Job continued his discourse:
2“How I long for the months gone by,
for the days when God watched over me,
3when his lamp shone upon my head
and by his light I walked through darkness!
4Oh, for the days when I was in my prime,
when God’s intimate friendship blessed my house,
5when the Almighty was still with me
and my children were around me,
6when my path was drenched with cream
and the rock poured out for me streams of olive oil.
7“When I went to the gate of the city
and took my seat in the public square,
8the young men saw me and stepped aside
and the old men rose to their feet;
9the chief men refrained from speaking
and covered their mouths with their hands;
10the voices of the nobles were hushed,
and their tongues stuck to the roof of their mouths.
11Whoever heard me spoke well of me,
and those who saw me commended me,
12because I rescued the poor who cried for help,
and the fatherless who had none to assist him.
13The man who was dying blessed me;
I made the widow’s heart sing.
14I put on righteousness as my clothing;
justice was my robe and my turban.
15I was eyes to the blind
and feet to the lame.
16I was a father to the needy;
I took up the case of the stranger.
17I broke the fangs of the wicked
and snatched the victims from their teeth.
18“I thought, ‘I will die in my own house,
my days as numerous as the grains of sand.
19My roots will reach to the water,
and the dew will lie all night on my branches.
20My glory will remain fresh in me,
the bow ever new in my hand.’
21“Men listened to me expectantly,
waiting in silence for my counsel.
22After I had spoken, they spoke no more;
my words fell gently on their ears.
23They waited for me as for showers
and drank in my words as the spring rain.
24When I smiled at them, they scarcely believed it;
the light of my face was precious to them.
25I chose the way for them and sat as their chief;
I dwelt as a king among his troops;
I was like one who comforts mourners.
30:1“But now they mock me,
men younger than I,
whose fathers I would have disdained
to put with my sheep dogs.
2Of what use was the strength of their hands to me,
since their vigor had gone from them?
3Haggard from want and hunger,
they roamed the parched land
in desolate wastelands at night.
4In the brush they gathered salt herbs,
and their food was the root of the broom tree.
5They were banished from their fellow men,
shouted at as if they were thieves.
6They were forced to live in the dry stream beds,
among the rocks and in holes in the ground.
7They brayed among the bushes
and huddled in the undergrowth.
8A base and nameless brood,
they were driven out of the land.
9“And now their sons mock me in song;
I have become a byword among them.
10They detest me and keep their distance;
they do not hesitate to spit in my face.
11Now that God has unstrung my bow and afflicted me,
they throw off restraint in my presence.
12On my right the tribe attacks;
they lay snares for my feet,
they build their siege ramps against me.
13They break up my road;
they succeed in destroying me—
without anyone’s helping them.
14They advance as through a gaping breach;
amid the ruins they come rolling in.
15Terrors overwhelm me;
my dignity is driven away as by the wind,
my safety vanishes like a cloud.
16“And now my life ebbs away;
days of suffering grip me.
17Night pierces my bones;
my gnawing pains never rest.
18In his great power └God┘ becomes like clothing to me;
he binds me like the neck of my garment.
19He throws me into the mud,
and I am reduced to dust and ashes.
20“I cry out to you, O God, but you do not answer;
I stand up, but you merely look at me.
21You turn on me ruthlessly;
with the might of your hand you attack me.
22You snatch me up and drive me before the wind;
you toss me about in the storm.
23I know you will bring me down to death,
to the place appointed for all the living.
24“Surely no one lays a hand on a broken man
when he cries for help in his distress.
25Have I not wept for those in trouble?
Has not my soul grieved for the poor?
26Yet when I hoped for good, evil came;
when I looked for light, then came darkness.
27The churning inside me never stops;
days of suffering confront me.
28I go about blackened, but not by the sun;
I stand up in the assembly and cry for help.
29I have become a brother of jackals,
a companion of owls.
30My skin grows black and peels;
my body burns with fever.
31My harp is tuned to mourning,
and my flute to the sound of wailing.
31:1“I made a covenant with my eyes
not to look lustfully at a girl.
2For what is man’s lot from God above,
his heritage from the Almighty on high?
3Is it not ruin for the wicked,
disaster for those who do wrong?
4Does he not see my ways
and count my every step?
5“If I have walked in falsehood
or my foot has hurried after deceit—
6let God weigh me in honest scales
and he will know that I am blameless—
7if my steps have turned from the path,
if my heart has been led by my eyes,
or if my hands have been defiled,
8then may others eat what I have sown,
and may my crops be uprooted.
9“If my heart has been enticed by a woman,
or if I have lurked at my neighbor’s door,
10then may my wife grind another man’s grain,
and may other men sleep with her.
11For that would have been shameful,
a sin to be judged.
12It is a fire that burns to Destruction;
it would have uprooted my harvest.
13“If I have denied justice to my menservants and maidservants
when they had a grievance against me,
14what will I do when God confronts me?
What will I answer when called to account?
15Did not he who made me in the womb make them?
Did not the same one form us both within our mothers?
