INTRODUCTION
1. Background
The uniqueness of the book of Job derives from its depth and thoroughness in dealing with the relationship of human suffering to divine justice, commonly called theodicy (from Gk. theos [“god”] and dike [“justice”]). Numerous documents, especially from ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt, demonstrate that this type of wisdom writing was well established in the OT world; but none touches on these matters so eloquently and fully as this OT book.
The book of Job cannot be forced into any single literary classification. It is generally called Wisdom literature, but that describes more the subject matter than the form. The book is largely poetry of various genres (lament, wisdom, proverbs, hymns, etc.), and in places it is more difficult to understand than any other part of the OT. Job abounds in words occurring only once. The grammar, syntax, and orthography (spelling) often stand outside the regular forms of classical Hebrew.
2. Authorship
It is quite possible that in the composition of the book of Job the author used source materials, and that the book went through some kind of literary development. But any attempt to know exactly what that was is sheer guesswork. We do not know who wrote the book, but his work has witnessed to the spirits of the faithful throughout the ages that he was divinely inspired.
Presumably the poet based the material on wisdom poetry passed down through the generations. The wisdom poetry of the speeches in Job includes poetic genres such as laments, hymns, proverbs, and oracles. As in all Semitic poetry, parallelism is foremost. This comes from an artistic urge toward symmetry through balanced lines and other units of composition. The poet, however, was a free spirit; so he created unique and intricate patterns of relationship between thought and form parallelism.
3. Date and Source
As is true with much Wisdom literature, the actual composition of the book of Job as we have it is hard to date’with precision. It is possible that the book, or perhaps parts of the book, existed outside Israel for a long time as oral tradition or perhaps even in written form until an unknown Israelite author under divine inspiration gave it its present literary form. This would account for the non-Israelite flavor of the book as well as for its unquestioned place in the Hebrew canon.
It seems likely that Job himself lived in the second millennium B.C. (2000 to 1000 B.C.) and shared a tradition not far removed from that of the Hebrew patriarchs. Job’s longevity of 140 years, his position as a man whose wealth was measured in cattle and who acted as priest for his family, and the picture of roving Sabean and Chaldean tribesmen fit the second millennium better than the first. The book, however, may not have reached its final form until the first millennium. Anywhere in the OT biblical period is a possible date, though attempts to place its time of writing as late as the second or first century B.C. have been dealt a decisive blow by the discovery of parts of a Targum of Job among the Dead Sea scrolls.
The exact place of origin is as difficult to determine as the exact date. The book shows considerable Aramaic flavor, suggesting that Job and his friends lived near centers of Aramaic influence. At the end of the second millennium, some Aramean tribes moved south and settled on the borders of Babylonia and Palestine, but they continued to control the caravan route through the Khabur River area. This was when Aleppo and Damascus became Aramean centers and when the Chaldean tribes invaded Babylonia.
Job himself lived in the land of Uz (1:1). Genesis 10:23 ties Uz with the Arameans, as does Ge 22:20–22. The latter passage also ties in Kesed (the Chaldeans) with the Arameans and the Uzites but does not make them identical. These passages refer to nations or tribes that were related, sometimes mainly by their proximity. The land of Uz was east of Palestine, but its precise location cannot be determined. Job had great influence in an unnamed town (29:7). According to La 4:21, Edom was in the land of Uz. It seems then that Uz was the name of a region east of Palestine, including the Edomites and adjacent tribes.
4. Purpose
The purpose of the book of Job cannot be reduced to a single simple statement. The author appears to have had a multifaceted purpose under the general theme of wisdom teaching about God and human suffering. The various parts of the book speak with somewhat different purposes in mind. The Prologue teaches the wisdom of one’s total submission to the will of the Creator. The readers view the drama from the divine perspective where they learn of God’s secret purpose to expose the falsehood of the Accuser and to prove Job’s faith. The Dialogue, on the other hand, gives the human perspective. Job knows nothing of what transpired in the heavenly council. The author’s purpose is to teach the believing community some profound lessons positively and negatively about honesty and reality in our relationship with God and about a person’s limited knowledge of the divine purposes.
The author of Job intends to show how the theological position of Job’s friends represents a shallow and only partial observation of life; i.e., human suffering is always in proportion to one’s sins. Overall there is no studied attempt to justify God with regard to the suffering of the innocent. But the author finally demonstrates that God does not abandon the sufferer but communicates with him at the proper time.
Another subsidiary purpose of the book is to show that though human beings are often sinful, weak, and ignorant, they can, like Job, be relatively pure and upright even when in the midst of physical distress, emotional turmoil, and spiritual testing. The divine speeches demonstrate to Job that God is Creator and Sustainer of all things and yet is willing to communicate with Job as his friend and not his enemy, as Job had imagined him to be. While this does not answer all Job’s questions, it is really all Job needs to know.
Satan was permitted to afflict Job and then test him through the instrumentality of would-be helpers who used all the words of traditional piety. Job’s major problem was this vexing question of theodicy (see above). How can God be both good and sovereign in the light of the suffering of the innocent and the prospering of the wicked? The book pursues a middle course between the concepts of an evil deity on the one hand and a limited deity on the other. But there is no attempt to give a rational or philosophical solution. The picture is the same as that given in Genesis where the Serpent (Satan), as a creature of God subject to his will, is also in rebellion. Here the Accuser bears the responsibility for Job’s trouble, though he is permitted to do so by God. The problem of theodicy is left on the note that God in his omnipotence and omniscience can and does use secondary means to bring about his higher and perfect purposes. One such purpose in Job’s suffering is to humiliate the Accuser, proving Job’s devotion to God is pure.
Initially Job stands the test even when his wife says, “Curse God and die!” (2:9). But as his troubles multiply, Job has second thoughts; he wrestles with God, challenges God, and sinks into depths of despair, with moments of trust and confidence, only to fall again into despair. Throughout the book Job defends his own essential innocence (not sinlessness) against the view of his friends, who rarely move from the single theme that suffering is the immediate corollary of sin, and that because Job has grievously sinned, God has become his enemy. But Job’s own view of why he is suffering is in a state of flux. So he says many unfortunate things; yet in it all he does not do what Satan said he would—he does not curse God to his face (2:5).
While the counselors make no progress in their arguments, Job gradually grows somewhat less belligerent. He appears to us to be self-righteous in his peroration (chs. 29–31), but this must be understood in its cultural context. He persistently calls for an audience with God to argue his case. He also calls for a friend in heaven to plead his cause at the divine tribunal. He is confident he will be vindicated (13:18; 19:26). The counselors consistently stand on God’s side, sometimes uttering beautiful hymns; but they could not seem to move from their fallacious notion that the righteous always prosper and sinners always suffer and, conversely, that suffering proves sinfulness and prosperity proves righteousness.
Eliphaz is not quite so crass; but he still insists that though the righteous suffer a little and the unrighteous prosper a little, the righteous never come to an untimely end (4:7; 5:16–19), and the wicked—even when they prosper—are in dread of calamity (15:20–26). Bildad is convinced that Job’s children died for their sins and warns Job that he will receive the same fate unless he gets right with God (8:4–6). Zophar is bent on denouncing Job as a mocker of God. Job’s suffering is ample proof of his sinfulness, and repentance is his only hope (11:13–15).
Much of what Job’s counselors said is theologically sound and true in the abstract, but it did not necessarily apply to Job. It is not so much what they say but what they leave out that makes their counsel so shallow. They all finally reach the conclusion that Job is obstinate and that his refusal to humble himself and repent proves he has committed sins of great enormity (but cf. Jn 9:3).
The book does not attempt to formulate a rational solution to the problem of evil, especially that aspect that tries to relate God’s goodness and sovereignty to the suffering of the innocent. Although Job is exercised about God’s justice, his ultimate concern is more practical than theoretical. His practical concern is not healing and restoration but his own vindication as an upright man. Job does not ask for rational answers; nor does God give such to him when he appears, though Job is finally vindicated (42:7–9). There were no heinous sins for which he was being punished. When God does rebuke Job, it is for his ignorance (38:2) and presumption while arguing his case (42:2), not for a profligate life. God is apparently telling Job in chs. 38–41 that human beings do not know enough about God’s ways to make judgments concerning his justice.
In his appearance to Job, God ignores the problem of theodicy. He gives no rational explanation or excuse for Job’s suffering, but Job is not crushed; he is only rebuked and then shown to be basically right while the friends are condemned for their presumptive and arrogant claim to a knowledge of God’s ways (42:7). Job thus realizes that God does not need human advice to control the world and that no extreme of suffering gives one the right to question God’s wisdom or justice, and of this he repents (42:2–6). On seeing the power and glory of God, Job’s rebellious attitude dissolves and his resentment disappears. Job now gets what he sought for. His friends do not see him pronounced guilty; so their view of his suffering is refuted.
Job is not told why God tested him. He comes to accept God on God’s own terms; and while we know the full story, Job had to walk by faith even after he was vindicated. That God never impugns Job’s character proves that Satan has failed and that Job’s testing has come to an end. Though he has not demanded restoration, God, having achieved his higher purpose through Job, now restores him. Job in his suffering, despite moments of weakness, surpassed in righteousness his detractors who had not suffered as he had. After all his doubts and bitterness, Job arrived at that point of spiritual maturity where he could pray for those who abused him (42:10).
The issues raised in the book are among the most profound and difficult of human existence. The answer was already on Job’s lips in the Prologue when he said, “The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away; may the name of the LORD be praised” (1:21b); and “Shall we accept good from God, and not trouble?” (2:10). The truth Job learned was that God must be God and that of all values and all existence only God and his glory must ultimately prevail.
5. Major Characters
a. Job
Apart from the Bible nothing is known of Job. He was not an Israelite and showed no knowledge of the covenant between the Lord and his chosen people. Indeed, there is not in the book the slightest hint of any acquaintance with the history of the Hebrew people. There is, however, no good reason to question Job’s historicity as a well-to-do patriarch who lived east of the Jordan at a time before the emergence of the Hebrews as a nation.
Job assumes two roles. The author presents him as a truly righteous man whose commitment to God is total, yet who can still struggle with God to the point of rage over the mystery of God’s ways. Job does not know what the reader knows—that God honors him by testing, thus expressing his total confidence in Job. But Job must remain ignorant of this for it to be genuine. For the intended message of the book, the raging Job is just as important as the patient Job. In his suffering Job served God supremely, not as a stoic, but as a feeling man who had to come to terms with the mystery of the divine.
b. Eliphaz
Based on a variety of passages, we have good reason to believe Eliphaz was an Edomite. According to Ge 36:4, a man named Eliphaz was the firstborn of Esau, the progenitor of the Edomites, and Teman was his son (v.11). A number of prophets mention Teman as an Edomite city or district (Jer 49:7, 20; Eze 25:13; Am 1:12; Ob 8–9). Jeremiah assumes Teman was known for its wisdom. Apparently Eliphaz was the senior member since he spoke first. Throughout his speeches, at least until his final speech in ch. 22, he shows a broader spirit than the others, accepting Job as a pious man gone astray. Though failing in compassion, he alone of the three showed some consideration and respect.
c. Bildad
This non-Hebrew name is not mentioned in any other OT book. Bildad considers Job’s struggle over the justice of God as blasphemy, and he uses his erudition and knowledge of ancient wisdom tradition to prove to Job that his family got what they deserved and warns him about a similar doom. Genesis 25:2, 6 provides some helpful information about his tribe, the Shuites. They were descendants of Abraham through Keturah and inhabitants of “the land of the east.” Apart from a possible phonetic problem, Ge 25:3 suggests this tribe lived near Dedan, which Jeremiah locates near Tema and Buz (Jer 25:23), far from the Euphrates. Bildad’s name is probably a combination of Bil (baal, “Lord”) and Adad, a well-known storm god (cf. Ben-hadad, the Aramean royal name, and the names of the Edomite kings Hadad the son of Bedad (Ge 36:35) and Baal-Hanan.
d. Zophar
Zophar is from Naamah, but not the little Israelite town in the western foothills (Jos 15:41). Scholars cannot agree on either the derivation of Zophar’s name or the location of the place. But it must have been somewhere in north Arabia or Edom. Zophar was the most caustic of the counselors. His message to Job was repent or die the horrible death the wicked deserve.
e. Elihu
Elihu appears only in chs. 32–37. He has the distinction of having his father’s name recorded. “Barakel the Buzite” (32:2) seems to identify Elihu as one whose father was a leading figure in a clan more closely related to Job (Uz and Buz were brothers; cf. Ge 22:21). Elihu’s name means “He is my God”; it is the only name of the five characters that was used by Israelites (cf. 1Sa 1:1; 1Ch 12:20; 26:7; 27:18). The Aramaisms in Elihu’s speeches fit the statement that Buz was the son of Abraham’s brother Nahor, whose son Laban spoke Aramaic (Ge 31:47). Elihu gives his youth as the reason he dared not speak while the older men held forth.
EXPOSITION
I. The Prologue (1:1–2:13)
The Prologue introduces us to Job as a man of faith and shows how his fortunes on earth were directed by heavenly forces beyond his control. But its full purpose lies even deeper. It is a deliberately planned foundation on which the spiritual message of the book is based. Without this prologue the Job of the dialogues and monologues might justly be considered a man with an insufferable self-righteousness, and the reader would be left without a heavenly perspective, much as in the other theodicies of the ancient Near East. With this Prologue the purpose of the book is clarified—to show that in a world where evil is a reality, good people may appear to suffer unjustly, but that such injustice is precipitated by the Accuser and, though permitted by God, it is an expression of God’s total confidence that the faith of his servant will triumph.
A. Job’s Felicity (1:1–5)
1–5 Job is presented as a man who worshiped (“feared”; GK 3710) God and “shunned” (GK 6073) evil and whose life was crowned with great prosperity. Fearing the Lord and shunning evil are the controlling principles of wisdom (28:28). Although the author does not use the term wisdom (hokmah; GK 2683) here, this repeated description of Job (1:1, 8; 2:3) labels him a truly wise man. That Job was “blameless” (GK 9447) and “upright” (GK 3838) should not be construed to imply he was sinless (cf. 13:26; 14:16–17). The former, from the root “be complete,” usually refers to a person’s spiritual maturity and the integrity of one’s inner being. The latter, meaning “straight,” “right,” is used in many contexts dealing with human behavior that is in line with God’s ways. Together they provided an idiomatic way to describe Job’s high moral character.
Job lived in Uz, a land somewhere east of Canaan on the edge of the desert (vv.1, 19). He lived in an area where farming could be carried on (v.14) but also near a town (29:7). Job’s wealth is described in terms similar to those used of the patriarchs, the stress being on animals and servants. Job was greater (richer) than any of the people of the East. This shows he was a well-known sage among the easterners. According to v.5, Job, like the patriarchs, functioned as a priest for his family. He took his sacrificial obligation seriously, viewing it as expiation for sin. To Job this included even sins of the heart, for he made special offerings just in case his sons had secretly cursed God. The matter of cursing God is to be a key theme in the development of this drama.
B. Job Tested (1:6–2:13)
1. Satan’s accusations of Job (1:6–12)
6–12 There are two scenes in heaven, each depicting the divine council (cf. 2:1–6). Each is followed by a series of events that result from the encounter between the Lord and Satan. The divine council is made up of “the sons of God” (NIV, “angels”), supernatural beings who are above human beings but created by God (Ps 8:5). The Hebrews otherwise called them the Lord’s messengers (Ge 19:1; 24:7; 48:16; Ps 104:4; Mal 3:1; et al.). The Accuser (lit., “the Satan”; GK 8477) is such a being, whose business is to roam the earth as the Accuser of those committed to serving God (1Pe 5:8; Rev 12:10). Here we find him questioning Job’s motive for religious devotion: “Does Job fear God for nothing?” It is not the Accuser but the Lord who initiates the testing of Job; for the Lord’s statement that Job is his servant implies more than mere servitude; it means God and Job are in a covenant relationship based on solemn oaths.
As in Ge 3, God sets the stage and allows a person to be put to the test. Here the Lord uses secondary means to accomplish his purpose. That purpose is not just to test Job as an end in itself but to give him the opportunity to honor his Lord, to whom he has pledged his allegiance with a solemn oath. That allegiance becomes a significant part of the cosmic struggle between Job’s adversary and the Lord. Will Job curse God or not?
Understanding this struggle is basic to understanding the book of Job as well as the whole historical-religious drama of the Bible (Ge 3:15; Ro 16:20). The Accuser insinuates that Job’s allegiance is hypocritical. If only God would remove the protective hedge he has placed about Job, this “devout” servant would certainly curse God to his face. The attack is on God through Job, and the only way the Accuser can be proven false is through Job. So Satan is given limited but gradually increased access to Job—first to his possessions, then to his family, and finally to his physical well-being. But through it all, the primary purpose of Job’s suffering, unknown to him, was that he should stand before other people and before angels as a trophy of the saving might of God.
2. Job’s integrity in loss of family and property (1:13–22)
13–19 According to v.5 Job’s custom was to make offerings for his family. The very day he made these offerings, this devastation took place. The coming of the messengers of misfortune, each on the heels of the other, all on that one fateful day, has its dramatic effect heightened by the narrator’s style. We are informed, however, that it is really the work of the Accuser, this master of evil, who can and does use both the elements of nature and humankind to accomplish his purpose. Satan is a great juggler and has manifested himself as such in Paradise (Eden) and in the temptation of Jesus Christ.
20–22 Tearing one’s outer garment and cropping one’s hair were common gestures of violent grief in the biblical world. Such response to grief included weeping and wailing (Ps 42:3; Jn 11:33–35).
The wisdom quatrain (v.21) introduces us to the poetic parallelism found in all the speeches beginning in ch. 3. Here the attitude of Job, in contrast to that in the Dialogue, is one of supreme faith and total resignation to the sovereign will of God. Job did not understand why but believed that his trouble came from God. Job was ignorant of what had taken place in the divine council—that God allowed the Accuser to strike thus far. But Job was right, it was the Lord who had taken away. The use of secondary means does not solve the problem of evil, nor is it the purpose of the book of Job to solve this logical dilemma.
When Job said, “May the name of the LORD be praised [GK 1385],” he was using the same word that Satan used in v.11 as a euphemism with the opposite meaning (“curse”; GK 1385). The play on words stresses how the Accuser is foiled at this point. Instead of cursing God to his face, Job praised him.
Here the author, being a Hebrew, uses that special covenant name (“LORD”; GK 3378) for God. Job and his friends were not Hebrews; so they use other Hebrew epithets for God. Here in the Prologue the composer of the book carefully identifies the Job of faith and wisdom as the same Job with questions and defiance in the Dialogue and Monologue. But more important is his identification of the God of the Dialogue with the true God whom the Hebrews worshiped.
Up to this point, though deprived of family and possessions, Job did not sin with his lips (cf. 2:10) by accusing God of “wrongdoing” (GK 9524).
3. Satan’s further accusations (2:1–6)
1–3 At a special time set aside for it, the Accuser again appeared with “the sons of God” and as a subordinate presented himself before the Lord. The Accuser continued to roam the earth, obviously looking for those he would take “captive to do his will” (2Ti 2:26). He lost the first round of this contest. For the third time the Lord triumphantly described Job as a unique servant (no one like him), a pure and devout man who has become even stronger as a result of the testing. “He still maintains his integrity.”
As if to add a bit of irony, the Lord said to the Accuser, “You incited me against him to ruin him without any reason.” The words should not be used to imply that God can somehow be stirred up to do things that are against his will. On the contrary, God suggested Job to the Accuser (1:8; 2:3) in the first place. All Job’s suffering was part of the divine purpose, as God says in 38:2: “Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge?” But when God uses a secondary cause to affect the life of a human, even Satan can be said to stir him up.
The phrase “without any reason” (GK 2855, a word elsewhere translated “without cause”) needs some clarification. Satan had a cause or reason for doing what he did—to discredit God; and certainly God was accomplishing his own cause or purpose. In 1:9 Satan used the same word to accuse Job of having an ulterior purpose for serving God. Now God taunts the Accuser with the counteraccusation that Satan himself is the one who wants to see injustice done. The translation of this key word as “without any reason” is good at this point. It means there was no immediate sinfulness in Job that called for punishment.
4–6 Satan did not consider his energy to have been wasted. His next move was to obtain permission to attack Job’s body. With the adage “Skin for skin! A man will give all he has for his own life,” Satan suggested that even Job’s triumphant faith expressed in his doxology (1:21) was only a ploy by which he was purchasing his personal well-being. He was even willing to sacrifice the skin of his loved ones to save his own. If God would send his hand against Job’s body (i.e., permit Satan to do so), Job’s verbal piety would prove to be a sham; and he would curse God to his face. The contest was about to take on a new intensity. God placed Job in the hands of their mutual adversary but limited his power—“you must spare his life.” The suffering of the innocent is a mystery that defies all human logic.
4. Job’s integrity in personal suffering (2:7–10)
7–8 It is not important for us to know about Job’s disease. The symptoms were many. The “painful sores” all over his body, from the soles of his feet to the tip of his head, were perhaps only the initial stage of the malady. Job speaks of other complications in 30:17, 27, 30. The Semitic root for “sores” (GK 8825) denotes fever and inflammation, but in the OT it describes diseases that have symptoms appearing on the skin (Ex 9:9; Lev 13; Dt 28:27, 35). The scratching Job did with the potsherd was because of the nature of his disease. He used this only as a counterirritant and not for the ancient practice of laceration as a sign of mourning for the dead (Dt 14:1),
9–10 Not knowing the limitation God had put on the Accuser, Job’s wife at this point diagnosed the disease as incurable and recommended that he curse God and die. Job’s mental anguish was certainly intensified by his wife’s advice. Had he followed it, the contest would have ended with the Accuser as the victor.
