1. For more detailed discussion about many of the issues addressed in this introduction, see J. Walton, “Job 1: Book of,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Prophets and Writings (ed. T. Longman III and P. Enns; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2008), 333–46.
2. A. MacLeish, J.B. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1958), 13.
3. I am going to refer to Satan throughout as the “Challenger.” For my reasoning and further information see discussion on 64–67.
4. Many have different opinions about this. Note W. Brown’s confident assertion: “Job is primarily about Job and not someone else, even God, or something else, including theodicy. Job does not attempt to provide a solution to the universal problem of suffering” (“The Deformation of Character: Job 1–31, ” in Character in Crisis [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996], 51). I disagree with his view that the book intends to present Job as a role model, but I agree that it is not to give an answer to suffering or to provide a theodicy.
5. Stated forthrightly, but undeveloped in P. L. Day, An Adversary in Heaven (Atlanta: Scholars, 1988), 80–1; N. Habel gets close to this, “It is God’s integrity as the designer of the cosmos which is at stake” (The Book of Job [OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1985], 65). But here it is still God’s integrity rather than the legitimacy of his policies. Note also: “If we read Job 1–2 with the idea that the Satan has charged God with serious misconduct, then God is also subject to investigation” (F. R. Magdalene, On the Scales of Righteousness: Neo-Babylonian Trial Law and the Book of Job [BJS 348; Providence, R.I.: Brown Univ. Press, 2007], 117–18).
6. This focus emerges in 1:10 as the Challenger’s language addresses what God has done (“Have you not put a hedge around him,” etc.).
7. For the labels of “ethically counterproductive” and “theologically counterintuitive,” see K. Ngwa, “Did Job Suffer for Nothing? The Ethics of Piety, Presumption and Reception of Disaster in the Prologue of Job,” JSOT 33 (2009): 359–80, see 378.
8. A few commentators go in a similar direction but without going quite to this conclusion: “The design of God frees Job from a mechanical, blind submission to a moral law of retributive justice” (Habel, Job, 69; see also M. Weiss, The Story of Job’s Beginning [Jerusalem: Magnes, 1983], 43).
9. I am going to use this concept throughout the commentary so a brief qualification is necessary. I do not use it to refer to the total absence of self-interest—that is impossible. The “interests” that I refer to are those benefits or threats that consciously motivate us to certain behaviors. It concerns ulterior motives, not subconscious ones. It does not include existential benefits (such as an existentially satisfying epistemology that makes us content to have faith in a God). “Disinterested” should therefore be understood in relationship to the Retribution Principle: prosperity, wealth, health, respect, and status on the one hand; suffering, misfortune, illness, and death on the other.
10. For lengthy discussion, see M. Cheney, Dust, Wind and Agony: Character, Speech and Genre in Job (ConBOT 36; Lund: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1994).
11. I do not mean to set up a false dichotomy by suggesting that these are the only two possibilities—there may be numerous alternatives in between.
12. Fictional characters such as Jason Bourne, James Bond, or Indiana Jones have no precedent in ancient literature.
13. See the treatment by W. G. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature (Oxford; Clarendon, 1960), 21.
14. He shows that when the name comes first (“X is his name”) rather than following (“His name was called X”), it is clear that everyone will recognize the name, rather than that a character is being introduced for the first time (Weiss, Job’s Beginning, 19–21).
15. Note Weiss’s indication of the consensus: “Scholars agree that the narrator did not invent Job” (ibid., 16).
16. T. Longman notes that Maimonides is an example of rabbinic interpreters who considered the book of Job to be a parable (Job [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012]).
17. I am grateful to my son, Jonathan Walton, for the earlier example of Socrates and for bringing this terminology and idea to my attention. Thought experiments can be used in many of the sciences. In both philosophy and science, hypothetical situations are explored for their philosophical value. The point is not to claim that the events in the thought experiment did happen, but they draw their philosophical strength from the realistic nature of the imaginative device. For explanation and example, see J. R. Brown, “Thought Experiments,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (ed. Edward N. Zalta; Summer 2009), http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thought-experiment. For discussion of science thought experiments and also the belief that Job may be one, see W. Brown, The Seven Pillars of Creation (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2010), 115.
18. Cf. J. Greenfield, “Reflections on Job’s Theology,” in Studies in the Bible and Jewish Thought (Philadelphia: JPS, 1995), 327–33, esp. 328.
19. Compare the allegory of the cave in Plato’s Republic (Book VII, 514a–520a). Plato/Socrates is making a point about knowledge, not relating a narrative about some people who were in a cave. Likewise, Job is making a point about God’s policies, not about some characters who had a conversation in heaven.
20. For a thorough analysis of the scholarly proposals and reasons for various parts of the book being included or excluded, see P. P. Zerafa, The Wisdom of God in the Book of Job (Rome: Herder, 1978), 12–54.
21. Widely accepted and nicely presented by F. I. Andersen, Job (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1976), 222–24. Cf. J. F. A. Sawyer, “The Authorship and Structure of the Book of Job,” in Studia Biblica 1978 (ed. E. A. Livingstone; Sheffield: JSOT, 1979), 253–57. For technical presentation, see Cheney, Dust, Wind and Agony, 42–45.
22. Cf. G. Wilson, Job (NIBC; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2007), 7.
23. Habel, Job, 392–93.
24. Note the comments in that regard by E. Smick, “Job,” EBC (ed. Frank E. Gaebelein; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988), 4:974.
25. C. Westermann, The Structure of the Book of Job (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981), 135–36.
26. Habel, Job, 391; for discussion, see H. H. Rowley, The Book of Job (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 179.
27. See the cogent defense by Cheney, Dust, Wind and Agony, 42–45. Many have decided that they cannot leave the text as is; cf. D. J. A. Clines, who proposes that ch. 28 is misplaced and is actually the conclusion of Elihu’s speeches and serves as a transition to the speeches of Yahweh, see Clines, Job 21–37 (WBC 18A; Nashville: Nelson, 2006), 907.
28. The only other comparable construction is found in Genesis 18 as Abraham speaks to the Lord about the destruction of Sodom. There wayyaʾan introduces Abraham’s second remark as would be expected (Gen. 18:27) and wayyosep introduces his third remark (Gen. 18:29). Here this is not a summary conclusion, for negotiations continue through the end of the chapter.
29. Dozens of articles could be cited, but the most informative are: R. G. Albertson, “Job and Ancient Near Eastern Wisdom Literature,” in Scripture in Context II (ed. W. W. Hallo, J. C. Moyer, and L. G. Perdue; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 213–30; D. P. Bricker, “Innocent Suffering in Mesopotamia,” TynBul (2001): 121–42; J. E. Hartley, “Job 2: Ancient Near Eastern Background,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry and Writings (ed. T. Longman III and P. Enns; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2008), 346–61; G. L. Mattingly, “The Pious Sufferer: Mesopotamia’s Traditional Theodicy and Job’s Counselors,” in The Bible in the Light of Cuneiform Literature: Scripture in Context III (eds. W. W. Hallo, B. W. Jones, and G. L. Mattingly; Lewiston, N.Y.: Mellen, 1990), 305–48; and M. Weinfeld, “Job and Its Mesopotamian Parallels—A Typological Analysis,” in Text and Context: Old Testament and Semitic Studies for F. C. Fensham (ed. W. Claassen; JSOTSup 48; Sheffield: JSOT, 1988), 217–26.
30. I have used only Mesopotamian literature because, in my opinion, the Egyptian literature is not of a similar sort. The Dialogue Between a Man and his Ba is more reminiscent of Ecclesiastes, while the Admonitions pieces are about chaos at the society level more than about a single pious person’s experiences with suffering. All of these pieces would have individual points of comparison, but overall are not the same sort of scenario faced by Job and the Mesopotamian sufferers.
31. COS, 1.179: 573–75.
32. COS, 1.151: 485
33. COS, 1.152: 486
34. COS, 1.153: 486–92.
35. COS, 1.154: 492–95.
36. Interestingly enough, a number of these views (or at least slight variations of them) have had currency in Christian theology as well. As early as Augustine one can find their expression in Christian forms; e.g., see his “Divine Providence and the Problem of Evil” (De ordine). Augustine would maintain that human suffering is not evil; rather, we just lack the proper perspective to understand it. Other views Augustine refutes. Inherent sinfulness is more common in discussions of atonement than as a reason for suffering, and inscrutability is more common in mysticism where it is not used for theodicy. The idea that God made humanity sinful is only in Christian contexts influenced heavily by Gnosticism. I am grateful to Jonathan Walton for this analysis.
37. Ludlul bel nemeqi, in Babylonian Wisdom Literature (ed. W. G. Lambert; Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1960), 41.33–38.
38. Much of this section is drawn from an article, “Retribution,” that I did for the Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Prophets and Writings (ed. T. Longman III and P. Enns; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2008), 647–55.
39. For full discussion, see J. Walton, Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 46–62.
40. M. Tsevat, “The Meaning of the Book of Job,” HUCA 37 (1966): 73–106.
41. For understanding the distinction between Israelite theology (i.e., that which is evident in their practice as recorded in the Old Testament) and biblical theology (that which is taught as correct thinking in the Old Testament), note, for example, that Israelite theology was often syncretistic, while biblical theology seen in the prophets especially was monotheistic.
42. The framework and some of the wording was provided by Poul Guttesen, but I have added considerably to it to draw out more issues.
43. Cf. comments to that regard in Magdalene, On the Scales of Righteousness, 118.
44. Furthermore, I am working under the premise that the book entails a thought experiment, in which case God’s character cannot be deduced from his actions in this narrative context.
1. Weiss, Job’s Beginning, 23.
2. For the case for the area of Bashan and Hauran, see J. C. de Moor, “Ugarit and the Origin of Job,” in Ugarit and the Bible, ed. G. J. Brooke, A. H. W. Curtis and J. F. Healey (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1994), 242–45. He also offers his evidence for an association between Job and Ayyabu of Ashtartu known from the Amarna texts.
3. See É. Dhorme, A Commentary on the Book of Job (Nashville: Nelson, 1984), xxiii.
4. “Yahweh” is used consistently in the prologue (last occurrence in 2:7) and in the speeches of Yahweh at the end of the book (38:1; 40:1, 3, 6; 42:1, 7, 9–12). Other than these occurrences it is used only once (12:9), and on that verse some manuscripts have ʾeloah in its place. See there for further discussion.
5. See listing in the Introduction, 38.
6. See Introduction, 33–38.
7. Weiss, Job’s Beginning, 25
8. For another comparable use, see Gen. 42:18, where Joseph is pretending to be non-Israelite.
9. For euphemistic use outside of Job, see 1 Kings 21:10, 13; Ps. 10:3. The case against this euphemistic understanding is made by T. Linafelt, “The Undecidability of barak in the Prologue to Job and Beyond,” BibInt 4 (1996): 154–72. See also Cheney, Dust, Wind and Agony, 58–77.
10. Here no euphemism need be used. A common verb for cursing, qll, is used. This verb usually has people as the grammatical subject and refers to the invocation of words of power against someone or something (cf. Ex. 22:28). When God is the object of the verb, it is often translated as “blaspheme” (cf. Lev. 24:11).
11. See lengthy discussion in J. Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27 (AB; New York: Doubleday, 2001), 2107–9.
12. This is indirect since it involves cursing by God’s name rather than directing a curse specifically at God. It would be included in ways that the Lord’s name could be taken in vain. It can be included in the general practice of cursing God in that it fails to treat God with sufficient respect.
13. In the Old Testament enemies can be cursed in the name of Yahweh (see Josh. 6:26; 2 Kings 2:24).
14. “Curse” is therefore seen as failing to give honor (kbd), as when Shimei curses/insults David as he flees from Jerusalem (2 Sam. 16:5–13); see S. Tishchenko, “To Curse God? Some Remarks on Jacob Milgrom’s Interpretation of Lev. 24:10–16, 23, ” in Babel und Bibel 3 (2006): 543–50, following suggestions put forth by H. C. Brichto, The Problem of “Curse” in the Hebrew Bible (SBLMS 16; Missoula, Mont.: Scholar’s, 1963).
