TEXT [Commentary]

  F.   Zophar: Repent (11:1-20)

1.   God knows guilt better than the guilty (11:1-12)

1 Then Zophar the Naamathite replied to Job:

2 “Shouldn’t someone answer this torrent of words?

Is a person proved innocent just by a lot of talking?

3 Should I remain silent while you babble on?

When you mock God, shouldn’t someone make you ashamed?

4 You claim, ‘My beliefs are pure,’

and ‘I am clean in the sight of God.’

5 If only God would speak;

if only he would tell you what he thinks!

6 If only he would tell you the secrets of wisdom,

for true wisdom is not a simple matter.

Listen! God is doubtless punishing you

far less than you deserve!

7 “Can you solve the mysteries of God?

Can you discover everything about the Almighty?

8 Such knowledge is higher than the heavens—

and who are you?

It is deeper than the underworld[*]—

what do you know?

9 It is broader than the earth

and wider than the sea.

10 If God comes and puts a person in prison

or calls the court to order, who can stop him?

11 For he knows those who are false,

and he takes note of all their sins.

12 An empty-headed person won’t become wise

any more than a wild donkey can bear a human child.[*]

NOTES

11:6 is not a simple matter. A comparison of translations will indicate the difficulty of this line: “the secrets of wisdom . . . are double to that which is” (KJV); “wisdom is many-sided” (RSV, NRSV); “he is manifold in understanding” (ASV); or “wisdom has two sides” (NASB, NIV). All these translations are an interpretation of the word kapal, which usually means “a doubling.” Gesenius suggests that in this instance kepel [TH3718, ZH4101] is a multiplicative with the meaning “manifold” (§134r, note 2), but Driver and Gray call this “very doubtful” (1921:2.68). Pope suggests that there are two sides to every matter, one hidden and one open (1965:84-85), and it is the former, of course, that God must reveal to Job. Dhorme proposes the sense of “two-fold for the understanding” (1984:159), a way of describing ambiguous matters that may be interpreted two ways. De Wilde (1981:157) takes the word in the sense of “fold,” saying that the mysteries of wisdom are “folded” or “hidden to our understanding.” The advantage of this translation is that it provides a natural sequence to the first line without altering the consonantal text (kplym). However, it is more likely that kapal is a case of quiescent aleph (cf. 6:14) and that the word is actually pele’ [TH6382, ZH7099] (wonder), preceded by ke, the particle of comparison (Fohrer 1989:221; cf. Koehler and Baumgartner 2:469; Clines 1989:254; Gordis 1978:121). The word “wonder” (pele’) is similarly used together with “understanding” (tushiyah [TH8454, ZH9370]) in Isa 28:29b. This analysis of the word forms a complementary parallel to the first line of the verse: God declares the mysteries of wisdom (khokmah [TH2451, ZH2683]), for there are marvels to insight (tushiyah).

Listen! The Heb. imperative following an expressed wish (11:5-6) denotes a consequence to be expected with certainty (Gesenius §110i).

11:7 everything about the Almighty. There is a contrast here between the inmost mystery of God (11:7a) and the outer fullness of his being (11:7b). The Heb. word for “fullness” (taklit [TH8503, ZH9417]) indicates the complete extent of God’s greatness (Jenni and Westermann 1971:1.831); the preposition (‘ad [TH5704, ZH6330]) expresses measure or degree (Waltke and O’Conner 1990:11.2.12c). The expression “up to the whole [of God]” is a way of indicating full and complete knowledge of God. The expression should not be taken adverbially, as in “are you able to discover God perfectly?” (cf. KJV, ASV), nor does the noun here have the sense of edge or limit (RSV, NRSV, NASB, NIV). “Can you fathom the perfection of the Almighty” (NEB) might suggest only a specific knowledge of one particular fact about God (i.e., his “perfection”).

11:8 higher than the heavens. This requires a small emendation of the Heb., which rather elliptically says “heights of the heavens.” The emendation is in accordance with the ancient Latin and is parallel with the second half of the verse.