Job’s reply is remarkable in the compassion he showed toward his wife and in his total acceptance of God’s will for his life. He might have accused his wife of blasphemy but chose to accept it as a statement of desperation. Her “talking like a foolish woman” does not refer to intellectual foolishness but to religious apostasy (as in Pss 14:1 and 53:1). To curse God was essentially a way of denying he is God. Job was willing to believe that his wife was only talking like a blasphemer. Job’s wisdom, on the other hand, was to receive with meekness whatever prosperity or disaster God might send. Such wisdom was not rooted in his intellectual capacity but in his fear (worship) of God.
Now the author repeats practically the same testimony of Job’s verbal innocence given in 1:21. Despite all that has happened to him, up to this point Job did not err with his lips. This section of the Prologue provides the basis of the N T description of Job as a man of perseverance (Jas 5:11).
5. The coming of the counselors (2:11–13)
11–13 It took time, possibly months, for the news to pass by word of mouth and for the three sages, friends of Job, to come (cf. 7:3). Teman, an Edomite city and a center of wisdom (Jer 49:7), is the only place of the three that can be definitely located. The friends arranged a meeting so they could join together to console Job. Shuah was the name of an eastern tribe (Ge 25:2, 6).
When the counselors join together near Job’s home, they are stunned by what they see. Like the Suffering Servant of Isa 53, Job is disfigured beyond recognition, at least from a distance. The three friends had come to show grief and console Job; they may have come largely to go through the proper motions. It does not appear that they were ready for what they encountered.
The friends immediately went into a drastic form of mourning usually reserved for death or total disaster. They tore their robes of nobility, wailed, and threw dust into the air. Then they sat in silence before Job for seven days and nights. Like the elders of fallen Jerusalem in La 2:10, Job’s friends sat on the ground with dust on their heads and kept silent. For one of them to speak prior to the sufferer would have been in bad taste.
II. The Dialogue-Dispute (3:1–27:23)
A. Job’s Opening Lamentation (3:1–26)
The spiritual tone of Job’s life changes dramatically here. The man of patience and faith sinks into a state of despondency and spiritual depression, so frequently a major problem to those who endure severe physical illness or impairment. In ch. 3 Job establishes an attitude that largely colors all that he says in the succeeding chapters. In all his many words of despair, nowhere will he come closer to cursing God to his face (cf. 2:5) than here in ch. 3. By cursing the day of his birth, he is questioning the sovereign wisdom of his Creator. At this point the drama is intense, for the Accuser, whom we will never see again, seems to have triumphed. Whether he has or not will be determined by what follows.
1–2 The words “After this” introduce the Dialogue, a major division of the book. In fact, the entire third chapter, though a part of the Dialogue, is transitional.
3–10 The way Job curses the day of his birth has two interesting features. First, he expresses a desire for the annihilation of that day, a would-be negation of God’s creative act in bringing such a day into being. As God had said in Ge 1:3, “Let there be light,” so Job, using the same terminology in v.4, says, “As for that day, let there be darkness” (lit. tr.). Job intends to give full vent to his feelings. He wishes that day could be so annihilated that even God would forget it. Job wants the day lost in total darkness, not even numbered anymore as a day in the calendar.
The second feature is Job’s use of personification. He personifies both the night of his conception and the day he was born. That night speaks about what it has witnessed, the birth of a boy. It is more vivid to imagine the day perishing as a person than as a span of time. A barren night unable to conceive results in a literal night in which no shout of joy will be heard.
Contemporary mythology used the term “Leviathan” (GK 4293) for a monster of chaos who lived in the sea, and the Sea itself was a boisterous deity who could be aroused professionally. But to Job, a strict monotheist (31:26–28), this was simply vivid imagery, the use of proverbial language tailored to his call for the obliteration of that day. The figure may be of an awakened monster of chaos who could perhaps swallow that day or even usher in the end of days.
11–26 Job continues his pitiable complaint with a series of rhetorical questions. There is a progression in his thought. Since the day of his birth did happen (v.10), the next possibility was a stillbirth. But since he was alive, he longed for a premature death. In vv.13–19 Job conceives of death as falling into restful sleep (v.13). It is clear that he does not consider it annihilation. The dead are in a place where there is no activity, where everyone finds rest; even the wicked stop making trouble there.
In addition to the progression of thought, there is also a symmetry of ideas in these verses. Job wishes he had been a stillbirth and then imagines himself joining the great (kings, counselors, rulers) who rested in Sheol. Then in v.16 he repeats the issue and follows with a description of the small (the wicked, the weary, the captives) who also rested in Sheol. A concluding line wraps it up with the thought that the small and great are all alike in Sheol, where even the slave is freed from his master.
The last of Job’s rhetorical questions comes in vv.20–23. To paraphrase: Why is light given to a man who is miserable? Why is life given to a man who has no future? His suffering is so intense both physically and mentally that death in comparison would be an exquisite pleasure, like finding hidden treasure. The very thing he dreads the most happened. It thus appears to him that the very God who had put a hedge of protection and blessing about him (1:10) subsequently hemmed him in with trouble and distress.
What does this chapter teach us? Job’s attitude is certainly not normative—just the opposite. What we can see is how even a man of great faith can fall into the slough of despond. That one as great as Job should have such a struggle of faith is a source of support to those similarly afflicted, especially when viewed in the light of the rest of the book of Job. God prefers we speak with him honestly, even in our moments of deepest gloom.
B. The First Cycle of Speeches (4:1–14:22)
1. Eliphaz (4:1–5:27)
With artistic flare Eliphaz sounds the keynote for all else that he and his companions will say. Job in ch. 3 was so obviously wrong that it was not hard for Eliphaz to appear to be right. But we must keep in mind that the counselors were basically wrong, even though their words were often right (see 42:7–8).
1–11 Eliphaz, a man from Teman, an Edomite city noted as a center of wisdom (Jer 49:7), on the surface spoke as if he thought Job was basically righteous and that his sufferings were temporary. But in reality Eliphaz was not convinced of this. Later he openly agreed with the harder line against Job used by his friends (22:1–11). Eliphaz’s opening statement sounds like he was truly concerned for Job’s welfare but could not resist the temptation to give Job some “proper” instruction. Some compliments are offered. Job is called a “wisdom teacher”—like himself. But the compliment is followed by a
warning to Job, who had instructed and strengthened those in trouble, that he must be careful lest he fail to apply to himself the lessons he taught others.
In v.6 Eliphaz affirmed that Job was basically an upright man who only needed the wisdom to see that all deserve some punishment for sin, for no one is completely pure (v.17).
According to Eliphaz, Job’s faith in God and blameless conduct (1:8; 2:3) should have saved him. Verses 8–11 may be an excursus about the fate of the wicked without reference to Job, or they may reveal that he really was not all that certain about Job. Moreover, Job’s experience did not support the idea that the innocent never perish. With the perspective of the Prologue, the reader has insight that proves Eliphaz’s statement is shallow. But Eliphaz would also say things that were not so shallow. For example, he would admonish Job to be patient and see the disciplinary aspect of suffering (5:17–18).
12–21 At this point Eliphaz bolstered the authority of his words by an appeal to the supernatural—an eerie and hair-raising experience in which he received a divine oracle. Uncertain about what it was he saw, he claimed “a form” (GK 9454) spoke in the silence of the night.
Eliphaz went on to tell how inferior the angels are to God. More so a human being, whose body, like a house of clay, is as fragile as a moth. It is clear that Eliphaz saw mortals as almost zero in God’s sight—hardly more than an insect that may perish unnoticed. Like collapsing tents people “die without wisdom.” This is no mere statement about the death of the ignorant. Eliphaz is saying, “They die, and it is not by (of) wisdom.” That is, there is no special purpose in it. To a God so transcendent that he does not even trust the angels, the death of a sinful person is of little consequence.
It hardly seems possible to stress too much that God is transcendent. Eliphaz, however, succeeds in taking this important truth and misapplying it. In fairness to Eliphaz, the verbs in vv.19–21 may only express possible consequences of human sinfulness, not what happens to every sinner. Eliphaz’s point then is that since all deserve this, we should be patient when temporary suffering comes.
5:1–7 Eliphaz next directed his words more explicitly toward Job. There was no mediator among the holy servants of God (the angels) who would dare answer a plea from Job. Why? Because he was behaving like a fool. Fools pay no proper heed to God (Ps 14:1). Their houses are cursed, their children crushed, and their wealth depleted (cf. 1:13–19). Eliphaz was not quite explicit, but Job no doubt got the point. He was establishing a connection between moral and physical evil. Trouble does not sprout up like weeds in the field; one must sow and cultivate trouble.
The “sparks” that fly upward are literally “the sons of Resheph” (GK 1201 & 8404). This name is used seven times in the OT, mostly for flames or lightning (Dt 32:23–24; 1Ch 7:25 [proper name]; Pss 76:4; 78:48; SS 8:6; Hab 3:5). This imagery from the contemporary mythology need not imply anything about the theology of the speaker or author. Eliphaz was probably saying that human beings, like the sons of this colorful and pestering figure, stir up their own trouble or are the victims of uncontrollable natural forces such as disease, plague, and death.
8–16 Verses 9–16 are in the form a creedal hymn on the nature of God as the Lord of creation and salvation. So Eliphaz admonished Job to appeal to God who does only what is right. He punishes the unjust and delivers the lowly. This is of course exactly what Job believed, but such advice did not help him understand why he was suffering so intensely. On the contrary, since it implied he was getting just what he deserved, it only added to his confusion.
These lines are a fine example of hymn genre in OT poetry. That is why the apostle Paul could cite a line from v.13 in 1Co 3:19: “He catches the wise in their craftiness.” But in Eliphaz’s case, what is absolutely true is misapplied—the sick room is not the place for theological strictures that may turn out to do more harm than good. Eliphaz as a counselor is a supreme negative example. Great truths misapplied only hurt more those who are already hurting.
17–27 Eliphaz continued his lofty words with another unit of fine poetry. The purpose of his creedal poem in vv.9–16 was to show sinners (fools) how transcendent and holy God is. Sinners get what they deserve, and only the righteous have hope. It is a terrifying statement that God, because he is a holy God, hates sinners. But as a man dedicated to wisdom, Eliphaz balanced this with another poem addressed to anyone who understands God’s “discipline” (GK 4592). Typical gnomic truth maintained that the correcting wounds of God were temporary—truly good people will always be rescued. The very God who injures them will heal them; they will be blessed and again enjoy the good things of life.
But in the light of Job’s experiences—the loss of his family, his economic ruin, his sickness—there is a thoughtless cruelty inherent in applying the words of vv.19–26 to him. For example, if Job benefits from God’s discipline, then “his children will be many”—but Job’s children were dead. It is not what Eliphaz knew that is wrong; it is what he was ignorant of—God’s hidden purpose—that made all his beautiful poetry and grand truth only a snare to Job. Moreover, while things he said are good even for a sufferer to contemplate—such as the disciplining aspect of suffering—even these words, we know from the Prologue, do not apply to the case in hand.
Eliphaz’s patronizing attitude revealed in his closing sentence must have been galling to Job, his peer.
2. Job’s reply (6:1–7:21)
1–7 The two themes of Job’s speech are introduced here. In vv.1–4 Job complained against God and in vv.5–7 against the counselors. First he attempted to justify his own “impetuous” words with an appeal to his overwhelming misery brought on by the arrows of God. Then he claimed the right to bray like a donkey or bellow like an ox deprived of fodder and left to starve. Job starved for the right words that, like food (Am 8:11), could bring strength and nourishment. The food Eliphaz dished out was absolutely tasteless; worse, it turned Job’s stomach. Despite his bodily misery, Job’s major concern was for the needs of his spirit. If only he could hear words that would nourish his soul rather than sicken him more!
8–10 Again (cf. 3:21) Job earnestly asked God to bring an end to his suffering by bringing an end to his life—a mercy killing! He would then have some joy even in pain. He would have one consolation left before he died—that he had not denied the words of the Holy One, though he emphatically rejected the words of Eliphaz. Verses 1–10 form a unit based on a theme about the use of words: Job’s words (v.3), Eliphaz’s words (vv.6–7), and God’s words (v.10).
11–13 Job complained that he had no reason to be patient, for he had nothing to look forward to. As a vulnerable creature made of flesh, he had no human resources left. Even his natural ability, the gifts that contributed to his success, had been driven from him. This is a reply to Eliphaz’s words in 4:2–6.
14–21 Turning in despair to his friends, Job pled for kindness (“devotion”; GK 2876), even though they may have thought that he no longer feared God. Instead he found them like wadis that run dry. Verse 21 is the climax of Job’s reaction to his friends’ counsel. They offered no help.
22–23 Job never asked his friends for anything tangible. It was not as if they were being asked to pay a ransom to save him. The thought goes back to v.14, where he asked only for what would cost them nothing—their faithful love and kindness, despite what they thought he had done.
24–27 Job’s words are a challenge and an indictment. His friends needed to be specific about his sins and be sure they were right. He insisted that they speak the truth just as he affirmed a compelling desire to speak only the truth before God. His words may have been painful, but they were honest, even though his friends treated them as wind. In his mind it was their arguments that were specious. He labeled them as men of such severe cruelty that they could have cast lots for an orphan or bartered away a friend.
28–30 Here Job softened his tone and appealed to his friends as men of compassion. He pled for justice, for a reconsideration of their indictment of him. His integrity was at stake, and that was more important to him than life itself. In v.30 Job again employed the figure of words as morsels of food. He reaffirmed the honesty of his own words and claimed for himself a discriminating taste for the truth.
7:1–2 These verses form a complaint to God: The life of a human being, so full of toil and suffering, is like hard military service, like a toiling slave longing for the shade, or like a hired person working for mere pittance.
3–10 These are the words of a chronic sufferer. There had been months of futility and nights of tossing in misery, nights that seemed to drag on endlessly. Yet almost in the same breath Job described his purposeless life as passing with incredible speed, a complaint heard on the lips of the aging or any who feel their days are numbered. In v.5 Job described one of the symptoms of his disease—scabs that crack and fester. Worse than the disease itself, Job lost all hope of being healed. He believed his only release from pain was death.
Beginning in v.7 Job addressed God directly, and this continues throughout the chapter. His words are an empirical view of the human lot on this earth. Human life is only a breath. One goes down to the grave and never returns. Death is so final—a person disappears like a cloud, and his family sees him no more.
11–21 Again Job asserted his determination to cry out in agony of spirit over the apparent injustice of God who, it seems, would not leave him alone. Even when sleep did come, he blamed God for his terrifying dreams. This brings up several theological issues. First, does the book of Job teach a lesson about God’s willingness to allow for Job’s rage? Job’s extreme language fits his cultural setting but was a source of great offense to postbiblical Jews who sometimes felt the need to theologically correct his words. That is exactly what was done in v.20. Both an ancient scribal tradition and the LXX show the original reading of the final line to be “Have I become a burden to you?” (cf. NIV note). The present MT reads “I have become a burden to myself”—an early attempt to remove what was thought blasphemous. If Job’s raging attitude was reprehensible in the eyes of later interpreters, it was accepted by God (though not desired, cf. 38:2) as part of the struggle of a man who was determined to open himself wholly to God.
Second, was Job giving a parody of Ps 8? Like the psalmist, Job asked, “What is man that you make so much of him?” The biblical answer is, of course, that humanity is the work of God’s hands, created in his own image. God’s purpose for the world centers around the human race, his crowning creation, to whom he gave the world. God makes much of them, for they are meant to be God’s surrogates on earth. But Job, in his current condition, believed God’s interest in him was only negative—as if God’s only interest were to torment him for his sin, not letting him alone long enough to swallow his spittle. God even used him as a target for his arrows.
Contrary to all this, the reader knows from the Prologue that a loving God waited for that moment when Job’s test would be over and the hand of the tormentor (the Accuser) would be removed. But at this moment it appears to Job that God is the tormentor. The reader knows God was using a secondary means and that Job’s conception of God as tormentor was askew. The reader also knows that because God is sovereign, the problem remains logically unresolved. This age-old dilemma between divine sovereignty and divine goodness is a permanent backdrop throughout the book of Job. The dilemma is there, but it is not the purpose of this book to attempt to solve the problem.
It would be a mistake to think that Job was wrestling with a purely intellectual problem. His concern was more experiential, though he was also seeking a way to make his experience (suffering) agree with his theology (the justice of God). Job’s pathetic words at the end of this chapter show that he still entertained doubts about his own blameworthiness, but they also suggest that he felt God was being unjust. These are words he would eventually regret (40:4).
3. Bildad (8:1–22)
Bildad’s speech contains an important negative lesson about human nature in general and about the qualities of a good counselor. He heard Job’s words with his ears, but his heart heard nothing. This truth should be viewed in the light of Job’s plea for compassion in ch. 6. All people under the most ordinary circumstances need compassion; how much more Job in his extremity! Repeatedly in ch. 6 Job called himself a helpless (v.13) and despairing man (vv.14, 26) in need of the devotion of his friends. It seems almost incredible that Bildad would reply so callously. There is not only steely indifference to Job’s plight but an arrogant certainty that Job’s children got just what they deserved and that Job was well on his way to the same fate. The lesson we must learn is that there are such people in the world and that they do their heartless disservice to humankind under the guise of being the special friends of God.
As he appears in the Dialogue, Job becomes a man whose frame of mind is not totally conducive to loving relationships with others. Anyone who curses the day of his birth and looks on death as preferable to life is in need of help. His three friends were there for that purpose, but Job came to view them as part of his problem rather than as those who offered therapy. Their view that people do suffer for their sins and need to be brought face-to-face with that reality was not wholly wrong. The assumption that Job was one of these is what led them astray as counselors.
The lessons we learn from Job’s friends about counseling are negative, but the three are not alike. The book presents three counselors instead of one because each had his own approach and message for Job. Eliphaz began somewhat sensitive to Job’s needs but eventually lost patience (ch. 22). The other two were aloof and superior. None of them was able to accept Job unconditionally. It is true that Job was a stubborn patient, but they were unable or unwilling—or both—to become involved with him. Their advice was well-meant and often accurately and artistically stated, but it succeeded in making Job even more stubborn and resistive to them. No doubt a large part of the problem was their academic commitment to a viewpoint they refused to alter, namely, that sin brings suffering and suffering is evidence of sin.
Job forced his counselors to accept or reject his contention that he was not suffering for his sins. In 6:24 he had said, “Teach me, and I will be quiet; show me where I have been wrong.” That they did not accept Job’s contention made them unwilling to listen and hence miserable as counselors. Bildad could only reply, “God does not reject a blameless man” (v.20). However, had they accepted Job’s contention, the book would have lost a major part of its message, a message that centers around the mystery of God’s purposes in dealing with his creatures. An important lesson to be learned from the book is that counselors must be willing to listen, to become involved, and to have respect for the integrity of the human personality they are trying to help. And they must always bear in mind that they may not fully understand the nature of the case.
1–10 Bildad was blunt. “Your words are blustering wind,” he said as a preface to his one and only theological point: Job’s suffering was the proof of his sinfulness. Since God cannot be unjust, there is only one conclusion—Job and his family had received the punishment they deserved. Job should plead for mercy. Then, if he deserved it, God would restore him. Bildad failed to see that mercy implies the forgiveness one receives even though one does not deserve it. Eliphaz had appealed to revelation; Bildad appealed to tradition. To Bildad nothing less than the teachings of the ancients proved the orthodoxy of his viewpoint. If Job would only take the time to consider ancient tradition, he would find that God only does right. Sinners get just punishment, and good men are blessed with health and prosperity.
11–19 This poem on the destruction of the wicked has a literary quality similar to that demonstrated by Eliphaz in his masterly poem on the good man in 5:17–26. Those who ignore God, Bildad called “godless” (GK 2868); the word means something like our word “hypocrite.” The hope of these persons is unreliable. Like a spider’s web (v.14), it provides no support. The godless are like papyrus plants without water (vv.11–12) or like vines with shallow roots clinging to rocks, destined to be pulled up or left to wither and die (vv.16–18).
20–22 Bildad thought he heard Job say that God perverts justice (v.3). Job did have problems about divine justice; but he had not yet blatantly accused God of being unjust, though he came close to it (6:20). Job found it difficult—if not impossible—to understand God’s justice. Although Job did not claim perfection, he considered himself a blameless man. This was also God’s view of him in the Prologue (1:8; 2:3), but Bildad was sure that God had rejected Job. Since God does not reject blameless people, Job could not be one. Therefore, he must be a hypocrite. The situation, however, could be remedied: if only he would turn to God, Job’s lips might laugh again.
4. Job’s reply (9:1–10:22)
In these chapters Job’s words move from extolling God (9:1–13)—perhaps as a display of theological acumen to impress the counselors—to blaming God. Would God ever treat him justly? He doubted it (vv.14–31). Does God mock the innocent? Job thought probably so (vv.21–24): “If it is not he, then who is it?” (v.24). These are hard words, but his question instead of a statement implies doubt. These words are followed in vv.32–35 with a yearning for someone strong enough to take up his cause with God. But in ch. 10 Job decided to plead his own cause and direct all his words to God. How could God who created him want to destroy him—and that without any formal charges?