16“If I have denied the desires of the poor
or let the eyes of the widow grow weary,
17if I have kept my bread to myself,
not sharing it with the fatherless—
18but from my youth I reared him as would a father,
and from my birth I guided the widow—
19if I have seen anyone perishing for lack of clothing,
or a needy man without a garment,
20and his heart did not bless me
for warming him with the fleece from my sheep,
21if I have raised my hand against the fatherless,
knowing that I had influence in court,
22then let my arm fall from the shoulder,
let it be broken off at the joint.
23For I dreaded destruction from God,
and for fear of his splendor I could not do such things.
24“If I have put my trust in gold
or said to pure gold, ‘You are my security,’
25if I have rejoiced over my great wealth,
the fortune my hands had gained,
26if I have regarded the sun in its radiance
or the moon moving in splendor,
27so that my heart was secretly enticed
and my hand offered them a kiss of homage,
28then these also would be sins to be judged,
for I would have been unfaithful to God on high.
29“If I have rejoiced at my enemy’s misfortune
or gloated over the trouble that came to him—
30I have not allowed my mouth to sin
by invoking a curse against his life—
31if the men of my household have never said,
‘Who has not had his fill of Job’s meat?’—
32but no stranger had to spend the night in the street,
for my door was always open to the traveler—
33if I have concealed my sin as men do,
by hiding my guilt in my heart
34because I so feared the crowd
and so dreaded the contempt of the clans
that I kept silent and would not go outside
35(“Oh, that I had someone to hear me!
I sign now my defense—let the Almighty answer me;
let my accuser put his indictment in writing.
36Surely I would wear it on my shoulder,
I would put it on like a crown.
37I would give him an account of my every step;
like a prince I would approach him.)—
38“if my land cries out against me
and all its furrows are wet with tears,
39if I have devoured its yield without payment
or broken the spirit of its tenants,
40then let briers come up instead of wheat
and weeds instead of barley.”
The words of Job are ended.
Original Meaning
Introduction
IN JOB’S DISCOURSE IN these chapters, the book’s attention turns to his contention that it is poor policy for God to inflict suffering on righteous people. Throughout Job 29, Job wallows in nostalgia, pining for his lost prosperity, honor, and dignity. This melancholy focus contrasts with his indignant posture in the book’s 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.
In 29:1–6, Job acknowledges God 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 Job’s attention is fixed on himself and his plight.
The perspective of an honor-based culture is evident in Job 29–30. Chapter 29 characterizes Job’s former state as the epitome of honor, and chapter 30 depicts his current misery as the opposite—utter shame and disgrace. These descriptions reveal the aspects of an individual’s life that reflected honor or shame.
The following are hallmarks of honor:
• protective deity (29:2–4)
• many children (29:5)
• successful exploitation of resources (29:6)
• position of prominence in society (29:7)
• respect from all, including young and old and the powerful (29:8–11)
• responsiveness to the poor and bereaved (29:12–13)
• righteousness and justice recognized (29:14)
• aiding the blind and lame (29:15)
• facilitating justice for the vulnerable (29:16)
• scourge of the wicked (29:17)
• long life (29:18)
• health and vigor into old age (29:19–20)
• wisdom recognized (29:21–23)
• supplicants for his favor (29:24)
• elevated status (29:25)
Clearly most items on this list are societal rather than ethical in nature. In an honor/shame-based culture, a person’s role and status within the community defines his or her identity. Corporate identity takes precedence over individual identity,2 with the result that selfhood is shaped primarily by social interaction, not private inward perception. In other words, “self” is defined in largely exterior terms.3 Egyptologist J. Assmann describes the social constellation as most important for identity:
A person comes into being, lives, grows, and exists by building up such a sphere of social and bodily “constellations.” A constellative anthropology stresses the ties, 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.4
Assmann further notes that social coherence is essential for maintaining personal coherence.5 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 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’s statements in 30:18–23 suggest that he has abandoned hope that God will intervene. His oath of innocence attempts to appropriate God’s silence as an inferred vindication, which will enable Job’s reconnection with society.
Just as Job described honor in social terms in ch. 29, in 30 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 disdain. Their fathers were nothing, and they are less than nothing, yet Job has become the object of their scorn. In 30:15, the summary of this section, Job identifies the crux of his shame: his safety 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.
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 dehumanized, and it is out of his power to change his status. In this context, Job’s claims of innocence sound as pitiful as those of today’s 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 never regain a status of respect.
Job 29
THE CHAPTER CAN BE divided into six sections:
a 29:1–6: How Job perceived God’s protection
b 29:7–10: How city leaders respected Job
c 29:11–17: How Job served a royal role on behalf of the vulnerable
a´ 29:18–20: How Job perceived his own prospects
b´ 29:21–23: How the people respected Job
c´ 29:24–25: How Job served a royal role
Never in Job’s description of God’s blessing in his life does he suggest that he deserved or had earned such treatment. In evaluating the nature of Job’s special blessing, the reference to God’s “intimate friendship” (Heb. sod) in verse 4 is of particular interest. This noun occurs about twenty times in the Hebrew Bible and often concerns the operation of a council (cf. Gen. 49:6; Job 15:8; Pss. 89:7; 111:1; Jer. 23:18; Ezek. 13:9). It can also describe more personal interaction, such as private confidences between individuals (cf. Ps. 25:14; Prov. 11:13; 20:19) or fellowship (Ps. 55:14).