15. S. Paul, “Daniel 3:29—A Case of ‘Neglected’ Blasphemy,” JNES 42 (1983): 291–94; reprinted in Divrei Shalom (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 133–38. See entry in CAD Š/2, 445–47.
16. K. van der Toorn, Sin and Sanction in Israel and Mesopotamia (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1985), 24–25.
17. Ibid.
18. Prayer to Every God, ANET, 391–92.
19. In the introduction we called this the “Great Symbiosis.”
20. These are the only occurrences of bene ʾelohim. Comparable phrases include bene ʾelim (Pss. 29:1; 89:7) and bene ʿelyon (Ps. 89:7).
21. E. T. Mullen Jr., The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature (HMS 24; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars, 1980); L. Handy, Among the Host of Heaven (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1994).
22. See discussion in J. Walton, Genesis (NIVAC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 128–30.
23. This can be derived from the first commandment, which indicates that there are no other gods in the presence of Yahweh. Divine authority is not distributed but delegated. See J. H. Walton, “Interpreting the Bible as an Ancient Near Eastern Document,” in Israel: Ancient Kingdom or Late Invention? ed. D. I. Block (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2008), 298–327, specifically 305–8.
24. The Masoretic text indicates the division is according to the number of the “sons of Israel,” but the more defensible variant says that it is according to the number of the “sons of God.” See lengthy discussion in M. S. Heiser, “Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God,” BSac 158 (2001): 52–74; M. S. Heiser, “Monotheism, Polytheism, Monolatry, or Henotheism? Toward an Assessment of Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible,” BBR 18 (2008): 1–30.
25. ʾe-mizzeh + boʾ inquires concerning motive or purpose. See Gen. 16:8; 2 Sam. 1:3; and discussion in Job 2 (p. 100).
26. Much information used in this section is abridged from J. Walton, “Satan,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Prophets and Writings (ed. T. Longman III and P. Enns; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2008), 714–17. Key sources for lengthy discussion include: Day, Adversary; N. Forsyth, The Old Enemy (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univ. Press, 1987); J. B. Russell, The Devil (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell Univ. Press, 1977); S. H. T. Page, Powers of Evil (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995).
27. J. Hartley, The Book of Job (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 72; D. J. A. Clines, Job 1–20 (WBC 17; Dallas: Word, 1989), 18–19; Mullen, Divine Council, 190–244; Weiss, Job’s Beginning, 31–33; Page, Powers, 25–26.
28. The only case in the Old Testament where the word occurs without the definite article is 1 Chron. 21:1. For a discussion of whether there it should be read as a proper name or an indefinite Challenger, see S. Japhet, 1 & 2 Chronicles (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993), 374–75.
29. Day, Adversary, 128–29. She points to Jub. 23.29 and As. Mos. 10.1, both of which can be dated to the persecutions of Antiochus IV (ca. 168 BC). Tobit uses the name Asmodeus (Tob 3:8, 17) and in 1 Enoch 6–11, the leader of the rebel angels is Shemihazah (later Asael).
30. Pss. 38:20; 71:13; 109:4, 20, 29; Zech. 3:1.
31. 1 Sam. 29:4; 2 Sam. 19:23; 1 Kings 5:4; 11:14, 23, 25; Ps 109:6.
32. Job 1–2 (14x); Zech. 3:1–2 (3x); also Num. 22:22, 32; 1 Chron. 21:1.
33. It is therefore possible that the individual designated as the Challenger in Job is not the same individual who plays that role in Zechariah or Chronicles. Though they may be the same individual, we cannot simply assume that they must be, or that the Israelites would have considered them to be the same individual. Pseudepigraphic literature refers to many śaṭans (e.g., the list of five śaṭans in 1 Enoch 69.4–12 (1st cent. BC at the earliest); see D. S. Russell, The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964], 254–55).
34. C. Breytenback and P. L. Day, “Satan,” DDD2, 728.
35. Weiss, Job’s Beginning, 35–41.
36. Page, Powers, 26.
37. Day, Adversary, 80–81.
38. Weiss, Job’s Beginning, 37.
39. Ibid., 37; contra Page, Powers, 27–28.
40. Breytenback and Day, “Satan,” 728.
41. Gen. 11:28; 23:3; 32:22; 50:1; Ex. 33:19; 34:6; Lev. 10:3; Num. 3:4; 1 Kings 9:7; 2 Kings 13:14; Job 4:15; 21:31; Ps. 9:20; Ezek. 32:10.
42. M. Pope, Job (AB; New York: Doubleday, 1973), 13. Note particularly the relationship between Sheba and Dedan in Gen. 25:3. The latter is located in the vicinity of Tema (descendant of Ishmael in Gen. 25:14). This same Sheba is mentioned in the inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III (as Saba, each time with Tema), see H. Tadmor, The Inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III King of Assyria (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1994), 143 (line 27´), 169 (line 3´), 201 (line 9´), 229 (Š7). See I. Ephal, The Ancient Arabs (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1982), 88–89, 227–29. Most commentators still identify the Sabeans in Job as the southern Sabeans, cf. K. Kitchen, “Ancient Arabia and the Bible,” Archaeology in the Biblical World 3 (1995): 26–34.
43. Ashurnasirpal II inscription from the Ninurta temple at Calah; see A. K. Grayson, Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC I (1114–859 BC) (RIMA 2; Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press, 1991), 214: iii.24.
44. J. A. Brinkman, A Political History of Post-Kassite Babylonia 1158–722 B.C. (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1968), 260–67: “What slim evidence is presently available suggests a West Semitic relationship for the Chaldeans and possibly some kinship with the Arameans” (266).
45. S. Ticciati, Job and the Disruption of Identity (London: T&T Clark/Continuum, 2005), 61.
46. For more secular contexts, see Gen. 23:7; 33:3–7; 42:6, etc.
47. For in depth discussion, see Cheney, Dust, Wind and Agony, 58–77.
48. Much information used in this section comes from Walton, “Job 1: Book of,” 333–46.
49. M. Greenberg, “Reflections on Job’s Theology,” in Studies in the Bible and Jewish Thought (Philadelphia: JPS, 1995), 327–34, see 328.
50. Weiss, Job’s Beginning, 37.
51. For discussion of some of the distorted views of God that have resulted from this misreading, see M. A. Shields, “Malevolent or Mysterious: God’s Character in the Prologue of Job,” TynBul 61 (2010): 255–70.
52. For lengthy analysis and discussion of the use of ʾeloah and šaddai in Job and the rest of the Old Testament, see Cheney, Dust, Wind and Agony, 233–42.
53. 57x, mostly in human speeches.
54. 41x, mostly in human speeches.
55. 11x in prologue, 5x in body, 1x in Yahweh speech (38:7, NIV: “angels”).
56. 31x, all but one (40:2) in human speeches.
57. Besides the general category of the “sons of God,” the list of possibilities includes Mot (Job 18:14), Shahar (3:9), Yam (3:8) and Shelah (33:18); see J. C. de Moor, “Ugarit and the Origin of Job,” in Ugarit and the Bible (ed. G. J. Brooke, A. H. W. Curtis, and J. F. Healey; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1994), 237.
58. Job does refer to Yahweh in 1:21. For the anomaly in 12:9, see discussion there.
59. Num. 22:22, 32 use the term as an infinitive.
60. See this case made in Weiss, Beginning of Job, 36–37; C. and E. Meyers, Zechariah 1–8 (AB; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1987), 185–86. Note that one difference is that here the Challenger is rebuked.
61. Day, Adversary, 118–21.
62. See discussion in Japhet, 1 & 2 Chronicles, 374–75.
63. Cf. the translation of the NASB. “Anger” is masculine, so this is grammatically acceptable.
64. In fact, the Chronicler adds yet another explanation of the punishment, suggesting that Joab was responsible because he failed to complete the numbering (1 Chron. 27:24, against NIV). If David had intended to “buy off” the Lord, it would make matters even worse if a lesser sum was involved.
65. For further discussion of the relationship between the śaṭan’s function and the anger of Yahweh, see Day, Adversary, 33–34.
66. Russell, Devil, 189. For discussion of Asael and the Watchers in the Aramaic books of Enoch, see Forsyth, Old Enemy, 160–81. For Mastema and the developments in the book of Jubilees, see ibid., 182–91.
67. H. Ringgren, Israelite Religion (trans. D. E. Green; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966), 313–14.
68. Russell, Devil, 240.
69. Ibid., 176–77.
70. A more detailed study could likewise consider the interpretations of Genesis 6 in Enoch and Jubilees, and of Genesis 3 in the Apocalypse of Abraham, but these have had less influence in Christian doctrine.
71. J. B. Russell, Satan (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell Univ. Press, 1981), 130. For a thorough discussion of the development of Origen’s thought concerning Satan and his blending and use of the traditions available to him, see Forsyth, Old Enemy, 367–83.
72. J. A. Alexander, The Prophecies of Isaiah (1846–47 in 2 vols.; repr., Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1953), 295. Modern conservative commentaries also commonly reject any association between this passage and Satan. Cf. J. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 1–39 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 320; E. J. Young, The Book of Isaiah (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 1:441; J. A. Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 144. Motyer does not even mention the possibility of the passage referring to Satan.
73. For a summary of the use of the name Lucifer in medieval literature, see J. B. Russell, Lucifer (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell Univ. Press, 1984), 247.
74. John Calvin, Commentary on Isaiah, loc. cit.
75. See, e.g., the royal inscriptions of Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal, ANET, 289–301, and esp. the account of Nabonidus’s rise to power, ANET, 308–11, and the Verse Account of Nabonidus, ANET, 312–15.
76. Origen initiated the idea that Satan originally sang among the cherubs, but this only reflects his conclusion that Ezek. 28 was talking about Satan (De Principiis 1.5.4, 1.8.3; see Russell, Satan, 129). Subsequent to Dionysius’s description of the celestial hierarchy (ca. AD 500), in which seraphs were considered the highest beings, Western writers generally assumed Satan had been a seraph prior to his fall; see Russell, Lucifer, 32. Gregory adopted the “cherub” view, ibid., 94. For the discussion among the scholastics, see ibid., 173 n. 36.
77. In Tertullian’s context (and to a lesser extent, Origen’s also), the existence of a “fallen being” is contrived as an anti-Gnostic cosmological argument. Not only are they reading a metaphorical passage literally, they are reading external assumptions into the account; the evil of Satan is Tertullian’s premise, not his conclusion. I am grateful to Jonathan Walton for this observation.
78. This requires changing the pointing of the first word in v. 14 from ʾat (personal pronoun, “you”) to ʾet (preposition, “with”); see NRSV.
79. See, e.g., W. Zimmerli, Ezekiel (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 2:90; and among conservative commentators, J. Taylor, Ezekiel (TOTC; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1969), 196–97; and Douglas Stuart, Ezekiel (WBC; Dallas: Word, 1989), 273–74.
80. H. J. van Dijk, Ezekiel’s Prophecy on Tyre (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1968), 114; I. Goldberg, “The Artistic Structure of the Dirge over the King of Tyre” Tarbis 58 (1988–89): 277–81 (Hebrew).
81. This suits well with the understanding of the cherub as the guardian of the tree of life. The first metaphor concerns a “seal” if the text is taken as it stands, which may refer to a king as a “signet ring” (cf. Hag. 2:23). The metaphor is not drawn from myths, but from known literary motifs.
82. It was Origen who was largely responsible for the concept that Satan fell as a result of pride prior to the creation of Adam and Eve; see Russell, Satan, 130. For a summary of the elaboration by Augustine, see ibid., 214; Forsyth, Old Enemy, 428–34.
83. For a summary of some of the early theories concerning the cause of Satan’s fall, see Russell, Devil, 241–42. For an exhaustive summary of the thinking of the early church fathers, see his Satan.
84. Cf. G. J. Wenham: “Early Jewish and Christian commentators identified the snake with Satan or the devil, but since there is no other trace of a personal devil in early parts of the OT, modern writers doubt whether this is the view of our narrator” (Genesis 1–15 [WBC1; Waco, Tex.: Word, 1987], 72).