1–24 In vv.1–13 Job intended to show that his problems were not due to gross ignorance of God’s ways. Those ways are past finding out, but he knew as much about them as they did. His opening remark—“Indeed I know that this is true”—is a grudging admission that what Bildad had said contained the right theology. But he had more than Bildad’s words in mind. Job immediately called to mind Eliphaz’s rhetorical question in 4:17: “Can a mortal be more righteous [GK 7405] than God?” Eliphaz and Job seem to use the word “righteous” in a slightly different sense. The former is thinking of ontological superiority, whereas Job is thinking of legal vindication (i.e., innocence).
Bildad’s accusations in ch. 8 turned Job’s mind to the subject of legal vindication. In 8:20 Bildad had said, “Surely God does not reject a blameless man.” To Bildad God’s justice required punishing the guilty and blessing the innocent (see also 8:3–6). Job fervently believed that he was innocent of any sin that would warrant the kind of punishment he was enduring. But he was frustrated in his attempt to vindicate himself. God’s wisdom was too profound and his power too great for Job to debate in court.
Verses 4–13 constitute a hymn in which Job describes God’s awesome power. God shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble; he speaks to the sun, and it does not shine, he stretches out the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea—the creation and control of all natural forces.
Job closed the hymn with the words that Eliphaz used in 5:9: “He performs wonders that cannot be fathomed, miracles that cannot be counted.” But Job was applying these words in a way opposite to how Eliphaz used them. Eliphaz was trying to show how God does what is good and right. He lifts to safety those who mourn and delivers the poor from the clutches of the powerful. But Job saw God’s power as if it were amoral, a sovereign freedom, an uncontrollable power that works mysteriously to do whatever he wills so that no one can stop him and ask, “What are you doing?” (v.12). Yes, God’s anger makes even the armies of Rahab (the boisterous demonic power associated with the sea; cf. Isa 51:9) cower at his feet. Job thought such a God would overwhelm him in any attempt to show his innocence. Job could only plead for mercy; even worse, Job doubted God would give him a hearing.
In vv.21–24 this God of Job’s imagination was worse than morally indifferent; he even mocked the despair of the innocent and blocked the administering of justice. Since everyone gets treated the same way—the blameless and the wicked—Job threw all caution to the wind: “I have no concern for myself; I despise my own life.” He added, in effect, “If God is not responsible for this, then who is?” (cf v.24).
These are words of a sick and desperate man. They are a forceful reminder to anyone who has to counsel the sick, that people who face deep trials often say irresponsible things in their struggle to understand their suffering in the light of God’s compassion. Not all Job’s words are wrong, but it is a mistake to try to make them all represent valid theology rather than the half-truths of a person struggling to understand. They deal with the mystery at the very heart of the book of Job: the problem of evil for which no human being has a logical explanation. So Job reasoned, as many have, that if God is sovereign, truly sovereign, he is responsible for all evil.
Job did not mention the corollary: If there is evil beyond God’s control, then he is not truly sovereign. Job stressed only God’s irresistible might; and it appears to him that if God held him to be guilty, there was nothing that he could do to establish his innocence. Yet he believed he was innocent and was concerned with disproving the contention of his friends that God only destroys the wicked and always cares for the righteous. Job’s experience told him that sometimes God crushes the innocent for no reason at all (v.17). We who are privileged to see the drama from the divine perspective know that Job was innocent and that God did have a cause, a cause beyond the purview of Job, a cause that could not be revealed to Job at that moment.
25–35 Verses 25–31 fall together as an expression of deep despair. Job was unable to suck sweetness from a single day; there was not a glimpse of joy, not a smile, only one unending blur of suffering. Since God arbitrarily chose to treat him as a criminal, what could he do to purge himself? Even if he were able to purge himself, God would plunge him again into a slime pit so that even his clothes would detest him.
In vv.32–35 Job went back to the theme of vv.14–20. He was frustrated over the immenseness of God! What Job did not realize was that in wrestling with God he was moving in the direction of a right relationship with his Maker. If he only understood what God was doing, that would have made his suffering bearable. But as it was then, he bore a burden that was even greater than his suffering—his apparent inability to stand in God’s presence as an upright and blameless man.
In v.33 Job touched on the mystery through which God would eventually provide godliness for man. He yearned for a mediator (“someone to arbitrate”; GK 3519) between himself and God. Such a person does not have to be one who stands over both God and Job in order to judge between them. As “one who argues a case,” he is a negotiator who is able to bring parties together. We should not infer from this that the book of Job here is directly predictive of the NT doctrine of Christ as mediator. For one thing Job was not looking for a mediator to forgive him of his sins so that he might be received by God; Job was yearning for a mediator who could prove that he was innocent and could somehow be effective with God despite his infinite power and wisdom. But having said that, we have here a rudimentary idea that is certainly evocative of that NT concept. This idea will move on to greater ramifications in 16:20–21 and 19:25–26.
10:1–22 In ch. 10 Job continued to bewail his sorrowful condition. Life had become an unbearable burden. In his bitter anguish he determined to speak out, once again directing his words to God. He called on God, though not for healing and restoration (which, incidentally, he nowhere ever asked for); but he wanted to know again why he was suffering: “Tell me what charges you have against me” (v.2). Job could not understand how God, the Creator, who looked on his original creation and considered it good (Ge 1:31), could turn his back on the work of his hands. Had not Job dedicated his life to God, in contrast to the wicked who received God’s smile? Job knew that God was not limited like human beings who have mere eyes of flesh and a certain number of years. Did God have to search out Job’s faults when he knew that he was innocent? Job put God on the witness stand and plied him with questions. Job could not understand how the God who so marvelously made him in the womb could be willing to destroy him.
The NIV takes v.13 with what follows; if this is correct, then in v.13 Job was saying that God brought him into being so that he might hound him over his sin and let no offense go unpunished. Apparently Job was saying that it did not make any difference whether he was innocent or guilty, because he was full of shame and drowned in affliction anyhow. No matter how much he tried to assert his integrity, it seems that God insisted on stalking Job like a lion, showing his awesome power in wave after wave of oppression.
Poor Job, the God whom he imagined was so angry with him was not angry with him at all; but in his current state of mind, he reverted back to his original wish to have died at birth, to have been carried straight from the womb to the tomb (vv.18–19). In ch. 3 Job saw Sheol as a place where he might have found some rest from his troubles; here in ch. 10 he longed for a few days of release on earth before he had to go to that place of no return, which he envisioned as a land of gloom and deepest night.
Job had reached about as far as a human being can go into the depths of depression and despair, but it would do us well to be reminded that even the apostle of hope said in 2Co 1:8–9: “We were under great pressure, far beyond our ability to endure, so that we despaired even of life. Indeed, in our hearts we felt the sentence of death. But this happened that we might not rely on ourselves but on God, who raises the dead.” In his despair Job still wrestled with God, but it was still to the living God that his cry was lifted up. An important question yet to be faced is, Did Job have any hope that transcended this life?
5. Zophar (11:1–20)
Zophar was a severe man. Like Bildad he lacked compassion and was ruthlessly judgmental. He thought Job, who was suffering to the point of despair, was getting much less than he deserved.
1–12 Zophar considered Job’s words pure mockery, for he thought Job was claiming flawless doctrine and sinless perfection. Job has steadfastly maintained his innocence or blamelessness in contrast with wickedness (9:22), but he did not claim to be perfect (7:21). Though he complained bitterly of the treatment God appeared to be giving him, to this point he has not been sarcastic, nor has he mocked God or even ridiculed his friends. He has accused them of being shallow in their arguments and callous in the way they have dealt with him (6:24–27).
Zophar spoke with eloquence about God’s infinitude (vv.7–8), justice, and omniscience (vv.10–11). Job needed a stiff rebuke from God because God had favored him by forgetting some of his sin, or at least had allowed Job to forget some of his sin. Either way, the words were designed to suggest the enormity of Job’s sin. Zophar’s only reason to believe Job had sinned to such an extent was derived from the extent of Job’s suffering, which he took to be God’s way of exposing secret sin. That Job would not admit it was taken to be additional evidence of his pride and hardness of heart. So Job needed to be humbled. The best way to humble him was to bring him face-to-face with the immensity of God. If the limits of the created cosmos were beyond Job’s understanding (vv.7–9), how much more the mysteries of God!
In vv.10–11 Zophar touched on the omnipotence and omniscience of God who sees through the deceit of people like Job and keeps a permanent record of it. All this was designed to humble Job, but Zophar apparently doubted that it would. He then attempted heavy-handed shock treatment to get through to Job. Sharply sarcastic, Zophar labeled Job a witless, empty-headed man with as much chance to become wise as a wild donkey has to be born tame.
13–20 Job’s only hope was to stretch out his hands to God and repent. This is good advice for a person who has lived a life of sinful indulgence, but to Job’s ears it was pious arrogance. It was arrogant for Zophar to assume he knew why Job was suffering; he had reduced the solution of this very complex human problem to a simplistic formula—every pain has a sin behind it. Zophar erroneously suggested that if one repents and gets right with God the struggles and troubles of life will dissolve. This common error is made by many well-meaning Christians who fail to distinguish between forensic forgiveness that cancels the guilt of sin and the immediate consequences of a profligate life, bringing trouble and distress. But we know from the Prologue that Job’s troubles were not the result of a profligate life; so Zophar was wrong on both counts. Job’s troubles did not come as a penalty from God; and even if they did, Job’s repentance would not guarantee that life from then on would be “brighter than noonday” and that people would stop molesting him and instead “court his favor.”
6. Job’s reply (12:1–14:22)
There is good reason to question the chapter division in this long speech. The most natural break comes in 13:20. Job first answered his counselors (12:1–13:19), then addressed God (13:20–14:22). With patience running out, he chose to match Zophar’s harshness with sarcasm—“Doubtless you are the people, and wisdom will die with you” (12:1). Job was sure he knew as much as they did and begged to differ with their view of suffering. Being comfortable themselves, they could afford to be contemptuous toward him. If only he were treated justly, Job would not be suffering the way he was. He repeated the unanswerable question: Why did God treat him so badly? Why should a man who is righteous and blameless be made a laughingstock (v.4) when sinners and idolaters go undisturbed (v.6). This is the kind of question that made them brand Job as a man whose feet were slipping (v.5).
1–25 This poem breaks neatly into three stanzas. The first (vv.4–6) states Job’s problem: “Why me, God, and not those who really deserve misfortune?” In the second (vv.7–12) Job complained that the whole world was afflicted with the same apparent injustice. Why should this be when all things, including the very breath of humankind, are in God’s hands? Bildad had already accused Job of attributing evildoing to God (8:3) and had appealed to the authority of past generations to prove Job was wrong. Now Job appealed to the experience of humankind and all creation to support his view that it makes no difference whether people are good or bad. God does not use morality as the basis for granting freedom from affliction. Job’s counselors were so superficial that they had not yet struggled with this difficult problem. Their thoughts on the subject were simplistic. Job considered their words bland and superficial, certainly not a worthy part of the wisdom of elders. He had already accused them of serving tasteless food (i.e., thoughts; cf. 6:6–7).
In the third stanza (vv.13–25), Job expounded on God’s sovereign freedom—with his power and wisdom he does whatever he wishes. Job stressed the negative use God makes of his power. God tears down what humans build, sends drought and flood, makes fools out of judges, sends priests and nobles into captivity, and deprives kings of their reason.
What Job was saying may be a mockery of the lopsidedness of Eliphaz’s creedal hymn in 5:18–26, where everything good happens to the righteous. It is hardly a parody on God’s wisdom since in v.13 Job ascribed wisdom to God in conjunction with his purpose and understanding. In this context Job’s problem is with the counselor’s wisdom, not God’s. He was attempting to answer Zophar’s question: “Can you fathom the mysteries of God . . .? What can you know?” (11:7–8). He was saying that God’s actions were indeed mysterious and strange. Job could not figure them out, but he knew as much about them as the others.
In other words, Job believed the mystery was profound; and he was amazed that the “sages” would be so shallow. Job saw God as so wise and powerful that he cannot be put in a box. He has sovereign freedom. Job illustrated this by drawing a word picture of the mystery of God’s acts in the history of the human race. God humbles great people and nations, showing himself to be the only truly sovereign being.
13:1–27 Job continued to show his irritation at Zophar’s remark about his being an inane, witless person (11:12). His friends talked about God—Job maintained he could do that as skillfully as they. He was confident that given the opportunity he could prove his case before God, for he knew their accusations were false. Despite the unfortunate things he had said earlier about God—“He would [not] give me a hearing” (9:16) but “multiply my wounds for no reason” (9:17), and “he destroys both the blameless and the wicked” (9:22)—Job still believed all this could be reconciled if only he could argue his case directly with God (v.3). But his counselors smeared him with lies. They were quacks who could show their wisdom only if they kept quiet.
Job’s argument in vv.6–12 has the following interesting twist. How dare his friends argue God’s case deceitfully and use lies to flatter God? Job warned them about lying even while they uttered beautiful words in defense of God. If they were going to plead God’s case, they had better do it honestly. God would judge them for their deceit even if they used it in his behalf. This proves what Job believed about God. We know from the Epilogue (42:7) that Job’s assessment was right. Job’s friends’ words about God may have been true, but they were worthless because they were empty maxims, mere clichés. Moreover, their assessment of Job was wrong. If God would have examined their lives, they would not have been able to deceive him the way they deceived other people. For their hypocritical partiality toward God and their dishonest charges against Job, God would surely punish them.
On the other hand, Job was so sure he would be vindicated that he repeated his desire for a hearing before God (vv.13–19). He viewed this boldness on his part as one of the evidences that what they said about him was not true. If Job were a hypocrite, would he be willing to put his life in jeopardy in this way? Such a man would not dare come before God. Even if slain, Job would not wait but would remain in “hope” (v.15; GK 3498) and would defend his ways before God; he was sure God would vindicate him. Although certain that his friends’ charges were false, Job did not claim sinless perfection. He admitted the sins of his youth for which he hoped he had been forgiven. Why, then, did God keep frightening him with his terrors and treating him as an enemy, indeed, as an enslaved prisoner of war whose feet were branded? He saw himself as helpless, as swirling chaff, or as a windblown leaf. If God would only stop tormenting him and communicate, Job felt all would end well.
13:28–14:22 Job’s mercurial mood changed again. At the end of ch. 13 he again lost grip on his confidence and regressed to a hopeless feeling. From 13:28 to 14:6 Job mused on the misery of human beings in their pathetically brief life, uttering a brief but structured poem, designed to introduce the theme of the plight of the human race. People are impure; so they are worthy of punishment. Job, however, uttered a plea that the sovereign God, who gives to each a short span of numbered days, would let his poor creatures alone until their hard labor on earth was over. Again we must be reminded that a key factor remained a mystery to Job—the presence and power, albeit limited, of the Accuser who understandably is not mentioned at all in the dialogue.
In 14:7–22 Job turned again to death as the only way out of his impasse. A tree may be cut down and its stump appear to be dead; yet at the scent of water it springs to life and sends out new shoots. Such an observation cannot be asserted for human beings. They are more like a lake run dry. When one’s lifetime runs out, it cannot be renewed. But Job suggested that God could provide a remedy by simply taking his life till his anger was over and then, by resurrection, call him back from Sheol.
This chapter proves that Job believed in the possibility of resurrection, though he saw humanity differently from the tree that can be cut down and immediately renewed. Human beings lie down and do not rise until the heavens are no more. But the assumption is that humankind will be raised. Job was saying that if God wanted to, he could hide Job in Sheol till his anger passed and then raise him. Job’s pessimism arose, not from a skepticism about resurrection, but from God’s apparent unwillingness to do anything immediately for him. Therefore his hopes were dashed; his life had become a nightmare of pain and mourning—with nothing to look for but death.
Job knew that eventually God would cover all his offenses, and he longed for him as the beneficent Creator who delights in those whom he has made. But despite his faith in God’s power over death, Job was convinced that God would not even allow him the exquisite release of death. The waters of suffering continued to erode until his bright hope was a dim memory and nothing mattered anymore but the pain of his body and the continual mourning of his soul.
C. The Second Cycle of Speeches (15:1–21:34)
1. Eliphaz (15:1–35)
In vv.1–13, Eliphaz plied Job with questions designed to shame him into silence. Verses 14–16 form an apex about which his words hinge. They derive from his vision in 4:17–19 and here state his thesis: God’s holiness versus human corruption. The remaining half of the chapter is a dramatic description of the dreadful fate of the wicked.
1–6 Eliphaz was angry. He had run out of patience. The time to be polite (4:2) and indirect was over. He considered Job’s words not only valueless but deceitful and irreverent. In his opening lines he accused Job of belching out a hot wind of useless words. Worse, his mouth spoke as it did because of the sin in his heart. Job had condemned himself by his ungodly talk. Such irreligion made him a dangerous person, able to lead others astray (v.4).
7–13 Eliphaz now chided Job for arrogance. Was Job wise enough to sit in the council of God’s angels? In reality he was not even wise enough to be in harmony with the elders and wise men on earth. “God’s consolations” (v.11) are the gentle words Eliphaz tried to use with Job (see 4:1–6), only to receive a raging response.
14–16 Eliphaz repeated the thought that came to him by “revelation” (4:17–19)—that human beings are too vile to stand before God. The oracle had made a deep impression on him.
17–20 Eliphaz bolstered this “revelation” with wisdom that came from tradition—the wicked never escape the torment they deserve; and even if they do for a moment, trouble is just around the corner.
21–35 Eliphaz next presented a poetic discourse on the fate of the wicked. To the counselors Job’s idea that the wicked prosper was a great heresy; his poem refutes this notion (cf. 4:17–26). He refused to believe that any wicked person prospers, except perhaps for the briefest moment. Eliphaz believed that wicked people always suffer distress and anguish. They know disaster is stored up for them. He pictured the wicked man as a quixotic figure who uselessly attacks God with full armor and thick shield. No doubt it is all a caricature of Job, whose “eyes flash” as he “vents [his] rage against God” (vv.11–12).
In vv.27–35 the caricature continues with a variety of figures—the fat, rich, wicked man who finally gets what he deserves. He is like a grapevine stripped before its fruit is ripe or an olive tree shedding its blossoms. As long as Eliphaz rejected the notion that the wicked prosper and its corollary that the innocent sometimes suffer, he would never have to wrestle over the disturbing mystery of how this fits with the justice of God. Eliphaz viewed humankind as either all good or all bad. He allowed no room for a good man to have doubts and struggles, and those who are bad Eliphaz wanted to reduce to zero.
In his query “What is man, that he could be pure?” (vv.14–16), Eliphaz’s view of humanity comes through clearly. There is nothing in his words that would lead one to the conclusion that God has any love for sinful human beings. Indeed, the deity Eliphaz worshiped was mechanical; he behaved like the laws of nature, so that sinners could expect no mercy. The sinner always gets paid in full—trouble and darkness, terror and distress, the flame and the sword. God will see to it.
In describing such a fate, Eliphaz made sure that all the things that had happened to Job were included—fire consumes (vv.30, 34; cf. 1:16), marauders attack (v.21; cf. 1:17), possessions are taken away (v.29; cf. 1:17), and houses crumble (v.28; cf. 1:19). Although the modern reader often misses the point that these barbs are all directed at Job, we can be sure that Job himself felt their sting.
2. Job’s reply (16:1–17:16)
In these chapters we find a direct contradiction of what the counselors have said. Job’s thoughts match, by means of contrast, those of Eliphaz in ch. 15; but his opening words are an answer to the opening words of all three (cf. 8:2; 11:9–3; 15:2–6). In 15:12–13, 25–26, Eliphaz accused Job of attacking God, but Job claimed the reverse was true; God assailed him (16:8–9, 12–14). Eliphaz saw all people as vile and corrupt in God’s eyes (15:14–16), but Job believed he had been upright and would be vindicated (16:15–21). Eliphaz thought the words of the wise supported him (15:17–18), but Job was convinced that there was not a word of wisdom in what he had to say (17:10–12). Because God had closed their minds to understanding (17:4), they were incapable of doing anything but scold him (16:4–5; 17:2).
1–5 Job, with purpose, chose in the word “miserable” (GK 6662) the same word that Eliphaz used to suggest Job had conceived his own misery (“trouble” in 15:35; GK 6662), and he threw it back at him when he called them “miserable comforters.” He affirmed how he would have given genuine encouragement to them if the tables were turned, but all he got were arguments and scoldings. The opening words of ch. 16 are full of meaning for all who aspire to counsel others. It is a powerful negative example. The counselors had become gadflies, pestering Job who was certain that they had no understanding of his real problem.
6–14 In v.6 Job turned again to the enemy—the god his mind had created—the one who wore him out and tore him in his anger. He viewed himself as one whom God had seized by the scruff of the neck and thrown into the clutches of the wicked. God had made Job his target, an object of attack; like a warrior he pierced him without pity. The figure was no doubt suggested by Eliphaz’s description of the wicked man (meaning Job) who shakes his fist at God, defiantly attacking the Almighty (15:25–26). Job saw the situation as just the reverse of that in vv.12–14. Job recognized that God could do whatever he wished, but Job was anguished by the thought that God acted like his enemy. So Job and Eliphaz were polarized in their respective views. Was God attacking Job or Job attacking God?
There was no question in Job’s mind that God sent the pain—“you have devastated my entire household.” So in vv.6–8 Job said that it did not make any difference whether he spoke or did not speak, his pain was still there. It wore him out and had become the major witness against him, for on it his detractors had based their arguments. To them it was proof of his sinfulness. As if that were not bad enough, he thought God had assailed him, crushed him, and turned him over to his detractors.