Previously, Job used sod in relation to his friends who betrayed him (19:19), with whom he once shared confidences, counsel, and trust. Here in 29:4, this word is grammatically linked to the word for God (ʾeloah), a combination that occurs in only four other contexts (Job 15:8; Ps. 25:14; Jer. 23:18, 22; Amos 3:7). Of these, all but Psalm 25:14 refer to the formal divine council. All of the above uses share the concept of confidentiality. Formal councils take 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.
Prophets were considered 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, 22; Amos 3:7). Psalm 25:14 applies the sod of Yahweh beyond the role of prophet to all those who fear him. Job 29:4 states that the sod of Eloah was upon, or more likely over, Job’s tent. This description seems to indicate that Job enjoyed an “insider” relationship with God and had access to the divine council chamber.
In the ancient world, kings sought admittance to the divine council via dream incubation, which entailed 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’s throne vision in Isa. 6), Job’s 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’s presence with Job.
Because of this connection between Job’s tent and the divine council, Job 29:4 may not be used to support a discussion about friendship with God. Job describes being taken into God’s confidence, 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’s presence brought Job the blessings of family and excess provision—the cream flowed out all around his feet, and the rock of the olive press produced not just a trickle of olive oil, but streams (29:6).
In Job 29:7–10 and 21–23, Job describes the universal respect he received from leaders and the general populace. 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 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.
Job himself does not acknowledge this point—he cites his track record of care for the vulnerable (29:11–17) as the source of his good repute. When he joined the ranks of the vulnerable, however, he lost his ability to aid them. His lifetime of charitable work merited nothing; memories are short when fortunes change.
Job’s state of blessing meant that his future prospects were likewise ideal, as described in 29:18–20. This highly poetic passage details Job’s anticipation of a long life filled with prosperity and youthful vigor. Perhaps the most intriguing imagery is found in verse 18, which refers to his “nest” (qen; NIV: “house”). The phrasing here is problematic; the preceding preposition (ʿim) generally means “with” rather than “in” and most naturally would indicate that Job expects to perish along with his nest.6 The best solution is yielded by an investigation of the Akkadian cognate qinnu, which refers predominantly to a bird’s nest, as in Hebrew, but in a few occurrences connected to human beings clearly means “family.”7 In Akkadian texts, speakers express hopes that their family (qinnu) will not be scattered or dispersed.8 A similar sense seems to be in play here: Job expects to die with his children surrounding him (taking ʿim to indicate in the midst of, rather than along with, his family).
Job’s musings conclude by equating his high social standing to the role of a chief or king. The passage’s imagery nuances the specific form of control he exercised: he chose their way, and he was like a king among his troops. These phrases suggest unquestioned loyalty from his followers and portray Job as a compassionate leader, not an oppressive tyrant over unwilling subjects.
Job 30
THE SCENE SHIFTS AS Job’s 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 and comments on their shiftless fathers in 30:1–8. 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.
Job 30:15 concludes the exposition of Job’s sad state. Although the word “terrors” (ballahot) is grammatically feminine plural, here it takes a masculine singular verb form, suggesting that it may be a personification.9 The same term was used in 18:14, when Bildad spoke of a “King of Terrors” parallel to the “Firstborn” of Mot (Death) in a string of personifications. If Terrors is indeed a personal entity, “Night” in 30:17 may also be a personification parallel to Terrors, and either or both could serve as the subject of the masculine singular verbs in 30:18–19. Most translations supply “God” as the subject here, though he is not mentioned in the Hebrew text. I prefer the personification reading, and thus consider 30:16–19 as describing the actions of “Night” rather than the actions of God.
Regardless of whether this interpretation is accepted, by 30:20–23 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’s perception, God has joined Terrors and Night in behaving toward Job as a chaos creature, as author of disorder and death.
The chapter ends with Job’s summary reflections on his plight (vv. 27–31). The close proximity of these observations to his characterization of God as the actor causing his distress (vv. 21–23) underscores Job’s fundamental accusation against God in verses 24–26. Not only has God brought disaster, he refuses to act on Job’s behalf or respond to his pleas. As a result, Job himself has become an outcast (30:29), like the worthless men described earlier in the chapter. He is now the mourner (30:31), with no one to comfort him.
In addition to social loss, his suffering encompasses physical ailments. He describes himself as “blackened” (qdr, v. 28) and as having black, peeling skin (šḥr, v. 30) 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
Job 31
THE FINAL CHAPTER OF Job’s 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 falsely, God will be obliged to punish him for both the crime and the false oath.