85. Translation from J. E. Goodspeed.
86. Forsyth, Old Enemy, 224. Perhaps the earliest reference to Satan as the tempter (through the serpent) is in the Apocalypse of Moses 16–19 (properly titled The Life of Adam and Eve) contemporary to the New Testament. This text also links Isa. 14 to Satan’s fall; see ibid., 232–38. In the writings of the church fathers, one of the earliest to associate the serpent with Satan was Justin, First Apology 28.1 (see ibid., 351).
87. Walton, Genesis, 203; N. Sarna, Genesis (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 24. For a brief summary of some of the supporting archaeological finds, see J. Scullion, Genesis (Collegeville, Minn.: Michael Glazier, 1992), 47; for more detail, see K. R. Joines, Serpent Symbolism in the Old Testament (Haddonfield, N.J.: Haddonfield, 1974), 19–29; J. Charlesworth, The Good and Evil Serpent (New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Press, 2010).
88. Sarna, Genesis, 24.
89. Cf. J. Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea: Echoes of a Canaanite Myth in the Old Testament (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1985).
90. Cf. the slaughtering angel in Ex. 12. Notice even in some of the most notorious passages, such as the temptation of Jesus in Matt. 4, it is the Spirit who leads Jesus into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.
91. This premise is evident even in popular novels based on the book of Job, such as M. J. Ferrari, The Book of Joby (New York: Tor, 2007).
92. Ngwa, “Did Job Suffer for Nothing?” 359–80, see esp. 374–75.
1. meʾayin occurs 17x, ʾe mizzeh occurs 7x.
2. Gen. 29:4; Josh. 2:4; 2 Kings 5:25.
3. This is evident from the contexts of the questions and from the answers that are given: Gen. 42:7; Josh. 9:8; Judg. 17:9; 19:17; 2 Kings 20:14//Isa. 39:3; Jon. 1:8.
4. Num. 11:13; 2 Kings 6:27; Job 28:12, 20; Ps. 121:1; Nah. 3:7.
5. Gen. 16:8; 2 Sam. 1:3.
6. Judg. 13:6; 1 Sam. 25:11; 2 Sam. 1:13 (note different answer from where the other syntax was used in 1:3); 15:2.
7. The verb “ruin” (blʿ) occurs 25x in the Piel and Pual stems. It conveys destructiveness, but in a variety of different ways. Destruction can come from being consumed (Ps. 21:9[10]); it can come from being devoured (i.e., taken in, Prov. 19:28; 21:20; Isa. 23:8); or it can come from being cut off from supply or resource (2 Sam. 7:16; Job 8:18). A number of passages are ambiguous (cf. Lam. 2:2, 5, 8, 16).
8. Note the telling combination of blʿ and ḥinnam in Prov. 1:11–12, where an innocent is waylaid for no reason and, like Sheol, devoured indiscriminately.
9. The afflictions by ghosts, however, were not skin diseases, but headaches, eye and ear problems, and numerous other internal conditions. See J. Scurlock, Magico-Medical Means of Treating Ghost-Induced Illnesses in Ancient Mesopotamia (Leiden: Brill/Styx, 2006), 161–75.
10. For detailed textual and medical description of dozens of skin diseases known from Akkadian texts, see J. Scurlock and B. Andersen, Diagnoses in Assyrian and Babylonian Medicine (Urbana, Ill.: Univ. of Illinois Press, 2005), 208–41. Clines, Job 1–20, 48–49, has a fairly complete treatment of sources and suggestions, including the two uses of the cognate of this term in extrabiblical literature (Ugarit and the Qumran Prayer of Nabonidus), but none of these brings a resolution.
11. Note that even the word sometimes translated “leprosy” is probably not Hansen’s disease.
12. See discussion in Clines, Job 1–20, 50.
13. LXX: kopros, though it is difficult to find evidence by which to affirm the interpretation of the LXX.
14. In the near context we have seen that ḥinnam is used in two comparable speeches but with two different connotations. Elsewhere in Scripture this discourse art form can be observed in Isaac’s blessing on Jacob masquerading as Esau and the almost identical words used for Esau’s blessing later in the chapter (Gen. 27:28, 39 respectively).
15. Ngwa, “Did Job Suffer for Nothing?” 377.
16. A few of the major contested ones are Job 11:11; 32:16; and 37:24; but all of these have suitable explanations as statements rather than questions.
17. Ngwa, “Did Job Suffer for Nothing?” 378; J. Marböck, “
,” TDOT, 9:167–71; his conclusion about the semantic location of the root is that it should be understood as “a breach or derangement of the bonds that unite human beings with each other or with God, whether expressed in status, attitude, word, or deed” (171).
18. Notice that the nabal in Ps. 14:1 denies that there is a moral order maintained by God. Cf. Isa. 32:6–7, where the nebalah involves spreading evil about the Lord.
19. Job 1:1, 8; 2:7, 11.
20. Clines locates the friends all in the vicinity of Edom (Job 1–20, 61), whereas Weiss suggests that they represent south, east, and north respectively (Job’s Beginning, 75).
21. Clines, Job 1–20, 61.
22. Mattingly, “Pious Sufferer,” 332–33; Pope, Job, xxxvii; A. Cooper, “Reading and Misreading the Prologue to Job,” JSOT 46 (1990): 67–79, see 71.
23. Hartley, Job, 193. Though this can be helpful, we also must be cautious about using modernist categories. While differences between the friends would not be surprising, we also must recognize that there is considerable overlap among them.
24. See Introduction, 31–38.
25. Cf. 4:17; 5:8–16; 8:3, 20–22; 22:12–14; 25:2.
26. Ngwa, “Did Job Suffer for Nothing?” 359–80.
27. People need gods to take care of them, and gods need people to take care of them.
28. The righteous prosper and the wicked suffer.
29. Clines, Job 1–20, 43.
30. This view is affirmed in L. K. Handy, “The Authorization of Divine Power and the Guilt of God in the Book of Job: Useful Ugaritic Parallels,” JSOT 60 (1993): 107–18, where it is also demonstrated that this pattern is well-known in the ancient Near East, particularly Ugarit.
31. Magdalene, Scales of Righteousness, 118.
32. This is not to deny that faith has already been expressed as we accept the concept of revelation and the shape of theology.
33. Kelly interacts with parts of her story in each Contemporary Significance section. For the introduction to the details of her story, see Contemporary Significance in the commentary on ch. 1, pp. 87–97.
34. Solutions that I have to offer are presented in the Bridging Contexts sections of the commentary on Job 38–41 and on Job 42.
1. Clines (Job 1–20, 83) seems to support this as he cites the original suggestion by R. D. Moore uncontested.
2. Contrary to the NIV, in the second line of the verse, night proclaims that a man (already anticipating a mature man) has been conceived (Pual or passive Qal participle).
3. M. Fishbane, “Jeremiah IV 23–26 and Job III 3–13: A Recovered Use of the Creation Pattern,” VT 21 (1971): 151–67, see 153 for the designation. In general, I agree with the assessment that Job 3 could use incantation language and is counter-creation in some sense, but I am not persuaded that Job is undoing each of the seven days or that Job 3 should be measured against Genesis 1. Light and darkness are the main foci. For point by point refutation of Fishbane, see R. S. Watson, Chaos Uncreated: A Reassessment of the Theme of “Chaos” in the Hebrew Bible (BZAW 341; Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2005), 319–22.
4. Clines, Job 1–20, 84.
5. See Baal and Anat I AB vi, 35–52 and as late as Aramaic Incantation texts in the Sassanian period. See Fishbane, “Jeremiah IV,” 160.
6. Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon, 46–47.
7. R. Watson (Chaos Uncreated, 326) supports (though still with reservation) retaining the translation “day,” but with the understanding that an ancient reader would have picked up the latent wordplay between yom and yam.
8. It would be particularly intriguing should Leviathan be proven to be a sun-devourer like Apophis, but such evidence does not currently exist.
9. The only two certain occurrences are in the Baal and Mot myth; for text see COS, 1.86: 265 (= CTA V/KTU 1.5.i.1, 27). Literature on Leviathan is extensive. Some of the most helpful or foundational treatments are the following: C. Uehlinger, “Leviathan,” DDD2, 511–15; E. Lipinski, “
,” TDOT, 7:504–9; M. K. Wakeman, God’s Battle with the Monster: A Study in Biblical Imagery (Leiden: Brill, 1973), 62–68; C. Kloos, Yhwh’s Combat with the Sea (Leiden: Brill, 1986); Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon; Watson, Chaos Uncreated, esp. 319–27; C. H. Gordon, “Leviathan: Symbol of Evil,” in Biblical Motifs (ed. A. Altmann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1966), 1–10.
10. J. Scharbert, “
,” TDOT, 1:409.
11. For possible exceptions, see Gen. 9:25; 27:29; Ex. 22:28.
12. Clines, Job 1–20, 86–87.
13. S. Parpola, Letters from Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars (SAA X; Helsinki: Helsinki Univ. Press, 1993), xiii.
14. Ibid., xx.
15. Many rituals to drive out demons invoke the power of Ea or Marduk to work through the specialist performing the incantation. This is evident, for instance, in the sixteen tablet sequence of the utukku lemnutu incantations; see M. J. Geller, Evil Demons: Canonical Utukku Lemnutu Incantations (SAA V; Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2007).
16. Known in the Bible, as evident from Ezek. 9; see D. Bodi, The Book of Ezekiel and the Poem of Erra (OBO 104; Freiburg/Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Freiburg Schweiz/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991), 95–110.
17. Geller, Evil Demons, 16.38–41 (pp. 58–63).
18. In the ancient Near East, these demons were considered the offspring of the gods (“Fashioned in the Netherworld, but spawned in Heaven” (see Geller, Evil Demons, 5.143) and they disrupt order at every level—from personal health to cosmic catastrophe.
19. The root skk (with the sibilant samek, HALOT, 754) used in 3:23 is fairly common, whereas the root śuk (with sibilant sin, HALOT, 1312) is used only one other time (Hos. 2:8). Both have related noun forms.
20. I am grateful to Ashley Edewaard for this observation.
21. I am grateful to Jonathan Walton for this observation.
22. The noun pḥd may be used in Job as a personified reference to a supernatural being. See esp. 4:14, where it is parallel to “spirit,” and 15:21, where the plural parallels the marauder. See R. Fyall, Now My Eyes Have Seen You (NSBT 12; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 120; See Clines, Job 1–20, 357, who suggests they are personified spirits of vengeance.
23. Deut. 9:19; 28:60; Job 9:28; Ps. 119:39.
24. Clines, Job 1–20, 104.
25. Job 7:9; 11:8; 14:13; 17:13, 16; 21:13; 24:19; 26:6.
26. For the most complete discussion and critique of etymological suggestions, see T. Lewis, “Dead, Abode of the,” ABD, 2:101–2.
27. We will not have occasion in this chapter to discuss the beliefs of the various peoples of the ancient Near East. A couple of the best discussions of this material can be found in K. Spronk, Beatific Afterlife in Ancient Israel (AOAT 219; Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1986), 86–236; D. Katz, The Image of the Netherworld in Sumerian Sources (Bethesda, Md.: CDL, 2003); and P. S. Johnston, Shades of Sheol (Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 2002).
28. H. Ringgren, Religions of the Ancient Near East (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1973), 46–47.
29. R. L. Harris, “The Meaning of the Word Sheol as Shown by Parallels in Poetic Texts,” BETS 4 (1961): 129–35.
30. R. Rosenberg contends that Sheol and the pit are places for the “wicked dead”—those who suffer untimely or unnatural death. She sees the alternative as being gathered to one’s ancestors (“The Concept of Biblical Sheol within the Context of Ancient Near Eastern Beliefs” [Ph.D. diss., Harvard Divinity School, 1981], 174–93). Nonetheless, her evidence is not able to rule out the idea that the untimely/unnatural death itself is the punishment of God, or that going down to the pit simply refers to improper burial. Additionally, verses like 1 Kings 2:6 suggest that one could go down to Sheol “in peace.” Her explanation of this passage (240–41) is unconvincing.
31. N. J. Tromp, Primitive Conceptions of Death and the Nether World in the Old Testament (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969), 187–90. Tromp has the most thorough treatment of Sheol and other netherworld concepts.