11:11 he takes note. Most translations make this a question (e.g., RSV, NIV) because it concludes by saying “he does not consider it.” The thought could be that God can recognize evil without even taking thought (Driver and Gray 1921:1.108). Others would change the negative (lo’ [TH3808, ZH4202]) to an asseverative (lu’ [TH3863, ZH4273]) to say God will mark it well.

11:12 wild donkey can bear a human child. The subject of the verb “be born” (yiwwaled [TH3205, ZH3528]) can be either the human or the donkey; the Heb. may say “a man is born as a wild ass” (cf. KJV, ASV), or “a wild ass is born a man” (cf. RSV, NASB, NIV). Part of the problem lies with understanding the expression “wild ass’s colt” (KJV, ASV, RSV, NASB, NIV). These two words should not be in the genitive relationship as commonly translated; a colt (‘ayir [TH5895A, ZH6555]) is a domesticated male donkey, a wild ass (pere’ [TH6501, ZH7230]) is a wild donkey (Pope 1965:86); a wild donkey could not have a domesticated colt as its offspring (cf. NLT mg). A further complication is the relation between the wild donkey (pere’) and the man (’adam [TH120, ZH132]); these two words do occur together as an expression. Ishmael is called a “wild donkey of a man” (pere’ ’adam), in constant hostility with his brothers (Gen 16:12). However, the same metaphor may not be present in this verse. It may be that ’adam is really a reference to the ground (usually ’adamah [TH127, ZH141]), that from which man was taken. The meaning “ground” for the form ’adam may be found again in the Heb. of 36:28b. In this case, the phrase is simply a way of referring to the “donkey of the open field.” The form ’adam for “ground” would suggest only the application of the phrase to humans, as in the description of Ishmael (Gen 16:12) as a “wild donkey,” whose hand is against everyone. If this is the case, the second line of 11:12 does not refer to a human at all; rather, it speaks of the wild donkey becoming a tame donkey.

The verb “be born” (yiwwaled) can be used to describe one acquiring the nature of another (as in the expression “born again”). The “hollow head” gaining some intelligence is compared to a wild donkey being trained. It is sometimes proposed that instead of the word “be born” (yiwwaled) we should read “be taught” (yelammed [TH3925, ZH4340]), an emendation that would specifically describe the taming of a wild donkey (Fohrer 1989:222), but the change is unnecessary. The verse is certainly a proverb, indicated by the assonance between the words within the first line (nabub [TH5014, ZH5554], “hollow head”; yillabeb [TH3823, ZH4220], “get understanding”) and between the last word of each line (yillabeb, “get understanding”; yiwwaled, “be born”). The proverb serves as a conclusion to this section on our inability to understand God. Either Zophar was saying that it is impossible to train a fool, just as a donkey cannot become human, or he was saying that a fool must gain intelligence just as a wild donkey must be trained. The latter is the more likely direction of Zophar’s thought; a person that comes to understand God will be as a wild donkey that has been tamed.

COMMENTARY [Text]

Though Zophar is the least sympathetic of the three friends and comes across as very harsh and impatient, his thoughts are not to be summarily dismissed. Though he is far too self-assured in his theological analysis, he has just enough truth to foster this self-confidence. In this respect, Zophar is at times representative of each of us. Confident of the truth we know and oblivious to what we do not know, we respond with biting criticism to those we perceive as being in the wrong. When we are suffering, it is easy to ignore such individuals or even despise them, but this may be to our own peril. We need to be sure we have fully appreciated the truth they do represent. As Zophar points out, it is true that all of us have unconscious sins (Ps 19:12) for which we are culpable and that we never do fully suffer the consequences of our actions. None of us can afford to receive what we deserve; we live always by grace. The mysteries of providence are indisputably beyond our comprehension.