Ancient Near Eastern literature includes a variety of declarations of innocence. Most are fairly brief, with just a few lines listing denied offenses.11 In literature from Mesopotamia, the works most frequently cited as similar to Job’s oath are the DINGIR.ŠA.DIB.BA incantations and the šurpu incantations. Both texts address an angry god in an attempt to appease his wrath and bring relief to the person suffering. The DINGIR.ŠA.DIB.BA incantations contain lines in which the sufferer claims innocence on certain points (e.g., “I have not held back from him [the deity] the sheep in the pen”), as well as long confessions of sins he is willing to admit (e.g., “I spoke lies … I coveted your abundant property … I raised my hand and desecrated what should not so be treated … I have continually committed iniquities, known and unknown”).12 The šurpu incantations, by contrast, limit their scope to confessions of actual offenses—the opposite of Job’s tack.13 Besides the incantations a negative confession can be found in ritual texts. In the Babylonian New Year’s festival (Akitu), the king expresses his eligibility for renewed kingship by narrating his care for Babylon and the temple and its rites, including proper treatment of subordinates.14
The most extensive ancient Near Eastern claim of innocence is found in spell 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 list15 incorporates a wide variety of behaviors:
2. I have not robbed.
3. I have not stolen.
4. I have not slain people.
5. I have not destroyed food offerings.
6. I have not reduced measures.
7. I have not stolen the god’s property.
8. I have not told lies.
9. I have not stolen food.
10. I was not sullen.
11. I have not fornicated with the fornicator.
12. I have not caused anyone to weep.
13. I have not dissembled.
14. I have not transgressed.
15. I have not done grain-profiteering.
16. I have not robbed a parcel of land.
17. I have not discussed secrets.
18. I have brought no lawsuits.
19. I have not disputed at all about property.
20. I have not had intercourse with a married woman.
21. I have not wrongly copulated.
22. I have not struck terror.
23. I have not transgressed.
24. I have not been hot-tempered.
25. I have not been neglectful of truthful words.
26. I have not made disturbance.
27. I have not cursed.
28. I have not been violent.
29. I have not confounded truth.
30. I have not been impatient.
31. I have not discussed.
32. I have not been garrulous about matters.
33. I have not done evil.
34. I have not disputed the king.
35. I have not waded in the water.
36. My voice was not loud.
37. I have not cursed a god.
38. I have not made extolling.
39. I have not harmed the bread ration of the gods.
40. I have not stolen the Khenef-cakes from the Blessed.
41. I have not stolen Hefnu-cakes of a youth, nor have I fettered the god of my town.
42. I have not slain sacred cattle.
Book of the Dead | Job 31: | Decalogue # | |
Astral worship |
| 26–27 |
|
Betrayal | 17, 31, 32 |
|
|
Cheating | 6 |
|
|
Concealed sin |
| 33–34 |
|
Cruelty | 12 |
|
|
Cursing | 27 | 30 | 3 |
Demeanor (e.g., anger) | 10, 24, 30, 36 |
|
|
Failure to care for needy |
| 16–22, 31–32 |
|
Falsehood/deception | 8, 13, 25, 29 | 5–6 | 9 |
Comprehensive general misdemeanors | 1, 14, 23, 33 |
|
|
Greed |
| 24–25 |
|
Oppression | 15, 18, 26 | 13–15 |
|
Political intrigue | 34 |
|
|
Property/theft | 2, 3, 9, 16, 19 | 39–40 | 8 |
Rejoicing over enemy’s trouble |
| 29 |
|
Sacrilege/ritual offense | 5, 7, 35, 37–42 | 7 | 2 |
Sexual misconduct | 11, 20, 21 | 1, 9–10 | 7 |
Unfaithfulness to God |
| 28 | 1 |
Violence | 4, 22, 28 |
| 6 |
The preceding comparison results 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 categories 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’s 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 list). 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.
In addition to a comparison of content, differences in function must be noted. The Egyptian list is magical in nature and serves to ensure passage to the afterlife. Job’s 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 reflects 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—as a means to protest his innocence and righteousness.
When we turn our attention to the details of Job’s oath, several elements require investigation. The most striking issue is visible upon a casual reading—the first verse and the last three verses seem displaced. The most suitable introduction occurs in 31:2–4, and the best conclusion is 31:35–37. Various commentators offer rearrangements or simply omit verses as later additions.
Misplacement of verses is not unheard of. For example, a comparison of 2 Kings 20 with its parallel in Isaiah 38 reveals that a line has been misplaced in the latter. Isaiah 38:21–22 belongs between verses 6–7, as it is situated in 2 Kings 20:7–8. Such 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 portion 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 Isaiah 38. Such a process may well have occurred in Job 31, and I agree with other commentators that Job 31:1 and 31:38–40a probably belong elsewhere in the chapter.16
Job 31:1 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 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’s eyes are being treated as vassals brought under a suzerain’s control.
Since this verse seems an obvious statement about sexual ethics, we must consider the textual details carefully. The verb in the second line describing the forbidden activity is ʾetbonen, the Hithpael form of the root byn, which occurs twenty-two times in the Old Testament (eight times in Job). Most of these instances describe close or careful examination of an object. In only one occurrence (Ps. 37:10) is the verb followed by this preposition (ʿal), and there it refers to seeking out (but not finding) the wicked. Neither this instance nor any other occurrence of the Hithpael form carries sexual nuance. The NIV has arrived at its translation by context, interpreting the gaze as lustful because its object is a virgin (betulah).
This interpretation does not satisfactorily explain why the prohibition to Job’s eyes is limited to a betulah. If sexual ethics are truly at stake, it would be more natural for his covenant to extend to any woman. Furthermore, if a girl remains under her father’s protection (as does a betulah by definition), she is a viable candidate for marriage—and society at this time was comfortably polygamous.