32. Ibid., 190–94. This notwithstanding Rosenberg’s etymological analysis. She offers a sound defense of Sheol as derived from the root šʾl, meaning “to conduct an investigation” (found with this meaning also in Ugaritic, Akkadian, and Aramaic) and thus conveying a forensic concept of “call to account (= punish)” (“The Concept of Biblical Sheol,” 9–12). She does not succeed, however, in demonstrating that the etymology has carried over into the concepts attached to the meaning of the term in Israelite usage.
33. E. F. Sutcliffe, The Old Testament and the Future Life (London: Burns Oates and Washbourne, 1947), 57–59.
34. R. Martin-Achard, From Death to Life (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1960), 39–40. Though Enoch and Elijah are exceptional cases, we should note that the text does not indicate where they went in either instance. In Elijah’s case he goes up to heaven, but “heaven” is also the word for “sky” in Hebrew; it is clear from the response of the other prophets (2 Kings 2:16) that they understand the word in that way (cf. Ezek. 3:14; 8:3).
35. H. J. Kraus, Psalms 1–59 (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988), 334.
36. See the appropriate quotations in ibid., 250.
37. The combination is used elsewhere in Lev. 19:10; Job 39:14; Ps. 49:14; and Mal. 4:1, and in each case means “consign to.” Even in Job 39:14, the ostrich does not “abandon” her eggs in the earth, but consigns them to the earth, which helps to protect them.
38. Most occurrences use the word as the nominalized object of prepositions. The four occurrences similar to Ps. 16 are in Jer. 15:18 (perpetual pain); Amos 1:11 (perpetual anger of Edom against Israel); Ps. 13:2 (the Lord’s apparent perpetual neglect of the psalmist); and Ps. 74:3 (the perpetual state of ruin of Jerusalem).
39. The New Testament use of Psalm 16:10 in Acts 13:35 cites Jesus as fulfilling this passage by his resurrection and the preservation of his body. This fulfillment should not be confused with the message of the psalm in its original context. For further discussion of the important distinctions between message and fulfillment, see A. Hill and J. Walton, Survey of the Old Testament (3rd ed.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009), 508–15.
40. See the excellent summary article by B. Waltke in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (ed. R. L. Harris, G. Archer, and B. Waltke; Chicago: Moody Press, 1980), 2:587–91, including his assessment that “the substantive must not be taken in the metaphysical, theological sense in which we tend to use the term ‘soul’ today.”
41. E.g., Josh. 2:13; 1 Sam. 19:11; Pss. 6:5; 72:13.
42. Sutcliffe, Old Testament and the Future Life, 50–52. The Akkadian phrase muballit miti (“the one who gives life to the dead”) is commonly used as epithets of gods and do not concern resurrection or the afterlife (see H. Ringgren, Israelite Religion [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966], 245).
43. Martin-Achard, From Death to Life, 162.
44. In one of the latest books of the Old Testament (Dan. 12:1–3), a separation is indicated between “some [who rise] to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.” See discussion of this important passage in the comments in Bridging Contexts section of chs. 15–21 (pp. 227–29).
45. Russell, Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic, 357–66. For detailed treatment of various traditions concerning resurrection during the intertestamental period, see G. W. E. Nickelsburg, Resurrection, Immortality and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1972).
46. J. J. Collins, Daniel (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 396.
47. Russell, Satan, 120.
48. MacLeish, J.B., 13.
49. Ibid., 49.
50. Kelly interacts with parts of her story in each Contemporary Significance section. For the introduction to the details of her story, see Contemporary Significance on ch. 1, pp. 86–97.
51. For more on this, see the Contemporary Significance on Job 38–41.
1. S. A. L. Butler, Mesopotamian Conceptions of Dreams and Dream Rituals (AOAT 258; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1998); J-M. Husser, Dreams and Dream Narratives in the Biblical World (Sheffield: JSOT, 1999); A. L. Oppenheim, The Interpretation of Dreams in the Ancient Near East (Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 46/3; Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1956).
2. Butler, Mesopotamian Conceptions of Dreams, 78–83. She points out that the word can be used for “ghost” and can also refer to a class of demons (78).
3. Ibid., 81. Butler seems to favor this as a human expert rather than a divine mediator.
4. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature, 3.9.
5. GKC, Š133b.
6. R. Whitekettle, “When More Leads to Less: Overstatement, Incrementum, and the Question in Job 4:17a, ” JBL 129 (2010): 445–48, retains the traditional “more than” rendering and defends Eliphaz’s statement as intentionally hyperbolic rhetoric. I think the solution lies elsewhere.
7. “Righteous” (ṣdq) and “pure” (ṭhr).
8. Supported by Clines, Job 1–20, 132; Habel, Job, 116.
9. Imperfect of stative verb combined with comparative min with God as object of the preposition.
10. See the discussion in Clines, Job 1–20, 112 n. 18.c., and Hartley, Job, 114 n. 23. Both also list some of the more commonly suggested emendations. The most sensible emendation would be to hattalah (switch in the order of the first two Hebrew letters), which means “deception”—an appropriate parallel to God’s lack of confidence in the angels’ reports.
11. Eccl. 2:2; 7:7, 25; 10:13.
12. See Deut. 25:8; 1 Sam. 20:9–14; and numerous others. For discussion see Magdalene, Scales of Righteousness, 141–42.
13. COS 1.153, I:51–52.
14. Ibid., II.4–9.
15. Notice the use of the verb and the noun in legal contexts throughout Job, particularly 6:25; 9:33; 13:3, 6; 22:4; 23:4; 40:2); Magdalene, Scales of Righteousness, 140–41.
16. Ibid., 141. She refers the reader to the detailed demonstration in P. Bovati, Re-Establishing Justice: Legal Terms, Concepts and Procedures in the Hebrew Bible (JSOTSup 105; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994), 42–48.
17. 15 occurrences: Gen. 47:18; Josh. 7:19; 1 Sam. 3:17 (2x), 18; 2 Sam. 14:18; Job 6:10; 15:18; 27:11; Pss. 40:10[11]; 78:4; Isa. 3:9; Jer. 38:14, 25; 50:2.
18. Synchronic lexical analysis works on the premise that meaning is determined by usage; a word should therefore be studied in all of its contexts in order to assess its meaning.
19. Hebrew šub (”return, turn back“).
20. Hebrew ʿwlh is used both in vv. 29 and 30.
21. Note Ps. 74:13–14, where the two are mentioned together along with Leviathan.
22. J. J. Collins, “Watcher,” DDD2, 893–95.
23. H. Seebass, “
,” TDOT, 12:143.
24. Gen. 50:17; Ex. 23:21; 34:7; Num. 14:18; Josh. 24:19; 1 Sam. 25:28; Ps. 32:1.
25. Notice the use of the perfect form of the verb for “I have sinned” and the imperfect modal sense for “Whatever I might have done.”
26. Besides here, Piel: Job 19:6; 34:12; Pss. 119:78; 146:9; Eccl. 7:13; Lam. 3:36; Amos 8:5; Pual: Eccl. 1:15; Hithpael: Eccl. 12:3.
27. Ex. 27:20; 30:34; Lev. 24:2, 7; Job 11:4; 16:17; 33:9; Prov. 16:2; 20:11; 21:8.
28. Job 15:14; 25:4; Pss. 51:6; 73:13; 119:9; Prov. 20:9; Isa. 1:16; Mic. 6:11.
29. The use of “wise of heart” (lit.) in 9:4 suggests that this is referring to human beings rather than to God. That is, even those humans who are wise or mighty cannot resist God and come out unscathed. See the detailed discussion of the phrase “wise of heart” at 37:24, pp. 370, 373).
30. The Akkadian cognate is etequ and has the same meaning (occurring many more times). The Akkadian š stem (equivalent to the Hebrew Hiphil) of the verb means to pass through difficult territory (CAD E, 393).
31. A derivative form of the root occurs in Isa. 21:4, apparently meaning to shudder with horror.
32. W. Horowitz, Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1998), 14–15.
33. Ibid., 154.
34. For explanation of the strange form, see F. I. Andersen and D. N. Freedman, Micah (AB; New York: Doubleday, 2000), 164.
35. Clines, Job 1–20, 230–31.
36. Andersen and Freedman, Micah, 164.
37. Andersen and Freedman (ibid., 164) postulate an original mythological referent in the phrase.
38. Cf. the suggestion that kimah is derived from Akkad. kimtu = family made by Mowinckel, also supported by an Ethiopic term for Pleiades, kima. See S. Paul, Amos (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 168 n. 88. This has been verified in an Eblaite bilingual text, see W. Horowitz, “Some Thoughts on Sumerian Star-names and Sumerian Astronomy,” in An Experienced Scribe Who Neglects Nothing (ed. Y. Sefati et al.; Bethesda, Md.: CDL, 2005), 163–178, esp. 173. The best accessible discussion of the possibilities and the reasons for them can be found in Clines, Job 1–20, 231.
39. H. Hunger, Astrological Reports to Assyrian Kings (SAA 8; Helsinki: Helsinki Univ. Press, 1992), 248 (437.6). This book is full of such omens.
40. In Job 38:32 the word translated “constellations” is a different Hebrew word. The NIV translation is based on a repointing of the word supported by Origen’s Hexapla, see Clines, Job 1–20, 232.
41. K. Spronk, “Rahab,” DDD2, 684–86.
42. ḥinnam again, see discussion p. 101. Note also that the verb translated “crush” (9:17) here is the same as in Gen. 3:15 (and used elsewhere only in Ps. 139:11, “hide”). The context here and in Ps. 139 suggests the translation “attack,” which also fits well in Gen. 3:15 (including Paul’s choice of Greek verbs in Rom. 16:20).
43. Erra Epic, V.10, COS 1.113: 415; cf. P. Dion, “Formulaic Language in the Book of Job: International Background and Ironical Distortions,” Studies in Religion/Sciences religieuses 16 (1987): 187–93.
44. Elsewhere in Job this term is used in 32:12 (for Job’s friends trying to make a case against him) and in 40:2 (for Job trying to make a case against God). For detailed analysis of the word, see Ticciati, Job and the Disruption of Identity, 119–37.
45. See full discussion in J. Walton, Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology, 74–77; see also idem, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006), 205–7.
46. Occurs most commonly in the DSS in the War Scroll (1QM) in reference to battle formations or battle array. See listing in DCH, 6:122. Similar semantic range for this root is also attested in Aramaic, Syriac, and Akkadian. In the latter, the verb sadaru also refers to lining up in battle formation as well as doing anything with regularity or consistency (CAD S:11–14).
47. See Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought, 179–99, esp. 187; J. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2009), 35, 38–53.
48. This is part of the functional ontology of the ancient world in which existence is predicated on functioning in an ordered system. In Egypt, places such as the desert and the cosmic sea were labeled nonexistent.
49. Job 41:4 (textually questionable); Isa. 16:6 and Jer. 48:30 (associated with Moab’s prideful, insolent boasts); Isa. 44:25 and Jer. 50:36 (associated with diviners’ worthless talk). In Ugaritic it refers to chanting, sometimes mournful.
50. M. Fox, Proverbs 1–9 (AB; New York: Doubleday, 2000), 163.
51. Eleven occurrences: Job 5:12; 6:13; 11:6; 12:16; 26:3; 30:22; Prov. 2:7; 3:21; 8:14; 18:1; Isa. 28:29; Mic. 6:9.
52. The Qere (that which is read, the Masoretic vocalization) has lô (= “in him”); the Ketiv (that which is written, the consonantal text) has lōʾ (= “not”).
53. The word that leads off the verse (hen) is often used in Job to introduce a hypothetical condition. When construed with the imperfect, it conveys a subjunctive mood (9:11–12; 12:14–15; 23:8–9; 40:23; see also Ex. 4:1).
54. The verbal form has just been used in 14:7 for the resprouting of the tree.
55. In Ps. 55:19–20, there is no such opportunity coming for those who have no fear of God.
56. See discussion in Clines, Job 1–20, 334.
57. See full discussion in Magdalene, Scales of Righteousness, 127–76.
58. This necessity was driven home to me in lengthy discussions with Jonathan Walton. It would be a last resort to conclude that there was simply repetition for rhetorical effect.