15–17 Here we see a pathetic figure in sackcloth, sitting with brow in the dust, eyes sunken and face bloated with tears, avowing innocence. From this sad figure arises a baneful cry, but one that has not totally lost hope, as vv.18–21 show.
16:18–17:2 Verses 18, 22, and 17:1 indicate that Job thought he would die before he could be vindicated before his peers; so he was concerned that the injustice done to him should never be forgotten. That is what he meant when he called on the earth never to cover his blood or bury his cry. In Ge 4:10–11 Abel’s innocent blood was crying out to God as a witness against Cain. So Job was consoled to think his cry would continue after his death. And there is one in heaven who would listen to it. He firmly believed that he had a friend, an advocate, an intercessor on high who would plead his cause.
There are indications that Job considered this advocate to be greater than a human being. He was in heaven. In 9:33 the one “to arbitrate” was a mere wish, but he was also described as one who could put his hand on both God and Job. In 19:25 the “Redeemer” who lives must also be a heavenly figure since Job made a special point of how he would eventually stand on the earth (dust). Certainly God gave Job this hope in the midst of his darkest hours to point to the one who would ultimately fulfill it. But Job probably understood only a limited part of its fullest meaning.
3–5 What “pledge” or guarantee was Job asking for? The translation of v.3 is difficult. The following paraphrase may help clarify the meaning: “Give attention (O God) to becoming my guarantor (that I am right) with you, for who else will shake my hand to prove it?” If God put up such a guarantee for Job, it would not only silence his mockers (the counselors) but would prove they were guilty of false accusation and deserving of the sanctions and punishment they had implied Job deserved. Verse 5 is a proverb. Job was reminding his counselors of the dire consequences of slander.
6–9 Unfortunately such a guarantee from God was not evident. On the contrary, Job saw God as the one who made him suffer humiliation. There were few who believed he was innocent. Most people thought they were doing God a favor by spitting in Job’s face; at least that is how Job felt. But in vv.8–9 he was saying that truly good men can pity him in his suffering without turning away from what is right. This is what his counselors could not understand. To them every pain had a sin behind it, and God could not be doing this to Job unless he deserved it. Another interpretation of vv.8–9 is that Job was being sarcastic. He was saying, “You upright men are appalled at this.” He had already accused them of having contempt for sufferers like him (12:5).
10 Job was outraged at his friends’ attitude, which he considered completely devoid of wisdom. The verse lends added weight to the interpretation of vv.8–9 as sarcasm.
11–16 The counselors had said that night would be turned to day for Job if only he would get right with God (cf. 11:17). In vv.12–16 Job made a parody of their advice. It was like going to the grave with the notion that all you have to do is treat it like home where warmth and loved ones are and it will become so. No, Job’s fondest desires were shattered; he had no hope but death. He closed this section as he opened it, with the despair of the grave (16:22–17:2). This despair was not quite as reprehensible as was their faulty advice.
3. Bildad (18:1–21)
Following the pattern of Eliphaz and Zophar, only Bildad’s opening lines were directly addressed to Job (cf. 15:2–3 and 20:2–5 with vv.2–4 here). In the rest of the speech, with typical redundant and discursive rhetoric, he launched into a poem on the fate of the wicked. In this chapter Bildad made no attempt to admonish Job as he had done in 8:5–7, 20–22.
1–4 Bildad considered Job beside himself, a man no longer acting fully responsible. He resented Job’s attitude toward them as belittling and accused Job of being irrationally self-centered. The world was going to remain the same no matter how much Job ranted against the order of things.
5–21 Bildad felt Job did not really understand the doctrine of retribution. He probably considered Job weak on this subject because Job kept harping on how the righteous suffer and the wicked prosper. Bildad’s concern was to establish in Job’s mind the absolute certainty that every wicked person gets paid in full, in this life, for his or her wicked deeds. He said nothing of a final judgment but was sure the lamp of the wicked would be snuffed out. As their step weakens, they are trapped and devoured. “Terrors startle him on every side and dog his every step.” Death is part of the punishment, not a dividing line after which punishment comes. The only after-death retribution for Bildad was having one’s memory (name) cut off, with no offspring or survivors. Death is personified in vv.13–14.
4. Job’s reply (19:1–29)
The chapter divides into four logical stanzas. In the first Job shows increasing irritation over his counselors’ shameless attacks and his impatience with their superior claims (vv.2–5). Then follow Job’s feeling of abandonment by God and his perception that God’s attack on him is wrong (vv.6–12). Then he blames God for alienating his kinsmen and household, even his wife (vv.13–20). In vv.21–27 he ends this lament, to our amazement, with a triumphant expression of faith in the one who will ultimately champion his cause and vindicate him (vv.23–27). This stanza is bracketed by words to his friends whom Job does not believe will ever have pity (v.21). So he warns them of the dire consequences of their false accusations (vv.28–29).
1–12 Verse 4 literally reads “my error lives [remains] with me.” Job implied his friends had no right to interfere, no right to behave as if they were God (cf. v.22).
Job’s words in v.6—“God has wronged me”—are the very thoughts that elicited Bildad’s retort, “Does God pervert justice?” (8:3), and later Elihu’s words, “It is unthinkable that God would do wrong, that the Almighty would pervert justice” (34:12). The only way to handle Job’s words is that it was Job’s faulty perception that caused him to perceive things in this way. He did not know God’s plan (42:2). But even without heavenly knowledge, Job’s perception was better than Bildad’s, who also lacked the heavenly knowledge that it was God who was permitting the Accuser to strike Job.
In a sense the Accuser was acting as the hand of God, for he had said to God, “But stretch out your hand and strike his flesh” (2:5). And God had replied, “Very well, then, he is in your hands” (2:6). So Job was not totally wrong when he said, “The hand of God has struck me” (19:21). Bildad could not begin to appreciate Job’s predicament. And because he had reduced God and his actions to an impersonal formula, Bildad was incapable of showing any mercy toward Job.
In Job’s mind God was at war with him. God’s troops laid siege as if Job were a fortified city; but, alas, he was only a tent. In a series of largely military images, the tension of Job’s lament rises with each succeeding verse; but the chronological sequence is in reverse of the way it really happened. In v.8 his paths are blocked or walled up, that is, he is taken in captivity. In v.9 he suffers royal dethronement—stripped of his honor and crown as a defeated king (see his words in 29:14, where Job claimed righteousness and justice as his robe and turban). In v.10 he is torn down (like a wall) and uprooted (like a tree, more drastic than the figure in 14:7). And finally in vv.11–12 God’s troops advance and build a siege ramp against him. Reverse this order and you have a step-by-step description of what happened in siege warfare.
13–19 Leaving this compelling figure, Job spoke quite literally of how his family and friends had turned against him. In any society nothing hurts more than rejection by one’s family and friends, but what could be worse in a patriarchal society than to have children ridicule the patriarch?
20 What does escaping with only the skin of one’s teeth mean? The NIV suggests that only Job’s gums were left unaffected by his ailment. The KJV made a literal translation of it and thereby created an idiom for a narrow escape. But is Job talking about a narrow escape here?
Up to this point Job had come to the conclusion that he was soon to die (10:20; 16:22–17:1). His experience created in him a sense of amoral chaos in the world and in his life. His sense of being crushed caused him to look repeatedly toward death as a kind of hopeless release (14:18–22; 16:11–16). He knew he was innocent and sought above all else to be vindicated. His compassionless counselors had reiterated their impersonal theology that declared him guilty. He felt that God was angry with him and had become the enemy who attacked and crushed him. He perceived that he was alone in a cruel and amoral world. There was no one left who understood, no one to plead his cause or bear witness to his innocence. And this was what he wanted most of all, not release, not retribution, but only justice, someone to vindicate him.
In two earlier chapters (9; 16) where he expressed deep bitterness toward God, Job also touched on this same “Advocate” theme. In ch. 9 it was only a desire—“If only there were someone to arbitrate between us” (9:33). But in chs. 16 and 19 it becomes a firm conviction—“my witness is in heaven” (16:19) and “I know that my Redeemer lives” (19:25). As in 13:15, here in ch. 19 this hope extends to include Job himself as a participant in the process of vindication—“I myself will see him on my side” (v.27).
21 Deserted by loved ones, Job needed radical friendship, not theological banter. This was not the first time Job called for pity (cf. 6:14). It is necessary to feel with Job his sense of total desertion if we are to understand the passage. It is within this context that he turned to God in vv.25–26.
22 Job’s appeal failed. He thought his counselors had joined forces with God as “the hound of heaven” to sniff him out and to be in on the kill (cf. 16:9). Although Job’s perception of God may have been wrong (not understanding the role of Satan, the Accuser), his perception of them was correct. They had presumed to take on themselves the role of divine judicial authority (e.g., see 15:11a, where Eliphaz assumed his words were God’s words). As part of the “Chase” metaphor, in v.22b Job included a typical Semitic idiom for slander—they devour his flesh.
23–24 These words arise from Job’s desire to defend his integrity. Believing that he was at the point of death, Job felt he had nothing to lose by speaking out (7:7–11; 10:1; 13:3, 13–28; 16:18). But they are also a direct response to Bildad’s taunt in 18:17, suggesting Job would be permanently forgotten (cf. Pr 10:7). With no hope left of proving his righteousness, Job looked to the future, leaving his case with posterity (Ps 102:18). His wish to inscribe his words was uttered with poetic expansiveness that contemplated possible ways—in a scroll or on a rock. Whether the lead was to be used on the rock or was another medium is not clear. Permanency is the issue—inscribed forever.
25–29 Are these the only words Job wanted inscribed or did he mean all his words where he had over and over proclaimed his innocence? The conjunction that begins v.25 (not reflected in NIV) may be the word “but.” This would mean that Job was leaving the thought of inscribing his words permanently to the even more favorable situation of having a living “Redeemer” who would champion his cause even after he was gone. Job’s hope in the midst of despair reached a climax. Slandered by his friends and with death imminent, Job looked to the future where his Defender waited. This time it seems as if the “Redeemer” is God himself, for there is no mention of his Defender pleading with God (as in 9:33–35; 16:19–21).
The meaning of the word goel (“Redeemer”; GK 1457) is fundamental to understanding this passage. The word had both a criminal and a civil aspect. As “blood avenger,” a goel had a responsibility to avenge the blood of a slain kinsman (Nu 35:12–28). Such a person was not seeking revenge but justice. On the civil side he was a redeemer or vindicator (cf. “kinsman-redeemer” in Ru 3–4). Here such a person had the responsibility to “buy back” and so redeem the lost inheritance of a deceased relative. This might come by purchasing from slavery or marrying his relative’s widow in order to provide an heir. As such he was the defender or champion of the oppressed. A goel also delivers individuals from death, as is testified of the Lord in Ps 103:4.
Here Job had something more in mind than one who would testify to his integrity. In 16:18 he cried, “O earth, do not cover my blood.” Job saw himself a murder victim. He depended on his goel to testify for him but also to set the books straight. God, who had become his enemy, would become his friend, and those who had joined in the kill would be punished (vv.28–29).
In Hebrew the emphatic position of the pronoun “I” in v.25a shows Job had a settled conviction: “I, yes I know.” The words “my Redeemer [Vindicator]” indicate a personal relationship, and the word “lives” (GK 3782) must mean more than merely “alive” but implies he would continue his work of vindicating Job’s integrity and avenging Job’s death, as Job implied in vv.28–29.
Does “upon the dust [GK 6760]” mean “upon the earth” (NIV) or does it mean “upon my grave” (cf. NIV note)? The term refers to the grave in 7:21; 17:16; 20:11; 21:26 (cf. Ps 22:29; Isa 26:19); but it can mean “the earth,” as in Job 41:33. So Job may have meant merely that the human arena here on earth is where his Vindicator would testify; but since the context is about Job’s decaying body, it may be a specific reference to his grave. Are, then, vv.26–27 a reference to Job’s resurrection? In 14:10–14 Job said nothing about general eschatological resurrection; but he believed in God’s power to raise the dead and had a desire and hope that God would set a time and raise him. Similarly here in ch. 19, we may see a resurrection in which Job would see God with his own eyes and as his friend. While he was anticipating the doctrine of resurrection, he was not spelling out the teaching of a final resurrection for all the righteous.
Verse 26a is a most difficult line. Literally it reads “after my skin they have struck off—this!” The general meaning alludes to the ravages of Job’s disease. Verse 26b is clearer. Job expected to see God. Job was convinced that even if he died, he would live again to witness his own vindication.
At the end of ch. 16 Job was obsessed with the notion that someone in heaven would stand up for him and plead his case. But here in ch. 19 he expected to witness his own vindication on earth. Indeed, his own eyes would gaze on his Vindicator. As it turned out, Job did not need the intermediary mentioned in ch. 16 because his idea that God was against him proved to be without foundation. The lesson that suffering does not show that God is alienated is one of the most enduring themes in the book. Job’s feelings of alienation and the condemnation by his friends produced in him a consequent feeling of need for a Redeemer (Vindicator), which is strongly evocative of a sinner’s basic need before a holy God (cf. 1Ti 2:5–6). But in Job’s case, as an innocent sufferer, he finally realized that God himself would appear to him, whom he would see with his own eyes (cf. 19:27 with 42:5); then Job would learn that his God was not alienated or unconcerned but was both his Vindicator (goel) and his friend.
5. Zophar (20:1–29)
1–3 Zophar took Job’s words, especially his closing words in 19:28–29, as a personal affront. Job had dared to assert that on Zophar’s theory of retribution, Zophar himself was due for punishment. To him such could only happen to the wicked. Zophar was the most emotional of the three; and he was not about to let Job’s rebuke go unanswered, though in ch. 19 Job had earnestly pled for a withdrawal of their charges. Here he had nothing new to say to Job but said it with passion. The speech is full of terrifying imagery.
4–11 Zophar could not abide the thought that the wicked prosper. Underneath the words lie the comfortable fact that he was a healthy and prosperous man, which, in his view, was itself proof of his goodness and righteousness. To him the joy and vigor of the wicked would always be brief and like a fantasy. Oppressing the poor is the mark of the truly wicked (vv.10, 19). On this subject Job had no quarrel with Zophar (see 31:16–23). But, of course, he denied being that kind of person.
12–19 The evil person’s wicked deeds, especially robbing the poor, are tasty food that pleases the palate but turns sour in the stomach. God will force such a one to vomit up ill–gained riches. In his peroration (chs. 29–31) Job would stress his own social conscience and strongly deny Zophar’s veiled accusation.
20–28 When a wicked person’s belly is filled and there is nothing left for him to devour, God then vents his anger against him. The man flees from an iron weapon only to be shot in the back by a glittering bronze arrow that must be pulled out of his liver. Such attention to figurative detail is often overlooked as meaningless. On the contrary, the more eloquently it could be said, the more the ancient speaker was able to convey how deeply he felt and how sincerely he was trying to make his point. But Zophar, despite his eloquence and sincerity, had no compassion. He left no room for repentance and put all his stress on the importance of material possessions, while Job at this point was increasingly concerned over his relationship with God, no matter what happened to his body or possessions (19:23–27).
29 Like Bildad in 18:21, Zophar concluded his speech with a summary statement in which he claimed all he had said was in accord with God’s judicial order for the wicked.
6. Job’s reply (21:1–34)
In this closing speech of the second cycle, Job was determined to prove that he had listened to what his counselors had said. This he did by quoting or otherwise alluding to their words and then refuting them.
1–3 If the counselors could give Job no other consolation, they should have at least paid close attention to his words. Evidently he sensed that the dialogue was about to break up since he implied the other parties were not even listening.
4–6 Job was appalled at the counselors’ failure to have any compassion; but if his complaint were only against them as human beings, he thought his bitterness would not be justified. His rage was based on the idea that God may be responsible. Job was terrified because he knew how awesome a task it is to complain against God. Yet in all honesty, he could find no other way out of his predicament. Job’s anguish over not understanding what God was doing is proof that he was not indifferent or arrogant. It was the counselors who assumed they knew what was going on.
7–15 The counselors had elaborated on the horrible fate of the wicked (15:20–35; 18:5–21) against Job’s claim that the wicked often prosper. Those who wish to know nothing of God’s ways, who even consider prayer a useless exercise, flourish in all aspects of their lives. Far from dying prematurely, as Zophar said in 20:11, they live long and increase in strength. Bildad’s claim that the wicked have no offspring or descendants to remember them (18:19–21) was flatly denied by Job. Job painted a word picture in vv.7–13, illustrating the domestic pleasantness and prosperity often enjoyed by godless people who dare to defy the Almighty.
16 The NIV has not caught fully the correct interpretation. The way Eliphaz used these same words in 22:17–18 helps interpret Job’s words. What Job was saying was, in effect, “Look, the prosperity of the wicked is from God, despite the fact that their counsel is far from him” (cf. Ps 1:1). “Why do the wicked live on . . . increasing in power?” (v.7; emphasis mine).
17–21 Job alluded directly to Bildad’s words in 18:5, with the retort “How often. . .?” And if children have to pay for their father’s sins as Eliphaz (5:4) and Zophar (20:10) said, then the wicked beihg evil are encouraged to say, “What do we care?” (cf. v.21). Job was disturbed at the apparent injustice of it all. He felt that immediate punishment for the wicked would be the only just procedure; but he found just the opposite in life. Again failure to understand fully God’s ways had led both Job and the counselors astray; yet Job did not pretend to understand, but they did. Moreover, Job was suffering physically and emotionally, and they were not.
22–26 Job admitted that his knowledge of God’s ways was defective, but it was precisely his high view of God that had created a problem. Those who do not believe in an absolutely sovereign God cannot possibly appreciate the depth of the problem Job presented. Even with all our additional revelation (Ro 8:28), we often stand in anguish over the apparent injustice and seeming cruelty of God’s providence.
27–33 Job realized his counselors were going to repeat the same worn-out clichés that implied he was a wicked man. He called these clichés schemes by which they wronged him. He challenged them to investigate the total experience of people throughout the world to determine whether he was right. He was saying that it is impossible to derive a just law of retribution from what we observe in this present world. Their simplistic view was wrong, claimed Job, for all too often there is no one to denounce the wicked for what they have done, and there is no one to punish them. Contrary to the description of the wicked in chs. 8 and 20, the ungodly are often buried with the highest honors.
34 Job opened this discourse with a plea for a kind of consolation based on his counselors’ quiet listening. He closed by returning to that thought with a blast at what they had offered as consolation, their answers riddled with falsehood and nonsense.
D. The Third Cycle of Speeches (22:1–26:14)
1. Eliphaz (22:1–30)
Eliphaz, the least vindictive, was provoked to agree with his friends that Job had been a very wicked man (vv.4–5). He did not even attempt to answer Job’s shocking statements in ch. 21 but moved on to accuse Job of various social sins (vv.6–11) and of failing to appreciate the wonderful attributes of God, especially God’s omniscience (vv.13–14) and his justice, goodness, and mercy (vv.16–18). All Eliphaz felt he could do for Job was to make a final plea for repentance (vv.21–30).
1–3 Eliphaz was here reacting to Job’s notion that God allowed human wickedness to go unpunished (ch. 21), and in his reactionary mood he went to the opposite extreme of suggesting there is nothing that people can do to benefit God. This is the now familiar unbalanced stress on divine transcendence: the concept that human beings are nothing in God’s eyes and that even their virtue is useless. God does not need us; it is we who need him. Since everything has its origin in God, our giving it back—even in service—does not enhance God in any way.
Verse 3 carries the thought a step further. A translation that fits well into the context might be: “Would it please the Almighty if you were vindicated? Would he gain anything if you did live a blameless life?” Two observations are in order. (1) Eliphaz did not know of God’s contest with the Accuser over Job’s former blameless life (chs. 1–2). The Almighty had especially chosen Job to be an instrument through whom he would gain glory and the Accuser be humiliated. (2) Eliphaz seemed so convinced of Job’s wickedness—even to the point of exaggeration (v.5)—that he did not believe he could be vindicated. So in his mind Job’s blamelessness was hypothetical nonsense. For Job to be vindicated would be a lie; so how could God take pleasure in that?
4–11 Verse 4 is pure irony. In 4:6 Eliphaz had been sincere about Job’s “piety” (GK 3711), but here he spoke of it tongue-in-cheek. He no longer believed Job was basically a God-fearing man. Job’s troubles were God’s rebuke. That they were great testified to the extent of his sin. So Eliphaz felt free, perhaps obligated, to expound on the possible nature of those sins. Job’s sins are described in terms of social oppression and neglect. In other words, Eliphaz felt Job had deceived himself by trusting in his ritual piety (what he had done for God) while his real sin was what he failed to do for his fellow human beings. For this God sent snares and peril, darkness and floods. These were not literal but commonly used figures of trouble and distress.
12–20 As noted, Eliphaz’s tone had been more positive and sympathetic than the others, but here he threw the weight of his argument with Bildad and Zophar, though not completely. Having become convinced Job was a man who followed the path of the ungodly, Eliphaz used Job’s own words to refute him. Had not Job complained that the blessing of the wicked was God’s doing (21:13–16)? Eliphaz turned that around by saying that the wicked are destroyed before their time, i.e., before they can fully enjoy the good things God provides.
21–30 Eliphaz was, no doubt, sincere in this his last attempt to reach Job through a call to repentance. This call for Job to submit; to be at peace with God; to hear God’s word and hide it in his heart; to return to the Almighty and forsake wickedness; to find delight in God rather than in gold; and to pray, obey, and become concerned about sinners could not be improved upon by any prophet or evangelist.