The problem with Zophar is that while he was quick to see the rashness of the speech of others, he was much less sensitive to being guilty of the same problem. Certainly Job had already been more than a little rash (10:8-19), a point he will come to admit (42:6), but he had a genuine and profound theological dilemma thrust upon him by the crucible of his experience. Though Zophar insisted on the profundity of providence to assure Job he did not understand it all, Zophar had a consistent but oversimplified concept of providence. This concept is in harmony with his sense of justice—namely, that retribution is always proportionate to the fault and that it is immediate (though, as he mentions in 11:6, God exacts less than we deserve). This compelled him to make assertions about Job that were completely unwarranted but for which he felt completely justified. He was even less capable than Job of realizing the implications of what he was saying—that the working of God in this world is beyond our comprehension.

This first section of Zophar’s speech can be divided into two parts (11:2-6, 7-12), each of which concludes with a very difficult saying. In the first section, Zophar would silence the words of Job while professing to represent God. Job had pled for vindication; he had asked that his case be considered so that he might be shown to be right before God (9:3-4, 11-21). This was in response to his own question about whether it is possible for a mortal to be just before God (9:2). In asking this question, Job agreed in a sense with what Zophar was saying: we do not know our own sin. This led Job to conclude that we cannot know or control how God will deal with us. However, Job knew his friends had made false assumptions about the enormity of his guilt, and he demanded that he be vindicated.

Zophar grasped the teaching Job had given in his own defense (11:4). Zophar might even concede that there was a logic to Job’s position that would allow him to claim his innocence, but he was convinced that Job was pursuing a self-righteous justification. If God were to have words with Job, as he desired (9:3), he would reveal how thoroughly he knows us and rewards us. Zophar enforced the reality of this retribution with an imperative (11:6), the most forceful way of indicating the consequence of the conditions he had outlined.

Zophar went on to provide a reminder of the vastness of God’s knowledge. He introduced this in terms of its mystery and its fullness, much the way the praise of God is expressed in Psalm 95:4. The mystery of God is that which we search out or explore (the term kheqer [TH2714, ZH2984] is used in both Ps 95:4a and Job 11:7a). The praise of God is expressed in terms of his creative works, so his greatness is seen as far as the tops of the mountains (Ps 95:4b); Zophar spoke of knowing God himself, and asked if Job could discover the fullness (taklith [TH8503, ZH9417]) of the Almighty (11:7b). This, of course, includes his entire domain, which extends beyond the heavens above and the underworld below—it is greater than what we ourselves can observe in the world. Job couldn’t possibly be so pretentious as to think he could comprehend things greater than creation and somehow confute the known order within creation.

Zophar continued to argue that God is fully present in the world and mortals will encounter that presence. Job had complained that he would not even recognize God if he passed by, but Zophar assured Job that he would know when God passed by, for God would arrest him. Job had complained that no one could confront God for his mighty and destructive acts (9:12), but Zophar maintained that you cannot confute God when he arraigns you and assembles the court. God knows our deception fully—that our empty words often masquerade as the truth making them worthless (shawe’ [TH7723, ZH8736], “false”; 11:11), a misleading testimony (Deut 5:20). Such empty teaching is really a way of making the good name of God worthless; taking the name of the Lord in vain is a fundamental violation of the covenant (Deut 5:11). Zophar said that this was a great evil that God would note well and one that would add to Job’s sufferings.

Job, however, was not a willful fool, a mocker who scorned the good teaching of the wise. He was more of a “hollow-head,” who needed to be taught (Prov 9:9). Zophar had hope that such teaching would take place. Just as a wild donkey can be “reborn” through training so that it becomes tame, so Job and his torrent of ranting words must be brought under control. If Job were an incorrigible scorner (Prov 9:7), Zophar himself would be the fool for allowing such a one to shame him. Job was a person who needed to accept the human limits of understanding (11:7), but who also needed to learn the truth of God—that is, the teaching of the wise (leqakh [TH3948, ZH4375]; cf. Prov 1:5; 4:2; 9:9; 16:21, 23), that men such as Zophar knew fully well.