59. Observation made by Jonathan Walton.
60. In fact, the Challenger was worried that Job’s behavior could have been part of his desire to buy God’s favor.
61. Magdalene, Scales of Righteousness, 145–57. She accepts R. Westbrook’s suggestion that abuse of power is the thrust of the Hebrew root ʿšq, which occurs in Job 10:3. It particularly refers to an abuse of power where the deprivation of economic benefit or legal right results, 149. See R. Westbrook, Studies in Biblical and Cuneiform Law (Paris: Gabalda, 1988), 35–38.
62. Magdalene, Scales of Righteousness, 162.
63. Elihu asks nearly the same question as Abraham in Job 34:12, 17.
64. This profile is gleaned, at least in part, from James 5:11, though it should be noted that there it only mentions that Job persevered.
65. We have yet to unravel fully God’s statement in Job 42 that Job has spoken of him what is right (though see an initial treatment earlier in this chapter, pp. 173–74). At this point I will only say that Job 42:7 is not as broad a commendation as it might seem.
66. Sections of this discussion are adapted from Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One.
67. Or perhaps the converse, if Augustine is right.
68. F. Nietzsche, Daybreak: Thought on the Prejudices of Morality (ed. M. Clark and B. Leiter; Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy; Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1997), 1.91. I am grateful to my colleague L. Miguelez for this reference.
69. John Milton, Paradise Lost, 9.692–705.
70. C. S. Lewis, Till We Have Faces (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), 292.
71. Ibid., 294.
72. Kelly interacts with parts of her story in each Contemporary Significance section. For the introduction to the details of her story, see Contemporary Significance in the commentary on ch. 1, pp. 87–97.
73. Plato, The Republic, 2.361B–D; 361E–362A (trans. P. Shorey; Loeb Classical Library).
1. “Piety” can be reflected merely in conscientious performance of ritual requirements, but can also include righteous behavior, depending on whose perception is involved.
2. Magdalene makes a persuasive case that the word carries legal force as a “petition” (Scales of Righteousness, 206).
3. Piel here and twice in Elihu’s speeches, 33:33; 35:11. The Qal occurs only once, Prov. 22:25.
4. Note that in Gen. 2–3 they are lacking what the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (= wisdom) provide.
5. For more information, see J. C. Greenfield, “Apkallu,” DDD2, 72–74; F. A. M. Wiggermann, “Theologies, Priests, and Worship in Ancient Mesopotamia,” CANE, 1865.
6. Job uses the same root when he refers to his friends as comforters (see 16:2).
7. CAD Z, 25–32, specifically in legal contexts, see 26–27.
8. CAD Z, 23–24. The term zakû is used in eclipse omens to describe that part of the moon that is not eclipsed; see H. Hunger, Astrological Reports to Assyrian Kings (SAA 8; Helsinki: Helsinki Univ. Press, 1992), text 300, reverse line 6 and text 4 line 2. The term is used of the heavens when they are being described as made of jasper that is crystal clear, as opposed to jasper that is translucent (an overcast sky), see Horowitz, Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography, 14.
9. Note how in Gen. 4:10 the blood of Abel cries out for vengeance and justice.
10. For full discussion of the options, see J. B. Curtis, “On Job’s Witness in Heaven,” JBL 102 (1983): 549–62; F. R. Magdalene, “Who Is Job’s Redeemer? Job 19:25 in Light of Neo-Babylonian Law,” Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte 10 (2004): 292–316.
11. Clines, Job 1–20, 389–90, 459; accepted tentatively by Wilson.
12. Hartley, Dhorme, Gordis, Rowley, Andersen, Driver.
13. Day, Adversary, 89–90.
14. Note Job 19:13–14.
15. An option supported by Pope, Smick and Habel; cf. Fyall, Now My Eyes Have Seen You, 40; Magdalene, Scales of Righteousness, 221–22, suggests that the specified role is “second accuser”—someone to stand alongside Job and second his accusation.
16. It occurs in the Sefire Inscriptions, Ahiqar, and the DSS as well as in Laban’s Aramaic name for the pile of stones that stood as witness between him and Jacob (Jegar Sahadutha, Gen. 31:47).
17. Though the bars of a gate are everywhere else expressed by the Hebrew word beriaḥ, see Job 38:10. If the situation can only be resolved by speculation, one might wonder whether the Hebrew consonants bdy(m) in the text might be a transcription error for bby(m) since in the earliest Hebrew scripts b and d look quite similar. Then the noun bab could be read as the Akkadian word, babu, “gate” well-known as part of the name for Babylon (bab-ili, “gate of the gods”). It should be noted, however, that no remnant of the Akkadian word babu is evident in Hebrew lexicography. Combining a transcription error and an otherwise unknown borrowed term would be a radical solution, but in some ways no more radical than the alternatives proposed by others.
18. J. B. Burns, “The Identity of Death’s First-Born (Job XVIII 13),” VT 37 (1987): 362–64.
19. Clines, Job 1–10, 418. See also the detailed discussion of T. Lewis, “First Born of Death,” DDD2, 332–35.
20. Clines, Job 1–10, 418.
21. J. Walton, “Demons in Mesopotamia and Israel: Exploring the Category of Non-Divine but Supernatural Entities,” in The Biblical World and Its Impact: Essays on Precept and Praxis in Honor of Samuel Greengus (ed. B. Arnold et al.; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, forthcoming).
23. The word has been interpreted personally as an epithet for God (cf. Isa. 48:12), eschatologically (at the last day), temporally (afterwards or last in the dispute), or logically (at last).
24. Job’s dung heap is the word ʾeper (NIV, “ashes”), similar to the word for dust (ʿapar) and the two are used together in Job 42:6.
25. Day, Adversary, 99.
26. Developed in Hartley, Job, 295–96.
27. In the Mishnah (Giṭṭin 5:8) the verb is understood to refer to knocking off olives (as opposed to picking them off).
28. E.g., HALOT, 722: “flay”; DCH, 753–54: “strip off”.
29. For an excellent treatment of understanding Job 19 within the context of the entire argument of the book of Job, see Sutcliffe, Old Testament and the Future Life, 131–37; see also Martin-Achard, From Death to Life, 179.
30. Perhaps from the divine council, but unspecified.
31. For some detailed analysis of the Hebrew text of 21:22 see the Original Meaning section connected to Job 22, pp. 244–45.
32. For treatments of the concept of resurrection in the Old Testament, see L. J. Greenspoon, “The Origin of the Idea of Resurrection,” in Traditions in Transformation (ed. B. Halpern and J. Levenson; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1981), 247–321; Johnston, Shades of Sheol, 218–39; Spronk, Beatific Afterlife in Ancient Israel; Sutcliffe, Old Testament and the Future Life.
33. Evident as early as Jerome’s expansive translation in the Vulgate (“On the last day I shall arise from the earth”). It should be noted that the church fathers were not unanimous in their support of this interpretation. In numerous works John Chrysostom denies that Job has knowledge of the resurrection (e.g., Hom. In Matt. 33.7, on Matt. 10:22).
34. J. J. Collins, Daniel (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 395.
35. R. H. Charles, Eschatology (New York: Schocken, 1963), 212–13, n. 3.
36. The Hebrew term ʿolam (“everlasting”) has been recognized as less abstract than the philosophical concept of eternity. Discussions include J. Barr, Biblical Words for Time (London: SCM, 1969), 73–74, 93, 123–24; D. Howard “The Case for Kingship in the Old Testament Narrative Books and the Psalms,” TJ 9 (1988): 29 n. 38; A. MacRae, “ʿôlam,” in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (eds. R. L. Harris, G. Archer, B. Waltke; Chicago: Moody Press, 1980), 2:672 (#1631).
37. Nickelsburg, Resurrection, Immortality and Eternal Life, 23.
38. Kelly interacts with parts of her story in each Contemporary Significance section. For the introduction to the details of her story, see Contemporary Significance in the commentary on ch. 1, pp. 87–97.
39. Matt. 5:11–12; 19:21–30; Luke 6:35; 14:26; John 16:33; Acts 14:22; 2 Cor. 12:9–10; Phil. 1:29–30; 3:10; Heb. 10:32–34; 11:32–40; 12:7; James 1:2–4; 1 Peter 2:19–21; 3:14–17; 4:12–19.
1. For those who want to see the technical support, consult the appendix (pp. 450–53).
2. The subject of this sentence is represented only by the third person singular verbal form. The NIV uses the universal “anyone” whereas I favor picking up the antecedent from the previous discussion.
3. In 38:15 God breaks the upraised (ramah) arm of the wicked. The root can refer to both positive (“exalted”) and negative (“haughty”) behavior.
4. Clines (Job 21–37, 560) is certainly correct in his assessment that as a result of these parallels, Eliphaz’s statement in 22:17b should be translated “What can the Almighty do for us?” instead of the NIV (emphasis added) “What can the Almighty do to us?”
5. The only other occurrences of the Hiphil are in Num. 22:30 and Ps. 139:3.
6. The donkey in Num. 22:30 had never before shown awareness or paid any attention to Balaam’s intentions, and in Ps. 139:3, God does show awareness and pay attention to the psalmist’s movements.
7. This understanding is based on the observation that the imperative verb (šelam) occurs in the Qal (“be at peace”) rather than in the Hiphil (“make peace”).
8. ʾi is known only elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible in the personal name Ichabod (1 Sam. 4:21, ʾi-kabod, “where is the glory?”),
9. See listing in Clines, Job 21–37, 547, n. 30a.
10. Job also initially accused God of treating him unfairly (Job 7) and then accused God of dealing with him unjustly (Job 9).
11. See discussion in Clines, Job 21–37, 661–62, 667–69. While this kind of misplacement is not impossible, such an interpretation should be our last resort.
12. The transition is admittedly rough because the Hebrew text only introduces the subject, ʿawlah, in the last word of the verse.
13. The noun ʿawlah from v. 20 is not technically the subject of the verbs in vv. 21–22 because then they would take the feminine form like tiššaber in v. 20. This is because noun abstractions use the feminine ending. Thus, the singular subjects in vv. 21–22 refer to categories of people.
14. Clines, Job 21–37, 657 n. 22b indicates that v. 22 takes “the wicked” as the subject. Gordis and Habel take “the mighty” as the subject, but they have the problem that the verbs are singular while “the mighty” is plural. A. De Wilde (Das Buch Hiob, 1981) and G. Bickell (late nineteenth century) take “the wicked” as the subject and “the mighty” as the object, but both emend the latter to a different word entirely (each with a different suggestion). The NJPS takes “wicked” as the subject and “mighty” as the object, but suggests a different root for the verb.
15. For those who want to see the technical support, consult the appendix (pp. 453–54).
16. For discussion of the “purity” of the stars, see treatment of 15:14–15, p. 213.
17. Clines accounts for this by interpreting 26:5–14 as belonging to Bildad’s speech, in which the moon and stars are mentioned toward the end.
18. Ps. 88:10[11]; Prov. 2:18; 9:18; 21:16; Isa. 14:9; 26:14, 19.
19. For discussion, see H. Rouillard, “Rephaim,” DDD2, 692–700, and W. Pitard, “The Rpum Texts,” in Handbook of Ugaritic Studies (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 259–69.
20. CAD R, 2–3.
21. COS, 1.108, line 64.
22. BM, 475 (6.146).
23. We might even wonder whether the supernatural source of Bildad’s might hints at a character from mythology who would be considered feeble in contrast to the power of the Creator God.
24. This view can be found in some of the older commentaries such as M. Buttenweiser, The Book of Job (New York: MacMillan, 1922), but is also asserted in those Bible and Science books that are inclined to a concordist interpretation of the Old Testament, e.g., W. Kaiser, “bālâ,” Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (ed. R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer, and B. K. Waltke; Chicago: Moody Press, 1980), 1:111. For full discussion, see R. J. Schneider, “Does the Bible Teach a Spherical Earth?” PSCF 53 (September 2001): 159–69.