There are some problems, however, that beset these powerful words. They assume Job was an ungodly man and that his major desire was a return to health and prosperity. But Job was not ungodly, and he had already made clear his desire to see God and be his friend (19:25–27). Job’s words have not always sounded friendly toward God, and Eliphaz did not have the capacity to understand the nature of Job’s wrestling with God where Job expressed to God his deepest feelings of fear and his bafflement over what appeared to be an unjust and cruel providence. To Eliphaz’s black-and-white mentality, those words (backed by Job’s troubles) were sad proof of Job’s need to repent and “get right” with God. His assumption that Job did not know how to pray aright would eventually be controverted by God himself, and Eliphaz would have to depend on Job’s prayers (42:8).
2. Job’s reply (23:1–24:25)
While the meaning of ch. 23 is quite clear, scholars have seen serious problems in ch. 24. In addition to the difficulties in making sense of the text, there is the issue of determining whose words these are. Since there is no agreement, it seems wiser to let the text stand and above all refuse to force modern categories of logic and rhetoric on it.
In the final verses of ch. 23, Job made his apology for his emotional language, which had been so misunderstood by his friends. He had been terrified by what he came to accept as God’s plan for his life (vv.14–16). The mystery, however, was still there. Job did not understand what God was doing. So in all honesty he still needed to speak out and call for the thick darkness to be removed (v.17).
1–2 Job was becoming less fractious. A play on words in v.2 leaves somewhat open the question of whether he was still rebellious or just bitter.
3–7 Job’s spiritual movement during this dispute is evident again when we compare his attitude about a hearing with God in ch. 9 with his thoughts on the same subject here. Job still wanted a fair trial, for he was certain he was blameless, i.e., above the charges that had been made. He doubted in 9:14–20 that God would even give him a hearing and that even while pleading for mercy he would be crushed. At this point he admitted he was not totally innocent (9:15–20), though he still considered himself blameless (9:21). After Zophar’s abuse in ch. 11, where he was flatly labeled a wretched sinner (11:5, 14), Job reacted with a bolder assertion of his blamelessness (13:13–15). In ch. 22 we noticed how Eliphaz, the least accusatory of the three, had moved closer to the others with his quip, “Are not your sins endless?” (22:5). So here Job reasserted his claim to be an upright man with renewed confidence that God agreed with him. This is why having an audience with God was very important to Job. He continued to be positive (13:18) about the outcome of such an encounter (23:6–7).
Our knowledge of the doctrine of justification by faith with its premise of human depravity (cf. Ro 1–3) makes it difficult for us to understand this part of the message of the book of Job. It is helpful to look on Job as illustrative of Christ, who also suffered unjustly to fulfill the purpose of God (cf. Joseph, Ge 37–50). We have seen how Job’s upright life was so rooted in the fear of God that even God himself used Job as an example of godliness (1:8; 2:3). So Job was not wrong in calling for his own vindication (Pss 17:2–3; 26:1–3; et al.).
8–12 Job was still frustrated, however, over the matter of finding God (cf. v.3). He could not find him (but cf. 42:5). Though he wrestled with God verbally, he had no immediate sense of God’s presence nor of God’s voice communicating with him. Yet in reply to Eliphaz (22:21), Job claimed to have heard God’s words and treasured them in his heart. He rejected Eliphaz’s call for him to return to God (22:23), for he felt he had never turned away from God in the first place. Job did not think God was testing him as a means to purge away his sinful dross. It was rather to prove he was pure gold. Job’s words have to be the words either of a terrible hypocrite or of a deeply committed believer.
13–17 The literal Hebrew expression in v.13 is a monotheistic affirmation: “He [God] is the unique [one].” Job’s God was the same as Israel’s God—he is the only one; there is no other (Dt 6:4). As the all-powerful sovereign Deity, God did what he pleased. Job’s fear (vv.15–16) was the necessary corollary to the truth that God was sovereign and therefore could not be put in a box and be told what he could and could not do by human beings. What might this God who does what he pleases have had in mind for Job? A real part of the living faith Job expressed in vv.8–12 was his determination not to be silenced despite the darkness he felt over the intention of God, who had no one to answer to for his behavior.
24:1 Job now expressed the mood that dominates in this chapter—a complaint on why God did not set straight the balance of justice. Job felt God should demonstrate his justice by openly punishing the wicked. In the divine speeches God would teach him a tremendous lesson about this, which he did not now understand: The principle of retribution does not operate mechanically in this world but according to the divine will.
In this chapter Job presented a picture of a world that was still a deep enigma to him. His courageous honesty led him to expound on the mystery of how the wicked get by unpunished while they perform their evil deeds against the innocent.
2–12 The wicked are so brazen they pasture stolen flocks on stolen land. Since the orphan is without inheritance, his donkey represents all he owns. Job appreciated those ancient civil laws that protected widows and the orphans (cf. Ex 22:22). Job cited the pitiful case of the destitute who had to carry food while they themselves went hungry and had to tread the winepress while they suffered thirst. The great enigma is that all this was going on and God did nothing (cf. Ps 73:2–3; Hab 1:13; Mal 3:15).
13–17 The murderer, the adulterer, and the thief share a characteristic that is self-condemning: they all love darkness rather than the light (cf. 38:12–15; Ps 82:5).
18–24 Although these words may not sound like Job’s sentiments about the wicked, Job never claimed the wicked always prosper or never come to a bad end. His problem was that God treats the good and bad alike.
25 It is strange that Job spoke as if he had just made an argument against the views of his friends rather than partially agreeing with them. After developing a series of vignettes about the deeds of the wicked and the sufferings of their victims (vv.1–17), Job finally mouthed the view of his friends about God’s judgment on the wicked. Job may have been either quoting them with irony or complaining that this judgment comes piecemeal, a little here and a little there (see esp. vv.23–24).
Eventually the wicked die and are forgotten; they lack security and have their day only for a little while (22:16–18)—but where are the great days of stored-up judgment so the righteous can be sure that justice for such horrors is meted out? Job was not convinced that piecemeal judgment was truly just, since the righteous often suffered the same. There is no direct teaching of final judgment to set right the balance of justice, but there is a concept here that anticipates the teaching that God must have his day.
3. Bildad (25:1–6)
This is the last we hear from Job’s three counselors. Perhaps they had exhausted their arguments.
1–3 Bildad did not bother to answer Job’s recent argument. He only repeated what had already been said by Eliphaz (4:17–21; 15:14–16). Bildad wanted to show how God’s power established order in the heavenly realm and that his dominion extends to all created beings.
4–6 God’s majesty palls everything (moon and stars), and it reaches everywhere. So how can any person be considered righteous or pure in God’s eyes? Bildad’s point was that human beings are maggots in God’s eyes.
Eliphaz was the first to question the possibility of anyone’s purity before God (4:17). In ch. 8 Bildad’s words left the door open only for those who were truly blameless (8:20). Job, repeating the issue in 9:2, wanted to know how he could prove his blamelessness since God was so inaccessible. In 15:14–16 Eliphaz came very close to a nihilistic view of the human race—they are hopelessly “vile and corrupt, who drink up evil like water!” But in ch. 22 Eliphaz left the door open for Job to be restored, but not on the basis of mercy, for he must bear the penalty for whatever he has done. Then if there is repentance, Job could be restored (22:21–23). But Bildad repeated the old question of 9:2 with an implied negative answer. If God is inaccessible, it is because he is too pure; and a human being, like Job, is a hopeless worm.
4. Job’s reply (26:1–14)
1–4 Bildad struck a most sensitive nerve. In all Job’s speeches nothing had been more important to him than his determination to be vindicated, to be shown blameless in God’s tribunal. Bildad has just labeled that impossible. Job could not restrain himself. He leveled a sarcastic reply directly at the speaker. He had nothing but contempt for Bildad’s wisdom. In his colorful ironic exclamations, he considered himself powerless, feeble, and without wisdom, but not a maggot. If Bildad would only impute to him the dignity every human being deserves, he could have some compassion.
Job wanted to know who “wrote” Bildad’s material. He certainly knew Bildad was mouthing Eliphaz’s words (4:17). Job considered inane Bildad’s argument that the majesty and power of God are the reasons why humanity cannot be righteous before him. It is proof of the poverty of his thought. It angered Job because he knew they all agreed that he was a reprobate sinner and so had given up the idea that he was an upright person temporarily suffering for sins. No, he was a worm whose case was hopeless. So Job dared to remind them that they too were hopeless as counselors.
5–6 The term translated “the dead” (GK 8327) means “shades or spirits of the dead.” Here they tremble as God casts his eye on them in Sheol. But who are those that “live in the waters”? Job’s earlier allusion to Sheol as “the land of gloom and deep shadow” (10:21) is like this passage. It is possible that those “beneath the waters” are those conceived of as buried in “the lowest pit, in the darkest depths” (Ps 88:6). The thrust of these verses is that there is no place hidden from God. Job’s remark was an emphatic rejoinder to Bildad’s statement (25:3) that the light of God shines on everyone. Even “Sheol” (see NIV note; GK 8619) and “Abaddon” (see NIV note; GK 11) provide no hiding place from the searching eye of God (cf. Pr 15:11).
7–8 The word “skies” is a justifiable insertion in v.7. Although saphon means “north” (GK 7600), the verb “spreads out” is never used of the earth but is often used in reference to the heavens (cf. 9:8). This imagery is continued by the words “over empty space.” It is difficult to postulate what “empty space” might be intended by Job if he were referring to a northern region of the earth where the majestic mountains rise.
Job was pointing to God’s power as incomprehensible. The heavens are visible; yet they do not fall to earth; there is no visible means of support. Even the earth itself can be said to hang on nothing. That God can spread out the heavens over empty space, hang the earth on nothing, and fill the clouds with water without their bursting is intended to make us stand in awe. Job was boldly expressing in poetic terms the marvelous and majestic power of God.
9 God uses the clouds to enshroud him in his lofty abode (Ps 104:3–13; Am 9:6). He appears in heaven in golden splendor and awesome majesty. But people can no more look at him directly than they can look at the sun (37:21–22).
10 The NIV interprets the literal Hebrew “he draws a circle” as God’s establishment of the horizon, which acts as the line of demarcation between light and darkness (day and night). Job was ascribing to God, and not to the incantations and rituals of the nature cults, the authority and dominion over night and day.
11 Here the mountains are called the “pillars of the heavens” while in 9:6 they are the “pillars of the earth.” They are pillars because their foundations go beneath the waters of the sea (Jnh 2:6) and reach to the clouds as if supporting the vault of the sky. The thought was common that the earth would shake at its foundations when God expressed his anger (Ps 18:7, 15; Isa 2:19, 21; et al.). Such phenomenological language was based on volcanoes and earthquakes. The force exerted by a thunderclap (Ps 77:18) is perceived as “the blast of the breath from your [God’s] nostrils” (Ps 18:15).
12–13 Job continued his exaltation of God as Creator and Ruler of all nature. In the process he demythologized the language of the popular myths that described creation as the overcoming of chaos. Job’s intent to demythologize is quite evident. Here the sea that God subdues is not the pagan deity Yam. Job depersonalized Yam by using the definite article (“the sea”), thus expressing his innate monotheistic theology. The Akkadian hero god Marduk employed seven winds to overthrow Tiamat (the chaotic goddess of the Deep); here God’s own breath clears the heavens. All the power of the wind is his breath. Further, by his own wisdom, skill, and power he “cut Rahab to pieces” and “pierced the gliding serpent,” unlike the pagan Marduk who depended on the enablement of the father-gods.
A study of the OT names for the well-known Canaanite mythological sea monsters like Rahab shows how purposefully the OT authors used that language to enrich their own poetic conceptions of the supremacy of the one and only true God. This is especially true of poetry that deals with cosmological, historical, and eschatological themes (cf. Ps 89:9–10).
Making the heavens beautifully bright by his breath could be a reference to the creation account of Genesis, when God separated the light from the darkness of the initial chaos (Ge 1:2–4); but it more likely refers to the clearing of the skies after a storm. Job, then, demonstrated God’s authority over the domain of Mot (the god of death) in vv.5–6 and over the domain of Baal (the cosmic storm god) in vv, 7–10. And in vv.12–13 Job drew attention to God’s awe-inspiring power over the domain of Yam (the stormy sea god; cf. Mt 8:23–27, where Jesus demonstrated his divine power over storms as the Son of Man).
14 For Job these manifestations and deeds are but mere shadows or whispers of the smallest part of God’s might. How beautifully and humbly Job asserted the majestic omnipotence of God! But he ended the poem convinced of the mystery that surrounds that omnipotence.
E. Job’s Closing Disclosure (27:1–23)
The change from “Then Job replied” to “And Job continued his discourse” marks a separate discourse (ch. 27), probably as a concluding statement by Job to balance the introductory statement in ch. 3. This poem is mainly about God’s just punishment of the wicked. Job opened by denying he was such, though his counselors had so labeled him.
1–6 An oath based on the existence of God was the most extreme measure available (the last resort) in Job’s society for a condemned person to plead innocent. Either he was innocent, or he would suffer the divine sanctions; for if Job was a liar, he was blaspheming God. He was saying that his integrity (blamelessness, not sinlessness) was more important to him than life itself. But Job did not fear death because he spoke the truth. He knew he could swear before God without forfeiting his life. He felt God had denied him justice but inconsistently still knew that somehow God was just; so he could swear by his life.
We have little difficulty agreeing that God never does wrong—until tragedy comes into our lives. Then we may begin to ask ourselves what we have done wrong, or we may even question God’s goodness. Deep down we know that neither question is right. So Job too emphatically denied either alternative. He was throwing the mystery into God’s lap, as it were, and leaving it there. Here at the very heart of the problem of evil, the book of Job lays the theological foundation for an answer that Job’s faith anticipates but which Job did not fully know. God, the Sovereign and therefore responsible Creator, would himself in the person of his eternal Son solve this human dilemma by bearing the penalty of the sins of humankind, thus showing himself to be both just and the justifier (vindicator) of all who trust in him (Ro 3:26).
7–10 Job’s oath is followed by an imprecation against his detractors. The imprecation had a juridical function and was frequently a hyperbolic means (cf. Pss 109:6–15; 139:7–9) of dealing with false accusation and oppression. Legally the false accusations and the very crimes committed are called down on the perpetrator’s head. Since the counselors had falsely accused Job of being wicked, they deserved to be punished like the wicked. They knew nothing of mercy though Job pled for it (19:21). They spoke only of God’s justice and power; yet they would soon become the objects of God’s mercy despite Job’s imprecation, which was later changed to prayer on their behalf (42:7–9). The imprecation was a dramatic means by which Job, as a blameless man, declared himself on God’s side.
11–12 Here Job added a warning and made an application directly to his “friends.” He was reminding them of an issue on which they all agreed—that the wicked deserve God’s wrath. But they had put Job in that category falsely. He did not have to explain to them about God’s ability to set things straight.
13–23 Job expounds here eloquently the subject the counselors know so much about—the fate of the wicked—to dramatize the punishment they deserved for their false and arrogant accusation. The reference is to God in v.23, not to the storm in the preceding verse. Also, “his place” at the end of v.23 means “heaven,” God’s place. The verse should read: “He claps his hands against them and hisses at them from his dwelling [heaven].”
III. Interlude on Wisdom (28:1–28)
This poem stresses a typical theme: the inaccessibility of wisdom except through piety. But it appears to be more than that. No speaker is identified at the beginning of the poem, though one might assume the author meant it to be Job. Job was frustrated and unable to find a wisdom solution to the mystery behind his suffering. The counselors had been only a hindrance. The change in style and the irenic tone may be the Hebrew author giving his judgment on the previous speeches. So the theme—“Where can you find wisdom?”—is certainly not extraneous. The poem develops the theme with skill by first concentrating on the inquisitive nature and technological ability that enable a person to find the riches of the earth no matter how difficult they are to obtain (vv.1–11). The second stanza dwells on the value of wisdom and its scarcity compared with even the greatest treasure on earth (vv.13–19). The third stanza (vv.21–28) finally addresses the question asked in the refrain. Wisdom has a source, but it is so elusive that only God knows the way to it. We can find it only when we fear God and honor him as God (v.28).
1–11 Earth’s material riches have a source. The first two verses accomplish a rhetorical purpose; they set the tone without explicitly stating the theme (see comment on vv.12–14).
Verses 3–11 illustrate ancient technological ability in mining. Searching in the blackest darkness required light. This could be accomplished by cutting a shaft and letting in sunlight or by torches. The ability to cut shafts through rock is seen in the elaborate “waterworks” in cities like Jerusalem and Megiddo, long before the tunnel of Hezekiah, whose Siloam Inscription tells of the rigors of boring through hard limestone. Copper was mined in Edom and the Sinai Peninsula.
While there was no gold in Palestine, Egypt controlled rich mines in Nubia. As for iron, it was not used widely in Palestine till shortly before 1200 B.C., but there is evidence of working terrestrial iron (as opposed to meteorite iron) back to about 6000 B.C. The OT reflects Israel’s lack of technical knowledge in smelting and smithing iron before the time of David. The Philistine monopoly is mentioned in 1Sa 13:19–21. Iron mining was developed on the plateau east of the Jordan Valley, and clay in the floor of the valley was used in making large bronze castings for Solomon’s temple (1Ki 7:46).
Apart from the translation difficulties at the beginning of v.4, we now have knowledge of miners being lowered down deep shafts in cages or baskets. Verse 5 could be a reference to volcanic action, but there is ancient evidence of shaft mining where fire was used to split rocks and to reach ore. In their search for treasure, human beings reach paths that even a falcon’s eye (one of the best in nature) cannot see. Where beasts at the top of the food chain cannot set foot, human hands touch as they lay “bare the roots of the mountain.”
12–14 These verses are a refrain that states the main theme and is followed by a response. The response in v.13 is clearer when the Hebrew translated “comprehend its worth” is rendered “know its abode.” Observe how as a refrain, vv.12–14 are parallel in form and meaning with vv.20–22. In v.14 “the deep” and “the sea” give the same negative response as do “Destruction” and “Death” in v.22. The thrust is that even if one were able to probe these inaccessible places, wisdom could not be found.
15–19 Here wisdom is given substance and objectivity so that the author could compare the search for it with the human search for treasures of gold, etc. Human intelligence and determination may enable people to accomplish amazing feats of technical ingenuity, but left to themselves they cannot find wisdom. The author piles up words for precious metals and stones to lay stress on how exceedingly rare and costly wisdom is. Humans may be clever, even ingenious and wealthy, but they are rarely wise.
20–22 Verses 12 and 20 are clearly the same refrain. Verses 13 and 21 give the same answer to the questions, though in different terms: v.13 stresses human ignorance of wisdom and v.21 nature’s blindness to wisdom. That Destruction and Death have a rumor about wisdom probably means those who reach that place have a belated understanding they missed in life (cf. Lk 16:19–31).
23–27 The poem reaches its climax. God alone knows where the wisdom is, for he is omniscient. Human beings must search for their treasure, but God sees everything without searching. When he brought order out of the primeval chaos, he used wisdom to do it. Wisdom is the summary of the genius God used to fashion the universe (cf. Pr 3:19–20).
28 We must look to God for wisdom. To acknowledge him as God and to live within the sphere of his life-giving precepts is wisdom for us (Dt 4:5–6; Ps 111:10; Pr 8:4–9; 9:10). In the process of studying God’s revelation, we will learn that the price of wisdom—perfect obedience to God—is still beyond our reach (cf. Ro 11:33). In the spirit of Job 28, the apostle Paul assures us this mystery is hidden in Christ (Eph 3:8–10; Col 2:2–3).
IV. The Monologues (29:1–42:6)
A. Job’s Peroration (29:1–31:40)
Like a lawyer summing up his case, Job began his monologue with an emotional recall of his former happiness, wealth, and honor (ch. 29) and proceeded to lament, not the loss of wealth, but the loss of his dignity and God’s friendship (ch. 30). He completed this trilogy with a final protestation of his innocence (ch. 31). This chapter is an oath of innocence that effectively concludes with Job’s signature in 31:35. There is no more Job could say; the case rested in God’s hands. Job had to be shown to be a liar and suffer the punishment he called upon himself or be vindicated.
1. His past honor and blessing (29:1–25)
Chapter 29 deals with both active and passive aspects of Job’s former life. He was blessed by God and honored by other people. But he was also socially active, a benefactor and leader. His benevolence was an important part of the high position he held in his society where social righteousness was expected of every ruling elder. So a description of Job’s benevolence is in the climactic position in this oration, with the key line (v.14) in the exact middle of the poem. Such benevolence established his right to the honor and blessing the surrounding verses describe. This chapter then sets the stage for ch. 30.
1–6 Job longed for the precious days when he had enjoyed God’s watchful care and guidance. God had been his friend. Job had enjoyed the blessings of family and wealth. Verse 6 sums up the blessing in figurative language that reminds us of the words used to describe Israel’s blessing in the land of promise—there it was “milk and honey,” here “cream” and “olive oil.” Job had such abundance that only hyperbole can describe it—“drenched with cream” and “streams of olive oil.”
7–11 The public square was the business center, town hall, and courthouse combined. We have no idea what city this was, but any city that had a gate and public square was a major urban center. Job was a city father who occupied a prominent seat. The reaction to Job in the square is fully in keeping with his culture and times. This deference to Job from young and old, princes and nobles, shows he was a ruler (cf. 1:3). Correct protocol demanded silence until the most honored person had spoken. Hushed, with their tongues sticking to the roof of their mouths, all waited in silence for Job to speak. Verse 11 implies that he had spoken and registers the effect.
