TEXT [Commentary]

black diamond   C.   The Second Test (2:1-10)

1.   The challenge in heaven (2:1-6)

1 One day the members of the heavenly court[*] came again to present themselves before the LORD, and the Accuser, Satan,[*] came with them. 2 “Where have you come from?” the LORD asked Satan.

Satan answered the LORD, “I have been patrolling the earth, watching everything that’s going on.”

3 Then the LORD asked Satan, “Have you noticed my servant Job? He is the finest man in all the earth. He is blameless—a man of complete integrity. He fears God and stays away from evil. And he has maintained his integrity, even though you urged me to harm him without cause.”

4 Satan replied to the LORD, “Skin for skin! A man will give up everything he has to save his life. 5 But reach out and take away his health, and he will surely curse you to your face!”

6 “All right, do with him as you please,” the LORD said to Satan. “But spare his life.”

NOTES

2:3 even though you urged me to harm him without cause. This translation is correct, contrary to various translations and commentators who connect “without cause” to the verb translated “urged,” giving the sense that the Accuser inciting God against Job was to no avail or without effect (Rowley 1970:37; Dhorme 1984:15). The point is not that testing Job was baseless or futile (Andersen 1976:90) but rather that Job had done nothing to deserve such an attack. This is also grammatically preferable, as the phrase modifies the verb nearest to it (Gordis 1978:19; Fohrer 1989:91; Clines 1989:5).

urged me. The verb here has the sense of incitement, as in 1 Sam 26:19: “If the LORD has stirred you up against me.” The action is an attempt to persuade rather than the actual act of persuasion; the Lord does not allow the Accuser to have responsibility for the experiment (Gordis 1978:19).

to harm him. Lit. “to swallow him up” (bala‘ [TH1104, ZH1180]), a vivid image of destruction. It is found more commonly in epic or poetic texts and may be an expression derived from Canaanite mythology (Sarna 1957:16). In Ugaritic texts, the god of death (Mot) typically swallows his victims.

2:4 skin for skin. The metaphor is enigmatic. The common translation might suggest it is derived from the language of bartering, where one item is exchanged for another of equal value, perhaps derived from a Bedouin practice of using pelts as a measure of value. In support of this, Fohrer cites an Ugaritic legal document that has the phrase “house for house” (1989:97). The parallel is weakened by the fact that the Ugaritic uses the preposition kima (which logically expresses equality), while the Heb. has ba‘ad [TH1157, ZH1237] (around, after). Both prepositions are common in both languages, so the difference is significant. The use of ba‘ad in Hebrew, coupled with the following explanation “a man will give up everything he has to save his life,” is notable in Job. We have been told that God put a protective wall around (ba‘ad) everything Job had (1:10). The Accuser here seems to be insinuating that the hedge had only been partially removed and that which matters most had not yet been touched. The expression may have the sense of “skin around skin” (which is more natural for the preposition used) with the sense that that which is most important is most carefully protected (cf. Torczyner 1967:23-24). The sense is that one must use all one has to protect one’s life.

COMMENTARY [Text]

The second dialog of the heavenly council follows the pattern of the first with virtually identical wording. The simplicity of the scene and the similarity of the expressions may be described as naive but subtle (Clines 1985:130-131). The Lord is the first to speak, indicating that the initiative belongs to him. His question, “Where have you come from?” may seem redundant in the second scene, but it enhances the mystique of the council as it proceeds in a familiar pattern. The response of the Accuser, “I have been patrolling the earth,” is identical to that of the first scene, but the implications are now different. In the first scene the Accuser had nothing to report; the initiative of the conversation was thrown back to the Lord. In the second scene the answer is evasive, for surely the Accuser had acted on the liberties he was granted when he left the presence of the Lord (1:12). The question “have you noticed?” is in its repetition even more provocative than in the original dialog, for the outcome of the test, quite apparently known to all, had intensified the challenge to the Accuser.

The new situation of the second scene is further developed by subtle differences from the original scene. In the first scene we are told that the members of the divine council present themselves to the Lord and the Accuser is among them (1:6); in the second scene the Accuser is not simply among them but also presents himself to the Lord (2:1). Though these two verses have been translated identically as early as the ancient Greek, and continue to be in modern translations (NEB, TEV, NLT), the difference in the Hebrew is significant. The Accuser now appears as someone on a mission. The Lord repeats his assertion of the integrity and piety of Job but with an intensified provocation: this in spite of the fact that the Accuser had incited an attack against Job for no reason. This elicited a new response from the Accuser, expressed enigmatically in the phrase “skin for skin,” and explained by saying one will give up all one’s possessions to protect one’s life (2:4). The explanation can be read in reference to the test Job had endured, or it may be introducing what the Accuser was about to propose. Looking back, this would suggest that Job had quite readily given up his possessions and his family in order to spare his own life. Job, of course, did not willingly give up his possessions or family, but it could be argued that Job did not protest (i.e., curse God) in order to protect his own life. The argument of the Accuser, however, is even more poignant if it looks forward to the test being proposed. God had only partially lowered the hedge around Job; that which was of most vital interest to Job, namely his own life, had remained protected. The Accuser was asking that the protective hedge around Job be removed entirely in order that the test be without compromise. Taken this way, “skin for skin” does not have the sense of equal value in an exchange; it would rather have the sense of “skin around skin,” suggesting that the test had not yet penetrated to the deepest level of pain and vulnerability. The Accuser suggests that perhaps Job knew he could not stand against God’s power and refrained from cursing God simply because he valued his own life. The question, then, would be whether Job would still bless God if his own life became totally miserable and seemed worthless. In other words, there was still a skin around Job, and Satan was proposing it be removed—literally.

The second scene in heaven closes in a manner similar to the first, but with the frightening concession that the Lord allowed this new challenge. In the first scene, the Lord dismissed the Accuser saying all Job possessed was given over to the power of the Accuser; now it is Job himself given over to the power of the Accuser. The sparing of Job’s life is not a mercy and is not merely a concession necessary to the test, but in reality it is also a part of the test. The most difficult of life’s sorrows are perhaps found when even the mercy of death is denied (cf. 3:20-23). Thus, this was the ultimate test.