To reach a better understanding, we must begin fresh. Job has made a covenant regarding his eyes—that much is clear. The second part of the verse begins with a common interrogative particle, “what” (mah). Although Job’s usage of this particle is consistent, most translations choose not to render it in this particular verse. Typically in Job this particle introduces a rhetorical question, which seems likely here as well. Psalm 37:10 employs the same verb as this verse to direct the reader to “look all around” for the location of the wicked; 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’s statement, the sense is as follows: “Since I have made a covenant with regard to my eyes, what interest would I have in inquiring after a betulah (i.e., investigating her availability)?”
Inquiring after a betulah is not the same as inquiring after a prostitute. If the text truly was speaking against lust, the verb ḥmd (“covet”) would be a more likely word choice.17 Betulah generally does indicate a virgin, but virginity is more circumstantial than truly representative of the word’s core meaning. More to the point, a betulah is a marriageable girl still within the household of her father and under his protection.18 One would inquire after a betulah in order to arrange a marriage. Such an inquiry could potentially be motivated by lust (cf. Judg. 14:2), but that is only one of several alternatives and may not be automatically inferred. In point of fact, any arranged marriage begins with inquiring after a betulah.
In light of this discussion, Job’s covenant regarding his eyes cannot be interpreted as a commitment to asceticism, because he already has a wife (as noted not only in ch. 2, but also in 31:10). The logical alternative is that the statement concerns the acquisition of a harem. A large harem 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 “on the prowl.” This avowal mirrors his statement in 31:24–25 that he is not absorbed in the pursuit of wealth. Job has undertaken neither a vow of poverty nor a vow of 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 with Job’s many pronouncements that he has not attempted to consolidate or abuse his power—tempting actions for a person in his position (cf. Samuel’s lecture in 1 Sam. 8:11–17 regarding the tactics of a king building a power base).
Verse 2 leads into the chapter’s effectual introduction. Job demonstrates his ongoing commitment to the RP in his assertion that the wicked will suffer. Verse 4 combines the philosophical premise of verse 3 with the theological affirmation that God scrutinizes Job’s actions. These two principles give Job’s 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 claim vindication.
Verse 5 launches the catalog itself. Commentators dispute how many items the list includes, but the number’s significance is minimal. If we base the list’s structure on the protases, we can identify eleven paragraphs from 31:5–3419 and a twelfth in 31:38–40. Each paragraph begins with “if” (ʾim), the typical Hebrew introduction 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 “may God strike me dead.”20 Yet four of the twelve paragraphs of Job’s oath feature an explicit apodosis (vv. 8, 10, 22, 40; and a further quasi-apodosis in v. 28). These apodoses are extreme and accordingly should be understood hyperbolically. Their excessive force demonstrates Job’s confidence in his innocence. The following formal outline, divided by protases, illuminates the variety of features contained in the twelve paragraphs.
Protasis: walking in falsehood, hurrying after deceit (two parts, 5a, b) Plea to God for fair consideration (6) | |
31:7–8 | Protasis: steps turned from path, heart led by eyes, hands defiled (three parts, 7a, b, c) Apodosis: others eat of my labor, crops uprooted (two parts, 8a, b) |
31:9–12 | Protasis: heart enticed by woman, lurked at neighbor’s door (two parts, 9a, b) Apodosis: wife grind another’s grain, other men sleep with wife (two parts, 10a, b) Explanation indicating seriousness of crime (11) Wisdom saying (12) |
31:13–15 | Protasis: denied justice to servants (13) Accountability to God (14)—God will act Theological rationale for values and behavior (15) |
31:16–23 | Compound protasis: denied the poor, failed to share bread with fatherless, ignored needy, acted against fatherless (four parts, each beginning with the particle ʾim, 16, 17, 19–20, 21) Contrasting positive behavior (18) Apodosis: broken limb (22) Accountability to God (23)—fears God |
31:24 | Protasis: trust in gold (24) |
31:25 | Protasis: rejoiced in wealth (25) |
31:26–28 | Protasis: astral worship (three parts, 26–27) Quasi-apodosis: judged (28a) Explanation indicating seriousness of crime (28b) |
31:29–30 | Protasis: rejoiced at enemy’s misfortune (29) Corresponding negative affirmation (30) |
31:31–32 | Protasis: treatment of strangers (complex, two parts, including negative affirmation, 31–32) |
31:33–34 | Protasis: concealed sin (33) Identification of projected motivation for crime he did not commit (34) |
31:38–40 | Compound protasis: land use (two parts, each beginning with the particle ʾim, 38, 39, the latter having two parts, 39a, b) Apodosis: weeds instead of crops (40) |
The above outline clarifies that while the conditional self-curse form is employed throughout the chapter, other variables occur irregularly and prevent the formulaic chapter from becoming rhythmic.
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 five, and the subjects of discussion are conveniently grouped together:
Verses | Subject | Apodosis |
31:5–8 | Lack of integrity of character | Loss of means of provision (8) |
31:9–12 | Lack of sexual purity | Loss of wife (10) |
31:13–23 | Lack of compassion and charity to the vulnerable | Loss of power to do good or ill (22) |
31:24–28 | Lack of trust in God | Loss of favor with God (28) |
31:29–32, 38–40 | Lack of grace to outsiders (enemies, strangers, competitors)21 | Loss of produce and prosperity (40) |
Textual Explanations
31:5–8. THIS SECTION COULD be viewed as continuing the thought expressed in verse 4, since it also comments on Job’s steps and path. Because God observes Job’s steps (v. 4), he knows whether Job has gone astray (v. 5); therefore, Job asks to be judged accordingly (v. 6). If viewed as connected to verse 4, verses 5–6 can serve as an introduction to the entire chapter, as Job calls on God to affirm his innocence.