12–17 These verses are a stanza about Job’s social benevolence. Verse 14 stands in its center, and the entire stanza is the climax because it presents the reason he was so honored and blessed. In these few verses Job covered a large area of the social responsibility of rulers who aspired to be godlike (Ps 68:5). Literally Job said, “I put on righteousness and it robed me,” implying a veritable incarnation of righteousness.
This passage should be read as instruction, as a stimulus to our social conscience. Job responded to the poorest of the poor, gave comfort to the dying and joy to widows, assisted the blind and lame, and assumed the role of father and advocate for those who had no one else to look to. He was not just a protector but militantly opposed the wicked. Job did not concentrate on religious responsibilities but on that area where humans most often fail—in their response to the sufferings of others. Although this stanza is idealistic—Job no doubt failed in some ways—it is to be accepted, not as self-righteousness, but as an eloquent testimony to the tenor of Job’s life as “a blameless and upright” man who “feared God and shunned evil” (1:1, 8; 2:3).
18–20 The man who had provided for others faced the prospect of a shortened life instead of the patriarchal ideal of 110 years with family gathered about (cf. Ge 50:22). He had hoped to flourish “like a tree planted by streams of water” (Ps 1:3) and to remain strong and virile. But was Job thinking of his family in v.18? Perhaps not. The verse reads literally: “I thought, ‘With [in] my nest I will expire [die].’ ” Translating “nest” as “house” (GK 7860) impairs the poetic effect.
In v.20 Job reflected on his former “glory” as a warrior and hunter. His “glory remaining fresh” means his continued prowess, vehemence, and splendor with weapons.
21–25 To bring to a balanced conclusion this first of the three connected poems, Job now returned to the theme of vv.7–11. His effect on others was charismatic. People waited expectantly to drink in his words. Even his smile carried a blessing (cf. Nu 6:24–25; Ps 4:6). So in this way Job again was godlike, so much so that his counsel was valued, his approval sought, and his leadership accepted with gratitude.
2. His present dishonor and suffering (30:1–31)
The threefold use of “But now” in 30:1, 9, 16 stresses the contrast with ch. 29. Job now dwelt on the negative side of the three themes of ch. 29 in the following order: honor, blessing, and benevolence. The removal of God’s blessing is far worse than affliction by other human beings; so it was put in the climactic central position.
1–10 The conceptual correspondence with 29:7–11 is striking. Notice the emphasis on the young and old (29:8) and on the chief men and nobles (29:9–10). The highest strata in society had stood hushed in respect (29:9–10) and then had spoken well (29:11) of Job. Here the lowest riffraff mocked him. Indeed, they could not be kept quiet, for he had become a byword among them. There people had commended him (29:11); here they detested him. There they had covered their mouths with their hands (29:9); here they spit in his face.
11–15 These verses begin by taking us right back to 29:20, where Job had mused on his former life as a hero with his bow ever new in his hand. But here God has unstrung his bow. Earlier Job’s tribe had gathered about to hear every good word that fell from the lips of their benevolent leader. But here he was no longer leading the way like “a king among his troops” (29:25). Instead he saw himself like a city under siege (civil war?). Verses 12–14 use the terminology of siege warfare. Job thought of himself as a city with a wide, gaping breach in its wall. The stones come crashing down, and amid the rubble the instruments of siege warfare roll through. The tranquility and dignity he had so enjoyed have vanished like a cloud.
16–23 Job shifted from this sorry relationship with his fellow human beings to an even sorrier subject, the removal of God’s blessing from his life. He cried out to God but got no answer. When God was his friend, it was like having a light over him in the midst of darkness (29:3). But at this time his days were full of suffering and his nights full of misery. These verses show us that Job’s basic complaint still remained. It was not only God’s silence but his violent treatment of Job that had become the sufferer’s greatest problem. It would be no problem at all if Job’s concept of God were limited. That not being the case, in Job’s mind it must have been God who was responsible for all this.
The NIV translation of v.18 does not do justice to the key word it renders “becomes” (GK 2924). It can mean “to disguise oneself” (“let oneself be searched for”; cf. 1Sa 28:8). Since God is all powerful, he can do anything. He can even disguise himself as Job’s clothing and bind Job’s neck at the collar. But the use here is more like Ob 6, where Esau “is plundered” or “exposed.” Here perhaps Job’s clothing “is ripped off,” and in the process he is choked by the collar of his tunic and hurled into the mud.
Job saw his problem with God as twofold: God would not answer him, and God actively afflicted him. Job’s only prospect for the future was death. What was so devastating to him was not the fear of death, for he had already asked for it as a relief (6:8–10; 14:3), but that he should have to face it with God as his enemy (13:24). God’s constant attack, his ruthless might, was so completely the opposite of Job’s “intimate friendship” with God in those bygone days when he had still perceived that God was on his side (29:4–5).
24–31 Here Job was in the position of those poor wretches to whom his heart and strength went out in 29:12–17. As a summation of his case, he packed his argument with emotion and righteous indignation. Justice was all on his side. The very benevolence he so freely had dispensed he now looked for in vain. Verse 26 also reminds us of his expectations in 29:18–20. So here he presented himself to the court as he was, his body marred and burning with fever; he himself was exhibit A. As he often did, Job closed the stanza with a strong figure of speech (cf. 29:6, 14, 17, 25; 30:15). His “path had been drenched with cream” (cf. 29:6), now his “harp is tuned to mourning and [his] flute to the sound of wailing.”
3. His negative confession and final oath (31:1–40)
We now arrive at the climax of the peroration. This chapter is a negative testament by which Job closes the matter of whether he was being punished for his sins. After such a statement, in the jurisprudence of the ancient Near East, the burden of proof fell on the court. That is why v.40 says that “the words of Job are ended.” Each disavowal had to be accompanied by an oath that called for the same punishment the offense deserved on the basis of the principle of “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” Since the charges against Job were wide and varied, he needed to give a similarly wide disavowal. Here he specified and called for condemnation and punishment from both God and other people if he was guilty of any of those sins.
1–4 The covenant ban on Job’s eyes parallels God’s all-seeing eye (v.4), and these verses enclose vv.2–3, which speak of God’s judgment on the wicked whose sins he sees. The lines are an introduction to Job’s catalog of oaths protesting his loyalty to God. So Job, by declaring a covenant ban on his own eyes, appropriately brought to the fore the covenant theme that underlies and gives meaning to the oaths he was about to make.
Job’s making a covenant with his eyes was not merely a promise not to lust after “a girl” (GK 1435). The sin he had in mind was more fundamental, or it would not have commanded this position in the poem. Job was emphatically denying an especially insidious and widespread form of idolatry: devotion to “the maiden,” i.e., the goddess of fertility. As the Venus of the Semitic world, she was variously known as the Maiden Anat in Ugaritic, Ashtoreth in preexilic Israel (Jdg 2:13; 10:6; 1Sa 7:3–4; 1Ki 11:5, 33), and Ishtar in Babylon. She is probably the Queen of Heaven in Jer 7:18 and 44:16–19. Even token worship of the sun and moon is disavowed in the middle of the poem (vv.24–34); so a disavowal of the temptation to even look at the sex goddess is rendered likely when we keep in mind that “the maiden” in Ugaritic is precisely the word used here. The Hebrews were constantly warned about this ubiquitous fertility cult (cf. Dt 16:21–22; Hos 4:14).
The covenant-ban language of v.1 was a forceful way for Job to stress his allegiance to God, and the divine sanction in vv.2–3 was equivalent to the self-imprecation in the oath format (vv.6, 8, 10, 14, 22). Indeed that is the force of the imprecations, as may be seen by the references to God’s judgment in almost every case.
5–8 In Job’s world there were no atheists or even secularists. Everyone believed in the validity of divine sanction. This made the oath the ultimate test of integrity. Job opened the series of oaths by clearing himself of being false and deceitful. In v.6 he mentioned commercial dishonesty and moved on to clear himself of avarice. Clearly v.7 is talking about any evil deed his hands may have done; the verb translated “defiled” (GK 1415) really means “cling to.” With God’s honest scales in mind, Job completed the oath with a self-imprecation that would balance the scales: May he not get any gain from what his hands may plant!
9–12 From here to v.23 Job cleared himself of social sins. The sin of adultery heads the list. Adultery was heinous because it struck at the roots of the family and clan. In the Mosaic Law it was a capital offense (Lev 20:10). Here Job’s hypothetical sin calls for “eye for eye” justice—the same would happen to his wife. The moral observation that follows states that adultery was an offense punished both by human law and by the law of God. In v.12 Job used a striking figure also found in Dt 32:22, in which fire kindled by God’s wrath “burns to Sheol” and “devours the earth and its harvests.” “It” refers to the sin but by metonymy means “God’s wrath on the sinner.”
13–15 We may truly stand amazed at Job’s egalitarian spirit, for he took seriously the rights of his servants (slaves?). He did not just admit their right to have grievances but to openly express them and expect justice. Even more amazing in terms of what we know about slavery in the OT world, Job based this right on the principle that all human beings are equal in God’s sight, because he who created them all is both their Master and his, and that this Master shows no favoritism. So Job considered any act of injustice to those under him as an affront to God.
16–23 Eliphaz had already accused Job of gross sins against the poor in 22:6–9, and in 29:12–17 Job had spoken positively about the depth of his social conscience. Here he closed the issue with a series of oaths of clearance enforced by a final fierce self-imprecation. In v.16 “the desires of the poor” parallel “the eyes of the widow” and present a touching picture suggesting sensitivity to their wants beyond merely meeting basic needs for survival. In v.20 “his heart” really means “his loins.” The force of the parallelism is lost unless one can feel the pathos of a shivering body thankfully warmed by Job’s fleece. In v.21 the verb “I have raised” means literally “cuffing” the fatherless with impunity because of one’s political power.
The breaking off of the offending arm creates a dramatic imprecation (cf. Mt 5:29–30). Verse 23 is meant to be a statement that applies to all the oaths; for it contains an absolutely necessary ingredient for such clearance oaths to have meaning—the fear of God, i.e., complete faith in his power to effect the curses. Thus such terror of God set Job to trembling.
24–28 Job began again with another firm denial of idolatry. But here the temptations are different. Instead of the appeal of the ever popular sex goddess, it is the appeal of gold and the apparent luster of two of the most commonly worshiped astral deities, the sun and moon. Job denied even secret homage to them.
29–34 Verses 31–32 can best be understood as Job’s oath that his servants never complained about his lack of generosity. He had freely shared food and home with all who came his way. Despite the inconvenience, Job’s servants were of one mind with him.
Job denied hypocrisy (i.e., hiding one’s sins) in vv.33–34. That he admitted to sin is important to see since one might easily assume he was claiming perfection in this chapter. Reading behind the lines, one can appreciate how important an issue general knowledge of his sins might be and how great the temptation would be to maintain his public image (cf. v.21).
35–37 Job strategically brought his oration to its climax with a sudden change in tone. In 13:14–16 he was not so certain about his innocence and thought he might even put his life in jeopardy by calling for a hearing. He was now sure of his innocence, so confident of the truthfulness of these oaths that he affixed his signature and presented them as his defense with a challenge to God for a corresponding written indictment.
How does this brash attitude toward “his accuser” fit the statements accompanying the oaths about Job’s fear of God’s terror? This strange paradox in Job’s mind that God, to whom he appealed for support, was also his adversary is the main point of the chapter. Fearing the terror of God (v.23) is meant for those who break covenant with him. Job knew he had not done this. But he could not deny the existential reality that he stood outside the sphere of covenant blessing. Something was wrong.
There was only one way Job knew to make this absurd situation intelligible. That was to appeal to his just and sovereign Lord as a vassal prince who had been falsely accused. Even though he had repeated it often, he obstinately refused to accept as final that God was his enemy. Job wanted God to reply to his defense with a list of the charges against him, so that whatever doubts were left may be publicly answered.
The opening words of the theophany (God’s answer to Job in chs. 38–41) throw some light on the posture of Job in these verses. God rebuked Job’s brashness (38:2–3) as a darkening of his counsel. And as for the proud prince wearing the indictment like a badge of honor, God set aside his majesty and assumed a human stance calling on Job to brace himself and prepare to wrestle with the Almighty.
38–40 These verses are clearly anticlimactic, but that does not mean they belong in another place in this chapter (cf. 3:23–26; 14:18–22). Job denied avarice. He had not eaten of the produce of his land by not paying for the labor or by cheating the tenant farmers. The second line of v.39 might mean “causing the death of the owners.” In that case it is something similar to Jezebel’s illegal seizure of Naboth’s vineyard in 1Ki 21. That the land personified as a witness cries out and weeps over the horrible deeds done there lends support that murder as well as avarice is in mind. And that in turn is why the primeval curse on the land is invoked (cf. Ge 4:8–12).
B. Elihu Speeches (32:1–37:24)
The speeches of Elihu are skillfully woven into the fabric of the book and have a legitimate role. They give another human perspective in which we find a more balanced theology than that of the counselors. But we need not assume everything he said is normative even though he claimed a special inspiration (32:8, 18). Elihu’s attack on Job was limited to his statements during the dialogue. He did not accuse Job of a wicked life for which he was being punished. So Elihu was not guilty of false accusation, and that may be the reason he was not rebuked by God (42:7).
Elihu tried to be sensitive to Job but deserves some criticism for a weakness common to many—his overconfidence in his ability to do what the others could not. This makes him sound sanctimonious; but once Elihu got into his message, he seemed to improve as he went along. His poems in chs. 36–37, while at points difficult to understand, have a masterly quality similar to other great poems in the book.
Another purpose behind Elihu’s speeches was to deal with Job’s extreme language. Job was extreme at times (cf. 9:14–24), but it was due to his determination to be honest. He was also inconsistent. He questioned God’s justice on the basis of his experience but was deeply committed to it since he laid all his hope for vindication on it. Elihu sensed this inconsistency and scored Job for wanting vindication while also accusing God of indifference to human behavior (35:2–3). Elihu assured Job that God’s wisdom coupled with his power to carry out his wise purposes guaranteed that his discipline would ultimately prove redemptive (36:11–16). Despite his anger (32:2–3) and wordy lecturing style, Elihu never got bitter as did Bildad and Zophar. Nor did he stoop to false accusation about Job’s earlier life (cf. Eliphaz in 22:4–11). He presented God as a merciful teacher (33:23–28; 36:22–26). Suffering is disciplinary (33:19–22), not just judgmental. The counselors glorified God with their hymns but remained cold and detached. Elihu had a warmer personal response to the greatness of God (37:1–2). He included himself as one who should be hushed in awe before God. Elihu said God reveals both his justice and his covenant love in his sovereign control of his covenant love in his sovereign control of the world (37:13, 23); and this is the reason the wise of heart should worship him. That is a fitting note of introduction for the Lord’s appearance.
1. Introduction (32:1–5)
1–5 Job had closed his peroration with a final flourish of bravado. He was so certain of his blameless life that he would be willing to march like a prince into the presence of God and give an account of his every step. The attempt of his friends to convince him of his sinfulness had failed. Job could have no more to say, having challenged God. The friends had no more to say because they considered him a hopeless hypocrite (22:4–5).
The book at this point introduces Elihu, a young man who in deference to age has waited with increasing impatience for the opportunity to speak. Four times in the Hebrew text we are told he was angry. First at Job for justifying himself rather than God and then at the friends because of their inability to refute Job. We are not told explicitly why or under what circumstances he was there. The Prologue says nothing of bystanders, though it implies Job sat in an open public place where the friends could see him at a distance (2:12). These verses simply imply that Elihu was among bystanders who listened to Job and his counselors.
Elihu’s speeches are presented as a human reaction the apparent “self-righteousness” of Job and to the counselors’ ineptitude. His concern was not that the latter falsely condemned Job but that in failing to disprove Job’s claims about his blameless life they succeeded in condemning God. After all, they had claimed that God never afflicts the innocent and always punishes the wicked. Verses 4–5 reveal clearly that Elihu’s major target was Job. He “waited before speaking to Job.” Elihu’s reply to the counselors was secondary, as is evident in his speeches.
2. The first speech: part 1(32:6–22)
6–14 Elihu’s reason for daring to intrude on ground usually reserved for sages was that wisdom comes from God—the old may lack it, the young may have it—if the Spirit of God grants it. Obviously Elihu believed he had been thus blessed. The counselors’ reasoning had not impressed him. He caricatured them as groping for words and unable to handle bombastic Job. In v.13 Elihu seemed to be accusing them of using a falsely pious appeal to let God handle Job as a way out of their responsibility to refute him. But they had not made any such statement. In v.14 Elihu avowed that he would have used a different set of arguments had he been in the Dialogue with Job.
15–22 Elihu launched out on a soliloquy all about words—his words. Words have failed Job’s counselors, but here he was standing by with so many words inside him that he was fairly bursting at the seams. There was no way that he could hold them back. He promised himself (and anyone listening) that he would be absolutely impartial. In usual Semitic rhetoric, he carried the matter of impartiality to an extreme. He would not even use honorific titles, something he had never learned to do skillfully for fear of God’s punishment.
To us Elihu is insufferably wordy. It takes him twenty-four verses to say, “Look out! I’m going to speak.” Elihu meant to be eloquent; and in his culture, wordiness was the essence. He intended to present a human viewpoint free of the acrimony that ultimately bound the thoughts of the three friends. His intention was noble.
3. The first speech: part 2 (33:1–33)
1–7 Elihu spoke directly to Job, appealing to him by name (vv.1, 31). The counselors studiously avoided even mentioning Job’s name, which indicates how formal their relationship was. From ch. 12 on Job had lost all confidence in the sincerity of his friends (cf. 12:2; 13:4–5; 16:2–5; 19:2–6, 28–29; 21:3, 34; 26:1–4). Elihu was aware of this; so he opened his speech stressing his own honest intent.
Having in mind Job’s earlier words to God in 13:21—“Withdraw your hand far from me, and stop frightening me with your terrors”—Elihu said that he, like Job, was only a creature of God nipped from clay; so Job needed to have no fear in marshaling arguments against him. But the words “if you can” in v.5 belie an attitude of superiority despite his attempt to allay Job’s fears.
8–22 Finally Elihu began his argument. He had already shown an awareness of Job’s precise wording. Now with some freedom he quoted the sufferer, picking out lines from various speeches. In 9:21 Job had claimed to be “blameless.” In 10:6–7 he had complained, asking why God had to probe for sin in him when God knew he was not guilty. In 13:19 he had challenged anyone to bring charges against him, and in 13:23 he had requested God to show him his sin. We can be sure ch. 13 is referred to because 33:10b–11 are virtually identical to 13:24b and 27a.
Some of Job’s words, especially out of context, sound like a claim to sinlessness (e.g., 23:10–12). Eliphaz certainly had that impression from Job’s words (15:14–16). But the precise words of v.9 were not uttered by Job, and on occasion Job admitted to being a sinner (7:21; 13:26). He claimed nothing more for himself than what (unknown to him) God had already pronounced him to be (1:8; 2:3). Elihu then did not understand what was happening from the divine perspective. His defense of God was like that of the counselors, especially in their earlier speeches, but without their rancor against Job’s person.
In v.12 Elihu appealed to God’s transcendence as the reason Job was wrong to dispute with him. His words sound banal, for hymns have already been uttered about God’s greatness (4:8–16; 9:2–13; 11:7–9; 12:13–25; 25:2–6); but his purpose is commendable. God’s thoughts and purposes are beyond human ability to comprehend; so how can anyone know what God is doing? But for the moment, beginning in v.13, Elihu set aside the issue of Job’s guilt or innocence and of God’s transcendence (both of which he would return to) to answer Job’s frequent complaint, that God would not give him a hearing (cf. 9:16, 35; 13:22; 19:7; 23:2–7).
God did communicate with humankind in various ways and often. Elihu expounded on two of these—dreams and illness. Elihu tailored the possibility of this kind of revelation to Job’s case. Job had already experienced dreams and visions from God, but they had only terrified him (7:14). This was, however, just the kind of revelation Elihu thought Job needed. And Job should have interpreted this as God’s instruction to keep him from ultimate destruction. Unfortunately, Elihu overlooked the real question about which Job wanted an audience with God, namely: What are the sins I am accused of?
The second way Elihu found God revealing himself is even more tailored to Job’s case: “Or a man may be chastened on a bed of pain” (v.19). God’s purpose in suffering is to chasten people for their own good lest they find themselves face-to-face with death. But Elihu did not make the crude claim so often on the lips of the counselors—that Job’s sufferings were the proof of a wicked life.
Elihu’s message is not exactly new, for Eliphaz had touched on the disciplinary aspect of suffering in 5:17–18. The subject, however, has not been broached again till now. Its emphasis by Elihu is commendable, but it is not the kind of communication from God Job has had in mind. After each description of how God communicates with humankind, Elihu ended on the theme that God does so to redeem a person’s life from the pit. Elihu depicted the sufferer at the edge of the pit—exactly where Job found himself—about to go on “the journey of no return” (16:18–22). There can be no question that Elihu had in mind ch. 16 as he picked up the subject of an interceding angel.
