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

hale\u02beel<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

yiskan<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

gaber<\/em><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Is it on behalf of God<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

he benefits<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

human being<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Grammar<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

interrogative (ha<\/span>) + preposition l-<\/span> + God (\u02beel<\/span>)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

verb (imperfect)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

noun abstraction as direct object<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

It seems clear to me from 13:7<\/a> that this opening combination must be translated, \u201cIs it on behalf of God \u2026?\u201d4<\/a><\/p>\n

We have already established that geber<\/span> must be the object of the verb (see comments<\/span><\/a> above), and I have already indicated that as an abstraction, it should be rendered \u201chuman being.\u201d This translation is confirmed by the other two occurrences of the same construction (shown in the chart), which also have abstractions as the object.5<\/a><\/p>\n

The Hebrew text of 22:3<\/a> begins with the noun translated pleasure or desire (\u1e25p\u1e63<\/span>, NIV<\/a>: \u201cpleasure\u201d; Habel: \u201cfavor\u201d; Hartley, Clines: \u201casset\u201d) preceded by the interrogative particle. First Samuel 15:22<\/a> (and many other passages) indicate that this noun refers to receiving something with pleasure or favor. Eliphaz\u2019s rhetorical question suggests that he does not think God will respond favorably at all, an assessment born out later in the book.6<\/a><\/p>\n

Contrary to the others, who render the verb in the first line simply as \u201cbe righteous\/innocent,\u201d I have rendered it as \u201cjustify yourself\u201d on the evidence of Job 40:8<\/a>. The Qal form of the verb \u1e63dq<\/span> is furthermore used for vindication numerous times in Job (see, e.g., 11:2<\/a>;13:8<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Finally, the last verb in 22:3<\/a> (Hiph. of tmm<\/span>) is challenging. The translations above treat it variably as an adjective (expressed as fact, \u201cto be blameless,\u201d Clines, NIV<\/a>; or as a claim of blamelessness, Hartley) or as a verb (\u201cto perfect your ways,\u201d Habel). It is<\/em> a verbal form, and the Hiphil only occurs eight times.7<\/a> My translation, \u201cGive full account of your ways,\u201d is based on the observation that in many of the other contexts, it roughly concerns paying off or rendering account of something (note esp. 2 Kings 22:4<\/a>).8<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Job 24:22\u201323<\/a><\/p>\n

The verb ma\u0161ak<\/span> that occurs in 24:22<\/a> also occurs in 21:33<\/a> as all men \u201cfollow after\u201d the wicked. In Judges 4:6<\/a> this verb indicates the manner in which God will draw out Sisera and the Canaa<\/span>nites into battle.9<\/a> Here, the wicked man\u2019s influence on the mighty forms a merism with his treatment of the vulnerable in 24:21<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The noun \u02beabbir<\/span> (in 24:22<\/a> in the plural) is used of princes\/warriors\u2014pe<\/span>ople in high positions of power, whether oppressive or not (Job 34:20<\/a>; Ps. 76:5<\/a>; Isa. 10:13<\/a>).10<\/a> Here it is the direct object of verb ma\u0161ak<\/span>.<\/p>\n

qum<\/span>. This is the familiar word for arising. Based on other u<\/span>ses in Job, I would translate it as arising to a position of power: He \u201ctakes his stand\u201d (in 15:29<\/a>, \u201cendure\u201d; 19:25<\/a> \u201cwill stand\u201d; 30:28<\/a>, \u201cstand up in the assembly\u201d).<\/p>\n

\u02beamin ba\u1e25ayyin<\/span>. I would change to<\/span> \u02beamin be\u1e25ayyaw<\/span>, as most do.11<\/a> The combination also occurs in Deuternonomy 28:66<\/a> (\u201cnever sure of your life\u201d), where it indicates, as here, a precarious position. In Job 24<\/a> the wicked rises in positio<\/span>n and power but is never secure (always in danger from his fragile sway over powerful people).<\/p>\n

Job 24:23<\/a> begins in Hebrew with the verb yitten<\/span>, which can be indefinite (\u201cthere is\u201d; see Job 3:20<\/a>). The <\/span>wicked person in his precarious position of power continues as the singular subject. He does everything that he can to ensure his own safety (b\u1e6d\u1e25<\/span>), for he realizes how tenuous it is (presumably beca<\/span>use he is involved in all sorts of manipulative schemes).<\/p>\n

weyi\u0161\u0161a\u02bfen<\/span> is perhaps the most problematic word in 24:22\u201323<\/a> because all other twenty-one uses of the Niphal form occur in collocation with a p<\/span>reposition, while here it stands alone; this leaves unanswered the question of what the wicked person is relying on. The root \u0161\u02bfn<\/span> is used often enough in combination with b\u1e6d\u1e25<\/span> (e.g., Prov. 3:5<\/a>; Isa.<\/span> 50:10<\/a>) to clearly indicate \u201crely\/depend\u201d as the meaning; the context in Job 24<\/a> suggests that the wicked person is relying on himself and the measures that he has taken for his safety.<\/p>\n

Nevertheless, t<\/span>he wicked person\u2019s eyes are \u201con their [the mighty ones\u2019] ways.\u201d This phrase parallels the last phrase of the previous verse that spoke of his insecurity. Here he can never takes his eyes off those whom he has dragge<\/span>d along and continues to manipulate. This speaks of the paranoia of those who gain power at the expense of others.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Job 22\u201327 Original Meaning This third series of speeches concludes the dialogue section. As we will see, the friends have much less to say: Bildad has only six verses and Zophar is silent, leaving Eliphaz to carry the main thrust of the sequence. Eliphaz (Job 22) Eliphaz\u2019s opening line sets the tone for the remainder … <\/p>\n

\u201eJob – II\u201c <\/span>weiterlesen<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-146","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allgemein"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/146","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=146"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/146\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":152,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/146\/revisions\/152"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=146"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=146"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=146"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}