Job’s 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’s 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.
The second part of this section (31:7) continues the theme of Job’s steps and path. The 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 (feet, heart, eyes, hands). The proposed punishment correlates to the sin. Had Job sought personal gain, he would suffer personal loss. Had he attempted 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.
31:9–12. The potential offense here concerns sexual purity. Being enticed by a woman entails falling prey to a second party’s active advances.22 Lurking at a neighbor’s doorway exhibits a more active pursuit—solicitation of an adulterous liaison with the neighbor’s wife. These two examples demonstrate the oath’s application to a wide range of sexual misconduct and indicate that illicit sexual relationships, rather than merely any illicit sexual acts, are its target. The projected punishment is loss of legitimate sexual relationship. Another man would take Job’s wife, and Job would become the injured party instead of the neighbor. The image of Job’s wife “grinding another man’s grain” is a sexual euphemism: She will process what another man produces (i.e., children).
The wisdom saying that closes the section (31:12) bears resemblance to the one that encapsulates the message of Song of Songs: “Love is as strong as death, its jealousy unyielding as the grave. It burns like a blazing fire, like a mighty flame” (Song 8:6). Passion cannot easily be extinguished and, as the text indicates, will burn to Destruction (Heb. ʾabaddon). When Job states that such passion would have uprooted his 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.
31:13–23. 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); meeting the needs of the poor (v. 16a); comforting the bereaved (v. 16b); and providing bed and board for the orphan (vv. 17–18), clothing for the needy (vv. 19–20), and legal defense for the powerless (v. 21). Job’s 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.
The extreme consequence envisioned in the apodosis (v. 22) 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.
31:24–28. 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 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.
The second potential 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). In verse 29, the verb “enticed” is the same as in 31:9, although the verbal stem is different (Qal, four other occurrences: Deut. 11:16; Job 5:2; Prov. 20:19; Hos. 7:11). Contextual usage of this stem suggests a stative aspect,23 “to be gullible or mindless; easily led astray.” While some English translations render the act of worship as a hand offering a kiss of homage (NIV), the Hebrew is much more laconic and somewhat puzzling: “my hand kissed my mouth.” The verb “kiss” (nšq in Qal plus prep. l-) appears in a worship context only one other time (1 Kings 19:13, kissing Baal).24 In every instance of this phrase, the preposition l- takes a person as its object, never an anatomical part such as hand or lips. For the latter, ʿal would be used (cf. Gen. 41:40). In Job 31:27b, there is no person in view, only anatomical references. “My hand” must be the subject of the verb, because “my mouth” 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 meaning of “my hand kissed my mouth.” 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.25 For example, Hammurabi’s stele portrays Hammurabi before the sun god, Shamash, so in his case the gesture is an acknowledgment of the sun (god).
The apodosis comes in verse 28, where Job indicates the expected consequences of such misplaced trust and worship. The NIV refers to the actions in views as “sins to be judged,” since they would render Job “unfaithful to God.” The word translated “judged” (pelili) appears only in this chapter (see also v. 11). Because contextual data is limited, to better understand this word’s 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 section, 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 “unfaithfulness” to God. The word rendered “unfaithfulness” is the root kḥš, which in the Piel stem often connotes dissociating or disowning. Job identifies such behavior as sufficiently serious to necessitate retribution from God.
This sin of dissociation is an example of an offense that carries much more weight in Israel than the rest of the ancient Near East. 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 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’s patron deity or one’s personal deities. But in an Israelite context of monotheism, recognition of any other deity involves an intrinsic dissociation with Yahweh, for he tolerates no rival.
31:29–32, 38–40. The overarching theme of this paragraph may be termed “grace to outsiders”—outsiders being identified as those who are not members in good standing in the community. The text references various categories of people: enemies (vv. 29–30), strangers (vv. 31–32), and landowners (vv. 38–39). The first two groups are defined clearly, and their outsider status is readily visible. The third category, however, is more problematic. The NIV translates “tenants,” but the Hebrew word (baʿal) usually signifies owner or master. If the two lines of verse 39 are parallel, and there is every reason to believe they are, the verse describes Job as devouring landowners’ property, not just its yield, without payment. Such confiscation would naturally bring grief, expressed here by a deep sigh, to the owners.
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. 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 29–34 (a proposal open to question), the “outsider” status would be best filled by agricultural competitors, who could be forced out of business.
31:33–37. This section serves as a transition to the key verses of the chapter: Job’s signature to his oath (31:35–37). In verse 33, Job comments that he has not hidden offense in the “fold of his garment” (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, “heart”). More significant is the interpretation of the first line’s comparative phrase, which the NIV renders “as men do.” An alternative reading understands the word ʾadam not as humankind in general, but as Adam in the Genesis narrative.26 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 ʾadam is general or specific occurs in two other Old Testament passages that compare a person’s fate to that of ʾadam (Ps. 82:7; Hos. 6:7). In this instance, we should remember that Genesis refers to Adam concealing himself, not his sin.