25. Isa. 24:10; 29:21; 34:11; 40:17, 23; 41:29; 44:9; 45:18, 19; 49:4; 59:4.
26. Job 6:18; 12:24; 26:7.
27. Walton, Lost World of Genesis One, 47–53.
28. KTU 1.5; Baal and Mot i.15–16; see S. Parker, Ugaritic Narrative Poetry (SBLWAW; Atlanta: Scholars, 1997), 142.
29. H. Neihr, “Zaphon,” DDD2, 927–29; R. Clifford, The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1972); J. J. M. Roberts, “ṢĀPÔN in Job 26, 7, ” Bib 56 (1975): 554–57.
30. Job 9:8; Ps. 104:2; Isa. 40:22; 42:5; 44:24; 45:12; 51:13; Jer. 10:12; 51:15; Zech. 12:1.
31. Hartley, Job, 365–66, also considers tohu to refer to the cosmic waters citing Gen. 1:2, but does not make the connection to the “nonexistent.”
32. Even-Shoshan’s concordance lists this as a single word without maqqeph. Also listed as a variant in HALOT. See Dhorme, Job, 371.
33. See my demonstration of this in Lost World of Genesis One, 23–36; cf. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought, 87–91, 179–99.
34. E. Hornung, Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell Univ. Press, 1982), 172–85; S. Morenz, Egyptian Religion (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell Univ. Press, 1973), 171–74. See my extensive treatment in Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology, 24–26.
35. Ex. 15:12; 1 Sam. 28:13; Job 10:21–22; Eccl. 3:21; Isa. 26:19; Jon. 2:6. Akkadian: erṣetu; Ugaritic: ʾarṣ; J. Sasson, Jonah (AB; New York: Doubleday, 1990), 188–89; N. Tromp finds many more examples, many of which are ambiguous at best (Primitive Conceptions of Death, 23–46).
36. Also supported by Hartley, Job, 366.
37. Cited in Dhorme, Job, 371.
38. An interesting parallel also occurs between the affirmation of God’s work in Job 26:7 and the thirty-second name of Marduk in Enuma Elish 7.83: Agilimma: “Creator of the earth above the waters, establisher of the heights.”
39. Here what is being collected is not just water, but the spittle of Tiamat.
40. For illustration, see I. Cornelius, “Job,” ZIBBCOT, 5:294.
41. B. Holmberg, “
,” TDOT, 10:372.
42. These are never expressed with ʿab.
43. Gen. 9:13–16; Isa. 44:22; Jer. 4:13; Ezek. 32:7; Job 3:5; 7:9; 37:11, 15; 38:9. See discussion in H.-J. Fabry et al., “
,” TDOT, 11:253–57.
44. A meaning supported by the Akkadian cognate, kussu.
45. In 1 Kings 10:19 the Hebrew word for throne is spelled this way.
46. Unquestionably this rendering is still a bit awkward, in that covering with clouds hardly seems to be “edging,” but it makes no less sense than covering the full moon, which would ill fit with all the other actions of creation.
47. In Hebrew, both prš and prz mean to spread out. Possibly a scribe included both in a transition. There are two other alternatives: We could take it as a four radical loanword (none comparable known) or assume that one of the letters was miscopied at some stage (but which one? Most likely the first letter should be a b instead of a p, and therefore be a preposition, though the remaining three letters do not form any known word either).
48. See Akkadian šigaru naḫbalu tâmti, “the bolt named ‘Net of the Sea’ ” discussed in Horowitz, Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography, 326–27; W. G. Lambert and A. Millard, Atra-hasis: The Babylonian Story of the Flood (Oxford: Clarendon, 1969), 116–21, lines i.6, i.10, ii.4, ii.11, ii.18, ii.34; and ḫargullu, “Lock of the Sea,” Horowitz, Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography, 327. For other examples of locks on the sea, see CAD T, 157 (tâmtu).
49. Though this concept is clear enough in the Old Testament, this element of cosmic ordering is not found in the ancient Near East. Mesopotamian literature speaks of limiting the seas to their place in Atraḫasis and Enuma Elish, and neither have much connection to the biblical expressions mentioned above. The Sumerian piece Bird and Fish says vaguely that “Enki … collected all the waters, established their dwelling places.”
50. Akkadian uses the term kippatu, see CAD K, 399; see Horowitz, Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography, 334.
51. Akkad. kippat KUR.KUR (= matati).
52. Fox, Proverbs 1–9, 284.
53. P. Seely, “The Geographical Meaning of ‘Earth’ and ‘Seas’ in Gen. 1:10, ” WTJ 59 (1997): 233; see also Pyramid Text 299a (see The Pyramid Texts [trans. S. A. B. Mercer: New York: Longmans, Green & Co., 1952]). If wordplays are to be taken seriously, the Egyptians may have believed that the heavens were made of meteoric iron, since pieces of it occasionally fell to earth. See L. Lesko, “Ancient Egyptian Cosmogonies and Cosmology,” in Religion in Ancient Egypt (ed. B. Shafer; Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell Univ. Press, 1991), 117.
54. Occurs only here in the Old Testament but is used in later Hebrew with this meaning.
55. Conveys a combination of stupification and astonishment.
56. Think here of Aslan’s growling roar in the Chronicles of Narnia.
57. Can refer to the primordial retreat (cf. Ps. 104:7) when the land emerged from the water, to the retreat of the waters of the Red Sea for the Israelite crossing (Ps. 106:9), or to cosmic judgment (2 Sam. 22:16/Ps. 18:15; Isa. 50:2; Nah. 1:4).
58. Dan. 7:2 (this Aramaic portion of Daniel uses the verb gwḥ; see Isa. 51:15 and the mention of Rahab being cut to pieces a few verses earlier in 51:9; Enuma Elish 1.105–110.
59. Fox, Proverbs 1–9, 159.
60. In Isa. 51:9 the form is the strikingly similar mḥṣbt, putatively a participle from the root ḥṣb, though the Vulgate and 1QIsaa read it as mḥṣt, from the same root used in Job. The versions were probably attempting to harmonize with Job because nothing in the context explains the addition of the b. The verb in Job, mḥṣ, usually means “crush” while the one in Isaiah, ḥṣb, usually means “dig” or “hew.” Consequently, neither is easily understood as “cut in pieces.” The cognates of these two verbs are used in parallel in Ugaritic, in the Baal cycle concerning Anat’s battle (CTA 3/KTU 1.3 II.5–6, 29–30), see Parker, Ugaritic Narrative Poetry, 107–8 or COS, 1.86, p. 250.
61. Num. 24:8, 17; Deut. 32:39; 33:11; Judg. 5:26; 2 Sam. 22:39; Job 5:18; Pss. 18:38; 68:21[22], 23[24]; 110:5, 6; Hab. 3:13.
62. COS, 1.86, p. 265.
63. Clines, Job 21–37, 623; though unquestionably the use of the same verb refers to churning up the waves in Isa. 51:15 and Jer. 31:35, mitigating any confidence we can have in this solution.
64. Unfortunately, the word that the NIV translates “became fair” (šiprah) is uncertain, but cannot be further clarified at this point.
65. The Hiphil form of the verb occurs in a handful of other passages: Ex. 23:7; Deut. 25:1; 2 Sam. 15:4; 1 Kings 8:32; 2 Chron. 6:23; Ps. 82:3; Prov. 17:15; Isa. 5:23; 50:8; 53:11; Dan. 12:3.
66. Besides here, 2 Sam. 23:9, taunting the enemy; Ps. 69:10, insulting God; Ps. 119:42, accusers taunting; Prov. 27:11, adversaries taunting.
67. Four other occurrences of qwm in the Hithpael: Job 20:27; Pss. 17:7; 59:[12]; 139:21.
68. Previous uses in Job 8:13; 13:16; 15:34; 17:8; 20:5.
69. Job has considered his own life to be hebel (7:16), his attempts to find justice as hebel (9:29), and the advice of his friends to be hebel (21:34). In a later chapter Elihu will label Job’s talk as hebel (35:16).
70. For discussion, see Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought, 149–61, 283.
71. Cf. Clines, Job 1–20, 253 and note on 256. The “if” is with sin, not with the verb as the NIV has it. The verb is an imperative form, not a second masculine singular imperfect as apparently emended by the NIV.
72. The translation of this word (šemeṣ) as “faint whisper,” as we have found so often with terms used in the book of Job, is far from certain (appears only here and in 4:12), but most agree on this general direction, which also derives some support from cognates and later Hebrew.
73. Smick, “Job,” 972.
74. Cf. J. Walton, Covenant: God’s Purpose, God’s Plan (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994).
75. Act IV, scene 1, 197–200; thanks to Joshua Valle for bringing this to my attention.
76. Of course, whenever we ask why God does anything, we can only speculate. C. S. Lewis observed that our conjectures concerning God’s actions would be equivalent to our dogs’ observations of us as we read the morning paper.
77. Gen. 18:20–21 and Jon. 1:2 suggest there are limits.
78. This is true even though some of it might also converge with modern science.
79. D. Ratzsch, Science and Its Limits (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2000), esp. 26–27.
80. I have treated this at length in Lost World of Genesis One, 23–36.
81. Some might claim that the sun moving around the earth is true as a perception, but if that is the way the argument is going to go, one need move no further than the surface level. The truth of the text would not need to be “salvaged” by providing other levels of more scientifically accurate information.
82. For more detailed treatment of the problems with this approach, see J. Walton, “Bible-Based Curricula and the Crisis of Scriptural Authority,” Christian Education Journal 13 (1993): 83–94; J. Walton and A. Hill, Old Testament Today (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), 200–203; R. Chisholm, Interpreting the Historical Books: An Exegetical Handbook (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2006), 28–32.
83. For guidelines of applying the law to ourselves a Christians, see Walton and Hill, Old Testament Today, 117–21.
84. C. S. Lewis, Screwtape Letters (1942; repr., New York: Macmillian, 1944), ch. 14.
85. Kelly interacts with parts of her story in each Contemporary Significance section. For the introduction to the details of her story, see Contemporary Significance in the commentary on ch. 1, pp. 87–97.
1. P. R. S. Moorey, Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1999); J. D. Muhly, “Mining and Metalwork in Ancient Western Asia,” CANE, 1501–21.
2. S. Mowinckel, “
,” in Hebrew and Semitic Studies (ed. D. Winton Thomas and W. D. McHardy; Oxford: Clarendon, 1963), 95–103.
3. Epic of Baal, see COS, 1.86 (259), col. 4, line 21.
4. Besides here, Job 26:6 (par. to Sheol); 31:12; Ps. 88:11 (par. to qeber, ”grave“); Prov. 15:11 (par. to Sheol). It most likely was also in the original of Prov. 27:20. For discussion, see M. Hutter, “Abaddon,” DDD2, 1.
5. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature, 126–29.
6. M. Cohen, Canonical Lamentations of Ancient Mesopotamia (Potomac. Md.: CDL, 1988), 339–40, cited in Horowitz, Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography, 331.
7. J. L. Foster, Hymns, Prayers and Songs (SBLWAW 8; Atlanta: SBL, 1995), 57.
8. Ibid., 103.
9. See full treatment of the connections in J. G. Taylor, Yahweh and the Sun (JSOTSup 111; Sheffield: JSOT, 1993).
10. Clines, Job 21–37, 919–20. He makes a case for the two verbs in v. 24 to be analyzed as preterits (past) rather than continuous present.
11. Job is identified as fearing God in the introduction, and the term is used again with a variety of nuances in 4:6; 6:14; 9:35; 15:4; 22:4; and 37:24.
12. Note again, as I have previously distinguished, his disinterested righteousness pertains to the fact that he is not motivated by material benefits. The book does not intend to address existential benefits of a subtle sort (e.g., the satisfaction that may derive from a coherent epistemology).
13. C. Newsom, The Book of Job: A Contest of Moral Imagination (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2003), 177.
14. Ibid.
15. The closest possibilities are in Job 9:4 and Isa. 31:2. The stative verb and adjective are used of people. See Zerafa, Wisdom of God in the Book of Job, 188.
16. Fox, Proverbs 1–9, 279.
17. I would note the exceptions in which there is a direct and observable cause-and-effect relationship (you want to know why you are in jail—well, you broke the law). But in these the cause-and-effect situations are tangible and in the human realm.