23–30 Eliphaz was convinced that there was no heavenly mediator who would listen to Job (5:1). In 16:18–21 Job had dared to suggest that he had such a witness, an advocate in heaven who would intercede for him, pleading “as a man pleads for his friend.” The life of the “hypothetical” sufferer here hangs in the balance; no mere mortal can save him. Elihu considered such an event only a possibility, and even then this heavenly mediator would be “one out of a thousand”—a rare one indeed—who might do the job. His job was first “to tell a man what is right for him.” So in a sense this “angel” became a third means of revelation from God to humankind. He also provided for mercy in behalf of the suffering and even provided a ransom to save their lives. All this would happen only if people listened to the revelation and turned to God for grace. Such redeemed persons would openly admit their sin and praise God for his grace.
So Elihu had both agreed and disagreed with Job and with the counselors. He had added the element of God’s mercy, a subject avoided by the counselors who constantly appealed to God’s justice. Elihu felt there was a place for grace. A ransom may have to be paid, but people are restored and only then come to make their public confession. Those who have truly had a conversion experience have joyous communion with God; they are thankful and contrite.
In vv.29–30 Elihu made a case for the patience of God who will favor a person even when he or she falls away two or even three times. This should encourage Job who had not yet even experienced it once.
31–33 Unfortunately, like so many well-meaning messengers of grace, Elihu was so completely convinced of his good intentions toward Job that he became insufferably overbearing.
4. The second speech (34:1–37)
Elihu claimed he wanted Job to be cleared. It seems Elihu had repentance in mind as he called on Job “to speak up” (33:32) or else listen and learn wisdom. He saw himself as a teacher of wisdom (33:33). As he proceeded to do that in ch. 34, he believed even the wise could benefit from his chosen words (vv.2–4). Once again his method was to quote Job (vv.5–6), and his purpose was to show that Job’s words were theologically unsound. Like the counselors, Elihu picked out only those words of Job that he needed to prove his point.
Elihu, however, was not in all respects like the counselors. He did not express their view of suffering. He considered suffering to be one of the ways God communicates with humankind. Unlike the counselors, Elihu did not totally condemn Job. He thought Job, through association with the wicked, had picked up some of their views (vv.8–9). Elihu accused Job of talking like a wicked person (v.36) and of being rebellious rather than submissive (v.37). But in 33:23–28 he had shown some understanding of God’s free grace in dealing with human waywardness.
Elihu had a compelling desire to uphold the truth that God always does what is right (vv.10–12). While the counselors saw this only in terms of black and white, Elihu presented the sovereign Creator as one who intentionally and momentarily exercised benevolence toward all humanity (vv.13–15). Elihu was zealous to counter Job’s complaint that God treats the wicked and the righteous alike, for this would mean God does evil (vv.10–30). Elihu was convinced Job needed to repent over such a rebellious notion (vv.33–37). He, like Job and the counselors, revealed no knowledge of the events in the divine council. So it appears Elihu was not an angelic messenger from God, for he had a limited perspective and presented, therefore, only a human estimate of Job’s spiritual condition.
1–4 In 12:11–12 Job was sarcastic about the bad “food” the counselors had been dishing up to him under the guise of “the wisdom of the aged.” Elihu here was determined to show where real wisdom lay, where food may be found that was really good. He called for all who were wise to join him in his banquet of words to find out how good they were.
5–9 The quote in v.5 is accurate. Job had used these very words about himself (cf. 12:4; 13:18; 27:2, 6); but he never labeled himself as a person “without transgression” (i.e., “guiltless”). Despite Elihu’s claim in 33:32 that it would please him if Job were shown to be in the right, Elihu had already made up his mind; he was angry at Job for justifying himself rather than God (32:2). Here his anger surfaces.
In v.7 Elihu drew again from the words of Eliphaz. The latter had said Job “drinks up evil like water” (15:16) and had censured Job for venting his rage against God and shaking his fist at the Almighty and defiantly attacking him (15:25–26). Elihu did not go as far as Eliphaz in accusing Job of this, but it is enough that Job kept company with such people. Verse 9 is not a direct quote from Job. Job had imagined the wicked saying this in 21:15 and then had complained that calamity did not come very often on them (21:17). So it is only by implication that Elihu could accuse Job. His accusation was based on Job’s sentiment that the righteous get the same treatment as the wicked.
10–15 Intrinsic to v.9 is the accusation that God is not just. From this point on throughout the next twenty-one verses, Elihu expounded on the theme “God only does right.” Job had wailed “that those who provoke God are secure” (12:6) while one who is “righteous and blameless” is made “a laughingstock” (12:4; cf. 10:3; 21:7–8; 24:1–12). To Elihu this could mean nothing else than an accusation that God does wrong, and it is unthinkable that God would do wrong. But that does not solve the mystery. Job was probing when he questioned, “Why do the innocent suffer?” Job saw that “the fatherless child is snatched from the breast, the infant of the poor is seized for a debt” (24:9), “the murderer . . . kills the poor and needy” (24:14), “but God charges no one with wrongdoing” (24:12). “No!” said Elihu, “God repays a man for what he has done.” Whether Job saw it or not, Elihu insisted on that most basic truth. “It is unthinkable” that God would perpetrate evil.
Elihu’s next words (v.13) get us deeper into the mystery. They infer that God is the Creator and therefore not accountable to Job. Further, in vv.14–15 he asserts a person’s complete dependence on the continuing exercise of God’s free grace to continue one’s existence.
16–20 From all this Elihu maintains that human beings are not in a position to stand as God’s judge. Without God’s impartial judgment, especially on those who hold power, the world would dissolve into hopeless anarchy. Because of his omnipotence, no one can influence him as he actively governs.
21–30 Such impartial governance of the world is typified by God’s punishment of the wicked rulers who disregard his ways. This justice lies behind all the order there is, and it is confirmed and guaranteed by God’s omniscience as well as his omnipotence. Job had complained over the delay of justice (21.19–24:1). Elihu maintained that God does not have to set times for inquiry and judgment. His omniscience enables him to judge all the time. God hears the cry of the poor and needy and punishes the wicked openly, but it is his prerogative to remain silent if and when it pleases him. Even then he keeps his control over individuals and nations for the common good. And even then he may use the wicked to punish the wicked and so keep the godless from ruling.
31–37 Having closed his defense of God, Elihu resumed admonishing Job. He was apparently trying to show Job how untenable his position was by means of an illustration. If someone should repent after God has disciplined him, must God be subject to human wishes as he governs the world? The implied answer is “Of course not!” Elihu was certain that any wise person he might consult would agree that Job’s behavior was like the wicked who multiply words against God. So Job deserved to be tested.
The illustration in vv.31–32 is probably given to shame Job for lack of contriteness. The question in v.33 could be meant to startle Job. Must God recompense him for unfair treatment? Obviously not. Again Job’s sin was that he arrogantly made himself equal with God and played the part of a rebel.
5. The third speech (35:1–16)
Job had raised questions that really disturbed Elihu. In this speech he dealt with several very important issues that arose out of Job’s problem about God’s justice. Elihu began (vv.1–3) by showing Job how inconsistent he was to claim in one breath that God would vindicate him and then in another to complain he got no profit out of not sinning (cf. 34:9). In other words, if God is so unjust, why did Job want to be vindicated by him? Elihu had missed Job’s point, that he wanted to be vindicated because he did believe God was just. Of course Job, in his struggle to understand what God was doing, had sent out two signals, one of which Elihu, like the others, had not been able to hear.
In answer to Job’s inconsistency (vv.4–8), Elihu claimed it was God who got no benefit from Job whether he did right or not. God is far too transcendent for human beings to affect him by their little deeds. Job’s righteousness or lack of it affected only people like himself (v.8).
Another issue grows out of that last statement and centers around Job’s concern over God’s apparent indifference to the cries of the oppressed (cf. 24:1–12). Elihu maintained that God is not indifferent to people, but people are indifferent to God. People want God to save them; but they are not interested in honoring him as their Creator, Deliverer, and Source of wisdom (vv.9–11). Human arrogance keeps God from responding to the empty cry for help (vv.12–13). That is why God had not answered Job. The deafness from God derived from Job’s complaints, questions, and challenges that reveal the same kind of arrogance (vv.14–15). They are words without knowledge (v.16).
1–3 Job did not use these very words, but Elihu tried to reproduce two of Job’s viewpoints. Job was sure he would be vindicated (cf. 13:13–19), but where did he say, “What do I gain by not sinning?” Job felt that, according to the principle of retribution, his suffering was not just. He was found guilty without charges. So to Job a desire to be cleared made sense. But Elihu could only see in Job’s words the accusation that God is unjust.
4–8 The relationship between divine transcendence and human behavior was often on Job’s mind. He saw God as too attentive—the Watcher of men (7:17–20)—and yet so transcendent that he could say to God, “If I have sinned, what have I done to you?” (7:20). To Elihu God was too transcendent to be either helped by righteousness or hurt by sin. This is further refined by alluding to two kinds of sin, omission and commission, which can neither deprive God nor hurt him in any way.
There was no place in Elihu’s theology for doing God’s will out of love for him. What we do affects our fellow human beings by being good or bad (v.9). And though God may punish or reward us as Judge, there is no place for him in the role of a Father who can be hurt or pleased by us.
9–16 Job had devoted an entire speech to the subject of God’s apparent indifference to his plight (ch. 23) and the plight of all who suffer and are oppressed (ch. 24). Elihu stated the issue in v.9 and then set about to give an answer. He had already said that God’s purpose in human suffering was to teach (discipline) and to warn (33:16–22). Or he may remain silent because he was using a tyrant as his instrument of punishment (34:29–30). Or he may only be restraining his wrath in hope for repentance (33:29–30). Elihu was not totally rigid in his moralistic justice since he allowed for the possibility of a mediating angel who could provide a ransom for the sinner and plead for grace (33:23–24). There is the possibility that those who cry for relief are also sinful and unwilling to bow before God as their Creator and Savior. They cry only because of physical pain and not out of spiritual hunger.
The “songs in the night” are most likely songs of praise as a result of deliverance (cf. Ps 42:8). Verse 11 refers to the capacity of the divine-image bearer (man and woman) to hear the voice of God in contrast to brute beasts. As Elihu saw it, God does not listen to the cry of people when it comes to him as the empty sound of a brute beast.
Elihu felt that failure of the suffering to see that their Maker is also the author of wisdom and joy is a sign of arrogance on their part. Job might not be wicked, but he shared this arrogance and so got no answer. Elihu seems to have been offended by the idea that Job should consider himself a litigant at God’s court.
With his multiplicity of empty words, Job should not have expected to be heard. Even worse was Job’s rebellious spirit—chiding God for hiding his face (13:24; 23:3; cf. v.14) and seeking to march into his presence as an impatient litigant (13:15; 31:35–37). Now, with his case before God, Job dared to complain about waiting for an answer and continued to accuse God of injustice.
6. The fourth speech (36:1–37:24)
Elihu needed a little more time to develop fully his defense of God’s justice. First he presented his premise that God is mighty and firm of purpose (v.5), that he will not grant life to the wicked but always grants the rights of those who are wronged (v.6). He then proceeded to tell how that purpose is carried out (vv.6–10). No matter what life may bring, whether chains or affliction, God never takes his eyes off the righteous but uses their troubles for disciplinary instruction and to call them to repentance (vv.7–10). Responding to his call determines the course of a person’s life and fate—obey and live under his blessing; disobey and die in bitter resentment (vv.11–14).
Having forsaken his condemnatory spirit (35:14–16), Elihu sought to comfort Job with the possibility of deliverance (v.15a). It was time Job saw the hand of God in his suffering. Job must understand that God was wooing him from the jaws of adversity, from slavery and oppression to freedom and comfort (vv.16–17). Verses 18–21 are a further warning to Job probably about the dangers of prosperity and of turning to evil.
In v.22 Elihu completed his theme on God’s purpose in human suffering by returning to his original premise: the greatness of God’s power and the uniqueness of his ways (vv.22–23). He is also the perfect teacher who makes no mistakes. Job would do well to sit at the Master’s feet and learn that his hand never does wrong. Then Job would be prepared to extol God and his work (vv.24, 26). Elihu was so overwhelmed by the greatness of God that he burst forth into a hymn of praise. Its theme is the mystery of God’s ways in nature. But Elihu’s real purpose was to impress Job with the mystery of God’s ways in providence. The two sometimes coincide (37:13).
The hymn extols the work of God in the autumnal rain. His hand distills the drops, pours out the moisture on earth, and thus provides for the needs of humankind (vv.27–28). With flashing lightning and the crash of his thunder, God ushers in the winter season with its drenching rain and driving winds, its ice and snow, so that human beings and all God’s creatures see his power on display (vv.29–30).
After this hymn Elihu asked Job a series of humbling questions about the mysteries of nature (37:14–18). If Job could not understand how God performs these marvels much less assist him, how then could he understand the far less obvious mysteries of God’s providence (vv.19–20)?
A final lesson from nature captured Elihu’s imagination. When the winter is past and the skies are swept of clouds, the sun reigns supreme, and so does God in his golden splendor (vv.21–22). With this suggestion of divine theophany, Elihu returned again to his original premise about God’s power and good purpose for man (v.23) as the reason for us to worship him (v.24). When all is said and done, therefore, Elihu’s speech prepares for the appearance (theophany) of God that follows.
1–4 Elihu was apologetic over the fact that he had even more to say in defense of God. The words “one perfect in knowledge” likely refer to God (cf. 37:16). Elihu would hardly claim for himself the same perfection he attributes to God. Probably Elihu was claiming to be one “perfect of utterance” because his speech derived from God, who is the source of perfect words.
5–14 Everything Elihu said from here on rests on the affirmation in v.5. God’s power assures the fulfillment of his purpose. He will never grant life to the wicked but will always see that those who are afflicted receive justice. Verses 6–7 reflect God’s ultimate purpose since vv.8–12 are conditional. Elihu was making room for Job’s complaints about the suffering of the righteous and the prosperity of the wicked. He was also answering Job’s frustration over God’s surveillance. God never takes his eyes off the righteous. But to eventually enthrone them, he must discipline them for their own good.
God’s unfainting purpose is to reach the hearts of people, if necessary by “cords of affliction.” He makes them listen “to correction”; that is, he gets their attention and then calls for repentance. Once attention is gained, obedience leads to life and disobedience leads to death.
15–21 Elihu disapproved of Job’s contention that the wicked prosper; and even though he agreed that the righteous suffer, it was only because of their waywardness, which needs correction. So there was hope for Job. He could be rescued by his suffering if he heard the voice of God wooing him away from the jaws of distress.
Verses 17–20 are a sharp rebuke of Job for being unjust and for misuse of his power and wealth. Elihu was admonishing Job to learn the lesson God was trying to teach him through his suffering. Job would someday realize his affliction was of more value to him than his wealth and all his efforts to justify himself. Verse 20 is difficult but seems to mean that Job should not long for the night when God’s terrible justice will be meted out but should learn the lesson of submission, which God was teaching Job through his affliction.
22–26 In a real sense these verses are both the climax of the preceding section and the first stanza of a hymn of praise. Elihu returned to the theme he began with—the power of God. He considered God’s power and wisdom as the themes Job should dwell on rather than on God’s justice. The wisdom of the great Teacher assures the justice of his actions, and his power makes certain that his wise purposes will be fulfilled. God’s ways derive from his sovereign freedom. This rules out one’s right to question God’s moral conduct. Because human beings see God’s work at a great distance, they cannot understand it completely; so those who are wise will look on it with delight and praise. Elihu was here preparing the way for the theophany when Job would finally see his sovereign Lord and learn about his dominion.
27–33 The hymn continues by extolling God’s great power in the elements. Having admonished Job about praising God for his work (v.24), Elihu here illustrated God’s work in nature. Following the hymn Elihu closed his speech with admonitions to Job based on its contents (37:14–24).
God’s greatness in his creation is demonstrated by the rain cycle. Rain was considered one of the most needed and obvious blessings of God. Condensation and precipitation, while not technically understood, were certainly observable. But evaporation is not. Elihu did not need a knowledge of physics since God is the one who does this.
The Hebrew word for “his pavilion” (v.29; GK 6109) is rendered “his canopy” in Ps 18:11, which the parallel line in the psalm clearly defines as “the dark rain clouds of the sky.” “Bathing the depths of the sea” might be rendered “lights up the depths of the sea,” since “to cover [bathe]” (GK 4059) with lightning is equivalent to lighting up. The NIV note on v.31 suggests “by them [the showers] he nourishes the nations” rather than “governs” (better rendered “to judge or punish”). Judging or punishing by the storm is conceivable in terms of God’s use of lightning. So when the lightning performs God’s purpose in striking its mark, it is against those he chooses to punish (37:13).
37:1–13 Elihu was impressed with God’s voice as his word of dominion and power. By fiat he controls the snow and rain, and thunder is nothing less than the roar of his voice (cf. Ps 29). Elihu’s heart pounded as God put on an awesome display of his power. The passage continues to reveal a keen observation of atmospheric conditions and their effects. The clouds are reservoirs of moisture and arenas of lightning. In their cyclonic movement they are subject to God’s commands and perform his will. Elihu saw a direct relationship between God’s rule over nature and his dominion over human affairs.
Verse 13 is a thematic climax that lists ways God may use the storm. Elihu wanted to do more than impress Job with God’s power in nature. Thus he showed how the mystery of God’s ways in nature coincides with the mystery of his ways in providence. When God’s purpose is corrective, as punishment for the wicked, the storm is often connected with the deliverance of his people, thus demonstrating his covenant love (Jos 10:11; 1Sa 7:10–11; Ps 105:32–33). God may also, however, demonstrate his covenant love by sending the rain in season (Dt 11:13–17). Therefore, there appear to be three different purposes for the storm: to punish, to show his love, and for his own pleasure (cf. 38:26). Some things that God does have no other explanation than that they please him. Having arrived at this amazing point, Elihu was prepared to apply this truth to Job’s situation.
14–20 The questioning format anticipates the divine method in the upcoming speeches. Job needed to stop and think of how absurd his position was. He was asked to supply knowledge he obviously did not have and was chided for his abysmal ignorance in the light of God’s perfect knowledge. Sweltering in the heat of the dry season with the sky like a brazen mirror, Job sat helpless. He could do nothing about the weather but endure it. How then can a mere creature, so lacking in knowledge and strength, expect to understand God’s justice? Had Job not drawn up his case, affixed his signature, and called for an audience with God?
21–24 Elihu shifted his attention from his moral application back to a contemplation of the elements. But it was only to make an even more forceful moral application. After the storm, with the clearing skies, comes the sun in its brilliance; likewise, in golden splendor and awesome majesty God comes from his heavenly abode. Elihu admonished Job that he needed to see God as God, almighty and morally perfect, and to prove he was wise in his heart by worshiping (fearing) him.
C. The Theophany (38:1–42:6)
God offers Job no theological explanation of the mystery of his suffering. The book, however, is teaching us through the divine theophany that there is something more fundamental than an intellectual solution to the mystery of innocent suffering. Job’s greatest anguish was over the thought that he was separated from God. Normally sin is the reason, as the counselors perceived. But Job learned through the theophany that God had not abandoned him. And it gradually dawned on Job that without knowing why he was suffering he could face it, so long as he was assured that God was his friend. Job’s past experience with God was nothing compared with the experience that he found through the theophany. Such an experience was like hearing about God compared with the joy of seeing him (42:5)—by which he meant something not literal but of the heart.
Job had the high privilege here of sitting at the feet of the Lord. He needed to learn something about the character of God by walking through all creation with him and contemplating his natural marvels. Job would be made wonderfully aware of who God is in a universe full of paradoxes for humankind and yet filled with joy and wonder. In this way Job learned to take God at his word without understanding hardly any of the mysteries of his universe, much less the reason why he was suffering.
One of the purposes of the Lord’s speeches is to show that neither the counselors nor Job possessed complete knowledge. Indeed, the speeches show how very limited human knowledge is. On the surface it would appear that the speeches concentrate only on the natural world, but careful reading reveals something else. In the first speech (chs. 38–39) God’s works in the natural creation are in view. Then follow two chapters of proof that Job—and we today—know little of God’s world. Job then agreed that his words were based on ignorance: “I put my hand over my mouth. . . . I will say no more” (40:4–5).
The second speech begins on an entirely different note. The introduction (40:8–14) tells about God’s power and ability to crush the wicked and to look on those who are proud and to humble them. The purpose goes beyond showing Job that God is creator and sustainer of the natural world. It is to convince Job that God is Lord also of the moral order, and appropriately Job’s response this time was repentance (42:1–6).
1. God’s first discourse (38:1–40:2)
38:1 Job saw no “golden splendor” or even the “awesome majesty” imagined by Elihu (37:22). Indeed, it seems he saw nothing but the storm from which he heard the voice of “the LORD” (GK 3378). This Israelite covenant name for God appears in the Prologue, in the Divine speeches, and in the Epilogue; but “the men of the east” (Job’s friends) do not know God by this name. The reason, of course, is that those intervening chapters preserve the authentic vocabulary of that earlier generation or at least of a non-Israelite society.
2–3 How did Job “darken” (GK 3124) or obscure God’s counsel? Undoubtedly this refers to the extreme language of Job during his moments of poetic rage when he struggled with concepts of a deity who was his enemy—a phantom deity, one his own mind created. Here he needed to brace himself and wrestle with God as he really was. God chose to ply Job with questions, but strangely he said nothing about Job’s suffering; nor did he address the problem of theodicy. Job did not get the bill of indictment or verdict of innocence he wanted. But neither was he humiliated with a list of the sins he had committed for which he was being punished. So by implication Job’s innocence was established, and later it was directly affirmed (42:7–8).