While some build arguments based on Job’s probable knowledge (or lack thereof) concerning the Genesis narrative, the better interpretive method is to evaluate what makes the best logical sense in the passage. In fact, the comparison to Adam makes no sense in this context—Job 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’s motivation, so it is unlikely that Job employs him as a comparison here. Job’s allusion to fear of public scorn reminds us how central the opinion of family friends was to identity and self-perception.
Job’s oath reaches its grand finale in 31:35–37. In the absence of an advocate or judge, he sets his signature to the dossier of oaths. The text includes no word for this dossier (NIV adds “defense” for clarification). His “signature” is an X mark—the Hebrew word is taw, the final letter of the alphabet, which in the earliest forms of the script took the shape of an X.
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 legal language here; any potential litigant (ʾiš ribi; NIV: “accuser”) must submit a formal claim (indictment). If no one, divine or mortal, steps forward with such a claim, Job will have secured his vindication and, consequently, the possibility of reintegration into society. In anticipation of that positive outcome, Job uses royal imagery (“prince” and “crown”) 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.
Job’s imagery (bearing the indictment on his shoulder, donning 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 such a practice, and the description may well be metaphorical. Regardless, the significant implication is Job’s eagerness for the opportunity to respond to formal legal charges.
Job’s final formal speech thus concludes on one of the book’s high points. He has adamantly denied any wrongdoing and has taken a decisive (and risky) step to try to 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.
Bridging Contexts
Rhetorical Strategy
JOB’S DISCOURSE CONCERNS THEMES of coherence and equilibrium as he considers his plight:
• Chapter 29 recalls the coherence of the past.
• Chapter 30 describes the incoherence of the present.
• Chapter 31 seeks to regain coherence not by revising Job’s expectations or his focus on justice, but by attempting to force God’s hand through the oath of innocence. This strategy is not designed to regain Job’s prosperity but to achieve vindication, albeit tacitly.
In the dialogues, Job’s friends offered him a solution to find coherence and equilibrium, but at a cost. Their resolution required Job’s 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’s righteousness is disinterested.
Having rejected his friends’ solution, in Job 29–31, Job seeks his own path to coherence and equilibrium. The primary question becomes that familiar quandary: Why do God’s policies allow righteous people to suffer? After juxtaposing his previous prosperity (ch. 29) and his current degradation (ch. 30) in stark contrast, Job presents the core of his case in the oath of chapter 31. If Job’s plan is successful, he will demonstrate conclusively that God’s 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’s reputation.
Job’s oath of innocence in chapter 31 addresses the passage’s underlying question: Why does God allow the righteous to suffer? In his oath, Job seeks coherence based on himself rather than God. Job’s 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.
How exactly does Job’s 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 was in evidence. Under the RP, 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’s policies would have been revealed as inadequate, because Job’s righteousness would have been motivated by gain, which would confirm the Challenger’s suspicions. An RP-based worldview would have been preserved, but as pretense only, because Job’s experience was not truly just.
In the oath of innocence in chapter 31, coherence and equilibrium would theoretically result from God’s 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, but Job’s perception of himself as righteous. This scenario renders God’s policies capricious and discredits his reputation—he is neither just nor wise.
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’s scenario, God is no God at all.
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). 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’s attempt at wisdom, entangled in his struggles for coherence, requires him to discount God’s wisdom.
Theology: Job’s View of God
AT THIS JUNCTURE, IT is helpful to consider how the view of God expressed in this section fits into Job’s broader argument and whether this view differs from previous statements. Within the dialogue section, the strongest negative statements about God appear in 16:9–14. There Job claims God has acted in anger (16:9) and without pity (16:13). By contrast, the accusation in 30:18–23 that God has behaved with reckless cruelty (ʾakzar, 30:21) is significantly more severe.27 In the dialogues, Job infers that God is angry and portrays his actions as incomprehensible, yet he continues to seek the reasons for God’s actions, as demonstrated by his repeated attempts to force God into court to defend his justice. Throughout the dialogues, Job never questions—and in fact affirms—God’s wisdom (e.g., 12:13).
In Job’s present discourse, however, he portrays God as a chaos creature (ch. 30) who brings disorder and who can be outmaneuvered (ch. 31). Job’s case has ceased questioning God’s justice and begun questioning his wisdom—precisely the divine quality affirmed in chapter 28, providing further evidence that the Wisdom poem in chapter 28 should not be viewed as Job’s speech. In a marked shift from the dialogues, God has become the author of disruption. In 7:12, Job wondered why God was treating him as a chaos creature; here he assigns that role to God.
The oath of chapter 31 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’s policies cannot be carried out consistently. If Job’s oath stands unanswered, Job wins, and God’s policies have been proven flawed with regard to the suffering of the righteous—Job’s primary concern in this section.
Although the categories of denied offenses in Job’s oath have been addressed, we have yet to consider the theology revealed in other parts of chapter 31. Job has demonstrated his righteousness to be disinterested, but that does not mean that his theology 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—Job or God? In effect, Job pits his reputation against God’s. 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’s position.