18. This is not to imply that comparison to gravity suffices as a comparison for how God’s wisdom works in the cosmos. It is a metaphor that quickly breaks down under scrutiny, but it is adequate for the starting point.
19. MacLeish, J.B., 111.
20. Ann Rice, Memnoch the Devil: The Vampire Chronicles (New York: Knopf, 1995), 254.
21. We should be careful not to think that everything that we experience as negative is the result of the fall. We do not know very much about what the prefall situation in the cosmos looked like, and we cannot assume that the end situation will look the same. Consequently we cannot detail the results of the fall and we cannot compare “before” and “after” pictures. For more discussion of this, see below, pp. 411, 419.
22. This advice has moved us beyond the book of Job and the wisdom poem. The book itself never addresses the relational issues between God and humans.
23. It is interesting to note that all of these are punished by death, not by illness or suffering, which are much more difficult to document in the text. One might point to general statements such as 1 Cor. 11:30 and statements that Jesus makes in healing people when he says that their sins are forgiven. Mention might be made of Miriam’s leprosy, but that has a number of unique elements connected to it.
24. H. Kushner, When Bad Things Happen to Good People (New York: Schocken, 1981), 134.
25. G. Boyd, Is God to Blame? (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 41–60; though I should note that he does so in order to promote his openness view, which I do not find persuasive.
26. Kelly interacts with parts of her story in each Contemporary Significance section. For the introduction to the details of her story, see Contemporary Significance in the commentary on ch. 1, pp. 87–97.
1. God is generally assumed and supplied as the subject and object of verbs in 30:11, 18–23, but he is never actually mentioned.
2. For a good presentation of how various types of societies function, see J. Pilch, Introducing the Cultural Context of the Old Testament (Mahwah, N.J.: Paulist, 1991), esp. 97.
3. See discussions in K. van der Toorn, Family Religion in Babylonia, Syria and Israel: Continuity and Change in the Forms of Religious Life (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 116–17; T. Abusch, “Ghost and God: Some Observations on a Babylonian Understanding of Human Nature,” in Self, Soul and Body in Religious Experience (ed. A. Baumgarten, J. Assmann, and G. Stroumsa; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 380–81; Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought, 147–49.
4. J. Assmann, “Dialogue between Self and Soul: Papyrus Berlin 3024,” in Self, Soul and Body in Religious Experience (ed. A. Baumgarten, J. Assmann, and G. Stroumsa; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 386.
5. Ibid., 401.
6. The reference to a nest has led some scholars to conclude that the second line of the verse refers not to sand but to the phoenix, which expires on its nest and then is reborn (see discussion in Clines, Job 21–37, 939–40). Neither the contextual nor the lexical data are persuasive.
7. See H. Tawil, An Akkadian Lexical Companion for Biblical Hebrew (Jersey City, N.J.: KTAV, 2009), 340; CAD Q, 258–60.
8. Šurpu II, 53; Tamitu texts, see W. G. Lambert, Babylonian Oracle Questions (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 40–41 (lines 341–42).
9. Other commentators have pointed out that there are a number of places in the book that exhibit similar lack of agreement between sentence parts in number and gender. Granting their point, we still must first examine whether the words should be understood differently before opting for grammatical lack of agreement.
10. See Scurlock and Andersen, Diagnoses in Assyrian and Babylonian Medicine.
11. Cornelius, “Job,” 5:286–88.
12. These examples are drawn from the publication of the texts in W. G. Lambert, “DINGIR.ŠA.DIB.BA Incantations,” JNES 33 (1974): 267–322.
13. E. Reiner, Šurpu: A Collection of Sumerian and Akkadian Incantations (AfO 11; Graz: Ernest Weidner, 1958). See contrast developed in Magdalene, Scales of Righteousness, 183.
14. J. Bidmead, The Akitu Festival (Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias, 2002), 71.
15. This list is from the papyrus of Ani, translated by R. O. Faulkner, The Egyptian Book of the Dead: The Book of Going Forth by Day (San Francisco: Chronicle Books, 1998), plate 31. M. Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature (Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 1976), 2:126–27, has some variations in translation.
16. I accept this alternative reluctantly, because, for the most part, I have expressed my commitment to take the text as it is. This displacement is relatively minor in relation to moving whole chapters around as others often do. Such displacement would have had to occur quite early, because the LXX agrees with the Hebrew Masoretic text on the arrangement. It should also be noted that even critical scholars sometimes make a case for treating the text as it stands; see Habel, Job, 427–28.
17. For another likely wording, see Job 31:9.
18. J. Walton, “
,” NIDOTTE, 1:781–84.
19. Vv. 5–6, 7–8, 9–12, 13–15, 16–23, 24, 25, 26–28, 29–30, 31–32, 33–34.
20. For an example in which the apodosis is actually stated, see Ruth 1:17; 2 Kings 6:31. Even God uses the unstated apodosis style in Deut. 1:35.
21. For this interpretation, see discussion below, pp. 328–29.
22. While we could imagine someone being enticed through his own imagination, unrelated to any activity by the woman in question, Hebrew usage of this verb suggests that the enticer’s behavior is deliberate.
23. R. Mosis, “
,” TDOT, 12:164. The Qal describes a stative condition, whereas the Niphal describes a passive response to the action of another.
24. Hos. 13:2 refers to kissing the calf, but there is no preposition used.
25. For a few examples, see the “worshiper of Larsa” (ZIBBCOT, 5:289) and Hammurabi at the top of his stele of legal sayings (ZIBBCOT, 5:377). In the Persian period, similar deference was given to the king (ZIBBCOT, 3:424).
26. Clines, Job 21–37, 1030.
27. The distinction is difficult, because in some passages, such as Isa. 13:9, the cruelty (ʾakzar) is characterized by anger, and in other passages, such as Jer. 50:42, it is characterized by lack of compassion. Waltke defines the adjective as defining “an insensitive and merciless person who willfully, knowingly, and unrelentingly inflicts pain on others” (B. Waltke, The Book of Proverbs 1–15 [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004], 312).
28. See discussions in J. G. Westenholz, Dragons, Monsters and Fabulous Beasts (Jerusalem: Bible Lands Museum, 2004).
29. Note that Leviathan is created as part of the ordered cosmos in Gen. 1 and is for God’s sport in Ps. 104:26; yet in Ps. 74:14, his heads are crushed.
30. For translation, see COS, 1.113: 404–16.
31. S. A. Meier, “Destroyer,” DDD2, 241.
32. See Erra and Ishum, 4:104–7; Erra and Ishum 5:6–10.
33. Kelly interacts with parts of her story in each Contemporary Significance section. For the introduction to the details of her story, see Contemporary Significance in the commentary on ch. 1, pp. 87–97.
1. Hartley, Job, 429.
2. It should also be noted that the Spirit of God gives wisdom (Ex. 28:3; Isa. 11:2).
3. See NIV footnote with that alternative reading.
4. H.-J. Fabry, “
,” TDOT, 13:365–402; esp. 386–88. Fuller discussion in Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought, 210–14.
5. Note also the psalmist’s reference to “my spirit” (Ps. 31:5 [6].).
6. Fabry, “,” 13:387.
7. Note that when Elihu does make a passing reference to the material, he refers to “clay” rather than “dust” (33:6). In this he reflects a common ancient Near Eastern idea of people being fashioned from clay. See comments on 10:9; see also discussion in Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought, 205–6.
8. Butler, Mesopotamian Conceptions of Dreams, specifically noted on 67, but addressed in several chapters throughout the book.
9. See Clines, Job 21–37, 733.
10. The word here is problematic because its root would be pdʿ whereas the normal root for “spare” would be pdh. The root as stands is not known in Hebrew and most commentators and translations have accepted the emendation to the revised and more common root, as it seems to be what the context requires.
11. In Job 36:18, the NIV translates it “bribe.” The same concepts are found in 6:22–23, but other synonyms are used instead of koper.
12. This is not a common view, but it is not unprecedented (e.g., Wilson, Job, 377, appears to accept it).
13. The uncommon Piel stem of the verb ṣedeq elsewhere used only in Ezek. 16:51–52. The Piel serves a factitive function when the Qal is stative as here. Since the Qal means “to be righteous,” the Piel would refer to any activity that would make, declare, or consider someone to be righteous. Here Elihu wants to be able to declare Job righteous by virtue of Job’s having taken the appropriate steps of reconciliation.
14. This word for “Maker” is derived from a different root than the one used in 35:10, but no difference in nuance is discernible.
15. Note, e.g., the usage in Josh. 24:14; note also that almost the exact phrase describes God in Job 37:16.
16. Job 8:2; 15:10; 31:25; 34:17, 24; 36:5 (2x); Isa. 16:14; 17:12; 28:2.
17. 2 Chron. 15:3 (priests); Prov. 5:13; Isa. 9:14 (prophets); 30:20 (voices in affliction); and Hab. 2:18 (image).
18. The same noun is used by Job in 31:37, where he claims that he can account for all his steps. Again, that has little to do with counting a number—it concerns assessing them.
19. H. Morris, The Genesis Record (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976), 218.
20. These are Qal; there are a couple of occurrences of Piel and Pual (Isa. 25:6; Mal. 3:3) that mean “filter” or “refine.“
21. H.-J. Zobel, “
,’” TDOT, 8:257.
22. The lack of such information can easily be inferred from Horowitz, Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography, whose comprehensive collection of information has almost nothing to offer about rain.
23. Ibid., 118
24. Walton, Genesis, 164–65.
25. For methodological discussion, see J. Walton, “Principles for Productive Word Study,” NIDOTTE, 1:161–71.
26. D. Tsumura, The Earth and the Waters in Genesis 1 and 2 (JSOTSup 83; Sheffield: JSOT, 1989), 110–16.
27. Ibid., 111–12.
28. R. J. Clifford, Creation Accounts in the Ancient Near East and in the Bible (CBQMS 26; Washington, D.C.: Catholic Univ. of America, 1994), 28.
29. This is the use of the Piel and Pual, 4 occurrences.
30. Qal usage; 3 occurrences.
31. These three are all in the Qal. Note also that this verse offers a different view than Gen. 1, where the dry land emerges, rather than God spreading it out.
32. IBHS, 27.1d. In 27.3b it is stated that either object could potentially be marked by a preposition (as both are here in Job) rather than by a direct object marker.
33. This is interpretive because there is no signal in the syntax.
34. M. Fox, Proverbs 10–31 (ABY; New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Press), 515–16.
35. Ex. 28:3; 31:6; 35:10, 25; 36:1, 2, 8; 1 Kings 3:12; Job 9:4; Prov. 10:8; 11:29; 16:21, 23; Eccl. 7:4; 8:5; 10:2.
36. See Introduction, pp. 21–22.
37. J. Walton, “The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Spirit of the Lord in the Old Testament,” in Presence, Power and Promise: The Role of the Spirit of God in the Old Testament (ed. D. Firth and P. Wegner; Leicester, UK: Inter-Varsity Press, 2011), 38–70.
38. For helpful discussion, see T. E. Fretheim, Creation Untamed: The Bible, God, and Natural Disasters (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010).
39. O. S. Card, Speaker for the Dead (New York: Tom Doherty, 1986), 277–78.
40. C. S. Lewis The Problem of Pain (New York: Macmillan, 1977), 81.
41. Kelly interacts with parts of her story in each Contemporary Significance section. For the introduction to the details of her story see Contemporary Significance in the commentary on ch. 1, pp. 86–97.
1. Clines, Job 21–37, 711.
2. J. A. Baker, “The Book of Job: Unity and Meaning,” in Studia Biblica 1978 (ed. E. A. Livingstone; Sheffield: JSOT, 1979) 17–26; quote on 17.
3. See translation in COS, 1.113; the series of rhetorical questions is found in Tablet 1, lines 150–62. The epic dates to the eighth century BC. I have included only a selection of the lines here. The speaker is the god Marduk.
4. “Yahweh” is used consistently in the prologue (last occurrence in 2:7) and in Yahweh’s speeches at the end of the book (38:1; 40:1, 3, 6; 42:1, 7, 9–12). Outside these occurrences it is used only once, in 12:9, and there some manuscripts have ʾeloah in its place. See the commentary on that passage for further discussion.