It was important for Job to know that God was not his enemy as he had imagined. This encounter with the Lord to learn the lesson that God is God was Job’s assurance that all was well. Job did not learn why he was suffering; but he did learn to accept God by faith as his Creator, Sustainer, and Friend. To learn this lesson he needed to learn who God really was. This Job was about to do by walking with God through his created universe and being questioned about his limitations as a creature in comparison with God’s power and wisdom in creating and sustaining the universe. The speeches succeeded in bringing Job to complete faith in God’s goodness without receiving a direct answer to his questions concerning God’s justice.
4–7 The irony in the Lord’s words “Surely you know” is sharp and purposeful. Job had dared to criticize God’s management of the universe. Had he been present at the Creation (an obvious absurdity), he might have known something about God’s management of its vast expanses. But even the angels who were there could only shout for joy over the Creator’s deeds. And here Job, an earthbound man, has lost sight of who this Creator is. As a man full of words and often questioning what the Lord was doing, he was told of the celestial chorus that celebrated God’s creative activity, which was beyond any mere creature’s ability to improve on by comment. That Job was learning this lesson we may infer from his response in 40:4–5.
For personification of the stars (v.7) in parallel with “the sons of God,” see Ps 104:4, where the winds are God’s messengers (angels) and the lightning bolts his servants (cf. Heb 1:7).
8–11 In the ancient Semitic world, control of the boisterous sea was a unique symbol of divine power and authority. The Lord controls the sea by his spoken word (cf. Lk 8:24–25). That message is conveyed by the “doors” being the bounds the Lord sets for the sea.
12–15 The morning and dawn are personified. Surely Job did not give orders that caused these servants of the Lord to rise and seize “the earth by its edges and shake the wicked out of it.” The figure is based on the idea that daylight catches the wicked in the act and disperses them like one who shakes dirt from a blanket. The dawn flashes across the earth from east to west; and this, in the figure, is like seizing it by its edges and shaking it out. Verse 14 pictures the long, deep shadows of early morning when the earth reminds us of clay taking the shape of the seal pressed into it or of the folds of a garment. Daylight deprives the wicked of the kind of “light” they need. Here we have a subtle figure, for “the light” the wicked are denied is certainly “the darkness” that is their element, indeed, “deep darkness is their morning” (24:17). The wicked “put darkness for light and light for darkness” (Isa 5:20).
16–18 Here God turned to mysteries of created things not visible to the human eye. Note the progression: journeying, then seeing, and then understanding what you see. Each step is increasingly impossible for Job. The Lord’s control over this unseen netherworld is just as real as his control over the sea or the land of the living (cf. 26:5–6). What did Job know about those realms where no living human being had ever been?
19–21 What did Job know about the mystery of light and darkness? Again personification creates a vivid figure of God’s cosmic control. The irony that focuses on Job’s creatural nature gives the clue to one of the purposes of the divine speeches—to show Job that God is God. To have been born before Creation in order to know all this is a patent absurdity.
22–30 Again the Lord questioned Job about his ability to journey to those inaccessible places (cf. vv.16–17) where he could see the sources of nature’s rich supply. The term “storehouses” is used in Jer 50:25 as a place for storing weapons (armory). In this case the arsenal figure carries out the thought that snow or hail are often God’s weapons (Pss 78:47–48; 148:8; Isa 30:30). Sometimes with them he controls the destiny of nations.
After querying Job about these cosmic mysteries, the Lord made a statement that sounds trite on the surface but demands the attention of every human being. Elihu spoke of God’s use of the elements to punish or bless (37:13), and there he hinted at the point that the Lord made here—that he has the right to display his power for no other reason than his own good pleasure. When he “waters a land where no man lives,” God demonstrates that human beings are not the measure of all things. He waters the desert only because it pleases him to do so.
Could Job give the Lord realistic answers to questions Job’s contemporaries had simplistically answered? Does the rain have a father or the ice a mother? The rhetorical question is to impress on Job that these apparent male and female aspects of nature are God’s doing and his alone.
In v.30 the freezing of the surface of the deep was a phenomenon unknown by common experience in and around the lands of the Bible. Like other passages in Job (cf. 26:7–10), this text reveals an expanded knowledge of natural phenomena.
31–33 Job had moved with the Lord from the “recesses of the deep” and “gates of death” (vv.16–17) to heavenly constellations. The terminology draws on the interpretation of those fanciful figures the ancients saw in the celestial constellations. Our language in this space age still uses the same terms. The antithesis of binding and loosening the imagined fetters that hold together the cluster of stars called Pleiades or the belt of the hunter Orion rests on poetic license and literary convention. The message is about God’s cosmic dominion of these stars as they seasonally move across the sky. Job understood neither the laws of the heavenly bodies nor God’s “inscription [signature]” in the earth, and that is exactly what the Lord was talking to Job about.
34–38 These verses all refer to meteorological phenomena and related matters. The difference between them and vv.22–30 seems to be the time, place, and purpose of the weather. Verse 38 indicates that the seasonal rain is in view. After the long months of the dry season, the Lord is the one who orders the clouds to release their moisture. Job and all humanity can only raise their voices in prayer to him who controls the former and the latter rain, that extension of the rainy season that provides a greater harvest.
The language used here has a playful humor. Imagine Job, if he were able, giving the clouds an order and suddenly being inundated with water. Or Job might decide to dispatch the lightning bolts, if he could, and they would report like lackeys to him and say, “Here we are.” So even these seasonal rains are the result of the Lord’s bidding, who numbers every cloud and measures every jarful of rain.
39–41 These verses begin a new aspect of the Lord’s control over nature. From 38:39 to 40:30 the focus is on creatures of the animal world that are objects of curiosity and wonder to people. The choice is somewhat random. It has never crossed Job’s mind to hunt prey for lions or to stuff food into the outstretched gullets of the raven’s nestlings. But are not their growls and squawks cries to God, on whom all these creatures ultimately depend?
39:1–4 Through the wild kingdom and its rich variety of creatures, God informs Job of his creative and sustaining activity. He provides for each species its own gestation period and ability to bear young in the field—without assistance and with a divinely ordered wisdom to provide for themselves and their young. The offspring of an ibex doe, unlike human infants that need years of care, can stand within minutes of birth and soon gambol off to thrive in the wild.
5–8 One of the most admired animals of the OT world was the wild donkey—admired for both its freedom and its ability to survive under the harshest conditions. While its relative the domesticated donkey suffers the noise pollution of the crowded cities and the abuse of animal drivers, the wild donkey can laugh at that and somehow find green morsels in places humans cannot survive, the salt flats and the barren leeward hills.
9–12 Here there is an explicit contrast between the “wild ox” (GK 8028) and the tame ox. This animal is believed to be the now-extinct aurochs. Next to the elephant and rhino, it was the largest and most powerful land animal of the Bible world. Most of the nine OT occurrences of the word make reference to it as a symbol of strength (cf. Nu 23:22; 24:8; Dt 33:17; Ps 29:6; et al.). It was already rare in Palestine in the time of Moses. Once again it is a bit of divine humor to even mention the possibility of this fearsome creature harnessed to Job’s plow, working his fields, or tethered in his barn.
13–18 The question format is dropped, and the stanza speaks of God in the third person. The question format was used to impress on Job his impotence in performing deeds that take divine power and wisdom. But since the ostrich appears to be ridiculous in its behavior, it simply was not appropriate to ask Job whether he could match God’s strength or wisdom because neither is in view.
The ostrich has a tiny brain but is well programmed with instincts that assure its survival. It does not forsake its eggs. The seeming cruelty to her young (cf. La 4:3) derives from the practice of driving off the yearlings when mating season arrives. The ostrich has exceptional eyesight—the largest of any land animal with 360-degree vision. But the text concentrates on the bird’s most incongruous feature: tremendous legs. One kick from this bird can tear open a lion or a human being.
The lesson is that God can and does make creatures that appear odd to us if that pleases him. Imagine a bird that can’t fly. Though it has wings, it can run faster than a horse. Job could not understand what God was doing in his life, and God was telling him the created world is just as difficult to rationalize.
19–25 The horse is the only animal in this poem that is domestic. This unexpected feature still serves the Lord’s purpose, for only one kind of horse is viewed—the charger, the war-horse. The creatures of the wild in their proud freedom and curious behavior are obviously beyond Job’s control, but even a creature that people have tamed can display fearsome behavior that excites our imagination. The lines burst with the literary energy needed to do justice to the performance of this amazing creature during the height of the frenzy of battle.
26–30 In v.26 the marvel for Job to contemplate is one we still view with amazement—the migratory instincts of birds. Our knowledge that some birds fly thousands of miles each year (cf. the arctic tern) serves to validate this particular choice of God’s faunal wonders. The two words used in vv.26–27 are the Hebrew generic names that include several species. The first appears to be the sparrow hawk, a bird not resident to the Holy Land but known because it stops off there each year in its migration. The griffon vulture is the largest bird of the area. The same word is used for the true eagle (NIV), but here a carrion eater is in mind. Several interesting characteristics of this bird are mentioned: its soaring ability, its aerie (nest) high on the crags, and its phenomenal eyesight.
40:1–2 These two verses conclude the first speech. Since Job has said nothing, a small problem arises because “the LORD answered Job and said” (lit. Heb.). This idiomatic expression announces a hortatory line (v.2). Here the Lord gets to the point. Job had set himself up arbitrarily as God’s accuser. How could Job assume such a lofty position in the light of who God is? After this front-row seat surveying the marvels and mysteries of God’s created universe, was Job still ready to make his proud insinuations and accusations about the nature of God’s lordship over all things? It was Job’s turn to speak again. But there would be no long speeches, no more rage, no more challenging his Creator.
2. Job’s humbling (40:3–5)
3–5 Job, the challenger, in a hand-over-mouth posture, realized how complex and mysterious God’s ways were. Job’s reply was based not so much on his being “unworthy” (GK 7837) as on his insignificance. God had not crushed Job but had cured Job’s presumption. The Hebrew verb translated “unworthy” means “to be light” or “lightly esteemed” and in that sense “contemptible.”
Job had been so moved by this experience that he was released from his problem—his concern to be vindicated. And yet God had given him no explanation of his sufferings. Job had gone beyond it to see and trust God as his friend, to a full realization that he must reckon with God as God. And yet Job still did not know how God had put himself on trial when he allowed Job to be afflicted under Satan’s instigation. So Job was humbled and thereby prepared for the Lord’s second speech, which pulls together some important threads and brings the drama to a climax.
3. God’s second discourse (40:6–41:34)
The prologue in vv.8–14 shows how the lengthy descriptions of the two creatures “Behemoth” (42:15; GK 990) and “Leviathan” (41:1; GK 4293) serve the purpose of the book in a subtle and yet forceful way. This time God would accomplish more than he had in the first speech, where he humbled Job by showing him how he was Creator and Sustainer of the natural world. Here God would convince Job that he was also Lord of the moral order, one whose justice Job could not discredit. And appropriately Job’s response this time was repentance (42:1–6).
The concentration on these two awesome creatures, placed as they are after the assertion of the Lord’s justice and maintenance of moral order, lends weight to the contention that they are symbolic, though their features are drawn from animals like the hippopotamus and crocodile. Both words are used often in the OT without symbolic significance. But Leviathan sometimes symbolizes evil political powers (cf. Ps 74:12–14; the monster here is Egypt). The same is true of Isa 27:1, where again Leviathan is historicized to represent the final evil power in the end time. Imagery similar to Job is found in Rev 12–13, where we see a beast (Behemoth) as well as a dragon (Leviathan), both of whom only God can subdue.
Those who regard these creatures as literal animals must admit that the description given here in Job is an exaggeration of the appearance and power of hippopotamuses and crocodiles. Both creatures share two qualities. First is the open (on the surface) quality of a beast with oversize bovine or crocodilian features. This meets the needs of the uninformed (as to events of the Prologue) Job, who was learning a lesson about the Lord’s omnipotence. Second is the hidden quality of a cosmic creature (the Accuser of the Prologue), whose creation preceded (40:19) and whose power outranks (41:33) all earthly creatures.
6–14 Using the same formula of challenge (v.7), God presented to Job another barrage of questions designed to bring him back to reality. After all, Job’s last words were a challenge (31:35–37) that threw into question God’s integrity by suggesting that any indictment God might bring against Job would prove to be false. But all such was hypothetical nonsense. It came straight from Job’s imagination. God had no such indictment of Job in the first place; but Job’s attitude had to be corrected, for he wrongly assumed that he had to be vindicated by God. To do this the Lord reminded Job of who he (God) was. Did Job have an arm like God’s? Was he almighty? And where were Job’s majesty and glory? Job began to realize why God had in his first discourse taken him through his garden of natural wonders. Could Job by his power and glory create and sustain all that? Obviously not! So Job needed also to leave to his Creator supremacy in the moral realm: Job had no power to crush wickedness finally; so obviously he needed to leave that ultimate exercise of justice to God and trust him to do right.
These verses are presented as an aggressive challenge to Job. “Unleash your fury . . . crush the wicked . . . then I myself will admit that your own right hand can save you.” But they are lovingly designed to shake Job’s spirit into realizing that God is the only Creator and the only Savior there is. Job needed to learn to rest quietly and trustfully in that truth. To confirm this truth the Lord proceeded to paint the word pictures of these awesome creatures that defied God and humankind. Indeed, the second is so awesome nothing on earth is his equal (41:33).
15–24 Only one other place in the OT (Ps 73:22) uses the word behemoth as a singular. The oth ending normally marks the plural when the singular word simply means beast. Here the ending has an intensive force, meaning the beast par excellence; i.e., the beast becomes a monster. But if Behemoth is a mere beast in Job 40, the language, apart from hyperbole, is difficult to understand. In v.19a it is labeled the “first among the works of God.” We suggest this is mythopoeic language (cf. Ps 74:13–14), intended as another way of referring to a unique cosmic creature such as the Accuser in the Prologue. He is beyond the pale of mere human strength, just as the Accuser was. But this information cannot be revealed to Job, and that explains the extravagant language. The use here of Behemoth and Leviathan is a poetic repetition, just as Ps 74 refers to the breaking of the heads of the monster and the heads of Leviathan, both referring to the power of Egypt at the Red Sea.
41:1–34 Verses 1–9 develop the thought that Leviathan is far too powerful for a human being to handle. The first eight verses are addressed to Job; and they assert that any relationship Job may attempt to have with the Leviathan will be doomed to failure—whether by treaty or by force. At this point God states that he alone has the power to control Leviathan; therefore he is the only Supreme Being. In these verses we reach the climax of the stanza. Before this climax the stress was on human impotence before the Leviathan. After the climax (vv.12–34) the poem becomes a masterly description of this creature that goes beyond anything ascribable to a mere crocodile or whale. Swords, javelins, arrows, clubs, slingshots—all are ineffective against him according to vv.26–29. Is this merely a crocodile or should it be understood in light of Isa 27:1, etc.?
By telling of his dominion over Behemoth and Leviathan, the Lord is illustrating what he has said in 40:8–14. He is celebrating his moral triumph over the forces of evil. Satan, the Accuser, has been proved wrong, though Job does not know it. The author and the reader see the entire picture that Job and his friends never knew. God permitted the Accuser to touch Job as part of his plan to humiliate Satan. But now that the contest is over, God still did not reveal his reason to Job. Because Job did not find out what the readers know, he could be restored without destroying the integrity of the account. To understand this is to understand why the forces of moral disorder are veiled underneath mythopoeic language about ferocious, uncontrollable creatures. Again we emphasize that if the specific and ultimate reason for his suffering had been revealed to Job—even at this point—the value of the account as a comfort to others who must suffer in ignorance would have been diminished if not cancelled.
D. Job’s Closing Contrition (42:1–6)
1–2 Job’s immediate response shows that he understood clearly the thrust of the second divine speech. Job opened his mouth to tell God that he had gotten the message: God’s purpose is all that counts; and since he is God, he is able to bring it to pass. There is nothing else Job needed to know—only, perhaps, that this Sovereign of the universe was his friend (42:7–8).
3–4 There are two unannounced quotations in these verses. In v.3 Job appropriately agreed with the quote from 38:2. He admitted that he did, indeed, obscure God’s counsel through ignorance. Chastened thus by the wonders of God, he quoted in v.4 the line God himself had seen fit to use twice on Job (38:3; 40:7, at the opening of each speech). The question is expressive of the nature of the divine discourses. God took the witness stand in his own behalf and cross-examined Job, who now records the final effect of this proceeding.
5–6 Job had heard about God. Finally his often-requested prayer to come into his presence has been answered—the result: withdrawal of his rash statements when he fantasied about God’s failure to be just and loving. Concerning the phrase “and repent” (GK 5714), Job did not need to repent over sins that brought on his suffering since his suffering was not the result of his sin. But that is not to say that Job had nothing to be sorry for. His questioning of God’s justice, for which God chided him in 38:2 (quoted in v.3), is enough to call forth a change of heart and mind. Besides, the word translated “repent” has a breadth of meaning that includes not only “to be sorry, repent” but also “to console oneself” or “be comforted.” So it may be that Job was saying that because he had had this encounter with God—since he has really “seen” God—he now understood that God was his friend, not his enemy. So he was consoled and comforted though still suffering.
V. The Epilogue (42:7–17)
Job has learned that human beings, by themselves, cannot deduce the reason why anyone suffers. Still unknown to Job was the fact that his suffering had been used by God to vindicate God’s trust in him over against the accusations of the Accuser. So without anger toward him, God allowed Job to suffer in order to humiliate the Accuser and provide support to countless sufferers who would follow in Job’s footsteps. Once the purpose of the book had been fulfilled, Job’s suffering could not continue without God’s being capricious. We see here the heart of the difference between the suffering of the wicked as punishment and of the righteous to accomplish God’s higher purpose. This lavish restoration (double all he had) is not based on Job’s righteousness but on God’s love for him as one who had suffered the loss of all things for God’s sake and for no other reason.
A. The Verdict (42:7–9)
7–9 Why did God commend Job for “speaking of him what is right” and condemn the counselors, who had always taken God’s side, often with beautiful creedal hymns? God had just rebuked Job for his many wrong words during his dispute with the counselors; in what sense, then, was he here commended for saying what was right? The counselors certainly lacked the right information about why Job was suffering. Job spoke without understanding (v.3) and was often fiery and emotional in his remarks (15:12–13; 18:4). His opinions and feelings were often wrong, but his facts were right. He was not being punished for sins he had committed. But the friends were claiming to know for a certainty things they did not know and so were falsely accusing Job while mouthing beautiful words about God. Job rightly accused them of lying about him and trying to flatter God (13:4, 7–11).
In v.8 the counselors, no longer with Job, are ordered by God to go back to Job with sacrificial animals sufficient to atone for their transgressions. The sacrifice performed by Job was an integral part of the worship in which Job prayed for them. Praying for your enemy was already taught and practiced in the OT (Ps 35:12–14; 109:4–5). And showing mercy to one’s enemies was a faith principle clearly required in Ex 23:4–5. Since God had a high purpose for Job’s suffering, the counselors had made themselves enemies of God by accusing Job. The large sacrifice shows how grave the Lord considered their sin; nevertheless, he accepted Job’s intercession. Job did not fail to love those who had spitefully abused him when he was most helpless. This lofty and practical truth is a fitting theological finale to a book that calls forth a rigorous exercise of both soul and mind.
B. The Restoration (42:10–17)
10 When Job received again his prosperity, righteousness was rewarded and his whole case defeated. All things being equal, sin brings suffering and righteousness blessing. Since Job had successfully endured the test and proved that his righteousness was not rooted in his own selfishness, there was no reason for Job to continue to be tested; his sufferings needed to cease. God created humans so that he might bless them, not curse them. Job had been declared innocent of all those false accusations; so he could not continue to suffer as punishment. And God’s higher purpose had been fulfilled; so there was no reason why Job should not be restored.
11 Job’s relatives, who had kept their distance from the suffering spectacle (19:13–15), here proved themselves to be fair-weather friends. Their comforting and consoling came a little late, but their presents were expensive: a “ring of gold” (for the nose [Ge 24:47; Isa 3:21] or the ears [Ge 35:4; Ex 32:2]) and a “piece of silver” (cf. Ge 33:19; Jos 24:32). The latter was not money in the sense of coinage but an early designation of weight like the shekel (Ge 23:16).
12–15 Verses 12–13 highlight the twofold increase of Job’s possessions as compared to the Prologue (1:3). Everything is twofold except Job’s sons and daughters. It is curious that the author ignores the sons and concentrates on Job’s daughters. The daughters are named and granted an inheritance even when sons are available. The stress on the great beauty of Job’s daughters is characteristic of the epic tradition. Their names are indicative of their beauty: Jemimah means “turtledove”; Keziah is probably an aromatic plant as in the name Cinnamon (“cassia” in Ps 45:8); and Keren-Happuch means “a jar (horn) of eye paint.”
16–17 Job’s longevity was in keeping with patriarchal tradition (possibly double the normal span of Ps 90:10). Certainly the wisdom ideal of seeing one’s grandchildren is fulfilled twice over to the fourth generation (cf. Ge 50:23), and the patriarchal formula “old and full of years,” expressive of a completely fulfilled life, is used (cf. Ge 25:8; 35:29).
The Old Testament in the New
| OT Text | NT Text | Subject |
| Job 5:13 | 1Co 3:19 | God and the crafty |
| Job 41:11 | Ro 11:35 | God owns all |