Manipulation. The most significant flaw in Job’s theology is his belief that God can be manipulated and outmaneuvered. Hints at this weakness appear as early as chapter 1, where we see that Job perhaps was treating God as if he were a petty deity who could be managed by ritual (Job 1:4–5)—a common practice in the ancient world. This type of manipulation is not limited to the ancient world, however. 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 “pagan splinter” 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 subconscious our attempts may be.
Job’s clearest attempt to outmaneuver God appears in his strategic oath of innocence, in which God’s reputation is forfeit while Job’s 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 needy, but as apathetic, preoccupied, or inept. The oath is evidence of Job’s core theological problem, because it underestimates God’s wisdom and undermines his character.
Trusting God—which is the same as fearing God—means accepting the fact that God does not need us or anything we possess or accomplish, and acknowledging that he is not lacking 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’s presentation of God in favor of our own caricatures of him.
God as chaos creature. Job’s 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 governed by justice, and influences human lives with his power, he logically falls into the category of chaos creature—a category well-known throughout the ancient world.28
Chaos creatures have no direct 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 construed 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.
It is highly debatable whether the Old Testament contains any reference to demons. Notable biblical examples of chaos creatures 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 In ancient Near Eastern contexts, 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 with deity only when deity works to establish order.
To help us understand how Job thinks about God in this discourse, we may turn to an eighth-century myth known as the Poem of Erra, in which the deity Nergal takes on the role of chaos creature.30 This work, also known as Erra and Ishum, is believed to be a mythological reflection of the political upheaval that took 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 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 acting as chaos creature as a known motif in the ancient world.31 The key feature of this idea is the deity’s lack of discrimination between the righteous and the wicked.32
In the Old Testament, God sometimes 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’s actions constituted just punishment of indictable 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—he 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 author of that disorder. Indeed, in some sense God is the agent of Job’s distress, but Job has yet to comprehend God’s role in a theologically appropriate manner.
Weighing in honest scales. The very nature of Job’s plea to be evaluated accurately reveals a deep theological flaw. His request implies that there is an alternative—namely, that God might not assess Job’s case honestly. To admit such a possibility is to establish ourselves as arbiters of God’s policies; our judgment determines whether God does right or not. Yet if God does not always behave according to what is right, what becomes of the standard by which we may measure justice?
Job seeks to hold God accountable. This is poor theology. In the ancient Near East, it was necessary to hold the gods 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.
In his discourse, Job 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 contingent 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’s 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 human beings in the throes of crisis might easily misconstrue God’s nature. The book continues to explore the question of who is at fault for the mess that sometimes characterizes our lives, and in so doing, it exposes the selfishness inherent in our inclination to impugn God rather than ourselves.
Contemporary Significance
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’s 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)?
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—though it be as filthy rags—brings 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. 25:31–46; Heb. 4:11; 10:19–31; James 2:14–26; 1 John 3:11–24). 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. 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.
Biblical values. 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 indicated in the chart on p. 325, 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, 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.
In fact, the five categories that they represent could 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 character is sadly lacking. We can easily recognize ourselves in Job’s list. Too often churches must engage in discipline related to sexual sin. Many 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 rely 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’s population itself is divided among social cliques, with lonely people held at arm’s length. Fostering values such as Job’s helps us honestly evaluate our shortcomings and avoid erosion of character within the church.
Faulty theology as a consequence of experiences. What theological price are we willing to pay in order to achieve coherence in our lives? Do we prioritize our coherence above God’s reputation? Do we give more concern to our reputation than God’s reputation? If we truly believe what we say we believe about the Bible—that it is God’s revelation of himself, in which he offers an understanding of his character that is both right and true—then that biblical revelation takes precedence over our feeble attempts to discern coherence in our world and over any defense we may wish to make of our reputation.
Kelly’s Story33
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?
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, “Why? Why would you do this or allow this to happen?” Even by asking that common question, we are challenging God’s character and how he runs the world. As we challenge him, it is a clear sign that it is not God’s character that is flawed, but our view of him.
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 states that when we fear the Lord, we do not think of him as “detached, incompetent, limited, corrupt, shortsighted, or petty.” 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.
Personally, the lies that I had started to believe about God’s 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, “Now what does God’s Word have to say about that lie.”
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?
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’s 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 “purpose” 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’s love for me. I knew the right words in my mind about Jesus’ love, and at times I would feel his love at the surface but it did not sink into my heart.
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.
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 “strengthening my testimony.” Those words became very bitter. Some days—a lot of days actually—I 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’d still believe in him. I am embarrassed as I type these words to think of how I downgraded the deity of God.
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’d lose control of my fingers while sitting in class and wouldn’t 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—fearful of the next thing God would do to “strengthen my testimony.” So I began trying to not “give him more opportunities” 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’s 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’s character.
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’t tell you why I was so sad, hurt, confused—beyond 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’t 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.
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’s 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’t 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’t 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.
JHW: Job attempted to call God to account. Do you have thoughts on that?
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—and 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’s end.
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’d try to type all of my homework, papers, and so on in that short period of time because it was uncertain how long I’d have use of fine motor skills in my hand.
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’s 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’t 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, “God, 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!”
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’d be there or that he’d 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, “Kelly … I have been waiting for you to say that. You do need me.” I do believe that God oftentimes uses a famine in order to work up an appetite for him.