5. Most occurrences are in the prophets and Psalms, with the notable exception of those in 2 Kings 2:1, 11, describing how Elijah was taken.
6. The theophany of Yahweh on Mount Sinai manifests as a storm, but this word is not used there.
7. For detailed discussion of beliefs about cosmic operations in the ancient world, see W. Horowitz, Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography (rev. 2nd ed.; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2011).
8. See Walton, Lost World of Genesis One, or the more technical presentation in Walton, Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology, 23–46.
9. Francesca Rochberg, “ ‘The Stars and Their Likeness’: Perspectives on the Relation between Celestial Bodies and Gods in Ancient Mesopotamia,” in What Is a God? (ed. B. N. Porter; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 41–92.
10. Ibid., 46–47.
11. CAT 1.10:1:3–4, translated in Parker, Ugaritic Narrative Poetry, 182.
12. For discussion of this distinction, see J. H. Walton, “Interpreting the Bible as an Ancient Near Eastern Document,” in Israel: Ancient Kingdom or Late Invention? (ed. D. I. Block (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2008), 298–327.
13. COS, 1.111:398b.
14. Cf. Rochberg, “Stars and Their Likenesses,” 78, though the passages she cites do not result in crops growing but in gods being born.
15. Horowitz, Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography, 146–47. For discussion of the major constellations and their names, see U. Koch-Westenholz, Mesopotamian Astronomy (Carsten Niebuhr Institute of Near Eastern Studies 19; Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, Univ. of Copenhagen, 1995), 132–33.
16. This understanding deviates from the NIV’s “dominion” and is supported in many of the commentaries.
17. Clifford, Creation Accounts, 193.
18. Translated in J. Assmann, The Search for God in Ancient Egypt (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell Univ. Press, 2001), 58.
19. For a thorough discussion of Ostrich habits, see Clines, Job 38–42 (WBC 8A,; Nashville: Nelson, 2011), 89–90.
20. Geber is used to designate someone of highest caliber in the contextual category. If the context is military, the geber is a warrior; if the context is societal, the geber is someone of responsibility in the community. Here in a wisdom context, the geber is the scholar par excellence, the respected philosopher.
21. See R. Averbeck, “Ancient Near Eastern Mythography as It Relates to Historiography in the Hebrew Bible: Genesis 3 and the Cosmic Battle,” in The Future of Biblical Archaeology: Reassessing Methods and Assumptions (ed. J. K. Hoffmeier and A. Millard; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 328–57.
22. Some have argued that the Hebrew word here does not refer to the tail but to the male member; see discussion in M. Pope, Job, 323–24.
23. Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon, 65–66, gives an extensive list of other differences between crocodiles and Leviathan and differences between hippopotami and Behemoth, 76–77.
24. Clifford, Creation Accounts, 194–95. See Wakeman, God’s Battle with the Monster. Fyall, Now My Eyes Have Seen You, 126–37, accepts the connection of Behemoth with Mot, but considers Leviathan to be best identified with Satan.
25. Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon, 72–81.
26. S. Balentine, “ ‘What Are Human Beings, That You Make So Much of Them?’ Divine Disclosure from the Whirlwind: ‘Look at Behemoth,’ ” in God in the Fray (ed. Tod Linafelt and T. K. Beal; Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1998), 259–78, esp. 270–71; J. Gammie, “Behemoth and Leviathan: On the Didactic and Theological Significance of Job 40:15–41:26, ” in Israelite Wisdom (ed. J. G. Gammie et al.; New York: Union Theological Seminary, 1978), 217–31, esp. 221–22.
27. Habel, Job, 570–71, picks up a piece of this in his comment “Now Yahweh challenges Job to consider how he could possibly take his stand before God’s ‘face’ if he cannot survive a confrontation with Leviathan.” But he does not follow that observation to the conclusions reached here. Likewise C. Newsom, The Book of Job (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2003), 252, also perceives it as she speaks of a “curious level of identification between God and Leviathan” but fails to follow this thought to its logical conclusion.
28. This is a unique collocation. Usually when the verb ʿasa(h) is used with the preposition ʿim there is also an adjective (X) or longer descriptions of behavior, and the meaning is, e.g., “I have acted in X way toward you” (see other uses in Job 10:12; 13:20). Here there is no adjective, but the way God has acted toward Job could feasibly, though elliptically, be picked up in the opening reference to Behemoth: “Behold Behemoth, I have acted toward you [as if you were him].” Admittedly there are clearer ways that this could be said, but that would be true no matter how one interprets the verse.
29. Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon, 69, says: “One may therefore reasonably conclude that the list of things connected with the subduing of Leviathan … which are impossible for Job, represents what God has actually done. The message therefore presupposes a battle in which God defeated Leviathan.” One can see that Day imposes all of this on the text, which says nothing about God battling Leviathan or defeating him.
30. Fyall, Now My Eyes Have Seen You, 157.
31. Ibid., 160.
32. Walton, Lost World of Genesis One, 149–51.
33. Ticciati, Job and the Disruption of Identity, 102–9.
34. For more information about this contrast, see my discussion in the chapter on the gods in Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament, 87–112, esp. 97–99.
35. I would insist, however, that this factor still does not offer a reason or an explanation that justifies suffering.
36. For discussion, see Fretheim, Creation Untamed, 9–17, 83.
37. See discussion of the significance of this for reading creation narratives in Walton, Lost World of Genesis One.
38. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought, 179–84.
39. See evidences offered in Walton, Genesis, 166–74, 180–87.
40. Not to be confused with process theology, in which God continues to develop.
41. J. Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univ. Press, 1988), 17.
42. I am using “suffering” in this section as a reference to the ordeals of emotional or physical distress we personally suffer, as well as the suffering that comes through the situations of those who are near and dear to us. I would likewise not rule out the suffering that we observe from afar that may baffle us.
43. R. Becton, Does God Care When We Suffer and Will He Do Anything About It? (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), 33–34, with fuller discussion on 43–53.
44. Fretheim, Creation Untamed, 109.
45. P. Yancey, Disappointment with God (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988), 63–64; Boyd, Is God to Blame? 112.
46. J. Polkinghorne, Quarks, Chaos and Christianity: Questions to Science and Religion (New York: Crossroad, 1994), 47.
47. S. Cairns, The End of Suffering: Finding Purpose in Pain (Brewster, Mass.: Paraclete, 2009), 7. Weil’s quotation is taken from Gravity and Grace (London: Routledge, 2002), 73.
48. W. Barclasy quoted in Yancey, Disappointment with God, 172–75.
49. Interestingly enough, Beckett himself is reported to have identified the meaning of the play as “symbiosis.” Interview with Peter Woodthrope, 18 February 1994, quoted in J. Knowlson, Damned to Fame: The Life of Samuel Beckett (London: Bloomsbury, 1996), 371–72.
50. Fretheim, Creation Untamed, 14, suggests that these verbs should be understood as a mandate to continue bringing order out of disorder.
51. Admittedly, however, some purveyors of injustice may discriminate as they target certain people or classes of people.
52. I would admit, however, that his desire to be vindicated may be a difference without a distinction.
53. Some would claim that it is covered in “deliver us from evil,” but that would entail an identification of all suffering as evil, which I have been arguing against.
54. Weil, Gravity and Grace, 73.
55. Kelly interacts with parts of her story in each Contemporary Significance section. For the introduction to the details of her story, see Contemporary Significance in the commentary on ch. 1, pp. 87–97.
56. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Love Letters from Cell 92: The Correspondence between Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Maria von Wedemeyer, 1943–45 (ed. Ruth-Alice von Bismarck and Ulrich Kabitz; trans. John Brownjohn; Nashville: Abingdon, 1995 [German orig. 1992]), 259.
1. Not quite the modern theological concept of God being the “efficient cause” of everything, but nearly so.
2. In 7:16 it lacks a direct object, as here.
3. See lengthy discussion in Clines, Job 38–42, 172–73. He chooses to translate it “submit.”
4. Ex. 32:12, 14; 2 Sam. 13:39; 1 Chron. 21:15; Ps. 90:13; Isa. 57:6; Jer. 8:6; 18:8, 10; 31:15[14]; Ezek. 14:22; 32:31; Joel 2:13; Amos 7:3, 6; Jonah 3:10; 4:2.
5. For occurrences of dibber b- as “speak against,” see Num. 12:8; 21:5, 8; Job 19:18; Ps. 50:20; Zech. 13:3. The LXX intriguingly translates the Hebrew k- in verse 7 (hosper), but the variant b- in v. 8 (kata).
6. Clines, Job 38–42, 196, offers a similar reading.
7. Ngwa, “Did Job Suffer for Nothing,” 378. See J. Marböck, “,” TDOT, 9:167–71; his conclusion about the semantic location of the root is that it should be understood as “a breach or derangement of the bonds that unite human beings with each other or with God, whether expressed in status, attitude, word, or deed” (171).
8. Elie Wiesel, Messengers of God: Biblical Portraits and Legends (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1985), 234.
9. Ticciati, Job and the Disruption of Identity, 73.
10. M. T. Anderson, The Astonishing Life of Octavian Nothing: Traitor to the Nation, Volume 1, The Pox Party (Cambridge, Mass.: Candlewick, 2006), 336.
11. T. Williams, Otherland: Sea of Silver Light (New York: Daw, 2001), 888.
12. This is the inclination of Boyd in his book Is God to Blame?
13. Frank Cottrell Boyce, God on Trial, PBS Masterpiece Theater (2008).
14. Kelly interacts with parts of her story in each Contemporary Significance section. For the introduction to the details of her story, see Contemporary Significance in the commentary on ch. 1, pp. 87–97.
15. William Paul Young, The Shack (Newbury Park, Calif.: Windblown Media, 2007).
16. Ibid., 128.
17. Ibid.
1. Fox, Proverbs 1–9, 36.
2. Waltke, Book of Proverbs, chapters 1–15, 94.
3. The Qal form of the verb that occurs here occurs only in Job (15:3; 34:9; 35:3). It also occurs in Hiphil forms in three additional locations (Num. 22:30; Job 22:21; Ps. 139:3).
4. When we apply this to the second occurrence in 21:22, it revises our understanding of that verse. The NIV translates, “Can anyone teach knowledge to God, since he judges even the highest?” But if the combination requires the opening “Is it on behalf of God …” then the subject of the verb “teach” is the wicked man (from earlier in the context) and the second half of the verse switches the subject to God. This should then be translated: “Does he [the wicked man] teach knowledge on behalf of God, when he [God] is the one who judges even the highest?”
5. In 13:7 the abstraction “wickedness” (ʿawlah) is the object of the verb, and in 21:22, the abstraction “knowledge” (daʿat) is the object of the verb.
6. In 40:8 God is not pleased that Job has condemned him in order to justify himself (same imperfect Qal used in 22:3).
7. Besides here, 2 Sam. 20:18; 2 Kings 22:4; Isa. 33:1; Ezek. 22:15; 24:10; Dan. 8:23; 9:24.
8. See 2 Sam. 20:18, resolving issues at Abel; 2 Kings 22:4, Hilkiah rendering an account of the funds; Isa. 33:1, bringing a final resolution to their destroying ways; Ezek. 22:15, bringing resolution to their uncleanness; Ezek. 24:10, the meat is not just cooked, it is rendered/resolved into stew; Dan. 8:23, their rebellions have been fully rendered; Dan. 9:24, transgression drawn to a resolution (though there is a textual variant here). It is clear that none of these have anything to do with blamelessness or innocence. The other translations are making the mistake of construing the Hiphil as too dependent on the Qal and the adjective. This fallacy involves valuing diachronic information higher than synchronic information.
9. For other similar uses, see Song 1:4; Isa. 5:18; Jer. 31:3; Hos. 7:5; 11:4.
10. Refers to people in nine other contexts: 1 Sam. 21:7; Job 34:20; Pss. 22:12 (metaphor); 76:5; 78:25; Isa. 10:13; 46:12; Jer. 46:15; Lam. 1:15.
11. The nun would be an Aramaic plural and totally out of place. The orthographic difference between nun and waw is negligible, making it easy to mistake them for one another.